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

Alligatorob said:
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?
Click to expand...
I'm thinking of the abortion issue. I think the US Congress is going to be pressured into creating federal abortion laws, and I imagine they'll have to argue "the science" of when an unborn is person enough to be eligible for protection under the constitution. And we're probably looking at a real mess there. And probably a lengthy one. But I do see it getting done. I believe federal abortion laws will be created and states will be limited as to how much tweaking they can do to them.
 

Lewkat said:
Well, it looks as thought future, healthy children are out of the question for her if she's on anti-seizure meds and believes they would damage said future children. The entire article is stupid at best.
Click to expand...

This is an ethical question. Do you/we/she have the right to kill a human being because of ... whatever ...
 
amwassil said:
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!
Click to expand...
If that's all we are talking about then no argument there, its something we have long known, well accepted science.

I would not use the words "new and unique life" but that's just semantics, no substantive disagreement.
amwassil said:
You can deny that fact if you like
Click to expand...
I don't, I just would choose different words.
amwassil said:
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 scientific, question.
Click to expand...
Yep
 

Murrmurr said:
I'm thinking of the abortion issue. I think the US Congress is going to be pressured into creating federal abortion laws, and I imagine they'll have to argue "the science" of when an unborn is person enough to be eligible for protection under the constitution. And we're probably looking at a real mess there. A probably a lengthy one. But I do see it getting done. I believe federal abortion laws will be created and states will be limited as to how much tweaking they can do to them.
Click to expand...

The problem is, of course, that only constitutionally enumerated powers are granted to the federal government. All other powers remain with the states and the people. Abortion is not one of the enumerated powers, so any law the federal govenrnment attempts to impose will be unconstitutional a priori. That's exactly why Roe vs Wade was overturned.
 
Alligatorob said:
Not a scientific question, its a waste of time and effort to try. How could such a thing be measured or determined scientifically? It can't be. No scientific definition of what is "person enough".
Click to expand...
Except laws can't be based on morality or religion or emotions. Law creation is based on precedence, facts, and evidence. Where it comes to questions like "When does life begin" or "When is an embryo or fetus a fledged US citizen" who would you ask? I'm just saying Congress would likely look to scientists for the data. I think that's very likely.
 
amwassil said:
The problem is, of course, that only constitutionally enumerated powers are granted to the federal government. All other powers remain with the states and the people. Abortion is not one of the enumerated powers, so any law the federal govenrnment attempts to impose will be unconstitutional a priori. That's exactly why Roe vs Wade was overturned.
Click to expand...
Yes, I know. But the overturn is being vehemently argued because it infringes the rights of others. This is a constitutional issue and it's going to have to be resolved.
 
Alligatorob said:
... I would not use the words "new and unique life" but that's just semantics, no substantive disagreement...
Click to expand...

I disagree that 'a new and unique life' is simply semantics. I think it's the core of the argument. If we're dealing with a new and unique human life, we're talking about a human being with potential for decades of life and creativity. To call this 'semantic' is simply to negate this potential and justify killing it for whatever reason of the moment. I think this is wrong.
 
Murrmurr said:
Yes, I know. But the overturn is being vehemently argued because it infringes the rights of others. This is a constitutional issue and it's going to have to be resolved.
Click to expand...

And from ignorance. There is no infringement of individual rights to restrict the federal government to it's enumerated powers. In fact it's a restoration of individual rights to do so. All powers not specifically granted to the federal government are retained by the states and the people. Roe vs Wade was an infringement on individual rights. The federal government, via the Judiciary Branch, subsumed a power it does not possess. Dobbs vs Jackson rescinded that infringement.
 
amwassil said:
And from ignorance. There is no infringement of individual rights to restrict the federal government to it's enumerated powers. In fact it's a restoration of individual rights to do so. All powers not specifically granted to the federal government are retained by the states and the people. Roe vs Wade was an infringement on individual rights. The federal government, via the Judiciary Branch, subsumed a power it does not possess. Dobbs vs Jackson rescinded that infringement.
Click to expand...
Dude, I'm not here to argue I'm just pointing out that people (mostly women) are demanding the fed gov't create laws protecting the right to abortion nationally, and I'm supposing that science will be used to substantiate or as a basis for such laws.

Also, I'm pointing out that scientists missed an opportunity when they didn't call it the All-spark. That's regrettable.
 
Murrmurr said:
Dude, I'm not here to argue I'm just pointing out that people (mostly women) are demanding the fed gov't create laws protecting the right to abortion nationally, and I'm supposing that science will be used to substantiate or as a basis for such laws.

Also, I'm pointing out that scientists missed an opportunity when they didn't call it the All-spark. That's regrettable.
Click to expand...
And I'm not arguing with you per se. I suspect you and I agree on this. I'm just pointing out that there is no 'constitutional' right to abortion, no matter who wishes it were so. Thus, the federal government can not create a national law protecting any so-called 'right' to something over which it has no enumerated power to control. The power to do so rests with the states and the people. Some states will and some won't restrict abortion to some degree, just as they did prior to Roe/Wade - and that's as it should be in a constitutional federal republic.
 
Lewkat said:
Who legislates individual rights?
Click to expand...
One of the singular features of the USA is the recognition that human beings have 'natural rights' and that government is instituted to protect those rights. Rights are not 'granted' or 'legislated' by government. This is a truly revolutionary idea in the history of humankind.
 
amwassil said:
. I'm just pointing out that there is no 'constitutional' right to abortion, no matter who wishes it were so.
Click to expand...
But we all have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
When does that right begin?
Isn't that right being denied to women who choose to terminate the pregnancy of an unwanted child?
The unresolved conflict is obvious, and I believe it's going to require legislation at some point. Of course, that wouldn't be necessary if a woman could just go to her doctor for an abortion.
 
A hypothetical question.
A man enters a convenience store and attempts to rob it. In the process, he shoots the pregnant cashier. As the woman enters the E.R. the infants heartbeat stops and it dies. Now, in addition to robbery, and assault with a deadly weapon, should the robber be charged with murder of the infant ?
 
First, there was no infant, not yet anyway. How old is the fetus? If it were near term, yes, I can see a charge, not murder though, because it's mother wanted it and had full expectation of a birth.
 
Since when does science dictate politics? You can introduce largely straw man fallacies about people claiming a clump of cells is not alive, or you can draw arbitrary lines about when a clump of cells becomes a person, but abortion is a political issue, nothing more, or depending on how you interpret the Bible, it's a Biblical issue. But science and the Bible will be nothing but pawns in this political argument. The issue will be resolved politically.
 
Murrmurr said:
But we all have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
...
Isn't that right being denied to women who choose to terminate the pregnancy of an unwanted child?
... Of course, that wouldn't be necessary if a woman could just go to her doctor for an abortion.
Click to expand...

But we all have the right...
Click to expand...
As long as the pursuit of 'our' right does not interfere with another's right to the same. I don't have the 'right' to rob a bank because my pursuit of happiness costs more than I thought it would.

Isn't that right being denied to women who choose to terminate the pregnancy of an unwanted child?
Click to expand...
Science has demonstrated that new and unique human life begins at conception. Advocates for unlimited abortion want to deny that fact. I think the first step to resolve the conflict of 'rights' requires acceptance that abortion kills a human being - not a lifeless clump of cells or some other nonsensical rationale. So there is no more 'right' to kill that human being than for me to rob a bank.

Of course, that wouldn't be necessary if a woman could just go to her doctor for an abortion.
Click to expand...
Determination of just when that new and unique life warrants the benefits of legal personhood in society is the real issue because - yes! - an adult human woman possesses more 'value' to society than the immature human being growing in her womb. The US constitution does not grant the power to the federal government to make that determination. Hence, the legal issue is up to the several states to determine.

That's what Dobbs means. Roe/Wade was an exercise of illegal overreach by the federal government of a power it does not possess. If you want a federal law then start the process of amending the constitution.
 
amwassil said:
Science has demonstrated that new and unique human life begins at conception. Advocates for unlimited abortion want to deny that fact. I think the first step to resolve the conflict of 'rights' requires acceptance that abortion kills a human being - not a lifeless clump of cells or some other nonsensical rationale. So there is no more 'right' to kill that human being than for me to rob a bank.
Click to expand...
I don't want to deny anything. A human woman should always have the right to choose not to come to term with pregnancy if that is what she wants with no apologies or excuses necessary. A human woman is not your brood mare. You want to call it murder, go right ahead. I don't give a crap, and your bank robbing analogy is ridiculous.

Yes, I admit it. It does irritate me when a man dares to tell women what their rights are, or when anyone does for that matter. I will not be civil about it, and there is nothing to discuss.

So, you're anti woman's right to choose. What else is on your agenda?
 
Pepper said:
I don't want to deny anything. A human woman should always have the right to choose not to come to term with pregnancy if that is what she wants with no apologies or excuses necessary. A human woman is not your brood mare. You want to call it murder, go right ahead. I don't give a crap, and your bank robbing analogy is ridiculous.

Yes, I admit it. It does irritate me when a man dares to tell women what their rights are, or when anyone does for that matter. I will not be civil about it, and there is nothing to discuss.

So, you're anti woman's right to choose. What else is on your agenda?
Click to expand...
Wow, such irrational nonsense. I've said repeatedly that 'society' determines the legality of abortion. Society as in both men and women. Many women agree with everything I've said. So it's not just 'a man' daring to tell women what their rights are. I'm simply pointing out that abortion involves an innocent human life. You apparently don't want to admit that fact, so attack my saying it.

You can disagree with my arguments, but spouting irrational nonsense does not advance your point. What else is on your agenda?
 
amwassil said:
sWow, such irrational nonsense. I've said repeatedly that 'society' determines the legality of abortion. Society as in both men and women. Many women agree with everything I've said. So it's not just 'a man' daring to tell women what their rights are. I'm simply pointing out that abortion involves an innocent human life. You apparently don't want to admit that fact, so attack my saying it.

You can disagree with my arguments, but spouting irrational nonsense does not advance your point. What else is on your agenda?
Click to expand...
I already "admitted" that fact. I said 'I don't give a crap' which isn't a denial. I'm wondering what your game is as you have no kids. Some woman didn't want to carry one of yours and you're holding a grudge?

My agenda is to speak up when I sense anyone threatening the rights of me & fellow humans. Your bank robbing analogy is ridiculous, is that what pissed you off? You can't answer a question with a question, that's a distraction. So, what is your agenda? Actually, I don't care.
 


Back
Top