[talaniman]

Look the law up yourself before you dismiss the article as ridiculous. Viability is determined by the duly certified medical attendant within the applicable law and no one else. Maybe that doesn't meet your sense of morality or outrage but it is the law and there is a process when conditions warrant for extra measures.

In addition, literally a thousand unfertilized eggs are washed from the uterus during mensuration.

[jlisenbe]

What law are you referring to? Even Athos agreed that 24 weeks is the average age of viability. You are simply wrong. Even the New York law uses 24 weeks as a general figure, though you are correct in saying it is up to the doctor. That would be the guy making hundreds of dollars off of every abortion he can possibly perform. I'm sure there is no bias there.

literally a thousand unfertilized eggs are washed from the uterus during mensuration.

First of all, that is "literally" untrue. A woman typically releases one egg per menstrual cycle. Her ovaries carry a limited number of eggs (several hundred) intended for a lifetime. Your figure of "a thousand" is preposterous.

https://www.enotes.com/homework-help...r%20so%20years.

But even if it was true, you rather cleverly tried to change the subject from zygotes, which are fertilized eggs, to "unfertilized eggs". That is not the topic.

[Wondergirl]

A woman typically releases one egg per menstrual cycle.

That's not what happens. Your terminology is incorrect.

[talaniman]

It's a related topic. https://www.healthline.com/health/womens-health/how-many-eggs-does-a-woman-have#eggs-lostach-month

Your link is for OVULATION not MENSTRUATION, and no surprise you don't know the difference.

[Wondergirl]

Your link is for OVULATION not MENSTRUATION, and no surprise you don't know the difference.

Bingo! I suspect JL will serve time in Purgatory as a female.

[jlisenbe]

Your link is for OVU.LATION not MENSTRUATION, and no surprise you don't know the difference

OK. I'll go real slow so you two can keep up. A woman ovulates about 14 days after her last period, usually with one egg. About two weeks later, her menstrual cycle ends and if the egg has not been fertilized and implanted, it is discharged. It is ONE egg, not a thousand which is crazy. To outline the number of eggs produced per cycle, you MUST talk about ovulation since that is when the ONE egg is released. Ovulation produces typically one egg which is usually discharged at the end of her cycle. One...egg...at...a...time. Get in now??? O..n...e---e...g...g----a..t----a----t...i...m...e. I'm sorry, but I just can't go any slower than that.

My terminology was exactly correct. One....egg...per...menstrual...cycle. Bear in mind that a menstrual cycle is about a month long. You are the one confusing terminology. For the painfully uninformed among us, ovulation is a part of a woman's menstrual cycle.

A thousand eggs. Laughable. And to be so deceitful as to change the topic from zygotes to unfertilized eggs? Shameful. Purgatory for intentionally lying? Does that happen???

You really need to talk about something else. Your ignorance of the subject is pretty bad. But if you can find a doc that will back up your insanely stupid idea that a woman releases a thousand eggs at a time, I'll look at it. Prepare, however, to be disappointed. You would be much better served to simply admit you made a mistake.

[Athos]

1. I've already covered the menstruation argument earlier.

No, you haven't.

I will say that there are not a "huge number" of fertilized eggs "flushed out" during one menstruation event.

You are correct. I should have said during a woman's lifetime.

At any rate, it has nothing to do with whether or not the fertilized egg is a human being.

It has EVERYTHING to do with that.

You tried to suggest that not having a funeral for those lost lives was somehow significant in relation to the question of its humanity.

I was trying to show you the absurdity of claiming life begins at conception. (When I say "life", I mean fully human life). If you truly believed life begins at conception, you would do something about those zygotes that are flushed out. Since you are not at all concerned about those human lives, I suspect your claim of being against abortion because it is murder is a convenient stance that is probably more political than anything. I say this based on your stated belief that abortion is your reason for supporting Trump. It may be the other way around.

You say that Adam was formed from dust bearing the image of God as a fully formed adult. You then make the unsupported assertion that the zygote does not have that image.

I never made that assertion. You have a habit of saying, "You made that assertion", when it is not true. I wish you would stop doing that. Or present a word-for-word direct quote for what you say I said.

[So when does a developing human receive the image of God?

This is when. "So God created man in His own image". From the Book of Genesis. After that, God left the continuation of the species up to Adam and Eve - "Be fruitful and multiply". The Book does not say when a developing human receives the image of God.

3. This is your quote concerning viability. "Viability at 24 weeks is an average. It can be somewhat longer or sooner. In any case, viability was mentioned along with the heart and the brain as ways some determine the beginning of life. As for me, I believe Roe V. Wade is the best rule available re abortion."

You quoted me correctly. Thank you. Roe v Wade allows abortion through the second trimester. In certain cases, in the third trimester also.

So you are rejecting viability as the primary standard.

I don't know where you got that from. I never said that I was rejecting viability as the primary standard. In fact, Row v Wade is primarily based on viability.

In the quote above you clearly say that 24 weeks is an acceptable standard for viability.

No, I did NOT say that! I said 24 weeks is an AVERAGE standard.

And if you intend to include a heartbeat and brain waves as part of the decision,

No, here you are in that bad habit again, telling me what I believe. The heartbeat and brain were example of what SOME people maintain. It is not a standard I said I believe in.

even though you attribute that to what "some" believe

Even though? That's exactly who I attributed it to - some. Or "some".

then you have to go back much, much farther than 24 weeks.

I have to do nothing of the sort. I don't know how you make such statements. Now you're telling me what I have to DO, not just what I SAID, or what I THINK!

It just seems that you mention all of that, and then bail out and just go with Roe v Wade.

I mentioned "all of that" because "all of that" was part of the discussion. How you got to"I bailed" out is beyond me.

I don't see how any person can say,

That's pretty obvious because there is so much you don't see with your misrepresentations of me doing, saying and thinking.

In any case, viability was mentioned along with the heart and the brain as ways some determine the beginning of life," and then reject 24 weeks as a limit for abortion. You would be saying that there are three potential standards for determining "the beginning of life", but then refusing to use any of them. Then why even mention them?

I think this question repeats an earlier one. I have answered that one, so I see no need to do it again.

Jl, if you would just present your case as you believe it with supporting facts as possible, I would be more than happy to read them and reply. Telling me what I'm thinking is not a good way to proceed. You can certainly ask me what I think, that's the civil way. But I may or may not give you an answer you like. That's the way these things are.

[jlisenbe]

It has EVERYTHING to do with that.

Oh? How's that?

I don't know where you got that from. I never said that I was rejecting viability as the primary standard. In fact, Row v Wade is primarily based on viability.

I gave you your own quote. Can't do more than that.

I mentioned "all of that" because "all of that" was part of the discussion. How you got to"I bailed" out is beyond me.

No, it wasn't. You brought up the heartbeat, brain, and viability.

I think this question repeats an earlier one. I have answered that one, so I see no need to do it again.

Nope.

But I may or may not give you an answer you like.

With you guys, I'm just happy to get any kind of an answer. For instance, you still haven't told us when the developing human can be said to be made in the image of God.

[talaniman]

You're a NUT!

[Athos]

I gave you your own quote. Can't do more than that.

You MISQUOTED me! I showed you that! Good grief!

No, it wasn't. You brought up the heartbeat, brain, and viability.

Because it was part of the discussion on when life begins. Good grief 2!

For instance, you still haven't told us when the developing human can be said to be made in the image of God.

Why don't you tell us that one? You're the Bible guy.

[jlisenbe]

You MISQUOTED me! I showed you that! Good grief!

It is not possible to misquote someone when you copy and paste their text. That's what I did. Own it.

Because it was part of the discussion on when life begins. Good grief 2!

That's fine, but when you say you didn't bring them up, you are incorrect.

Why don't you tell us that one? You're the Bible guy.

See what I mean???

Hey, I'm just glad we seem to have settled the silly, unbelievable argument (from Tal and WG) about a thousand eggs coming per cycle for women, or that ovulation is not a part of the menstrual cycle. At least that's progress. And I do appreciate your clarification of the comment you made as well, though I should point out that I know of no reason why there should be an assumption that the several hundred eggs released in the average woman's lifetime would be fertilized.

[Wondergirl]

Hey, I'm just glad we seem to have settled the silly, unbelievable argument (from Tal and WG) about a thousand eggs coming per cycle for women, or that ovulation is not a part of the menstrual cycle.

The thousand-eggs idea wasn't what was being debated with you and wasn't what I responded to. It was ovulation vs. menstruation.

[talaniman]

https://extendfertility.com/how-many...e-every-month/

But the fact is that there are tons of other eggs that don’t make it past that first stage. Each cycle, maybe 15–20 follicles are activated, but when they don’t mature, they get “reabsorbed” (AKA, they die). This process is called “atresia.”
And then—to make matters even worse—doctors estimate that we lose up to a thousand additional follicles each month, thanks to natural cell death. If you’re counting, that’s up to 1,021 eggs lost each month. Even if you’re pregnant, on birth control, or otherwise not ovulating. And the number lost each month accelerates as you age.

Case closed!

[Athos]

It is not possible to misquote someone when you copy and paste their text. That's what I did. Own it.

You quoted me word-for-word which I acknowledged and thanked you for. You misquoted me elsewhere for which I criticized you.

That's fine, but when you say you didn't bring them up, you are incorrect.

I never said I didn't bring them up. Show me the quote.

See what I mean???

No, I don't. What do you mean? I should think you would know that since you ARE the Bible guy. Do you object to that?

I know of no reason why there should be an assumption that the several hundred eggs released in the average woman's lifetime would be fertilized.

I never said any such thing. When you so badly write things like you have - that's a sign of really being desperate. When your thoughts are public like they are here, your reputation suffers.

[jlisenbe]

The thousand-eggs idea wasn't what was being debated with you and wasn't what I responded to. It was ovulation vs. menstruation.

And so you were wrong and wrong. And what I referred to what not menstruation. It was the menstrual cycle. They are not the same thing. I tend to choose my words carefully.

Tal, as is nearly always the case, you didn't bother to read your own link. The FIRST statement made is this. "Well, you’re halfway right. You ovulate one egg per month, usually. This is the single egg that makes it through the whole ovulatory process: the egg follicle is activated, the egg grows and matures, and then—once it reaches maturation—it breaks free from the ovary and begins on its journey down the Fallopian tubes. That’s ovulation."

As anyone with knowledge can tell you, the follicle has the potential to become and release a mature egg, but nearly always does not. Don't believe me? Read it for yourself. And by the way, my link is not some med site trying to get women to pay good money for their services.

An ovarian follicle is a roughly spheroid cellular aggregation set found in the ovaries. It secretes hormones that influence stages of the menstrual cycle. Women begin puberty with about 400,000 follicles,[1] each with the potential to release an egg cell (ovum) at ovulation for fertilization.[2] These eggs are developed once every menstrual cycle."

And to make matters worse (for you), this is your quote. Note that you claimed all these hundreds of imaginary eggs were, "washed from the uterus". Well...nope.

literally a thousand unfertilized eggs are washed from the uterus during mensuration.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ovarian_follicle

As you said, "Case closed."

[Athos]

I tend to choose my words carefully.

This has got to be the funniest thing I've seen here in months.

[jlisenbe]

You misquoted me elsewhere

Where? And bear in mind that quotes have those quotation marks around them. Paraphrases are not quotes as we settled what seems like a hundred years ago.

No, I don't. What do you mean?

I asked a question. You did not answer it. Parr for the course. Honestly, I knew you wouldn't. Of the three of you, Tal is the only one who will take a stab at answering difficult questions. But I'll repost it for your benefit. "For instance, you still haven't told us when the developing human can be said to be made in the image of God."

I never said any such thing. When you so badly write things like you have - that's a sign of really being desperate. When your thoughts are public like they are here, your reputation suffers.

This is the statement of yours I was referring to. "I said a huge number of fertilized eggs are flushed out during menstruation." I suppose we can debate what a "huge" number is. To take it to mean several hundred would certainly not be a stretch at all. But if you consider 80, for example, to be a "huge number", then that would explain what possibly was a misunderstanding.

My thoughts public? I'm happy to be in that situation. Gloriously happy.

[paraclete]

My thoughts public? I'm happy to be in that situation. Gloriously happy.

as I said elsewhere; Deluded

[Athos]

Where?

Go find it yourself - it's right there in front of your nose. I'm tired of doing your work for you.

I asked a question. I'll repost it for your benefit. "For instance, you still haven't told us when the developing human can be said to be made in the image of God."

Here's why I didn't answer it --- because you are putting words in my mouth that I never said. This is one of your most annoying habits and you do it far too frequently. Your question assumes I said I would tell you "when the developing human can be said to be made in the image of God." I never made that statement. YOU DID! What I did say, was that you're the Bible guy so you should provide the answer.

My thoughts public? I'm happy to be in that situation. Gloriously happy.

You enjoy being called a nut? Twice? Gloriously? You got your wish.

[jlisenbe]

Go find it yourself - it's right there in front of your nose. I'm tired of doing your work for you.

In other words, you have no clue. I have not misquoted you and you know it.

Here's why I didn't answer it --- because you are putting words in my mouth that I never said. This is one of your most annoying habits and you do it far too frequently. Your question assumes I said I would tell you "when the developing human can be said to be made in the image of God." I never made that statement. YOU DID! What I did say, was that you're the Bible guy so you should provide the answer.

Excuses, excuses. You're just afraid to answer it. It's still a legit question for the man who claimed to know where the image of God was NOT (zygote), to ask where the image of God begins. "For instance, you still haven't told us when the developing human can be said to be made in the image of God."

You enjoy being called a nut? Twice? Gloriously? You got your wish.

I said I'm happy to have MY thoughts pubic, not the foolish comments of others. That's why I don't engage in name-calling the way you do, though in fairness you have improved in that area. Like I've said, when people run out of legit answers, they go to name-calling. It is simply the result of that person's aggravation at having no answers. They are wrong and don't want to admit it.