Another thread wherein I embarrass superstupid

[Timshel]

And they went to medical journals.

Are you saying pro-abortionists are somehow better equipped to read medical journals than pro-lifers?

Nope. Out of the 15 sources 2 of the out of context mined quotes appear to be from journals and neither of them speak to sf's claim.

"Human development begins after the union of male and female gametes or germ cells during a process known as fertilization (conception).
"Fertilization is a sequence of events that begins with the contact of a sperm (spermatozoon) with a secondary oocyte (ovum) and ends with the fusion of their pronuclei (the haploid nuclei of the sperm and ovum) and the mingling of their chromosomes to form a new cell. This fertilized ovum, known as a zygote, is a large diploid cell that is the beginning, or primordium, of a human being."
[Moore, Keith L. Essentials of Human Embryology. Toronto: B.C. Decker Inc, 1988, p.2]


"Embryo: The early developing fertilized egg that is growing into another individual of the species. In man the term 'embryo' is usually restricted to the period of development from fertilization until the end of the eighth week of pregnancy."
[Walters, William and Singer, Peter (eds.). Test-Tube Babies. Melbourne: Oxford University Press, 1982, p. 160]

 

[Taft2016]

Nope. Out of the 15 sources 2 of the out of context mined quotes were from appear to be from journals and neither of them speak to sf's claim.

I'll just assume the other 13 do speak to his claim. (Actually I think the two you cited do support his claim).

Now as to your claim of them being "out of context".... proof?

 

[Timshel]

Nature intends for *EVERYTHING* to die.

However, I doubt that would be an effective defense at a murder trial. Although Jarod might try it.

That's great and completely irrelevant. Nova seemed to imply that after fertilization it was smooth sailing until death at old age. But it is not. The zygote is still very much at a stage where it is very likely that no one will ever notice it existed.

 

[Timshel]

I'll just assume the other 13 do speak to his claim. (Actually I think the two you cited do support his claim).

Now as to your claim of them being "out of context".... proof?

Nope. Only a few mention life and neither of the two in the journals.

Where is the context?

 

[Taft2016]

That's great and completely irrelevant. Nova seemed to imply that after fertilization it was smooth sailing until death at old age. But it is not. The zygote is still very much at a stage where it is very likely that no one will ever notice it existed.

The point was; dying isn't killing.

So are you going to close this open-ended definition of yours of "when life begins"?

two cells? four? eight? etc?

 

[Taft2016]

Where is the context?

You don't know? Then why do you keep saying they're "out of context"?

I going by what's written. You're the one citing context that you seem completely ignorant of.

Not a valid argument... certainly not in the least bit convincing.

 

[Timshel]

The point was; dying isn't killing.

So are you going to close this open-ended definition of yours of "when life begins"?

two cells? four? eight? etc?

No, the point is that it is still very unlikely that the zygote will live as a human or have what most think of as a human life.

What open ended definition?

 

[Timshel]

You don't know? Then why do you keep saying they're "out of context"?

I going by what's written. You're the one citing context that you seem completely ignorant of.

Not a valid argument... certainly not in the least bit convincing.

I know it was not present and so the quotes were out of context. Again, that's the point, dummy.

Out of context mined quotes are not the least bit convincing and do not satisfy my request. I was looking for some scientific references proving that life begins at conception. Not someone's opinion.

 

[Taft2016]

No, the point is that it is still very unlikely that the zygote will live as a human or have what most think of as a human life.

What open ended definition?

Your open-ended definition.

If your definition of life is "something that will not die," then nothing is life.

Zygotes die, they're not life.

What's that supposed to mean to this discussion? What is your definition of when life begins?

 

[Timshel]

Your open-ended definition.

If your definition of life is "something that will not die," then nothing is life.

Zygotes die, they're not life.

What's that supposed to mean to this discussion? What is your definition of when life begins?

No, of course that is not my definition.

Viability outside of the womb and/or brain activity that is capable (excluding temporary impairment) of operating the natural life support systems. That is where life begins and ends and is in agreement with the biological definition of life.

 

[PostmodernProphet]

Nature seems to intend for half or more of fertilized eggs to die before implantation.

???....I thought you said they weren't alive......if they aren't alive how can they die?.....

 

[Taft2016]

No, of course that is not my definition.

Viability outside of the womb

And yet the murder of a pregnant woman carries two murder counts.

So you would consider late-term partial birth abortions of children viable outside the womb to be murder. Correct?

 

[Boris The Animal]

the problem the pro-aborts seem to have is the personhood of the unborn child. Hitler had the exact same problem with Jews.

 

[Timshel]

And yet the murder of a pregnant woman carries two murder counts.

So you would consider late-term partial birth abortions of children viable outside the womb to be murder. Correct?

And yet the Bible did not treat an attack causing the death of a fetus as murder. That law may exists in some jurisdictions but it's not required by me or any principle I hold.

I am okay with limits on late term abortions so long as there are exceptions for medical necessity and severe fetal abnormality.

 

[NOVA]

I seriously doubt you will add anything mushbrain.

Why is the label zygote distinct from sperm or egg? Both are alive and human.

Nature seems to intend for half or more of fertilized eggs to die before implantation.

"Why is the label zygote distinct from sperm or egg? Both are alive and human."

Thats exactly what we've been telling you over and over....they are alive and human...It was you that claimed "HUMAN sperm and a HUMAN egg result in a HUMAN zygote, not HUMAN LIFE. "

Both having the DNA and chromosomes of their owners.
Why is the zygote distinct ? That was explained to you earlier too....
Each human cell contains 23 pairs of chromosomes. These undergo division in a process called mitosis. Mitosis produces cells that contain 23 pairs of chromosomes, one one half of which is inherited from the mother and the other from the father.

For this purpose, the male and female reproductive cells or gametes need to undergo another form of cell division called meiosis where the cell is divided into cell generated contains only 23 or half of the 46 chromosomes.

The zygote is the initial cell formed when two gamete cells are joined by means of sexual reproduction. In multicellular organisms, it is the earliest developmental stage of the embryo.
It is different and distinct from the other two gamete cells....its alive and growing....growing into the embryo stage of life....ALL stages of life are life....

"Nature seems to intend for half or more of fertilized eggs to die before implantation.".....whats you point ?...its irrelevant....

And this is biology, not an argument for or against abortion.

 

[Timshel]

"Why is the label zygote distinct from sperm or egg? Both are alive and human."

Thats exactly what we've been telling you over and over....they are alive and human...It was you that claimed "HUMAN sperm and a HUMAN egg result in a HUMAN zygote, not HUMAN LIFE. "

Both having the DNA and chromosomes of their owners.
Why is the zygote distinct ? That was explained to you earlier too....
Each human cell contains 23 pairs of chromosomes. These undergo division in a process called mitosis. Mitosis produces cells that contain 23 pairs of chromosomes, one one half of which is inherited from the mother and the other from the father.

For this purpose, the male and female reproductive cells or gametes need to undergo another form of cell division called meiosis where the cell is divided into cell generated contains only 23 or half of the 46 chromosomes.

The zygote is the initial cell formed when two gamete cells are joined by means of sexual reproduction.In multicellular organisms, it is the earliest developmental stage of the embryo. It is different and distinct from the other two gamete cells....its alive and growing....growing into the embryo stage of life....ALL stages of life are life....

"Nature seems to intend for half or more of fertilized eggs to die before implantation.".....whats you point ?...its irrelevant....

And this is biology, not an argument for or against abortion.

None of you have explained or told me anything. You have just spoken in circles and repeated trivial points that were never in dispute. I never claimed the zygote was not alive. NEVER! Again, you ignorant boobs are conflating "alive" with "life." I have repeated this several times and you still don't seem to be able to grasp the difference.

You did not answer the question. I did not ask why the zygote is distinct, as in genetically distinct. You were babbling about zygote, fetus and others stages as being meaningless labels that did not deserve distinction. I was asking why the zygote deserves some sort of distinction from sperm or the egg. Why isn't the sperm/egg human life? Any sperm that is capable of fertilizing the egg is definitely not dead and any egg that is capable of being fertilized is not dead. They are alive. They are of human origin. They are not not human life. You seem to argue the sperm is human life with the claim that all stages of life are life but I am not sure if you are just rambling incoherently or if you meant that.

It's not biology. Science does not tell us what words mean within our language.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

You just restated your inconsistent definition.

You just keep making shit up. There is NOTHING inconsistent with my answer. Nothing. You apparently have become like Desh, incapable of an honest discussion.

I asked you where are your references to the hard science that supports your claim on the beginning of life? What experiment can I do that will separate the point where life begins from before it begins and after death? You have NOT answered.

Yes moron, I did answer.

A human LIFE begins when the human sperm cell fertilizes the human egg cell. At that point the formation of the unique human life begins. Within hours the genetic coding of a unique human life exists in completion.

There is no point, NONE... that the unique human life exists prior to that point. After that, there is no point... NONE, that the unique human life does not exist. NONE.

Read that bolded and underlined very carefully moron...

1) can you point to any time prior to fertilization that the specific unique human life was in existence? No, you cannot. It is fact. That unique human life does not exist prior to fertilization and the combining of the genetic coding.

2) At any point AFTER fertilization can you point to a time that it is not HUMAN or ALIVE? No, you cannot. Because again it is a FACT.

But you will ignore all this AGAIN and pretend I didn't just reiterate it for the 1000th time.

That is your experiment String. Falsify one of the two above.

If you are looking for a link or book, start with basic biology... basic genetics.

 

[Taft2016]

I know it was not present and so the quotes were out of context. Again, that's the point, dummy.

Out of context mined quotes are not the least bit convincing and do not satisfy my request. I was looking for some scientific references proving that life begins at conception. Not someone's opinion.

I see. So your argument appears to be that any lined quoted anytime is out of context, and therefore useless.

So if I pull a line out of the Gettysburg Address, it's out of context, therefore useless and pointless.

If I pull a line out of the Bible, it's out of context, therefore useless and pointless.

You realize that argument is sub-moronic?

 

[Timshel]

You just keep making shit up. There is NOTHING inconsistent with my answer. Nothing. You apparently have become like Desh, incapable of an honest discussion.

Yes moron, I did answer.

A human LIFE begins when the human sperm cell fertilizes the human egg cell. At that point the formation of the unique human life begins. Within hours the genetic coding of a unique human life exists in completion.

There is no point, NONE... that the unique human life exists prior to that point. After that, there is no point... NONE, that the unique human life does not exist. NONE.

Read that bolded and underlined very carefully moron...

1) can you point to any time prior to fertilization that the specific unique human life was in existence? No, you cannot. It is fact. That unique human life does not exist prior to fertilization and the combining of the genetic coding.

2) At any point AFTER fertilization can you point to a time that it is not HUMAN or ALIVE? No, you cannot. Because again it is a FACT.

But you will ignore all this AGAIN and pretend I didn't just reiterate it for the 1000th time.

That is your experiment String. Falsify one of the two above.

If you are looking for a link or book, start with basic biology... basic genetics.

It is inconsistent, because you exclude sperm, eggs, my arm, and the brain dead from human life while they are all alive and of human origin. Your simple minded definition claimed those were the only two conditions. You have not answered, you just evaded the questions and restated your unsupported definition of when life begins. You just did it again.

The sperm is human or of human origin. It is alive. It is genetically distinct. There I am pointing to it, dumbfuck. When can you point to the sperm and say it is not alive or not human?

It is obvious that you are defining "human" as something more than of human origin. But your simple minded definition fails to make that clear that and you evade the fact that you bring in your philosophy to arrive at the definition of "human." There is no hard science and no experiment that can be done to prove your definition of "human" or when human life begins, because science is not about definitions.

Yes, I can point to a time after fertilization when it is not human (prior to viability) or alive (the brain dead) and you have STILL failed to deal with these glaring holes in your very POLITICAL definition.

Your argument is not made on biology or genetics alone. It requires philosophical premises and you are extremely ignorant of all three subjects.

 

[Timshel]

I see. So your argument appears to be that any lined quoted anytime is out of context, and therefore useless.

So if I pull a line out of the Gettysburg Address, it's out of context, therefore useless and pointless.

If I pull a line out of the Bible, it's out of context, therefore useless and pointless.

You realize that argument is sub-moronic?

Strawman.

If one removes context to change the meaning then any quote would be worse than useless. But the Gettysburg Address and the Bible are well known and copies are easily available.

The value is very limited by removing context. Also, it was compiled by a group with a clear agenda on the subject. Combined it makes it pretty worthless but you or sf could use it for leads to find a better source.

Again, it is very telling that this is where sf goes for his "hard science." He clearly lacks objectivity and suffers from confirmation bias.