[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
Guess what, they haven’t even cured the common cold yet!!
[/quote]
I don’t like to be condescending but stop the stupidity.
Are you even aware of how many different types of the rhinovirus there is?
The common cold isn’t even worth curing. It doesn’t kill people or disable them.
What are you going to bitch about next? No cure for razor burn?
[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
How does this by any means define how YOU can choose who dies and which child lives?? Plus I KNOW far more abortions kill children in this country than miscarriages ever would. Even at 6’7" I know that is a stretch!!
[/quote]
That is not true.
Much more fertilized ova fail to attach to the placenta or are spontaneously rejected by the mothers body than there are abortions.
It is not even close.
[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
Show me ONE credible source on this world wide web, which states inbreeding is advantageous in the HUMAN population.
[quote]Tex Ag wrote:
Why on earth is it bad to breed with your cousins?[/quote]
[/quote]
I said that animal populations did better with more genetic variety - arguing against removal of genes on the chance they might cause such and such condition.
You stated the human population did not need more variety. Then said I copulate with my cousins - intended as an insult.
My above response point out that your argument actually supported my original argument.
[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
How does this by any means define how YOU can choose who dies and which child lives?? Plus I KNOW far more abortions kill children in this country than miscarriages ever would. Even at 6’7" I know that is a stretch!!
[quote]Tex Ag wrote:
Here are some stats on miscarriages. Far more than a few.
"Miscarriage is the most common type of pregnancy loss, according to the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG). Studies reveal that anywhere from 10-25% of all clinically recognized pregnancies will end in miscarriage. Chemical pregnancies may account for 50-75% of all miscarriages. This occurs when a pregnancy is lost shortly after implantation, resulting in bleeding that occurs around the time of her expected period. The woman may not realize that she conceived when she experiences a chemical pregnancy…
What are the chances of having a Miscarriage?
For women in childbearing years, the chances of having a miscarriage can range from 10-25%, and in most healthy women the average is about a 15-20% chance.
* An increase in maternal age affects the chances of miscarriage
* Women under the age of 35 yrs old have about a 15% chance of miscarriage
* Women who are 35-45 yrs old have a 20-35% chance of miscarriage
* Women over the age of 45 can have up to a 50% chance of miscarriage
* A woman who has had a previous miscarriage has a 25% chance of having another (only a slightly elevated risk than for someone who has not had a previous miscarriage)"
http://www.americanpregnancy.org/pregnancycomplications/miscarriage.html
So, far from a few embryos dieing naturally in the womb.
[/quote]
[/quote]
This thread is a discussion about what may happen if eugenics became more mainstream. It is a discussion of theoretical possibilities. My point that you have reacted so strongly to was me merely pointing out the assumption that had appeared to have been perpetrated in earlier arguments is that conception in the martial bed = life and that conception in the test tube = death; a binary if you so allow. I was pointing out that conception in the martial bed does not guarantee a live born child in all cases, with the above stats pointing shedding light on my point.
Then, as this started out a discussion about theoretical possibilities, I asked what if science was able to increase the survival rates of all embryos in the lab to be greater than the survival rates of embryos conceived through martial ways.
Nowhere did I mention or condone the killing of embryos. Where you got that is not clear to me.
Please provide any evidence you can for how you KNOW the results of abortion vs. miscarriage death tallys, especially since doctors do not know the full count of miscarriages each year.
The numbers I found for the abortion rate is 19.6 per 1000 for abortions (or 1.96 per 100)
Given the numbers above for miscarriages, that comes to a rate of 150 to 200 miscarriages per 1000 (or 15 to 20 per 100). Someone please check my numbers, but the number of miscarriages appears to be much higher than the number of abortions.
[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
So do have a medical degree to back any of your opinions?! All you have done is tell me your preference, like chocolate vs vanilla ice cream.
An embryo has their own complete and entirely separate genome from the mother at the moment of conception!!
The size is different, I give you that. However the same can be said about every person on earth, throughout their entire lives.
The level of development is different, but see above because we all change everyday in this world.
Environment is different, but guess what?? Your house is a different environment than any other on the earth.
Degree of dependency also defines the differences between the unborn and every other person on earth as they ‘grow up’
So I provided you with 4 characteristics that define the unborn and every person on earth. Please provide me with a structured rebuttal for each of the points I brought forth. As a side note, I will be gone for the three day so I might not reply to your post right away.
[quote]MassiveGuns wrote:
It is getting a bit old when people keep on equating embryo’s to living human beings. It is true to say that an embyro is living human tissue, but it is not a human being. It is no more a human being than my liver cells are. Each one of those cells has the genetic instructions to create a complete human being and subsequent copy of me, and they are alive. They are not human beings though, they are liver cells.
Embyro’s are collections of stem cells and nothing more. You cannot argue the case that an unborn child is even close to a human being until late in term. Society and the rest of the civilised world accepts this fact as evidenced by our abortion laws and mature attitude to this.
[/quote]
[/quote]
Argument 1: Embryos have a separate genome therefore are equivalent to human children. A cancer cell has a different and seperate genome than the host, due to mutation. Is a cancer cell also equivalent to a human child?
Argument 2: All people start off as embryos therefore embryos are equivalent to human children. We all start off as sperm and eggs too. Why draw the line at the moment of conception? A sperm is a potential child just as much as an embryo is, since fertilisation is no guarantee of coming to term. Am I committing mass murder every time I bust a nut?
Argument 3: The vast difference in level of development between an embyro and a child can be safely ignored because “we all change everyday”. Seriously?
Argument 4: What exactly has the environment got to do with the difference between an embryo and child?
Argument 5: Degree of dependancy? An unmovable scientific line in the sand that proves what about your viewpoint that embyros and children are the same?
Every one of your premises is shaky at best.
kneedragger79 = tubesteak boogie
Reading comprehension FAIL!! I refuse to provide counterpoints to anything you bring to the table because a third grader grasps concepts easier.
[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
First about your post on the top of page three ^ how can you justify killing an embryo because a small number die for various reasons in mothers womb around this country??
Vaccinations mean nothing. I had very few vaccinations as a kid. My mom smoked all the time and I was often sick during the winter because I was inside the house and around second hand smoke that much more. I moved out when I was 17 and have never lived in the same house as a smoker and guess what?? I am never sick!! My fucking God, quit telling me you KNOW how a child will turn out when you don’t even have a clue as to how real life works!! Try to tell me you are NOT pro choice!? And tell me what this vaccination problem is you speak of.
So we need more variation in the human genetic population?? Well you are wrong, plus I know we all do NOT fuck out cousins like you.
[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
Why do you think that your case applies to everyone? [/quote]
[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
So which entity defines who counts and who doesn’t?[/quote]
[/quote]
No one person decides, and that’s how your post came across if you look at how it’s written. You think b/c you grew up around 2nd-hand smoke, and you say it didn’t affect you(but then go on to say how you were ‘often sick’), that this applies to everyone and it doesn’t.
I can tell you for a fact that certain vaccinations do matter, as I’m in a program that helps produce Win-Rho that saves fetuses from their mother’s immune system.
I also seem to recall a polio vaccine that saved thousands/millions(?) of babies from poliomyelitis.
Here’s another one, the smallpox vaccine.
If you’re going to respond to this, please put some thought and research into your answer.
Your first post seems like it was written in an angry stupor.
Another contradiction. You really don’t know what you’re talking about do you?
If there were no difference in everyone’s genes then we all would be fucking our cousins. [/quote]
Really Matt?!? And oh my God, he quoted wiki!! I need to leave because this here be a smart guy.
[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
Guess what, they haven’t even cured the common cold yet!!
[/quote]
I don’t like to be condescending but stop the stupidity.
Are you even aware of how many different types of the rhinovirus there is?
The common cold isn’t even worth curing. It doesn’t kill people or disable them.
What are you going to bitch about next? No cure for razor burn?[/quote]
Sorry, but just because you have an opinion in Austria and provide NOTHING to back your claim, I should believe YOU, the one who defines logic?!
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
How does this by any means define how YOU can choose who dies and which child lives?? Plus I KNOW far more abortions kill children in this country than miscarriages ever would. Even at 6’7" I know that is a stretch!!
[/quote]
That is not true.
Much more fertilized ova fail to attach to the placenta or are spontaneously rejected by the mothers body than there are abortions.
It is not even close.
[/quote]
Yup, you showed me!! Wow, you talk about animals needing some inbreeding in which you are correct. Then you bring in humans and insult yourself. I flung more shit your way and now I support your argument??
WOW!!
[quote]Tex Ag wrote:
[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
Show me ONE credible source on this world wide web, which states inbreeding is advantageous in the HUMAN population.
[quote]Tex Ag wrote:
Why on earth is it bad to breed with your cousins?[/quote]
[/quote]
I said that animal populations did better with more genetic variety - arguing against removal of genes on the chance they might cause such and such condition.
You stated the human population did not need more variety. Then said I copulate with my cousins - intended as an insult.
My above response point out that your argument actually supported my original argument.[/quote]
You are trying to argue for the conscience decision to kill a child. AWESOME!! jaa jaa
[quote]Tex Ag wrote:
[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
How does this by any means define how YOU can choose who dies and which child lives?? Plus I KNOW far more abortions kill children in this country than miscarriages ever would. Even at 6’7" I know that is a stretch!!
[quote]Tex Ag wrote:
Here are some stats on miscarriages. Far more than a few.
"Miscarriage is the most common type of pregnancy loss, according to the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG). Studies reveal that anywhere from 10-25% of all clinically recognized pregnancies will end in miscarriage. Chemical pregnancies may account for 50-75% of all miscarriages. This occurs when a pregnancy is lost shortly after implantation, resulting in bleeding that occurs around the time of her expected period. The woman may not realize that she conceived when she experiences a chemical pregnancy…
What are the chances of having a Miscarriage?
For women in childbearing years, the chances of having a miscarriage can range from 10-25%, and in most healthy women the average is about a 15-20% chance.
* An increase in maternal age affects the chances of miscarriage
* Women under the age of 35 yrs old have about a 15% chance of miscarriage
* Women who are 35-45 yrs old have a 20-35% chance of miscarriage
* Women over the age of 45 can have up to a 50% chance of miscarriage
* A woman who has had a previous miscarriage has a 25% chance of having another (only a slightly elevated risk than for someone who has not had a previous miscarriage)"
http://www.americanpregnancy.org/pregnancycomplications/miscarriage.html
So, far from a few embryos dieing naturally in the womb.
[/quote]
[/quote]
This thread is a discussion about what may happen if eugenics became more mainstream. It is a discussion of theoretical possibilities. My point that you have reacted so strongly to was me merely pointing out the assumption that had appeared to have been perpetrated in earlier arguments is that conception in the martial bed = life and that conception in the test tube = death; a binary if you so allow. I was pointing out that conception in the martial bed does not guarantee a live born child in all cases, with the above stats pointing shedding light on my point.
Then, as this started out a discussion about theoretical possibilities, I asked what if science was able to increase the survival rates of all embryos in the lab to be greater than the survival rates of embryos conceived through martial ways.
Nowhere did I mention or condone the killing of embryos. Where you got that is not clear to me.
Please provide any evidence you can for how you KNOW the results of abortion vs. miscarriage death tallys, especially since doctors do not know the full count of miscarriages each year.
The numbers I found for the abortion rate is 19.6 per 1000 for abortions (or 1.96 per 100)
Given the numbers above for miscarriages, that comes to a rate of 150 to 200 miscarriages per 1000 (or 15 to 20 per 100). Someone please check my numbers, but the number of miscarriages appears to be much higher than the number of abortions.[/quote]
A mutation changes the cells, so now they are equivalent to an embryo?? Am I following your logic correctly??
Separate, sperm and eggs NEVER become anything!! In fact they have half the genetic material needed to continue life.
I grow and change everyday, albeit I can’t speak on if you are willing to learn and change things.
Environment is part of the reason why we are each different, not only from each other but from those still residing in the uterus.
I am no longer depending upon my parents as I make my way through this world. As people grow up from babies to children to adults, they depend on the parents less. Eventually becoming independent.
So which point/s did you shoot full of holes??
[quote]MassiveGuns wrote:
[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
So do have a medical degree to back any of your opinions?! All you have done is tell me your preference, like chocolate vs vanilla ice cream.
An embryo has their own complete and entirely separate genome from the mother at the moment of conception!!
The size is different, I give you that. However the same can be said about every person on earth, throughout their entire lives.
The level of development is different, but see above because we all change everyday in this world.
Environment is different, but guess what?? Your house is a different environment than any other on the earth.
Degree of dependency also defines the differences between the unborn and every other person on earth as they ‘grow up’
So I provided you with 4 characteristics that define the unborn and every person on earth. Please provide me with a structured rebuttal for each of the points I brought forth. As a side note, I will be gone for the three day so I might not reply to your post right away.
[quote]MassiveGuns wrote:
It is getting a bit old when people keep on equating embryo’s to living human beings. It is true to say that an embyro is living human tissue, but it is not a human being. It is no more a human being than my liver cells are. Each one of those cells has the genetic instructions to create a complete human being and subsequent copy of me, and they are alive. They are not human beings though, they are liver cells.
Embyro’s are collections of stem cells and nothing more. You cannot argue the case that an unborn child is even close to a human being until late in term. Society and the rest of the civilised world accepts this fact as evidenced by our abortion laws and mature attitude to this.
[/quote]
[/quote]
Argument 1: Embryos have a separate genome therefore are equivalent to human children. A cancer cell has a different and seperate genome than the host, due to mutation. Is a cancer cell also equivalent to a human child?
Argument 2: All people start off as embryos therefore embryos are equivalent to human children. We all start off as sperm and eggs too. Why draw the line at the moment of conception? A sperm is a potential child just as much as an embryo is, since fertilisation is no guarantee of coming to term. Am I committing mass murder every time I bust a nut?
Argument 3: The vast difference in level of development between an embyro and a child can be safely ignored because “we all change everyday”. Seriously?
Argument 4: What exactly has the environment got to do with the difference between an embryo and child?
Argument 5: Degree of dependancy? An unmovable scientific line in the sand that proves what about your viewpoint that embyros and children are the same?
Every one of your premises is shaky at best.
[/quote]
[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
Sorry, but just because you have an opinion in Austria and provide NOTHING to back your claim, I should believe YOU, the one who defines logic?!
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
How does this by any means define how YOU can choose who dies and which child lives?? Plus I KNOW far more abortions kill children in this country than miscarriages ever would. Even at 6’7" I know that is a stretch!!
[/quote]
That is not true.
Much more fertilized ova fail to attach to the placenta or are spontaneously rejected by the mothers body than there are abortions.
It is not even close.
[/quote]
[/quote]
The initial claim was yours so the burden of proof is on you, it is also flat out wrong and if you cared to put in a minimum amount of effort to fact check the things you just KNOW, we would not have this argument.
Numbers of abortions per year in the US 2005: 820000
There are 4,4 million pragnancies in the US each year, there are around 1000000 pregnancy losses and on top of it another 500000 miscarriages that we know of , because in most cases the woman never even guesses that she is pregnant.
So at the very least we have a ratio of 2:1 when it comes to miscarriages vs abortions and since most miscarriages take place before anyone knows there is even a pregnancy the number is likely to be much higher because all those pregnancies fall under miscarriages.
http://www.hopexchange.com/Statistics.htm
Furthermore, 30-50% of all fertilized ova fail before or during implantation which means we are somewhere in the ballpark of 6:1, 8:1, maybe higher.
We do NOT know the true number of misscarriages, you even say so yourself. Might be higher, might be lower. In reality the number is irreverent.
World of difference between a decision to abort a pregnancy and a miscarriage. Do you disagree??
[quote]orion wrote:
Numbers of abortions per year in the US 2005: 820000
There are 4,4 million pragnancies in the US each year, there are around 1000000 pregnancy losses and on top of it another 500000 miscarriages that we know of , because in most cases the woman never even guesses that she is pregnant.
So at the very least we have a ratio of 2:1 when it comes to miscarriages vs abortions and since most miscarriages take place before anyone knows there is even a pregnancy the number is likely to be much higher because all those pregnancies fall under miscarriages.
http://www.hopexchange.com/Statistics.htm
Furthermore, 30-50% of all fertilized ova fail before or during implantation which means we are somewhere in the ballpark of 6:1, 8:1, maybe higher.
[/quote]
[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
We do NOT know the true number of misscarriages, you even say so yourself. Might be higher, might be lower. In reality the number is irreverent.
World of difference between a decision to abort a pregnancy and a miscarriage. Do you disagree??
[quote]orion wrote:
Numbers of abortions per year in the US 2005: 820000
There are 4,4 million pragnancies in the US each year, there are around 1000000 pregnancy losses and on top of it another 500000 miscarriages that we know of , because in most cases the woman never even guesses that she is pregnant.
So at the very least we have a ratio of 2:1 when it comes to miscarriages vs abortions and since most miscarriages take place before anyone knows there is even a pregnancy the number is likely to be much higher because all those pregnancies fall under miscarriages.
http://www.hopexchange.com/Statistics.htm
Furthermore, 30-50% of all fertilized ova fail before or during implantation which means we are somewhere in the ballpark of 6:1, 8:1, maybe higher.
[/quote]
[/quote]
Of course it is different but your first statement is just nonsense.
We know of the miscarriages but we also know that the majority of miscarriages are not counted because every single one of them happens before the womman even notices?
SO how could it possibly be lower ? That would mean that there are pregnancies out there that are carried out without the women themselves noticing.
Listen carefully at the beginning kneedragger79
[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
Yup, you showed me!! Wow, you talk about animals needing some inbreeding in which you are correct. Then you bring in humans and insult yourself. I flung more shit your way and now I support your argument??
WOW!!
[quote]Tex Ag wrote:
[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
Show me ONE credible source on this world wide web, which states inbreeding is advantageous in the HUMAN population.
[quote]Tex Ag wrote:
Why on earth is it bad to breed with your cousins?[/quote]
[/quote]
I said that animal populations did better with more genetic variety - arguing against removal of genes on the chance they might cause such and such condition.
You stated the human population did not need more variety. Then said I copulate with my cousins - intended as an insult.
My above response point out that your argument actually supported my original argument.[/quote]
[/quote]
I said animal populations need genetic variation, inbreeding (which you state you support but yet are against breeding with cousins because it leads to inbreeding) reduces genetic variation - - consider dog breeding. The purer the breed the less genetic variability and the more breed related problems. Or look into zoo breeding programs and the effort they make to prevent/minimize inbreeding. This is a very basic concept.
You do know humans are classified as mammals? We are animals. That is an even more basic concept.
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
We do NOT know the true number of misscarriages, you even say so yourself. Might be higher, might be lower. In reality the number is irreverent.
World of difference between a decision to abort a pregnancy and a miscarriage. Do you disagree??
[quote]orion wrote:
Numbers of abortions per year in the US 2005: 820000
There are 4,4 million pragnancies in the US each year, there are around 1000000 pregnancy losses and on top of it another 500000 miscarriages that we know of , because in most cases the woman never even guesses that she is pregnant.
So at the very least we have a ratio of 2:1 when it comes to miscarriages vs abortions and since most miscarriages take place before anyone knows there is even a pregnancy the number is likely to be much higher because all those pregnancies fall under miscarriages.
http://www.hopexchange.com/Statistics.htm
Furthermore, 30-50% of all fertilized ova fail before or during implantation which means we are somewhere in the ballpark of 6:1, 8:1, maybe higher.
[/quote]
[/quote]
Of course it is different but your first statement is just nonsense.
We know of the miscarriages but we also know that the majority of miscarriages are not counted because every single one of them happens before the womman even notices?
SO how could it possibly be lower ? That would mean that there are pregnancies out there that are carried out without the women themselves noticing.
[/quote]
we know once they make a tv show about it.
http://tlc.discovery.com/tv/i-didnt-know-i-was-pregnant/about-the-show.html
Tube steak boogie
link explains: