There Is No Right To Life In The Declaration Of Independence

You keep bringing up science as the source of wisdom about what is a human being yet deny that the definitions you keep posting are so superficial as to be silly in regard to this extremely difficult question of what is a human being. I am sorry you do not see the complexity in this question about humanity but it exists nevertheless and is one physicians, parents, sons and daughters, religious thinkers, philosophers and the courts have wrestled with for thousands of years. Outside of some religious state, no other nation that I know of considers the death of an embryo, fetus or zygote murder in any fashion whatsoever because they acknowledge that my position on this is the correct one. Yours is the outlier.

 

Well I'm glad that you can say that people have the right to life, but Kamala just wasn't able!

 

It was part of my studies as a biology major. Science is quite clear ever read a textbook on embryology? And there are countires where abortion is still illegal.

 

Someone who is brain dead is still a human being. And yes plants are living beings they of the plant kingdom we of the animal kingdom. We are HUMAN beings are are so from the moment of conception.

It is not me who has to engage in semantic I have the science on my side.

 

This is getting circular, but science does NOT tell us what to value. You choose to value conception for whatever reason - I am not sure what it is, actually.

No, somebody who is brain dead is dead. It no different from a corpse, morally, and that's why it's okay to harvest organs at that point. We do show some respect to corpses, but it's more about respect to the grieving families since that corpse represents their departed/gone loved one.

 

Nothing circular about it science is quite unequivical. Science DEFINES life and when a human being is created you can decide how to value that personally but that does not change the SCIENTIFIC FACTS. And someone who is brain dead is still a human being. Your attempted definition fails on it's face. People have been charged with rape for having sex with a brain dead human being.

 

By circular I meant we're just repeating ourselves.

lol, you can't find the truth by citing the law. Roe was law and then it wasn't. Law doesn't determine moral truth.

Somebody who is brain dead is dead, legally and morally, because a human life, a person, relies upon the presence of a mind. If there is no mind, there is no entity that can actually experience harm, and therefore there is no moral relevance to the entity (for its own sake, at least). I mean seriously, think about it. Do you really want to extend rights to something that has no mental existence at all? It's like giving rights to a car or a jellyfish. Might as well be an inanimate object, or at best a biological machine.

I am having trouble understanding why you think science proves your point. Science is a powerful tool to help us determine reality. The reality that a new conception has a new set of DNA that forms the foundation for a new individual is true, but that doesn't inherently tell us anything morally. A mindless cell with unique DNA is not morally different from a mindless cell without unique DNA.

 

Well the science doesn't change does it.

Should not our laws be based on our moral truths? It is against the law to steal from someone because our moral beliefs say so.

And still a human being and you can be charged with rape if you engage in such an act with one. How about people in a coma whose mind no longer functions not brain death by no conscious mind.

Would you like to get rid of all laws concerning the treatment of anyone whose mind is not functioning? I mean they are different that a car or a jellyfish according to you.

I'm not having trouble understanding why you are trying to deny the science.

It's a matter of biology, you know SCIENCE. Every cell in your body has YOUR unique DNA, you being a multicellular being have many types of specialized cells all of which contain YOUR unique DNA. That all began at your conception when the new human being was created

 

It doesn't imply what you think it does.

Yes. The point was that just because some legal entity decided it's rape to do a sex act with a braindead body, doesn't actually tell us anything about the moral status of that braindead body.

Not a human being in any meaningful sense. The body that formerly housed a person only. In the future when we can do a total brain transplant, in reality it would be a body transplant. The mind is in the brain, and the mind IS the person. If it were possible to put somebody's mind into a machine or a computer (unsure if this will ever be possible), then the person would be in the computer.

A sleeping/comatose mind is still a mind. Brain death occurs when the damage is so severe that the brain cannot and does not house the mind any longer. The person is gone. Obliterated if you don't believe in an afterlife, and elsewhere if you do.

If they have never had a mind (early fetus), or their mind is completely and permanently destroyed (brain death), then such persons do not have interests, feelings, thoughts and do not need any rights and will not miss having rights because they don't exist mentally.

I understand the science. I just don't think it means what you think it does. Conception allows the unique DNA - a function of sexual reproduction which helps to ensure more genetic diversity. But morally, if you took a person's cell, and cloned that person, the resulting clone would be more like an identical twin. Errors prevent them being fully identical, but far less unique than somebody without a twin/clone. Would the clone then have diminished rights because of less unique DNA? No. Rights are implied by having a mind, not unique DNA. Nothing else really changes at conception that matters. Combinations of eggs and sperm are all a nearly unfathomable number of potential, but not actual, persons too. Every single nucleated cell in my body could be used to make billions of clones of myself with sufficient resources and technology. And though they would be less unique genetically than happens through sexual reproduction, they would all be deserving of rights if they had minds and would all become unique through differences in experience.

 

Only theoretically. Not in actual practice.

 

It states it clearly and concisely and unequivocally did you ever study biology and embryology?

YOU are the one saying the law decides not ME.

Science determines when the human being is created and the law should defer to the science if no why not?

ROFL now it's "meaningful sense" and science fiction.

But people in comas do not have an active conscious mind which is what you are basing being a human being.

Quote the science that says this.

At the moment of conception a new unique human being is created, what does that mean that is not what I think it means?

Conception CREATES the new unique person with that DNA.

So what? Both would be human beings.

False go read the DoI again.

There is a BIG change at conception. Two diploid cells join to form a haploid cell and a new human being is created and that human life begins. Once conception occurs there is no longer an egg and a sperm.

And each would be a human being what is your point?

 

Yes I'm a pathologist. I have studied embryology more than most doctors, but it's not something I regularly use on a high level anymore as I don't do fetal autopsies anymore. I get that you really want to emphasize "a human life" as beginning at conception, but what I don't understand is why you think it matters. A mindless embryo that gets aborted never felt anything - never thought anything - never mattered. The crux of morality is harm to others. There is no "other" if they never had a mind. It's just tissue. There must be something you're not telling me. Perhaps you believe the soul is created at conception? I get the science, I just don't get the logic of giving a mindless thing rights. You also seem to be confused on what a mind is, but suffice it to say if a person is sleeping or comatose there is still a mind. One does not have to be conscious to have a mind. A mind is just mental existence. The capacity to think or feel anything at all, and that capacity does not seek to exist if it is temporarily turned off. But it doesn't exist if no mind has ever been there, or if it's fully destroyed (brain dead).

 

And you make an argument that a ovum and a sperm is no different from a zygote?

When did you learn it began when you studied biology and embryology?

Because we are CREATED with that self-evident truth of the right to our life. Read our founding document.

A mind is mere transmission and storage of information in the brain. Human beings accumulate such information from creation, we learn even at the most basic levels and begin to respond and our bodies accomplish specific and very detailed task as we advance through all those stages of human life which began at our creation.

As a pathologist perhaps you will appreciate more what the textbooks and journals actually say.

"The development of a human being begins with fertilization, a process by which two highly specialized cells, the spermatozoon from the male and the oocyte from the female, unite to give rise to a new organism, the zygote."
[Langman, Jan. Medical Embryology. 3rd edition. Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins, 1975, p. 3]

"Embryo: The developing individual between the union of the germ cells and the completion of the organs which characterize its body when it becomes a separate organism.... At the moment the sperm cell of the human male meets the ovum of the female and the union results in a fertilized ovum (zygote), a new life has begun.... The term embryo covers the several stages of early development from conception to the ninth or tenth week of life."
[Considine, Douglas (ed.). Van Nostrand's Scientific Encyclopedia. 5th edition. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, 1976, p. 943]


"Zygote. This cell, formed by the union of an ovum and a sperm (Gr. zyg tos, yoked together), represents the beginning of a human being. The common expression 'fertilized ovum' refers to the zygote."
[Moore, Keith L. and Persaud, T.V.N. Before We Are Born: Essentials of Embryology and Birth Defects. 4th edition. Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Company, 1993, p. 1]

"Although life is a continuous process, fertilization is a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new, genetically distinct human organism is thereby formed.... The combination of 23 chromosomes present in each pronucleus results in 46 chromosomes in the zygote. Thus the diploid number is restored and the embryonic genome is formed. The embryo now exists as a genetic unity."
[O'Rahilly, Ronan and M?ller, Fabiola. Human Embryology & Teratology. 2nd edition. New York: Wiley-Liss, 1996, pp. 8, 29. This textbook lists "pre-embryo" among "discarded and replaced terms" in modern embryology, describing it as "ill-defined and inaccurate" (p. 12}]
http://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/ar...yoquotes2.html

"Recently, Dr. Robert George wrote an article outlining this whole topic in more detail. And if you want to really learn your stuff, pick up his excellent book entitled Embryo (I’m in the middle of reading it right now).
In his words:
“That is, in human reproduction, when sperm joins ovum, these two individual cells cease to be, and their union generates a new and distinct organism. This organism is a whole, though in the beginning developmentally immature, member of the human species. Readers need not take our word for this: They can consult any of the standard human-embryology texts, such as Moore and Persaud’s The Developing Human, Larsen’s Human Embryology, Carlson’s Human Embryology & Developmental Biology, and O’Rahilly and Mueller’s Human Embryology & Teratology.” – Dr. Robert George

“Human embryos, whether they are formed by fertilization (natural or in vitro) or by successful somatic-cell nuclear transfer (SCNT — i.e., cloning), do have the internal resources and active disposition to develop themselves to the mature stage of a human organism, requiring only a suitable environment and nutrition. In fact, scientists distinguish embryos from other cells or clusters of cells precisely by their self-directed, integral functioning — their organismal behavior. Thus, human embryos are what the embryology textbooks say they are, namely, human organisms — living individuals of the human species — at the earliest developmental stage.” – Dr. Robert George
- See more at: http://fallibleblogma.com/index.php/....n2q46hNU.dpuf

A New, Distinct Human Organism Comes into Being at Fertilization
It is undisputed that a new, distinct human organism comes into existence during the process of fertilization.[1] Scientific literature states the following:
• “The fusion of sperm and egg membranes initiates the life of a sexually reproducing organism.”[2]
• “The life cycle of mammals begins when a sperm enters an egg.”[3]
• “Fertilization is the process by which male and female haploid gametes (sperm and egg) unite to produce a genetically distinct individual.”[4]
• “The oviduct or Fallopian tube is the anatomical region where every new life begins in mammalian species. After a long journey, the spermatozoa meet the oocyte in the specific site of the oviduct named ampulla, and fertilization takes place.”[5]
• “Fertilization – the fusion of gametes to produce a new organism – is the culmination of a multitude of intricately regulated cellular processes.”[6]
The government’s own definition attests to the fact that life begins at fertilization. According to the National Institutes of Health, “fertilization” is the process of union of two gametes (i.e., ovum and sperm) “whereby the somatic chromosome number is restored and the development of a new individual is initiated.”[7] Thus, in the context of human life, a new individual human organism is initiated at the union of ovum and sperm. One textbook similarly explains: Human development begins at fertilization when a male gamete or sperm (spermatozoon) unites with a female gamete or oocyte (ovum) to produce a single cell – a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marked the beginning of each of us as a unique individual.[8]
Thus, a new human organism is created before the developing embryo implants in the uterus – i.e., before that time at which some people consider a woman “pregnant.”
[1] See, e.g., Condic, When Does Human Life Begin? A Scientific Perspective (The Westchester Institute for Ethics & the Human Person Oct. 200, http://bdfund.org/wordpress/wpconten...ife_print.pdf; George & Tollefsen, EMBRYO 39 (200.
[2] Marsden et al., Model systems for membrane fusion, CHEM. SOC. REV. 40(3):1572 (Mar. 2011) (emphasis added).
[3] Okada et al., A role for the elongator complex in zygotic paternal genome demethylation, NATURE 463:554 (Jan. 28, 2010) (emphasis added).
[4] Signorelli et al., Kinases, phosphatases and proteases during sperm capacitation, CELL TISSUE RES. 349(3):765 (Mar. 20, 2012) (emphasis added).
[5] Coy et al., Roles of the oviduct in mammalian fertilization, REPRODUCTION 144(6):649 (Oct. 1, 2012) (emphasis added).
[6] Marcello et al., Fertilization, ADV. EXP. BIOL. 757:321 (2013) (emphasis added).
[7] National Institutes of Health, Medline Plus Merriam-Webster Medical Dictionary (2013), http://www.merriamwebster.com/medlineplus/fertilization (emphasis added).

 

Morally yes. All are mindless.

More along the lines of this source of yours is correct:

Although life is a continuous process, fertilization is a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new, genetically distinct human organism is thereby formed.... The combination of 23 chromosomes present in each pronucleus results in 46 chromosomes in the zygote. Thus the diploid number is restored and the embryonic genome is formed. The embryo now exists as a genetic unity."
[O'Rahilly, Ronan and M?ller, Fabiola. Human Embryology & Teratology. 2nd edition. New York: Wiley-Liss, 1996, pp. 8, 29. This textbook lists "pre-embryo" among "discarded and replaced terms" in modern embryology, describing it as "ill-defined and inaccurate" (p. 12}]
http://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/ar...yoquotes2.html

“When is there a new person” wasn’t really a topic. More about normal development vs how things can go wrong.

pointless appeal to authority

Incorrect. Our minds encompass our entire mental existence. There is no mental existence without the mind. There is no mind without a prerequisite level of brain development. There is no logical alternative to the mind for moral relevance.

 

"Morally" what the heck is that supposed to mean................you do not understand the PHYSICAL differences between ovum and sperm and a zygote? And you claim to be in medicine and studied biology and embryology?

Yes a new human being is created, if things go wrong one is not.

At no point in your life is there not a time when things can go wrong. What's your point?

Our DEFINING DOCUMENT. It is not pointless and quite self-serving to dismiss out of hand.

Then cite from me the medical textbook that states a human being does not exist until there is a fully functioning mind.

 

But it seems you look the other way regarding the law....

 

The law does not determine science the law should be based on science don't ya think?

 

Bottom line is medical textbooks, unless the topic is ethics, do not tend to address this issue at all. You pretend the science suggesting an official point of being a new organism settles it. Only in your mind. Most doctors are pro-choice.

It's actually not about a fully functioning mind, it's about a mind that is functioning at all. I think one issue is you do not understand the physical correlates of having a mind. Here is a primer with some foundational knowledge on brain development. The pathways to feel pain are the most basic ones to develop for having any kind of mental existence - after all, scientifically the first purpose of a conscious mind is to have a more thoughtful response to noxious stimuli than simple reflexes: Fetal Pain: A Systematic Multidisciplinary Review of the Evidence | Pain Medicine | JAMA | JAMA Network

With zero capacity for suffering, and zero capacity for thought, an embryo has no moral relevance.

 

They address the issue of human life directly and explicitly and unequivocally. Yes some doctors believe a mother should be able to kill her unborn baby simply because she doesn't want it to be born. An act that kills a human being in the process.

It's not about the developemental stage of the mind at all we are CREATED with that self evident truth of our right to our life.

 

You are worshipping the words of people who had no idea what was going on in fetal development, and were deists. The founders set us on a better path, but that doesn't mean their every word is gospel. Hell even THEY knew this, given they allowed an amendment process.

No, doctors are not okay with killing actual persons. Personhood is defined by the mind, not the recombined genetic code of a new conception, and not even more ridiculously the heartbeat as some other pro-lifers suggest. That is why true death is defined by brain death.

 

The law should be based on the principles expressed in the founding documents, the US Constitution and the DOI.

You might have missed it during these last 3 years, but "science" was killed and "snake oil salesmen" took over. Some of us watched it happen, some of us didn't.

 

I AGREE and those founding principles as I have pointed out say we are CREATED with that self evident truth that we are ordained with our right to life. Nothing about a mother killing her baby because she doesn't want it to be born.
Yes abortion is sold by snakeoil salespeople.

 

The notion of "science above all else" was sold by Fauci & the MSM. That was a deception. Science actually means "Question Everything".

As to the matter of abortion and how it is treated legally, remember that life's problems are rarely accurately described in black and white terms. Many shades of gray exist. How and what a woman does with her body has just as many shades of gray as how a man does with his body.

The legislative process is not like a doctors scalpel, it is much more like a sledge hammer.

 

So it is situational with you.

There is no grey here either you support mothers beingnable to kill their unborn babies, human beings, because they do not want them to be born or you don't.

This is about a guillotine not a scalpel. Designed to kill not heal.

 

Nice appeal to emotion Bluesguy, but appeals to emotion don't carry much weight with me.

Science involves forming theories and then proving them by way of empirical evidence. Fauci's claim that he was science itself may have been bought by emotional folks like you, but I passed on that nonsense.

Some women, for some reasons, do not want to carry the fetus inside of them. The record is clear that some of those women will go to great lengths to get rid of the fetus. Some women forced to carry an unwanted fetus to term will abuse and even kill unwanted babies. In a civilized society abortion should be performed to the highest medical standards. Go to church and pray for their poor souls. Emotions do well in church.