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

No, I'm not getting into semantics with you, as so many others seem to do.

If it's not dead, it's alive; if it's alive, and if you end its life, you've killed it.

I'm not passing judgement because I'm not debating the ethics of abortion; I'm more interested in establishing some FACTS as in what is dead and alive.

You know damn well what's alive and what's dead. We don't need to get into science and legalities.

This whole semantics debate is tiresome and pointless... it only ensures there will never be agreement.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

So , if you think 'gunless' societies can protect freedom as well as the US has, maybe you'd better research it and find an example that even comes close.

Hint: You won't find one.

Gun ownership in the home does not automatically mean armed forces are more effective, and even if it did, the cost would not be worth it.

Quote:

"Each day, 10 children and teens are killed by firearms, and that is 10 too many," said HHS Secretary Donna E. Shalala. "However, it is significant that the number is down 35 percent from 4 years ago. This indicates that violence prevention efforts are showing results. But we all know how far we still have to go to protect our young people from gun deaths and injuries." The age-adjusted death rate from firearms was 11.3 deaths per 100,000 population in 1998

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/00news/finaldeath98.htm

..contrast with..

Quote:

By 2002/03, Australia's rate of 0.27 firearm-related homicides per 100,000 population had dropped to one-fifteenth that of the United States.
The authors conclude that "The Australian example provides evidence that removing large numbers of firearms from a community can be associated with a sudden and on-going decline in mass shootings, and accelerating declines in total firearm-related deaths, firearm homicides and firearm suicides."

http://www.usyd.edu.au/news/84.html?newsstoryid=1502

bit off topic....wanna play this out elsewhere? "Politics" I guess...

0 Replies

aperson wrote:

Besides, this definition that you have bought up is not great.

"Having life" and living" don't help much. "Existing" well my computer exists so it must be alive. "Not dead or lifeless" in dictionary.com dead was described as "no longer living" and lifeless as "having no life". Sure, you can say that we all know what "dead" and "lifeless" mean but continuing the trend of dictionary definitions we can see that the two explain eachother.

So, back on the topic.

MRSGREN

Movement respiration sensitivity growth reproduction excretion and nutrition

0 Replies

Gun control topic now here:

http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=2442521#2442521

0 Replies

Mame wrote:

No, I'm not getting into semantics with you, as so many others seem to do.

If it's not dead, it's alive; if it's alive, and if you end its life, you've killed it.

I'm not passing judgement because I'm not debating the ethics of abortion; I'm more interested in establishing some FACTS as in what is dead and alive.

You know damn well what's alive and what's dead. We don't need to get into science and legalities.

This whole semantics debate is tiresome and pointless... it only ensures there will never be agreement.

Well Said Mame. :wink:

Avoidance-by-semantics is simply another method of denial. You're right - it happens frequently on here.

0 Replies

Mame, you seem to have a very good answer to whether what grows in a womb is alive or dead. I won't contest that.

In a pure biological sense, a embryo, zygote, fetus are "living" in a pur dictionary definition as it's cells are duplicating etc.

However the issue of semantics is still very valid when it comes to law.

You can prove that a zygote is alive with the dictinary. however, you can't use a dictionary to determine whether it is ethical legal to abort a child or use an embryo to cultivate stem cells. Logical, and semantic debates have their place and their purpose.

I know you have no interest in debating the ethics/morals of these issues, just be aware that some people take what you say to do more than imply how you MUST feel about these issues.

I don't think that the issus of abortion and stem cell cultivation are simply black and white. I certainly have my limits as to what I believe is an ethical proceedure, but just because I don't morally agree with partial birth abortions (for instance) people like RL insist that I MUST feel the same for early abortions and stem cell cutivation.

You are intitled to be ambigious about how you feel, you are entitled to feel unsure about the issue. further, I think it's comforting that you are unsure because to me it means that you recognize that this issue is not so simple.

0 Replies

I don't think most people are arguing whether a zygote is alive or dead; the issue is what rights does the zygote have - morally and legally. They are two separate and distinct issues, because people have different perceptions about morality and the legal standards that now apply in the US .

We can discuss the morality of when a zygote should have equal rights to full grown humans. We can discuss this without confusing it with which trimester we are discussing, and leave that for another discussion, because the primary issue is the zygote and stem cell.

As for the legals issues, we are now governed by Roe vs Wade concerning abortions. We can discuss the legal issues of what the law should be or shouldn't be on their own merit. Then we can also discuss what the chances are that the laws will be changed from the current law into something else.

0 Replies

Mame wrote:

No, I'm not getting into semantics with you, as so many others seem to do.

If it's not dead, it's alive; if it's alive, and if you end its life, you've killed it.

I'm not passing judgement because I'm not debating the ethics of abortion; I'm more interested in establishing some FACTS as in what is dead and alive.

You know damn well what's alive and what's dead. We don't need to get into science and legalities.

This whole semantics debate is tiresome and pointless... it only ensures there will never be agreement.

You're the one who used a dictionary definition, and if we all knew exactly what alive and dead were, this thread wouldn't exist, and science is factual.

0 Replies

Pauligirl wrote:

aperson wrote:
Besides, this definition that you have bought up is not great.

"Having life" and living" don't help much. "Existing" well my computer exists so it must be alive. "Not dead or lifeless" in dictionary.com dead was described as "no longer living" and lifeless as "having no life". Sure, you can say that we all know what "dead" and "lifeless" mean but continuing the trend of dictionary definitions we can see that the two explain eachother.

So, back on the topic.

MRSGREN

Movement respiration sensitivity growth reproduction excretion and nutrition

Have a lollipop.

Next question: at what point does an unborn human do all these things (excluding reproduce because that applies to the ability of the species to do this at some point in it's lifetime).

0 Replies

aperson wrote:

Pauligirl wrote:
aperson wrote:
Besides, this definition that you have bought up is not great.

"Having life" and living" don't help much. "Existing" well my computer exists so it must be alive. "Not dead or lifeless" in dictionary.com dead was described as "no longer living" and lifeless as "having no life". Sure, you can say that we all know what "dead" and "lifeless" mean but continuing the trend of dictionary definitions we can see that the two explain eachother.

So, back on the topic.

MRSGREN

Movement respiration sensitivity growth reproduction excretion and nutrition

Have a lollipop.

Next question: at what point does an unborn human do all these things (excluding reproduce because that applies to the ability of the species to do this at some point in it's lifetime).

Some adult humans never reproduce. This does not mean they are not alive, (though some would say you haven't lived till you've had a few kids. :wink: )

There is little doubt that the unborn is alive.

Likewise, few can dispute that the unborn is a human being. (If you do dispute it, I'd like to know what species you think this living being is, if not human.)

Therefore, if the unborn is a living human being, the pro-abortion crowd bears the burden of showing why it is acceptable -- legally, morally or any other way -- to kill a living human being.

0 Replies

rl,
Please read my post carefully.

Quote:

Next question: at what point does an unborn human do all these things (excluding reproduce because that applies to the ability of the species to do this at some point in it's lifetime).

I used the words "the ability of the species". The use of the word "ability" answers your question. Also even if the individual does not have the ability to reproduce, he/she is still alive if he/she fills all the other checkboxes: I used the word "species".

Now, answer my question. At what point does the unborn human have the ability to do all these things.

0 Replies

aperson wrote:

rl,
Please read my post carefully.

Quote:
Next question: at what point does an unborn human do all these things (excluding reproduce because that applies to the ability of the species to do this at some point in it's lifetime).

I used the words "the ability of the species". The use of the word "ability" answers your question. Also even if the individual does not have the ability to reproduce, he/she is still alive if he/she fills all the other checkboxes: I used the word "species".

Now, answer my question. At what point does the unborn human have the ability to do all these things.

At conception.

0 Replies

Well there you go. (I am not opposing you). Please give examples though.

Once that is done we will have covered the scientific aspect.

However, if you manage to give examples, we must consider going back even further, to the sperm and eggs.

0 Replies

It's a human fetus according to our perception of how we categorize species. According to scientists, we are of the same family of species as the primates - or monkeys. Does that answr your q?

0 Replies

aperson wrote:

Well there you go. (I am not opposing you). Please give examples though.

Once that is done we will have covered the scientific aspect.

However, if you manage to give examples, we must consider going back even further, to the sperm and eggs.

It is not my contention that either a sperm or an egg are living human beings.

They are not.

0 Replies

Fine.

MRSGREN Examples?

0 Replies

aperson wrote:

Fine.

MRSGREN Examples?

Is an atom alive?

DNA?

Sea Monkeys?

0 Replies

aperson wrote:

Fine.

MRSGREN Examples?

Let's keep it simple.

For which one of these functions do you think the unborn does NOT qualify as a living being? We won't waste time hashing over ground that there is no disagreement on.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

aperson wrote:
Well there you go. (I am not opposing you). Please give examples though.

Once that is done we will have covered the scientific aspect.

However, if you manage to give examples, we must consider going back even further, to the sperm and eggs.

It is not my contention that either a sperm or an egg are living human beings.

They are not.

The arguement is not that they are human, but they a living and you have based your arguement on biological life. A sperm and eggs aren't a part of some foriegn species right? They are a part of human life; to subtract them from existance would mean the end of all human life correct?

The fact that a zygote is living tissuse is no more relevant than the fact that a egg or sperm is alive.

If by your arguement, anytime you stop some form of human life, or as you put it: "kill it," you are committing murder.

So every unfertilized egg that passes during menstration,
every sperm that dies in route to fertilization,
every sperm that lands on a cleanex after some teenager jerks off,
is the killing of a something living.

RL, I have told you before, taking the biological route does not serve your arguement well. If you want to arguem about the finite qualifications of life on a cellular level as you do with an embryo the moment after conception, you unfortunately have to disqualify other single cell organisms from being alive.

Before, you start arguing that a sperm and egg are not alive, take a step back and think about everything you've aready said. You've dug yourself a hole here.

You've argued already that life exists on a single cell scale. nobody contests that.

You've qualified your use of the word murder by saying that it is killing a form of human life.

this is why you should have never taken this arguement. You can't decalre everything is black and white but demand the benifits of the grey area for your own arguement.

You're trying to have your cake and eat it too.

0 Replies

I don't think rl knows how to eat cake. Wink

0 Replies

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

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know