Why is a zygote "human life" but a sperm or egg not?

If the fundies really want to parse words and call conception the moment "life" begins, then why should they stop there?

It seems to me that by using their rationale, any cells that have the potential to one day become a human being are entitled to constitutional rights as an individual. So by using this reasoning, I'd really like to know (no sarcasm) why sperm and egg cells are not sacred to them.

on the ground


so.....

Let's not dive into the absurdity of the Old Testament. It's a long conversation.

It's YOUR topic and YOUR premise. I merely responded to the premise you gave.

You are aware, are you not, that fundie's take direction from the Old Testament as well as the New?

follow the rules: his brother was childless, and his obligation was to "provide" his dead brother with a son, IIRC. His way of "fulfilling" his duty was to bonk the woman, but to practice coitus interruptus. More than a little selfish, and contrary the family values of the day.

However, semen, like menstrual blood, was considered unclean.

Sterilization is self-mutilation and against "God's will". In that case there isn't even a sperm and an egg.

It is all about RELIGION to these people. I have found out that the most ardent among them are the Catholics, who believe that Rome should not only dictate to THEM how they should live, but to EVERYONE, Catholic or Not.

I think Michael Moore made a version of it in his first book (Downsize this).

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

That's kind of hard to believe.

Bryant

My argument here is only as ridiculous as the fundies'.

It's only as ridiculous as a sort of caricature of their postion.

There is some point between the existence of sperm and eggs and the existance of a child when it is nolonger acceptable to eliminate the biological matter. Obviously there is some disagreement as to when that is.

But this "question" is equivelent to a freeper saying "Why aren't liberals in favor of infanticide? I mean is there really any difference between a baby 10 minutes after is born and 10 minutes after it is born?"

Bryant

every little egg and sperm we can find.

Eggs ARE sacred. These rules are written by men who are pro-choice about what they do with their bodies and sperm, so making sperm little mini-me's would take away their choice, and we couldn't have that.

:sarcasm:

Failing....

Every sperm is sacred.
Every sperm is great.
If a sperm is wasted,
God gets quite irate.

Gotta have the egg in the mix. These misogynist pigs are never going to limit men's extracurricular activities--just like the Taliban--blame the women.

I think we ought to start controlling men's sexuality. Punish them equally for their extracurricular activities, too. If she can't, he can't either; if we have to have repressive legislation, let it be consistent. Single standard, I say!

rude awakening... The RW will go after divorce first, porn, adultery next, and if they are forcing all these women to have their babies, the Fed government is certainly not going to pay for them. That means the gloves will come off to force the woman to id the man and force life time support You can't villainize and victimize women without impacting heterosexual men. (and the homosexuals will probably be force to "reconditioning" camps or something, if the theocrats get their evil way).

that all my skin cells (sloughing daily) and my hair (leaving daily) also consistute "human life?"

Am I now a murderer because I go through molting season with my hair and skin?

/sarcasm

and under proper conditions, would grow to be a baby (note that "proper conditions", to me, means, left in a womb for 9 months).

Sperm by itself cannot develop into life, neither can egg cells. They have to be combined - after the egg has been fertilized you then have the conditions necessary to develop into a living being.

a hero and someone who drives 500 miles three seconds slower is just a loser. I think they believe, however, that each gamete is entitled to and up or down vote from God.

It would destroy their argument altogether. Sperm and ova are human and very much alive until they die from being unused. Think of all those potential humans going down the loo so to speak.

Just because an egg gets fertilized doesn't mean it's going to attach itself to the uterus and grow. Many fertilized eggs go down the loo as well, not to mention miscarriages at later stages when an egg has attached but dies and is cast off.

To make the claim that these cells that could be potential human beings all have to have the same rights as a breathing human being is an idea that is even too crazy for them to process.

If you just have a raw egg can you claim you made a cake? What about if you just had half a cup of milk, did you make a cake? A cup of flour, can you call that a cake too?

Of course you can't. It's a completely absurd argument. But if you combine all necessary ingredients then you could claim you made a cake. There could be many different perceptions and opinions as to when it really is a cake, such as after it is thoroughly mixed, or put in the pan, or only after being in the oven a certain amount of time, but at any one of those stages one could claim they did in fact make a cake and it would be up to other's perceptions to agree or not.

But just having a half a cup of milk and calling it a cake would be pretty much agreed by everybody to be one hell of a stretch.

not a cake.

If just under heat for 1 minute, enough time to just get the slightestttt bit of crustiness on the top, is it a cake then? What about after 5 minutes? After 10? Just when does it become a cake? After just one minute with the crust forming slightly couldn't someone call it a really undercooked cake? See the problem here? It is all left up to perception. There is no straightforward and binding answer as to when it is officially a cake, as that is left up to the individual to cast their own opinion.

What I do know for certain, however, is that no one could make any argument whatsoever that a half a cup of milk is a cake. Got it?

A sperm could be considered sperm life, and egg could be egg life, like you have cellular life, plant life, bacterial life, etc...

But only with the fertilization of an egg by sperm, i.e. conception, is human life truly created.

there would no be any time for getting power, preaching, praying, televagionism, good works, hate, or anything else.

a psychopathic killer of millions, and millions!

And I won't stop either!

Biologists discovered that any organism capable of the controlled cell division better known as mitosis(apart from cancer or tumor cells) comprises an individual life. Whether this life is dependent on another organism to sustain this life is beside the point. The moment the chromosomes of the sperm and egg unite, the zygote begins to divide and create new cells.

Sperm and egg cells divide differently, which biologists call meiosis. This kind of cell division results in 4 cells with 23 chromosomes each, known as the haploid number. With only half the chromosomes needed to create a human life, the finished product of sperm and/or eggs cannot divide by itself to create duplicates of themselves.

They don't divide, but they do multiply.

At least according to my college microbiology book.

Before they unite to reproduce they are a happy haploid entity...

A man ejaculates millions of sperm when he climaxes. Even if one does fertilize an egg, millions die. The reason that many are released is because a woman's body is naturually hostile to sperm and kills off many of them. A man with a low sperm count of around 100 sperm is considered functionally sterile.

by being reabsorbed into his body. I think that's murder. :sarcasm:


:rofl:

Only a percentage of conceptions actually make it to the fetus stage. Since the rest of them die before they can be absolved of their "sins", they of course go to Hell. But hey, it's all part of "God's plan", which nobody may ever question.

Just goes to show how utterly ridiculous fundie morality is.

He is the biggest "abortion doctor" in history after all. :sarcasm:

left on its own cannot develop into a human life.

Once the egg is fertilized by the sperm, the result, when left on its own may develop into a living human.

Was this a serious question?

a living Homo sapiens. "Human-ness" is a construction of society, and it is society that accepts or rejects criteria for recognition of what is human and what is not.

From an anthropological viewpoint it is rather obvious that differing societies, and even one society at different times will elaborate different and often complex social schemes around questions of what is life, what is human, what is a legal personage, and what rights and protections pertain to persons, etc.

Contemporary understanding of biotic processes (i.e. all that "knowing" which enjoys consensus status among biologists) is really never applied in its entirety as a backdrop of "fact checking" in the on-going abortion debate. Because law, ethics, and the notion of religious morality is not based solely or even in large part on biology, and because societies rather then biology constructs the laws that govern society, maybe we shouldn't expect to use biology to provide much resolution of the debate.

the Church's ban on artificial contraception, as well as abortion.

I get so frustrated by nitpicking and cleverness about "when life starts". I'm completely pro-choice, but not because I've convinced myself that zygotes are like dandruff or mushrooms, or whatever silliness some people say.

I'm pro-choice because I don't believe the government has the right to tell someone what to do with their body and how to make personal life decisions. I have no reason to go into the "is it a baby" debate, because it's irrelevant. I view it much like the Terri Schiavo case. Not my business, it's up to the people involved.

haploid cells. A zygote is NOT an embryo. A lot people on this thread have missed that distinction.

Why aren't they anti-choice forces up in arms about fertility clinics? In that case we have fertilized eggs perfectly capable of producing offspring if placed in the correct conditions (i.e., in a uterous), but they vast majority of these are discarded.

Why is ok to discard these foertilized eggs, but once it is placed in a uterous it is a "sin"?

does oppose fertility procedures that lead to discarding eggs.

there is no man alive who is gonna allow himself to be regulated or fined for ejaculation. Men believe that promoting discharge is not only healthy, but sacred - if they were banned or criminalized for promoting their sperm, there would be little conversation for men to have with each other besides a few grunts of dismay while watching a football game.

And the antis aren't about life, they're about enforcing chastity. This is why they make no noise about fertility clinics destroying fertilized eggs.