10-year-old rape victim denied abortion in OH

[Dill]

(07-17-2022, 01:35 PM)GMDino Wrote: Nope.

But an egg is not a person anymore than an egg is a chicken.

It has the possibility of becoming one but there is a reason it is called a fertilized egg, embryo, fetus, etc...and not person.

If I handed you a fertilize egg would say you had a person in your hand?

Time to change the language, then.

From now on I am calling embryos "fertilized persons." 

They are not TURTLES, right?

[GMDino]

(07-17-2022, 01:58 PM)Bengalzona Wrote: I think I've ate a few over the years.

Chicken eggs, that is.

I mean, obviously the store eggs are not even fertilized.

I've eaten chicken eggs too...and never said I was eating chicken. 

[Belsnickel]

(07-17-2022, 12:26 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: This means, that blob of cells or whatever descriptive you desire to call it, KNOWS what to do in order to live. 
And now for our favorite word of the month... this makes it an autonomous living being in the early stages of development.

No, it is definitely not autonomous. We can culture an embryo for about two weeks under highly controlled circumstances, but without those controls and much beyond two weeks and it doesn't survive. Because of the requirements necessary for it to survive in that way and the shortened timeframe, calling it autonomous is just highly fallacious.

[Lucidus]

(07-17-2022, 12:26 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: In the case of rape/incest? yes should be allowed to abort. Report it and let the law arrest the Rapist.
But not every teenage pregnancy a "rape", so how do you handle those, there was nothing 'evil' there?

I used the word evil to specifically describe not allowing exceptions for rape and incest. 

Quote:I've posted multiple times about what I think is a fair compromise and never changed my stance.

http://thebengalsboard.com/Thread-Pro-Choice-People-Babies-Feel-Excruciating-Pain-During-Abortions?pid=653002?highlight=trimester#pid653002

http://thebengalsboard.com/Thread-Question-For-Pro-Choice-People?pid=721580?highlight=trimester#pid721580

http://thebengalsboard.com/Thread-Roe-vs-Wade-vs-SCOTUS-legitimacy?pid=1211435?highlight=trimester#pid1211435

Thanks for providing the links.

My issue with a first trimester cutoff is that a 3 month old fetus can't survive outside the womb because their lungs and other vital organs aren't developed enough. If the fetus can't be considered reasonably viable, it can't be considered to possess right to life. 

The fetus usually doesn't start processing sensory stimuli at the cortical level until sometime around the 24/25 week mark, according to the consensus of research done on the subject. Consider also that the brain doesn't start directing chest compression or diaphragm movement until the second trimester. Finally, factor in the rates of survival and health risk. A fetus born at 28 weeks has about a 90% survival rate and only a 10% chance of serious long-term health problems, as compared to say a 24 week old fetus who only has about a 50% chance of surviving and even if they do, more than 40% will have health issues, many of which can result in life-long problems. 

So, it seems to me that the most logical compromise would be 20 weeks, as it would be generous to both sides; allowing the pregnant individual 5 full months to make the choice to abort or not, and granting the fetus right to life even though it isn't yet reasonably viable.

Quote:For the last part. That ONE little cell with it's complete genetic makeup, does start to divide and grow. Frozen Fertilized Embryo's, once thawed out, will start right away with dividing and growing whether they are in the womb or not. No scientist will tell you that a cell that a dividing cell is NOT alive.

Of course, every cell is alive. Human life is very different than human being. Your fingernails contain human life. They are not human beings. Those are two very different categorizations. 

How can a zygote possess personhood if it's capable of splitting in a manner that produces twins, for example, which replace the original single organism with two distinctly individual ones? It cannot already be a human being itself, or its status as a human being would simply cease to exist after splitting into twins, triplets, etc. -- because it ceases to exist. 

Quote:This means, that blob of cells or whatever descriptive you desire to call it, KNOWS what to do in order to live. 
And now for our favorite word of the month... this makes it an autonomous living being in the early stages of development.

According to this logic, using your definition of "know" -- bacteria, cancers and viruses would all be living beings. 

[Bengalzona]

(07-17-2022, 02:35 PM)GMDino Wrote: I mean, obviously the store eggs are even fertilized.

I've eaten chicken eggs too...and never said I was eating chicken. 

Wait!

You mean, some male chicken came and planted his seed in that stuff I was eating?!?!?!

Ewww...... gross!!!!

[Belsnickel]

(07-17-2022, 06:36 PM)Bengalzona Wrote: Wait!

You mean, some male chicken came and planted his seed in that stuff I was eating?!?!?!

Ewww...... gross!!!!

I mean, not usually. Though you could enjoy some balut. It's one of my favorites.

[Mike M (the other one)]

(07-17-2022, 01:35 PM)GMDino Wrote: Nope.

But an egg is not a person anymore than an egg is a chicken.

It has the possibility of becoming one but there is a reason it is called a fertilized egg, embryo, fetus, etc...and not person.

If I handed you a fertilize egg would say you had a person in your hand?

Doesn't matter what you want to call it, it is still a fertilized egg of a human being. 

Trying to call it a person, is nothing more than a philosophical argument, which has no clear cut answer because of all of the many different beliefs out there.

[GMDino]

(07-17-2022, 06:36 PM)Bengalzona Wrote: Wait!

You mean, some male chicken came and planted his seed in that stuff I was eating?!?!?!

Ewww...... gross!!!!

NOT!  Not even fertilized.

Oopsie!

[Mike M (the other one)]

(07-17-2022, 03:08 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: No, it is definitely not autonomous. We can culture an embryo for about two weeks under highly controlled circumstances, but without those controls and much beyond two weeks and it doesn't survive. Because of the requirements necessary for it to survive in that way and the shortened timeframe, calling it autonomous is just highly fallacious.

Once fertilized, it does cell division all on it's own regardless of environment, and you just admitted that it CAN survive out side of the womb, even if only for a couple weeks, which emphasizes my point. 

Autonomous cell specification is a form of specification in which the developing cell is able to differentiate with out receiving external signals.

Trying to use philosophical definitions or compare it to a chicken egg (or Duck, as in Ballot) is the fallacy as the process is not the same.

PS What grade ballot to you prefer? and do you get it fresh?

[Mike M (the other one)]

(07-17-2022, 05:11 PM)Lucidus Wrote: I used the word evil to specifically describe not allowing exceptions for rape and incest. 


Thanks for providing the links.

My issue with a first trimester cutoff is that a 3 month old fetus can't survive outside the womb because their lungs and other vital organs aren't developed enough. If the fetus can't be considered reasonably viable, it can't be considered to possess right to life. 

The fetus usually doesn't start processing sensory stimuli at the cortical level until sometime around the 24/25 week mark, according to the consensus of research done on the subject. Consider also that the brain doesn't start directing chest compression or diaphragm movement until the second trimester. Finally, factor in the rates of survival and health risk. A fetus born at 28 weeks has about a 90% survival rate and only a 10% chance of serious long-term health problems, as compared to say a 24 week old fetus who only has about a 50% chance of surviving and even if they do, more than 40% will have health issues, many of which can result in life-long problems.  

So, it seems to me that the most logical compromise would be 20 weeks, as it would be generous to both sides; allowing the pregnant individual 5 full months to make the choice to abort or not, and granting the fetus right to life even though it isn't yet reasonably viable. 


Of course, every cell is alive. Human life is very different than human being. Your fingernails contain human life. They are not human beings. Those are two very different categorizations. 

How can a zygote possess personhood if it's capable of splitting in a manner that produces twins, for example, which replace the original single organism with two distinctly individual ones? It cannot already be a human being itself, or its status as a human being would simply cease to exist after splitting into twins, triplets, etc. -- because it ceases to exist. 


According to this logic, using your definition of "know" -- bacteria, cancers and viruses would all be living beings. 

I disagree with your 5 month option.
98-99% of abortions are done in the first trimester. So it makes perfect sense so use that as the guide.

Viable???? We are barely considered reasonably viable at the child stage? So by your definition mothers should be able to abort their children up to what age?

Finger nails are DEAD cells, no purpose in this conversation other than a distraction.

The Life cycle of a human being starts with fertilization, has various stages then ends with death. it's not that complicated. You are trying to over complicate it by trying to add philosophical terms to limit/define make it fit for your beliefs. A convict in Jail has their personhood taken away, does that mean they are no longer a human being?

Look it's the way our reproductive system is designed, the whole process from start to finish, if you got a problem with that, take it up with God, or who ever you think designed us, it is the way it is, and beyond our abilities to change. 

Cancer cells are alive, they grow and multiply, problem is they don't die like they should.
Viruses don't contain ribosomes, that is what is needed to produce proteins independently, they also require a host in order to turn it into a virus making factory.
Bacteria is a living cell. It is classified as a living organism, but it does not evolve into a human being.

[Belsnickel]

(07-17-2022, 10:49 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Once fertilized, it does cell division all on it's own regardless of environment, and you just admitted that it CAN survive out side of the womb, even if only for a couple weeks, which emphasizes my point. 

It really doesn't, though, because it still requires a medium and a perfectly controlled environment in order to do so. If it were to be left on its own without human intervention, it would not replicate.

(07-17-2022, 10:49 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Autonomous cell specification is a form of specification in which the developing cell is able to differentiate with out receiving external signals.

Autonomous cell specification and autonomy are two wildly different concepts. Just because something is capable of autonomous specification and determination based on biological terms does not mean it is an autonomous organism. There is no biologist that would claim that.

(07-17-2022, 10:49 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Trying to use philosophical definitions or compare it to a chicken egg (or Duck, as in Ballot) is the fallacy as the process is not the same.

It isn't? I mean, sperm fertilizes egg. It develops inside a uterus or inside of the shell of an egg, depending on the species. It's pretty similar. One could actually argue that a chicken or duck embryo is actually more autonomous than the embryo of a mammal.

(07-17-2022, 10:49 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: PS What grade ballot to you prefer? and do you get it fresh?

I don't know about grades. I just know I have some Filipino friends that make it every now and then when they're having a party and I am a big fan.

[Sled21]

(07-17-2022, 01:20 AM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: It does, you don't.

List any scientific chart of a human life cycle. it's included in all of them.

No point arguing science with those on the left. They believe all science settled and call people science deniers when they think they are right. and when science doesn't line up with them they totally ignore it. 

[BigPapaKain]

(07-18-2022, 01:26 PM)Sled21 Wrote: No point arguing science with those on the left. They believe all science settled and call people science deniers when they think they are right. and when science doesn't line up with them they totally ignore it. 

Horse medicine.

Sit down.

[Bengalzona]

(07-18-2022, 02:51 AM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: 98-99% of abortions are done in the first trimester. So it makes perfect sense so use that as the guide.

Personally I've always felt that, barring medical exigency, the first trimester was a reasonable cutoff for abortions.

Military officers and sergeants sometimes have to make life or death decisions within seconds. Cops sometimes have to make live or death decisions in split seconds. Three months has always seemed like an extremely reasonable amount of time to me, a medical emergency being an exception.

[Lucidus]

(07-18-2022, 02:51 AM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: I disagree with your 5 month option.
98-99% of abortions are done in the first trimester. So it makes perfect sense so use that as the guide.

Viable???? We are barely considered reasonably viable at the child stage? So by your definition mothers should be able to abort their children up to what age?

Finger nails are DEAD cells, no purpose in this conversation other than a distraction.

The Life cycle of a human being starts with fertilization, has various stages then ends with death. it's not that complicated. You are trying to over complicate it by trying to add philosophical terms to limit/define make it fit for your beliefs. A convict in Jail has their personhood taken away, does that mean they are no longer a human being?

Look it's the way our reproductive system is designed, the whole process from start to finish, if you got a problem with that, take it up with God, or who ever you think designed us, it is the way it is, and beyond our abilities to change. 

Cancer cells are alive, they grow and multiply, problem is they don't die like they should.
Viruses don't contain ribosomes, that is what is needed to produce proteins independently, they also require a host in order to turn it into a virus making factory.
Bacteria is a living cell. It is classified as a living organism, but it does not evolve into a human being.

The number is 93% according to the latest CDC information. The 99% is the first two trimesters combined. 

The fingernail root is a constantly producing living cells that provide the nail with nutrients, with growth occurring as of continuous result of living cell production.

Personhood is simply the state of being a person . Do you think someone ceasing being a person when they go to prison?- 

You confusing the human life cycle -- which categorizes stages from conception to death-- with assigning personhood at the moment of conception. The two things have nothing to do with each other, no matter how hard people try to make it seems otherwise. 

I can show you the stages of a vehicle's life cycle, but that doesn't make the blueprint a vehicle. You're confusing the map for the place, as conception does not equal a person. It could potentially lead to a person, but it doesn't start as one.

[Mike M (the other one)]

(07-18-2022, 08:54 PM)Lucidus Wrote: The number is 93% according to the latest CDC information. The 99% is the first two trimesters combined. 

The fingernail root is a constantly producing living cells that provide the nail with nutrients, with growth occurring as of continuous result of living cell production.

Personhood is simply the state of being a person . Do you think someone ceasing being a person when they go to prison?- 

You confusing the human life cycle -- which categorizes stages from conception to death-- with assigning personhood at the moment of conception. The two things have nothing to do with each other, no matter how hard people try to make it seems otherwise. 

I can show you the stages of a vehicle's life cycle, but that doesn't make the blueprint a vehicle. You're confusing the map for the place, as conception does not equal a person. It could potentially lead to a person, but it doesn't start as one.

Been a couple years since i really looked, i know it was a very high number that abort in first trimester, still stands as my cut-off. 5 months is waaay to long, pregnancy is half over and a body has developed. Aborting at this point would have a much higher chance of the woman having psychological issues than if it's done earlier (that is just my opinion). My wife had our baby pre-maturely at 5 months, tiny little thing but outside body was well developed, just the insides (lungs, etc) weren't done. She was and still is our daughter, and not a blob of cells. 

The fingernail you see consists of dead cells. The underneath is constantly pushing the dead cells out. Not overly sure your point vs trying to compare it an embryo, which is living and growing. 

For the last time, Personhood is not science. It is a heavily debated philosophical term used in law and politics to try to set legal terms for citizenship, protections, liberties etc, but STILL NOT SCIENCE.

And FYI, a group called the Personhood Alliance, claims that Personhood starts at fertilization. So there you go, more proof that it is a philosophical term where everyone has their OWN definition based on their own interpretation of stop/starting points along the Life Cycle of a Human Being.

I'm not confusing the Life Cycles of a human being at all, it's very linear, cycles can't be skipped, unless death happens before you make it to the next cycle. 

Wait? What? Life cycle of a vehicle??? Are you saying it starts as a blob of metal and then grows into Bumblebee?? 
LOL couldn't resist, but it's just the process we all go thru. Why do people go crazy over seeing their little blobs on ultrasounds? It's simply in a stage of development we are not visually used to, but it's still a human being. 

I don't think we are going to change each others minds and no point continuing to try. 
You've said yours, i've said mine, we are just going to have to agree to disagree and stick to finding a compromise that pleases both sides. 

Just like how you feel about religion being involved in politics and lawmaking, i feel philosophy should not be involved in science. 
If you ask someone a science question (no matter where they are in the world) the answer should be identical.

[guyofthetiger]

I am pro life in all cases. God is the creator of life and I feel a soul enters once conception occurs. The immaculate conception. lol

[BigPapaKain]

(07-20-2022, 04:42 AM)guyofthetiger Wrote: I am pro life in all cases. God is the creator of life and I feel a soul enters once conception occurs. The immaculate conception. lol

Mary ****** a Roman solider and sold that but of immaculate nonsense to avoid being labeled a harlot.

Also, the Torah (or as Christians call it - the Old Testament) says life begins at first breath, according to the kinds of people who study that kind of thing.

[*Nately120*]

(07-20-2022, 08:12 AM)BigPapaKain Wrote: Mary ****** a Roman solider and sold that but of immaculate nonsense to avoid being labeled a harlot.

Was it Nauhgtius Maximus or Bigus Dickus?

[Sled21]

And Satan laughed....