01-25-2017, 04:32 PM
(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.
A zygote may develop into a human being under the right conditions, but fails to do so approximately 50% of the time because the conditions aren't conducive for development. Gametes can also develop into human beings under the right conditions. It just involves one additional condition (and I can think of at least one exception.)
Quote: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.
"Pro Life." Life is in the term. So a stand against abortion or a Pro Life stand does stem from the definition of human life. The bill proposes a definition of when human life begins. My question pertains to what constitutes human life and what doesn't. I don't understand how my question doesn't matter. Because what constitutes human life affects when human life begins. Law is a profession of "technical standpoints." The technical difference is this: if we assign individual rights to a living, single celled, genetically unique, human zygote we must also assign individual rights to a living, single celled, genetically unique, human gamete. Which means any form of birth control is murder the same as a Pro Lifer believes abortion is murder. Male masturbation=murder. Gonna have to outlaw that, too. Which means sex is for procreation only. Sex for pleasure will need to be outlawed as well.
Unless there is some reason a haploid human gamete isn't human, which there is no such reason.
Quote: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.
No, that is not what most scientist agree on. It is what most people without a biology background believe scientists believe when they read a biology textbook or the textbooks are poorly worded for a middle or high school classroom when they try to apply the science to an abortion argument because the textbooks aren't written for an abortion argument.
Does the development of a new human begin with fertilization? Yes. Is that the start of new human life? No.
If we have two human gametes which are both dead, will we have fertilization and a new human? No. Why? Because the gametes aren't filled with "Life." The gametes are inanimate.
If we have two human gametes and only one is alive, will we have fertilization and a new human? No. Why? Because one of the gametes is inanimate.
Why is this important? Because we can't create "new" life if both gametes aren't already animated with "Life."
The whole sanctity of human life or Pro Life or human life begins at fertilization argument is a semantics argument. The definitions matter in any sematics argument or any legal argument.
