Pro Choice

[Tinkerlina]

[quote name='fidei defensor' post='1719531' date='Dec 5 2008, 12:57 AM']That's not a scientific definition. If he's going to claim to have science on his side, I'd like to see it.[/quote]

What is your criteria for human life? -Katie

[Fidei Defensor]

[quote name='Tinkerlina' post='1719542' date='Dec 4 2008, 10:58 PM']What is your criteria for human life? -Katie[/quote]
I'm asking for his right now, he claimed to have science on his side. I'm curious. I'll share mine later, perhaps.

[HisChildForever]

[quote name='fidei defensor' post='1719563' date='Dec 5 2008, 12:01 AM']I'm asking for his right now, he claimed to have science on his side. I'm curious. I'll share mine later, perhaps.[/quote]

Didn't you say you had no opinion?

[Fidei Defensor]

[quote name='HisChildForever' post='1719616' date='Dec 4 2008, 11:21 PM']Didn't you say you had no opinion?[/quote]
You caught me. It would be more appropriate for me to say that I'll share my views, which are somewhat inconsistent and varying.

[dairygirl4u2c]

of course there are obvious dissimilarities between a snowball becoming a snowman and a cell. one is alive and the other is not.

but the analogy is similar enough to make the point.

there's nothing that can be said that i know of, that's able to refute or proof the anaology false or true in the point it intends to make.

the only real question of debate is analyzing how the early cell is different than normal cells, beyond the theoretical potential that it has. what are the actual scientific components of it that make it unique? i don't know of many. it's just acting in a manner that makes it grow. that's more of an information point, some chemicals. i don't know it's much more significant, necessarily.

i wouldn't be surprised if someday they get stem cells to regress and then start growing into people. if it happened it'd i think show the arguably nature of the claim it's a human. would a human form from a regression of a stem cell?
could be totally not possible. but.

[bonkers]

Edited December 5, 2008 by bonkers

[Sirklawd]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1718773' date='Dec 4 2008, 02:56 PM']no we're not clear.

//snip//

and just because you can point out DNA and a liine between the cell and person later one, doesn't eman the cell isn't any different than anotehr cell in any *necessarily* meaningful way.[/quote]


[quote name='fidei defensor' post='1719334' date='Dec 4 2008, 11:34 PM']Prove it.[/quote]

sure thing. Two birds with one stone.

Demonstrated in the below picture is fertilisation and then the multiplication of cells. Lets ask some questions.

1. is it human. yup. well, we could be talking about any animal, but lets stick with human
2 is it individual, (ie: not the mother) yup. I dare someone to say this is the mother.
3. is it alive? ofcourse: The genesis of a new human life begins when the egg with 23 chromosomes joins with a sperm with 23 chromosomes and creates a fertilized cell, called a zygote, with 46 chromosomes. (Thus fulfilling question 1). The zygote then converts nutrients and oxygen into energy that causes its cells to divide, multiply, and grow. It's alive.

Some will claim, as I'm sure you are, and I know dairygirl did, that some how being merely 1 human cell doesnt make one human. The fingernail arguement - my fingernail clippings, my hairs that fall out, the skin I shed, a blood cell, these things arnt other humans you say.

They came from a human though. A human that is composed of alot of cells. Billions (possibly ja-billions) The entire being of that human is made up of all those cells. Losing 1 or 2 does not end that beings life. (Again we can be talking about any animal). But at one point, that being was only 16 cells, or 8 cells, and two cells, and during these stages removal of a cell or two certainly kills the entire being. And then before all that, when its first a zygote and only 1 cell big, well you cant remove it from itself since theres only one, but you can kill it. You can destroy it and end it's life.

Theres a philosophical question that asks, if you have a ship, and you take a plank out of it and replace it with a new piece of wood. and then do it again. and again. and then with the old planks you start putting them together. and you do this for all the planks of wood. which ship is the original ship?

Some people want to use this train of thought in the abortion debate. It fails because the ship was never alive. When carried over to a 30yr old human for example, it depends what planks you are removing. heart planks or foot planks? (Ignoring the part where you use these planks to build Frankenstein). Biological life, unlike ships, grows, and at one point its entire being was only 1 cell.

I like the abortion debate because its not really a religious debate. The religious part only comes in whether or not you think its ok to kill a human.


lol now for funny pictures!
[img]http://www.mjbovo.com/Contracept/Fertilize.gif[/img]

[dairygirl4u2c]

"I like the abortion debate because its not really a religious debate. The religious part only comes in whether or not you think its ok to kill a human."

so are you trying to like turn the tables?

a majority of people about fifty five percent think life begins at conception. a majority also would say that it's not a clear proposition though. it's common understanding that saying that life begins at conception, instead of at least arguing the ambiguous nature of it, is when religion comes into the picture.
you're just sticking your head in the sand like an ostrich, surrounding yourself by like minded people at a catholic board.

now, i wouldn't say it's necessarily you're only safety net to fall back onto religion.but if anyone is falling back onto religion, it's you, not me.

[dairygirl4u2c]

well i may have been reading too much into what you saying it's not a religois debate.

folks who want to kill kids later in pregnancy or want to allow it... now that is religion there. terrible.
those folks are either ignorant, confused, or hardened against anything that's good and decent. sinning terribly. one of the worst sins ever.

[rizz_loves_jesus]

Killing a late term fetus is exactly the same as killing an early term embryo. It's the same baby. Killing either is repulsively immoral.

[Sirklawd]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1719934' date='Dec 5 2008, 11:45 AM']well i may have been reading too much into what you saying it's not a religois debate.

folks who want to kill kids later in pregnancy or want to allow it... now that is religion there. terrible.
those folks are either ignorant, confused, or hardened against anything that's good and decent. sinning terribly. one of the worst sins ever.[/quote]


sorry. i misspoke in that last sentence. I was merely commenting on how the question of alive or dead can be fully answered scientifically.

its alive. its human. and its individual, not merely part of someone else - though many would like to consider it merely part of its future self. which makes no sense. its itself right now.

once you arrive at these 3 things. what you do then is the more religious/philosophical debate.

Edited December 5, 2008 by Sirklawd

[Snowflake3981]

[quote name='Sirklawd' post='1719906' date='Dec 5 2008, 10:01 AM']sure thing. Two birds with one stone.

Demonstrated in the below picture is fertilisation and then the multiplication of cells. Lets ask some questions.

1. is it human. yup. well, we could be talking about any animal, but lets stick with human
2 is it individual, (ie: not the mother) yup. I dare someone to say this is the mother.
3. is it alive? ofcourse: The genesis of a new human life begins when the egg with 23 chromosomes joins with a sperm with 23 chromosomes and creates a fertilized cell, called a zygote, with 46 chromosomes. (Thus fulfilling question 1). The zygote then converts nutrients and oxygen into energy that causes its cells to divide, multiply, and grow. It's alive.

Some will claim, as I'm sure you are, and I know dairygirl did, that some how being merely 1 human cell doesnt make one human. The fingernail arguement - my fingernail clippings, my hairs that fall out, the skin I shed, a blood cell, these things arnt other humans you say.

They came from a human though. A human that is composed of alot of cells. Billions (possibly ja-billions) The entire being of that human is made up of all those cells. Losing 1 or 2 does not end that beings life. (Again we can be talking about any animal). But at one point, that being was only 16 cells, or 8 cells, and two cells, and during these stages removal of a cell or two certainly kills the entire being. And then before all that, when its first a zygote and only 1 cell big, well you cant remove it from itself since theres only one, but you can kill it. You can destroy it and end it's life.

Theres a philosophical question that asks, if you have a ship, and you take a plank out of it and replace it with a new piece of wood. and then do it again. and again. and then with the old planks you start putting them together. and you do this for all the planks of wood. which ship is the original ship?

Some people want to use this train of thought in the abortion debate. It fails because the ship was never alive. When carried over to a 30yr old human for example, it depends what planks you are removing. heart planks or foot planks? (Ignoring the part where you use these planks to build Frankenstein). Biological life, unlike ships, grows, and at one point its entire being was only 1 cell.

I like the abortion debate because its not really a religious debate. The religious part only comes in whether or not you think its ok to kill a human.


lol now for funny pictures!
[img]http://www.mjbovo.com/Contracept/Fertilize.gif[/img][/quote]




I'm so glad there are people smarter than me who can put things out there so clearly. I don't know how anyone can argue with Sirklawd's post. Nicely written

[Fidei Defensor]

[quote name='Sirklawd' post='1719906' date='Dec 5 2008, 09:01 AM']sure thing. Two birds with one stone.

Demonstrated in the below picture is fertilisation and then the multiplication of cells. Lets ask some questions.

1. is it human. yup. well, we could be talking about any animal, but lets stick with human
2 is it individual, (ie: not the mother) yup. I dare someone to say this is the mother.
3. is it alive? ofcourse: The genesis of a new human life begins when the egg with 23 chromosomes joins with a sperm with 23 chromosomes and creates a fertilized cell, called a zygote, with 46 chromosomes. (Thus fulfilling question 1). The zygote then converts nutrients and oxygen into energy that causes its cells to divide, multiply, and grow. It's alive.

Some will claim, as I'm sure you are, and I know dairygirl did, that some how being merely 1 human cell doesnt make one human. The fingernail arguement - my fingernail clippings, my hairs that fall out, the skin I shed, a blood cell, these things arnt other humans you say.

They came from a human though. A human that is composed of alot of cells. Billions (possibly ja-billions) The entire being of that human is made up of all those cells. Losing 1 or 2 does not end that beings life. (Again we can be talking about any animal). But at one point, that being was only 16 cells, or 8 cells, and two cells, and during these stages removal of a cell or two certainly kills the entire being. And then before all that, when its first a zygote and only 1 cell big, well you cant remove it from itself since theres only one, but you can kill it. You can destroy it and end it's life.

Theres a philosophical question that asks, if you have a ship, and you take a plank out of it and replace it with a new piece of wood. and then do it again. and again. and then with the old planks you start putting them together. and you do this for all the planks of wood. which ship is the original ship?

Some people want to use this train of thought in the abortion debate. It fails because the ship was never alive. When carried over to a 30yr old human for example, it depends what planks you are removing. heart planks or foot planks? (Ignoring the part where you use these planks to build Frankenstein). Biological life, unlike ships, grows, and at one point its entire being was only 1 cell.

I like the abortion debate because its not really a religious debate. The religious part only comes in whether or not you think its ok to kill a human.


lol now for funny pictures!
[img]http://www.mjbovo.com/Contracept/Fertilize.gif[/img][/quote]
This is where science disagrees.

There are two types of being here. Being in terms of what something is, and being in terms of what it is in terms of functionality. A fertilized egg is one single cell. It is "human" in that it's a human cell. But scientifically, what makes an organism what it is, is the sum of all its parts. A human is the sum of all its cells. You can't take an organ and say, "this is human." It's a human organ, yes, but not a fully functional human. The sum of all the organs together, however, is a human.

After the egg is fertilized, it is a single cell. You are going to have a hard time convincing anyone scientifically that it's a human in the same way we are. I agree that it's a human cell, that it will become exactly like us, but I believe that the point when an embryo becomes a fully functional human happens somewhere between conception and birth. One cell is not a human, sorry. Stopping the processes of that one cell is no different than "killing" any other kind of cell. The only thing you'd be doing is ending the potential to become a fully functioning human, but potential does not equate with being.

If you want to claim that it's a human because it has a soul, that is reasonable within your belief system and I respect that. But that's a religious issue, not a scientific one, and I will disagree, then.

[Servus_Mariae]

[quote]The sum of all the organs together, however, is a human.[/quote]

Herein lies a fundamental difficulty. This imlies that only through the compilation of accidental qualities can a thing become a human. This philosophy can be taken to very dangerous extremes. What is it to be fully human? Are not amputees, the deaf, the blind, the mute, the retarded, the alzhiemer sufferers human (though physically deficient and therefore not the sum of all organs together)?

The human being is more than a compilation of accidental qualities. Otherwise, any deficincy can be adequate cause to lower an indiavidual into a subhuman standards.

[Sirklawd]

[quote name='fidei defensor' post='1720023' date='Dec 5 2008, 12:50 PM']But scientifically, what makes an organism what it is, is the sum of all its parts. A human is the sum of all its cells.[/quote]
And at one point, the first point, its only part was the single cell of itself. The sum of its 1 cell was one. The "it" we refer to here IS the cell. This is the ship thing.

This is a philosophical question not a scientific one. Luckily....

[quote name='Servus_Mariae' post='1720114' date='Dec 5 2008, 01:53 PM']Herein lies a fundamental difficulty. This imlies that only through the compilation of accidental qualities can a thing become a human. This philosophy can be taken to very dangerous extremes. What is it to be fully human? Are not amputees, the deaf, the blind, the mute, the retarded, the alzhiemer sufferers human (though physically deficient and therefore not the sum of all organs together)?

The human being is more than a compilation of accidental qualities. Otherwise, any deficincy can be adequate cause to lower an indiavidual into a subhuman standards.[/quote]


I did not have the words to say that like that. lol. I really do think we should debate only using pictures.