is abortion correct when it saves the mother?

[northcity4]

Ok, and I started the a new topic as an extension for this topic (sorry for killing this one). Guys please help me out with it= the fetus topic on the philosophy page. People argue so much about this in real life and I want to be able to actually persuade them one way or the other with solid facts/questions.

[Cheesy111]

Ok, and I started the a new topic as an extension for this topic (sorry for killing this one). Guys please help me out with it= the fetus topic on the philosophy page. People argue so much about this in real life and I want to be able to actually persuade them one way or the other with solid facts/questions.

People argue about it because there is no clear answer.  There are solid arguments for both sides of the issue (there are also terrible arguments for both sides) and I don't think you will be able to find a consensus to help you persuade others.

[ARTHANASIOS]

Ok, and I started the a new topic as an extension for this topic (sorry for killing this one). Guys please help me out with it= the fetus topic on the philosophy page. People argue so much about this in real life and I want to be able to actually persuade them one way or the other with solid facts/questions.

I don't think you can persuade the fact with normal facts/questions. Personally, I think it depends by everyone's point of view. I find abortion wrong no matter what (we are all alive because we weren't aborted in the first place) and when the baby comes out of his/her mother's womb, he/she is already about 9 months old. If murdering a baby who has already lived 1 day outside his/her mother's womb is considered a crime, I don't find any reasoning to consider legal the murder of a baby who has already lived 1 day within his/her mother's womb.

[northcity4]

yeah I know it what you mean.

The reason behind my new post is to understand both sides of the argument. The only thing that really concerns me is there is no evidence of non-human genetic things becoming human. Only human genetics become human. There is something 'special' about ours because if an ape is going to be 98.9% same genetics but be so different, it doesn't make sense. Also, I think back in 2003, there was that experiment done where they took the genetics from a lamb and directly injected into the female lamb so the genetics were exact, and the baby born was the exact lamb as the father. Problem: acted, ate, and performed so different from the father which the scientists still don't understand how.

[OldTrees]

yeah I know it what you mean.

The reason behind my new post is to understand both sides of the argument. The only thing that really concerns me is there is no evidence of non-human genetic things becoming human. Only human genetics become human. There is something 'special' about ours because if an ape is going to be 98.9% same genetics but be so different, it doesn't make sense. Also, I think back in 2003, there was that experiment done where they took the genetics from a lamb and directly injected into the female lamb so the genetics were exact, and the baby born was the exact lamb as the father. Problem: acted, ate, and performed so different from the father which the scientists still don't understand how.

1) We have lots of evidence for the evolution of homo sapiens. However I am curious, when I am breeding a pack of wolves to become pitbulls over 1000 years, at what point is their DNA not wolf DNA?
2) Do you understand how similar we are to apes? We have slightly larger brains, less hair and very slightly different bone structure. Compare this to the differences between humans and sea sponges (70% similar genes). A lot of the similar genes are the structure and behavior of the animal cell.
3) Cloning is imprecise and dangerous (one of the many reasons human cloning is illegal). However scientists have confirmed both genetic material and the environment shape development. Not identifying the mechanism at the time of the observation is not a problem. Further study will be conducted.
4) Do you know about chimeras? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chimera_(genetics)

[northcity4]

yeah I know it what you mean.

The reason behind my new post is to understand both sides of the argument. The only thing that really concerns me is there is no evidence of non-human genetic things becoming human. Only human genetics become human. There is something 'special' about ours because if an ape is going to be 98.9% same genetics but be so different, it doesn't make sense. Also, I think back in 2003, there was that experiment done where they took the genetics from a lamb and directly injected into the female lamb so the genetics were exact, and the baby born was the exact lamb as the father. Problem: acted, ate, and performed so different from the father which the scientists still don't understand how.

1) We have lots of evidence for the evolution of homo sapiens. However I am curious, when I am breeding a pack of wolves to become pitbulls over 1000 years, at what point is their DNA not wolf DNA?
2) Do you understand how similar we are to apes? We have slightly larger brains, less hair and very slightly different bone structure. Compare this to the differences between humans and sea sponges (70% similar genes). A lot of the similar genes are the structure and behavior of the animal cell.
3) Cloning is imprecise and dangerous (one of the many reasons human cloning is illegal). However scientists have confirmed both genetic material and the environment shape development. Not identifying the mechanism at the time of the observation is not a problem. Further study will be conducted.
4) Do you know about chimeras? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chimera_(genetics)

That's is not true. Micro evolution has occurred and we have tons of evidence of it happening today, but never, not once has there been a recorded account of something completely changing species (macro evolution). Every atheist, every PHd professor you talk will admit this and if they say it has, they have no evidence to support it.

What makes humans different from apes is there ability to have things like morality, religion, complex thoughts, have memories like when there children first started walking.
So yes, morality/religion do play somewhat of a part. Religion also includes the fact you claim there is no god which animals cannot do.

You see, genes make us physically similar...but mentally/character wise, we are completely different. Even if an ape had 100% same genes, it would look like a human, but be exactly the same characteristics as an ape. Scientists today still have no idea what causes this...

Old trees, this is why I posted about that 2003 example: same genetics (literally 100%), but completely different.

[OldTrees]

yeah I know it what you mean.

The reason behind my new post is to understand both sides of the argument. The only thing that really concerns me is there is no evidence of non-human genetic things becoming human. Only human genetics become human. There is something 'special' about ours because if an ape is going to be 98.9% same genetics but be so different, it doesn't make sense. Also, I think back in 2003, there was that experiment done where they took the genetics from a lamb and directly injected into the female lamb so the genetics were exact, and the baby born was the exact lamb as the father. Problem: acted, ate, and performed so different from the father which the scientists still don't understand how.

1) We have lots of evidence for the evolution of homo sapiens. However I am curious, when I am breeding a pack of wolves to become pitbulls over 1000 years, at what point is their DNA not wolf DNA?
2) Do you understand how similar we are to apes? We have slightly larger brains, less hair and very slightly different bone structure. Compare this to the differences between humans and sea sponges (70% similar genes). A lot of the similar genes are the structure and behavior of the animal cell.
3) Cloning is imprecise and dangerous (one of the many reasons human cloning is illegal). However scientists have confirmed both genetic material and the environment shape development. Not identifying the mechanism at the time of the observation is not a problem. Further study will be conducted.
4) Do you know about chimeras? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chimera_(genetics)

That's is not true. Micro evolution has occurred and we have tons of evidence of it happening today, but never, not once has there been a recorded account of something completely changing species (macro evolution). Every atheist, every PHd professor you talk will admit this and if they say it has, they have no evidence to support it.

What makes humans different from apes is there ability to have things like morality, religion, complex thoughts, have memories like when there children first started walking.
So yes, morality/religion do play somewhat of a part. Religion also includes the fact you claim there is no god which animals cannot do.

You see, genes make us physically similar...but mentally/character wise, we are completely different. Even if an ape had 100% same genes, it would look like a human, but be exactly the same characteristics as an ape. Scientists today still have no idea what causes this...

Old trees, this is why I posted about that 2003 example: same genetics (literally 100%), but completely different.

1) So you do not count evidence of Speciation as evidence of Macro evolution. Also you seem to have talked to too few professors. Did they even teach biology?

2) See slightly larger brain. Review those words with the goal of comprehension rather than rejection.

3) Are you referring to early Homo Sapiens? (Humans that acted in a manner you would call ape-like) Remember the effect your environment has on your development.

4) Chimeras and cloning are different. Please read the link before rejecting it.

5) Are human cells immortal? No. If a human cell mutates into an immortal cell would it then be a non human genome?

6) Some of the evidence: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

Finally some advice: Become knowledgeable in the process of development. Your major misunderstanding is how genes impact life. By your junior year of college biology you can have the knowledge you need.

[memimemi]

Put simply, the reason 'micro' evolution is seen, and 'macro' is not, is because the terms are meaningless, outside of the Kirk Cameron/Ken Hovind school of biology (i.e. 'I dunno, God did it?).

Evolution is just a descriptive term for a slow, gradual, process of change.  'Macro' is just 'micro' +  .

[northcity4]

No that is not true. Even after the acclaimed 20 billion years the universe has been, there are still no pieces of evidence showing species changing (like fish to plant or ape to human).

Here is the problem...let's say over more time an ape suddenly has 99.9999999% ....No, let's say it finally hits 100% of human genetics.
Problems: it will still act like an ape. Genetics tell us what it looks like, but in truth, it's not

I can dress up like an animal, but I am still human. Genetics do not tell what is human or what isn't, simply a way of 'drawing.'

yeah I know it what you mean.

The reason behind my new post is to understand both sides of the argument. The only thing that really concerns me is there is no evidence of non-human genetic things becoming human. Only human genetics become human. There is something 'special' about ours because if an ape is going to be 98.9% same genetics but be so different, it doesn't make sense. Also, I think back in 2003, there was that experiment done where they took the genetics from a lamb and directly injected into the female lamb so the genetics were exact, and the baby born was the exact lamb as the father. Problem: acted, ate, and performed so different from the father which the scientists still don't understand how.

1) We have lots of evidence for the evolution of homo sapiens. However I am curious, when I am breeding a pack of wolves to become pitbulls over 1000 years, at what point is their DNA not wolf DNA?
2) Do you understand how similar we are to apes? We have slightly larger brains, less hair and very slightly different bone structure. Compare this to the differences between humans and sea sponges (70% similar genes). A lot of the similar genes are the structure and behavior of the animal cell.
3) Cloning is imprecise and dangerous (one of the many reasons human cloning is illegal). However scientists have confirmed both genetic material and the environment shape development. Not identifying the mechanism at the time of the observation is not a problem. Further study will be conducted.
4) Do you know about chimeras? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chimera_(genetics)

That's is not true. Micro evolution has occurred and we have tons of evidence of it happening today, but never, not once has there been a recorded account of something completely changing species (macro evolution). Every atheist, every PHd professor you talk will admit this and if they say it has, they have no evidence to support it.

What makes humans different from apes is there ability to have things like morality, religion, complex thoughts, have memories like when there children first started walking.
So yes, morality/religion do play somewhat of a part. Religion also includes the fact you claim there is no god which animals cannot do.

You see, genes make us physically similar...but mentally/character wise, we are completely different. Even if an ape had 100% same genes, it would look like a human, but be exactly the same characteristics as an ape. Scientists today still have no idea what causes this...

Old trees, this is why I posted about that 2003 example: same genetics (literally 100%), but completely different.

1) So you do not count evidence of Speciation as evidence of Macro evolution. Also you seem to have talked to too few professors. Did they even teach biology?

2) See slightly larger brain. Review those words with the goal of comprehension rather than rejection.

3) Are you referring to early Homo Sapiens? (Humans that acted in a manner you would call ape-like) Remember the effect your environment has on your development.

4) Chimeras and cloning are different. Please read the link before rejecting it.

5) Are human cells immortal? No. If a human cell mutates into an immortal cell would it then be a non human genome?

6) Some of the evidence: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

Finally some advice: Become knowledgeable in the process of development. Your major misunderstanding is how genes impact life. By your junior year of college biology you can have the knowledge you need.

Old trees, yes, brains have been getting larger over time, my question is so what? Seems like humans 200 years ago were just as smart as today. Also, the 'ape-man' theory or history is still a theory...hasn't been proven...what if God created man? There goes all the ape like...ice age...evolution stuff out the window.

Yes, the professors I have studied with do teach biology and even they will admit there has been no evidence of macro evolution. Micro =/=macro + time.
Micro evolution is like physical changes...water to gas, to solid, to gas...etc.
Macro is like chemical changes (O+H2=Water (H20)) + mental change). Look, we can go into an ape...change the 1.2% genetics to make it look human, but it will always act like an ape.

Here is another thing, take an apes genetics and put it inside a human egg...it won't happen...your body can determine if what is inside you is human or not. Seems like humanity is more than genetics. Think about that.

[memimemi]

For someone who claims to want to 'understand both sides of things, you seem pretty obstinate in your clutching to ignorance of the facts of science. 

I'm out of this one.

[OldTrees]

@northcity4
1) Are you a troll? Unless you prove you are not this will be my final reply to you. (Though I will feel free to contradict your errors.)

2) Transitionary forms: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#morphological_intermediates

3) Cloning currently involves removing the genetic material from an egg and inserting the genetic material from the cloned animal. In this manner the egg has the genes of the cloned animal. An ape egg with 100% the genes of a human is called a cloned human. They will behave as the donor human would have if they had developed in the environment the clone will develop in. If raised by apes it will act like a hairless ape because humans are social creatures and are genetically wired to ("to" not "how to") participate in the society they are in.

4) The human brain has not grown significantly (compared to the difference between apes and humans) over the past 3000+ years. However you asked how does the size of the brain matter. The simple answer is a larger more complex brain allows more complex thoughts. This is the reasons dogs can recognize themselves but some birds can't.

5) Your biology professors have done you a great disservice. If you understand the principles of science (aka Falsification) then you can read through this site (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/) and judge for yourself.

6) Cells have identifying proteins on their surface. If the surface proteins of the zygote are different enough from the host then the immune system of the host will attack the zygote. This is the result of genetics.

[northcity4]

@northcity4
1) Are you a troll? Unless you prove you are not this will be my final reply to you. (Though I will feel free to contradict your errors.)

2) Transitionary forms: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#morphological_intermediates

3) Cloning currently involves removing the genetic material from an egg and inserting the genetic material from the cloned animal. In this manner the egg has the genes of the cloned animal. An ape egg with 100% the genes of a human is called a cloned human. They will behave as the donor human would have if they had developed in the environment the clone will develop in. If raised by apes it will act like a hairless ape because humans are social creatures and are genetically wired to ("to" not "how to") participate in the society they are in.

4) The human brain has not grown significantly (compared to the difference between apes and humans) over the past 3000+ years. However you asked how does the size of the brain matter. The simple answer is a larger more complex brain allows more complex thoughts. This is the reasons dogs can recognize themselves but some birds can't.

5) Your biology professors have done you a great disservice. If you understand the principles of science (aka Falsification) then you can read through this site (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/) and judge for yourself.

6) Cells have identifying proteins on their surface. If the surface proteins of the zygote are different enough from the host then the immune system of the host will attack the zygote. This is the result of genetics.

troll? I stated some very valid responses...but regardless let me give you my understanding of what you have said.

1) definite NO
2) This is still a hypothesis. There is evidence discounting this theory such as how would genetics split so interestingly as well as fossil record having many issues. For example lets take the neanderthal human (I forget the term used) sequence they show (like a cave man at first...becomes a human near the end). One of those 'humans' they show was made by combining a human skull and a pig's tooth i believe (or some other closely related animal's tooth)...found 50 feet away. Transitionary forms have so many problems I have discovered that I find it as a joke now when scientist's talk about it. As for closely related bone structures I need help understanding that...been a while since I have studied that.
3) True...but are there any animals with the same size brain as us? If so, can we train them to act like humans? Has this been done?
4)same as #3
5)Universal common ancestor: are we saying this 'thing' held all the genetic material and by mere chance it got split apart to create bacteria, to create animals, and after if splt off the animal part, what was left was humans? My teacher said we don't come from apes, all come from the universal ancestor.
Regardless, most people doubt this.