Pro-choice distortion

[carpedm9587]

You know you can't stay away. It's TWeb.

Trust me - when the time comes that I want to be away - I'll be away.

The thing is though, so many people buy into the "shapeless blob" myth that they really need to be shown incontrovertible proof that their child really has a beating heart, a brain, arms and legs.

Heart beat is at 3-4 weeks
Brain wave is at 5-6 weeks
Arms and legs formed is near 8 weeks

Indeed, the distinctive "human" shape doesn't really manifest until 6-8 weeks. Before that, "blob of tissue" is a perfectly correct description. It is a blob of tissue capable of growing to be a human being - but it is a blob of human tissue.

In my hypothetical scenario, most people think that organs are grown in a lab and would never think to look at the available information that says otherwise. They believe that anyone who thinks prisoners are sacrificed to harvest their organs is a loon. If the doctor had a pamphlet about it in his office that he would show you if you asked, would you even know to ask?

Which is why the doctor should be required to let people know what kind of information is available to them and what is required to obtain it. The government should not be mandating medical procedures for adult, non-criminal, women.

Let me also ask you this: how many children's lives do you think have been saved by those ultrasound laws?

I have no idea - but you are still requiring a medical procedure for an adult, non-criminal woman. You are talking to an odd duck, Quanta. I am pro-choice AND pro-life. I see both sides of the argument, and generally agree with both sides. It is why I think the current attempt to solve the issue with laws is doomed to fail, as it has failed for over half a century now.

Most women who are seeking an abortion, if the tech at the abortion clinic simply told her "this procedure will end your child's life", would say, "no it's not. It's just a blob, and I want it gone". Only when she's shown that little moving baby on the screen does she know the truth. I think the lives saved are worth the inconvenience of her being required to have the ultrasound done.

It's not a matter of convenience or inconvenience - it's a matter of government intervention in the medical decisions of an adult, non-criminal citizen.

I already said, I'm not talking to them. I'm talking to you.

Accepted. The point still stands.

So, tell me honestly. Does this boil down to, "I'd rather not know"? And would you wish the doctor had told you beforehand? Why put people through that trauma when you can spare them?

It is not the role of government to "spare people trauma" if in so doing it means they must intervene in the medical decision making process we all have a right to. This argument of yours is basically ASKING for a "nanny state."

Fair enough. But what if someone came in and asked about the reasons for not offering information on abortions? Should they refuse to give detailed information on what an abortion entails?

If your question is still about a religiously-based crisis pregnancy center, my answer is "no" so long as their religious position is clearly stated for patients, as noted in previous posts.

An ultrasound is completely noninvasive, though. It's a minor inconvenience (much like the waiting period for buying a gun). And a lot of these women have changed their minds after seeing that little baby on the screen, and would never have believed that that's a little human being without being shown. If it were me, I'd be glad someone showed me what I was really doing before it was too late to change my mind. Those who are still convinced that a shapeless blob can somehow have a heartbeat are still going to do whatever they want, but the sensible ones are going to save their child's life and start considering adoption. It's not about the government putting its nose where it doesn't belong, it's about saving lives.

You are asking me to agree to the government mandating medical procedures for an adult, non-criminal person. You will not find me agreeing to that. As noted, it has nothing to do with convenience. It is about the proper role of government.

Just to clear something up, there is really no part of normal development that can be called a "blob of tissue".

I disagree - see above.

When it is actually just that, it's called a teratoma and is never viable since it is literally just a misshapen blob of tissue. Those are very rare though. From start to finish, in a normal pregnancy there is order and form and you can point to any part of the developing body and say, "that is what will become the spine" or "this pulsating tube will become the heart". It is really fascinating. Just skim through a timeline of development with photos and you'll see what I mean. Even in the blastocyst stage, there are distinct layers of cells that are beginning to differentiate and we know what each layer will become. There is never any randomness or shapelessness or anything of the sort. In your cat/dog picture, the picture was always a cat.

And yet none of these stages have the distinctive human form. It is a blob of tissue with potential. I agree that it is an individuated human person from the time of conception/implantation. But it is also an individuated human person within another individuated human person - a pretty much completely unique legal/social/medical situation. It is this reality that creates the conundrum. The pro-choice people generally place the rights of the woman over the rights of the child. The pro-life people generally place the rights of the child over the rights of the woman. Until we can all acknowledge that BOTH have rights and BOTH sets of rights need to be respected, there will likely be no forward motion. As long as there is no forward motion, children will continue to die.

The starting place is, to me, to acknowledge and respect the rights of both individuals - and see what solutions we find ways to develop when we commit to not violating the rights of either and to look for solutions that will respect both. Based on the last 50+ years of history - I suspect that will not happen. I predict that what will begin to end this entire issue is when science reaches the point that a fertilized human egg can be brought to term outside of the womb.

[Cow Poke]

Indeed, the distinctive "human" shape doesn't really manifest until 6-8 weeks. Before that, "blob of tissue" is a perfectly correct description. It is a blob of tissue capable of growing to be a human being - but it is a blob of human tissue.

If allowed to live, what does this "blob" "grow into" OTHER than a human being?

[Cow Poke]

Just to clear something up, there is really no part of normal development that can be called a "blob of tissue". When it is actually just that, it's called a teratoma and is never viable since it is literally just a misshapen blob of tissue. Those are very rare though. From start to finish, in a normal pregnancy there is order and form and you can point to any part of the developing body and say, "that is what will become the spine" or "this pulsating tube will become the heart". It is really fascinating. Just skim through a timeline of development with photos and you'll see what I mean. Even in the blastocyst stage, there are distinct layers of cells that are beginning to differentiate and we know what each layer will become. There is never any randomness or shapelessness or anything of the sort. In your cat/dog picture, the picture was always a cat.

And, when does this "blob" receive its amazingly incredibly complex set of instructions charting its course to be a unique human individual?

[carpedm9587]

If allowed to live, what does this "blob" "grow into" OTHER than a human being?

Umm.. nothing...?

If you want a pet, you'll need to find a different womb!

[Cow Poke]

Umm.. nothing...?

EGGzackly - way more than just a "blob of tissue".

[carpedm9587]

EGGzackly - way more than just a "blob of tissue".

No. It is accurately described as a "blob of tissue." It is a "blob of tissue" with potential, but a "blob of tissue" nonetheless. Here...

chtopPink.jpg

07limb-600.jpg

12328706375_e7edb2b039_b.jpg

Which is human? No fair searching...

If you can't tell - then I suggest it's because it is a "blob of tissue" with no uniquely discernible features. You and I agree it is an individual human person - and will grow to have those discernible features. But "blob of tissue" is not an incorrect description, even if you don't particularly like it.

[Cow Poke]

No. It is accurately described as a "blob of tissue." It is a "blob of tissue" with potential, but a "blob of tissue" nonetheless. Here...

Which is human? No fair searching...

If you can't tell - then I suggest it's because it is a "blob of tissue" with no uniquely discernible features. You and I agree it is an individual human person - and will grow to have those discernible features. But "blob of tissue" is not an incorrect description, even if you don't particularly like it.

I don't have to tell by looking at pictures. If it's in a human, produced by humans, has its very own human DNA, it's human. You think maybe it's a puppy? Describing it as a "blob of tissue" is just a way of easing the conscience of those who wish to destroy a human life without acknowledging it was human.

[carpedm9587]

I don't have to tell by looking at pictures. If it's in a human, produced by humans, has its very own human DNA, it's human.

I never said otherwise.

You think maybe it's a puppy?

Never suggested it was...

Describing it as a "blob of tissue" is just a way of easing the conscience of those who wish to destroy a human life without acknowledging it was human.

Or it's just an apt description of a "blob of tissue" that does not yet show the classic characteristics of a human person, your attempt to mind-read those who use the term notwithstanding.

As I have noted before - those who perpetuate the war (IMO) are equally guilty of the deaths that result - regardless of what specific side they are taking in the argument.

"A strange game. The only winning move is not to play. How about a nice game of chess?"

ETA: And yes, I know it's not a "game." Which is why I would recommend that people stop trying to "win" and rather spend a bit of time thinking about how the "game" could be avoided to begin with.

[JonathanL]

No. It is accurately described as a "blob of tissue." It is a "blob of tissue" with potential, but a "blob of tissue" nonetheless. Here...

[ATTACH=CONFIG]36903[/ATTACH]

[ATTACH=CONFIG]36904[/ATTACH]

[ATTACH=CONFIG]36905[/ATTACH]

Which is human? No fair searching...

If you can't tell - then I suggest it's because it is a "blob of tissue" with no uniquely discernible features. You and I agree it is an individual human person - and will grow to have those discernible features. But "blob of tissue" is not an incorrect description, even if you don't particularly like it.

Well, I could tell almost immediately that there was no way what so ever that the top picture could be a human fetus, since you can clearly see what is to become the muzzle/snout of a clearly non-human animal (a mouse in this case, which I did have to look up. Not the fact that it wasn't a human embryo/fetus though) as soon as it has finished developing.

Deciding between the two remaining pictures was harder, but purely based on certain features that looked vaguely like a human mouth, nose and ear (which I marked in the picture*) I was leaning towards the middle picture being the human one. Which I then confirmed to be correct by reverse image searching the pictures.


*
07limb-601.jpg


So, if someone like me, who has absolutely no embryology training what so ever (or any sort of medical training for that matter), could instantly rule out one of the pictures as being of a human fetus, and could, with my untrained eye, guess which of the remaining images depicted a human embryo, based on what at least to me seems to be discernible humanlike features, I would say that calling the above pictures "blobs of tissue" would be severely misguided.

[Cow Poke]

So, if someone like me, who has absolutely no embryology training what so ever (or any sort of medical training for that matter), could instantly rule out one of the pictures as being of a human fetus, and could, with my untrained eye, guess which of the remaining images depicted a human embryo, based on what at least to me seems to be discernible humanlike features, I would say that calling the above pictures "blobs of tissue" would be severely misguided.

But Carpe needs that to support his narrative.

[JonathanL]

But Carpe needs that to support his narrative.

Well, after doing some more research it seems like what I thought looked like the beginning of human facial features is not at all (or atleast not the facial features that I thought they were), so while I guessed correctly, I did so on mistaken assumptions.

But even after acknowledging that fact there's still something about the middle picture that makes me want to say that it's more humanlike than the other ones. Or perhaps it's more correct to say that the top and bottom pictures are more clearly non-human than the middle picture.

ETA: After thinking some more about it, isn't it more than a bit ironic that I fell victim to pareidolia while looking at a picture of a human fetus?

[Cow Poke]

Or it's just an apt description of a "blob of tissue" that does not yet show the classic characteristics of a human person, your attempt to mind-read those who use the term notwithstanding.

As my Catholic friends would say:

The simple answer to all these related questions begins and ends with the irrefutable scientific fact that at the moment of fertilization two separate cells form one new life, genetically distinct in every way from every other human being on earth. The color of our eyes, the shape of our hands, even where we put on weight and when we will go bald was programmed into that one tiny cell that we all began our lives as.

As I have noted before - those who perpetuate the war (IMO) are equally guilty of the deaths that result - regardless of what specific side they are taking in the argument.

That (IMOHBAO) is one of the bird-brained nuttiest things I've ever seen you say. Seriously.

"A strange game. The only winning move is not to play. How about a nice game of chess?"

ETA: And yes, I know it's not a "game." Which is why I would recommend that people stop trying to "win" and rather spend a bit of time thinking about how the "game" could be avoided to begin with.

I don't just "think about it", Carpe, or "perpetuate the war" - I'm actually involved financially and materially over the past dozen years, investing actual time with women who had been contemplating abortion, are encouraged to carry the baby to birth, and make sure they have the support during and AFTER the pregnancy. And while you sanctimoniously condemn those who "perpetuate the war" --- here YOU are fighting the fight!

[Roy]

... I am pro-choice AND pro-life. I see both sides of the argument, and generally agree with both sides.

Even when those sides are making claims like the one this thread is based on?

[Christianbookworm]

I'm really curious how fetal development looks in "it's just a blob" until birth. An amorphous acardiac twin? That could never develop into a baby due to not having a head or heart or anything but tissue and blood vessels? And poses a threat to the viable pump twin?

[carpedm9587]

Well, I could tell almost immediately that there was no way what so ever that the top picture could be a human fetus, since you can clearly see what is to become the muzzle/snout of a clearly non-human animal (a mouse in this case, which I did have to look up. Not the fact that it wasn't a human embryo/fetus though) as soon as it has finished developing.

Deciding between the two remaining pictures was harder, but purely based on certain features that looked vaguely like a human mouth, nose and ear (which I marked in the picture*) I was leaning towards the middle picture being the human one. Which I then confirmed to be correct by reverse image searching the pictures.


*
[ATTACH=CONFIG]36907[/ATTACH]


So, if someone like me, who has absolutely no embryology training what so ever (or any sort of medical training for that matter), could instantly rule out one of the pictures as being of a human fetus, and could, with my untrained eye, guess which of the remaining images depicted a human embryo, based on what at least to me seems to be discernible humanlike features, I would say that calling the above pictures "blobs of tissue" would be severely misguided.

Nice analysis. This is a difficult experiment given the incredible wealth of "embryo" pictures out there. But all I need to do, Chrawnus, is go back further in the development cycle. I tried to find images that were roughly at the same point in development, and their are precious few animal images of embryos in the first two weeks of development.

The bottom line is, from the moment of fertilization, there is a period during which the developing embryo is accurately referred to as a "blob of tissue" and has no distinguishable features of a human person. As I have noted multiple times, I think that "blob of tissue" is an individual person that will develop to be an actualized human person. But calling it a "blob of tissue" is not incorrect.

Do some people use that term to dismiss the embryo and minimize it's importance? I'm sure they do. Can we assume someone is making use of that phrase for that purpose? Only if we attempt to mind read the speaker. And only if we desire to "continue the war."