After proving to everyone that there really are misogynistic asshats out there who believe that women are morons, Terrance H. has challenged me to a shoot out:
I challenge the guy to a debate. We each make an opening statement and issue three replies. Our blog readers can determine the winner. I don’t normally do this, but I’ve taken an extreme dislike to the fellow. Not only that, but I wouldn’t mind rattling off like I used to in college. It should be fun.
This stems from the fact that I don’t think women are stupid, but he does:
…I don’t for a minute believe that most women realize the implication of their decision to abort. Not for a minute.
Women also don’t realize the implications when they decide not to put on make-up in the morning, amirite?
I can’t say I’m particularly interested in a formal debate. I find them to be stuffy and they tend to let a lot of incorrect statements slip through the cracks. What’s more, I don’t want to clutter up my blog with a series of posts that don’t particularly cater to my main audience. That said, I will accept a debate that takes place within the comment section of this post.
Of course, it will help if Terrance actually knows where I stand. He seems to prefer to pretend like he knows, reflecting his tendency to act like he understands other things, such as basic biology (he doesn’t). I mean, I’m willing to repeat my positions for this bag of piss-poor rhetoric, maybe teach him a little Bio 101, but it gets tedious. Regardless,
You shoot first, Terry.
Filed under: Politics and Social | Tagged: Abortion, Challenge Accepted, Terrance H |
For the Sake of Science 
Absolutely not. Each reply is a post on our own blog, otherwise I’ll let someone else school you. I’m not about to take the chance that you might get desperate (and you will) and edit my post.
If I didn’t want people to see what you say, I could have already deleted your pingback, or the post you just made. If you’re really that afraid of being edited (which is a tactic common to Christian bloggers, actually), take screen shots of what you say.
I’m not going to clutter my blog for some guy who doesn’t understand libertarianism, rhetoric, or basic biology.
I haven’t really said anything – yet. I replied to your nonsense because I was bored; it was exactly difficult, and kept me busy all of five minutes.
No. My regret would be wasting my time articulating my position only to have it deleted by a child whose completed half a semester of college and two chapters of a biology book.
You can advance this narrative that I don’t understand this or that, but it’s all hot air. I have a degree in biology from the University of Michigan; I also have one in History from the same school.
But this isn’t about degrees or schools, but rather, your penchant to distort the facts. No embryologist in the world would tell you there exists a time as important to our human existence – a time that in fact paves the way for development – than the formation of our DNA map. No credible scientist in the world would suggest another time as important or even equally important. It all begins there. Your arguments are all philosophical, not scientific.
You can continue putting people into little boxes, but the embarrassment is yours to deal with. Not all Democrats are pro-choice; not all Republicans are pro-life; and not all Libertarians are pro-choice. Aside from that, I’m not a libertarian. Did you notice what I prefaced libertarian with? Did you imagine I did that for kicks, or maybe to imply something?
I may not understand rhetoric, but clearly you have a problem with context and critical thinking.
In any event, you can bow out of the debate if you wish. But expect a reply to your pathetic explanation of twinning in a day or two. Don’t worry, I’ll ping it back.
First of all, you have no evidence that I have ever edited anything. You’ve been here all of one day. Second, as I do with all pingbacks, I left yours up. That is direct evidence against your cowardly notion that I’m going to prevent anyone from seeing what you write. Third, if you look at my post “On Abortion”, you’ll see that I go out of my way to say I do not moderate replies. If I am going to make an exception, it has to be for a damn good reason. In that case, it involved rhetoric that wouldn’t add to the conversation. Fourth, you can feel free to contact the other posters that reply here commonly and ask them about my policies. In fact, I’ve received complaints about not moderating stupid people. Fifth, you can take screen shots. There is an add-on in Firefox for that, not to mention your PrtScn (Print Screen) button. Since you have no evidence that you will be edited, and in fact, evidence that you won’t be edited, plus the fact that you can take steps to ensure that what you say remains in its original form, you have no excuse. We can have your little debate here, continue with less formal posts as we currently have, or you can skedaddle.
Oh, you mean the process of development? You must mean that because that’s what it takes to form our DNA map.
Says the guy who labeled me along with every single pro-lifer, despite my considerably more nuanced position. Don’t you get tired of projecting constantly?
I imagine you like to usurp ethical theories for your positions when convenient.
Actually, I’m quite familiar with American libertarianism. It’s an abuse of an ethical theory, a way to cover up greed with the faint smell of respectability. It’s also a fundamental misunderstanding of what libertarianism is.
It would be too embarrassing for you to allow a fundamentalist Christian to teach you simple biology, so deleting my comment, or changing it, would be your only recourse. All you pro-choicers are petty.
Oh, darn. I labeled again! Well, at least accurately.
This is either deliberate obfuscation, or sheer ignorance. I’m not sure which.
The DNA map of a unique individual is completed when the male spermatozoon and the female oocyte meet. That is the beginning of the human being, and everything else is development, which lasts until death.
If you want to impress your readers with your knowledge of biology, first you have to actually know biology. Just a suggestion.
How can you possibly be expected to discuss complex issues in the realm of science when you contradict yourself constantly?
Nuanced position? Hardly. “Individual autonomy!” Remember that rant, child?
The name of my blog is Right Libertarian,genius. American Libertarian is a web address I chose because it was the only decent one available.
In any event, I’m not hear to argue political theories with you, or anything else for that matter. You have declined the debate. Fine. But expect a response in a day or two nonetheless.
Reading National Geographic and Scientific American does not entitle you to make a mockery out of those who actually have a biology degree, you realize. You do a great disservice to all of us.
Uh-huh.
I’m not convinced you know what you’re talking about. You appear to be wholly ignorant of what development is, why it’s called a process, the role of epigenetics, and how local environment impacts embryos.
When I copied your rhetoric, it was to mock you. When you attempt to steal the rhetoric of others, it’s clear you’re doing it because you’re angry. That wasn’t particularly my goal, but I’ll count that as a success.
That was a reference to the ultrasound bills that have been introduced in a number of states, not my position on abortion. If you can’t keep up with the topic, you don’t get to call someone else a child.
If you don’t want to own up to the label you have given yourself, then you should create a new blog or purchase a new domain name. At any rate, whatever you want to call yourself, you obviously don’t understand libertarianism. Stop abusing the concept for your own ends.
It’s an ethical theory, but I digress.
I don’t care what you’re convinced of; you’re an idiot.
Your little quibble over nomenclature is not impressing me. We all know development is a process. In fact, I think I made that clear when I said human develop begins at fertilization and ends with death. We continually develop. We are not static, but our humanity certainty is; people like you would have us all believe different; have us believe that humanity is something achieved through consciousness. Nonsense.
Libertarianism is both a political and ethical theory, you halfwit. And if you don’t believe me, pick up an encyclopedia. It might do you some good.
But interesting you’ve attempted to usurp the debate by criticizing the name of my blog. How incredibly petty of you…
All you’ve done so far is unknowingly describe development and then label it “humanity”. You haven’t described why development is important, or more specifically, why the beginning of development is more important than, say, the emergence of a gamete cell that eventually becomes a newborn. You’re just picking an arbitrary spot.
You must be a creationist, right? It’s those people who I invariably hear dismissing biological arguments they don’t understand.
We’re talking about embryology and how it fundamentally affects development and the eventual human. Well, I am. I don’t think you really paid attention enough in your bio classes to know what’s going on.
You’ve been copying my phrasing and rhetorical points from the get-go. It’s projection, pathetic, and patently obvious. But regardless, it’s ludicrous for you to deny being angry, especially since that isn’t even particularly an insult.
Goodness. Please try and keep up with what’s going on. I’m saying you don’t have any clue what libertarianism is when you apply qualifiers like “American” and “Right” in front of it.
It’s an ethical theory that is primarily utilized in politics. Its origins are ethical in nature, and its essence remains as such.
Uh-huh. Says the guy who has called me retarded and a tool, said my school in unaccredited, labeled me a murderer, and claimed that I’m going to edit his posts despite having no evidence for such a position, and in fact, evidence against such a position.
You’re welcome to keep chirping away here, acting as if I didn’t accept your silly little challenge, but it’s quite clear that I’m more than prepared to dismantle your ill-considered views.
Oh, and by the way, if you’re so afraid I’m going to edit your posts, why have you made 5 replies here already? Do you just not know how to take screen shots? Are you hoping to gain a few hits to your blog? Or is it that you’re intellectually dishonest? I really can’t figure it out because what you say and what you do are in conflict. And I mean this quite genuinely.
much in the way of formal debates that are videotaped live, i’d like to throw out a question from the audience (although i realize michael has one more response according to the *almost* agreed upon terms of this debate): michael, is a person’s dna map complete at the moment of conception as terrance says it is? and terrance, given that your position is that the consciousness has no bearing on whether or not a human is truly alive, should a person be considered as alive on the backside of consciousness as they should on the front side? how do you feel about keeping alive people in likely irreversible comas? or those who have strokes or traumatic brain injuries and become vegetables? and also, if you think that a person in any of those situations should have the plug pulled on them, would you be willing to concede that the issue of whether or not someone is truly alive is more complicated than simply possessing a complete dna map? to both of you, thanks for the debate. i’m finding it very interesting.
No, of course not. For instance, how strongly and how long genes are turned on during development will affect how the formation of tissues, organs, and even how other genes will ultimately work or not work. Expression patterns clearly matter in the formation of what we eventually call “human”. It doesn’t all just happen in one moment of magic like Terrance says.
Michael, you’re more patient than me. I’d have blocked this dimwit ages ago. Best of luck with him.
This is not a debate at all.
Even if it did turn into a formal debate, those are not very useful.
I’m picking an arbitrary spot? Please. The minute a new genetic creature comes into existence is a pretty important starting point, so says every embryologist in the world.
We all start our lives as a single-cell. Simple. Or, didn’t they teach you that in your unaccredited biology classes?
Now you’re the one projecting. If you don’t understand what undifferentiated cells have to do with epigenesis, then not only do you have no future in biology, but you will have proved yourself a liar. A biology major who doesn’t understand Bio 101? Please.
Non sequitur. It’s not an eventual anything; it is a something, from the moment of fertilization.
Environment is still a moot point. You’re not even issuing replies so much as obfuscating. Even your blog readers are starting to realize this….
thanks again, gents. i gotta agree that online flame fests are quite a bit more fun than formal debates.
Don’t move the goal posts. You have yet to describe why the start of development marks the beginning of humanity versus any other point.
Certainly not as simple as you. You still need to describe why a zygote is more important than separate gametes.
You’ve waived off arguments that defeat your contention that DNA is set in stone at the point of conception. You’re wrong and it’s obvious.
Oh, and after reviewing your site, it turns out you are a creationist. Fancy that.
You tried to move the argument away from embryology and how environment affects development, DNA, and the end genetic product. That you don’t seem able to keep up is your problem, not mine.
I’m arguing about the end genetic product up to the point of live birth. You’re trying to conflate the term “human”, which only has a technical meaning in the context of evolution, with the embryologically technical concept of development. What’s more, in addition to not even being able to keep up with the discussion, even if we were talking about what you think we’re talking about, you’re begging the question anyway.
First, you aren’t able to keep up. Second, one reader asked questions, another overtly supported me, and I’m willing to bet that Bob was pointing out that the whipping you’re getting as a result of your lack of understanding of basic biology is making this into more of a beat down than a debate.
It would be too embarrassing for you to allow a fundamentalist Christian to teach you simple biology
My post references teaching you Bio 101.
How can you possibly be expected to discuss complex issues in the realm of science when you contradict yourself constantly?
I talked about this being a complicated issue that cannot be discussed if people like you aren’t willing to utilize basic biology. Furthermore, you obviously swiped my use of the word “constantly”, something I emphasized.
Not all pro-choice people are condescendingly stupid, but the opponent in this round, most assuredly, meets the textbook definition of both condescending and stupid.
Here you were referencing my original post. In that post of mine, I directly called recent Republican actions condescending.
I rather think the Left hates women.
My original post was about how I’m apprehensive about claiming Republican motivation is hatred of women.
Get Better Arguments!
This would be acceptable by itself, but since all you seem able to do is copy the rhetoric of others while projecting intensely, it comes across as old and stale. However, you did use an exclamation point and I didn’t. I don’t particularly like lazy writing, though.
You aren’t fooling anyone here.
Dear. Now I need to borrow from your rhetoric: Just read a philosophy book.
Your words are unconvincing when you end by claiming censorship despite your persistent posting here. It appears you aren’t afraid of being edited in any other instance.
lulz
Yes, Michael, that is exactly what I meant.
What other possible point could it be? None!
The zygote is a separate genetic entity with the ability to reproduce (cell division), acquire sustenance, respond to stimuli, and adapt. What non-living thing does that? None. And because it’s human, because it’s a separate, unique, 43-chromosomed individual, it is a human being.
Not even your pathetic obfuscation can escape those irrefutable facts, that lend themselves to no other conclusion or context. End of story.
Birth, notochord formation, consciousness and so on are all personhood arguments; something science cannot define. You may use science to solidify your philosophical argument, but at the end of the day, it’s still a philosophical, not scientific, argument. End of story.
Oh, shut up, you impossible child! You have offered zero arguments in this thread. You’ve obfuscated and asked me to explain this or that – because you can’t – and claimed victory. You’re the most pathetic excuse for a “biology major” I have ever come across.
A gamete is part of another unique individual, you idiot. That’s the difference.
Your third-rate understanding of biology is not impressing anyone, except some of your readers. Others have e-mailed me, one of whom waxing:”While I disagree with your politics, you certainly seem to have a good handle on this discussion. You have opened my eyes a little. Thanks.”
I can forward you the e-mail if he agrees.
Regardless, I just find it funny that a fundamentalist Christian has stolen one of your readers. LOL.
It has nothing to do with this discussion. The genetic makeup of the individual is decided, set in stone, the moment fertilization occurs. Activation and mutation – caused by whatever – are neither here nor there.
Whether you realize it or not, you’re alluding to undifferentiated cells with this argument. That’s ridiculous.
Everything that makes up a human being is decided the moment fertilization occurs. That is our DNA map, you tool, and that is what I said.
You are talking about comparatively minor changes (i.e., activation, mutation, et cetera…); I’m talking about the creation of an entirely new DNA map, belonging to a unique, separate organism. You’re deflecting again.
Anyway. The developing organism IS a human being. I’m conflating nothing.
If you honestly do not understand the importance of the creation of new DNA map that never before existed, then there is no hope for you. You might as well put on a pair of red shoes and walk the street for a lifetime.
There is absolutely no other time during the development process that is as important. End of story.
Oh, read a book. And quit obfuscating. You’ve been doing it since we started this discussion. You’re embarrassing yourself and your own readers’ dispatches prove it.
This isn’t a debate, child. This has sadly become a massacre. You’ve offered no biological or scientific justification for your position, and you’ve been unable to refute mine, except to issue fallacy after fallacy.
Let’s see: You mentioned gametes. I answered it. You mentioned epigenesis. I answered it. You claim the end genetic product – the result of activation and mutation, among other things – is akin to the creation of an entirely new genetic being, or DNA map. And then you have the audacity to declare victory? Pathetic.
I wasn’t searching for the lowest common denominator, but I’ve found him.
I was mocking you, clown. That’s why I copied some of your words. It seemed as though you were accusing me of plagiarizing your biological arguments. Ha! Not only would I never plagiarize, but if I were to, it would be the work of someone who actually knows what he or she is talking about, and not someone winging it, moving the debate to other subjects when overwhelmed.
Read the link. I offered it. Educate yourself.
Oh, don’t worry. I don’t plan on meandering over anymore. I’m frankly tired of all the obfuscation and cupcake challenges. I said I would reply to your whole twinning bit in a day or two. Other than that, I’m finished with you.
Now please issue another response with more obfuscation, because it’s the only thing keeping your head above water right now. Sooner or later, more of your readers are going to realize what you’re doing and reject you and this entire shit blog.
Dave,
I’ve always believe that where there is life, there is hope. But all your questions have a philosophical answer, not scientific. What you’re really asking is if someone in an irreversible coma is still a person, and I believe so, yes. I don’t believe one loses his or her humanity, which in my view is all that is required for personhood. It’s a static state.
And don’t let the child tell you that the DNA map of a human being is not complete the moment fertilization occurs. The DNA is the DNA of a human being and that is what I was talking about. The changes are minor; the result of activation and mutation; something that even happens to born human beings. If the DNA of a zygote is extracted and tested, the results will be: human.
Those are the facts. Have the opinion of some embryologists though.
The facts are on my side. Don’t let his obfuscation and deliberately hazy responses fool you. He doesn’t know what he is talking about.
great stuff, boys. thanks for answering my questions directly. i’m no biologist, that’s for sure, but i am very interested in hearing the voices of those who are more well-studied in field of biology than i am.
i think it bears noting, though, that this argument started over abortion; and i don’t see how you can separate philosophy from biological facts when determining right and wrong on this issue. you can’t discard philosophy as if it’s just some flight of fancy that people who don’t understand science engage in. science helps us discern what reality is, and our philosophy helps us discern what that information means to us in regards to what’s right and wrong and how we should behave.
i think both sides have been well represented here, but on this particular issue i side with michael. an undeveloped strand of human dna does not a human being make.
It seems that Terrance is of the opinion that a single grain of sand forms a heap.
So what did this accomplish?
Little was said about “…I don’t for a minute believe that most women realize the implication of their decision to abort. Not for a minute”.
Nothing much was accomplished except that I did learn a bunch of new ad hominems from Terrence.
“Because” isn’t an answer.
Your skin cells do that, too. Also, 46. You may want to retake a few bio courses.
Well, if a good biology major is one who thinks there are 43 chromosomes in a human, then you’ve got me there.
I have created a post covering abortion already, but that is neither here nor there. The issue is what you believe. That puts the onus on you. I’m not going to let you cheat in your arguments.
I guess a fetus has nothing to do with the mother.
Or one of your readers came over here from your blog. But then I don’t expect a fundie to make logical conclusions based upon the evidence.
lulz. Maybe you would like to speak with an embryologist. Or someone who works with fruit flies. Or especially someone who works with zebrafish.
“Anyway”. Oh, right. I forgot that you’re a creationist so you can’t actually delve into the foundations of biology.
That must be why so many spontaneous abortions occur, right? “Oh, this post-conception error? No big deal. It won’t affect anything!” Or twinning. Totally whatevs.
Red herrings, begging the question, and now an argument from popularity? How will my pride ever recover?
You’re projecting and stealing my rhetoric? That’s weird.
The funny thing is, when I respond to posts I do it piece by piece instead of reading the whole thing all at once. So it made me chuckle that I pointed out your use of fallacies and then your use of projection just before reading you accusing me of using fallacies.
Yes, and your answer means that skin cells are human beings. Good job.
No, you just didn’t understand it.
I always feel that people who love fallacies, such as yourself, tend to leave discussions wanting when they don’t use strawmen. Thanks for fixing that problem.
You’re repeating something I already said? That’s weird.
It’s projection, not plagiarizing.
You’re usurping my accusation about goal post moving? That’s weird.
I’ll take that as you admitting that censorship never was a real concern for you.
Same goes for the DNA of sperm.
Well, I know you keep talking about development while labeling it with the non-technical term of “human”.
Then it’s a good thing “because” has never been my answer, ‘eh?
How long do you think before readers grow tired of your puerile responses and pathetic forays into comedy? It won’t be long before they consider reading this blog rather menial work; a grotesque insult to their intelligence; an appeal to the lowest common denominator.
You may have some of these people fooled, Michael, but not me. You’re either lying and your not a biology major, or you’ve just begun your studies. Or, less likely, you’re a blind ideologue who doesn’t care about the facts. I know it’s one of those, Michael. And while one might consider that a false dichotomy, it’s warranted in this instance.
You’re quite right. But the difference is that a skin cell is only part of a unique human being, not a unique human being itself. It will never be anything other than a skin cell, generally speaking. Contrasty, the zygote is a unique human being made up of several different cells, just like you and me. (To begin, the cells are undifferentiated.) So, the comparison is not shrewd. In fact, it’s quite ridiculous.
My error. I was thinking 23 chromosomes from each parent equalling 46, but wrote 43. Maybe because 3 is one of my favorite numbers, I just had to write it. I don’t know.
No. I sat through close to four years of them; I’ve had my limit. Instead, I should carefully read my response before posting.
You did. It was a ridiculous attempt to rationalize the macabre act of abortion by dehumanizing unborn children. It was brimming with inaccuracies and assumptions that I’ve been pointing out in this thread. You have ignored my concerns by obfuscating, hoping I’ll get bored and move on.
It’s an interesting tactic. I can’t blame you for trying. If my lies and delusions of grandeur were being discovered, thrown in my face like so many tomatoes, I might try the same thing. But the crucial difference between you and me is that when I don’t know enough about a subject to debate with those who do, I abstain. You should probably do the same.
Silly child. Are you now claiming the fetus is part of the mother? Tell me: Is someone connected to a ventilator part of the ventilator? Of course not. Being dependent on something or someone does not make you part of that something or someone. It makes you —— dependent. See the difference?
Nope. He’s one of your semi-regulars.
<blockquoteBut then I don’t expect a fundie to make logical conclusions based upon the evidence.
Logical fallacy.
I don’t need to speak to anyone, but you certainly do.
A DNA map is a blueprint. In this case, a blueprint for a unique person like you and me. When the 23 chromosomes from each parent join, a unique, genetic human being is created, i.e., a DNA map of a unique individual. You’re trying to equate individual gene activation and mutation to the creation of the original DNA map. That’s not only stupid, but unscientific.
You use the “technical term” as an adjective, albeit incorrectly in most instances. I use both the adjective and the noun. When referring to an individual cell belonging to a unique person, I use the adjective. When referring to a zygote, I use the noun – correctly. If I were talking about an undifferentiated cell belonging to the zygote, I would use the adjective. It’s not very difficult to understand, so I don’t know why you’re having such trouble.
I am of the opinion that a single grain of sand is a single grain of sand. Nothing more or less. I am also of the opinion that a zygote is a human being; that an infant is a human being; that an adolescent is a human being. I am of the opinion that several zygotes, adolescents, and infants bundled together make a group, or crowd, just like several individual grains of sand bundled together would make a heap. Simple.
There are consequences to abortion. I don’t think most women are told about them; I don’t think most people know about them. I think most women realize that if the abortion is not done, a baby is born. That much is clear. And that is not what I was talking about.
Anyway, I think I’ve had enough fun. I guess if you’re looking for a challenge, it’s best not to engage someone who is mentally challenged, like ‘ol Michael.
Peace be with you all!
P.S. Michael, when I said you would come back with more of the same – obfuscation and silliness – I was quite right. Now I bet you’ll do it again, still looking to save a little face. It’s quite pathetic, but hilarious. LMAO.
I thought you said you were finished here. Is it that you just really don’t like what you say to match up with what you do?
You misused both semi-colons.
You gave three options, so it actually can’t be a dichotomy by definition.
You’re begging the question again, but at least you’re keeping up this time.
I’m a nice guy, so I’ll 100% accept that. Plus I doubt a creationist would even make such an error.
All you’ve done thus far is declare that development and humanity are the same thing, even though the latter is not a technical term outside evolution. And the onus is still on you anyway.
Since you can harvest sperms and eggs outside the host, no, I don’t see the difference according to your argument.
Bob is a regular. Dave has posted here four times, three of which were in this thread. I’ve seen a Nadia in the past, but this one only has the one post here. nomannomore has never posted outside this thread. That is with IP and email checks on everyone. So it looks like you’re making conclusions based upon flimsy evidence. What’s more, they all have agreed with me anyway. Not that the Argument from Popularity isn’t still a fallacy.
Actually, a blueprint is one of the worst analogies there is for how the genotype relates to the phenotype. It’s more like a recipe, but I digress.
One, yes you are. Two, you misused “sic”. Three, I agree this is another topic for another place.
Abortion, by definition, happens after fertilization.
You’ve just described the ad hominen fallacy, not a red herring. But my attacks actually weren’t fallacious since I wasn’t using them to debase your argument. Furthermore, I should have said your fallacy was moving the goalposts, not particularly a red herring.
Um. Do you know what begging the question means?
Sure.
No. My argument has consistently been that development is a process. It offers no clear lines in the sand, and to claim otherwise is ideological. You’re conflating terms, ignoring how a human forms, and picking arbitrary points. It is a process.
I think you’ve confused yourself. According to what you just said, you use the technical term “development” as an adjective in some instances. Unless you’re talking about a development section in music, no you aren’t. The word is a noun and only becomes an adjective when the suffix “ly” is added (or in rare instance such as the aforementioned music example). I’m always game for a good English debate, but there isn’t much use in going down that road when you haven’t got your premise straight in the first place. Maybe you meant to say “non-technical term”?
Well, with rhetoric like that, what am I to do?
I decided It was too much fun making you look like a complete fool.
No, I didn’t. But I think this is another example of the red herring you’re so fond of.
Those clauses are independent because the subject – this blog – preceded them, indicating a completely logical connection. So, you lose – again.
I gave two options in the first sentence. The third option was just another dig at you. See how things come together when proper context is applied?
No, I’m not. A zygote is a unique human being – by default. I have explained why.
The moment fertilization occurs, a continual developmental process begins. That you would ignore the beginning of that process is ideological chicanery at best; it’s not scientific.
I’m not much for appeal to authority, but I have offered you the opinion of not one, but three embryologists. They all agree with me. The beginning of the individual, the human being, is fertilization.
This has absolutely nothing to do with my question. But there you go – obfuscating again.
Either one. The recipe for a zygote is an egg and a sperm; those two combined create a blueprint. Simple.
No, I’m not. You have no proof of that, but what else is new?
No, I didn’t.
Then why did you bring it up?
Abortion, by definition, happens after fertilization.
This has nothing to do with anything. Most spontaneous abortions result from a failure to implant. That’s what you alluded to with your nonsense. My point was that implantation is important, but not as important as the very creation of the organism – the human being – being implanted.
Do I know what begging the question means? Yes. You might accuse me of begging the question for calling the organism above a human being. But the problem is that the organism, in reality, is a human being. I’m assuming nothing; I’m utilizing simple biological facts you’ve yet to grasp.
Your ridiculous argument is at odds with reality, mainstream science, and every embryology textbook in the world. The beginning of something is the beginning of something. The beginning of that process is fertilization. There is your line.
Quit trying to be clever. I was talking about the term human, as were you – originally. A skin cell is human (adjective); a zygote is human (noun).
You’re shifting the debate – yet again. If you’re having that much trouble keeping up, then give up. You’re not as clever as you think you are. Just becuase you’ve probably never had a girlfriend, played Magic throughout high school, and were considered an outcast doesn’t make you smarter than everyone. In fact, you’re quite stupid.
Before you issue another red herring, let me correct something vitally important to my point.
a zygote is a human (noun).
Complete sentences follow semicolons unless you are creating a listing. It would be irrelevant if your clauses were independent. But, of course, they are not. “a grotesque insult to their intelligence” and “an appeal to the lowest common denominator” both depend upon the previous clause. In fact, you admitted this. You just didn’t understand it.
Okay, so you gave two options. Plus that third option. Gotcha.
Here’s the problem. You haven’t bothered to really explain much, and when you have, you’ve just assumed that a fertilized egg is the same thing as a human. This stems from your continued and incessant conflation of the developmental process with a particular moment.
Yes, a specific process of development begins. Unfortunately for you, if you want to just talk about continuation all willy-nilly, then you can’t avoid the fact that a sperm has to itself develop before fertilizing an egg.
But at least you used your semi-colon correctly.
You contended that a mother is irrelevant because a fetus can be kept alive outside the womb. This then means that since sperm and eggs can be harvested outside the womb, they are somehow not a part of the host. Yet, of course they are. Furthermore, your argument is another issue of you begging the question since it already assumes that a fetus is a person.
Come on. Really? DNA is a recipe. Always. At every point. Whether it’s in sex cells or somatic cells. It is NOT a one-to-one plan like a blueprint. Ever.
Intelligent Design is creationism dressed up in a tuxedo. Any real biologist knows that. But that topic is neither here nor there.
“Sic” is used to denote when something is being quoted directly and has some sort of grammatical error in it. It ensures the reader that the original source is being transcribed and there isn’t just some mistake made on the part of the secondary writer. Since there was no spelling or grammatical error on my part, and in fact you were merely disputing the facts, you misused “sic”. You also should have put a space after it and “creationist”, but I didn’t want to nitpick quite that much.
What this gets at is that genetic responses to outside stimuli are tremendously important to the developmental process. When something goes wrong, whether it be too lengthy a period of a gene being on or off, or whatever it may be, spontaneous abortion happens. What avoids this is proper development, i.e., proper continuation of the genetic definition of the end product.
I already knew you could define development. I’m waiting for arguments supporting your case, though.
It’s just that you keep abusing punctuation marks and grammar is all.
You’re stealing my phrasing again? That’s weird.
But now that you’ve cleared up your error, you still haven’t advanced any point. You continue to use “human” as if it’s a technical word, and it isn’t (outside evolution).
I realize you’re operating with the very limited explanations provided by high school textbooks, but please consider using a search engine once in awhile. You have the world at your fingertips.
A semicolon can also be used to ensure two or more ideas are given equal weight. My clauses could be considered independent – containing both their own subject and predicate – but it doesn’t really matter because they logically followed a sequence of ideas. I chose to lend them equal weight for greater impact.
This isn’t that difficult, child. Now rather than give me English lessons – as if you ever could – let’s focus the debate. I know you’re trying save a little face, but you’re making it worse. You’re coming off as really petty now.
It wasn’t an option; it was a jab. You’re such an easy target.
Now, are you going to continue issuing red herrings?
The fertilized egg is a human. That is a biological fact I have supported with not only my own explanation, but the explanation of three different textbooks. That you would continue ignoring the painfully obvious is yet another indication of your inherent foolishness.
The development process begins upon creation of our blueprint. Without it, there is nothing to create, to develop. So, the only logical place in the proverbial sand to draw the line is fertilization. That is why every credible embryologist, biologist, and sensible person in the world regards fertilization (or, in common usage, conception) as the “primordium of the individual” (i.e., the earliest stage of development).
You ignore the very beginning of the process – by, it appears, denying it – to meet an ideological end. Nothing could be more anti-science.
Yet again you fail to understand simple biological facts. The gamete is part of a unique individual. It is a single cell of a human being that will never develop into a human being. It is but an ingredient in the creation of a human being. Nothing more or less.
I always do.
Straw man. I never said the mother is irrelevant. And I certainly didn’t say she was irrelevant because the fetus can be kept alive outside the womb. So here we have yet another example of Michael’s penchant to obfuscate, distort facts and lie.
This is the most ridiculous argument I have ever heard. This makes no sense and for fifty different reasons.
Wrong – yet again. I do not assume the fetus is a person; I assume the fetus is a human being. In the abortion debate, personhood carries legal, moral, and philosophical undertones. Any argument for or against personhood for unborn children is not scientific, but philosophical.
It’s not a recipe so much as a blueprint. The DNA provided by the gametes of two human beings provides a blueprint for another human being. The gametes of two elephants provides the blueprint for another elephant.
You can argue semantics with yourself.
Only a real idiot would suggest Creationism – the biblical explanation for our existence – and Intelligent Design – the logical conclusion that an intelligent being must have directed our evolution – are one in the same.
You’re quire right on one thing: the topic is neither here nor there. Yet, curiously, you brought it up.
You spelled creationist incorrectly, but now I see you’ve edited it like the underhanded dirt bag you are. And there is a space, or, at least there was. Have you edited that as well?
You’re pathetic.
And that has to do with what – exactly? Those things are “tremendously important” to the development of born human beings as well. The existence of a malady or some error in development does not make one less of a human being.
I have noticed your digressions are becoming more and more frequent, and have less and less in relation to the original topic. None of the above addresses the humanity of the unborn child from the moment of fertilization.
Just start at the top of the comment section of this page and work your way down.
It’s just that you keep abusing punctuation marks and grammar is all.
Never once. It’s just that you have a very limited understanding of proper English grammar. Your understanding will increase when you actually attend college. Simply creating a blog and pretending to be something doesn’t magically endow you with the knowledge and abilities associated with whatever you are pretending to be.
Silly child. It wasn’t my error. What we had was another example of Michael straying from the point in a futile attempt to save face, to appear cultured in the presence of his blog readers.
We started out debating the biological facts surrounding humanity. Then we veered off course and onto an obscure rant regarding the name of my blog, then to my understanding of the name of my blog. Then, of course, my factual understanding of libertarianism being a political theory with ethical undertones, rather than the opposite, as you contend. Then on to my faith. Then you highlighted the limitations of your word processor. And who the hell knows what topic you’ll hijack the discussion with next. My favorite color? Boxers or briefs? You decide.
If you’re trying to impress a girl with your “big brain,” then you’re screwed. Figuratively, that is.
I guess that makes all the judges in the US including the Supreme Court idiots.
Terrence, you really are quite ignorant and proud of your ignorance.
You already admitted that your subject was in the previous clause, thus making your following clauses incorrect and dependent. You’re arguing against yourself and you don’t even know it.
Only so long as you keep stealing my rhetoric.
Good job, you argued that everyone acknowledges that conception marks the beginning of the development of humans – “development” being a technical term that does not arbitrarily equate humans with the process. Stop arguing against yourself.
Did you really just say gametes do not develop into human beings? I presume you meant to say individual gametes will not develop into anything if left by themselves. But then, you aren’t careful with words.
You compared her to a ventillator, saying she has no bearing on how a fetus is defined. You undervalue her life, the process of development, and it’s a poverty of understanding that only a fundie could muster.
I was using the terms interchangeably, but that is neither here nor there. You’re still begging the question by assuming what you seek to prove. And you admitted it. Stop arguing against yourself.
A blue print is a one-to-one map that can be followed and reversed and matched up from beginning to end. You absolutely cannot do this between the genotype and phenotype; it’s just not the way life works. You’re wildly ignorant for not knowing this already.
My guess of you being a creationist panned out, giving me a small chuckle.
I guess now that you confirmed how “sic” is used, lying is your only option.
You are right about one thing, though. There is a space and I made an error there. But why you think I would edit that to make myself be wrong is just weird and irrational.
Outside stimuli does shape and define that human. One’s DNA is not set in stone and it is not merely minor alterations that are made throughout development. They are significant and important, and even result in several humans being eventually formed. But according to your logic, we would have to say that twins who form several days after conception are not individuals because, well, their “DNA map” is set from the moment of fertilization. You’re wrong and not putting in the effort that shows you actually are concerned with biology.
Oh, I love watching a fundamentalist zealot explain how anyone who disagrees with him must be ignorant or crazy! I see it all the time with folks who say “Anyone who claims to be an atheist MUST not have read the Bible, otherwise the obvious truth would have jumped out and claimed them like it did me!”
Declaring that women ‘cannot possibly understand’ what an abortion is falls into the same category, and I’m enjoying watching this latest example of Fundie Ignorance on Parade.
Careful, Copyleft. Terrance is liable to claim you’re on his side now.