Bluesguy said: ↑ No it's a biological fact, you know the science. You are a new unique individual human being at conception, a person.""""" Even if that were true...SO WHAT? (UNANSWERED QUESTION) That doesn't give the ZEF the right to do anything it pleases.... With RIGHTS come restrictions, we ALL have to adhere to them.. ALL people are unique but we don't have the right to do anything we want to others... It's CLEAR you CANNOT respond to my post ... I posted IF it were true....and then continued asking questions based on YOU SAYING IT WAS TRUE...so IF you think it's TRUE you should be able to address my post.....and you CAN'T... OBVIOUSLY, you CANNOT address the facts of what would happen IF you were correct...LOL. It is YOU who is trying to divert/dodge/dance around/evade/avoid...
Until you can tell me what was untrue about my statement I cannot respond to your post because it hinges on that claim of yours. So try again No it's a biological fact, you know the science. You are a new unique individual human being at conception, a person. What is not true about my statement?
A pregnancy is not a human being. It's called an embryo from conception until the eighth week of development. After the eighth week, it's called a fetus until it's born. Then it's a person. https://www.webmd.com/baby/ss/slideshow-fetal-development Look at the third pic ... does that look like a human? Calling it a human at conception is an emotional stance. It is not a person until it can live and breathe outside the womb. Sorry to sound so clinical, but this isn't about souls (an unproven concept itself) or "killing babies," and it isn't about morals (a subjective concept depending upon the rules one was raised with). This is about a woman's right to personal privacy in accordance with our constitution. Period.
A pregnancy is a state of being of course it is not a human being DUH. Human embryo's are human beings. You are merely talking stages of a human being life. All the pictures look like human beings at those various stages of the life of a human being. Calling it a human at conception is a scientific stance calling it anything else is the emotional stance so as not to have to deal with the reality of what happens in an abortion. A woman's so-called privacy has nothing to do with the scientific fact that we are human beings from the moment of conception. I have no problem being clinical my statements about life begins at creation is strictly clinical, I do not subscribe to the idea of "souls" so why did you bring that up? Yes it is about killing unborn babies. Yes it is about morals. And show me in the Constitution the right to kill an unborn baby that is not presenting an imminent threat to the life of the mother.
Even if that were true...SO WHAT? (UNANSWERED QUESTION) That doesn't give the ZEF the right to do anything it pleases.... With RIGHTS come restrictions, we ALL have to adhere to them.. ALL people are unique but we don't have the right to do anything we want to others... It's CLEAR you CANNOT respond to my post ... I posted IF it were true....and then continued asking questions based on YOU SAYING IT WAS TRUE...so IF you think it's TRUE you should be able to address my post.....and you CAN'T... OBVIOUSLY, you CANNOT address the facts of what would happen IF you were correct...LOL. It is YOU who is trying to divert/dodge/dance around/evade/avoid... Even if that were true...SO WHAT? (UNANSWERED QUESTION) That doesn't give the ZEF the right to do anything it pleases.... With RIGHTS come restrictions, we ALL have to adhere to them.. ALL people are unique but we don't have the right to do anything we want to others... It's CLEAR you CANNOT respond to my post ... I posted IF it were true....and then continued asking questions based on YOU SAYING IT WAS TRUE...so IF you think it's TRUE you should be able to address my post.....and you CAN'T... OBVIOUSLY, you CANNOT address the facts of what would happen IF you were correct...LOL. It is YOU who is trying to divert/dodge/dance around/evade/avoid...
So is a dead human. Yes and it is very important not to confuse one stage for another. The potential is not the actual. A Barbie doll and Greek and Roman sculptures also look hu,an. The most skilled painter can make their picture look very much human. However, none of these are human, are they? This is simply not true. In fact, it is calling it a human that is pure and utter biological ignorance and a stance that can only be backed up by faith-based arguments. A woman is an actual human being and therefore has the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Unlike the fetus which has no - and cannot have any - rights at all. Only rational decision-makers capable of choosing their actions are able to recognise rights and rights are only necessary for individual human beings who have to use their own, independent judgement to survive. If they are not free to do so, they will not be able to thrive and live. A hyena, for example, cannot think "I want to attack that human, but they have a right to life, so I better not." Neither can the hyena act independent of its instincts or even form the concept of "rights". Hyenas (and other animals alike) therefiore have no rights -- They lack the faculity of rationality and live by brute force guided by their emotions. A fetus is not capable of forming concepts because it is not even part of an actual social context yet and neither does it possess the capacity to act independently and use its own judgement to make decisions to act upon. A fetus is therefore not a person and therefore has no rights. "Unborn child" is not a valid concept.
Show me the science proving that a newly fertilized egg is a human being. Yes, it is a living thing, but at conception, it's a microscopically tiny few cells. Most do not become much more than that before being rejected by the uterus. The woman is seldom even aware of this because it happens within the first few days or weeks. It is not a baby human. The only difference between a miscarriage and an abortion is a choice, and that choice should not be anyone else's business.
.Stating a synonym as a definition .. is laughable. Yes Blue - a Person is a human ..and a human is a person .. least a living one. brilliant deduction Watson. Now .. you claim a totipotent single human cell known as the Zygote is also "a person" ..a human .. and on this basis want to save the precious life of this innocent child ... but then want to turn around and kill hundreds of these innocent children .. on behalf of this one zygote .. Strange this logic .. and yes .. your argument is "Kaputski" - on the basis of the above- is the reason the vast majority of Scientists do not accept the "Genetic Perspective" .. that and the Twinning problem which is an ontological issue ... preferring one of the other 4 scientific perspectives. Nighty night now.
From the moment of conception you are an individual human being which is fully within the definition of person. You don't get to redefine the language. I have backed my claim with the science and the proper definition of words you have provided nothing but your unsupported opinion as rebuttal.
Size doesn't matter, every human life, every human being that has ever existed began at the moment of conception whether they survive through the pregnancy or not. "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] "The development of a human begins with fertilization, a process by which the spermatozoon from the male and the oocyte from the female unite to give rise to a new organism, the zygote." [Sadler, T.W. Langman's Medical Embryology. 7th edition. Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins 1995, p. 3] "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).
Ahhh I don't think so, when you die you are no longer being. Define potential. You are joking correct. Comparing inanimate objects with organic living beings is the best you got? False mine in completely based on the science, I have no religious faith. And the unborn baby is an actual human being so by that standard the same applies. In your position here does the just born baby have a right to life since since they will not be able to thrive and live on their independent judgement? That makes it no less a human being, are you saying that a just born baby can be killed? As much so as "unborn baby", the terms are interchangeable and accurate. Both quite common terms in our common language.
in·di·vid·u·al adjective 1. single; separate. human A member of the species Homo sapiens; be·ing noun 1. existence. See #188
"redefine languate" ? what are you talking about.. make all these nonsense accusations not even stating what you are talking about .. Mr. Naked claim you are .. your attempts at science a miserable fail .. but never mind that. Why do you want to kill hundreds of these zygote people ?
Yep and crystal clear as to what I was referring. My science remaining unrefuted. I told you I reject the premise of your question.
You don't know what Science is... and have not presented science that shows your claim is true... have refuted all your citations .. post one I have not refuted ... one that explains "Why" the claim is true ... something you never do What premise do you reject .. what a joke again .. not stating what it is you are rejecting .. desperate to hide .. because deep down you know your claim is roasted What is it that you reject .. "and why" .. Do manage to do somethign other than twirl around in a circle crying "Reject Reject" ..
A human corpse is human though,, yes? In the context of this conversation, a ZEF holds the potential to become an actualised fully developed newborn. Rights have to be based on what things actually are and not on what they might be. A fetus is not a fully developed newborn. You did not at all catch what I was saying, did you? I was putting your very weal argument of "it looks human, so it is human" into perspective for you. It is thus yourself you should ask if you are joking. I have my doubts about that, but whatever. No, it is not an actial human. When are anti-abortionists.ever going to stop conflating potential with actual? Yes, they do because they.are now born and can start to use their reason and independently interact with its surtounding to learn. However, we do not grant babies, children and teenagers their full rights and until they are adults, they are under the care and responsibility of their parents. Where did I say that It is still invalid.
Bingo! A fetus is not separate since it is physically attached to the mother and up to a certain poibt cannot even live outside and independently of her. Thanks for proving my point. Yes, but this also includes the dead and we all agree the dead have no rights, right? So, there is something else that enables rights than merely being of the "Homo Sapiens species", is there not?
In the right context, the term "unborn child" is very harmless and acceptable to use such referring to a willingly pregnant woman referring to what she is carrying or when someone else is referring to her. In the context of a debate on abortion, however, it is a term constructed to destroy reality as we know it and to appeal to emotion -- It is already inherent in the concept "child" that it is born and furthermore "unborn" is way to broad of category as it not only includes pregnancies, but also all potential pregnancies; In a sense we were all "unborn children" even before our mothers were even fertile. Also, every sperm and egg are technically "unborn children" too and you would not argue every intercourse not resulting in pregnancy as murder of an "unborn child", would you? No one would accept calling a child an "ungrown adult" to justify sending it to war or to justify paedophilia. Neither would anyone ever refer to a living person as an "undead corpse". These terms are not only as ridiculous as that of "unborn child", but also as self-contradictory. A piece of yarn is not an "unsewed shirt" and could certainly not be sold as such since that would be fraud. Yarn is yarn and a shirt is a shirt. Unborn means unborn and born is born -- Only the born need - and can have - rights. In debates about abortion, no one has ever been honest when calling the fetus an "unborn child" and no one should therefore ever accept it being used. Finally, the unnorn is not born and what is essential to human life is just exactly birth. Birth is not just an arbitrary thing, but a major event -- That is when we really get a new, physically individuated human being capable of acting on its own. Admitting a fetus is "unborn" implies acceptance of it not having rights and adding the suffix "child" does not change that. Only the born have rights.
This topic is not to be answered at a biology seminar though since it is not a matter of how human life is created. It is a question of philosophy and more specifically about rights, what they are and who needs them and why. It is not science that gives us the answer of what rights are, who needs them and why. Science can teach us how human life comes into being and maybe, in the future, about a fetus' ability to feel pain etc. But, scieNn will never bring us the answer to philosophical questions. There is no body part or gene called "right to life".
How about the medicinal and science TEXTBOOKS I cited. Yes it is a biological question first, to determine when that life, that human being comes into existence. I go with the science and I don't have to jump through "philosophical" hoops and twist myself into a pretzel trying to rationalize the purposeful killing of that human being. And it is our founding document that says at least in this country we are endowed at creation with the right to that life. It is an inherent right.
False the placenta and umbillical cord are for the purpose of keeping them separate so the mothers body does not kill the baby in the womb. The unborn baby is NEVER a part of the mother and is a unique separate being from the get go. Once dead your are no longer being but in fact even dead humans are protected under the law.
They are completely irrelevant and unrelated since they do not discuss rights. If you avoid those "philosophical hoops" you are talking about above and instead only rely on science, you will never be able to learn what rights are and why abortion is a right. Abortion is not murder or "purposeful killing of a hu,an being" as you so eloquently put it. With your self-proclaimed expertise on biology, you should know that a first trimestre "uNbOrN" is nothing like a newborn baby. There is no such thing as "inherent rights" and the right to abortion is fully in line with the founding documents. You stick to your lab reports and biology books and leave abortion to those who actually umderstand rights.
