Trump wants to ban ABORTION, IVF, MIFEPRISTONE nationwide and JAIL doctors who provide care.

[oldmanfan]

31 minutes ago, Pokebball said:

Significant pivot here my friend. 

 

You should have kept reading.

I do IVF for a living and have been a reproductive biologist for over 40 years.  Here's some biologic facts.  There is no moment of conception; fertilization is a continuous process that begins when the sperm first contacts the cells surrounding the egg at ovulation and ends at syngamy when the chromosomes from the egg and sperm align just before the first embryonic cleavage division.  That is fact.  Entry of the sperm into the egg following sperm-egg fusion (and I have published a number of papers of sperm-egg fusion, does not mean the beginning of life because the fertilization process may not be completed.  We know this from IVF where we commonly inject sperm directly into the egg to achieve fertilization (a process known as ICSI).  Even when one directly places the sperm inside the egg fertilization does not occur about 15% of the time on average.  So there is no discreet part of the fertilization process where you can say life begins.

 

Some say life begins when the sperm enters the egg because a unique genetic identity is formed.  That is not true, and we know it is not true because of the existence of identical twins, each of which are unique human entities and each of which derive from the same fertilized egg.

 

Another biologic fact is that many fertilized eggs, either in nature or during IVF, do not continue developing post completion of the fertilization process.  Human embryos commonly stp growing at the 4-8 cell stage because it is at that stage where the embryonic genome is activated and then controls further development.  That is a sensitive point and many embryos cannot pass this stage; about 40-50% in the IVF setting, and it varies based on the patient.  

 

Human are eutherian mammals; they require the formation of a placenta for maternal-fetal communication and development to term.  Placental development only occurs if the embryo implants into the uterine lining, and that happens about 20% of the time in any given month for couples trying to conceive.  The other 80% of the time either fertilization does not occur, the embryo does not develop to the point where it can implant, or the embryo develops to implantation (blastocyst) stage but fails to implant because of dissynchrony with the uterine lining.  So while an embryo has the POTENTIAL to become a fetus, and deserves respect and our best efforts to support the embryo to do so, its potential can only be reached with successful implantation.  Thus one could make an argument that the debate on when human life begins should start at implantation (but even then twinning can occur post-implantation).  

 

One last point.  Science proves or disproves things base on use of the scientific method.  You make an observation, form a hypothesis to explain your observation, then you must experimentally test your hypothesis to determine of the hypothesis should be accepted or rejected.  And this is why science cannot tell you when human life begins.  There is no way to design experiments to prove or disprove that hypothesis.  Thus, the question remains, and rightly so, a moral and/or religious and/or ethical question to be debated in those forums.

 

These are the biologic facts of fertilization and pre-implantation development.  Again I do this for a living, have done it for 40 years, and while I don't usually come to this side of the board I always weigh in on these kinds of discussion so actual facts are brought to bear.

Edited May 10, 2023 by oldmanfan

[Joe Ferguson forever]

1 hour ago, Pokebball said:

Significant pivot here my friend. 

 

You should have kept reading. But I get it, it doesn't fit your agenda.

It's philosophy friend.  Not science although the concept of time is fascinating...

[T master]

On 5/9/2023 at 9:26 AM, BillStime said:

 

Women and couples making the best choice for them.

 

F your feelings.

 

 

 

So then you feel that it's okay to be irresponsible when being sexually active or in a relationship and you decide that you don't want protected sex or to have sex responsibly and use contraception as to not get a women pregnant so that is okay to be irresponsible for both & the only one that has to pay any consequence is the unborn child if let goto long & those being irresponsible can just make the decision regardless of their actions with no consequence ?

 

Welcome to the NWO do what ever you want and don't worry some one else will take care of it or you won't be held responsible .

 

Which also sounds like go ahead and break the law put in place as to not enter our country illegally and we'll pick up the tab or we will deport you 5 times and we will ease the laws so you can commit a felony by reentering the country numerous times  .

 

Also sounds a lot like making the decision to sign papers agreeing to pay for your tuition to go to college and then after words just deciding to be irresponsible and default on it OR allow the gov't to say you don't have to be responsible & honor your promise to repay that money it's okay to be a slug !!

 

But dam we can't go with out raising the debt ceiling as to print more money because the US would have to default on some of the BS things that they spend money on like Chuck Schumers pay check talk about a double standard which is not just in the justice system but where ever they deem it proper . 

 

The only thing that is different in the other things i mentioned which you don't care about is that there is a life involved in or could be involved in irresponsible sex . But hell that's okay .

 

Looks as if there is a recurring theme here of irresponsibility & no consequences but that's just me i guess .

[BillStime]

31 minutes ago, T master said:

 

So then you feel that it's okay to be irresponsible when being sexually active or in a relationship and you decide that you don't want protected sex or to have sex responsibly and use contraception as to not get a women pregnant so that is okay to be irresponsible for both & the only one that has to pay any consequence is the unborn child if let goto long & those being irresponsible can just make the decision regardless of their actions with no consequence ?

 

Welcome to the NWO do what ever you want and don't worry some one else will take care of it or you won't be held responsible .

 

Which also sounds like go ahead and break the law put in place as to not enter our country illegally and we'll pick up the tab or we will deport you 5 times and we will ease the laws so you can commit a felony by reentering the country numerous times  .

 

Also sounds a lot like making the decision to sign papers agreeing to pay for your tuition to go to college and then after words just deciding to be irresponsible and default on it OR allow the gov't to say you don't have to be responsible & honor your promise to repay that money it's okay to be a slug !!

 

But dam we can't go with out raising the debt ceiling as to print more money because the US would have to default on some of the BS things that they spend money on like Chuck Schumers pay check talk about a double standard which is not just in the justice system but where ever they deem it proper . 

 

The only thing that is different in the other things i mentioned which you don't care about is that there is a life involved in or could be involved in irresponsible sex . But hell that's okay .

 

Looks as if there is a recurring theme here of irresponsibility & no consequences but that's just me i guess .

So I can put you down as YES for mandatory vasectomies for males puberty on up?

 

 

[Joe Ferguson forever]

4 hours ago, oldmanfan said:

 

One last point.  Science proves or disproves things base on use of the scientific method.  You make an observation, form a hypothesis to explain your observation, then you must experimentally test your hypothesis to determine of the hypothesis should be accepted or rejected.  And this is why science cannot tell you when human life begins.  There is no way to design experiments to prove or disprove that hypothesis.  Thus, the question remains, and rightly so, a moral and/or religious and/or ethical question to be debated in those forum

Awesome.  Well put my learned friend.  simple minds desire simple answers, however.   You couldn't have stated it any more clearly but they still won't understand  that science, religion and philosophy can coexist but  not always agree.  And yet they espouse a "Christian" theocracy for America.  God help us.

Edited May 10, 2023 by redtail hawk

[Joe Ferguson forever]

4 hours ago, ComradeKayAdams said:

 

Yeah, it will likely be a lot closer than it needs to be. Biden’s approval numbers are historically low: 36%, the lowest for a first-term president in the post-WW2 era who is 18 months away from the next election cycle. But hey, y’all can’t blame me for Zombie Joe and Cackling Kamala! I was a Sandernista in 2020 and am voting for Marianne Williamson* in the upcoming primaries.

 

Nevertheless, Biden and Harris should still trump Trump and DeSantis and any other Christian nationalist. We are WAY past the days of reasonable GOP alternatives a la the great Jack Kemp. All Joe needs to do is harp on about a federal codification of Roe v. Wade (the 24-week limit) or some type of further left/right compromise like a Euro-style 15-week ban (but with clearly delineated exceptions for the usual: rape, i n c e s t, life of the mother/ectopic pregnancies, psychological health of mother/suicide ideations, fetal abnormalities, D&C/D&E miscarriage procedures, cryptic pregnancies/irregular periods/amenorrhea situations, lengthy abortion waiting lists, etc.). Special emphasis should be placed on exceptions like rape to highlight how unreasonable the GOP stance really is on abortion. Example: talking about how rape victims commonly delay abortion procedures or forego criminal prosecution due to emotional traumatization, intimidation from partners, reticence to deal with all the public slut shaming or prosecutorial red tape, etc.

 

I also want to clarify my “319-219 electoral college blowout” remark (a blowout is relative, but a 100-vote electoral college margin does seem sizable in this modern era of highly polarized politics):

 

1. I conceded 24 red states for 219 votes and am comfortable with allotting 17 obvious blue states for 212 votes.

2. I’m giving Team Blue a Midwestern-ish edge in Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Minnesota because the Dem Party machine is expected to churn out huge pro-choice Zoomer numbers in major college towns outside the Bible Belt. So that’s 4 more states with 54 more electoral college votes…266-219 in favor of Team Blue.

3. That means Team Red must secure New Hampshire AND Arizona AND Nevada AND North Carolina AND Georgia (5 states, 53 votes) in order to get to 270+. It’s a very narrow electoral college path to victory, made even narrower when you factor in the apparent post-Dobbs agglutination of the 2020 Bernie diaspora around the Dem Party.

 

* - Make sure you vote for Marianne, Redtail Hawk! Universal healthcare is her flagship policy for 2024!

again, I hope you are correct.  re points 2 and 3 I worry about the upper midwestern states:  MI, WI, MN.  NH and Georgia, especially look good to me.  Who would have ever predicted a Jew and a Black Senator from Ga?  The south may yet rise again!  And Bernie rocks.  But he would have lost to trump so it was the right choice.

Edited May 10, 2023 by redtail hawk

[Joe Ferguson forever]

1 hour ago, T master said:

So then you feel that it's okay to be irresponsible when being sexually active or in a relationship and you decide that you don't want protected sex or to have sex responsibly and use contraception as to not get a women pregnant so that is okay to be irresponsible for both & the only one that has to pay any consequence is the unborn child if let goto long & those being irresponsible can just make the decision regardless of their actions with no consequence ?

 

there are already bills planned to outlaw contraception.  What then.  Do  you pay enough tax to support millions of unwanted and unsupported babies?  How many starving kids are enough?

 

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/birth-control-ruling-to-see-fresh-scrutiny-in-republican-controlled-texas-capitol

Edited May 10, 2023 by redtail hawk

[Joe Ferguson forever]

41 minutes ago, BillStime said:

So I can put you down as YES for mandatory vasectomies for males puberty on up?

 

 

I'll answer for him:  only for non whites.

[Pokebball]

5 hours ago, oldmanfan said:

I do IVF for a living and have been a reproductive biologist for over 40 years.  Here's some biologic facts.  There is no moment of conception; fertilization is a continuous process that begins when the sperm first contacts the cells surrounding the egg at ovulation and ends at syngamy when the chromosomes from the egg and sperm align just before the first embryonic cleavage division.  That is fact.  Entry of the sperm into the egg following sperm-egg fusion (and I have published a number of papers of sperm-egg fusion, does not mean the beginning of life because the fertilization process may not be completed.  We know this from IVF where we commonly inject sperm directly into the egg to achieve fertilization (a process known as ICSI).  Even when one directly places the sperm inside the egg fertilization does not occur about 15% of the time on average.  So there is no discreet part of the fertilization process where you can say life begins.

 

Some say life begins when the sperm enters the egg because a unique genetic identity is formed.  That is not true, and we know it is not true because of the existence of identical twins, each of which are unique human entities and each of which derive from the same fertilized egg.

 

Another biologic fact is that many fertilized eggs, either in nature or during IVF, do not continue developing post completion of the fertilization process.  Human embryos commonly stp growing at the 4-8 cell stage because it is at that stage where the embryonic genome is activated and then controls further development.  That is a sensitive point and many embryos cannot pass this stage; about 40-50% in the IVF setting, and it varies based on the patient.  

 

Human are eutherian mammals; they require the formation of a placenta for maternal-fetal communication and development to term.  Placental development only occurs if the embryo implants into the uterine lining, and that happens about 20% of the time in any given month for couples trying to conceive.  The other 80% of the time either fertilization does not occur, the embryo does not develop to the point where it can implant, or the embryo develops to implantation (blastocyst) stage but fails to implant because of dissynchrony with the uterine lining.  So while an embryo has the POTENTIAL to become a fetus, and deserves respect and our best efforts to support the embryo to do so, its potential can only be reached with successful implantation.  Thus one could make an argument that the debate on when human life begins should start at implantation (but even then twinning can occur post-implantation).  

 

One last point.  Science proves or disproves things base on use of the scientific method.  You make an observation, form a hypothesis to explain your observation, then you must experimentally test your hypothesis to determine of the hypothesis should be accepted or rejected.  And this is why science cannot tell you when human life begins.  There is no way to design experiments to prove or disprove that hypothesis.  Thus, the question remains, and rightly so, a moral and/or religious and/or ethical question to be debated in those forums.

 

These are the biologic facts of fertilization and pre-implantation development.  Again I do this for a living, have done it for 40 years, and while I don't usually come to this side of the board I always weigh in on these kinds of discussion so actual facts are brought to bear.

Interesting contrast. Multiple biologists, all of which have been published and many of their papers having been peer reviewed, present their arguments for life beginning at conception. You post your position on a message board as fact. I tend to believe the medical & science professionals in the first category. Your argument appears to me to get all hung up on stages of development. I think everyone agrees that there are stages.

[Joe Ferguson forever]

2 minutes ago, Pokebball said:

Interesting contrast. Multiple biologists, all of which have been published and many of their papers having been peer reviewed, present their arguments for life beginning at conception. You post your position on a message board as fact. I tend to believe the medical & science professionals in the first category. Your argument appears to me to get all hung up on stages of development. I think everyone agrees that there are stages.

and what exactly are your credentials in reproductive science?  "multiple" climate" scientists" also say that global warming is a hoax but they are in the vast minority.  Can you give a rough estimate of what percentage of biologists believe life begins at conception?  I could accurately say that  multiple practicing physicians still believe HCQ is effective to treat covid including a poster who claims to be a physician on this board.

Edited May 10, 2023 by redtail hawk

[oldmanfan]

1 minute ago, Pokebball said:

Interesting contrast. Multiple biologists, all of which have been published and many of their papers having been peer reviewed, present their arguments for life beginning at conception. You post your position on a message board as fact. I tend to believe the medical & science professionals in the first category. Your argument appears to me to get all hung up on stages of development. I think everyone agrees that there are stages.

I do reproductive biology and IVF for a living.  There are very few people in the world who have the knowledge base I have in the area including scientists in other fields.  Not bragging, just reality.  I would defer to physicists if it’s a physics question, I suggest you defer to a reproductive biologist when discussing questions of reproduction.

 

 

[Pokebball]

6 minutes ago, redtail hawk said:

and what exactly are your credentials in reproductive science?

I was speaking philosophically 

4 minutes ago, oldmanfan said:

I do reproductive biology and IVF for a living.  There are very few people in the world who have the knowledge base I have in the area including scientists in other fields.  Not bragging, just reality.  I would defer to physicists if it’s a physics question, I suggest you defer to a reproductive biologist when discussing questions of reproduction.

 

 

 

When do you think human life begins?

Edited May 10, 2023 by Pokebball

[oldmanfan]

Just now, Pokebball said:

I was speaking philosophically 

Which is the realm in which the question of when human life begins belongs.

[Pokebball]

1 minute ago, oldmanfan said:

Which is the realm in which the question of when human life begins belongs.

Not scientific? Interesting response from a biologist

[Joe Ferguson forever]

13 minutes ago, Pokebball said:

I was speaking philosophically 

 

When do you think human life begins?

what happened to "are you published".  Would your opinion be changed if he had 1000 publications on the subject?  You disrespect science and philosophy with your ignorance but I suppose that's your point...MAGA's aren't real friendly to academics.  Get rid of the intellectuals first is a fascist tenet.  I wonder why...

Edited May 10, 2023 by redtail hawk

[Pokebball]

Just now, redtail hawk said:

what happened to "are you published".  Would your opinion be changed if he had 1000 publications on the subject?  You disrespect science and philosophy with your ignorance but I suppose that's your point...

I thought it better to get oldman's scientific opinion on when life begins first. I do want to know if he's been published too. That question would have come. Hopefully he'll answer both.

[Joe Ferguson forever]

4 minutes ago, Pokebball said:

I thought it better to get oldman's scientific opinion on when life begins first. I do want to know if he's been published too. That question would have come. Hopefully he'll answer both.

and if he published 1000 articles on the subject, would you accept his opinion on when life begins?   We both just told you that science can't answer the question.  Stop the games.  Put your cards on the table and lose fairly.  You"re far out of your league.

Edited May 10, 2023 by redtail hawk

[Pokebball]

6 minutes ago, redtail hawk said:

and if he published 1000 articles on the subject, would you accept his opinion on when life begins?  Stop the games.  Put your cards on the table and lose fairly

It absolutely validates his opinion on this matter. But aren't you being hypocrytical given that my links included scientists and medical professionals that have been published and peer reviewed?

 

Also, I want to make sure you understand that the Catholic Churches belief is that the world wasn't created in just 6 days. 😁

Edited May 10, 2023 by Pokebball

[oldmanfan]

13 minutes ago, Pokebball said:

Not scientific? Interesting response from a biologist

You cannot scientifically prove or disprove when human life begins because you cannot apply the scientific method to the question.  What experiments would you design?  What controls?  What data would you gather?

11 minutes ago, Pokebball said:

I thought it better to get oldman's scientific opinion on when life begins first. I do want to know if he's been published too. That question would have come. Hopefully he'll answer both.

About 40 peer reviewed articles in different journals.  An NIH New Investigator award for research in sperm-egg fusion.  Director of clinical IVF labs for over 49 years.

 

By the way some of your references were textbooks.  They aren’t peer reviewed.

[Joe Ferguson forever]

9 minutes ago, Pokebball said:

It absolutely validates his opinion on this matter. But aren't you being hypocrytical given that my links included scientists and medical professionals that have been published and peer reviewed?

 

Also, I want to make sure you understand that the Catholic Churches belief is that the world wasn't created in just 6 days. 😁

yes, I thought it likely you are a "Christian nationalist"  most of whom are from reformed churches.  Just a guess.  But there exist fundamentalist Catholics too.

 

keep it up with the appeal to authority fallacy tho.  It's very effective🤣.  

 

So given your intimate knowledge of the thoughts of so many reproductive scientists, what percentage do you estimate believe life begins at conception?

 

While you're at it, please give your scientific understanding of the meaning of life...

Edited May 10, 2023 by redtail hawk