Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade, eliminating constitutional right to abortion

No, but it does make Sky Father chuckle.

 

Keep in mind that Alabama law has a sunset of April 2025 (unless it was updated recently). Also, note that it does not redefine when life starts, but it provides legal immunity. If one takes the position that life starts at conception or a zygote is a child, as the Alabama court interpreted the law, it’s a temporary sanction of killing children until after the general presidential election.

 

So taking that logic it’s Ok to kill children only until after the general election

 

exactly

 

Not really, it is the same idea. A skin cell is alive (or dead) and human (or whatever species it comes from). It is simply not an organism (a life), just because it is alive. All of these are definitions from biology (which last time I checked, is a science).

No, it just means that they made a person. Parents do it all the time.

 

A skin cell can be reversed to its progenitor pretty easily and then germ cell, then cloned


I think we’re gonna need to sit your ass down for not paying attention during the lesson last time. That or you deliberately lie or act stupid when explained to over and over again

you’re not a scientist bro, that much is clear


You have no idea what you’re talking about and you embarrass yourself constantly. Sad.

 

You aren't capable of ever admitting you are wrong, are you?

 

I already said a clone would be a human. Skin cells do not spontaneously transform into clones and grow into an adult. You and @rocketsjudoka are leaving out the part where a bunch of other stuff has to be done to the skin cell to make it into a clone. So yes, a skin cell through a lot of effort can be transformed into a person (though not yet into a person that has a lifespan like a natural person, in my reading - Dolly the sheep had about half the average sheep lifespan). A zygote doesn't require those efforts, it is already a person. The skin cell, without those additional efforts, is not an organism, it is part of an organ, which is part of an organism. You could make a giant brick into a building by painstakingly carving out the interior. At that point, the brick would be a building. Otherwise, a brick is a component of a building.

I have admitted I was wrong many times. I am not wrong in this case.

 

Except that a zygote also doesn’t just turn into a fully developed human on its own. It too requires specific conditions to develop and most never make it to even attaching to the uterine wall.

Again this is largely a philosophical discussion. The political discussion is that many of the “pro-life” politicians accept that a zygote legally isn’t a person and can be destroyed. I don’t know the numbers off hand but for IvF for every successful embryo that makes to to birht several are destroyed or left frozen most likely until they are destroyed.

 

What interventions are required for a zygote to develop? Do you have to revert it to a different form, strip the DNA from a human ovum, insert the altered zygote into the human ovum, etc. Seems like for the last few million years you just leave it alone and it either grows into an adult or it dies. The "specific conditions" are leave it alone.

 

If you leave it alone it will not develop. A zygote can only develop if it can attach to a uterine wall and only under the right hormonal conditions within the uterus.

This why we even have things like IVF and hormone treatments.

 

Once you have instructions and genetic material, the potential for a particular life starts. How you get to that point is moot to the question of "is it life?" unless you want to argue that it needs to get there "naturally" because otherwise, it is missing some key yet-to-be-known or defined component (like the Soul). In this aspect, a zygote naturally made, artificially made, or an object made completely in a lab is all the same. Once you have that genetic material in place with instructions, then you need the right environment (today, that's implantation, nutrition, oxygen, hormones, right temperature, and so on that is provided in the mother's body; but in the future, it could also be a lab-made environment) for that potential for life to progress toward actual life itself.

The potential for life isn't equivalent to life itself. No one knows when the crossover occurs, and there's no consensus on it in science, philosophy, or ethics.

Any "I know" stance is, to me, a strong belief that is most likely due to Christian teachings, and a fairly recent one starting from the 19th century.

 

What actions do you need to take to have it attach to a uterine wall? Nothing, you leave it alone. It will attach or it won't. You can try to improve the odds with the therapies you mentioned, but they are not necessary to the process.

 

the Host (mother) must be actively alive and fairly healthy

 

Neither of those things are actions, but yes. I don't know who was saying we could implant zygotes in corpses as some sort of macabre baby farm, but thank you for clarifying.

 

got to breath (action) to be alive

got to take responsible care of your health (action) to be fairly healthy

 

Show us where Biology says a skin cell is not life. You're just making **** up now.

 

The cell is the basic unit of life. It's part of the cell theory. Biology 101.