What's new
By:

Planned Parenthood Selling Baby Organs

Archie Moses said:
Source?
Click to expand...

LogGrad98 said:
So what are the arguments given by science about conception not being the start of life. It seems to me that as soon as that cell divides it is now a living organism, growing unless that growth is interrupted.

I don't remember the part where science is concerned with morals. Also, it seems to me there would be truly a black and white dividing line between life and non-life. There is a pretty clear one between life and death on the other end. To me that line gets blurred when it is convenient to blur it, and there is no blurring of when actual autonomous biological activity starts. So I would be interested to see the scientific evidence that "life" is variable in terms of an embyo.
Click to expand...

First the quote I gave didnt say the science has anything to do with morals. It says that peoples morals might be bothered when the subject isnt black and white.

If you are really interested in this topic google and there are hundreds of science articles talking about when life begins scientifically.

One, is that the term life itself and its criteria are ambiguous and debatable. It is a fact that a new cell is created when sperm and egg combine. This new cell holds potential for life or is life but that is not agreed upon. Whether or not that new cell is apart of the human body like your other cells is a question brought up. There is a difference between a cell and an organism. This Zygote does not meet what many would define as an organism that is what many define as life and not a cell with potential.

The scientific points for what constitutes life are

Homeostasis: Regulation of the internal environment to maintain a constant state; for example, electrolyte concentration or sweating to reduce temperature.
Organization: Being structurally composed of one or more cells — the basic units of life.
Metabolism: Transformation of energy by converting chemicals and energy into cellular components (anabolism) and decomposing organic matter (catabolism). Living things require energy to maintain internal organization (homeostasis) and to produce the other phenomena associated with life.
Growth: Maintenance of a higher rate of anabolism than catabolism. A growing organism increases in size in all of its parts, rather than simply accumulating matter.
Adaptation: The ability to change over time in response to the environment. This ability is fundamental to the process of evolution and is determined by the organism's heredity, diet, and external factors.
Response to stimuli: A response can take many forms, from the contraction of a unicellular organism to external chemicals, to complex reactions involving all the senses of multicellular organisms. A response is often expressed by motion; for example, the leaves of a plant turning toward the sun (phototropism), and chemotaxis.
Reproduction: The ability to produce new individual organisms, either asexually from a single parent organism, or sexually from two parent organisms. or "with an error rate below the sustainability threshold."
Click to expand...

But those bring up questions about humans that are obvious life that might not meet those for various reasons.

If life at conception is cut and dry for you with no debate that is fine but to say it is a scientific fact is inaccurate. Scientists debate this and have been for some time.
 
Gameface said:
And sometimes ends at the hands of a gun toting home owner or an angry cop during a traffic stop.

Let's cheer for one and cry about the other... Let's decide which one based on what team we cheer for.
Click to expand...

LogGrad98 said:
This comparison would logically lead to the assumption that an aborting mother is akin to the gun toting home owner or the angry cop. Only she has accomplices and her actions are fully legal.
Click to expand...

That's as good a back-and-forth combo as I've ever read on these forums. Solid comments, both.
 
People who deny killing is, well, killing... ****ing ignorance. Yes, that's exactly what it is. :) I'm not far right or a Republican. I just call an ace an ace. :)

You're disgusting and shame on you.
 
Archie Moses said:
Please explain, you ****ing idiot. :)
Click to expand...

Faked videos aren't real, but edited videos just have parts cut out, and sometimes important parts are cut out so as to intentionally mislead. Also, I'd rather be a ****ing idiot than a dumbass who has to have things explained to him by a ****ing idiot.
 
Interesting article on the life discussion going on in this thread.

https://blogs.plos.org/dnascience/2013/10/03/when-does-a-human-life-begins-17-timepoints/

I decided to google when life begins and am finding out it is not a scientific thought at all, but is really controlled as she states here.

I’d started thinking about today’s post a few weeks ago, when a prominent science writer posted on a listserv “What was the CEO of AAAS thinking?” and then quoted Alan I. Leshner telling the New York Times: “K-12 students need to know the nature of science, how scientists work and the domains and limits of science. Science can’t tell you about God. Or when life begins.”

“Um…when life begins is a pretty basic idea in biology,” commented the originator of the compelling listserv thread that followed. Actually, no.

I’m the author of an intro college biology textbook called “Life,” my having nabbed that title before Keith Richards did. Life science textbooks from traditional publishers (I’m with McGraw-Hill) don’t explicitly state when life begins, because that is a question not only of biology, but of philosophy, politics, psychology, religion, technology, and emotions. Rather, textbooks list the characteristics of life, leaving interpretation to the reader. But I can see where the idea comes from that textbooks define life as beginning at conception. Consider a report from the Association of Pro-life Physicians. After a 5-point list of life’s characteristics from “a scientific textbook,” this group’s analysis concludes with “According to this elementary definition of life, life begins at fertilization, when a sperm unites with an oocyte.” Sneaky.
Click to expand...

So in essence science is not going to take a stand. My thought is that it is due to fall-out. If a scientist takes a stand that his benefactors disagree with he may lose funding. Politics driving science.

But reading further she brings up this point:

My answer? #14. The ability to survive outside the body of another sets a practical limit on defining when a sustainable human life begins.

Having a functional genome, tissue layers, a notochord, a beating heart … none of these matter if the organism cannot survive where humans survive. Technology has taken us to the ends of the prenatal spectrum, yet not provided too much for the middle, other than fetal surgeries for a handful of conditions. We can collect and select gametes, now thanks to patent no. 8543339. We collect and select very early embryos in pre-implantation genetic diagnosis, allowing those without a specific disease to continue development. And although the gestational age at which a premature infant can survive has crept younger, it hasn’t by much, not since I starting thinking about these things back when I was a stage #16.

Until an artificial uterus becomes a reality, technology defines, for me, when a human life begins, rather than biology. Alternative views are welcome!
Click to expand...

So her thoughts are that life begins when it can survive where "humans" survive. This leads to an interesting chicken and egg kind of thing, brought out by one of the comments.

Of the many definitions of when life might begin, most of the debate seems to be centered around the point at which the fetus could survive outside the womb. Sharon makes this point quite eloquently, but I’ll add a couple thoughts anyway.

It seems that some argue that it takes extreme measures of care for premature babies to survive, and so even survival outside the womb is not the point at which rights ensue. But aren’t even full term babies incapable of surviving without care? So isn’t the question of viability really a question of relative amounts of care? And eo we really want to go down the path of deciding when life begins and therefore when rights ensue based on some predetermined level of care, which means dollars?

And anyway, isn’t the point at which a fetus can survive much earlier today than it was 10, 20, or 30 years ago? Doesn’t it seem likely that as technology advances that point will continue to be earlier and earlier? Is it all that far-fetched to imagine a time 20, 50, 100 years from now when an egg can be fertilized and grow to full “babyhood” (for lack of a better term) completely outside the womb?

At some point along that timeline into the future, doesn’t the question of when life begins become a matter of some arbitrary, academic, definition, and therefore for all practical purposes moot? How close are we to that point right now? Have we already passed it and we just don’t know it yet?
Click to expand...

This particular topic has become so politicized imo it is impossible to ever get a "scientific" answer.

So, as a pure matter of opinion this is one topic that will likely never be resolved.
 
Cappy_Smurf said:
Faked videos aren't real, but edited videos just have parts cut out, and sometimes important parts are cut out so as to intentionally mislead. Also, I'd rather be a ****ing idiot than a dumbass who has to have things explained to him by a ****ing idiot.
Click to expand...

^^^ A ****ing idiot.

:)
 
LogGrad98 said:
Interesting article on the life discussion going on in this thread.

https://blogs.plos.org/dnascience/2013/10/03/when-does-a-human-life-begins-17-timepoints/

I decided to google when life begins and am finding out it is not a scientific thought at all, but is really controlled as she states here.



So in essence science is not going to take a stand. My thought is that it is due to fall-out. If a scientist takes a stand that his benefactors disagree with he may lose funding. Politics driving science.

But reading further she brings up this point:



So her thoughts are that life begins when it can survive where "humans" survive. This leads to an interesting chicken and egg kind of thing, brought out by one of the comments.



This particular topic has become so politicized imo it is impossible to ever get a "scientific" answer.

So, as a pure matter of opinion this is one topic that will likely never be resolved.
Click to expand...

All of this said, I still think it is ********. I think there is no reason they cannot pinpoint the moment when life begins, but every time someone makes a statement of fact someone else disputes it. It is wishy washy crap. So much for science.
 
LogGrad98 said:
All of this said, I still think it is ********. I think there is no reason they cannot pinpoint the moment when life begins, but every time someone makes a statement of fact someone else disputes it. It is wishy washy crap. So much for science.
Click to expand...

people act like science is indisputable.
science is FACT! sur some sciency thingies are facts like water freezes at about 0 degrees Celsius(Americans get the **** of Fahrenheit). and that is indisputable.
so they act like the whole of science is indisputable, but that is far from the truth. people try to win argumants with a scientific study [roved that x y and z. like scientific studies cant get false conclusion or be influenced by bias.

again science doesnt always equal indisputable FACT
 
Archie Moses said:
People who deny killing is, well, killing... ****ing ignorance. Yes, that's exactly what it is. :) I'm not far right or a Republican. I just call an ace an ace. :)

You're disgusting and shame on you.
Click to expand...

If you actually gave a damn about getting people to change their minds about abortions then maybe you should start posting in a mature, non-childlike manner in the thread. Your polarization of this debate is insanely annoying to people like me who also find abortion wrong, but get swooped in with asshats like you who use emotion, not persuasion.
 
LogGrad98 said:
All of this said, I still think it is ********. I think there is no reason they cannot pinpoint the moment when life begins, but every time someone makes a statement of fact someone else disputes it. It is wishy washy crap. So much for science.
Click to expand...
I think the only one who can say when life begins is God. So we will just have to wait for him to post in this thread and give us the answer.

Shouldn't take long......
 
fishonjazz said:
I think the only one who can say when life begins is God. So we will just have to wait for him to post in this thread and give us the answer.

Shouldn't take long......
Click to expand...

Maybe he already has.
 
Cappy_Smurf said:
Says the guy that can't distinguish between faked videos and ones that have been edited.
Click to expand...

Are you suggesting they edited words coming out of their mouth? Context or no context what they are saying is horrible and illegal.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top