Life begins at gametogenesis?

At 4/13/2012 9:06:26 PM, Aaronroy wrote:

At 4/13/2012 6:14:03 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
Life begins in my balls

Arizona's 'personhood' definition is so far-fetched that it's too a point where they are defining human life even BEFORE conception; they consider it to be alive two weeks prior to conception when the parents are just then cogitating the idea of having a kid.

So, according to the infinite wisdom of Arizonian conservatives, life begins before your balls have a chance to be fondled.

The Fool:Wow

so they know that a definition is not the reality, lol.

Aka I define a perfect unicorn as being right here beside me visually.

*Poof* there it is..aaww

They can't be that dumb..they just can't be.

At 4/14/2012 12:23:38 AM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:

At 4/13/2012 9:06:26 PM, Aaronroy wrote:

At 4/13/2012 6:14:03 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
Life begins in my balls

Arizona's 'personhood' definition is so far-fetched that it's too a point where they are defining human life even BEFORE conception; they consider it to be alive two weeks prior to conception when the parents are just then cogitating the idea of having a kid.

So, according to the infinite wisdom of Arizonian conservatives, life begins before your balls have a chance to be fondled.

The Fool:Wow

so they know that a definition is not the reality, lol.

Aka I define a perfect unicorn as being right here beside me visually.

*Poof* there it is..aaww

They can't be that dumb..they just can't be.

Oh, but they are

"A sentence in the bill defines gestational age as "calculated from the first day of the last menstrual period of the pregnant woman," which would move the beginning of a pregnancy up two weeks prior to conception."

http://blog.livenewschat.tv...

Scary stuff. I thought Mississippi scared me, but the South just keeps be on the ball with these astonishing transgressions of ignorance.

At 4/14/2012 12:40:30 AM, Aaronroy wrote:

At 4/14/2012 12:23:38 AM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:

At 4/13/2012 9:06:26 PM, Aaronroy wrote:

At 4/13/2012 6:14:03 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
Life begins in my balls

Arizona's 'personhood' definition is so far-fetched that it's too a point where they are defining human life even BEFORE conception; they consider it to be alive two weeks prior to conception when the parents are just then cogitating the idea of having a kid.

So, according to the infinite wisdom of Arizonian conservatives, life begins before your balls have a chance to be fondled.

The Fool:Wow

so they know that a definition is not the reality, lol.

Aka I define a perfect unicorn as being right here beside me visually.

*Poof* there it is..aaww

They can't be that dumb..they just can't be.

Oh, but they are

"A sentence in the bill defines gestational age as "calculated from the first day of the last menstrual period of the pregnant woman," which would move the beginning of a pregnancy up two weeks prior to conception."

http://blog.livenewschat.tv...

Scary stuff. I thought Mississippi scared me, but the South just keeps be on the ball with these astonishing transgressions of ignorance.

The Fool: I define The Fool as king of the World, Yaaaaah!!

So its true now!!.

At 3/26/2012 10:55:53 AM, WriterDave wrote:
Is there any widely-accepted (among the anti abortion rights community) argument for the proposition that personhood begins at conception, whose principles cannot be adapted to argue that personhood begins prior to conception, when the constituent gametes of the zygote begin to exist?

To put it another way: if a spermatozoon and an ovum will combine with one another and become a zygote unless prevented from doing so, then why is it moral to make a decision that results in their not combining, but immoral to abort the zygote?

"Personhood" That isn't even a real scientific term. It was made up and pulled out of thin air by some political hack to redirect the debate about when life begins. Life begins at conception, ask any scientist. Politicians by the way are not scientists, incase you didn't know.

At 4/14/2012 7:30:29 PM, sadolite wrote:

At 3/26/2012 10:55:53 AM, WriterDave wrote:
Is there any widely-accepted (among the anti abortion rights community) argument for the proposition that personhood begins at conception, whose principles cannot be adapted to argue that personhood begins prior to conception, when the constituent gametes of the zygote begin to exist?

To put it another way: if a spermatozoon and an ovum will combine with one another and become a zygote unless prevented from doing so, then why is it moral to make a decision that results in their not combining, but immoral to abort the zygote?

"Personhood" That isn't even a real scientific term. It was made up and pulled out of thin air by some political hack to redirect the debate about when life begins. Life begins at conception, ask any scientist. Politicians by the way are not scientists, incase you didn't know.

My Biology professor disagrees.

At 4/14/2012 7:30:29 PM, sadolite wrote:

At 3/26/2012 10:55:53 AM, WriterDave wrote:
Is there any widely-accepted (among the anti abortion rights community) argument for the proposition that personhood begins at conception, whose principles cannot be adapted to argue that personhood begins prior to conception, when the constituent gametes of the zygote begin to exist?

To put it another way: if a spermatozoon and an ovum will combine with one another and become a zygote unless prevented from doing so, then why is it moral to make a decision that results in their not combining, but immoral to abort the zygote?

"Personhood" That isn't even a real scientific term. It was made up and pulled out of thin air by some political hack to redirect the debate about when life begins. Life begins at conception, ask any scientist. Politicians by the way are not scientists, incase you didn't know.

The Fool:
The Pro-life arguement is based from pure religious dogmatism, and the Pro-choice assertion is pure selfishnes, the arguement at hand is whether or not we should change the rights, so an appeal to other rights is just as dogmatic and irrational. The matter is the moral principle, and that hings on sentience. They are both forms of fundementalism. One bold assertion is as good as the next.

Life is continious, that is life comes from life, there is no point within life that it is not life. Sperm is ovaries are alive, or they wouldn't work. But so are plants animals and insect. The issue is what we consider as part of the moral community and that is sentient beings, therefore the question is of sentience. Thus it is not immoral until sentience is a factor, then a fetus is a part of the moral communitiy. And should then became protected under moral law.

At 4/14/2012 7:30:29 PM, sadolite wrote:

At 3/26/2012 10:55:53 AM, WriterDave wrote:
Is there any widely-accepted (among the anti abortion rights community) argument for the proposition that personhood begins at conception, whose principles cannot be adapted to argue that personhood begins prior to conception, when the constituent gametes of the zygote begin to exist?

To put it another way: if a spermatozoon and an ovum will combine with one another and become a zygote unless prevented from doing so, then why is it moral to make a decision that results in their not combining, but immoral to abort the zygote?

"Personhood" That isn't even a real scientific term. It was made up and pulled out of thin air by some political hack to redirect the debate about when life begins. Life begins at conception, ask any scientist. Politicians by the way are not scientists, incase you didn't know.

Both scientists and biologists conclude that human life does not begin at conception. Human life is determined by the functionality of the brain. Brain activity begins at approximately 25 weeks of gestation, shortly before the beginning of the third trimester. Before that, the fetus is not considered a living human being.

example: A choke-hold will result in the body losing functionality. The body will go limp, but the brain will still be active. The brain doesn't die until about 10 minutes later or so due to oxygen deprivation. THEN, the person receiving the choke-hold is dead.

MASTURBATION IS GENOCIDE.

nac

At 4/15/2012 9:54:59 PM, Aaronroy wrote:

At 4/14/2012 7:30:29 PM, sadolite wrote:

At 3/26/2012 10:55:53 AM, WriterDave wrote:
Is there any widely-accepted (among the anti abortion rights community) argument for the proposition that personhood begins at conception, whose principles cannot be adapted to argue that personhood begins prior to conception, when the constituent gametes of the zygote begin to exist?

To put it another way: if a spermatozoon and an ovum will combine with one another and become a zygote unless prevented from doing so, then why is it moral to make a decision that results in their not combining, but immoral to abort the zygote?

"Personhood" That isn't even a real scientific term. It was made up and pulled out of thin air by some political hack to redirect the debate about when life begins. Life begins at conception, ask any scientist. Politicians by the way are not scientists, incase you didn't know.

Both scientists and biologists conclude that human life does not begin at conception. Human life is determined by the functionality of the brain. Brain activity begins at approximately 25 weeks of gestation, shortly before the beginning of the third trimester. Before that, the fetus is not considered a living human being.

Two questions: 1) Which scientists and biologists? 2) Are fetus's not human? Are they not alive? Perhaps they are dead ducks that magically turn into alive human beings when they pop out of the womb.

At 4/14/2012 7:31:38 PM, royalpaladin wrote:

At 4/14/2012 7:30:29 PM, sadolite wrote:

At 3/26/2012 10:55:53 AM, WriterDave wrote:
Is there any widely-accepted (among the anti abortion rights community) argument for the proposition that personhood begins at conception, whose principles cannot be adapted to argue that personhood begins prior to conception, when the constituent gametes of the zygote begin to exist?

To put it another way: if a spermatozoon and an ovum will combine with one another and become a zygote unless prevented from doing so, then why is it moral to make a decision that results in their not combining, but immoral to abort the zygote?

"Personhood" That isn't even a real scientific term. It was made up and pulled out of thin air by some political hack to redirect the debate about when life begins. Life begins at conception, ask any scientist. Politicians by the way are not scientists, incase you didn't know.

My Biology professor disagrees.

RoyalPaladin, do you believe personhood is a metaphysical property or merely sentience?

At 4/14/2012 7:31:38 PM, royalpaladin wrote:

At 4/14/2012 7:30:29 PM, sadolite wrote:

At 3/26/2012 10:55:53 AM, WriterDave wrote:
Is there any widely-accepted (among the anti abortion rights community) argument for the proposition that personhood begins at conception, whose principles cannot be adapted to argue that personhood begins prior to conception, when the constituent gametes of the zygote begin to exist?

To put it another way: if a spermatozoon and an ovum will combine with one another and become a zygote unless prevented from doing so, then why is it moral to make a decision that results in their not combining, but immoral to abort the zygote?

"Personhood" That isn't even a real scientific term. It was made up and pulled out of thin air by some political hack to redirect the debate about when life begins. Life begins at conception, ask any scientist. Politicians by the way are not scientists, incase you didn't know.

My Biology professor disagrees.

So what, Just because he disagrees doesn't make it a scientific term. It's a "political" term.

At 4/16/2012 11:17:41 AM, SuburbiaSurvivor wrote:

At 4/14/2012 7:31:38 PM, royalpaladin wrote:

At 4/14/2012 7:30:29 PM, sadolite wrote:

At 3/26/2012 10:55:53 AM, WriterDave wrote:
Is there any widely-accepted (among the anti abortion rights community) argument for the proposition that personhood begins at conception, whose principles cannot be adapted to argue that personhood begins prior to conception, when the constituent gametes of the zygote begin to exist?

To put it another way: if a spermatozoon and an ovum will combine with one another and become a zygote unless prevented from doing so, then why is it moral to make a decision that results in their not combining, but immoral to abort the zygote?

"Personhood" That isn't even a real scientific term. It was made up and pulled out of thin air by some political hack to redirect the debate about when life begins. Life begins at conception, ask any scientist. Politicians by the way are not scientists, incase you didn't know.

My Biology professor disagrees.

RoyalPaladin, do you believe personhood is a metaphysical property or merely sentience?

The Fool: we make that up!! We make person Hood up to describe a general idea of person. ? Its like motherhood. we just added the Hood. Its a physical word that represents an idea. Defining someting with word doesn't then create a whole new metaphysial category.

At 4/16/2012 9:52:17 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:

At 4/16/2012 11:17:41 AM, SuburbiaSurvivor wrote:

At 4/14/2012 7:31:38 PM, royalpaladin wrote:

At 4/14/2012 7:30:29 PM, sadolite wrote:

At 3/26/2012 10:55:53 AM, WriterDave wrote:
Is there any widely-accepted (among the anti abortion rights community) argument for the proposition that personhood begins at conception, whose principles cannot be adapted to argue that personhood begins prior to conception, when the constituent gametes of the zygote begin to exist?

To put it another way: if a spermatozoon and an ovum will combine with one another and become a zygote unless prevented from doing so, then why is it moral to make a decision that results in their not combining, but immoral to abort the zygote?

"Personhood" That isn't even a real scientific term. It was made up and pulled out of thin air by some political hack to redirect the debate about when life begins. Life begins at conception, ask any scientist. Politicians by the way are not scientists, incase you didn't know.

My Biology professor disagrees.

RoyalPaladin, do you believe personhood is a metaphysical property or merely sentience?

The Fool: we make that up!! We make person Hood up to describe a general idea of person. ? Its like motherhood. we just added the Hood. Its a physical word that represents an idea. Defining someting with word doesn't then create a whole new metaphysial category.

I can use the word studentHood does that now make a whole new metaphsyical category of existence.. or does it just represent a person who is at a time of thier life where they are in school.

At 4/16/2012 9:54:42 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:

At 4/16/2012 9:52:17 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:

At 4/16/2012 11:17:41 AM, SuburbiaSurvivor wrote:

At 4/14/2012 7:31:38 PM, royalpaladin wrote:

At 4/14/2012 7:30:29 PM, sadolite wrote:

At 3/26/2012 10:55:53 AM, WriterDave wrote:
Is there any widely-accepted (among the anti abortion rights community) argument for the proposition that personhood begins at conception, whose principles cannot be adapted to argue that personhood begins prior to conception, when the constituent gametes of the zygote begin to exist?

To put it another way: if a spermatozoon and an ovum will combine with one another and become a zygote unless prevented from doing so, then why is it moral to make a decision that results in their not combining, but immoral to abort the zygote?

"Personhood" That isn't even a real scientific term. It was made up and pulled out of thin air by some political hack to redirect the debate about when life begins. Life begins at conception, ask any scientist. Politicians by the way are not scientists, incase you didn't know.

My Biology professor disagrees.

RoyalPaladin, do you believe personhood is a metaphysical property or merely sentience?

The Fool: we make that up!! We make person Hood up to describe a general idea of person. ? Its like motherhood. we just added the Hood. Its a physical word that represents an idea. Defining someting with word doesn't then create a whole new metaphysial category.

I can use the word studentHood does that now make a whole new metaphsyical category of existence.. or does it just represent a person who is at a time of thier life where they are in school.

Surprisingly, I agree with you, Fool. I think personhood is merely beinghood, or merely the essence of being a human being. Sentience is not required for this.