The "Frog Boiling" Strategy of the "pro-life" movement...

Erm, no differentiation takes place a lot further along than 8 cells, that site you linked to is incorrect, try this one from Princetown - https://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/wiki100k/docs/Cellular_differentiation.html

Extract - Development begins when a sperm fertilizes an egg and creates a single cell that has the potential to form an entire organism. In the first hours after fertilization, this cell divides into identical cells. In humans, approximately four days after fertilization and after several cycles of cell division, these cells begin to specialize, forming a hollow sphere of cells, called a blastocyst.

there are between 70 and 100 cells in a blastocyst, so there are at least 6 cell divisions before differentiation starts to take place.

 

ah ok so take the number to 6. After 4 days of development (well before implantation and an abortion can even occur) a human can be said to exist if we go off differentiation as the standard for a human. I can change my stance to say the unborn is considered a human after 4 days. Still wouldn't change my abortion stance. only spontaneous abortions occur at this stage. I'm still saying at conception, because roughly 4 hours after conception the human starts developing with the first cell division.

 

Well no, after all by your ideology a human being existing at this point anything non-natural that stops implantation is an abortion ie the morning after pill (plan B) as it is said that plan-B can stop implantation, though I have seen no real evidence to this assertion.

As already shown it is not just spontaneous abortions that occur at this stage, or do you not consider anything that stops implantation an abortion?

How can you say at conception when you have just agreed that prior to differentiation there is no single human being, there is in fact the potential for between 70-100 human beings, do all of these now have personhood given at fertilization that is somehow removed upon differentiation .. I have to say, based on your replies here and in our other debate, you are very free and easy giving and taking away of personhood.

 

no I never agreed, I said ok I can do this, then even said I wont do it and stated why.
lol free and easy on giving and taking? Guess you can say so. If it is developing into a born person it is a human, if not then it isn't. Really now. 70-100 potential humans, no it is 1 human period, unless it separates into two organisms or 100 then it is two or more humans.
And im pretty direct as long as it is developing into a born person it is a human. once it stops, then it is no longer a human. chimeras are 1 person with parts of two or more. twins started off as 1 human then turned into two, both are developing into born people.

 

So then in reality and by your own admission above you are free and easy with the giving and taking of rights, and you base that giving and taking on a set of arbitrary conditions,

So it is developing into a person and is not a person at conception, because if it is a person at conception how can it be developing into a person

So a submissive Chimera is not longer a human . .what is it then please?

so let me get this right then. Upon fertilization Chimeria twins are persons until one joins the another and then one ceases to be a person even though according to you development has no bearing on personhood and despite the fact that it continues to develop, has separate DNA and is alive. ... how arbitrary of you.

BTW we are not talking about twins in the context you are using

and now I must retire to bed, it is 4am here in the UK.

 

it is a human at conception
a submissive chimera is a body part
absolutley no arbitration. the submissive chimera will never be anything other then human, not a human.
when did I say development has no bearing on personhood. as long as it's developing as a human it is a human.
for the sake or argument it is a person at conception as well. Chimeras start off as two, but become one person with the parts of a second person that will never develop. Meaning yes you can start off as a person and lose it in the unborn state, once you stop developing as a human. Chimeras have 1 developing as a human one as a body part.

 

nope it is human at conception, not a human.

Really, how many of your body parts have unique DNA separate from the rest of your body?

Yes defiantly arbitration, when you deem it a person you cannot know what the outcome will be, you cannot say oh that fertilized ovum will only ever be a submissive chimera twin, unless you can read the future that is .. can you?

Countless times you have stated that the development of the fetus eg. brain etc has no bearing on the personhood of the fetus.

Thank you for admitting you are making an arbitrary decision as to who deserves personhood based on their development status.
when does the submissive twin "stop developing as a human", what else does it become, a cat, or a dog maybe, surely you are not suggesting that in order to be a person the fetus must have a full set of everything associated with being a "normal" person are you, that is in direct confrontation to the whole person at conception ideology.

read what you have written, you are certainly advocating development as a condition of personhood .. more specifically if the development doesn't meet your standard then it is not a person.

 

Ironically, the GOP keeps its promise on cutting taxes and de-regulation....something a libertarian would endorse.

But they never actually cut the size of Government....something a libertarian would ..or should ..be upset with them with. Nor, as I said, do they actually want to ban abortion....something a "pro-life libertarian" should be upset with them with.

Yet, you still vote GOP, don't you?

 

You never know you might be a chimera and never know it. It is more common then you may think.
Don't need to know the outcome to deem the unborn a human As long as the potential to be viable is there then it is a human. Once it loses that, then ti ceases to be a human. Same is true for born persons who lose viability, or potential to become viable again.
I may have used development, but really what I'm saying is viability, or potential to be viable
Nah on potential to a viable person status, call it arbitrary if you like. The twin becomes a part of a human, not a human.
No I'm advocating viability and potential to be viable as a condition of personhood. More specifically, if it does not have potential to be a viable person, or loses viability then it is no longer a person.

 

I know how common it is, after all I have done the research

So you don't need to know the outcome of a pile of steel in order to know it is a car, and you are using the exact same argument as pro-choice people do - potential - and no a born person does not lose their personhood based on viability or potential to be viable again, or have you never heard of people who have been kept on life support for years even though the prognosis is they will never recover or children born with Anencephaly.

You have no idea whether a fertilized ovum will become viable or not ergo you are making decisions and judgments on things you can never know, there are numerous disabilities that do not become apparent until late in pregnancy are you know saying that based on that these fetuses are no longer deemed as persons?

You are still missing the point, can you or the state arbitrarily remove the rights of a person once given based on little more on what you think a person should be?

According to you a single cell fertilized ovum is a fully fledged person having all the rights that any other person has, now you are saying well because it doesn't meet my criteria of what a person is then it no longer is a person .. how is that so different from a pro-choice person saying that under their criteria a fetus without constant brain waves is not a person?

and that is no different to the pro-choice position, viability is an unknown factor.

 

comparing steel to a developing human is not honest. The steel is not a potential anything, it is and always will be a piece of steel. sure it's the same argument pro-choice use except I want to protect the potential. The unborn is a potential born human, up until they lose potential to be viable. It is known whether or not the unborn will ever be viable based on how it is developing. If it does not have a heart, lungs, or brain the unborn will never be viable and loses status as a human. Being kept on life support does not make you any less dead legally. A child born with Anencephaly are not viable and will not live more then a few days after birth.
You are correct you have no idea whether or not ti will become viable, but you do know if it has potential to be viable based on how it is developing. Havign a disability does not mean the fetus loses the potential to be viable. You can tell if the unborn has a heart, lungs, or brain very early in the pregnancy. A person should be alive and able to survive on his/her own aka viable. Viability, or potential to be viable is what I base it on nothing more. it's not even that difficult. It is different, because the brain waves are not needed to be deemed a person, as long as the brain is still developing and the potential to be viable is there, the unborn is a person.
Viability is not an unknown factor, it is very known what is required to be viable. If the unborn is not developing a part needed to be viable it is very well known that the unborn will never be viable. It is a known factor. When it becomes viable is irrelevant as long as the potential is there.

 

Let's look at that again-

"You have no idea whether or not it will become viable"

"You do know if it has potential to be viable based on how it is developing"


I know what SteveJa will say.....but does that strike anybody else but me as....pure double-talk?

 

if you quoted me correctly it would confuse people a lot less. Try again

 

I did quote you.....you simply contradicted yourself.

How can a person have "no idea" if it will become viable....AND totally know if it will become viable based on how it's developing???

 

It's very hypocritical for anyone on the Left to complain about this. The Left uses this tactic on all agenda fronts and has for at least a hundred years. <pfft> Cry me a river.

The Left is attempting to destroy this country with it's gradual march toward Marxism, and if they think we who respect the Constitution are going to accept it and acquiesce, they're more delusional than they already appear.

 

That's not what I said.
I said when it becomes viable is unknown but you do know if it has potential to be viable based on how it is developing. Mean if there is no brain developing it will never be viable, no heart, no lung and a wide range of other development issues. As long as it is developing into a viable fetus it needs to be protected up until the point that stops, or it is known that it will never be viable.

 

"the last 100 years"? So America was a paradise in the 1890s?

 

Here's what you said-

First off, I bolded how you conflated "viablility" and "potential viability"....two different things. A fetus is either viable or it is not viable....."potential viability" is like saying YOU have the "potential" to become President of the United States.

You also didn't say "you have no idea when it becomes viable"....you said "You are correct you have no idea whether or not ti will become viable"....."whether", not "when". So right off, you're now trying to revise what you said.

Then contradiccted that by saying "but you do know if it has potential to be viable based on how it is developing".

How can somebody know something's "potential" from how it's "developing"? A fully-formed developing fetus could still die (your "no brain" example is the extreme). It's like saying "I know you have the potential to be on the next Moon Mission NASA is planning for the 2020s because you're on your third flying lesson in a Cessna 172."

 

Everyone does have the potential to be the President of the United States as long as they are born here. And no it is not the same thing. If you know anything about development and viability, you would know what I'm talking about.
Viability and potential viability go hand in hand. You can not become viable, if there is no potential there. Not revising anything.
And yes you can tell if it has potential to become viable based on development. Not sure what's so hard to understand.
Doctors know if an unborn has potential to be viable based on development aka is a brain, heart, lungs developing and how are these organs developing etc etc. If you do not know what it takes to become viable, then you would not know what I'm saying when I say potential to become viable. And yes viable fetuses can die just as born people do. What's your point? And yes some fully formed fetuses are not viable, which means at some point they lost their potential to be viable through the development process.

 

Yes...if you KNOW that there is NO potential....there is no viability because you KNOW that there is no potential.

Again, you're conflating two things.....you claimed that one "cannot know whether (again, not when) a fetus is going to be viable" AND claimed that one "can know if the fetus is going to be viable by how its developing since it has the potential to become viable."

If the whole point of our disagreement is semantic....that you MEANT to say "You can't know WHEN a fetus is going to be viable"....rather than "You can't know whether a fetus is going to be viable" (which contradicts your later statement).....that's fine. And is true.

No one can know WHEN a fetus is going to be viable, except that in extreme cases, a premature birth status (weight, lung development) would render it nearly impossible for survival (viability). A two month gestated fetus would NOT be viable under current conditions....ever.

But one can also NOT know the "potential" for a fetus to become viable...ever. As I said, even a well-formed fetus could die in utero with no way for anyone to predict it. "Potential" is just another word for "chance"....and unless you are a clairvoyent....you cannot determine an outcome based on chance.....even if you are watching its "development."

You could determine that potential to FAIL at viability....as you noted the "fetus with no brain developing".....but you could NOT determine an accurate potential for SUCCESSFUL viability, given there are so many random factors that could crop up to cause a failure.

IOW, if the Shuttle Challenger had had tiles falling off of it before its launch in 1986 and cracks in the window seals......NASA could determine that it had NO "potential" for a successful launch.

But no one could see the "potential" for the O-ring failure that caused the Shuttle's destruction.

By your standard a person could have said (wrongly) "One can clearly see that the Shuttle's flight will be successful because of the way the craft is operating or functioning in the weeks before the launch." Previous successful flights might make them be CONFIDENT of a successful flight....

but it would not be a CERTAINTY of success, no matter how the launch "developed."

 

MOD EDIT - Off Topic
Abortion by race - I have the stats from the CDC right here for ya:

Table 101. Abortions&#8212;Number and Rate by Race: 1990 to 2007

Among women age 15-44:

(most recent year listed)
2007. . . . . . white women: 668 per 1,000 or 13.8% of the population
................... black women: 448 per 1,000 or 48.2% of the population

https://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s0101.pdf ​

I figure since most of the crime in this country (and this is FACT according to FBI statistics) is driven by black males age 15-30 (they commit 52% of all murders, but are about 2% of the general popylation) those gals are doing us all a great big favor and I have no problem with them getting abortions. Heck, the welfare savings alone must be staggering.

 

Nope not conflating anything. potential to be viable and viable do go together BTW. You can't become viable unless there is potential.
What I'm saying is you can determine the fetuses potential to be viable based on development. As long as the potential is there it needs to be protected and considered a human. Once the potential is gone it loses the protection and can be terminated. you wont know in a lot of cases if it is viable until it is born.
I've already stated you can't know when a fetus is going to be viable, or if it ever will be viable for that matter, but as long as the potential is there it needs to be protected.
You can determine an accurate success at being viable based on what it takes to be viable. Yes failures do occur, but the unborn human deserves protection as long as the potential is there and yes you can determine this. does every failure get detected? nope, but you can accurately determine what the success rate will be based on development. aka 99 plus percent chance for a normal development and zero percent for no brain.

 

Six weeks into gestation of what appears to be a normally developing fetus....is it possible to say "There is a 70% chance (or potential) that this fetus will be viable".....and be absolutely, positively sure of that 70% figure? 100% sure...of your 70% prognosis?

Yes or No?

If you say "No"....you just contradicted your own claim.

 

If it appears to be normal, then you have to consider it normal and say that fetus has the potential to be viable, a fetus that deserves to be protected. No it does not contradict my own claim that you can determine a 6 week old fetus that is developing normally, or appears to be developing normal as having potential to be viable and deserves to be protected. Nor does it dispute my claim that a normally developed fetus will have a 99% chance of surviving outside the womb, probably higher then that actually. You are trying to say I'm saying you can say the fetus has a 99% chance of being viable at 6 weeks gestation, when you really know I was responding to your fully developed statement, but you can determine potential, or no potential for that stage in development. A lot of parts are developing at that time and the heart is beating

 

and of course this has nothing to do with the fact that, by far, blacks in the USA are the poorest people