Another thread wherein I embarrass superstupid

Timshel

New member
Answer the simple questions...

1) If a human egg cell and human sperm cell combine... can the end result be anything other than human?

2) If after the fertilization, the egg implants and it continues to grow and develop, can it be anything other than alive?

That is the base science... that is the hard science. It is black and white on both of those issues. It is simple.

Where you get confused is when you inject the philosophical or legal into the equation. Neither of which is based on hard science.

Here you go little baby.

I will in good faith respond to your questions but it will not continue past that until you make a specific claim with references about what genetics I have denied.

There is no confusion or disagreement about the hard science related to your questions. The disagreement and YOUR confusion come in to play when YOU attempt to inject philosophical arguments into the equation to form a definition on life and conclusions on when it begins.

Regarding question 1.... I would argue that the immediate result of the human egg and human sperm is NEVER human life. It may become human life.

Regarding question 2.... I have not argued that the fetus is not alive. You are AGAIN, conflating "alive" with "life." Doing so is bad semantics (which is ALL you have got) and shows your philosophic and scientific incompetence. Your arm is alive. It's not life. Not by any stretch. A virus is alive. Some argue it is life but most say it is not or is at the edges of life.
 
Here you go little baby.

I will in good faith respond to your questions but it will not continue past that until you make a specific claim with references about what genetics I have denied.

There is no confusion or disagreement about the hard science related to your questions. The disagreement and YOUR confusion come in to play when YOU attempt to inject philosophical arguments into the equation to form a definition on life and conclusions on when it begins.

Regarding question 1.... I would argue that the immediate result of the human egg and human sperm is NEVER human life. It may become human life.

Regarding question 2.... I have not argued that the fetus is not alive. You are AGAIN, conflating "alive" with "life." Doing so is bad semantics (which is ALL you have got) and shows your philosophic and scientific incompetence. Your arm is alive. It's not life. Not by any stretch. A virus is alive. Some argue it is life but most say it is not or is at the edges of life.

Poor Supercandy.
 
Here you go little baby.

I will in good faith respond to your questions but it will not continue past that until you make a specific claim with references about what genetics I have denied.

There is no confusion or disagreement about the hard science related to your questions. The disagreement and YOUR confusion come in to play when YOU attempt to inject philosophical arguments into the equation to form a definition on life and conclusions on when it begins.

Regarding question 1.... I would argue that the immediate result of the human egg and human sperm is NEVER human life. It may become human life.

Regarding question 2.... I have not argued that the fetus is not alive. You are AGAIN, conflating "alive" with "life." Doing so is bad semantics (which is ALL you have got) and shows your philosophic and scientific incompetence. Your arm is alive. It's not life. Not by any stretch. A virus is alive. Some argue it is life but most say it is not or is at the edges of life.

LMAO... funny how you refuse to answer the questions. You did not answer in good faith, you once again decided to spin this into your PHILISOPHICAL 'when does life begin'.

As I said, that is what you do EVERY TIME. You ignore the questions completely and spin away into some philosophical debate. You do this because you KNOW you are wrong.

HARD SCIENCE DOES DEFINE WHEN LIFE STARTS.

HARD SCIENCE DOES DEFINE IF SOMETHING IS HUMAN OR NOT.

BUT YOU AGAIN, LIKE THE COWARD YOU ARE, RUN AWAY.

Which is why you refuse to answer the questions.
 
Answer the simple questions...

1) If a human egg cell and human sperm cell combine... can the end result be anything other than human?

2) If after the fertilization, the egg implants and it continues to grow and develop, can it be anything other than alive?

quite running String... answer the above questions. Don't make up your own questions and then answer them.
 
LMAO... funny how you refuse to answer the questions. You did not answer in good faith, you once again decided to spin this into your PHILISOPHICAL 'when does life begin'.

As I said, that is what you do EVERY TIME. You ignore the questions completely and spin away into some philosophical debate. You do this because you KNOW you are wrong.

HARD SCIENCE DOES DEFINE WHEN LIFE STARTS.

HARD SCIENCE DOES DEFINE IF SOMETHING IS HUMAN OR NOT.

BUT YOU AGAIN, LIKE THE COWARD YOU ARE, RUN AWAY.

Which is why you refuse to answer the questions.


I absolutely answered both questions.

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

Hard science does NOT define when life begins. Where are your references for this silly claim? What experiment can be done to prove your claim?

You are too stupid to understand that YOU are making a philosophical claim. Definitions are not facts or isolated and singular bits of data. They are abstract and imperfect concepts that attempt to convey meaning about complicated subjects. Life might be one of the most complicated. Using science and philosophy biologists still struggle and come up short in formulating an unequivocal definition of what life is.

Where are these specific genetics that I deny?
 
HUMAN sperm and a HUMAN egg result in a HUMAN zygote, not HUMAN LIFE.

Hard science does NOT define when life begins.

???....life is pretty easy to identify, as is death.....no scientist in the world would agree with these claims.....you are free to say you don't give a fuck about the zygote but you are an idiot if you deny that it is alive......
 
I absolutely answered both questions.

No, you did not. You ducked the question before...

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

So you agree that it can not be another species. Good, you are half way there. But you try to divert to a STAGE in a human's development and pretend that it is not alive. If it is human and alive it IS genetically speaking... A HUMAN LIFE. Period. ALL other discussion about what is a 'life' is either philosophical or legal. There is NO denying based on genetics that it is human and alive and thus a human life.

Hard science does NOT define when life begins. Where are your references for this silly claim? What experiment can be done to prove your claim?

You are too stupid to understand that YOU are making a philosophical claim. Definitions are not facts or isolated and singular bits of data. They are abstract and imperfect concepts that attempt to convey meaning about complicated subjects. Life might be one of the most complicated. Using science and philosophy biologists still struggle and come up short in formulating an unequivocal definition of what life is.

LMAO... you again duck the second question because you know the answer. The answer is that something can either be alive or dead. If it is alive and human, it is a human life based on GENETICS. Pure nonsense. Hard science absolutely determines when life begins. It is the SOFT science that is subjective.

YOU are the one that injects the philosophical and then pretends that is a hard science.

Where are these specific genetics that I deny?

You just did it. Genetically... a human sperm cell combines with a human egg cell... upon fertilization, the unique DNA of a unique Human Life begins to form. That genetic coding formation is complete within hours of fertilization. Yet you still pretend that it is not a human life. You call it a zygote/fetus etc... at no time can you show (genetically speaking) that it is not human or alive.

So tell us string... if something is human and alive... how the fuck do you justify saying it isn't a human life? (again, speaking genetically)
 
No, you did not. You ducked the question before...

So you agree that it can not be another species. Good, you are half way there. But you try to divert to a STAGE in a human's development and pretend that it is not alive. If it is human and alive it IS genetically speaking... A HUMAN LIFE. Period. ALL other discussion about what is a 'life' is either philosophical or legal. There is NO denying based on genetics that it is human and alive and thus a human life.

LMAO... you again duck the second question because you know the answer. The answer is that something can either be alive or dead. If it is alive and human, it is a human life based on GENETICS. Pure nonsense. Hard science absolutely determines when life begins. It is the SOFT science that is subjective.

YOU are the one that injects the philosophical and then pretends that is a hard science.

You just did it. Genetically... a human sperm cell combines with a human egg cell... upon fertilization, the unique DNA of a unique Human Life begins to form. That genetic coding formation is complete within hours of fertilization. Yet you still pretend that it is not a human life. You call it a zygote/fetus etc... at no time can you show (genetically speaking) that it is not human or alive.

So tell us string... if something is human and alive... how the fuck do you justify saying it isn't a human life? (again, speaking genetically)

I have not ducked anything, moron.

When are you going to answer? Where have I denied genetics? 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.
 
Again, where are your references to the hard science that supports your claim on the beginning of life? What experiment can I do that will separate the point where life begins from before it begins and after death?

Why are you running freak? If what you claim is true then it should be simple to answer.
 
I have not ducked anything, moron.

When are you going to answer? Where have I denied genetics? 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.

Yet you claim it is not a human life (in terms of biology/genetics). That is absurd.

Tell me moron... where have I injected philosophy?

I can tell you where you do it consistently... you constantly say that biologists do not agree on when a life begins because of viability/philosophy/legality etc... all SUBJECTIVE and not hard science.

So tell me... where have I injected philosophy?

I am telling you that basic biology and genetics spell it out in BLACK AND WHITE. There is no subjective. So how can philosophy, which is highly subjective, be a part of that statement?
 
Again, where are your references to the hard science that supports your claim on the beginning of life? What experiment can I do that will separate the point where life begins from before it begins and after death?

Why are you running freak? If what you claim is true then it should be simple to answer.

Are you that fucking retarded? I have spelled it out for you numerous times... try to pay attention this time.

A human LIFE begins when the human sperm cell fertilizes the human egg cell. At that point the formation of the unique human life begins. Within hours the genetic coding of a unique human life exists in completion.

There is no point, NONE... that the unique human life exists prior to that point. After that, there is no point... NONE, that the unique human life does not exist. NONE.
 
Are you that fucking retarded? I have spelled it out for you numerous times... try to pay attention this time.

A human LIFE begins when the human sperm cell fertilizes the human egg cell. At that point the formation of the unique human life begins. Within hours the genetic coding of a unique human life exists in completion.

There is no point, NONE... that the unique human life exists prior to that point. After that, there is no point... NONE, that the unique human life does not exist. NONE.


Good evening Superfreak. I have been gone all day, I don't know if you noticed? I am enjoying this debate. I have been thanking String's posts because I agree with him and also because I know it has a devastating psychological effect on you.
 
Good evening Superfreak. I have been gone all day, I don't know if you noticed? I am enjoying this debate. I have been thanking String's posts because I agree with him and also because I know it has a devastating psychological effect on you.

Nope... I was gone most of the day too, so don't cry that you weren't missed. I had not noticed that you had thanked Strings error filled posts, but now that you informed me, I shall immediately become devastatingly depressed.
 
Are you that fucking retarded? I have spelled it out for you numerous times... try to pay attention this time.

A human LIFE begins when the human sperm cell fertilizes the human egg cell. At that point the formation of the unique human life begins. Within hours the genetic coding of a unique human life exists in completion.

There is no point, NONE... that the unique human life exists prior to that point. After that, there is no point... NONE, that the unique human life does not exist. NONE.

You answered nothing. If you are too CHICKENSHIT to have a two way discussion where questions are asked and answered from both sides then you forfeit. I answered your questions you have completely failed to even address mine. I will give you another chance. Try not to completely dodge them this time.

Again, why isn't the human sperm cell human life? Is it not human? Is it not alive? The egg? My arm? The brain dead?

Where have I denied genetics?

Where are your references to support your claim and what experiments can we do to validate it?
 
Where are your references for this silly claim?

http://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/embryoquotes2.html

Life Begins at Fertilization
The following references illustrate the fact that a new human embryo, the starting point for a human life, comes into existence with the formation of the one-celled zygote:




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Development of the embryo begins at Stage 1 when a sperm fertilizes an oocyte and together they form a zygote."
[England, Marjorie A. Life Before Birth. 2nd ed. England: Mosby-Wolfe, 1996, p.31]


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Human development begins after the union of male and female gametes or germ cells during a process known as fertilization (conception).
"Fertilization is a sequence of events that begins with the contact of a sperm (spermatozoon) with a secondary oocyte (ovum) and ends with the fusion of their pronuclei (the haploid nuclei of the sperm and ovum) and the mingling of their chromosomes to form a new cell. This fertilized ovum, known as a zygote, is a large diploid cell that is the beginning, or primordium, of a human being."
[Moore, Keith L. Essentials of Human Embryology. Toronto: B.C. Decker Inc, 1988, p.2]


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Embryo: the developing organism from the time of fertilization until significant differentiation has occurred, when the organism becomes known as a fetus."
[Cloning Human Beings. Report and Recommendations of the National Bioethics Advisory Commission. Rockville, MD: GPO, 1997, Appendix-2.]


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Embryo: An organism in the earliest stage of development; in a man, from the time of conception to the end of the second month in the uterus."
[Dox, Ida G. et al. The Harper Collins Illustrated Medical Dictionary. New York: Harper Perennial, 1993, p. 146]


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Embryo: The early developing fertilized egg that is growing into another individual of the species. In man the term 'embryo' is usually restricted to the period of development from fertilization until the end of the eighth week of pregnancy."
[Walters, William and Singer, Peter (eds.). Test-Tube Babies. Melbourne: Oxford University Press, 1982, p. 160]


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"The development of a human being begins with fertilization, a process by which two highly specialized cells, the spermatozoon from the male and the oocyte from the female, unite to give rise to a new organism, the zygote."
[Langman, Jan. Medical Embryology. 3rd edition. Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins, 1975, p. 3]


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Embryo: The developing individual between the union of the germ cells and the completion of the organs which characterize its body when it becomes a separate organism.... At the moment the sperm cell of the human male meets the ovum of the female and the union results in a fertilized ovum (zygote), a new life has begun.... The term embryo covers the several stages of early development from conception to the ninth or tenth week of life."
[Considine, Douglas (ed.). Van Nostrand's Scientific Encyclopedia. 5th edition. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, 1976, p. 943]


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"I would say that among most scientists, the word 'embryo' includes the time from after fertilization..."
[Dr. John Eppig, Senior Staff Scientist, Jackson Laboratory (Bar Harbor, Maine) and Member of the NIH Human Embryo Research Panel -- Panel Transcript, February 2, 1994, p. 31]


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"The development of a human begins with fertilization, a process by which the spermatozoon from the male and the oocyte from the female unite to give rise to a new organism, the zygote."
[Sadler, T.W. Langman's Medical Embryology. 7th edition. Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins 1995, p. 3]


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"The question came up of what is an embryo, when does an embryo exist, when does it occur. I think, as you know, that in development, life is a continuum.... But I think one of the useful definitions that has come out, especially from Germany, has been the stage at which these two nuclei [from sperm and egg] come together and the membranes between the two break down."
[Jonathan Van Blerkom of University of Colorado, expert witness on human embryology before the NIH Human Embryo Research Panel -- Panel Transcript, February 2, 1994, p. 63]


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Zygote. This cell, formed by the union of an ovum and a sperm (Gr. zyg tos, yoked together), represents the beginning of a human being. The common expression 'fertilized ovum' refers to the zygote."
[Moore, Keith L. and Persaud, T.V.N. Before We Are Born: Essentials of Embryology and Birth Defects. 4th edition. Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Company, 1993, p. 1]


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"The chromosomes of the oocyte and sperm are...respectively enclosed within female and male pronuclei. These pronuclei fuse with each other to produce the single, diploid, 2N nucleus of the fertilized zygote. This moment of zygote formation may be taken as the beginning or zero time point of embryonic development."
[Larsen, William J. Human Embryology. 2nd edition. New York: Churchill Livingstone, 1997, p. 17]


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Although life is a continuous process, fertilization is a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new, genetically distinct human organism is thereby formed.... The combination of 23 chromosomes present in each pronucleus results in 46 chromosomes in the zygote. Thus the diploid number is restored and the embryonic genome is formed. The embryo now exists as a genetic unity."
[O'Rahilly, Ronan and M�ller, Fabiola. Human Embryology & Teratology. 2nd edition. New York: Wiley-Liss, 1996, pp. 8, 29. This textbook lists "pre-embryo" among "discarded and replaced terms" in modern embryology, describing it as "ill-defined and inaccurate" (p. 12}]


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Almost all higher animals start their lives from a single cell, the fertilized ovum (zygote)... The time of fertilization represents the starting point in the life history, or ontogeny, of the individual."
[Carlson, Bruce M. Patten's Foundations of Embryology. 6th edition. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1996, p. 3]


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"[A]nimal biologists use the term embryo to describe the single cell stage, the two-cell stage, and all subsequent stages up until a time when recognizable humanlike limbs and facial features begin to appear between six to eight weeks after fertilization....
"[A] number of specialists working in the field of human reproduction have suggested that we stop using the word embryo to describe the developing entity that exists for the first two weeks after fertilization. In its place, they proposed the term pre-embryo....
"I'll let you in on a secret. The term pre-embryo has been embraced wholeheartedly by IVF practitioners for reasons that are political, not scientific. The new term is used to provide the illusion that there is something profoundly different between what we nonmedical biologists still call a six-day-old embryo and what we and everyone else call a sixteen-day-old embryo.
"The term pre-embryo is useful in the political arena -- where decisions are made about whether to allow early embryo (now called pre-embryo) experimentation -- as well as in the confines of a doctor's office, where it can be used to allay moral concerns that might be expressed by IVF patients. 'Don't worry,' a doctor might say, 'it's only pre-embryos that we're manipulating or freezing. They won't turn into real human embryos until after we've put them back into your body.'"
[Silver, Lee M. Remaking Eden: Cloning and Beyond in a Brave New World. New York: Avon Books, 1997, p. 39]
 
Back
Top