• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Bright flash of light marks incredible moment life begins when sperm meets egg

iguanaman said:
Human DNA is in fingernail clippings too. Are they also human? It takes more than DNA to make an organism human. More like a proto-human. As many as 3/4's of all fertilized eggs do not develop into babies because they naturally abort, that's a lot of funerals. Or proof that nature does not consider a tiny blob to be human yet either and would rather discard a zygote than risk all that effort for a human with diminished abilities. Not that unlike what women do when they decide it is not the right time for a child and it would not get the life it deserves. The availability of abortion only increases the value of all those that get born. If you truly cared about children's lives you would understand that.
Click to expand...

Human DNA identifies them as human. Meeting the seven biological characteristics of living organism (something nail clippings can't do) makes them a human life.
 
joG said:
That's right. When the law makes unethical behavior legal, you can act like a criminal with impunity.
That is usually how mass murder and ethnic cleansing is manufactured. ;)
Click to expand...

Calamity is at least consistent... albeit horrifyingly consistent.
 
David_N said:
Scenario:
- Pro life individual walks into a room, to find a 20 week fetus in a tube, and a baby. The pro lifer has to choose to save one of them. Of course, they both are babies in the mind of a pro lifer so it should be easy. Just randomly push the button and save either one! Of course, the pro lifer will always save the baby, not the fetus. I guess all life isn't equal.
Click to expand...

Can we have a bit more information about the scenario?
 
beefheart said:
Rape is a crime.

Too bad that absolutely stupid posts like yours aren't.
Click to expand...

Why does it being a crime matter to the argument? People can disagree with something being a crime or believe something should be a crime. What we care about is not dictated to us by legality.
 
jmotivator said:
1. The fertilized egg is Composed of cells
Click to expand...
check

2. The fertilized egg has different levels of organization
Click to expand...
Really? How much organization can a single cell have?

3. The fertilized egg consumes energy
Click to expand...
check

4. The fertilized egg respond to their environment.
Click to expand...
Where does it say that?

5. The fertilized egg grows
Click to expand...
check

6. The fertilized egg reproduces
Click to expand...
Really? It screws another fertilized egg?

7. The fertilized egg adapts to it's environment by creating a barrier to prevent further sperm from entering.
Click to expand...
That is not an adaptation to environment.

So much for all...

Non-Human DNA.
Click to expand...
Wow and you came up with this all by yourself?

It still is so regardless of how vehemently you deny the science.
Click to expand...
You forgot to stomp your feet, because science certainly does not support you.

Based on the evidence.
Click to expand...
Which you can not provide. Secret evidence?
 
jmotivator said:
Oh boy you went all out on that straw man, didn't you?

You do realize that in your own scenario you introduce the concept that a 20 week old fetus can be saved, right? If both can be saved then there is no rational reason to choose one over the other.

I like how you go on to tell us how you think a pro-lifer would choose just to put the dumb cherry on the top of your stupid scenario.
Click to expand...
You do realize that in your own scenario you introduce the concept that a 20 week old fetus can be saved, right?
Click to expand...
In the real world, you would have to force the women to continue carrying the fetus, disregarding her own wishes and health.
If both can be saved then there is no rational reason to choose one over the other.
Click to expand...
Afraid to answer? Oh, right, because a baby is more valuable then a fetus.
 
David_N said:
In the real world, you would have to force the women to continue carrying the fetus, disregarding her own wishes and health.

Afraid to answer? Oh, right, because a baby is more valuable then a fetus.
Click to expand...

Why do you assume that the one that is not chosen is seen as less valuable? If a parent is forced to choose between their two children is it always the case that they love one more than the other?
 
Henrin said:
Why does it being a crime matter to the argument? People can disagree with something being a crime or believe something should be a crime. What we care about is not dictated to us by legality.
Click to expand...

Of course it does. It means those who wish to make abortion illegal want to punish women who were so desperate not to continue a pregnancy they had an abortion. Over 60 percent of women who have abortions have at at least 1 child.
Sounds like pro lifers who wish to make abortion illegal want to lock up a lot of moms and put a lot more children in foster care.
 
prometeus said:
check
Click to expand...

Good!

Really? How much organization can a single cell have?
Click to expand...

Ignorance on your part isn't a great debate technique.

check
Click to expand...

Good!

Where does it say that?
Click to expand...

The part you were supposed to read.

The second sentence in the article that you didn't read would be enough:

"As a fertilized egg develops into a baby, dozens of signals received over days, weeks, and months cause incremental changes in gene expression patterns."

Again, your complete ignorance and refusal to learn isn't as great a debate technique as you seem to think it is.

check
Click to expand...

Good!

Really? It screws another fertilized egg?
Click to expand...

Your statement only confirms your ignorance. This characteristic is not about sex, it's about cellular reproduction.

I mean, if we took your interpretation of this characteristic as proper then forget the womb, your conclusion is that life begins at puberty! :roll:

That is not an adaptation to environment.
Click to expand...

Yes it is, as well as creating the amniotic sack and placenta later in their life in the womb. See also the article I posted for #4 for more examples.

Wow and you came up with this all by yourself?
Click to expand...

Your oppressive ignorance on the subject suggested that I should start simple.

You forgot to stomp your feet, because science certainly does not support you.
Click to expand...

Says the person who doesn't understand cell structure, cellular reproduction, and pretty much everything else on this subject.

Which you can not provide. Secret evidence?
Click to expand...

I've already provided the evidence, you have proven yourself incapable of understanding the evidence.
 
Last edited:
David_N said:
In the real world, you would have to force the women to continue carrying the fetus, disregarding her own wishes and health.
Click to expand...

You have added yet another straw man to defend your previous straw man. But hey, at least you chose to drop the stupid "tube" in favor of an actual woman. Now explain the real world analogue to your stuipd binary decision?

I mean, under further review, your first stupid scenario was equal parts straw man and begging the question since you decided to answer for all pro-life people with an answer that pre-supposes your own positions on the value of life in the womb.

In short: your stupid scenario was stupid.

Afraid to answer? Oh, right, because a baby is more valuable then a fetus.
Click to expand...

Why would anyone answer your straw man? Stupid logical fallacies are to be avoided, not answered.

Here, let me give you a scenario that you can't answer:

Same room In the room are you, a pregnant woman and an infant. Only one can leave, the others will die. Who do you choose to leave?
 
Henrin said:
Why does it being a crime matter to the argument? People can disagree with something being a crime or believe something should be a crime. What we care about is not dictated to us by legality.
Click to expand...

Uh...really?

You can't compare rape to abortion. It was a very lame attempt at an argument.
 
jmotivator said:
Ignorance on your part isn't a great debate technique.
Click to expand...
You cut and pasted something you have no clue about and now are throwing ignorance accusations. Explain what organization does that single cell have?

The part you were supposed to read.
Click to expand...
I read it that is why I asked the question. Clearly you do not understand any of it. The second sentence does no address anything about what I asked.

Your statement only confirms your ignorance. This characteristic is not about sex, it's about cellular reproduction.
Click to expand...
Really? How did you come up with that stupidity? Reproduction for organisms means creation of a new organism of the same type as the one that reproduces. Humans being mammals, reproduce sexually. Perhaps you should take a biology class or at least read up on the topic to reduce the level of ignorance you are displaying.
 
prometeus said:
You cut and pasted something you have no clue about and now are throwing ignorance accusations. Explain what organization does that single cell have?
Click to expand...

Eukaryotic cell organs (organelles): Membrane, cytoskeleton, chromosomes, nucleas, golgi, lysosomes, peroxisomes, mitochondria, centrosomes, ribosomes, vacuoles, Endoplasmic reticulum to name just the top level organization of cell organ structure. You are entirely ignorant of Cell biology. Have you even taken a biology class?


I read it that is why I asked the question. Clearly you do not understand any of it. The second sentence does no address anything about what I asked.
Click to expand...

Yes it does. Ignorance on your part is still not a great debate technique.

Really? How did you come up with that stupidity? Reproduction for organisms means creation of a new organism of the same type as the one that reproduces. Humans being mammals, reproduce sexually. Perhaps you should take a buiology class or at least read up on the topic to reduce the level of ignorance you are displaying.
Click to expand...

You need to stop, Prometeus. Reproduction as a characteristic of life has nothing to do with sexual reproduction, it is the characteristic of an object to reproduce itself. It is a characteristic that living cells have that non living things don't. A skin cell a unfertilized egg, and a sperm cell would all qualify for this characteristic, but would all fail on several other characteristics.
 
Last edited:
jmotivator said:
Eukaryotic cell organs (organelles): Membrane, cytoskeleton, chromosomes, nucleas, golgi, lysosomes, peroxisomes, mitochondria, centrosomes, ribosomes, vacuoles, Endoplasmic reticulum to name just the top level organization of cell organ structure. You are entirely ignorant of Cell biology. Have you even taken a biology class?
Click to expand...
Clearly you have not and that is why you simply can not grasp the concept of organism. The organization in question here is that between the various parts of the organism and that simply does not exist.

Yes it does.
Click to expand...
Where? Be specific, because "over days and months" does not address your assertion that the fertilized egg is an organism.

You need to stop, Prometeus.
Click to expand...
Why, exposing your lack of knowledge and understanding hurts too much?

Reproduction as a characteristic of life has nothing to do with sexual reproduction
Click to expand...
For mammals it does and since a human IS a mammal and you claim that the fertilized egg is an organism, a human one at that and maintain that it reproduces that it has to be sexual reproduction as that is the only way humans reproduce. But answer me this. After the first division, IF the initial cell was an organism, a human being, the resulting cells, which are identical are now two human beings and why or why not?
 
Gosh, there's a flash of light and everything? That must be when god waves his magic wand and implants a waiting angel into the two-celled zygote. Or, maybe it's baby's first selfie.

Really, though, what's the point? Does perceiving something about conception that was previously unknown change anything? Are women worth less, now that there's a flash of light and everything? The wonders of the physical world do not negate the need for a moral one. Treating women like walking wombs is the least rational and moral thing that we can do, with or without magic flashes.

The premise of this thread is dog-whistle dogmatism. How bright that flash must be to blind so many fetus-worshipers to the rights of women. My suspicion is that the light serves best to expose these clowns for what they already were.
 
prometeus said:
Clearly you have not and that is why you simply can not grasp the concept of organism. The organization in question here is that between the various parts of the organism and that simply does not exist.
Click to expand...

Look, prometeus, you are woefully unequipped for this discussion and are only succeeding in proving to the world how little you actually know. I mean, you seem oblivious to the existence of single celled organisms and try to lecture others about the science of human development.

I never thought I would ever meet someone who would readily troll themselves, but here you are. At least try and learn you limitations on this subject because they are already readily apparent to everyone else.

Where? Be specific, because "over days and months" does not address your assertion that the fertilized egg is an organism.
Click to expand...

I've provided the evidence, Prometeus. You have done nothing but prove you are incapable of reading it, much less understanding it. You show a critical lack the basic education capable of carrying on a conversation about this subject which is amazing since what I am talking about here is high school biology level biology and you lack all of it.

BUt I'll give you a fighting chance. Explain to me the definition of organism as you understand it and then provide a link to a resource that backs up your definition.

Why, exposing your lack of knowledge and understanding hurts too much?
Click to expand...

No, exposing your lack of knowledge makes me feel like I am clubbing a baby seal.

For mammals it does and since a human IS a mammal and you claim that the fertilized egg is an organism, a human one at that and maintain that it reproduces that it has to be sexual reproduction as that is the only way humans reproduce.
Click to expand...

Nope. Human cells reproduce themselves all the time. That is how you grow.

But answer me this. After the first division, IF the initial cell was an organism, a human being, the resulting cells, which are identical are now two human beings and why or why not?
Click to expand...

If the cell division results in two cells that remain connected to one another then they remain a single human. On the rare occasion where they physically seperate in the process they become identical twins, two humans.
 
MrT said:
Just because the biology starts at that point does not mean that a human life, for purposes of legal protection, has begun. And to the extent that rights should be granted, those rights - like all rights - have to be weighed against the rights of other human beings. And specifically, in this case, the rights of the mother trump most governmental interests in protecting the "biology" inside of her.
Click to expand...

Do you get to simultaneously call someone a mother while saying they can kill the life inside them? Seems like a contradiction to me.
 
Not wanting to get into the abortion issue, but just comment on something I researched in college.

Evidently some scientist in the 1930's were impressed with the original Frankenstein movie, and were wondering how life got started on Earth. They got all of the necessary amino acids and what not together, set the atmosphere right and moisture levels and such.

Nothing happened in their little container.

Then one of them got the idea...Hey, lets hit it with a spark!

Poof, they got a living cell.

They then dismantled all their stuff, burned their notes and vowed to never speak of it again for fear some evil might become of it.

We only know of it from deathbed confessions, I believe.

Their logic was not to see if they could, but whether they SHOULD.

This article brings up that same "spark" of life. The divine spark, some may say.

I also believe it is the same logic that all governments on the planet are conspiring to hide the existence of alien life forms. The established religions might go bat crap crazy.
 
RetiredNSmilin said:
Not wanting to get into the abortion issue, but just comment on something I researched in college.

Evidently some scientist in the 1930's were impressed with the original Frankenstein movie, and were wondering how life got started on Earth. They got all of the necessary amino acids and what not together, set the atmosphere right and moisture levels and such.

Nothing happened in their little container.

Then one of them got the idea...Hey, lets hit it with a spark!

Poof, they got a living cell.

They then dismantled all their stuff, burned their notes and vowed to never speak of it again for fear some evil might become of it.

We only know of it from deathbed confessions, I believe.

Their logic was not to see if they could, but whether they SHOULD.

This article brings up that same "spark" of life. The divine spark, some may say.

I also believe it is the same logic that all governments on the planet are conspiring to hide the existence of alien life forms. The established religions might go bat crap crazy.
Click to expand...

There are no alien lifeforms to hide. The distances involved make it virtually impossible for them to get here as much as we can't get to them. We are 1000's or even millions of YEARS apart.
 
iguanaman said:
There are no alien lifeforms to hide. The distances involved make it virtually impossible for them to get here as much as we can't get to them. We are 1000's or even millions of YEARS apart.
Click to expand...

no "folding of space" like in the book DUNE?
 
ChezC3 said:
Bright flash of light marks incredible moment life begins when sperm meets egg

When life begins... (not a fact)

Fact.

“All of biology starts at the time of fertilization...” -- Professor Teresa Woodruff

To pre-meditatively end that human life after this point? It's murder.(not a fact)

Like in many, too-many cases -- government and the law just need to catch up.

But they will.
Click to expand...

not a fact sorry, not even the medical and science community agree with your statement, nor do facts or dicitionaries :lamo
Wow that was one of the fastest failed ops I have ever seen.
 
RetiredNSmilin said:
I also believe it is the same logic that all governments on the planet are conspiring to hide the existence of alien life forms. The established religions might go bat crap crazy.
Click to expand...

Out of all the posts above and below...this, this here, space aliens -- is the most sensible...

nothing about alien life would discount, disprove, or contradict any of the tenets, teachings, dogma, or doctrine of any major religion I'm aware of -- so why do you think they'd go crazy?
 
Fishking said:
Do you get to simultaneously call someone a mother while saying they can kill the life inside them? Seems like a contradiction to me.
Click to expand...

If you want to use a different term for the mother, you're free to do so.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom