Because pombe is yeast, it’s not a great model for things like when an individual becomes an individual. Pombe usually reproduces by mitosis alone. It has three chromosones.
And what is a human sperm or egg if not human?
Of course pombe is a great model system of lots of aspects of human cellular biology.
They see me bein’ all haploid … they hatin’ …
And further… Because it’s uncomplicated, pombe is a great model for things like DNA damage study. But it’s a awful model for when a tiny growing individual becomes an individual… although if you truly wanted to draw the analogy, then I’d point out that after mitosis and cell division, the resultant entites are fully pombe, entitled to whatever rights that any other pombe cell is. We don’t, in other words, consider any difference between a newly-divided cell and an older one. Killing one would be exactly the same act, morally, as killing another.
SO if that’s the model you want, OK. I’m in.
Human tissue, but not “a human.”
Whihc is of course a matter of definition, not of scientific truth.
I leave for a few hours and now Schiz. pombe is in the mix? I’m flashing back as I did my PhD work in Sacc. cerevisiae and Schiz. pombe.
I love this place. 
Villa posts per day - 1.76
classyladyhp posts per day - 29.74
You’re missing my point because you’re too focused on the philosophical specialness of humans. You have such a mind block here that you’ve tried to shame someone for saying something that was perfectly fine based on your your narrowed-down, philosophical definition of a human individual, a diploid cell. A sperm and an egg are considered to be alive (by definition because they can die). They are human entities. Therefore, without adding any special philosophical sauce, they can be called human lives. There just a part of the human life cycle.
I’m using yeast as an example of an organism, that is related to us in that it is a eukaryote that has sex, but is usually haploid when life is good. It becomes diploid only when it fuses. Then it immediately becomes haploid. Wow, that’s so different from a special human. Except all the processes of cell division, genome maintenance, metabolism, etc. etc. is there. So much so that we can use it as a model system to study lots of human processes because our single cells aren’t that much different than a pombe.
Cerevisiae sucks. It’s too diverged from us. Just because some European brewers use it all the time, scientists waste their time on this alien yeast. Africans used pombe for brewing. Ha! I knew it. Scientists are anti-pombite, racist bastards!
And I’ve managed to add racism into an abortion thread. You’re welcome! 
(I don’t even work with organisms. Too sloppy. I prefer in vitro, thank you very much. OK, I may abuse a HeLa cell every once in a while.)
Exactly.
So is this a game you can’t lose?
I’m reminded of a what seems to be a modern feminist principle. Women should be trusted, unless those women disagree with feminists. Then they’re stupid.
Uh-huh. Let’s see, shall we?
Now this doesn’t make sense. You would only expect that to be the case if everyone agreed to the strict limitations I “claim”, instead of simply a majority doing so.
Uh-huh. And, pray tell, tell me what consitutes “most”? This is why I specifically provided polls which broke down abortion by specific reason, and tried to shy away from the always/sometimes/maybe/never/etc polls. The only exception to this is the TIMES poll, in which I wanted to show that Americans would not leave abortions unrestricted in the first trimester.
Holy crap! You found A poll which didn’t show that Americans would allow for abortions outside of the hard cases, instead finding a poll which compared specific cases (rape, incest, life of mother) to the nebulous “between a woman and her doctor” idea. I have a mind to point out to you that the two aren’t exclusive, but I won’t. Instead, I’ll ask what “between a woman and her doctor” means? Does it mean that abortion should always be legal on the discretion of the woman and her doctor? Does it mean that abortion should be within the confines of the law at the discretion of the woman of her doctor? Or does it mean something else? The answer is you don’t know, because that’s an example of framing a question in an incorrect manner. At any rate, I’m guessing you’ll take “between a woman and her doctor” to mean that abortion should always be legal on the discretion of the woman and her doctor, but if you were to look at an earlier NBC News/Wall Street Journal Poll (Sept. 6-8, 2008) you’d find that only 25% of the respondents felt this way, which means that “between a woman and her doctor” doesn’t mean “for any reason”, but rather for morally acceptable reasons. That’s why I spefically asked you to show me something which breaks down abortion support by reason in which Americans favor abortions outside of the hard cases, so we can see what’s “a morally acceptable” abortion and what isn’t. I’m still waiting, though I won’t hold my breath.
I’ve never met someone who tries to so hard to grasp at a straw-- any straw-- to be able to prove a point.
… … …lol! How about not? As far as the “between a woman and her doctor” thing, see above. Such a statement is essentially meaningless without the requisite situation. For example, a woman wanting to have an abortion because she’d die is an inherently different situation from a woman wanting an abortion because she doesn’t like the sex of her baby. In one of those instances, most everyone would agree that the decision to have an abortion should be between “a woman and her doctor” while few people would agree in the other.
Anyway, because you seemingly don’t understand this point, I’m going to jump ahead of myself one response and mention the later mentioned Gallup article, because you seemed to miss this:
You’re welcome.
It does? No, it doesn’t. Could you explain to me when “at any time” came to mean “for any reason”? Because I’m obviously dumb, and obviously can’t read, and since you’re obviously right, I would think you could explain its obviousness to me.
Utterly ridiculous. I gave you seven or so polls which broke down public support for abortions by reasons, and absolutely none of them showed that Americans would allow abortions outside of the hard cases. I’m still waiting for you to show me a poll in which this isn’t the case.
Please. This has everything to do with the fact that you cannot provide any data to back up your assertions while simultaneously claiming mine are wrong, no matter how numerous they are.
I responded to an argument you made. The only pattern here is you claiming that you didn’t make a certain argument, even though you did.
No, you just said that “people’s opinions matter”, which is a false statement as it relates to abortion. In the U.S., abortion law isn’t shaped by people’s opinions nor is it allowed to be. Also, dipshit stopped being witty as an insult sometime in 11th grade or so.
Uh-huh. It’s actually quite funny that you’d call my logic “fucked up”. You’ve said, on numerous occassions, that people are entitled to their own personal beliefs and that no one should have someone else’s beliefs forced upon them. The question, therefore, is how can people’s personal opinions matter-- especially considering how, according to you, our law is shaped, enforced and changed by people-- when you, and many of your fellow pro-choicers, emphatically state that people’s personal opinions should have no bearing on others? You can’t have it both ways. But I won’t hold my breath at getting an actual response.
It has nothing to do with you posting when you please, but rather you blatantly ignoring posts (or even parts of posts) you can’t respond to. Would you like for me to point out the number of posts you’ve clearly disregarding the things you couldn’t respond to, even after you bothered taking the time to respond to the past sans the important parts?
It’s not a lie. It’s an observation based on your posting habits.
Uh-huh. I’m going to take a not-so-stab-in-the-dark and say that you have absolutely no understanding of simple logic what-so-ever. I’ve brought this up before and I’ll continue to bring it up, because it’s a clear indication of how you clearly don’t understand what (good) logic is.
You claim that there is no clear cut philosophical or scientific definition of human/personhood and that, as a result, everyone should be entitled to their own beliefs regarding the latter and that no one should have the beliefs of another forced upon them. I then asked you, if the latter is true and that there there is no clear cut philosophical or scientific definition of human/personhood and that everyone is entitled to their personal beliefs regarding personhood/conception, would you agree that someone who doesn’t believe a newborn is a person on the basis of not being self-aware and kills that newborn to be perfectly okay, as they were acting in accordance to their own personal beliefs which you claim they be allowed to have. You told me no. I asked how that could be, since refusing them from doing so or punishing them for doing so would require forcing a set of beliefs upon them that are not necessarily their own. You told me that was okay because society deemed it okay. And at this point there are a couple of points to be made:
(1) How can society say that newborns are persons if there is no clear cut philosophical or scientific defention of personhood? The only way society could do so is if it’s defining persons in a legal sense, in which case the legal definition of personhood would trump one’s personal views of personhood. And if it’s okay to force a legal definition of personhood onto the individual who would personally not view newborns as persons, then under what rational basis do you have to assert that a legal definition of personhood cannot be forced onto the pro-choicer who would personally not beleive the unborns to be persons?
(2) If it’s okay for the majority to force their views on the minority, then why can’t your position be subverted to conform to the will of the majority? You cannot argue that it’s okay to prevent someone from killing a newborn in accordance to their personal beliefs because the majority believes they are wrong, while simultaneously arguing that it’s not okay to prevent someone from killing their unborn child even if the majority believes doing so would be wrong.
I’ve asked both of these questions before, yet you continue to pussyfoot around. The fact is that you wouldn’t know fucking logic if it carried around a big, flashing, neon sign which said “I’m fucking logic!”. You wrote the book on being clueless.
You have this bad habit of telling me I misrepresented what you said, when you don’t remember what you said.
Take from post #1,527:
[QUOTE=You]
The relevant point to me is that the moral view that a zygote or embryo is a human being, and woman and society are morally obligated in some way to do all they can to bring every pregnancy to term, out of some idea about the inherent value of human life, simply has not been the consistent view of society. It also appears to me that many of the laws passed that restricted abortion, were not motivated by that moral view.
[/quote]
(But I forgot. You really didn’t say that.)
Anyway, I’ll bite at the rest of your post. Your link contends that “the American Medical Association’s crusade against abortion was partly a professional move, to establish the supremacy of “regular” physicians over midwives and homeopaths. More broadly, anti-abortion sentiment was connected to nativism, anti-Catholicism, and, as it is today, anti-feminism.”
(Here is a link to selected portions of chapter six from the book you linked to.)
This, quite frankly, is nothing short of false, is based on selective quotes found in James Mohr’s Abortion in America (1978) and is based entirely on select quotes by Horatio Robinson Storer, who was the driving force behind the AMA adopting an anti-abortion position. You’d be served reading this, which details the work of Horatio Robinson Storer and how the AMA made abortion illegal (he wasn’t the first physician to speak out against abortion); this, which is Storer’s essay detailing why women shouldn’t abort; and finally, this, which contains a copy of the Memorial sent to every governor and legislator of every state and territory of the U.S. and the Address, which was sent to every State Medical Society, both of which urged the changing of abortion laws to fit accepted medical science regarding the unborn and to discard outdated and incorrect beliefs regarding the unborn.
…Of course, as is your MO, you will more than likely ignore all of this. But I’m used to it. You are, after all, impervious to facts
You might respond on your schedule, but I’m talking about you selectively choosing which points to respond to.
lol!
No, dude. Your arguments simply don’t stand up to scrutiny. Again, you not liking this doesn’t make it any less so.
No matter how many times you say this, that won’t make it true. I’m not the one who makes a certain argument (or claims that I don’t make a certain kind of argument and then days later make the argument I said I don’t make) and selectively applies it when and where I please while refusing to apply it in regards to my own position relative to others. That is, I don’t argue that it’s not okay for someone to force their opinion on me while arguing that it’s okay to force my opinions on another. That’s what you do, as evidenced by the fact that you believe that the pro-choicers definition of personhood should be accepted over all others, even over the guy who believes that personhood entails some manner of awareness. But, by my count, at least four different people have pointed out to you (not you, specifically) how you’re selectively applying your rationale, yet you continue to selectively apply your rationale while claiming everyone else is being illogical. Go figure!
You don’t value my opinion? Can’t say I’m bothered by that revelation either way.
And again, I ask you this question, who ever said that abortion was a major issue. Since you want to continue with this complete straw man, why don’t you show me the page and post number where someone said this. If you cannot-- and you cannot-- then you’d be better served trying to argue against things typed out instead of things not typed out.
No, it wasn’t. Neither John Kerry nor Bush supported SSM’s, though both were supporters of civil unions.
More important than gay marriage, yes, as evidenced by the fact that abortion always flares up every year as issue.
No, that’s not just one-in-five who care about abortion (about half of respondents do). That’s one in five (19%, really) who vote solely on the issue of abortion.
Yeah, because with Roe v. Wade on the books and all, there can totally be a popular vote to ban abortion under certain instances.
/sarcasm
You’re either being flatly disingenuous, or you don’t understand what the abortion laws were in the U.S. prior to Roe v. Wade.
Prior to Roe v. Wade, abortion was illegal in thirty states, legal in instances of rape in one, legal in case of danger to woman’s health in two, legal in case of danger to woman’s health, rape or incestor in the case of a severely deformed fetus in thirteen and legal on request in four.
Guess how many of those states laws weren’t invalidated by Roe v. Wade? Forty-six.
And again, I will quote myself since, for whatever reason, because you continue to repeat the above:
[QUOTE=Me]
Who said anything about abortion being a top issue? I said it’s a more important issue to voters than is gay marriage.
[/quote]
Feel free to acknowledge this point at any time.
Bingo! And the reason that 15-year old pregnant girl in South Dakota doesn’t have access to the same medical and counseling options than if she were 20 years older in a major metropolitan area, for instance, is that anti-abortion groups are focused on making women pay for behaviors that are judged blameworthy*, rather than preventing pregnancy, driving adequate medical access and educational resources out of the area.
What is so different about a South Dakotan girl that she deserves less access to comprehensive medical care than a New Yorker?
*And using children a means of wielding the punishment, which is exceptionally distasteful to me.
Well, the South Dakotan is a slut who should’ve kept ker legs closed, while the New Yorker is a sophisticated modern woman in charge of her own destiny.
(Anyone else a little jealous of OMGaBC’s apparent access to free time?)
Hah! You pombe folks and your deep-seated irrational biases…
Regardless of what I told NIH, I couldn’t care less how* cerevisie* related to humans. They’re just so cute all on their own!
Oh, and I’ve done a HeLa cell or two… but yeastie beasties are the best…
(Consensual) sex is unambiguously positive, and the ostensible 1-in-1mil victim doesn’t even exist in the positive case.
The guy pulling the trigger? His pleasure is very likely proportional to the mounting dread in the target of his 1-in-1mil revolver, and I think we can say that they’ll balance out to a neutral outcome (without trying to guess at the depth of feeling each has).
Any pro-lifer who understands that ectopic pregnancies and other catastrophic situations exist, who has the belief that abortion is permissible to save the life of the mother, MUST oppose this bill or reveal themselves a misogynist (and a hypocrite or liar).
Typical fake pro-lifer. All you are is a weaksauce moralist. Real pro-lifers support the babies their policies bring into the world, because life is what’s important, not some trite notion of blame or responsibility.
Just ask my dad and his charitable donation budget or the extra groceries he “forgets” to ring up for the teen moms in his town.
pause I am Iron Man.
I think you vastly oversimplify the reasons that we don’t have comprehensive healthcare in rural regions. It’s hard enough to get a GP to some of those areas.
It’s not about “deserve”. It’s about public policy and the cost to deploy.
And it’s also about local state conditions and how rural people tend to want to shape their societies.
Again, it’s not about punishment, it’s about natural consequences.
I count certain stages of aborted fetuses as victims.