01-25-2017, 02:55 PM
(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
