And they try again...

[Belsnickel]

(01-23-2017, 10:29 AM)xxlt Wrote: I was out there with them. It was a wonderful experience. 

I had jury duty Friday, went to the march Saturday, went to church and a summit on Sunday, and somewhere in the middle of all of that I think I caught the flu because I feel like a truck hit me.

But I'd do it all again, one hell of an experience. Also, people are trying to get me to run for office, here, thanks to the summit.

[hollodero]

(01-23-2017, 02:13 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Okey Doke. I should have learned that in ideology class not Biology. You could have saved me a semester of College.

I hope you took more out of that semester than just that one thing.

It's still a definition thing, like if Pluto is a planet or not. It depends on what a "planet" is. Here it depends on what "life" is. 
Many scientists consider your definition to be the scientific correct terminology, to my surprise. But it's still about terminology which is the difference between that and CC (which is about cause and effect and not about terminology).

And if we define the term "life" as stated in the OP - then the ideological question would be, what do we make out of it. Is this stage of "life" really the same kind of life that our laws and constitutions talk about. (I say no, for practical and maybe ideological reasons.) 
And bringing up such definitions in a political debate clearly is ideologically motivated, too.

[GMDino]

(01-23-2017, 03:13 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I had jury duty Friday, went to the march Saturday, went to church and a summit on Sunday, and somewhere in the middle of all of that I think I caught the flu because I feel like a truck hit me.

But I'd do it all again, one hell of an experience. Also, people are trying to get me to run for office, here, thanks to the summit.

Will you have to scrub all your posts here then?!?! 

[*bfine32*]

(01-23-2017, 03:17 PM)hollodero Wrote: I hope you took more out of that semester than just that one thing.

It's still a definition thing, like if Pluto is a planet or not. It depends on what a "planet" is. Here it depends on what "life" is. 
Many scientists consider your definition to be the scientific correct terminology, to my surprise. But it's still about terminology which is the difference between that and CC (which is about cause and effect and not about terminology).

And if we define the term "life" as stated in the OP - then the ideological question would be, what do we make out of it. Is this stage of "life" really the same kind of life that our laws and constitutions talk about. (I say no, for practical and maybe ideological reasons.) 
And bringing up such definitions in a political debate clearly is ideologically motivated, too.

Got it. I'll go with human life begins at conception, you feel free to go with depends.

[Belsnickel]

(01-23-2017, 03:34 PM)GMDino Wrote: Will you have to scrub all your posts here then?!?! 

I told them it wasn't happening, I'm a faceless bureaucrat and I like it that way.

In truth the reason is that in my current position I wouldn't be able to make it work. We have part-time state delegates, and I would spend 45 days at the beginning of the year and then about the same in September/August not being able to work because of legislating or campaigning. Those are my two busiest times.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(01-23-2017, 03:08 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Yep, but it take conception of two of them to create human life.

We've kicked this can down the road before. It's OK, you can accept this basic fact and still be Pro Choice.

You could have stopped after, "Yep."  Human gametes are already human life. They are alive. They are human. The difference between a single celled gamete and a single celled zygote is the ploidy. 

Human gametes are alive. If the human gametes are already alive how is life created at fertilization if life is a prerequisite for fertilization to occur?  In order for fertilization to occur, gametogenesis has to happen beforehand in order to produce to living gametes. If both gametes aren't already alive fertilization can't occur to "create" life.  Life has to be present for gametogenesis to occur. 

It is the classic chicken and egg paradox. We have kicked this can down the road because you ignore the science as you like to say. Without gametogenesis there is no fertilization. I guess that means the Church and State need to invade your bedroom and make sure every time everyone has sex it is for procreation only. 

[*bfine32*]

(01-23-2017, 04:07 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: You could have stopped after, "Yep."  Human gametes are already human life. They are alive. They are human. The difference between a single celled gamete and a single celled zygote is the ploidy. 

Human gametes are alive. If the human gametes are already alive how is life created at fertilization if life is a prerequisite for fertilization to occur?  In order for fertilization to occur, gametogenesis has to happen beforehand in order to produce to living gametes. If both gametes aren't already alive fertilization can't occur to "create" life.  Life has to be present for gametogenesis to occur. 

It is the classic chicken and egg paradox. We have kicked this can down the road because you ignore the science as you like to say. Without gametogenesis there is no fertilization. I guess that means the Church and State need to invade your bedroom and make sure every time everyone has sex it is for procreation only. 

bfine32 Wrote:Got it. I'll go with human life begins at conception, you feel free to go with depends.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

Based upon your one semester of biology, explain how a single celled zygote is "life," but a single celled gamete isn't "life."

Bonus question:  When is new life created in organism which reproduce asexually which doesn't involve fertilization?

[xxlt]

(01-23-2017, 03:13 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I had jury duty Friday, went to the march Saturday, went to church and a summit on Sunday, and somewhere in the middle of all of that I think I caught the flu because I feel like a truck hit me.

But I'd do it all again, one hell of an experience. Also, people are trying to get me to run for office, here, thanks to the summit.

It was the turd truck that hit you. Google Liberal Redneck Thanks Obama if you don't get the reference.

[*bfine32*]

(01-23-2017, 04:31 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Based upon your one semester of biology, explain how a single celled zygote is "life," but a single celled gamete isn't "life."

Bonus question:  When is new life created in organism which reproduce asexually which doesn't involve fertilization?

bfine32 Wrote:Got it. I'll go with human life begins at conception, you feel free to go with depends.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

You like to say people ignore the science; explain the science to my questions. 

[Belsnickel]

(01-23-2017, 04:35 PM)xxlt Wrote: It was the turd truck that hit you. Google Liberal Redneck Thanks Obama if you don't get the reference.

I am sharing that with so many people right now.

[RICHMONDBENGAL_07]

(01-23-2017, 03:28 AM)JustWinBaby Wrote:
It's only ever been a wedge issue for Dems.  That case was decided over 40 years ago, by a SCOTUS more conservative (when you consider it was FORTY years ago) than it likely will ever be again.  And, umm, precedent is sort of important so you'd need a really good reason (that I've not seen) to overturn the prior decision.

That bolded part is really the only part of your post that I disagree with.  But you're right the SCOTUS does not like to overrule prior decisions. But it seems the Reps are going to make it a wedge issue now that have control.  Reps are pro-life, Dems are pro-choice. Kinda hard to make it hard to make it a one sided argument when both are in the debate. It takes two to tango.

[*bfine32*]

Why is it so important to some to cloud the issue as to where Human life begins? I've seen in this very thread a poster claim it begins before conception, another claim after consciousness, in the past I have seen things such as when the heart beats, the egg attaches, the fetus feels pain, it is viable outside the womb, ect....

I think we would all agree (perhaps not publically) that conception is by far the most recognized point that a human is created and the starting point of human life. This very thread is nothing more than establishing a starting point for human life. What is wrong with establishing a consensus to a scentific happening?

Should we call it the Theory of Human life or should it be a scentifically recognized fact? When this starting point is established should have no influence on your position as Pro life or Pro choice.

[Belsnickel]

(01-24-2017, 01:35 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Should we call it the Theory of Human life or should it be a scentifically recognized fact? When this starting point is established should have no influence on your position as Pro life or Pro choice.

I have to agree on this. My position is in no way tied to the idea of when life begins, or whatever. It is based purely on my opinion of the government's role in our lives.

[*bfine32*]

(01-24-2017, 01:45 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I have to agree on this. My position is in no way tied to the idea of when life begins, or whatever. It is based purely on my opinion of the government's role in our lives.

This is why I always used the "ignoring science" retort in these types of threads. If a thread about Evolution comes up and I or someone else questions the validity we are "ignoring science". Regardless is a scientist says he discovered a 1,000,000,000,000 year old pinky toe bone does not change my opinion on a higher power and creationism.

[BmorePat87]

Does when matter? If the idea of being a person with unalienable rights is a social concept, the scientific side matters slightly less, does it not?

Let scientists hash that out and don't politicize it either as a pro-choice or a pro-life argument.

Hell, fetal viability, established as the benchmark in Roe v Wade, doesn't say "this is when life starts" it just says that "this is when the fetus can survive outside of the womb". We all acknowledge that fetuses of a certain "age" that can still be legally aborted are living.

I think this is just legislation that people are making a big deal out of. Reminds me of people freaking out over Trump naming his inauguration day Patriotism Day or something. Every President does that. Obama's was Day of Renewal and Reconciliation. Bush's was Day of Prayer and Thanksgiving.



Edit: Feel free to tell me how wrong I am. I teach the social sciences, not the natural sciences.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(01-24-2017, 01:35 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Why is it so important to some to cloud the issue as to where Human life begins? I've seen in this very thread a poster claim it begins before conception, another claim after consciousness, in the past I have seen things such as when the heart beats, the egg attaches, the fetus feels pain, it is viable outside the womb, ect....

Good question.  Why are you trying to cloud the issue?  You're deliberately trying to obfuscate when life begins and fetal viability.  The viability issue is a legal matter pertaining to abortion.  Same applies to heart beats, egg attaches, fetus feels pain, etc.  So let's just stop that train of thought here and now.  

Quote:I think we would all agree (perhaps not publically) that conception is by far the most recognized point that a human is created and the starting point of human life. This very thread is nothing more than establishing a starting point for human life. What is wrong with establishing a consensus to a scentific happening?

Scientific happening?  Gimme a break.  No, we can't agree.  That is a starting point determined by convention for the purposes of teaching a life cycle.  A cycle is like a circle.  No beginning or end.  It just continues on and on.  But, if I were to teach you how to draw a circle I have to pick a starting point to show you how.

When life begins isn't nearly as nice and neat or black and white as you would like others to believe based primarily upon your religious beliefs and not science.  When life begins is the classic, "Which came first; the chicken or the egg" paradox.  Or in this case which came first the human or the ovum.  Well, you gotta have a human to produce an ovum.  But, you gotta have an ovum to produce a human. So which came first?  Don't know.

I have told you repeatedly a life cycle is a continuous process it doesn't really have a beginning except for teaching purposes.  Look, what happens if you have two living human gametes (an ovum and a spermatozoa) at the point of fertilization?  Hopefully, if all goes well, a living zygote.  What happens when you have two human gametes (an ovum and a spermatozoa) but one of them is living and one of them isn't at the point of fertilization?  Nothing.  Nothing happens.  Fertilization does not occur.  Why?  Because both gametes weren't alive.  The gametes are fusing their genetic material and they are creating a new individual.  But, they are vessels for the transfer of life.  Life is a prerequisite for fertilization to happen to produce a zygote.  But, if either of those gametes isn't alive then life doesn't continue. 

You need living human gametes for for fertilization to occur for "life" to "begin," but you gotta have a living human for gametogenesis to produce those living gametes to produce a living zygote.  So we're back to the chicken and egg paradox.  If you trace the process backward it is a circle in reverse.  So where does life begin?  If you're of the Christian persuasion it began back in Genesis.  And human life can be traced backward to Adam and Eve.

So I ask again, what is the difference between a living single celled human gamete and a living single celled human zygote expect the ploidy?  Well, if you ask a Christian the mircle of life isn't miraculous when we are talking about a living gamete.  The miracle of life in a haploid cell isn't miraculous until it is a diploid cell.  Why?  Scientifically, they are the same to me.  But, to a Christian there are serious ethical and moral dilemmas if they consider the life of a single celled gamete equal to the life of a single celled zygote.  Moral and ethical dilemmas they don't want to face.  That's why they deny, deny, deny what I'm saying.  Life is a miracle, but only if it is life on their terms.  If "life" doesn't meet their terms, then it is easily discounted.  A living human gamete is no different to a Christian than a living human skin cell; they don't count as life despite being a living cell.  A living human gamete, a human skin cell, and a human zygote are all living cells to me.  Why?  Because they are alive.

I would say most Christians are resistant to that idea due to the ethical and moral implications. Specifically, if a single celled human gamete is alive as is a single celled human zygote then they would have to protect the life of the gametes the same as a zygote.  "Scientifically," both those cells are alive.  But, I'm the one ignoring the science.  ***** hilarious.  

Quote:Should we call it the Theory of Human life or should it be a scentifically recognized fact?

It seems you are treating a scientific theory as if it is a guess.  A theory is the consensus belief based upon the preponderance of evidence.  A theory is a theory based upon data, not guess work.

Quote:When this starting point is established should have no influence on your position as Pro life or Pro choice.

Pat already explained in the Supreme Court's Roe vs. Wade summary they didn't decide upon when life begins citing the difficulty to do so.

Quote:Texas urges that, apart from the Fourteenth Amendment, life begins at conception and is present throughout pregnancy, and that, therefore, the State has a compelling interest in protecting that life from and after conception. We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer.

Those opposed to abortion are just trying to misuse the science to justify their position.  That includes you.

The starting point of life has no affect upon whether I am Pro Life or Pro Choice.  I'm rather Liberteraian in my view of abortion.  I think it should be left up to the individual to decide for themselves.  

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(01-24-2017, 03:05 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Does when matter? If the idea of being a person with unalienable rights is a social concept, the scientific side matters slightly less, does it not?

Let scientists hash that out and don't politicize it either as a pro-choice or a pro-life argument.

Hell, fetal viability, established as the benchmark in Roe v Wade, doesn't say "this is when life starts" it just says that "this is when the fetus can survive outside of the womb". We all acknowledge that fetuses of a certain "age" that can still be legally aborted are living.

I think this is just legislation that people are making a big deal out of. Reminds me of people freaking out over Trump naming his inauguration day Patriotism Day or something. Every President does that. Obama's was Day of Renewal and Reconciliation. Bush's was Day of Prayer and Thanksgiving.



Edit: Feel free to tell me how wrong I am. I teach the social sciences, not the natural sciences.

Right.  Roe vs. Wade is a balancing act between when the rights of the woman supercede the rights of the fetus and vice versa.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

What would happen to the human race without gametogenesis to produce living gametes?  We would become extinct within one generation. Why?