NewfieMike Posted October 25, 2009 Report Share Posted October 25, 2009 so then, just for curiosity's sake, in your eyes would you say the origin of life of an organism = fusion of sperm + egg? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cnussey Posted October 25, 2009 Report Share Posted October 25, 2009 so then, just for curiosity's sake, in your eyes would you say the origin of life of an organism = fusion of sperm + egg? Yup. Reminds me...gotta go put the baby for a nap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NewfieMike Posted October 25, 2009 Report Share Posted October 25, 2009 okay, but what about the individual sperm + eggs before fertilization. Would you say that both of those cells are living? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cnussey Posted October 25, 2009 Report Share Posted October 25, 2009 okay, but what about the individual sperm + eggs before fertilization. Would you say that both of those cells are living? By definition, all cells are living, but no--a human life-form (at whatever stage of development--where you want to draw the line of importance, go ahead) is made of the fusion of both of these cells. I know where you are going Mike and it won't change my opinion. That's why it's an opinion. You are stalling--you are supposed to be studying, not sparking controversies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
estairella Posted October 25, 2009 Report Share Posted October 25, 2009 What really pisses me off? People selecting abortions if they are unhappy with the gender or "problems" of the child. Absolutely ridiculous. Oh, this is gonna piss you right off then! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NewfieMike Posted October 25, 2009 Report Share Posted October 25, 2009 Oh, this is gonna piss you right off then! holy smokes! Man, you'd think the places she went to get them would have hold of her medical records. After like 3-4 I'd be a little curious... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cnussey Posted October 25, 2009 Report Share Posted October 25, 2009 Oh, this is gonna piss you right off then! Thanks, I knew it was too much of a "happy" day. LMAO. How horrible, what a controlling prick...and not really a good way to get back at your husband. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cnussey Posted October 25, 2009 Report Share Posted October 25, 2009 holy smokes! Man, you'd think the places she went to get them would have hold of her medical records. After like 3-4 I'd be a little curious... Very good point. "Oh hi Mrs. Nussey, back for another abortion?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AdamP Posted October 25, 2009 Report Share Posted October 25, 2009 The woman in the article is clearly mentally ill. Shouldn't be a reason to vilify all abortion recipients. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cnussey Posted October 25, 2009 Report Share Posted October 25, 2009 The woman in the article is clearly mentally ill. Shouldn't be a reason to vilify all abortion recipients. There is no reason to vilify them anyway. I do not support that kind of opposition in any form. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NewfieMike Posted October 25, 2009 Report Share Posted October 25, 2009 The woman in the article is clearly mentally ill. Shouldn't be a reason to vilify all abortion recipients. she's pretty smokin though. Sucks for all those 7-8 (probability) hot chicks that could have been brought into the world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AdamP Posted October 25, 2009 Report Share Posted October 25, 2009 she's pretty smokin though. Sucks for all those 7-8 (probability) hot chicks that could have been brought into the world. lol you are such a milf hunter. watch out cnus... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cnussey Posted October 25, 2009 Report Share Posted October 25, 2009 lol you are such a milf hunter. watch out cnus... At least with milfs you know that they're fertile. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
estairella Posted October 25, 2009 Report Share Posted October 25, 2009 The woman in the article is clearly mentally ill. Shouldn't be a reason to vilify all abortion recipients. That woman clearly made some poor choices, but I would hardly call it mentally ill. That is an insult to people who are actually mentally ill, I hope you realize!! And reminds me of certain folk (e.g. Christians, Muslims and pro-gun nuts) who go "well, those people on TV are fanatics, you can't judge us just because they are crazy". Mmm... sorry, we can and we will! /don't worry I'm totally pro-death (abortion+euthanasia) //but at least I have the balls to call it what it is, legally sanctioned taking of life Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cnussey Posted October 25, 2009 Report Share Posted October 25, 2009 That woman clearly made some poor choices, but I would hardly call it mentally ill. That is an insult to people who are actually mentally ill, I hope you realize!! And reminds me of certain folk (e.g. Christians, Muslims and pro-gun nuts) who go "well, those people on TV are fanatics, you can't judge us just because they are crazy". Mmm... sorry, we can and we will! /don't worry I'm totally pro-death (abortion+euthanasia) //but at least I have the balls to call it what it is, legally sanctioned taking of life I think it's sad when everyone goes nuts. Good for you--no point in hiding behind words. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AdamP Posted October 25, 2009 Report Share Posted October 25, 2009 That woman clearly made some poor choices, but I would hardly call it mentally ill. That is an insult to people who are actually mentally ill, I hope you realize!! The article said she had multiple suicide attempts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
apache Posted October 25, 2009 Report Share Posted October 25, 2009 10characters Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebouque Posted October 25, 2009 Report Share Posted October 25, 2009 Replace "people" with "unborn children" and you have the pro-life movement in a nutshell. And "IMO" = "in my opinion" = "my personal beliefs". Sorry, you don't get to exclude something simply because you don't believe its a treatment... I thought that was what we were arguing all along. Sorry estairella but newfiemike is totally right regarding lethal injection (in the context of an execution). It's not a treatment it's a ''legal'' murder. Period. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cnussey Posted October 26, 2009 Report Share Posted October 26, 2009 you can direct to them to another resource to get birth control... praying to your knife is full of ****, id tell u 2 **** off Yes--wishing to bring up a controversial topic is fine (probably come up in interviews anyway), but inserting statements like that is not helpful and will only result in stirring up ****. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NewfieMike Posted October 26, 2009 Report Share Posted October 26, 2009 I'm not dissin your opinion, Cnuss, I just wanted to post this because as I was reading it, I found out that your and my opinions on when life starts are both included here: from: http://8e.devbio.com/article.php?ch=21&id=7 When Does Human Life Begin? This is a note that may generate some discussion and debate. It was occasioned by a bulletin board set up by a political action group at our college. The board claimed that while philosophy and religion may have different opinions concerning when life begins, science has no such problems. Students were told that biologists were unanimous in agreeing that life starts at fertilization, and that there was no dispute in the scientific literature. Besides being a parody of science (i.e., that scientific facts are the objective truth and that all scientists agree about what these facts mean), it is wrong. I have read a wide range of scientific positions on when life begins, and these positions depend on what aspect of life one privileges in such discussions. Here is my classification scheme concerning when human life begins. You may have others. The metabolic view: There is no one point when life begins. The sperm cell and egg cell are as alive as any other organism. The genetic view: A new individual is created at fertilization. This is when the genes from the two parents combine to form an individual with unique properties. The embryological view: In humans, identical twinning can occur as late as day 12 pc. Such twinning produces two individuals with different lives. Even conjoined ("Siamese") twins can have different personalities. Thus, a single individuality is not fixed earlier than day 12. (In religious terms, the two individuals have different souls). Some medical texts consider the stages before this time as "pre-embryonic." This view is expressed by scientists such as Renfree (1982) and Grobstein (1988) and has been endorsed theologically by Ford (1988), Shannon and Wolter (1990), and McCormick (1991), among others. (Such a view would allow contraception, "morning-after" pills, and contragestational agents, but not abortion after two weeks.) The neurological view: Our society has defined death as the loss of the cerebral EEG (electroencephalogram) pattern. Conversely, some scientists have thought that the acquisition of the human EEG (at about 27 weeks) should be defined as when a human life begins. This view has been put forth most concretely by Morowitz and Trefil (1992). (This view and the ones following would allow mid-trimester abortions). The ecological/technological view: This view sees human life as beginning when it can exist separately from its maternal biological environment. The natural limit of viability occurs when the lungs mature, but technological advances can now enable a premature infant to survive at about 25 weeks gestation. (This is the view currently operating in many states. Once a fetus can be potentially independent, it cannot be aborted.) The immunological view: This view sees human life as beginning when the organism recognizes the distinction between self and non-self. In humans, this occurs around the time of birth. The integrated physiological view: This view sees human life as beginning when an individual has become independent of the mother and has its own functioning circulatory system, alimentary system, and respiratory system. This is the traditional birthday when the baby is born into the world and the umbilical cord is cut. and just for discussions sake, before reading this article my opinion on the matter best suits "the metabolic view" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cnussey Posted October 26, 2009 Report Share Posted October 26, 2009 I'm not dissin your opinion, Cnuss, I just wanted to post this because as I was reading it, I found out that your and my opinions on when life starts are both included here:] You should know me well enough by now to realize I won't get offended by you--even if we enter a debate. Which one is yours? Edit: lol...I see it now. Good for you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cnussey Posted October 26, 2009 Report Share Posted October 26, 2009 I have more of a difficult time with the metabolic view--which is a traditional view (hence why the RCs prefer no birth-control, each sexual act is a "potential" child). But there is definite merit to it--I haven't found myself that far back into the process yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.