Blob of protoplasm

[wondrousgnat]

I belong to a discussion group. Yesterday a ,member sent me an e-mail and below is a part of it:

“The states are running away with crazy laws the feds are doing nothing to check–like inserting a device in the vagina to show the woman seeking an abortion (a legal operation) what a blob of protoplasm looks like.”

I notice he mentioned no group or state pushing for it. I do want to respond but I want to be certain I have all my facts before I answer. I don’t want incorrect answer that will support his point. I assume that he got his info from some abortion organization whose info may be distorted or totally fabricated.

On a seperate note I decided to look up “protoplasm” in an old dictionary. It wasn’t there. It seems to verify my suspicion that it is a made-up word to make fetus (which I believe is Latin for unborn baby) the equivalent to a glob of snot or throw-up.

 

[Bernward]

I belong to a discussion group. Yesterday a ,member sent me an e-mail and below is a part of it:

“The states are running away with crazy laws the feds are doing nothing to check–like inserting a device in the vagina to show the woman seeking an abortion (a legal operation) what a blob of protoplasm looks like.”

I notice he mentioned no group or state pushing for it. I do want to respond but I want to be certain I have all my facts before I answer. I don’t want incorrect answer that will support his point. I assume that he got his info from some abortion organization whose info may be distorted or totally fabricated.

On a seperate note I decided to look up “protoplasm” in an old dictionary. It wasn’t there. It seems to verify my suspicion that it is a made-up word to make fetus (which I believe is Latin for unborn baby) the equivalent to a glob of snot or throw-up.

***Protoplasm: - the material comprising the living part of a cell, consisting of a nucleus embedded in membrane-enclosed cytoplasm’***The Concise Oxford Dictionary.

God bless

 

[Corki]

***Protoplasm: - the material comprising the living part of a cell, consisting of a nucleus embedded in membrane-enclosed cytoplasm’***The Concise Oxford Dictionary.

God bless

Which just proves that the word cannot be applied to an embryo.

 

[manualman]

Abortion is an easy argument to win rationally. The problem is that abortion defenders aren’t interested in discussing it rationally. They argue entirely from emotion and ad hominem. But if you can focus the discussion on what abortion IS, you almost can’t lose.

WHAT is a fetus? Yes, it IS a clump of cells (protoplasm, if you wish), but that isn’t a very helpful definition because you and I are clumps of cells too, so we need to look more closely and ask more questions.

Is it a part of the woman’s body? No. By definition all parts of your body have YOUR DNA. The fetus is a living organism (again, by any scienctific definition) and it has its own unique DNA.

OK, it’s alive, but it isn’t human, it’s just a blob of cells! This is the 21st century. We’ve sequenced the human genome. All it takes is a lab test to prove that the DNA of a fetus is HUMAN DNA and is related to, but different from her mother’s DNA.

But it isn’t a real human, it’s more of a parasite that can’t live apart from its host! Nope, that’s a dodge too. The fetus is dependent on its mother’s care just like a newborn infant is. Leave a newborn infant to fend for herself and she’ll die in a day or two at most. If you are going to revoke human status for the fetus, you end up doing so for the newborn too. Dependency does not negate humanity. (Interestingly, some ivory tower intellectuals ARE starting to suggest that newborns aren’t real humans either - look up Peter Singer of Princeton University and prepare to be scared.)

It may be biologically a human being, but it isn’t a person yet. Persons are self, aware, can communicate, react to stimulii! Wrong again. You don’t stop being a person if you are injured and go into a temporary coma, do you? Why not then? Are those with severe brain damage or Alzheimer’s that have reduced self awareness less human than you are? Really? That’s a dangerous door to open. It suggests that person’s aren’t valued for their very humanity, but for their ‘capacities.’ (whatever that means) Because this is a subjective judgement, it very quickly leads to classes of humans that are less worthy of protection in society and culture than others. History is soaked in blood whenever such ideologies take hold.

But it’s not fair that women’s lives should be so disrupted by a crisis pregnancy when men get off almost scott free! No, it’s not fair. There is no answer for that that sets the balances even. But abortion doesn’t do so either. It’s not a time machine, it doesn’t undo the pregnancy. It just kills an innocent human being who isn’t guilty of a single injustice in her short life. That can never be the solution to a problem in a healthy society. It’s understandable that women rage against the biological unfairness of it all. But one injustice isn’t corrected by committing another one.

 

[Shredderbeam]

Abortion is an easy argument to win rationally. The problem is that abortion defenders aren’t interested in discussing it rationally. They argue entirely from emotion and ad hominem. But if you can focus the discussion on what abortion IS, you almost can’t lose.

WHAT is a fetus? Yes, it IS a clump of cells (protoplasm, if you wish), but that isn’t a very helpful definition because you and I are clumps of cells too, so we need to look more closely and ask more questions.

Is it a part of the woman’s body? No. By definition all parts of your body have YOUR DNA. The fetus is a living organism (again, by any scienctific definition) and it has its own unique DNA.

OK, it’s alive, but it isn’t human, it’s just a blob of cells! This is the 21st century. We’ve sequenced the human genome. All it takes is a lab test to prove that the DNA of a fetus is HUMAN DNA and is related to, but different from her mother’s DNA.

But it isn’t a real human, it’s more of a parasite that can’t live apart from its host! Nope, that’s a dodge too. The fetus is dependent on its mother’s care just like a newborn infant is. Leave a newborn infant to fend for herself and she’ll die in a day or two at most. If you are going to revoke human status for the fetus, you end up doing so for the newborn too. Dependency does not negate humanity. (Interestingly, some ivory tower intellectuals ARE starting to suggest that newborns aren’t real humans either - look up Peter Singer of Princeton University and prepare to be scared.)

It may be biologically a human being, but it isn’t a person yet. Persons are self, aware, can communicate, react to stimulii! Wrong again. You don’t stop being a person if you are injured and go into a temporary coma, do you? Why not then? Are those with severe brain damage or Alzheimer’s that have reduced self awareness less human than you are? Really? That’s a dangerous door to open. It suggests that person’s aren’t valued for their very humanity, but for their ‘capacities.’ (whatever that means) Because this is a subjective judgement, it very quickly leads to classes of humans that are less worthy of protection in society and culture than others. History is soaked in blood whenever such ideologies take hold.

But it’s not fair that women’s lives should be so disrupted by a crisis pregnancy when men get off almost scott free! No, it’s not fair. There is no answer for that that sets the balances even. But abortion doesn’t do so either. It’s not a time machine, it doesn’t undo the pregnancy. It just kills an innocent human being who isn’t guilty of a single injustice in her short life. That can never be the solution to a problem in a healthy society. It’s understandable that women rage against the biological unfairness of it all. But one injustice isn’t corrected by committing another one.

I like the way you think. You’ve given me cause to reevaluate my position.

One of my friends is an ardent “right to choose” supporter, and her main argument is that women will continue to have abortions regardless of the legality of it. Therefore, she says, abortion should remain legal so that women can have a safe one instead of a risky one. If you wouldn’t mind, could you tell me how you’d respond to that?

 

[Dale_M]

“The states are running away with crazy laws the feds are doing nothing to check–like inserting a device in the vagina to show the woman seeking an abortion (a legal operation) what a blob of protoplasm looks like.”.

Texas is the state which now requires a woman seeking an abortion first get a trans-vaginal ultrasound. Such an ultrasound requires a probe to be inserted into her vagina up to her cervix. Its not the traditional “jelly on the belly” ultrasound we normally think of.

As for the “blob of protoplasm” reference, obviously that is medically incorrect. It is an statement of emotion, not a statement of science.

 

[manualman]

If you wouldn’t mind, could you tell me how you’d respond to that?

It’s true that humans are fallen creatures prone to weakness and liable to accept the easy way out of hard situations, even at the expense of others.

But do we really want to culturally enable that kind of behavior? Take the emotionalism of abortion out of the topic for a second and apply the principle to other situations. Try this:

Men, for reasons endlessly argued over, are more likely to commit the crime of domestic battery and women are more likely to be the victim. This has always been so, and tragically, probably always will be, whether civilized society tries to stop it or not. What your friend argues about ‘safe’ abortion is analogous to decriminalizing domestic battery in favor of “Safe Domination” training seminars for men with anger issues. Wouldn’t it be better if we didn’t force these men to hide their abusiveness? Wouldn’t it be better if we took the stigma away and instead taught these men how to inflict the pain they desire to use as a means of domination without losing control and causing death, disfigurement or permanent disability?

Absurd, I hope you agree. Now reject that logic in whatever issue it is applied to. The argument is designed to elicit sympathy for the (truly) difficult situation the pregnant woman is in. In so doing, it (as usual) distracts one away from the question “What IS abortion?” and towards “Can’t we stop the suffering of these women?” The answer to the latter question should always be “Yes, as long as the solution doesn’t victimize someone else even worse.” Abortion, of course, fails that test.

 

[St_Francis]

…But it’s not fair that women’s lives should be so disrupted by a crisis pregnancy when men get off almost scott free!..

Yes, men “get to” have sex whenever they want and face no consequences, so women should be able to too.

Actually, if women considered the potential consequences–even abc is not 100% effective as the PP numbers themselves show–they face, and said *no *to men until marriage, then guess what? men would *not *“get to” have sex whenever they want…

I like your arguments, too, altho there are people out there who are advocating for killing people who “lack quality of life,” like those with Alzheimer’s

 

[manualman]

Texas is the state which now requires a woman seeking an abortion first get a trans-vaginal ultrasound. Such an ultrasound requires a probe to be inserted into her vagina up to her cervix. Its not the traditional “jelly on the belly” ultrasound we normally think of.

This is an extremely good point that I only recently learned of, and have never heard from pro-life sources. Something so intrusive is, IMO, NOT going to have the best long term effects in converting our culture. Personally, I would suggest requiring that all women view a taped recording of such a typical ultrasound prepared at the approximate gestational age her child is at, rather than require her to personally experience it. It’s just too intrusive and comes off as domination rather than reasoned presentation of the facts.

People on the abortion support side of the fence already stereotype pro-lifers as woman-haters. It’s important to be especially careful not to play into their propaganda hands.

 

[Boulder257]

Abortion is an easy argument to win rationally. The problem is that abortion defenders aren’t interested in discussing it rationally. They argue entirely from emotion and ad hominem. But if you can focus the discussion on what abortion IS, you almost can’t lose.

WHAT is a fetus? Yes, it IS a clump of cells (protoplasm, if you wish), but that isn’t a very helpful definition because you and I are clumps of cells too, so we need to look more closely and ask more questions.

Is it a part of the woman’s body? No. By definition all parts of your body have YOUR DNA. The fetus is a living organism (again, by any scienctific definition) and it has its own unique DNA.

OK, it’s alive, but it isn’t human, it’s just a blob of cells! This is the 21st century. We’ve sequenced the human genome. All it takes is a lab test to prove that the DNA of a fetus is HUMAN DNA and is related to, but different from her mother’s DNA.

But it isn’t a real human, it’s more of a parasite that can’t live apart from its host! Nope, that’s a dodge too. The fetus is dependent on its mother’s care just like a newborn infant is. Leave a newborn infant to fend for herself and she’ll die in a day or two at most. If you are going to revoke human status for the fetus, you end up doing so for the newborn too. Dependency does not negate humanity. (Interestingly, some ivory tower intellectuals ARE starting to suggest that newborns aren’t real humans either - look up Peter Singer of Princeton University and prepare to be scared.)

It may be biologically a human being, but it isn’t a person yet. Persons are self, aware, can communicate, react to stimulii! Wrong again. You don’t stop being a person if you are injured and go into a temporary coma, do you? Why not then? Are those with severe brain damage or Alzheimer’s that have reduced self awareness less human than you are? Really? That’s a dangerous door to open. It suggests that person’s aren’t valued for their very humanity, but for their ‘capacities.’ (whatever that means) Because this is a subjective judgement, it very quickly leads to classes of humans that are less worthy of protection in society and culture than others. History is soaked in blood whenever such ideologies take hold.

But it’s not fair that women’s lives should be so disrupted by a crisis pregnancy when men get off almost scott free! No, it’s not fair. There is no answer for that that sets the balances even. But abortion doesn’t do so either. It’s not a time machine, it doesn’t undo the pregnancy. It just kills an innocent human being who isn’t guilty of a single injustice in her short life. That can never be the solution to a problem in a healthy society. It’s understandable that women rage against the biological unfairness of it all. But one injustice isn’t corrected by committing another one.

Very well said. I really enjoyed this post!

 

[St_Francis]

This is an extremely good point that I only recently learned of, and have never heard from pro-life sources. Something so intrusive is, IMO, NOT going to have the best long term effects in converting our culture. Personally, I would suggest requiring that all women view a taped recording of such a typical ultrasound prepared at the approximate gestational age her child is at, rather than require her to personally experience it. It’s just too intrusive and comes off as domination rather than reasoned presentation of the facts.

People on the abortion support side of the fence already stereotype pro-lifers as woman-haters. It’s important to be especially careful not to play into their propaganda hands.

First, an ultrasound should be performed anyway, TV in the early stages, abdominal later (I don’t think TX should require TV if it is not medically indicated).

{Sorry to get a little graphic here}, but secondly, the doctor is going to put a lot more dangerous instruments a lot deeper. Someone was calling this a type of rape when VA was proposing it and that is just straining at gnats while swallowing camels. From a woman’s point of view, --I am a woman, despite my user-name–this criticism is grotesquely drama-queen over-the-top stupid, obviously feminazi baloney akin to race-baiting.

 

[wondrousgnat]

Concerning the quote I used in my OP. On the surface it appears as though it is an intrusion on a woman’s rights. But I look at it more closely. In 2003 I had a herniatic disc removed from my neck Before that happened I, along with my doctor, looked at x-rays and an MRI. In 2009 I had a defective heart valve replaced. For several years before that I had several different types of videos taken and I watched the videos. In both operations I knew what the problem was, what needed to be done and what would have happened if I did not get the operations. Also, in both cases, I saw x-rays and videos after the operations.

In the case of abortions many post abortive woman suffer regrets, some suffer depression and some suicide because of what they were not told before what was almost always elective surgery. They were never provided with adequate information.

I have never heard of anyone suffering regret for having spinal or heart surgery.

 

[wondrousgnat]

In other words, my doctors made sure that I was fully informed

 

[St_Francis]

In other words, my doctors made sure that I was fully informed

Precisely.

Why would the “women’s rights” folks fight against women’s being fully informed about the nature of abortion? Gee, I can’t imagine!