Ask a democrat

[RightyTighty]

If you are this interested then you need to study up - Survival probability of human conceptions from fertilization to term. - PubMed - NCBI

Survival probability of human conceptions from fertilization to term.
Boklage CE1.
Author information
Abstract
Preterm death of the human conceptus is common. A consistent biphasic pattern in the rate of loss from biochemical pregnancy detection to term suggests that most wastage occurs prior to clinical recognition. After simple adjustments for varying methods, existing data show that at least 73% of natural single conceptions have no real chance of surviving 6 weeks of gestation. Of the remainder, about 90% will survive to term. IVF conceptions do nearly as well as natural pregnancies after clinical recognition, but poorly before, despite selecting apparently normal embryos for transfer. Reasons may lie in the uterus more than the embryo itself. Multiple pregnancies may constitute more than 12% of all natural conceptions, of which number about 2% survive to term as twins and about 12% result in single births. In all of these situations, simple equations for exponential decay in a mixture of two populations can accurately describe the distribution of those deaths in time.

PMID:
1970983
[Indexed for MEDLINE]

Quote the specific part of that source (or any other) that supports your claim that Human Beings morph out of something created by conception that is anything less than a human being.

Let's keep it very, very simple (which just might help you but I doubt it). A human being - doesn't fit in a petri dish. And there are specific legal requirements. You can't just be a body. It can's just be of human origin, made up of human DNA.

Your "position" is that a conception is the same as a person. That's simply not true in the law or in biology. Your argument is an ethical one, that's all, and that's not enough to carry the day which is why induced abortion is still here.

Still waiting for that source that you think supports your claim that human beings morph out of something less than a human being. . .

Moron!

What fits in a petri dish isn't a human being. I'll not post it again.

http://np.netpublicator.com/np/n40359630/Raconteur---IVF-spreads.pdf

"When Professor Sir Robert Edwards developed the in vitro fertilisation (IVF) procedure for treating infertility in the 1970s, he was well aware of the ethical issues of creating a human being in a petri dish, but was steadfastly unafraid of the controversy. Objections to his work only died away when it became clear that the babies born by IVF were healthy and that their parents were overjoyed to be able to start a family"

I can't help that the person who wrote that didn't write it in the language of either science or law. It was for layman and used language like I am with child or I'm "having" a baby. When you "have" a baby, we get to babysit while you go shopping. I can't do that if - the damn thing is still inside you.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Quote the specific part of that source (or any other) that supports your claim that Human Beings morph out of something created by conception that is anything less than a human being.

Let's keep it very, very simple (which just might help you but I doubt it). A human being - doesn't fit in a petri dish. And there are specific legal requirements. You can't just be a body. It can's just be of human origin, made up of human DNA.

Your "position" is that a conception is the same as a person. That's simply not true in the law or in biology. Your argument is an ethical one, that's all, and that's not enough to carry the day which is why induced abortion is still here.

Still waiting for that source that you think supports your claim that human beings morph out of something less than a human being. . .

Moron!

What fits in a petri dish isn't a human being. I'll not post it again.

http://np.netpublicator.com/np/n40359630/Raconteur---IVF-spreads.pdf

"When Professor Sir Robert Edwards developed the in vitro fertilisation (IVF) procedure for treating infertility in the 1970s, he was well aware of the ethical issues of creating a human being in a petri dish, but was steadfastly unafraid of the controversy. Objections to his work only died away when it became clear that the babies born by IVF were healthy and that their parents were overjoyed to be able to start a family"

I can't help that the person who wrote that didn't write it in the language of either science or law. It was for layman and used language like I am with child or I'm "having" a baby. When you "have" a baby, we get to babysit while you go shopping. I can't do that if - the damn thing is still inside you.

Now that I focus on your writing style and posts..your a 20 something female..



.

 

[RightyTighty]

It never crosses your tiny minds does it? That you two are morons.

This 'moron' can support his claims about scientific facts.

You can't.

I'll wait while that sinks in a little.

No, you can't support your claims but you (mistakenly) believe that you can. If you are really interested then you need a lot more basic biology, and embryology, and human development. Your understanding is for utter shit. If I said the fetus can pass DNA onto the mother you wouldn't believe me, but it's true. If I said the fetus and the mother were in a profound struggle for resources, they actually fight each other, you wouldn't believe me but it's true.

I enjoy science quite a bit.

As a realist, I am much more swayed by even the slightest biological facts than I am by any sort of religious or political doctrine.

Show me the credible source you have that supports your claim that human beings morph out of something less than a human being and into one and I will certainly give it (the source) and YOU all the credit and consideration that it deserves.

All the sources I have (including one from planned parenthood) says that the organism is formed at and by conception.

Human life (and development) begins at the moment of conception but a conception, look it up, is not a human being, look it up, and more specially, because this is a legal and ethical debate, they are not a "person". That's why anti-abortion people want "personhood" bills passed.

What else isn't a person? A body (no functioning brain but still alive or being kept live). A fetus (undeveloped brain/requires a host). A dead body (you can't be charged with murdering it when it's already dead). And, a 1972 Mustang fastback with glass-packs and a 4-banger.

It's justification for murder, again what happened to your pretend wife?


.

I don't have a pretend wife, and murder is for people, persons, it's a legal concept. While there may be laws that say when you kill a pregnant woman you are killing two people, you aren't. Only one doesn't show up for work the next day, only one has a social security card, only one orders take-out from the funny clown at the drive-thru.

 

[Muhammed]

You claimed that human beings conceive something that is less than a human being that has only the potential to become a human being at some later point in time.

That is called metamorphosis.

The onus is on YOU to provide a source to support that claim.

Hardly a stretch when a potential human being goes from something you need a microscope to see to something that looks like Trump, given seven decades of golf (and hamburgers).

Even a tiny microscopic human being (organism) is still a human being. There is no size requirement. Is there?

Still waiting for the source that you think supports your claim that human beings morph out of something less than a human being that was the product of conception.

A conception, which looks like those of other animals, isn't a human being - it has human genetics. That's all.

To get from that to say, you, is a brutal process and most will not survive. That's life, fetus-lover. As I said, this is a legal and moral debate. Biology won't help you. Biology treats conceptions like bad candy it spits out, more often than not.

You are incredibly ignorant of human biology.

Why are all of you Democrats so anti-science?

You are welcome to try and point out what is wrong (but you won't be able to).

A human being's lifespan begins at conception. Biology 101. Are you really too stupid to comprehend that fact?

 

[RightyTighty]

Let's keep it very, very simple (which just might help you but I doubt it). A human being - doesn't fit in a petri dish. And there are specific legal requirements. You can't just be a body. It can's just be of human origin, made up of human DNA.

Your "position" is that a conception is the same as a person. That's simply not true in the law or in biology. Your argument is an ethical one, that's all, and that's not enough to carry the day which is why induced abortion is still here.

Still waiting for that source that you think supports your claim that human beings morph out of something less than a human being. . .

Moron!

What fits in a petri dish isn't a human being. I'll not post it again.

http://np.netpublicator.com/np/n40359630/Raconteur---IVF-spreads.pdf

"When Professor Sir Robert Edwards developed the in vitro fertilisation (IVF) procedure for treating infertility in the 1970s, he was well aware of the ethical issues of creating a human being in a petri dish, but was steadfastly unafraid of the controversy. Objections to his work only died away when it became clear that the babies born by IVF were healthy and that their parents were overjoyed to be able to start a family"

I can't help that the person who wrote that didn't write it in the language of either science or law. It was for layman and used language like I am with child or I'm "having" a baby. When you "have" a baby, we get to babysit while you go shopping. I can't do that if - the damn thing is still inside you.

Now that I focus on your writing style and posts..your a 20 something female..



.

Wrong sex, and wrong by decades just as you are about where I live. You really are that stupid, aren't you? Honestly, that's a fucking shame.

 

[Chuz Life]

Quote the specific part of that source (or any other) that supports your claim that Human Beings morph out of something created by conception that is anything less than a human being.

Let's keep it very, very simple (which just might help you but I doubt it). A human being - doesn't fit in a petri dish. And there are specific legal requirements. You can't just be a body. It can's just be of human origin, made up of human DNA.

Your "position" is that a conception is the same as a person. That's simply not true in the law or in biology. Your argument is an ethical one, that's all, and that's not enough to carry the day which is why induced abortion is still here.

Still waiting for that source that you think supports your claim that human beings morph out of something less than a human being. . .

Moron!

What fits in a petri dish isn't a human being. I'll not post it again.

http://np.netpublicator.com/np/n40359630/Raconteur---IVF-spreads.pdf

"When Professor Sir Robert Edwards developed the in vitro fertilisation (IVF) procedure for treating infertility in the 1970s, he was well aware of the ethical issues of creating a human being in a petri dish, but was steadfastly unafraid of the controversy. Objections to his work only died away when it became clear that the babies born by IVF were healthy and that their parents were overjoyed to be able to start a family"

I can't help that the person who wrote that didn't write it in the language of either science or law. It was for layman and used language like I am with child or I'm "having" a baby. When you "have" a baby, we get to babysit while you go shopping. I can't do that if - the damn thing is still inside you.

Hofstra Law Review
121 Hofstra University,
Hempstead, NY 11549

"In 1934, in vitro fertilization (“IVF”) was a scientific fantasy central to Aldous Huxley’s novel, Brave New World. 48 On July 25, 1978, the concept of creating a child in a Petri dish became reality with the birth of Louise Brown—the first IVF baby.49"

 

[RightyTighty]

Hardly a stretch when a potential human being goes from something you need a microscope to see to something that looks like Trump, given seven decades of golf (and hamburgers).

Even a tiny microscopic human being (organism) is still a human being. There is no size requirement. Is there?

Still waiting for the source that you think supports your claim that human beings morph out of something less than a human being that was the product of conception.

A conception, which looks like those of other animals, isn't a human being - it has human genetics. That's all.

To get from that to say, you, is a brutal process and most will not survive. That's life, fetus-lover. As I said, this is a legal and moral debate. Biology won't help you. Biology treats conceptions like bad candy it spits out, more often than not.

You are incredibly ignorant of human biology.

Why are all of you Democrats so anti-science?

You are welcome to try and point out what is wrong (but you won't be able to).

A human being's lifespan begins at conception. Biology 101. Are you really too stupid to comprehend that fact?

Since most conceptions don't live to grow into human beings - neonates, infants, toddlers, children, teenagers, adults, etc. What are they?

 

[RightyTighty]

Let's keep it very, very simple (which just might help you but I doubt it). A human being - doesn't fit in a petri dish. And there are specific legal requirements. You can't just be a body. It can's just be of human origin, made up of human DNA.

Your "position" is that a conception is the same as a person. That's simply not true in the law or in biology. Your argument is an ethical one, that's all, and that's not enough to carry the day which is why induced abortion is still here.

Still waiting for that source that you think supports your claim that human beings morph out of something less than a human being. . .

Moron!

What fits in a petri dish isn't a human being. I'll not post it again.

http://np.netpublicator.com/np/n40359630/Raconteur---IVF-spreads.pdf

"When Professor Sir Robert Edwards developed the in vitro fertilisation (IVF) procedure for treating infertility in the 1970s, he was well aware of the ethical issues of creating a human being in a petri dish, but was steadfastly unafraid of the controversy. Objections to his work only died away when it became clear that the babies born by IVF were healthy and that their parents were overjoyed to be able to start a family"

I can't help that the person who wrote that didn't write it in the language of either science or law. It was for layman and used language like I am with child or I'm "having" a baby. When you "have" a baby, we get to babysit while you go shopping. I can't do that if - the damn thing is still inside you.

Hofstra Law Review
121 Hofstra University,
Hempstead, NY 11549

"In 1934, in vitro fertilization (“IVF”) was a scientific fantasy central to Aldous Huxley’s novel, Brave New World. 48 On July 25, 1978, the concept of creating a child in a Petri dish became reality with the birth of Louise Brown—the first IVF baby.49"

Can you make me a full-sized baby, maybe I enjoy changing diapers, in a petri dish?

Ask yourself - why do we say We're having a baby instead of we have a baby! instead of, we have a baby? Are they expecting a rhino or a horse instead? or, is it, common sense time, only a baby when you can buy those cute little outfits for it and comfort it as it falls asleep in your arms?

 

[Wyatt earp]

Still waiting for that source that you think supports your claim that human beings morph out of something less than a human being. . .

Moron!

What fits in a petri dish isn't a human being. I'll not post it again.

http://np.netpublicator.com/np/n40359630/Raconteur---IVF-spreads.pdf

"When Professor Sir Robert Edwards developed the in vitro fertilisation (IVF) procedure for treating infertility in the 1970s, he was well aware of the ethical issues of creating a human being in a petri dish, but was steadfastly unafraid of the controversy. Objections to his work only died away when it became clear that the babies born by IVF were healthy and that their parents were overjoyed to be able to start a family"

I can't help that the person who wrote that didn't write it in the language of either science or law. It was for layman and used language like I am with child or I'm "having" a baby. When you "have" a baby, we get to babysit while you go shopping. I can't do that if - the damn thing is still inside you.

Now that I focus on your writing style and posts..your a 20 something female..



.

Wrong sex, and wrong by decades just as you are about where I live. You really are that stupid, aren't you? Honestly, that's a fucking shame.

You post like a 20 year old liberal girl..

I think you are...


.

 

[Chuz Life]

Can you make me a full-sized baby,

No. . .

You already did that yourself.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Still waiting for that source that you think supports your claim that human beings morph out of something less than a human being. . .

Moron!

What fits in a petri dish isn't a human being. I'll not post it again.

http://np.netpublicator.com/np/n40359630/Raconteur---IVF-spreads.pdf

"When Professor Sir Robert Edwards developed the in vitro fertilisation (IVF) procedure for treating infertility in the 1970s, he was well aware of the ethical issues of creating a human being in a petri dish, but was steadfastly unafraid of the controversy. Objections to his work only died away when it became clear that the babies born by IVF were healthy and that their parents were overjoyed to be able to start a family"

I can't help that the person who wrote that didn't write it in the language of either science or law. It was for layman and used language like I am with child or I'm "having" a baby. When you "have" a baby, we get to babysit while you go shopping. I can't do that if - the damn thing is still inside you.

Hofstra Law Review
121 Hofstra University,
Hempstead, NY 11549

"In 1934, in vitro fertilization (“IVF”) was a scientific fantasy central to Aldous Huxley’s novel, Brave New World. 48 On July 25, 1978, the concept of creating a child in a Petri dish became reality with the birth of Louise Brown—the first IVF baby.49"

Can you make me a full-sized baby, maybe I enjoy changing diapers, in a petri dish?

^^^

Only a female would post that


.

 

[Chuz Life]

Even a tiny microscopic human being (organism) is still a human being. There is no size requirement. Is there?

Still waiting for the source that you think supports your claim that human beings morph out of something less than a human being that was the product of conception.

A conception, which looks like those of other animals, isn't a human being - it has human genetics. That's all.

To get from that to say, you, is a brutal process and most will not survive. That's life, fetus-lover. As I said, this is a legal and moral debate. Biology won't help you. Biology treats conceptions like bad candy it spits out, more often than not.

You are incredibly ignorant of human biology.

Why are all of you Democrats so anti-science?

You are welcome to try and point out what is wrong (but you won't be able to).

A human being's lifespan begins at conception. Biology 101. Are you really too stupid to comprehend that fact?

Since most conceptions don't live to grow into human beings - neonates, infants, toddlers, children, teenagers, adults, etc. What are they?

So (according to you) a human being that dies much too early in life - never was a human being.

Do you have a source to support that bullshit claim too?

No?

I didn't think you would.

 

[Wyatt earp]

What fits in a petri dish isn't a human being. I'll not post it again.

http://np.netpublicator.com/np/n40359630/Raconteur---IVF-spreads.pdf

"When Professor Sir Robert Edwards developed the in vitro fertilisation (IVF) procedure for treating infertility in the 1970s, he was well aware of the ethical issues of creating a human being in a petri dish, but was steadfastly unafraid of the controversy. Objections to his work only died away when it became clear that the babies born by IVF were healthy and that their parents were overjoyed to be able to start a family"

I can't help that the person who wrote that didn't write it in the language of either science or law. It was for layman and used language like I am with child or I'm "having" a baby. When you "have" a baby, we get to babysit while you go shopping. I can't do that if - the damn thing is still inside you.

Hofstra Law Review
121 Hofstra University,
Hempstead, NY 11549

"In 1934, in vitro fertilization (“IVF”) was a scientific fantasy central to Aldous Huxley’s novel, Brave New World. 48 On July 25, 1978, the concept of creating a child in a Petri dish became reality with the birth of Louise Brown—the first IVF baby.49"

Can you make me a full-sized baby, maybe I enjoy changing diapers, in a petri dish?

^^^

Only a female would post that


.

It's so obvious now you are a 20 something hysterical ..liberal female...



.

 

[Muhammed]

Even a tiny microscopic human being (organism) is still a human being. There is no size requirement. Is there?

Still waiting for the source that you think supports your claim that human beings morph out of something less than a human being that was the product of conception.

A conception, which looks like those of other animals, isn't a human being - it has human genetics. That's all.

To get from that to say, you, is a brutal process and most will not survive. That's life, fetus-lover. As I said, this is a legal and moral debate. Biology won't help you. Biology treats conceptions like bad candy it spits out, more often than not.

You are incredibly ignorant of human biology.

Why are all of you Democrats so anti-science?

You are welcome to try and point out what is wrong (but you won't be able to).

A human being's lifespan begins at conception. Biology 101. Are you really too stupid to comprehend that fact?

Since most conceptions don't live to grow into human beings - neonates, infants, toddlers, children, teenagers, adults, etc. What are they?

Your question makes so sense whatsoever, jackass.

You need to take a human biology class next semester.

 

[RightyTighty]

A conception, which looks like those of other animals, isn't a human being - it has human genetics. That's all.

To get from that to say, you, is a brutal process and most will not survive. That's life, fetus-lover. As I said, this is a legal and moral debate. Biology won't help you. Biology treats conceptions like bad candy it spits out, more often than not.

You are incredibly ignorant of human biology.

Why are all of you Democrats so anti-science?

You are welcome to try and point out what is wrong (but you won't be able to).

A human being's lifespan begins at conception. Biology 101. Are you really too stupid to comprehend that fact?

Since most conceptions don't live to grow into human beings - neonates, infants, toddlers, children, teenagers, adults, etc. What are they?

So (according to you) a human being that dies much too early in life - never was a human being.

Do you have a source to support that bullshit claim too.

If it dies in the womb, it was never a human being. It didn't make it that far. It's a dead fetus, it could even be a stillborn baby, but in any legal sense it was never a person. And if it's an incomplete spontaneous abortion then we go in with a D&C to clean out the mess so the dead tissue doesn't cause infection and sterility. That's not killing anything, especially not a person. As per usual, that conception didn't make it. Most don't.

 

[Rustic]

You are incredibly ignorant of human biology.

Why are all of you Democrats so anti-science?

You are welcome to try and point out what is wrong (but you won't be able to).

A human being's lifespan begins at conception. Biology 101. Are you really too stupid to comprehend that fact?

Since most conceptions don't live to grow into human beings - neonates, infants, toddlers, children, teenagers, adults, etc. What are they?

So (according to you) a human being that dies much too early in life - never was a human being.

Do you have a source to support that bullshit claim too.

If it dies in the womb, it was never a human being. It didn't make it that far. It's a dead fetus, it could even be a stillborn baby, but in any legal sense it was never a person. And if it's an incomplete spontaneous abortion then we go in with a D&C to clean out the mess so the dead tissue doesn't cause infection and sterility. That's not killing anything, especially not a person. As per usual, that conception didn't make it. Most don't.

In your opinion

 

[RightyTighty]

A conception, which looks like those of other animals, isn't a human being - it has human genetics. That's all.

To get from that to say, you, is a brutal process and most will not survive. That's life, fetus-lover. As I said, this is a legal and moral debate. Biology won't help you. Biology treats conceptions like bad candy it spits out, more often than not.

You are incredibly ignorant of human biology.

Why are all of you Democrats so anti-science?

You are welcome to try and point out what is wrong (but you won't be able to).

A human being's lifespan begins at conception. Biology 101. Are you really too stupid to comprehend that fact?

Since most conceptions don't live to grow into human beings - neonates, infants, toddlers, children, teenagers, adults, etc. What are they?

Your question makes so sense whatsoever, jackass.

You need to take a human biology class next semester.

The conceptions that are spontaneously aborted, fail to implant, aren't viable (which is most of them), are they human beings?

 

[RightyTighty]

You are welcome to try and point out what is wrong (but you won't be able to).

A human being's lifespan begins at conception. Biology 101. Are you really too stupid to comprehend that fact?

Since most conceptions don't live to grow into human beings - neonates, infants, toddlers, children, teenagers, adults, etc. What are they?

So (according to you) a human being that dies much too early in life - never was a human being.

Do you have a source to support that bullshit claim too.

If it dies in the womb, it was never a human being. It didn't make it that far. It's a dead fetus, it could even be a stillborn baby, but in any legal sense it was never a person. And if it's an incomplete spontaneous abortion then we go in with a D&C to clean out the mess so the dead tissue doesn't cause infection and sterility. That's not killing anything, especially not a person. As per usual, that conception didn't make it. Most don't.

In your opinion

This is an ethical argument. Opinions, and rational thoughts and arguments, are all that we have. It's not like God decided the matter for us. This is man's law not God's law.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Yes, ask a democrat about why he/she supports such policies and we will do our best to explain why. Not all democratic policies are supported by all democrats of course.

Make it brief....

One example: Why do you want to tax soda? My answer to this...I don't. But obesity and health cost are going up big time.

So why should we have public health care that allows people to live poorly and then have others pay for their diabetes and hip/knee replacements ?

 

[RightyTighty]

What fits in a petri dish isn't a human being. I'll not post it again.

http://np.netpublicator.com/np/n40359630/Raconteur---IVF-spreads.pdf

"When Professor Sir Robert Edwards developed the in vitro fertilisation (IVF) procedure for treating infertility in the 1970s, he was well aware of the ethical issues of creating a human being in a petri dish, but was steadfastly unafraid of the controversy. Objections to his work only died away when it became clear that the babies born by IVF were healthy and that their parents were overjoyed to be able to start a family"

I can't help that the person who wrote that didn't write it in the language of either science or law. It was for layman and used language like I am with child or I'm "having" a baby. When you "have" a baby, we get to babysit while you go shopping. I can't do that if - the damn thing is still inside you.

Hofstra Law Review
121 Hofstra University,
Hempstead, NY 11549

"In 1934, in vitro fertilization (“IVF”) was a scientific fantasy central to Aldous Huxley’s novel, Brave New World. 48 On July 25, 1978, the concept of creating a child in a Petri dish became reality with the birth of Louise Brown—the first IVF baby.49"

Can you make me a full-sized baby, maybe I enjoy changing diapers, in a petri dish?

^^^

Only a female would post that


.

Boy are you dumb. Anyway, can you make me a full-term baby, in a petri dish, yes or no?