Why Can't The So-Called Pro-Life Crowd Be Honest?

[Ravi]

Science can tell us when a human organism is created. It can tell us whether it is alive.

'When life beings' = 'When a system first meets the conditions of being both alive and a human'

It is a simple question of biology

Still wrong. It can tell us when it isn't alive but it can't tell us when it becomes a living human (noun).

Yes, it can. Or can science not tell us what species something is now?

The answer science gives us: fertilization. When two germ cells merge, they create a new organism. That organism is human by definition- you could check its DNA and confirm that. It's also obviously human as two humans can only produce human offspring.

Or did she get pregnant by her dog?

(Are you stilling waiting 2b a real jd? )

Repeating your same incorrect and idiotic points makes no difference. There is no scientific answer to the question when does human life begin.

 

[JBeukema]

Yes, there is. Life begins when a system meets the definition of 'alive'. You know, homeostasis and all that. A human life begins with the creation/emergence of a system that is both alive and human.

No, you are incorrect to claim that there is scientific evidence that answers the question when does human life begin. You willfully twist things to suit your agenda and just flat out lie.

Scientists are still trying to figure out whether Jbukema is alive

It's a little complicated

 

[JBeukema]

WTF? Humans are created by 2 germ cells?

Germ cell - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Thanks, but that link proves nothing.

You don't know what science is, do you?

[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Developing-Human-Clinically-Oriented-Embryology/dp/1416037063/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1301679185&sr=1-1]Amazon.com: The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology With STUDENT CONSULT Online Access (9781416037064): Keith L. Moore MSc PhD FIAC FRSM FAAA, T. V. N. Persaud MD PhD DSc FRCPath (Lond.) FAAA: Books[/ame]

 

[Spoonman]

Germ cell - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Thanks, but that link proves nothing.

You don't know what science is, do you?

[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Developing-Human-Clinically-Oriented-Embryology/dp/1416037063/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1301679185&sr=1-1]Amazon.com: The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology With STUDENT CONSULT Online Access (9781416037064): Keith L. Moore MSc PhD FIAC FRSM FAAA, T. V. N. Persaud MD PhD DSc FRCPath (Lond.) FAAA: Books[/ame]

I'm still looking for the part where it says how these 2 germ cells get together, merge and create a new organism.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Those are all things his body is individually able to do or have his mind tell him he needs to do it.

Why aren't early miscarriages in obituaries?

Why don't we have funerals for early miscarriages?

How long are we going to have an enormous pocket of society who pretends early stage pregnancies are the same as a baby when in no other situation in life besides the abortion issue do they hold to that principle?

Is arguing over when life begins really that necessary? I disagree with both you and RDD, but quite truthfully, when life begins means squat. I don't care if the fetus is a human being or a potential human being. Snuffing out its life for convenience purposes is simply wrong... wrong... wrong!

The efforts on the left to dehumanize a fetus are nothing more than excuses for snuffing out a life. They want to justify their stance. Under no circumstances do I believe this attempt is valid on their behalf. There is absolutely no justification for snuffing out a life for convenience sake!

Earlier today I posted in a thread about the CEO of Go Daddy killing an elephant. I stated he should have the balls to admit that he did it for no other reason than sport. The left should have the balls to admit that their efforts to dehumanize the fetus is nothing more than an attempt to justify the snuffing out of a life for the sake of convenience.

Immie

I think I'm going to stop humoring people who can ONLY "debate" by using childish name-calling and grade-school insults. So I'll respond to immie and not to whoever the other ranting person is.

I thought the point of when life began was what the whole stance was about? One believes it happen starts like a few days or a week after conception, the other believes life begins when the fetus can sustain itself. Isn't that why the one side is called "pro-life"? Because they believe life begins earlier than the other side?

My view isn't about "snuffing out life", it's about giving women the choice to have an abortion or not.

I've never had anyone answer why society only views early pregnancies ending as a dying baby in terms of abortion, and no other time. I wish someone would humor me at some point and try answering them.

It never ceases to amaze me that leftists keep trying this whole "I can't answer your points, so coincidentally, I take offense to YOU and won't deign to respond to you . . . and your points I have no answer for" schtick and think it's fooling anyone.

On the other hand, it's a fact that if leftists have to EARN respect instead of demanding it, they're screwed. Fortunately, the ignorant posts of poltroons still make excellent launching pads for educating those who AREN'T intellectual cowards.

One side believes life begins when the living organism begins; the other side pretends to believe that life magically and mysteriously appears when the baby's location changes from one side of the mother's abdominal wall to the other. I assume it is easier to pretend this since they are genuinely so biologically ignorant that they actually believe "sustaining life" is defined as "existing in a narrowly specific way in a narrowly specific environment" as opposed to "operating one's own biological functions".

What also never ceases to amaze me is the number of staggeringly, BLINDINGLY silly things people believe to be true biologically and will actually present as arguments on this message board. I remember distinctly a group - blessedly small - of leftists who were convinced that the mother and fetus shared a bloodstream, and that the mother's circulatory system pumped the fetus's blood for him.

I can't decide if this is because of the deplorable state of public education in the US, or because these people have willfully chosen to forget what they learned in school in favor of believing anything that serves their agenda.

Finally, I sincerely doubt that Dreck really has never had anyone answer his question before. I suspect it's much more likely that he's just refused to listen to the answer because he didn't like it, just as he's not going to hear it THIS time, because he's using his "She's mean! Waaah!" act as a shield to protect him from thoughts and ideas that threaten his ideology. Nevertheless, the answer is this:

"Society only views early pregnancies ending as a dying baby in terms of abortion, and no other time" is a situation that only exists in your imagination, much the same way that life "magically" appearing nine months into the fetus's existence does. In fact, society - or at least those segments of it that are educated enough to understand that fetuses are living organisms - has always viewed miscarriages as the death of the fetus. That doesn't mean being killed by nature is equivalent to being killed by a person.

 

[Cecilie1200]

If I shoot random democrats, can I claim in court that you're infringing my right to choose to kill another human being and you should stop trying to legislate you morality?

Call it an extremely late-term abortion. It took you this long to make your decision.

 

[Ravi]

In fact, society - or at least those segments of it that are educated enough to understand that fetuses are living organisms - has always viewed miscarriages as the death of the fetus.

Yep, death of a fetus not of a child.

Shouldn't you be getting ready for your orgy?

 

[JBeukema]

Thanks, but that link proves nothing.

You don't know what science is, do you?

[ame="http://www.amazon.com/Developing-Human-Clinically-Oriented-Embryology/dp/1416037063/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1301679185&sr=1-1"]Amazon.com: The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology With STUDENT CONSULT Online Access (9781416037064): Keith L. Moore MSc PhD FIAC FRSM FAAA, T. V. N. Persaud MD PhD DSc FRCPath (Lond.) FAAA: Books[/ame]

I'm still looking for the part where it says how these 2 germ cells get together, merge and create a new organism.

Go ask a librarian for a book that'll teach you where babies come from

 

[Cecilie1200]

Still wrong. It can tell us when it isn't alive but it can't tell us when it becomes a living human (noun).

Yes, it can. Or can science not tell us what species something is now?

The answer science gives us: fertilization. When two germ cells merge, they create a new organism. That organism is human by definition- you could check its DNA and confirm that. It's also obviously human as two humans can only produce human offspring.

Or did she get pregnant by her dog?

(Are you stilling waiting 2b a real jd? )

WTF? Humans are created by 2 germ cells?

Germ cell - : a gamete (as an egg or sperm cell) or one of its antecedent cells.

What you're probably thinking of isn't called a germ cell. It's called a germ.

 

[AllieBaba]

In fact, society - or at least those segments of it that are educated enough to understand that fetuses are living organisms - has always viewed miscarriages as the death of the fetus.

Yep, death of a fetus not of a child.

Shouldn't you be getting ready for your orgy?

A fetus is a child.

And there's an orgy?

 

[JBeukema]

I remember distinctly a group - blessedly small - of leftists who were convinced that the mother and fetus shared a bloodstream, and that the mother's circulatory system pumped the fetus's blood for him.

The dog-human hybrids thread

 

[Cecilie1200]

WTF? Humans are created by 2 germ cells?

Germ cell - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Thanks, but that link proves nothing.

Um, it provides the definition of the term you were confused about, and proves that, in fact, humans ARE created by germ cells, which is what you were questioning. (This assumes that you accept Wikipedia as proof, but in this case, they're correct.)

What did you WANT it to prove?

 

[Immanuel]

I think I'm going to stop humoring people who can ONLY "debate" by using childish name-calling and grade-school insults. So I'll respond to immie and not to whoever the other ranting person is.

I'v often found that in a debate, Immie is the only wrong person still standing and presenting a reasonable argument.

Obviously, you have not yet learned. I am never wrong.

When you think I am, you are wrong.

Immie

 

[Cecilie1200]

Thanks, but that link proves nothing.

You don't know what science is, do you?

[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Developing-Human-Clinically-Oriented-Embryology/dp/1416037063/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1301679185&sr=1-1]Amazon.com: The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology With STUDENT CONSULT Online Access (9781416037064): Keith L. Moore MSc PhD FIAC FRSM FAAA, T. V. N. Persaud MD PhD DSc FRCPath (Lond.) FAAA: Books[/ame]

I'm still looking for the part where it says how these 2 germ cells get together, merge and create a new organism.

Are you seriously trying to tell us that no one has ever explained sexual reproduction to you? Where babies come from?

From the Wikipedia link:

A germ cell is any biological cell that gives rise to the gametes of an organism that reproduces sexually.

For the record, humans are organisms that reproduce sexually.

Now, if you click on the word "gametes" in that link, you get this:

A gamete (from Ancient Greek γαμέτης gametes "husband" / γαμετή gamete "wife") is a cell that fuses with another cell during fertilization (conception) in organisms that reproduce sexually. In species that produce two morphologically distinct types of gametes, and in which each individual produces only one type, a female is any individual that produces the larger type of gamete—called an ovum (or egg)—and a male produces the smaller tadpole-like type—called a sperm.

For the record, humans are a species that produce two morphologically distinct types of gametes.

Note the phrase "fuses with another cell during fertilization". That would be the "2 germ cells get together and merge" thing you were looking for.

Now then, if we return to "germ cell" and click on the phrase "reproduce sexually", we find this:

Sexual reproduction is the creation of a new organism by combining the genetic material of two organisms. The two main processes are: meiosis, involving the halving of the number of chromosomes; and fertilization, involving the fusion of two gametes and the restoration of the original number of chromosomes.

And there's the "get together and merge" thing again, accompanied by the "create a new organism" thing you asked for. See where it says "the creation of a new organism"?

I realize this requires some extra work on your part, but I think Wikipedia was assuming anyone reading their links had already been taught the birds and the bees.

 

[Cecilie1200]

You don't know what science is, do you?

Amazon.com: The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology With STUDENT CONSULT Online Access (9781416037064): Keith L. Moore MSc PhD FIAC FRSM FAAA, T. V. N. Persaud MD PhD DSc FRCPath (Lond.) FAAA: Books

I'm still looking for the part where it says how these 2 germ cells get together, merge and create a new organism.

Go ask a librarian for a book that'll teach you where babies come from

Yeah, cause his mommy and daddy obviously dropped the ball on this one.

 

[Spoonman]

Germ cell - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Thanks, but that link proves nothing.

Um, it provides the definition of the term you were confused about, and proves that, in fact, humans ARE created by germ cells, which is what you were questioning. (This assumes that you accept Wikipedia as proof, but in this case, they're correct.)

What did you WANT it to prove?

Uhm, germ cells turn into sperm cells or eggs. germ cells divide within themselves throught meiosis or mitosis. They do not merge with each other.

 

[Cecilie1200]

In fact, society - or at least those segments of it that are educated enough to understand that fetuses are living organisms - has always viewed miscarriages as the death of the fetus.

Yep, death of a fetus not of a child.

Shouldn't you be getting ready for your orgy?

A fetus is a child.

And there's an orgy?

Not this week. We're all too busy.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I remember distinctly a group - blessedly small - of leftists who were convinced that the mother and fetus shared a bloodstream, and that the mother's circulatory system pumped the fetus's blood for him.

The dog-human hybrids thread

Oh, dear GOD, I had actually managed to forget about that! That's right, we had that one rocket scientist who confidently maintained for PAGES that dogs and humans could interbreed.

 

[AllieBaba]

I remember distinctly a group - blessedly small - of leftists who were convinced that the mother and fetus shared a bloodstream, and that the mother's circulatory system pumped the fetus's blood for him.

The dog-human hybrids thread

Oh, dear GOD, I had actually managed to forget about that! That's right, we had that one rocket scientist who confidently maintained for PAGES that dogs and humans could interbreed.

How'd I miss THAT?

 

[Ravi]

Thanks, but that link proves nothing.

Um, it provides the definition of the term you were confused about, and proves that, in fact, humans ARE created by germ cells, which is what you were questioning. (This assumes that you accept Wikipedia as proof, but in this case, they're correct.)

What did you WANT it to prove?

Uhm, germ cells turn into sperm cells or eggs. germ cells divide within themselves throught meiosis or mitosis. They do not merge with each other.

Don't be silly. There is no doubt in my mind that Buttemia is the result of a germ merger.