When Does Life End?

apple0154 said:
Quite the contrary. If you had read the article you would have seen it has a bearing on the "morning after" pill. In case you are not aware there has been talk of some anti-abortion pharmacists refusing to dispense those pills. Now that we've concluded there is absolutely no possibility of a human life before approximately 24 hours those misguided souls can be set straight.

Furthermore, the moment of fertilization/conception was the erroneous anti-abortionist argument. It was their platform. It was at the core of every one of their arguments and it's been found to be wrong.

As I've said before down through the ages anti-abortionists have jumped on any wagon passing by just like they did with the DNA wagon. As the article concludes, "While one may have a particular belief in when the embryo becomes human, it is difficult to justify such a belief solely by science" and THAT'S the point because it never fails the anti-abortionist to say, "Why do you argue against science" or "Science proves it's a living human being" when what they're saying is sheer nonsense either due to ignorance or deliberate lies and deceit.

That was the purpose of the dozens of pages.
Click to expand...
I have been advised that the morning after pill is not an abortificant.....that if pregnancy has in fact taken place it has no effect.....I would be opposed to any medication that would in fact cause an abortion......please specify to which you are referring.....
 
apple0154 said:
Furthermore, the moment of fertilization/conception was the erroneous anti-abortionist argument. It was their platform. It was at the core of every one of their arguments and it's been found to be wrong.
Click to expand...

???...the core of our arguments is that what you want to kill is a human being.....all your silly arguments about the first three days following sex does absolutely nothing to negate the truth about what you are trying to kill.....
 
apple0154 said:
What I have accomplished is showing a fertilized cell/conception is not necessarily a human being. If every fertilized cell/conception is considered a human being then no further discussion is possible which, of course, is/was the anti-abortionist's purpose for perpetuating such an argument. It's like saying, "It's settled before it starts."

Also, science is constantly progressing. Let's say, for example, abortions are outlawed but science has progressed to the point where a sample of amniotic fluid can determine if the fetus has the necessary qualities (DNA/genes) to develop into a baby. It's discovered a two month old fetus will not grow after the fifth month. Should the woman be compelled to carry that fetus for another three months knowing it will never come to term? Would having an abortion be considered killing a human being?

As the article states there are many ways to look at the situation. Once the argument "it's a human being from day one" is removed does it make sense to classify a human being based on the idea it's an organism, carrying on the processes of life, knowing the organism is incapable of carrying on the processes to the point where a baby will result?

Would/should a fetus that has no chance of developing to the point of birth be considered a human being? Should it be equal to a born individual? If not, then when does a fetus become a human being?

As time passes and science progresses these and other questions will arise. If all fertilized cells/conceptions are considered human beings those questions and others will never be addressed.

That's the reason for arguing my position. Future discussions are impossible until it's agreed not all fertilized cells/conceptions are human beings.

EDIT: I see Damo has defined conception as growth. Again, others have argued a fertilized cell and conception are the same so that is why I have combined them. I have no problem with the difference, however, growth can only be determined after it has occurred.
Click to expand...

there was no reason to engage in your argument at all.....nobody wants to abort zygotes......when the unborn are zygotes nobody even knows they are around......you still have no right to kill an unborn human being and ought to be prevented from doing so.......
 
Damocles said:
*sigh*

From the beginning I have explained what a residual body is and that it was not "alive".

Can you please just actually pay attention to what I say rather than this stupidity again? Now, when the cells begin to divide and conception has officially happened, at this point it is a human life. Now that you recognize that: what new natural death of that human life are you going to try to say means that it isn't alive?
Click to expand...

But you told me the article said a residual body is an organism. Where did it say that?
 
bravo said:
Its been explained to you numerous times in the course of this thread...one more time...
If the fertilized egg, does not yield a VIABLE zygote their is no human being created....the cells MUST split once to show life (viability, conception)
THAT IS THE STARTING POINT.....
its actually very very simple to those with a functioning brain....
Click to expand...

Thank-you for finally spitting that out! That's all I wanted to know.

Finally, we can put to rest the nonsense that some have been saying that a cell is alive whether or not it splits or that it's a human being whether or not it splits.

Thank-you a hundred times over!

God, it was like pulling teeth!
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
You haven't shown shit; except for the fact that you'll climg to your barbaric beliefs and attempt to convince everyone else that you're correct, even when others provide evidence that your THEORY has a slew of errors.
Click to expand...

Take it up with Bravo or Damo. I've made my point which was the combining of the sperm and the egg or the sperm entering the egg is not necessarily a human life or a human being and we're all in agreement.

I'm not getting into this with you so someone can come along and say they already agreed.
 
apple0154 said:
But you told me the article said a residual body is an organism. Where did it say that?
Click to expand...
I didn't say "living organism", can you be precise in your reading as you pretend to be in your speaking?

You are wrong that the definition of "organism" means that it must grow.
 
apple0154 said:
Take it up with Bravo or Damo. I've made my point which was the combining of the sperm and the egg or the sperm entering the egg is not necessarily a human life or a human being and we're all in agreement.

I'm not getting into this with you so someone can come along and say they already agreed.
Click to expand...

You can make the point that you believe that 2+2=5 and then continually repeat it, like you do; but that doesn't make it FACT.

I'm beginning to believe that you and your wife had an abortion and this is just your way of justifying it and an attempt to convince yourself that you didn't make a mistake.
 
apple0154 said:
I scanned the article again and do not see where it's written a residual body is an organism. Perhaps you would be so kind as to direct me to where such is written?

Just to be clear are you talking about the article located here? http://8e.devbio.com/article.php?id=162
Click to expand...
*sigh*

Here:

Although the opinion that life begins at fertilization is the most popular view among the public, many scientists no longer support this position, as an increasing number of scientific discoveries seem to contradict it. One such discovery in the last twenty years is that research has shown that there is no "moment of fertilization" at all. Scientists now choose to view fertilization as a process that occurs over a period of 12-24 hours. After sperm are released they must remain in the female reproductive tract for seven hours before they are capable of fertilizing the egg. Approximately ten hours are required for the sperm to travel up to the fallopian tube where they find the egg. The meeting of the egg and the sperm itself is not even an instantaneous process, but rather a complex biochemical interaction through which the sperm ultimately reaches the inner portion of the egg. Following fertilization, the chromosomes contained within the sperm and the chromosomes of the egg meet to form a diploid organism, now called a zygote, over a period of 24 hours.
Click to expand...
Now, we have used a definition of zygote earlier that stated that it wasn't a zygote until it began to grow, and I still maintain that particular genetic definition because of the event of residual bodies. However here we see that before the cells begin to split it is already a "diploid organism". This is a single-celled diploid human organism, if it begins to grow it is "alive" and "carrying on the processes of life" at that point. Once we have the diploid organism that is distinct from the mother is when a separate human organism has been created, once this organism begins to grow, according to the accepted definitions in this conversation, a "life" is formed at that point. Now we know that we have a living human organism and not a residual body.

Now, again. Pay attention now.

Now that we know that once the cells begin to divide it is a living human organism carrying on the processes of life, what new natural death are you going to say means that they are somehow not alive?
 
PostmodernProphet said:
I have been advised that the morning after pill is not an abortificant.....that if pregnancy has in fact taken place it has no effect.....I would be opposed to any medication that would in fact cause an abortion......please specify to which you are referring.....
Click to expand...

(Excerpt)The morning after pill does two things. It works to prevent an egg from being released from the ovary and it makes bio-chemical changes to the womb so that any fertilized blastocyst cannot implant and become an embryo.

Pregnancy, so you know, is medically defined as when a blastocyst implants into the womb. So, if you have moral reasons for not wanting to harm blastocysts, this might still be an ethical problem for you. But MEDICALLY speaking, a morning after pill does not interrupt a pregnancy - it only prevents one.(End)
http://en.allexperts.com/q/Abortion-1320/Morning-Pill.htm

So, we have a fertilized cell which has divided/multiplied to many cells, however, it's still not considered a pregnancy.
"The blastocyst is a structure formed in the early embryogenesis of mammals, after the formation of the morula, but before implantation.....The human blastocyst comprises 70-100 cells."(Wikipedia)

The prevention (aka:death) of a fertilized cell containing up to a hundred cells implanting is not considered interfering in a pregnancy, medically speaking.

I would say that means there is no human being there unless one feels there can be a human being without having a pregnancy. :confused:

To be honest I intend to take a break here. I understand Damocles and Bravo to be saying they agree there is no human being or human life until a cell splits. In other words there are no human beings blinking in and out of existence for nano-seconds like popping in from another universe as some have opined on here. That was the case I wanted to make and I feel we're all in agreement.

It was a long and arduous road we all traveled and I'm sure you understand my reluctance to jump into another debate at this time.

On the other hand maybe a nap with my cats will refresh so I look forward to your feedback on the definitions I posted as to whether you feel deep-sixing a 100-cell blastocyst is an abortion and/or the taking of a human life.
 
Damocles said:
I didn't say "living organism", can you be precise in your reading as you pretend to be in your speaking?

You are wrong that the definition of "organism" means that it must grow.
Click to expand...

I never said "living organism". I wrote, "But you told me the article said a residual body is an organism."

Can you be as precise in your reading as you pretend to be in your speaking?

I don't know what your problem is but it's becoming old.

In msg 992 I worte, "I understand Damocles and Bravo to be saying they agree there is no human being or human life until a cell splits."

If that is correct then our business is completed. There's no need to continue on the merry-go-round.
 
apple0154 said:
I never said "living organism". I wrote, "But you told me the article said a residual body is an organism."

Can you be as precise in your reading as you pretend to be in your speaking?

I don't know what your problem is but it's becoming old.

In msg 992 I worte, "I understand Damocles and Bravo to be saying they agree there is no human being or human life until a cell splits."

If that is correct then our business is completed. There's no need to continue on the merry-go-round.
Click to expand...
The residual body is an organism. It just isn't technically alive or dead until it grows. As for "human being", different definitions for "being" have been used so I do not use that here so I can be precise. What I have been talking about is the understanding that a "person" is created in the womb and then born, not born then suddenly the person faerie comes along to grant it "personhood".

You then started arguing what "anti-abortionists" say, but were inaccurate in your terminology and we have since been talking about what is alive or not in the "World According to Apple"...

Anyway, you confuse "organism" with "alive" you confuse "life" with "person" you confuse every definition given and ignore those that show you are not justified in pretending that the human organism doesn't begin to live at conception (when cells begin to split.)

Now, we have finally gotten to the point where you fully comprehend that the human organism is alive at conception (using the definition that conception isn't complete until after the cell begins to divide). At this point I am wondering when you will continue your sole "argument" throughout the thread where you list yet another natural death for a human organism and try to say that it means that they were never "alive".
 
apple0154 said:
so I look forward to your feedback on the definitions I posted as to whether you feel deep-sixing a 100-cell blastocyst is an abortion and/or the taking of a human life.
Click to expand...

another monumental waste of time.....why do you feel justified in taking human life by abortion?.....that's the issue that needs to be resolved.....
 
Damocles said:
Now, we have finally gotten to the point where you fully comprehend that the human organism is alive at conception (using the definition that conception isn't complete until after the cell begins to divide).
Click to expand...

We have finally gotten to the point where you fully comprehend the anti-abortionist nonsense about human beings popping into existence at the moment the sperm enters the egg is just that, nonsense.

That was the point. Whether you think it happens when the cell begins to divide or 25 years later makes little difference to me. The point is it does not happen at the instant the sperm and cell join.

That was what I was arguing. Do you understand? I've said this before and I'll say it again. Some misguided folks on here believed a human being came into existence the moment the sperm and cell joined whether or not the cell divided. Even if the mass was alive in the sense a skin cell is alive. They believe it lives as a human being even if the cell does not divide. They believe a human being lives for a minute or a second and that is the craziness I was arguing against.

Just in case you have the intention of trying to twist what I just wrote I'll dumb it down for you. The anti-abortionist argument, the core of their argument, is a human being comes into existence at the very moment the sperm and egg join. That is not true.

The only part of this post you need comment on are the previous two sentences because that is what my argument has been all along. You've spoken about "organism" and "alive" and "life" and "person" and twisted and turned everything I've said to try and confuse the issue.

The anti-abortionist propaganda is bullsh!t. Plain and simple. That's it but you and others danced around like Hawaiian gals at a Luau with Don Ho (God rest his soul) before finally spitting it out.

///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

Damocles said:
The residual body is an organism. It just isn't technically alive or dead until it grows. As for "human being", different definitions for "being" have been used so I do not use that here so I can be precise. What I have been talking about is the understanding that a "person" is created in the womb and then born, not born then suddenly the person faerie comes along to grant it "personhood".

You then started arguing what "anti-abortionists" say, but were inaccurate in your terminology and we have since been talking about what is alive or not in the "World According to Apple"...

Anyway, you confuse "organism" with "alive" you confuse "life" with "person" you confuse every definition given and ignore those that show you are not justified in pretending that the human organism doesn't begin to live at conception (when cells begin to split.)

Now, we have finally gotten to the point where you fully comprehend that the human organism is alive at conception (using the definition that conception isn't complete until after the cell begins to divide). At this point I am wondering when you will continue your sole "argument" throughout the thread where you list yet another natural death for a human organism and try to say that it means that they were never "alive".
Click to expand...
..
 
Last edited:
PostmodernProphet said:
another monumental waste of time.....why do you feel justified in taking human life by abortion?.....that's the issue that needs to be resolved.....
Click to expand...

I seriously believe a few folks here have a learning disability.You asked me to clarify the "morning after" pill and I did exactly that and then asked you for feedback and you reply, "another monumental waste of time".

Let me ask you again, "Do you feel deep-sixing a 100-cell blastocyst is an abortion?" Medically, it is defined as NOT an abortion. How does the wise Prophet see it?

No doubt I'll hear the crickets long before I see an answer.
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
You can make the point that you believe that 2+2=5 and then continually repeat it, like you do; but that doesn't make it FACT.
Click to expand...

The point has been resolved. The anti-abortionist argument is moot.

I'm beginning to believe that you and your wife had an abortion and this is just your way of justifying it and an attempt to convince yourself that you didn't make a mistake.
Click to expand...

I wish. The truth is I never get a chance to make a baby. :crybaby:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top