Simple True or False Poll about Human Beings

True. Logically, only a biologist with a microscope could even determine whether the cellular mass is human; if it passed through the gestative development process, it might have become a baboon as far as the average person might be able to determine. Differentiations and distinctions arise over time, and blithely ignoring the critical time factor distorts the reality egregiously.

 

"Why not be honest and depict them in the actual relative scale?"

If I was not being dishonest, why would you write such a thing implying that I was?

 

In the science and practice of Invitro Fertilization (IVF) a scientist who removes an egg cell from a (human) woman and then fertilizes that edd cell with one or more sperm cells from a male human.... that scientist would have no reason to suspect the zygote they have as a result would be anything other than a 'human' zygote/ organism from that point on..... would they?

 

My quote, in context was, "Yet that is how they are often represented by fanatics. Why not be honest and depict them in the actual relative scale? The distortion does not depict reality."

That is the dishonest distortion deliberately perpetrated by fanatics that you had repeated. If you felt that I was accusing you of contriving that deception, I'm sorry. Your subsequently adding captions emphasized the reality, and underscored the zealots' propagandistic ploy that falsely implies comparability.

 

To return to the basic point, a microscopic, mindless amalgam of cells is not a person, nor should fanatics be allowed to force society to swallow that antic notion.

The homunculus theory of human embryology (Poof! Instant person at conception!) was abandoned by rational folks centuries ago.

 

You're dodging my question.

 

You seem determined to avoid honestly confronting the gist of the matter, and I won't be so easily diverted:

You wish to direct the State to impose upon everyone your notion that a microscopic, mindless amalgam of cells is a person, and I do not believe that you should be allowed to exert control over wombs until gestation has resulted in a real person having actually developed.

 

That has nothing to do with the question I asked you at all.

 

No, as I am not diverted by your attempts at evasion, I expose your agenda.

If it is not your scheme to use the State to force upon everyone your notion that a microscopic, mindless cluster of a few cells is a person, just confirm that, and then we can engage in sprightly discourse.

 

You can't have one without the other. It is a living being. Otherwise you would not have a baby in 9 months. It feeds off the mothers blood supply. It is filled with human blood it is human. It is alive.

 

You need a sperm and a egg too. I agree it is living. The fact that something is living is in and of itself not sufficient to give it a "right to life".

 

So you are alive does that give you a right to live? That embryo is alive as you are..

 

Tell that to the cod I ate for lunch. The fact that something is living is in and of itself not sufficient to give it a "right to life".

 

Humans should have a right to life. I am not talking about food unless you eat babies.

 

OK, we've established that merely because something is alive is no basis in and of itself for a right to life. Therefore, the mere fact that a single celled fertilized egg is alive is not, in and of itself, a right to give it a right to life.

So then the question is, why should a single celled fertilized egg have a right to life simply because it is human?

 

For one it is not a simple one cell.

 

Feel free to explain why you would distinguish it, then you can move on to answering my question: So then the question is, why should a single celled fertilized egg have a right to life simply because it is human?

 

What makes you think it is a single cell? It is not. The heart starts beating at 5 weeks. Humans should have a right to life. It is not the babies fault their are stupid woman that don't know how to use protection.

 

When the egg is initially fertilized, it is a single cell is it not? Unless I'm forgetting my biology lesson.

 

No it is not once fertilized it is not a single cell.

 

It's not?

After a female egg is fertilized, the resulting one-celled organism becomes known as a zygote.
http://psychology.about.com/od/zindex/g/def_zygote.htm

I'm not biology expert, so you can tell me how many cells an egg has when it is fertilized.

And then maybe you'll answer the question you've been dodging?

 

You need to read the whole thing where it says that the egg starts to multiply into many cells.I have answered your question twice.

 

Ask the same question for animal, fish or bird, and emotion (our survival) does not get in the way.
The direct answer is No. But without the zygote stage no human (animal, fish or bird) will devellop.

 

How many cells does the fertilize egg have before it starts to multiply?

Are you going to answer the question you've been dodging?

 

If it is fertilized it is more then one cell. It starts to multiply when it is fertilized.