Kamala Trump
Verified User
But biologically it is safe to say a dead discarded egg in a 'pon somewhere is dead.
Family Value Conservatives: Sarah Palin's Daughter Pregnant at 17..and Not married...
- Thread starter CanadianKid
- Start date
But biologically it is safe to say a dead discarded egg in a 'pon somewhere is dead.
Saying it is a dead egg or simply dead and a dead human being are quite different things.
Socrtease
Verified User
Just as those that support Roe v. Wade are not trying to force their values on anyone EITHER. If you don't believe in abortion, don't ever get one. Simple solution.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
AS I STATED... how did they come up with that ESTIMATE???? Are they following women around and checking disgarded eggs to see if they were fertilized or not?
It's called the scientific method of "SWAG"...
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
Actually, that is not correct. If you accept that life begins at conception, then saying abortion is equivalent to saying murder is ok. They are the same to those of us who don't ignore science and understand that a unique human life begins when the sperm and egg cells combine.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
exactly
Oh yeah, you two love science. I can provide plenty of more sources that are in this range.
http://www.bioethics.gov/transcripts/jan03/session1.html
PROF. SANDEL: Thank you. I have two questions about the rate of natural embryo loss in human beings. The first is what percent of fertilized eggs fail to implant or are otherwise lost? And the second question is is it the case that all of these lost embryos contain genetic defects that would have prevented their normal development and birth?
DR. OPITZ: The answer to your first question is that it is enormous. Estimates range all the way from 60 percent to 80 percent of the very earliest stages, cleavage stages, for example, that are lost.
PROF. SANDEL: Sixty to 80 percent?
DR. OPITZ: Sixty to 80 percent. And one of the objective ways of establishing the loss at least as of the moment of implantation, well, even earlier, let's say as of five days because the blastocyst begins to make a chorionic gonadotrophin and with extremely sensitive assay methods, you can detect the presence of gonadotrophins, let me say, first around Day 7. That's the beta of human chorionic gonadotrophin. And if you follow prospectively the cycles that has been done on quite a few occasions in the Permanente study in Hawaii and so on, a group of women, of nonfertility, who want to conceive and you detect the first sign of pregnancy there of human chorionic gonadotrophin, about 60 percent of those pregnancies are lost.
It is independently corroborated by the fact that the monozygotic twin conception rate at the very beginning is much, much higher than the birth rate and then if you follow with amniocentesis, the presence of the two sacs in about 80 percent of cases,the second sac disappears, one of the sacs disappears.
http://www.bioethics.gov/transcripts/jan03/session1.html
PROF. SANDEL: Thank you. I have two questions about the rate of natural embryo loss in human beings. The first is what percent of fertilized eggs fail to implant or are otherwise lost? And the second question is is it the case that all of these lost embryos contain genetic defects that would have prevented their normal development and birth?
DR. OPITZ: The answer to your first question is that it is enormous. Estimates range all the way from 60 percent to 80 percent of the very earliest stages, cleavage stages, for example, that are lost.
PROF. SANDEL: Sixty to 80 percent?
DR. OPITZ: Sixty to 80 percent. And one of the objective ways of establishing the loss at least as of the moment of implantation, well, even earlier, let's say as of five days because the blastocyst begins to make a chorionic gonadotrophin and with extremely sensitive assay methods, you can detect the presence of gonadotrophins, let me say, first around Day 7. That's the beta of human chorionic gonadotrophin. And if you follow prospectively the cycles that has been done on quite a few occasions in the Permanente study in Hawaii and so on, a group of women, of nonfertility, who want to conceive and you detect the first sign of pregnancy there of human chorionic gonadotrophin, about 60 percent of those pregnancies are lost.
It is independently corroborated by the fact that the monozygotic twin conception rate at the very beginning is much, much higher than the birth rate and then if you follow with amniocentesis, the presence of the two sacs in about 80 percent of cases,the second sac disappears, one of the sacs disappears.
T
TRGLDTE
Guest
Wow, it's really gotten off the rail from the rich irony that is a pregnant teen-aged daughter of a social conservative.
Good Luck
New member
Entirely incorrect. Those who support legal abortion are forcing their view that legal definition of life supercedes scientific fact on the living human beings they are supporting the right to kill. Pro-choice is literally saying "we support the right to kill these non-person (because we'll never admit to what they are) living humans".
The fact is science has long ago answered the question "when does life begin", but pro-choicers CONSTANTLY deny that fact. Ask a pro-choice advocate when life begins and the vast majority will claim "no one knows when life begins." This indicates they are either being deliberately ignorant of science, or outright lying in order to continue to support their view.
Then there is the small minority willing to acknowledge scientific fact that life begins at conception, but then turn and claim it is perfectly acceptable to classify the unborn as non-persons, and thus it is still OK to kill them at will.
Then when it is pointed out that every single other time in history when law has been used to remove personhood from a class of humans, that action has ultimately been condemned as morally corrupt, they go off the deep end. Truth simply seems to be way to much for them.
Good Luck
New member
So, they did a study on women who have trouble getting pregnant, and from that study conclude that 60-80% of fertilized ova fail to attach in ALL women? Fascinating. Proof positive how some scientists will misuse scientific method to support their preconceived notions.
Not that it matters. The death rate of human beings is 100%. We all die eventually. Is that justification for deliberate homicide?
Good Luck
New member
Don't you mean from the rich HYPOCRISY that some assholes are using projection (IF so-and-so were pregnant the conservatives would be having a field day) to justify attacking a candidate based on the actions of their children.
T
TRGLDTE
Guest
Irony.
Here is some more for the science retards.
http://www.protectfamiliesprotectch...onstatement.html?tmpl=component&print=1&page=
http://www.protectfamiliesprotectch...onstatement.html?tmpl=component&print=1&page=
Good Luck
New member
Funny, but I would have sworn the argument was about the scientific definition of when LIFE begins. You are now arguing the medical definition of when pregnancy begins. The two events: beginning of life, and beginning of pregnancy, are closely related, but still separate events.
Life begins before pregnancy is established. The science of biology has proven that life begins with fertilization. A unique living organism is begun by the action of fertilization. If the two gametes involved came from humans, then the unique living organism is also human.
There is no test available that can prove fertilization in vivo.
That little notation indicates the statement "30-70%" is SWAG in the extreme. Of note is the range of the estimate.
Not only is the claim poor science, it has no bearing on whether living humans should be killed deliberately.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
When you have an "estimate" that ranges from 30% to 70% you should realize that it nothing more than what we stated. Pulling shit out of their ass. The margin of error on a range that size would be what? Zero to 100% chance that the actual number falls in that range?
LMAO......
What a joke. I was giving more examples of the numbers I gave and found it funny that I could also use this to rub Damo's face in his ignorance.
It does not. It says it cannot be determined in vivo. Does not say it cannot be determined.
The range is based on numerous studies. Obviously, it is a difficult number to use the more conservative references that I was finding.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
So when you have numerous studies that have such a wide discrepancy, you are comfortable using that range as some sort of justification of your position?
Good Luck
New member
You seem to be good at finding scientific claims, but you have no clue what they mean.
If there is no method for determining in vivo fertilization, then estimating the number of fertilized ova that achieve attachment is nothing more than a guess. First they have to ASSUME a number of fertilized ova in vivo, and then use resulting pregnancies to calculate the percentage of successful attachments. But the first number is a guess which cannot be tested. There is no way to test the accuracy of the assumed number of in vivo fertilizations. That makes the entire estimate SWAG, with ZERO actual scientific method behind it.
Additionally, the studies performed come from fertility clinics using women who have trouble getting pregnant. As such, taking the results (which are SWAG in the first place) and applying them to the general population is without any scientific foundation. It's like taking the infertility rates of male radiologists from the 50s and applying those figures to the general population. It is poor science being used to defend preconceptions.
You are like most Repubs and have no fucking reading comprehension. They said there is no method for determining fertilization in vivo. They did not say there is no method for determining in vivo fertilizations. Different things.