Good proof simpleton, and no, we don't know when human life begins, you just think you do.
wow Darla has the cutest voice ever
- Thread starter evince
- Start date
Good proof simpleton, and no, we don't know when human life begins, you just think you do.
This is the semantics part. Moot.
You are attempting to move the goal posts. It is not viable and cannot sustain its life. Outside the mother this impairment is not temporary. It is dead just like the brain dead.
You lost.
Mott the Hoople
Sweet Jane
I don't know if I would say it's "bullshit" and it's not what I'm spouting. I'm pointing out a fact that there is no scientific consensus as to at what exact moment in time or development that a life form (e.g. human life) begins. I'm just one biologist. I can't speak for all of them.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
No... he is diverting from actual hard science to soft science. Going from genetics/biology to philosophy. Of course it is a process... but it does have an origin as well. It is not perpetual throughout time unless you get into the PHILISOPHICAL aspect. The unique human dna sequence does not exist prior to fertilization of the egg cell. Upon fertilization, the process begins. Within 12 hours the process of the development of the unique human dna sequence forming is complete.
Are you an MD or a glorified bookkeeper? Just as I thought a bookkeeper, so shut the fuck up about human biology. Parroting Rush Limbagh is not debating Simplefreak.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
and again... when you say that are you drifting into the soft science side of it? The philosophical? Or are you actually stating that as a biologist you don't know when the unique human life forms... genetically speaking?
Mott the Hoople
Sweet Jane
No it is not semantics. Please explain to me how a zygote is not alive? It is very much alive at the cellular level. Is it a life? On that there is no scientific consensus.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
Is that your answer to everything you don't understand? Blame Rush limbaugh?
LMAO... you can bow out of the conversation at any time moron.
I understand that you have no proof whatsoever of your claims, yet you stand by them on blind faith alone, like one of the board's many right wing faux christians, but since you are not a faux christian, you are clearly parroting someone, because you sure as fuck didn't come up with this argument on your own.
The real question is why your partisanship drives you to such idiocy.
Taken out of the mother prior to viability there is a scientific consensus that it is dead. That's a big part of the reason why there is no consensus on whether it is a life form.
Last edited:
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
Genetically speaking... does it have the dna coding of a unique human life?
Damnit Mott you are such a dweeb sometimes. The questions isn't whether a zygote is living or not, and you know it.
No, you misrepresented your source.
That is not what they mean by the condition that it be capable of reproducing. But it can't reproduce other humans. It can only reproduce other cells. One could use that to argue that it is then not yet human, but I would not because the whole line implies that life does not begin until puberty or much much later for grind.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
1) I am agnostic... my position is based on genetics, not on religion
2) I do have proof... it is called genetics. Notice no one disputes that the fetus is a unique human life form due to its DNA sequencing? That is because it is a genetic FACT.
Mott the Hoople
Sweet Jane
Yes....that's what I am saying. It's not as simple as you think to make that determination. A lot of genetic variation occurs in this process of which some estimated 70% of it isn't viable. If a nonviable fertilization results in a zygote that has 24 chromosomal pairs is that human? Is that human life? As a biologist I can't answer that question. So to say that a human life has begun at fertilization is difficult to say. It might be and it might not be. That is why there is no consensus in regards to it being "a human life". There is no argument though that the resulting tissue is alive.
Mott the Hoople
Sweet Jane
No I have not misrepresented my source. You are simply not understanding what I am saying. You are arguing on identifying the beginning of a specific life form at fertilization for which there is no scientific consensus. I am in complete agreement there.
Now pay attention here. I am saying that at the end of a successful fertilization process and "THE BEGINNING" of development that this tissue is ALIVE. That's an undisputed fact. Something has began which is alive. There is broad, near universal, consensus here. Do you dispute that a zygote is alive when it meets all the conditions of being "alive" referenced from my source?
Mott the Hoople
Sweet Jane
Well the genetic argument is true if the resulting fertilization results in a normal human diploid pairing of 23 chromosomes. The problem is that only happens in a minority of fertilizations. Then after fertilization embryonic DNA can change based on the mothers diet or illness. When these changes occur and they are non viable is that a human life? To complicate it further what if the genetics of the resulting zygote are normal but the zygote is not viable for embryological reasons, is that a human life? I can't give you a definite yes or no answer.
it's not hard to be specific when talking about something. if you want to say "personhood" or "human being", then say those things. Otherwise you muddy the waters or sound ignorant. a zygote is life. a fetus is life. period.