Is Answering To Pro Abortion/choice Poster Taking You Away From What You Need To Do About The Issue Of Abortion

[JDaniel]

It has been said before, and will be said again:
You are not voting for the Pope, or the next Messiah.
USA is not, and G_d help us, never shall be a Christian Caliphate.
Of the people
By the people
For the people
Or something very much like that, I believe.

We may not be a Caliphate, and the next President might not be the next Messiah or Pope, but, as we can plainly see from past Presidents, legacies can be left behind that facilitate abominations, such as the ramp up, for example, of the number of abortions from perhaps a 1,000 (or less) per day to 4,000 to 5,000 per day. Roe v. Wade opened the door; past Presidents unwilling to speak out loudly against it and/or take available measures to overturn it, have left a legacy of greater and greater social indifference to it. Another such abomination might be the legacy decisions of the judges left by a too liberal Presidency.

It seems that we have also read, “. . . We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator . . .”, and, “ . . .We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions . . .”, as well as many other places where God and His aid and wisdom are implored for the benefit of Americans implies a unique “partnership” between each of us and the Creator. It is not just a prayer or a wish, it is a “walk” with Him along side of us in our governance or the country.

The fusion of a spermatazoan and an oocite is not the beginning of life.
It is the beginning of the possibility of a new individual, or several.
Yes, it is certainly the beginning of a new form of, (in our context, here), humanity.
You might call it a human being, for it is definitely human, and definitely a being, ie alive.
However, by that definition, both spermatazoa, and oocites are also human beings.

The fusion of a spermatozoon and an ovum is precisely the “act of the potential.” “Possibilities’ beyond that primary actualization are second “motions”, in the Aristotelian and Thomistic sense, from potential to act. These second motions may be altered in many ways, by nature, man, or God. That there may be two souls present shortly after conception, as in the case of the two-headed baby, is understood by science and is considered an “anomaly of nature” permitted and actualized by God. We are, after all, creatures of nature too. Thus, the imperfections that nature brings into the scene can accompany God’s intention. Can He “fix” such problems? I presume that He can and, perhaps, has, in the past, on one or countless occasions. Why He lets some be born is His rationale, which we cannot know yet, if ever.

Your argument that the spermatozoon and the ovum are human beings in an of themselves is false. Your supposition that they are “possibility” or “potential” is false as well, except when incorporated into a mathematical induction schema. Such schemas can be used to alter actuality as can be seen when it is incorporated into the “free will” problem of philosophy. They, alone, cannot develop into a human being. They can be artificially manipulated by the addition of another set of chromosomes to produce a human clone, but, cannot do it by themselves – at least not yet.

Neither the spermatozoon nor the ovum will proceed from “potential to act” except in the most accidental of ways, such as perhaps the motility of the spermatozoa from point A to point B. Whereas the combination of the two forming the human zygote is a substantial change resulting in a “new” thing that is simply in its beginning stages of growth, on a timeline belonging to him, or her, and to God. The fact of this is provable by viewing it and it is reproducible. That anomalies occur, on relatively rare occasions, does not deny the truth of the “scientific” evidence, nor does it refute it.

JD

 

[JDaniel]

Mother Church says, and this is true, that the beginning of every new human life is conception.
That is, the cause of A is B.
That does not mean that for every B there will be an A, or that one B causes one A.
There is much between B and A.
Actually one might say, more accurately:
B:=> n x A, where n is any whole number from zero to, possibly more than four.

So conception does not initiate an individual, for the zygote is free to fission ito identical siblings.

Mother Church has agonized much over when the new individual receives its imortal soul, and left the verdict open.

His Holiness, JP23, in his epistle favoured conception, buit that was just his opinion. You might agree, or disagree.

This is all angels dancing on the head of a pin.
It is undefined, and undefinable.

No-one has yet come up with a better guess than the quickening, or about week 16.

This stuff is not “angels dancing on the head of a pin”. The Church has carefully made sound decisions based upon relevant science and relevant philosophy, theology, and tradition. There exists a preponderance of proof that the Church plainly asserts that a human life exists at the moment of conception.

The Church is not stupid. When a natural, or artificial, occurrence causes the life of a fetus to be put in peril AND it is not intended, then it is nature, or God, that decides to take that life. The Church does proactively require that we do everything possible to maintain the child’s life though. Doctors, on the operating table, make those decisions based upon, or, at least, they should be based upon, the above criteria to allow a child to die.

No-one has yet come up with a better guess than the quickening, or about week 16.

Scientifically, this is feasible, for it represents the infant beginning to run on internal systems, ie, it is the beginning of its independence.
It is certainly a major improvement on birth.

So logically, when, and under what circumstances might a pregnancy be terminated?
1/ When there is a real and present mortal danger to the mother, and thereby to the pregnancy. For the pregnancy cannot be saved, and the mother will also be lost.
2/ Where the pregnancy will not produce a viable delivery, ie, the foetus is ancephalic.
3/ Getting into grey areas: where the pregnancy will result in a hopelessly disabled birth.
Honest judgements would, to varying degrees, support the above.
Below this line, ther are no simple judgements.
Inconvenience, non mortal danger, non-hopeless disability.
Let the objector pay.
If the mother is incapable of raising a severely disabled infant, then thoe who insist that the pregnancy must come to term, are responsible for the upkeep, and development of that disabled child.
In nature, a disabled infant would rapidly come to a sticky end, and so be removed from the genetic pool. Euthanasia is surely preferable to a sticky end.

Pre-quickening termination is a suitable means of euthanasing non viable pregnancies, and involves no suffering to the foetus, as there is then no operable nervous system.

Yes, in the Kingdom of G-d, where non of these bad things happen, let there be no abortions.
But Our Lord also said that in the Kingdom, there would be no marrying, or giving in marriage, no birth, and no death, for we will all be as the angels.

But for now, we have this precious planet to care for, and we must follow the rule imposed upon us by the limited resources of this blessed blue sphere

Don’t get me wrong,
Abortion is not an acceptable means of birth control.
There is only one acceptable means of birth control.

ps.
My view is that once the infant has quickened, it is a baby waiting to be born, and, every effort should be made to ensure a viable live birth, once this moment has passed.
That means that if a termination is then required for urgent reasons, for the welfare of the mother, it must be put off as long as is physically possible, so that the premature nbirth has the best possible chance of survival.
Partial birth termination is a CRIME AGAINST HUMANITY.

Further, that you will not recognize the “humanity” (or the existence of soul) of a human zygote until the so called “quickening” rings false from arrogance. The Church has, in the past 50 years or so, tried to become less absolutist about its pronouncements relative to the discoveries of science. John Paul XXIII, if he said what you have reported, would have been in keeping with that idea inasmuch as he knew he was not a scientist, as well as he knew that ultimately, the “binding” authority of the Church’s pronouncements has been handled in other ways, i.e., that where contradiction arises between science and dogma, the Church must be the final authority.

This “precious planet” is a long way from overpopulation to the precipice of self-extinction. Annihilation is not an answer to overpopulation.

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

We may not be a Caliphate, and the next President might not be the next Messiah or Pope, but, as we can plainly see from past Presidents, legacies can be left behind that facilitate abominations, such as the ramp up, for example, of the number of abortions from perhaps a 1,000 (or less) per day to 4,000 to 5,000 per day. Roe v. Wade opened the door; past Presidents unwilling to speak out loudly against it and/or take available measures to overturn it, have left a legacy of greater and greater social indifference to it. Another such abomination might be the legacy decisions of the judges left by a too liberal Presidency.

It seems that we have also read, “. . . We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator . . .”, and, “ . . .We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions . . .”, as well as many other places where God and His aid and wisdom are implored for the benefit of Americans implies a unique “partnership” between each of us and the Creator. It is not just a prayer or a wish, it is a “walk” with Him along side of us in our governance or the country.

Yes, all governments have, and always will, betray their trusts.
The last honest politician spent a couple of hours on a hill chatting with a couple of robbers.

The fusion of a spermatozoon and an ovum is precisely the “act of the potential.” “Possibilities’ beyond that primary actualization are second “motions”, in the Aristotelian and Thomistic sense, from potential to act. These second motions may be altered in many ways, by nature, man, or God. That there may be two souls present shortly after conception, as in the case of the two-headed baby, is understood by science and is considered an “anomaly of nature” permitted and actualized by God. We are, after all, creatures of nature too. Thus, the imperfections that nature brings into the scene can accompany God’s intention. Can He “fix” such problems? I presume that He can and, perhaps, has, in the past, on one or countless occasions. Why He lets some be born is His rationale, which we cannot know yet, if ever.

Thank you for your considered response.
I will try to do you justice:
The above, clearly shows that personhood, in the commonly accepted sense, equates to the presence of a functional brain, which may not be conscious, but is capable of consciousness.
This rules out early embryos, and as far as can be easily observed, foetii up to the quickening.
Note, I do not deny its humanity, nor that, as it has the potentiality of personhood, it should be allocated the rights of a person.

Your argument that the spermatozoon and the ovum are human beings in an of themselves is false.

Careful, some people use the word ovum to mean fertilized oocite, hence zygote.
My argument is here simple:
from emission until conception, the spermatazoan is running on intermal power, and manoeuvering according to an internal set of criteria.
Likewise, from budding until conception, the oocite manoeuvers, with its cillia, into the highest velocity flow-path, driven by cillia on the fallopian tube wall, in accordance with its internal manoeuvering criteria, under its own power.
The zygote, which results from conception, continues to behave like the oocite that it was, until it finds a suitable location to implant, which it chooses according to its internal criteria, while still running on internal power.
All three show the same ability to respond to their external environment, and run independently on internal power.
The spermatazoan actually has a digestive system, and is able to supliment its internal power supply from the sugar solution which is provided in the emission.

Your supposition that they are “possibility” or “potential” is false as well, except when incorporated into a mathematical induction schema. Such schemas can be used to alter actuality as can be seen when it is incorporated into the “free will” problem of philosophy.

I was not considering points of philosophy here, only science.

They, alone, cannot develop into a human being.

But according to our criteria, they are already human beings. If you mean that they alone cannot become a NEW human being, then read on…

They can be artificially manipulated by the addition of another set of chromosomes to produce a human clone, but, cannot do it by themselves – at least not yet.

But that is also true of adult humans.
A male human on his own, or a female on her own cannot do this.
Does that make them not human?

Neither the spermatozoon nor the ovum will proceed from “potential to act” except in the most accidental of ways, such as perhaps the motility of the spermatozoa from point A to point B.

The behaviour of the spermatazoan is not random, it uses chemical detectors, and internal control, to manoeuver up a chemical gradient, which will result in it coming into contact with the oocite, in accordance with its internal criteria.
Likewise, the oocite ‘deliberately’ manoeuvers into the fastest flow zone, and the zygote into the embedding location.
Non of these manoeuvers are controlled by the host, they are independent functions of independent organisms.

Whereas the combination of the two forming the human zygote is a substantial change resulting in a “new” thing that is simply in its beginning stages of growth,

Indeed, a new existence, a new living thing, but not the beginning of LIFE.

on a timeline belonging to him, or her, and to God. The fact of this is provable by viewing it and it is reproducible. That anomalies occur, on relatively rare occasions, does not deny the truth of the “scientific” evidence, nor does it refute it.

JD

 

[bbarrick8383]

Indeed, a new existence, a new living thing, but not the beginning of LIFE.

Back to the reference of your old analogy.

So, basically from what I gather a car isnt a car until the engine is started.

So, when your heart stops beating you cease to be a human?

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

This stuff is not “angels dancing on the head of a pin”.

[sign]His Holiness, JP23, in his epistle favoured conception, buit that was just his opinion. You might agree, or disagree.

This is all angels dancing on the head of a pin.
It is undefined, and undefinable.

No-one has yet come up with a better guess than the quickening, or about week 16.[/sign]

The Church has carefully made sound decisions based upon relevant science and relevant philosophy, theology, and tradition. There exists a preponderance of proof that the Church plainly asserts that a human life exists at the moment of conception.

And before conception, for the spermatazoan, and the oocite are both alive and independent human organisms. If one chose to push the envelope of language, that makes them forms of human beings.

The Church is not stupid. When a natural, or artificial, occurrence causes the life of a fetus to be put in peril AND it is not intended, then it is nature, or God, that decides to take that life. The Church does proactively require that we do everything possible to maintain the child’s life though. Doctors, on the operating table, make those decisions based upon, or, at least, they should be based upon, the above criteria to allow a child to die.

If I used words which imply that Mother Church is stupid, I stand in need of forgiveness.
I never meant that, nor did I consciously say that.
What I meant was that the LAW is sometimes misunderstood, even by those who should know better, for indeed, it is a complex matter and the dividing line can be fuzzy to the point of invisibility.

Further, that you will not recognize the “humanity” (or the existence of soul)

It is you who conflate these two very different entities, or states. Mother Church does not INFALLIBLY hold them to be identical.
The origin of the immortal soul has been the subject of agony of many revered Church Father from the beginning of the age.
No-one has yet reached a satisfactory accommodation.

of a human zygote until the so called “quickening” rings false from arrogance.

For many years, Mother Church used this very judgement, and it was written into Church Law, and civil law for many years, if not centuries.

The Church has, in the past 50 years or so, tried to become less absolutist about its pronouncements relative to the discoveries of science. John Paul XXIII, if he said what you have reported, would have been in keeping with that idea inasmuch as he knew he was not a scientist, as well as he knew that ultimately, the “binding” authority of the Church’s pronouncements has been handled in other ways, i.e., that where contradiction arises between science and dogma, the Church must be the final authority.

ONLY in matters of FAITH and MORALS.
Mother Church has rightly abdicated authority to make pronouncements on science.

This “precious planet” is a long way from overpopulation to the precipice of self-extinction. Annihilation is not an answer to overpopulation.

Actually, it has been reliably estimated that we require the resources of at least four Earth like planets to maintain the present population in its present state.
It is only by destructive overproduction that the present state can be temporarily maintained.

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

Back to the reference of your old analogy.

So, basically from what I gather a car isnt a car until the engine is started.

Fords will not allow a vehicle to leave its factory bearing a manufacturer identity plate untill its motor has been started, and tuned, and the vehicle has moved under its own power. Hence, until this time, Ford does not consider it to be a ‘car’.

So, when your heart stops beating you cease to be a human?

When your heart stops beating, you are dead, hence you are not a being, hence not a human being, but a corpse.

You need to begin to understand the usage of precise language.
These are complex matters, and woolyheaded language has no place here.

 

[bbarrick8383]

Fords will not allow a vehicle to leave its factory bearing a manufacturer identity plate untill its motor has been started, and tuned, and the vehicle has moved under its own power. Hence, until this time, Ford does not consider it to be a ‘car’.

When your heart stops beating, you are dead, hence you are not a being, hence not a human being, but a corpse.

You need to begin to understand the usage of precise language.
These are complex matters, and woolyheaded language has no place here.

I was criticizing your earlier post because you were comparing cars to human life. Just in case you missed my earlier post as well. And you talk about precise language, when a humans heart stops beating it can be restarted it does not mean that it has become a “corpse” yet. But if it is not restarted it becomes a “human corpse”. Therefore, what once was still is. Take your “precise language” and A+B logic, you sound like an engineer, you can read the book and understand it but you will never be able to pick up the hammer and build it.

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

I was criticizing your earlier post because you were comparing cars to human life. Just in case you missed my earlier post as well. And you talk about precise language, when a humans heart stops beating it can be restarted it does not mean that it has become a “corpse” yet. But if it is not restarted it becomes a “human corpse”. Therefore, what once was still is. Take your “precise language” and A+B logic, you sound like an engineer, you can read the book and understand it but you will never be able to pick up the hammer and build it.

You are playing with words.
I was deducing from your woolyheaded language that stopped heart = dead, but of course that is not inevitably true, but USUALLY is.

I was not comparing a car with the wonderous miracle of life, only as a linguistic tool to demonstrate presence or absence of vital systems, and developed, or un-developed existing systems.

Now if you cannot understand a simple parable, and you find precise scientific language to be anathema, whither goest thou?

 

[JDaniel]

Yes, all governments have, and always will, betray their trusts.
The last honest politician spent a couple of hours on a hill chatting with a couple of robbers.

You make a point there, however sad it might be.

Thank you for your considered response.
I will try to do you justice:
The above, clearly shows that personhood, in the commonly accepted sense, equates to the presence of a functional brain, which may not be conscious, but is capable of consciousness.
This rules out early embryos, and as far as can be easily observed, foetii up to the quickening.
Note, I do not deny its humanity, nor that, as it has the potentiality of personhood, it should be allocated the rights of a person.

Well, I’ve seen several manifestations of what you mean by “functional brain”. For example, you have indicated that the “16 week-out quickening” is the point at which the brain is functional and the systems, albeit not all of them, are running on their own. On the other hand, science says that the heart starts beating on its own at about three weeks from conception (five weeks from gestation). If the heart is beating on its own, and the mother’s brain isn’t controlling it, then, the baby’s brain is.

“In pregnancy terms, the moment of quickening refers to the initial motion of the fetus in the uterus as it is perceived or felt by the pregnant woman. According to the Oxford English Dictionary, to ‘quicken’ means “to reach the stage of pregnancy at which the child shows signs of life.” In the twentieth century, ultrasound technology made it possible to see that a fetus is in motion even if the pregnant woman does not yet feel it. This technological development made the concept of ‘quickening’ a bit more complex.” - Wikipedia

The “moment of quickening” varies from woman to woman and also varies due to whether or not this is the first pregnancy or (second) or third. It would appear then that “the quickening” is not much of a measure of whether or not the early child is “essentially” the same as a fully developed adult with all of the same rights.

The concept of a “right” is largely misunderstood by the majority of mankind. The majority of mankind views “rights” as though it was akin to an object possessed, or a possessed process (such as “life”). Correctly understood, it is that which is accorded between human beings precisely because it is reciprocated, or, potentially reciprocated. Plants and animals cannot have a “right”, or rights, because they are incapable of reciprocating it.

The child at one second old, on the other hand, is potentially able to reciprocate it – no less potentially than a child at 7 years old.

My argument is here simple:
from emission until conception, the spermatazoan is running on intermal power, and manoeuvering according to an internal set of criteria.

Likewise, from budding until conception, the oocite manoeuvers, with its cillia, into the highest velocity flow-path, driven by cillia on the fallopian tube wall, in accordance with its internal manoeuvering criteria, under its own power.

The zygote, which results from conception, continues to behave like the oocite that it was, until it finds a suitable location to implant, which it chooses according to its internal criteria, while still running on internal power.

All three show the same ability to respond to their external environment, and run independently on internal power.
The spermatazoan actually has a digestive system, and is able to supliment its internal power supply from the sugar solution which is provided in the emission.

You are ascribing all sorts of powers to the spermatozoon and the oocyte. If what you say were true “absolutely” – one of your prerequisites – then all of the spermatozoa would be knocking on the outer wall of an oocyte with an extraordinary ration of precision. There wouldn’t be any need to expel a half-million of them. Also, the oocyte is largely controlled by the interior wall of the fallopian tube and the uterus. So, it has not the individual self-determination you seem to ascribe to it either. Otherwise, it would not need to run into a hailstorm of spermatozoa.

The zygote does not “continue to operate like the spermatozoon and the oocyte”, except in a process quite accidental to it, of motion to a settling point. From the moment of conception, it begins processes completely foreign to its former bits of matter. It begins cellular division and differentiation. And, this cellular division and differentiation take place very quickly during its first 7 weeks.

I was not considering points of philosophy here, only science.

Neither was I.

JD

 

[JDaniel]

But according to our criteria, they are already human beings. If you mean that they alone cannot become a NEW human being, then read on…

But that is also true of adult humans.
A male human on his own, or a female on her own cannot do this.
Does that make them not human?

You are equivocating here: adult human males and females are not here to “become” a new human being. Of course, you could continue to split hairs and say that of the spermatozoon and the oocyte as well. And, yes, they could live out the terribly short “lives” and die. But, like the car that is here for the “purpose” of delivering its passengers from one place to the next, even if it was solely developed to be a race car, its primary reason for being (purpose) would not be diminished.

The behaviour of the spermatazoan is not random, it uses chemical detectors, and internal control, to manoeuver up a chemical gradient, which will result in it coming into contact with the oocite, in accordance with its internal criteria.
Likewise, the oocite ‘deliberately’ manoeuvers into the fastest flow zone, and the zygote into the embedding location.
Non of these manoeuvers are controlled by the host, they are independent functions of independent organisms.

We disagree; see above.

Indeed, a new existence, a new living thing, but not the beginning of LIFE.

Again you are equivocating. None of the things we are discussing could be extant if it was not for the fact that they are “alive”, i.e., with “LIFE”.

JD

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

You make a point there, however sad it might be.

Well, I’ve seen several manifestations of what you mean by “functional brain”. For example, you have indicated that the “16 week-out quickening” is the point at which the brain is functional and the systems, albeit not all of them, are running on their own. On the other hand, science says that the heart starts beating on its own at about three weeks from conception (five weeks from gestation). If the heart is beating on its own, and the mother’s brain isn’t controlling it, then, the baby’s brain is.

No, the heart is ‘free running’. individual heart muscle cells in a petri dish, if supplied with glucose and oxygen, at body temperature, will rythmicly contract at about 70 beats per minute.

“In pregnancy terms, the moment of quickening refers to the initial motion of the fetus in the uterus as it is perceived or felt by the pregnant woman. According to the Oxford English Dictionary, to ‘quicken’ means “to reach the stage of pregnancy at which the child shows signs of life.” In the twentieth century, ultrasound technology made it possible to see that a fetus is in motion even if the pregnant woman does not yet feel it. This technological development made the concept of ‘quickening’ a bit more complex.” - Wikipedia

Quickening is usually felt between 18 and 20 weeks. I have given an extra two weeks credit to the best estimate.
I do not deny that major systems may be aqctive before then, I just maintain that AFTER then, they are PROBABLY active.

The “moment of quickening” varies from woman to woman and also varies due to whether or not this is the first pregnancy or (second) or third. It would appear then that “the quickening” is not much of a measure of whether or not the early child is essentially the same as a fully developed adult with all of the same rights.

The concept of a “right” is largely misunderstood by the majority of mankind. The majority of mankind views “rights” as though it was akin to an object possessed, or a possessed process (such as “life”). Correctly understood, it is that which is accorded between human beings precisely because it is reciprocated, or, potentially reciprocated. Plants and animals cannot have a “right”, or rights, because they are incapable of reciprocating it.
The child at one second old, on the other hand, is potentially able to reciprocate it – no less potentially than a child at 7 years old.

You are ascribing all sorts of powers to the spermatozoon and the oocyte. If what you say were true “absolutely” – one of your prerequisites – then all of the spermatozoa would be knocking on the outer wall of oocyte with an extraordinary ration of precision.

No, the spermatazoan is not a digitally controlled guided missile as we might know it, but far more than would be statistically expected by pure chance do in fact penetrate the outer membrane of the oocite.

There wouldn’t be any need to expel a half-million of them. Also, the oocyte is largely controlled by the interior wall of the fallopian tube and the uterus.

Though this is true, yet it is also true that the oocite manoeuvers itself into the zone of highest flow rate.

So, it has not the individual self-determination you seem to ascribe to it either. Otherwise, it would not need to run into a hailstorm of spermatozoa.

The zygote does not “continue to operate like the spermatozoon and the oocyte”, except in a process quite accidental to it, of motion to a settling point.

No, the settling point is ‘chosen’ by the zygote, which by now has become the blastocyst. The host, mother, has no control over any of these functions. All these functions are controlled by the germ cells of reproduction.

From the moment of conception, it begins processes completely foreign to its former bits of matter. It begins cellular division and differentiation. And, this cellular division and differentiation take place very quickly during its first 7 weeks.

Yes, this is true, but I was referring to the external behaviour of the zygote become blastocyst.[sign] Originally Posted by Voco proTatiano
I was not considering points of philosophy here, only science.[/sign]

Neither was I.

JD

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

You are equivocating here: adult human males and females are not here to “become” a new human being.

This is a matter of linguistics.
Their ‘purpose’ is to bring into being the next generation, and spend their lives nurturing the new generation, with the greater part of their lives, as parents, then as grandparents, and some as great grandparents.
In a VERY real sense, they dedicate and sacrifice their lives, to bring on the new lives.
So Yes, their purpose is to ‘become’ new human beings.

Of course, you could continue to split hairs and say that of the spermatozoon and the oocyte as well. And, yes, they could live out the terribly short “lives” and die. But, like the car that is here for the “purpose” of delivering its passengers from one place to the next,

Scientist are loth to ascribe purpose to inanimate objects, or even to primitive beings. They call it tautology, and despise it. This is why I use quotes when ascribing a ‘purpose’ to a primitive entity. It isn’t really a purpose, but it can sure look like one.

even if it was solely developed to be a race car, its primary reason for being (purpose) would not be diminished.

We disagree; see above.

Again you are equivocating. None of the things we are discussing could be extant if it was not for the fact that they are “alive”, i.e., with “LIFE”.

It is a new LIVING thing, but the life it has is not new.
It is just one more link in an unending chain.

JD

 

[JDaniel]

No, the heart is ‘free running’. individual heart muscle cells in a petri dish, if supplied with glucose and oxygen, at body temperature, will rythmicly contract at about 70 beats per minute.

While this is interesting, it is not a refutation. In fact, the fetal heart rate normally exceeds that by double. Even though the brain and brain stem have not formally come to be, the cells which fold in to become the notochord and brain have some of the abilities necessary to run the heart. In fact, at about 11 - 12 weeks, certain external stimuli can cause the heart rate to increase.

Quickening is usually felt between 18 and 20 weeks. I have given an extra two weeks credit to the best estimate.

I do not deny that major systems may be aqctive before then, I just maintain that AFTER then, they are PROBABLY active.

Help me understand this.

No, the spermatazoan is not a digitally controlled guided missile as we might know it, but far more than would be statistically expected by pure chance do in fact penetrate the outer membrane of the oocite.

Though this is true, yet it is also true that the oocite manoeuvers itself into the zone of highest flow rate.

Yes, I seem to recall from my early days in school, that more than one gets there, but, statistically the number has a dot to the left and a whole bunch of zeros to the right.

No, the settling point is ‘chosen’ by the zygote, which by now has become the blastocyst. The host, mother, has no control over any of these functions. All these functions are controlled by the germ cells of reproduction.

Yes, this is true, but I was referring to the external behaviour of the zygote become blastocyst.[sign] Originally Posted by Voco proTatiano
I was not considering points of philosophy here, only science.[/sign]

It is effectively impossible for the settling point of a zygote to be considered to be “chosen”. There are so many variables in the womb - if the zygote makes it that far - and so much movement of the mother, that it is essentially uncontrolled. When he, or she, lands someplace in it, he/she must “grab” on fairly quickly or risk being flushed out.

JD

 

[marietta]

JDaniel writes:

“If the heart is beating on its own, and the mother’s brain isn’t controlling it, then, the baby’s brain is.”

On ultrasound, a high level of activity can be seen in the anencephalic fetus (in the absence of a major portion of the brain, skull, and scalp - no forebrain) and the exencephalic fetus (which develops the brain outside the skull). This rudimentary tissue is acting in a reflexive fashion; these feti, if they do survive gestation and childbirth, generally do not live but a matter of hours and are never conscious.
**
JDaniel:**

What does this phrase from your earlier post mean?

“On the other hand, science says that the heart starts beating on its own at about three weeks from conception (five weeks from **gestation).” What is “five weeks from gestation”?

marietta

 

[JDaniel]

This is a matter of linguistics.
Their ‘purpose’ is to bring into being the next generation, and spend their lives nurturing the new generation, with the greater part of their lives, as parents, then as grandparents, and some as great grandparents.

In a VERY real sense, they dedicate and sacrifice their lives, to bring on the new lives.

So Yes, their purpose is to ‘become’ new human beings.

I think you’re stretching here!

Scientist are loth to ascribe purpose to inanimate objects, or even to primitive beings. They call it tautology, and despise it. This is why I use quotes when ascribing a ‘purpose’ to a primitive entity. It isn’t really a purpose, but it can sure look like one.

Well, if that was the case, then most of the sciences would produce nothing! Medical science, for example, would have no reason to create an iron lung as they would “loth” its “purpose”.

It is a new LIVING thing, but the life it has is not new.
It is just one more link in an unending chain.

As though we were nothing but bacteria?

JD

 

[JDaniel]

JDaniel writes:

“If the heart is beating on its own, and the mother’s brain isn’t controlling it, then, the baby’s brain is.”

On ultrasound, a high level of activity can be seen in the anencephalic fetus (in the absence of a major portion of the brain, skull, and scalp - no forebrain) and the exencephalic fetus (which develops the brain outside the skull). This rudimentary tissue is acting in a reflexive fashion; these feti, if they do survive gestation and childbirth, generally do not live but a matter of hours and are never conscious.
**
JDaniel:**

What does this phrase from your earlier post mean?

“On the other hand, science says that the heart starts beating on its own at about three weeks from conception (five weeks from **gestation).” What is “five weeks from gestation”?

marietta

Oh, I am so sorry, the phrase “from gestation” is often used by medical scientists to mean from the “last menstruation” which is approximately two weeks earlier. The actual date and time of conception is still only an 'estimation".

Thank you for pointing out the need for clarification.

JD

 

[marietta]

As though we were nothing but bacteria?
JD

In Spencerian/Darwinian terms, we should be so fit.

marietta

 

[JDaniel]

In Spencerian/Darwinian terms, we should be so fit.

marietta

Yes. Then we and our offspring might live forever!

JD

 

[JDaniel]

On ultrasound, a high level of activity can be seen in the anencephalic fetus (in the absence of a major portion of the brain, skull, and scalp - no forebrain) and the exencephalic fetus (which develops the brain outside the skull). This rudimentary tissue is acting in a reflexive fashion; these feti, if they do survive gestation and childbirth, generally do not live but a matter of hours and are never conscious.

Hmmm. What do you make of this?

JD

 

[marietta]

Hmmm. What do you make of this?
JD

I don’t think I’d be choosing pink or blue.

marietta