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

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.

aperson wrote:

Fine.

MRSGREN Examples?

Is an atom alive?

DNA?

Sea Monkeys?

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.

Why isn't a sperm on the way to becoming a human?

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.

real life wrote:

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.

rl, it appears that you think I am opposing you. I am not. Staying true to my signiture I am keep a totally open mind. I am asking questions in Socratic manner. To be totally honest I am making you do the thinking for me.

I may as well answer your question now.

Sensitivity.
To my knowledge, unborn humans only gain sensitivity at a certain point after conception.

Movement.
See above.

Excretion.
Not sure about this one.

Respiration.
Heres a big one. Babies only start breathing at birth, do they not? Maybe the mother feeds oxygen to the feotus.


Another thought.
Maybe the unborn baby is part of the mother up to a certain point. They are, of course, connected.

Yet another thought.
Maybe the baby is an epiphite, in a different form of symbiotic relationship. The mother grows the baby, and in return, the mother is passing her genes on into the world? I like this thought.

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

BTW if you'll take careful note, I have not used the word 'murder' neither have I referred to the unborn as 'a form of human life'.

Quote:

BTW if you'll take careful note, I have not used the word 'murder' neither have I referred to the unborn as 'a form of human life'.

Wrong and wrong, you've used "murder" quite liberally in the past, and if I had the patience to reread every one of your posts in all of the related threads you'd certainly be eating your words.

And if you haven't been trying to establish a embryo as a form of human life then what is your point?

The only point in which I find relevant about the sperm/egg comparisson to a embryo is that pro-lifers agreeing that it's the killing/death of something if it once had life. That includes single cell life. Your qualification that a embryo has 46 chormosones and therefore is human is too weak.

So if a organism doesn't have those 46 chromosones is it not a human? What species is it then?

When people present you the idea that a zygote isn't a full human being because it is reliant on a host, and therfore incomplete, you howl that it's a human.

when a sperm and a egg are incomplete, you seem to think you can calrify them as being incomplete; not-human.

If not a human, what are eggs and sperm, specieswise?

I hate when discussion goes in this direction because it is a waste of time. THERE IS NO ARGUEMENT ABOUT WHAT IS DEVELOPING INSIDE A MOTHER'S WOMB.

The only issues up for grabs are:

Is it right or wrong?
Should abortion/stem cell cultivation be legal?

RL - Your weak biological arguement for second of the above is what I object to. The rest doesn't matter.

If it can be alive, it can die. if it can die, it can be murdered. If embryos, eggs, and sperm can be alive, can they all be killed? Yes. the moral relevancy/differentiation? 46 chomozones? You have to do better than that.

You have a great case for your own beliefs RL, but you still have NO case for your legal beliefs beyond what you feel.

baddog1 wrote:

aperson wrote:

Fine.

MRSGREN Examples?

Is an atom alive?

DNA?

Sea Monkeys?

I don't get it; what's your point?

The Supreme Court that wrote the Roe v Wade decision stated that if the personhood of the unborn could be established that Roe's case would have fallen apart.

The Supreme Court that wrote the Roe v Wade decision stated that if the personhood of the unborn could be established that Roe's case would have fallen apart.

Diest,

You have made NO case why it should be lawful to exterminate a living human being. NONE.

rl, You still don't get my position: IT'S THE CHOICE OF THE WOMAN, NOT YOU!