Zinc Spark Is an Inorganic Signature of Human Egg 'Activation' - ie Life

amwassil said:
Maybe, like I did, you missed this when it came out. Clear evidence that a new life begins when sperm meets egg at conception. This puts to rest all claims of 'a lifeless clump of cells' or 'mere growth' or that an embryo and fetus are not yet human beings.

https://www.nature.com/articles/srep24737
Click to expand...
A couple of years ago when looking for an image to go with a blog post, I found this. Was surprised by the date- 1965.
I believe there can be legitimate reasons for abortions, but all this about 'a woman's own body' and 'clump of cells' isn't even based in reality, as the picture shows. 1965.jpg
 
Tough. It's the living woman's choice to bear a child, we are not brood animals, we are human with our own choices and identities.

To sum up, I fearlessly say, even if your own truth is true, or relevant, and I believe it is not, so what? We each have our own plans to fulfill. We are higher animals. We are individual human beings. So, so what?
 

Last edited:
@Pepper I've simply pointed out is that there is now objective, scientific evidence that new human life begins at conception. What you choose to do with that evidence is up to you. I do think, however, that one of the current problems we face is the denial of reality. Especially when it fails to correspond with preconceived opinions and wishful thinking.
 
Alligatorob said:
Of course its alive, all living cells are...And its DNA will be different from the mothers
Click to expand...
Except, many people deny this fact, calling an embryo and fetus just a 'clump of cells' or 'growth', convincing themselves that it's not what it really is - a unique human being.

Alligatorob said:
The issue is when does it become a legal person...
Click to expand...
Indeed, it is. Which makes if even more important to acknowledge the reality of unique life. As @JaniceM pointed out the issue is no longer simply 'my life my choice'. There's a second - and innocent - life to consider, not ignore for the sake of convenience.
 
amwassil said:
unique human being
Click to expand...
Not by my way of thinking, it's a unique living cell or group of cells, which many months later becomes a "human being".

I doubt we will ever agree on this, we just need to decide if we have the right to force the mother to conform to our views, or if the mother has the right to make that decision. Since there is no agreement on the issue I would give the mothers the choice.
 
Alligatorob said:
Not by my way of thinking, it's a unique living cell or group of cells, which many months later becomes a "human being".

I doubt we will ever agree on this, we just need to decide if we have the right to force the mother to conform to our views, or if the mother has the right to make that decision. Since there is no agreement on the issue I would give the mothers the choice.
Click to expand...
A separate heartbeat is one indication of a separate human being.
 
JaniceM said:
A separate heartbeat is one indication of a separate human being.
Click to expand...
The initial sound heard that is confused with heartbeat is not a heartbeat as the heart has not formed yet. And, if a separate human being, fine. Take it out and put it in someone who wants it, like what happened to Erica Kaine on 'All My Children.' You see, she thought she had daytime's first abortion but in reality, the dr. removed the fetus and implanted it in another woman, which we find out over 20 years later.
 
amwassil said:
@Pepper I've simply pointed out is that there is now objective, scientific evidence that new human life begins at conception. What you choose to do with that evidence is up to you. I do think, however, that one of the current problems we face is the denial of reality. Especially when it fails to correspond with preconceived opinions and wishful thinking.
Click to expand...
Scientists will still argue the point, amwassil.

The study was done on mouse ovum. The so-called zinc spark (shoulda been *Allspark!!) could be activated either by fertilization or chemical stimulation.

They harvested eggs from mice(s), put 'em in a petri dish and threw some stuff at 'em, and they reacted. (doesn't actually deserve the name *Allspark)

This isn't the final word.

*Transformer references
 
Pepper said:
The initial sound heard that is confused with heartbeat is not a heartbeat as the heart has not formed yet. And, if a separate human being, fine. Take it out and put it in someone who wants it, like what happened to Erica Kaine on 'All My Children.' You see, she thought she had daytime's first abortion but in reality, the dr. removed the fetus and implanted it in another woman, which we find out over 20 years later.
Click to expand...
I'm sorry, but WHAT???

😂
 
A big part of the problem in this debate is that the question of what constitutes a legal human being is not a scientific question. Not with respect to the unborn.

Its something everyone has to decide for themselves based on their own religious beliefs, personal moral compass, politics, or whatever. Science can't really help us.

Life began billions of years ago, and since then has continued, evolved, and diversified. Sperm cells are alive, egg cells are alive, and the fertilized egg is alive. The question of when life, or a life, begins is not relevant.
 
Murrmurr said:
Scientists will still argue the point...
Click to expand...
No doubt.

Murrmurr said:
The study was done on mouse ovum. The so-called zinc spark (shoulda been *Allspark!!) could be activated either by fertilization or chemical stimulation.
They harvested eggs from mice(s), put 'em in a petri dish and threw some stuff at 'em, and they reacted. (doesn't actually deserve the name *Allspark)
Click to expand...
And human sperm/ovum: https://www.sciencealert.com/scient...-of-light-that-sparks-when-sperm-meets-an-egg
The phenomenon has been observed in animals before, but no one's ever seen the spark of human conception. And what's even more incredible is the fact that some eggs burn brighter than others, which is a direct indication of their ability to develop into a healthy embryo, a team from Northwestern University found.
Click to expand...

sperm-flash_1024.jpg


Murrmurr said:
This isn't the final word.
Click to expand...
Again, no doubt.
 
Alligatorob said:
No real basis for a scientific argument there. When "new human life begins" is not a scientific question.
Click to expand...
Sure it is. Women give birth to human beings not puffball mushrooms or jellyfish. The moment of new human life is very much a scientific question. I think you're conflating new life with legal person. And I totally agree that legal person is not a scientific question; it's an ethical one. But the ethical question can be informed by scientific facts.
 
Alligatorob said:
No real basis for a scientific argument there. When "new human life begins" is not a scientific question.
Click to expand...
amwassil said:
Sure it is. Women give birth to human beings not puffball mushrooms or jellyfish. The moment of new human life is very much a scientific question. I think you're conflating new life with legal person. And I totally agree that legal person is not a scientific question; it's an ethical one. But the ethical question can be informed by scientific facts.
Click to expand...
I believe it is a scientific question. Or, more accurately, it's a question that science might be able to answer. The thing about evidence-based scientific answers is, they can be challenged with new evidence and proven incorrect.
 
Murrmurr said:
I believe it is a scientific question. Or, more accurately, it's a question that science might be able to answer. The thing about evidence-based scientific answers is, they can be challenged with new evidence and proven incorrect.
Click to expand...
amwassil said:
Sure it is. Women give birth to human beings not puffball mushrooms or jellyfish. The moment of new human life is very much a scientific question. I think you're conflating new life with legal person.
Click to expand...
If you mean when does an egg cell get fertilized and form a new and unique set of genes I suppose that could be a scientific question. One that was answered long ago. @Murrmurr do you see it somehow differently? What is the question you are thinking of?
 
Alligatorob said:
If you mean when does an egg cell get fertilized and form a new and unique set of genes...
Click to expand...

That's the definition of a new and unique life. There is no time interval during which the fertilized and unique set of genes passes before becoming a 'new life'. It's an instantaneous transformation. Sperm hits egg - bingo!
 
Alligatorob said:
I don't think so, but this illustrates the problem. Many different opinions and beliefs.

The real question is at what point do we have the right to force the mother to conform to someone else's beliefs.
Click to expand...

You can have whatever opinion and belief you want, but a new and unique human live begins at conception - sperm meets egg. You can deny that fact if you like, but it remains a fact. The evidence is incontrovertable.

Whether society has a right (or interest) to force a potential mother to carry a human being to birth or not is an ethical, not scientfic, question.
 


Back
Top