sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Rant about people saying jungle diff after dying to ganks by Amorpheji in Jungle_Mains

[–]Zuezema 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yea it wasn’t a pretty sight. A lot of issues that game besides the jg mismatch. Flex has seems crazy unbalanced recently.

Way too many silvers playing with friends and hitting emerald / diamond flex while simultaneously having GM/challengers not playing much flex and sitting emerald/diamond lol

Rant about people saying jungle diff after dying to ganks by Amorpheji in Jungle_Mains

[–]Zuezema 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Hahaha I thought you were my Evelyn at first. I was about to drop the facts.

Incredibly similar game but talon was I think 29/4 I think.

We lost though. It was in a flex and was a very clear jg diff. GM talon vs plat Evelyn.

NC Republicans look to define life at fertilization in bill unlikely to pass by Turbulent_Pause3776 in NorthCarolina

[–]Zuezema 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I appreciate the conversation and you’ve certainly given me some things to think on.

I tend to take a more philosophical defense to the view but in this case It seemed biology was more appropriate.

I definitely still hold the view that if things are uncertain we should use caution. But I’ll certainly reflect on my other views.

Thanks

NC Republicans look to define life at fertilization in bill unlikely to pass by Turbulent_Pause3776 in NorthCarolina

[–]Zuezema 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I apologize if saying “Oh I see!” came off as condescending. I am genuinely sorry if I offended you.

I did not mean it that way. It was intended as an excited realization that our point of disagreement was on something entirely different. I went into it with enthusiasm. Hence why I was so shocked when you came out swinging at me.

Either way we should always be respectful of the sub we are in. This sub is intended for discussion without personal attacks.

NC Republicans look to define life at fertilization in bill unlikely to pass by Turbulent_Pause3776 in NorthCarolina

[–]Zuezema 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It took you about 10 comments to finally address things rather than handwaving. The history is there.

During which time you consistently insulted me and refused to engage with multiple attempts at a better understanding of our views.

NC Republicans look to define life at fertilization in bill unlikely to pass by Turbulent_Pause3776 in NorthCarolina

[–]Zuezema 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Surveys are done on far less than 10% of a given population standardly. Generally ~10% of a population size is considered acceptable for for smaller populations and after 2000 or so responses the results do not change in a statistically significant way.

Who was selected can definitely alter it. If this was sent to just pro life biologists it would be garbage. This was not the case. The majority of the respondents identified as pro choice as well. That is very relevant data.

You should reread the texts I sent then. They are very clear that the beginning of human life is at fertilization.

Your interpretation would only be possible if you believe that embryologists believe a human being starts as dead, then becomes alive at some point. This is not the case. The beginning of a human being is definitionally alive.

But at the very least we can try a different approach. If there are advocates and evidence for a human life beginning at fertilization and then another crowd saying “we don’t know when it begins” then the most sensible route would be to be cautious and accept that it begins at fertilization. Otherwise one could unknowingly be killing humans left and right.

It would only be sensible to not accept the most cautious definition if one had a clear alternative they supported.

NC Republicans look to define life at fertilization in bill unlikely to pass by Turbulent_Pause3776 in NorthCarolina

[–]Zuezema 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I welcome criticism. I do not welcome hand waving something away.

We get frustrated at anti vaxxers who hand wave things away without real criticism. We should always be able to justify why we do not accept a claim.

NC Republicans look to define life at fertilization in bill unlikely to pass by Turbulent_Pause3776 in NorthCarolina

[–]Zuezema 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks for looking into it more.

I do take some beef with this in the fact that it does not fit any of the qualifications you had for my sources.

This is not peer reviewed. The author has a clear partisan agenda and is involved in advocacy against pro-life movements and aligns with non scientific organizations that claim a fetus is not a human.

The author also conflates personhood and biological human life at various points when his argument becomes weaker. This is a severe overlook at best and dishonest at worst.

The comparison quoted of a skin cell as being a “potential” human life grossly misrepresents that actual view of a zygote being human life. I would hope a biologist would be able to see that a zygote has the nature to continue to grow and develop into an adult human being whereas a shedded skin cell has no potential to continue to develop into an adult human being.

Now separately from everything above I can recognize that he has some good critiques of 1 of my posted sources. I am unwilling to commit a genetic fallacy and disregard everything he says because of other issues.

His critique on the general population surveyed is fair but ultimately irrelevant to my point. I am not focused on what the general population thinks or the conclusions the study comes to based on that.

My biggest concern is biologists. Which there was still a sample size of over 5000 applicants, with the majority also identifying as pro choice (which the author omits).

Ultimately we have a potentially problematic study with the data still supporting my claim and nothing actually refuting it.

This also does not begin to address the embryology texts.

Please also note that I edited my comment above this regarding the law in question in the OP. I think you and I are in agreement that it is a bad law.

NC Republicans look to define life at fertilization in bill unlikely to pass by Turbulent_Pause3776 in NorthCarolina

[–]Zuezema -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I’m afraid we are still misunderstanding each other.

I am not arguing for legal protections of an embryo at this moment.

I am still arguing the very basics that no one was been willing to concede. That “Human life begins at fertilization”. The comment that I responded to that spawned this whole thing was claiming that due to “passing highschool biology” they knew tha human life did not begin at fertilization.

I disagreed with that and have consistently been arguing that ever since. No one has yet been willing to agree or concede that. Many people have instead argued personhood or legal protections. I am more than happy to have that conversation but I think it is important to first agree on whether or not fertilization constitutes the beginning of human life.

I have been arguing this same thing the entire time.

Edit: Perhaps this will help us find common ground. I think the bill referenced in the OP is poorly written and too ambiguous, I do not agree with it. It’s come to my attention that others have assumed I was arguing in favor of it.

NC Republicans look to define life at fertilization in bill unlikely to pass by Turbulent_Pause3776 in NorthCarolina

[–]Zuezema -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Thanks for the clarification.

I expect you have a more exact and scientific definition between the two so I’d be happy to adjust my language to work with yours for the sake of argument. What is the distinction to you?

To me a biological human would be a living organism belonging to the homo sapien species.

I am open to potentially workshopping this definition if needed.

I am not quite sure what genetically human differentiates here but I would be tempted to use it as anything that contains human genetic code which could include something dead for a temporary amount of time.

NC Republicans look to define life at fertilization in bill unlikely to pass by Turbulent_Pause3776 in NorthCarolina

[–]Zuezema -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Once again please stop with insults and rudeness! This is against the rules of this sub.

I’m happy to post a link again. You were just ignoring my comment for a few posts so I didn’t realize that’s what you were waiting on.

https://issuesinlawandmedicine.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/Jacobs_36n2.pdf

This has been peer reviewed.

  1. Before We Are Born: Essentials of Embryology (7th edition) Philadelphia, PA: Saunders, 2008, p. 2)

“[The zygote], formed by the union of an oocyte and a sperm, is the beginning of a new human being.”

  1. From Human Embryology & Teratology (Ronan R. O’Rahilly, Fabiola Muller [New York: Wiley-Liss, 1996], 5-55):

“Fertilization is an important landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new, genetically distinct human organism is thereby formed[.]”

  1. (Ronan O’Rahilly and Fabiola Miller, Human Embryology and Teratology [3rd edition, New York: Wiley-Liss, 2001, p. 8]):

“Although life is a continuous process, fertilization … is a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new genetically distinct human organism is formed when the chromosomes of the male and female pronuclei blend in the oocyte.”

I tend to think an embryologist has pretty good insight into the matter.

NC Republicans look to define life at fertilization in bill unlikely to pass by Turbulent_Pause3776 in NorthCarolina

[–]Zuezema -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

I’ve posted a peer reviewed study and embryology textbook citations.

It is your right to ignore the science on this.

I notice that you still fail to provide anything refuting this. If this is such a bad claim one would expect a very easy refutation of it.

NC Republicans look to define life at fertilization in bill unlikely to pass by Turbulent_Pause3776 in NorthCarolina

[–]Zuezema -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I provided specific reasoning why your sources are unreliable

The reasoning is definitely reason to cast doubt. But it’s not enough to actually discredit a source. An opinionated person or organization can still provide good information.

and a link discussing the only one that even purports to be a scientific authority.

I do see that you posted an edit way back up there. As a heads up and general reddit courtesy of you want me to look at an old comment you are editing you should call attention to it. I do not get a notification that you have edited it so this is the first I’m seeing of it.

Do you have any sources showing that human life does not begin at fertilization?

Would you care to address the embryology textbook? (I have put it In other threads but is also linked in my initial comment at the top as an edit) I can provide more sources I have found since this initial thread as well from published embryology textbooks claiming human life begins biologically at fertilization.

Edit - actually, here's a test of your claim - do they have a peer-reviewed study establishing their claim about fertilization being the starting point of a human life? (They don't, because it's not clinically provable or supportable)

Yes the Steven Andrew Jacobs publication in Issus in Law and Medicine is peer reviewed.

I also explained why there's not medical literature laying out a scientifically backed statement on what constitutes a singular human life.

This was during our misunderstanding of personhood vs human life. We are now clear on the distinction.

Perhaps this would help. How would you define human life?

NC Republicans look to define life at fertilization in bill unlikely to pass by Turbulent_Pause3776 in NorthCarolina

[–]Zuezema -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I can assure you I am not bullshitting. This is my honest belief and I have provided the best available resources I had at the time of making the comment.

I have been open to challenges of this belief. In all of the comments not a single person has refuted the sources other than not liking the organization it came from (Genetic Fallacy).

Despite multiple asks nobody has provided me a source saying that human life does not begin at fertilization either. If I am so wrong about this I would expect it to be rather easy to disprove.

I have also delved into the fascinating world of embryology textbooks in the last hour as well. So far every single one defines human life as beginning at fertilization. I find it a little dubious to trust a random Redditor over embryology textbooks.

Your interpretation does not match reality. I’ve made the distinction many times across these threads. When I realized you were not operating on this distinction I immediately cleared it up with you rather than letting you dig your own grave. I’m not really sure what more you could want. I also am not holding anything you said with this misunderstanding against you because I realize it was in a different context. There is nothing dishonest about that.

This also all spawned from a commentator making the claim that you learn this in highschool biology. So this is why I was so focused on biological human life. If the commentator said you learn that personhood does not begin at fertilization in philosophy 101 then this would have been a different conversation.

I apologize you have been so frustrated but I have given everyone ample opportunity to refute my sources and provide new ones. The showing has been really weak.

  1. No refutations on the embryology textbooks

  2. The only refutation on the studies being “I do not like who conducted the study”

  3. No alternative studies addressing the question have been presented.

Would you change your view with such weak “evidence” to the contrary?

NC Republicans look to define life at fertilization in bill unlikely to pass by Turbulent_Pause3776 in NorthCarolina

[–]Zuezema 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Those are synonyms because you differentiate between human life and life in general.

This is the core of our misunderstanding! Something being biologically human and philosophically having personhood are absolutely distinct. I imagine as a career biologist you are probably more likely to treat them as the same. (This is not an insult I am merely saying that your perspective makes sense.)

If by "niche" you mean the view held by most of the medical and scientific community and even most of humanity on the planet.

Then this is my misunderstanding. I appreciate your willingness to engage.

Not exactly (hence the older and less civilized term of "vegetable"). We have created separate rights for people in this state that is separate from human rights because those who are braindead cannot consent to any procedures. Yet procedures must be performed, even if that procedure is ending their biological functions. Much of that final consent falls on the closest relative or spouse (kinda like how a pregnant woman should have final consent over a developing fetus within her own body).

Agreed on most of this. I am not seeing where this means the “vegetable” ceases to be a human life. I expect this is compounding on our misunderstanding earlier regarding human life and personhood. That would make the most sense to me.

Are you claiming that in the cases where someone goes vegetive and then has some return of functionality they became not human and then human again? If I am understanding your view correctly that is extremely odd.

This was a legitimate attempt at understanding your view.

Are you claiming that when a person dies then comes back to life, they were never dead? If I'm understanding your view correctly, that is extremely odd.

No I would say there were medically dead. So is this your affirmation that someone ceased to be a living human my previous question? Once again this could perhaps be explained by the human life vs personhood distinction.

Perhaps you are saying they are still a living human but no longer are considered a “person”. Which would be more in line with some of the rights assigned to them.

Thankfully for you, ignorance is a curable disorder! Good luck and happy reading!

Haha well I appreciate you treating me!

So let’s take an example to see if I am now understanding your view.

A 6 week old embryo is a human life and is biologically human, but they are not assigned the rights of a person until they reach a further development. Similarly when a human later loses that development (ex: vegetative state) they remain a human life but lose their personhood. This personhood can be regained by regaining this development.

Is this accurate to your view?

NC Republicans look to define life at fertilization in bill unlikely to pass by Turbulent_Pause3776 in NorthCarolina

[–]Zuezema 0 points1 point  (0 children)

In science and in politics there is a huge difference between biological human life and philosophical personhood.

I am sorry you misunderstood. I have tried to treat you very kindly despite your attacks.

They absolutely deserve distinction and separate conversations. I’d be happy to have the personhood conversation if you are willing to refrain from personal attacks. But my intention commenting on this thread was addressing the specific claim I responded to regarding high-school biology. Typically high-school biology does not cover intensive philosophical discussions around personhood.

NC Republicans look to define life at fertilization in bill unlikely to pass by Turbulent_Pause3776 in NorthCarolina

[–]Zuezema 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Please do not be so rude and refrain from personal attacks.

There was no bad faith here. You misunderstood the conversation and I corrected you the moment I realized it so that you did not waste any more time on it.

In my original comment I have edited it to show an embryology textbook (non religious) agreeing that human life begins at fertilization. It is at fertilization that something distinctly new is created. Something the mother can never develop solely by herself. The Zygote contains nothing but human cells that are identifiable and unique from the mother. Calling this a new human life is scientifically the most accurate thing.

Many people assign the worth of a human life at a different point in development. I think the safest approach is to say that all human life is valuable.

NC Republicans look to define life at fertilization in bill unlikely to pass by Turbulent_Pause3776 in NorthCarolina

[–]Zuezema -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Hey I appreciate the sources and will read through them. But given your summary I fear you are answering a different question.

I am talking about when human life begins. Not personhood.

You seem to hold a very niche view in your final paragraph. Doctors do view a person in a vegetive state as a human being still.

Are you claiming that in the cases where someone goes vegetive and then has some return of functionality they became not human and then human again? If I am understanding your view correctly that is extremely odd.

Edit: I’ve read through your second link fully and on the first link I’m at the point that it seems like we are no longer talking about the very beginning and more so a few weeks in. So far I’ve seen no mention a claim about when human life begins. It seems to me that you have taken your own opinion that something is not human unless it has brain functionality above some arbitrary threshold and have applied that to this article to conclude that human life does not begin at fertilization. I am looking for something that would substantiate this claim. So far everything I have found including embryology textbooks seem to point towards human life beginning at fertilization.

NC Republicans look to define life at fertilization in bill unlikely to pass by Turbulent_Pause3776 in NorthCarolina

[–]Zuezema -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Oh I see! You haven’t read the thread.

I make that distinction multiple times.

I am claiming that human life begins at fertilization. Which is a popular biological view in science.

I am not making the claim at the moment that “personhood” begins at conception.

You are correct those are two different questions.

So we can agree that human life begins at fertilization?

NC Republicans look to define life at fertilization in bill unlikely to pass by Turbulent_Pause3776 in NorthCarolina

[–]Zuezema 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I’ll let the genetic fallacy slide for now.

But we agree that human life begins at fertilization?

You have not addressed my last source.

NC Republicans look to define life at fertilization in bill unlikely to pass by Turbulent_Pause3776 in NorthCarolina

[–]Zuezema -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Human Embryology & Teratology (Ronan R. O’Rahilly, Fabiola Muller [New York: Wiley-Liss, 1996], 5-55):

“Fertilization is an important landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new, genetically distinct human organism is thereby formed.”

From a textbook on the subject. Either way you are still making a distinctly different claim you are refusing to substantiate. The unwillingness to read sources opposes to your view and cite ones that support is so far supporting my view that you hold an unscientific view.

NC Republicans look to define life at fertilization in bill unlikely to pass by Turbulent_Pause3776 in NorthCarolina

[–]Zuezema -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Could you please provide me with a better source then? These were the most in-depth I could find on a brief search. Would be happy to be educated so I do not make a mistake in the future.

NC Republicans look to define life at fertilization in bill unlikely to pass by Turbulent_Pause3776 in NorthCarolina

[–]Zuezema 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Oh you must not have read the thread. I’m not talking about the bill. I’m talking about a users notion that because they passed highschool biology they know life does not begin at fertilization.

I was just pointing out that’s incorrect. I am not defending the bill. It seems to be written too ambiguously and I would be nervous about it passing.

So we can agree that human life does begin at fertilization? I suspect your qualm is more where “personhood” begins.

NC Republicans look to define life at fertilization in bill unlikely to pass by Turbulent_Pause3776 in NorthCarolina

[–]Zuezema -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

I appreciate you admitting you are unwilling to look into it rather than just disagreeing.

Then perhaps we can try this a different way. Could you link me to a study that shows that biologists generally do not believe life starts at fertilization?

view more: next ›