Another thread wherein I embarrass superstupid

You are incorrect. There is no argument as to when mechanistic human life begins. You are hung up on personhood, which is a philosophical argument. Life, at its most basic begins at conception. All the chromosomes are present. The cells divide separate from the host and it is genetically unique. We on the choice side take comfort in a definition that rejects this. It makes it somewhat easier to support abortion. If this were not true we would not object to requiring women to listen to the heart beat or view pictures of the fetus prior to the procedure. Doing so would deter women from going through with the procedure.
 
Hasa Diga Eebowai said:
Finally, you have engaged in discussion. Now let's go over your errors.
Here is where you leave the science and inject philosophy. So then you are not defining human as human origin. What is the sperm before that? An orangutan? There is no test that can establish "humanness" apart from human origin. And I can just as easily argue that the zygote is not yet human.
Click to expand...

Except AGAIN... I did no such thing. You are confusing when an individual life begins to some philosophical 'when does life begin'. The sperm cell is a human cell prior to fertilizing the egg. After COMBINING with the egg, it has joined to become a UNIQUE HUMAN LIFE. It is at that point that THAT unique human life begins.

Removed from the womb the fertilized egg will NEVER have the capacity to develop beyond what it currently is. EVER. It cannot yet sustain its basic existence even momentarily, never will be able to and will immediately die. Left alone and with good fortune it will grow and develop the anatomy of a human. But the same could be said for the egg or sperm.
Click to expand...

Yes, if you remove its 'life support' it will die. No one is arguing that you have the ability to END its life.

Your argument is that the cells of the fertilized egg have reached a point of viability that is sufficient to be called "human life." But this line you draw is no more scientifically based than mine, is just as arbitrary but as less philosophically sound.
Click to expand...

No, AGAIN, I have not said a fucking word about it being viable. Not once. I have said based on genetics... it is a human life. It is human and alive. Scientifically speaking it is a human life. YOU are again the one injecting viability into this.


Wrong! Your liver cell is not GENETICALLY distinct from your skin cell. Every cell in your body contains the same 23 matched pairs of chromosomes EXCEPT for sperm/egg which contain unique combinations of 23 single chromosomes. They are genetically distinct in a way that your liver cells are not.
Click to expand...

Yes, they all contain the same dna coding, but they serve different functions. A red blood cell and a white blood cell contain the same DNA, but they are coded to perform different functions within the body. Again, basic genetics. Every cell in the body is coded to perform a specific function. An embryo is coded to perform ALL functions, to develop ALL organs, tissues, cells etc...

Seriously, you really are too ignorant on the topic of genetics to be discussing it.

Wrong again! The cells in your arm contain the complete DNA mapping of a human being. Like I said, you don't know shit.
Click to expand...

ROFLMAO... seriously, you should stop now.
 
Socrtease said:
You are incorrect. There is no argument as to when mechanistic human life begins. You are hung up on personhood, which is a philosophical argument. Life, at its most basic begins at conception. All the chromosomes are present. The cells divide separate from the host and it is genetically unique. We on the choice side take comfort in a definition that rejects this. It makes it somewhat easier to support abortion. If this were not true we would not object to requiring women to listen to the heart beat or view pictures of the fetus prior to the procedure. Doing so would deter women from going through with the procedure.
Click to expand...

Bullshit!

http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Life

There is no consensus regarding the answer to the question as to when does life begin. Does it begin at the time of fertilization or the time before or after that? The origin of life is also contestable. Despite of the irresolute answer for questions about life, the basic characteristics of a living thing are as follows:

http://blogs.plos.org/dnascience/2013/10/03/when-does-a-human-life-begins-17-timepoints/

“Um…when life begins is a pretty basic idea in biology,” commented the originator of the compelling listserv thread that followed. Actually, no.

I’m the author of an intro college biology textbook called “Life,” my having nabbed that title before Keith Richards did. Life science textbooks from traditional publishers (I’m with McGraw-Hill) don’t explicitly state when life begins, because that is a question not only of biology, but of philosophy, politics, psychology, religion, technology, and emotions. Rather, textbooks list the characteristics of life, leaving interpretation to the reader. But I can see where the idea comes from that textbooks define life as beginning at conception. Consider a report from the Association of Pro-life Physicians. After a 5-point list of life’s characteristics from “a scientific textbook,” this group’s analysis concludes with “According to this elementary definition of life, life begins at fertilization, when a sperm unites with an oocyte.” Sneaky.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/4078859 <- Published paper in JME

http://www.nasa.gov/vision/universe/starsgalaxies/life's_working_definition.html <- On the futility of thinking hard science can even define life

You call it personhood if you like.

There is no heartbeat in a zygote. There is no heart. It can not be heard until week 22.

I object to interfering in the medical decisions of the patient and doctor.
 
Superfreak said:
Except AGAIN... I did no such thing. You are confusing when an individual life begins to some philosophical 'when does life begin'. The sperm cell is a human cell prior to fertilizing the egg. After COMBINING with the egg, it has joined to become a UNIQUE HUMAN LIFE. It is at that point that THAT unique human life begins.

Yes, if you remove its 'life support' it will die. No one is arguing that you have the ability to END its life.

No, AGAIN, I have not said a fucking word about it being viable. Not once. I have said based on genetics... it is a human life. It is human and alive. Scientifically speaking it is a human life. YOU are again the one injecting viability into this.
Click to expand...

It's only philosophy. You are just returning to your circular bullshit with little goalpost shifts. You add in "individual" which only makes your argument weaker since if separated from the mother it will immediately die.

Again, is the sperm alive or dead prior to fertilization?

The zygote will die even if attached to life support.

Superfreak said:
Yes, they all contain the same dna coding, but they serve different functions. A red blood cell and a white blood cell contain the same DNA, but they are coded to perform different functions within the body. Again, basic genetics. Every cell in the body is coded to perform a specific function. An embryo is coded to perform ALL functions, to develop ALL organs, tissues, cells etc...

Seriously, you really are too ignorant on the topic of genetics to be discussing it.

ROFLMAO... seriously, you should stop now.
Click to expand...

Too late. You said that genetic distinction could be found in them. That is wrong. Genes are just a section of DNA and because every cell (except sperm/egg) does contain your complete DNA they cannot be said to be genetically distinct. You are denying genetics and trying to sidestep the point to save face. A sperm/egg is genetically distinct in a way that no other cells in your body are just as the zygote is genetically distinct from the mother.

You did a full faceplant here and you can bluff all you like, but it's clear you don't understand the subject.
 
Last edited:
Superfreak said:
I have not created a single straw man.

Actually, you did. Post 77.

No moron... YOU are the one that is talking about viability as a determining factor as to when life begins.
Click to expand...


You are a liar. I never said a sperm cell is equivalent to a zygote.

Hasa Diga Eebowai said:
Fail. What makes the zygote a "human life" and the sperm/egg not. Here let's compare based on some of the conditions you mention.

Is it alive? Sperm/Egg yes; Zygote yes.
Is it human? Sperm/Egg yes; Zygote yes.
Is it genetically distinct? Sperm/Egg yes; Zygote yes.
Does it grow and develop? Sperm/Egg yes; Zygote yes.
Is it human life according to the PHILOSOPHICAL PREMISES of Nova and SF? Sperm/Egg no; Zygote yes.
Click to expand...

Why would I have even bothered making the distinction and comparing them if they were the same? I asked you to provide some distinction, in regards to your definition of life, and the only one you have provided is viability or the capacity to grow and develop beyond the stage of the sperm/egg.
 
Last edited:
Hasa Diga Eebowai said:
Bullshit!

http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Life

There is no consensus regarding the answer to the question as to when does life begin. Does it begin at the time of fertilization or the time before or after that? The origin of life is also contestable. Despite of the irresolute answer for questions about life, the basic characteristics of a living thing are as follows:

http://blogs.plos.org/dnascience/2013/10/03/when-does-a-human-life-begins-17-timepoints/

“Um…when life begins is a pretty basic idea in biology,” commented the originator of the compelling listserv thread that followed. Actually, no.

I’m the author of an intro college biology textbook called “Life,” my having nabbed that title before Keith Richards did. Life science textbooks from traditional publishers (I’m with McGraw-Hill) don’t explicitly state when life begins, because that is a question not only of biology, but of philosophy, politics, psychology, religion, technology, and emotions. Rather, textbooks list the characteristics of life, leaving interpretation to the reader. But I can see where the idea comes from that textbooks define life as beginning at conception. Consider a report from the Association of Pro-life Physicians. After a 5-point list of life’s characteristics from “a scientific textbook,” this group’s analysis concludes with “According to this elementary definition of life, life begins at fertilization, when a sperm unites with an oocyte.” Sneaky.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/4078859 <- Published paper in JME

http://www.nasa.gov/vision/universe/starsgalaxies/life's_working_definition.html <- On the futility of thinking hard science can even define life

You call it personhood if you like.

There is no heartbeat in a zygote. There is no heart. It can not be heard until week 22.

I object to interfering in the medical decisions of the patient and doctor.
Click to expand...

moron.
 
Superfreak said:
Both are significantly shorter than your '22 weeks'.

None change the FACT that it is still human, still alive.
Click to expand...

Ahh, look who's all butthurt over being schooled.

I assumed we were talking about what could be heard with a stethoscope. It would be really stupid to force a woman to listen to the simulated sounds from the doppler, but then we are talking about stupid Republicans, like you, writing these laws.

Just like the sperm/egg is human and alive.
 
Superfreak said:
moron.
Click to expand...


Idiot, what do you think your emphasis shows other than "hard science" does not offer any definitive answer. I have shown repeatedly that if there is any consensus that it is around the idea that science has no answer for when life begins.

When are you going to admit your glaring errors and explain what other than viability distinguishes the sperm from the zygote in your philosophical definition of life?
 
Last edited:
Hasa Diga Eebowai said:
When are you going to admit your glaring errors and explain what other than viability distinguishes the sperm from the zygote in your philosophical definition of life?
Click to expand...

Its difficult to even determine wtf your asking.....look up the definitions of sperm and zygote and learn what the differences between the two are....that should clear that up 4 you.

There is significant difference between the "philosophical definition of life" and the "biological definition of life".....
the first is a personal perspective that can be whatever any particular person reasons it to be ....the second is undeniable science....
 
NOVA said:
Its difficult to even determine wtf your asking.....look up the definitions of sperm and zygote and learn what the differences between the two are....that should clear that up 4 you.

There is significant difference between the "philosophical definition of life" and the "biological definition of life".....
the first is a personal perspective that can be whatever any particular person reasons it to be ....the second is undeniable science....
Click to expand...

You are just another chickenshit ducking the question. Yes, there is a difference between sperm and a zygote just as there is between a zygote and a embryo, fetus or child. What I am asking is clear and I have explained it several times in detail. I am asking what is the difference that makes one human life and the other not.

The second is not undeniable science. The second is an ATTEMPT to describe, just as the first. The second is no more unequivocal than the first and depends upon philosophical assumptions that are agreeable to the biological field as a whole. Besides that, the attempt to form a biological definition of life is not a statement on when life begins.
 
PostmodernProphet
silencing your sillyness

This message is hidden because PostmodernProphet is on your ignore list.


You have never added anything of value PiMPle. sf is an idiot but one that is a grade or two above you. With his embarrassing comments about cells within the same organism being genetically distinct, it's clear he does not even understand the wonder of the single celled zygote which becomes what all recognize as a human. What you claim is impossible over billions of years, even you accomplished in 9 months and most of us would say less.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top