Drilling in Alaska

[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.

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?

That is according to your viewpoint.

If we take the metabolic viewpoint 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.

Human: Again, you are framing the argument. Sex doesn't generate a human. It does generate life, but as i stated...big diff tween life/tissue and a human.

[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.

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?

With what neuro science determines..not all science.

Like i said..since i have no vested interest in the decision i have come to my view of when life begins without abortion even entering the picture. Regardless of a court decision, i don't believe human life begins at conception. Cells are not human..not to me.

[mraynrand]

If we take the metabolic viewpoint 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.

Ty, when you throw a ball at the wall, does it ever hit the wall? If you break it down into parts, it can get 1/2 closer, then 1/2 closer, then 1/2 closer, etc. I don't need to define that instant that the ball hits the wall to know that it hit and bounced off. Neither do I need to specifically define an absolute moment of conception/fertilization to know that sperm and oocytes cannot develop individually into humans, but that a fertilized oocyte will, with high probability. It is a new life. The sperm and the oocyte are not.

Human: Again, you are framing the argument. Sex doesn't generate a human. It does generate life, but as i stated...big diff tween life/tissue and a human.

Yes I am, and you answered my question. Once, you said EEG pattern, and you also said 14 days before gastrulation.

And you're twisting yourself in knots. If according to you "neither the union of two gametes nor any developmental point thereafter should be designated as the beginning of new life" then how can sex generate life?

[mraynrand]

Cells are not human..not to me.

But humans are made up of cells. If you look carefully, at high resolution, the neurons that generate the EEG patterns are each and every one an individual cell, working together to create that EEG.

[mraynrand]

With what neuro science determines..not all science.

What about the neuroscientists that have the view that the neuronal precursor cells and the precursors to those cells that are critical for the generation of the neruonal structures that generates the EEG are really the important developmental stage, and therefore, life begins long before the EEG forms, at the level of precursor cells.

Aren't you really saying the same thing - that neuroscience will determine, so long as it agrees with your position?

[HowardRoark]

I rarely watch O’Reilly, but tuned into the show last night after the Packer game. He was interviewing Obama. It was interesting; O’Reilly was grilling him on redistribution of wealth. Obama did not have a response….finally, with a sheepish grin, he said something like, “c’mon Bill this waitress who makes minimum wage, the rich guy won’t even miss the money if he gives some to her…what’s so bad about that?” Isn’t that type of response supposed to be relegated to freshmen dormitories? Is this something that Presidential contenders say? Either he is REALLY naïve, or else he is a died in the wool Socialist. Why can’t he just come clean?

Same with abortion; why can’t people just come clean and say it like it is. This “mistake/kid” will cause a lot of trouble for me, so I am better off getting rid of it. I should have the right to get rid of this person if it is inconvenient to me….after all, they aren’t very good at fighting back at this stage.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

If we take the metabolic viewpoint 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.

Ty, when you throw a ball at the wall, does it ever hit the wall? If you break it down into parts, it can get 1/2 closer, then 1/2 closer, then 1/2 closer, etc. I don't need to define that instant that the ball hits the wall to know that it hit and bounced off. Neither do I need to specifically define an absolute moment of conception/fertilization to know that sperm and oocytes cannot develop individually into humans, but that a fertilized oocyte will, with high probability. It is a new life. The sperm and the oocyte are not.

Human: Again, you are framing the argument. Sex doesn't generate a human. It does generate life, but as i stated...big diff tween life/tissue and a human.

Yes I am, and you answered my question. Once, you said EEG pattern, and you also said 14 days before gastrulation.

And you're twisting yourself in knots. If according to you "neither the union of two gametes nor any developmental point thereafter should be designated as the beginning of new life" then how can sex generate life?

Again, when you disagree with science you simply can't answer it but then go back to an "i know it." fine, just as i know that conception doesnt' mean life. It works both ways.

Nope: What i did was present differing viewpoints on ception. Not once have i ever said that i agree with gastrulation. I am merely pointing out what scientists have said...not what i believe.

Knots: Not according to me..according to those who believe in the metabolic view. The point wasn't that sex isn't involved...but, that there is no single moment...which for you begins at fertilization.

I will repeat this for the last time...because i am presenting differing views doesn't mean that i believe or am endorsing them..simply putting to rest your absurd notion that your viewpoint is right, widely held (only by the public), and that you have the monopoly on truth.

I have said repeatedly that i use the neuro to define what is human life.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Cells are not human..not to me.

But humans are made up of cells. If you look carefully, at high resolution, the neurons that generate the EEG patterns are each and every one an individual cell, working together to create that EEG.

don't be riduculous. Cells make up humans..of course. That doesn't mean an individual cell is human.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Cells are not human..not to me.

But humans are made up of cells. If you look carefully, at high resolution, the neurons that generate the EEG patterns are each and every one an individual cell, working together to create that EEG.

don't be riduculous. Cells make up humans..of course. That doesn't mean an individual cell is human.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

With what neuro science determines..not all science.

What about the neuroscientists that have the view that the neuronal precursor cells and the precursors to those cells that are critical for the generation of the neruonal structures that generates the EEG are really the important developmental stage, and therefore, life begins long before the EEG forms, at the level of precursor cells.

Aren't you really saying the same thing - that neuroscience will determine, so long as it agrees with your position?

Look, you will find every thing you can to buttress your argument. Precursor cells, etc. dont' produce the EEG. I have given you what i use as the determination. You dont' like it, tough.

I'm not going to continue this as it is pointless. You refuse to accept any science that goes against what you believe. Good for you.

[mraynrand]

With what neuro science determines..not all science.

What about the neuroscientists that have the view that the neuronal precursor cells and the precursors to those cells that are critical for the generation of the neruonal structures that generates the EEG are really the important developmental stage, and therefore, life begins long before the EEG forms, at the level of precursor cells.

Aren't you really saying the same thing - that neuroscience will determine, so long as it agrees with your position?

Look, you will find every thing you can to buttress your argument. Precursor cells, etc. dont' produce the EEG. I have given you what i use as the determination. You dont' like it, tough.

I'm not going to continue this as it is pointless. You refuse to accept any science that goes against what you believe. Good for you.

I'm not using science to buttress my position. My position is straightforward: I think that your use of the EEG pattern as the establishment of 'human' is completely arbitrary. It is not a scientific conclusion. You also have said that 14 days prior to gastrulation is the beginning of 'human.' Scientists have opinions that differ, yet you claim you will let science rule on the question of when 'human' begins. Science can't make this ruling, it can only describe the process leading to the generation of a new human being.

You even go further and deny that there is such an event as fertilization, saying it can't be defined, since it doesn't happen 'in a moment.' No one ever said it did. It takes place from deposition of the pronucleus by the sperm to the fusing of both haploid pronuclei to form a diploid cell. Your position is about as backward as 200 BC (or BCE) in that you want to revisit Zeno's dichotomy and arrow paradoxes that were solved by Archimedes (Does the sperm ever meet the oocyte - does the male pronucleus ever meet the female pronucleus - does an arrow reach it's target - can anything actually happen at all - etc.).

Can't you accept that your view on when homo sapien becomes 'human' is an opinion and not a scientific conclusion?



My view is an opinion, but I think it is far more rational and less arbitrary.

1) The most significant point in the formation of a new human is fertilization (conception) because a) it requires an act of volition by (in most cases) two sexually mature humans and b) without feritlization the sperm and oocyte cannot develop into a human
2) Once fertilization happens, in the vast majority of cases, the fertilized oocyte will develop into a new adult, much like you and me, and other humans around us.
3) Other landmarks or developmental stages as determining 'human' are essentially arbitrary, since they tak place along a developmental continuum that requires no outside input, as does the initial act of procreation. Step s like the beginning of gastrulation, the mid-blastul transition, specificatio of germ layers, specification of neuronal precursors, specification of anterior, posterior, dorsal. and ventral structures are all significant, but they are part of the developmental program, much like post-natal developmental events, such as release of neurotropic compounds and hormones. it is just as easy to define postnatal transition points as transition points in the womb. There is no reason to believe that they are any more or less significant in the development of 'humaness.'

Conclusion: Since a new human is essentially formed at fertilization, it makes sense to protect that human, as you would a human at any other point in the life cycle of a human. I know many still want a woman's choice to have priority over the developing human. That is a legal psotion that may not ever be completely overturned, particularly for the very young (several weeks' old) humans, but at the very least we can acknowledge what it is we are doing when we are carrying out an abortion - we are ending the life of a human. To not acknowledge that abortions end the development of a human being amounts to a rationalization for what most view as an unpleasant and/or morally troubling procedure.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

With what neuro science determines..not all science.

What about the neuroscientists that have the view that the neuronal precursor cells and the precursors to those cells that are critical for the generation of the neruonal structures that generates the EEG are really the important developmental stage, and therefore, life begins long before the EEG forms, at the level of precursor cells.

Aren't you really saying the same thing - that neuroscience will determine, so long as it agrees with your position?

Look, you will find every thing you can to buttress your argument. Precursor cells, etc. dont' produce the EEG. I have given you what i use as the determination. You dont' like it, tough.

I'm not going to continue this as it is pointless. You refuse to accept any science that goes against what you believe. Good for you.

I'm not using science to buttress my position. My position is straightforward: I think that your use of the EEG pattern as the establishment of 'human' is completely arbitrary. It is not a scientific conclusion. You also have said that 14 days prior to gastrulation is the beginning of 'human.' Scientists have opinions that differ, yet you claim you will let science rule on the question of when 'human' begins. Science can't make this ruling, it can only describe the process leading to the generation of a new human being.

You even go further and deny that there is such an event as fertilization, saying it can't be defined, since it doesn't happen 'in a moment.' No one ever said it did. It takes place from deposition of the pronucleus by the sperm to the fusing of both haploid pronuclei to form a diploid cell. Your position is about as backward as 200 BC (or BCE) in that you want to revisit Zeno's dichotomy and arrow paradoxes that were solved by Archimedes (Does the sperm ever meet the oocyte - does the male pronucleus ever meet the female pronucleus - does an arrow reach it's target - can anything actually happen at all - etc.).

Can't you accept that your view on when homo sapien becomes 'human' is an opinion and not a scientific conclusion?



My view is an opinion, but I think it is far more rational and less arbitrary.

1) The most significant point in the formation of a new human is fertilization (conception) because a) it requires an act of volition by (in most cases) two sexually mature humans and b) without feritlization the sperm and oocyte cannot develop into a human
2) Once fertilization happens, in the vast majority of cases, the fertilized oocyte will develop into a new adult, much like you and me, and other humans around us.
3) Other landmarks or developmental stages as determining 'human' are essentially arbitrary, since they tak place along a developmental continuum that requires no outside input, as does the initial act of procreation. Step s like the beginning of gastrulation, the mid-blastul transition, specificatio of germ layers, specification of neuronal precursors, specification of anterior, posterior, dorsal. and ventral structures are all significant, but they are part of the developmental program, much like post-natal developmental events, such as release of neurotropic compounds and hormones. it is just as easy to define postnatal transition points as transition points in the womb. There is no reason to believe that they are any more or less significant in the development of 'humaness.'

Conclusion: Since a new human is essentially formed at fertilization, it makes sense to protect that human, as you would a human at any other point in the life cycle of a human. I know many still want a woman's choice to have priority over the developing human. That is a legal psotion that may not ever be completely overturned, particularly for the very young (several weeks' old) humans, but at the very least we can acknowledge what it is we are doing when we are carrying out an abortion - we are ending the life of a human. To not acknowledge that abortions end the development of a human being amounts to a rationalization for what most view as an unpleasant and/or morally troubling procedure.

You have essentially proven my point. EEG is science...it is the neurological view.

You just don't like that view. So, you dismiss it.

Perhaps you might read The Facts of Life...Morowitz and Trefill.

Fertilization: Again, this isn't mine..this is science. You cling to the most popular public opinion, but science doesnt' back you up. Kuhse, Shannon and Wolter, etc. When you are confronted you sling arrows, but can't deny the science.

Homo: Like yours. It is all opinion. However, mine is way more rational..no mature brain, the ability for rational thought, to claim that it is human without completed organogenesis is ridiculous, etc.

As for the rest...feel content in your more rational and less arbitrary. I dont' think it is, but good for you.

Your whole argument to me fails on what you consider human. Sorry, but tissue/cells aren't human. You will never convince me, many others, and numerous doctors.

You can continue to post, but i'm not going to respond because you, as always, can't face science, talk down to those that disagree, and present your argument as superior.

[mraynrand]

With what neuro science determines..not all science.

What about the neuroscientists that have the view that the neuronal precursor cells and the precursors to those cells that are critical for the generation of the neruonal structures that generates the EEG are really the important developmental stage, and therefore, life begins long before the EEG forms, at the level of precursor cells.

Aren't you really saying the same thing - that neuroscience will determine, so long as it agrees with your position?

Look, you will find every thing you can to buttress your argument. Precursor cells, etc. dont' produce the EEG. I have given you what i use as the determination. You dont' like it, tough.

I'm not going to continue this as it is pointless. You refuse to accept any science that goes against what you believe. Good for you.

I'm not using science to buttress my position. My position is straightforward: I think that your use of the EEG pattern as the establishment of 'human' is completely arbitrary. It is not a scientific conclusion. You also have said that 14 days prior to gastrulation is the beginning of 'human.' Scientists have opinions that differ, yet you claim you will let science rule on the question of when 'human' begins. Science can't make this ruling, it can only describe the process leading to the generation of a new human being.

You even go further and deny that there is such an event as fertilization, saying it can't be defined, since it doesn't happen 'in a moment.' No one ever said it did. It takes place from deposition of the pronucleus by the sperm to the fusing of both haploid pronuclei to form a diploid cell. Your position is about as backward as 200 BC (or BCE) in that you want to revisit Zeno's dichotomy and arrow paradoxes that were solved by Archimedes (Does the sperm ever meet the oocyte - does the male pronucleus ever meet the female pronucleus - does an arrow reach it's target - can anything actually happen at all - etc.).

Can't you accept that your view on when homo sapien becomes 'human' is an opinion and not a scientific conclusion?



My view is an opinion, but I think it is far more rational and less arbitrary.

1) The most significant point in the formation of a new human is fertilization (conception) because a) it requires an act of volition by (in most cases) two sexually mature humans and b) without feritlization the sperm and oocyte cannot develop into a human
2) Once fertilization happens, in the vast majority of cases, the fertilized oocyte will develop into a new adult, much like you and me, and other humans around us.
3) Other landmarks or developmental stages as determining 'human' are essentially arbitrary, since they tak place along a developmental continuum that requires no outside input, as does the initial act of procreation. Step s like the beginning of gastrulation, the mid-blastul transition, specificatio of germ layers, specification of neuronal precursors, specification of anterior, posterior, dorsal. and ventral structures are all significant, but they are part of the developmental program, much like post-natal developmental events, such as release of neurotropic compounds and hormones. it is just as easy to define postnatal transition points as transition points in the womb. There is no reason to believe that they are any more or less significant in the development of 'humaness.'

Conclusion: Since a new human is essentially formed at fertilization, it makes sense to protect that human, as you would a human at any other point in the life cycle of a human. I know many still want a woman's choice to have priority over the developing human. That is a legal psotion that may not ever be completely overturned, particularly for the very young (several weeks' old) humans, but at the very least we can acknowledge what it is we are doing when we are carrying out an abortion - we are ending the life of a human. To not acknowledge that abortions end the development of a human being amounts to a rationalization for what most view as an unpleasant and/or morally troubling procedure.

You have essentially proven my point. EEG is science...it is the neurological view.

You just don't like that view. So, you dismiss it.

Perhaps you might read The Facts of Life...Morowitz and Trefill.

Fertilization: Again, this isn't mine..this is science. You cling to the most popular public opinion, but science doesnt' back you up. Kuhse, Shannon and Wolter, etc. When you are confronted you sling arrows, but can't deny the science.

Homo: Like yours. It is all opinion. However, mine is way more rational..no mature brain, the ability for rational thought, to claim that it is human without completed organogenesis is ridiculous, etc.

As for the rest...feel content in your more rational and less arbitrary. I dont' think it is, but good for you.

Your whole argument to me fails on what you consider human. Sorry, but tissue/cells aren't human. You will never convince me, many others, and numerous doctors.

You can continue to post, but i'm not going to respond because you, as always, can't face science, talk down to those that disagree, and present your argument as superior.

Of course I think my argument is superior. Why else would I make it.

An EEG is science, but again, how does the EEG pattern you cite PROVE that what is making it is HUMAN. I think you meant Wolpert. How does undergoing GASTRULATION (as he thinks) PROVE HUMAN. See what I'm getting at? Science can measure - it can describe events in human development, but how can it PROVE when developing homo sapien becomes HUMAN. It can't. How can you deny this. Yours and my definition of HUMAN itself differ. Ours are both opinion. Do you deny it? Or do you really claim that the EEG pattern is proof that a blob of cells is now suddenly HUMAN? If so, how is it a PROOF? Please explain.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

I'm done with you...your hubris is astounding.

If i meant Wolpert i would have written that....you just made the perfect example of why it isn't worth discussing.

[retailguy]

I'm done with you...your hubris is astounding.

If i meant Wolpert i would have written that....you just made the perfect example of why it isn't worth discussing.

And then.... he quits. Beaten with his tail between his legs, off he saunters to find a battle that he can win.... leaving still more questions unanswered than were answered. typical.