Another thread wherein I embarrass superstupid

[PostmodernProphet]

I just sourced a biologist referencing two well known ones, all agreeing that your claim is nothing but bullshit.

sweet....you must feel better knowing there are at least two of you.....

 

[PostmodernProphet]

Well you certainly are proof of that!

come on, mott.....you've claimed to study biology.....I'll bet HiggaDigga doesn't even have you on ignore......
can you tell us if biology is able to tell the difference between "dead" and "alive"?......

 

[Timshel]

You go to a pro-choice, pro abortion blog for your science....?.....how utterly lame.
Thats not science, thats a political agenda....but just your cup of tea.....philosophical bullshit and worse yet, political philosophical bullshit....

Its no wonder you adhere to the doctrine of the 'jackass party'........You're dismissed sonny.

You edited your post

It's not a pro choice blog. It's a generalized blog of a biologist and educator. He referenced two other well known biologist ALL of who refute your bullshit view that this is settled science. I have referenced other biologists, textbook authors and a biological dictionary all agreeing that your claim is bullshit.

You're ignoring anything that does not support your view, which is pretty much the definition of confirmation bias. I certainly know there are some biologists, most are actively pro life, that would agree with your claims. I am not ignoring them but their word alone does not create the consensus or proof of sfs fraudulent claim that is a settled point in basic biology. You and he are full of shit.

 

[Damocles]

Is the sperm/egg a parakeet prior to fertilization?

It is a sperm or an egg. Try to keep up. While it is human sperm/egg it is not a human life, there is a difference. This is stuff my daughters learned before 5th grade. It's too bad you never seem to have understood your sex ed class.

Your philosophically based definition of HUMAN life then has nothing to do with origin or being alive, but rather is about having met a certain condition, i.e., the necessary chromosomes. Mine is that they have a working brain and have the capacity to live as humans. Both are a fundamentally philosophical views of what it means to be human and to be alive. The problem with your definition though is it does not exclude the cells from my arm or the brain dead. That is, your philosphical view is rubbish.

In order to be a human life it would need to meet that, just as the egg of a parakeet needs to be fertilized to have a developing parakeet inside...

Your "definition" moves with how you "feel" and then attempts to add to actual definitions presented from actual scientists given above by Socrtease and others.

The reality is only one fool is existing in both of those threads, and it isn't Superfreak, it is the idiot who thinks that sperm is the same thing as a human being.

 

[Timshel]

It is a sperm or an egg. Try to keep up. While it is human sperm/egg it is not a human life, there is a difference. This is stuff my daughters learned before 5th grade. It's too bad you never seem to have understood your sex ed class.

In order to be a human life it would need to meet that, just as the egg of a parakeet needs to be fertilized to have a developing parakeet inside...

Your "definition" moves with how you "feel" and then attempts to add to actual definitions presented from actual scientists given above by Socrtease and others.

The reality is only one fool is existing in both of those threads, and it isn't Superfreak, it is the idiot who thinks that sperm is the same thing as a human being.

I am completely up and way ahead of you.

You say the sperm/egg is human. It is alive. It is not human life? How is that?

Your philosophical definition is based on how you feel. You have decided that it is human once it has the necessary chromosomes. I don't agree and find your definition ridiculous. Again, based on that a cancerous tumor might be human life, the cells in my arm or the brain dead.

Socrtease quoted from mined quotes collected by a pro-life group, same as Taft. I have provided the ORIGINAL statements of biologists that disagree and state that there is no consensus. How could there be consensus if there clearly is so much disagreement?

I have NEVER argued that sperm is a human being, dumbo. Of course not, since I don't argue that a zygote is. The fact that your side needs to lie and constantly misrepresent what i have clearly and consistently put forward shows the general weakness of your position.

http://edge.org/conversation/how-our-limbs-are-patterned-like-the-french-flag

"What I'm concerned with is how you develop", he says. "I know that you all think about it perpetually that you come from one single cell of a fertilized egg. I don't want to get involved in religion but that is not a human being. I've spoken to these eggs many times and they make it quite clear ... they are not a human being. The cells divide and the question I'm going to deal with a little bit here...how do the cells know what to do. So, how do they end up looking like ... you? It is amazing that you come from one single cell. I'm sorry to give you a lesson in embryology but you should know how you develop."

LEWIS WOLPERT is Professor of Biology as Applied to Medicine in the Department of Anatomy and Developmental Biology of University College, London. His research interests are in the mechanisms involved in the development of the embryo. He has presented science on both radio and TV for five years, was Chairman of the Committee for the Public Understanding of Science. His last book is Six Impossible Things To Do Before Breakfast.

 

[Damocles]

I am completely up and way ahead of you.

You say the sperm/egg is human. It is alive. It is not human life? How is that?

It is not "A" human life, the word adds meaning. The attempt to remove that from the argument is because you know that the difference exists.

Your philosophical definition is based on how you feel. You have decided that it is human once it has the necessary chromosomes. I don't agree and find your definition ridiculous. Again, based on that a cancerous tumor might be human life, the cells in my arm or the brain dead.

It is based on the actual definitions given above by Socrtease and others, while yours is based on ignoring the scientific definitions.

Socrtease quoted from mined quotes collected by a pro-life group, same as Taft. I have provided the ORIGINAL statements of biologists that disagree and state that there is no consensus. How could there be consensus if there clearly is so much disagreement?

I have NEVER argued that sperm is a human being, dumbo. Of course not, since I don't argue that a zygote is. The fact that your side needs to lie and constantly misrepresent what i have clearly and consistently put forward shows the general weakness of your position.

No, you only argue it when you are trying to use the same logical fallacy you always attempt wherein you change what people say (remove articles) and then argue against that. It's called the straw man fallacy. You are very expert at it.

http://edge.org/conversation/how-our-limbs-are-patterned-like-the-french-flag

"What I'm concerned with is how you develop", he says. "I know that you all think about it perpetually that you come from one single cell of a fertilized egg. I don't want to get involved in religion but that is not a human being. I've spoken to these eggs many times and they make it quite clear ... they are not a human being. The cells divide and the question I'm going to deal with a little bit here...how do the cells know what to do. So, how do they end up looking like ... you? It is amazing that you come from one single cell. I'm sorry to give you a lesson in embryology but you should know how you develop."

"that is not a human being"... I already said that was a normal philosophical argument, one can argue that "human being" begins later but pretending it isn't a human life is solely pretense. It may not be a "person" yet due to legalese or philosophy, but in reality it is still a developing human life. (Note the article, its removal will change the meaning of the sentence and the statement).

 

[Timshel]

It is not "A" human life, the word adds meaning. The attempt to remove that from the argument is because you know that the difference exists.


It is based on the actual definitions given above by Socrtease and others, while yours is based on ignoring the scientific definitions.


No, you only argue it when you are trying to use the same logical fallacy you always attempt wherein you change what people say and then argue against that. It's called the straw man fallacy. You are very expert at it.


"that is not a human being"... I already said that was a normal philosophical argument, one can argue that "human being" begins later but pretending it isn't a human life is solely pretense.

YOU are attempting to change what Wolpert, Myers and the others clearly stated. My references have links to the full context they are not just some mined quote and there is NOTHING to support your dishonest rewrites. I have also cited a biology dictionary that clearly stated there was no consensus on when life begins. You are just engaging in political spin in a failed attempt to redefine their words.

OKAY....
You say the sperm/egg is human. It is alive. It is not A human life? How is that? Is it parakeet life?

If the sperm/egg or zygote are not human beings then how can they be a human life? You mouth breathing morons continue to conflate "alive" with "life" and "human origin" with "human." The sperm/egg is obviously human as in of human origin. The cells in my arm or the cells of the brain dead have all the same number chromosomes as any other human cell and are or may be alive. The argument is what is HUMAN life. Not, simply, what is "human" and "alive."

A zygote is alive. It is of human origin. It is not human life. That's the argument, idiot. The claim is no more philosophical then your claim that the sperm/egg, the cells in my arm or the brain dead are not human life or that the zygote is.

 

[Damocles]

YOU are attempting to change what Wolpert, Myers and the others clearly stated. My references have links to the full context they are not just some mined quote and there is NOTHING to support your dishonest rewrites. I have also cited a biology dictionary that clearly stated there was no consensus on when life begins. You are just engaging in political spin in a failed attempt to redefine their words.

OKAY....
You say the sperm/egg is human. It is alive. It is not A human life? How is that? Is it parakeet life?

As I said before it is a sperm or an egg, not a human life.

If the sperm/egg or zygote are not human beings then how can they be a human life? You mouth breathing morons continue to conflate "alive" with "life" and "human origin" with "human." The sperm/egg is obviously human as in of human origin. The cells in my arm or the cells of the brain dead have all the same number chromosomes as any other human cell and are or may be alive. The argument is what is HUMAN life. Not what is "human" and "alive."

They can't be "a" human life. You conflate a living sperm with a living human in your attempt to build that same obvious straw man argument.

A zygote is alive. It is of human origin. It is not human life. That's the argument, idiot. The claim is no more philosophical then your claim about whether sperm/egg, the cells in my arm or the brain dead are not human life or that the zygote is.

A human zygote is a human life, it may not yet be a "person" yet per your legal/philosophical definition, but it is a human life. It's possible that its lifespan could be shortened, but it isn't anything other than a human life. This is like saying an infant isn't a human life the day before it was born... Of course it was, it was a human life all the way through its development from Zygote to birth, from infancy to child, from child... well, I think you understand, but want to continue to pretend you can't because it is hard to argue against logic without straw man arguments.

 

[evince]

x

 

[Damocles]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism#Laissez-faire_capitalism


its bullshit

Off-topic... seriously so.

 

[evince]

they were talking libertarianism.

what the fuck now you just going to non stop lie so you can ban me?

 

[evince]

My mistake I posted that in the wrong thread.

I appologise and will remove it

 

[Damocles]

they were talking libertarianism.

what the fuck now you just going to non stop lie so you can ban me?

The thread is about abortion and the difference between the legal definition and the scientific definition of a life. Apply it to that and it becomes part of the conversation, randomly dropping a link into a thread about libertarianism is seriously off topic.

 

[Damocles]

My mistake I posted that in the wrong thread.

I appologise and willk remover it

Cool.

 

[evince]

I am decent enough to admit a mistake.
try It some time

 

[Timshel]

As I said before it is a sperm or an egg, not a human life.


They can't be "a" human life. You conflate a living sperm with a living human in your attempt to build that same obvious straw man argument.



A human zygote is a human life, it may not yet be a "person" yet per your legal/philosophical definition, but it is a human life. It's possible that its lifespan could be shortened, but it isn't anything other than a human life. This is like saying an infant isn't a human life the day before it was born... Of course it was, it was a human life all the way through its development from Zygote to birth, from infancy to child, from child... well, I think you understand, but want to continue to pretend you can't because it is hard to argue against logic without straw man arguments.

No different than....

As I said, it is a zygote, not a human life.

They can't be "a" human life. You conflate a living zygote with a living human in your attempt to build that same obvious straw man argument.

...
You have done nothing to establish that the zygote is A human life where the the sperm/egg is not. You aren't using ANY logic, dumbo. You decided that twenty three matched pairs of chromosomes in a single cell are enough to define HUMANNESS. You evade the problems created by the fact that all other living human cells then meet your ridiculous notion of human life.

No one is using a strawman, other than you dumbo. Wolpert clearly stated that he does not believe the zygote is a living human just as you don't believe the sperm is a living human or presumably other living human cells (though you fail to offer any distinction between them and the zygote). You are pretending he did not and that the many other biologists I have cited do not in order to preserve your confirmation bias.

 

[Damocles]

No different than....

As I said, it is a zygote, not a human life.

And therein you are into your opinion and contrary to the actual science involved. It is a human life at that point.

They can't be "a" human life. You conflate a living zygote with a living human in your attempt to build that same obvious straw man argument.

Again, only if we ignore the actual defined moment that a human life begins could this statement be true.

...
You have done nothing to establish that the zygote is A human life where the the sperm/egg is not. You aren't using ANY logic, dumbo. You decided that twenty three matched pairs of chromosomes in a single cell are enough to define HUMANNESS. You evade the problems created by the fact that all other living human cells then meet your ridiculous notion of human life.

Actually I do not, a zygote is a complete organism while "all human cells" are not.

No one is using a strawman, other than you dumbo. Wolpert clearly stated that he does not believe the zygote is a living human just as you don't believe the sperm is a living human or presumably other living human cells (though you fail to offer any distinction between them and the zygote). You are pretending he did not and that the many other biologists I have cited do not in order to preserve your confirmation bias.

The sperm does not have the ability to develop, it is the full organism and does not have a full compliment of chromosomes. Wolpert tried to use his opinion in place of the actual definition of when the human life begins.

 

[NOVA]

HUMAN sperm and a HUMAN egg result in a HUMAN zygote, not HUMAN LIFE.

I never once said that a human zygote is not human. NOT EVER. Produce the post where I did or retract your libelous claims.
You are still conflating "alive" and "life." Human sperm and the human egg are both alive, of human origin and can not be another species. The cells that make up my arm are human and alive. A brain dead person may still have cells that are living and they are not going to become a bird. They are not human life or alive as humans. Your definition fails on multiple levels. It fails to exclude those things I would assume you would not class as human life. How do you exclude them with hard science alone?
YOU are the one that injects philosophy and pretends it is hard science, but you are inconsistent in it.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 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.
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.

Is the sperm alive and human and therefore human life?
We are not discussing the common use definitions, but even there, there is a distinction.

You are completely evading the question, because it shows your definition fails. Is sperm/egg human life? They are human and they are alive.
Definitions are imperfect and not scientifically provable.

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.

Subjective definitions are not hard science is EXACTLY the point I have been making. You added a word that is not necessary.

I acknowledge that my position includes philosophical premises though it is informed by science. You and the other pro-lifers are the ones that want to use subjective terminology while maintaining a pretense that it is now 'science.' You are all full of shit and there is no hard science that can prove your claim.

The sperm/egg is alive. Your philosophical definition of "human life" is subjective even though you make a pretense that it is now 'science.'

You are just going in circles claiming that the zygote is a unique human life because it is and a sperm/egg is not because it is not.
The sperm/egg is alive; it is human; it is genetically distinct, why isn't it "human life." Quit running away or in circles and answer the question, chickenshit. What specific thing separates the sperm from human life that is possessed by the fertilized egg?

No, I don't believe a fertilized egg equals a sperm cell. So? I don't believe a fertilized egg equals a child either.
Prior to viability the fetus removed from the womb would be as dead as the brain dead, not analogous to someone in a coma.

I have provided several that have clearly stated that the definition of life is not unequivocal, that there is NO consensus on the beginning of life and that your claims about the beginning of life, or anybody else's, necessarily involve philosophical premises.

You are clearly bereft of any knowledge on science, biology, genetics or philosophy and I am still waiting on you to provide this genetics that I deny, you science denying right wing moron. Being able to regurgitate a few trivial facts does not show you actually know what you are talking about.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

What are you going to develop into? Take the fertilized egg out of the womb and what will it develop into?

You don't what you are talking about moron. All you have are strawman arguments, ad homs and bunch of bluff.

I never once claimed that a sperm cell is equivalent to a zygote, liar.

Your only distinction is viability. It's not scientifically different than mine just less philosophically sound.

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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?

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.

Lol your entire argument is semantics you old fool. I am asking what material fact about the zygote makes it human life that does not make the sperm/egg human life.

I am asking for material facts that can be tested with hard science and you and sf are arguing semantics.
It's believed that the vast majority or at least half of the zygotes will be absorbed by the woman's body in 30 days. If they are lucky enough to implant and survive then by 60 days they will have grown and changed approaching the fetal state which is defined as being recognizable as a member of their species.

If the sperm is lucky enough to fertilize an egg, development will be at about the same point.

So your argument is viabilty or the likelihood that they will advance to the next stage same as sf's and mine. The only difference is you two are too stupid to know that.

Is the sperm/egg a parakeet prior to fertilization?

Your philosophically based definition of HUMAN life then has nothing to do with origin or being alive, but rather is about having met a certain condition, i.e., the necessary chromosomes. Mine is that they have a working brain and have the capacity to live as humans. Both are a fundamentally philosophical views of what it means to be human and to be alive. The problem with your definition though is it does not exclude the cells from my arm or the brain dead. That is, your philosphical view is rubbish.

The image is not of a zygote, you idiot. A zygote is but a single cell formed when the sperm fertilizes the ovum. That image is well past the stage of zygote. It is named 8weekfetus.jpg. You might as well say it is a sperm/egg.

The zygote won't change much if it does not survive past a few days and implant on the uterine wall. It's future development is only somewhat more likely than the sperm/egg. The point is not that it needs care but that you are simply picking a point that is still highly variable, very much dependent to chance and but one step further along in the process than the sperm/egg. It is a little closer to viability than the sperm/egg but not much and you have not established that human life has begun.

You're ignoring anything that does not support your view, which is pretty much the definition of confirmation bias. I certainly know there are some biologists, most are actively pro life, that would agree with your claims. I am not ignoring them but their word alone does not create the consensus or proof of sfs fraudulent claim that is a settled point in basic biology. You and he are full of shit.

You say the sperm/egg is human. It is alive. It is not human life? How is that?

Your philosophical definition is based on how you feel. You have decided that it is human once it has the necessary chromosomes. I don't agree and find your definition ridiculous. Again, based on that a cancerous tumor might be human life, the cells in my arm or the brain dead.

I have NEVER argued that sperm is a human being, dumbo. Of course not, since I don't argue that a zygote is. The fact that your side needs to lie and constantly misrepresent what i have clearly and consistently put forward shows the general weakness of your position.

"What I'm concerned with is how you develop", he says. "I know that you all think about it perpetually that you come from one single cell of a fertilized egg. I don't want to get involved in religion but that is not a human being. I've spoken to these eggs many times and they make it quite clear ... they are not a human being. The cells divide and the question I'm going to deal with a little bit here...how do the cells know what to do. So, how do they end up looking like ... you? It is amazing that you come from one single cell. I'm sorry to give you a lesson in embryology but you should know how you develop."

You say the sperm/egg is human. It is alive. It is not A human life? How is that? Is it parakeet life?

If the sperm/egg or zygote are not human beings then how can they be a human life? You mouth breathing morons continue to conflate "alive" with "life" and "human origin" with "human." The sperm/egg is obviously human as in of human origin. The cells in my arm or the cells of the brain dead have all the same number chromosomes as any other human cell and are or may be alive. The argument is what is HUMAN life. Not, simply, what is "human" and "alive."

A zygote is alive. It is of human origin. It is not human life. That's the argument, idiot. The claim is no more philosophical then your claim that the sperm/egg, the cells in my arm or the brain dead are not human life or that the zygote is.

No different than....

As I said, it is a zygote, not a human life.

They can't be "a" human life. You conflate a living zygote with a living human in your attempt to build that same obvious straw man argument.

...
You have done nothing to establish that the zygote is A human life where the the sperm/egg is not. You aren't using ANY logic, dumbo. You decided that twenty three matched pairs of chromosomes in a single cell are enough to define HUMANNESS. You evade the problems created by the fact that all other living human cells then meet your ridiculous notion of human life.

No one is using a strawman, other than you dumbo. Wolpert clearly stated that he does not believe the zygote is a living human just as you don't believe the sperm is a living human or presumably other living human cells (though you fail to offer any distinction between them and the zygote). You are pretending he did not and that the many other biologists I have cited do not in order to preserve your confirmation bias.

Wolpert clearly stated that he does not believe the zygote is a living human?...maybe he thinks its a living parakeet...or maybe its not really alive yet....lmao.....

What a fantastic collection of mumbo jumbo, contradictions, circular logic and convoluted reasoning.....

He asks the same question over and over and over, "Why is the label zygote distinct from sperm or egg? Both are alive and human" and gets it answered
over and over and over then ignores the posts and asks it again.
Trying desperately to make someone say the sperm or egg alone, constitute a human life, and failing every time....its actually comical to re-read the thread and note the questions, answers and especially the strawmen accusations he makes, usually in the same post where he creates his very own....

 

[NOVA]

http://www.all.org/abac/dni003.htm

Brief background on the accurate human embryological facts:

Understanding just a few basic human embryological terms accurately can considerably clarify the drastic difference between the "scientific" myths that are currently circulating throughout the literature, and the actual objective scientific facts. This would include such basic terms as: "gametogenesis," "oogenesis," "spermatogenesis," "fertilization," "zygote," "embryo" and "blastocyst." Only brief scientific descriptions will be given here for these terms. Further, more complicated, details can be obtained by investigating any well-established human embryology textbook in the library, such as some of those referenced below. Please note that the scientific facts presented here are not simply a matter of my own opinion. They are direct quotes and references from some of the most highly respected human embryology textbooks, and represent a consensus of human embryologists internationally.

To begin with, scientifically something very dramatic occurs between the processes of gametogenesis and fertilization - the change from two simple PARTS of a human being, i.e., a sperm and an oocyte (usually referred to as an "ovum" or "egg"), which simply possess "human life" into a new, genetically unique, newly existing, individual, live human BEING, an embryonic single-cell human zygote. That is, parts of a human being have actually been transformed into something very different from what they were before; they have been changed into a single, whole human being. During this process, the sperm and the oocyte cease to exist, and a new human being is produced.

Also, note O'Rahilly's statement that the use of terms such as "ovum" and "egg" - which would include the term "fertilized egg" - is scientifically incorrect, has no objective correlate in reality, and is therefore very misleading - especially in these present discussions. Thus these terms themselves would qualify as "scientific myths." The commonly used term, "fertilized egg," is especially very misleading, since there is really no longer an egg (or oocyte) once fertilization has begun. A "fertilized egg" is a human being.

This new single-cell human being immediately produces specifically human proteins and enzymes (not carrot or frog enzymes and proteins), and directs his/her own growth and development (in fact this growth and development has been proven not to be directed by the mother). Finally, this new human being - the single-cell human zygote - is biologically an individual, a living organism - an individual member of the human species.

 

[Timshel]

And therein you are into your opinion and contrary to the actual science involved. It is a human life at that point.

Again, only if we ignore the actual defined moment that a human life begins could this statement be true.

Actually I do not, a zygote is a complete organism while "all human cells" are not.

The sperm does not have the ability to develop, it is the full organism and does not have a full compliment of chromosomes. Wolpert tried to use his opinion in place of the actual definition of when the human life begins.

And therein (that the sperm is not a human life) you are into your opinion and contrary to the actual science involved. The zygote is no more a human life than the sperm/egg.

There is no clearly defined moment when life begins. There is no experiment that you can create to test your hypothesis because it is not science. It is a philosophical definition.

The zygote is not a complete human organism. Human's are mutli cellular and the zygote is but a single cell.

The sperm will develop if put in the right environment to do so. Same as the zygote. The same as a single cell of your arm if cloned. None of them can or will develop alone. None of them can maintain homeostasis in the environments in which the human species lives and thrives.

You are using YOUR opinion on when life begins and claim that you know more about biology than Wolpert. It's laughable and you are absurd. Again, the full compliment of chromosomes are present in every cell or the brain dead.