119 replies to this topic

[Copasetic]

Yamato, on 26 February 2012 - 04:15 AM, said:

Dictate?  Please spare yourself. There's nothing confusing about the creation of life.  You just can't respect the earliest stages of it.  I take this non-answer as a failure to provide me with a single example.  By asking you to provide me with an authority, an actual biologist, I'm not "dictating" anything.  


Anyway the better question to ask instead of your erroneous one would be, how many professional biologists can you find that agree that human life begins at conception? (note; you should specifically ask developmental and EvoDevo biologists as this is their forte). We'll await your results, if you need help finding some professional Devo/EvoDevo biologists to ask let me know and I can point you in the correct direction.

Erroneous?  It's erroneous because you're a failure in providing an answer.  Your "better" question?  Okay.
http://www.princeton...ryoquotes2.html

You failed to understand, I didn't "not provide an answer". "Life" is a subjective definition we create, there is no "law of life" nor natural phenomena of life. Viruses for example are non-living because we arbitrarily define life. Life occurs across a spectrum of shades of gray. So the question does "life" start at conception is a stupid question. Life occurred prior to conception because down here on earth life begets life. All cells, by our definition are alive.

Hence you need to learn to ask the right question: When does human life begin.

Yamato, on 26 February 2012 - 04:15 AM, said:

Why don't you read my post you missed after the one you're replying to here instead of making your assumptions about strawmen that you also can't identify.  It'll help you understand the principle and why some people respect life how we do and it will answer your maybes that you should no longer be typing because I've already answered your obsolete questions.

The question of does "life" begin at conception is a stawman. That answer is yes, obviously because we define life (see previous post) that includes cells (all cells). That isn't the real issue though (hence your strawman, or again maybe you are just innocently ignorant), the real issue is when human life begins. I already pointed out, "life" has never nor will ever be afforded the same rights as people. If it were you could say goodbye to hamburgers, antibiotics and sneezing (all of which kill "life").

Learn to ask the right question, then you can argue about the answer cowboy.

[Copasetic]

Yamato, on 26 February 2012 - 04:15 AM, said:

http://www.princeton...ryoquotes2.html

To deconstruct your link, aside from it having no academic weight because of the "Princeton.edu" (I mean really, did you think linking to the pro-life club's subdirectory added academic weight? Lol), you'll note that all the "references" provide by the pro-life club point out that development begins at fertilization--Which they take the liberty of extrapolating to "human life". Development is a process that begins at fertilization, I can agree with that--Its really a no brainer situation there. That doesn't mean that is when human life starts, however.

Neoplastic cells begin development through a process that leads to unique genomic material as well--Are they human life? Likewise they also contain all the necessary genetic information to replicate a human being (in deed, with somatic cell transfer you could actually make a human out of a somatic cell lineage)--Are we to protect melanoma then? Or mononuclear cells?

FYI Mr. Biology, "conception" itself is a process that occurs over ~24H period. It isn't instantaneous (Hence for your question, you'd be hard pressed to find many professional biologists that agree that human life begins at fertilization, because there is no "moment of fertilization--Welcome to the last 20 or so years of developmental biology).

Edit: And in case you didn't find any biologists to actually ask (developmental biologists!) most take the gastrulation or neurological development approach to defining when a embryo becomes a human life).

Edited by Copasetic, 26 February 2012 - 06:24 AM.

[Yamato]

Copasetic, on 26 February 2012 - 06:05 AM, said:

You failed to understand, I didn't "not provide an answer". "Life" is a subjective definition we create, there is no "law of life" nor natural phenomena of life. Viruses for example are non-living because we arbitrarily define life. Life occurs across a spectrum of shades of gray. So the question does "life" start at conception is a stupid question. Life occurred prior to conception because down here on earth life begets life. All cells, by our definition are alive.

Hence you need to learn to ask the right question: When does human life begin.




The question of does "life" begin at conception is a stawman. That answer is yes, obviously because we define life (see previous post) that includes cells (all cells). That isn't the real issue though (hence your strawman, or again maybe you are just innocently ignorant), the real issue is when human life begins. I already pointed out, "life" has never nor will ever be afforded the same rights as people. If it were you could say goodbye to hamburgers, antibiotics and sneezing (all of which kill "life").

Learn to ask the right question, then you can argue about the answer cowboy.

You failed to understand, I didn't "not provide an answer". "Life" is a subjective definition we create
No, I failed to agree with you, because the scientists disagree with you as I just referenced.

Hence you need to learn to ask the right question: When does human life begin.
It begins at conception.  I already answered it.  I wasn't aware that bacteria got abortions or vasectomies.  Let's try to stay on topic without stating the obvious.

The question of does "life" begin at conception is a stawman. That answer is yes, obviously because we define life (see previous post) that includes cells (all cells). That isn't the real issue though the real issue is when human life begins.
Human life begins at conception.

I already pointed out, "life" has never nor will ever be afforded the same rights as people. If it were you could say goodbye to hamburgers, antibiotics and sneezing (all of which kill "life").
We're all talking about people here.  Rights aren't "afforded", they're already endowed.  Rights can only be taken away, and are they ever.  If you thought I was the one suggesting that rights get taken away, you're mistaken again.  I'm advocating responsibility, which includes not sneezing on other people because you'll probably get your *** kicked and that'll be bad for your health and maybe even your life.

[Copasetic]

Learn to use multi-quotes?

Yamato, on 26 February 2012 - 06:18 AM, said:

No, I failed to agree with you, because the scientists disagree with you as I just referenced.

Incorrect, you pointed to an admittedly biased source (prolife subdirectory and all that)--You didn't actually reference any scientists yourself. Nor did their
exposé in quote-mining actually support what you purport to claim it does. Nice try though.

Yamato, on 26 February 2012 - 06:18 AM, said:

It begins at conception.  I already answered it.  I wasn't aware that bacteria got abortions or vasectomies.  Let's try to stay on topic without stating the obvious.

Your confusion again. The point was if you want to afford "life" the same rights as human life than that includes more than just humans--Hence your challenge was stupid and hence it was a strawman. The question is about human life, not "life", try and keep up.

Yamato, on 26 February 2012 - 06:18 AM, said:

Human life begins at conception.

See above, I just pointed out to you that there is no "moment of conception"--This is based on your and many others, ignorance of biology. Not to mention again (see above) that most developmental biologists will tell you that human life doesn't begin during the process of conception--Most either go with the gastrula view (the point at which creating multiple unique entities has passed) or the neurological development view, where human neural activity can be observed.

Yamato, on 26 February 2012 - 06:18 AM, said:

We're all talking about people here.  Rights aren't "afforded", they're already endowed.  Rights can only be taken away, and are they ever.  If you thought I was the one suggesting that rights get taken away, you're mistaken again.  I'm advocating responsibility, which includes not sneezing on other people because you'll probably get your *** kicked and that'll be bad for your health and maybe even your life.

......No, you're advocating strawmen arguments, trying to talk biology and trying to say what most biologists think--When its clear you really have no idea what most biologists think.

Edited by Copasetic, 26 February 2012 - 06:36 AM.

[Yamato]

Copasetic, on 26 February 2012 - 06:15 AM, said:

To deconstruct your link, aside from it having no academic weight because of the "Princeton.edu" (I mean really, did you think linking to the pro-life club's subdirectory added academic weight? Lol), you'll note that all the "references" provide by the pro-life club point out that development begins at fertilization--Which they take the liberty of extrapolating to "human life". Development is a process that begins at fertilization, I can agree with that--Its really a no brainer situation there. That doesn't mean that is when human life starts, however.

Neoplastic cells begin development through a process that leads to unique genomic material as well--Are they human life? Likewise they also contain all the necessary genetic information to replicate a human being (in deed, with somatic cell transfer you could actually make a human out of a somatic cell lineage)--Are we to protect melanoma then? Or mononuclear cells?

FYI Mr. Biology, "conception" itself is a process that occurs over ~24H period. It isn't instantaneous.

Why does having Princeton.edu have no academic weight exactly?  Shouldn't it be the fact that these are biologists that provides the weight because that's exactly what you just asked for?  You can't handle the fact that your "better" question was so effortlessly answered and I'm still waiting for you to answer mine.  But my question's no good because you couldn't handle that either.  Pro-life club?  

What the Biologists are referring to includes human beings. I shouldn't even have to say that.  

Neoplastic cells begin development through a process that leads to unique genomic material as well--Are they human life? Likewise they also contain all the necessary genetic information to replicate a human being (in deed, with somatic cell transfer you could actually make a human out of a somatic cell lineage)--Are we to protect melanoma then? Or mononuclear cells?
Again you're not reading what I've already said and already referred you to.  I've already addressed the answers to these questions.  And why tell me that conception isn't instantaneous?  That isn't relevant to anything I've said.  Cowboy?  Mr. Biology?  Are you making up for your denial of what you were just taught by Biologists with insults?  Your unschooled opinion and the fact that you can't accept what the scientists tell you don't matter to me.  I can understand and accept the light reading I provided for you.  If you can't, that's your problem.

[Yamato]

Copasetic, on 26 February 2012 - 06:33 AM, said:

Learn to use multi-quotes?



Incorrect, you pointed to an admittedly biased source (prolife subdirectory and all that)--You didn't actually reference any scientists yourself. Nor did their
exposé in quote-mining actually support what you purport to claim it does. Nice try though.



Your confusion again. The point was if you want to afford "life" the same rights as human life than that includes more than just humans--Hence your challenge was stupid and hence it was a strawman. The question is about human life, not "life", try and keep up.



See above, I just pointed out to you that there is no "moment of conception"--This is based on your and many others, ignorance of biology. Not to mention again (see above) that most developmental biologists will tell you that human life doesn't begin during the process of conception--Most either go with the gastrula view (the point at which creating multiple unique entities has passed) or the neurological development view, where human neural activity can be observed.



......No, you're advocating strawmen arguments, trying to talk biology and trying to say what most biologists think--When its clear you really have no idea what most biologists think.

Incorrect, you pointed to an admittedly biased source (prolife subdirectory and all that)--You didn't actually reference any scientists yourself. Nor did their
exposé in quote-mining actually support what you purport to claim it does. Nice try though.
Where's your unbiased source?  You don't even have a source.  You don't even have a single example of a currently employed Biologist at a top university to float your diarrhea that life doesn't begin at conception.  You failed to find a single scientist who agrees with you.  The politics and the bias of "pro life" people doesn't render the science incorrect.  To the contrary, the science validates the politics.

Your confusion again. The point was if you want to afford "life" the same rights as human life than that includes more than just humans--Hence your challenge was stupid and hence it was a strawman. The question is about human life, not "life", try and keep up.
No, you don't afford rights, period.  So I don't want to do something that can't be done.  Your premise is nonsense; it can't correct my "confusion".

See above, I just pointed out to you that there is no "moment of conception"--This is based on your and many others, ignorance of biology. Not to mention again (see above) that most developmental biologists will tell you that human life doesn't begin during the process of conception--Most either go with the gastrula view (the point at which creating multiple unique entities has passed) or the neurological development view, where human neural activity can be observed.

That is irrelevant to anything I've said yet.  You're becoming desperate in your dishonesty to turn a word I've said into requiring a "moment".  Now you're telling me what Biologists will tell me?  Show me what they tell me, don't expect me to take your word for it.  You can't even accept what the Biologists say when I bring it to you.  You give yourself far too much latitude on an anonymous message board.  If you want me to think you have any knowledge relevant to this discussion you have to earn it.

......No, you're advocating strawmen arguments, trying to talk biology and trying to say what most biologists think--When its clear you really have no idea what most biologists think.
You're making this up.  You asked for examples of Biologists and I provided them.  That's not a strawman that's you getting served.  I gave you the first turn and you failed to deliver.  That's an F.  Where's the strawman?  Explain to me how anything I've said is a strawman and start out with the definition of strawman by looking it up and providing it in your post, and then follow it with an example of something I actually said that you believe is a strawman with an explanation how that's so.

[Copasetic]

Yamato, on 26 February 2012 - 06:40 AM, said:

Why does having Princeton.edu have no academic weight exactly?  Shouldn't it be the fact that these are biologists that provides the weight because that's exactly what you just asked for?  You can't handle the fact that your "better" question was so effortlessly answered and I'm still waiting for you to answer mine.  But my question's no good because you couldn't handle that either.  Pro-life club?  

No but seriously, are you new to the internets or something?

The link you provided is not an academic link at Princeton, its to a private page on their servers to: The Princeton Student Prolife Organization (Hence my use of the word "club")

So no, it actually doesn't carry any academic weight at all. From their home page "Princeton Pro-Life is a student-run organization devoted to promoting a culture of life on campus and in the world beyond. We host speakers, sponsor conferences, write editorials, and coordinate with other campus organizations to raise awareness of the pro-life message. We also organize a trip to the annual March for Life in Washington D.C. in January."

So yes, it is:
A. Biased
B. Not scientific nor academic.

Further, as I already explained none of the quote-mines they provide actually support what you or they are claiming (note they all mention DEVELOPMENT)

So now we are venturing into the land of you being incredibly bad at the internets or you intentionally trying to post something in a dishonest fashion.

Yamato, on 26 February 2012 - 06:40 AM, said:

What the Biologists are referring to includes human beings. I shouldn't even have to say that.

Here let me say it again, slowly this time: y-o-u   d-o-n-'-t   k-n-o-w   w-h-a-t   b-i-o-l-o-g-i-s-t-s   a-r-e   s-a-y-i-n-g.  

How many biologists do you know? How many developmental biologists do you know?

Yamato, on 26 February 2012 - 06:40 AM, said:

Again you're not reading what I've already said and already referred you to.  I've already addressed the answers to these questions.  And why tell me that conception isn't instantaneous?

Yes, we know you believe that human life starts at "conception" (though I already pointed out to you this stems from your ignorance of biology, there is not "moment of conception"). So we'll amend it for you, you believe human life starts after the process of conception has completed (~24H). We get that. You apparently don't get that most biologists and developmental biologists would actually disagree with you (see above with the two views that most hold).

Yamato, on 26 February 2012 - 06:40 AM, said:

Your unschooled opinion and the fact that you can't accept what the scientists tell you don't matter to me.  I can understand and accept the light reading I provided for you.  If you can't, that's your problem.

Actually I happen to agree with the neurological developmental view, which was certainly held by the majority of developmental biologists at prior institutions I worked at--So actually I'm agreeing with what those scientists are telling me. It seems you actually disagree with them.

[Leonardo]

Yamato,

Where, in all the quotes you provided in that link, do any biologists state that the fertilised egg is equivalent to a human life - where 'human life' is a term legally recognised as embodying a basic personhood?

I use the term 'human life' as differentiated from 'life', because the basis of the argument for legal abortion makes that differentiation.

[Yamato]

What's so petulantly immoral about these "pro choice" voters is that they don't seem to be capable of choosing much else but death.  How about choosing to be responsible with your own body since it's yours?  How about saving yourself for a loving relationship?  How about marriage?  How about m********ion?  How about birth control?  How about having a moral code?  How about adoption?  How about motherhood?  How about self responsibility and preventing a "mistake" before it's made?  When death becomes the only "choice" they seem to concern themselves with whenever they float these fake labels around, when daring to talk about the choices they make in their own lives becomes taboo and off limits, I have to wonder what other "unbiased" positions they'll come up with next.  And it doesn't surprise me they think rights are "afforded" by government because that's the moral hazard of expecting government to make the world a better place and not ourselves.  Even our rights come from the powerful old white men now according to the amoral dependency.

[Leonardo]

Jerry Only, on 25 February 2012 - 10:28 PM, said:

But I won't because I see your point has been made, regardless of the way emergency contraception actually works, seeing as who wrote that link you gave, and their main point behind the page (and the credentials/book advertised). Just find it slightly interesting that she is a woman.

Why should the gender of the author make a difference?

If anything, seeing as we are discussing the biology of women, the opinion of a woman would seem more relevant, yes?

Quote

edit: Response to

But the problem with using emergency contraception as an argument example in this case (whether vasectomies should also be considered worthy of ban), is that the morning after pill is being used in 2 simultaneous ways as an argument point.
1. It is a contraceptive (similar to a vasectomy being a contraceptive), so the 2 can be considered the same, and the women are right.
2. It is not a contraceptive, since a function of it can stop pregnancy after an egg has already been fertilized (which is not the same as a vasectomy).

Using this dual (contrasting) definitions of emergency contraception pills is unfair to the discussion.

When is the morning after pill (in contrast to a normal contraceptive pill) likely to be used?

Quote

I'd give links and explain why the link you posted is a biased, twisting of a contraceptive, to make it seem as a 3rd step of the prevention (lining the uterus to decrease the chance of implantation of a fertilized egg) is only added assurance, in the slight chance that the most important steps, first preventing the egg from dropping, and second, preventing sperm from reaching the egg, fails.

Again, if a woman is already taking a normal course of contraceptives, and therefore the first two actions of the 'morning after pill' can usually be reliably covered by this medication, what is the most likely reasoning for her to then take the 'morning after pill' having engaged in unprotected sex?

[Yamato]

Leonardo, on 26 February 2012 - 06:58 AM, said:

Yamato,

Where, in all the quotes you provided in that link, do any biologists state that the fertilised egg is equivalent to a human life - where 'human life' is a term legally recognised as embodying a basic personhood?

I use the term 'human life' as differentiated from 'life', because the basis of the argument for legal abortion makes that differentiation.

How you use the term is fine with me because I'm not interested in controlling what women do or don't do with their bodies from a legal standpoint.  

If you have any scientific basis to deny that human life applies to the life quoted by the scientists in the link I provided, let's hear it.  I don't see any terminology there that's in the least bit of scientific dispute or ambiguity.

[Copasetic]

Okay, here is some internets 101:

You first type

[quote]

followed by;

[/quote]

See that thar, how easy it is? Now your using the internets!

Yamato, on 26 February 2012 - 06:49 AM, said:

Where's your unbiased source?  You don't even have a source.  You don't even have a single example of a currently employed Biologist at a top university to float your diarrhea that life doesn't begin at conception.  You failed to find a single scientist who agrees with you.  The politics and the bias of "pro life" people doesn't render the science incorrect.  To the contrary, the science validates the politics.

Again, we've surmised you don't actually know any developmental biologists to ask: Here is one you could ask PZ Myers a very well known and famous developmental biologist.

Or maybe you'd like to ask Lewis Wolpert (probably the most "famous" devo biologist alive today, at least in scientific circles) who said;

"What I'm concerned with is how you develop. I know that you all think about it perpetually that you come from one single cell of a fertilized egg. I don't want to get involved in religion but that is not a human being. I've spoken to these eggs many times and they make it quite clear ... they are not a human being."

Yamato, on 26 February 2012 - 06:49 AM, said:

That is irrelevant to anything I've said yet.  You're becoming desperate in your dishonesty to turn a word I've said into requiring a "moment".  Now you're telling me what Biologists will tell me?  Show me what they tell me, don't expect me to take your word for it.  You can't even accept what the Biologists say when I bring it to you.  You give yourself far too much latitude on an anonymous message board.  If you want me to think you have any knowledge relevant to this discussion you have to earn it.

Okay......Between you and me, I'll go with all the biologists I know and I've worked with before--Thanks though. Hey, next time you're at a biology conference maybe we'll bump into each other!

Yamato, on 26 February 2012 - 06:49 AM, said:

You're making this up.  You asked for examples of Biologists and I provided them.  That's not a strawman that's you getting served.  I gave you the first turn and you failed to deliver.  That's an F.  Where's the strawman?  Explain to me how anything I've said is a strawman and start out with the definition of strawman by looking it up and providing it in your post, and then follow it with an example of something I actually said that you believe is a strawman with an explanation how that's so.

No you didn't. You provided a biased page which quote-mined a bunch of EvoDevo, Devo and embryology text books that all state the developmental process begins after conception is complete. No **** sherlock. None of that is relevant to the question of when something is actually a human. The strawman was your initial challenge which "issued"--Finding biologists who would disagree with the idea that "life" didn't start at "conception"--See that thar?

[Copasetic]

Leonardo, on 26 February 2012 - 06:58 AM, said:

Yamato,

Where, in all the quotes you provided in that link, do any biologists state that the fertilised egg is equivalent to a human life - where 'human life' is a term legally recognised as embodying a basic personhood?

I use the term 'human life' as differentiated from 'life', because the basis of the argument for legal abortion makes that differentiation.

Apparently he can't keep up with this though Leo. ****, I better go back to school again (after this time!   ) and tell them I want my money back. I jus' gots learned sum biology!

[Leonardo]

Yamato, on 26 February 2012 - 07:04 AM, said:

What's so petulantly immoral about these "pro choice" voters is that they don't seem to be capable of choosing much else but death.  How about choosing to be responsible with your own body since it's yours?  How about saving yourself for a loving relationship?  How about marriage?  How about m********ion?  How about birth control?  How about having a moral code?  How about adoption?  How about motherhood?  How about self responsibility and preventing a "mistake" before it's made?  When death becomes the only "choice" they seem to concern themselves with whenever they float these fake labels around, when daring to talk about the choices they make in their own lives becomes taboo and off limits, I have to wonder what other "unbiased" positions they'll come up with next.  And it doesn't surprise me they think rights are "afforded" by government because that's the moral hazard of expecting government to make the world a better place and not ourselves.  Even our rights come from the powerful old white men now according to the amoral dependency.

Your plea to emotion has no place in this argument.

You might label me as 'pro-choice' and correctly so. When there is no consequence to an action other than to the person taking it, I will always support personal liberty over imposed authority. However, although I am 'pro-choice', if I had to make such a choice I would always choose life. Regardless of the strength of my personal conviction on this, however, my opinion does not give me the right to impose that conviction on others.

[Leonardo]

Copasetic, on 26 February 2012 - 07:12 AM, said:

Apparently he can't keep up with this though Leo. ****, I better go back to school again (after this time!   ) and tell them I want my money back. I jus' gots learned sum biology!

You better reconsider that, Copa. I can already sense the looks your other better half would be giving you for even thinking it!!!

Edited by Leonardo, 26 February 2012 - 07:16 AM.