wow Darla has the cutest voice ever

Superfreak said:
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.
Click to expand...

1. I said you are NOT a faux christian, just that you are acting like one.
2. Yes, yes, DNA is unique, doesn't prove when life starts, dumbass.
 
Hasa Diga Eebowai said:
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.
Click to expand...
Now your the one playing semantics. Reproduction is reproduction whether it occurs at a cellular level or an organismic level, it still meets one of the conditions of being defined as "alive" as it meets the other conditions of being defined as alive.

Or to use an another argument. A Horse bred to a donkey can not reproduce either a horse or a donkey. Are you then telling me a mule isn't alive and that the horse and donkey haven't reproduced cause they did not reproduce another horse or donkey?

Your argument is silly.
 
Well at least this thread has made that grand political turn form Darla's voice to abortion. I don't who is responsible for that; but f I had my druthers I would rather be talking about the particular tenor of Darla's seductive vocal chords than some zygote of unknown origin, because her vocal chords definitely have some life in them.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
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?
Click to expand...

It did not say "human life" it just said "life."

But it does not meet all the conditions. It can't yet sustain it's existence. Separated from the mother it will not gain that ability. And, again, your definition is not unequivocal.

Still, I would not bother arguing that it is not alive, in a certain sense of the word. I really don't care about what is useful for biology. In the sense that is useful for legal protections and medical care it is not yet life anymore than my arm is life or a human life. It is alive cellularly but its not yet alive as a human organism.
 
Hasa Diga Eebowai said:
Still, I would not bother arguing that it is not alive, in a certain sense of the word.
Click to expand...

every sense of the word. if you don't agree, you are wrong. simple.

I really don't care about what is useful for biology.
Click to expand...

= I don't care about facts

In the sense that is useful for legal protections and medical care it is not yet life anymore than my arm is life or a human life. It is alive cellularly but its not yet alive as a human organism.
Click to expand...

separate argument. if you want to talk about personhood, that's all you have to say.
 
Ghost of Watermark said:
every sense of the word. if you don't agree, you are wrong. simple.

= I don't care about facts

separate argument. if you want to talk about personhood, that's all you have to say.
Click to expand...

Bullshit. You sound like your daddy, Nova Jr. A definition is not a fact. It's just an attempt to describe something. The biological definition of life is, AGAIN, not unequivocal and does not work in every context. There are NO reputable biologists that do not acknowledge THIS fact. I have shown repeatedly the many difficulties of defining the word and the acceptance of the difficulties within the scientific community.
 
Last edited:
Hasa Diga Eebowai said:
It did not say "human life" it just said "life."

But it does not meet all the conditions. It can't yet sustain it's existence. Separated from the mother it will not gain that ability. And, again, your definition is not unequivocal.

Still, I would not bother arguing that it is not alive, in a certain sense of the word. I really don't care about what is useful for biology. In the sense that is useful for legal protections and medical care it is not yet life anymore than my arm is life or a human life. It is alive cellularly but its not yet alive as a human organism.
Click to expand...
Actually it's "has an ability to sustain existence" which it does. Viability is not a precondition in the definition.

The real reason that there isn't a scientific consensus as to when life begins is that it's not the way biologist look at life. We don't see life as a start/stop point. We see it as a long evolving process over vast periods of time. We see life as a continuum. Even in individual sexual reproduction there is no dead phase. There is no non-life phase. The sperm and ovum are alive, the zygote is alive, the fetus is alive, the mother nourishing the fetus is alive all parts of the evolving process through viability are alive. So when does life start when all parts of the life process are alive to begin with? Science can't really say cause it's all alive to begin with. At no time during this process is their a dead point or non-life unless that is...you're dead. Then that particular process has stopped but the continuum of life goes on. So from a scientific standpoint it makes more sense and is more predictable to model life as a continuum than as a series of stop, start points, which it really isn't.

It's like asking 'When did planet Earth begin?" Astronomers and Geologist can't really give a definitive answer cause there was no specific start/stop point. It was a long evolving process and the planet now is not the planet it was a few billion years ago. Earth just didn't happen in one specific moment.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Actually it's "has an ability to sustain existence" which it does. Viability is not a precondition in the definition.

The real reason that there isn't a scientific consensus as to when life begins is that it's not the way biologist look at life. We don't see life as a start/stop point. We see it as a long evolving process over vast periods of time. We see life as a continuum. Even in individual sexual reproduction there is no dead phase. There is no non-life phase. The sperm and ovum are alive, the zygote is alive, the fetus is alive, the mother nourishing the fetus is alive all parts of the evolving process through viability are alive. So when does life start when all parts of the life process are alive to begin with? Science can't really say cause it's all alive to begin with. At no time during this process is their a dead point or non-life unless that is...you're dead. Then that particular process has stopped but the continuum of life goes on. So from a scientific standpoint it makes more sense and is more predictable to model life as a continuum than as a series of stop, start points, which it really isn't.

It's like asking 'When did planet Earth begin?" Astronomers and Geologist can't really give a definitive answer cause there was no specific start/stop point. It was a long evolving process and the planet now is not the planet it was a few billion years ago. Earth just didn't happen in one specific moment.
Click to expand...

It can not sustain its existence. The mother sustains it.

Again, there is a problem here conflating the adjective with the noun. All of those things are alive but they are not all life according to the definition you previously gave. It is only clearly life, according to your definition, once it becomes viable.

I fully agree its a continuing process with no clear markers which is why it is virtually impossible to unequivocally define life or the beginning of life with science alone. SF (and Nova's simple boy) want there to be some black and white answer and there is not.
 
Yep, Mott is lost in moot points and dictionary definitions, simplefreak is reading from some GOP playbook handed out at the last retard meeting and Grind is stoned out of his mind.
 
Threedee said:
And Rune is firing more bullets into the crowd than Zimmermann.
Click to expand...

Do you remember how he was always boasting about his 99th percentile IQ? Can you actually recall any posts where that alleged intelligence has manifested itself to such a degree that you've said "wow, that guy is a real propeller head"?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top