You didn't answer my question, but I'll answer yours anyway- no, human sperms don't have heartbeats.
Abortion
- Thread starter Scott
- Start date
You didn't answer my question, but I'll answer yours anyway- no, human sperms don't have heartbeats.
Because it's my belief that life begins at "conception" (fertilization).Why? A frozen embryo doesn't yet have a heartbeat. You have to wait at least 16 days after conception for that to happen:
First of our three billion heartbeats is sooner than we thought | University of Oxford
When does our heart first start to beat? Until now, researchers thought that the first time our heart muscle contracted to beat was at eight days after conception in mice, which equates to around day 21 of a human pregnancy.www.ox.ac.uk
You don't really believe that do you? We may argue about how the term "living human" should be defined, but you can't deny that human sperms and eggs are very much alive.
Have you ever wondered why IBD doesn't share your and ItN's view that living humans begin at conception?
Not sure how you came to that conclusion. Care to show your work?
I'm not sure what you find amusing. For the audience, here's what gfm snipped out:
**
The term haploid is used with two distinct but related definitions. In the most generic sense, haploid refers to having the number of sets of chromosomes normally found in a gamete. Because two gametes necessarily combine during sexual reproduction to form a single zygote from which somatic cells are generated, healthy gametes always possess exactly half the number of sets of chromosomes found in the somatic cells, and therefore "haploid" in this sense refers to having exactly half the number of sets of chromosomes found in a somatic cell. By this definition, an organism whose gametic cells contain a single copy of each chromosome (one set of chromosomes) may be considered haploid while the somatic cells, containing two copies of each chromosome (two sets of chromosomes), are diploid.
**
Source:
Ploidy - Wikipedia
Do urine and feces have the potential of developing into babies that are born?
You clearly don't. I suspect part of the reason is that you didn't read what I had to say after the sentence you quoted. For the audience, feel free to take a look at my post #610, wherein I go into great detail as to the vast tome of knowledge that is wordnik.com, which is a dictionary aggregator.
The term living, unlike "living human", is already well defined in dictionaries. I think the first definition of the word over at wordnik.com is quite apt for our conversation:
**
Possessing life.
**
Source:
From there, it's a quick jump to their first definition for life:
**
The property or quality that distinguishes living organisms from dead organisms and inanimate matter, manifested in functions such as metabolism, growth, reproduction, and response to stimuli or adaptation to the environment originating from within the organism.
**
Source:
I hope you noted that there is no condition that a living organism needs to have a heartbeat in order to qualify as being alive.
You've raised the bar: I said that human sperm were living and human. I never said that sperm were an organisms. By the way, saying individual organism appears to be redundant, as organisms are apparently individual by default:
**
An organism is any living thing that functions as an individual.[1]
**
Source:
Organism - Wikipedia
On another point, a zygote may have the 2 complete sets of chromosomes to form a new organism, but without a fertile female's body, it will never turn into a baby that's born. In that sense, it's exactly like a sperm- it requires other components in order to become a born baby.
IBDaMann
Well-known member
Your question uses the word "potential" which calls for speculation and can be properly answered with either a "yes" or a "no."
Let's try a different question: are sperm/urine/feces/spit excreted by humans, without heartbeats, and organic in nature?
IBDaMann
Well-known member
Sperm have no beating heart. Sperm do not have complete genetic material.
You are supposed to call booooolsch't on this kind of stupidity. Yes, one can analyze a group of organisms, or analyze them individually.
That's a question of technology. Nonetheless, the "dependency" you reference is irrelevant.
On an identical point, you may have deliberately racked up an inconvenient debt, but without you actively paying it. it will never actually be paid.
IBDaMann
Well-known member
I do get it. You clearly don't.
Either list all the errors in that dictionary or stipulate that it is awash in errors.
I agree that they are components. I think we can agree that they are necessary ones. Furthermore, a zygote is also a component. Without a fertile female's body to grown in, or perhaps super expensive technology, it can go no further.
I'm not completely sure. I think your answer is yes, but I'd like to confirm.
I think this is a roundabout way of saying that IBD wouldn't consider it to be murder. Am I right?
If you're saying that most illegal abortions occur when a pregnant female requests an abortion from someone who isn't legally allowed to provide one in the location it's performed, sure.
I have, though it's quite possible that I hadn't yet done so when you wrote your statement. My definition of a living human encompasses all stages of human development, from human sperms and eggs and ends with elderly humans.
Yes, I have.
I suspect we may have to agree to disagree here.
I should have said that your claim that I "refuse to engage in the discussion" was not an observation, but an unsubstantiated assertion.
First of all, I didn't look at a single dictionary's definition, I looked at several. -None- of them used the k word. Secondly, we can all speculate whatever we like, but I've seen no evidence that any of the dictionary definitions for abortion that I've seen were trying to appeal to some "politically rabid" crowd.
I've never seen anyone on the "pro-life" side say there's been a "post birth abortion". What I -have- seen them do repeatedly is attempt to muddy the waters by claiming that people who perform abortions are killers and murderers. This only makes sense if performing an abortion is regularly defined as killing or murdering and I've pointed out repeatedly that I've found no dictionary that supports this assertion.
You and I both do.Setting aside your distrust of leftists, do you even have any evidence that the statistics in questions were done by people on the left?Nope. Leftists routinely fabricate statistics, and when they don't, leftists don't disclose the problem's in the underlying data.Agreed. You can certainly respect them though.Nope. I can't cross-examine statisticsI can't, but I can certainly cite some sobering statistics about their children:Sure. Bring me the millions of parents.Tell that to the millions of parents whose young children die each year. For the audience, the statistics on this are quite clear, as I mentioned in my previous post:
Child and Infant Mortality
Child mortality remains one of the world’s largest problems and is a painful reminder of work yet to be done. With global data on where, when, and how child deaths occur, we can accelerate efforts to prevent them.ourworldindata.org
**
Child mortality is one of the world’s largest problems. Around 6 million children under 15 die per year. That’s around 16,000 deaths every day, or 11 every minute.
This devastating statistic reveals the vast number of children whose lives end before they can discover their talents, passions, and dreams as they grow older – and represents the impact of child mortality on so many people’s lives: parents, siblings, families, and communities.
What’s tragic is how many of these deaths are preventable. Most are caused by malnutrition, birth conditions such as preterm birth, sepsis and trauma [snip]
**
Source:
Child and Infant Mortality
Child mortality remains one of the world’s largest problems and is a painful reminder of work yet to be done. With global data on where, when, and how child deaths occur, we can accelerate efforts to prevent them.
Yet another unsubstantiated assertion.