• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Carl Sagan - Abortion Debate - A Scientific View

Here is what else is worth repeating: The vast majority of abortions are not performed because of rape/incest or to save the life of the mother.

Further, there is a difference between executing an innocent whose only "crime" is being alive and executing a convicted criminal (who, BTW, had legal representation).

I think you're missing my point. If you are "pro-life" solely because you are trying to save the unborn, but you make an exception for rape, you are saying it's okay to kill a rape embryo, but not the others. I do not think that embryos are persons or human beings, so for me to be pro-choice is not saying it's okay to kill any persons or human beings for being alive. For me, an embryo is not a someone who has a life - it is the potential to make someone who will have a life. But if you honestly believe that an embryo is a person, a human being, who already has its own life, then to say it's okay to kill some of them but not the others is objective evidence that you are not trying to save them, but to do something very different.
 
The abortion debate - Carl Sagan <-- clicky

(there are multiple pages to read - sorry if it's too long for some)

I think Carl Sagan makes some extremely valid and highly intelligent points in this writing.

I love his points that "the right to life" only exists for human life, and only when we define it in terms we like. There are always exceptions to "the rule".

I love that he points out that each sperm and each egg is indeed "alive" - yet for many they are allowed to "die".

He mentions the hypocrisy among many "right-to-lifers" who also want to limit sex education and the availability of birth control.

There's some history of abortion in this piece, and the 4th (last) page is strikingly simple in it's scientific approach.

I know these abortion threads are highly emotional and will never change anyone's mind, but I also think Sagan knocks this out of the park.

What's highly frustrating is that many of us have repeatedly made these exact same points and arguments - and many people will only listen if someone like Sagan pipes in?

But I disagree with you - these debates do change people's minds . . . not in mass numbers. Debates never change everyone entirely in one fell swoop - but they do have impact, get people to see another view and another reasoning. AT the very least - if people are receptive they become capable of at least seeing things from a different point of view.
 
What's highly frustrating is that many of us have repeatedly made these exact same points and arguments - and many people will only listen if someone like Sagan pipes in?

But I disagree with you - these debates do change people's minds . . . not in mass numbers. Debates never change everyone entirely in one fell swoop - but they do have impact, get people to see another view and another reasoning. AT the very least - if people are receptive they become capable of at least seeing things from a different point of view.

I think you're right; alternative ideas presented respectfully do tend to percolate in the minds of those who are thoughtful.
 
The abortion debate - Carl Sagan <-- clicky

(there are multiple pages to read - sorry if it's too long for some)

I think Carl Sagan makes some extremely valid and highly intelligent points in this writing.

I love his points that "the right to life" only exists for human life, and only when we define it in terms we like. There are always exceptions to "the rule".

I love that he points out that each sperm and each egg is indeed "alive" - yet for many they are allowed to "die".

He mentions the hypocrisy among many "right-to-lifers" who also want to limit sex education and the availability of birth control.

There's some history of abortion in this piece, and the 4th (last) page is strikingly simple in it's scientific approach.

I know these abortion threads are highly emotional and will never change anyone's mind, but I also think Sagan knocks this out of the park.

So you're going to drag Carl Sagan through the abortion debate? Unbelieveable!!

Keep it classy.
 
I think you're right; alternative ideas presented respectfully do tend to percolate in the minds of those who are thoughtful.

I agree with this also the other issue is honesty, facts VS opinion, unfortunately there are a few people here that ignore facts and only use opinion.
 
I agree with this also the other issue is honesty, facts VS opinion, unfortunately there are a few people here that ignore facts and only use opinion.

Also unfortunately, there are a very few who flatter themselves that they are the arbiters of what is "truth" and who harangue others very childishly and demand they produce "facts" when yet another fact is that they themselves understand neither inductive nor deductive reasoning.

Which really wouldn't be a problem if they weren't also so rude and childish. You know, like the folks that keep score by counting what they perceive as "dodges."
 
Also unfortunately, there are a very few who flatter themselves that they are the arbiters of what is "truth" and who harangue others very childishly and demand they produce "facts" when yet another fact is that they themselves understand neither inductive nor deductive reasoning.

Which really wouldn't be a problem if they weren't also so rude and childish. You know, like the folks that keep score by counting what they perceive as "dodges."

they were factual dodges :shrug:

as always by all means, if thats the opinion you have of those people simple provide FACTS to prove them wrong on anything they actually deemed as factual and teach them a lesson, Id LOVE for you to do this but my guess is you wont because you cant. So in the end i guess its only you that has the issue with reasoning isnt it? :) Fantasy world is nice but it all comes crumbling down when facts bring that world back to reality.

let me know when your ready to provide any facts that are contrary to anything i identified as such, or run and hide as usual.
 
If anyone is interested, after a little search I found this article in Billions and Billions P.196 - 215. :)
 
And Liberals want to force me to decide how much to pay and to whom regardless of their talents and contributions, and want to force me to pay people to take months off to have babies and give them a month of vacation to every employee in addition to all of that. Liberals want to force me to give up my guns that have never been used in a crime; the list goes on. I am quite progressive---I am just not into the forcing people to do things. We should provide opportunities, but should not force outcomes for people who willfully refuse to partake in those opportunities.
. As long as you support don't form of government and you are not an anarchist, the existence of government will perpetuate force. That obviously begins with taxation, and extends to all other forms of regulation on the products you buy and produce, and where you can legally engage in various activities. If you really want to remove all government force, then you need to completely remove government.
 
Carl Sagan is a Mute...
 
Actually, I think the greatest hypocrisy of those against abortion is that they are also for the death penalty and against universal healthcare.

This illustrates how they are not so much "pro-life" as they are "anti-choice".

You are over generalizing. Not all those that oppose abortion oppose universal healthcare. Further, opposing how universal healthcare is funded, structured, and applied is not the same thing as opposing universal healthcare.
 
The abortion debate - Carl Sagan <-- clicky

(there are multiple pages to read - sorry if it's too long for some)

I think Carl Sagan makes some extremely valid and highly intelligent points in this writing.

I love his points that "the right to life" only exists for human life, and only when we define it in terms we like. There are always exceptions to "the rule".

I love that he points out that each sperm and each egg is indeed "alive" - yet for many they are allowed to "die".

He mentions the hypocrisy among many "right-to-lifers" who also want to limit sex education and the availability of birth control.

There's some history of abortion in this piece, and the 4th (last) page is strikingly simple in it's scientific approach.

I know these abortion threads are highly emotional and will never change anyone's mind, but I also think Sagan knocks this out of the park.
Carl Sagan was clearly talking out of his hat. He was pontificating with total ignorance of basic biology.

A sperm is a haploid male reproductive gamete cell. A haploid cell contains only half the chromosome set (n=23) which, in this case, all contributed by the man.

An ovum (egg cell) is a haploid female reproductive gamete cell. Again, a haploid cell contains only half the chromosome set (n=23) which, in this case, all contributed by the woman.

No human being exists as a haploid organism with just only one set of 23 chromosomes from a single source as this defies the law of nature and thus never ever happened.

However, all human beings are diploid organism. A diploid human organism has 2 sets of human chromosomes (2n = 46) in which one set comes from the father and the other set comes from the mother. This is the law of nature and it is the law of procreation.

A human zygote is a diploid organism and remains so throughout the entire embryonic development, even all the way throughout its entire human lifespan unto death. Being a diploid organism, a human zygote also has 2 sets of human chromosomes (2n=46) containing human DNA which is unique onto itself in which one set comes from the father and the other set comes from the mother just like every human being in this planet, including you and me.

Therefore, a gamete cell is just a cellular life whereas the life of a diploid human being like you and me and of course the human zygote, is a human life, which to be specific, a human life of a human being.

This is a very basic biology. Now, talk about "right to life" and your "excepton" ... I don't think you like to hear about the "exception" of coat hanger and back alley, do you? Neither do I, with regards to the unborn life. Sorry to rip you apart but shame on you, Carl.

Too bad he can't be corrected since he's six feet under.
 
Last edited:
Actually, I think the greatest hypocrisy of those against abortion is that they are also for the death penalty and against universal healthcare.

This illustrates how they are not so much "pro-life" as they are "anti-choice".

How is that hypocritical? You just brought up three very different situations, people are allowed to have different responses to different situations without being hypocritical.

Most pro-life people are against abortion because it results in the death of an innocent human. The debate over the death penalty involves how we think violent offenders (not innocent humans) should be sentenced. Health care in America is again an entirely separate topic so how is one hypocritical based on their approach and response to completely separate issues?
 
The abortion debate - Carl Sagan <-- clicky

(there are multiple pages to read - sorry if it's too long for some)

I think Carl Sagan makes some extremely valid and highly intelligent points in this writing.

I love his points that "the right to life" only exists for human life, and only when we define it in terms we like. There are always exceptions to "the rule".

It doesn't only exist for human life, it's just more important for humans.

I love that he points out that each sperm and each egg is indeed "alive" - yet for many they are allowed to "die".

But they are not living organisms. They are not independent, developing lives.

He mentions the hypocrisy among many "right-to-lifers" who also want to limit sex education and the availability of birth control.

This, I agree with.

There's some history of abortion in this piece, and the 4th (last) page is strikingly simple in it's scientific approach.

I know these abortion threads are highly emotional and will never change anyone's mind, but I also think Sagan knocks this out of the park.

There is nothing really groundbreaking in his comments.
 
Carl Sagan was clearly talking out of his hat. He was pontificating with total ignorance of basic biology.

A sperm is a haploid male reproductive gamete cell. A haploid cell contains only half the chromosome set (n=23) which, in this case, all contributed by the man.

An ovum (egg cell) is a haploid female reproductive gamete cell. Again, a haploid cell contains only half the chromosome set (n=23) which, in this case, all contributed by the woman.

No human being exists as a haploid organism with just only one set of 23 chromosomes from a single source as this defies the law of nature and thus never ever happened.

However, all human beings are diploid organism. A diploid human organism has 2 sets of human chromosomes (2n = 46) in which one set comes from the father and the other set comes from the mother. This is the law of nature and it is the law of procreation.

A human zygote is a diploid organism and remains so throughout the entire embryonic development, even all the way throughout its entire human lifespan unto death. Being a diploid organism, a human zygote also has 2 sets of human chromosomes (2n=46) containing human DNA which is unique onto itself in which one set comes from the father and the other set comes from the mother just like every human being in this planet, including you and me.

Therefore, a gamete cell is just a cellular life whereas the life of a diploid human being like you and me and of course the human zygote, is a human life, which to be specific, a human life of a human being.

This is a very basic biology. Now, talk about "right to life" and your "excepton" ... I don't think you like to hear about the "exception" of coat hanger and back alley, do you? Neither do I, with regards to the unborn life. Sorry to rip you apart but shame on you, Carl.

Too bad he can't be corrected since he's six feet under.

Seriously? You're going to call Sagan an idiot? Really?
 
She didn't call Sagan an idiot. Care to respond substantively to what she did say?
 
Carl Sagan was clearly talking out of his hat. He was pontificating with total ignorance of basic biology.

A sperm is a haploid male reproductive gamete cell. A haploid cell contains only half the chromosome set (n=23) which, in this case, all contributed by the man.

An ovum (egg cell) is a haploid female reproductive gamete cell. Again, a haploid cell contains only half the chromosome set (n=23) which, in this case, all contributed by the woman.

No human being exists as a haploid organism with just only one set of 23 chromosomes from a single source as this defies the law of nature and thus never ever happened.

However, all human beings are diploid organism. A diploid human organism has 2 sets of human chromosomes (2n = 46) in which one set comes from the father and the other set comes from the mother. This is the law of nature and it is the law of procreation.

A human zygote is a diploid organism and remains so throughout the entire embryonic development, even all the way throughout its entire human lifespan unto death. Being a diploid organism, a human zygote also has 2 sets of human chromosomes (2n=46) containing human DNA which is unique onto itself in which one set comes from the father and the other set comes from the mother just like every human being in this planet, including you and me.

Therefore, a gamete cell is just a cellular life whereas the life of a diploid human being like you and me and of course the human zygote, is a human life, which to be specific, a human life of a human being.

This is a very basic biology. Now, talk about "right to life" and your "excepton" ... I don't think you like to hear about the "exception" of coat hanger and back alley, do you? Neither do I, with regards to the unborn life. Sorry to rip you apart but shame on you, Carl.

Too bad he can't be corrected since he's six feet under.
Been there, done that, shown you the diagram:

classi12.jpg

(taken from Classification of Organisms)


'Human diploid cell' is not synonymous with 'Human organism'. A zygote, though it is a human diploid cell, is not an individual organism - as the diagram above shows, it develops into one (or, in the case of monozygotic twins, more than one!)(or, in the case of a chimera individual, more than one zygote combine to produce one individual!)

What constitutes an 'organism' is somewhat subjective, IMO - but if you want to call it an objective definition then at least one source disagrees with you - not to mention Carl Sagan.
 
Last edited:
Been there, done that, shown you the diagram:

classi12.jpg

(taken from Classification of Organisms)


'Human diploid cell' is not synonymous with 'Human organism'. A zygote, though it is a human diploid cell, is not an individual organism - as the diagram above shows, it develops into one (or, in the case of monozygotic twins, more than one!)(or, in the case of a chimera individual, more than one zygote combine to produce one individual!)

What constitutes an 'organism' is somewhat subjective, IMO - but if you want to call it an objective definition then at least one source disagrees with you - not to mention Carl Sagan.
Twinning is just a natural phenomenon that gives rise to two indentical individual organisms. It doesn't prove that a zygote is not an organism or a newly formed human being.

A chimera individual is simply an individual who acquired the organs or tissues in utero of his/her own demised twin in utero. It is akin to someone getting an organ transplant from another individual with different DNA profiles. In either situation, it doesn't prove that a zygote is not an organism or a human being.

Your one source states nothing that disagree with me. You're just twisting it to fit your agenda. Don't you read your own source link? Your diagram does not support your spurious claim that a human zygote "is not an individual organism."

In fact, the reverse is true, that your diagram clearly stated "Zygote ---> Diploid Individual".

Here are scientific sources from human embryologists that state very clearly that a zygote or embryo is a newly formed organism:

Reference:

1. The development of a human begins with fertilization, a process by which the spermatozoon from the male and the oocyte from the female unite to give rise to a new organism, the zygote."

[Sadler, T.W. Langman's Medical Embryology. 7th edition. Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins 1995, p. 3]

2. Embryo: An organism in the earliest stage of development; in a man, from the time of conception to the end of the second month in the uterus."

[Dox, Ida G. et al. The Harper Collins Illustrated Medical Dictionary. New York: Harper Perennial, 1993, p. 146]

Yes, we had been through this. But,I see you still want to persist in your misinformation and lies in order to prop up your pro-abortion agenda at all cost.
 
Last edited:
Seriously? You're going to call Sagan an idiot? Really?

LOL. Hopefully not, anyone who would call him that didn't know much about him although I didn't know that he got into embryology or abortion issues :confused:

I knew him as the brilliant astronomer/astrophysicist that he was.
 
Twinning is just a natural phenomenon that gives rise to two indentical individual organisms. It doesn't prove that a zygote is not an organism or a newly formed human being.
Then you would say that a human being can reproduce asexually? Sounds like a 'twisting of definitions to meet your agenda' to me...

A chimera individual is simply an individual who acquired the organs or tissues in utero of his/her own demised twin in utero. It is akin to someone getting an organ transplant from another individual with different DNA profiles. In either situation, it doesn't prove that a zygote is not an organism or a human being.
In a chimera, how would you determine which were the 'donor' zygote and the 'recipient' zygote?

Your one source states nothing that disagree with me. You're just twisting it to fit your agenda. Don't you read your own source link? Your diagram does not support your spurious claim that a human zygote "is not an individual organism."

In fact, the reverse is true, that your diagram clearly stated "Zygote ---> Diploid Individual".
"Zygote ---> Diploid Individual" indicates that a zygote becomes a diploid individual, not that a zygote is a diploid individual.

I'm not quite sure how you're managing to accuse me of twisting what a diagram says without properly reading the source, when the source itself says: "In gametic meiosis, a reproductive cell produces (usually four) haploid gametes (sex cells) that combine to produce a zygote, which grows into a diploid individual. Humans and most animals reproduce through this method." Practice what you preach!


Here are scientific sources from human embryologists that state very clearly that a zygote or embryo is a newly formed organism:

Reference:

1. The development of a human begins with fertilization, a process by which the spermatozoon from the male and the oocyte from the female unite to give rise to a new organism, the zygote."

[Sadler, T.W. Langman's Medical Embryology. 7th edition. Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins 1995, p. 3]

2. Embryo: An organism in the earliest stage of development; in a man, from the time of conception to the end of the second month in the uterus."

[Dox, Ida G. et al. The Harper Collins Illustrated Medical Dictionary. New York: Harper Perennial, 1993, p. 146]
Source?

I looked it up for you: Life Begins at Fertilization with the Embryo's Conception

There's a certain irony in using a bunch of (possibly quote-mined, it's impossible to tell without the full sources) quotes from a blatantly pro-life source in order to counter 'pro-abortion misinformation and lies'. And unfortunately I can't comment further on the sources without the further context. But, as implied above, it could well be that they use a definition different from the one I provided. That is simply because scientific semantics is not absolute. An embryologist finds it useful to consider a zygote on it's own, so it refers to it as an organism. A textbook looking at the reproductive cycle does not wish to consider a zygote in this way, so it uses a conflicting definition. Ultimately we're doing the equivalent of arguing whether or not Pluto is a planet.
 
Then you would say that a human being can reproduce asexually? Sounds like a 'twisting of definitions to meet your agenda' to me...

Then you would say that a human being can reproduce asexually? Sounds like a 'twisting of definitions to meet your agenda' to me...
How did you come up with a foolish notion of "reproduce asexually"?

 
As I had covered it in my previous post and in the medical sources I quoted, a zygote is formed when the sperm from a man is infused with the ovum from a woman at conception during sexual intercourse. How is this asexual reproduction?

 
Asexual reproduction would be when the man's sperm develops itself into a zygote with his identical chromosomes/DNA or when the woman's unfertilized ovum develops itself into a zygote with her identical chromosomes/DNA.
 
In a chimera, how would you determine which were the 'donor' zygote and the 'recipient' zygote?
This is a no brainer. Of course the dead twin was the organ donor. Who do you think was the organ transplant donor in our daily medical transplant procedures? The one living with the dontated organs or the one brain dead and then demised from the car accident?

 
But, what does this gotta do with you proving your point about a human zygote not being a human organism? Nada.
 
"Zygote ---> Diploid Individual" indicates that a zygote becomes a diploid individual, not that a zygote is a diploid individual.

I'm not quite sure how you're managing to accuse me of twisting what a diagram says without properly reading the source, when the source itself says: "In gametic meiosis, a reproductive cell produces (usually four) haploid gametes (sex cells) that combine to produce a zygote, which grows into a diploid individual. Humans and most animals reproduce through this method." Practice what you preach!
A zygote IS a diploid individual.

Look at the diagram. The blue half is the diploid organism. The peach color half is the haploid gamete cell.
 
From the blue half, the bottom depicts a zygote with 2n with an arrow curving up to the middle 2n with the words "Diploid Individual". Then from the middle another arrow curves up to the top with another 2n and the word "Reproductive cell" denoting the primary oocyte or primary spermatocyte in the mature individual's gonads.

 
So, is the top half of the blue section not a dipoid organism by your take?
 
Source?

I looked it up for you: Life Begins at Fertilization with the Embryo's Conception

There's a certain irony in using a bunch of (possibly quote-mined, it's impossible to tell without the full sources) quotes from a blatantly pro-life source in order to counter 'pro-abortion misinformation and lies'. And unfortunately I can't comment further on the sources without the further context. But, as implied above, it could well be that they use a definition different from the one I provided. That is simply because scientific semantics is not absolute. An embryologist finds it useful to consider a zygote on it's own, so it refers to it as an organism. A textbook looking at the reproductive cycle does not wish to consider a zygote in this way, so it uses a conflicting definition. Ultimately we're doing the equivalent of arguing whether or not Pluto is a planet.
The two sources I quoted you in my reference are the actual sources. They are medical textbooks you can look up at any medical library or medical university in your area. The link you quoted is just a blog or website quoting the same sources plus others just like I'm quoting the original sources here. Anybody or any websites can quote the original sources be they pro-life, pro-abortion or pro-health related topics. Boy, you really have no inkling what citation of source means and how it works.

Just go to the medical library and check out those two sources. The pages are given to you so you don't have to fumble through the whole textbooks. Attacking a prolife site for simply quoting the sources ain't gonna do anything for your argument.

The statements:

1. "The development of a human begins with fertilization, a process by which the spermatozoon from the male and the oocyte from the female unite to give rise to a new organism, the zygote."

2. "Embryo: An organism in the earliest stage of development; in a man, from the time of conception to the end of the second month in the uterus."

... are simply stating a scientific fact.

 
Do you need to ask for a context when a scientific source simply stated that the earth is round and not flat?
 
 
 
Last edited:
As I had covered it in my previous post and in the medical sources I quoted, a zygote is formed when the sperm from a man is infused with the ovum from a woman at conception during sexual intercourse.

I'm not interested in responding to the rest of your post, but the above statement suggests something is wrong with your knowledge and/or your sources. A sperm is not "infused" with an ovum, as that would imply that the entire sperm is part of the zygote, which it isn't. Instead, the head of the sperm penetrates an ovum or oocyte and infuses it with its DNA, and the rest of the sperm is destroyed. If your statements of scientific facts are erroneous, you are not making your case effectively.
 
How did you come up with a foolish notion of "reproduce asexually"?

 
As I had covered it in my previous post and in the medical sources I quoted, a zygote is formed when the sperm from a man is infused with the ovum from a woman at conception during sexual intercourse. How is this asexual reproduction?

 
Asexual reproduction would be when the man's sperm develops itself into a zygote with his identical chromosomes/DNA or when the woman's unfertilized ovum develops itself into a zygote with her identical chromosomes/DNA.
Well, according to you a single human organism (a single zygote) can become two human organisms (monozygotic twins). That indicates that the zygote has undergone asexual reproduction - it has split in two. According to you, humans can undergo asexual reproduction.
 
This is a no brainer. Of course the dead twin was the organ donor. Who do you think was the organ transplant donor in our daily medical transplant procedures? The one living with the dontated organs or the one brain dead and then demised from the car accident?
You don't really understand what a chimera twin is, I think - when this occurs, there is no 'dead twin' which is mysteriously missing some body parts. There is simply a single individual, made from two ZEFs which have fused during pregnancy.

Try again?

But, what does this gotta do with you proving your point about a human zygote not being a human organism? Nada.
Both examples show that one zygote will not necessarily result in one individual, and that one individual does not necessarily originate from one zygote. This emphasises that a zygote is not an individual.
 

A zygote IS a diploid individual.

Look at the diagram. The blue half is the diploid organism. The peach color half is the haploid gamete cell.
 
From the blue half, the bottom depicts a zygote with 2n with an arrow curving up to the middle 2n with the words "Diploid Individual". Then from the middle another arrow curves up to the top with another 2n and the word "Reproductive cell" denoting the primary oocyte or primary spermatocyte in the mature individual's gonads.

 
So, is the top half of the blue section not a dipoid organism by your take?
No, a primary oocyte is not a diploid organism. Nor is a primary spermatocyte. In retrospect, I can see how your reasoning would lead you to such a conclusion - but this is flawed reasoning leading to a flawed conclusion, nothing more. A primary oocyte is as much an individual organism as a zygote is.
 

The two sources I quoted you in my reference are the actual sources. They are medical textbooks you can look up at any medical library or medical university in your area. The link you quoted is just a blog or website quoting the same sources plus others just like I'm quoting the original sources here. Anybody or any websites can quote the original sources be they pro-life, pro-abortion or pro-health related topics. Boy, you really have no inkling what citation of source means and how it works.

Just go to the medical library and check out those two sources. The pages are given to you so you don't have to fumble through the whole textbooks. Attacking a prolife site for simply quoting the sources ain't gonna do anything for your argument.

The statements:

1. "The development of a human begins with fertilization, a process by which the spermatozoon from the male and the oocyte from the female unite to give rise to a new organism, the zygote."

2. "Embryo: An organism in the earliest stage of development; in a man, from the time of conception to the end of the second month in the uterus."

... are simply stating a scientific fact.

 
Do you need to ask for a context when a scientific source simply stated that the earth is round and not flat?
 
 
OK, I'm calling bullcrap on that one. No way did you just happen to quote two medical textbooks you've got lying about in a way which just happens to exactly mirror those found on a pro-life page (or one of it's various clones around the internet)

I'm asking for context because quote mining is unfortunately common practice of those with an agenda to spread. And if you'd come to me saying that there were over 8 million webpages saying "the earth is flat then I'd want, indeed, to know some of the context of those pages.

And, as discussed elsewhere, a scientific definition is not an objective scientific fact, any more than Pluto is 'objectively' a dwarf planet.
 
I'm not interested in responding to the rest of your post, but the above statement suggests something is wrong with your knowledge and/or your sources. A sperm is not "infused" with an ovum, as that would imply that the entire sperm is part of the zygote, which it isn't. Instead, the head of the sperm penetrates an ovum or oocyte and infuses it with its DNA, and the rest of the sperm is destroyed. If your statements of scientific facts are erroneous, you are not making your case effectively.
Infuse simply means to put into or introduce something into another. It said nothing about how much infusion has to occur before it is considered proper use of the word let alone your baseless contention that it means the entire whole. So, I gather you meant to infer that there is a set amount of partial quantity of the entire whole infused before you would agree the word is used properly? In that case, mind tell me what amount? Twenty percent, 50% or what? What is your gramatical authority for making such an outcry? And where did I even say anything about the entire sperm being infused into the ovum to make it part of the zygote?


Other embryologists chose to use the word "union" which means joining together as follows:


"This cell, formed by the union of an ovum and a sperm (Gr. zygotos, yoked together), represents the beginning of a human being. The common expression 'fertilized ovum' refers to the zygote." [Moore, Keith L. and Persaud, T.V.N. Before We Are Born: Essentials of Embryology and Birth Defects. 4th edition. Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Company, 1993, p. 1. UT Call # QS604M822b1993c.2.]


While yet others chose to use the term "fertilize" as follows:


"Human development is a continuous process that begins when an ovum from a female is fertilized by a sperm from a male.[Moore, Keith L. The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology, 4th edition. Philadelphia: Saunders, 1988, p. 1. UT call # QS604M822d1988.]


And yet some chose to use the term "penetrate"...



Does that mean the entire sperm is joined together with the ovum or penetrated into it to form the zygote? Of course not. Would you then accuse the embryologists of being wrong and erroneous in stating scientific fact? What you are doing is nitpicking for fault where none exists in order to discredit your opponent. There is absolutely no substance to your unfounded qualm. FYI, there is not a single word that is so perfect and so all encompassing that it includes every conceivable connotation.


 
By the way I added the library call number "UT Call # QS604M822b1993c.2" and "UT call # QS604M822d1988" to let you know that those two medical text books can be physically located at the University of Tennessee Medical library where I had checked them out myself many years ago. You can either physically come to the UT Medical library and check them out for yourself or call the library to verify the books are there and request an inter-library loan so I don't have to deal with yet another senseless accusation of being called a bullcrap as a distraction into personal attack instead of debating the pertinent points
.
 
Last edited:
Well, according to you a single human organism (a single zygote) can become two human organisms (monozygotic twins). That indicates that the zygote has undergone asexual reproduction - it has split in two. According to you, humans can undergo asexual reproduction.
 
Well, according to you a single human organism (a single zygote) can become two human organisms (monozygotic twins). That indicates that the zygote has undergone asexual reproduction - it has split in two. According to you, humans can undergo asexual reproduction.
It is simply a phenomenon knowing as twinning. The zygote came about from the union of a sperm from the father and an ovum from the mother. Call it asexual reproduction if you insist. But, you still haven't proved that a zygote is not a human organism. Now, tell me, does cloning of Dolly's belated twin negate Dolly as an organism of the sheep species?

Of course not. So, why would twining of a zygote negate the zygote as a human organism?

You don't really understand what a chimera twin is, I think - when this occurs, there is no 'dead twin' which is mysteriously missing some body parts. There is simply a single individual, made from two ZEFs which have fused during pregnancy.

Try again?
If there were two fused zygotes developing into two fused embryos and then onto two fused fetuses, then there will be two conjoined twins, not a chimera.

Trying again isn't going to help you if you insist to prop up your abortion cause at whatever cause it takes, even to deny scientific fact and logic.

Both examples show that one zygote will not necessarily result in one individual, and that one individual does not necessarily originate from one zygote. This emphasises that a zygote is not an individual.
Your argument failed miserably. So, tell me: Is Dolly not an individual sheep now just because it now gave rise to two identical individual sheeps?

No, a primary oocyte is not a diploid organism. Nor is a primary spermatocyte. In retrospect, I can see how your reasoning would lead you to such a conclusion - but this is flawed reasoning leading to a flawed conclusion, nothing more. A primary oocyte is as much an individual organism as a zygote is.
Of course not. I didn't say they were. I said the "mature individual" i.e. an adult of reproductive age is a diploid organism.


The primary oocyte or the primary spermatocyte at mitotic phase and before meiosis is a diploid germ cell belonging to the mature individual. Therefore, it is a diploid germ cell but not a diploid organism.


To say that: "A primary oocyte is as much an individual organism as a zygote is" is just a display of a complete lack of knowledge of basic biology on your part.

For one thing: a primary oocyte or spermatocyte is destined to differentiate into an ovum or a sperm. And nothing more. If the ovum is not fertilized it will simply die as an unfertilized egg and goes out the body. If the sperm failed to find an ovum after ejaculation into the vaginal or if the man did not have ejaculation for several days, the sperm disintegrates and the body just absorbed it into the system.


A zygote, however, will grow and develop according to the blueprint instruction contained in the DNA in the course of its human development from a single cell organism to a multi-cellular organism of the same individual.

For another thing: a primary oocyte or a spermatocyte has the same identical chromosomes/DNA profiles from the source. For the primary oocyte, the source is the woman. For the primary spermatocide the source is the man. So, therefore, the primary oocyte or spermatocyte is just a cellular part or component of the host, i.e. the woman or the man.

But, the zygote is neither the cellular part or component of the host, i.e. the woman being now the mother and the man now being the father. What the zygote is, is that it is a newly formed human organism, a human offspring if you will, that has its unique DNA profiles that came about from the contribution both from the mother and the father but never identical to either of them. In other words, it is a host of itself with its own unique human chromosome/DNA makeup that is unlike anybody else in the family or in this planet.

OK, I'm calling bullcrap on that one. No way did you just happen to quote two medical textbooks you've got lying about in a way which just happens to exactly mirror those found on a pro-life page (or one of it's various clones around the internet)

I'm asking for context because quote mining is unfortunately common practice of those with an agenda to spread. And if you'd come to me saying that there were over 8 million webpages saying "the earth is flat then I'd want, indeed, to know some of the context of those pages.

And, as discussed elsewhere, a scientific definition is not an objective scientific fact, any more than Pluto is 'objectively' a dwarf planet.
There are things known as standard for reference in citation guidelines that every professional and scientist adheres to when referencing a source. Even a small error in punctuation such as a period, colon or semi-colon that are in wrong places or the order of data misplaced would cause your article to be returned for correction before acceptance for publication. There are various formats you follow, such as the AMA or the APA styles depending on which discipline your writing falls into.


Now, why don't you learn something about referencing citation before you waste time jumping all over the places. Here are two links for you to study on:

http://www4.samford.edu/schools/pharmacy/dic/amaquickref07.pdf

How to Write Citations and Bibliographies in APA Style: Memorial University Libraries

But, enough of this personal attack already. So, shall we move on or do you still want to attack my credibility even though your personal attack has no basis because the references are given for you to check out and verify for yourself your so-called "quote mining" in the medical texts from any medical libraries.

So, now you want to pull out the "scientific definition is not an objective scientific fact" card? This is not just a scientific definition pulled from thin air. This is a scientific established fact based on decades if not centuries of scientific studies, lab research, scientific observation and handling. So, if science is not objective, what else do you have that is more objective than science?

Yeah, I'm sure you want to demand context for the fact that the earth is round and not flat. Why not also ask for the context for a mathematical fact that 1 + 1 = 2?

Things always wind down to silliness when it come to abortion.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom