Zygote, Fetus, Clump of Cells, Alive, Dead???

cicerone imposter wrote:

A product of SCNT is a human embryo, but what matters is what happens subsequent to that period. It's still not a "human" by any meaning of that word.

When EXACTLY does a fetus or embryo become a living human being, CI?

"Scientifically based" is not germane to this discussion, because it's about spirituality and religion. Science and religion is an oxymoron.

clone (kln)
n.
1. A cell, group of cells, or organism descended from and genetically identical to a single common ancestor, such as a bacterial colony whose members arose from a single original cell.
2. An organism descended asexually from a single ancestor, such as a plant produced by layering or a polyp produced by budding.
3. A DNA sequence, such as a gene, that is transferred from one organism to another and replicated by genetic engineering techniques.
v.
1. To make multiple identical copies of a DNA sequence.
2. To create or propagate an organism from a clone cell:
3. To establish and maintain pure lineages of a cell under laboratory conditions.
4. To reproduce or propagate asexually.

clone, group of organisms, all of which are descended from a single individual through asexual reproduction, as in a pure cell culture of bacteria. Except for changes in the hereditary material that come about by mutation, all members of a clone are genetically identical. Laboratory experiments in in vitro fertilization of human eggs led in 1993 to the "cloning" of human embryos by dividing such fertilized eggs at a very early stage of development, but this technique actually produces a twin rather than a clone. In a true mammalian clone the nucleus from a body cell of an animal is inserted into an egg, which then develops into an individual that is genetically identical to the original animal.
Later experiments in cloning resulted in the development of a sheep from a cell of an adult ewe (in Scotland, in 1996), and since then rodents, cattle, swine, and other animals have also been cloned from adult animals. Despite these trumpeted successes, producing cloned mammals is enormously difficult, with most attempts ending in failure; cloning succeeds 4% or less of the time in the species that have been successfully cloned. In addition, some studies have indicated that cloned animals are less healthy than normally reproduced animals.

In 2001 researchers in Massachusetts announced that they were trying to clone humans in an attempt to extract stem cells. The National Academy of Sciences, while supporting (2001) such so-called therapeutic or research cloning, has opposed (2002) the cloning of humans for reproductive purposes, deeming it unsafe, but many ethicists, religious and political leaders, and others have called for banning human cloning for any purpose. South Korean scientists announced in 2004 that they had cloned 30 human embryos, but an investigation in 2005 determined that the data had been fabricated.

real life wrote:

cicerone imposter wrote:

A product of SCNT is a human embryo, but what matters is what happens subsequent to that period. It's still not a "human" by any meaning of that word.

When EXACTLY does a fetus or embryo become a living human being, CI?

I'd answer differently. I'd say at birth as I have... over and over. And in the case of SCNT where the embryo is never being placed in a uterus, arguing this is pointless.

"Scientifically based" is not germane to this discussion, because it's about spirituality and religion. Science and religion is an oxymoron.

RL,
Lastly, I probably argee with you that a day before birth a fetus is a human, in the biological sense.

Diest TKO wrote:

RL,
Lastly, I probably argee with you that a day before birth a fetus is a human, in the biological sense.

In what other sense must one be human?

If the biological is all there is to being human , (i.e. no soul , no spirit) then :

Isn't it as 'human' as it's ever gonna be?

and

Should it be legal to kill one who is living, (i.e. a completely human being)?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Your arguments for 'not making law based on right and wrong' (i.e. moral bases) are very poor.

Is there any law that is NOT based on SOMEONE'S idea of what is right and what is wrong? No, there is not.

real life wrote:

Diest TKO wrote:

RL,
Lastly, I probably argee with you that a day before birth a fetus is a human, in the biological sense.

In what other sense must one be human?

If the biological is all there is to being human , (i.e. no soul , no spirit) then :

Isn't it as 'human' as it's ever gonna be?

and

Should it be legal to kill one who is living, (i.e. a completely human being)?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Your arguments for 'not making law based on right and wrong' (i.e. moral bases) are very poor.

Is there any law that is NOT based on SOMEONE'S idea of what is right and what is wrong? No, there is not.

You ask all the wrong questions.

Again, it's not about the day before to me.

As for laws being basd on what someone else thinks is right or wrong, I can certainly confirm this.

No government can legislate morality.

Quote:

You ask all the wrong questions.

Yeah, the ones you don't want to answer.

Quote:

Again, it's not about the day before to me.

You said the fetus was not a human being until birth. Then you said 'biologically' it probably was a human the day before birth.

So do you still support legal abortion of a living human being the day before birth?

Oh, sorry. Probably another question you'll refuse to answer because 'it's the wrong question'

It is THE question of the abortion issue:

When is the unborn a living human being and when is it entitled to legal protection of life as such?

Quote:

As for laws being basd on what someone else thinks is right or wrong, I can certainly confirm this.

Good , then we can dispense with your ridiculous lectures about how morality and law must be kept separate.

Quote:

Quote:

You ask all the wrong questions.

Yeah, the ones you don't want to answer.

You ask me to justify things about my stance that AREN'T a part of my stance, hence the WRONG questions. I shouldn't have to answer your stupid questions anymore than you should have to answer "why do you STILL stalk children?"

Quote:

Quote:

Again, it's not about the day before to me.

You said the fetus was not a human being until birth. Then you said 'biologically' it probably was a human the day before birth.

So do you still support legal abortion of a living human being the day before birth?

Oh, sorry. Probably another question you'll refuse to answer because 'it's the wrong question'

I have NEVER supported abortions for the day before, so asking me if I "still" support it is yet another example of the WRONG question. I don't SUPPORT abortion, never have. Read above. Rince. Repeat.

Quote:

It is THE question of the abortion issue:

Not all abortions are resovled to the day before. So asking how someone feels about the issue the day before does not mean that they have to feel the same way about the day after conception or the early stages of pregnancy. Get a grip. Nor does my objection to abortion mean that I have to believe it should be illegal.

Quote:

When is the unborn a living human being and when is it entitled to legal protection of life as such?

You're mixing medical terminology with legality again, an area which when you are faced with the laws, and precident, you seem to refute their legitimacy. This however is "THE" question about abortion. You sir, just can't handle the answer which time and wisdom has given. You think you know so much better. I'd like to know what your credentials are?

Doctor?
Lawyer?

Quote:

Quote:

As for laws being basd on what someone else thinks is right or wrong, I can certainly confirm this.

Good , then we can dispense with your ridiculous lectures about how morality and law must be kept separate.

So I assume then by you're statement that stoning insulent children for backtalking (a morally sound decision by several abrhamic faiths) would be certainly okay with you? How about your wife or girlfriend being labeled a whore for not covering her face? To some it's immoral to do a number of things. You're full of crap if you say that there is no nessisity to seperate the two.

Spare me your ignorance.


I have a CHALLENGE for you RL. Prove to me, that abortion, or stem cell research effects (not affects) you and me in the negitive. Further, if you make it that far, prove to me that any example you can muster is not an isolated circumstance and prove that the circumstances are universal enough to warrant your legal stance on the issue.

The truth is, I know you won't give a simple answer. You'll just ask a different question or try to shimy out of answering it. The fact of the matter is, you aren't in my league. I have answered so many of your questions, satisfied your game over and over, but you run and dodge the questions over and over. Not just from me either, I see it in your whole approach to rational debate. You just can't hang with the best, and it's offensive to watch you try.


If you want your consolation prize now, here it is: YOU ARE A BETTER SPELLER THAN ME.