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

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?

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.

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.

real, "Moral relativist" is an oxymoron. "Moral" is a religionist, subjective, term.

What level of 'awareness' do you think is required, and how will you measure it?

Do people in a coma have the required 'awareness', or is it ok to kill them? What about people who have come out of coma after decades?

Do mentally retarded people have the required 'awareness' , or is it ok to kill them?

Catatonics?

Passed out drunk or on drugs?

Brain-injured?

Asleep?

Knocked unconscious?

EXACTLY what brain functions do you propose to measure, and what levels of each are required to achieve OR RETAIN humanness?

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

As for 'bipedal' , does that mean a man who has lost his legs is no longer human since he is not 'bipedal' ?

C'mon Terry. Even you have to admit that your post on this was quite a stretch.

Random self-contadictory crap.

real life wrote:

What level of 'awareness' do you think is required, and how will you measure it?

Do people in a coma have the required 'awareness', or is it ok to kill them? What about people who have come out of coma after decades?

Do mentally retarded people have the required 'awareness' , or is it ok to kill them?

Catatonics?

Passed out drunk or on drugs?

Brain-injured?

Asleep?

Knocked unconscious?

EXACTLY what brain functions do you propose to measure, and what levels of each are required to achieve OR RETAIN humanness?

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

As for 'bipedal' , does that mean a man who has lost his legs is no longer human since he is not 'bipedal' ?

C'mon Terry. Even you have to admit that your post on this was quite a stretch.

The potential for awareness can be measured by imaging the brain to see if the areas known to be necessary for consciousness are functioning (thalamic reticular nuclei, synapses, cortex) and by looking at brain waves (EEG). Some people in comas can regain awareness. Some can't. That is for a doctor to determine, and care would continue as long as there was any chance of recovery. Mentally retarded individuals are just as aware as you or I. People who have temporary impairments are capable of awareness. Embryos and 2nd trimester fetuses aren't. Third trimester fetuses may have limited awareness at 30 weeks. I have posted this several times. Do you disagree with any of these points?

Yes, it's wrong, but not evil. "Evil" is a religious' term.

Wrong because of your emphasis on the legal rights of a cell - not human life. If you supported your myopic view of "life" by doing everything to help the children already alive, there would be some consistency to your argument. All you want to do is control the body of women you don't even know or care about. You don't even care about the many children already living who are starving. Your so-called belief to save the cell is misguided and dangerous. You don't see the trees in the forest.

Patients who have suffered brain injury and are in coma have been known to grow new connections to replace what was lost or damaged and then regain consciousness after decades. At the time, doctors did not consider them to have any hope of recovery of consciousness, but it happened.

Would it have been ok to kill them based on the doctor's prognosis of no recovery and irreversible brain damage?

real life wrote:

Patients who have suffered brain injury and are in coma have been known to grow new connections to replace what was lost or damaged and then regain consciousness after decades. At the time, doctors did not consider them to have any hope of recovery of consciousness, but it happened.

Would it have been ok to kill them based on the doctor's prognosis of no recovery and irreversible brain damage?

How was it determined that there was no hope, and if so, why were their bodies kept alive for decades? Some new connections may be made, but very little actual damage can be repaired, even in the case of a light coma which is not the same thing as a vegetative state. In any case, brain imaging techniques are far better now than a few decades ago and doctors are better able to determine whether the damage is irreversible and when it is ethical to withdraw treatment. As I said, if there is doubt, care would continue. And the family can always choose to keep a body alive even if no one is inhabiting it, at the cost of higher taxes/insurance premiums or less care for the rest of us.

Have you decided what your cutoff on chromosome numbers will be?

It has also been shown that PVS is misdiagnosed, so the true rate of recovery might be in question.