Another thread wherein I embarrass superstupid

Superfreak said:
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'???
Click to expand...

I answered already in the very post you mention. I assumed he meant with a stethoscope as it would be pretty stupid to force a woman to listen to the simulated sounds of the doppler.

You are the ignorant one denying biology and genetics.
 
Superfreak said:
The above is philosophical

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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


Your claims on when life begins are philosophical.

If they are not stupid questions then answer them in regards to the sperm/egg. You can't.

Your argument is circular bullshit. According to you...

The sperm/egg is supposedly alive, of human origin but not a unique individual human life and therefore is not a unique individual human life. The zygote is supposedly alive, of human origin and a unique individual human life and therefore is a unique individual human life.

...Congratulation Mr Ham, you are an idiot.

You are denying that homeostasis is part of the biological definition of life. You are also denying factual points of genetics and trying to run away from your embarrassing face plant. None of your points have been proven. The cells within us, except for sperm/eggs, are NOT genetically distinct. They are coded for varying functions, but even then there are many cells coded with the same function.

You are a science denier who twists and denies the facts of genetics and biology to support your religious/philosophical definition of life and when life begins. You don't care to learn either, you just search out facts to regurgitate and confirm your bias.
 
Superfreak said:
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.
Click to expand...

You are denying basic biology.

http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Life
Life
Definition


noun, plural: lives


(1) A distinctive characteristic of a living organism from dead organism or non-living thing, as specifically distinguished by the capacity to grow, metabolize, respond (to stimuli), adapt, and reproduce


(2) The biota of a particular region




Supplement


There is no consensus regarding the answer to the question as to when does life begin. Does it begin at the time of fertilization or the time before or after that? The origin of life is also contestable. Despite of the irresolute answer for questions about life, the basic characteristics of a living thing are as follows:


with an organized structure performing a specific function
with an ability to sustain existence, e.g. by nourishment
with an ability to respond to stimuli or to its environment
capable of adapting
with an ability to germinate or reproduce
 
Hasa Diga Eebowai said:
Your claims on when life begins are philosophical.
Click to expand...

Again moron, you are incorrect. My position is genetic FACT.

If they are not stupid questions then answer them in regards to the sperm/egg. You can't.
Click to expand...

Except that I HAVE. Time and again I have addressed your stupidity.

Your argument is circular bullshit. According to you...

The sperm/egg is supposedly alive, of human origin but not a unique individual human life and therefore is not a unique individual human life. The zygote is supposedly alive, of human origin and a unique individual human life and therefore is a unique individual human life.
Click to expand...

Again moron...

1) Yes, ALL are alive.
2) Yes, the sperm and egg are human CELLS. Note that last word moron. They are INDIVIDUAL CELLS. ON their own they will never be anything other than INDIVIDUAL CELLS

3) The zygote is a unique human life created by the fertilization of the egg cell by the sperm cell. It is unique genetically from those that created it. The sperm cell has the SAME DNA code as the man whose body created it. The egg cell has the SAME DNA code as the woman whose body created it. When the two combine, there is a unique DNA coding created that has NEVER EXISTED BEFORE.

...Congratulation Mr Ham, you are an idiot.
Click to expand...

No, you are the idiot. You cannot comprehend basic science.

You are denying that homeostasis is part of the biological definition of life. You are also denying factual points of genetics and trying to run away from your embarrassing face plant. None of your points have been proven. The cells within us, except for sperm/eggs, are NOT genetically distinct. They are coded for varying functions, but even then there are many cells coded with the same function.
Click to expand...

All of my points are proven. Which is why you keep spinning your wheels. You keep saying they are not distinct cells from one another, then you turn around and admit they ARE coded for different functions.

You are a science denier who twists and denies the facts of genetics and biology to support your religious/philosophical definition of life and when life begins. You don't care to learn either, you just search out facts to regurgitate and confirm your bias.
Click to expand...

Pure irony. You are completely absurd. You have been completely owned on this topic.
 
Superfreak said:
Again moron, you are incorrect. My position is genetic FACT.

Except that I HAVE. Time and again I have addressed your stupidity.

Again moron...

1) Yes, ALL are alive.
2) Yes, the sperm and egg are human CELLS. Note that last word moron. They are INDIVIDUAL CELLS. ON their own they will never be anything other than INDIVIDUAL CELLS

3) The zygote is a unique human life created by the fertilization of the egg cell by the sperm cell. It is unique genetically from those that created it. The sperm cell has the SAME DNA code as the man whose body created it. The egg cell has the SAME DNA code as the woman whose body created it. When the two combine, there is a unique DNA coding created that has NEVER EXISTED BEFORE.

No, you are the idiot. You cannot comprehend basic science.

All of my points are proven. Which is why you keep spinning your wheels. You keep saying they are not distinct cells from one another, then you turn around and admit they ARE coded for different functions.

Pure irony. You are completely absurd. You have been completely owned on this topic.
Click to expand...

Your position is philosophical and apparently supported by your ignorance and/or denial of biological and genetic facts. That's been established.

Further, your argument is illogical and circular.

No, wrong again. The sperm/egg cell is the one cell within a human that IS genetically distinct. It does not have the same DNA code as the man/woman who created it. Further, they are genetically distinct from each other. You don't know what you are talking about. You are an absolute moron, I am starting to think NOVA is above your level.

The ownage has been all mine. I have you on record now denying genetic and biological facts. You can lie about me doing so but can't cite where it happened or give any details.
 
You are clearly, an idiot, without even a basic understanding of biology or genetics and no ability to process facts logically. If every sperm and egg were genetically identical to the man/woman that they came from then all children of a couple would be genetically identical or twins. The fact is that the egg/sperm contain unique combinations of the single chromosomes from the matched pairs of the man/woman. Every sperm/egg will receive some unique combination of DNA from both of it's "grandparents" that will then combine with its counterpart to form matched pairs.

In a nutshell your argument is that when the necessary chromosomes of 23 matched pairs are present human life begins. This is a philosophical definition and can't be determined by science. Science can tell us that the 23 matched pairs are present. It cannot tell us that that is sufficient to classify it as human life anymore than science definitively determines the classification of species.

Your simplistic classification is extremely weak. If a zygote has 24 matched pairs of chromosomes has chimpanzee, bonobo, gorilla or orangutan life begun?

Again, logically and philosophically, your position is unsound. It offers no way to differentiate the zygote as human life while cells in the body of a fully formed human are not human life. It also fails to tell us why the brain dead are not alive or no longer human life.

You have been completely destroyed and all you are doing is running in circles.
 
Last edited:
Hasa Diga Eebowai said:
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.
Click to expand...

And common sense and logic says it isn't valid.

vi·a·ble (vī′ə-bəl)adj.1. Capable of living, developing, or germinating under favorable conditions.

2. Capable of living outside the uterus. Used of a fetus or newborn.

It also means number 1.....moron....
A zygote is capable of living under favorable conditions and it obviously does.
A zygote is capable of developing under favorable conditions and it obviously does.
A zygote is viable and fits the definition ................

(fetal age 22 weeks)
  • The child is now gaining around 3 ounces (90 grams) a week.
  • Baby weighs about 1.3 pounds and is 12 inches long.
  • Baby weighs about 600 grams and is 30cm (crown to heel) long.
  • The eyelids can be seen very clearly.
  • If born at this stage is officially considered viable, they may well be able to survive outside the womb.
  • (100 years ago, it was NOT considered viable and 100 years from now viability may be 10 weeks or maybe 10 minutes)

So you're saying the magic happens at 22 weeks.....
you're saying that the fetus comes to life at 22 weeks after fertilization?...and before that its not alive...

You insist on using the word life as if its something other than simply alive, as in NOT DEAD.....what we've trying to drive into your thick skull is that the
zygote is alive, its not dead, it has life, life, because its not dead tissue....
We're not saying its ready to play the piano or sing a song or do math....its simply alive...alive...its nothing that existed before ...its not a sperm or egg,
its a new and unique entity...its a new human at its first stage of being, its first stage of living, its the beginning of a new life.

Its quite a simple and logical premise...unlike you, I don't have to jump through hoops or torture the english language or mangle definitions to arrive at it...
 
Last edited:
NOVA said:
And common sense and logic says it isn't valid.

vi·a·ble (vī′ə-bəl)adj.1. Capable of living, developing, or germinating under favorable conditions.

2. Capable of living outside the uterus. Used of a fetus or newborn.

It also means number 1.....moron....
A zygote is capable of living under favorable conditions and it obviously does.
A zygote is capable of developing under favorable conditions and it obviously does.
A zygote is viable and fits the definition ................

(fetal age 22 weeks)
  • The child is now gaining around 3 ounces (90 grams) a week.
  • Baby weighs about 1.3 pounds and is 12 inches long.
  • Baby weighs about 600 grams and is 30cm (crown to heel) long.
  • The eyelids can be seen very clearly.
  • If born at this stage is officially considered viable, they may well be able to survive outside the womb.
  • (100 years ago, it was NOT considered viable and 100 years from now viability may be 10 weeks or maybe 10 minutes)

So you're saying the magic happens at 22 weeks.....
you're saying that the fetus comes to life at 22 weeks after fertilization?...and before that its not alive...

You insist on using the word life as if its something other than simply alive, as in NOT DEAD.....what we've trying to drive into your thick skull is that the
zygote is alive, its not dead, it has life, life, because its not dead tissue....
We're not saying its ready to play the piano or sing a song or do math....its simply alive...alive...its nothing that existed before ...its not a sperm or egg,
its a new and unique entity...its a new human at its first stage of being, its first stage of living, its the beginning of a new life.

Its quite a simple and logical premise...unlike you, I don't have to jump through hoops or torture the english language or mangle definitions to arrive at it...
Click to expand...

Geezez, now you are going to try to mount a semantic argument to redefine viability. I am using it as definition 2 defines it and as is commonly used.

Exactly, life as it is defined by biology does NOT simply mean alive. You and the other prolife nimrods are conflating life and alive, but you do it inconsistently. Yes, the zygote is alive just as the sperm/egg, most cells in the body or even cells in the brain dead are alive. The zygote is not human life.

All you do is torture the language and logic.
 
Last edited:
Sun Devil said:
I know I'm somewhat late but did anyone define life, living and sentience so that people aren't getting the definitions mixed up? The reason I say this because a lot of times people often think life means sentience, or something that is living is sentient. I think a lot of the arguments stemming from pro-life and pro-choice starts there.
Click to expand...
Exactly correct, Hasa is equating life with sentience, completely ignoring that beginning with the blastocyst unique human dna exists. Unlike an arm or a cancer cell or anything else a blastocyst, within the supportive system it is built for will, become one thing and one thing only, a fully developed human being. It does that because from the beginning it was HUMAN, and cellular replication was an absolute indication of life. The fact that a vast number of these will be absorbed by the woman, or later on miscarried does not mean it is not human life. This however does not mean I believe that it should have all the rights and privileges of a born child. The problem is that the right believes it is a HUMAN BEING at conception and the left doesn't believe it is a human being until it is born.

And some observations. My current wife miscarried once upon a time at 16 weeks. The doctor and the nurses told her how sorry they were that she had lost her baby. At 16 weeks she had already heard the heart beat with a doppler. At 16 weeks that was her child, her baby, it was alive. Of course Hasa would say "Oh don't worry, it wasn't REALLY alive, it was just an embryo".
 
Hasa Diga Eebowai said:
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.
Click to expand...
Herein lies the dead give away that your definition of life is always about the philosophical and the political. Prior to the 1960's death was cessation of certain bodily functions, especially respiration and heartbeat. Kansas was the first state in the US to develop a brain death standard and Finland was the first nation to develop the brain death standard. Another issue is anencephaly. From time to time these fetuses are carried to term and survive outside the mother. They have ZERO higher brain function, but the brain stem continues to function. Using your logic, a anencephalitic child is not a human either and can be disposed of however one sees fit with out suffering legal consequences.
 
Hasa Diga Eebowai said:
Geezez, now you are going to try to mount a semantic argument to redefine viability. I am using it as definition 2 defines it and as is commonly used.

Exactly, life as it is defined by biology does NOT simply mean alive. You and the other prolife nimrods are conflating life and alive, but you do it inconsistently. Yes, the zygote is alive just as the sperm/egg, most cells in the body or even cells in the brain dead are alive. The zygote is not human life.

All you do is torture the language and logic.
Click to expand...


What requirement of 'life' does a zygote not possess....?
 
Socrtease said:
Exactly correct, Hasa is equating life with sentience, completely ignoring that beginning with the blastocyst unique human dna exists. Unlike an arm or a cancer cell or anything else a blastocyst, within the supportive system it is built for will, become one thing and one thing only, a fully developed human being. It does that because from the beginning it was HUMAN, and cellular replication was an absolute indication of life. The fact that a vast number of these will be absorbed by the woman, or later on miscarried does not mean it is not human life. This however does not mean I believe that it should have all the rights and privileges of a born child. The problem is that the right believes it is a HUMAN BEING at conception and the left doesn't believe it is a human being until it is born.

And some observations. My current wife miscarried once upon a time at 16 weeks. The doctor and the nurses told her how sorry they were that she had lost her baby. At 16 weeks she had already heard the heart beat with a doppler. At 16 weeks that was her child, her baby, it was alive. Of course Hasa would say "Oh don't worry, it wasn't REALLY alive, it was just an embryo".
Click to expand...

No, I am not defining life as sentience. Sorry, try again. Or personhood. Sorry, try again. Human life... wait for it... is life as a human. What a reach huh? It is not life as a single celled zygote. Humans are multicellular organisms.

A zygote MAY become a human being. It is not yet. Every cell in my arm may become a human being, if I were to clone them but they are not alive as humans.

It's a horrible loss. I am sorry for it. But you can go fuck yourself for your bullshit assumption based on nothing but your imagination.
 
Socrtease said:
Herein lies the dead give away that your definition of life is always about the philosophical and the political. Prior to the 1960's death was cessation of certain bodily functions, especially respiration and heartbeat. Kansas was the first state in the US to develop a brain death standard and Finland was the first nation to develop the brain death standard. Another issue is anencephaly. From time to time these fetuses are carried to term and survive outside the mother. They have ZERO higher brain function, but the brain stem continues to function. Using your logic, a anencephalitic child is not a human either and can be disposed of however one sees fit with out suffering legal consequences.
Click to expand...

EVERYBODY'S definition of life contains some bit of the philosophical. Mine is not political. I would not say the zygote of a chimpanzee is chimpanzee life. It has nothing to do with politics. It has to do with proper classification.

You are wrong and should stop trying to speak for me. Anencephaly is not brain death. If viable, it would be human life. If they suffer from neocortical death though it is certainly arguable whether they enjoy legal personhood.
 
Last edited:
NOVA said:
What requirement of 'life' does a zygote not possess....?
Click to expand...

I have answered this a couple dozen times at least. It is the requirements of "human life" that it is does not possess.

It simply does not possess the most basic characteristics of a human. We are not single celled organisms. We are multicellular. I find it really comical that someone like simple PiMPle believes it impossible that we could evolve from single celled organism while maintaining that a single celled organism is fully human.

Further, the zygote does not possess the ability to live as a human, to survive in the environment humans live in, to sustain its own life as a human or even maintain homeostasis as a human.
 
Hasa Diga Eebowai said:
I find it really comical that someone like simple PiMPle believes it impossible that we could evolve from single celled organism while maintaining that a single celled organism is fully human.
Click to expand...

now I understand why seculars find macro-evolution so appealing.....it reminds them of the womb.......actually you've just made the argument for abiogenesis much more difficult......now instead of a leap from pond scum to amoeba you have to explain a leap from pond scum to stem cells.......
 
Hasa Diga Eebowai said:
I have answered this a couple dozen times at least. It is the requirements of "human life" that it is does not possess.

It simply does not possess the most basic characteristics of a human. We are not single celled organisms. We are multicellular. I find it really comical that someone like simple PiMPle believes it impossible that we could evolve from single celled organism while maintaining that a single celled organism is fully human.

Further, the zygote does not possess the ability to live as a human, to survive in the environment humans live in, to sustain its own life as a human or even maintain homeostasis as a human.
Click to expand...

This was my question, "What requirement of 'life' does a zygote not possess....?"....word for word, exactly....
you don't need to add any words or take any words away to answer it....
LIFE as defined by biology.....not your personal definition.....

It is fully human...its not a giraffe, its not a chimp, its not a spider....its fully human but not fully grown, not fully developed, and it won't been for many years after birth.
so your point is pointless.....

No definition of 'life' requires an organism to be multi celled....try again....

"It simply does not possess the most basic characteristics of a human."....so what ARE the MOST BASIC elements to be human?....chromosomes?...human DNA ?, If its
not human, what specie is it ?

the zygote does not possess the ability to live as a human,".... whats it need, a new car?....dockers?....wtf are you talking about...

to survive in the environment humans live in, ........Its living in an environment that humans don't live in?....again, wtf are you talking about....explain that

to sustain its own life as a human or even maintain homeostasis as a human.....homeostasis isn't a requirement of 'life'...and the fact that is it is using nutrients from its environment proves it sustains its life just as every living thing uses its environment to sustain itself... tell me something that doesn't...

Whats the point.....LIFE does NOT require something be human....don't you realize others things have life...? The world is teeming with 'life'.....

when you get your terminology and definitions cleared up and you lose your strawman mentality, come back for a schoolin'
 
Last edited:
NOVA said:
This was my question, "What requirement of 'life' does a zygote not possess....?"....word for word, exactly....
you don't need to add any words or take any words away to answer it....
LIFE as defined by biology.....not your personal definition.....

It is fully human...its not a giraffe, its not a chimp, its not a spider....its fully human but not fully grown, not fully developed, and it won't been for many years after birth.
so your point is pointless.....

No definition of 'life' requires an organism to be multi celled....try again....

"It simply does not possess the most basic characteristics of a human."....so what ARE the MOST BASIC elements to be human?....chromosomes?...human DNA ?, If its
not human, what specie is it ?

the zygote does not possess the ability to live as a human,".... whats it need, a new car?....dockers?....wtf are you talking about...

to survive in the environment humans live in, ........Its living in an environment that humans don't live in?....again, wtf are you talking about....explain that

to sustain its own life as a human or even maintain homeostasis as a human.....homeostasis isn't a requirement of 'life'...and the fact that is it is using nutrients from its environment proves it sustains its life just as every living thing uses its environment to sustain itself... tell me something that doesn't...

Whats the point.....LIFE does NOT require something be human....don't you realize others things have life...? The world is teeming with 'life'.....

when you get your terminology and definitions cleared up and you lose your strawman mentality, come back for a schoolin'
Click to expand...


We are talking about when HUMAN life begins. We are not talking about when the life of a sperm, egg or a single cell begins. If you want talk about something else, then start your own thread, mushbrain.

I have already answered what it needs to live as a human. I did so in the very post to which you responded. Your strawman bullshit was preempted.

Homeostasis is, absolutely, a requirement of the biological definition of life.

My terminology and definitions are very clear. If you want to try to present some definition of life that does not require homeostasis then do so. But it's not going to be one that agrees with basic biology.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top