@slagbag2007 You speak as if a baby is an accident you catch like a virus. NO, a baby is the result of a CHOSEN behavior. There is only ONE guaranteed method to prevent unwanted babies & it should be taught & encouraged. Its called abstinence. Why should the innocent suffer just because some people can't or won't control their urges. Tell me are you the type that cringes when someone pours salt on a slug or pulls the wings off a fly? IF so why is a slug or fly more important than the unborn?
@slagbag2007 The truth is the unborn are fully capable of feeling pain at 20 weeks (I had a preemie at 26 to 28 weeks & I KNOW he could feel pain) they respond to touch at 8 weeks, have fingerprints at 14 weeks, brainwaves at 9 weeks. The heart beats at 18 days & by 21 days is pumping blood through a closed circulatory system. Size has nothing to do with it. Even hamsters are protected by anti cruelty laws! That said there's no sin God cannot forgive. He's always there with His arms out waiting.
@justme79088 not the right response to call her names. after all it was the nurse and doctors who give abortions that LIE to young woman about the truth and don't let them see reality till afterwards.
Hear what God of Israel YAHUSHUA-YAHUWAH (Son and Father are ONE) saying to our generation by His chosen prophets: Trumpetcallofgodonline. com ; Letter called "Purify Your Faith, and Come to the Father as It is Written": EXCERPT: "Only in the Bible and through these very Letters, of which I have given to My prophet of the end of this age, shall you find Him and know Him."
WOW, what ever happened to people just giving because its the right thing to do? It should have never got that far, The world is not getting any better, If you think it is, THINK AGAIN!! was it really worth it to deny FOOD TO THE CHILDREN!!!??
This is the reason why I'm going to school to be an RN. I want to help in labor and delivery. Working with the miracle of life would be the most coolest job in the world.
it remind me of my friend andrew kosari in hk!!!! it jus his a fetus wit a mustache!!! his on facebook go search him up or add him since he has no friends!!!!
The very Creation of Life is Beautiful. Proof that god and Science Can Co-Exist with one another. It's Arrogant to Believe that god himself is Everything, Just as is the Ignorance that all is Derived of nothing.
One last thing, regarding my cherry tree analogy, what are the main properties of cherry trees ? The fact that they produce cherry fruit and cherry blossoms. Does this mean a small cherry tree that has only recenly come out from the ground is not a cherry tree ? It doesn't have branches or leaves, let alone fruit and flowers but it is a cherry tree. By your logic, if a cherry tree isn't old enough to produce cherry fruit, it isn't a cherry tree.
I don't really understand why we're talking about religion. I might be mistaken but as I see it most abortionists are aggressive, uneducated, ill-mannered and insufferable antireligious individuals who will reject EVERYTHING decent, moral and constructive. If there's anything immoral or harmful, these individuals will support it just for the sake of their antireligious misconceptions. It's always about them, it's always about their ego. Abortionists are as deranged as religious fanatics. Period.
@Fantezism That's a poor generalization considering that I myself have met pro-lifers that are the exact same thing that you described. I'm pro-choice, and although I don't consider myself to be a genius or anything, I'm sure not stupid, and I show the people I argue with as much respect as possible. I think it's all in the way that you present yourself and nothing more than just that.
@GentlemanThunder7: I didn't generalize, I said that MOST abortionists are aggressive and ill-mannered. Pro-lifers are very easy to annoy because most abortionists are too self-absorbed and like to think that EVERYTHING is just a matter of choice. Last time I checked, babies-be they born or still in their gestation period, were humans, not choices. We shouldn't even be arguing about this matter. Essentialy, abortion is the destruction of a human being. Say what you may, you won't change that
@Fantezism Even if that is what you meant, that's the same way I feel about many pro-lifers I've met. I'm sure that there are pro-lifers who are kind, calm, and respectful, but all I've gotten so far is "devil worshipper," "idiot," "monster." The same thing that these many pro-choicers all you. Why exactly are these beings human?
@GentlemanThunder7 The difference between these two camps of fundamentalists is that the pro-life one is at least fighting for the right cause. Why are the fetuses human beings you ask? Because they are living organisms, because they have a unique human DNA. The question you should ask is why wouldn't they be human beings ? If they aren't human what are they ? It's amazing the length you people go to justify your decadence. Abortion is a wicked thing and you know it.
@Fantezism Or so your opinion holds. The pro-choice side can easily support the pro-life side. If you don't believe that abortion is right, don't have one. We shouldn't, however, deny that right to anyone else just because you don't like it. After all, we must consider the woman's rights as well (which are actually more established than the ones of the fetus). The question comes down to what is a human being. Something should have all of the characteristics of an object to be classified as such.
@GentlemanThunder7 The rights of the fetus (who is a human person, just because he's undersized doesn't make him any less human) count as well. Why does it always have to be about the mother ? Why does it always have to be about what she wants ? Aren't we being a bit self-absorbed in this matter ?
@Fantezism It's not about self-absorbsion. It's about what's established and what isn't. The rights of the fetus are not established by our government, as far as I know. It's the other way around when it comes to the importance of women's rights. The United States Supreme Court ruled that abortion was within the woman's right to privacy in "Roe v. Wade" (1973). It's an established Supreme Court case that still exists to this day. That's for one thing.
@GentlemanThunder7: I don't care about what the law has to say in this regard. It's irrelevant to our discussion. It's not for politicians and lawmakers to decide whether or not the unborn are human. The political approach to this problem is not the right one so don't expect me to acquiesce to what the law says; I don't care about the law, what I do care about is justice.
@GentlemanThunder7 You should know that the woman involved in this case no longer agrees with it has written a book about it and feels that she was used. She never DID have the abortion!
@Fantezism I would say that the discussion as to a fetus or embreyo being is not irrelevant. One of the main arguments of the pro-life side is that abortion is the termination of a human being, and human beings deserve rights. If the pro-choice end proves that this being is not a human or completely human, it knocks down the main marketing chip that the pro-life side has in argumentation. Just the opposite would be for the pro-life side. So, as far as rights is concerned, humanity is relevant.
@GentlemanThunder7 An organism can't be more or less human than another; either the organism is human or it isn't. If fetuses aren't human, why do they have unique human DNA structures ? Scientifically speaking, the DNA structure is the element that separates humans from non-human beings.
@Fantezism A few parameters: We, I assume, are talking about abortions from a United States context, and abortions occur only the first trimester. So, we have to look at embreyos, mainly. Also, the definition of an embreyo according to the Collins Dictionary of Medicine: "an organism in its earliest stages of development, especially before it has reached a stage at which it can be distinguished from the other species..."
@GentlemanThunder7 I am talking about abortions from a HUMANE perspective. Your nationality is irrelevant to our discussion because abortions are essentially the same regardless of where they occur. The Collins Dictionary of Medicine isn't up do date because, as I have stated before, the embryo has a unique human DNA structure that distinguishes it from other species. Therefore the embryo does have human characteristics right from day one.
@Fantezism (1) The Collins Dictionary of Medicine (fourth edition) was published in 2005. How do you prove that this dictionary isn't up-to-date? Also, other dictionaries say the exact same thing, including, but not limited to: The American Heritage Science Dictionary. (2) When an organism has more human characteristics than another, why shouldn't we consider something more human than another? (3) One human-like characteristic an entire human being does not make.
@GentlemanThunder7 1) It means those dictionaries are lousy and ignore factual realities. They're most likely subservient to some political ideology and are carrying out its agenda. 2) An organism can be more DEVELOPED than another but its humanity doesn't depend on its current stage of development 3) the DNA is the ESSENTIAL characteristic of human organisms; according to your logic the mother can kill her newborn baby if she wants to because she has more human characteristics than him.
@GentlemanThunder7: I'm not drawing any personal conclusion because I'm always basing my statements of factual realities. You have yet to explain what a human being is, you haven't listed its essential characteristics. All you've been doing is to insist on the idea that the unborn are non-human beings or somewhat less human than their mothers but you have yet to explain why.
@Fantezism Oh, sorry. I meant to finish that response, but I got caught up in something. (1) Let me explain something: what you're doing here is saying that an embreyo is a human because it contains human DNA. You don't have any official definitions other than the one by the National Institute of Health, which doesn't specify that the embreyo is a human either, yet you are still calling it a human. I gave you a real medical definition, but you discredit it with no evidence of your own.
@GentlemanThunder7: Your medical definition doesn't contest the humanity of the fetus. If you equate development with humanity I guess older people are "better" humans than I am because I am still young and don't have as many characteristics as they do. By your logic, a 25-year old is more human than a 5-year old because the latter is uncapable to reproduce since he hasn't reached sexual maturity. Please show me a definition which states that the embryo is a non-human organism.
@Fantezism (1, cont.) So, essentially, what you're saying here, in conclusion, is that the embreyo is a human because it contains human DNA even when there's no scholarly article or definition of any sort to uphold your statement that it is human because of this, and you're basing this off from factual realities. Then, when I give you a credible definition, you reject it as not having credibility when there's also no scholars or anything saying that Collins is unreliable.
@GentlemanThunder7 Your definition is silent on the matter of whether or not the embryo is human. It neither confirms nor infirms that the embryo is human. Can you please list the ESSENTIAL characteristics of human organisms ?
@Fantezism (1, cont.) With that said, this is all at a personal level as far as your argument is concerned. (2) With the comparison of my definitions to yours and the time restraints that are allowed for abortions in the country, there's no point even to give you essential characteristics of humans because my definition specify that embreyos are not persons. I was able to uphold my definition, and I stand by it. However, for the sake of the argument, I'll give characteristics anyway.
@GentlemanThunder7 You didn't uphold your definitions, you just repeated them. You have yet to explain WHY you are so convinced embryos are non-human organisms.
@Fantezism (3) In the time constraints of abortions, we are only allowed to do abortions in the first trimester. For pretty much the first 10 weeks (71% of the first trimester), the organism in question doesn't even have a heartbeat. During the first trimester, we can't even determine what the organism's gender is. The vital organs of the organism are developing, but are not fully developed either. In fact, it can't even live outside the womb.
@GentlemanThunder7: At the risk of repeating myself, GET YOUR FACTS STRAIGHT; the heart begins to beat approximately 18 days from conception and by 25 days it begins to pump blood, THAT'S RIGHT, that organism HAS BLOOD FLOWING through it. At 6 weeks from conception the baby's brainwaves can be detected. Its gender is encoded IN ITS GENETIC CODE, theoretically you can find out its gender but you risk killing it. The fact that it can't survive outside the mother's womb is IRRELEVANT to our debate.
@GentlemanThunder7 According to the National Institutes of Health, the embryo is a developing organism from the time of fertilization. Is this organism human ? Either it is or it isn't. It can be more or less developed but it's wrong to equate development with humanity. A 20-year old tree is much more developed than another whose trunk hasn't even come out of the ground, but nobody would assume that the latter is less of a tree than the former. Either it is a tree or it isn't.
@GentlemanThunder7 And another thing, induced abortions occur when the fetus is approximately 9 weeks old. At this point, the fetus has already grown legs, arms, fingers, toes, etc ; so it has more than one human characteristic. However the fact that it has 46 chromosomes is more than enough to label it as human. One cannot have human arms and legs without a human DNA structure, but one can have a human DNA structure without human arms and legs. So the other characteristics are secondary
@Fantezism (3, cont.) To add to that, embryos don't even have a complex consciousness distinct to human beings. This is a consciousness that an unborn acquires only after the first trimester. I'm sure there are other characteristics they are missing, but in conclusion, it doesn't have everything that distinguishes a human being. (4) You also add that anything beyond DNA is insignificant. Why? Who says that?
@GentlemanThunder7: By your logic we should conclude that people who fall into a coma lose their humanity since they are totally unconscious while in that state. Please ! What is a cherry tree ? A tree that produces cherries. Can a 2-month old cherry tree produce cherries ? No, it can't. Does this mean that the 2-month old cherry tree is less of a cherry tree than the 10-year old one that I have in my back yard ? Of course not, its genetic makeup clearly qualifies it as a cherry tree.
@Fantezism (1) There you are doing it again. You're placing your own personal definitions of what an embryo is to you over a definition carved by men and women who function in the field of biology directly, which is completely faulty considering that you (as far as I know) are not a scientist in any way, shape or form, let alone someone with credits to make assertions as to what an embryo is. I,on the other hand, have made assertions based on the information of people on that credited field.
@GentlemanThunder7 Blah blah blah, your definition IS SILENT on the matter of whether or not the embryo is considered to be human. Spare me of your "argumentum ad verecundiam" . Scinetists say this, scientists say that...well there are OTHER scientists who affirm the opposite. So there, science is divided into abortionists and anti-abortionists.
@Fantezism (1) I'll give you the definition again: "An organism in the earliest stages of development, especially before it has reached a stage WHICH IT CAN BE DISTINGUISHED FROM ANOTHER SPECIES." An embryo, according to the definition at hand, is not distinguished to be part of any species, including the human species. This was from the Collins Dictionary of Medicine, a credited medical dictionary. That alone places the embryo at a state of neutrality.
@GentlemanThunder7: Human embryos CAN be distinguished from other non-human ones. At the risk of repeating myself, human embryos have 46 chromosomes and a unique human DNA structure. So the Collins Dictionary of Medicine is actually implying that embryos are human organisms.
@Fantezism (1) You misread my definition. Well, I don't think I made it any simpler with the all-caps, and I apologize for that, but nonetheless, you misread the definition. The definition from Collins Dictionary of Medicine states that the embryo is at a stage BEFORE it can be distinguished as any part of any species. This does not imply that human embryos can be distinguished from another species because the definition of embryo was a general one. Define it from those standards.
@GentlemanThunder7: This means that the definition you have provided is irrelevant to our debate. Like I said, the authors most likely decided to remain silent on the matter of whether or not embryos are human. Why don't you open ANOTHER dictionary and provide another more detailed definition for embryos ?
@Fantezism (1) I fail to see how my definition is in any way irrelevant to the debate at hand. Could you please elaborate on that please? (2) The American Heritage Dictionary defines embryo in a similar way: "An organism in its early stages of development, especially before it has reached a distinctively recognizable form." As far as the definition level is concerned, I should take precendence over that realm of the argument because you have provided no definitions that would argue otherwise.
@GentlemanThunder7: You should read the definition more attentively: To paraphrase this definition ” an embryo is a developing organism whose EXTERNAL ASPECT is unrecognizable”. That is true, however the nature of an organism is not established by its ASPECT. In terms of genetic makeup, embryos are distinguishable from one another. As usual, you are missing the point.
@Fantezism (2) You also emphasize a lot about the 46 chromosomes being unique only to humans. From what I found out, humans are NOT the only species with 46 chromosomes. Species with 46 chromosomes include (but are not limited to): Homo sapiens, Aplondontie rufa, Microtis arvalis, Equus grevyi, and Callicebus cupreus. This further implies that the embryo is behind a stage where it can be distinguished as a part of any species, not that you could check it anyway without killing it.
@GentlemanThunder7: As usual, you don't pay attention to what I'm saying; I ALSO emphasized that those 46 chromosomes are part of a HUMAN DNA STRUCTURE. Other animals do have the same number of chromosomes humans do but the STRUCTURE of these chromosomes is different. Both my chair and table are made of wood; but this doesn't allow you to classify the chair as being a table. The STRUCTURE of these two objects is different. You really need to brush up your knowledge of biology.
@Fantezism (1, cont.) You say that I have provided no definition that the organism in question is not a human, but you have no definitions of your own, let alone any legitimate research, that argues otherwise about the humanity of the embryo. Instead, you have a definition that just explains the time constraints of when an organism is an embryo, which only aids to my argument because it's talking about the time constraints of current abortions in the United States. So this is what we have:
@GentlemanThunder7 ..you are such a liar. How dare you say that I havent provided a definition for what human organisms are? I did say that biologically speaking human organisms have a human genetic makeup. Any living organism with a human genetic makeup should be considered to be a human person regardless of its stage of development. That is what I said. How many times must I repeat it ?
@Fantezism (3) By vulnerable, are you talking about the fact that it can't live outside the mother's womb? That wasn't an attack on the embryo's humanity. That was an attack on the embryo's autonomy. During the first trimester, the embryo is still a part of the mother. It can't live without the mother. Because the embryo is still a part of the mother, the mother's body and the rights thereof also play into the question in this discussion.
@GentlemanThunder7: What does the vulnerability of the embryo have to do with our debate? In theory the embryo can survive and develop in an artificial environment. But that's not the issue. The embryo is NEVER a part of the mother because its DNA is different from the mother's. The embryo is a smaller undeveloped human body living and developing inside a bigger, older and more developed one. Does your medical dictionary assert that embryos are parts of their mothers' bodies ?
@Fantezism (1, cont.) We have my credible definition(s) of what is considered to be an embryo, and they assert that it is at a stage where it cannot be distinguished to be any species. You have provided no definitions of your own to say otherwise, and you never really knocked down the legitimacy of my sources. Thus, my definitions still stand as far as the debate is concerned. (2) Again, as I explained before, the autonomy of the embryo is relevant.
@GentlemanThunder7 You are starting to sound like a car whose alarm wont go off. At the risk of repeating myself, you definitions are SILENT on the matter of whether or not embryos are human organisms. However, the first one that you provided does imply that I am right because it states that organisms are distinguishable from one another, since embryos are distinguishable from one another by their GENETIC MAKEUP it means embryos are human organisms.
@Fantezism (4) As for the attack on your scholarity, of course the scholarity plays into question. You're making these suggestions regarding to a field of biology...of science. At that point, you're going to need some kind of backing for those arguments because they're something of a field of scholarity, as I have with the Collins Dictionary of Medicine.
@GentlemanThunder7: If anyone here needs backing it's you. You were wrong on many accounts; you didn't know that by the 21st day after fertilization the embryo's heart begins to pump blood, you didn't know that embryos have a human genetic makeup, you didn't know that human embryos are distinguishable from non-human ones in terms of their genetic makeup. You are desperately clinging to your dictionary because you are unable to defend your position on your own.
@Fantezism (2, cont.) The embryo in the first trimester is completely dependent on the mother. So dependent, in fact, that it cannot live outside the womb in the first trimester. The main fact is that it can't even live separately, so it shouldn't be regarded as a separate entity. At that point, we have to consider what the mother wants because it IS in her body, using her body. Aside the question of autonomy would be another question: what right do we have to force someone to be a mother?
@GentlemanThunder7 To depend on a thing doesnt mean to be a part of that thing. The fact that embryos cant like outside the wombs of their mothers is irrelevant to our debate. Theoretically speaking, embryos could live and develop in an artificial environment. My flowers cant live if they arent watered, does this mean that my flowers are water ?
@Fantezism (3) Then back to my definition, which you consistantly try to tackle on, you try to attack its legitimacy when you don't have any definitions of your own in order to knock down anything that this definition says nor any credited statements that disproove the Collins Dictionary of Medicine. All you have is a definition from the NIH, which just suppliments my definition. Then, alongside that, you're trying to make the embryo seem dinstinguishable.
@GentlemanThunder7: Say what you may, the fact that you didn't know that by the 21st day after fertilization the embryonic heart has already begun to pump blood is proof that this debate is beyond you. You do have the dictionary, too bad you don't have enough patience to understand its content.
@Fantezism And say what YOU may, the fact that you have nothing to back you up and keep trying to change the focus on the fact that you have no evidence to your rampant claims that embryos are humans means you were never qualified for any kind of debate for abortion either. I may have gotten thing here or there wrong, but your entire argument is on a premise that entirely empty. It's too bad you don't have enough patience to look up any evidence before you open that pompous mouth of yours.
@GentlemanThunder7: Again, you're talking about my scholarity as if it were the main issue of our debate. When I say that this debate is beyond you I'm being 100% sincere; I didn't attack your intelligence, I've never said anything bad about you, all I did was to point out that you had replied to my messages without knowing the first thing about what embryos are. And I was right; you were ignorant of the fact that by the 21st day after conception the embryo has blood running through it.
@Fantezism (1) So because I get one thing wrong, that means that this debate is not applicable to me? I know quite well about the stages of the unborn. I know all about the separate DNA and the fact that it cannot live outside of the womb and what stages the unborn is considered to be embryo and a fetus and other elements, and because I make one mistake, that automatically disqualifies me from any kind of discussion? All you had to say was that I got something wrong and I would rephrase it.
@GentlemanThunder7: If you make one mistake like this it means you are totally ignorant of what we are debating; you googled your other pieces of information after I had posted my replies. Before starting this debate you were totally ignorant of the features fetuses develop during their first trimester. Furthermore, you are always attacking me by questioning my scholarity as if I were the one relying on google to gather my information. I'm sorry but you are being a hypocrite now.
@Fantezism (1, cont.) However, to have you say that because I got one thing wrong, that means that this debate is in any way beyond me to quite frankly deeply insulting. It's implicitly saying that I have no knowledge of any sort to even have a say in my beliefs. It doesn't mean you win any kind of debate. It means that you're just displaying a pompous attitude to your opponent. I know when I argue about abortion or anything else and an opponent gets something wrong, I'll politely correc thtme.
@GentlemanThunder7 If you make one mistake like this it means you are totally ignorant of what we are debating; you googled your other pieces of information after I had posted my replies. Before starting this debate you were totally ignorant of the features that fetuses develop during their first trimester. Furthermore, you are always attacking me by questioning my scholarity as if I were the one relying on google to gather my information. I'm sorry but you are being a hypocrite now.
@Fantezism (1, cont.) But you, when you correct me on anything, you just make some kind of smart-ass twist to it: "As usual, you're wrong..." "Looks like you're too ignorant to do blah blah blah." I've been arguing on YouTube for about two years now, and I've handled a lot of abuse from idiots who think that they know everything when they don't even have the slightest clue about what they're talking about. However, what I won't put up with is people giving me a pompous demeanor.
@GentlemanThunder7: I don't care about what you've been doing in the past years because THAT IS NOT THE ISSUE OF OUR DEBATE. If anyone's giving pompous demeanors it's you 'cause you a) replied to my messages without knowing the first thing about fetuses b) questioned my scholarity instead of focusing on my IDEAS c) committed many logical fallacies like " if X is inside of Y it means X is a part of Y" and " if X depends on Y it means X is a part of Y". Need I say more ?
@Fantezism (1, cont.) And don't tell me you haven't been doing that, because if you look back at the comments you've made and how you wrote them, you'll see what I'm talking about. (2) Then, there we go on about the credibility of your empirical evidence. What you keep emphasizing is that DNA is the only thing that brings about classification into a species, when just the opposite is true. There are more components to classifying something as part of a species, including morphology and niche.
@GentlemanThunder7: Niche is irrelevant to our discussion and morphology is determined by DNA. Besides, they change throughout one's life so you can't formulate a definitive definition on the strength of something that is constantly changing. What is water ? Any substance with the chemical formula H2O. It could be solid, it could be fluid, it could be invisible..that is secondary. The essence of water is its chemical composition, just as the essence of organisms is their genetic makeup.
@GentlemanThunder7 sigh- DNA determines morphology silly & niche has nothing to do with it except when human beings arbitrarily decide it does. For instance a dog & wolf are both in the dog family - they interbreed & produce fertile offspring. I use to play with a 1/2 wolf who was a pet. There was little difference between her & her wild brethren or her buddys the malamute & G. Shepeherd They were all dogs no matter WHAT niche they occupied.
@GentlemanThunder7 ..cont- The Pygmies (not sure if thats a PC designation anymore or not if not please tel me what is?) occupy a different niche than Asians or Europeans and the original Aborigines of Australia do also.Eskimos occupy another niche. But they are all equally human.
@Fantezism (2, cont.) To emphasize on this, let me bring up the example with the two flies again. They have the exact same morphology and DNA structure, but they belong to a different niche. That alone opens up the question to the speciation of those two flies even when their DNA and morphology are exactly the same thing. How is this example relevant to this debate?
@GentlemanThunder7: You're not listening to me. Those flies ARE RELATED. Those flies ARE BOTH FLIES, they belong to the same category of animals. Is there any non-human organism with a perfectly human genetic makeup ? Is there any insect that has the DNA of a pig ? Is there any pig that has the DNA of a snake ?
@Fantezism (2, cont.) Well, when even the scientific community can't agree on what species apple and hawthorne flies should belong to over something as simple niche even with the same DNA and morphology, then how can you say that embryos are human simply because they have the same human DNA when there's so much more to consider? You say that the morphology is determined by the DNA, and that's true, but the point is that the embryo doesn't have it.
@GentlemanThunder7: The point is that you're missing the point. One doesn't need a certain morphology to qualify as human. Morphology is secondary and constantly changing, it's a PHENOMENON of the quality of being human. Again, a 2-day old cherry tree doesn't have a distinct morphology yet it is considered to be a cherry tree regardless of the fact that it has yet to grow branches and leaves. The fact that it's developing in accordance with its genetic makeup qualifies it as a cherry tree.
@Fantezism (2, cont.) Well, there's certainly the question as to some of the other species that have a similar problem, which would only emphasize what I'm saying, but it also brings us back to my definition, which states that an embryo can't be distinguished from the other species. The example with the flies is a parallel to this because it shows that there's much more to speciation than just DNA, which only emphasizes my definition in addition to the fact that it's been credited.
@GentlemanThunder7: Your example with the flies is irrelevant to our debate. Their DNA is still INSECTIVAL. Your example would be relevant to our debate if one of those flies had the morpohlogy of a snake but the DNA of an insect. I'm not denying that embryos are different from already born humans, but they are human nevertheless.
@Fantezism (2, cont.) Then, there's the point at where you're trying to point out holes, and even when they exist, you don't fill them up with your evidence to counter mine. You try to discredit my definition, but you have no credited definitions of your own that counter my definition and neither do you have any reports or such that discredits the Collins Dictionary of Medicine. You're also claiming that DNA is the only thing that matters in speciation, but there's what I explained before.
@GentlemanThunder7: I said DNA is the only thing that matters IN TERMS OF DETERMINING THE SPECIES TO WHICH AN ORGANISM PERTAINS. I don't need to discredit you, it's enough to read your messages to see how much a sciolist you are.You keep talking about that dictionary when in reality its content is irrelevant to our discussion. You never actually think before posting, you assert that if X is inside Y it means that X is a part of Y. By your logic if I swallow my keys they become a part of my body
@Fantezism (2, cont.) But then, there's also the burden of evidence to uphold that statement. What says that embryos are human? Is there a credited scientific report that substantiates your claim? So far, you haven't provided anything. At that point, why should we still consider what you're talking about?
@GentlemanThunder7: I did mention Ron Paul, a doctor who is a foe of abortion. For some reason you forgot about him. Also, there are other doctors & geneticists who consider embryos to be human. Most of your messages are questioning my scholarity (which is off-topic) and the rest are echoing the same things that are either irrelevant to our discussion or factually wrong. By your logic, infants are sexless, trees aren't trees if they don't have fruit and if X is inside of Y it means X is Y.
@Fantezism I make a claim, and you try to say that I don't understand anything and this debate is too "complicated" for me anyway. Do you know what that's called? That's called ad Hominem. Instead of arguing my claim, you make fun of me.
@GentlemanThunder7 me thinks your dictionary is out of date or you are leaving something out. I think it must mean VISUALLY distinguishable because the human is distinguishable from other species from the start to any neonatalogist or embryologist and it becomes visually distinguishable to an expert very early.
@Fantezism (1, cont.) You haven't given me any kind of scholarly statements or anything that discredits the Collins Dictionary of Medicine as well as the other medical dictionaries that specify that the embryo is a being at a stage where it can't be distinguished into any species. Your definition from the National Institutes of Health doesn't say anything else on the matter either, so thus, my definition still stands. Your definition is just an extension of my own.
@GentlemanThunder7 For the last time, YOUR DEFINITION IS SILENT ON THE MATTER WE ARE DEBATING. What don't you understand ? Your definition does neither affirm nor infirm anything relevant to our discussion, the author(s) of that dictionary probably thought that it would be best if they steered clear of formulating controversial definitions. And please, don't digress from our main discussion; the scholarity of my statements is not the issue here.
@Fantezism (2) Also, with regard to telling if an embryo has 46 chromosomes, weren't you the one who said that doing something like that to an embryo at that stage of life would endanger the embryo based on what you said about the XX and XY chromosomes? Just a thought. (3) As to the essential characteristics of humans, I already said before that there is a credited medical dictionary among others that already species that embryos are neutral with regard to distinguishing what species they are.
@GentlemanThunder7: And what does the extremely vulnerable condition of the embryo have to do with our debate? Are you saying that they aren't human because they are very easy to kill ? The definition you provided is actually implying that embryos are human organisms since they are distinguishable from non-human ones. Embryos have either a human or non-human DNA structure, don't they ? So embryos aren't all the same.
@Fantezism (3, cont.) You're saying that I've just been hiding behind this definition, but the fact is that you haven't been able to knock it down. You haven't been able to give me any kind of scholarly statement or such that discredits the entirety of the Collins Dictionary of Medicine. You pull up these analogies and this reasoning, but as far as I know, you're not a doctor. You're not a credited member of a scientific community. You're not anything that is considered to be legitimate.
@GentlemanThunder7 Actually, your initial definition was silent on the matter we are debating. Now that you've provided a more detailed definition, I see that your precious dictionary implies that embryos are human organism. Your dictionary states that organisms are distinguishable from one another. Embryos are not all the same; for instance, human and non-human embryos differ with respect to their genetic makeup. So they are distinguishable from one another.
@Fantezism (3, cont.) You say that I'm just using personal interpretations, but even if I were (which I'm not), you'd be knocking yourself down as well because that's what you've been doing since square 1. As for the essential characteristics of what constitutes a human, you're right. I haven't been able to find a legitimate list as to what constitutes a human. If you could provide that where I have failed, that would be very kind.
@GentlemanThunder7 Aha, so now you're attacking me by saying that I'm knocking myself down. Yeah, right. All you've been doing is to attack me and call into question my scholarity as if that were the issue of our discussion. I did provide a definition for human organisms: generally speaking, organisms are entities that are biologically functional, can sustain life, have a genetic makeup and are in a permanent exchange of substances with the external environment. Right ?
@GentlemanThunder7: Do you disagree with me when I say that organisms are biologically functional, can sustain life, have a genetic makeup and are in a permanent exchange of substances with the external environment ?
@GentlemanThunder7: So you admit that you DON'T KNOW what the definition for organisms is. Isn't it a bit hypocritical of you to talk about biology and ethics when you don't know the first thing about these matters? And spare me the my-dictionary-says-this argument. You sound as if you were one of those fanatics who can't do anything without quoting the Bible. Your dictionary is actually implying that embryos are human organisms since they are distinguishable from other non-human embryos.
@Fantezism (3) You also seem to misunderstand the mechanism of a definition. My definition couldn't imply anything about it being a human organism because if an embryo is dinstinguishable to one species, then, under the definition, it wouldn't be an embryo at all. I've already told you about the 46 chromosomes, and yes, I did see what it said about a particular human DNA sequence. I'm thinking you're talking about Cytochrome C?
@GentlemanThunder7: ...it is ridiculous how you are talking about ” the mechanism of a definition” and chromosomes and all that when in reality you didnt even know that by the 21st day after conception the embryonic heart has already begun to pump blood. You are just googling your information. Talk about scholarity. The embryo has a HUMAN DNA STRUCTURE, a human genetic makeup and it is distinguishable from other non-human embryos. Therefore, it is human. Period.
@Fantezism (2, cont.) "THE DNA PROVES IT'S HUMAN. THE DNA PROVES IT'S HUMAN." Again, we don't know anything about you. Do you have a doctorate in biology? Is this part of scientific research that is credited and legitimized by the scientific community? We don't know anything about where the definition came from, which is why its credibility is so shaky. At this point, we should consider my definition over your own because we know where my definition came from and we know mine has been credited.
@GentlemanThunder7: Must I be a mathmatician for you to believe me when I say that 2 plus 2 is 4 ? The DNA structure is basically the thing that separates an organism from another. Can you show me two species with the exact same type of DNA ?
@GentlemanThunder7: Excuse me...but if I am not mistaken those two species are RELATED to each other and if I remember correctly they are both INSECTS so the fact that they have an almost identical DNA is irrelevant to our debate. Can you show me a non-human organism with a perfectly human genetic makeup? If DNA doesn't contain the essential biological features, how come when cloning another human organism you take only the DNA structure and nothing else ? Like I said, this debate is beyond you
@GentlemanThunder7: How about this: newborns are considered to be either males or females. The medical term "male" refers to organisms that produce sperm cells, while "female" refers to organisms that produce ova, infants are considered to be either male or female even though they are sexually immature and can't produce sperm cells or ova. By your logic, infants are sexless since their reproductive organs haven't fully developed.
@GentlemanThunder7 It's not Ad Hominem, but this discussion really is beyond you. How can I possibly have a debate with you about the nature of embryos when you didn't even know that embryos, genetically (and biologically) speaking, are human organisms ? How can I debate something with you when you assert that " if X depends on Y, it means X is a part of Y " ? How can I possibly have a decent debate with you when you would prefer to talk about my life rather than my ideas ?
@Fantezism Responding to this point (which I missed), scientists, indeed, are divided on abortion. However, there are several different things to look at: for starters, you have to look at the REASONS as to why these scientists are pro-life. Just because a scientist is pro-life doesn't necessarily mean that an embryo is a human. Another thing is that even if a pro-life scientist is arguing for the humanity of the embryo, such a thesis would need to be peer-reviewed and credited to be legitimate.
@GentlemanThunder7: And just because there are scientists who are pro-abortion doesn't mean that embryos are non-human. Fact is that before replying to my messages you didn't even know that human embryos have a human genetic makeup which separates them from non-human embryos, you didn't know that when women realize that they are pregnant the embryo's heart has already started to beat and pump blood. You really need to get your facts straight.
@Fantezism (4) You can go on and on about some of the mistakes I made in my understanding (and I acknowledge that I made those mistakes), but you still have no foundations to back up your arguments. You point at some of the things that I'm missing, but the fact is that you're not filling them to support your own argument. You go on about the essential characteristics of humans. I wasn't able to find a legitimate source, but neither were you. You say I don't have definitions, but neither do you.
@GentlemanThunder7 ..as usual you are off-topic, you are uninformed, you didnt know the first thing about embryos (that they have a human DNA structure and by the 21st day after fertilization their hearts begin to pump blood), if it werent for me you wouldnt have found out about these things. You are probably googling for something to uphold your assertions, talk about scholarity. Where would you be without Google ?
@Fantezism (2) The main thing that you haven't really protected was your definition of what is a human. You assert that a human is only defined by the DNA and that alone. In order to prove this claim, you need to provide credible empirical evidence that defines a human as such. You say I don't know anything about you, which is EXACYLY WHY you need empirical evidence with some kind of credibility. But no, you don't provide that. You just seem to like to repeat things.
@GentlemanThunder7: The genetic makeup is basically the only thing that separates a species from another. Everything developes in accordance with the DNA structure, all characteristics derive from your DNA. If the DNA is human, the organism is human. If the DNA says that your hair is blond, you hair is blond regardlss of whether or not it has yet to grow. The DNA is the main difference between species; there is no life without DNA (viruses are exceptions to this rule).
@Fantezism Then, of course, there's the statement by Ron Paul. Is it a scientifically credited claim that he's making. That's what really makes a scientific claim legitimate: if it had credits from the scientific community and was turned into a scientific research paper of some sort.
@Fantezism You're going to need to pull up a scholarly article by such a scientist that argues for the humanity of the embryo and has legitimacy in order for a scientist being pro-life to mean anything.
@GentlemanThunder7: Like I said, there are doctors and scientists who hold that embryos are human organisms. Ron Paul par example is pro-life and views himself as " an unshakable foe of abortion ". Ron Paul had been a physician for many decades before retiring. So, what are going to do now ? Let me guess, you're going to call into question Ron Paul's scholarity. Right ? And no, I'm not going to vote for Ron Paul or anyone else for that matter. I've never voted and never will.
@Fantezism Before I respond to anything, let me make something clear. I'm trying to run a respectful discussion. I have great respect for the pro-life argument, and though I'm fighting for my idealisms, I do my best to do so in a professional, educated, and respectful manner. Recently, though, you've been throwing insults at me: you're calling me a hypocrite; you're calling me a fanatic; you threw a "blah, blah, blah" at me, which I find very rude. You're showing heavy disrespect to me.
@GentlemanThunder7 I am not insulting you I am just pointing out the fact that you are being a hypocrite. You stated that you didnt know the essential characteristics of human organisms yet you insisted that my definition was wrong. That is hypocrisy. The fact that you are DESPERATELY attacking my scholarity instead of FOCUSING ON OUR MAIN TOPIC is wrong: we are not debating my scholarity, we are debating whether or not embryos are human organisms. And yes you do sound like a religious fanatic.
@Fantezism I'm willing to argue with anyone over beliefs. I can give you a consolidated thesis as to why I should win this debate in its entirety. Most of all, however, I respect your beliefs as well as the pro-life stance in general. I do not respect, however, someone calling me a hypocrite or a fanatic. If you're not going to show me any kind of respect through a discussion that's supposed to be professional in any way, I suggest you not even respond to me again.
@Fantezism (4, cont.) You say that the DNA is the only thing that matters when defining a species, but no kind of scholarly articles of any sort that upholds your idealism. You say my definitions are illegitimate, but no one with credentials explains the same thing. Your argument is empty, and your attacks are shots in the dark at best. What this says is that you have no way of proving beyond a shadow of a doubt that an embryo is a human.
@GentlemanThunder7 Oh spare me ! I did say that Ron Paul, who is an experienced physician is a fervent pro-life activist; his word counts more than yours. I assert that the existence of a human DNA structure indicates the existence of a human organism. If embryos arent human, why do they have human DNA structures ? Why would one have a human genetic makeup if they arent human ? I am very well informed on this matter, and I, unlike you, dont rely on Google when debating something, thx.
@Fantezism (1, cont.) In fact, the only time that you actually provided anything that had a background was the definition of embryo from the National Institutes of Health and maybe the position of Ron Paul. Everything else was just some kind of personal evaluation mixed and swirled with a pompous demeanor and direct attacks against me. Even if you DID point out any holes in my argument in any way, you failed to fill them back up with your own evidence to say the opposite and held an empty case.
@GentlemanThunder7 Speaking of scholarity, you are the one who was completely ignorant of the fact that by the 21st day after conception the embryo's heart has already begun to pump blood. What's more, you didn't know that embryos have a human genetic makeup and develop in accordance with their DNA. Seriously, you are not qualified to call into question other people's scholarity.
@Fantezism Again, more ad Hominem. Sure, you could prove that I'm a hypocrite, but that still doesn't erase the fact that you don't have empirical evidence.
@GentlemanThunder7: I did provide an empirical evidence but you ignored it. Any living organism with a human genetic makeup is a human organism; it may be undeveloped but it's human. The main characteristic of cherry trees is that they produce cherries; does this mean that a 3-day old cherry tree that has just come out of the ground is not a cherry tree because it has neither branches nor leaves, let alone the age necessary to produce cherry fruit ? No, it's just an UNDEVELOPED cherry tree.
@GentlemanThunder7 Dont get me wrong, I would far rather discuss about IDEAS than PEOPLE, but you keep attacking me and calling into question my scholarity. You are ALWAYS digressing from the subject of our debate. Do you even know who I am ? Why would you call into question my scholarity ? Ron Paul, who is a doctor, says that abortion is wrong. There ! Now, what are you going to do ? Question Ron Paul s scholarity ? Have you ever heard of the ”ad hominem” logical fallacy ? Google it.
@Fantezism Alright, if you want to play it that way. (1) I'm not desparately clinging to anything, as you so heavily try to make it seem like I am. There is a reason why I'm focusing so much on the background research and scholarity that your claims are based on, and it's because in order to make so many assertions and so many statements such as the ones that you are making, you're going to have to place some kind of educated medium behind it, and as usual, you fail to provide that at all.
@GentlemanThunder7: You are desperately trying to cast doubts on my scholarity in order to hide the fact that you don't know anything about the main issue of our debate. At the risk of repeating myself: my scholarity is not the issue here. The truthfulness of one's statement doesn't rely primarily on their scholarity. However, I did make mention of Ron Paul who has been a doctor (so his scholarity is more realiable than yours) and a fervent "foe of abortion". You just "forgot" about Ron Paul.
@GentlemanThunder7 Let us call a spade a spade. You are constantly digressing from our main discussion, you are constantly attacking my scholarity and you keep making reference to that medical dictionary just like a fanatic always makes reference to the Bible. The dictionary is actually implying that what Im saying is true, but you keep ignoring this and calling into question my scholarity as if it were the subject of our discussion.
@Fantezism (1, cont.) My medical dictionary defines it as something that can't be distinguished as do other medical dictionaries as well. You say that my definition is silent on whether or not this being is a human, but so is your own from the one of the National Institutes of Health. Your definition doesn't serve anything to you. It's just telling you what the time span of something considered to be an embryo is, which aids to my assertion of the time constrictions.
@GentlemanThunder7 : Your medical dictionary doesn't define it as a non-human entity. That is just your interpretation. If the embryo were indistinguishable then scientists wouldn't be able to tell which embryo is human (46 chromosomes) and which embryo is non-human. If embryos were indistinguishable then the embryo of a pig would be identical in every respect with the one of a human.
@Fantezism (1, cont.) So, in essence, there is no definition that specifies that this being is a human being. My definition goes against anything that you're saying, and trumps what you're saying because this is from CREDITED people of the field. At this point, like I said, there's no need for me even to give you those essential characteristics because the definition specifies that it's too early to be distinguished as anything. However, if you must need characteristics, I'll provide them.
@GentlemanThunder7: Fact is that YOU DON'T KNOW what the essential characteristics of human organisms are and you are hiding behind the my-medical-dictionary-says-I'm-right wall. You can't provide us with any of the essential properties a human organism has and you keep repeating the same assertions hoping that this way you will intimidate me. Please ! You dictionary doesn't say anything with respect to the nature of the embryo.
@Fantezism (2) I don't believe that the fact that it can't live outside the womb is irrelevant at all. One of the main pro-life arguments is that the organism in question is a separate entity, which implies personhood. Sure, it may have separate DNA and other factors, but the embryo is still completely depedent on the mother in the early stages. Therefore, it is still not a completely discrete entity. It's still part of the mother's body, which must be considered in the debate at hand.
This has been flagged as spam show
the videos are the BEST!! tnx 4 posting
cuteprettyme7 1 week ago
THE MUSIC TOUCHES MY HEART <3
outofthisworldism 1 week ago
FIRST 5 SECONDS ARE RIPOFF OF CAN YOU FEEL THE LOVE TONIGHT!!!!
prutalete 1 week ago
really informative and interesting
sprattysy 1 week ago
@slagbag2007 You speak as if a baby is an accident you catch like a virus. NO, a baby is the result of a CHOSEN behavior. There is only ONE guaranteed method to prevent unwanted babies & it should be taught & encouraged. Its called abstinence. Why should the innocent suffer just because some people can't or won't control their urges. Tell me are you the type that cringes when someone pours salt on a slug or pulls the wings off a fly? IF so why is a slug or fly more important than the unborn?
EquineDreams 3 weeks ago
@slagbag2007 The truth is the unborn are fully capable of feeling pain at 20 weeks (I had a preemie at 26 to 28 weeks & I KNOW he could feel pain) they respond to touch at 8 weeks, have fingerprints at 14 weeks, brainwaves at 9 weeks. The heart beats at 18 days & by 21 days is pumping blood through a closed circulatory system. Size has nothing to do with it. Even hamsters are protected by anti cruelty laws! That said there's no sin God cannot forgive. He's always there with His arms out waiting.
EquineDreams 3 weeks ago
@justme79088 not the right response to call her names. after all it was the nurse and doctors who give abortions that LIE to young woman about the truth and don't let them see reality till afterwards.
EquineDreams 3 weeks ago
Hear what God of Israel YAHUSHUA-YAHUWAH (Son and Father are ONE) saying to our generation by His chosen prophets: Trumpetcallofgodonline. com ; Letter called "Purify Your Faith, and Come to the Father as It is Written": EXCERPT: "Only in the Bible and through these very Letters, of which I have given to My prophet of the end of this age, shall you find Him and know Him."
Watch:
"youtube.com/watch?v=INH-lNUQQZg"
"youtube.com/watch?v=lutJYDxP6ys"
"youtube.com/watch?v=R9ike7PKd8U"
Regards.
TrumpetCallofGodLT 1 month ago
God is great
Almahdi87 1 month ago 2
Aww I like the music can anyone here tell me what the name for it?! thanks!
SbinZAlrash 1 month ago
@SbinZAlrash
Sometimes it rains, Secret Garden
laura86719 1 month ago
WOW, what ever happened to people just giving because its the right thing to do? It should have never got that far, The world is not getting any better, If you think it is, THINK AGAIN!! was it really worth it to deny FOOD TO THE CHILDREN!!!??
nattersgirl 1 month ago
That was a beautiful video.
missy1975100 2 months ago
i am using this video for a paper can anyone tell me the name of the person who made this video and when it was mde?
spicysweetgurl 2 months ago
@spicysweetgurl Well, it was uploaded by "Starlitshores" on September 27, 2007. Are those details adequate?
mechadoggy 1 month ago
The miracle of life. :)
This is the reason why I'm going to school to be an RN. I want to help in labor and delivery. Working with the miracle of life would be the most coolest job in the world.
JaclynsMommy 3 months ago
chuck norris has never been a fetus
asherleez 4 months ago
This Video makes me hungry
BURMTIC 4 months ago
it remind me of my friend andrew kosari in hk!!!! it jus his a fetus wit a mustache!!! his on facebook go search him up or add him since he has no friends!!!!
hellraiderz 4 months ago
Why is my life so boring. HOW COULD I RESORT TO TYPING IN FETUS IN MY SEARCHBAR??? HELP!
8141shadow 4 months ago
@8141shadow bcoz ur pervert
kamalreddy88 3 months ago
i dont know how i ended up searching for this lol
gazer786 5 months ago
Why,oh WHY, did I search fetus?!
P.S:I posted this on my birthday.
SupaMarioGalaxy64 6 months ago
@SupaMarioGalaxy64
why did I also look this up on my birthday?
1nsaneHeadshotZ 3 months ago
The very Creation of Life is Beautiful. Proof that god and Science Can Co-Exist with one another. It's Arrogant to Believe that god himself is Everything, Just as is the Ignorance that all is Derived of nothing.
DemiGod251 6 months ago
33 people are monkey
protogenix 6 months ago
@protogenix
Yeah
You mean they are atheist ?
Unfortunateliest 6 months ago
@Unfortunateliest hahaha... perhaps? tell me, who dislike the video that shows how he created?
protogenix 6 months ago
@protogenix
LOL
The one who wants to die xD
I said atheist because they think we and the apes are relatives
God created us and created the apes
Unfortunateliest 5 months ago
@Unfortunateliest
What do you mean by that? We are related to apes. Very closely.
mattloque 2 months ago
One last thing, regarding my cherry tree analogy, what are the main properties of cherry trees ? The fact that they produce cherry fruit and cherry blossoms. Does this mean a small cherry tree that has only recenly come out from the ground is not a cherry tree ? It doesn't have branches or leaves, let alone fruit and flowers but it is a cherry tree. By your logic, if a cherry tree isn't old enough to produce cherry fruit, it isn't a cherry tree.
Fantezism 8 months ago
Some of the coments belongs to pro-estupid choice....THIS IS LIFE!!!!!!! abortion is a crime!!!
1863X 8 months ago
This video makes me horny... oops i meant to say hungry.
pervertedpenguin69 8 months ago
I don't really understand why we're talking about religion. I might be mistaken but as I see it most abortionists are aggressive, uneducated, ill-mannered and insufferable antireligious individuals who will reject EVERYTHING decent, moral and constructive. If there's anything immoral or harmful, these individuals will support it just for the sake of their antireligious misconceptions. It's always about them, it's always about their ego. Abortionists are as deranged as religious fanatics. Period.
Fantezism 8 months ago
@Fantezism That's a poor generalization considering that I myself have met pro-lifers that are the exact same thing that you described. I'm pro-choice, and although I don't consider myself to be a genius or anything, I'm sure not stupid, and I show the people I argue with as much respect as possible. I think it's all in the way that you present yourself and nothing more than just that.
GentlemanThunder7 8 months ago
@GentlemanThunder7: I didn't generalize, I said that MOST abortionists are aggressive and ill-mannered. Pro-lifers are very easy to annoy because most abortionists are too self-absorbed and like to think that EVERYTHING is just a matter of choice. Last time I checked, babies-be they born or still in their gestation period, were humans, not choices. We shouldn't even be arguing about this matter. Essentialy, abortion is the destruction of a human being. Say what you may, you won't change that
Fantezism 8 months ago
@Fantezism Even if that is what you meant, that's the same way I feel about many pro-lifers I've met. I'm sure that there are pro-lifers who are kind, calm, and respectful, but all I've gotten so far is "devil worshipper," "idiot," "monster." The same thing that these many pro-choicers all you. Why exactly are these beings human?
GentlemanThunder7 8 months ago
@GentlemanThunder7 The difference between these two camps of fundamentalists is that the pro-life one is at least fighting for the right cause. Why are the fetuses human beings you ask? Because they are living organisms, because they have a unique human DNA. The question you should ask is why wouldn't they be human beings ? If they aren't human what are they ? It's amazing the length you people go to justify your decadence. Abortion is a wicked thing and you know it.
Fantezism 8 months ago
@Fantezism Or so your opinion holds. The pro-choice side can easily support the pro-life side. If you don't believe that abortion is right, don't have one. We shouldn't, however, deny that right to anyone else just because you don't like it. After all, we must consider the woman's rights as well (which are actually more established than the ones of the fetus). The question comes down to what is a human being. Something should have all of the characteristics of an object to be classified as such.
GentlemanThunder7 8 months ago
@GentlemanThunder7 The rights of the fetus (who is a human person, just because he's undersized doesn't make him any less human) count as well. Why does it always have to be about the mother ? Why does it always have to be about what she wants ? Aren't we being a bit self-absorbed in this matter ?
Fantezism 8 months ago
@Fantezism It's not about self-absorbsion. It's about what's established and what isn't. The rights of the fetus are not established by our government, as far as I know. It's the other way around when it comes to the importance of women's rights. The United States Supreme Court ruled that abortion was within the woman's right to privacy in "Roe v. Wade" (1973). It's an established Supreme Court case that still exists to this day. That's for one thing.
GentlemanThunder7 8 months ago
@GentlemanThunder7: I don't care about what the law has to say in this regard. It's irrelevant to our discussion. It's not for politicians and lawmakers to decide whether or not the unborn are human. The political approach to this problem is not the right one so don't expect me to acquiesce to what the law says; I don't care about the law, what I do care about is justice.
Fantezism 8 months ago
@GentlemanThunder7 You should know that the woman involved in this case no longer agrees with it has written a book about it and feels that she was used. She never DID have the abortion!
EquineDreams 3 weeks ago 2
@Fantezism I would say that the discussion as to a fetus or embreyo being is not irrelevant. One of the main arguments of the pro-life side is that abortion is the termination of a human being, and human beings deserve rights. If the pro-choice end proves that this being is not a human or completely human, it knocks down the main marketing chip that the pro-life side has in argumentation. Just the opposite would be for the pro-life side. So, as far as rights is concerned, humanity is relevant.
GentlemanThunder7 8 months ago
@GentlemanThunder7 An organism can't be more or less human than another; either the organism is human or it isn't. If fetuses aren't human, why do they have unique human DNA structures ? Scientifically speaking, the DNA structure is the element that separates humans from non-human beings.
Fantezism 8 months ago
@Fantezism A few parameters: We, I assume, are talking about abortions from a United States context, and abortions occur only the first trimester. So, we have to look at embreyos, mainly. Also, the definition of an embreyo according to the Collins Dictionary of Medicine: "an organism in its earliest stages of development, especially before it has reached a stage at which it can be distinguished from the other species..."
GentlemanThunder7 8 months ago
@GentlemanThunder7 I am talking about abortions from a HUMANE perspective. Your nationality is irrelevant to our discussion because abortions are essentially the same regardless of where they occur. The Collins Dictionary of Medicine isn't up do date because, as I have stated before, the embryo has a unique human DNA structure that distinguishes it from other species. Therefore the embryo does have human characteristics right from day one.
Fantezism 8 months ago
@Fantezism (1) The Collins Dictionary of Medicine (fourth edition) was published in 2005. How do you prove that this dictionary isn't up-to-date? Also, other dictionaries say the exact same thing, including, but not limited to: The American Heritage Science Dictionary. (2) When an organism has more human characteristics than another, why shouldn't we consider something more human than another? (3) One human-like characteristic an entire human being does not make.
GentlemanThunder7 8 months ago
@GentlemanThunder7 1) It means those dictionaries are lousy and ignore factual realities. They're most likely subservient to some political ideology and are carrying out its agenda. 2) An organism can be more DEVELOPED than another but its humanity doesn't depend on its current stage of development 3) the DNA is the ESSENTIAL characteristic of human organisms; according to your logic the mother can kill her newborn baby if she wants to because she has more human characteristics than him.
Fantezism 8 months ago
Comment removed
GentlemanThunder7 8 months ago
@GentlemanThunder7: I'm not drawing any personal conclusion because I'm always basing my statements of factual realities. You have yet to explain what a human being is, you haven't listed its essential characteristics. All you've been doing is to insist on the idea that the unborn are non-human beings or somewhat less human than their mothers but you have yet to explain why.
Fantezism 8 months ago
@Fantezism Oh, sorry. I meant to finish that response, but I got caught up in something. (1) Let me explain something: what you're doing here is saying that an embreyo is a human because it contains human DNA. You don't have any official definitions other than the one by the National Institute of Health, which doesn't specify that the embreyo is a human either, yet you are still calling it a human. I gave you a real medical definition, but you discredit it with no evidence of your own.
GentlemanThunder7 8 months ago
@GentlemanThunder7: Your medical definition doesn't contest the humanity of the fetus. If you equate development with humanity I guess older people are "better" humans than I am because I am still young and don't have as many characteristics as they do. By your logic, a 25-year old is more human than a 5-year old because the latter is uncapable to reproduce since he hasn't reached sexual maturity. Please show me a definition which states that the embryo is a non-human organism.
Fantezism 8 months ago
@Fantezism (1, cont.) So, essentially, what you're saying here, in conclusion, is that the embreyo is a human because it contains human DNA even when there's no scholarly article or definition of any sort to uphold your statement that it is human because of this, and you're basing this off from factual realities. Then, when I give you a credible definition, you reject it as not having credibility when there's also no scholars or anything saying that Collins is unreliable.
GentlemanThunder7 8 months ago
@GentlemanThunder7 Your definition is silent on the matter of whether or not the embryo is human. It neither confirms nor infirms that the embryo is human. Can you please list the ESSENTIAL characteristics of human organisms ?
Fantezism 8 months ago
@Fantezism (1, cont.) With that said, this is all at a personal level as far as your argument is concerned. (2) With the comparison of my definitions to yours and the time restraints that are allowed for abortions in the country, there's no point even to give you essential characteristics of humans because my definition specify that embreyos are not persons. I was able to uphold my definition, and I stand by it. However, for the sake of the argument, I'll give characteristics anyway.
GentlemanThunder7 8 months ago
@GentlemanThunder7 You didn't uphold your definitions, you just repeated them. You have yet to explain WHY you are so convinced embryos are non-human organisms.
Fantezism 8 months ago
@Fantezism (3) In the time constraints of abortions, we are only allowed to do abortions in the first trimester. For pretty much the first 10 weeks (71% of the first trimester), the organism in question doesn't even have a heartbeat. During the first trimester, we can't even determine what the organism's gender is. The vital organs of the organism are developing, but are not fully developed either. In fact, it can't even live outside the womb.
GentlemanThunder7 8 months ago
@GentlemanThunder7: At the risk of repeating myself, GET YOUR FACTS STRAIGHT; the heart begins to beat approximately 18 days from conception and by 25 days it begins to pump blood, THAT'S RIGHT, that organism HAS BLOOD FLOWING through it. At 6 weeks from conception the baby's brainwaves can be detected. Its gender is encoded IN ITS GENETIC CODE, theoretically you can find out its gender but you risk killing it. The fact that it can't survive outside the mother's womb is IRRELEVANT to our debate.
Fantezism 8 months ago
@GentlemanThunder7 According to the National Institutes of Health, the embryo is a developing organism from the time of fertilization. Is this organism human ? Either it is or it isn't. It can be more or less developed but it's wrong to equate development with humanity. A 20-year old tree is much more developed than another whose trunk hasn't even come out of the ground, but nobody would assume that the latter is less of a tree than the former. Either it is a tree or it isn't.
Fantezism 8 months ago
@GentlemanThunder7 And another thing, induced abortions occur when the fetus is approximately 9 weeks old. At this point, the fetus has already grown legs, arms, fingers, toes, etc ; so it has more than one human characteristic. However the fact that it has 46 chromosomes is more than enough to label it as human. One cannot have human arms and legs without a human DNA structure, but one can have a human DNA structure without human arms and legs. So the other characteristics are secondary
Fantezism 8 months ago
@Fantezism (3, cont.) To add to that, embryos don't even have a complex consciousness distinct to human beings. This is a consciousness that an unborn acquires only after the first trimester. I'm sure there are other characteristics they are missing, but in conclusion, it doesn't have everything that distinguishes a human being. (4) You also add that anything beyond DNA is insignificant. Why? Who says that?
GentlemanThunder7 8 months ago
@GentlemanThunder7: By your logic we should conclude that people who fall into a coma lose their humanity since they are totally unconscious while in that state. Please ! What is a cherry tree ? A tree that produces cherries. Can a 2-month old cherry tree produce cherries ? No, it can't. Does this mean that the 2-month old cherry tree is less of a cherry tree than the 10-year old one that I have in my back yard ? Of course not, its genetic makeup clearly qualifies it as a cherry tree.
Fantezism 8 months ago
@Fantezism (1) There you are doing it again. You're placing your own personal definitions of what an embryo is to you over a definition carved by men and women who function in the field of biology directly, which is completely faulty considering that you (as far as I know) are not a scientist in any way, shape or form, let alone someone with credits to make assertions as to what an embryo is. I,on the other hand, have made assertions based on the information of people on that credited field.
GentlemanThunder7 8 months ago
@GentlemanThunder7 Blah blah blah, your definition IS SILENT on the matter of whether or not the embryo is considered to be human. Spare me of your "argumentum ad verecundiam" . Scinetists say this, scientists say that...well there are OTHER scientists who affirm the opposite. So there, science is divided into abortionists and anti-abortionists.
Fantezism 8 months ago
@Fantezism (1) I'll give you the definition again: "An organism in the earliest stages of development, especially before it has reached a stage WHICH IT CAN BE DISTINGUISHED FROM ANOTHER SPECIES." An embryo, according to the definition at hand, is not distinguished to be part of any species, including the human species. This was from the Collins Dictionary of Medicine, a credited medical dictionary. That alone places the embryo at a state of neutrality.
GentlemanThunder7 8 months ago
@GentlemanThunder7: Human embryos CAN be distinguished from other non-human ones. At the risk of repeating myself, human embryos have 46 chromosomes and a unique human DNA structure. So the Collins Dictionary of Medicine is actually implying that embryos are human organisms.
Fantezism 8 months ago
@Fantezism (1) You misread my definition. Well, I don't think I made it any simpler with the all-caps, and I apologize for that, but nonetheless, you misread the definition. The definition from Collins Dictionary of Medicine states that the embryo is at a stage BEFORE it can be distinguished as any part of any species. This does not imply that human embryos can be distinguished from another species because the definition of embryo was a general one. Define it from those standards.
GentlemanThunder7 7 months ago
@GentlemanThunder7: This means that the definition you have provided is irrelevant to our debate. Like I said, the authors most likely decided to remain silent on the matter of whether or not embryos are human. Why don't you open ANOTHER dictionary and provide another more detailed definition for embryos ?
Fantezism 7 months ago
@Fantezism (1) I fail to see how my definition is in any way irrelevant to the debate at hand. Could you please elaborate on that please? (2) The American Heritage Dictionary defines embryo in a similar way: "An organism in its early stages of development, especially before it has reached a distinctively recognizable form." As far as the definition level is concerned, I should take precendence over that realm of the argument because you have provided no definitions that would argue otherwise.
GentlemanThunder7 7 months ago
@GentlemanThunder7: You should read the definition more attentively: To paraphrase this definition ” an embryo is a developing organism whose EXTERNAL ASPECT is unrecognizable”. That is true, however the nature of an organism is not established by its ASPECT. In terms of genetic makeup, embryos are distinguishable from one another. As usual, you are missing the point.
Fantezism 7 months ago
@Fantezism (2) You also emphasize a lot about the 46 chromosomes being unique only to humans. From what I found out, humans are NOT the only species with 46 chromosomes. Species with 46 chromosomes include (but are not limited to): Homo sapiens, Aplondontie rufa, Microtis arvalis, Equus grevyi, and Callicebus cupreus. This further implies that the embryo is behind a stage where it can be distinguished as a part of any species, not that you could check it anyway without killing it.
GentlemanThunder7 7 months ago
@GentlemanThunder7: As usual, you don't pay attention to what I'm saying; I ALSO emphasized that those 46 chromosomes are part of a HUMAN DNA STRUCTURE. Other animals do have the same number of chromosomes humans do but the STRUCTURE of these chromosomes is different. Both my chair and table are made of wood; but this doesn't allow you to classify the chair as being a table. The STRUCTURE of these two objects is different. You really need to brush up your knowledge of biology.
Fantezism 7 months ago
@Fantezism (1, cont.) You say that I have provided no definition that the organism in question is not a human, but you have no definitions of your own, let alone any legitimate research, that argues otherwise about the humanity of the embryo. Instead, you have a definition that just explains the time constraints of when an organism is an embryo, which only aids to my argument because it's talking about the time constraints of current abortions in the United States. So this is what we have:
GentlemanThunder7 7 months ago
@GentlemanThunder7 ..you are such a liar. How dare you say that I havent provided a definition for what human organisms are? I did say that biologically speaking human organisms have a human genetic makeup. Any living organism with a human genetic makeup should be considered to be a human person regardless of its stage of development. That is what I said. How many times must I repeat it ?
Fantezism 7 months ago
@Fantezism (3) By vulnerable, are you talking about the fact that it can't live outside the mother's womb? That wasn't an attack on the embryo's humanity. That was an attack on the embryo's autonomy. During the first trimester, the embryo is still a part of the mother. It can't live without the mother. Because the embryo is still a part of the mother, the mother's body and the rights thereof also play into the question in this discussion.
GentlemanThunder7 7 months ago
@GentlemanThunder7: What does the vulnerability of the embryo have to do with our debate? In theory the embryo can survive and develop in an artificial environment. But that's not the issue. The embryo is NEVER a part of the mother because its DNA is different from the mother's. The embryo is a smaller undeveloped human body living and developing inside a bigger, older and more developed one. Does your medical dictionary assert that embryos are parts of their mothers' bodies ?
Fantezism 7 months ago
@Fantezism (1, cont.) We have my credible definition(s) of what is considered to be an embryo, and they assert that it is at a stage where it cannot be distinguished to be any species. You have provided no definitions of your own to say otherwise, and you never really knocked down the legitimacy of my sources. Thus, my definitions still stand as far as the debate is concerned. (2) Again, as I explained before, the autonomy of the embryo is relevant.
GentlemanThunder7 7 months ago
@GentlemanThunder7 You are starting to sound like a car whose alarm wont go off. At the risk of repeating myself, you definitions are SILENT on the matter of whether or not embryos are human organisms. However, the first one that you provided does imply that I am right because it states that organisms are distinguishable from one another, since embryos are distinguishable from one another by their GENETIC MAKEUP it means embryos are human organisms.
Fantezism 7 months ago
@Fantezism (4) As for the attack on your scholarity, of course the scholarity plays into question. You're making these suggestions regarding to a field of biology...of science. At that point, you're going to need some kind of backing for those arguments because they're something of a field of scholarity, as I have with the Collins Dictionary of Medicine.
GentlemanThunder7 7 months ago
@GentlemanThunder7: If anyone here needs backing it's you. You were wrong on many accounts; you didn't know that by the 21st day after fertilization the embryo's heart begins to pump blood, you didn't know that embryos have a human genetic makeup, you didn't know that human embryos are distinguishable from non-human ones in terms of their genetic makeup. You are desperately clinging to your dictionary because you are unable to defend your position on your own.
Fantezism 7 months ago
@Fantezism (2, cont.) The embryo in the first trimester is completely dependent on the mother. So dependent, in fact, that it cannot live outside the womb in the first trimester. The main fact is that it can't even live separately, so it shouldn't be regarded as a separate entity. At that point, we have to consider what the mother wants because it IS in her body, using her body. Aside the question of autonomy would be another question: what right do we have to force someone to be a mother?
GentlemanThunder7 7 months ago
@GentlemanThunder7 To depend on a thing doesnt mean to be a part of that thing. The fact that embryos cant like outside the wombs of their mothers is irrelevant to our debate. Theoretically speaking, embryos could live and develop in an artificial environment. My flowers cant live if they arent watered, does this mean that my flowers are water ?
Fantezism 7 months ago
@Fantezism (3) Then back to my definition, which you consistantly try to tackle on, you try to attack its legitimacy when you don't have any definitions of your own in order to knock down anything that this definition says nor any credited statements that disproove the Collins Dictionary of Medicine. All you have is a definition from the NIH, which just suppliments my definition. Then, alongside that, you're trying to make the embryo seem dinstinguishable.
GentlemanThunder7 7 months ago
@GentlemanThunder7: Say what you may, the fact that you didn't know that by the 21st day after fertilization the embryonic heart has already begun to pump blood is proof that this debate is beyond you. You do have the dictionary, too bad you don't have enough patience to understand its content.
Fantezism 7 months ago
@Fantezism And say what YOU may, the fact that you have nothing to back you up and keep trying to change the focus on the fact that you have no evidence to your rampant claims that embryos are humans means you were never qualified for any kind of debate for abortion either. I may have gotten thing here or there wrong, but your entire argument is on a premise that entirely empty. It's too bad you don't have enough patience to look up any evidence before you open that pompous mouth of yours.
GentlemanThunder7 7 months ago
@GentlemanThunder7: Again, you're talking about my scholarity as if it were the main issue of our debate. When I say that this debate is beyond you I'm being 100% sincere; I didn't attack your intelligence, I've never said anything bad about you, all I did was to point out that you had replied to my messages without knowing the first thing about what embryos are. And I was right; you were ignorant of the fact that by the 21st day after conception the embryo has blood running through it.
Fantezism 7 months ago
@Fantezism (1) So because I get one thing wrong, that means that this debate is not applicable to me? I know quite well about the stages of the unborn. I know all about the separate DNA and the fact that it cannot live outside of the womb and what stages the unborn is considered to be embryo and a fetus and other elements, and because I make one mistake, that automatically disqualifies me from any kind of discussion? All you had to say was that I got something wrong and I would rephrase it.
GentlemanThunder7 7 months ago
@GentlemanThunder7: If you make one mistake like this it means you are totally ignorant of what we are debating; you googled your other pieces of information after I had posted my replies. Before starting this debate you were totally ignorant of the features fetuses develop during their first trimester. Furthermore, you are always attacking me by questioning my scholarity as if I were the one relying on google to gather my information. I'm sorry but you are being a hypocrite now.
Fantezism 7 months ago
@Fantezism (1, cont.) However, to have you say that because I got one thing wrong, that means that this debate is in any way beyond me to quite frankly deeply insulting. It's implicitly saying that I have no knowledge of any sort to even have a say in my beliefs. It doesn't mean you win any kind of debate. It means that you're just displaying a pompous attitude to your opponent. I know when I argue about abortion or anything else and an opponent gets something wrong, I'll politely correc thtme.
GentlemanThunder7 7 months ago
@GentlemanThunder7 If you make one mistake like this it means you are totally ignorant of what we are debating; you googled your other pieces of information after I had posted my replies. Before starting this debate you were totally ignorant of the features that fetuses develop during their first trimester. Furthermore, you are always attacking me by questioning my scholarity as if I were the one relying on google to gather my information. I'm sorry but you are being a hypocrite now.
Fantezism 7 months ago
@Fantezism (1, cont.) But you, when you correct me on anything, you just make some kind of smart-ass twist to it: "As usual, you're wrong..." "Looks like you're too ignorant to do blah blah blah." I've been arguing on YouTube for about two years now, and I've handled a lot of abuse from idiots who think that they know everything when they don't even have the slightest clue about what they're talking about. However, what I won't put up with is people giving me a pompous demeanor.
GentlemanThunder7 7 months ago
@GentlemanThunder7: I don't care about what you've been doing in the past years because THAT IS NOT THE ISSUE OF OUR DEBATE. If anyone's giving pompous demeanors it's you 'cause you a) replied to my messages without knowing the first thing about fetuses b) questioned my scholarity instead of focusing on my IDEAS c) committed many logical fallacies like " if X is inside of Y it means X is a part of Y" and " if X depends on Y it means X is a part of Y". Need I say more ?
Fantezism 7 months ago
@Fantezism (1, cont.) And don't tell me you haven't been doing that, because if you look back at the comments you've made and how you wrote them, you'll see what I'm talking about. (2) Then, there we go on about the credibility of your empirical evidence. What you keep emphasizing is that DNA is the only thing that brings about classification into a species, when just the opposite is true. There are more components to classifying something as part of a species, including morphology and niche.
GentlemanThunder7 7 months ago
@GentlemanThunder7: Niche is irrelevant to our discussion and morphology is determined by DNA. Besides, they change throughout one's life so you can't formulate a definitive definition on the strength of something that is constantly changing. What is water ? Any substance with the chemical formula H2O. It could be solid, it could be fluid, it could be invisible..that is secondary. The essence of water is its chemical composition, just as the essence of organisms is their genetic makeup.
Fantezism 7 months ago
@GentlemanThunder7 sigh- DNA determines morphology silly & niche has nothing to do with it except when human beings arbitrarily decide it does. For instance a dog & wolf are both in the dog family - they interbreed & produce fertile offspring. I use to play with a 1/2 wolf who was a pet. There was little difference between her & her wild brethren or her buddys the malamute & G. Shepeherd They were all dogs no matter WHAT niche they occupied.
EquineDreams 3 weeks ago 2
@GentlemanThunder7 ..cont- The Pygmies (not sure if thats a PC designation anymore or not if not please tel me what is?) occupy a different niche than Asians or Europeans and the original Aborigines of Australia do also.Eskimos occupy another niche. But they are all equally human.
EquineDreams 3 weeks ago 2
@Fantezism (2, cont.) To emphasize on this, let me bring up the example with the two flies again. They have the exact same morphology and DNA structure, but they belong to a different niche. That alone opens up the question to the speciation of those two flies even when their DNA and morphology are exactly the same thing. How is this example relevant to this debate?
GentlemanThunder7 7 months ago
@GentlemanThunder7: You're not listening to me. Those flies ARE RELATED. Those flies ARE BOTH FLIES, they belong to the same category of animals. Is there any non-human organism with a perfectly human genetic makeup ? Is there any insect that has the DNA of a pig ? Is there any pig that has the DNA of a snake ?
Fantezism 7 months ago
@Fantezism (2, cont.) Well, when even the scientific community can't agree on what species apple and hawthorne flies should belong to over something as simple niche even with the same DNA and morphology, then how can you say that embryos are human simply because they have the same human DNA when there's so much more to consider? You say that the morphology is determined by the DNA, and that's true, but the point is that the embryo doesn't have it.
GentlemanThunder7 7 months ago
@GentlemanThunder7: The point is that you're missing the point. One doesn't need a certain morphology to qualify as human. Morphology is secondary and constantly changing, it's a PHENOMENON of the quality of being human. Again, a 2-day old cherry tree doesn't have a distinct morphology yet it is considered to be a cherry tree regardless of the fact that it has yet to grow branches and leaves. The fact that it's developing in accordance with its genetic makeup qualifies it as a cherry tree.
Fantezism 7 months ago
@Fantezism (2, cont.) Well, there's certainly the question as to some of the other species that have a similar problem, which would only emphasize what I'm saying, but it also brings us back to my definition, which states that an embryo can't be distinguished from the other species. The example with the flies is a parallel to this because it shows that there's much more to speciation than just DNA, which only emphasizes my definition in addition to the fact that it's been credited.
GentlemanThunder7 7 months ago
@GentlemanThunder7: Your example with the flies is irrelevant to our debate. Their DNA is still INSECTIVAL. Your example would be relevant to our debate if one of those flies had the morpohlogy of a snake but the DNA of an insect. I'm not denying that embryos are different from already born humans, but they are human nevertheless.
Fantezism 7 months ago
@Fantezism (2, cont.) Then, there's the point at where you're trying to point out holes, and even when they exist, you don't fill them up with your evidence to counter mine. You try to discredit my definition, but you have no credited definitions of your own that counter my definition and neither do you have any reports or such that discredits the Collins Dictionary of Medicine. You're also claiming that DNA is the only thing that matters in speciation, but there's what I explained before.
GentlemanThunder7 7 months ago
@GentlemanThunder7: I said DNA is the only thing that matters IN TERMS OF DETERMINING THE SPECIES TO WHICH AN ORGANISM PERTAINS. I don't need to discredit you, it's enough to read your messages to see how much a sciolist you are.You keep talking about that dictionary when in reality its content is irrelevant to our discussion. You never actually think before posting, you assert that if X is inside Y it means that X is a part of Y. By your logic if I swallow my keys they become a part of my body
Fantezism 7 months ago
@Fantezism (2, cont.) But then, there's also the burden of evidence to uphold that statement. What says that embryos are human? Is there a credited scientific report that substantiates your claim? So far, you haven't provided anything. At that point, why should we still consider what you're talking about?
GentlemanThunder7 7 months ago
@GentlemanThunder7: I did mention Ron Paul, a doctor who is a foe of abortion. For some reason you forgot about him. Also, there are other doctors & geneticists who consider embryos to be human. Most of your messages are questioning my scholarity (which is off-topic) and the rest are echoing the same things that are either irrelevant to our discussion or factually wrong. By your logic, infants are sexless, trees aren't trees if they don't have fruit and if X is inside of Y it means X is Y.
Fantezism 7 months ago
@Fantezism I make a claim, and you try to say that I don't understand anything and this debate is too "complicated" for me anyway. Do you know what that's called? That's called ad Hominem. Instead of arguing my claim, you make fun of me.
GentlemanThunder7 7 months ago
Comment removed
Fantezism 7 months ago
@GentlemanThunder7 me thinks your dictionary is out of date or you are leaving something out. I think it must mean VISUALLY distinguishable because the human is distinguishable from other species from the start to any neonatalogist or embryologist and it becomes visually distinguishable to an expert very early.
EquineDreams 3 weeks ago 2
@Fantezism (1, cont.) You haven't given me any kind of scholarly statements or anything that discredits the Collins Dictionary of Medicine as well as the other medical dictionaries that specify that the embryo is a being at a stage where it can't be distinguished into any species. Your definition from the National Institutes of Health doesn't say anything else on the matter either, so thus, my definition still stands. Your definition is just an extension of my own.
GentlemanThunder7 8 months ago
Comment removed
Fantezism 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@GentlemanThunder7 For the last time, YOUR DEFINITION IS SILENT ON THE MATTER WE ARE DEBATING. What don't you understand ? Your definition does neither affirm nor infirm anything relevant to our discussion, the author(s) of that dictionary probably thought that it would be best if they steered clear of formulating controversial definitions. And please, don't digress from our main discussion; the scholarity of my statements is not the issue here.
Fantezism 8 months ago
@Fantezism (2) Also, with regard to telling if an embryo has 46 chromosomes, weren't you the one who said that doing something like that to an embryo at that stage of life would endanger the embryo based on what you said about the XX and XY chromosomes? Just a thought. (3) As to the essential characteristics of humans, I already said before that there is a credited medical dictionary among others that already species that embryos are neutral with regard to distinguishing what species they are.
GentlemanThunder7 8 months ago
@GentlemanThunder7: And what does the extremely vulnerable condition of the embryo have to do with our debate? Are you saying that they aren't human because they are very easy to kill ? The definition you provided is actually implying that embryos are human organisms since they are distinguishable from non-human ones. Embryos have either a human or non-human DNA structure, don't they ? So embryos aren't all the same.
Fantezism 8 months ago
@Fantezism (3, cont.) You're saying that I've just been hiding behind this definition, but the fact is that you haven't been able to knock it down. You haven't been able to give me any kind of scholarly statement or such that discredits the entirety of the Collins Dictionary of Medicine. You pull up these analogies and this reasoning, but as far as I know, you're not a doctor. You're not a credited member of a scientific community. You're not anything that is considered to be legitimate.
GentlemanThunder7 8 months ago
@GentlemanThunder7 Actually, your initial definition was silent on the matter we are debating. Now that you've provided a more detailed definition, I see that your precious dictionary implies that embryos are human organism. Your dictionary states that organisms are distinguishable from one another. Embryos are not all the same; for instance, human and non-human embryos differ with respect to their genetic makeup. So they are distinguishable from one another.
Fantezism 8 months ago
@Fantezism (3, cont.) You say that I'm just using personal interpretations, but even if I were (which I'm not), you'd be knocking yourself down as well because that's what you've been doing since square 1. As for the essential characteristics of what constitutes a human, you're right. I haven't been able to find a legitimate list as to what constitutes a human. If you could provide that where I have failed, that would be very kind.
GentlemanThunder7 8 months ago
Comment removed
Fantezism 8 months ago
@GentlemanThunder7 Aha, so now you're attacking me by saying that I'm knocking myself down. Yeah, right. All you've been doing is to attack me and call into question my scholarity as if that were the issue of our discussion. I did provide a definition for human organisms: generally speaking, organisms are entities that are biologically functional, can sustain life, have a genetic makeup and are in a permanent exchange of substances with the external environment. Right ?
Fantezism 8 months ago
@GentlemanThunder7: Do you disagree with me when I say that organisms are biologically functional, can sustain life, have a genetic makeup and are in a permanent exchange of substances with the external environment ?
Fantezism 8 months ago
@Fantezism Was that an official definition of what organisms are? If so, then, yes, I agree.
GentlemanThunder7 7 months ago
@GentlemanThunder7: So you admit that you DON'T KNOW what the definition for organisms is. Isn't it a bit hypocritical of you to talk about biology and ethics when you don't know the first thing about these matters? And spare me the my-dictionary-says-this argument. You sound as if you were one of those fanatics who can't do anything without quoting the Bible. Your dictionary is actually implying that embryos are human organisms since they are distinguishable from other non-human embryos.
Fantezism 7 months ago
@Fantezism (3) You also seem to misunderstand the mechanism of a definition. My definition couldn't imply anything about it being a human organism because if an embryo is dinstinguishable to one species, then, under the definition, it wouldn't be an embryo at all. I've already told you about the 46 chromosomes, and yes, I did see what it said about a particular human DNA sequence. I'm thinking you're talking about Cytochrome C?
GentlemanThunder7 7 months ago
@GentlemanThunder7: ...it is ridiculous how you are talking about ” the mechanism of a definition” and chromosomes and all that when in reality you didnt even know that by the 21st day after conception the embryonic heart has already begun to pump blood. You are just googling your information. Talk about scholarity. The embryo has a HUMAN DNA STRUCTURE, a human genetic makeup and it is distinguishable from other non-human embryos. Therefore, it is human. Period.
Fantezism 7 months ago
@Fantezism (2, cont.) "THE DNA PROVES IT'S HUMAN. THE DNA PROVES IT'S HUMAN." Again, we don't know anything about you. Do you have a doctorate in biology? Is this part of scientific research that is credited and legitimized by the scientific community? We don't know anything about where the definition came from, which is why its credibility is so shaky. At this point, we should consider my definition over your own because we know where my definition came from and we know mine has been credited.
GentlemanThunder7 7 months ago
@GentlemanThunder7: Must I be a mathmatician for you to believe me when I say that 2 plus 2 is 4 ? The DNA structure is basically the thing that separates an organism from another. Can you show me two species with the exact same type of DNA ?
Fantezism 7 months ago
@Fantezism Sure, I can actually do that. Hawthorn and apple flies, which have the same morphology, same DNA, but different niche
GentlemanThunder7 7 months ago
@GentlemanThunder7: Excuse me...but if I am not mistaken those two species are RELATED to each other and if I remember correctly they are both INSECTS so the fact that they have an almost identical DNA is irrelevant to our debate. Can you show me a non-human organism with a perfectly human genetic makeup? If DNA doesn't contain the essential biological features, how come when cloning another human organism you take only the DNA structure and nothing else ? Like I said, this debate is beyond you
Fantezism 7 months ago
@GentlemanThunder7: How about this: newborns are considered to be either males or females. The medical term "male" refers to organisms that produce sperm cells, while "female" refers to organisms that produce ova, infants are considered to be either male or female even though they are sexually immature and can't produce sperm cells or ova. By your logic, infants are sexless since their reproductive organs haven't fully developed.
Fantezism 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@GentlemanThunder7 It's not Ad Hominem, but this discussion really is beyond you. How can I possibly have a debate with you about the nature of embryos when you didn't even know that embryos, genetically (and biologically) speaking, are human organisms ? How can I debate something with you when you assert that " if X depends on Y, it means X is a part of Y " ? How can I possibly have a decent debate with you when you would prefer to talk about my life rather than my ideas ?
Fantezism 7 months ago
@Fantezism Responding to this point (which I missed), scientists, indeed, are divided on abortion. However, there are several different things to look at: for starters, you have to look at the REASONS as to why these scientists are pro-life. Just because a scientist is pro-life doesn't necessarily mean that an embryo is a human. Another thing is that even if a pro-life scientist is arguing for the humanity of the embryo, such a thesis would need to be peer-reviewed and credited to be legitimate.
GentlemanThunder7 7 months ago
@GentlemanThunder7: And just because there are scientists who are pro-abortion doesn't mean that embryos are non-human. Fact is that before replying to my messages you didn't even know that human embryos have a human genetic makeup which separates them from non-human embryos, you didn't know that when women realize that they are pregnant the embryo's heart has already started to beat and pump blood. You really need to get your facts straight.
Fantezism 7 months ago
@Fantezism (4) You can go on and on about some of the mistakes I made in my understanding (and I acknowledge that I made those mistakes), but you still have no foundations to back up your arguments. You point at some of the things that I'm missing, but the fact is that you're not filling them to support your own argument. You go on about the essential characteristics of humans. I wasn't able to find a legitimate source, but neither were you. You say I don't have definitions, but neither do you.
GentlemanThunder7 7 months ago
@GentlemanThunder7 ..as usual you are off-topic, you are uninformed, you didnt know the first thing about embryos (that they have a human DNA structure and by the 21st day after fertilization their hearts begin to pump blood), if it werent for me you wouldnt have found out about these things. You are probably googling for something to uphold your assertions, talk about scholarity. Where would you be without Google ?
Fantezism 7 months ago
@Fantezism (2) The main thing that you haven't really protected was your definition of what is a human. You assert that a human is only defined by the DNA and that alone. In order to prove this claim, you need to provide credible empirical evidence that defines a human as such. You say I don't know anything about you, which is EXACYLY WHY you need empirical evidence with some kind of credibility. But no, you don't provide that. You just seem to like to repeat things.
GentlemanThunder7 7 months ago
@GentlemanThunder7: The genetic makeup is basically the only thing that separates a species from another. Everything developes in accordance with the DNA structure, all characteristics derive from your DNA. If the DNA is human, the organism is human. If the DNA says that your hair is blond, you hair is blond regardlss of whether or not it has yet to grow. The DNA is the main difference between species; there is no life without DNA (viruses are exceptions to this rule).
Fantezism 7 months ago
@Fantezism That's not true. DNA is not the only thing that defines a species. There is also morphology and ecological niche.
GentlemanThunder7 7 months ago
@GentlemanThunder7: Morphology is determined by the DNA structure, EVERYTHING essential is determined by your DNA. EVERYTHING !
Fantezism 7 months ago
@Fantezism And I'm not done either.
GentlemanThunder7 7 months ago
@Fantezism Then, of course, there's the statement by Ron Paul. Is it a scientifically credited claim that he's making. That's what really makes a scientific claim legitimate: if it had credits from the scientific community and was turned into a scientific research paper of some sort.
GentlemanThunder7 7 months ago
@Fantezism You're going to need to pull up a scholarly article by such a scientist that argues for the humanity of the embryo and has legitimacy in order for a scientist being pro-life to mean anything.
GentlemanThunder7 7 months ago
@GentlemanThunder7: Like I said, there are doctors and scientists who hold that embryos are human organisms. Ron Paul par example is pro-life and views himself as " an unshakable foe of abortion ". Ron Paul had been a physician for many decades before retiring. So, what are going to do now ? Let me guess, you're going to call into question Ron Paul's scholarity. Right ? And no, I'm not going to vote for Ron Paul or anyone else for that matter. I've never voted and never will.
Fantezism 7 months ago
@Fantezism Before I respond to anything, let me make something clear. I'm trying to run a respectful discussion. I have great respect for the pro-life argument, and though I'm fighting for my idealisms, I do my best to do so in a professional, educated, and respectful manner. Recently, though, you've been throwing insults at me: you're calling me a hypocrite; you're calling me a fanatic; you threw a "blah, blah, blah" at me, which I find very rude. You're showing heavy disrespect to me.
GentlemanThunder7 7 months ago
@GentlemanThunder7 I am not insulting you I am just pointing out the fact that you are being a hypocrite. You stated that you didnt know the essential characteristics of human organisms yet you insisted that my definition was wrong. That is hypocrisy. The fact that you are DESPERATELY attacking my scholarity instead of FOCUSING ON OUR MAIN TOPIC is wrong: we are not debating my scholarity, we are debating whether or not embryos are human organisms. And yes you do sound like a religious fanatic.
Fantezism 7 months ago
@Fantezism I'm willing to argue with anyone over beliefs. I can give you a consolidated thesis as to why I should win this debate in its entirety. Most of all, however, I respect your beliefs as well as the pro-life stance in general. I do not respect, however, someone calling me a hypocrite or a fanatic. If you're not going to show me any kind of respect through a discussion that's supposed to be professional in any way, I suggest you not even respond to me again.
GentlemanThunder7 7 months ago
Comment removed
Fantezism 7 months ago
@Fantezism (4, cont.) You say that the DNA is the only thing that matters when defining a species, but no kind of scholarly articles of any sort that upholds your idealism. You say my definitions are illegitimate, but no one with credentials explains the same thing. Your argument is empty, and your attacks are shots in the dark at best. What this says is that you have no way of proving beyond a shadow of a doubt that an embryo is a human.
GentlemanThunder7 7 months ago
@GentlemanThunder7 Oh spare me ! I did say that Ron Paul, who is an experienced physician is a fervent pro-life activist; his word counts more than yours. I assert that the existence of a human DNA structure indicates the existence of a human organism. If embryos arent human, why do they have human DNA structures ? Why would one have a human genetic makeup if they arent human ? I am very well informed on this matter, and I, unlike you, dont rely on Google when debating something, thx.
Fantezism 7 months ago
@Fantezism (1, cont.) In fact, the only time that you actually provided anything that had a background was the definition of embryo from the National Institutes of Health and maybe the position of Ron Paul. Everything else was just some kind of personal evaluation mixed and swirled with a pompous demeanor and direct attacks against me. Even if you DID point out any holes in my argument in any way, you failed to fill them back up with your own evidence to say the opposite and held an empty case.
GentlemanThunder7 7 months ago
@GentlemanThunder7: And you have yet to prove that my "personal" evaluation is wrong.
Fantezism 7 months ago
@GentlemanThunder7 Speaking of scholarity, you are the one who was completely ignorant of the fact that by the 21st day after conception the embryo's heart has already begun to pump blood. What's more, you didn't know that embryos have a human genetic makeup and develop in accordance with their DNA. Seriously, you are not qualified to call into question other people's scholarity.
Fantezism 7 months ago
@Fantezism Again, more ad Hominem. Sure, you could prove that I'm a hypocrite, but that still doesn't erase the fact that you don't have empirical evidence.
GentlemanThunder7 7 months ago
@GentlemanThunder7: I did provide an empirical evidence but you ignored it. Any living organism with a human genetic makeup is a human organism; it may be undeveloped but it's human. The main characteristic of cherry trees is that they produce cherries; does this mean that a 3-day old cherry tree that has just come out of the ground is not a cherry tree because it has neither branches nor leaves, let alone the age necessary to produce cherry fruit ? No, it's just an UNDEVELOPED cherry tree.
Fantezism 7 months ago
@GentlemanThunder7 Dont get me wrong, I would far rather discuss about IDEAS than PEOPLE, but you keep attacking me and calling into question my scholarity. You are ALWAYS digressing from the subject of our debate. Do you even know who I am ? Why would you call into question my scholarity ? Ron Paul, who is a doctor, says that abortion is wrong. There ! Now, what are you going to do ? Question Ron Paul s scholarity ? Have you ever heard of the ”ad hominem” logical fallacy ? Google it.
Fantezism 7 months ago
@Fantezism Alright, if you want to play it that way. (1) I'm not desparately clinging to anything, as you so heavily try to make it seem like I am. There is a reason why I'm focusing so much on the background research and scholarity that your claims are based on, and it's because in order to make so many assertions and so many statements such as the ones that you are making, you're going to have to place some kind of educated medium behind it, and as usual, you fail to provide that at all.
GentlemanThunder7 7 months ago
@GentlemanThunder7: You are desperately trying to cast doubts on my scholarity in order to hide the fact that you don't know anything about the main issue of our debate. At the risk of repeating myself: my scholarity is not the issue here. The truthfulness of one's statement doesn't rely primarily on their scholarity. However, I did make mention of Ron Paul who has been a doctor (so his scholarity is more realiable than yours) and a fervent "foe of abortion". You just "forgot" about Ron Paul.
Fantezism 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@GentlemanThunder7 Let us call a spade a spade. You are constantly digressing from our main discussion, you are constantly attacking my scholarity and you keep making reference to that medical dictionary just like a fanatic always makes reference to the Bible. The dictionary is actually implying that what Im saying is true, but you keep ignoring this and calling into question my scholarity as if it were the subject of our discussion.
Fantezism 7 months ago
@GentlemanThunder7 Ok read this: w w w . doctorsonfetalpain .c o m / fetal-pain-the-evidence. (just leave out the spaces)
EquineDreams 3 weeks ago 2
@Fantezism (1, cont.) My medical dictionary defines it as something that can't be distinguished as do other medical dictionaries as well. You say that my definition is silent on whether or not this being is a human, but so is your own from the one of the National Institutes of Health. Your definition doesn't serve anything to you. It's just telling you what the time span of something considered to be an embryo is, which aids to my assertion of the time constrictions.
GentlemanThunder7 8 months ago
@GentlemanThunder7 : Your medical dictionary doesn't define it as a non-human entity. That is just your interpretation. If the embryo were indistinguishable then scientists wouldn't be able to tell which embryo is human (46 chromosomes) and which embryo is non-human. If embryos were indistinguishable then the embryo of a pig would be identical in every respect with the one of a human.
Fantezism 8 months ago
@Fantezism (1, cont.) So, in essence, there is no definition that specifies that this being is a human being. My definition goes against anything that you're saying, and trumps what you're saying because this is from CREDITED people of the field. At this point, like I said, there's no need for me even to give you those essential characteristics because the definition specifies that it's too early to be distinguished as anything. However, if you must need characteristics, I'll provide them.
GentlemanThunder7 8 months ago
@GentlemanThunder7: Fact is that YOU DON'T KNOW what the essential characteristics of human organisms are and you are hiding behind the my-medical-dictionary-says-I'm-right wall. You can't provide us with any of the essential properties a human organism has and you keep repeating the same assertions hoping that this way you will intimidate me. Please ! You dictionary doesn't say anything with respect to the nature of the embryo.
Fantezism 8 months ago
@Fantezism (2) I don't believe that the fact that it can't live outside the womb is irrelevant at all. One of the main pro-life arguments is that the organism in question is a separate entity, which implies personhood. Sure, it may have separate DNA and other factors, but the embryo is still completely depedent on the mother in the early stages. Therefore, it is still not a completely discrete entity. It's still part of the mother's body, which must be considered in the debate at hand.
GentlemanThunder7 8 months ago