You're getting close,...very close....
The car DID NOT START....THE TRIP DID NOT BEGIN
Conception DID NOT OCCUR....NO VIABLE zygote IS FORMED
NO TRIP...........NO HUMAN BEING
When Does Life End?
- Thread starter Timshel
- Start date
You're getting close,...very close....
The car DID NOT START....THE TRIP DID NOT BEGIN
Conception DID NOT OCCUR....NO VIABLE zygote IS FORMED
NO TRIP...........NO HUMAN BEING
There are no 'fertilized cells'....there are 'fertilized eggs'
Try a dictionary and have some 8 year old explain the definitions to you....
fertilized egg - an animal organism in the early stages of growth and differentiation that in higher forms merge into fetal stages
http://www.tfd.com/fertilized+egg
If an egg is 'fertilized', conception has occurred, a viable zygote is present
A viable zygote is a human being in the early stages of growth....
and now I'm through playing with you....you skull is obviously too thick for new knowledge to penetrate....you've been schooled but no one can force you to learn.....
PostmodernProphet
fully immersed in faith..
not at all....it rests on whether what the woman wants to kill is a human being.....that isn't a "fertilized cell"......by the time she even knows she's pregnatnt it's been more than a "fertilized cell" for weeks....that's why it is obvious your arguments are dishonest....you refuse to deal with what it is....
sure there was.....lack of scientific knowledge about what was going on before....I believe that's the same reason that leeches used to be the universally recognized treatment for many illnesses......
PostmodernProphet
fully immersed in faith..
it would be prudent to shop online.....
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
Technically, there is no such thing as a "fertilized cell!" Once the female egg cell is successfully fertilized, it is no longer a single cell according to biology. Did you get that? It ceases to be "a cell" at that point! It has become something else other than "a cell" once the conception has occurred. An immediate chemical reaction happens, and the TWO MERGED CELLS begin to replicate and grow. This, by scientific and biological standards, is defined as a living organism. You wish to deny science?
Seems you're hang up is the abortion issue...
We are/were trying to discuss life in terms of biology and science ..
Abortion is another issue....it seems you can't abide the FACT that an abortion is killing a human being in its earliest stages of development....
Trouble is...thats exactly what is happening...but fear not, its been deemed legal.....
just have the balls to admit what is happening in reality....
Like I said then you are arguing that fertilization does not equal conception. If that's the definition you want to use then, fine but then it still raises other problems.
In your opinion, it is not a human being at fertilization? Are you sure about that?
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
Ignorance like Apple is displaying here, is the reason we can't get anywhere in the abortion debate. Too many people like Apple have convinced themselves that since they can't see or hear a baby crying, it is not human and doesn't have any rights. We may as well be advocating that a woman not have the right to take a dump, because that is all an unborn fetus amounts to with someone like Apple.
I happen to view my own personal stance on abortion as somewhat liberal. I think there can be some valid arguments for terminating the life of the unborn in certain situations, and that would not be unethical or immoral. I know this rubs some pro-life people the wrong way, but that is my personal opinion. The problem is, we can't begin to debate these things until we all come to the realization of what we are doing, terminating human life.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
Successful fertilization equals conception... Unsuccessful fertilization is not fertilization and conception did not happen. It is a living human organism at conception, if conception never occurred, it is never a living human organism.
You are just talking in circles. I can not see how one would say it is not a successful fertilization. From what mott describes fertilization was successful. If you want to say that because the zygote was not viable it was not a conception, fine. But fertilization!=conception.
You did not answer the question. Is it a dead human organism? I am not asking you if it is living.
apple0154
MEOW
How do you think I view those who PRESUME it's natural for the majority of human beings to come into existence, live for a few hours, then die? Furthermore, they place the same value on those "things" as they do on women who have lived 25 or 30 years. Talk about holding no value.
No my man, I am not sure...I don't claim to be a scientist and have no medical degree....I come to my own conclusions as you do...different though they may be....
Fertilization is the process by which two gametes (reproductive cells having a single, haploid set of chromosomes) fuse to become a zygote, which develops into a new organism. Fertilization includes the union of the cytoplasm of the gametes (called plasmogamy) followed by the union of the nuclei of the two gametes (called karyogamy).
It IS A PROCESS....
Conception (from medical definition)
is an imprecise term denoting the formation of a viable zygote.
The pertinent words being "imprecise", and "viable"....
Viable means capable of living, developing and growing, etc.
I think my logic is reasonable and sound...
A sperm penetrates an egg, starting a process (fertilization)
A viable zygote is formed (capable of living, developing, etc.)
At the moment in time that the zygote becomes viable, a human being is created and grows, develops, matures and dies....
And just for apple's information, all this has nothing to do with the abortion issue....
apple0154
MEOW
Nibiru is on the way bringing the Anunnaki.
apple0154
MEOW
It has everything to do with the abortion issue when anti-abortionists claim ALL zygotes are considered viable. Remember, you said the key word is viable: practicable, workable, having the ability to grow, expand, develop.
Would any sensible person apply those words to zygotes which lived an hour or a day? What is your idea of viable?
Has your boss ever asked you to come up with a viable solution to some problem or have you ever asked your employees to come up with a viable solution? What were the reasonable expectations?
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
PostmodernProphet
fully immersed in faith..
be that as it may, it should be obvious that an analogy that requires us to have already accepted your conclusion is not a means of persuading us to accept your conclusion.....
It does relate to abortion.
One of the compelling points of the "life begins at conception" (by which I think most mean fertilization) argument is the unique DNA of the zygote. This is used to argue that the zygote is human. Apparently, the unique DNA happens whether the resulting zygote is viable or not. If viability is necessary to classify it as "human" then the unique DNA is of no importance to that question. The human does not appear until there is "viability."
Everything is then based on viability which could push the beginning of life back until the kids gets a job and moves out, by what some may mean by viability. Seriously, what if it reaches a stage past what we refer to as a zygote and is still not truly viable? To a large degree, viability is what I am talking about in having the necessary brain function to be considered legally alive in the human sense.
The other way around these residual bodies is to say the individual begins at fertilization, whether life is present or not. But that would mean life begins at a prior point.
Man, you have to spin hard to get here from there...
Dude, the unique DNA only notes that it is a distinct different organism than the mother, not a "part" of her It doesn't mean it is alive, (although the DNA would make it a human residual body) any more than your DNA (which still exists) does after you die, it just means you were separate from your parents as your DNA was different (barring incest).
There is no scientific basis to argue that a viable zygote is anything other than human life separate from, though reliant on, the mother. So argue the only points you can make, whether it is a "person", get religious argue spiritual conceptual and subjective ideas based in laws rather than science, it's all your side really has when you really get down to it.
I agree often with your side of things, but I don't pretend that a human life in its earliest stages is anything other than human life. Is it a "person" yet? That's where it's debatable.
Of course its human...what the hell else could it be....a reptile ? a chicken ?
Viability is necessary to classify it as alive....
If its not viable, its dead....a moot point...
Abortion has nothing to do with science...