Thread: Planned Parenthood Bombed

goober
A fetus is a collection of cells that has the potential to become a human being

Without resorting to the sophistry of hiding behind legal definitions. Other than about a foot of difference in relative location, what is the biological distinction a fetus and a few seconds later when it is a baby when it has moved a foot or so?

Originally Posted by Slon

That way of looking at it assumes that human life constantly ends and then begins. Human life, as a whole, has not ended any time recently. So I went back far enough to give you an estimated date of the last time it probably happened.

It does constantly end and begin. The end is called death and the beginning is call conception.

Let me ask you something. Let's say you have a car. 20 years ago when you bought it, it was brand new and had not a single spot of rust on it. Now it's covered in rust and even has holes in some parts of the steel due to the rusting. At what precise moment did the car become "rusty?"So why can't a sperm/egg combo, just prior to fertilization, be part of a whole, 2-celled organism?

As soon as the car has any rust on it at all, you could call it rusty and be correct.

Legally, you aren't committing homicide by getting an abortion, either.

Actually, you legally you are committing homicide. Not all homicide is illegal (eg. self-defense).

The thing is, the DNA exists prior to fertilization within the sperm/egg combo. So if you look at it that way, the human being exists before fertilization.

No, the DNA of the egg or sperm is not unique. Are you your father or mother or are you a unique individual?

So you would criminalize masturbation unless all sperm cells end up as newborns?

No...you obviously didn't read the part of your own quote that I placed in bold. I also think you might not have understood it. You posted:

Mere human cells, in contrast, are composed of human DNA and other human
molecules, but they show no global organization beyond that intrinsic to cells in
isolation. A human skin cell removed from a mature body and maintained in the
laboratory will continue to live and will divide many times to produce a large mass
of cells, but it will not re-establish the whole organism from which it was removed; it
will not regenerate an entire human body in culture.

Read the bold part again. It is not until fertilization that the part in bold applies and therefor demonstrates the characteristics of a human. Like I said, thank you for agreeing with me.

Originally Posted by michael h

I suppose I can dispense with science books and learning ... because you say so. Your post is about philosophy and has nothing to do with the life being played with here.

You haven't posted much in the way of science, so there's nothing to dispense with.

Originally Posted by 9aces

Since it's your claim it doesn't matter. Please provide scientific proof that placing them in proximity without resulting in fertilization will give you an adult walking around in 30 years.

Alone, it will not. Alone, a zygote cannot give you an adult walking around 30 years from now, either.

Originally Posted by fishjoel

It does constantly end and begin. The end is called death and the beginning is call conception.

But how can it be the beginning? The sperm cells were alive prior to conception.

As soon as the car has any rust on it at all, you could call it rusty and be correct.

So if you car had a tiny spot of rust on the bumper, it would be equally as rusty as it would be if had big holes in the frame due to rust?

Actually, you legally you are committing homicide. Not all homicide is illegal (eg. self-defense).

So abortion is legally defined as homicide? Where? I'm genuinely curious.

No, the DNA of the egg or sperm is not unique. Are you your father or mother or are you a unique individual?

According to this, it is unique:

And it is with the emergence of the primary oocytes that we can hail the start of individuality. Then, in those oocytes that are about to be ovulated, the first meiotic division takes place--another important step, for the “shuffling” of genes that occurs at that point bestows genetic uniqueness on the oocyte. So both individuality and genetic uniqueness are established before sperm penetration and fertilization;

CR Austin.

No...you obviously didn't read the part of your own quote that I placed in bold. I also think you might not have understood it. You posted:



Read the bold part again. It is not until fertilization that the part in bold applies and therefor demonstrates the characteristics of a human. Like I said, thank you for agreeing with me.

How does it not apply? Fertilization is preceded by a sperm and an egg cell in close proximity. It has resulted in the births of many humans.

We all know genetic uniqueness comes from the egg and sperm. Still not an organism. Nor does it address which two will come together. The genetic uniqueness of a zygote is determined.

The life inside an human egg may live for decades ... still not the human organism. I think Austin's emphasis on the egg also diminishes the genetic input of the sperm ... but who cares ... an egg and sperm are not organisms.

Originally Posted by Slon

You haven't posted much in the way of science, so there's nothing to dispense with.



Alone, it will not. Alone, a zygote cannot give you an adult walking around 30 years from now, either.

But how can it be the beginning? The sperm cells were alive prior to conception.So if you car had a tiny spot of rust on the bumper, it would be equally as rusty as it would be if had big holes in the frame due to rust?So abortion is legally defined as homicide? Where? I'm genuinely curious.According to this, it is unique:

And it is with the emergence of the primary oocytes that we can hail the start of individuality. Then, in those oocytes that are about to be ovulated, the first meiotic division takes place--another important step, for the “shuffling” of genes that occurs at that point bestows genetic uniqueness on the oocyte. So both individuality and genetic uniqueness are established before sperm penetration and fertilization;

CR Austin.

How does it not apply? Fertilization is preceded by a sperm and an egg cell in close proximity. It has resulted in the births of many humans.

It has resulted in all births proximity is a requirement to fertilization.

Fertilization is preceded by a sperm and an egg cell in close proximity. It has resulted in the births of many humans

Originally Posted by Marcus1124

Without resorting to the sophistry of hiding behind legal definitions. Other than about a foot of difference in relative location, what is the biological distinction a fetus and a few seconds later when it is a baby when it has moved a foot or so?

Now you are talking about a fetus that is near term, no one aborts that except in extreme circumstances when the life of the mother is at risk.
What I meant was that a fertilized egg is a potential human, it needs to implant in a womb.
We can't forcibly implant people, that's why the leftover zygotes from IVF are not human and in most cases never will be, because they don't have a womb.
That's why a fairly large percentage of fertilized eggs never become human, because they fail to implant, naturally or because of the intervention of some form of birth control.
My own view is that human life is the brain, it begins when the brain becomes self aware, and it ends when the brain ceases to function.

Once again ... we know where genetic uniqueness come from ... Austins infatuation with the egg does not make it a human organism.

And it is with the emergence of the primary oocytes that we can hail the start of individuality. Then, in those oocytes that are about to be ovulated, the first meiotic division takes place--another important step, for the “shuffling” of genes that occurs at that point bestows genetic uniqueness on the oocyte. So both individuality and genetic uniqueness are established before sperm penetration and fertilization;

Originally Posted by goober

Now you are talking about a fetus that is near term, no one aborts that except in extreme circumstances when the life of the mother is at risk.
What I meant was that a fertilized egg is a potential human, it needs to implant in a womb.
We can't forcibly implant people, that's why the leftover zygotes from IVF are not human and in most cases never will be, because they don't have a womb.
That's why a fairly large percentage of fertilized eggs never become human, because they fail to implant, naturally or because of the intervention of some form of birth control.
My own view is that human life is the brain, it begins when the brain becomes self aware, and it ends when the brain ceases to function.

Your view is your opinion, however it is only an opinion.

Genetically, biologically the zygote and you are equally human.

Originally Posted by Slon

But how can it be the beginning? The sperm cells were alive prior to conception.

Yes, but it is only a part, not a whole.

So if you car had a tiny spot of rust on the bumper, it would be equally as rusty as it would be if had big holes in the frame due to rust?So abortion is legally defined as homicide? Where? I'm genuinely curious.According to this, it is unique:

While one may have more rust on it they both can be accurately described as rusty. Is an old person more of a human than you because they are old?

How does it not apply? Fertilization is preceded by a sperm and an egg cell in close proximity. It has resulted in the births of many humans.

This is the same fallacious reasoning you've already been called out on. People are not the sperm or the food that was eaten to fuel the body that created the sperm or the food/nutrients that were eaten to feed the food that was eaten by the body that created the sperm....ect.

There is not a single living human that has been produced by a sperm and egg being in close proximity where fertilization didn't then follow. You could have a million eggs in close proximity with a million sperm and if none of them fertilize then you will have 0 humans develop. Oh, and you still don't understand your own quote, do you? Again:

Mere human cells, in contrast, are composed of human DNA and other human
molecules, but they show no global organization beyond that intrinsic to cells in
isolation. A human skin cell removed from a mature body and maintained in the
laboratory will continue to live and will divide many times to produce a large mass
of cells, but it will not re-establish the whole organism from which it was removed; it
will not regenerate an entire human body in culture.

I know you don't understand it. You are not trying to understand it. You might even be incapable of understanding it. But your own quote supports what I'm saying. You could have 100 billion sperm in a dish and none of them will ever become a human. You could have 100 billion eggs in a dish and it will never become a human. If you have any number of fertilized eggs in a dish then you have that many humans. I really don't think you understand the part in bold.

Still no response on the sperm capacitation and what it had to do with anything ... after touting it as proof of something. As I said before using biggitty words doesn't do anything for the truth.

ooooh CR Austins theories of sperm capacitation ... very important ... haven't you heard of them? Oooooh biggitty word, CR Austin discovered them. Ah baseball is full tilt now ... did you know that? Very important this baseball ... they have OBP ... have you heard of that?

goober
Now you are talking about a fetus that is near term, no one aborts that except in extreme circumstances when the life of the mother is at risk.

AMA has deemed the practice to never be medically neccesary. When terminating a pregnancy late-term there is no medical reason to abort rather than delivery the baby early

goober
What I meant was that a fertilized egg is a potential human, it needs to implant in a womb.

We can't forcibly implant people, that's why the leftover zygotes from IVF are not human and in most cases never will be, because they don't have a womb.

That's why a fairly large percentage of fertilized eggs never become human, because they fail to implant, naturally or because of the intervention of some form of birth control.
My own view is that human life is the brain, it begins when the brain becomes self aware, and it ends when the brain ceases to function.

Or one could argue that they are human beings whose natural development has been arrested or prevented from proceeding to to medical intervention. In otherwords, people who opposed in vetro were correct in their assessment that it would lead to fundamental moral entaglements and tradeoffs both as a matter of morality and public policy.

Originally Posted by michael h

It has resulted in all births proximity is a requirement to fertilization.

So then explain to me how this proves that a sperm cell next to an egg cell is not a 2-celled human being, assuming it does that.

Originally Posted by michael h

Once again ... we know where genetic uniqueness come from ... Austins infatuation with the egg does not make it a human organism.

I didn't say it did. I'm simply pointing out that uniqueness, which some here are touting as the definition of a new, living human being, is also present in the egg/sperm cells.

Originally Posted by fishjoel

Yes, but it is only a part, not a whole.

So take a sperm cell, put it next to the egg cell, and you have a whole, 2-celled organism even prior to fertilization.

While one may have more rust on it they both can be accurately described as rusty. Is an old person more of a human than you because they are old?

Excuse me, but were you talking out of your ass when you said that abortion legally = homicide? Now don't dodge by asking another unrelated question.

This is the same fallacious reasoning you've already been called out on. People are not the sperm or the food that was eaten to fuel the body that created the sperm or the food/nutrients that were eaten to feed the food that was eaten by the body that created the sperm....ect.

In that case, they are also not the zygote.

There is not a single living human that has been produced by a sperm and egg being in close proximity where fertilization didn't then follow. You could have a million eggs in close proximity with a million sperm and if none of them fertilize then you will have 0 humans develop. Oh, and you still don't understand your own quote, do you? Again:

And there is not a single living human that has bee produced by a zygote where nutrient input did not then follow. *sigh* Don't you get what I'm getting at? I'm saying a zygote is not really much closer to being an adult human than a sperm/egg cell is. Thus defending the zygote on ethical grounds without defending the sperm/egg combo is stupid.

I know you don't understand it. You are not trying to understand it. You might even be incapable of understanding it. But your own quote supports what I'm saying. You could have 100 billion sperm in a dish and none of them will ever become a human. You could have 100 billion eggs in a dish and it will never become a human. If you have any number of fertilized eggs in a dish then you have that many humans. I really don't think you understand the part in bold.

And you could have a million fucking zygotes in a dish. Without constant input of food, it will never be born.

Originally Posted by michael h

Still no response on the sperm capacitation and what it had to do with anything ... after touting it as proof of something. As I said before using biggitty words doesn't do anything for the truth.

ooooh CR Austins theories of sperm capacitation ... very important ... haven't you heard of them? Oooooh biggitty word, CR Austin discovered them. Ah baseball is full tilt now ... did you know that? Very important this baseball ... they have OBP ... have you heard of that?

You're obviously clueless on the matter. Austin was one of the people to discover sperm capacitation:

Sperm capacitation refers to the physiological changes spermatozoa must undergo in order to have the ability to penetrate and fertilize an egg. This term was first coined in 1952 by Colin Russell Austin based on independent studies conducted by Austin and Min Chueh Chang and published in 1951.

Recognition of the phenomenon was quite important to early in vitro fertilization experiments as well as to the fields of embryology and reproductive biology.

the concept remains integral to the study of fertilization. Its exploration has provided a more comprehensive understanding of all the mechanisms a sperm cell must undergo before it is ready to fertilize a female egg, adding to the general knowledge of the process of fertilization as a whole as well as contributing to medical technologies such as in vitro fertilization.

The Embryo Project Encyclopedia

In case you are unaware, in vitro fertilization is the process of fertilizing an egg outside the body.

The next milestone was in 1951, when two scientists working independently, Colin Russell Austin in Australia and Min Chueh Chang in the United Sates, demonstrated that spermatozoa need to mature through certain stages before they develop the capacity to fertilize. By 1959 Chang was able to successfully use IVF to impregnate a rabbit.

The Embryo Project Encyclopedia

Do you really need me to explain why discoveries of how fertilization occurs, practical ones which led to successful execution of in vitro fertilization, would give a researcher some knowledge on the matter and thus make him relevant to our discussion of fertilization?

Originally Posted by Slon

So then explain to me how this proves that a sperm cell next to an egg cell is not a 2-celled human being, assuming it does that.



I didn't say it did. I'm simply pointing out that uniqueness, which some here are touting as the definition of a new, living human being, is also present in the egg/sperm cells.

So take a sperm cell, put it next to the egg cell, and you have a whole, 2-celled organism even prior to fertilization.Excuse me, but were you talking out of your ass when you said that abortion legally = homicide? Now don't dodge by asking another unrelated question.In that case, they are also not the zygote. And there is not a single living human that has bee produced by a zygote where nutrient input did not then follow. *sigh* Don't you get what I'm getting at? I'm saying a zygote is not really much closer to being an adult human than a sperm/egg cell is. Thus defending the zygote on ethical grounds without defending the sperm/egg combo is stupid.
And you could have a million fucking zygotes in a dish. Without constant input of food, it will never be born.


You're obviously clueless on the matter. Austin was one of the people to discover sperm capacitation:

Sperm capacitation refers to the physiological changes spermatozoa must undergo in order to have the ability to penetrate and fertilize an egg. This term was first coined in 1952 by Colin Russell Austin based on independent studies conducted by Austin and Min Chueh Chang and published in 1951.

Recognition of the phenomenon was quite important to early in vitro fertilization experiments as well as to the fields of embryology and reproductive biology.

the concept remains integral to the study of fertilization. Its exploration has provided a more comprehensive understanding of all the mechanisms a sperm cell must undergo before it is ready to fertilize a female egg, adding to the general knowledge of the process of fertilization as a whole as well as contributing to medical technologies such as in vitro fertilization.

The Embryo Project Encyclopedia

In case you are unaware, in vitro fertilization is the process of fertilizing an egg outside the body.

The next milestone was in 1951, when two scientists working independently, Colin Russell Austin in Australia and Min Chueh Chang in the United Sates, demonstrated that spermatozoa need to mature through certain stages before they develop the capacity to fertilize. By 1959 Chang was able to successfully use IVF to impregnate a rabbit.

The Embryo Project Encyclopedia

Do you really need me to explain why discoveries of how fertilization occurs, practical ones which led to successful execution of in vitro fertilization, would give a researcher some knowledge on the matter and thus make him relevant to our discussion of fertilization?

Capacitated sperm are still a cell ... preparation for fertilization isn't an organism. So how is this important?

Regulation of Protein Phosphorylation during Sperm Capacitation
The definition of this poorly understood phenomenon has been modified and narrowed over the years. Although fertilization still represents the benchmark endpoint of a capacitated sperm, the ability of the sperm to undergo a regulated acrosome reaction (e.g., in response to the zona pellucida) can be taken as an earlier, upstream endpoint of this extratesticular maturational event.