Rationalia Abortion Thread (A New Start)

[Hermit]

No more sophistry than pretending that a single cell is a human being, in the widely accepted understanding of the word.

Er, the "widely accepted understanding" of any word is found in the dictionary, which accurately reflects such things, and I have previously cited the references which prove you wrong, and I'll do so again:

A zygote (from Greek ζυγωτός zygōtos "joined" or "yoked", from ζυγοῦν zygoun "to join" or "to yoke"), is a eukaryotic cell formed by a fertilization event between two gametes. The zygote's genome is a combination of the DNA in each gamete, and contains all of the genetic information necessary to form a new individual (added emphasis properly contextualised) Source.

The zygote, the first cell of a new organism with an individual genome (2n4C) is created by the alignment of the maternal chromosomes together with the paternal ones on a common spindle apparatus. Source (emphasis added)

Darn all them pesky biologists and scientists who actually understand what happens when the zygote is formed.

Yes, those biologists really understand. That's why no dictionary, as you so helpfully confirm with your quotes from them, defines the zygote as a human being.

[JimC]

A human bean...

https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/imag ... v9WwOQK2gw

[surreptitious57]

widely accepted understanding of any word is found in the dictionary

This is not strictly true because dictionaries are descriptive not prescriptive. For a dictionary shall
provide the correct definition of a word but without any context. So it is only when they are used
in conjunction with each other that they attain legitimacy. Language naturally evolves and so the
way that a dictionary describes a word may not equate to the way it is actually written or spoken

[Seth]

No more sophistry than pretending that a single cell is a human being, in the widely accepted understanding of the word.

Er, the "widely accepted understanding" of any word is found in the dictionary, which accurately reflects such things, and I have previously cited the references which prove you wrong, and I'll do so again:

A zygote (from Greek ζυγωτός zygōtos "joined" or "yoked", from ζυγοῦν zygoun "to join" or "to yoke"), is a eukaryotic cell formed by a fertilization event between two gametes. The zygote's genome is a combination of the DNA in each gamete, and contains all of the genetic information necessary to form a new individual (added emphasis properly contextualised) Source.

The zygote, the first cell of a new organism with an individual genome (2n4C) is created by the alignment of the maternal chromosomes together with the paternal ones on a common spindle apparatus. Source (emphasis added)

Darn all them pesky biologists and scientists who actually understand what happens when the zygote is formed.

Yes, those biologists really understand. That's why no dictionary, as you so helpfully confirm with your quotes from them, defines the zygote as a human being.

That's because a "zygote" does not have to be of human DNA to be a zygote. It's a label for a stage of development of a particular sort of living organism and therefore may be a monkey zygote or a chicken zygote or a human zygote. The pertinent fact is that the zygote, of whatever species, is the first cell in a "new organism" which constitutes a "new individual." The next step is to correctly identify what species the new individual organism is part of. In this case, we're discussing a zygote-stage member of the human species. It has achieved the state of "being" or existence, and is a member of the human species, and is therefore a human being, just as a member of the infraorder Simiiformes is a monkey being and a member of the species G. gallus gallus domesticus is a chicken being. Or, in shorthand, the human zygote is a human, the monkey zygote is a monkey and the chicken zygote is a chicken.

In no case and at no time is the human zygote a monkey zygote or a chicken zygote, it is forever and always a human zygote, which is to say a human being at the zygote stage of biological development.

You can blather and pettifog and evade and bloviate all you like but facts are facts and science is science and your denial just demonstrates your irrational biases and unreason in this particular matter, which is highly hypocritical for someone who purports to be a rational person.

[Hermit]

No more sophistry than pretending that a single cell is a human being, in the widely accepted understanding of the word.

Er, the "widely accepted understanding" of any word is found in the dictionary, which accurately reflects such things, and I have previously cited the references which prove you wrong, and I'll do so again:

A zygote (from Greek ζυγωτός zygōtos "joined" or "yoked", from ζυγοῦν zygoun "to join" or "to yoke"), is a eukaryotic cell formed by a fertilization event between two gametes. The zygote's genome is a combination of the DNA in each gamete, and contains all of the genetic information necessary to form a new individual (added emphasis properly contextualised) Source.

The zygote, the first cell of a new organism with an individual genome (2n4C) is created by the alignment of the maternal chromosomes together with the paternal ones on a common spindle apparatus. Source (emphasis added)

Darn all them pesky biologists and scientists who actually understand what happens when the zygote is formed.

Yes, those biologists really understand. That's why no dictionary, as you so helpfully confirm with your quotes from them, defines the zygote as a human being.

That's because a "zygote" does not have to be of human DNA to be a zygote.

If that was the case, the definition of 'zygote' would read "A zygote is a new individual." Your argument falls down because it does not. It is defined as containing all of the genetic information necessary to form a new individual. Darn all them pesky biologists and scientists who actually understand what happens when the zygote is formed. So very frustrating for you to be utterly and completely refuted by science, isn't it?

[mistermack]

adjective: individual

1. single; separate.

You don't exactly help your own case, do you ?
But thanks for making mine irrefutable.

[Seth]

No more sophistry than pretending that a single cell is a human being, in the widely accepted understanding of the word.

Er, the "widely accepted understanding" of any word is found in the dictionary, which accurately reflects such things, and I have previously cited the references which prove you wrong, and I'll do so again:

A zygote (from Greek ζυγωτός zygōtos "joined" or "yoked", from ζυγοῦν zygoun "to join" or "to yoke"), is a eukaryotic cell formed by a fertilization event between two gametes. The zygote's genome is a combination of the DNA in each gamete, and contains all of the genetic information necessary to form a new individual (added emphasis properly contextualised) Source.

The zygote, the first cell of a new organism with an individual genome (2n4C) is created by the alignment of the maternal chromosomes together with the paternal ones on a common spindle apparatus. Source (emphasis added)

Darn all them pesky biologists and scientists who actually understand what happens when the zygote is formed.

Yes, those biologists really understand. That's why no dictionary, as you so helpfully confirm with your quotes from them, defines the zygote as a human being.

That's because a "zygote" does not have to be of human DNA to be a zygote.

If that was the case, the definition of 'zygote' would read "A zygote is a new individual." Your argument falls down because it does not. It is defined as containing all of the genetic information necessary to form a new individual. Darn all them pesky biologists and scientists who actually understand what happens when the zygote is formed. So very frustrating for you to be utterly and completely refuted by science, isn't it?

Er, that's exactly what the quotes do say. The section highlighted by you is not stated properly in context at all. This is what you posted:

A zygote (from Greek ζυγωτός zygōtos "joined" or "yoked", from ζυγοῦν zygoun "to join" or "to yoke"), is a eukaryotic cell formed by a fertilization event between two gametes.The zygote's genome is a combination of the DNA in each gamete, and contains all of the genetic information necessary to form a new individual (added emphasis properly contextualised).

Both statements are true. A zygote is a specific type of cell (eukaryotic) formed by the gametes of the parents. The zygote also contains all the information necessary to form a new individual. This cannot however be read to imply that the zygote is not a new individual. It merely points out that the information needed exists within the zygote. And, as science, biology and fact would have it, the formation of a new individual organism is exactly what happens when the zygote is formed, as explicated by the preceding quote, "The zygote, the first cell of a new organism with an individual genome ... is created by ...."

What part of "...the first cell of a new organism...is created by...[the union of the gametes, which is defined as the formation of the zygote]" is unclear to you?

You are really getting desperate in your lame pettifogging attempts to deny science, reason, and fact in order to justify your position on abortion by denying the fundamental nature of the living human being inside of the woman.

Your argument demonstrates the deep discomfort pro-abortionists have with the notion of defending the lives of some human beings while disrespecting and disregarding the lives of other human beings. Only by denying the basic humanity of the fetus are pro-abortionists able to live with their own guilt and shame at the idea of killing an innocent human being that has done wrong to no one merely because they have a pathological desire to pander to the feminist agenda. It's really sad to see such desperate and pathetic rationalizations from those who portray themselves as intellectuals.

Why don't you just admit the truth and then deal with the moral and ethical issues of abortion in a rational and logical manner rather than trying so hard to evade the consequences of your anti-intellectual, anti-scientific, anti-biological self-serving rationalizations?

It may be more difficult, but in the end the conclusions formed are much more likely to be rational and morally justifiable than simply trying to deny the facts of science and biology.

[Seth]

adjective: individual

1. single; separate.

You don't exactly help your own case, do you ?
But thanks for making mine irrefutable.

The zygote is separate and single from the mother. In fact, the egg is free-floating in the fallopian tubes, where it is fertilized by the free-floating sperm, and it continues to free-float for 22 to 26 hours until the zygote is formed, at which point it free-floats its way to the uterine wall and implants, where it remains separate from the mother as its own unique individual living human being. The fact that it is within the mother's womb, which is defined as:

[yoo-ter-uh s]

Word Origin

noun, plural uteri
[yoo-tuh-rahy] (Show IPA), uteruses. Anatomy, Zoology
1.
the enlarged, muscular, expandable portion of the oviduct in which the fertilized ovum implants and develops or rests during prenatal development; the womb of certain mammals.

does not make the ovum part of the mother. From the instant the zygote forms throughout development until it leaves the womb it is always "separate" and "single", just as a tapeworm is a separate, single, unique living organism with its own distinct genetic code that happens to reside within the host organism.

You really should try harder or give it up altogether because your posts are flatly stupid and should embarrass the hell out of you.

[mistermack]

God, your trolling is getting more and more clownish.

If the Ovum/fetus is at all times separate from the mother, you can have no objections to it being SEPARATED from the mother then, can you, Einstein?

I love to see you wriggling in your own net.

[Hermit]

What part of "...the first cell of a new organism...is created by...[the union of the gametes, which is defined as the formation of the zygote]" is unclear to you?

No part at all. It is also crystal clear to me that you insist on ignoring nine rather important words in a definition you provided yourself as if it supported rather than contradicted your assertion. Here it is again. I underlined and bolded them for you this time.

A zygote (from Greek ζυγωτός zygōtos "joined" or "yoked", from ζυγοῦν zygoun "to join" or "to yoke"), is a eukaryotic cell formed by a fertilization event between two gametes. The zygote's genome is a combination of the DNA in each gamete, and contains all of the genetic information necessary to form a new individual

[Brian Peacock]

Does anyone think that reducing access to termination services decreases the demand for abortion?

[Hermit]

Does anyone think that reducing access to termination services decreases the demand for abortion?

Not I. Unsafe practices involving coathangers and septic conditions will return instead, and, as is still the case in Ireland, travel to other countries will increase. As usual, the women with lesser means will suffer from such reductions the most.

[mistermack]

Apparently, the popular way for girls to induce abortion in Chile is to step out in front of a car.
Or diving down stairs.

It's the enormous stigma attached to being pregnant.
Even though many of them were raped by their fathers.

[Seth]

God, your trolling is getting more and more clownish.

Only to clowns.

If the Ovum/fetus is at all times separate from the mother, you can have no objections to it being SEPARATED from the mother then, can you, Einstein?

"Separate from" and "dependent upon" are two entirely different concepts, something you seem unable to comprehend. Your gut biota, consisting of an entire ecosystem that you depend on for your life and health,is "separate" from you in every way except physical position in space, which is exactly the same thing that differentiates the ovum from the mother. But just as you are dependent on your gut biota for health and life, your gut biota are dependent on you for their health and life, just as the ovum is dependent on, but not part of the mother. This does not make your gut biota, comprised of organisms that may or may not be eukarotic organisms, part of your human tissue, and the same is true of the zygote/blastocyst/embryo/fetus. Location, location, location.

I love to see you wriggling in your own net.

I love to see you making foolish and ignorant claims masquerading as rational arguments in spite of the fact that every time you do, I authoritatively refute them. Thanks for being such a perfect troll-foil.

[Seth]

What part of "...the first cell of a new organism...is created by...[the union of the gametes, which is defined as the formation of the zygote]" is unclear to you?

No part at all. It is also crystal clear to me that you insist on ignoring nine rather important words in a definition you provided yourself as if it supported rather than contradicted your assertion. Here it is again. I underlined and bolded them for you this time.

A zygote (from Greek ζυγωτός zygōtos "joined" or "yoked", from ζυγοῦν zygoun "to join" or "to yoke"), is a eukaryotic cell formed by a fertilization event between two gametes. The zygote's genome is a combination of the DNA in each gamete, and contains all of the genetic information necessary to form a new individual

As I said, this is a true statement, but is not a statement that determines the nature of the zygote with respect to its origin and existence. It does contain all the information to "form a new individual", meaning that it does not require further genetic information for a fully-developed human being to develop. It does not mean that the zygote is not already a "new individual," as demonstrated by the companion quote which you ignore :

The zygote, the first cell of a new organism with an individual genome... is created by the alignment of the maternal chromosomes together with the paternal ones on a common spindle apparatus.

You can argue that the new organism is not "created by" God all you like, but you cannot rationally argue that a new organism is not created by the formation of the zygote. That's simply scientific and semantic nonsense.