Abortion??? anyone??


And fail and fail and fail....two pieces of velcro are united even though they are separate entities with no hard connection....we have been through all this before and your arguments are doomed to crash and burn this time just as they did the first time...and just as all those before yours crashed and burned. Biology is biology and here is what the "attachment" between mother and child looks like:

fimmu-05-00298-g001.jpg


As you can see, there is no hard attachment...the arrangement is, once again, precisely analogous to velcro. Any exchange between mother and child is across cell walls, not via direct connection as is, say, the blood supply to your kidneys.....

Then clearly, the word is not being used in the context of its primary definition....the second definition of unite is "cause to adhere" as is the case with glue, or VELCRO...velcro unites without causing a hard attachment. Semantics is the weakest form of argument....the illustration above, of the chorionic villi above showing no hard attachment between the child and its mother is an example of a hard argument...you can semanticize till the cows come home but none of it will alter the biological facts which is the basis for my argument....

If you want to discard definitions, be my guest - we can finally admit to subjectivism!

And like you said, the placenta originally comes from the zygote, and is considered 'part of' the embryo and the uterine wall. That's why the word 'unites' is used, as well as the word 'fetomaternal' (belonging to both the foetus and the placenta). See the opening paragraph here - it's wiki, but it's the simplest-written informative description; you can find the more science-y versions as well if you prefer to doubt.
 
Werbung:
If you want to discard definitions, be my guest - we can finally admit to subjectivism!

And like you said, the placenta originally comes from the zygote, and is considered 'part of' the embryo and the uterine wall. That's why the word 'unites' is used, as well as the word 'fetomaternal' (belonging to both the foetus and the placenta). See the opening paragraph here - it's wiki, but it's the simplest-written informative description; you can find the more science-y versions as well if you prefer to doubt.

I didn't discard anything...I simply pointed out that words can be used in different ways and if you believed the word united to mean a hard connection, either you were wrong, or the writer was wrong, and then went on to show why one of you were wrong.

As to your wiki article, in typical fashion, you miss the entire point...look at the last sentence before the contents...

"The placenta functions as a fetomaternal organ with two components: the fetal placenta (Chorion frondosum), which develops from the same blastocyst that forms the fetus, and the maternal placenta (Decidua basalis), which develops from the maternal uterine tissue.[4]"

The two parts of the velcro like connection are described right there...but your selective blindness, I suppose prevents you from seeing what is actually there and only lets you see what you wish you saw. The article, after the contents, goes on to say...

"In preparation for implantation of the blastocyst, the uterine endometrium undergoes "decidualisation". Spiral arteries in decidua are remodeled so that they become less convoluted and their diameter is increased. The increased diameter and straighter flow path both act to increase maternal blood flow to the placenta. The relatively high pressure as the maternal blood fills intervillous space through these spiral arteries bathes the fetal villi in blood, allowing an exchange of gases to take place. In humans and other hemochorial placentals, the maternal blood comes into direct contact with the fetal chorion, though no fluid is exchanged. As the pressure decreases between pulses, the deoxygenated blood flows back through the endometrial veins."

The article goes on to say:

"Deoxygenated fetal blood passes through umbilical arteries to the placenta. At the junction of umbilical cord and placenta, the umbilical arteries branch radially to form chorionic arteries. Chorionic arteries, in turn, branch into cotyledon arteries. In the villi, these vessels eventually branch to form an extensive arterio-capillary-venous system, bringing the fetal blood extremely close to the maternal blood; but no intermingling of fetal and maternal blood occurs ("placental barrier").[7]"

Face it guy, the science just doesn't say what you want it to say....it never will. Perhaps you can fool people with less education, although at this point, even an attempt on your part to do so is despicably dishonest but you can't fool people who have actually taken time to actually learn the biology.
 
Face it guy, the science just doesn't say what you want it to say....it never will. Perhaps you can fool people with less education, although at this point, even an attempt on your part to do so is despicably dishonest but you can't fool people who have actually taken time to actually learn the biology.

Pale Rider, I did not want to publicly EMBARRASS and EXPOSE you on this forum but you have left me absolutely NO CHOICE...

Earlier in our argument, you gave me THIS scientific definition of what constitutes an organism..

An individual form of life that is capable of growing, metabolizing nutrients, and usually reproducing. Any definition beyond that is doing nothing more than injecting weasel words making the definition less precise rather than more

So, those three things are your 'properties which allow something to constitute an organism'? Here's some problems with your definition:

Firstly. you said:

An individual form of life

Your failure immediately begins before you even got started. Any single cell in our body constitutes an individual form of life. A sperm cell for example has its own individual life. So your definition already has you stirring in the WRONG direction.

But let us continue dissecting your failure and misunderstanding about human biology...

that is capable of growing, metabolizing nutrients, and usually reproducing.

Again logic has completely left your brain. Single cells in our body ARE already capable of growing, metabolizing nutrients, and usually reproducing.

Don't believe me?

Allow these SCIENTIFIC links to sway any doubts that you might be currently having:

https://askabiologist.asu.edu/content/cell-division

http://sciencenetlinks.com/student-teacher-sheets/cells-your-body/

The short cliff notes version of those links?

They state explicitly that some single cells in our body grow, metabolize nutrients, and sometimes reproduce.

Again Pale Rider, this is simply me tearing apart the definition of organism that YOU provided. If you don't like the implications, you're going to have to provide a more better one. OR your definition is flawed...

Also please do not say that these cells are part of a larger system because that would miss the ENTIRE point. Your definition says nothing about that.

It only says and I quote: "An individual form of life" which is a qualification that any single cell in my body would meet.

But wait, your definition and argument runs into much more BIGGER problems than the ones already stated...

1) If you apply your definition 'on a cellular level' then every single cell in my body (with a few exceptions) is an organism, as the meet all of the requirements 'in some form'.

2) Newly transplanted liver cells meet all of those qualifications (especially with a still-living donor). And cells with foetal DNA often continue to be made inside the woman even after birth (microchimerism) - so those cells also meet the same qualifications.

3) A single cell is capable of responding to stimuli, reproduction, growth and development.

As you can see Pale Rider, the scientific facts and arguments support MY point of view.

Would you like to try again?

I did not want to publicly embarrass or expose your lack of knowledge but you have apparently left me NO CHOICE.
 
All this talk about Code this and Code that
How is a pro-lifer like myself suppose to explain why we shouldn’t kill children.. I can’t

I don’t know.

I don’t know how else to explain this. Can I really formulate an argument that will explain why we shouldn’t murder children? If you don’t immediately recognize that the slaughter of babies is something severely troubling, I’m not sure that I can offer any insights to help you understand....

You see, this is the problem. This is why we can’t come to any agreements. This is why our arguments are fruitless. They don’t have to be — arguing could be a rather worthwhile activity. But a constructive argument, or debate, or dialogue, or whatever you want to call it, requires both parties to have some shared concept of right vs wrong and fact vs fiction. Without that, neither side can appeal to the other, because they both exist in entirely different universes.

So, me personally, I’m livin’ over here in a world where it’s never OK to execute a baby, any baby, for any reason. In fact, in my universe — a universe we might call “reality” — the murder of children could be, classified as THE worst thing ever. It is the worst of all that is bad. It is the lowest of low. It is the ugliest of ugly. It is the Pinnacle of Wrong. If it isn’t wrong to kill children, then it can not be wrong to do anything else.

Let me say that again, because it’s a crucial point:
If it isn’t wrong to kill children, then it can not be wrong to do anything else.
Literally anything else.

The debate me and my buddy Pale Rider are having is the subjective issue of what exactly constitutes an organism.

Firstly, that we consider 'being an organism' to be important is a subjective issue.

Secondly, dictionary definitions are created through subjective - and certainly not scientific - means. You can't test a definition - it's not science, even if it's used in scientific contexts.

Thirdly, even through use of the definitions, a single cell from our body matches the definition of an organism that Pale Rider provided to me. It DOES grow, it DOES metabolize nutrients, and it is sometimes capable of reproduction.

As such, large parts of this are subjective semantics - and also arguable from either side.

These credible scientific links validate and PROVE my point:

http://sciencenetlinks.com/student-teacher-sheets/cells-your-body/

Some relevant quotes from the link:

"Cells are the smallest living units that are capable of reproducing themselves."

"The nucleus contains the information that allows cells to reproduce, or make more cells."

These statements prove that certain cells in our body are capable of reproduction.

Let us continue...

"Every cell in your body needs oxygen to help it metabolize (burn) the nutrients released from food for energy."

THIS statement proves that cells in our body are capable of metabolizing nutrients.

Here is another scientific link which validates my point:

https://askabiologist.asu.edu/content/cell-division

As such, single cells in our bodies match the definition of the word organism provided and given by Pale Rider. As I already told him, his definition did not help his argument, his own scientifically provided definition went against his argument.
 
Werbung:
Pale Rider, I did not want to publicly EMBARRASS and EXPOSE you on this forum but you have left me absolutely NO CHOICE...

Why lie when anyone reading your posts knows that you have been wishing desperately that you could do just that since our conversations began...and anyone reading our conversation knows that you haven't even come close...in fact, you have failed miserably on every point...and my bet is that you will continue to do so since you are in the wrong at the foundation of your argument. Your only strategy is to try to get as far away from that foundation as possible in an effort to hide that inconvenient fact.

fedor50 said:
Earlier in our argument, you gave me THIS scientific definition of what constitutes an organism..

First off, it wasn't "my" definition...the definition is available through any number of science and common dictionaries. We have been through this already...word games are not a rational basis for a scientific argument...word games may work out for legal arguments on occasion, but not for biological fact. For example:

Oxford dictionaries defines organism as : An individual animal, plant, or single-celled life form.

American Heritage Dictionary defines organism as: An individual form of life, such as a bacterium, protist, fungus, plant, or animal, composed of a single cell or a complex of cells in which organelles or organs work together to carry out the various processes of life.

Dictionary.com defines organism as: a form of life considered as an entity

The online Medical dictionary defines organism as : An individual form of life, such as a plant, an animal a bacterium, a protist, or a fungus; a body made up of organs, organelles, or other parts that work together to carry on the various processes of life.

The science dictionary defines organism as:
An individual form of life that is capable of growing, metabolizing nutrients, and usually reproducing. Organisms can be unicellular or multicellular. They are scientifically divided into five different groups (called kingdoms) that include prokaryotes, protists, fungi, plants, and animals, and that are further subdivided based on common ancestry and homology of anatomic and molecular structures.

And the list could continue ad nauseum....While they vary somewhat, they all say essentially the same thing which you, in your blindness, madness, stupidity..whatever invariably fail to miss.

fedor50 said:
Your failure immediately begins before you even got started. Any single cell in our body constitutes an individual form of life. A sperm cell for example has its own individual life. So your definition already has you stirring in the WRONG direction.

Your failure begins far before that...you seem not to understand the difference between alive, and a form of life. Most of the cells in your body at any time are, in fact, alive, but none of them could be construed by any rational, thinking person to be forms of life...are your individual cells carrying out the processes of life, or are they parts of a whole who are making contributions to the processes of life? Which kingdom would a taxonomist put a brain cell in? All organisms are divided into groups called kingdoms...which kingdom would a skin cell be placed in? See how miserably that line of thinking fails? The failure goes deeper than that, but I am pressed for time this morning.



fedor50 said:
But let us continue dissecting your failure and misunderstanding about human biology...
Again logic has completely left your brain. Single cells in our body ARE already capable of growing, metabolizing nutrients, and usually reproducing.

Again, are single cells in your body carrying on the processes of life, or are they contributing to the processes of life for a larger entity? Are they alive, or are they individual entities? If they are individual entities can you provide any taxonomical identification for them? By bet is not...you, in your zeal are ignoring the facts and trying to torture simple terms into having meanings that they do not possess.

Don't believe me?

fedor50 said:
They state explicitly that some single cells in our body grow, metabolize nutrients, and sometimes reproduce.

Again...are they alive, or are they an individual form of life...are they carrying out the process of their own lives, or are they contributing to the process of life in a larger entity...and more importantly, can you provide any identifying taxonomical information on these individual cells that would be proof positive that science views them as individual life forms rather than mere parts of a life form.

fedor50 said:
Again Pale Rider, this is simply me tearing apart the definition of organism that YOU provided. If you don't like the implications, you're going to have to provide a more better one. OR your definition is flawed...

You making an ass of yourself is more like it...your failure is so deep that I am surprised that you continue to even show up. I am guessing that it is only your abject ignorance that prevents you from seeing the magnitude of your failure and thus being to embarrassed to continue.

fedor50 said:
Also please do not say that these cells are part of a larger system because that would miss the ENTIRE point. Your definition says nothing about that.

As you can see, any number of sources say what I already provided...different words, but I suppose the authors expect that their definitions are being read by rational people who have some inkling of the topic...clearly you don't.

fedor5o said:
It only says and I quote: "An individual form of life" which is a qualification that any single cell in my body would meet.

And let me guess...in your demented zeal, you never considered, or bothered to look up or research what might qualify as an individual form of life. You didn't even wonder if science had taxonomically identified skin cells and brain cells, and epithelial cells as individual forms of life. You never once considered the difference between being alive and being a form of life. Your argument is so shallow that you should be embarrassed. Is this really the best you can do? Never mind...of course it is as you have proven over and over

fedor50 said:
1) If you apply your definition 'on a cellular level' then every single cell in my body (with a few exceptions) is an organism, as the meet all of the requirements 'in some form'.

Already addressed...no need to repeat.

fedor50 said:
2) Newly transplanted liver cells meet all of those qualifications (especially with a still-living donor). And cells with foetal DNA often continue to be made inside the woman even after birth (microchimerism) - so those cells also meet the same qualifications.

Already addressed...alive, or individual life forms? If they are individual life forms, then kindly provide taxonomical identification which is available for all known forms of life.

fedor50) A single cell is capable of responding to stimuli said:
So again, lets see the taxonomical identification for these individual cells...what sorts of animals are they? Absolutely pitiful feedor...absolutely pitiful.

fedor50 said:
As you can see Pale Rider, the scientific facts and arguments support MY point of view.

I have no doubt that in your mind they do...and more's the pity. I might retain some respect for you if I believed that you were just playing a very poorly educated devil's advocate in this discussion, but clearly you aren't...you actually believe the tripe you are shoveling....and your knowledge of the topic is exactly as shallow as you present it to be.

fedor50 said:
Would you like to try again?

Try what?...to humiliate you further? I am sure that you will provide a new opportunity soon. I suggest that you take the time to learn the difference between alive, and being a form of life....

The bottom line is that all known forms of life have taxonomical classifications...from the largest whale, to the smallest single celled organism...there are people who do nothing but that sort of work...if it is a life form, and if science has found it, it will be identified taxonomically. Here is a fun project for you...visit, or send an email to a taxonomist and suggest that your muscle cells, are individual life forms and that they should be identified as such. Perhaps they can give you an answer as to why individual cells are alive, but not life forms that will penetrate that seemingly impenetrable shield of ignorance you have surrounding you.

If you find such taxonomical evidence that individual cells are in your body are in fact, individual life forms, then by all means present it...if you don't, then drop this ridiculous line of "thought" and move on...pull up your big boy panties and admit failure and try something else.

By the way fedor...can you point out anything in the links you provided that would suggest that the author of the article in any way suggested that a single cell in a multicellular organism constituted an organism in and of itself? Was there anything there that suggested such a thing or did you just come up with that profoundly idiotic thought all on your own?
[/quote]
 
Last edited:
Back
Top