The Elephant in the Room

[nicholsmom]

Humans are egg cells before that and germline cells before that and ALL of them are ALIVE . . . .

:nono: Surely you have studied biology. Each human has a beginning - we didn't all start to exist at the creation of Adam the way this progression implies. Biology teaches us very clearly, and you know this, that mammalian life begins at the joining of the gametes. It doesn't begin with the separate gametes or anywhere else. It begins at the beginning of that new, individual DNA that is created by the joining of two haploid cells known as gametes.
From biology-online.org:

Reproduction occurs in humans with the fusion of two haploid cells (gametes) that create a zygote. The nuclei of both these cells fuse, bringing together half the genetic information from the parents into one new cell, that is now genetically different from both its parents.​

You know that this is a tired, old, disproved argument. Why do you persist with it?

 

[fool]

:nono: Surely you have studied biology. Each human has a beginning - we didn't all start to exist at the creation of Adam the way this progression implies. Biology teaches us very clearly, and you know this, that mammalian life begins at the joining of the gametes. It doesn't begin with the separate gametes or anywhere else. It begins at the beginning of that new, individual DNA that is created by the joining of two haploid cells known as gametes.
From biology-online.org:

Reproduction occurs in humans with the fusion of two haploid cells (gametes) that create a zygote. The nuclei of both these cells fuse, bringing together half the genetic information from the parents into one new cell, that is now genetically different from both its parents.​

You know that this is a tired, old, disproved argument. Why do you persist with it?

They persist because they want to deny the consequences of of it.
If zygotes are people then they can't eliminate the inconveinant ones.
They can't experiment on them.
Grow them for their parts.
They can't rub their baby makers together and be free of the fact that they could start a family.

It's an appeal to consequence. If zygotes are people then they're killing their children and of course they don't want to do THAT so they say that zygotes aren't their children.

 

[Alate_One]

:nono: Surely you have studied biology. Each human has a beginning - we didn't all start to exist at the creation of Adam the way this progression implies. Biology teaches us very clearly, and you know this, that mammalian life begins at the joining of the gametes.

No, LIFE doesn't begin with joining of gametes. If the egg cell were not alive you'd have no zygote formed! Gamete fusion creates a new genetic combination, not "life", which is exactly what your reference says.

If you want to say every new combination of human DNA is a "person" that's something biology does not teach.

I'm telling you this not to deny anything but to understand what BIOLOGY teaches, does not necessarily agree with your moral concept of "personhood". Biology gives us MANY possibilities for personhood, not just one.

You know that this is a tired, old, disproved argument. Why do you persist with it?

Why do you continue to say biology "teaches" your moral code when it does nothing of the sort?

Did you read what I said in the other thread? Your understanding of biology is woefully inadequate . . . .

 

[Alate_One]

No it won't be.
When you take your cell and make a zygote that zygote is your twin brother.

And it would be a non-person if zygotes are people why?

 

[fool]

And it would be a non-person if zygotes are people why?

I feel like I'm talking to Stipe about how old the Earth is.

 

[fool]

And it would be a non-person if zygotes are people why?

No
No
No
It IS a person.
It's your brother.
Your twin brother.
And before you start moving goal posts, again, it's perfectly normal for him to not have a face or a brain.

 

[Alate_One]

No
No
No
It IS a person.
It's your brother.
Your twin brother.

Then how do you know the difference between a person and any other human cell? Because they ALL have that same potential, to become another individual if placed under the right conditions. Every human cell has the instructions to make another human. The only difference is which switches are flipped on or off.

We are RAPIDLY figuring out how to turn those switches to have cells go through development to make an embryo, a liver, an eye etc. And you know what? We wouldn't know any of that without studying embryonic development in the first place. Though we are rapidly moving beyond the point where embryos will be necessary to study.

And before you start moving goal posts, again, it's perfectly normal for him to not have a face or a brain.

I'm not saying it isn't, and no I'm not moving the goal posts. They've been the same ever since I started posting.

 

[nicholsmom]

No, LIFE doesn't begin with joining of gametes. If the egg cell were not alive you'd have no zygote formed! Gamete fusion creates a new genetic combination, not "life", which is exactly what your reference says.

Straining at gnats, A_O? I used a tiny bit of shorthand language and you go on a silly rant. Clearly, I meant that the life cycle of individual mammals begins at the joining of the gametes. Each individual mammal begins its life as an individual specimen of its species at the moment the gametes are joined.

The point remains that the union of those two very special haploid cells in that particular sort of environment results in a brand new human being. Biology in no way denies that, in fact, it affirms it.

Did you read what I said in the other thread? Your understanding of biology is woefully inadequate . . . .

:rotfl: This from the one who dances around the obvious :rotfl:

Mammalian individuals each has its beginning at the joining of the haploid cells called gametes. The very beginning of your personal, individual life cycle was when the gametes of your parents hooked up in your mom's fallopian tube It's the same for every human being - for every mammal.

If this is wrong, then you will have to take it up with the biologists who write the text books and online resources.

 

[nicholsmom]

Did you read what I said in the other thread?

:sigh: I guess I'll have to go hunting down the repetition of these pathetic arguments in other threads.

No, no, I don't mind. I have nothing better to do with my time :sigh:

 

[Alate_One]

Straining at gnats, A_O? I used a tiny bit of shorthand language and you go on a silly rant. Clearly, I meant that the life cycle of individual mammals begins at the joining of the gametes. Each individual mammal begins its life as an individual specimen of its species at the moment the gametes are joined.

NM, I'm partly responding to your assertions about "life" based on what you said in the other thread, which were totally wrong.

I'm a biology instructor, trust me I understand what a life cycle is. But you are ALL misusing biology to state that personhood MUST begin at syngamy (that is gamete fusion).

The point remains that the union of those two very special haploid cells in that particular sort of environment results in a brand new human being. Biology in no way denies that, in fact, it affirms it.

Its a brand new combination of human DNA in a living cell. It has the potential to develop into one new individual, several new individuals, or nothing at all.

Fully 1/3 of those combinations cannot possibly develop into an adult (or even an early embryo) due to chromosomal abnormalities and spontaneously abort.

Could you decide that, that one cell, no matter how it develops (or doesn't) is deserving of a right to life, same as a baby or adult? Certainly, you can make that judgment. But biology itself is SILENT on judgments like that. You have a field called "bioethics" to deal with situations like this and the answers are not absolute, there will always be debate about them.

Biology gives us information about how things work, its completely wrong to say biology TEACHES a moral position. You can make a moral argument for implantation, heartbeat, brainwaves, quickening, even birth using biology. So no you cannot say biology TEACHES personhood from conception.

You must explain WHY a single cell, even the first cell of a potential new individual should have the same right to life as a person. If you're really saying that personhood starts at conception, you're arguing that it is human DNA alone that makes something a person, because that's really all that is different between an egg and a zygote. We are more than just our DNA.

If this is wrong, then you will have to take it up with the biologists who write the text books and online resources.

I'm a biology instructor, you can't get this human cell is equivalent to a baby or an adult from this is the first cell of something. That's a moral and ethical judgment, biology does not teach morals or ethics, period.

 

[Stripe]

I feel like I'm talking to Stipe about how old the Earth is.

:rotfl:

Some people will just not listen to simple, scientific facts.

At conception what we have is a newly created human being. Nothing but sustenance and protection is required in order for that baby to become what even Alate considers a person. There is no biological reason for denying personhood to babies at conception. The only reasons Alate have relate to how popular he feels certain stances might be or how unpopular some consequences might be. Hardly compelling stuff.

The problem is he lies. He is constantly using biological terms as if they support his view when he denies they have any role to play in the discussion.

 

[Stripe]

Biology gives us information about how things work, its completely wrong to say biology TEACHES a moral position. You can make a moral argument for implantation, heartbeat, brainwaves, quickening, even birth using biology. So no you cannot say biology TEACHES personhood from conception.

Actually you can. You can't use biology only, but biology does support the fact that people begin life as a single cell.

You try to use biology to teach that a heartbeat turns a baby into a person, but you're forced to assert your opinion that some physical trait defines who is and who is not a person.

Conception just takes every possible candidate and assumes a right to life until it is discovered life is not present.

Biology is on our side. Your opinion is on yours.

 

[Alate_One]

Actually you can. You can't use biology only, but biology does support the fact that people begin life as a single cell.

Indeed it does tell us that all creatures begin their unique individual existence as a single cell, and that cells are the most basic unit of life. But it does not tell us to value said cells as equal to a newborn child.

You try to use biology to teach that a heartbeat turns a baby into a person, but you're forced to assert your opinion that some physical trait defines who is and who is not a person.

But you're asserting that the union of sperm and egg magically turns a cell into a person. Because said cell, may become a baby, it might become two babies or more, it might become something else, or it might simply stop developing of its own accord because it was broken from the start.

Conception just takes every possible candidate and assumes a right to life until it is discovered life is not present.

It is, in a sense the most conservative view, however it does have theological implications. As I tried to say in my response some time back to Yorzhik, if zygotes are people, then God is allowing one third of people to simply die before they even get more than 100 or so cells.

That's quite an incredibly inefficient system. What happens to all of these "people" when they die? Will we meet them in heaven as fully formed adults even though they didn't have the proper information to even form a simple body plan? Do you believe they would even BE in heaven?

But if personhood is actually later or *gasp* a process, then the initial massive natural die-off is of little consequence theologically.

Biology is on our side. Your opinion is on yours.

Biology is on no one's "side" in a moral/ethical debate. You are a non-scientist and don't have a clue what you are talking about. In an ethical debate such as this, your standard is based on opinion just as much as mine.

 

[Alate_One]

The problem is he lies. He is constantly using biological terms as if they support his view when he denies they have any role to play in the discussion.

The real problem is you can't tell the difference between science and morality/ethics. The areas don't overlap. You're continuing to rehash your ignorant understanding of science and then accuse me of lying. I am not disputing biological facts, I am disputing what we DO with those facts.

 

[Stripe]

Indeed it does tell us that all creatures begin their unique individual existence as a single cell, and that cells are the most basic unit of life. But it does not tell us to value said cells as equal to a newborn child.

Everything you say is laced with a complete misrepresentation of what you are arguing against. This discussion has nothing to do with the relative value we place upon the lives of people at different ages. Your useless hypothetical already pointed that out.

This discussion is over when a human becomes a person. Biology tells us that new people are created at conception. Unless you've got a physical trait that defines personhood there is no reason to argue against the fact that, at conception, we have a human being with the right to life.

But you're asserting that the union of sperm and egg magically turns a cell into a person.

You're not much of a biologist if you cannot recognise conception as the event that changes parts of the parents into new people.

Because said cell, may become a baby, it might become two babies or more, it might become something else, or it might simply stop developing of its own accord because it was broken from the start.

So what? How does the fact that he might be more than one person deny that he is a person? How does the fact that he will die deny that he is a person?

It is, in a sense the most conservative view, however it does have theological implications. As I tried to say in my response some time back to Yorzhik, if zygotes are people, then God is allowing one third of people to simply die before they even get more than 100 or so cells.

God lets everyone die. Your discomfort is of no rational value.

That's quite an incredibly inefficient system. What happens to all of these "people" when they die? Will we meet them in heaven as fully formed adults even though they didn't have the proper information to even form a simple body plan? Do you believe they would even BE in heaven?

There is going to be more people in heaven than you can count. But, again, your theology is simply not worth responding to. You should stick to evolution. :up:

But if personhood is actually later or *gasp* a process, then the initial massive natural die-off is of little consequence theologically.

All people die. Perhaps we should call nobody a person and then nobody would be discomforted by any death. :dizzy:

Biology is on no one's "side" in a moral/ethical debate...

...cried the loser.

You are a non-scientist and don't have a clue what you are talking about.

I am a scientist and I do know what I'm talking about.

In an ethical debate such as this, your standard is based on opinion just as much as mine.

No, it's not. The biology is clear and simple. You're not much of a biologist if you do not recognise conception as the moment a new human being is created. If you want to deny that fact you're going to have to either:
A) Deny that there is anything special about people, or
B) Provide some rational reason as to why we should accept some physical trait as defining personhood.

So far all you have is your discomfort, your poor theology, a load of appeals to authority & consequence and your ability to keep dishonestly re-wording the truth that is patiently explained to you.

The real problem is you can't tell the difference between science and morality/ethics.

Science is the study of what we can observe. Morality is the study of how we should respond to what we observe. These two fields definitely overlap and must be consistent. You fail miserably at both.

The areas don't overlap. You're continuing to rehash your ignorant understanding of science and then accuse me of lying. I am not disputing biological facts, I am disputing what we DO with those facts.

And what are we "doing" with the facts if we assume personhood to begin with the creation of a new human?

What are you "doing" with the facts if you deny that new human the right to life?

Biology is on my side. No invention of defining traits is required. It is you that is worried about popularity and consequences. Popularity and perceived consequences are two things that will always pervert good science.

 

[Alate_One]

This discussion is over when a human becomes a person. Biology tells us that new people are created at conception. Unless you've got a physical trait that defines personhood there is no reason to argue against the fact that, at conception, we have a human being with the right to life.

I've already given you physical traits that define personhood in my book. Your definition has no more biological value than mine.

You're not much of a biologist if you cannot recognise conception as the event that changes parts of the parents into new people.

If you define a zygote as a person, you're defining it based on its DNA and the status of that DNA. You bring what it means to be human to PURE biology without any definition of what it actually means to be a human being/person.

Your "definition" amounts to this:

A Human (Homo sapiens) cell that is programmed to go through embryonic development (and any natural product of such a cell) is a person. (Of course that would include Hydatidiform moles and chorionic carcinoma . . . .)

So what? How does the fact that he might be more than one person deny that he is a person? How does the fact that he will die deny that he is a person?

It's not simply "he will die", the zygote will fail to develop anything we normally associate with humanity. It starts and ends as a clump of undifferentiated cells.

I think it makes more sense to say a zygote is a potential person (or persons), a person to be. If it makes it long enough without turning into a monstrous growth or failing development 101, then you can grant a right to life. If you granted it before, you might end up stating that you must protect the Hydatidiform mole over the life of the mother . . .

There is going to be more people in heaven than you can count. But, again, your theology is simply not worth responding to. You should stick to evolution. :up:

I asked YOU a question Stripey. What happens to the 30% of all zygotes that don't survive? Do they go to heaven or not?

I am a scientist and I do know what I'm talking about.

Where are your papers and presentations? Where's the college biology class you took? (Oh right you didn't take one)

Science is the study of what we can observe. Morality is the study of how we should respond to what we observe. These two fields definitely overlap and must be consistent. You fail miserably at both.

The fields don't overlap. Ethics can be informed by science, but pure science cannot make moral judgments.

And what are we "doing" with the facts if we assume personhood to begin with the creation of a new human?

What are you "doing" with the facts if you deny that new human the right to life?

You're making an assumption that a cell is a person that deserves a right to life.

Biology is on my side. No invention of defining traits is required. It is you that is worried about popularity and consequences. Popularity and perceived consequences are two things that will always pervert good science.

I gave you real consequences, you're just ignoring them because you don't like what they mean for your position.

You are a living breathing representation of Dunning-Kruger.

 

[nicholsmom]

NM, I'm partly responding to your assertions about "life" based on what you said in the other thread, which were totally wrong.

I'm a biology instructor, trust me I understand what a life cycle is. But you are ALL misusing biology to state that personhood MUST begin at syngamy (that is gamete fusion).

Because at syngamy you have a brand new, living individual specimen. Biology classifies that individual as a human being. It does not define it as a cell from a human being, it defines it as an individual human being. Do you deny that? Does biology require that an organism have more than one cell? No. Does it require that an individual be fully, or even partially developed before it can be called an organism? No. Classification is not concerned about any of those things. The single-celled human individual is a human individual at it's earliest stage of development. If you doubt that, have a look at the descriptions of the human life cycle on the biology cites.

Its a brand new combination of human DNA in a living cell. It has the potential to develop into one new individual, several new individuals, or nothing at all.

Show me a biology text that denies that that new diploid cell is anything other than an individual of the human species.

Fully 1/3 of those combinations cannot possibly develop into an adult (or even an early embryo) due to chromosomal abnormalities and spontaneously abort.

Early death in no way invalidates the life of the individual. Can you find something in a biology text that says otherwise?

Could you decide that, that one cell, no matter how it develops (or doesn't) is deserving of a right to life, same as a baby or adult? Certainly, you can make that judgment.

No I can't, but God can. That is why the founders claimed, and I agree, that life is an inalienable right - because it is endowed by our Creator.

But biology itself is SILENT on judgments like that.

Biology just makes clear when the life cycle of a human specimen begins. That makes it easier for us to realize that human zygote is a human individual. Which leads us to the ethical question in the first place.

Biology gives us information about how things work, its completely wrong to say biology TEACHES a moral position. You can make a moral argument for implantation, heartbeat, brainwaves, quickening, even birth using biology.

I haven't heard one. To make those arguments, you'd have to somehow show that prior to that moment, the individual is somehow NOT a human being.

So no you cannot say biology TEACHES personhood from conception.

Quote me saying that

All I have claimed that biology teaches us is at what point the human life cycle begins - when a new human specimen begins its individual life cycle.

You must explain WHY a single cell, even the first cell of a potential new individual should have the same right to life as a person.

Because that special diploid cell is a human individual until you find a way to prove that it isn't.

If you're really saying that personhood starts at conception, you're arguing that it is human DNA alone that makes something a person, because that's really all that is different between an egg and a zygote. We are more than just our DNA.

You are a biology teacher. You know that that particular diploid cell is unique. It isn't like your cheek cells, or even like your stem cells. That diploid cell that is formed by the joining of male and female gametes of the same species is unique. It isn't just DNA, it's a brand new specimen of the species.

I'm a biology instructor, you can't get this human cell is equivalent to a baby or an adult from this is the first cell of something. That's a moral and ethical judgment, biology does not teach morals or ethics, period.

That single-celled human individual IS a human being - it is exactly equivalent to any other human being in value as well as in classification. The moral judgment is our own - what does it mean to be a human individual? That isn't what I'm pointing to here - I am pointing to the simple, bare fact of zygotes being individual specimens of their species. A human zygote is classified by biology as a human being - a specimen of the species homo sapiens sapiens.

After that, we must leave biology behind (go check my posts, you will find that I am consistent, if not explicit, in this position) to make the claim that every human being is a person.


Once I finally get all the words and minor details all right, do you suppose you can start treating my arguments like actual arguments? You are a biology prig. My point has been valid all along, even without having all of the precise wording and insignificant details correct to your absurd standard.

 

[Stripe]

I've already given you physical traits that define personhood in my book. Your definition has no more biological value than mine.

Actually, to claim that the creation of a new human life is the point at which a new person is created makes a whole lot more rational, biological and common sense than suggesting that when a new human's heart starts beating he magically turns into a person.

Not to mention that you keep trying to tell us that we cannot use biology to define personhood, yet here you are again, trying to do exactly that. :squint:

If you define a zygote as a person, you're defining it based on its DNA and the status of that DNA. You bring what it means to be human to PURE biology without any definition of what it actually means to be a human being/person.

You do nothing but misrepresent what has been clearly explained to you many times. At conception we have the formation of a new human. We assume the baby from that point on to be a person. If you have some biological reason why we should not believe this, please present your view. You'll do well to respond to what you are told. And it would serve you well to quit making up things that you wish we had said.

Your "definition" amounts to this: A Human (Homo sapiens) cell that is programmed to go through embryonic development (and any natural product of such a cell) is a person. (Of course that would include Hydatidiform moles and chorionic carcinoma . . . .)

:blabla:

It's not simply "he will die", the zygote will fail to develop anything we normally associate with humanity. It starts and ends as a clump of undifferentiated cells.

So he won't die? He'll live forever? Or are you assuming the truth of your assumptions again? Shifting the goalposts at your leisure.

I think it makes more sense to say a zygote is a potential person (or persons), a person to be. If it makes it long enough without turning into a monstrous growth or failing development 101, then you can grant a right to life. If you granted it before, you might end up stating that you must protect the Hydatidiform mole over the life of the mother . . .

This is stark raving bonkers. Once medical advice comes in that the conception has failed then action should be taken to save the mother. There is no reason to not assume personhood based on the fact that what you find might not be viable.

I asked YOU a question Stripey. What happens to the 30% of all zygotes that don't survive? Do they go to heaven or not?

Yes. They do.

The fields don't overlap. Ethics can be informed by science, but pure science cannot make moral judgments.

So they don't overlap except for where you say they overlap. Gotcha. :thumb:

You're making an assumption that a cell is a person that deserves a right to life.

Uh huh. And the biology is on my side. You're making the opposite assumption, that at conception the baby is not a person. Where is your evidence that a heartbeat is what constitutes personhood?

I gave you real consequences, you're just ignoring them because you don't like what they mean for your position.

It doesn't matter how real the consequences are. You still need a rational reason why we should accept your criteria for what constitutes a person. You don't have anything except arguments from consequence and appeals to popularity.

You are a living breathing representation of Dunning-Kruger.

Ah .. the wail of the man who has nothing left to contribute.

What a loser. :loser:

 

[Yorzhik]

Humans are egg cells before that and germline cells before that and ALL of them are ALIVE . . . . Science doesn't tell you which ones are PEOPLE and deserve a total right to life.

No. Humans were not egg cells before that. There was an egg, and there was a sperm, but neither of those is a human. Unlike after these are joined, then you have a human at the 1 cell stage.

It has the agreed upon status in society for other stages of life, so not it's not just *I* say so, its what society is converging on.

It does not have have the agreed upon status in other stages of life to decide if someone is a human or not. It only has the status of deciding if someone is alive or dead. As a measure of personhood, it is just as arbitrary as any other measure after conception.

No I'm trying to figure out if its a PERSON. "Alive" isn't the question. When *I* am dead, many of my cells will still be alive, that doesn't make ME alive.

Thanks for making my point.

Your position is based on a particular principle, so is mine.

Yeah. My principle is that we shouldn't arbitrarily decide which humans are people. Your principle is that we can arbitrarily suggest possibly killing some humans to save others.

If you don't see the failure inherent in your principle, you are willfully blind.

The failure in my principle is that it isn't popular. But let's say it was, would you agree then that all humans should be people?

This kind of comparison is just plain stupid and you know it. But even using your analogy, slavery was first subject to restrictions before it was finally banned.

It's what you said: "If you and everyone else personally want to decide that using such things are immoral and you want to advocate for people not to use them feel free."

Its not me personally losing things that's the issue, the issue is how many people (however they are defined) ACTUALLY GET SAVED! You're continually ignoring this point, which has been one of my main points from the beginning.

And I keep addressing this point head on and clearly. If there is a situation where I might possibly be murdering humans, I avoid it.

You, on the other hand, figure that if the bushes move it's OK to shoot.

The statistics show that Americans as a whole are READY for more restrictions on abortion. A majority of Americans favor 2nd and third trimester abortions being restricted or banned. It would be relatively easy to save millions of babies by enacting restrictions that followed the wishes of the American people. But if you move the bar to zygotes, nobody other than the most extreme will be behind you and NO babies will be saved because policy will not be changed.

Now there's a possibility I could live with. I'm not completely discouraged as history is sometimes on the side of those that take the moral high ground in the face of an unpopular position. Right now, the only thing standing in our way is Christians who don't even follow their principle of "If you and everyone else personally want to decide that using such things are immoral and you want to advocate for people not to use them feel free." but actively fight us like you are right now.

What do you think is more important, human life or principle that saves no lives? Give me a proposal restricting abortion that can be implemented and I will get behind it. Would you do the same or still stand on "principle" and let babies die in the meantime?

Here's a proposal: just stop fighting us and get out of the way.

 

[Alate_One]

No. Humans were not egg cells before that. There was an egg, and there was a sperm, but neither of those is a human.

They have human DNA just like a zygote. They CAME from a human being, they are both alive.

Unlike after these are joined, then you have a human at the 1 cell stage.

An egg is missing a piece to enable it to develop, that is all. A zygote is just an egg that has all the information it needs to develop.

Yeah. My principle is that we shouldn't arbitrarily decide which humans are people. Your principle is that we can arbitrarily suggest possibly killing some humans to save others.

The problem is using this standard you'll classify human beings PURELY based on biology and their DNA structure. Is that all you use to assign humanity?

If a law is written that simply says "personhood begins at conception", there's no way to tell between an actual embryo and a molar pregnancy or to decide what to do in the case of an ectopic pregnancy. You introduce all kinds of problems by using this definition, then you have to go back and try to make exceptions for the biologically ignorant standard you've set up.

And I keep addressing this point head on and clearly. If there is a situation where I might possibly be murdering humans, I avoid it.

You, on the other hand, figure that if the bushes move it's OK to shoot.

No, more like I'm not going to flip out if someone happens to accidentally step on an ant that you've determined has a right to life.

I am not advocating that it is necessarily a good idea to purposefully destroy zygotes or blastocysts. However, I'm not going to deny women the pill or other hormonal contraceptives on the off chance that maybe a zygote that could have implanted and developed, won't. I'm not going to tell couples with frozen embryos or at IVF clinics that they, by law MUST implant every embryo they generate. I wouldn't be against better regulations on numbers of embryos that are generated, however. Nor am I against "embryo donation" for couples that want to do such things with their embryos. If they want to donate them to stem cell research, they should be free to do so.

I think surgical abortions in general are a bad thing, but I doubt you can get restrictions before the second trimester (heartbeat and brainwaves start about halfway through the first trimester). But I would be happy with such a restriction, rather than the nothing that we have now.

Here's a proposal: just stop fighting us and get out of the way.

I'm not fighting you, I'm merely posting on forums in disagreement with your position. If I were FIGHTING this proposal I'd be donating money, be out in the streets holding up signs etc in opposition.

I know you've already lost in the court of public opinion, nor would I feel that it was worth my time to stand on street corners fighting you. I was hoping to direct your efforts to something actually useful. But its quite clear you have an unwavering position, which I still believe is misguided and a waste of your time.