Drilling in Alaska

[mraynrand]

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.

I know there are other viewpoints. The science, as you point out is very clear - before the sperm and oocyte meet there is no chance for human life and after they meet, and fertilization is complete (correctly described above), human life will develop with high probability of success. That is undeniable.

Also undeniable is your view of choice and my view that protecting the human embryo when it first has a very high probability of developing into a human. After fertilization is complete, the embryo WILL develop into a human with high probablity and this in my view makes far more sense as a point at which to protect human life than your arbitrary view of the EEG. As far as I can tell, the only reason you use the gastrulation and EEG time points is to rationalize the morning after pill and abortion up to approximately 24 weeks, respectively. In summary, your position (and that of the scientists you refer to - I've met these folks as well) on when 'humaness' forms isn't derived really from the potential of the embryo to form a human, but on your desire to justify your position on abortion choice.

[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?

Why not wait?

[mraynrand]

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.

This got by me. So here you say human life begins fourteen days before gastrulation. So would you protect life by force of law 14 days before gastrulation? And, why not 14 days and 10 minutes before gastrulation (presumeably 10 minutes before completion of fertilization). If you knew that in 10 minutes, the embryo you are looking at will become human, wouldn't you want to wait? Why destroy it 10 minutes before you know it will be a human?

Why not wait?

[Freak Out]

Where the hell are the color pictures that normally come with an abortion debate? Oh wait....found one.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

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?

Sorry. I don't agree.

It isn't a life..and that is the right to choose.

[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?

Sorry. I don't agree.

It isn't a life..and that is the right to choose.

I got you. But why not wait until it is?

[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.

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?

My criteria is whatever science determines. If we want to be safe..we can roll it back a week or two.

Kill: Are you against capital punishment? Are you against it because we might kill an innocent person...well, not might..have done so.

Are you against shooting at people on property. What if it is a simple mistake..like what happened in Lousiana.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

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.

I know there are other viewpoints. The science, as you point out is very clear - before the sperm and oocyte meet there is no chance for human life and after they meet, and fertilization is complete (correctly described above), human life will develop with high probability of success. That is undeniable.

Also undeniable is your view of choice and my view that protecting the human embryo when it first has a very high probability of developing into a human. After fertilization is complete, the embryo WILL develop into a human with high probablity and this in my view makes far more sense as a point at which to protect human life than your arbitrary view of the EEG. As far as I can tell, the only reason you use the gastrulation and EEG time points is to rationalize the morning after pill and abortion up to approximately 24 weeks, respectively. In summary, your position (and that of the scientists you refer to - I've met these folks as well) on when 'humaness' forms isn't derived really from the potential of the embryo to form a human, but on your desire to justify your position on abortion choice.

Justify...see, that is what you and other conservs do...you just can't believe that others see it completely differently. I dont' need to justify anything. I'm not a woman..i'll never make that choice.

I respect your position..you don't respect others.

[mraynrand]

My criteria is whatever science determines. If we want to be safe..we can roll it back a week or two.

What if I'm a scientist and an embryologist and I say that once the sperm pronucleus enters the oocyte, that is human life? Your post above seems to think that life begins 14 days before gastrulation at the end of fertilization. I'm just rolling it back 12-24 hours, just to be safe.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

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?

Sorry. I don't agree.

It isn't a life..and that is the right to choose.

I got you. But why not wait until it is?

Because it isn't when the decision is made. If you wanna wait..go ahead. I dont' see it that way.

Why not...same reason i have protected sex. Am i not wasting my sperm. Same reason we have birth control..are women not wasting their eggs.

Not the optimal way for family planning, but i see no reason to not utilize it.

[mraynrand]

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.

I know there are other viewpoints. The science, as you point out is very clear - before the sperm and oocyte meet there is no chance for human life and after they meet, and fertilization is complete (correctly described above), human life will develop with high probability of success. That is undeniable.

Also undeniable is your view of choice and my view that protecting the human embryo when it first has a very high probability of developing into a human. After fertilization is complete, the embryo WILL develop into a human with high probablity and this in my view makes far more sense as a point at which to protect human life than your arbitrary view of the EEG. As far as I can tell, the only reason you use the gastrulation and EEG time points is to rationalize the morning after pill and abortion up to approximately 24 weeks, respectively. In summary, your position (and that of the scientists you refer to - I've met these folks as well) on when 'humaness' forms isn't derived really from the potential of the embryo to form a human, but on your desire to justify your position on abortion choice.

Justify...see, that is what you and other conservs do...you just can't believe that others see it completely differently. I dont' need to justify anything. I'm not a woman..i'll never make that choice.

I respect your position..you don't respect others.

No, I very MUCH realize that people see it differently. I just want to explain as clearly as I can my position and hope to convince them to come to my view. I'm not a woman either, so I personally won't make that choice. But I think I have a very good understanding of what makes a human life possible, and why protecting from fertilization onward makes sense.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

My criteria is whatever science determines. If we want to be safe..we can roll it back a week or two.

What if I'm a scientist and an embryologist and I say that once the sperm pronucleus enters the oocyte, that is human life? Your post above seems to think that life begins 14 days before gastrulation at the end of fertilization. I'm just rolling it back 12-24 hours, just to be safe.

As i said..many viewpoints. You can have yours. And, it is one that many find appealing. Though, as pointed out..i can find other scientists who disagree.

As i stated..i favor neuro...so, i'm more than ok with it happening 20-24ish weeks in.

I don't agree with life beginning at conception. I also think there is huge diff between life and a person.

No matter how many times you ask it, my viewpoint is going to change...just as yours isn't. I've thought long and hard on this..and my position works for me. I'm not asking to have it work for you.

[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?

Sorry. I don't agree.

It isn't a life..and that is the right to choose.

I got you. But why not wait until it is?

Because it isn't when the decision is made. If you wanna wait..go ahead. I dont' see it that way.

Why not...same reason i have protected sex. Am i not wasting my sperm. Same reason we have birth control..are women not wasting their eggs.

Not the optimal way for family planning, but i see no reason to not utilize it.

Your sperm and the woman's egg cannot possibly develop. They must join during fertilization to do so. After that point a human will develop with high probability. Protected sex makes sense - that way you don't generate a human that you didn't want to have. But if you do generate a human, why then kill it?

[Tyrone Bigguns]

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.

I know there are other viewpoints. The science, as you point out is very clear - before the sperm and oocyte meet there is no chance for human life and after they meet, and fertilization is complete (correctly described above), human life will develop with high probability of success. That is undeniable.

Also undeniable is your view of choice and my view that protecting the human embryo when it first has a very high probability of developing into a human. After fertilization is complete, the embryo WILL develop into a human with high probablity and this in my view makes far more sense as a point at which to protect human life than your arbitrary view of the EEG. As far as I can tell, the only reason you use the gastrulation and EEG time points is to rationalize the morning after pill and abortion up to approximately 24 weeks, respectively. In summary, your position (and that of the scientists you refer to - I've met these folks as well) on when 'humaness' forms isn't derived really from the potential of the embryo to form a human, but on your desire to justify your position on abortion choice.

Justify...see, that is what you and other conservs do...you just can't believe that others see it completely differently. I dont' need to justify anything. I'm not a woman..i'll never make that choice.

I respect your position..you don't respect others.

No, I very MUCH realize that people see it differently. I just want to explain as clearly as I can my position and hope to convince them to come to my view. I'm not a woman either, so I personally won't make that choice. But I think I have a very good understanding of what makes a human life possible, and why protecting from fertilization onward makes sense.

IF you want to convince people...it is best not to talk down to them..or denigrate their position..with words like "justify."

I also believe i have a good understanding..and have dealt with medical procedures and listening to this for a huge portion of my life.

I am more than aware of the complications and implications...and don't wander thru this blindly.

Case in point. I would never have my sig other ever deliver a baby at a catholic hospital.

[mraynrand]

My criteria is whatever science determines. If we want to be safe..we can roll it back a week or two.

What if I'm a scientist and an embryologist and I say that once the sperm pronucleus enters the oocyte, that is human life? Your post above seems to think that life begins 14 days before gastrulation at the end of fertilization. I'm just rolling it back 12-24 hours, just to be safe.

As i said..many viewpoints. You can have yours. And, it is one that many find appealing. Though, as pointed out..i can find other scientists who disagree.

As i stated..i favor neuro...so, i'm more than ok with it happening 20-24ish weeks in.

I don't agree with life beginning at conception. I also think there is huge diff between life and a person.

No matter how many times you ask it, my viewpoint is going to change...just as yours isn't. I've thought long and hard on this..and my position works for me. I'm not asking to have it work for you.

But you said you would go with what science determines. You also agree that scientist will disagree. I know that to be absolutely true: Different scientists have different views on when life begins. Aren't you really saying that you don't really care about what scientists say, but that you will choose to go with the scientist who agrees with your view on the abortion issue?