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

baddog wrote: [Before you flame - I realize this does not mean RL's position is absolutely correct, but you must give credit to the fact that RL's position has not been proven as untrue by any method other than emotional.]

I suggest that if your desire is to prove RL wrong - stop the emotional brow-beating and set out to provide fact-based information that proves his primary position is incorrect. Once you've done that - then RL will have to decide how to proceed. Until then - RL's position remains strong - and rightly so.

baddog assumes that real is the only one without any emotional baggage on this thread. It's obvious that all the challenges made that the zygote is not a human has been ignored, and makes the conclusion that RL's position has not been disproven; and the extension that it must have the legal protections of the law.

0 Replies

baddog1 wrote:

Was just thinking:

I started this post over 4-months ago, there have been 56+ pages so far and by my estimation; RL has not wavered in his position on this matter.

I've not seen his position waver ever, on any topic. If you think that's a good thing, then well done.

(I don't.)

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

It's obvious that all the challenges made that the zygote is not a human has been ignored

You've provided NO medical evidence that proves the unborn is not a living human being. Your assertions do not count as medical evidence.

If you have medical evidence that shows EXACTLY when one becomes a living human being, that would be a good place to start.

So how 'bout it , CI? When EXACTLY from a medical standpoint does a living human being begin to exist?

If you answer, 'I don't know EXACTLY when it happens', congratulations . You're in the majority.

So then, is it a prudent course of action to destroy the unborn that , by your own admission, may be in fact a living human being?

Shouldn't caution and not recklessness be the watchword?

Shouldn't the benefit of the doubt go to preserving life, not exterminating it?

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Shouldn't caution and not recklessness be the watchword?

What recklessness?

real life wrote:

Shouldn't the benefit of the doubt go to preserving life, not exterminating it?

What of the quality fo life? Where do you factor that?

You're stance is crap. You ignore FACTS so that you can hold on to your EMOTIONAL arguement.

How dare you critisize CI. Punt nothing. You won't even step on the field with me. The score is on the board, you can't ignore it, even if you can ignore me, coward.

0 Replies

"Begin to exist" is when they are born.

Yes, they are human cells, but they are far from being a full blown human; they still lack brains. They will also not survive without the mother.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

"Begin to exist" is when they are born...

Ahem!

http://www.fetal-surgery.com/fs-pics.htm

Not existing ci?

0 Replies

baddog, They don't exist in the eyes of the law until they come out of the womb. That they can perform surgery on the unborn doesn't make them a citizen.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

baddog, They don't exist in the eyes of the law until they come out of the womb. That they can perform surgery on the unborn doesn't make them a citizen.

ci: Just making sure I'm following your logic here. Since the beings in the photo's don't exist ("in the eyes of the law") then it's clearly reasonable to say that anyone should be allowed to perform the surgeries.

Also - if surgeons were to perform those surgeries - then there would be no chance of malpractice because malpractice involves the law and lawfully - the beings don't exist.

Am I correct?

0 Replies

baddog, My statement stands as is.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

baddog, My statement stands as is.

OK - got it. Thanks. :wink:

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

"Begin to exist" is when they are born.

Yes, they are human cells, but they are far from being a full blown human; they still lack brains. They will also not survive without the mother.

Years ago, a baby born just a few weeks premature had a slim chance for survival. Now , babies born at 6 months can and do survive.

So as medical technology pushes that date back further, will the unborn suddenly 'become human' at an earlier date?

The unborn has a brain and can now survive outside the mother at a much earlier date than before. Why do you still support abortion on demand up to the point of birth, CI? (If you don't, then at EXACTLY what point in gestation do you think abortion should be illegal?)

If fertilization occurs in the lab and the unborn is never implanted into the mother, but allowed to grow for all nine months without being in the womb (not a possibility now, but can be in the future) will this one be human from the moment of fertilization because it can survive without the mother?

Are all of the embryos in the lab today truly 'living human beings' because they are surviving NOW without the mother?

You see how flimsy the criteria you've set up as disqualifying the unborn are, CI?

So, from a medical standpoint at what point EXACTLY does the unborn become a living human being, CI?

0 Replies

RL, Still a donkey with your carrot in the mud!

The issue is about when one enherits rights!

0 Replies

There is no society on this planet that gives legal rights to the unborn.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

There is no society on this planet that gives legal rights to the unborn.

Even if this were true, (and it's not), why would it be relevant?

What if we were the only society to elect our officials? Nobody else, just us. Would we be compelled to stop because 'obviously it's wrong if we're the only ones doing it' ?

As it is, there are many of the individual states in the US in which you may be charged with murder for killing an unborn child.

Are you not aware of this, CI?

0 Replies

real life wrote:

cicerone imposter wrote:
There is no society on this planet that gives legal rights to the unborn.

Even if this were true, (and it's not), why would it be relevant?

What if we were the only society to elect our officials? Nobody else, just us. Would we be compelled to stop because 'obviously it's wrong if we're the only ones doing it' ?

As it is, there are many of the individual states in the US in which you may be charged with murder for killing an unborn child.

Are you not aware of this, CI?

Your post is useless and invalid.

0 Replies

real has to continue grabbing at straws, because almost everything he says are assumptions based on his POV, but has no legal or ethical base except his religious belief. For him and his ilk, universal (most countries) standings on the legal rights of the unborn is ignored.

0 Replies

Diest TKO wrote:

RL, Still a donkey with your carrot in the mud!

The issue is about when one enherits rights!

Deist:

Not trying to stick my nose between you & RL - however help me understand. What rights are you referring to? More specifically - are you referring to civil rights, basic human rights, the right to live, etc??

BD

0 Replies

Baddog1 - In this case, with abortion and stem cell cutivation, I would specifically be referring to life rights, who has custdody of them: The mother/couple or the state.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Sperm and egg do not have the required number of chromosomes to be a human being.

They each have 23. When they join, there are 46 just like you and me. It is then a human being, not before.

Haven't we covered this numerous times?

What about people with 45 or 47 chromosomes? Are they human beings? How about cells with 44 chromosomes? 43? 42? 40? Exactly where do you draw the line?

0 Replies

real life wrote:

A living human being comes into existence at the moment of fertilization.

Now if anyone can demonstrate that the unborn is NOT alive at this point by providing evidence when these dead chemicals DO come alive , then that would be one way of falsifying this position.

Or if anyone can demonstrate that the unborn is NOT human at this point by providing evidence to show it is of some other species, then that also would be a way of falsifying this position.

Can I be certain of this? Relatively so, yes. As certain as one can be about anything, I suppose.

Could I be wrong? Yes. Someone, someday may be able to prove that the unborn is NOT living or is not human. But I rather doubt it.

But even if 100% certainty is not possible, the benefit of the doubt must go to life, not to recklessly destroying the unborn while pretending 100% certainty that it is NOT a living human being.

Merriam-Webster wrote:

human: a bipedal primate mammal

Your baseless assertion that a fertilized cell is a human being is not backed up by any medical or scientific proof.

A single cell is certainly not bipedal and does not have the attributes of a primate or a mammal, therfore by definition it is not a "human." It is just a set of blueprints that is incapable of ever becoming human without parasitizing a woman, sucking nutrients from her body, and injuring (and sometimes killing) her in the process. So what if it is alive and has human DNA? That is also true of every other human cell, including eggs, sperm and cancers.

Your irrational insistance that a cell is a human being is ridiculous to anyone who understands English and biology. To "be" human requires a functioning human brain that is capable of self-awareness.

You have been given evidence many times that fetal brain development absolutely precludes the possibility of awareness prior to 24 weeks gestation. A fetus may be alive and be biologically human, but if it lacks a functioning human brain, then it is NOT a human being.

0 Replies

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

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know