|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 4706 days) Posts: 598 From: Pocomoke City, MD Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The Problem with Legalized Abortion | |||||||||||||||||||||||
molbiogirl Member (Idle past 2672 days) Posts: 1909 From: MO Joined: |
However, if the concern is about babies as the anti-abortionist claim, can't there be some confusion about where the line should be drawn? There is no confusion on the part of anti-choice nuts about where the line is drawn. Egg + sperm = child. The following is a cut and paste from the other thread as it is relevant here:
Linear writes: Huh? Could you provide a little more clarity? You are saying something besides a fertilized egg can become a child. SCNT. Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer. The nucleus of a somatic cell is placed in an egg et voilá. And before you protest, no it hasn't been done with humans ... yet. But that doesn't change the fact that a somatic cell (any of the cells in your body), if given the right conditions, contain the genetic blueprint necessary to produce a child. So. Why is a zygote special? Or would you consider an egg that contains a somatic cell's nucleus a "child" too? So. SCNT, IVF, IUD, The Pill, exercise, and 30-60% of all naturally occurring pregnancies that fail to implant all result in "children" that are BRUTALLY MURDERED. That's the fact, jack. Let's run some numbers. (All figures for 2006.) LIVE BIRTHS = 4,265,996 UNIMPLANTED = 1,279,799 - 2,599,598 (30%-60%) IVF = 134,260 attempts x 4/attempt = 537,040 IUD/PILL = 38,440,000 EXERCISE = Unknown TOTAL = 79,708,118 - 81,027,917 ABORTIONS = 1,360,000 Abortion is the least of your worries, pal.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
molbiogirl Member (Idle past 2672 days) Posts: 1909 From: MO Joined: |
Now, as for why I view it as an illegal act is because, in my opinion, it is tantamount to infanticide. Juggs, you never addressed the question I put to you in the other thread. Why is a zygote a "child"?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
molbiogirl Member (Idle past 2672 days) Posts: 1909 From: MO Joined: |
Because that's what young humans are -- children. Why isn't a zygote a child? A zygote is a cell-ball that contains a genetic blueprint. How is this a "child"?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
molbiogirl Member (Idle past 2672 days) Posts: 1909 From: MO Joined: |
Yes, what you say is true. Good. Now. Would any cell that contains a human genetic blueprint be considered a "child"? For example, would an egg cell that contains a full complement of human DNA via SCNT be considered a "child"? Edited by molbiogirl, : typo
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
molbiogirl Member (Idle past 2672 days) Posts: 1909 From: MO Joined: |
In the words of Justice Ginsberg:
"Thus, legal challenges to undue restrictions on abortion procedures do not seek to vindicate some generalized notion of privacy; rather, they center on a woman's autonomy to determine her life's course, and thus to enjoy equal citizenship stature."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
molbiogirl Member (Idle past 2672 days) Posts: 1909 From: MO Joined: |
I would say the zygotes that failed to implant died of natural causes. Are you including The Pill, the IUD & Plan B here?
As for SCNT, the purpose seems to be to make a child and the failures are natural deaths in the process of trying for a success. You are confusing IVF and SCNT. IVF = in vitro fertilizationSCNT = somatic cell nuclear transfer = cloning So. Let's be clear. A zygote is a child because it contains a human genetic blueprint.A zygote created during IVF is also a child, but it's OK to kill it because the couple is trying to get pregnant. Is that a fair summary?
On the one hand they believe that each zygote is a child based on its potential. What potential? That's my point. Any cell that carries a full complement of DNA has "the potential" to become human.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
molbiogirl Member (Idle past 2672 days) Posts: 1909 From: MO Joined: |
molbiogirl specifically wrote about zygotes that didn't make it to implant on the uterine wall. Therefore they were "sent" to become babies, so to speak. A biological process is not analogous to a political process.
As far as your ideas about making it illegal for women to do things that endanger the child she is carrying, I don't know. Have you ever read The Handmaid's Tale by Margaret Atwood? What you are proposing is beginning to sound an awful lot like the dystopian future in that book.
However, you are still in the position of trying to convince me how wrong it is to think of a zygote as a child. You have yet to demonstrate that a zygote has any "potential" beyond its genetic blueprint. Every cell in your body has that same blueprint, yet you don't consider each of your cells "a child".
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
molbiogirl Member (Idle past 2672 days) Posts: 1909 From: MO Joined: |
No, because an ovum is only half of the genetic material. You didn't answer the question. An egg that has the full complement of DNA via SCNT (somatic cell nuclear transplant) will develop into a zygote. Therefore, the question remains: Is an egg with a full complement of DNA a "child"?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
molbiogirl Member (Idle past 2672 days) Posts: 1909 From: MO Joined: |
I've answered all your questions. You have, twice now, avoided mine. No. You said:
It (a zygote) requires an ovum and a spermatozoa. That is patently untrue. A zygote is the result of SCNT, as well as the result of egg + sperm. Since you seem to equate a genetic blueprint with what is to be considered "human", I suggest you answer my question: Is an egg, which has the entire genetic blueprint via SCNT, a "child"?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
molbiogirl Member (Idle past 2672 days) Posts: 1909 From: MO Joined: |
The only question you have asked is, "Are your cells human?"
No, my cells are not "human".
MW writes: Main Entry: humanFunction: noun Date: circa 1533 : a bipedal primate mammal (Homo sapiens: man; broadly : hominid) Unless of course you mean "human" as in "comes from a human".
MW writes: Main Entry: hu·manFunction: adjective Date: 14th century 1: of, relating to, or characteristic of humans2: consisting of humans 3 a: having human form or attributes b: susceptible to or representative of the sympathies and frailties of human nature Using that definition, however, many things are "human", not just my cells. ... You have equated "human" and "child" with "genetic blueprint".
Message 14 writes: What precisely makes you more human than they, especially when they are genetically no different than you? Message 57 writes: If the mind does not reach for it, then you have to come to the stark realization that you are genetically no different from a zygote. And the question remains: Is an SCNT egg a "child"? It has the entire genetic blueprint.It develops into a zygote. Given sufficient time, it would develop into a fetus. You just look foolish dodging this question, Juggs.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
molbiogirl Member (Idle past 2672 days) Posts: 1909 From: MO Joined: |
Is that what makes you, you? Absolutely. I am the sum of my genetic input and my biochemical pathways. And, were I to allow my genetic material to be injected into an egg, and it was allowed to develop into a zygote, that zygote would not be "human". Nor, were I to allow it to develop into a fully formed human, would it be "me". Ready to answer the SCNT question, Juggs?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
molbiogirl Member (Idle past 2672 days) Posts: 1909 From: MO Joined: |
Been a few hours, Juggs m'boy.
You lookin' to answer any time soon? Howzabout you cut the sass and acknowledge your ignorance, and I'll dumb this down enough so that even you might understand it. Edited by molbiogirl, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
molbiogirl Member (Idle past 2672 days) Posts: 1909 From: MO Joined: |
Juggs asks:
Why aren't they human beings? "I cannot see any intrinsic, morally significant difference between a mature skin cell, the totipotent stem cell derived from it, and a fertilized egg," writes Savulescu. "They are all cells which could give rise to a person if certain conditions obtained.... If all our cells could be persons, then we cannot appeal to the fact that an embryo could be a person to justify the special treatment we give it." Remember, Juggs, researchers were recently able to flip a few genetic switches and "turn" a skin cell into a totipotent cell. That means every cell in your body has the potential to become a zygote (without the benefit of having its nucleus injected into an ovum).
Recently, murine fibroblasts have been reprogrammed directly to pluripotency by ectopic expression of four transcription factors (Oct4, Sox2, Klf4 and Myc) to yield induced pluripotent stem (iPS) cells. Using these same factors, we have derived iPS cells from fetal, neonatal and adult human primary cells, including dermal fibroblasts isolated from a skin biopsy of a healthy research subject. Human iPS cells resemble embryonic stem cells in morphology and gene expression and in the capacity to form teratomas in immune-deficient mice. These data demonstrate that defined factors can reprogram human cells to pluripotency, and establish a method whereby patient-specific cells might be established in culture. Reprogramming of human somatic cells to pluripotency with defined factorsNature (23 Dec 2007) The difference between what they are and what they could become is the environment in which their DNA is found. Thus, the mere existence of human DNA in a cell cannot be the source of a relevant moral difference. Because it is logically ... possible for each of your body's cells to become your twin. Each skin cell, each neuron, each liver cell is potentially a person. All quotes not otherwise attributed are from: Page not found - Reason.com You have the problem, Juggs. Not me. Since I don't consider a cell or a group of cells "human", I have no problem at all declaring a zygote a wad of undifferentiated cells and nothing more. Because my definition of human = a group of cells with genetic input and the appropriate biochemical pathways. Using your definition, each of your cells is a "child". And you've got bigger problems on the horizon, my friend.
Another option being pursued by researchers is the generation of animals that produce human gametes. To date, it has been demonstrated that mice containing a human ovarian xenotransplant can produce human oocytes (Gook et al. 2003). Human gametes could in theory also be made by chimaeric animals produced by injecting human embryonic stem cells into animal blastocysts. The use of gametes produced by grafted or chimaeric animals in fertilization theoretically could result in blastocysts that are capable of implantation and forming a viable pregnancy. http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/...nformation/_files/humanembryo.pdf Animal produced human gametes that are then activated via SCNT or parthenogenesis = "child" in your book?
Another possibility is an individual that contains cells from different species. Injection of genetically altered mouse embryonic stem cell lines into mouse blastocysts is used by researchers to generate transgenic and knockout mice. (However) the developmental potential of chimeras created by injecting human embryonic stem cells into a blastocyst from a different species or by injecting non-human embryonic stem cells into a human blastocyst (DeWitt, 2002) is unknown. http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/...nformation/_files/humanembryo.pdf A chimera = "child"? After all, it contains human DNA. And that's just the tip of the iceberg: Emerging technologies(1) Cloning by embryo splitting (2) SCNT”human somatic cell and human oocyte (3) Heterologous nuclear transfer”hES cell nucleus and human oocyte (4) Pronuclear transplantation”transfer of pronuclei from fertilized human oocyte to enucleated dor human oocyte (5) Parthenogenesis”human oocyte activation (6) Chimaera”generated by aggregation of individual viable blastomeres obtained from nonviable embryos (7) SCNT”human somatic cell and enucleated animal oocyte (8) Fertilization”mouse sperm generated in vitro from differentiating mES cells (9) Gygenesis ” as for pronuclear transplantation but using two maternal pronuclei (10) Androgenesis ” as for pronuclear transplantation but using two paternal pronuclei (11) SCNT”mouse somatic cell genetically altered to remove implantation potential and enucleated mouse oocyte (human material involved) (12) Chimaera”injection of mouse blastocyst with mES cells (human material involved) (13) Fertilization”human gametes generated in vitro from differentiating hES cells (14) Fertilization”human gametes produced in vitro (15) Fertilization”human oocytes produced by animals containing human ovarian tissue grafts fertilized with human sperm (16) SCNT”human somatic cell genetically altered to remove implantation potential and enucleated human oocyte (or oocyte generated in vitro from differentiating hES cells) (17) SCNT”human somatic cell genetically altered to remove implantation potential and enucleated animal oocyte (18) Chimera”injection of hES cells into animal blastocyst (19) Chimera”injection of animal ES cells into human blastocyst Yep. You're the one the problem, chum. You've chosen to define human as "a piece of DNA". Not me. ABE:
If we are just a mass of cells, then what is the difference between you and a blastocyst, zygote, or a fetus? You do realize, of course, that I could synthesize a lump of 10 trillion cells (estimated # of cells/body), all of human origin, and that would not be a "human", right? My definition includes genetic input and the appropriate biochemical pathways. You conveniently ignored half of my definition. Edited by molbiogirl, : sp Edited by molbiogirl, : addn
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
molbiogirl Member (Idle past 2672 days) Posts: 1909 From: MO Joined: |
What keeps the uterine wall cells from becoming babies? Not just skin cells. Any cell. Because any cell contains the full complement of DNA. Any of your somatic cells has the same potential to become a zygote as an egg fetilized by a sperm. "Turning on" a somatic cell, however, requires intervention in the lab.
Is that how multiples occur...through a uterine wall cell being somehow converted into a baby? No. A somatic cell would produce a clone. Multiples happen in the first 3 weeks as the conceptus divides.
Maybe a hormone imbalance from the implantation of the original zygote? No. A zygote does not implant fully into the uterine wall, which is why there is a 30-60% spontaneous abortion rate. Linear, a zygote is not a "human". The lump of cells doesn't even get around to "deciding" what is embryo and what is not-embryo (aka placenta) until the primitive streak forms in the third week. Even Bush's Bioethics Committee admitted that much. They drew the line (14 days) based on five principles: individuality, organization, implantation, neural development, and utility. Let me repeat that: even the stooges that Bush hired to bolster his pro-life agenda agreed that a zygote is not a "human". You're on the wrong side of this argument, Linear.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
molbiogirl Member (Idle past 2672 days) Posts: 1909 From: MO Joined: |
I take it you don't deal with sarcasm very often. Given what I've read on this forum, I make no assumptions about what my opponent does or does not know.
You have already stated that birth is that point. No, I haven't.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024