It will always be a human. Always. Even when it decays to nothing but its skeletal form, it is still a human. From conception to decaying corpse. Human.

I am aware of your position regarding "when life begins," but I'm not sure anyone but you can actually understand it.

---

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR

We can dig up Abe Lincoln's bones and yes they are human remains, and my shoes and the photo on my driver's licence are also human - but that's not what we're talking about here.

my poition is very simple. im not even the only onw in this thread to state it. anyone here can understand it:

biological boundaries are fuzzy and
there is no scientific consensus for when life begins therefore any attempt to pick a point is arbitrary.

---

who's smarter than you're? i'm!

Given that we are talking about human life, why on earth would you NOT give it the benefit of the doubt?!?!?!?!

---

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR

This would be my position as well. And science is only muddling the question - not answering it. For example, Roe vs Wade stated that life begins when the fetus can be vital out side the womb . . . but whatever how many weeks that in 1970's - it is much earlier than that now - SO even a marker such as this is a moving target. Another example: someone who is designated brain dead - with their prior permission, we harvest their major organs. Yet they even brain dead still likely have 100,000x more vital brain cells than an early fetus.

Did you get that from the doc who wrote the fake sick notes for you and your wife?

---

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR

You might, I might, venegard might . . . but we're discussing how to apply a rule or guideline to a society or culture. Don't take this so personal.

at what point? i would at some point, but much later than you do.

---

who's smarter than you're? i'm!

This is a weary and sophomoric way to fall on your sword. Be a man!!

I don't take it personally. As I said several times, I would not outlaw it either. But, it is absurd to ignore what it is.

---

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR

Never weary or sophomoric to remind you of your moronic behavior.

---

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR

you have no clue how moronic I can be . . .

I remember it like it was yesterday. Including how proud he was of his wife for doing it.

you didn't read or remember it well - my wife did not use any doctor's notes . . . we took our lumps and she lost several days of pay

have you recovered from that devastating blow yet?

Advances in science has made the argument when human life begins more tenable and interesting, but science doesn't actually answer the question.

Simply not true. Science has learned more detail about the process, to the point where it's possible to pinpoint more precisely during that process when a new, individual life exists. It isn't getting more obscure, it's becoming more clear.

Regardless, after fertilization, a new, human life exists. It isn't arguable, and all the dishonest fussing over it won't change the fact.

Is a zygote a human life, or not? According to science, it is. End of story.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

there is no scientific consensus for when life begins therefore any attempt to pick a point is arbitrary.

I love how "scientific consensus" evolved from a way to insist that unproven science was true, to the standard by which proven, known science can be discredited. The irony is stunning.

As far as "arbitrary," fertilization is the one non-arbitrary point of the process. As the origin of the organism- the earliest stage of its development- it's the one point at which you can make a clear case that something is fundamentally different. All the others are just benchmarks, some more significant than others, some more convenient than others, none of them more significant, really, and few as easy to identify clearly.

I'm going to ask you the same questions I've been asking, maybe you could have the courtesy to answer them for a change.

Is a zygote alive?

Is a zygote human?

Is a zygote a discrete being, distinct from it's mother?

Does the zygote develop according to internal direction?

Is the zygote an organism?

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

wtf? do you know what scientific consensus means? when has it ever been used to insist unproven science is true?

---

who's smarter than you're? i'm!

Just answer the questions.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

will you answer several of mine that youve been ignoring throughout this thread?

your questions arent the gotchas that you may assume them to be and they certainly dont conflict with my position.

---

who's smarter than you're? i'm!

it only appears to be a devastating blow to yourself and JSA -

It would be up to you to provide some evidence to back this up . . . I would bet that the percent of scientists that consider a zygote to be a human life to be less than 50% . . . but I love to see data to the contrary.

In terms of classifying it with a word, you are correct.

Now is it okay to kill it? Different question.

---

-----------------------------Baron Von Speedypants
-----------------------------RunTraining articles here:
http://forum.slowtwitch.com/...runtraining;#1612485

Just answer the questions.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

It is a different question, and people aren't obliged to answer one way or the other. They're obliged to acknowledge basic biological facts, though.

I would argue that it's not OK to kill it, because as a distinct human being, it has innate moral value. Others disagree. But I'm not willing to have that debate until we've established the bare minimum in terms of acknowledging the reality of what we're talking about. If someone is going to sit there and tell me it's OK to kill and embryo because there's no scientific consensus that it's human or that it's alive or some other rank stupidity, I'm not willing to engage them in a discussion about the morality of killing it, because they aren't dealing honestly from the get go.

You, for instance, acknowledge that it's a human being, but don't assign any particular value to human beings per se, but only their minds. Or possibly their connections with other human beings. I'll talk about that with you. (I don't think you have a very convincing case.)

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."