Drilling in Alaska

[Tyrone Bigguns]

That is one view of science...and furthermore, when exactly is conception. THat is debated among the community as well.

But, if you want science to rule..then fine. Then let's stop with the christian tradition you guys invoke all the time.

Are you really making the claim that scientists don't know when conception takes place? It takes place when the sperm enters the oocyte. The two pronuclei migrate to approximately the center and make a haploid nucleus. Before fertilization, you have a haploid sperm gamete that cannot form a human and a haploid oocyte that connot become a human. Only a fertilized, diploid oocyte can become human.

Lets keep it scientific and secular. Human life begins at conception in the vast vast majority of cases. Since human life is valued by all, why make a distinction between a developing human inside a woman and any other human being? We know what will happen to the fertilized egg - all things being equal, it will develop along a continuum and eventually become and adult human that will also age and die. We should do everything we can to protect it, just as we protect humans at every other stage of life.

Rand,

No. Sorry, but you aren't exactly on the money.

Although the opinion that life begins at fertilization is the most popular view among the public, many scientists no longer support this position, as an increasing number of scientific discoveries seem to contradict it. One such discovery in the last twenty years is that research has shown that there is no "moment of fertilization" at all.

The most popular argument against the idea that life begins at the moment of fertilization has been dubbed the "twinning argument." The main point of this argument is that although a zygote is genetically unique from its parents from the moment a diploid organism is formed; it is possible for that zygote to split into two or more zygotes up until 14 or 15 days after fertilization. Even though the chances of twinning are not very great, as long as there is the potential for it to occur the zygote has not completed the process of individuation and is not an ontological individual.

In contrast to the genetic view, the embryological view states that human life originates not at fertilization but rather at gastrulation. Human embryos are capable of splitting into identical twins as late as 12 days after fertilization resulting in the development of separate individuals with unique personalities and different souls, according to the religious view. Therefore, properties governing individuality are not set until after gastrulation.

So what? I can claim that life begins at the blastual or morula stage - or even at epiboly rather than gastrulation - or at the specification of various germs layers - each of these event occur on a smooth developmental continuum so It's a pointless debate to try to establish some defined point where a fertilized egg acheives 'humaness.'

So is your trying to make a claim about individuals and twinning - So what? In fact, your position essentially says we should be EVEN MORE CAREFUL because there is the chance for TWO INDIVIDUALS instead of just one. Neither of these twins can form without fertilization. (I'm glad that you refer to them as INDIVIDUALS at the time of twinning. Eventually, I am confident that people will realize they are human at conception).

So what: You said conception..and that we all know when it begins. When shown to be wrong...you counter with so what..and the continuum.

Fine, continuum. Just dismiss the Embryological View, Neuro View, and Ecological / Technological view...those don't support your viewpoint..so, the science behind them is...well, not applicable.

When did i say individual...nice reframing.

Twinning: I guess that is one way of looking at it. The other would be that that point at which the zygote is an ontological individual and can no longer become two individuals.

Conception: I doubt it. The debate surrounding the exact moment marking the beginning of a human life contrasts the certainty and consistency with which the instant of death is described. Contemporary American (and Japanese) society defines death as the loss of the pattern produced by a cerebral electroencephalogram (EEG). If life and death are based upon the same standard of measurement, then the beginning of human life should be recognized as the time when a fetus acquires a recognizable EEG pattern.

That's total gibberish. Try again. You make zero sense. Does human life begin at conception or not? Do we not know when conception is? Conception is Fertilization - joining of gametes.

Right..a conservative calling science gibberish..how surprising.

Conception: For me, no. The point was that the determination of when life begins isn't confined to conception. And, that conception itself isn't what you say it is..that is your definition..other scientists don't agree and can't even agree when it happens. I've given you the science..you can choose to dismiss it or not agree, but you can't refute that science is saying it.

Myself..i tend to go with the neurological.

[mraynrand]

Myself..i tend to go with the neurological.

neurological what?

[mraynrand]

Re: conception

scientists don't agree and can't even agree when it happens.

What does this mean? What is conception? Why can't scientists agree on when it happens? Please explain.

[mraynrand]

Right..a conservative calling science gibberish..how surprising.

The science is very clear to me. Your writing is gibberish. Make some clear declarative statements of your position.

[mraynrand]

OK, Ty. I can't make sense of what you write. You're squirming all over the place, like a 4 month old baby, trying to stretch or suck it's thumb inside the womb. I have a direct question. See if you can give a direct answer.

WHEN, according to YOU does a developing homo sapien achieve 'human' status? In other words, at what point would you say "After _____ developmental time point, the developing embryo is Human, and should be protected from killing by law." If you can answer, please answer with specificity as to what the criteria are for this transition from embryo (that may be destroyed) to Human, (which should be protected by law). I hope it's not above your pay grade.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Myself..i tend to go with the neurological.

neurological what?

EEG...as i wrote in the post.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Re: conception

scientists don't agree and can't even agree when it happens.

What does this mean? What is conception? Why can't scientists agree on when it happens? Please explain.

Go back to previous posts. I have explained this already.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Right..a conservative calling science gibberish..how surprising.

The science is very clear to me. Your writing is gibberish. Make some clear declarative statements of your position.

That is funny. What does my position have to do with anything.

But, i've given it to you..i go with the neurological definition of life.

[mraynrand]

Myself..i tend to go with the neurological.

neurological what?

EEG...as i wrote in the post.

OK. You say that human should be defined by testing for a specific pattern on an EEG. So would you then say that before an abortion can take place, EEG testing should be performed. If the pattern that you require is present should the abortion be denied?

[mraynrand]

That is funny. What does my position have to do with anything.

I often think the same thing of you.

[mraynrand]

Re: conception

scientists don't agree and can't even agree when it happens.

What does this mean? What is conception? Why can't scientists agree on when it happens? Please explain.

Go back to previous posts. I have explained this already.

I didn't understand what you wrote. Please explain. I don't understand why scientist can't determine when conception happens. I understand 'conception' to be effectively identical to fertilization. Simply understood, fertilization is the joining of two haploid gametes to make a diploid cell, that will then undergo development. I don't understand why any scientist would be uncertain of this. I have never met a single scientist who didn't understands this. Your claim is to my knowledge unsubstantiated.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Myself..i tend to go with the neurological.

neurological what?

EEG...as i wrote in the post.

OK. You say that human should be defined by testing for a specific pattern on an EEG. So would you then say that before an abortion can take place, EEG testing should be performed. If the pattern that you require is present should the abortion be denied?

No, what is the point. EEG patterns occur approximately 24- 27 weeks after the conception of the fetus and is the basis for the neurological view of the beginning of human life.

[mraynrand]

Myself..i tend to go with the neurological.

neurological what?

EEG...as i wrote in the post.

OK. You say that human should be defined by testing for a specific pattern on an EEG. So would you then say that before an abortion can take place, EEG testing should be performed. If the pattern that you require is present should the abortion be denied?

No, what is the point. EEG patterns occur approximately 24- 27 weeks after the conception of the fetus and is the basis for the neurological view of the beginning of human life.

Then what is your criteria for allowing an abortion? What if you abort and there is an EEG that qualifies for life, according to your criteria. Isn't that killing a human. Do want to kill a human based on an approximation?

[mraynrand]

But let's even say you're approximation is always correct. If you abort at 22 weeks an earlier, there is no EEG pattern that fits your definition of life. You obviously can't deny that if you wait two weeks or so, there WILL BE an EEG that defines a life worth protecting with the force of law. Why not wait? Why destroy something that you know, with a very, very high certainty, will develop the EEG pattern that will mean it is a human worth protecting? Why not wait?

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Re: conception

scientists don't agree and can't even agree when it happens.

What does this mean? What is conception? Why can't scientists agree on when it happens? Please explain.

Go back to previous posts. I have explained this already.

I didn't understand what you wrote. Please explain. I don't understand why scientist can't determine when conception happens. I understand 'conception' to be effectively identical to fertilization. Simply understood, fertilization is the joining of two haploid gametes to make a diploid cell, that will then undergo development. I don't understand why any scientist would be uncertain of this. I have never met a single scientist who didn't understands this. Your claim is to my knowledge unsubstantiated.

Metabolic View

The metabolic view takes the stance that a single developmental moment marking the beginning of human life does not exist. Both the sperm and egg cells should individually be considered to be units of life in the same respect as any other single or multicellular organism. Thus, neither the union of two gametes nor any developmental point thereafter should be designated as the beginning of new life.

This position is supported by research that has revealed that fertilization itself is not even an instantaneous event, but rather a process that takes 20-22 hours between the time the sperm penetrates the outermost layers of the egg and the formation of a diploid cell.

Genetic View

This event is often described as taking place at fertilization, thus fertilization marks the beginning of human life.

Many scientists no longer support this position, as an increasing number of scientific discoveries seem to contradict it. One such discovery in the last twenty years is that research has shown that there is no "moment of fertilization" at all.

Thus, even if one were to argue that life begins at fertilization, fertilization is not a moment, but rather a continuous process lasting 12-24 hours, with an additional 24 hours required to complete the formation of a diploid individual.

Argument against fertilization..Twinning..which you either dispute or don't agree with, but it is a well known and popular argument. The main point of this argument is that although a zygote is genetically unique from its parents from the moment a diploid organism is formed; it is possible for that zygote to split into two or more zygotes up until 14 or 15 days after fertilization.

Embryological

Again...discussed. Gastrulation. You would argue that whether a zygote will eventually become one individual or multiple individuals is irrelevant. The key point (for my position) is that at least one human life may begin as the result of the zygote, and thus human life began at the creation of the zygote, fourteen days before gastrulation.

Hence the use of the morning after pill and and contragestational agents as long as they are administered during the first two weeks of pregnancy.

This view is endorsed by a host of contemporary scientists. This view of when life begins has also been adopted as the official position of the British government.

But, what does the British gov't know....everyone knows americans know everything.

We can debate this all day long. But, for you to make it out like there is one established thought on conception or when life begins isn't right. You are welcome to your beliefs.

As i am welcome to mine. And, my belief is that we have a right to choose..which is favored by a majority of this country.