And they try again...

[GMDino]

(01-24-2017, 05:37 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Right.  Roe vs. Wade is a balancing act between when the rights of the woman supercede the rights of the fetus and vice versa.

[*bfine32*]

(01-24-2017, 05:33 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: 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.  


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.  


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.

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.


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.  

Lots of writing there Focker and a lot of is just taking 3 paragraphs to say the same thing.

What is the difference between a gamete and a zygote, perhaps this simple example can help.

Consider the sperm flour, the egg, well an egg, and consider the womb the oven. Leave that egg in the oven by itself, you get nothing, put that flour in the oven by itself, nothing. Combine them, you are making bread.

As to the what if successful fertilization does not occur? Then you do not have conception (the beginning of human life)

You seem to want to interchange the term alive with human life. Although sperm is alive, it is not human until conception.  

Not sure how you got I thought a scientific theory is just a guess from what I wrote.

As I said you can state human life begins (fill in the blank) I will go with conception.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(01-24-2017, 07:57 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Lots of writing there Focker and a lot of is just taking 3 paragraphs to say the same thing.

What is the difference between a gamete and a zygote, perhaps this simple example can help.

Consider the sperm flour, the egg, well an egg, and consider the womb the oven. Leave that egg in the oven by itself, you get nothing, put that flour in the oven by itself, nothing. Combine them, you are making bread.

As to the what if successful fertilization does not occur? Then you do not have conception (the beginning of human life)

You seem to want to interchange the term alive with human life. Although sperm is alive, it is not human until conception.  

Not sure how you got I thought a scientific theory is just a guess from what I wrote.

As I said you can state human life begins (fill in the blank) I will go with conception.

I'm not interchanging alive with life. You are using human as an adjective to describe only one type of life. You seem to want to make a distinction between human life and life. Why is human life a miracle, but life itself isn't?  Why does only human life matter, but life doesn't?  According to Christian theology only God can create life, correct?  Any life is a miracle, correct?  So what is it that makes a living haploid cell not meet your definition of life, but a living diploid cell does?  I don't understand you're understanding of science or theology. Those living gametes are alive and meet the definition of life because according to your theology God embued them with life. 

A human gamete is human life and part of the human life cycle. It has human DNA. It is living. So I'm going to ask you again, what is the difference between a living single celled human gamete and a living single celled human zygote besides the ploidy?  Since you want to claim people like to ignore science, explain the difference on a scientific basis why one cell meets your definition of life, but the other cell doesn't. 

[Mike M (the other one)]

(01-24-2017, 08:38 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: I'm not interchanging alive with life. You are using human as an adjective to describe only one type of life. You seem to want to make a distinction between human life and life. Why is human life a miracle, but life itself isn't?  Why does only human life matter, but life doesn't?  According to Christian theology only God can create life, correct?  Any life is a miracle, correct?  So what is it that makes a living haploid cell not meet your definition of life, but a living diploid cell does?  I don't understand you're understanding of science or theology. Those living gametes are alive and meet the definition of life because according to your theology God embued them with life. 

A human gamete is human life and part of the human life cycle. It has human DNA. It is living. So I'm going to ask you again, what is the difference between a living single celled human gamete and a living single celled human zygote besides the ploidy?  Since you want to claim people like to ignore science, explain the difference on a scientific basis why one cell meets your definition of life, but the other cell doesn't. 

I'm not going to get into this with you again, but I understand the metabolic view (yes I've been reading up more on it).

For what we are trying to establish is not when life begins scientifically, but to put a LEGAL starting point on when it begins. For this purpose, the genetic view (fertilization) makes the most sense.

[*bfine32*]

(01-24-2017, 08:38 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: I'm not interchanging alive with life. You are using human as an adjective to describe only one type of life. You seem to want to make a distinction between human life and life. Why is human life a miracle, but life itself isn't?  Why does only human life matter, but life doesn't?  According to Christian theology only God can create life, correct?  Any life is a miracle, correct?  So what is it that makes a living haploid cell not meet your definition of life, but a living diploid cell does?  I don't understand you're understanding of science or theology. Those living gametes are alive and meet the definition of life because according to your theology God embued them with life. 

A human gamete is human life and part of the human life cycle. It has human DNA. It is living. So I'm going to ask you again, what is the difference between a living single celled human gamete and a living single celled human zygote besides the ploidy?  Since you want to claim people like to ignore science, explain the difference on a scientific basis why one cell meets your definition of life, but the other cell doesn't. 

IDK, perhaps I am making the distinction of human life because that is what the thread is about. 

To the God part, being as you are determined to bring religion into it: God created man and then woman from that man and then instructed them to procreate. 

An answer to the question you continue to ask has been provided. Gametes are alive, but the are not human life until conception. That is the difference and to some a fairly big one. 

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(01-24-2017, 09:44 PM)bfine32 Wrote: IDK, perhaps I am making the distinction of human life because that is what the thread is about. 

To the God part, being as you are determined to bring religion into it: God created man and then woman from that man and then instructed them to procreate. 

An answer to the question you continue to ask has been provided. Gametes are alive, but the are not human life until conception. That is the difference and to some a fairly big one. 

Why aren't living human gametes human life?  Are they human? Yes, they contain human DNA. Are they alive? Yes, you already admitted they are. Do they meet the definition of life?  Yes. 

You still haven't answered my question. What is the difference between a living single celled human gamete and a living single celled human zygote besides the ploidy? Why is one type of a human cell a human, but another type of human cell not?

If you insist on sticking with a living human gamete isn't human life then explain why a living human haploid cell isn't human life and why a living human diploid cell is. 

Remember, people like to ignore the science so don't fall for not that trap. I want an explanation as to why they are different, not a regurgitation of a belief that they just are different. 

At the very least you will need to define "human life" so you can explain what doesn't constitute human life. In order to define human life, you must also define life itself. Hollo touched on this earlier which you dismissed offhand, but is central to the debate. We can't say when life begins if we don't define what life is. 

[*bfine32*]

(01-24-2017, 10:13 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Why aren't living human gametes human life?  Are they human? Yes, they contain human DNA. Are they alive? Yes, you already admitted they are. Do they meet the definition of life?  Yes. 

You still haven't answered my question. What is the difference between a living single celled human gamete and a living single celled human zygote besides the ploidy? Why is one type of a human cell a human, but another type of human cell not?

If you insist on sticking with a living human gamete isn't human life then explain why a living human haploid cell isn't human life and why a living human diploid cell is. 

Remember, people like to ignore the science so don't fall for not that trap. I want an explanation as to why they are different, not a regurgitation of a belief that they just are different. 

At the very least you will need to define "human life" so you can explain what doesn't constitute human life. In order to define human life, you must also define life itself. Hollo touched on this earlier which you dismissed offhand, but is central to the debate. We can't say when life begins if we don't define what life is. 

It has been answered a number of times and I even provided the the example of the flour and egg. Just because you keep asking a question that doesn't mean it hasn't been answered. Human life is when the 23 chromosomes of the sperm combine with the 23 chromosomes of the egg to create 23 pair that determine everything from hair color, eye color, and sex of the being, in our case from the genus ho-mo (human).

My turn for questions. I know, not fair:

When does this pairing of the 46 chromosomes happen?  

When do you say a human life begins?

[Dill]

(01-23-2017, 10:31 AM)hollodero Wrote: Life starts when certain definitions are fulfilled. These definitions are man-made, more or less arbitrary and not pre-determined by science.
Yours is an ideological definition, not a scientific one.

Judgments of value confused with judgments of fact. More of this to come.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(01-24-2017, 10:46 PM)bfine32 Wrote: It has been answered a number of times and I even provided the the example of the flour and egg.

That example was nothing but nonsense which did nothing to address the science which you accuse others of ignoring.

Quote:Just because you keep asking a question that doesn't mean it hasn't been answered. Human life is when the 23 chromosomes of the sperm combine with the 23 chromosomes of the egg to create 23 pair that determine everything from hair color, eye color, and sex of the being, in our case from the genus ho-mo (human).

All that does is state living human diploid cells are human life, but doesn't explain why living human diploid cells are human life and why living human haploid cells aren't life. You still have not answered the question.  You're going to need to do much better.

If we take a skin scraping or a cheek swab, my skin cells and oropharyngeal epithelial cells have 23 chromosome pairs because they are diploid and I'm (arguably) human. But, dollars to donuts you will argue they aren't human life, either. Even though they meet the definition you just gave.

Quote:My turn for questions. I know, not fair:

When does this pairing of the 46 chromosomes happen?  

I'm glad you asked. About 23 hours after fertilization and formation of an early zygote (Carnegie Stage 1) the nuclear membranes of the male and female pronuclei dissolve allowing the chromosomes of the haploid gametes to intermingle and align along the spingle apparatus in preparation for the first mitotic division.

Quote:When do you say a human life begins?

With the first humans.  Life gets passed from one generation to the next via the living gametes which are a normal developmental stage of the human life cycle.  If the gametes aren't alive then Life doesn't continue from one generation to the next.  Just look at a family tree; when Life isn't passed from one generation to the next that branch on the family tree ends.

[BmorePat87]

(01-24-2017, 09:40 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: For what we are trying to establish is not when life begins scientifically, but to put a LEGAL starting point on when it begins. For this purpose, the genetic view (fertilization) makes the most sense.

This is sort of the distinction I was asking about. Legal recognition versus scientific. 

So I guess my question for you, just to generate a dialogue that isn't a back and forth with no progress, is "Can you explain to me why you feel like fertilization makes the most sense for a LEGAL definition of a life?" with the follow up "Are you distinguishing between a 'person' and 'life' or are they the same to you?"

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

"This bill declares that: (1) the right to life guaranteed by the Constitution is vested in each human and is a person's most fundamental right; (2) each human life begins with fertilization, cloning, or its equivalent, at which time every human has all the legal and constitutional attributes and privileges of personhood; and (3) Congress, each state, the District of Columbia, and each U.S. territory have the authority to protect all human lives."


If passed frozen embryos are persons with a right to life. The State has the right to protect that life and therefore will be able coerce forced implantation of each embryo. Plan B contraception would equal murder.

[*bfine32*]

(01-25-2017, 02:13 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: I'm glad you asked. About 23 hours after fertilization and formation of an early zygote (Carnegie Stage 1) the nuclear membranes of the male and female pronuclei dissolve allowing the chromosomes of the haploid gametes to intermingle and align along the spingle apparatus in preparation for the first mitotic division.

Some folks call that conception. As normal this has dissolved into a game of you're wrong. As I said and should have stopped at that point: I'll stay with a human life begins at conception and has 0 bearing on my view of abortion, you feel free to go with.......

[Mike M (the other one)]

(01-25-2017, 10:01 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: This is sort of the distinction I was asking about. Legal recognition versus scientific. 

So I guess my question for you, just to generate a dialogue that isn't a back and forth with no progress, is "Can you explain to me why you feel like fertilization makes the most sense for a LEGAL definition of a life?" with the follow up "Are you distinguishing between a 'person' and 'life' or are they the same to you?"

The reason this makes the most sense, is because after fertilization has occurred, the Zygote is now genetically unique from its parents.
One of the main arguments against it was the egg can split up to 15 days after fertilization has occurred and create multiple individuals with the same DNA code. However, science has discovered that twins do not have the exact same genetic code. Anyways, that is another possible legal point to start with, 15 days after fertilization when the zygote can no longer multiply.

"A person's is a person no matter how small."  Dr. Seuss

Is an unborn human any less of a human?

[hollodero]

(01-25-2017, 12:00 AM)Dill Wrote: Judgments of value confused with judgments of fact. More of this to come.

I'm not entirely sure what you mean... I got to say though, the statement "human life starts with conception" is, obviously, a scientifically valid defnition. bfine is just right.
I also think it's not momentous for any king of legislation. And I'd feel uneasy about that definition being part of a proposed bill.

Sometimes I'm glad I live in Europe. We had a hefty public debate about abortion once, many years ago. Then we passed a law and everyone finally got behind that compromise (abortion is legal within 3 months after nidation). And it was never seriously debated since. 
Your whole scratching and reintroducing this "Mexico City" approach alone is astonishing. Your system doesn't seem to allow for any kind of compromise or social accordance any longer. And since power in your system is bound to swing between red and blue until eternity, abortion is bound to be a neverending topic. 

[Mike M (the other one)]

(01-25-2017, 12:45 PM)hollodero Wrote: I'm not entirely sure what you mean... I got to say though, the statement "human life starts with contraception" is, obviously, a scientifically valid defnition. bfine is just right.
I also think it's not momentous for any king of legislation. And I'd feel uneasy about that definition being part of a proposed bill.

Sometimes I'm glad I live in Europe. We had a hefty public debate about abortion once, many years ago. Then we passed a law and everyone finally got behind that compromise (abortion is legal within 3 months after nidation). And it was never seriously debated since. 
Your whole scratching and reintroducing this "Mexico City" approach alone is astonishing. Your system doesn't seem to allow for any kind of compromise or social accordance any longer. And since power in your system is bound to swing between red and blue until eternity, abortion is bound to be a neverending topic. 

Well yes, I am fine with the 3 month approach as a compromise between the two sides, with the exception the mothers' life will be in jeopardy if she has the baby. And honestly, I think this would pretty much shut up both sides for a long time. I am not sure we are at that point yet.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(01-25-2017, 11:27 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Some folks call that conception. As normal this has dissolved into a game of you're wrong. As I said and should have stopped at that point: I'll stay with a human life begins at conception and has 0 bearing on my view of abortion, you feel free to go with.......

No shit. The bill proposed fertilization as the beginning of life. The mixing of DNA between the two pro ulcer happens about 23 hours after fertilization. You're substituting conception for fertilization in another attempt to obsufacate.  

And as usual, you still haven't answered my question. You just keep repeating yourself without explaining why. How can I say you're explanation is wrong if you refuse to even answer the question?

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(01-25-2017, 12:40 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: The reason this makes the most sense, is because after fertilization has occurred, the Zygote is now genetically unique from its parents.
One of the main arguments against it was the egg can split up to 15 days after fertilization has occurred and create multiple individuals with the same DNA code. However, science has discovered that twins do not have the exact same genetic code. Anyways, that is another possible legal point to start with, 15 days after fertilization when the zygote can no longer multiply.

"A person's is a person no matter how small."  Dr. Seuss

Is an unborn human any less of a human?

Every gamete is genetically unique. 

Roe vs. Wade didn't rule embryos and fetuses aren't human. It ruled on when the rights of the woman supersedes the rights of the fetus and vice versa. 

If you're going to assign rights to a single cell zygote because it is genetically unique then that protection would also extend to the genetically unique single celled gametes. 

The proposed argument against this bill based upon twins makes no sense. The reason for legally claiming life begins at fertilization is to assign individual rights to the zygote in an attempt to stop abortions. If we are going to assign individual rights beginning with fertilization, the zygote will have individual rights beginning with fertilization and the twin will also when that happens. 

[RICHMONDBENGAL_07]

(01-25-2017, 12:45 PM)hollodero Wrote: I'm not entirely sure what you mean... I got to say though, the statement "human life starts with contraception" is, obviously, a scientifically valid defnition. bfine is just right.
I also think it's not momentous for any king of legislation. And I'd feel uneasy about that definition being part of a proposed bill.

Sometimes I'm glad I live in Europe. We had a hefty public debate about abortion once, many years ago. Then we passed a law and everyone finally got behind that compromise (abortion is legal within 3 months after nidation). And it was never seriously debated since. 
Your whole scratching and reintroducing this "Mexico City" approach alone is astonishing. Your system doesn't seem to allow for any kind of compromise or social accordance any longer. And since power in your system is bound to swing between red and blue until eternity, abortion is bound to be a neverending topic. 

Honestly I thought that's where were at until recently.  I thought it was a solid compromise. 

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(01-25-2017, 12:45 PM)hollodero Wrote: I'm not entirely sure what you mean... I got to say though, the statement "human life starts with contraception" is, obviously, a scientifically valid defnition. bfine is just right.
I also think it's not momentous for any king of legislation. And I'd feel uneasy about that definition being part of a proposed bill.

Sometimes I'm glad I live in Europe. We had a hefty public debate about abortion once, many years ago. Then we passed a law and everyone finally got behind that compromise (abortion is legal within 3 months after nidation). And it was never seriously debated since. 
Your whole scratching and reintroducing this "Mexico City" approach alone is astonishing. Your system doesn't seem to allow for any kind of compromise or social accordance any longer. And since power in your system is bound to swing between red and blue until eternity, abortion is bound to be a neverending topic. 

Bfine keeps dodging the question so I'm going to ask you since you believe bfine is right. What is the difference between a living, single celled, haploid, genetically unique human gamete and a living, single celled, diploid, genetically unique human zygote other than the ploidy? Why does the latter constitute human life, but the former doesn't?

Both cells are alive. The biological definition of life varies slightly depending upon the source, but both cells meet the definition. Thus each cell represents "Life" as we define it biologically. If we found a single cell on another planet it would mean we have found extraterrestrial life. 

Both cells are single cells. 

Both cells are genetically unique. 

Both cells contain human DNA. 

Why does one of those cells gets individual rights while the other one doesn't simply because of the ploidy?  Especially when the ploidy doesn't determine if something meets or doesn't meet the definition of "life."

The bfines of the world will claim, "Well, it isn't human life." While claiming others ignore science. But, a human gamete is a developmental stage of the human life cycle just like a zygote. A gamete isn't a fully formed infant, toddler, adolescent, or an adult human. But, neither is a zygote. They are all stages in the development of human life, however.

[hollodero]

(01-25-2017, 02:30 PM)RICHMONDBENGAL_07 Wrote: Honestly I thought that's where were at until recently.  I thought it was a solid compromise. 

One might think so. But if one side is always opposing and simply overruled instead of being integrated in the debate, compromises are no longer part of the deal, no matter the topic. That's what you get with a strict, nonelastic two party system where power will always swing back and forth. No movement on either side, that is.

You the people need to address this as soon as possible. Basically every topic apart from war is less important :)