And they try again...

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(01-25-2017, 02:41 PM)hollodero Wrote: 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 :)

Right now we have a compromise; everyone gets to choose for themselves. The ones being "overruled" are the ones who want to overrule the compromise. 

[*michaelsean*]

(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. 

That's because the Supreme Court decided it rather than the legislature.

[RICHMONDBENGAL_07]

(01-25-2017, 02:32 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: 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.

I don't think that he necessarily believes bfine is right (and correct me if I'm wrong), but without conception their is no human life correct?  At any rate, you're getting pretty sciencey.  Don't get me wrong, I'm pro-choice (and I believe hollo is as well), but as educated I believe that I am, I don't have the biology background that you seem to have. And neither do some of the other posters you're responding to.  Which is why you're getting the responses you're getting. 

I feel like I get what you're saying, but your just saying it in a more complicated way.


Just my two pennies

[hollodero]

(01-25-2017, 02:32 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: 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.

Ehm.
First, I'd guess gametes can't develop into a human being before being merged through fertilization. A zygode, however, can and does that. I consider that a distinct difference.
Second, I do not consider that question to be too important apart from the technical standpoint. Even bfine said that a stand on abortion doesn't necessarily have to stem from that definition. Why you are so insisting on that part is a bit strange to me. I'm not overly interested in that definitions, I don't think it's relevant. If the Trump administration uses that definition to justify outlawing abortion, I'm with you in protest. I fully remain "Pro choice" as you call it.
Third, the assertion that human life starts with fertilization is not exactly my personal stance. It's what most scientists agree on. I didn't think so at first, but turns out that's indeed the scientific take.

[*michaelsean*]

(01-25-2017, 02:58 PM)hollodero Wrote: Ehm.
First, I'd guess gametes can't develop into a human being before being merged through fertilization. A zygode, however, can and does that. I consider that a distinct difference.
Second, I do not consider that question to be too important apart from the technical standpoint. Even bfine said that a stand on abortion doesn't necessarily have to stem from that definition. Why you are so insisting on that part is a bit strange to me. I'm not overly interested in that definitions, I don't think it's relevant. If the Trump administration uses that definition to justify outlawing abortion, I'm with you in protest. I fully remain "Pro choice" as you call it.
Third, the assertion that human life starts with fertilization is not exactly my personal stance. It's what most scientists agree on. I didn't think so at first, but turns out that's indeed the scientific take.

Trump can't outlaw abortion. Trump and Congress can't outlaw abortion.

[RICHMONDBENGAL_07]

(01-25-2017, 02:41 PM)hollodero Wrote: 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 :)

Oh no trust me I understand.  I thought the compromise was in place, but that wasn't good enough for some of those on the right.  So they made an end around play. Making requirements, rules, and senseless regulations, under the false pretenses of "protecting women".

[hollodero]

(01-25-2017, 02:59 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Trump can't outlaw abortion.

Well, I don't know. I don't really grasp that Roe vs. Wade overturning talk (because at some point it gets too specific for me) and what would be the consequences of that. Looking at Pence's statements, they might at least try. They can nominate a supreme court and I guess the current ones don't have eternal life either, so as I said. I wouldn't know.

(01-25-2017, 02:55 PM)RICHMONDBENGAL_07 Wrote: I don't think that he necessarily believes bfine is right (and correct me if I'm wrong)

Well, when he says "human life starts with fertilization" I do believe he is right. Because, well, scientists say the same thing. That's all.

[*michaelsean*]

(01-25-2017, 03:05 PM)hollodero Wrote: Well, I don't know. I don't really grasp that Roe vs. Wade overturning talk (because at some point it gets too specific for me) and what would be the consequences of that. Looking at Pence's statements, they might at least try. They can nominate a supreme court and I guess the current ones don't have eternal life either, so as I said. I wouldn't know.



Well, when he says "human life starts with fertilization" I do believe he is right. Because, well, scientists say the same thing. That's all.

Yes he would need to get justices that would overturn it.  Right now there might be 2 on the court that would do that.  Thomas and Alito.  You would have to have 5.

[*michaelsean*]

(01-25-2017, 03:04 PM)RICHMONDBENGAL_07 Wrote: Oh no trust me I understand.  I thought the compromise was in place, but that wasn't good enough for some of those on the right.  So they made an end around play. Making requirements, rules, and senseless regulations, under the false pretenses of "protecting women".

Not really a compromise when 7 people decided it.  They may have felt they compromised, but nobody else was in on it.

And all the rules and regulations are no different that what has been done with guns.  It's what one side does when they don't exactly like a right and all it entails.  some are common sense and some are just meant to make it more difficult.

[hollodero]

(01-25-2017, 03:09 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Yes he would need to get justices that would overturn it.  Right now there might be 2 on the court that would do that.  Thomas and Alito.  You would have to have 5.

So... they get one for free now. And I just looked it up, Breyer is 78, Kennedy 80, Ginsburg 83. I wish all of them a long and happy life, but well, biology says there's a chance Pence could get to 5 in 8 years. (I said Pence.)

[RICHMONDBENGAL_07]

(01-25-2017, 03:14 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Not really a compromise when 7 people decided it.  They may have felt they compromised, but nobody else was in on it.

And all the rules and regulations are no different that what has been done with guns.  It's what one side does when they don't exactly like a right and all it entails.  some are common sense and some are just meant to make it more difficult.

Which seven people decided it?

[*michaelsean*]

(01-25-2017, 03:22 PM)RICHMONDBENGAL_07 Wrote: Which seven people decided it?

The Supreme Court.  (I think it was 7)

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(01-25-2017, 02:55 PM)RICHMONDBENGAL_07 Wrote: I don't think that he necessarily believes bfine is right (and correct me if I'm wrong), but without conception their is no human life correct? At any rate, you're getting pretty sciencey.  Don't get me wrong, I'm pro-choice (and I believe hollo is as well), but as educated I believe that I am, I don't have the biology background that you seem to have. And neither do some of the other posters you're responding to.  Which is why you're getting the responses you're getting. 

I feel like I get what you're saying, but your just saying it in a more complicated way.


Just my two pennies

Correct. Without fertilization there is no human life. Without gametogenesis there is no fertilization therefore there is no human life. Without an adult human there is no gametogenesis therefore there is no fertilization and no human life. So where does the process begin?  I can just as easily claim life begins with gametogenesis as someone else can claim it begins with fertilization. If you read an embryology textbook, they don't start teaching from fertilization. They actually start teaching embryology beginning before fertilization. 

It's a cycle. It's circular. Tell me where a circle begins and ends. It's just that simple and complicated. 

And we are back to the chicken and egg paradox. 

[*michaelsean*]

(01-25-2017, 03:20 PM)hollodero Wrote: So... they get one for free now. And I just looked it up, Breyer is 78, Kennedy 80, Ginsburg 83. I wish all of them a long and happy life, but well, biology says there's a chance Pence could get to 5 in 8 years. (I said Pence.)

Yeah but getting someone on the court isn't a gimme as to how someone will vote when their feet are to the fire.  In our lifetime, judges appointed by Republicans have been far more flexible that those appointed by Democrats.  Hell I think Sutter out libereled the liberals.  Kennedy has never been a lock.  O'Connor was never a lock.  We know Roberts isn't a lock.  

[hollodero]

(01-25-2017, 03:29 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Yeah but getting someone on the court isn't a gimme as to how someone will vote when their feet are to the fire.  In our lifetime, judges appointed by Republicans have been far more flexible that those appointed by Democrats. 

Well... from the outside perspective the reason for that might be that the "Democrat" side had the more solid cases, not just that the Republican judges are more pushovers.

[*michaelsean*]

(01-25-2017, 03:37 PM)hollodero Wrote: Well... from the outside perspective the reason for that might be that the "Democrat" side had the more solid cases, not just that the Republican judges are more pushovers.

Not pushovers, just more flexible.  I can't think of a single major case where a liberal has jumped over.  But my point is that just because Trump gets to appoint justices doesn't mean they will always vote like he would like.  

[hollodero]

(01-25-2017, 03:27 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Correct. Without fertilization there is no human life. Without gametogenesis there is no fertilization therefore there is no human life. Without an adult human there is no gametogenesis therefore there is no fertilization and no human life. So where does the process begin? 

Probably at erection then?
That's the new pick up line... take me now or else you're neglecting my arousal and hence basically murdering our possible offspring.

[hollodero]

(01-25-2017, 03:40 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Not pushovers, just more flexible.  I can't think of a single major case where a liberal has jumped over.  But my point is that just because Trump gets to appoint justices doesn't mean they will always vote like he would like.  

Maybe there was no legal justification to "jump over" for the liberal ones, I think you should consider that. 

[BengalHawk62]

(01-25-2017, 03:41 PM)hollodero Wrote: Probably at erection then?
That's the new pick up line... take me now or else you're neglecting my arousal and hence basically murdering our possible offspring.

LOL!!!!   I am so totally using that one tonight with my wife. 

[*michaelsean*]

(01-25-2017, 03:43 PM)hollodero Wrote: Maybe there was no legal justification to "jump over" for the liberal ones, I think you should consider that. 

OK I'll do that, but just to reiterate my point is that I don't think Roe V Wade is in any danger.