Political Crossfire Forums

[The Anarchist]

Why is it that everyone thinks that we should limit evidence on when human life starts on an embryologist's opinion? Embryology is the study of the formation and development of an embryo. In the style of Eye and Mooney, how do we know embryologists are unbiased? I mean, these people chose as their career, something they are going to do for the majority of their lives, studying embryos. How can we trust them over a general biologist, whose field actually means the study of life? I don't really believe that the embryologists are biased in their research, but I believe that we can take statements that they make as scientific fact which are actually their opinions.

For instance, if an embryologist says that a life begins at conception, this is an opinion. It can't be science until the embryologist defines life and shows that at conception the qualities of a life are present and are not present beforehand. If the embryologist hasn't done that, then we are dealing with an embryologists opinion. What is so special about that? Engineers don't build machines based off of physicists' opinions. Why is the opinion of an embryologist so important?

I'm not sure how seriously this should be taken as a line of reasoning, but I'm curious what people think.

[Coral]

I have met a lot of embryologists and not one of them was anti-abortion. They all might believe life starts at conception but most all of them wouldn't be doing what they do if they didn't consider a woman's choice a big part of what they do.

[steen]

I have met several, and they consider the very question to be silly, as there is no one point where life or individual life begins.

[Coral]

steen wrote: I have met several, and they consider the very question to be silly, as there is no one point where life or individual life begins.

That's true. They consider most of these right to life embryonic arguments absurd.

[Gilbert1908]

So you are left with;

Lets not believe an entire wing of science because it doesn't support our philosophical position.

And "I HAVE MET ALOT OF EMBRYOLOGISTS" who agree with me????


Self delusion is not pursuasive boys.

[Coral]

Gilbert1908 wrote: So you are left with;

Lets not believe an entire wing of science because it doesn't support our philosophical position.

And "I HAVE MET ALOT OF EMBRYOLOGISTS" who agree with me????


Self delusion is not pursuasive boys.

I'm left with the understanding that not everything is black and white. A blastocyst is this size -> . <- and everyone should use a heavy dose of common sense, which is severely lacking in pro-life lobbyists.

[Gilbert1908]

Coral wrote: Gilbert1908 wrote: So you are left with;

Lets not believe an entire wing of science because it doesn't support our philosophical position.

And "I HAVE MET ALOT OF EMBRYOLOGISTS" who agree with me????


Self delusion is not pursuasive boys.

I'm left with the understanding that not everything is black and white. A blastocyst is this size -> . <- and everyone should use a heavy dose of common sense, which is severely lacking in pro-life lobbyists.

Common sense says that life has a beginning and an end with many points of development in between.

Common sense does not say that SIZE determines the value of human life. If it does exactly WHAT SIZE IS a human being and why is it that measurement which makes it so?

Perhaps one of your Embryologist friends will publish a peer reviewed paper stating his opinion on the SIZE theory of life?

[Gilbert1908]

Coral wrote: Gilbert1908 wrote: So you are left with;

Lets not believe an entire wing of science because it doesn't support our philosophical position.

And "I HAVE MET ALOT OF EMBRYOLOGISTS" who agree with me????


Self delusion is not pursuasive boys.

I'm left with the understanding that not everything is black and white. A blastocyst is this size -> . <- and everyone should use a heavy dose of common sense, which is severely lacking in pro-life lobbyists.

And by the way everything is not black and white. I think it is perfectly logical to say "OK so human life begins at conception, it does not posess any real value until some other point in its development" I dont agree with that statement but at least it does not deny the obvious.

It is far more intillectually honest to argue the value of a human life at its various stages than to place yourself in the position of having to deny what is factually obvious.

[The Grandmaster]

Gilbert1908 wrote: Coral wrote: Gilbert1908 wrote: So you are left with;

Lets not believe an entire wing of science because it doesn't support our philosophical position.

And "I HAVE MET ALOT OF EMBRYOLOGISTS" who agree with me????


Self delusion is not pursuasive boys.

I'm left with the understanding that not everything is black and white. A blastocyst is this size -> . <- and everyone should use a heavy dose of common sense, which is severely lacking in pro-life lobbyists.

And by the way everything is not black and white. I think it is perfectly logical to say "OK so human life begins at conception, it does not posess any real value until some other point in its development" I dont agree with that statement but at least it does not deny the obvious.

It is far more intillectually honest to argue the value of a human life at its various stages than to place yourself in the position of having to deny what is factually obvious.

I would say the denial of an obvious demonstration that something is not settled fact, and still clinging to it while ignoring any other view not convenient to your position is also not intellectually honest. The premise you cling to is not settled fact, so it is not factually obvious.

[steen]

Gilbert1908 wrote: Common sense says that life has a beginning and an end with many points of development in between. Gilbert, when it is bread and no longer dough? When does th breadbegin? is there a fixed, unique point in time when the bread begins? That is the kind of argument you are trying to make for "life" here.

Embryologists know it is a process, not an event.

[The Anarchist]

steen wrote: Gilbert1908 wrote: Common sense says that life has a beginning and an end with many points of development in between. Gilbert, when it is bread and no longer dough? When does th breadbegin? is there a fixed, unique point in time when the bread begins? That is the kind of argument you are trying to make for "life" here.

Embryologists know it is a process, not an event.

And we've provided resources to this effect that you've chosen to ignore, Gils.

[Coral]

Gilbert1908 wrote: Coral wrote: Gilbert1908 wrote: So you are left with;

Lets not believe an entire wing of science because it doesn't support our philosophical position.

And "I HAVE MET ALOT OF EMBRYOLOGISTS" who agree with me????


Self delusion is not pursuasive boys.

I'm left with the understanding that not everything is black and white. A blastocyst is this size -> . <- and everyone should use a heavy dose of common sense, which is severely lacking in pro-life lobbyists.

Common sense says that life has a beginning and an end with many points of development in between.

Common sense does not say that SIZE determines the value of human life. If it does exactly WHAT SIZE IS a human being and why is it that measurement which makes it so?

Perhaps one of your Embryologist friends will publish a peer reviewed paper stating his opinion on the SIZE theory of life?

Common sense cannot be taught.

[Gilbert1908]

TheGrandmaster1 wrote: Gilbert1908 wrote: Coral wrote: Gilbert1908 wrote: So you are left with;

Lets not believe an entire wing of science because it doesn't support our philosophical position.

And "I HAVE MET ALOT OF EMBRYOLOGISTS" who agree with me????


Self delusion is not pursuasive boys.

I'm left with the understanding that not everything is black and white. A blastocyst is this size -> . <- and everyone should use a heavy dose of common sense, which is severely lacking in pro-life lobbyists.

And by the way everything is not black and white. I think it is perfectly logical to say "OK so human life begins at conception, it does not posess any real value until some other point in its development" I dont agree with that statement but at least it does not deny the obvious.

It is far more intillectually honest to argue the value of a human life at its various stages than to place yourself in the position of having to deny what is factually obvious.

I would say the denial of an obvious demonstration that something is not settled fact, and still clinging to it while ignoring any other view not convenient to your position is also not intellectually honest. The premise you cling to is not settled fact, so it is not factually obvious.

I ask you yet again to provide ANY objective medical source that specifically declares when life begins as ALL embryology textbooks do. I am begging now ANY objective medical source ANY at ALL. I feel like Will Ferrell on the Saturday Night Live parody of Jeapordy.

[Coral]

Gilbert1908 wrote: Coral wrote: Gilbert1908 wrote: So you are left with;

Lets not believe an entire wing of science because it doesn't support our philosophical position.

And "I HAVE MET ALOT OF EMBRYOLOGISTS" who agree with me????


Self delusion is not pursuasive boys.

I'm left with the understanding that not everything is black and white. A blastocyst is this size -> . <- and everyone should use a heavy dose of common sense, which is severely lacking in pro-life lobbyists.

And by the way everything is not black and white. I think it is perfectly logical to say "OK so human life begins at conception, it does not posess any real value until some other point in its development" I dont agree with that statement but at least it does not deny the obvious.

It is far more intillectually honest to argue the value of a human life at its various stages than to place yourself in the position of having to deny what is factually obvious.

To deny the pregnant woman the last word on her own pregnancy is lunacy. She is in the best position to manage the grey areas, not some right wingnuts or religious zealots.

[Gilbert1908]

Coral wrote: Gilbert1908 wrote: Coral wrote: Gilbert1908 wrote: So you are left with;

Lets not believe an entire wing of science because it doesn't support our philosophical position.

And "I HAVE MET ALOT OF EMBRYOLOGISTS" who agree with me????


Self delusion is not pursuasive boys.

I'm left with the understanding that not everything is black and white. A blastocyst is this size -> . <- and everyone should use a heavy dose of common sense, which is severely lacking in pro-life lobbyists.

And by the way everything is not black and white. I think it is perfectly logical to say "OK so human life begins at conception, it does not posess any real value until some other point in its development" I dont agree with that statement but at least it does not deny the obvious.

It is far more intillectually honest to argue the value of a human life at its various stages than to place yourself in the position of having to deny what is factually obvious.

To deny the pregnant woman the last word on her own pregnancy is lunacy. She is in the best position to manage the grey areas, not some right wingnuts or religious zealots.

ANY medical source of any kind which states when life begins. ANY source at all, I'm begging literally begging.

[Coral]

Gilbert1908 wrote: Coral wrote: Gilbert1908 wrote: Coral wrote: Gilbert1908 wrote: So you are left with;

Lets not believe an entire wing of science because it doesn't support our philosophical position.

And "I HAVE MET ALOT OF EMBRYOLOGISTS" who agree with me????


Self delusion is not pursuasive boys.

I'm left with the understanding that not everything is black and white. A blastocyst is this size -> . <- and everyone should use a heavy dose of common sense, which is severely lacking in pro-life lobbyists.

And by the way everything is not black and white. I think it is perfectly logical to say "OK so human life begins at conception, it does not posess any real value until some other point in its development" I dont agree with that statement but at least it does not deny the obvious.

It is far more intillectually honest to argue the value of a human life at its various stages than to place yourself in the position of having to deny what is factually obvious.

To deny the pregnant woman the last word on her own pregnancy is lunacy. She is in the best position to manage the grey areas, not some right wingnuts or religious zealots.

ANY medical source of any kind which states when life begins. ANY source at all, I'm begging literally begging.

I'm not sure if you have noticed or not but frankly I don't care what the genetic structure of -> . <- is. It simply isn't significant enough to put women in prison or forced birth hospitals. I'm hoping you guys will find a little common sense, literally.

[Gilbert1908]

Coral wrote: Gilbert1908 wrote: Coral wrote: Gilbert1908 wrote: Coral wrote: Gilbert1908 wrote: So you are left with;

Lets not believe an entire wing of science because it doesn't support our philosophical position.

And "I HAVE MET ALOT OF EMBRYOLOGISTS" who agree with me????


Self delusion is not pursuasive boys.

I'm left with the understanding that not everything is black and white. A blastocyst is this size -> . <- and everyone should use a heavy dose of common sense, which is severely lacking in pro-life lobbyists.

And by the way everything is not black and white. I think it is perfectly logical to say "OK so human life begins at conception, it does not posess any real value until some other point in its development" I dont agree with that statement but at least it does not deny the obvious.

It is far more intillectually honest to argue the value of a human life at its various stages than to place yourself in the position of having to deny what is factually obvious.

To deny the pregnant woman the last word on her own pregnancy is lunacy. She is in the best position to manage the grey areas, not some right wingnuts or religious zealots.

ANY medical source of any kind which states when life begins. ANY source at all, I'm begging literally begging.

I'm not sure if you have noticed or not but frankly I don't care what the genetic structure of -> . <- is. It simply isn't significant enough to put women in prison or forced birth hospitals. I'm hoping you guys will find a little common sense, literally.

Once more I am begging for ANY medical source which states the point at which human life begins. ANY source at all, Trebek???

[Coral]

Gilbert1908 wrote: Coral wrote: Gilbert1908 wrote: Coral wrote: Gilbert1908 wrote: Coral wrote: Gilbert1908 wrote: So you are left with;

Lets not believe an entire wing of science because it doesn't support our philosophical position.

And "I HAVE MET ALOT OF EMBRYOLOGISTS" who agree with me????


Self delusion is not pursuasive boys.

I'm left with the understanding that not everything is black and white. A blastocyst is this size -> . <- and everyone should use a heavy dose of common sense, which is severely lacking in pro-life lobbyists.

And by the way everything is not black and white. I think it is perfectly logical to say "OK so human life begins at conception, it does not posess any real value until some other point in its development" I dont agree with that statement but at least it does not deny the obvious.

It is far more intillectually honest to argue the value of a human life at its various stages than to place yourself in the position of having to deny what is factually obvious.

To deny the pregnant woman the last word on her own pregnancy is lunacy. She is in the best position to manage the grey areas, not some right wingnuts or religious zealots.

ANY medical source of any kind which states when life begins. ANY source at all, I'm begging literally begging.

I'm not sure if you have noticed or not but frankly I don't care what the genetic structure of -> . <- is. It simply isn't significant enough to put women in prison or forced birth hospitals. I'm hoping you guys will find a little common sense, literally.

Once more I am begging for ANY medical source which states the point at which human life begins. ANY source at all, Trebek???

Do I look like your librarian? If it's that important to you go ahead and search it out.

You must be looking for the medical literature to support the all out fight to save an embryo from an unwed teenager who has sex. While your at it find the medical sources that say life doesn't begin when a woman is raped or someone is placed on death row or Iraqi kids are living in the land of non-existant WMD's. Only invoke your scientific research on women who have sex, don't want children, and aren't likely to vote for the republican party.

[The Anarchist]

Gilbert1908 wrote:
Once more I am begging for ANY medical source which states the point at which human life begins. ANY source at all, Trebek???

How can one human life be also not one human life?

How can one living human cell be two human lives?

[The Grandmaster]

Gilbert1908 wrote: Coral wrote: Gilbert1908 wrote: Coral wrote: Gilbert1908 wrote: So you are left with;

Lets not believe an entire wing of science because it doesn't support our philosophical position.

And "I HAVE MET ALOT OF EMBRYOLOGISTS" who agree with me????


Self delusion is not pursuasive boys.

I'm left with the understanding that not everything is black and white. A blastocyst is this size -> . <- and everyone should use a heavy dose of common sense, which is severely lacking in pro-life lobbyists.

And by the way everything is not black and white. I think it is perfectly logical to say "OK so human life begins at conception, it does not posess any real value until some other point in its development" I dont agree with that statement but at least it does not deny the obvious.

It is far more intillectually honest to argue the value of a human life at its various stages than to place yourself in the position of having to deny what is factually obvious.

To deny the pregnant woman the last word on her own pregnancy is lunacy. She is in the best position to manage the grey areas, not some right wingnuts or religious zealots.

ANY medical source of any kind which states when life begins. ANY source at all, I'm begging literally begging.

Hmm..should I just go ahead and link you to Anarchist's sources on the other thread again then...?

Yeah....you know...that one thread...you know the one...where he provides a sh1tload of medical sources from doctors...that's the one...want me to link you to that one?