so you would feel sick if you looked through a microscope and saw a dead egg? could you even tell if it was fertilized or dead? would you even be able to tell it was an human egg?

I would not feel sick if I saw a dead egg through a microscope. An unfertilized human egg is haploid (23 chromosomes). Women pass dead eggs naturally via their menstrual cycle every 28-35 days. If the egg doesn’t get fertilized, it dies.

A fertilized egg or embryo looks different under a microscope because when the egg is fertilized by the sperm the cells begin dividing rapidly through mitosis to differentiate into the different human organ systems. The number of cells can be identified or counted to determine the age of the embryo. In a dead egg the cell dies and enzymes that are stored inside special organelles are liberated and begin to degrade the cell. These changes can be seen under a microscope. So the answer is YES you could tell.

How does whether or not a person can visually tell the difference between a human female egg and another mammalian female egg under a microscope have any correlation to the issue of abortion? Even being able to identify a FERTILIZED human egg vs. another mammals doesn’t matter. What matters is the FACT that the fertilized human egg is a human life whether a lay person can differentiate it from another mammals embryo or not. You can however differentiate human eggs and embryos from that which is not human via DNA gel electrophoresis. These questions are asinine. What is it that you are arguing again? I forgot. lol.

of course one can tell the differences i mentioned, i was merely asking if you could. i don't need a biology lesson you remembered from school, i am quite aware of the process.

im not arguing the merits of life here. what im saying is how could someone possibly find a picture of a dead fertilized egg obscene.

(p.s if i mention eggs, take it for granted that i am talking about fertilized eggs, im not talking about the menstrul cycle here...ok!?)

Well your argument has no reasoning to the argument at hand. You say egg then you say you mean fertilized egg. Guess what? You are a fertilized egg that grew and was pushed out or surgically removed from a woman. When did you actually become a human being? Give me that answer and then we will be on our way to getting to the heart of the discussion.

__________________
Those who think they know everything, usually know the least.

here is the original post of this topic:

im not arguing abortion with you. im saying how can you a/be disgusted with something thats on a microscopic level just because it's (ahemm....human)

Pray tell...if it is not human, what species to you suggest that it belongs to? To the best of my knowledge we don't get to drift from one species to another...we either are human or we are not...age is not a determinant of species...a zygote at conception plus 1 second is as human as a 100 year old...the proof is in the DNA...

__________________
It may be that your sole purpose in life is to serve as a warning to others.

a toe is part of a human, but that doesn't make it a homo-sapian...now does it dear?

"Human" but not an individual and we tend to forget we are talking about individual human rights -
Well when the embryo / fetus is a "separate individual" it is afforded individual human rights. Until the moment of birth it is the minority part of a duality in which the majority part is the mother.
The mother exercises the rights for the duality and she gets priority over the fetus anyway - by virtue of her cognitive ability, seniority and the simple fact that ultimately - she is the permanent resident of her body whilst the fetus is just "passing through.

__________________
Free Speech measures the idiot by what he says
Censorship measures the idiot as equal with the Sage.

myopic - n. - referring to a visual defect in which distant objects appear blurred because their images are focused in front of the retina rather than on it; nearsightedness. Also called short sight.

You seem to think in terms that are about a mile wide, but inches deep...a toe "my dear" is a part of a human being..a single celled zygote is human in its entirety at that particular stage of it's development. The number of cells present doesn't determine the degree of humanity. An adult certainly has more cells than an infant, yet both are equally human...and if an infant is human, then an unborn must be human...we are what we are at any given stage of our development..and if our DNA says that we belong to species homo sapiens, then we must be human..

I know that you want to be right here...but it simply isn't possible. You are in the wrong and as long as you hold this position, you will continue to be wrong.

The only pro choice argument that I am unable to bring down is the one in which you say that you are simply ok with killing innocent human beings for no better reason than convenience...

__________________
It may be that your sole purpose in life is to serve as a warning to others.

individual - n.- distinguished from others by a special quality...

The unborn's DNA proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that it is an individual...this isn't rocket science col-rouge...for one who fancies himself so bright, you should be able to grasp this quite easily...tell me, is your ignorance actual?..or deliberate?...my guess is that it is deliberate, as is the case with most pro choicers. You have obviously either been personally involved in an abortion, or rather close to someone who was...and to admit to yourself that the abortion that you were close to was in actuality a murder must be very difficult...and in making such an admission, you would never be able to look at the person who had the abortion in the same way...your willful ignorance is understandable, but it doesn't change the fact that you are holding an indefensible position.

You keep using the word "duality"..Perhaps you don't have a thourough grasp of the word. "Individuals" that compose a duality, are by definition equal...and by definition a duality is comprised of separate entities...one individual can not be a duality. So, if mother and child are a duality, then they must be individual in nature...and if they are individual in nature, and both human, one's right to protection under the law carrys no more weight than the other.

The only hope for you to win this argument is for you to prove that unborns are neither human, nor alive..then you can build a case for terminating them (oops, you can't kill that which is not alive)...While I am not an MD, I do hold a medical degree...and have biology up to the 5000 level...you simply are not going to be able to make the case that unborns are not living human beings...the best you can do is to continue to erect strawmen...I have seen, and destroyed them all...but feel free to keep trying..

__________________
It may be that your sole purpose in life is to serve as a warning to others.