Have you seen the new Billy Bigmouth Abortion? It sings "Take Me to the River".

8/9/2005 12:33:35 AM

Take me to the toilet

flush me down with water

8/9/2005 12:35:19 AM

heres some stats:

Quote :

"Who Gets Abortions in the U.S. From Ryan Woodhams, Abortion Facts and Statistics The U.S. Supreme Court legalized induced abortions throughout the United States in the 1973 Roe v. Wade case. Prior to that 7-2 decision, most states had laws forbidding induced abortions. Since 1990 when the number of abortions in the United States peaked, the general trend has been gradually smaller numbers of legal induced abortions performed, according to statistics compiled by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. In 2001, the latest year statistics were available from the CDC, 853,485 abortions were performed in the United States, although the figure doesn’t include numbers from Alaska, California and New Hampshire. The pro-abortion rights organization, the Alan Guttmacher Institute, estimates 1.31 million abortions were performed in the United States in 2000. The rate of abortions per 1,000 American women stood at 21.3 in 2000, a gradual decline from the highest rate of 29.3 recorded in 1980 and 1981, according to U.S. Census figures. The abortion ratio — the number of abortions per 1,000 abortions and live births — stands at 245 nationally, down from 259 in 1995 and 280 in 1990. The majority of abortions, 58 percent, are performed in fewer than nine weeks of fetal gestation, according to 2000 Census figures. Twenty percent were performed between nine and 10 weeks, 11 percent between 11 and 12 weeks, and 12 percent at 13 weeks or later. The vast majority of women, 81 percent, who have abortions are unmarried or separated and generally are younger than 30 years old. The abortion ratio for unmarried women is 443 while it is 84 for married women. Women between 20 and 24 years old represent the largest age group, 33 percent, receiving abortions. Next are women between 25 and 29 years old making up 23 percent; then women between 15 and 19 years old, 18 percent; and women between 30 and 34 represent 15 percent. Girls younger than 15 years old constitute 1 percent of abortions performed in 2000, while women between 35 and 39 are 8 percent and women 40 years old or older represent 3 percent. Most women, 56 percent, who seek abortions are white, but because the U.S. population is 75 percent white, that means nonwhite women disproportionately have abortions. Thus the abortion ratio is much higher for nonwhite women compared with their white counterparts, 403 to 187, and greatly above the national figure of 245. A slim majority of women, 53 percent, who have an abortion haven’t previously had the procedure. Twenty-seven percent have had one previous abortion while 20 percent have had two or more previous abortions. A plurality of women, 41 percent, who have an abortion have had no children. Twenty-eight percent have had one child while 20 percent have two children, 8 percent three, and 4 percent four or more. According to CDC data, 11 women died in 2000 because complications resulting from an abortion while no women died from known illegal abortions. In 1972, 24 women died from legal abortions compared with 39 dying from known illegal abortions. From 1972 to 2000, a total of 362 women have died from legal abortions compared with 93 from illegal ones. Two pro-abortion rights groups, the Alan Guttmacher Institute and Physicians for Reproductive Choice and Health, report that almost half of the pregnancies in the United States, 48 percent, are unintended. Of those, 47 percent are aborted, 20 percent result in a miscarriage and 40 percent result in a live birth. The groups also report that the majority of women, 57 percent, seeking abortions are poor or low-income. "

8/9/2005 11:05:58 AM

Quote :

"Umm... my skin cells are alive, but if I snip off a chunk of my skin, no one really cares."

Your skin cells are demonstrably part of a multicellular organism, ie, you. They are not an organism unto themselves. You'll note that I brought this up only to differentiate a zygote/fetus from a dead man, not from a living, out-of-the-womb human.

Quote :

"Great, but irrelevant, the point is that they can interact. The outcome of their interaction is irrelevant."

Sure, they interact. I interact with fried chicken when I'm near it. That does not mean that fried chicken and I constitute an organism.

Quote :

"I like how your arguments are emotional crybaby bullshit and photos with lots of shock value."

As far as I could tell, her big article there was to specifically refute the claim that abortions drove down crime rates, and, unless you can demonstrate otherwise, I'd say she succeeded.

Quote :

"Cloning."

LOOK

FUCKTARDS

A SKIN CELL DOES NOT BECOME A NEW PERSON THROUGH CLONING

A FERTILIZED EGG CELL DOES, JUST LIKE IT ALWAYS HAS

8/9/2005 11:42:15 AM

kill um alll

8/9/2005 11:42:41 AM

Wow, I'd like to meet one of these women who have had two or more abortions. They're probably easy.

8/9/2005 11:57:01 AM

Quote :

"LOOK FUCKTARDS A SKIN CELL DOES NOT BECOME A NEW PERSON THROUGH CLONING A FERTILIZED EGG CELL DOES, JUST LIKE IT ALWAYS HAS "

You are completely ignorant of the process. Shut the fuck up and stick to your political bullshit.

You can use the nucleus from a skin cell in a cloning vector.

[Edited on August 9, 2005 at 12:33 PM. Reason : ed]

8/9/2005 12:29:25 PM

Where do they have to put that nucleus? Do they just stick it in a uterus and nine months later watch a baby pop out?

Don't make the mistake of assuming that no one in CHASS knows anything about biology.

8/9/2005 1:30:36 PM

Quote :

"Sure, they interact. I interact with fried chicken when I'm near it. That does not mean that fried chicken and I constitute an organism."

You're the one that set interaction as a qualifier for an organism, not me. You are arguing agianst yourself here.

8/9/2005 1:36:18 PM

Take an enucleated unfertilized egg (egg without a nucleus) and fuse it with the nucleus of another cell (skin cell, what have you). Implant in uterus and watch the magic. They have to put it in vivo because our technology sucks right now. Eventually, it will be done in vitro.

Biotechnology has so far to go and there is so much potential. I can't wait to goto grad school for it

8/9/2005 1:36:48 PM

Quote :

"LOOK FUCKTARDS A SKIN CELL DOES NOT BECOME A NEW PERSON THROUGH CLONING A FERTILIZED EGG CELL DOES, JUST LIKE IT ALWAYS HAS"

i swear to god.

i swear to god.













lets get it straight -- you can use an UNFERTILIZED egg.













funny how we've created sheep and other life forms from a process which GrumpyGOP says doesnt create life.

life starts only when an egg gets fertilized, right?





[Edited on August 9, 2005 at 3:18 PM. Reason : -]

8/9/2005 3:16:18 PM

http://www.godhatesclones.com

8/9/2005 3:49:47 PM

Quote :

"lets get it straight -- you can use an UNFERTILIZED egg."

Right. But the process of giving it a nucleus with the full set of DNA is akin to fertilizing it in any relevant sense. Once it's got all the DNA, it's fertilized. If you find that wording unacceptable, that's fine by me, because my point holds up just fine. The point is, it's an egg cell that's turning into another human, not a skin cell.

Quote :

"You're the one that set interaction as a qualifier for an organism, not me. You are arguing agianst yourself here."

I believe my point was quite clearly different from how you are trying to portray it.

In a multicellular organism, each cell does interact with the organism as a whole or in parts, directly or indirectly. The nature of the interaction is entirely different from the kind you find between cells from two distinct organisms.

8/9/2005 4:01:09 PM

Quote :

"Right. But the process of giving it a nucleus with the full set of DNA is akin to fertilizing it in any relevant sense. Once it's got all the DNA, it's fertilized. If you find that wording unacceptable, that's fine by me, because my point holds up just fine. The point is, it's an egg cell that's turning into another human, not a skin cell."

Untrue. Do you know what removing the nucleus of an egg cell does? Its akin to removing a brain. It isn't fertilization either, its putting a strand of DNA into a cloning vector which allows expression of genes. It is VASTLY different from sperm/egg fertilization ESPECIALLY taking the biological processes into consideration. The skin cells nucleus is the entire reason that the cloning process in question would work. It is a skin cells DNA that is being expressed and replicated and transcripted.

By your definition, cells inside your own body "fertilize" themselves.

And, oh man, its not just a fucking egg cell turning into another organism. Without that transposed nucleus it wouldn't be doing jack shit. You are using the nucleus of another cell from another organisn. YOU ALSO remove ALL GENETIC material from the host organism, all of it.

[Edited on August 9, 2005 at 4:35 PM. Reason : blah ad hominem]

8/9/2005 4:25:14 PM

You've told me nothing I don't already know and little that I haven't already said. What you have consistently failed to do is explain how any of this means that skin cells have the potential to grow into new human beings, when a skin cell never does any such thing.

8/9/2005 4:48:21 PM

Quote :

"Those are your own cells with your own DNA in them and they will never become a new individual person"

I was replying to that. If I had to ammend it, I would say part of a skin cell can become an individual person through artificial means.

Biotech is really not understood at all by the public, and I wish it was.

8/9/2005 5:01:52 PM

Quote :

"You've told me nothing I don't already know and little that I haven't already said."

Haha, he's already proven you don't know what the hell you're talking about here. YOu can drop the charade.

8/9/2005 6:27:58 PM

He hasn't proven jack shit. Nothing he's said contradicts anything I've said. Although the process of nucleating the egg is obviously distinct from the process of fertilization, the outcome is, for all intents and purposes, the same thing: an egg with all the relevant features of a fertilized one. Just because you try to call it a "cloning vector" instead doesn't mean you've changed what the actual thing is.

8/9/2005 8:35:32 PM

Quote :

"A SKIN CELL DOES NOT BECOME A NEW PERSON THROUGH CLONING A FERTILIZED EGG CELL DOES, JUST LIKE IT ALWAYS HAS"

Now I know you'll try and throw your damage control in, but no one's buying it.

8/9/2005 10:12:38 PM

What did I say there that was wrong?

A skin cell doesn't become a new person. The DNA from the skin cell directs the egg to become a new person.

8/10/2005 12:43:22 PM

Quote :

"A FERTILIZED EGG CELL"

Do I need to narrow it down to the letter?

8/10/2005 12:55:04 PM

GrumpyGOP


so youre saying


life beings when:

1. ann egg cell is fertilized

2. ann egg cell gets a new nucleus with a full set of chromosomes

is that correct? yes or no?

8/10/2005 12:57:47 PM

A friend of mine is pregnant after six years of trying, and is thrilled. She had two abortions when she was younger, in secret, and regrets them, especially since they messed up her reproductive system. Her life has changed dramatically with this pregnancy (habits, quitting smoking, eating healthier). So if you have to get an abortion, don't be scared/embarrassed to go to a clinic that specializes in it. Another friend didn't want to have the abortion she did but her brother (her guardian, although it wasn't applicable since she was over 18 at the time) strongly influenced her to do so (and traveled two states down to make sure it happened). Both would have been single moms, but appreciated what they would have had.

I'm firmly against abortion. But I realize some people want that option open to them, and it would be impossible to shut it all down without major danger to those women that don't accept the consequences of their actions. I won't touch on rape issues, and they are not included in my discussion. It's the women that fully realize what they're doing, are educated on contraceptives, and are still irresponsible enough to not take full advantage of them. Or that are the one in a million (or higher?) that actually conceives after contraceptive use (a friend of mine did even though she was on birth control and used a condom).

So if I still manage to get pregnant after my contraceptive precautions, I'll accept it and raise the child. And if I'm stupid enough to forgo contraceptives, I'll realize it was my own stumble, and again would raise, love, and appreciate the life that we created.

8/10/2005 1:01:48 PM

Read how the sentence was and you'll see that I was clearly not implying that the egg had to be fertilized by a sperm. Perhaps I was using the term broadly -- in fact, I allowed for that when I used it -- but "fertilized egg cell" referred to a "nucleated egg cell," which for all intents and purposes are indistinguishable -- they're both going to procede in their development along exactly the same lines.

Quote :

"life beings when: 1. ann egg cell is fertilized 2. ann egg cell gets a new nucleus with a full set of chromosomes"

Basically, yes -- life begins once you've got a zygotic cell that has a full set of DNA (allowing some room for people with various genetic disorders), because at that point you have a human organism in the first stage of development.

8/10/2005 1:03:28 PM

i wear shoes with good traction in the soles and make sure my shoelaces are tied

i try to walk on even surfaces, paved if possible, and avoid steep grades

i watch where i'm going, avoiding obstacles, cracks, uneven terrain

i circumnavigate holes, puddles

and still

MOTHERFUCKING STILL

sometimes i fucking trip

sometimes i will fall flat on my fucking face despite all that

and you're suggesting i shouldn't pick myself the fuck back up

[Edited on August 10, 2005 at 1:06 PM. Reason : aha]

8/10/2005 1:04:55 PM

I'm suggesting you shouldn't pick yourself up by way of grabbing someone else and pulling him to the ground, too.

8/10/2005 1:08:24 PM

Quote :

"Read how the sentence was and you'll see that I was clearly not implying that the egg had to be fertilized by a sperm. Perhaps I was using the term broadly -- in fact, I allowed for that when I used it -- but "fertilized egg cell" referred to a "nucleated egg cell," which for all intents and purposes are indistinguishable -- they're both going to procede in their development along exactly the same lines."

Backpedaling damage control.

8/10/2005 1:23:00 PM

I haven't refuted anything I've said in the least, because I've said nothing wrong. I won't be held responsible for your flimsy grasp of the King's fucking English.

8/10/2005 1:29:31 PM

Quote :

"but "fertilized egg cell" referred to a "nucleated egg cell," which for all intents and purposes are indistinguishable "

Sigh.

I hate politicians.

8/10/2005 1:37:01 PM

Quote :

"I haven't refuted anything I've said in the least, because I've said nothing wrong."

This is wrong: "A SKIN CELL DOES NOT BECOME A NEW PERSON THROUGH CLONING; A FERTILIZED EGG CELL DOES, JUST LIKE IT ALWAYS HAS"

A fertilized egg has united with a sperm. An unfertilized egg has not.

Quote :

"I won't be held responsible for your flimsy grasp of the King's fucking English."

Bullshit, you're trying to twist the word fertilze around to prove your point.
http://www.webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=fertilization
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=fertilization

8/10/2005 2:02:07 PM

Quote :

"Basically, yes -- life begins once you've got a zygotic cell that has a full set of DNA"

well no. cloning doesnt use zygotes. the replaced nucleus of an egg cell isnt a zygote. so youll need to change your definition of the begining of life.

8/10/2005 3:16:54 PM

The first time I used "fertilized" that it might not be the ideal wording. "Nucleated" hadn't occured to me to use. I apologize.

I also acknowledged at the time that the question of fertilized or unfertilized was irrelevant to my point. You missed both of those statements on my part and have acted like my whole argument has collapsed as a result.

Quote :

"cloning doesnt use zygotes."

Explain to me the difference between a zygote and an egg cell that has a nucleus with a complete set of DNA that is going to procede in its development just like a zygote would.

8/10/2005 8:37:09 PM

I have a Q for GrumpyGOP (or any other strict anti-abortionist)...

If all abortion were made illegal, would you also support the necessary social programs needed to support the extra unwanted babies in the lower income population?

This next question I don't fully expect you to answer...

But, why is it less bad to support any wars where innocent humans (who have families that love them, and nerve endings that give them the sensations of physical pain, and the other emotions associated with that) die, than the killing of undeveloped humans? It seems to me that if killing in war can be justified, early-term abortion is even more justified.

[Edited on August 10, 2005 at 8:49 PM. Reason : 2]

8/10/2005 8:47:23 PM

Quote :

"If all abortion were made illegal, would you also support the necessary social programs needed to support the extra unwanted babies in the lower income population?"

Any that were necessary, yes, but I suspect we have different understandings of that term.

Also, the emphasis would be better placed on the availability and development of birth control.

Quote :

"But, why is it less bad to support any wars where innocent humans (who have families that love them, and nerve endings that give them the sensations of physical pain, and the other emotions associated with that) die"

I scratched the surface of this one in the other thread, where this discussion is better kept. In the specific case of abortions, however, it's because by killing a fetus you are almost never saving anybody else. If I kill Hitler and the SS and even a lot of German civies in a war, I save untold millions. The situation gets more complicated if you look at stem cell research.

8/10/2005 8:55:58 PM

Quote :

"If all abortion were made illegal, would you also support the necessary social programs needed to support the extra unwanted babies in the lower income population?"

I wouldn't be suprised if it's a fallacy to say that there would be ANY "unwanted babies" who would need social programs. If they are truly unwanted, they likely would be put up for adoption, and we all know that it takes a real financial commitment to adopt a child. Come up with some hard numbers and citations showing what kind of increase would be necessary, and I will respond further. Let it be known, though, that I don't really support many of the social programs we have already.

Quote :

"But, why is it less bad to support any wars where innocent humans (who have families that love them, and nerve endings that give them the sensations of physical pain, and the other emotions associated with that) die, than the killing of undeveloped humans? It seems to me that if killing in war can be justified, early-term abortion is even more justified."

I don't support any war that isn't on the soil of one of our 50 states; not even in Puerto Rico. If there was a war on our soil, I doubt that pregnant women and children would be coming over to fight or hang out to become casualities. If it's on our soil, they are invading us, and I'd hardly call them "innocent" as a result.

[Edited on August 10, 2005 at 9:04 PM. Reason : MOO]

8/10/2005 9:00:45 PM

Quote :

"The first time I used "fertilized" that it might not be the ideal wording."

IT [THE BACKPEDALING] BEGINS

Quote :

"I also acknowledged at the time that the question of fertilized or unfertilized was irrelevant to my point."

Fertilization is irrelevant to your point?

Then isn't menstration murder?

Quote :

"Explain to me the difference between a zygote and an egg cell that has a nucleus with a complete set of DNA"

A zygote is a merger between a sperm and an egg, the other has had no contact with sperm. That's one.

8/10/2005 10:14:24 PM

Quote :

"IT [THE BACKPEDALING] BEGINS"

If I acknowledged the possible flaw when it first occured, then technically the backpedaling began before anyone even said anything.

Not that saying, "BACKPEDALLING" actually advances your point at all.

Quote :

"Fertilization is irrelevant to your point? Then isn't menstration murder?"

You know what I meant.

Quote :

"A zygote is a merger between a sperm and an egg, the other has had no contact with sperm. That's one."

Are there any physical or developmental differences between a zygote and a nucleated egg cell? You know, the kind that would matter. At all.

8/11/2005 5:35:30 AM

It's times like these I wish the lot of you had been aborted.

Twice.

8/11/2005 10:24:57 AM

8/13/2005 2:38:57 AM

Grumpalumps, it appears that you do know a bit about cloning, but it also seems like the extent of your knowledge lies in "pro-life" rhetoric. Reading the opposing side's literature--and trying to appreciate it--would be a good idea in this situation.

I'm gonna jump into the scientific argument stuff here now:

I agree with Kris that you are arbitrarily drawing your own line. Sperm does not always succeed in fertilizing an egg. Similarly, a zygote does not always become a fetus (miscarriage is more common than you know). A zygote has potential for life in the same way that an egg and sperm have potential for life. POTENTIAL. NOTHING NEAR A GUARANTEE HERE.

Quote :

"Any that were necessary, yes, but I suspect we have different understandings of that term."

Pathetic. Why would I want to bring a child into a world where greedy, self-righteous fuckers like you hang around?

8/13/2005 9:43:34 AM

^ Wow, do you let everybody that you disagree with on the internet determine how you're going to live your life? I knew you were insecure but dang...

8/13/2005 10:29:23 AM

^WolfPk4Life, why don't you re-evaluate what I said and be real about it? Your assertion is absurd and rather pointless.

8/13/2005 10:36:10 AM

Facilitating actions in your own life due to internet fodder from somebody you do not know let alone probably never even met is pretty freakin' insecure. Yeah don't have children, that'll show 'em!

8/13/2005 10:46:26 AM

^Again, the assertion that I would let GrumpyGOP control whether or not I have children is absurd. Go reread what I said. Again.

8/13/2005 10:50:36 AM

Do you not understand your own words? You said that GrumpyGOP is greedy and self-righteous. Because of GrumpyGOP and people like him you wouldn't want to bring a child into this world. Now, it seems to me like you're letting other people that you don't even know make decisions for you.

Is that clear enough sweetheart?

8/13/2005 10:53:32 AM

I POSED A RHETORICAL QUESTION:

WHY WOULD I WANT TO BRING A CHILD INTO A WORLD WHERE GREEDY, SELF-RIGHTEOUS FUCKERS LIKE YOU HANG AROUND?

I UNDERSTAND YOUR LOGIC TO A DEGREE, BUT YOUR CONCLUSION IS STILL WRONG. I POSED A QUESTION. I DID NOT SAY: BECAUSE OF PEOPLE LIKE GRUMPYGOP, I'M NEVER HAVING KIDS.

GET IT STRAIGHT.

8/13/2005 10:56:20 AM

Quote :

"A zygote has potential for life in the same way that an egg and sperm have potential for life."

You've grossly mischaracterized my argument here as being "Zygotes have the potential to be human beings" instead of what it really is, which is "Zygotes are human beings."

Quote :

"Similarly, a zygote does not always become a fetus (miscarriage is more common than you know)."

Young people don't always become old people, either. Natural death couldn't be farther from important in this discussion.

The least single thing that you or I ever was is a single cell, a zygote. I was never just a sperm and I was never just an egg, I was the union of those two, and that union is -- guess what -- the zygote.

And how the fuck is my point any more arbitrary than yours? The physical differences between a baby that's about to be born and a baby that has just been born are almost purely geographical.

8/13/2005 8:41:44 PM

8/13/2005 10:03:51 PM

Hey, Jon, if you don't like the topic, get the fuck out of the thread. Telling people to just "shut the fuck up" just because you don't like the conversation is egotistic and unproductive. Go back to doing what you do best; chitchattin' it up.

[Edited on August 13, 2005 at 11:25 PM. Reason : Moo]

8/13/2005 11:23:07 PM

thx for the lesson in tww etiquette. In the time you took to complain I got like fifteen abortions.

8/13/2005 11:46:53 PM