A Simple Pill - RU486 approved!

Why are we saying that the product of fertilization is human? From http://www.terravista.pt/enseada/1881/lifebegi.html

"2) Fertilization

Now that we have looked at the formation of the mature haploid sex gametes, the next important process to consider is fertilization. O’Rahilly defines fertilization as:

"… the procession of events that begins when a spermatozoon makes contact with a secondary oocyte or its investments, and ends with the intermingling of maternal and paternal chromosomes at metaphase of the first mitotic division of the zygote. The zygote is characteristic of the last phase of fertilization and is identified by the first cleavage spindle. It is a unicellular embryo."9 (Emphasis added.)

The fusion of the sperm (with 23 chromosomes) and the oocyte (with 23 chromosomes) at fertilization results in a live human being, a single-cell human zygote, with 46 chromosomes—the number of chromosomes characteristic of an individual member of the human species. Quoting Moore:

"Zygote: This cell results from the union of an oocyte and a sperm. A zygote is the beginning of a new human being (i.e., an embryo). The expression fertilized ovum refers to a secondary oocyte that is impregnated by a sperm; when fertilization is complete, the oocyte becomes a zygote."10 (Emphasis added.)

This new single-cell human being immediately produces specifically human proteins and enzymes11 (not carrot or frog enzymes and proteins), and genetically directs his/her own growth and development. (In fact, this genetic growth and development has been proven not to be directed by the mother.)12 Finally, this new human being—the single-cell human zygote—is biologically an individual, a living organism—an individual member of the human species. Quoting Larsen:

"… [W]e begin our description of the developing human with the formation and differentiation of the male and female sex cells or gametes, which will unite at fertilization to initiate the embryonic development of a new individual."13 (Emphasis added.)

In sum, a mature human sperm and a mature human oocyte are products of gametogenesis—each has only 23 chromosomes. They each have only half of the required number of chromosomes for a human being. They cannot singly develop further into human beings. They produce only “gamete” proteins and enzymes. They do not direct their own growth and development. And they are not individuals, i.e., members of the human species. They are only parts—each one a part of a human being. On the other hand, a human being is the immediate product of fertilization. As such he/she is a single-cell embryonic zygote, an organism with 46 chromosomes, the number required of a member of the human species. This human being immediately produces specifically human proteins and enzymes, directs his/her own further growth and development as human, and is a new, genetically unique, newly existing, live human individual.

After fertilization the single-cell human embryo doesn’t become another kind of thing. It simply divides and grows bigger and bigger, developing through several stages as an embryo over an 8-week period. Several of these developmental stages of the growing embryo are given special names, e.g., a morula (about 4 days), a blastocyst (5-7 days), a bilaminar (two layer) embryo (during the second week), and a trilaminar (3-layer) embryo (during the third week).14

"

My link was to an AP article.

Yours is to a site called lifeissues.org.

Anyone in the class want to guess which one has the most bias?

So Drain Bead shows a cite from the Associated Press. The cite which offers a different opinion comes from a website which declares that “Our goal is to retrofit and retool the educational efforts of the pro-life movement,” which can be seen on their Who We Are… page.

I don’t know about you, but I think I’ll trust AP over this… Of course, some people think http:/www.drdino.com is a source of unbiased information about evolution. :rolleyes:


Yer pal,
Satan - Commissioner, The Teeming Minions

*TIME ELAPSED SINCE I QUIT SMOKING:
Five months, three weeks, 14 hours, 38 minutes and 22 seconds.
6984 cigarettes not smoked, saving $873.05.
Extra time with Drain Bead: 3 weeks, 3 days, 6 hours, 0 minutes.

*“I’m a big Genesis fan.”-David B. (Amen, brother!)

only to the extent that it is NEVER possible to completely and accurately predict the exact nature of the future.

However, it IS NOT a leap in logic to postulate:

Countries A and B both allow surgical abortions from 1970 to present day.

Country A also allowed the non surgical alternative for the past number of years. In country A, there was not a measuable increase in the number of total elective pregnancy terminations.

It is PROBABLE to assume that in Country B, the same trend will follow.

Yes, we’re larger and have more rural areas. Are you really ascerting that women in rural areas do NOT get abortions because they’re not close by? In 1972, when I was first in college, there was a steady stream of women going to New York where it WAS legal, vs. staying in MI where it wasn’t.

Milossarian:

I didn’t realize ad hominem attacks were appropriate in GD, I thought that was supposed to be left for the Pit? David B., Gaudere?

Does anyone have any reliable stats on this? How many abortions are the result of rape/incest/life of the mother vs. the mother’s “choice”? For the latter, I’d guess 90, 95, 98%?

I don’t think pointing out that you are not addressing the questions being asked of you is not an ad hominem.

Answering questions with straw man-tained questions of your own, however, is the real fallacy.


Yer pal,
Satan - Commissioner, The Teeming Minions

*TIME ELAPSED SINCE I QUIT SMOKING:
Five months, three weeks, 14 hours, 53 minutes and 5 seconds.
6984 cigarettes not smoked, saving $873.10.
Extra time with Drain Bead: 3 weeks, 3 days, 6 hours, 0 minutes.

*“I’m a big Genesis fan.”-David B. (Amen, brother!)

I am absolutely claiming that. Interestingly enough…so are several pro choice folks

http://www.agi-usa.org/pubs/journals/3013998.html

http://www.repro-activist.org/AAP/publica_resources/fact_sheets/provider.htm

http://webmd.lycos.com/content/article/1728.58137

Of course, you’re ignoring the fact that the baby will suffer and die in either case.

Satan,

I think the “straw man” here is the old “what about cases of rape, incest, save-the-life-of the mother?” I don’t think I’m going out on a limb to say that only a very small percentage of abortions take place for those reasons, yet, pro-death people (hey, if they can say anti-choice…) trot out that arguement to say all abortions should be legal.

Actually, from what I read, the first study stated that many women had to travel “80 - 200 miles” to get the abortion. Not that they didn’t get one, but that it was made more difficult for them.

The second study listed the decrease in numbers of places offering them. Since the incidence of abortion requests is also in decline, that probably is a reasonable result.

And the third was a news story that related similar information.

What I’d stated is that back in 1972, women were prepared to travel a couple thousand miles to get a safe and legal abortion. When it became available in our state, we no longer had to travel.

It is interesting to me, too, that you glossed over the OTHER information in those sites, the facts that the reason drs and clinics in rural areas had dispensed with abortion services was NOT because they didn’t see a need to provide requested services to their patients, but more of fear of reprisals or “community protests”, add to that the number of violent acts committed by SOME pro lifers against the clinics and doctors and you get a clearer picture.

In summation. You’ve not demonstrated that rural women fail to get abortions. You’ve merely demonstrated that by the actions of SOME pro lifers, it is made more difficult, more expensive.

Well, the difficulty faced by some rural women attempting to obtain them is real enough that the Supreme Court determined that a 24 hour waiting period causes an excessive burden, largely financial, on women. It is not unreasonable to presume that some women who would abort if they could afford to travel to the provider, did not only because they simply didn’t have the financial means.

On the other hand…I personally know more than one indigent woman who has taken massive doses of pennyroyal, blue cohosh, and black cohosh as herbal dicoction in their efforts to end their pregnancy on their own. There are abortions that occur whom nobody counts because doctors aren’t involved unless something goes terribly wrong.

I realize that indigence and lack of availability aren’t the same thing - but lack of availability can and does compound indigence, particularly in rural areas and where travel and possible lodging needs are required to obtain the abortion.

Thank you for aswering a question instead of saying “Should it be legal to gun down people in cold blood” crap that you WERE doing.

Now that you hv answered it, I don’t believe anyone claimed that such situations were the norm or even statistically relevant. Only that they had a hypothetical situation they wanted commenting on, period.

Is it their fault that your reply to this hypothetical is likely to show the words you use to define yourself and your movement to be hypocritical at worst, and at best simply misleadingly wrong?

Oh, and there is no baby in an abortion. Look up baby in a dictionary and I doubt you will see a definitiom which corrolates to a blood-clot sized zygote.


Yer pal,
Satan - Commissioner, The Teeming Minions

*TIME ELAPSED SINCE I QUIT SMOKING:
Five months, three weeks, 15 hours, 17 minutes and 37 seconds.
6985 cigarettes not smoked, saving $873.18.
Extra time with Drain Bead: 3 weeks, 3 days, 6 hours, 5 minutes.

*“I’m a big Genesis fan.”-David B. (Amen, brother!)

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by wring *
**

I didn’t gloss over any information. I was asked to provide cites for the notion that the number of abortion providers in rural areas has gone down…and that there is a “possible” link to the number of abortions thus provided.

I fully agree with you that the reason some rural abortion providers no longer practive is because of pressure (both moral and immoral pressure from pro lifers). That takes nothing away from my point, that in some areas of the country, abortions are not easy to obtain…and that having abortions (at least early term) available through a non-surgical method could conceivably increase the number of women who get abortions

hey…we agree on something :wink:

I’m sure we agree on quite a bit, really.

Nevermind the fact that…

So, since this non-surgical method is only available to doctors who can arrange a surgical abortion in case of emergency, I don’t think that the argument that rural women will be getting more abortions stands. I mean, if there’s nobody there who can or will perform a surgical abortion, the FDA isn’t going to allow the doctors to dispense the pill.

Of course, these two paragraphs came from the same article I’ve quoted TWICE in this thread already. I’ll cite it one more time, though. Hopefully this time you’ll read it, instead of spouting misinformed conjectures.

http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/ap/20000928/ts/abortion_pill_4.html

hey more insults and assumptions…cool :slight_smile:

Satan:

What about partial-birth abortions then? Where the object is partially delivered, then the “doctor” crushes its skull before removing it. Is that just a “zygote”, too?

What, so now saying that you’re spouting misinformed conjectures and not reading the article I posted twice before, when in fact you DID spout misinformed conjectues and did NOT read the article I posted twice before, is an insult and an assumption?

If I wanted to insult you, I would have offered to print out the article, go over to your house, and read it to you so I could make absolutely certain that you understood. I might have even helped you look up all the big words. But I didn’t say that. I said you were spouting misinformed conjecture, which is said in GD all the freakin’ time, friend, when people DO EXACTLY THAT. I know you’ve been around here long enough to realize this fact.

Now that we’ve cleared up what is and is not an insult, do you mind actually confronting the facts I presented you with? Oh, wait. You can’t. Because you were wrong.