Another thread wherein I embarrass superstupid

[Timshel]

Wolpert clearly stated that he does not believe the zygote is a living human?...maybe he thinks its a living parakeet...or maybe its not really alive yet....lmao.....

What a fantastic collection of mumbo jumbo, contradictions, circular logic and convoluted reasoning.....

He asks the same question over and over and over, "Why is the label zygote distinct from sperm or egg? Both are alive and human" and gets it answered
over and over and over then ignores the posts and asks it again.
Trying desperately to make someone say the sperm or egg alone, constitute a human life, and failing every time....its actually comical to re-read the thread and note the questions, answers and especially the strawmen accusations he makes, usually in the same post where he creates his very own....

So the sperm is a parakeet? No, it is alive but not as a human.

It is you prolifers who are contradicting yourself and engaging in circular logic. You have not answered. You can't point to any thing that makes the zygote a human life that would not apply to many things you don't intend to be human life. The fact that a zygote has the full set of chromosomes makes it no more human life then any other single cell in the human body, even of those we would consider brain dead or dead.

We are not single celled organisms. Sorry, you fail, mushbrain.

 

[Timshel]

http://www.all.org/abac/dni003.htm

To begin with, scientifically something very dramatic occurs between the processes of gametogenesis and fertilization - the change from two simple PARTS of a human being, i.e., a sperm and an oocyte (usually referred to as an "ovum" or "egg"), which simply possess "human life" into a new, genetically unique, newly existing, individual, live human BEING, an embryonic single-cell human zygote. That is, parts of a human being have actually been transformed into something very different from what they were before; they have been changed into a single, whole human being. During this process, the sperm and the oocyte cease to exist, and a new human being is produced.

That's great. You have quoted from a specific and dedicated prolife group that argues that sperm/egg are "human life." LOL

 

[Sun Devil]

We're trying to keep pro-life and pro-choice and abortion arguments out of this....they are not relevant.

Ok

 

[NOVA]

That's great. You have quoted from a specific and dedicated prolife group that argues that sperm/egg are "human life." LOL

Shows the very reason you're an idiot.....you can't read.

Originally Posted by NOVA

http://www.all.org/abac/dni003.htm

To begin with, scientifically something very dramatic occurs between the processes of gametogenesis and fertilization - the change from two simple PARTS of a human being, i.e., a sperm and an oocyte (usually referred to as an "ovum" or "egg"), which simply possess "human life" into a new, genetically unique, newly existing, individual, live human BEING, an embryonic single-cell human zygote. That is, parts of a human being have actually been transformed into something very different from what they were before; they have been changed into a single, whole human being. During this process, the sperm and the oocyte cease to exist, and a new human being is produced.


two simple PARTS of a human being, i.e., a sperm and an oocyte (usually referred to as an "ovum" or "egg"), which simply possess "human life"
To possess something and to be that something is not the same....

"ARE" human life and "POSSESS" human life have totally different meanings....the zygote stage of life is only a beginning and many more important changes, in addition to growth, occur after birth like development of teeth and female breasts; a brain that will triples in weight between birth and 16 years; the changes that occur in
puberty, etc.

Its undeniable that the a human life has a definite beginning and its at the embryonic single-cell human zygote stage of existence....growing and changing until
death sometime in the future, whether it be 5 minutes or 100 years.....

And therein (that the sperm is not a human life) you are into your opinion and contrary to the actual science involved. The zygote is no more a human life than the sperm/egg.
No one ever claimed a sperm or egg was a human life, only living cells from a human life....

There is no clearly defined moment when life begins. There is no experiment that you can create to test your hypothesis because it is not science. It is a philosophical definition.
The 'experiment' happens millions of times every day...and has been for thousands of years...sperm joins with egg and, bingo, a new human being is created.

The zygote is not a complete human organism. Human's are mutli cellular and the zygote is but a single cell.

The zygote is not a complete human organism, nor is a fetus 1 second before its born, or a second after its born. The zygote is the beginning.

The sperm will develop if put in the right environment to do so. Same as the zygote. The same as a single cell of your arm if cloned.

Sperm will develop ?...Into what ?...a sperm will always remain a sperm...an arm will forever be an arm.....we're not talking about cloning or outside interference of nature by man....even with cloning, at what point during the cloning process does a human being or human embryo physically come into existence?
You think something is just put a few cells in a blender and then pour it into a mode overnight....even clones have a beginning when cells start to
reproduce and form organs, etc.

 

[NOVA]

Consensus....

An international poll has shown there's a wide range of opinion about when human life "begins" biologically. 10/2008

In the international poll, only 22.7% of voters selected fertilization as the point when human life begins. Detection of fetal heartbeat came highest, polling 23.5% .
Implantation of the embryo in the womb lining came third, with 15%.------61.2%

The spread in North America was more even, with 27% choosing "sperm-egg", 24% "fetal heartbeat" and 18% "implantation".---69%

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn15062-when-does-human-life-begin.html

The main point is that these conclusions are all well before actual birth.

 

[Timshel]

Shows the very reason you're an idiot.....you can't read.

Originally Posted by NOVA

http://www.all.org/abac/dni003.htm

To begin with, scientifically something very dramatic occurs between the processes of gametogenesis and fertilization - the change from two simple PARTS of a human being, i.e., a sperm and an oocyte (usually referred to as an "ovum" or "egg"), which simply possess "human life" into a new, genetically unique, newly existing, individual, live human BEING, an embryonic single-cell human zygote. That is, parts of a human being have actually been transformed into something very different from what they were before; they have been changed into a single, whole human being. During this process, the sperm and the oocyte cease to exist, and a new human being is produced.


two simple PARTS of a human being, i.e., a sperm and an oocyte (usually referred to as an "ovum" or "egg"), which simply possess "human life"
To possess something and to be that something is not the same....

"ARE" human life and "POSSESS" human life have totally different meanings....the zygote stage of life is only a beginning and many more important changes, in addition to growth, occur after birth like development of teeth and female breasts; a brain that will triples in weight between birth and 16 years; the changes that occur in
puberty, etc.

Its undeniable that the a human life has a definite beginning and its at the embryonic single-cell human zygote stage of existence....growing and changing until
death sometime in the future, whether it be 5 minutes or 100 years.....

You can spin, play semantic games and split hairs all you want over the difference between "possess" and "is a." It is deniable that human life begins at conception, mushbrain. It's absurd to claim that the single celled zygote or the sperm/egg is human life. The claims of your political group don't change that.

 

[Timshel]

Consensus....

An international poll has shown there's a wide range of opinion about when human life "begins" biologically. 10/2008

In the international poll, only 22.7% of voters selected fertilization as the point when human life begins. Detection of fetal heartbeat came highest, polling 23.5% .
Implantation of the embryo in the womb lining came third, with 15%.------61.2%

The spread in North America was more even, with 27% choosing "sperm-egg", 24% "fetal heartbeat" and 18% "implantation".---69%

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn15062-when-does-human-life-begin.html

The main point is that these conclusions are all well before actual birth.

As is viability.

 

[PostmodernProphet]

the question apparently isn't when human life begins......the question is, when will the left run out of excuses to deny it has........

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

It's only philosophy. You are just returning to your circular bullshit with little goalpost shifts. You add in "individual" which only makes your argument weaker since if separated from the mother it will immediately die.

No, I added in individual, because you seem to be focused on life as a whole. The individual life, which you are too honest to address, does not exist prior to fertilization.

Yes, the child needs its mother to survive. I am not arguing that it does not. But that is irrelevant to whether or not the child is a separate life or not. A point you can't seem to grasp.

Again, is the sperm alive or dead prior to fertilization?

As I said before moron, it is alive. But it is not a unique human life. It will always be a sperm cell. It does not contain the genetic mapping of a unique human life.

The zygote will die even if attached to life support.

You truly are getting desperate. A coma patient on life support will also die if you take it its life support. Does that make it non-human? Just because the zygote has a different form of life support doesn't alter the FACT that it is human and alive.

Too late. You said that genetic distinction could be found in them. That is wrong. Genes are just a section of DNA and because every cell (except sperm/egg) does contain your complete DNA they cannot be said to be genetically distinct. You are denying genetics and trying to sidestep the point to save face. A sperm/egg is genetically distinct in a way that no other cells in your body are just as the zygote is genetically distinct from the mother.

You did a full faceplant here and you can bluff all you like, but it's clear you don't understand the subject.

Yes, every cell contains our DNA, in that they are genetically alike. But each cell is also encoded genetically to perform a certain function within the body. Or do you think the cells just wander about the body from day to day saying:

'I will be a liver cell today, but tomorrow I will be a brain cell'

Each cell has a specific purpose... that purpose is encoded in them as they are created.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Ahh, look who's all butthurt over being schooled.

I assumed we were talking about what could be heard with a stethoscope. It would be really stupid to force a woman to listen to the simulated sounds from the doppler, but then we are talking about stupid Republicans, like you, writing these laws.

Just like the sperm/egg is human and alive.

So if you can't hear it... it doesn't exist? Was that your line of thought?

Yet another way to dehumanize the child so you can justify killing it?

 

[NOVA]

As is viability.

The poll was about when human life "begins" biologically, not viability, and the consensus opinions were ALL before birth....try again.

 

[Timshel]

No, I added in individual, because you seem to be focused on life as a whole. The individual life, which you are too honest to address, does not exist prior to fertilization.

Yes, the child needs its mother to survive. I am not arguing that it does not. But that is irrelevant to whether or not the child is a separate life or not. A point you can't seem to grasp.

As I said before moron, it is alive. But it is not a unique human life. It will always be a sperm cell. It does not contain the genetic mapping of a unique human life.

You truly are getting desperate. A coma patient on life support will also die if you take it its life support. Does that make it non-human? Just because the zygote has a different form of life support doesn't alter the FACT that it is human and alive.

Yes, every cell contains our DNA, in that they are genetically alike. But each cell is also encoded genetically to perform a certain function within the body. Or do you think the cells just wander about the body from day to day saying:

'I will be a liver cell today, but tomorrow I will be a brain cell'

Each cell has a specific purpose... that purpose is encoded in them as they are created.

The problem is not life as a whole, per se, but life as a continuum. You wish to draw the line at fertilization and anytime someone says no, you come back with stupid questions about whether the fetus was dead prior to viability or not human. You don't apply these stupid questions to your own arbitrary line and cannot answer them any better.

The zygote-blastocyst-fetus needs the mother and the placenta to maintain homeostasis. It cannot sustain its own life as a human (absolutely a key factor in defining life, which you previously denied and have not corrected), and therefore it is not human life.

As I said before, the sperm/egg is of human origin (like the zygote), alive and unique. The zygote, just like the sperm, will never be much more than a zygote if it does not manage to survive until cell division and implant. Future growth and development is conditional, just as with the sperm/egg.

You truly are getting desperate. A zygote can not survive ON life support. It is not analogous to someone in a coma. It's analogous to someone that is brain dead.

The proteins are encoded within a cell, but the cells are NOT genetically distinct, as you claimed. Each cell, other than sperm/egg, contain the full genetic mapping of a human life and are alive. Why aren't they human life? They certainly could grow and develop into human life put in the right conditions (i.e., cloned) just as the zygote.

We have you on record now denying genetics and biology. It's likely you just were in error but instead of correcting yourself and accepting the error you forge on with your confirmation bias.

 

[Timshel]

So if you can't hear it... it doesn't exist? Was that your line of thought?

Yet another way to dehumanize the child so you can justify killing it?

Strawman. A completely fabricated and totally dishonest one. I was responding to socrteases's inaccurate claim about why those within the pro-choice camp oppose forcing women to listen to the fetal heartbeat. You are doing no service to your cause by lying, murderer.

 

[Timshel]

The poll was about when human life "begins" biologically, not viability, and the consensus opinions were ALL before birth....try again.

Moron, viability is before birth. I am not arguing that life begins at birth. I am arguing that life begins once the fetus is viable and that this position is just as valid biologically as any other claim.

 

[NOVA]

The problem is not life as a whole, per se, but life as a continuum. You wish to draw the line at fertilization and anytime someone says no, you come back with stupid questions about whether the fetus was dead prior to viability or not human. You don't apply these stupid questions to your own arbitrary line and cannot answer them any better.

The zygote-blastocyst-fetus needs the mother and the placenta to maintain homeostasis. It cannot sustain its own life as a human (absolutely a key factor in defining life, which you previously denied and have not corrected), and therefore it is not human life.

Its own life as a human...??? I guess if you don't water a plant that it requires to sustain its life, its therefore not really a plant...is that the logic?....Glad to see
admit to ITS LIFE AS A HUMAN....growing and developing, but nonetheless, a human life.....consensus= life before birth, long before viability...

As I said before, the sperm/egg is of human origin like the zygote, alive and unique. The zygote, just like the sperm, will never be much more than a zygote if it does not manage to survive until cell division and implant. Future growth and development is conditional, just as with the sperm/egg. Irrelevant.

You truly are getting desperate. A zygote can not survive ON life support. It is not analogous to someone in a coma. It's analogous to someone that is brain dead.
Mommy is the life support

The proteins are encoded within a cell, but the cells are NOT genetically distinct, as you claimed. Each cell, other than sperm/egg, contain the full genetic mapping of a human life and are alive. Why aren't they human life? They certainly could grow and develop into human life put in the right conditions (i.e., cloned) just as the zygote.
To create the zygote, the conditions have already been met. When cloning is successful, at that point those 'conditions' will have been met, and neither will sustain
its life without outside nurturing..life, meaning not dead.

We have you on record now denying genetics and biology. It's likely you just were in error but instead of correcting yourself and accepting the error you forge on with your confirmation bias.

Its you denying biological fact....

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

The problem is not life as a whole, per se, but life as a continuum.

The above is philosophical

You wish to draw the line at fertilization and anytime someone says no, you come back with stupid questions about whether the fetus was dead prior to viability or not human. You don't apply these stupid questions to your own arbitrary line and cannot answer them any better.

1) They are not stupid questions, you refuse to answer them because you understand that the answers are not falsifiable. You cannot disprove either point
2) Your question is not about a unique individual, but rather a CELL.

Until the point of fertilization, the INDIVIDUAL life DOES NOT EXIST.

The zygote-blastocyst-fetus needs the mother and the placenta to maintain homeostasis. It cannot sustain its own life as a human (absolutely a key factor in defining life, which you previously denied and have not corrected), and therefore it is not human life.

LMAO... AGAIN moron... no one is suggesting the child does not need its mother. The ability to sustain ones own life is a 'key factor' in defining life? LMAO...

Can a newborn sustain its own life? Is it not alive until it can? Seriously, your arguments are getting dumber... which I did not think possible.

As I said before, the sperm/egg is of human origin (like the zygote), alive and unique. The zygote, just like the sperm, will never be much more than a zygote if it does not manage to survive until cell division and implant. Future growth and development is conditional, just as with the sperm/egg.

No, unlike the sperm/egg cells, the zygote is a NEW UNIQUE HUMAN LIFE. The egg and sperm individually are JUST HUMAN CELLS. Yes, all of them can die. Congrats on realizing that.

You truly are getting desperate. A zygote can not survive ON life support. It is not analogous to someone in a coma. It's analogous to someone that is brain dead.

No moron, it is not I that is desperate. It is you. It is absolutely analogous to a coma patient and not a brain dead patient. Though as I stated, even the coma patient is not quite right in that the coma patient was obviously injured. A brain dead patient is dead. They have NO chance of future brain activity. Tell me moron... does a zygote have a chance of future brain activity? Yeah, I will now watch you run away from yet another of your ignorant points.

The proteins are encoded within a cell, but the cells are NOT genetically distinct, as you claimed. Each cell, other than sperm/egg, contain the full genetic mapping of a human life and are alive. Why aren't they human life? They certainly could grow and develop into human life put in the right conditions (i.e., cloned) just as the zygote.

Again... they have the same DNA coding, but as you pointed out above, they are also encoded within each cell to perform a specific function within the body. Thanks for proving my point.

We have you on record now denying genetics and biology. It's likely you just were in error but instead of correcting yourself and accepting the error you forge on with your confirmation bias.

fucking hilarious... you truly are a mental midget and fake libertarian.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Moron, viability is before birth. I am not arguing that life begins at birth. I am arguing that life begins once the fetus is viable and that this position is just as valid biologically as any other claim.

Yet you just told me that a key point in determining LIFE is the ability to sustain its own life. Hence, everyone on life support is no longer alive. Newborns are no longer alive. People needing elder care are no longer alive. Bunch of zombies running around according to you.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Strawman. A completely fabricated and totally dishonest one. I was responding to socrteases's inaccurate claim about why those within the pro-choice camp oppose forcing women to listen to the fetal heartbeat. You are doing no service to your cause by lying, murderer.

LMAO... he pointed out that you can hear the fetal heart rate at a much earlier time than you claimed. You then ranted that you were referring to what you could hear with a stethoscope. So what was your point of a stethoscope then?

I did not lie... I mocked your ignorance. But do go on now... tell us... how is it that I am a 'murderer'???

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Fetal heart beat can be heard by doppler at 9 weeks.

Fetal heart actually starts beating at 29 days

Both are well past the stage of zygote.

Both are significantly shorter than your '22 weeks'.

None change the FACT that it is still human, still alive.

Ahh, look who's all butthurt over being schooled.

I assumed we were talking about what could be heard with a stethoscope. It would be really stupid to force a woman to listen to the simulated sounds from the doppler, but then we are talking about stupid Republicans, like you, writing these laws.

Just like the sperm/egg is human and alive.

So tell us String... what was your point about 'assuming we were talking about what could be heard with a stethoscope'?

He pointed out that the heartbeat was there long before the time frame you suggested. Then you responded with your stethoscope nonsense.

 

[Timshel]

Its you denying biological fact....

Learn how to use the quotes.

I did not say it was human. I said it cannot maintain its life as a human. It can maintain its life as a zygote within the the mother. The same here is true of sperm/egg. They can maintain their life as what they are but not as humans. Conclusion: none of them are yet fully human.

Your plant metaphor is of no value. Of course, all life needs resources. My point is that the zygote cannot live as a human and therefore is not yet a human. Though sf denies it and basic biology, the ability to maintain homeostasis is a key part of defining life.

The points are not any more irrelevant than when pro-lifers use them as an argument for the zygote as life. You just don't have an answer for them.

The mother is not a life support machine. She is fully human life and would be more comparable to a host to the zygote. The zygote is not comparable to someone in a coma that only needs emergency life support. It would be as dead as the brain dead on life support.

The creation of the zygote is no more the realization of human life than is the creation of the cells in my arm (that might be cloned), the sperm or the egg. These are all just steps or components. And absolutely, they will all require nurturing before it is possible for the fetus to live as a human and therefore achieve human life.

That has been my point. You continue to pretend that the zygote is a fully formed human life. It is quite ridiculous. It is not, not anymore than the sperm/egg. We are multi-cellular organisms that do not live inside the body of another animal sustained by a placenta. We are certainly not single celled, as is the zygote, organisms.