Re: Any anti-abortion atheists?

On Tue, 2 Dec 2003 07:30:13 -0800, 
Chris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>  Craig Chilton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>  Chris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>  Craig Chilton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>>  "golddodgearies" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>>>  Craig Chilton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>>>>  Mushinronsha <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


>>>>>>>    I am an atheist, and I have a problem accepting abortion.
>>>>>>> When a fetus grows to the point that it becomes a human being,
>>>>>>> I think it is wrong to have it's life terminated.

>>>>>>     They **never** are.  A fetus becomes a human being at the
>>>>>> moment of BIRTH.

>>>>>     You stupid lying murderer. They have human parents from
>>>>> conception.  Non-humans don't have human parents, idiot.

>>>>     ALL human reproductive-process entities have human parents.
>>>> INCLUDING the GAMETES that you hypocritically look the other
>>>> way about even though a *quadrillion* of THOSE potential people
>>>> are being electively aborted DAILY, worldwide... by men.

>>>    No gamete can EVER become a person; no more so than oxygen
>>> can become water.

>     Just like every water molecule once existed as at the oxygen stage....
> uhuh.

     Entities of the human reproductive pocess are organic and alive.
Apple and oranges.  Not remotely an analogy.  Now, as I was saying ---


>>      Absolutely wrong.  EVERY person on earth once existed at the gamete
>> stage --  JUST as much as they existed at the zygote, embryo, and fetus
>> stages.  And JUST as would be the case if a potential person's zygote
>> were to die, that potential person NEVER would be born if one or both of
>> the gametes that were part of his existence in the reproductive process
>> were to die.

>   Slippery-slope.

    Nope.  Just a clear-cut FACT.  If that helps to put the Anti-Choice
agenda on even a *more* slippery slope to extinction than it already is
on, that's a *good* thing.  Opposition to safe and legal abortion upon
request makes as little sense as opposition to ready access to aspirin
would.  BOTH are merely valuable remedies.  And such opposition has 
NO socially-redeeming aspects whatsoever.

   (IOW -- when that agenda joins the equally bigoted and hateful 
one of segregation in extintion, it will be *very* good riddance to bad
rubbish.)

>>    For example.  In the following scenario, imagine a person living
>> 10,000 years in the future, in a world where all the technology I'm
>> about to describe could exist.
>>
>>    A man gets fed up with a business rival and decides that he not only
>> wants to get rid of him, but would also would like to undo all of the
>> damage that the man had done to him over the years.  Just having him
>> killed would not accomplish the second objective, and also could land him
>> in a 31st century clink.  So he hops into a time machine and goes back to
>> the short time frame during which his rival had existed at the gamete
>> stage.  And seeks out the man's father.  Then he aims a small device at
>> that man which seems to have no ill effects on the man, himself.  in
>> fact, ALL that the device does is home in on the specific gamete that was
>> part of Stage One of his rival's reproductive process.  And vaporizes it.
>>
>>    The businessman then heads on home to the future, finds his business
>> thriving, and, indeed, finds that his business rival has never existed.
>>
>>    So -- NO ethical problem, right?  After all, gametes never become
>> people, right?

>      Gametes do not become people any more so than a steering wheel 
> becomes a Cadillac.

     If Cadillac parts and the cars themselves were ORGANIC, they might.

     Now, backing away for that silly red herring, I'll ask you again the
questions pertaining to the scenario I just presented ---

>>    So -- NO ethical problem, right?  After all, gametes never become
>> people, right?
>>
>>    BOTTOM LINE:  While -- **fortunately** -- NO reproductive entities
>> really are defensible, when unwanted.

>    Including the entity YOU?

    Red herrings seem to be *your* promary method of DUCKING the real
issues.  And I am not a reproductive-process entity.  SO... once *again
backing away for your latest silly red herring;  AS I was saying ---

>>    BOTTOM LINE:  While -- **fortunately** -- NO reproductive entities
>> really are defensible, when unwanted.The Bible dosn't indicate
>> otherwise, and our laws back that position.  But if they WERE, gametes,
>> which are human, unique, and alive *potential* people would be JUST
>> as defensible as Stages 2, 3, and 4.  Thus, the Anti-Choicers IGNORE
>> those while *men* are electively aborting them at the rate of a *quad-
>> rillion* per day, worldwide (compared to a mere 3,300 per day in the
>> USA, by women), they are total HYPOCRITES.

>    Gametes are NOT potential people as they can NEVER become 
> a person.

     Me senario, above, just ***proved** that the exact OPPOSITE is 
true for every person who's ever been born.  Why can't you simply be
HONEST enough to **admit** that?

    TRY that sometime:  Become one of the FEW (if any) Anti-Choicers 
EVER to have such integrity.

>>>>    Gametes -- just like the other 3 stages -- are human (adj.), 
>>>> living, and unique *potential* people.

>>>    See above.

>>     By all means... DO see above!

>     I did; and what I see is that no gamete can EVER become a 
> person; no more so than oxygen can become water.

     Thus, you qualify to join the ranks of the most IGNORANT or
cultically-programmed of the Anti-Choicers.  Or both.  Facts that 
prove their agenda against women is nothing but hog swill are 
anathema to people like you, so you inanely make fools of youself 
by living in DENIAL of them.  Even when they are as OBVIOUS 
as *this** one is!  (Everyone:  Never try to confuse Chris with the
FACTS!  He obviously is fact-intolerant.  You've heard of
lactose-intolerant people?  Anti-Choicers are FACT-intolerant.  With
lactose, certain aspects of the body reject lactose.  In the case of
Anti-Choicers, their *brains* reject all FACTS that they disagree with.)

>>>>    PERSONHOOD... the only thing that COUNTS...
>>>> begins at BIRTH.

>>> Apparently, NOT according to these folks:
>>> http://www.ama-assn.org/amednews/2001/06/04/prsb0604.htm.

>>    NOTE *this* comment from that story:
>>
>>    "In a dissenting opinion, Justice Robert L. Brown said he
>> agreed with the lower court ruling that fetuses are not considered
>> persons in wrongful death cases and disagreed that the 1999 law
>> should be applied retroactively to cover just one case.
>>
>> " 'The majority's handling of this critically important social, cultural
>> and moral issue is muddled," Justice Brown wrote.' "
>>
>>     And he's exactly RIGHT!

>     "Muddled" is a matter of opinion, thus has no right/wrong value.

>>>    What is "birth" in your mind?

>>     The same as the Bible clearly indicates in its passage dealing
>> with BIRTHrights, BIRTH order, and first-BORNS:   The beginning of
>> PERSONHOOD, and the *first* time that a human entity has intrinsic
>> value.

>    Petito principii. Precisely WHAT is the final requirement to constitute 
> the "birth" of a human entity?

    Complete separation from the woman, who then becomes his/her 
mother; alive, and breathing air rather than respiration via liquid.

    Bruce Forest, a very astute doctor who posted regularly in here a 
few years ago, posted a VERY interesting essay about that:

~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
     The IMMEDIATE Changes that Occur at BIRTH are
                      Nothing Short of Phenomenal !

     "There are enormous changes in a fetus at birth, and frankly, 
it looks a little ignorant to say there are no discernible changes 
at birth" [as some have claimed].

      "Birth involves far more immediate, dramatic physiological 
change in the fetus than merely where the nutrients and oxygen 
come from. These profound changes are a reason that I consider 
birth to be an 'initiation' to air-breathing 'personhood.'  

      "For example, the most obvious change is that the newborn 
receives oxygen from the environment.  Do you have any idea of 
the massive changes necessary to accomplish this?  Let me just 
address circulation a bit, and leave the even more profound 
respiratory and digestive changes for another time... I think you'll 
regard birth as even more miraculous when you understand what 
an amazing physiological event it is, and what awesome changes 
happen at that moment!

     "At birth, two major events happen that radically alter fetal 
hemodynamics;  (1) ligation of the umbilical cord causes a huge, 
though transient rise in arterial pressure, and (2) a rise in plasma 
C02 and fall in blood P02 help to initiate regular breathing.

     "With the first few breaths, the intrathoracic (internal chest 
cavity) pressure remains low; after distention of the airways, 
assuming sufficient surfactant, the pressure quickly rises to that 
of an adult... (-7 to -8 mmHg). Pressure in the pulmonary artery 
falls by 50%, but pressure in the atrium immediately doubles or 
even triples.

     "In the fetus, the high resistance of the pulmonary bed (the 
capillaries that exchange oxygen in the working lung) causes 
most of the deoxygenated blood in the pulmonary artery to rush 
into the descending aorta via a vessel present only in the fetus 
called the ductus arteriosus.  At birth, the first expansion of the 
lungs forces all the blood in the right ventricle into the pulmonary 
artery for the first time.  Furthermore, increased systemic arterial 
pressure actually reverses the flow through the ductus arteri- 
osus!  Now, neonatal blood flows from the high-pressure aorta 
to the low pressure pulmonary artery. 

     "The massive increase in the left atrial pressure would, 
before birth, result in a fatal backflow of blood into the right 
heart through the patent (open) foramen ovale. (An oval opening 
in the atrial septum that we all have before birth.) However, (and 
this is SO cool...) the anatomical configuration of the foramen is 
such that a valvelike fold in the left atrial wall automatically 
closes the foramen (hopefully) on the first pulse of reversed 
blood. That always amazes me.

     "The neonatal circulation changes at birth complete with 
closure of the ductus arteriosus and foramen ovale, but some 
minor adjustments continue for 1-2 months, until the adult phase 
begins.

    "Fetal circulatory adaptions that disappear at birth....

Umbilical vein... Carries oxygenated blood from placenta to fetus 

Ductus venosus... Conducts about half the blood from the 
umbilical vein directly to the inferior vena cava, thus bypassing 
the liver

Foramen Ovale... Conveys large proportion of blood entering  
the right atrium from the inferior vena cava, through the atrial 
septum and into the left atrium, thus bypassing the lungs

Ductus Arteriosus...Conducts some blood from the pulmonary 
artery to the aorta, thus bypassing the lungs

Umbilical arteries... Carry blood from the internal iliac arteries 
to the placenta for reoxygenation

Immediately following birth, the umbilical vessels constrict. The 
arteries close first, and if the umbilical cord is not clamped or 
severed for a minute or so, blood continues to flow from the 
placenta to the newborn through the umbilical vein, adding to 
the newborn's blood volume.

The proximal portions of the umbilical arteries persist in the adult
as the superior vesical arteries that supply blood to the urinary 
bladder. The more distal portions become solid cords (lateral 
umbilical ligaments.) The umbilical vein becomes the cordlike 
ligamentum teres that extends from the umbilicus to the liver 
in an adult. Similarly, the ductus venosus constricts shortly after 
birth and is represented in the adult as a fibrous cord (ligamen-
tum venosum), which is superficially embedded in the wall of 
the liver.

     So, to summarize, the hemodynamics of the immediate 
newborn and term fetus differ in these major ways, and many 
more minor ones... ALL abruptly changing at the moment of 
birth:  

    (1)  arterial and venous blood no longer mix in the atria; 

    (2)  the vena cava now carries only deoxygenated blood 
          into the right atrium, where it goes into the right 
          ventricle, and then is pumped to the pulmonary arteries, 
          and finally to the pulmonary capillary bed , and ; 

    (3)  the aorta now carries only oxygenated blood from the 
          left heart via the pulmonary veins for distribution to the 
          rest of the body. The 'pipework' is still mostly there, but 
          what enormous changes have taken place in a few 
          short seconds!

      So, I'd appreciate if you didn't say that the immediate newborn 
and term fetus are almost identical, because they just aren't. The 
digestive changes alone would be ten times the length of this very 
basic circulatory primer, and the respiratory chemistry changes at 
the instant of birth could fill a book.

            -- Bruce Forest <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on 09-05-1996.

                    * ~ * ~ * ~ * ~ * ~ * ~ * ~ * ~ * ~ * ~ *
FOOTNOTE to the above comments of Bruce Forest --- 

       There is NOTHING in the Bible (or anywhere else that I know 
of) that documents any sort of "specialness" to the simple, mechan- 
ical act of sperm and ova merging (i.e., fertilization. Yet, for their
own arcane reasons, Anti-Choicers desperately cling to THAT 
POINT from which to "defend" entities of the human reproductive 
process.  Which is both strange and hypocritical, considering the 
fact that all the DNA that is found in those last 3 stages was 
ALREADY present in the first two, when summed.  AND... Stage 
One of the reproductive process (sperm and ova) is comprised of 
entities which, JUST like the later stages, are human, alive, and 
POTENTIAL people.  To be sure, SOME physiological changes 
occur at the merging of sperm and ova to form a zygote, but those 
PALE by coparison to the PROFOUND changes that occur at 
BIRTH. 

      All things considered, it really is no wonder that the Bible 
clearly accords personhood at BIRTH, and never defends the 
non-sentient POTENTIAL people of the reproductive process.  
And never once says so much as one word against abortion. 

~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*


                   -- Craig Chilton    [EMAIL PROTECTED]