Another thread wherein I embarrass superstupid

Hasa Diga Eebowai said:
No, of course that is not my definition.

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.
Click to expand...


LMAO... viability has no bearing on when life begins.

Is it dead before it is viable?
 
Hasa Diga Eebowai said:
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.

You did not answer the question. 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's not biology. Science does not tell us what words mean within our language.
Click to expand...

"Why is the label zygote distinct from sperm or egg? Both are alive and human."

...It was you that claimed "HUMAN sperm and a HUMAN egg result in a HUMAN zygote, not HUMAN LIFE. "

Try again.

You claim a difference between the meanings of "alive" with "life."

a·live (ə-līv′)adj.1. Having life; living.

life (līf)n. pl. lives (līvz) 1. a. The property or quality that distinguishes living organisms from dead organisms and inanimate matter

organism
any living thing or anything that resembles a living thing in complexity of structure or function.


I guess you could torture the definition of "life" to mean only that portion of living between birth and death if you must to save some face.
 
Last edited:
(of a person, animal, or plant) living, not dead.

"hopes of finding anyone still alive were fading"

synonyms:living,*live;*More

he condition that distinguishes animals and plants from inorganic matter, including the capacity for growth, reproduction, functional activity, and continual change preceding death.

"the origins of life"
 
NOVA said:
"Why is the label zygote distinct from sperm or egg? Both are alive and human."

...It was you that claimed "HUMAN sperm and a HUMAN egg result in a HUMAN zygote, not HUMAN LIFE. "

Try again.
Click to expand...

What? You did not answer. Is the sperm alive and human and therefore human life?

NOVA said:
You claim a difference between the meanings of "alive" with "life."

a·live (ə-līv′)adj.1. Having life; living.

life (līf)n. pl. lives (līvz) 1. a. The property or quality that distinguishes living organisms from dead organisms and inanimate matter

I guess you could torture the definition of "life" to mean only that portion of living between birth and death if you must to save some face.
Click to expand...

We are not discussing the common use definitions, but even there, there is a distinction.
 
Hasa Diga Eebowai said:
Strawman.

If one removes context to change the meaning then any quote would be worse than useless. But the Gettysburg Address and the Bible are well known and copies are easily available.

The value is very limited by removing context. Also, it was compiled by a group with a clear agenda on the subject. Combined it makes it pretty worthless but you or sf could use it for leads to find a better source.

Again, it is very telling that this is where sf goes for his "hard science." He clearly lacks objectivity and suffers from confirmation bias.
Click to expand...

Fine. Would you prefer I post all 600 pages of a medical manual?

Your arguments are so weak Justin Beiber could beat them up.
 
Hasa Diga Eebowai said:
What? You did not answer. 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.
Click to expand...

If you insist on ignoring the definitions of words, why bother talking at all.....?...I know its a bitch, but words do have meanings....

Apples and oranges are both fruit, but apples are not oranges.....get it ?
 
Taft2016 said:
Fine. Would you prefer I post all 600 pages of a medical manual?

Your arguments are so weak Justin Beiber could beat them up.
Click to expand...

A link to it, yes.

But you can't?

Out of context quotes compiled by a group with a political agenda do not satisfy the request for scientific references. It is laughable that you would think they do.
 
NOVA said:
If you insist on ignoring the definitions of words, why bother talking at all.....?...I know its a bitch, but words do have meanings....

Apples and oranges are both fruit, but apples are not oranges.....get it ?
Click to expand...

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.

Again, you spout some trivial nonsense and pretend you are telling me something.
 
Hasa Diga Eebowai said:
A link to it, yes.

But you can't?

Out of context quotes compiled by a group with a political agenda do not satisfy the request for scientific references. It is laughable that you would think they do.
Click to expand...

What's laughable is saying quotes out of medical journals are "out of context"?

What other context could they possibly be said in? The context of "the following are medical fallacies"?

Weak. Sheldon Cooper weak.
 
Hasa Diga Eebowai said:
What? You did not answer. Is the sperm alive and human and therefore human life?
Click to expand...

No....a human sperm cell is not human life, nor is a human egg....they are human cells from a human life......that when joined together in fertilization, become a human life, distinct from the living humans they originally came from....human life in its earliest stage of development that will grow, develop, mature and live for its life cycle as do most forms of living things
.......in the case of humans, for the next 80 to 100 years, until it dies.
 
NOVA said:
No....a human sperm cell is not human life, nor is a human egg....they are human cells from a human life......that when joined together in fertilization, become a human life, distinct from the living humans they originally came from....human life in its earliest stage of development that will grow, develop, mature and live for its life cycle as do most forms of living things
.......in the case of humans, for the next 80 to 100 years, until it dies.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Taft2016 said:
As I said, out of context.

Out of context of the New Testament.
Click to expand...

You have access to the Bible and the context of the cited passages is complete. What context changes the meaning?

We have no idea what the context of these quotes are. Maybe they are intended to mean what Prolife Princeton suggests. But there is plenty of reason to doubt that and so they have little to no value. They provide some possible leads, but that is about it. If you want to chase the lead then go ahead and do so.
 
I thought I might search for the two citations that appear that they might be from journals. Both are books. Not one of these quotes appears to be from a paper published in a peer reviewed journal.
 
Subjective legal definitions are not hard science, Dung... The attempt to continually pretend that a developing human being (or even possibly more than one if it twins) are not actually human life because their development hasn't reached a subjective legal definition is not 'science' it is philosophy. It might make you feel better to define it as other than human or even 'life', but it isn't 'science' to do such.

We can understand how people want to use subjective terminology in law, which is itself subjective, but the pretense that it is now 'science' is preposterous.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top