Another thread wherein I embarrass superstupid

Hasa Diga Eebowai said:
I have not referenced the courts. ???

The sperm/egg is alive. Your philosophical definition of "human life" is subjective even though you make a pretense that it is now 'science.'
Click to expand...

Yes, but they are not a human like a zygote is. Half the chromosomes and alive equals a sperm or egg but equals not a human being. All the chromosomes and alive equals a human being.

And in the other thread, which was about the legalese definition of "alive", where this began you certainly did reference the courts. It's what the thread was about. You claim to have made a fool of somebody, but it appears that so far the only fool in both threads is you.
 
Hasa Diga Eebowai said:
You are just another chickenshit ducking the question. Yes, there is a difference between sperm and a zygote just as there is between a zygote and a embryo, fetus or child. What I am asking is clear and I have explained it several times in detail. I am asking what is the difference that makes one human life and the other not.

The second is not undeniable science. The second is an ATTEMPT to describe, just as the first. The second is no more unequivocal than the first and depends upon philosophical assumptions that are agreeable to the biological field as a whole. Besides that, the attempt to form a biological definition of life is not a statement on when life begins.
Click to expand...

I see....what you want to do is play word games and take advantage of semantics to gain some gotcha points.....

You still don't know what "the beginning of life" really means in biology....you're obsessed with only a complete human being, being human life...

We'll give you a human man and human woman....just one of each.....the poor guy is impotent like you, and the young women is in a coma, like your dates....

How would YOU go about making sure the human race continues.....what is the one thing that you MUST accomplish that STARTS that new human life.....come on, humor me.....and don't say, "have sex with the women"....
 
NOVA said:
I see....what you want to do is play word games and take advantage of semantics to gain some gotcha points.....

You still don't know what "the beginning of life" really means in biology....you're obsessed with only a complete human being, being human life...

We'll give you a human man and human woman....just one of each.....the poor guy is impotent like you, and the young women is in a coma, like your dates....

How would YOU go about making sure the human race continues.....what is the one thing that you MUST accomplish that STARTS that new human life.....come on, humor me.....and don't say, "have sex with the women"....
Click to expand...

Lol your entire argument is semantics you old fool. I am asking what material fact about the zygote makes it human life that does not make the sperm/egg human life.

Biology does not make a claim on when life begins. I have provided multiple sources clearly noting that. You might find this or that biologist that shares your opinion but there are probably more that don't and there is certainly no consensus.
 
Last edited:
Hasa Diga Eebowai said:
Lol your entire argument is semantics you old fool. I am asking what material fact about the zygote makes it human life that does not make the sperm/egg human life.

Biology does not make a claim on when life begins. I have provided multiple sources clearly noting that. You might find this or that biologist that shares your opinion but there are probably more that don't and there is certainly no consensus.
Click to expand...

I am asking what material fact about the zygote makes it human life that does not make the sperm/egg human life.


Lol, your entire argument is semantics you idiot....

So you refuse to give me a simple answer to my question....

If you had the brains of a 7 year old, I'd try this on you.....

Take your sperm cell or human egg and note its characteristics, then assuming you can keep them alive, look at it 30 days later and then 30 days later yet....what will you see ?

Now take that "zygote" and check it out....then look at it 30 days later and then 30 days later yet....what will you see ?

Are you getting the picture.....http://tinyurl.com/m5pl5s2

Now answer my question.
 
Last edited:
NOVA said:
I am asking what material fact about the zygote makes it human life that does not make the sperm/egg human life.


Lol, your entire argument is semantics you idiot....

So you refuse to give me a simple answer to my question....

If you had the brains of a 7 year old, I'd try this on you.....

Take your sperm cell or human egg and note its characteristics, then assuming you can keep them alive, look at it 30 days later and then 30 days later yet....what will you see ?

Now take that "zygote" and check it out....then look at it 30 days later and then 30 days later yet....what will you see ?

Are you getting the picture.....http://tinyurl.com/m5pl5s2

Now answer my question.
Click to expand...

I am asking for material facts that can be tested with hard science and you and sf are arguing semantics.

You answer my question.

It's believed that the vast majority or at least half of the zygotes will be absorbed by the woman's body in 30 days. If they are lucky enough to implant and survive then by 60 days they will have grown and changed approaching the fetal state which is defined as being recognizable as a member of their species.

If the sperm is lucky enough to fertilize an egg, development will be at about the same point.

So your argument is viabilty or the likelihood that they will advance to the next stage same as sf's and mine. The only difference is you two are too stupid to know that.
 
Hasa Diga Eebowai said:
I am asking for material facts that can be tested with hard science and you and sf are arguing semantics.

You answer my question.

It's believed that the vast majority or at least half of the zygotes will be absorbed by the woman's body in 30 days. If they are lucky enough to implant and survive then by 60 days they will have grown and changed approaching the fetal state which is defined as being recognizable as a member of their species.
IRRELEVANT
If the sperm is lucky enough to fertilize an egg, development will be at about the same point.
IRRELEVANT
So your argument is viabilty or the likelihood that they will advance to the next stage same as sf's and mine. The only difference is you two are too stupid to know that.
IRRELEVANT
Click to expand...

You're not even on the same topic now....

If you had the brains of a 7 year old, I'd try this on you.....

Take your sperm cell or human egg and note its characteristics, then assuming you can keep them alive, look at it 30 days later and then 30 days later yet....what will you see ?

Now take that "zygote" and check it out....then look at it 30 days later and then 30 days later yet....what will you see ?

Are you getting the picture.....http://tinyurl.com/m5pl5s2

You won't get any more 'material' than that picture.....the difference between the cells and a zygote is pretty clear, is it not...
 
Damocles said:
Yes, but they are not a human like a zygote is. Half the chromosomes and alive equals a sperm or egg but equals not a human being. All the chromosomes and alive equals a human being.

And in the other thread, which was about the legalese definition of "alive", where this began you certainly did reference the courts. It's what the thread was about. You claim to have made a fool of somebody, but it appears that so far the only fool in both threads is you.
Click to expand...

Is the sperm/egg a parakeet prior to fertilization?

Your philosophically based definition of HUMAN life then has nothing to do with origin or being alive, but rather is about having met a certain condition, i.e., the necessary chromosomes. Mine is that they have a working brain and have the capacity to live as humans. Both are a fundamentally philosophical views of what it means to be human and to be alive. The problem with your definition though is it does not exclude the cells from my arm or the brain dead. That is, your philosphical view is rubbish.
 
NOVA said:
You're not even on the same topic now....

If you had the brains of a 7 year old, I'd try this on you.....

Take your sperm cell or human egg and note its characteristics, then assuming you can keep them alive, look at it 30 days later and then 30 days later yet....what will you see ?

Now take that "zygote" and check it out....then look at it 30 days later and then 30 days later yet....what will you see ?

Are you getting the picture.....http://tinyurl.com/m5pl5s2

You won't get any more 'material' than that picture.....the difference between the cells and a zygote is pretty clear, is it not...
Click to expand...

??? The answers to your question are not the same topic or relevant? Looks like you were hoping for some simple minded answer that pretends the survival and growth of the zygote is certain and with little input from the mother, but it is a much more delicate, fragile and uncertain process.

That's not an image of a zygote, moron.
 
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.
 
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...

then the left half of this board is dead......
 
Hasa Diga Eebowai said:
??? The answers to your question are not the same topic or relevant? Looks like you were hoping for some simple minded answer that pretends the survival and growth of the zygote is certain and with little input from the mother, but it is a much more delicate, fragile and uncertain process.

That's not an image of a zygote, moron.
Click to expand...

Of course it is.....the very same now at 60 days from conception, just like my post stated....can't you read English ?
Your giving it a new and different label changes nothing but the name....just as the labels pre-teen, teen or young adult....labels to distinguish age...Joe or Sally will be Joe and Sally no matter what label you give them....

Take your sperm cell or human egg and note its characteristics, then assuming you can keep them alive, look at it 30 days later and then 30 days later yet....what will you see ?

Now take that "zygote" and check it out....then look at it 30 days later and then 30 days later yet....what will you see ?

Are you getting the picture.....http://tinyurl.com/m5pl5s2

You won't get any more 'material' than that picture.....the difference between the cells and a zygote is pretty clear, is it not...
Click to expand...


The sperm and egg won't look any different at 60 days than they when they came in existence, they are cells....but the zygote those cells created, lives and grows and changes...a human life in its earliest stages of life.
The survival and growth of the zygote is certainly NOT certain and depends totally on the host (mother) for its continued life...just as it will depend totally on somone
else for its existence for some time after it is delivered from the womb....did someone claim differently ?

But again, that part of life is irrelevant to the "when that life began"
 
Last edited:
Hasa Diga Eebowai said:
Is the sperm/egg a parakeet prior to fertilization?

Your philosophically based definition of HUMAN life then has nothing to do with origin or being alive, but rather is about having met a certain condition, i.e., the necessary chromosomes. Mine is that they have a working brain and have the capacity to live as humans. Both are a fundamentally philosophical views of what it means to be human and to be alive. The problem with your definition though is it does not exclude the cells from my arm or the brain dead. That is, your philosphical view is rubbish.
Click to expand...


Look fool....YOURS is the philosophically based definition of HUMAN life which has no standing in science or biology.....what it means to be human and to be alive

a working brain and have the capacity to live as humans. You've proven one doesn't have to possess a working brain to be a living human....


when life begins is a matter of science and biology, not on the whims of a philosopher.
 
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...


We're trying to keep pro-life and pro-choice and abortion arguments out of this....they are not relevant.
 
NOVA said:
Of course it is.....the very same now at 60 days from conception, just like my post stated....can't you read English ?
Your giving it a new and different label changes nothing but the name....just as the labels pre-teen, teen or young adult....labels to distinguish age...Joe or Sally will be Joe and Sally no matter what label you give them....

The sperm and egg won't look any different at 60 days than they when they came in existence, they are cells....but the zygote those cells created, lives and grows and changes...a human life in its earliest stages of life.
The survival and growth of the zygote is certainly NOT certain and depends totally on the host (mother) for its continued life...just as it will depend totally on somone
else for its existence for some time after it is delivered from the womb....did someone claim differently ?

But again, that part of life is irrelevant to the "when that life began"
Click to expand...

The image is not of a zygote, you idiot. A zygote is but a single cell formed when the sperm fertilizes the ovum. That image is well past the stage of zygote. It is named 8weekfetus.jpg. You might as well say it is a sperm/egg.

The zygote won't change much if it does not survive past a few days and implant on the uterine wall. It's future development is only somewhat more likely than the sperm/egg. The point is not that it needs care but that you are simply picking a point that is still highly variable, very much dependent to chance and but one step further along in the process than the sperm/egg. It is a little closer to viability than the sperm/egg but not much and you have not established that human life has begun.
 
Last edited:
NOVA said:
Look fool....YOURS is the philosophically based definition of HUMAN life which has no standing in science or biology.....what it means to be human and to be alive

a working brain and have the capacity to live as humans. You've proven one doesn't have to possess a working brain to be a living human....

when life begins is a matter of science and biology, not on the whims of a philosopher.
Click to expand...

Everybody's definition is philosophically based, mushbrain.

There is absolutely no science that definitively establishes when life begins or any consensus of scientific opinion on it. I can provide a long list of biologists that dont agree with your claim and have referenced many. Some will agree with me, many many others will argue that life has no definitive beginning and is continuous. The sperm/egg are alive as well.

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/03/17/the-fertilized-egg-is-not-a-hu/
 
Last edited:
Hasa Diga Eebowai said:
Everybodies definition is philosophically based, mushbrain.
Click to expand...

Poor HasaDigoEebowai....hopelessly ignorant and seemingly totally blissful in his ignorance.....

You go to a pro-choice, pro abortion blog for your science....?.....how utterly lame.
Thats not science, thats a political agenda....but just your cup of tea.....philosophical bullshit and worse yet, political philosophical bullshit....

Its no wonder you adhere to the doctrine of the 'jackass party'........You're dismissed sonny.
 
Last edited:
NOVA said:
Poor HasaDigoEebowai....hopelessly ignorant and seemingly totally blissful in his ignorance.....
Click to expand...

You are all out of gas, mushbrain.

I just sourced a biologist referencing two well known ones, all agreeing that your claim is nothing but bullshit.

Learn what a zygote is before making an ass out of yourself in subsequent discussions.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top