It is the most appropriate, seeing as how the blob we’re discussing doesn’t have any sex characteristics at that point anyway. She would also be acceptable, since the default state is female (I’m simplifying, but still). Your continued use of he to refer to a genderless blob just underscores your rampant misogyny and pervasive stupidity. That, and your continued reference to facts as “bitches”.
In other words, fuck off asshole.
Why does this argument even exist? Are some people so foolish as to think that a fetus has the same rights as a living being.
Some people (forced birthers) think a fetus has MORE rights than a living being.
Thank goodness US law disagrees!
Ok, just wanted to clarify then! 
I love how you keep being wrong about the very basic process of embryology and pregnancy. Of course blastocysts without viable zygotes inside implant. That’s where molar pregnancy and blighted ova, aka, anembryonic pregnancy, come from. It happens in almost half of all miscarriages!
Really, you’re making this too easy. Absolutely none of it is the point, at all, and yet you stand there on your sanctimony being wrong and wrong and wrong again.
Nope, this reply of yours here is the non sequitur.
Your declaration was the “it would be hell” if we let each individual make their own choices in their own life. Canada is indeed a place where that is happening right now for a dew decades already, no hell there.
You’ve obviously never driven through Saskatchewan.
Quoted for Fucking Truth.
The woman’s hormone signaling very much plays a part in implantation. Her uterine lining (endometrium) builds up and is shed in accordance with her hormonal cycle. The endometrium lining is not a static presence, always ‘ripe’ for implantation (though I am sure Ají de Gallina and other ‘Gynoticians’ of similar ilk wish they could make it mandatory). Hormonal signaling also plays a role in how fast a fertilized egg fertilized travels through the fallopian tube to the uterus. If it is speeded up or doesn’t encounter a thickened endometrium, implantation is not likely to happen.
Indeed, a popular form of birth control, Centchroman or Saheli developed in India works by modulating estrogen receptors so that ovulation, the thickening of the endometrium and the speed of transport of the fertilized egg are all out of synch - making implantation not possible.
Or more specfically here:
Human trophoblast function during the implantation process
Ají de Gallina, like other Gynoticians, is clearly confused on how hormonal messaging works. Hint: It takes a receptor participant in the messaging process, not just a signaler. A zygote/embryo/fetus/already born person can ‘signal’ till the cows come home, but it is futile if there is no receptor. The role of the receptor is just as vital in the process as the signaler. Just take Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome (AIS), for example. A person may be genetically XY, but without androgen receptors they will not be ‘masculinized’ and will likely appear female or some variation thereof.
An implanted blastocyst produces HCG which is received by the ovary (or corpus luteum) to keep producing progesterone so that the uterus doesn’t expel the endometrium lining, business as usual each month. Indeed, it is theorized that fetal lungs provide a signal initiating labor by secreting surfactant which is received by the woman’s hypothalamus, which then signals the uterus to get contracting because the fetus is mature enough to live outside her womb (in turn injecting a woman with a corticosteroid also helps stimulate fetal lung maturation). It is even theorized that the fetus secretes a hormone that helps prevent preeclampsia.
There is no question fetal-maternal hormone signaling/communication goes on through-out pregnancy just as WhyNot stated, in addition to Microchimerism which is linked to a whole bunch of issues in women who have had children (increased prevalence of autoimmune disease, increased antibodies that make them unideal recipents for organ/tissue transplants, etc).
An embryo self-regulating? Hah. What you are really saying is that a zygote/embryo/fetus has the right to lay claim or authority over a woman’s body and biological processes. Um NO. No born person, - whether a minor biological child, genetic relation, etc, or random stranger - has that right, let alone a zygote/embryo/fetus.
[hijack]
Oooh…a *weekly *oral contraceptive? Failure rates don’t look too bad. Any idea if it’s in US testing? I haven’t much kept up with the contraceptive market, as I go insane on them, and my patients are all post-menopausal.
So, an XY isn’t a sex characteristic?
Wow, you’re fighting grammar?
I love it when you try to insult me.
…and yeah…Facts, they’re bitches.
Yes.
Forced birthers. Thanx for the compliment, baby killer.
So, you basically both agree with my key/lock example. Nice to know.
Siince, after complaining about “definitions” we’re now of super-precise scientific terminology, I will be more accurate. It’s is clear that my defintion was more of a generalization than scientifically 100% accurate.
The scientfically correct aspect of self regulation is one of the characteristic that make the embryo a person.
The problem is that you have confused “abortion” and “making their own choices”. Abortion may be one of the many, many things included in “making their own choices”, therefore an hyponym and not a synonym.
I’ll give you another chance to reflect on simply letting 100% of the people make 100% of their own choices.
If you haven’t noticed, living in a society necessarily entails not letting people making 100% of the choices they want; even in Canada.
I’ll give a better choice, stop moving the goalposts, the context does show that we are talking about abortion, and therefore the choices do refer to the issue at hand.
And your previous reply to **EverwonderWhy **was stupid, he really did show that you are wrong.
I don’t even know exactly what you *mean *by “self-regulation,” actually. It’s not a particularly meaningful term in biology or medicine that I can find.
Do you mean homeostasis? That’s sometimes called a “self-regulatory biological system.” But it doesn’t have anything to do with the fetus directing anything outside it’s own body, and it’s not something a fetus does entirely independently anyhow. It needs the mother’s body - hormones, nutrients, oxygen, waste disposal system - in order to maintain homeostasis, until it’s viable. That’s what viable means - capable of maintaining homeostasis with medical support if removed from the womb. Then there are a few weeks or months before a viable baby grows into a creature capable of maintaining homeostasis without medical support.
The only source I can find for “self-regulation” as a concept is from The Great Soviet Encyclopedia (1979), so it’s probably pretty outdated. It does seem to be talking about homeostasis, but also talks about the self-regulation of molecules, so it’s not particularly meaningful as a way to distinguish a fetus from a tumor. Self-Regulation | Article about Self-Regulation by The Free Dictionary
So lets take a couple of steps back and try this again. What do you mean by “self-regulation”, and how does an embryo demonstrate self-regulation? I’m assuming you mean capable of maintaining homeostasis, but why don’t you tell me what you really mean.
But, then again, “self-regulation” was just brought up now. What we were discussing before was an “embryo-controlled process”. Are those the same thing to you?
XY can be, but isn’t necessarily, determinate of gender.
You are a scientifically illiterate misogynist. I have no idea why you think this is something to be proud of. Every time you post something stupid like this it just shows how intellectually and morally bankrupt your position is.
Wrong again, dumbass. I’ve never killed a baby, but you openly promote forced birth.
Facts. They aren’t on your side.
Lookit the baby clinging to his mommy!
http://www.nature.com/nrg/journal/v7/n3/fig_tab/nrg1808_F2.html
Just goes to show that there’s no arguing against an anti-choice-from-fertilization stance. It’s not only futile, it gets really bizarre.
If the quote “Wouldn’t it be a great world if everybody stopped trying to espouse their beliefs onto everybody else and just let each individual make their own choices in their own life.” means “let’s all be pro-choice” exclusive of any other societal rules, then I retract my “It’d be hell” statement.
If it is, as a took it to be, a more general statement of societal interaction, the my statement stands.
Just to clear something up. Since you have show a general lack of even basic scientific knowledge I never pay attention to your scientific opinions.
Embryo-controlled process: Although I pulled that specific phrasing out of my ass, what it means is that the embryo is like the driver of the car; he is in charge of the process of implantation. Of course, implantantion depends on a specific coordination between the embryo and the endometrium, i.e., the embryo cannot attach without the endometrium being ready.
I’m surprised you hdon’t know the term.
Self-regulation means autoregulation and in this case is that the embryo’s developments is controlled by internal mechanisms. There are external stimuli, certainly, and they affect the development. For example, cell division and diferentiation and self-regulated.
Link
Link
Link
Link
Homeostasis is certainly a related concept, but we’re talking about a process that involves two people (or one person and a bunch of cells).
It’s not like XY is a minor point. It the biggest, biggest factor.
“Scientific Illiterate Misogynists” is the name of my "Rocket Scientists " prog-rock tribute band.
With your own hand, almost certainly not.
You know who also didn’t kill babies?
Facts, they are still bitches.
From you link. The first line.
“Signalling pathways that are known to coordinate blastocyst apposition and attachment in the mouse uterus”. key words being “apposition” and “attachment”, not “capture”.
“This crosstalk further influences some of the signalling pathways to ensure the successful execution of the implantation process”, the interplay between embryo and endometrium.
Your article says exactly what I did.
Ah, I think I see the issue. I’ve heard of autoregulation within cells, or systems (renal, cardiac, etc.) but I’ve never heard anyone use the term at the organism level. Ok, well, in that case, you’re correct that some of the fetus’s *systems *are autoregulating. But then I’m back to, “so what?” and “how is that a thing that distinguishes a zygote from a heart muscle cell or a kidney and makes it wrong to remove it?”
I still maintain that it has nothing to do with the cells around the zygote that attach to the endometrium. No matter how you look at it, those are not and never will be cells in the embryo’s body. The zygote/embryo is, for this short period of development, completely a passive passenger in the pod.
Let’s take a look back, 'cause I’m starting to forget what we’re actually talking about. We started with an attempt to justify calling a fertilized egg a child, and why it’s scientifically and morally the same as a child, correct?
[QUOTE=http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=16530500&postcount=229]
Let’s see: 50% your DNA + 50% dad’s DNA, growing in your body by it’s own processess = child.
[/QUOTE]
So it was pointed out that, no, it doesn’t grow “by it’s own processes,” but rather needs a lot of mom’s processes to grow and mature.
So then we got:
[QUOTE=http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=16533446&postcount=242]
Let’s see again:
a) Home sapien sapiens DNA? Check.
b) Growth processess self-regulated? Check.
c) 50% DNA came from you? Check
d) 50% DNA from dad? Check
We have a winner: IT’S YOUR BABY!!!
[/QUOTE]
So we’ve moved from “by it’s own processes” to “Growth processes self-regulated,” except that they still aren’t. Mom’s body is needed to regulate the growth and development of the fetus.
Then the goalposts moved into Bizarroland for a bit:
[QUOTE=http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=16534583&postcount=252]
Fetuses are autonomous, their development is self -regulated.
[/QUOTE]
“Autonomous”? That’s seriously hilarious. Toddlers aren’t autonomous. Heck, my 20 year old isn’t entirely autonomous.
And then we got into this weird stuff about the embryo clinging to the uterine wall like a lost astronaut and “controlling” implantation. Which, again, it doesn’t. The embryo is a bunch of cells *inside *a sphere of cells (these all used to be one cell, but they’re sharply divided now into fetal cells and placenta/sac/yolk sac cells). Molecules on the exterior sphere meet complementary molecules on the endometrium and get stuck. Nothing is steering the ship, nothing is making it go faster or find a good parking spot. Nothing is directing it in any way except gravity, the shape of the mother’s uterus and currents in the fallopian tubes and uterus created by the mother’s fallopian cilia.
No, lock and key isn’t a great analogy, but it’s an easy analogy. In reality, there’s no director of the interaction, neither a tab nor a slot, a key nor a lock to be master of the process. It’s like mixing milk and vinegar - it curdles. It curdles whether you’re pouring milk into vinegar or vinegar into milk. Neither the milk nor the vinegar directs the process, it’s simply the result of an interaction of two substances.
Lots of the processes during pregnancy the result of an interaction between two bodies. But implantation is just chance and chemical reactions. Nothing’s directing it at all, much less a child.
“Placenta”, hmm, in terms of auto-regulation and autonomous development, what does that thing do again?
WHAA HAA HA! 
So says the guy that has been lambasted by many scientists even here in the SDMB.
Really, you already showed to be wrong many times on this issue also and I do agree with many here that you are indeed living in bizarro land, not only on abortion, but also on climate change science.
I know that you will ignore it, but people that do follow climate change deniers are very likely to follow other pseudosciences or abuses of science, but the thing on this issue is that there is no need to abuse science, this issue is a very human one, and science is not a very good guide for what to do.
And on this subject I agree with what the supreme court rendered a few years back, once the featus reaches viability abortion could be restricted, but there is always the exceptions in cases of rape incest, and health of the mother.
Attempts at making even more restrictions are bananas IMHO as it leads to the health of the mother to be ignored or abused at it happens in very restrictive nations like Ireland or El Salvador.
[Quote=EverwonderWhy]
Indeed, a popular form of birth control, Centchroman or Saheli developed in India works by modulating estrogen receptors so that ovulation, the thickening of the endometrium and the speed of transport of the fertilized egg are all out of synch - making implantation not possible.
[/quote]
Any form of birth control that prevents implementation is vicously opposed by anti-abortionists, who believe life begins at conception.
Of course, if the fertilized egg is a person, every miscarriage should be treated as a “suspected homicide.”
It’s clear we’ve reached an impasse because you said that even if you agree on my whole embryo-controlled and self-regulation you still wouldn’t care so I’ll drop that specific part of the discussion.
As to the humanity/personhood I’'ve also said enough on this thread.
So, it’s not only basic science that escapes you: it’s simple reading comprehension.
I’ll go again: I give you opinions on science 0 (zero/nada/zilch) value.
No, they arent’.
No, it shouldn’t.
