Which should have first priority: The woman, the fertilized egg, or the fetus?

[Chuz Life]

OK then show me any single cell child living outside of the womb.

There is no way you will change my mind that a single cell is equivalent to a viable child in the womb.

I don't need to change your mind. Especially, when we already have legal language in our nation's more than 130 fetal HOMICIDE laws that prove against your fucktarded denials and assertions.

 

[Blues Man]

OK then show me any single cell child living outside of the womb.

There is no way you will change my mind that a single cell is equivalent to a viable child in the womb.

I don't need to change your mind. Especially, when we already have legal language in our nation's more than 130 fetal HOMICIDE laws that prove against your fucktarded denials and assertions.

Still not a child.

OK

So you're walking down the street and you see a petri dish with a human zygote in it in the middle of the road to your left and you also see a 1 day old infant in the middle of the street to your right. There are buses speeding toward each and you can only save one which do you pick and why?

 

[Chuz Life]

A zygote is a potential child just like a collection of flour yeast and water is a potential pizza crust

Biology fail on your part, again.

Let's see if you have enough stray brain cells to comprehend a basic biological fact.

An un-united sperm and egg cell are representative of a "potential child."

When a sperm and egg cell do unite, their "potential" to create a new organism is "realized" and their potential is done. The sperm and egg cell no longer exist. The sperm and egg cells lives are OVER and the new organism that they merged to create now DOES exist.

You skipped Biology alot. Didn't you.

 

[Chuz Life]

Still not a child.

Your denials are boring and tiresome but they don't change the facts.

OK

So you're walking down the street and you see a petri dish with a human zygote in it in the middle of the road to your left and you also see a 1 day old infant in the middle of the street to your right. There are buses speeding toward each and you can only save one which do you pick and why?

That might depend on if it is MY child in the petri dish. Seeing how much money many couples spend trying to get pregnant. . . I can easily see such a couple saving their own child or children in a petri dish over any other (even an adult) human being.

So much for your false dilemma.

 

[Blues Man]

A zygote is a potential child just like a collection of flour yeast and water is a potential pizza crust

Biology fail on your part, again.

Let's see if you have enough stray brain cells to comprehend a basic biological fact.

An un-united sperm and egg cell are representative of a "potential child."

When a sperm and egg cell do unite, their "potential" to create anew organism is "realized" and their potential is done. The sperm and egg cell no longer exist. The sperm and egg cells lives are OVER and the new organism that they merged to create now DOES exist.

You skipped Biology alot. Didn't you.

Still not a child.

Your denials are boring and tiresome but they don't change the facts.

OK

So you're walking down the street and you see a petri dish with a human zygote in it in the middle of the road to your left and you also see a 1 day old infant in the middle of the street to your right. There are buses speeding toward each and you can only save one which do you pick and why?

That might depend on if it is MY child in the petri dish. Seeing how much money many couples spend trying to get pregnant. . . I can easily see such a couple saving their own child or children in a petri dish over any other (even an adult) human being.

So much for your false dilemma.

It was a hypothetical question not a false dilemma

It's hypothetical because it could never happen as a zygote in a petri dish is not something anyone carries around with them

But I do know I would save the infant because I believe the infant is more important than a single cell.

And like I said I have agreed with you that a zygote is a uniquely human cell but it is still an undeveloped child with absolutely no chance of being viable outside the womb.

So I place higher importance to unborn children that are viable outside the womb.

You think that a single cell is no less important than a newborn infant.

Thus we are and always will be at an impasse .

 

[Chuz Life]

A zygote is a potential child just like a collection of flour yeast and water is a potential pizza crust

Biology fail on your part, again.

Let's see if you have enough stray brain cells to comprehend a basic biological fact.

An un-united sperm and egg cell are representative of a "potential child."

When a sperm and egg cell do unite, their "potential" to create anew organism is "realized" and their potential is done. The sperm and egg cell no longer exist. The sperm and egg cells lives are OVER and the new organism that they merged to create now DOES exist.

You skipped Biology alot. Didn't you.

Still not a child.

Your denials are boring and tiresome but they don't change the facts.

OK

So you're walking down the street and you see a petri dish with a human zygote in it in the middle of the road to your left and you also see a 1 day old infant in the middle of the street to your right. There are buses speeding toward each and you can only save one which do you pick and why?

That might depend on if it is MY child in the petri dish. Seeing how much money many couples spend trying to get pregnant. . . I can easily see such a couple saving their own child or children in a petri dish over any other (even an adult) human being.

So much for your false dilemma.

It was a hypothetical question not a false dilemma

It's hypothetical because it could never happen as a zygote in a petri dish is not something anyone carries around with them

But I do know I would save the infant because I believe the infant is more important than a single cell.

And like I said I have agreed with you that a zygote is a uniquely human cell but it is still an undeveloped child with absolutely no chance of being viable outside the womb.

So I place higher importance to unborn children that are viable outside the womb.

You think that a single cell is no less important than a newborn infant.

Thus we are and always will be at an impasse .

Your tirade begs the question.

What is the physiological difference between an "undeveloped child" and an actual Child that happens to be developing?

Take your time.

 

[Cecilie1200]

A zygote is not a human being any more than a cheek cell is

Just how many biology classes DID you skip in high school? Damn, dude. That's just embarrassing.

Just because a cell has unique human DNA does not mean it's a human being. You shed millions of cells that have unique human DNA every single day.

Are those cells organisms? The product of human sexual reproduction? Do any of your cheek cells have biological parents who created them with sexual reproduction?

every cell in your body is the end result of sexual reproduction.

I repeat, did you actually attend any of your biology classes in high school? Or middle school, for that matter? Because I did, and I distinctly recall some time being spent on explaining the very basic facts about the differences in types of cells, your ignorance of which you are laughably attempting to make a "brilliant" argument about.

Does it even embarrass you to stand barefaced in public, shouting, "Accept my ignorance as fact!"?

What I said is a fact.

And an "rganism" that cannot survive isn't really much to defend. So an embryo, or even a fetus that isn't developed enough to survive outside the womb is of less consequence to me than one that can.

When a fetus is actually viable outside the womb it is more important to me from an ethical standard.

No, what you said is ignorance you mistook for fact. The ACTUAL fact is that comparing a zygote to a cheek cell is the equivalent of comparing your left arm to your spleen because "they're both body parts". And "every cell is the end result of sexual reproduction" is a lame attempt at a dodge by way of "I'll be really obtuse until they give up on me as hopelessly ignorant, and then declare victory".

Furthermore, moving the goalposts from "a zygote is just a cell like a cheek cell" to "fine, it's an organism, but it's worthless because it's weak" - while trying to rush past any need to admit that you lost the first argument - is epic-level lameness and also dishonest. If you have to skip from argument to argument to argument while ignoring that they all contradict themselves, maybe it's time you face the fact that your arguments and your position are so much bullshit, based in no more fact than "I want it to be true, so there!"

While I appreciate you coming out into the open about your REAL agenda of, "I have no scientific fact, I just view lives as disposable when they don't suit me", you and I both know you're going to go right back to, "This is science, until I need this to be science, unless I need this to be science!" the instant you think you can get away with pretending nothing happened here. And don't even get me started on, "Well, I feel completely ethical in advocating a disposable class of people, because . . . I say so." You must have been skipping English classes the same time you were skipping biology classes, if you think "ethics" means "This is right because I want it that way".

Unlike you I don't feel the need to "win" an argument with people on the internet.

And don't try to tell me what I think or don't think.

I have repeatedly stipulated that a human zygote is genetically unique but that genetic uniqueness is not a guarantee that that zygote will develop into a human being capable of independent life. In fact the percentage of miscarriages in the first trimester is extremely high

What Percentage Of Pregnancies Ends In Miscarriage? - Epainassist - Useful Information for Better Health

Miscarriage is a spontaneous loss of a fetus before 23 weeks of pregnancy. Most miscarriages occur in early pregnancy before the realization of the pregnant women. It is represented by vaginal bleeding, cramps, and pain in the abdomen.[1] However, slight bleeding from the vagina is commonly...

www.epainassist.com

• March of Dimes states that 50% of all pregnancies end in miscarriages before a woman have next menstrual flow. Most of them are not aware of their pregnancy. About 15-20% of recognized pregnancy converts into a miscarriage.
• It is estimated that 80% of miscarriage happen in the first trimester in the first three months of pregnancy. Most of the fetus is lost in the first 20 weeks of pregnancy.

So viability outside the womb matters.

And everyone has an agenda even you.

Unlike me, you aren't capable of winning an argument, so it's probably good that you've accepted that.

Also, I'm not telling you what you think. YOU told ME what you think; that's sorta what happens when you use those word thingies.

What possible fucking difference is it supposed to make that pregnancies end in miscarriages? People also die of natural causes, but I would hope you don't think that makes it okay to kill them.

 

[Blues Man]

A zygote is a potential child just like a collection of flour yeast and water is a potential pizza crust

Biology fail on your part, again.

Let's see if you have enough stray brain cells to comprehend a basic biological fact.

An un-united sperm and egg cell are representative of a "potential child."

When a sperm and egg cell do unite, their "potential" to create anew organism is "realized" and their potential is done. The sperm and egg cell no longer exist. The sperm and egg cells lives are OVER and the new organism that they merged to create now DOES exist.

You skipped Biology alot. Didn't you.

Still not a child.

Your denials are boring and tiresome but they don't change the facts.

OK

So you're walking down the street and you see a petri dish with a human zygote in it in the middle of the road to your left and you also see a 1 day old infant in the middle of the street to your right. There are buses speeding toward each and you can only save one which do you pick and why?

That might depend on if it is MY child in the petri dish. Seeing how much money many couples spend trying to get pregnant. . . I can easily see such a couple saving their own child or children in a petri dish over any other (even an adult) human being.

So much for your false dilemma.

It was a hypothetical question not a false dilemma

It's hypothetical because it could never happen as a zygote in a petri dish is not something anyone carries around with them

But I do know I would save the infant because I believe the infant is more important than a single cell.

And like I said I have agreed with you that a zygote is a uniquely human cell but it is still an undeveloped child with absolutely no chance of being viable outside the womb.

So I place higher importance to unborn children that are viable outside the womb.

You think that a single cell is no less important than a newborn infant.

Thus we are and always will be at an impasse .

Your tirade begs the question.

What is the physiological difference between an "undeveloped child" and an actual Child that happens to be developing?

Take your time.

I already told you the difference is viability outside the womb.

 

[Blues Man]

A zygote is not a human being any more than a cheek cell is

Just how many biology classes DID you skip in high school? Damn, dude. That's just embarrassing.

Just because a cell has unique human DNA does not mean it's a human being. You shed millions of cells that have unique human DNA every single day.

Are those cells organisms? The product of human sexual reproduction? Do any of your cheek cells have biological parents who created them with sexual reproduction?

every cell in your body is the end result of sexual reproduction.

I repeat, did you actually attend any of your biology classes in high school? Or middle school, for that matter? Because I did, and I distinctly recall some time being spent on explaining the very basic facts about the differences in types of cells, your ignorance of which you are laughably attempting to make a "brilliant" argument about.

Does it even embarrass you to stand barefaced in public, shouting, "Accept my ignorance as fact!"?

What I said is a fact.

And an "rganism" that cannot survive isn't really much to defend. So an embryo, or even a fetus that isn't developed enough to survive outside the womb is of less consequence to me than one that can.

When a fetus is actually viable outside the womb it is more important to me from an ethical standard.

No, what you said is ignorance you mistook for fact. The ACTUAL fact is that comparing a zygote to a cheek cell is the equivalent of comparing your left arm to your spleen because "they're both body parts". And "every cell is the end result of sexual reproduction" is a lame attempt at a dodge by way of "I'll be really obtuse until they give up on me as hopelessly ignorant, and then declare victory".

Furthermore, moving the goalposts from "a zygote is just a cell like a cheek cell" to "fine, it's an organism, but it's worthless because it's weak" - while trying to rush past any need to admit that you lost the first argument - is epic-level lameness and also dishonest. If you have to skip from argument to argument to argument while ignoring that they all contradict themselves, maybe it's time you face the fact that your arguments and your position are so much bullshit, based in no more fact than "I want it to be true, so there!"

While I appreciate you coming out into the open about your REAL agenda of, "I have no scientific fact, I just view lives as disposable when they don't suit me", you and I both know you're going to go right back to, "This is science, until I need this to be science, unless I need this to be science!" the instant you think you can get away with pretending nothing happened here. And don't even get me started on, "Well, I feel completely ethical in advocating a disposable class of people, because . . . I say so." You must have been skipping English classes the same time you were skipping biology classes, if you think "ethics" means "This is right because I want it that way".

Unlike you I don't feel the need to "win" an argument with people on the internet.

And don't try to tell me what I think or don't think.

I have repeatedly stipulated that a human zygote is genetically unique but that genetic uniqueness is not a guarantee that that zygote will develop into a human being capable of independent life. In fact the percentage of miscarriages in the first trimester is extremely high

What Percentage Of Pregnancies Ends In Miscarriage? - Epainassist - Useful Information for Better Health

Miscarriage is a spontaneous loss of a fetus before 23 weeks of pregnancy. Most miscarriages occur in early pregnancy before the realization of the pregnant women. It is represented by vaginal bleeding, cramps, and pain in the abdomen.[1] However, slight bleeding from the vagina is commonly...

www.epainassist.com

• March of Dimes states that 50% of all pregnancies end in miscarriages before a woman have next menstrual flow. Most of them are not aware of their pregnancy. About 15-20% of recognized pregnancy converts into a miscarriage.
• It is estimated that 80% of miscarriage happen in the first trimester in the first three months of pregnancy. Most of the fetus is lost in the first 20 weeks of pregnancy.

So viability outside the womb matters.

And everyone has an agenda even you.

Unlike me, you aren't capable of winning an argument, so it's probably good that you've accepted that.

Also, I'm not telling you what you think. YOU told ME what you think; that's sorta what happens when you use those word thingies.

What possible fucking difference is it supposed to make that pregnancies end in miscarriages? People also die of natural causes, but I would hope you don't think that makes it okay to kill them.

Excuse me but you put in quotes what you think i said.

Do you not know what quotation marks indicate?

This is what you posted and attributed to me as what I said

"I have no scientific fact, I just view lives as disposable when they don't suit me"

I said no such thing. You made that up put it in quotes and then proceeded to tell me that is what I said.

So you see you are making shit up and attributing it to me then arguing against the shit you made up

 

[Cecilie1200]

A zygote is not a human being any more than a cheek cell is

Just how many biology classes DID you skip in high school? Damn, dude. That's just embarrassing.

Just because a cell has unique human DNA does not mean it's a human being. You shed millions of cells that have unique human DNA every single day.

Are those cells organisms? The product of human sexual reproduction? Do any of your cheek cells have biological parents who created them with sexual reproduction?

every cell in your body is the end result of sexual reproduction.

I repeat, did you actually attend any of your biology classes in high school? Or middle school, for that matter? Because I did, and I distinctly recall some time being spent on explaining the very basic facts about the differences in types of cells, your ignorance of which you are laughably attempting to make a "brilliant" argument about.

Does it even embarrass you to stand barefaced in public, shouting, "Accept my ignorance as fact!"?

What I said is a fact.

And an "rganism" that cannot survive isn't really much to defend. So an embryo, or even a fetus that isn't developed enough to survive outside the womb is of less consequence to me than one that can.

When a fetus is actually viable outside the womb it is more important to me from an ethical standard.

No, what you said is ignorance you mistook for fact. The ACTUAL fact is that comparing a zygote to a cheek cell is the equivalent of comparing your left arm to your spleen because "they're both body parts". And "every cell is the end result of sexual reproduction" is a lame attempt at a dodge by way of "I'll be really obtuse until they give up on me as hopelessly ignorant, and then declare victory".

Furthermore, moving the goalposts from "a zygote is just a cell like a cheek cell" to "fine, it's an organism, but it's worthless because it's weak" - while trying to rush past any need to admit that you lost the first argument - is epic-level lameness and also dishonest. If you have to skip from argument to argument to argument while ignoring that they all contradict themselves, maybe it's time you face the fact that your arguments and your position are so much bullshit, based in no more fact than "I want it to be true, so there!"

While I appreciate you coming out into the open about your REAL agenda of, "I have no scientific fact, I just view lives as disposable when they don't suit me", you and I both know you're going to go right back to, "This is science, until I need this to be science, unless I need this to be science!" the instant you think you can get away with pretending nothing happened here. And don't even get me started on, "Well, I feel completely ethical in advocating a disposable class of people, because . . . I say so." You must have been skipping English classes the same time you were skipping biology classes, if you think "ethics" means "This is right because I want it that way".

Unlike you I don't feel the need to "win" an argument with people on the internet.

And don't try to tell me what I think or don't think.

I have repeatedly stipulated that a human zygote is genetically unique but that genetic uniqueness is not a guarantee that that zygote will develop into a human being capable of independent life. In fact the percentage of miscarriages in the first trimester is extremely high

What Percentage Of Pregnancies Ends In Miscarriage? - Epainassist - Useful Information for Better Health

Miscarriage is a spontaneous loss of a fetus before 23 weeks of pregnancy. Most miscarriages occur in early pregnancy before the realization of the pregnant women. It is represented by vaginal bleeding, cramps, and pain in the abdomen.[1] However, slight bleeding from the vagina is commonly...

www.epainassist.com

• March of Dimes states that 50% of all pregnancies end in miscarriages before a woman have next menstrual flow. Most of them are not aware of their pregnancy. About 15-20% of recognized pregnancy converts into a miscarriage.
• It is estimated that 80% of miscarriage happen in the first trimester in the first three months of pregnancy. Most of the fetus is lost in the first 20 weeks of pregnancy.

So viability outside the womb matters.

And everyone has an agenda even you.

Unlike me, you aren't capable of winning an argument, so it's probably good that you've accepted that.

Also, I'm not telling you what you think. YOU told ME what you think; that's sorta what happens when you use those word thingies.

What possible fucking difference is it supposed to make that pregnancies end in miscarriages? People also die of natural causes, but I would hope you don't think that makes it okay to kill them.

Excuse me but you put in quotes what you think i said.

Do you not know what quotation marks indicate?

This is what you posted and attributed to me as what I said

"I have no scientific fact, I just view lives as disposable when they don't suit me"

I said no such thing. You made that up put it in quotes and then proceeded to tell me that is what I said.

So you see you are making shit up and attributing it to me then arguing against the shit you made up

You said EXACTLY that. I just stripped away the euphemisms and justifications and told you what you're conveying to others. You may not like it, but I defy you to show me how it's substantially different, other than the fact that it doesn't make you feel good.

 

[Blues Man]

A zygote is not a human being any more than a cheek cell is

Just how many biology classes DID you skip in high school? Damn, dude. That's just embarrassing.

Just because a cell has unique human DNA does not mean it's a human being. You shed millions of cells that have unique human DNA every single day.

Are those cells organisms? The product of human sexual reproduction? Do any of your cheek cells have biological parents who created them with sexual reproduction?

every cell in your body is the end result of sexual reproduction.

I repeat, did you actually attend any of your biology classes in high school? Or middle school, for that matter? Because I did, and I distinctly recall some time being spent on explaining the very basic facts about the differences in types of cells, your ignorance of which you are laughably attempting to make a "brilliant" argument about.

Does it even embarrass you to stand barefaced in public, shouting, "Accept my ignorance as fact!"?

What I said is a fact.

And an "rganism" that cannot survive isn't really much to defend. So an embryo, or even a fetus that isn't developed enough to survive outside the womb is of less consequence to me than one that can.

When a fetus is actually viable outside the womb it is more important to me from an ethical standard.

No, what you said is ignorance you mistook for fact. The ACTUAL fact is that comparing a zygote to a cheek cell is the equivalent of comparing your left arm to your spleen because "they're both body parts". And "every cell is the end result of sexual reproduction" is a lame attempt at a dodge by way of "I'll be really obtuse until they give up on me as hopelessly ignorant, and then declare victory".

Furthermore, moving the goalposts from "a zygote is just a cell like a cheek cell" to "fine, it's an organism, but it's worthless because it's weak" - while trying to rush past any need to admit that you lost the first argument - is epic-level lameness and also dishonest. If you have to skip from argument to argument to argument while ignoring that they all contradict themselves, maybe it's time you face the fact that your arguments and your position are so much bullshit, based in no more fact than "I want it to be true, so there!"

While I appreciate you coming out into the open about your REAL agenda of, "I have no scientific fact, I just view lives as disposable when they don't suit me", you and I both know you're going to go right back to, "This is science, until I need this to be science, unless I need this to be science!" the instant you think you can get away with pretending nothing happened here. And don't even get me started on, "Well, I feel completely ethical in advocating a disposable class of people, because . . . I say so." You must have been skipping English classes the same time you were skipping biology classes, if you think "ethics" means "This is right because I want it that way".

Unlike you I don't feel the need to "win" an argument with people on the internet.

And don't try to tell me what I think or don't think.

I have repeatedly stipulated that a human zygote is genetically unique but that genetic uniqueness is not a guarantee that that zygote will develop into a human being capable of independent life. In fact the percentage of miscarriages in the first trimester is extremely high

What Percentage Of Pregnancies Ends In Miscarriage? - Epainassist - Useful Information for Better Health

Miscarriage is a spontaneous loss of a fetus before 23 weeks of pregnancy. Most miscarriages occur in early pregnancy before the realization of the pregnant women. It is represented by vaginal bleeding, cramps, and pain in the abdomen.[1] However, slight bleeding from the vagina is commonly...

www.epainassist.com

• March of Dimes states that 50% of all pregnancies end in miscarriages before a woman have next menstrual flow. Most of them are not aware of their pregnancy. About 15-20% of recognized pregnancy converts into a miscarriage.
• It is estimated that 80% of miscarriage happen in the first trimester in the first three months of pregnancy. Most of the fetus is lost in the first 20 weeks of pregnancy.

So viability outside the womb matters.

And everyone has an agenda even you.

Unlike me, you aren't capable of winning an argument, so it's probably good that you've accepted that.

Also, I'm not telling you what you think. YOU told ME what you think; that's sorta what happens when you use those word thingies.

What possible fucking difference is it supposed to make that pregnancies end in miscarriages? People also die of natural causes, but I would hope you don't think that makes it okay to kill them.

Excuse me but you put in quotes what you think i said.

Do you not know what quotation marks indicate?

This is what you posted and attributed to me as what I said

"I have no scientific fact, I just view lives as disposable when they don't suit me"

I said no such thing. You made that up put it in quotes and then proceeded to tell me that is what I said.

So you see you are making shit up and attributing it to me then arguing against the shit you made up

You said EXACTLY that. I just stripped away the euphemisms and justifications and told you what you're conveying to others. You may not like it, but I defy you to show me how it's substantially different, other than the fact that it doesn't make you feel good.

I did not say that if I did say "exactly that" ( and you'll notice the quotation marks used correctly) then you should be able to find the post where I said "exactly that" ( once again I'll point out the correct usage of quotation marks) then you should be able to link to the post in which I said "exactly that" ( that's 3 examples of the correct use of quotation marks)

 

[Cecilie1200]

A zygote is not a human being any more than a cheek cell is

Just how many biology classes DID you skip in high school? Damn, dude. That's just embarrassing.

Just because a cell has unique human DNA does not mean it's a human being. You shed millions of cells that have unique human DNA every single day.

Are those cells organisms? The product of human sexual reproduction? Do any of your cheek cells have biological parents who created them with sexual reproduction?

every cell in your body is the end result of sexual reproduction.

I repeat, did you actually attend any of your biology classes in high school? Or middle school, for that matter? Because I did, and I distinctly recall some time being spent on explaining the very basic facts about the differences in types of cells, your ignorance of which you are laughably attempting to make a "brilliant" argument about.

Does it even embarrass you to stand barefaced in public, shouting, "Accept my ignorance as fact!"?

What I said is a fact.

And an "rganism" that cannot survive isn't really much to defend. So an embryo, or even a fetus that isn't developed enough to survive outside the womb is of less consequence to me than one that can.

When a fetus is actually viable outside the womb it is more important to me from an ethical standard.

No, what you said is ignorance you mistook for fact. The ACTUAL fact is that comparing a zygote to a cheek cell is the equivalent of comparing your left arm to your spleen because "they're both body parts". And "every cell is the end result of sexual reproduction" is a lame attempt at a dodge by way of "I'll be really obtuse until they give up on me as hopelessly ignorant, and then declare victory".

Furthermore, moving the goalposts from "a zygote is just a cell like a cheek cell" to "fine, it's an organism, but it's worthless because it's weak" - while trying to rush past any need to admit that you lost the first argument - is epic-level lameness and also dishonest. If you have to skip from argument to argument to argument while ignoring that they all contradict themselves, maybe it's time you face the fact that your arguments and your position are so much bullshit, based in no more fact than "I want it to be true, so there!"

While I appreciate you coming out into the open about your REAL agenda of, "I have no scientific fact, I just view lives as disposable when they don't suit me", you and I both know you're going to go right back to, "This is science, until I need this to be science, unless I need this to be science!" the instant you think you can get away with pretending nothing happened here. And don't even get me started on, "Well, I feel completely ethical in advocating a disposable class of people, because . . . I say so." You must have been skipping English classes the same time you were skipping biology classes, if you think "ethics" means "This is right because I want it that way".

Unlike you I don't feel the need to "win" an argument with people on the internet.

And don't try to tell me what I think or don't think.

I have repeatedly stipulated that a human zygote is genetically unique but that genetic uniqueness is not a guarantee that that zygote will develop into a human being capable of independent life. In fact the percentage of miscarriages in the first trimester is extremely high

What Percentage Of Pregnancies Ends In Miscarriage? - Epainassist - Useful Information for Better Health

Miscarriage is a spontaneous loss of a fetus before 23 weeks of pregnancy. Most miscarriages occur in early pregnancy before the realization of the pregnant women. It is represented by vaginal bleeding, cramps, and pain in the abdomen.[1] However, slight bleeding from the vagina is commonly...

www.epainassist.com

• March of Dimes states that 50% of all pregnancies end in miscarriages before a woman have next menstrual flow. Most of them are not aware of their pregnancy. About 15-20% of recognized pregnancy converts into a miscarriage.
• It is estimated that 80% of miscarriage happen in the first trimester in the first three months of pregnancy. Most of the fetus is lost in the first 20 weeks of pregnancy.

So viability outside the womb matters.

And everyone has an agenda even you.

Unlike me, you aren't capable of winning an argument, so it's probably good that you've accepted that.

Also, I'm not telling you what you think. YOU told ME what you think; that's sorta what happens when you use those word thingies.

What possible fucking difference is it supposed to make that pregnancies end in miscarriages? People also die of natural causes, but I would hope you don't think that makes it okay to kill them.

Excuse me but you put in quotes what you think i said.

Do you not know what quotation marks indicate?

This is what you posted and attributed to me as what I said

"I have no scientific fact, I just view lives as disposable when they don't suit me"

I said no such thing. You made that up put it in quotes and then proceeded to tell me that is what I said.

So you see you are making shit up and attributing it to me then arguing against the shit you made up

You said EXACTLY that. I just stripped away the euphemisms and justifications and told you what you're conveying to others. You may not like it, but I defy you to show me how it's substantially different, other than the fact that it doesn't make you feel good.

I did not say that if I did say "exactly that" ( and you'll notice the quotation marks used correctly) then you should be able to find the post where I said "exactly that" ( once again I'll point out the correct usage of quotation marks) then you should be able to link to the post in which I said "exactly that" ( that's 3 examples of the correct use of quotation marks)

*yawn* Another illiterate trying to play grammar Nazi at me about what she THINKS she knows. I used the quotation marks correctly, lackwit. The problem here is that I used them for a function they serve that your uneducated ass wasn't aware of. You're like a 3rd-grader trying to tell a college math professor that parantheses can't be used in math, because it's not in his arithmetic book.

Furthermore, we aren't playing this "I focus on half a sentence, and pretend it's the whole post with no context" game of yours.

You just don't like hearing your positions stated in bald, honest terms instead of your weaselly "I get to feel like a good person while being a piece of shit" euphemisms.

 

[Blues Man]

A zygote is not a human being any more than a cheek cell is

Just how many biology classes DID you skip in high school? Damn, dude. That's just embarrassing.

Just because a cell has unique human DNA does not mean it's a human being. You shed millions of cells that have unique human DNA every single day.

Are those cells organisms? The product of human sexual reproduction? Do any of your cheek cells have biological parents who created them with sexual reproduction?

every cell in your body is the end result of sexual reproduction.

I repeat, did you actually attend any of your biology classes in high school? Or middle school, for that matter? Because I did, and I distinctly recall some time being spent on explaining the very basic facts about the differences in types of cells, your ignorance of which you are laughably attempting to make a "brilliant" argument about.

Does it even embarrass you to stand barefaced in public, shouting, "Accept my ignorance as fact!"?

What I said is a fact.

And an "rganism" that cannot survive isn't really much to defend. So an embryo, or even a fetus that isn't developed enough to survive outside the womb is of less consequence to me than one that can.

When a fetus is actually viable outside the womb it is more important to me from an ethical standard.

No, what you said is ignorance you mistook for fact. The ACTUAL fact is that comparing a zygote to a cheek cell is the equivalent of comparing your left arm to your spleen because "they're both body parts". And "every cell is the end result of sexual reproduction" is a lame attempt at a dodge by way of "I'll be really obtuse until they give up on me as hopelessly ignorant, and then declare victory".

Furthermore, moving the goalposts from "a zygote is just a cell like a cheek cell" to "fine, it's an organism, but it's worthless because it's weak" - while trying to rush past any need to admit that you lost the first argument - is epic-level lameness and also dishonest. If you have to skip from argument to argument to argument while ignoring that they all contradict themselves, maybe it's time you face the fact that your arguments and your position are so much bullshit, based in no more fact than "I want it to be true, so there!"

While I appreciate you coming out into the open about your REAL agenda of, "I have no scientific fact, I just view lives as disposable when they don't suit me", you and I both know you're going to go right back to, "This is science, until I need this to be science, unless I need this to be science!" the instant you think you can get away with pretending nothing happened here. And don't even get me started on, "Well, I feel completely ethical in advocating a disposable class of people, because . . . I say so." You must have been skipping English classes the same time you were skipping biology classes, if you think "ethics" means "This is right because I want it that way".

Unlike you I don't feel the need to "win" an argument with people on the internet.

And don't try to tell me what I think or don't think.

I have repeatedly stipulated that a human zygote is genetically unique but that genetic uniqueness is not a guarantee that that zygote will develop into a human being capable of independent life. In fact the percentage of miscarriages in the first trimester is extremely high

What Percentage Of Pregnancies Ends In Miscarriage? - Epainassist - Useful Information for Better Health

Miscarriage is a spontaneous loss of a fetus before 23 weeks of pregnancy. Most miscarriages occur in early pregnancy before the realization of the pregnant women. It is represented by vaginal bleeding, cramps, and pain in the abdomen.[1] However, slight bleeding from the vagina is commonly...

www.epainassist.com

• March of Dimes states that 50% of all pregnancies end in miscarriages before a woman have next menstrual flow. Most of them are not aware of their pregnancy. About 15-20% of recognized pregnancy converts into a miscarriage.
• It is estimated that 80% of miscarriage happen in the first trimester in the first three months of pregnancy. Most of the fetus is lost in the first 20 weeks of pregnancy.

So viability outside the womb matters.

And everyone has an agenda even you.

Unlike me, you aren't capable of winning an argument, so it's probably good that you've accepted that.

Also, I'm not telling you what you think. YOU told ME what you think; that's sorta what happens when you use those word thingies.

What possible fucking difference is it supposed to make that pregnancies end in miscarriages? People also die of natural causes, but I would hope you don't think that makes it okay to kill them.

Excuse me but you put in quotes what you think i said.

Do you not know what quotation marks indicate?

This is what you posted and attributed to me as what I said

"I have no scientific fact, I just view lives as disposable when they don't suit me"

I said no such thing. You made that up put it in quotes and then proceeded to tell me that is what I said.

So you see you are making shit up and attributing it to me then arguing against the shit you made up

You said EXACTLY that. I just stripped away the euphemisms and justifications and told you what you're conveying to others. You may not like it, but I defy you to show me how it's substantially different, other than the fact that it doesn't make you feel good.

I did not say that if I did say "exactly that" ( and you'll notice the quotation marks used correctly) then you should be able to find the post where I said "exactly that" ( once again I'll point out the correct usage of quotation marks) then you should be able to link to the post in which I said "exactly that" ( that's 3 examples of the correct use of quotation marks)

*yawn* Another illiterate trying to play grammar Nazi at me about what she THINKS she knows. I used the quotation marks correctly, lackwit. The problem here is that I used them for a function they serve that your uneducated ass wasn't aware of. You're like a 3rd-grader trying to tell a college math professor that parantheses can't be used in math, because it's not in his arithmetic book.

Furthermore, we aren't playing this "I focus on half a sentence, and pretend it's the whole post with no context" game of yours.

You just don't like hearing your positions stated in bald, honest terms instead of your weaselly "I get to feel like a good person while being a piece of shit" euphemisms.

My screen name is Blues Man that would imply a masculine pronoun should be used.

You are obviously not as smart or perceptive as you think you are

And what you think my positions are is worthless because you fabricated them rather than using actual quotes.

So not only are you not as smart and perceptive as you think you are you are also dishonest.

 

[Chuz Life]

A zygote is a potential child just like a collection of flour yeast and water is a potential pizza crust

Biology fail on your part, again.

Let's see if you have enough stray brain cells to comprehend a basic biological fact.

An un-united sperm and egg cell are representative of a "potential child."

When a sperm and egg cell do unite, their "potential" to create anew organism is "realized" and their potential is done. The sperm and egg cell no longer exist. The sperm and egg cells lives are OVER and the new organism that they merged to create now DOES exist.

You skipped Biology alot. Didn't you.

Still not a child.

Your denials are boring and tiresome but they don't change the facts.

OK

So you're walking down the street and you see a petri dish with a human zygote in it in the middle of the road to your left and you also see a 1 day old infant in the middle of the street to your right. There are buses speeding toward each and you can only save one which do you pick and why?

That might depend on if it is MY child in the petri dish. Seeing how much money many couples spend trying to get pregnant. . . I can easily see such a couple saving their own child or children in a petri dish over any other (even an adult) human being.

So much for your false dilemma.

It was a hypothetical question not a false dilemma

It's hypothetical because it could never happen as a zygote in a petri dish is not something anyone carries around with them

But I do know I would save the infant because I believe the infant is more important than a single cell.

And like I said I have agreed with you that a zygote is a uniquely human cell but it is still an undeveloped child with absolutely no chance of being viable outside the womb.

So I place higher importance to unborn children that are viable outside the womb.

You think that a single cell is no less important than a newborn infant.

Thus we are and always will be at an impasse .

Your tirade begs the question.

What is the physiological difference between an "undeveloped child" and an actual Child that happens to be developing?

Take your time.

I already told you the difference is viability outside the womb.

There is no PHYSIOLOGICAL difference between a VIABLE child and a NON Viable child.

A (especially temporary) state or physical condition does not change what the child IS.

 

[Blues Man]

A zygote is a potential child just like a collection of flour yeast and water is a potential pizza crust

Biology fail on your part, again.

Let's see if you have enough stray brain cells to comprehend a basic biological fact.

An un-united sperm and egg cell are representative of a "potential child."

When a sperm and egg cell do unite, their "potential" to create anew organism is "realized" and their potential is done. The sperm and egg cell no longer exist. The sperm and egg cells lives are OVER and the new organism that they merged to create now DOES exist.

You skipped Biology alot. Didn't you.

Still not a child.

Your denials are boring and tiresome but they don't change the facts.

OK

So you're walking down the street and you see a petri dish with a human zygote in it in the middle of the road to your left and you also see a 1 day old infant in the middle of the street to your right. There are buses speeding toward each and you can only save one which do you pick and why?

That might depend on if it is MY child in the petri dish. Seeing how much money many couples spend trying to get pregnant. . . I can easily see such a couple saving their own child or children in a petri dish over any other (even an adult) human being.

So much for your false dilemma.

It was a hypothetical question not a false dilemma

It's hypothetical because it could never happen as a zygote in a petri dish is not something anyone carries around with them

But I do know I would save the infant because I believe the infant is more important than a single cell.

And like I said I have agreed with you that a zygote is a uniquely human cell but it is still an undeveloped child with absolutely no chance of being viable outside the womb.

So I place higher importance to unborn children that are viable outside the womb.

You think that a single cell is no less important than a newborn infant.

Thus we are and always will be at an impasse .

Your tirade begs the question.

What is the physiological difference between an "undeveloped child" and an actual Child that happens to be developing?

Take your time.

I already told you the difference is viability outside the womb.

There is no PHYSIOLOGICAL difference between a VIABLE child and a NON Viable child.

A (especially temporary) state or physical condition does not change what the child IS.

A 1 month old embryo is not viable outside of the womb a 9 month old embryo is.

 

[Chuz Life]

A zygote is a potential child just like a collection of flour yeast and water is a potential pizza crust

Biology fail on your part, again.

Let's see if you have enough stray brain cells to comprehend a basic biological fact.

An un-united sperm and egg cell are representative of a "potential child."

When a sperm and egg cell do unite, their "potential" to create anew organism is "realized" and their potential is done. The sperm and egg cell no longer exist. The sperm and egg cells lives are OVER and the new organism that they merged to create now DOES exist.

You skipped Biology alot. Didn't you.

Still not a child.

Your denials are boring and tiresome but they don't change the facts.

OK

So you're walking down the street and you see a petri dish with a human zygote in it in the middle of the road to your left and you also see a 1 day old infant in the middle of the street to your right. There are buses speeding toward each and you can only save one which do you pick and why?

That might depend on if it is MY child in the petri dish. Seeing how much money many couples spend trying to get pregnant. . . I can easily see such a couple saving their own child or children in a petri dish over any other (even an adult) human being.

So much for your false dilemma.

It was a hypothetical question not a false dilemma

It's hypothetical because it could never happen as a zygote in a petri dish is not something anyone carries around with them

But I do know I would save the infant because I believe the infant is more important than a single cell.

And like I said I have agreed with you that a zygote is a uniquely human cell but it is still an undeveloped child with absolutely no chance of being viable outside the womb.

So I place higher importance to unborn children that are viable outside the womb.

You think that a single cell is no less important than a newborn infant.

Thus we are and always will be at an impasse .

Your tirade begs the question.

What is the physiological difference between an "undeveloped child" and an actual Child that happens to be developing?

Take your time.

I already told you the difference is viability outside the womb.

There is no PHYSIOLOGICAL difference between a VIABLE child and a NON Viable child.

A (especially temporary) state or physical condition does not change what the child IS.

A 1 month old embryo is not viable outside of the womb a 9 month old embryo is.

"Viable" and or "non viable" are subjective terms that speak only to the different physical conditions that a particular organism / creature is going through.

Even with Your own example, an embryo(sic) is an "embryo," whether the embryo is viable outside of the womb(sic) or not.

Agree?

Hint: The answer is yes.

 

[Blues Man]

A zygote is a potential child just like a collection of flour yeast and water is a potential pizza crust

Biology fail on your part, again.

Let's see if you have enough stray brain cells to comprehend a basic biological fact.

An un-united sperm and egg cell are representative of a "potential child."

When a sperm and egg cell do unite, their "potential" to create anew organism is "realized" and their potential is done. The sperm and egg cell no longer exist. The sperm and egg cells lives are OVER and the new organism that they merged to create now DOES exist.

You skipped Biology alot. Didn't you.

Still not a child.

Your denials are boring and tiresome but they don't change the facts.

OK

So you're walking down the street and you see a petri dish with a human zygote in it in the middle of the road to your left and you also see a 1 day old infant in the middle of the street to your right. There are buses speeding toward each and you can only save one which do you pick and why?

That might depend on if it is MY child in the petri dish. Seeing how much money many couples spend trying to get pregnant. . . I can easily see such a couple saving their own child or children in a petri dish over any other (even an adult) human being.

So much for your false dilemma.

It was a hypothetical question not a false dilemma

It's hypothetical because it could never happen as a zygote in a petri dish is not something anyone carries around with them

But I do know I would save the infant because I believe the infant is more important than a single cell.

And like I said I have agreed with you that a zygote is a uniquely human cell but it is still an undeveloped child with absolutely no chance of being viable outside the womb.

So I place higher importance to unborn children that are viable outside the womb.

You think that a single cell is no less important than a newborn infant.

Thus we are and always will be at an impasse .

Your tirade begs the question.

What is the physiological difference between an "undeveloped child" and an actual Child that happens to be developing?

Take your time.

I already told you the difference is viability outside the womb.

There is no PHYSIOLOGICAL difference between a VIABLE child and a NON Viable child.

A (especially temporary) state or physical condition does not change what the child IS.

A 1 month old embryo is not viable outside of the womb a 9 month old embryo is.

"Viable" and or "non viable" are subjective terms that speak only to the different physical conditions that a particular organism / creature is going through.

Even with Your own example, an embryo(sic) is an "embryo," whether the embryo is viable outside of the womb(sic) or not.

Agree?

Hint: The answer is yes.

I never said an embryo wasn't an embryo.

But even you have to agree that a 2 day old embryo and a 9 month old embryo are different

and just a question

Why did you use the term *(sic)

it usually means you are keeping a grammatical or spelling error as written by another.

 

[JoeMoma]

A new born is different than a 2 year old who is different than a 10 year old who is different than a 16 year old who is different than a 25 year old.......and so on.

 

[Blues Man]

A new born is different than a 2 year old who is different than a 10 year old who is different than a 16 year old who is different than a 25 year old.......and so on.

except that in every one of those stages of development the human being is viable outside of the womb.

 

[JoeMoma]

A new born is different than a 2 year old who is different than a 10 year old who is different than a 16 year old who is different than a 25 year old.......and so on.

except that in every one of those stages of development the human being is viable outside of the womb.

A new born is only viable outside the womb when cared for by another. If left to take care of its self alone, it will die. At any rate, being "non-viable" is a temporary condition if given the time and care to mature.