How Valuable is Life?

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
221

[quote]magick wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:
Feel free, dig up the research that shows that a sperm is a human being. Or that a zygote is not. Like I said before, I won’t hold my breath. Just bring the facts. Prove a zygote is not a human being. Go ahead…waiting.[/quote]

Is a sperm not a human being because it only carries half the chromosomes necessary to form a human?

But then that raises the question of how to qualify people who are born without having the necessary number of chromosomes to form a proper human? Are they still human?

If so, we just deviated from one definition of being human to another, and that is a logical no-no.

How do you qualify an embryo as human? The only way I can think of is because it is genetically human. There’s no other particular scientific reason to qualify it as such besides that.

I mean, any other definition of why a human embryo is human runs the risk of leading to a conclusion that a human embryo is, at least at that moment, not human.

This is word-play, like smh_23 said. It plays far too much into human emotions and cannot be qualified properly without running into strange and supposedly absurd ramifications.
[/quote]

a sperm has all 46 chomosomes but only donates 26 to the soup

i take this back :slight_smile:

222

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
a sperm has all 46 chomosomes but only donates 26 to the soup
[/quote]

Wha?

Doesn’t the sperm carry 23 chromosomes?

224

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]magick wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:
Feel free, dig up the research that shows that a sperm is a human being. Or that a zygote is not. Like I said before, I won’t hold my breath. Just bring the facts. Prove a zygote is not a human being. Go ahead…waiting.[/quote]

Is a sperm not a human being because it only carries half the chromosomes necessary to form a human?

But then that raises the question of how to qualify people who are born without having the necessary number of chromosomes to form a proper human? Are they still human?

If so, we just deviated from one definition of being human to another, and that is a logical no-no.

How do you qualify an embryo as human? The only way I can think of is because it is genetically human. There’s no other particular scientific reason to qualify it as such besides that.

I mean, any other definition of why a human embryo is human runs the risk of leading to a conclusion that a human embryo is, at least at that moment, not human.

This is word-play, like smh_23 said. It plays far too much into human emotions and cannot be qualified properly without running into strange and supposedly absurd ramifications.
[/quote]

a sperm has all 46 chomosomes but only donates 26 to the soup

i take this back :)[/quote]

No.

A human cell contains 46 chromosomes. A sperm results from splitting a cell, so that it contains only 23 chromosomes. It joins with the ovum, which also contains only 23 chromosomes.

Fuck, I remember the good old days when people actually learned biology in school.

225

[quote]magick wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
a sperm has all 46 chomosomes but only donates 26 to the soup
[/quote]

Wha?

Doesn’t the sperm carry 23 chromosomes?[/quote]

Yes.

Two haploid cells carrying 23 chromosomes each join to form a diploid cell containing a full 46.

226

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]magick wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:
Feel free, dig up the research that shows that a sperm is a human being. Or that a zygote is not. Like I said before, I won’t hold my breath. Just bring the facts. Prove a zygote is not a human being. Go ahead…waiting.[/quote]

Is a sperm not a human being because it only carries half the chromosomes necessary to form a human?

But then that raises the question of how to qualify people who are born without having the necessary number of chromosomes to form a proper human? Are they still human?

If so, we just deviated from one definition of being human to another, and that is a logical no-no.

How do you qualify an embryo as human? The only way I can think of is because it is genetically human. There’s no other particular scientific reason to qualify it as such besides that.

I mean, any other definition of why a human embryo is human runs the risk of leading to a conclusion that a human embryo is, at least at that moment, not human.

This is word-play, like smh_23 said. It plays far too much into human emotions and cannot be qualified properly without running into strange and supposedly absurd ramifications.
[/quote]

a sperm has all 46 chomosomes but only donates 26 to the soup

i take this back :)[/quote]

LOL!!!

227

[quote]magick wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:
Feel free, dig up the research that shows that a sperm is a human being. Or that a zygote is not. Like I said before, I won’t hold my breath. Just bring the facts. Prove a zygote is not a human being. Go ahead…waiting.[/quote]

Is a sperm not a human being because it only carries half the chromosomes necessary to form a human?

But then that raises the question of how to qualify people who are born without having the necessary number of chromosomes to form a proper human? Are they still human?

If so, we just deviated from one definition of being human to another, and that is a logical no-no.

How do you qualify an embryo as human? The only way I can think of is because it is genetically human. There’s no other particular scientific reason to qualify it as such besides that.

I mean, any other definition of why a human embryo is human runs the risk of leading to a conclusion that a human embryo is, at least at that moment, not human.

This is word-play, like smh_23 said. It plays far too much into human emotions and cannot be qualified properly without running into strange and supposedly absurd ramifications.
[/quote]

It’s not word play it’s plain science.

http://fallibleblogma.com/index.php/when-does-science-say-human-life-begins/

From the article:
“The entire basis for a new, human life beginning at conception stems from well documented, universally recognized scientific fact.”

More:
http://www.all.org/abac/cwk004.htm

You can argue with science, but you will lose. Prove all these Embryologists wrong. Go nuts.

228

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]magick wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:
Feel free, dig up the research that shows that a sperm is a human being. Or that a zygote is not. Like I said before, I won’t hold my breath. Just bring the facts. Prove a zygote is not a human being. Go ahead…waiting.[/quote]

Is a sperm not a human being because it only carries half the chromosomes necessary to form a human?

But then that raises the question of how to qualify people who are born without having the necessary number of chromosomes to form a proper human? Are they still human?

If so, we just deviated from one definition of being human to another, and that is a logical no-no.

How do you qualify an embryo as human? The only way I can think of is because it is genetically human. There’s no other particular scientific reason to qualify it as such besides that.

I mean, any other definition of why a human embryo is human runs the risk of leading to a conclusion that a human embryo is, at least at that moment, not human.

This is word-play, like smh_23 said. It plays far too much into human emotions and cannot be qualified properly without running into strange and supposedly absurd ramifications.
[/quote]

a sperm has all 46 chomosomes but only donates 26 to the soup

i take this back :)[/quote]

No.

A human cell contains 46 chromosomes. A sperm results from splitting a cell, so that it contains only 23 chromosomes. It joins with the ovum, which also contains only 23 chromosomes.

Fuck, I remember the good old days when people actually learned biology in school.
[/quote]

I sucked at biology and knew this. I posted a bunch of scientific articles for people to ignore and continue ridiculous arguments that are not based on a single shred of fact what-so-ever.

229

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

Oh brother. Were you trying to be serious? You expel your own cells all the time. They are not complete separate beings from the source and neither is a sperm, however a fetus is. It’s a scientific fact.
A sperm is a tiny fish that contains partial human DNA. If anything the skin cells you shed constantly contain more complete DNA than a sperm. Shit and piss contain cells with more complete DNA information than a sperm.
The big difference is that those cells you expel contain your DNA, the fetus contains somebody elses, neither the host’s nor the sperm donors, but it’s own separate, but human DNA and if it weren’t for the fact that it’s a unique living being of it’s own genetic nature, then it would be fine to dispose of. But the being is both human and living and nobody has the right to kill it, even if the host considers it a squatter.[/quote]

OH , you are grasping at straws , digging a hole ,

Step back from the edge ,

You have to be smoking something better than pot :slight_smile:
[/quote]

I tried to grasp at straws, but I ran into scientific fact. The straw container is all yours. Go ahead, post a single scientific resource that shows that a sperm is a human life…

Posting ad hoc ‘bro-science’ based on nothing at all is grasping at straws and that, FYI is what you are doing.
I have an entire branch of science backing up my claims, what you got?

230

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]magick wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:
Feel free, dig up the research that shows that a sperm is a human being. Or that a zygote is not. Like I said before, I won’t hold my breath. Just bring the facts. Prove a zygote is not a human being. Go ahead…waiting.[/quote]

Is a sperm not a human being because it only carries half the chromosomes necessary to form a human?

But then that raises the question of how to qualify people who are born without having the necessary number of chromosomes to form a proper human? Are they still human?

If so, we just deviated from one definition of being human to another, and that is a logical no-no.

How do you qualify an embryo as human? The only way I can think of is because it is genetically human. There’s no other particular scientific reason to qualify it as such besides that.

I mean, any other definition of why a human embryo is human runs the risk of leading to a conclusion that a human embryo is, at least at that moment, not human.

This is word-play, like smh_23 said. It plays far too much into human emotions and cannot be qualified properly without running into strange and supposedly absurd ramifications.
[/quote]

It’s not word play it’s plain science.

You can argue with science, but you will lose. Prove all these Embryologists wrong. Go nuts.[/quote]

You missed the point entirety.

Reread what I wrote and see what I’m trying to say instead of repeating your bloody talking points.

231

[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Fuck, I remember the good old days when people actually learned biology in school.
[/quote]

People forget everything.

I say with great embarrassment that I forgot a good deal of the math I learned in high school. I simply had no need to use algebra and beyond.

232

500×589 72.3 KB

[quote]magick wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Fuck, I remember the good old days when people actually learned biology in school.
[/quote]

People forget everything.

I say with great embarrassment that I forgot a good deal of the math I learned in high school. I simply had no need to use algebra and beyond.[/quote]

This first time I ever saw this pic my first thought was, “Fuck how’d he get 3…”

I remember crushing Geometry my freshman year of HS and cruised through Trig as well. 10 years later I can’t even solve for x in what has to be the simplest problem in the history of Geometry.

Use it or lose it. Fuck.

233

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]magick wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Fuck, I remember the good old days when people actually learned biology in school.
[/quote]

People forget everything.

I say with great embarrassment that I forgot a good deal of the math I learned in high school. I simply had no need to use algebra and beyond.[/quote]

This first time I ever saw this pic my first thought was, “Fuck how’d he get 3…”

I remember crushing Geometry my freshman year of HS and cruised through Trig as well. 10 years later I can’t even solve for x in what has to be the simplest problem in the history of Geometry.

Use it or lose it. Fuck.
[/quote]

3,4,5 triangle, bitches.

Probably the only thing I remember from geometry, other than the Pythagorean theorem.

Edit: and it basically is the Pythagorean theorem, anyway

234

I did wonderful in math all through school (duh) up until Calc. I just couldn’t wrap my feeble mind around it.

Algebra I can still do, but have lost a lot of the skill set beyond that, except for some of the finance equations.

235

[quote]countingbeans wrote:
I did wonderful in math all through school (duh) up until Calc. I just couldn’t wrap my feeble mind around it.

Algebra I can still do, but have lost a lot of the skill set beyond that, except for some of the finance equations. [/quote]

Ya, I’m still okay at Algebra and of course financial math. Those damn triangles though.

I can find the circumference of a circle though, ya for me I guess.

236

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]magick wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Fuck, I remember the good old days when people actually learned biology in school.
[/quote]

People forget everything.

I say with great embarrassment that I forgot a good deal of the math I learned in high school. I simply had no need to use algebra and beyond.[/quote]

This first time I ever saw this pic my first thought was, “Fuck how’d he get 3…”

I remember crushing Geometry my freshman year of HS and cruised through Trig as well. 10 years later I can’t even solve for x in what has to be the simplest problem in the history of Geometry.

Use it or lose it. Fuck.
[/quote]

3,4,5 triangle, bitches.

Probably the only thing I remember from geometry, other than the Pythagorean theorem.

Edit: and it basically is the Pythagorean theorem, anyway[/quote]

Lol, still not ringing any bells…

237

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]magick wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Fuck, I remember the good old days when people actually learned biology in school.
[/quote]

People forget everything.

I say with great embarrassment that I forgot a good deal of the math I learned in high school. I simply had no need to use algebra and beyond.[/quote]

This first time I ever saw this pic my first thought was, “Fuck how’d he get 3…”

I remember crushing Geometry my freshman year of HS and cruised through Trig as well. 10 years later I can’t even solve for x in what has to be the simplest problem in the history of Geometry.

Use it or lose it. Fuck.
[/quote]

3,4,5 triangle, bitches.

Probably the only thing I remember from geometry, other than the Pythagorean theorem.

Edit: and it basically is the Pythagorean theorem, anyway[/quote]

Lol, still not ringing any bells…[/quote]

A squared plus B squared = C squared

4 x 4 plus X squared = 5 x 5

16 plus X squared = 25

25 minus 16 = 9

Square root of 9 is 3.

X = 3.

Remember now?

238

[quote]magick wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]magick wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:
Feel free, dig up the research that shows that a sperm is a human being. Or that a zygote is not. Like I said before, I won’t hold my breath. Just bring the facts. Prove a zygote is not a human being. Go ahead…waiting.[/quote]

Is a sperm not a human being because it only carries half the chromosomes necessary to form a human?

But then that raises the question of how to qualify people who are born without having the necessary number of chromosomes to form a proper human? Are they still human?

If so, we just deviated from one definition of being human to another, and that is a logical no-no.

How do you qualify an embryo as human? The only way I can think of is because it is genetically human. There’s no other particular scientific reason to qualify it as such besides that.

I mean, any other definition of why a human embryo is human runs the risk of leading to a conclusion that a human embryo is, at least at that moment, not human.

This is word-play, like smh_23 said. It plays far too much into human emotions and cannot be qualified properly without running into strange and supposedly absurd ramifications.
[/quote]

It’s not word play it’s plain science.

You can argue with science, but you will lose. Prove all these Embryologists wrong. Go nuts.[/quote]

You missed the point entirety.

Reread what I wrote and see what I’m trying to say instead of repeating your bloody talking points.[/quote]

Read the science and fuck the talking points. Talk is cheap.

239

[quote]pat wrote:
Read the science and fuck the talking points. Talk is cheap.[/quote]

Still missing the point-

Here’s a hint- The point isn’t about whether a zygote is a human or not, but rather the possible ramifications of creating a single concrete definition of what a human is.

240

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]magick wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Fuck, I remember the good old days when people actually learned biology in school.
[/quote]

People forget everything.

I say with great embarrassment that I forgot a good deal of the math I learned in high school. I simply had no need to use algebra and beyond.[/quote]

This first time I ever saw this pic my first thought was, “Fuck how’d he get 3…”

I remember crushing Geometry my freshman year of HS and cruised through Trig as well. 10 years later I can’t even solve for x in what has to be the simplest problem in the history of Geometry.

Use it or lose it. Fuck.
[/quote]

3,4,5 triangle, bitches.

Probably the only thing I remember from geometry, other than the Pythagorean theorem.

Edit: and it basically is the Pythagorean theorem, anyway[/quote]

Lol, still not ringing any bells…[/quote]

A squared plus B squared = C squared

4 x 4 plus X squared = 5 x 5

16 plus X squared = 25

25 minus 16 = 9

Square root of 9 is 3.

X = 3.

Remember now?
[/quote]

Ding ding ding!

4^2+X^2=5^2
16+X^2=25
X^2=9
X=3

God I’m an idiot…