If Abortion is Banned So Should Vasectomy Too

[_Only]

And perhaps reading comprehension isn't yours?

As I stated previously (twice), this is not about a biological definition of life (which is, in any case, different dependent on which biologist you might ask the definition of), but about a religious perception of "the sanctity of human life", and science cannot provide answers to questions of religious interpretation.

As for your slur on my knowledge, there are reasonable arguments to be made that a human sperm is 'alive', just as a human egg may also be 'alive'. Because both the sperm and egg are living human cells, and are 'capable of life independent of their human host', they can be made to fit a broadly religious definition of 'human life'. That they are the progenitor cells (when combined during conception) of another human being is entirely irrelevant to that argument.

Regardless, the enduring religious perception of the human germ plasm is (and has been) that it is 'sacred', and this is the argument the ladies (quite correctly) are using to put vasectomies on a par with abortion vis-a-vis the procedure being antithetical to religious opinion regarding the 'sanctity of life'.

Curious why you seem to be defending these women's infantile arguing point.

[Yamato]

And perhaps reading comprehension isn't yours?

As I stated previously (twice), this is not about a biological definition of life (which is, in any case, different dependent on which biologist you might ask the definition of), but about a religious perception of "the sanctity of human life", and science cannot provide answers to questions of religious interpretation.

As for your slur on my knowledge, there are reasonable arguments to be made that a human sperm is 'alive', just as a human egg may also be 'alive'. Because both the sperm and egg are living human cells, and are 'capable of life independent of their human host', they can be made to fit a broadly religious definition of 'human life'. That they are the progenitor cells (when combined during conception) of another human being is entirely irrelevant to that argument.

Regardless, the enduring religious perception of the human germ plasm is (and has been) that it is 'sacred', and this is the argument the ladies (quite correctly) are using to put vasectomies on a par with abortion vis-a-vis the procedure being antithetical to religious opinion regarding the 'sanctity of life'.

The slur is meandering from the simple idea that life begins at conception. Pondering how sperm is 'alive' or not is extracurricular and irrelevant.

The religious perception is in line with the science in this case. I know that is problematic for your opinion. So find me a Biologist currently employed at a top ten university in Biology today who claims that life doesn't begin at conception and I will give you credit for at least one exception to the rule. I asked the same of the truthers but for a Physics professor; needless to say that they all failed. The science is indisputable. What you care about is the bureaucratic perception and the lines drawn down at the bureau. It's too bad you can't admit it.

[_Only]

The slur is meandering from the simple idea that life begins at conception. Pondering how sperm is 'alive' or not is extracurricular and irrelevant.

The religious perception is in line with the science in this case. I know that is problematic for your opinion. So find me a Biologist currently employed at a top ten university in Biology today who claims that life doesn't begin at conception and I will give you credit for at least one exception to the rule. I asked the same of the truthers but for a Physics professor; needless to say that they all failed. The science is indisputable. What you care about is the bureaucratic perception and the lines drawn down at the bureau. It's too bad you can't admit it.

Their arguing point comes from the correlation of stopping the process of life in progress, to whether people should be allowed to not partake in the process at all. To say biology has nothing to do with this is just silly. But I can't see anyone rationally agreeing with the argument, save for only trying to argue slightly ignorant semantics.

[Yamato]

Personally, I think the main point here is that a woman is being told what she can and cannot do with her body. Yet, a man can do what he wants and no one says anything about it.

Isn't the government full of men? How about the government not telling women what they can and cannot do with her body? It's not a problem of men telling women what to do and not to do, it's only the men not powerful enough to make the rules for the rest of us.

There are plenty of ways a man cannot do what he wants, but there aren't ways that are specific to the male gender, as there shouldn't be. Which fits in perfectly well with my solution, not theirs. That is, the government not telling women specifically what they can and cannot do!

Religion can tell you what you should do, it cannot tell you what you must do. If religion's influence on politics bothers you, throw it on the pile. Nothing unique there.

[The Silver Thong]

But yet "back alley" abortions still take place in states with some of the most liberal abortion laws.

Besides, the OP has nothing to do with banning abortion.

I never said banning abortion I said restrictions. How is abortion a liberal or political issue never mind the the right. It`s neither. In saying that it`s not a religious issue at all as that would be inforcing a religious belief on a populace. That would be against the law. Religion can not make law as if it could and it does well game over.

It`s up to the individual, thats it thats all. Like making suicide illegal. How stupid is that.

Edited February 25, 2012 by The Silver Thong

[Yamato]

Their arguing point comes from the correlation of stopping the process of life in progress, to whether people should be allowed to not partake in the process at all. To say biology has nothing to do with this is just silly. But I can't see anyone rationally agreeing with the argument, save for only trying to argue slightly ignorant semantics.

+1

And where they happen to feel morally comfortable with stopping the process should be imposed on everybody. And morals don't come from something as universally hated as religion, they come from the enlightened ones of society who take care of the rest of us. Just like dollars, they drop out of thin air.

Out of sight, out of mind? Smaller means nonexistent? At six months along in the process, just about everyone turns squeamish because the outcome of the process becomes all too obvious. And the cell count is now high enough to "matter", so sayeth the Lord Government.

[Leonardo]

The slur is meandering from the simple idea that life begins at conception. Pondering how sperm is 'alive' or not is extracurricular and irrelevant.

The religious perception is in line with the science in this case. I know that is problematic for your opinion. So find me a Biologist currently employed at a top ten university in Biology today who claims that life doesn't begin at conception and I will give you credit for at least one exception to the rule. I asked the same of the truthers but for a Physics professor; needless to say that they all failed. The science is indisputable. What you care about is the bureaucratic perception and the lines drawn down at the bureau. It's too bad you can't admit it.

Their arguing point comes from the correlation of stopping the process of life in progress, to whether people should be allowed to not partake in the process at all. To say biology has nothing to do with this is just silly. But I can't see anyone rationally agreeing with the argument, save for only trying to argue slightly ignorant semantics.

Perhaps you gentlemen would like to reiterate, so everyone here can see what is being talked about, the argument governments (state or otherwise) use for the banning of abortion?

As for the "life begins at conception" argument, a fertilised oocyte is about as alive as a virus (or bacteria) is. There are any number of biologists who will argue that this definition of 'alive' is in no way comparable to 'human life', where the living organism (a foetus, in this case) is identifiable as a person.

The argument against abortion is entirely religious. It cannot be concerned with the legalistic, or scientific, definition of 'human life' (even as blurry as that definition is) because it prohibits the termination of even the single fertilised oocyte before it has begun replication. To this end, even the act of sex is considered 'sacred', and you can refer to any number of pieces of religious literature - most of them still relevant to modern religions - which promote this idea of 'sacred sex'.

As the very act of sex is 'sacred', so is the male issue of that act. Again, you can refer to religious literature used in modern religions which promote the idea of 'sacred semen'. It [the argument against abortion] is that archaic - and it is founded in religion, not science or any secular definition of 'human life'.

This is the argument used to ban abortion and this is the argument the bill in the OP points out the hypocrisy of - that it cherry-picks what is 'sacred' to place any responsibility/culpibility in the 'profane act of preventing human life' squarely on women alone.

Because the argument against abortion is founded in religion, and because it cannot include a definition of 'human life' which is biologically (in the scientific sense) recognised, the 'life' that is protected by the banning of abortion includes small clusters of cells and even a single fertilised oocyte. Because this definition of what constitutes 'life' is so vague, the 'life' that is represented by a single sperm, or unfertilised egg, can be easily accommodated within it.

Edited February 25, 2012 by Leonardo

[_Only]

Because the argument against abortion is founded in religion, and because it cannot include a definition of 'human life' which is biologically (in the scientific sense) recognised, the 'life' that is protected by the banning of abortion includes small clusters of cells and even a single fertilised oocyte. Because this definition of what constitutes 'life' is so vague, the 'life' that is represented by a single sperm, or unfertilised egg, can be easily accommodated within it.

I'm sorry, but this is malarkey. I understand the point you're trying to make, but claiming a complete ignorance of the biological understanding of the concept of a human being becoming alive, simply because it is a religious argument, is showing a biased bastardized understanding. One that is exactly what the introducing women of this argument were going for.

There is a reason this will be thrown away.

[Leonardo]

I'm sorry, but this is malarkey. I understand the point you're trying to make, but claiming a complete ignorance of the biological understanding of the concept of a human being becoming alive, simply because it is a religious argument, is showing a biased bastardized understanding. One that is exactly what the introducing women of this argument were going for.

There is a reason this will be thrown away.

My emphasis.

Where have I made such a claim, Jerry?

Edited to add: So you might understand effectively the point I make (as I am uncertain you really do) might I ask you if a woman taking the morning after pill, after having unprotected sex, is undertaking an abortion?

Edited February 25, 2012 by Leonardo

[lahacake]

vasectomy and abortion arent even close to the same thing i would compare a vasectomy to a histerectomy or even cutting your tubes but abortion is in a group all in its own.

[_Only]

My emphasis.

Where have I made such a claim, Jerry?

Edited to add: So you might understand effectively the point I make (as I am uncertain you really do) might I ask you if a woman taking the morning after pill, after having unprotected sex, is undertaking an abortion?

No, because it's preventing pregnancy, as opposed to stopping one in progress. Same as a vasectomy or tubal ligation. They prevent pregnancy; not abort one in progress.

And I do understand your point, but if I don't agree it is correct, don't try to play the jerk role and make me for a fool. That's petty. Those religious powers that be calling the shots aren't as ignorant about what constitutes life, as much as you and these women make them to seem. This proposal is an exaggeration of the issue, and an unfair one.

Once again, there is a reason this will be tossed away.

Edited February 25, 2012 by Jerry Only

[Leonardo]

No, because it's preventing pregnancy, as opposed to stopping one in progress.

And I do understand your point, but if I don't agree it is correct, don't try to play the jerk role and make me for a fool. That's petty. Those religious powers that be calling the shots aren't as ignorant about what constitutes life, as much as you and these women make them to seem. This proposal is an exaggeration of the issue, and an unfair one.

Contraception is preventing pregancy. Taking the 'morning after pill' is not contraception if fertilisation has already occurred (and that cannot be determined without a medical examination).

So, I will the same question again again. Is a woman taking the 'morning after pill', after engaging in unprotected sex, practising abortion?

As for the rest of your post, I am in no way suggesting you are a fool. I may be suggesting you haven't thought through the ramifications of the argument, however.

Edited February 25, 2012 by Leonardo

[_Only]

Contraception is preventing pregancy. Taking the 'morning after pill' is not contraception if fertilisation has already occurred (and that cannot be determined without a medical examination).

So, I will the same question again again. Is a woman taking the 'morning after pill', after engaging in unprotected sex, practising abortion?

I suggest you read up on what the morning after pill actually does, and how it is a contraceptive. It does not act after sperm has fertilized the egg; it prevents it from happening.

Therefore, I'm not going to answer the same question again.

[Leonardo]

I suggest you read up on what the morning after pill actually does, and how it is a contraceptive. It does not act after sperm has fertilized the egg; it prevents it from happening.

Therefore, I'm not going to answer the same question again.

The emergency contraceptive/morning-after pill has three modes of action (as does the regular birth control pill); that is, it can work in one of three ways:

The normal menstrual cycle is altered, delaying ovulation; or

Ovulation is inhibited, meaning the egg will not be released from the ovary;

It can irritate the lining of the uterus (endometrium) so as to inhibit implantation.

Keep in mind that fertilization (the union of female ovum, or egg, and male sperm) occurs in the fallopian tube and that fertilization marks the beginning of a new human life - and the beginning of the pregnancy. The newly created child then travels down the fallopian tube to the uterus (womb) where he or she implants. Implantation is necessary for the new child to receive nourishment from the mother and continue developing. The journey from the fallopian tube to the womb takes between five and seven days during which pregnancy cannot be readily detected.

Therefore, if a woman ingests emergency contraception after fertilization has taken place, the third mode of action can occur. The lining of the uterus can be altered causing the woman's body to reject the living human embryo, making implantation impossible and the child will die. This result is called a chemical abortion; therefore emergency contraception is an abortifacient.

source

You were saying?

[Yamato]

Perhaps you gentlemen would like to reiterate, so everyone here can see what is being talked about, the argument governments (state or otherwise) use for the banning of abortion?

As for the "life begins at conception" argument, a fertilised oocyte is about as alive as a virus (or bacteria) is. There are any number of biologists who will argue that this definition of 'alive' is in no way comparable to 'human life', where the living organism (a foetus, in this case) is identifiable as a person.

The argument against abortion is entirely religious. It cannot be concerned with the legalistic, or scientific, definition of 'human life' (even as blurry as that definition is) because it prohibits the termination of even the single fertilised oocyte before it has begun replication. To this end, even the act of sex is considered 'sacred', and you can refer to any number of pieces of religious literature - most of them still relevant to modern religions - which promote this idea of 'sacred sex'.

As the very act of sex is 'sacred', so is the male issue of that act. Again, you can refer to religious literature used in modern religions which promote the idea of 'sacred semen'. It [the argument against abortion] is that archaic - and it is founded in religion, not science or any secular definition of 'human life'.

This is the argument used to ban abortion and this is the argument the bill in the OP points out the hypocrisy of - that it cherry-picks what is 'sacred' to place any responsibility/culpibility in the 'profane act of preventing human life' squarely on women alone.

Because the argument against abortion is founded in religion, and because it cannot include a definition of 'human life' which is biologically (in the scientific sense) recognised, the 'life' that is protected by the banning of abortion includes small clusters of cells and even a single fertilised oocyte. Because this definition of what constitutes 'life' is so vague, the 'life' that is represented by a single sperm, or unfertilised egg, can be easily accommodated within it.

What we recognize sir is that it is human life at its earliest stage of development. You can't respect that fact, because it doesn't "look" human. It gets a little dicey at six months though doesn't it? At least for the visually-brained among us, and so your political support falls out of the bag real quick by that point.

And the point is the problem of your point. Your claims are limited to specific points in time. You pick a point and look up the scientific terminology so you know what to call it, and tell me what it's like because you aren't interested in what happens to it eventually. That biological process doesn't help your social politics masquerading as "science" one bit. Your "science" is as unscientific as a nuclear chain reaction that you can't "recognize" as a nuclear chain reaction because you either don't have the instruments to observe it or haven't felt the million degree heat on your skin yet.

Talking about sperm is so irrelevant and you can't stop talking about it because you think it's actually helping to make your point. A sperm has no chance of becoming a human being without an egg to fertilize. An unfertilized egg has no chance of becoming a human being. A conceived human being does. So that's the difference then isn't it? We respect human life not because of the condition that it's in at any fixed moment in time or when you say so, but we respect it over the course of time for the chance that it has, either by development into a human being which began at conception, or by a jail inmate yet to be rehabilitated, or by a patient lying in a coma for nine months who, like a fetus, hasn't been up to the cherry picked capabilities you've surely checked off on your clipboard there as the "scientific" prerequisites to 'human life'. It's actually simple once you define it correctly, or what is more likely to be in your case, be able to respect the latent potential of it.

The act of sex is sacred, because uhh duh, that's how conception happens! This is where the slippery slope of irreverence comes from. You can't respect any of your terms for a developing human up to the line some non-religious bureaucrat drew for you so you obviously can't respect conception and so why respect the sanctity of sex either? Sex causes the chance for the creation of life. Once again, if we can respect the chance, we don't need all your boxes checked, we don't even need conception, all we need is the chance. If there's a chance I can save the the four nestling Swifts whose nest fell down my chimney one cold windy night it isn't because one of them was far less developed than the other three, it wasn't because they could peep already and move their closed eyes, it wasn't because they had feathers already (they didn't) or could fly like a bird (they couldn't) that would make it easier for you to "recognize" them as "bird life". I took the day off work to save the insect-like creatures because I realized they had the chance at life if I took the responsibility and did what was in my power to do to save them. And they're not even human. And no religion required.

I know you want to refer me to specific bureaucratic-religious arguments on abortion that you don't like so I can watch you rip on them to witness just how bad they really are. The arguments that governments use to ban abortion don't interest me because the federal government has no authority to govern this very personal and even sacred social issue. This infers the end of Roe. Other states I don't live in are none of my business from a legal standpoint. If my state has taken it upon itself to legislate this issue in a way that I believe does more harm than good then it's my duty to do something about it because issues left to the states are closer to the people, and such obedience of our highest law actually respects our diversity without the money wasting one-size-fits-all policies from the gang of corporate goons from DC that you might prefer. Did I mention that the bills get paid? This fact alone yields better results because government will responsibly allocate scarce resources to the most pressing of social needs; not print, borrow and spend ourselves to the moon to win votes. I'm sure that some of the federal voices out there on this are religious in nature, and while I'd put an end to Roe, I'd silence all of those voices for you as well. Sorry, but respecting life doesn't require one to be a religious zealot.

[_Only]

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.

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.

edit: Response to

source

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.

Edited February 25, 2012 by Jerry Only

[Rafterman]

I never said banning abortion I said restrictions. How is abortion a liberal or political issue never mind the the right. It`s neither. In saying that it`s not a religious issue at all as that would be inforcing a religious belief on a populace. That would be against the law. Religion can not make law as if it could and it does well game over.

It`s up to the individual, thats it thats all. Like making suicide illegal. How stupid is that.

I don't consider moving the bar back 4 weeks much of a restriction.

And I agree about certain things being individual decisions - the problem occurs when the collective ends up having to pay for those decisions.

[lightly]

An egg/ovum is a specific type of cell.. a reproductive cell? It can never become a human being without a proper introduction to a respectable sperm. I'm not sure what a sperm is .. should it be called a cell, or is it something more complex? ... whatever... the point is that neither is a "human being" .. until their interactions result in a fertilized egg at the moment of conception?

Similarly , an apple seed is not an apple tree .. until the seed germinates in Mother Earth . Pulling an apple tree up by the roots is an "abortion" of it's life. Not planting an apple seed is .. an apple seed.

Edited February 25, 2012 by lightly

[Copasetic]

The slur is meandering from the simple idea that life begins at conception. Pondering how sperm is 'alive' or not is extracurricular and irrelevant.

The religious perception is in line with the science in this case. I know that is problematic for your opinion. So find me a Biologist currently employed at a top ten university in Biology today who claims that life doesn't begin at conception and I will give you credit for at least one exception to the rule. I asked the same of the truthers but for a Physics professor; needless to say that they all failed. The science is indisputable. What you care about is the bureaucratic perception and the lines drawn down at the bureau. It's too bad you can't admit it.

You shouldn't try to dictate biology, when you are confused about it. You know; casting stones whilst living in glass houses and all that. The question of "life" (a subjective definition we define) and "human life" are two different questions. Life we define as; the cell is the smallest unit, use/transform energy, deal with waste, maintain homeostasis and normally there is a quibble about ability to evolve by biological evolution (but, we can leave that one out for now). By that definition life "began" prior to conception with the actual cells themselves. Meaning, cells are living. By that "question" then, banging your head against a wall (which kills "life") should be suitably unfavorable as abortion.

The more important question and not the silly one you've suggested here (and yes I know many professional biologists from top 10 institutions around the US who would agree with me) is when human life begins. Which is a harder question to answer. The modern view in developmental biology is more akin of host-parasite relationship between mother and fetus. Specifically cell layers like trophoblastic tissue and genes which act to subvert mommy's immune system lend an awful lot of understanding to this view. And most developmental biologists wouldn't say that human life begins at conception--At some point down the road is where they would point you.

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.

Edit: And before you try and make a silly argument that leaves you looking foolish, stop and think about it. "Life" has never, nor will ever (and rightly so) be afforded the same rights as humans--That kind of whacked out logic would have your ass in jail for sneezing. Human life is the question--Not the strawman "life" you've built out of ignorance or intent.

Maybe you'd like to argue that the unique genomic information created by two haploid cell lines at conception defines human life? Or maybe you'd like to argue that the potential to develop into a human defines human life? From someone who has worked as a professional biologists (biochemistry/molecular biophysics and later clinical microbiology) I'd be very interested to hear these arguments!

Edited February 26, 2012 by Copasetic

[Yamato]

You shouldn't try to dictate biology, when you are confused about it. You know; casting stones whilst living in glass houses and all that.

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.edu/~prolife/articles/embryoquotes2.html

Edit: And before you try and make a silly argument that leaves you looking foolish, stop and think about it. "Life" has never, nor will ever (and rightly so) be afforded the same rights as humans--That kind of whacked out logic would have your ass in jail for sneezing. Human life is the question--Not the strawman "life" you've built out of ignorance or intent. Maybe you'd like to argue that the unique genomic information created by two haploid cell lines at conception defines human life? Or maybe you'd like to argue that the potential to develop into a human defines human life? From someone who has worked as a professional biologists (biochemistry/molecular biophysics and later clinical microbiology) I'd be very interested to hear these arguments!

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.

[Copasetic]

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.edu/~prolife/articles/embryoquotes2.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.

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]

http://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/embryoquotes2.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 February 26, 2012 by Copasetic

[Yamato]

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?

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.

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.

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.

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 February 26, 2012 by Copasetic

[Yamato]

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.