Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Coach is Back! on November 28, 2015, 08:51:42 AM
-
http://www.allenbwest.com/2015/11/heres-the-one-fact-about-the-planned-parenthood-shooting-liberals-refuse-to-admit/
-
America. Land of the free. Home of the brave
::)
-
this is an embarrassment. trying to equate a legal medical procedure (abortion) as equal to a gunman murdering people for a crusade is borderline despicable. he is basically giving justification for what that guy did. he is blaming it on a "demented mind" and not a crusade...but i guess he wasnt so "demented" as to shoot up a random place like gas station or mcdonalds or a church. he deliberately chose the one PP in the city.
and trying to spin this as "the whole fear of right wing Christians as opposed to militant Islamic terrorists." um, isnt that exactly what this is? why is this guy any different or less than those isil fuckers? extremist assholes are extremist assholes. in my life i've had plenty of "right wing christians" call me the the n-word and threaten me to my face. while isil represents a general threat to western life, my everyday struggle is NOT in dealing with isil. its in navigating life in america. its far more probable that in my life i end up in a critical situation with a "right wing christian" extremist bad guy than an islamic jihadist.
also, he tries to stupidly imply gang violence and violence among thugs is equal to police violence. protests are not going to stop a street thug from being a thug. the police however are correctly held to a higher standard than thuglife gang behavior. their sole job is to serve and protect, not murder people. the majority of police are not criminals and a great many are true heroes, but the point is there are some that ARE in fact criminals or at least arent properly trained to handle situations they end up in and end up unnecessarily killing people. thats the whole point of black lives matter- to shine a light on this to IMPROVE policing in america. how is that a bad thing? because a bunch of angry black people scare old white people? wake up. instead of saying "yeah, you know what, there might be a problem. policing could be better, we'll work on it, improve training, etc" these idiots like allen west continue to come out and basically say "fuck you black people, the police are perfect, you all are thugs". and white america reads this and goes "yeah, yeah". and black america hears it and gets angrier. until america realizes this and looks to actually address these issues its only going to continue and get worse.
-
this is an embarrassment. trying to equate a legal medical procedure (abortion) as equal to a gunman murdering people for a crusade is borderline despicable. he is basically giving justification for what that guy did. he is blaming it on a "demented mind" and not a crusade...but i guess he wasnt so "demented" as to shoot up a random place like gas station or mcdonalds or a church. he deliberately chose the one PP in the city.
and trying to spin this as "the whole fear of right wing Christians as opposed to militant Islamic terrorists." um, isnt that exactly what this is? why is this guy any different or less than those isil fuckers? extremist assholes are extremist assholes. in my life i've had plenty of "right wing christians" call me the the n-word and threaten me to my face. while isil represents a general threat to western life, my everyday struggle is NOT in dealing with isil. its in navigating life in america. its far more probable that in my life i end up in a critical situation with a "right wing christian" extremist bad guy than an islamic jihadist.
also, he tries to stupidly imply gang violence and violence among thugs is equal to police violence. protests are not going to stop a street thug from being a thug. the police however are correctly held to a higher standard than thuglife gang behavior. their sole job is to serve and protect, not murder people. the majority of police are not criminals and a great many are true heroes, but the point is there are some that ARE in fact criminals or at least arent properly trained to handle situations they end up in and end up unnecessarily killing people. thats the whole point of black lives matter- to shine a light on this to IMPROVE policing in america. how is that a bad thing? because a bunch of angry black people scare old white people? wake up. instead of saying "yeah, you know what, there might be a problem. policing could be better, we'll work on it, improve training, etc" these idiots like allen west continue to come out and basically say "fuck you black people, the police are perfect, you all are thugs". and white america reads this and goes "yeah, yeah". and black america hears it and gets angrier. until america realizes this and looks to actually address these issues its only going to continue and get worse.
The only thing that's an embarrassment is PPH pawning themselves off as a legit medical clinic when 98% of their medical "services" are abortions for the reasons of "just because". I'm sorry, how many times has PPH been caught on camera implementing themselves knowing certain "procedures" were illegal?
-
http://www.allenbwest.com/2015/11/heres-the-one-fact-about-the-planned-parenthood-shooting-liberals-refuse-to-admit/
Just give us an early chrismas present and kill yourself Coach.
-
The only thing that's an embarrassment is PPH pawning themselves off as a legit medical clinic when 98% of their medical "services" are abortions for the reasons of "just because". I'm sorry, how many times has PPH been caught on camera implementing themselves knowing certain "procedures" were illegal?
you're attacking the shooting victims here?
I don't like what they do and I'm fine with defunding the shit out of them. BUT we're talking about terrorism here - IF it's a religious zealot murdering american doctors because he doesn't like what they're LEGALLY doing - that's a huge deal.
-
you're attacking the shooting victims here?
I don't like what they do and I'm fine with defunding the shit out of them. BUT we're talking about terrorism here - IF it's a religious zealot murdering american doctors because he doesn't like what they're LEGALLY doing - that's a huge deal.
Not at all, dude deserves to be sentenced and death penalty implemented. Just going by how the left will once again try to form public opinion by immediately making this an right wing thing. Obama loves this shit, make no mistake. This fits his agenda. But....
http://www.youngcons.com/colorado-planned-parenthood-shooter-not-republican-registered-as-a-woman/
-
Justification of killing innocents?
Does that sound similar to what "moderate muslims" do to anyone? If you don't condemn it, you condone it.
-
http://news.yahoo.com/obama-says-enough-enough-latest-us-shooting-141938057.html
-
And ol barry just said enough is enough with guns....so here we go with the full frontal attack on the 2nd amendment. I think 6 people were murdered this week in his "hometown" of Chicago...but that's ok. When its law abiding citizens with scary "assault weapons" nope to much for the pansy in chief...
-
And ol barry just said enough is enough with guns....so here we go with the full frontal attack on the 2nd amendment. I think 6 people were murdered this week in his "hometown" of Chicago...but that's ok. When its law abiding citizens with scary "assault weapons" nope to much for the pansy in chief...
Yes, he said it... but there is nothing he will be able to do about it, and of course you know this.
The Republicans hold the house and the senate, so Obama isn't doing shit.
Don't stress over it.
He made the statement on a Saturday when everyone is watching football. He ain't doing shit when it comes to guns and he knows it.
-
http://news.yahoo.com/obama-says-enough-enough-latest-us-shooting-141938057.html
The none gun guys on here will say that Obama can't really do anything but what they can do is drive up ammo prices, parts prices...fee's tags, licenses etc etc. All of which are 2nd Amendment violations....but the libs don't care. They refuse to abide by Supreme Court rulings on guns in DC and other places while we have to suck down BS gay rights and Obamacare rulings. Fuck him...
-
Yes, he said it... but there is nothing he will be able to do about it, and of course you know this.
The Republicans hold the house and the senate, so Obama isn't doing shit.
Don't stress over it.
He made the statement on a Saturday when everyone is watching football. He ain't doing shit when it comes to guns and he knows it.
I would love you to be 100% right but I'm still gonna accelerate my sniper build on a Remington 700 I picked up..no telling who will shoot who next.
-
I would love you to be 100% right but I'm still gonna accelerate my sniper build on a Remington 700 I picked up..no telling who will shoot who next.
I'll put it to you like this... I live in Cali right now... I'm originally from Virginia. I am definitely pro gun and even I can go out and buy guns here in California with no more difficulty than I can in Virginia.
Now carrying is much worse out here and I fucking HATE it. Those are state laws though and that's the shit you deal with sometimes.
-
I would love you to be 100% right but I'm still gonna accelerate my sniper build on a Remington 700 I picked up..no telling who will shoot who next.
Ya the place has fallen into utter chaos since the great recession ::)
-
this is an embarrassment. trying to equate a legal medical procedure (abortion) as equal to a gunman murdering people for a crusade is borderline despicable. he is basically giving justification for what that guy did. he is blaming it on a "demented mind" and not a crusade...but i guess he wasnt so "demented" as to shoot up a random place like gas station or mcdonalds or a church. he deliberately chose the one PP in the city.
and trying to spin this as "the whole fear of right wing Christians as opposed to militant Islamic terrorists." um, isnt that exactly what this is? why is this guy any different or less than those isil fuckers? extremist assholes are extremist assholes. in my life i've had plenty of "right wing christians" call me the the n-word and threaten me to my face. while isil represents a general threat to western life, my everyday struggle is NOT in dealing with isil. its in navigating life in america. its far more probable that in my life i end up in a critical situation with a "right wing christian" extremist bad guy than an islamic jihadist.
also, he tries to stupidly imply gang violence and violence among thugs is equal to police violence. protests are not going to stop a street thug from being a thug. the police however are correctly held to a higher standard than thuglife gang behavior. their sole job is to serve and protect, not murder people. the majority of police are not criminals and a great many are true heroes, but the point is there are some that ARE in fact criminals or at least arent properly trained to handle situations they end up in and end up unnecessarily killing people. thats the whole point of black lives matter- to shine a light on this to IMPROVE policing in america. how is that a bad thing? because a bunch of angry black people scare old white people? wake up. instead of saying "yeah, you know what, there might be a problem. policing could be better, we'll work on it, improve training, etc" these idiots like allen west continue to come out and basically say "fuck you black people, the police are perfect, you all are thugs". and white america reads this and goes "yeah, yeah". and black america hears it and gets angrier. until america realizes this and looks to actually address these issues its only going to continue and get worse.
[/quote
Good post. I think there is value in examining every shooting case the police are involved in. Where BLM loses credibility in my view is they aren't really interested in viewing the facts of each case before declaring an injustice. The fact a white officer uses deadly force on a black person is enough for them to yell police brutality.
-
Coach, do u consider the murder of abortion doctors to be just as bad as the murder of people at a concert in France? Equal?
-
The only thing that's an embarrassment is PPH pawning themselves off as a legit medical clinic when 98% of their medical "services" are abortions for the reasons of "just because". I'm sorry, how many times has PPH been caught on camera implementing themselves knowing certain "procedures" were illegal?
Please provide credible reference for the 98% statistic you quote.
-
Mr. West writes: "But those on the left need to be aware that EVERY DAY Planned Parenthood is in the business of killing babies. That is not debatable."
Well.. yes, actually. It is debatable. Just because Allen B. West thinks it's not debatable doesn't make it not debatable.
He then adds: "I know, the retort will be that Roe v Wade provides for the legal killing of babies – but do any of you find comfort in that logic?"
I can't find any comfort in that logic, because the statement is bullshit. Roe v. Wade doesn't provide for the "legal killing of babies." But hey... who cares, right? Got to write some shit to peddle on the 'net after that "great [morning] run along a Ft. Lauderdale beach" and get the followers riled up. It's not like they're critical thinkers anyways.
So we'll transition over to the whole "black lives matter" thing because that's a thing that's trending on the Interwebs. And we got to make it edgy by sprinkling just enough "real talk" in there to shock people with our realness. Like talking tough but claiming he ain't a "ni!@er" - masked like that, of course, because we don't want to be too real, yo.
Then we'll end by mentioning sports and turkey day.
The mic has been dropped yo. Allenye West out!
-
Wow. West attacking victims here. Not cool.
-
Wow. West attacking victims here. Not cool.
I don't think he's attacking the victims so much as he's stating that the mainstream media is more inclined to mention said victims because the perpetrator was a Caucasian male.
-
Guy was a wack job...some reports I've seen said he was going in to rob a bank and fucked up...no idea what to think or even care. This is not an excuse to usurp the 2nd Amendment. As for as Tu Holmes comment...completely ridiculous that you can't carry easily or that they regulate mag size...those are 2nd amendment infringements and that's why the NRA operates the way that they do. Take Texas for example....no real restrictions....will have open carry on Jan 1...which is legal as long as you already have a CCP. I won't carry like that but does make it easier should your shirt get pulled up and some pansy get excited. You can have a gun in your car...no ccp needed as long as its not readily visible...car is a rolling extension of your home. If you rob me and I'm in active pursuit I can follow you to your home...smoke you and get my shit back. They have a lot of scary rules but things here are quiet compared to the idiocy of Colorado...oddly this shit got out of control right after the gov enacted stricter rules.
-
Sounds like someone had too much coffee at the Carly campaign rally.
-
Guy was a wack job...some reports I've seen said he was going in to rob a bank and fucked up...no idea what to think or even care. This is not an excuse to usurp the 2nd Amendment. As for as Tu Holmes comment...completely ridiculous that you can't carry easily or that they regulate mag size...those are 2nd amendment infringements and that's why the NRA operates the way that they do. Take Texas for example....no real restrictions....will have open carry on Jan 1...which is legal as long as you already have a CCP. I won't carry like that but does make it easier should your shirt get pulled up and some pansy get excited. You can have a gun in your car...no ccp needed as long as its not readily visible...car is a rolling extension of your home. If you rob me and I'm in active pursuit I can follow you to your home...smoke you and get my shit back. They have a lot of scary rules but things here are quiet compared to the idiocy of Colorado...oddly this shit got out of control right after the gov enacted stricter rules.
Agree 100% on this not being a reason to "usurp" the 2nd Amendment. I saw an interview with the brother of a victim, who claimed not to be angry at the shooter but at the laws that allow people to carry. As if a deranged whack-job cares about laws...
-
Mr. West writes: "But those on the left need to be aware that EVERY DAY Planned Parenthood is in the business of killing babies. That is not debatable."
Well.. yes, actually. It is debatable. Just because Allen B. West thinks it's not debatable doesn't make it not debatable.
He then adds: "I know, the retort will be that Roe v Wade provides for the legal killing of babies – but do any of you find comfort in that logic?"
I can't find any comfort in that logic, because the statement is bullshit. Roe v. Wade doesn't provide for the "legal killing of babies." But hey... who cares, right? Got to write some shit to peddle on the 'net after that "great [morning] run along a Ft. Lauderdale beach" and get the followers riled up. It's not like they're critical thinkers anyways.
So we'll transition over to the whole "black lives matter" thing because that's a thing that's trending on the Interwebs. And we got to make it edgy by sprinkling just enough "real talk" in there to shock people with our realness. Like talking tough but claiming he ain't a "ni!@er" - masked like that, of course, because we don't want to be too real, yo.
Then we'll end by mentioning sports and turkey day.
The mic has been dropped yo. Allenye West out!
If you don't define an unborn child as a baby, then yes it's "debatable."
-
If you don't define an unborn child as a baby, then yes it's "debatable."
Let's say I do define an "unborn child" as a "baby" tell me, is aborting a "baby" that has anencephaly - that is, it's brain hasn't developed - murder? Remember, the baby will never be conscious and will almost certainly die shortly after birth anyways. So is it murder to have an abortion, or should the Mother be forced to carry the "baby" to term because you and Allen West don't think the "baby" should be murdered?
Oh and one more thing: do you define a just-fertilized ovum as a baby? If not, when exactly does it become one?
-
Let's say I do define an "unborn child" as a "baby" tell me, is aborting a "baby" that has anencephaly - that is, it's brain hasn't developed - murder? Remember, the baby will never be conscious and will almost certainly die shortly after birth anyways. So is it murder to have an abortion, or should the Mother be forced to carry the "baby" to term because you and Allen West don't think the "baby" should be murdered?
Oh and one more thing: do you define a just-fertilized ovum as a baby? If not, when exactly does it become one?
I wasn't talking about murder and your original post didn't mention murder. I was responding to the two points you addressed:
1. Whether it's debatable that PP "is in the business of killing babies." If you believe life begins at conception, that point is not debatable.
2. Whether "Roe v Wade provides for the legal killing of babies." That really isn't debatable either if you believe life begins at any point before viability, which was the benchmark in Roe.
Neither of the preceding points deal with "murder" or whether a mother should be "forced" to carry a pregnancy to term.
Regarding my views on life, I believe life begins at conception. When do you believe life begins?
-
I wasn't talking about murder and your original post didn't mention murder. I was responding to the two points you addressed:
1. Whether it's debatable that PP "is in the business of killing babies." If you believe life begins at conception, that point is not debatable.
2. Whether "Roe v Wade provides for the legal killing of babies." That really isn't debatable either if you believe life begins at any point before viability, which was the benchmark in Roe.
Neither of the preceding points deal with "murder" or whether a mother should be "forced" to carry a pregnancy to term.
Regarding my views on life, I believe life begins at conception. When do you believe life begins?
after 40
-
after 40
lol. Or as a wise person once told me: you don't become a real man till you turn 40. :)
-
I wasn't talking about murder and your original post didn't mention murder. I was responding to the two points you addressed:
That's true - you never mentioned murder and neither did the original post. Why use words like "murder" when "legalized killing" will still convey the right meaning to the right people and keep the rest from calling you on your bullshit, right?
Still, you did not mention murder. And since you helpfully included the things that I was responding to you in your post, I'll answer there.
1. Whether it's debatable that PP "is in the business of killing babies." If you believe life begins at conception, that point is not debatable.
Even if life begins at the very instant of conception, when the ovum is fertilized by a sperm, what does that matter? The question shouldn't be "when does life begin", but should start with something more basic: "what makes a human being a human being?"
Consider, for example, the case of a fetus that does not develop normally. Such fetuses are, through complicated mechanisms that we need not go into, aborted but some do slip by.
Let's think about such a fetus with anencephaly - literally meaning "without a brain" - that was carried to term and was then delivered. Typically, if born, such babies are allowed to naturally expire without providing any medical intervention or assistance that would typically be provided to a newborn that is in even a hint of distress. It is, unquestionably according to you, "alive".
So should we try to keep this baby alive? Or allow it to expire? If the latter, is this a "killing" since the baby is alive? If not, why not?
And if it's acceptable to allow the baby to be born, only to then die, without making any effort to save it, would performing an abortion be acceptable or would it be considered killing it?
Which brings us to a more fundamental question: is the important distinguishing factor whether the baby is alive or not, or whether it is a human being?
2. Whether "Roe v Wade provides for the legal killing of babies." That really isn't debatable either if you believe life begins at any point before viability, which was the benchmark in Roe.
Well, you've used this "isn't debatable" bit before, and I think I'm doing a pretty good job of showing that it is debable, so humor me for just a bit longer...
Again, let's be good sports and assume that life begins at the very instant of conception - way before viability. For the first 24 or so hours after conception, the zygote is only a single cell and that cell is inside the Fallopian tubes. It is undoubtedly alive, but we've already established that whether something is alive or not isn't the deciding factor. And although it has the potential to develop into a human baby it is not one yet.
Neither of the preceding points deal with "murder" or whether a mother should be "forced" to carry a pregnancy to term.
Considering that (a) you believe that life begins at conception, (b) murder is the premeditated killing of a human being, (c) the act of aborting a fetus will terminate it's life and (d) this requires premeditation, how are the preceding points not dealing with murder?
You have only two choices: either you must claim that a fetus, albeit alive, isn't a human being or you must agree that the killing
Regarding my views on life, I believe life begins at conception. When do you believe life begins?
When life begins is irrelevant, but if you must know the answer to that question, I believe that the fertilized ovum is alive. But, for the reasons I've explained, I don't think that means much.
Now, if you want my position on abortion, it hasn't changed since the last time you asked: I believe that there exists a point in time after which a fetus is close enough to a human being that it needs to be granted some of the rights and protections we affords human beings, but not at the expense of the rights and protections of another.
Frankly, I'd prefer a world where there were no abortions, however, I don't think that's realistic (or advisable) so I'll settle for as few abortions as possible.
-
That's true - you never mentioned murder and neither did the original post. Why use words like "murder" when "legalized killing" will still convey the right meaning to the right people and keep the rest from calling you on your bullshit, right?
Still, you did not mention murder. And since you helpfully included the things that I was responding to you in your post, I'll answer there.
Even if life begins at the very instant of conception, when the ovum is fertilized by a sperm, what does that matter? The question shouldn't be "when does life begin", but should start with something more basic: "what makes a human being a human being?"
Consider, for example, the case of a fetus that does not develop normally. Such fetuses are, through complicated mechanisms that we need not go into, aborted but some do slip by.
Let's think about such a fetus with anencephaly - literally meaning "without a brain" - that was carried to term and was then delivered. Typically, if born, such babies are allowed to naturally expire without providing any medical intervention or assistance that would typically be provided to a newborn that is in even a hint of distress. It is, unquestionably according to you, "alive".
So should we try to keep this baby alive? Or allow it to expire? If the latter, is this a "killing" since the baby is alive? If not, why not?
And if it's acceptable to allow the baby to be born, only to then die, without making any effort to save it, would performing an abortion be acceptable or would it be considered killing it?
Which brings us to a more fundamental question: is the important distinguishing factor whether the baby is alive or not, or whether it is a human being?
Well, you've used this "isn't debatable" bit before, and I think I'm doing a pretty good job of showing that it is debable, so humor me for just a bit longer...
Again, let's be good sports and assume that life begins at the very instant of conception - way before viability. For the first 24 or so hours after conception, the zygote is only a single cell and that cell is inside the Fallopian tubes. It is undoubtedly alive, but we've already established that whether something is alive or not isn't the deciding factor. And although it has the potential to develop into a human baby it is not one yet.
Considering that (a) you believe that life begins at conception, (b) murder is the premeditated killing of a human being, (c) the act of aborting a fetus will terminate it's life and (d) this requires premeditation, how are the preceding points not dealing with murder?
You have only two choices: either you must claim that a fetus, albeit alive, isn't a human being or you must agree that the killing
When life begins is irrelevant, but if you must know the answer to that question, I believe that the fertilized ovum is alive. But, for the reasons I've explained, I don't think that means much.
Now, if you want my position on abortion, it hasn't changed since the last time you asked: I believe that there exists a point in time after which a fetus is close enough to a human being that it needs to be granted some of the rights and protections we affords human beings, but not at the expense of the rights and protections of another.
Frankly, I'd prefer a world where there were no abortions, however, I don't think that's realistic (or advisable) so I'll settle for as few abortions as possible.
Ok Sarcastic Sam. I didn't ask you for your position on abortion. Nor did I recall discussing this issue with you and in particular saying the issue wasn't debatable. But good job of knocking down your straw men.
Given the 25 question marks in your post (no I didn't count them), I'm not sure which questions you want answered. Let me just deal a few:
1. As I said, I believe life begins at conception. I see you refused to answer that question and instead changed the question to one I didn't ask, which is "what makes a human being a human being." It reminds me of the people who beat their chest about macroevolution, but are unable or unwilling to explain either a scientific theory or their own personal theory about how life began on earth on day 1. But I understand your tactic: if the question doesn't fit your narrative, change the question.
2. You haven't shown me that if someone believes life begins at conception that it's debatable whether abortion kills a baby or that Roe provides for the legal killing of babies before viability. If you don't believe life begins at conception, or before viability, then yes both of those issues are debatable. It doesn't sound like you understand that distinction.
3. Your last straw man regarding killing v. murder is irrelevant for a few reasons: (a) a woman will almost never learn that she is pregnant until she misses her period, which would make her at least five or six weeks pregnant, so trying to attach some significance to a newly fertilized egg is unrealistic; (b) I think we established on here that numerous states criminalize killing unborn children, some at any stage of development; and (c) as previously indicated, I didn't make any reference to murder.
I know you want to try and taint the issue by using inflammatory rhetoric, but I was (and am) only talking about whether abortion kills a baby. I'll let you and others get all worked up over the murder issue.
-
Ok Sarcastic Sam. I didn't ask you for your position on abortion. Nor did I recall discussing this issue with you and in particular saying the issue wasn't debatable. But good job of knocking down your straw men.
Given the 25 question marks in your post (no I didn't count them), I'm not sure which questions you want answered. Let me just deal a few:
1. As I said, I believe life begins at conception. I see you refused to answer that question and instead changed the question to one I didn't ask, which is "what makes a human being a human being." It reminds me of the people who beat their chest about macroevolution, but are unable or unwilling to explain either a scientific theory or their own personal theory about how life began on earth on day 1. But I understand your tactic: if the question doesn't fit your narrative, change the question.
2. You haven't shown me that if someone believes life begins at conception that it's debatable whether abortion kills a baby or that Roe provides for the legal killing of babies before viability. If you don't believe life begins at conception, or before viability, then yes both of those issues are debatable. It doesn't sound like you understand that distinction.
3. Your last straw man regarding killing v. murder is irrelevant for a few reasons: (a) a woman will almost never learn that she is pregnant until she misses her period, which would make her at least five or six weeks pregnant, so trying to attach some significance to a newly fertilized egg is unrealistic; (b) I think we established on here that numerous states criminalize killing unborn children, some at any stage of development; and (c) as previously indicated, I didn't make any reference to murder.
I know you want to try and taint the issue by using inflammatory rhetoric, but I was (and am) only talking about whether abortion kills a baby. I'll let you and others get all worked up over the murder issue.
How did I refuse to answer the question of when life begins? My post says very clearly: "When life begins is irrelevant, but if you must know the answer to that question, I believe that the fertilized ovum is alive."
If you are only talking about whether abortion kills a baby then you aren't making a great job of that. You haven't even defined what "baby" means - is a fertilized ovum a baby? If not when does it become one?
-
How did I refuse to answer the question of when life begins? My post says very clearly: "When life begins is irrelevant, but if you must know the answer to that question, I believe that the fertilized ovum is alive."
If you are only talking about whether abortion kills a baby then you aren't making a great job of that. You haven't even defined what "baby" means - is a fertilized ovum a baby? If not when does it become one?
If you are saying that life begins at conception, but want to word it differently to say a "fertilized ovum is alive," I'll accept that. Six-and-half, half dozen. It's the same thing.
I believe life begins at conception. I believe an unborn baby becomes a "person" at conception. That's the logical starting point for me, rather than some arbitrary line before birth. I had this discussion the other day with someone who said he believes life begins when the heart starts beating. That's still a bit arbitrary, but not illogical.
-
If you are saying that life begins at conception, but want to word it differently to say a "fertilized ovum is alive," I'll accept that. Six-and-half, half dozen. It's the same thing.
I believe life begins at conception. I believe an unborn baby becomes a "person" at conception. That's the logical starting point for me, rather than some arbitrary line before birth. I had this discussion the other day with someone who said he believes life begins when the heart starts beating. That's still a bit arbitrary, but not illogical.
As I said, however, when life begins is not the relevant question. A single cell is unquestionably alive and contains DNA that is identical to that in the zygote. And it is oh so fragile. Just swirling Listerine around your mouthwill kill hundreds of thousands of such cells. If all that matters is whether a cell is alive, why is using mouthwash ok?
-
I think Avxo is making very valid points here.
-
As I said, however, when life begins is not the relevant question. A single cell is unquestionably alive and contains DNA that is identical to that in the zygote. And it is oh so fragile. Just swirling Listerine around your mouthwill kill hundreds of thousands of such cells. If all that matters is whether a cell is alive, why is using mouthwash ok?
It's not the relevant question to you. It is to me.
And I see you are playing word games. I'm talking about human life. Not the life in a plant, etc.
-
It's not the relevant question to you. It is to me.
And I see you are playing word games. I'm talking about human life. Not the life in a plant, etc.
He isn't talking plant life either
-
He isn't talking plant life either
Yeah. He's talking about killing a "cell" using mouthwash. Huge distinction there.
-
Yeah. He's talking about killing a "cell" using mouthwash. Huge distinction there.
I think he is making the point, "when life begins", if you believe it to be at conception, is little different at that point.
-
I think he is making the point, "when life begins", if you believe it to be at conception, is little different at that point.
I am talking about when a human life begins. He knows exactly what I'm talking about. He's just trying to play devil's advocate.
-
I am talking about when a human life begins. He knows exactly what I'm talking about. He's just trying to play devil's advocate.
I would say anyone that is on the other side of a debate could be said to be playing devils advocate. Sometimes the Devils Advocate is just as right as the other person or more so. Certainly you would agree that abortion is debatable
-
I would say anyone that is on the other side of a debate could be said to be playing devils advocate. Sometimes the Devils Advocate is just as right as the other person or more so. Certainly you would agree that abortion is debatable
Of course the whole issue of abortion is debatable. I've also said before I don't think there is a political solution to the abortion question.
-
Yeah. He's talking about killing a "cell" using mouthwash. Huge distinction there.
You claim that life begins at conception. Well, at the very moment of conception - and for almost 24 hours after that moment - this new life that you believe has begun consists entirely of a single cell.
So what, exactly, do you think is the distinction? Remember, that that one single cell that started it all for you contained the identical DNA as the epithelial cells that make up the lining of your mouth in your mouth. How is killing one different from killing the other?
I am talking about when a human life begins. He knows exactly what I'm talking about. He's just trying to play devil's advocate.
You are talking about when human life begins, and, in the process, you claim that that the single cell that is the result of a sperm fusing with an ovum is both alive and a human.
Simple yes or no question: do you believe that every cell in your body is both alive and a human being? If your answer is no, can you explain your rationale? Remember, every last cell on your body contains the identical DNA as that first cell did...
-
You claim that life begins at conception. Well, at the very moment of conception - and for almost 24 hours after that moment - this new life that you believe has begun consists entirely of a single cell.
So what, exactly, do you think is the distinction? Remember, that that one single cell that started it all for you contained the identical DNA as the epithelial cells that make up the lining of your mouth in your mouth. How is killing one different from killing the other?
You are talking about when human life begins, and, in the process, you claim that that the single cell that is the result of a sperm fusing with an ovum is both alive and a human.
Simple yes or no question: do you believe that every cell in your body is both alive and a human being? If your answer is no, can you explain your rationale? Remember, every last cell on your body contains the identical DNA as that first cell did...
I'm not "claiming" life begins at conception. I'm saying that is my belief. You, on the other hand, are refusing to say when you believe "human" life begins. Is it conception? Heartbeat? Viability? Birth?
Comparing a fertilized egg to a cell inside someone's cheek is silly. "At the instant of fertilization, your baby's genes and sex are set. If the sperm has a Y chromosome, your baby will be a boy. If it has an X chromosome, the baby will be a girl." http://www.webmd.com/baby/guide/understanding-conception
You cannot say that about a single cell in someone's cheek. Absurd comparison. Why are you making that comparison? What exactly is your point?
-
I'm not "claiming" life begins at conception. I'm saying that is my belief.
Right. It's your belief. If you believe that life begins at conception you are making a claim, but if the word "claim" is the issue, let me rephrase my post:
You believe that life begins at conception. Well, at the very moment of conception - and for almost 24 hours after that moment - this new life that you believe has begun consists entirely of a single cell.
So what, exactly, do you think is the distinction? Remember, that that one single cell that started it all for you contained the identical DNA as the epithelial cells that make up the lining of your mouth in your mouth. How is killing one different from killing the other?
You, on the other hand, are refusing to say when you believe "human" life begins. Is it conception? Heartbeat? Viability? Birth?
I believe that the zygote is alive and has the potential to develop into a human being. I cannot tell exactly where the line between "potential human" and "actual human". If I had to choose one option, I'd go for identifiable human brainwave patterns.
Comparing a fertilized egg to a cell inside someone's cheek is silly. "At the instant of fertilization, your baby's genes and sex are set. If the sperm has a Y chromosome, your baby will be a boy. If it has an X chromosome, the baby will be a girl." http://www.webmd.com/baby/guide/understanding-conception
Right, and? The fertilized egg (called a zygote) contains identical DNA to a cell that's in your cheek. So what's the difference as far as you're concerned?
You cannot say that about a single cell in someone's cheek. Absurd comparison. Why are you making that comparison? What exactly is your point?
I'm not making a comparison, but if I were why would it be absurd? Both are single cells. Both have identical DNA. Both meet the scientific criteria of being alive.
I'm trying to understand what difference you see between those two cells.
-
Right. It's your belief. If you believe that life begins at conception you are making a claim, but if the word "claim" is the issue, let me rephrase my post:
You believe that life begins at conception. Well, at the very moment of conception - and for almost 24 hours after that moment - this new life that you believe has begun consists entirely of a single cell.
So what, exactly, do you think is the distinction? Remember, that that one single cell that started it all for you contained the identical DNA as the epithelial cells that make up the lining of your mouth in your mouth. How is killing one different from killing the other?
I believe that the zygote is alive and has the potential to develop into a human being. I cannot tell exactly where the line between "potential human" and "actual human". If I had to choose one option, I'd go for identifiable human brainwave patterns.
Right, and? The fertilized egg (called a zygote) contains identical DNA to a cell that's in your cheek. So what's the difference as far as you're concerned?
I'm not making a comparison, but if I were why would it be absurd? Both are single cells. Both have identical DNA. Both meet the scientific criteria of being alive.
I'm trying to understand what difference you see between those two cells.
I just gave you a crucial distinction between a fertilized egg and cell from someone's cheek, complete with a quote and link.
At what stage do "identifiable human brainwave patterns" begin and why do you pick that as your actual but not really benchmark for when human life begins?
-
I just gave you a crucial distinction between a fertilized egg and cell from someone's cheek, complete with a quote and link.
You quoted this: "At the instant of fertilization, your baby's genes and sex are set. If the sperm has a Y chromosome, your baby will be a boy. If it has an X chromosome, the baby will be a girl."
And that's true: at fertilization the genes and sex are set: that's the new zygote's DNA. But then again, a cheek cell has exactly the same DNA. So how is one cell different from the other? So why is destroying one kind of cell OK but destroying the other isn't? Is it because destroying the zygote destroys the one and only copy?
At what stage do "identifiable human brainwave patterns" begin and why do you pick that as your actual but not really benchmark for when human life begins?
Let me answer out of order. First the why. I picked "identifiable human brainwave patterns" because the brain is the seat of our consciousness. There's precedent: we pronounce people brain-dead even if their hearts continue to beat. Once the brain starts functioning, that individual human is gone. It is, to use an analogy you might prefer, where I think the "soul" is.
Now on the question of when these "identifiable human brainwave patterns" begin. It's not important to pinpoint the exact point in time down to the nanosecond, or even down to the hour. What is important is that, at any given point in time, we can check whether they are present. If they are now but weren't present before, the line has been crossed. If they aren't yet, the line hasn't been.
-
You quoted this: "At the instant of fertilization, your baby's genes and sex are set. If the sperm has a Y chromosome, your baby will be a boy. If it has an X chromosome, the baby will be a girl."
And that's true: at fertilization the genes and sex are set: that's the new zygote's DNA. But then again, a cheek cell has exactly the same DNA. So how is one cell different from the other? So why is destroying one kind of cell OK but destroying the other isn't? Is it because destroying the zygote destroys the one and only copy?
Let me answer out of order. First the why. I picked "identifiable human brainwave patterns" because the brain is the seat of our consciousness. There's precedent: we pronounce people brain-dead even if their hearts continue to beat. Once the brain starts functioning, that individual human is gone. It is, to use an analogy you might prefer, where I think the "soul" is.
Now on the question of when these "identifiable human brainwave patterns" begin. It's not important to pinpoint the exact point in time down to the nanosecond, or even down to the hour. What is important is that, at any given point in time, we can check whether they are present. If they are now but weren't present before, the line has been crossed. If they aren't yet, the line hasn't been.
So what if a cell has the same DNA as a fertilized egg? Of course it will. So will a fingerprint, hair follicle, skin, etc. None of those, standing alone, makes a human being. That really makes no sense.
I don't prefer a "soul" analogy and not sure why you make that assumption.
Is a person who is "brain dead" always literally dead?
Funny how you try and completely sidestep precisely when human life begins when you have to specifically talk about when your own views, rather than some unrealistic hypothetical involving someone else. You want to be precise when it comes to a "zygote," which no women ever really know about, but when it comes to your own views, it's "not important" to be precise.
-
So what if a cell has the same DNA as a fertilized egg? Of course it will. So will a fingerprint, hair follicle, skin, etc. None of those, standing alone, makes a human being. That really makes no sense.
I don't prefer a "soul" analogy and not sure why you make that assumption.
Is a person who is "brain dead" always literally dead?
Funny how you try and completely sidestep precisely when human life begins when you have to specifically talk about when your own views, rather than some unrealistic hypothetical involving someone else. You want to be precise when it comes to a "zygote," which no women ever really know about, but when it comes to your own views, it's "not important" to be precise.
you saw that as a sidestep? I thought it was pretty spot on.. Where there are brainwaves... life.. where there are no brainwaves.. not life.. questions?
-
you saw that as a sidestep? I thought it was pretty spot on.. Where there are brainwaves... life.. where there are no brainwaves.. not life.. questions?
Yes it was a sidestep to say it's not important to determine when brainwaves begin, when you're trying to be precise about when human life begins.
If you agree with him then tell me when human brainwaves begin.
-
Yes it was a sidestep to say it's not important to determine when brainwaves begin, when you're trying to be precise about when human life begins.
If you agree with him then tell me when human brainwaves begin.
I can tell you where they end.
Ask Terry Shaivo.
Seems a valid point. If there is no brain activity then it's the same as being brain dead.
Which is really "dead" for those who don't get it.
-
So what if a cell has the same DNA as a fertilized egg? Of course it will. So will a fingerprint, hair follicle, skin, etc. None of those, standing alone, makes a human being. That really makes no sense.
See, now we're getting somewhere: the zygote expresses proteins different than a fingerprint. This is a quantifiable difference we can work with. But then, what about taking a cell and altering it to change protein expression? While it's presently beyond our abilities, it's not a stretch to imagine that in the future we could fully clone a human by taking a cell and altering protein expression to match those of a zygote. And what then? There will have been no moment of conception.
I don't prefer a "soul" analogy and not sure why you make that assumption.
I said that you might prefer it. Whether you do or don't, is fine by me.
Is a person who is "brain dead" always literally dead?
Well, considering how someone who is brain dead won't breathe without artificial support, I'd say that if "brain dead" is at least equivalent to "about to die in the next few seconds..."
But yes, there is a difference between the two states otherwise we wouldn't have the distinction of "dead" vs. "brain dead". One refers to the status of the mobile brain container (i.e. the body) and the other refers to whether the brain has permanently and irreversibly ceased functioning.
Like a car on cruise control can continue coasting with a dead driver at the wheel, a body that's provided with artificial life support can continue operating without a brain, usually as a means of keeping organs viable for transplantation to save lives.
Funny how you try and completely sidestep precisely when human life begins when you have to specifically talk about when your own views, rather than some unrealistic hypothetical involving someone else. You want to be precise when it comes to a "zygote," which no women ever really know about, but when it comes to your own views, it's "not important" to be precise.
But I'm not trying to sidestep anything. It's not that I don't think it's important to be precise. It's that I don't think it's practical or necessary to know exactly when that line is crossed and the fetus shows human brain patterns. What's important is whether the line has been crossed.
It's not practical because it would require that women be connected to bulky equipment all the time.
And it's not necessary, because the precise moment when it happens is not important in the sense that what really matters is whether they're present or not, because if they are present now but weren't present before, we can say that at some point between the last scan and the current scan the line was crossed, and what we want is to be able to have a clear answer: "which side of the line are we on?"
Can you explain why you believe this is insufficient and why we need to pinpoint the very moment where the fetal brain begins showing human brainwave patterns, which, by the way, can be as early as 5 weeks.
-
I can tell you where they end.
Ask Terry Shaivo.
Seems a valid point. If there is no brain activity then it's the same as being brain dead.
Which is really "dead" for those who don't get it.
HAHHAHAHA. Who was that dipshit that refuted her doctors claims of her condition after watching a few seconds of taped video of her?
-
See, now we're getting somewhere: the zygote expresses proteins different than a fingerprint. This is a quantifiable difference we can work with. But then, what about taking a cell and altering it to change protein expression? While it's presently beyond our abilities, it's not a stretch to imagine that in the future we could fully clone a human by taking a cell and altering protein expression to match those of a zygote. And what then? There will have been no moment of conception.
I said that you might prefer it. Whether you do or don't, is fine by me.
Well, considering how someone who is brain dead won't breathe without artificial support, I'd say that if "brain dead" is at least equivalent to "about to die in the next few seconds..."
But yes, there is a difference between the two states otherwise we wouldn't have the distinction of "dead" vs. "brain dead". One refers to the status of the mobile brain container (i.e. the body) and the other refers to whether the brain has permanently and irreversibly ceased functioning.
Like a car on cruise control can continue coasting with a dead driver at the wheel, a body that's provided with artificial life support can continue operating without a brain, usually as a means of keeping organs viable for transplantation to save lives.
But I'm not trying to sidestep anything. It's not that I don't think it's important to be precise. It's that I don't think it's practical or necessary to know exactly when that line is crossed and the fetus shows human brain patterns. What's important is whether the line has been crossed.
It's not practical because it would require that women be connected to bulky equipment all the time.
And it's not necessary, because the precise moment when it happens is not important in the sense that what really matters is whether they're present or not, because if they are present now but weren't present before, we can say that at some point between the last scan and the current scan the line was crossed, and what we want is to be able to have a clear answer: "which side of the line are we on?"
Can you explain why you believe this is insufficient and why we need to pinpoint the very moment where the fetal brain begins showing human brainwave patterns, which, by the way, can be as early as 5 weeks.
So now you're talking about clones? When we are able to clone human beings, then we talk about it. Until then, it's science fiction.
If it's important to know whether a line has been crossed after brainwaves begin, then of course you need to know when brainwaves begin.
It's not really important to me when brainwaves begin. I asked the question to clarify when you believe human life begins. In response, you brought up brainwaves. Just trying to determine your starting point. Doesn't sound like you have one. For me, it's at conception, so brainwaves are not a relevant consideration to me for when human life begins.
Just like the person I had this discussion with last week who said he believes life begins when the heart starts beating. That happens at about six weeks, so in his mind, human life begins at six weeks.
-
So now you're talking about clones? When we are able to clone human beings, then we talk about it. Until then, it's science fiction.
If it's important to know whether a line has been crossed after brainwaves begin, then of course you need to know when brainwaves begin.
It's not really important to me when brainwaves begin. I asked the question to clarify when you believe human life begins. In response, you brought up brainwaves. Just trying to determine your starting point. Doesn't sound like you have one. For me, it's at conception, so brainwaves are not a relevant consideration to me for when human life begins.
Just like the person I had this discussion with last week who said he believes life begins when the heart starts beating. That happens at about six weeks, so in his mind, human life begins at six weeks.
You don't know when conception happens - it can be hours after sex. So you don't know when your "line" is crossed either.
-
You don't know when conception happens - it can be hours after sex. So you don't know when your "line" is crossed either.
Conception happens when the sperm fertilizes the egg. So what if that happens hours or a day after sex?
I didn't bring up a "line" for my own analysis. A "line" is important to you. But you don't even know where your own line is.
-
Conception happens when the sperm fertilizes the egg. So what if that happens hours or a day after sex?
Same for me: you have a human (instead of an embryo) when human brainwave patterns first appear. Who cares when that happens?
I didn't bring up a "line" for my own analysis. A "line" is important to you. But you don't even know where your own line is.
If you want to debate a topic you should strive to do so honestly. You asked me "When do you believe life begins?" I answered that it's when human brain wave patterns appear.
You claim that I don't know where my own line is. You're, at best, being dishonest. Where my line is crystal clear. You just don't like the fact that without real-time monitoring, I can't pinpoint the exact time when the line is crossed. But that's not important. It's not important because all that matters is whether, at a given point in time, the line has been crossed.
You claim that you didn't bring up a line, but you did: you stated that life begins at conception. That's a line. And, for the record, you can't pinpoint the exact point in time when the line is crossed either. As a matter of fact, it's much easier to do that for my line than for yours.
If you want to debate this, I'm happy to. I feel strongly that my position is the best we can hope to do, but I'm open to changing if I can be convinced that another position is better.
If you don't want to debate this, then stop trolling and move along.
-
Same for me: you have a human (instead of an embryo) when human brainwave patterns first appear. Who cares when that happens?
If you want to debate a topic you should strive to do so honestly. You asked me "When do you believe life begins?" I answered that it's when human brain wave patterns appear.
You claim that I don't know where my own line is. You're, at best, being dishonest. Where my line is crystal clear. You just don't like the fact that without real-time monitoring, I can't pinpoint the exact time when the line is crossed. But that's not important. It's not important because all that matters is whether, at a given point in time, the line has been crossed.
You claim that you didn't bring up a line, but you did: you stated that life begins at conception. That's a line. And, for the record, you can't pinpoint the exact point in time when the line is crossed either. As a matter of fact, it's much easier to do that for my line than for yours.
If you want to debate this, I'm happy to. I feel strongly that my position is the best we can hope to do, but I'm open to changing if I can be convinced that another position is better.
If you don't want to debate this, then stop trolling and move along.
Whatever. You said this:
Now on the question of when these "identifiable human brainwave patterns" begin. It's not important to pinpoint the exact point in time down to the nanosecond, or even down to the hour. What is important is that, at any given point in time, we can check whether they are present.
You believe life begins when identifiable brainwaves appear, but it's "not important" know at stage those brainwaves appear? Is it 6 weeks? Twelve? Twenty-four?
Unless you believe human life begins at conception, then there is going to be some point during the baby's development when you do believe it begins, which shouldn't be that difficult to determine (e.g., my friend's belief life begins when the heart starts beating, which happens at about 6 weeks).
The "line" is your straw man.
-
Dos, are you being dense on purpose? Just asking..
-
Whatever.
::)
You believe life begins when identifiable brainwaves appear, but it's "not important" know at stage those brainwaves appear? Is it 6 weeks? Twelve? Twenty-four?
You're misrepresenting my position - a position that you just freaking quoted. Are you dishonest or stupid?
Let's look at what I said: "Now on the question of when these "identifiable human brainwave patterns" begin. It's not important to pinpoint the exact point in time down to the nanosecond, or even down to the hour. What is important is that, at any given point in time, we can check whether they are present."
You had asked me when I think human life begins. Specifically, you said: "Is it conception? Heartbeat? Viability? Birth?"
I answer than I think that human life begins when brainwave patterns that are typical of a human begin. But I was making the point that the exact time when that happen isn't important, since all we need to know for purposes of abortion (which is what we were discussing) is whether they are present or not.
You can pretend that not knowing the exact time when this happens matters, but know that it just makes you look like a fool, moreso becauseyou can't pinpoint the exact time the ovum is fertilized either.
Unless you believe human life begins at conception, then there is going to be some point during the baby's development when you do believe it begins, which shouldn't be that difficult to determine (e.g., my friend's belief life begins when the heart starts beating, which happens at about 6 weeks).
First of all, unless you strap on a fetal heart rate monitor on every pregnant woman, it's very difficult to determine when the heart starts beating. But that's not a problem.
Assume that we agree to adopt your friend's definition: human life begins when the heart starts beating. It's important to realize that, while we consider life to begin at the first heart beat, we don't need to pinpoint the exact point in time when that beat too place for any given fetus. What matters is whether it started beating: if it wasn't the last time you checked but is now, then you know that a human life begun at some point between the last check and now.
Remember, that we were discussing abortion and whether it's murder. Assume that we still adopt your friend's definition and agree that human life begins when the heart starts beating. Then for the purposes of abortion all that matters is if the heart is beating at the time the process is performed. If it's not, then the abortion can't be murder, since there's no human life to end.
This is why I say that pinpointing the "when" exactly isn't important.
The "line" is your straw man.
What about your straw man? Can you pinpoint the exact moment in time when your line is crossed? Can you, for that matter, explain exactly what your line is? You say that it's "conception". But what do you mean by that? Be as specific as possible.
-
::)
You're misrepresenting my position - a position that you just freaking quoted. Are you dishonest or stupid?
Let's look at what I said: "Now on the question of when these "identifiable human brainwave patterns" begin. It's not important to pinpoint the exact point in time down to the nanosecond, or even down to the hour. What is important is that, at any given point in time, we can check whether they are present."
You had asked me when I think human life begins. Specifically, you said: "Is it conception? Heartbeat? Viability? Birth?"
I answer than I think that human life begins when brainwave patterns that are typical of a human begin. But I was making the point that the exact time when that happen isn't important, since all we need to know for purposes of abortion (which is what we were discussing) is whether they are present or not.
You can pretend that not knowing the exact time when this happens matters, but know that it just makes you look like a fool, moreso becauseyou can't pinpoint the exact time the ovum is fertilized either.
First of all, unless you strap on a fetal heart rate monitor on every pregnant woman, it's very difficult to determine when the heart starts beating. But that's not a problem.
Assume that we agree to adopt your friend's definition: human life begins when the heart starts beating. It's important to realize that, while we consider life to begin at the first heart beat, we don't need to pinpoint the exact point in time when that beat too place for any given fetus. What matters is whether it started beating: if it wasn't the last time you checked but is now, then you know that a human life begun at some point between the last check and now.
Remember, that we were discussing abortion and whether it's murder. Assume that we still adopt your friend's definition and agree that human life begins when the heart starts beating. Then for the purposes of abortion all that matters is if the heart is beating at the time the process is performed. If it's not, then the abortion can't be murder, since there's no human life to end.
This is why I say that pinpointing the "when" exactly isn't important.
What about your straw man? Can you pinpoint the exact moment in time when your line is crossed? Can you, for that matter, explain exactly what your line is? You say that it's "conception". But what do you mean by that? Be as specific as possible.
Now that's the avxo I know. Surprised you lasted so many posts. But great progress. :)
I just explained the distinction between conception and some other marker. We know conception happens whenever the sperm fertilizes the egg. Whether that happens at one or 24 hours after sex is completely irrelevant to this discussion.
Using any other measure means you believe human life begins at some concrete time after conception. I asked you to state when that moment is for you. You mentioned brainwaves. When I asked when brainwaves begin, you said it doesn't matter. Of course it matters. It's the benchmark for human life in your mind.
I don't have a straw man. As I said, the "line" is your issue, not mine. I never brought that up as it relates to my belief about when human life begins.
I've already stated, repeatedly, that I believe life begins at conception. Google "conception" if you need more specifics about exactly what that means. It's not that hard to determine. Unless you are just disagreeing for the sake of disagreeing, trying to play devil's advocate, etc.
-
I just explained the distinction between conception and some other marker. We know conception happens whenever the sperm fertilizes the egg. Whether that happens at one or 24 hours after sex is completely irrelevant to this discussion.
You didn't explain it. You just vigorously button-mashed your keyboard and pressed submit.
Using any other measure means you believe human life begins at some concrete time after conception. I asked you to state when that moment is for you. You mentioned brainwaves. When I asked when brainwaves begin, you said it doesn't matter. Of course it matters. It's the benchmark for human life in your mind.
I explained exactly when it happens: when human brainwave patterns begin. This is no different than your claim that What I said is that it doesn't matter if we don't know when
I don't have a straw man. As I said, the "line" is your issue, not mine. I never brought that up as it relates to my belief about when human life begins.
"I don't have to meet the standard I require you to meet because I'm speshul... hurr... durr..."
I've already stated, repeatedly, that I believe life begins at conception. Google "conception" if you need more specifics about exactly what that means. It's not that hard to determine. Unless you are just disagreeing for the sake of disagreeing, trying to play devil's advocate, etc.
Yes, you have stated that. But you haven't explained it. Google won't help, as I am already familiar with the specifics of conception, but I'm not sure if you are, or what step in the sequence of event which occur during fertilization, specifically qualifies as "conception" in your mind.
You claim that "conception happens whenever the sperm fertilizes the egg." I am asking you point blank, what does that mean? Is it when the cortical reaction occurs? Is it when meiotic division occurs? When cell membranes fuse?
-
You didn't explain it. You just vigorously button-mashed your keyboard and pressed submit.
I explained exactly when it happens: when human brainwave patterns begin. This is no different than your claim that What I said is that it doesn't matter if we don't know when
"I don't have to meet the standard I require you to meet because I'm speshul... hurr... durr..."
Yes, you have stated that. But you haven't explained it. Google won't help, as I am already familiar with the specifics of conception, but I'm not sure if you are, or what step in the sequence of event which occur during fertilization, specifically qualifies as "conception" in your mind.
You claim that "conception happens whenever the sperm fertilizes the egg." I am asking you point blank, what does that mean? Is it when the cortical reaction occurs? Is it when meiotic division occurs? When cell membranes fuse?
When do brainwave patterns begin in an unborn baby? Approximately what week?
-
When do brainwave patterns begin in an unborn baby? Approximately what week?
I believe that it's around the 6th week.
-
I believe that it's around the 6th week.
Holy smokes. A straight answer. :D Thank you.
By that measure, you believe human life begins at six weeks.
-
Holy smokes. A straight answer. :D Thank you.
By that measure, you believe human life begins at six weeks.
No. I believe that human life begins when brainwaves with patterns that one would typically see in humans are detectable. It's my understanding that this happens around six weeks, but it's not accurate to say that I believe that life begins at six weeks.
By the way, you didn't answer my question. I'll ask you again:
Wwhat step in the sequence of event which occur during fertilization, specifically qualifies as "conception" in your mind? You claim that "conception happens whenever the sperm fertilizes the egg." When is that? Is it when the cortical reaction occurs? Is it when meiotic division occurs? When cell membranes fuse?
-
I have to believe Dos Equis is purposely trying not to understand the simple concept..