3 of 5
3
Nose scratching is mass genocide?
Posted: 07 January 2008 05:47 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 31 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2338
Joined  2006-02-19
M is for Malapert - 07 January 2008 01:15 AM

Isn’t there official doctrine on his geneaology? 

If he got his body from Mary, then he also got her genes.  Where did his Y chromosome come from if no divine sperm was involved?

Was Jesus a cross-dressing woman?

If the infinite creator of the universe was to become a human being, the problem of the y chromosome does not seem to be much of a hurdle.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 07 January 2008 06:46 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 32 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5404
Joined  2006-09-27
frankr - 07 January 2008 10:47 AM

If the infinite creator of the universe was to become a human being, the problem of the y chromosome does not seem to be much of a hurdle.

It’s not a hurdle for you, Frank. You’ve made that very plain.

It’s a problem for me, and for anyone who is not determined to believe nonsense; I mean, I really thought this was about your trying to convince us, rather than the other way round. If you just want to give up and say that it is all magic, you could have saved a few keystrokes.

How is it necessary for us to believe it actually happened in order for you to believe it actually happened?

Anyway, isn’t this rather beside the point about zygotes, which we seem to have given up discussing? But the same holds true in deciding that question as well, each in our own way.

 Signature 

INVEST in cynicism!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 07 January 2008 02:08 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 33 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2338
Joined  2006-02-19

Salt Creek I hope you will one day see how ridiculous your demands are. You want me to convince you of the supernatural doctrine of the Incarnation by using natural means. Just so we are clear. If I were to give you a natural explanation then it would make your case that it is not supernatural. I cannot give you a natural explanation for a supernatural event. It violates the principle on noncontradiction. You wouldn’t want me to violate such a principle would you Salt Creek?You are a scientist of some sort aren’t you? I know you are not a biologist but you are quite quiet on this issue. Scientifically speaking is the zygote a human being? Is it the first stages of a continuum or is it prehuman? If the latter, what is the evidence?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 07 January 2008 06:32 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 34 ]  
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1632
Joined  2006-09-23
frankr - 07 January 2008 07:08 PM

Scientifically speaking is the zygote a human being?

No, of course not.  Human beings have hearts, kidneys, and lungs, for instance.  Human beings are not parasitic on other human beings.  Human beings are visible to the naked eye.  Just a few requirements.

Is it the first stages of a continuum or is it prehuman? If the latter, what is the evidence?

Why isn’t this obvious to you?  Why do you make an exception for one single species? 

You know perfectly well that any scientist would agree that a fertilized egg is not a chicken.  A vegetarian scientist could eat fertilized eggs, though not chicken.  If a recipe for cake calls for eggs, it is not necessary to clarify that an equivalent number of chickens will not be a proper substitute.  For that matter, if you are making a chicken recipe you won’t just as soon use fertilized eggs either.

Any scientist, or you, would agree that an acorn is “oak” but that it is an oak embryo, not an example of the oak species.  (You have even redefined the word “embryo” for a single species, of course.)  No botanist, nor you, would have trouble distinguishing between an apple blossom visited by a bee (part of a member of the species; in process of possibly becoming a new member) and an apple tree (successfully produced, end-of-process member of the species). 

For the millionth time: reproduction is the process by which one member of a species divides or detaches part of itself to become two or more members of that species.  It is a process, not an instant.  In mammals, that process is complete at birth—when a new organism “springs off” to become offspring, capable of independent survival in the appropriate environment.

[ Edited: 07 January 2008 08:20 PM by M is for Malapert]
 Signature 

“I will tell you with the utmost impudence that I esteem much more his Person, than his Works.”

  (Dryden, St. Euremont’s Essays, 1692.)

Profile
 
 
Posted: 07 January 2008 08:16 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 35 ]  
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1453
Joined  2005-01-22

Thanks M is for Malapert for that great answer.  Finally all those fuzzy claims from frankr and that bunch are cleared up through the proper perspective.

Of course they will make an exception for humans, because that is their strategy all the way down.  If only they might now give us a clear and proper reason for making that exception.

Bob

 Signature 

It’s definitely a moon! . . . and now it’s become a sunflower!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 07 January 2008 08:30 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 36 ]  
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1632
Joined  2006-09-23
CanZen - 08 January 2008 01:16 AM

Thanks M is for Malapert for that great answer.  Finally all those fuzzy claims from frankr and that bunch are cleared up through the proper perspective.

Of course they will make an exception for humans, because that is their strategy all the way down.  If only they might now give us a clear and proper reason for making that exception.

Bob

Thank you!

I keep forgetting to request a definition for “human being”.  Not examples, but how we determine whether x qualifies or not.

The only one that includes everything we really want included, and doesn’t bring in things we don’t want included, is “human, born, and alive”. 

Otherwise you immediately run into all kinds of difficulties.

(The definition of “alive” presents some problems too.  It’s strange to me that the anti-brain-death component of the pro-life movement has never made much headway, since their arguments are precisely the same—it’s just that sex isn’t involved.  Wait, did I say strange?  I take that back.)

 Signature 

“I will tell you with the utmost impudence that I esteem much more his Person, than his Works.”

  (Dryden, St. Euremont’s Essays, 1692.)

Profile
 
 
Posted: 07 January 2008 09:10 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 37 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2338
Joined  2006-02-19
M is for Malapert - 07 January 2008 11:32 PM
frankr - 07 January 2008 07:08 PM

Scientifically speaking is the zygote a human being?

No, of course not.  Human beings have hearts, kidneys, and lungs, for instance.  Human beings are not parasitic on other human beings.  Human beings are visible to the naked eye.  Just a few requirements.

M I know you’re not a scientist. Trust me, when I want the opinion of the abortion/infanticide/planned parenthood lobby. I will ask you. Although you impress CanZen with your rant, you do not impress me. There are human beings who are very much parasitic on other human beings outside the womb. There are some without hearts and lungs and kidneys. There are some with hearts and lungs and kidneys inside the womb. I know you would be just as content to have them killed as you would the really small ones. Kill the parasites!

M is for Malapert - 07 January 2008 11:32 PM

Why isn’t this obvious to you?  Why do you make an exception for one single species? 

You know perfectly well that any scientist would agree that a fertilized egg is not a chicken.  A vegetarian scientist could eat fertilized eggs, though not chicken.  If a recipe for cake calls for eggs, it is not necessary to clarify that an equivalent number of chickens will not be a proper substitute.  For that matter, if you are making a chicken recipe you won’t just as soon use fertilized eggs either.

Any scientist, or you, would agree that an acorn is “oak” but that it is an oak embryo, not an example of the oak species.  (You have even redefined the word “embryo” for a single species, of course.)  No botanist, nor you, would have trouble distinguishing between an apple blossom visited by a bee (part of a member of the species; in process of possibly becoming a new member) and an apple tree (successfully produced, end-of-process member of the species).

This is pure equivocation because a fertilized and incubated egg is a chicken and the acorn that sprouts is an oak. A vegetarian scientist may make an omelette with a fertilized egg that was not incubated because he couldn’t tell the difference but the scientist would not knowingly use a fertilized egg especially after incubation. A recipe that calls for eggs assumes the egg is unfertilized. I would not like a cake made with a fertilized incubated egg that is ten days old or older, and I really like cake.

M is for Malapert - 07 January 2008 11:32 PM

For the millionth time: reproduction is the process by which one member of a species divides or detaches part of itself to become two or more members of that species.  It is a process, not an instant.  In mammals, that process is complete at birth—when a new organism “springs off” to become offspring, capable of independent survival in the appropriate environment.

For the millionth time human life is a continuum that begins in the womb and ends sometime after that. For some many years after, and others do not even make it out of the womb.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 07 January 2008 10:07 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 38 ]  
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1453
Joined  2005-01-22

frankr, I was impressed because ‘M’ made the case that conception (fertilization) is insufficient to designate a physiological human being, just as a fertilized egg is not a chicken.  The point that was being argued (I thought) was whether or not a human being was created at conception.  I think you have to have that to make your case, otherwise you get to decide (along with the rest of us) when is the appropriate time along the process of gestation that an embryo can be properly designated as a human being.  If you think that making the cut-off at some trimester is, in effect, playing god, then you should consider that making the designation at the time of conception is just playing another god with a different opinion.  Perhaps the part you don’t get in the vast spectrum of it all frankr, is that every moral decision requires each of us to “play god” for that particular moment.

Bob

 Signature 

It’s definitely a moon! . . . and now it’s become a sunflower!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 08 January 2008 02:51 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 39 ]  
Newbie
Rank
Total Posts:  30
Joined  2007-12-09

Sam is still right! The zygote is no more a person than the cell; to equate the zygote and a person is denial of the obvious.Pro-enforced pregnancy people just don’t get it: the woman is a person; the fetus is not until it has consciousness at least.There the states have put restrictions on the third trimester; it is not abortion on demand!
Atheist pro-enforced pregnancy people like Hentoff might make better arguments than the others. Do they?
Terry Schiavo was no more a person than the zygote: neither had consciousness. The potential of personhood is irrelevant.Those is a coma are different in that they have limited consciousness and presumably will again.

[ Edited: 08 January 2008 02:53 AM by skeptic griggsy]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 08 January 2008 04:04 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 40 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2338
Joined  2006-02-19

Skeptic/canzen
This is really an atheistic problem of authority. I say this to M all the time. Something is not so because you say so. We are talking if the zygote/embryo is a human being and is alive. We are not talking personhood. If it is human and it is alive from a biological stand point (which it is) then it is the pro abortionist who has to make the moral case. The pro lifer in cases of abortion and Euthanasia make a very simple moral case. He/She is human and alive therefore we should not kill him or her. If you want to make a case that conciousness is the key to personhood then go ahead. Understand it is a philosophical case an not a biological one. Also do not take long naps around your peers. They might relieve you of your suffering.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 08 January 2008 08:16 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 41 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5404
Joined  2006-09-27
frankr - 08 January 2008 09:04 AM

Skeptic/canzen
This is really an atheistic problem of authority. I say this to M all the time. Something is not so because you say so.

Consider who’s making the above statement. Consider how such a statement denies its own essence.

How is it not a theistic problem of authority? The entire content of Catholicism is “It’s so because I say it’s so.” Let’s recheck with the Thomists:

God is a simple being or substance excluding every kind of composition, physical or metaphysical.

Consider who’s making the above statement, and how authoritative it is. When all you’ve got is the hammer of Thor, everything looks like a problem with authority. I say, let’s put the Thor back in authority.

Carstonio - 08 January 2008 11:46 AM

Aquinas’ argument would have the virtue of interior logic, provided he was talking about a hypothetical realm such as a fiction author’s shared universe. But such realms are built on core assumptions. In the real world, there is no basis for   the initial assumption Aquinas makes: “God is a simple being or substance excluding every kind of composition, physical or metaphysical.”

The difficulty that you have with science, Frank, is precisely that science does not claim something is so simply because a scientist says it’s so. Claiming that something is so because Aquinas said it’s so defers the problem, but not for very long.

frankr - 08 January 2008 02:10 AM

For the millionth time human life is a continuum that begins in the womb and ends sometime after that.

I take it you have that on good authority. Right, Frank? Or did you think that one up yourself?

frankr - 08 January 2008 09:04 AM

Skeptic/canzen
This is really an atheistic problem of authority. I say this to M all the time. Something is not so because you say so.

And the cycle begins again.

We’re sorry. Frank can’t come to the phone right now. Please leave a message after the beep, and he will be sure to return your call as soon as he is done removing the pew from his rectory.

 Signature 

INVEST in cynicism!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 08 January 2008 11:02 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 42 ]  
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1632
Joined  2006-09-23
frankr - 08 January 2008 09:04 AM

If it is human and it is alive from a biological stand point (which it is)

Ah, this sounds like a definition.  “Human and alive from a biological standpoint.”  Is anything “human and alive from a biological standpoint” a human being?

Be very careful, because if you say yes I’m going to start listing a bunch of things you don’t want to be considered human beings.

 Signature 

“I will tell you with the utmost impudence that I esteem much more his Person, than his Works.”

  (Dryden, St. Euremont’s Essays, 1692.)

Profile
 
 
Posted: 08 January 2008 11:21 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 43 ]  
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1632
Joined  2006-09-23
frankr - 08 January 2008 02:10 AM
M is for Malapert - 07 January 2008 11:32 PM

Why isn’t this obvious to you?  Why do you make an exception for one single species? 

You know perfectly well that any scientist would agree that a fertilized egg is not a chicken.  A vegetarian scientist could eat fertilized eggs, though not chicken.  If a recipe for cake calls for eggs, it is not necessary to clarify that an equivalent number of chickens will not be a proper substitute.  For that matter, if you are making a chicken recipe you won’t just as soon use fertilized eggs either.

Any scientist, or you, would agree that an acorn is “oak” but that it is an oak embryo, not an example of the oak species.  (You have even redefined the word “embryo” for a single species, of course.)  No botanist, nor you, would have trouble distinguishing between an apple blossom visited by a bee (part of a member of the species; in process of possibly becoming a new member) and an apple tree (successfully produced, end-of-process member of the species).

This is pure equivocation because a fertilized and incubated egg is a chicken and the acorn that sprouts is an oak.

Naturally, and the embryo that is incubated is a human being.  Something (acorn) which can become another thing under the right conditions (after sprouting, an oak tree) is not yet that thing.

When the process of reproduction is finished with, of course the new member of the species exists.

A vegetarian scientist may make an omelette with a fertilized egg that was not incubated because he couldn’t tell the difference but the scientist would not knowingly use a fertilized egg especially after incubation. A recipe that calls for eggs assumes the egg is unfertilized. I would not like a cake made with a fertilized incubated egg that is ten days old or older, and I really like cake.

We certainly agree that a ten-day-old fertilized egg won’t make a cake the way a newly fertilized one will.  The only thing you’ve accomplished here is to agree with my position that designating a moment like fertilization is absurd.  Nor does it claim that you can make a chicken recipe using ten-day-old eggs, since ten-day-old eggs are not yet chickens either.  They are just enough along the way not to be able to make a cake with.

M is for Malapert - 07 January 2008 11:32 PM

For the millionth time: reproduction is the process by which one member of a species divides or detaches part of itself to become two or more members of that species.  It is a process, not an instant.  In mammals, that process is complete at birth—when a new organism “springs off” to become offspring, capable of independent survival in the appropriate environment.

For the millionth time human life is a continuum that begins in the womb and ends sometime after that. For some many years after, and others do not even make it out of the womb.

Incidentally, this brings up another problem: the death of a human being is a fairly major occurrence.  If abortion is murder—the killing of a human being—then almost half of all US women are murderers, and about 40 percent will be.  If abortion is murder, then murder is by far the most common cause of death for children, and there are millions of murders or manslaughters each year, including spontaneous abortions.  Yet we don’t behave as if any of this were the slightest bit true.  If it were, it would be a problem of such alarm that it would be a major concern for scientists (abortion is the leading cause of infant death!  We need an all-out effort to solve the reasons why it happens!), parents, sociologists, criminologists, legislators, etc. etc. etc.

We know it’s something else, and we act that way.  We may believe it’s regrettable, but that’s typically the furthest it goes.  Hardly anyone kills or wants to jail women who have abortions or the physicians who perform them.  And yet actual child murder is viewed with even more repugnance than other kinds of murder.

 Signature 

“I will tell you with the utmost impudence that I esteem much more his Person, than his Works.”

  (Dryden, St. Euremont’s Essays, 1692.)

Profile
 
 
Posted: 08 January 2008 12:01 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 44 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2338
Joined  2006-02-19
Salt Creek - 08 January 2008 01:16 PM
frankr - 08 January 2008 09:04 AM

Skeptic/canzen
This is really an atheistic problem of authority. I say this to M all the time. Something is not so because you say so.

Consider who’s making the above statement. Consider how such a statement denies its own essence.

How is it not a theistic problem of authority? The entire content of Catholicism is “It’s so because I say it’s so.” Let’s recheck with the Thomists:

God is a simple being or substance excluding every kind of composition, physical or metaphysical.

Consider who’s making the above statement, and how authoritative it is. When all you’ve got is the hammer of Thor, everything looks like a problem with authority. I say, let’s put the Thor back in authority.

Carstonio - 08 January 2008 11:46 AM

Aquinas’ argument would have the virtue of interior logic, provided he was talking about a hypothetical realm such as a fiction author’s shared universe. But such realms are built on core assumptions. In the real world, there is no basis for   the initial assumption Aquinas makes: “God is a simple being or substance excluding every kind of composition, physical or metaphysical.”

The difficulty that you have with science, Frank, is precisely that science does not claim something is so simply because a scientist says it’s so. Claiming that something is so because Aquinas said it’s so defers the problem, but not for very long.

frankr - 08 January 2008 02:10 AM

For the millionth time human life is a continuum that begins in the womb and ends sometime after that.

I take it you have that on good authority. Right, Frank? Or did you think that one up yourself?

frankr - 08 January 2008 09:04 AM

Skeptic/canzen
This is really an atheistic problem of authority. I say this to M all the time. Something is not so because you say so.

And the cycle begins again.

We’re sorry. Frank can’t come to the phone right now. Please leave a message after the beep, and he will be sure to return your call as soon as he is done removing the pew from his rectory.

The authorities weigh in Stolen from a web site. Google and there are thousands more. I’ve yet to see the photogenesis statistics M quotes with such authority.

“Human development begins after the union of male and female gametes or germ cells during a process known as fertilization (conception).
“Fertilization is a sequence of events that begins with the contact of a sperm (spermatozoon) with a secondary oocyte (ovum) and ends with the fusion of their pronuclei (the haploid nuclei of the sperm and ovum) and the mingling of their chromosomes to form a new cell. This fertilized ovum, known as a zygote, is a large diploid cell that is the beginning, or primordium, of a human being.”
[Moore, Keith L. Essentials of Human Embryology. Toronto: B.C. Decker Inc, 1988, p.2]


————————————————————————————————————————

“Embryo: the developing organism from the time of fertilization until significant differentiation has occurred, when the organism becomes known as a fetus.”
[Cloning Human Beings. Report and Recommendations of the National Bioethics Advisory Commission. Rockville, MD: GPO, 1997, Appendix-2.]


————————————————————————————————————————

“Embryo: An organism in the earliest stage of development; in a man, from the time of conception to the end of the second month in the uterus.”
[Dox, Ida G. et al. The Harper Collins Illustrated Medical Dictionary. New York: Harper Perennial, 1993, p. 146]


————————————————————————————————————————

“Embryo: The early developing fertilized egg that is growing into another individual of the species. In man the term ‘embryo’ is usually restricted to the period of development from fertilization until the end of the eighth week of pregnancy.”
[Walters, William and Singer, Peter (eds.). Test-Tube Babies. Melbourne: Oxford University Press, 1982, p. 160]


————————————————————————————————————————

“The development of a human being begins with fertilization, a process by which two highly specialized cells, the spermatozoon from the male and the oocyte from the female, unite to give rise to a new organism, the zygote.”
[Langman, Jan. Medical Embryology. 3rd edition. Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins, 1975, p. 3]


————————————————————————————————————————

“Embryo: The developing individual between the union of the germ cells and the completion of the organs which characterize its body when it becomes a separate organism…. At the moment the sperm cell of the human male meets the ovum of the female and the union results in a fertilized ovum (zygote), a new life has begun…. The term embryo covers the several stages of early development from conception to the ninth or tenth week of life.”
[Considine, Douglas (ed.). Van Nostrand’s Scientific Encyclopedia. 5th edition. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, 1976, p. 943]


————————————————————————————————————————

“I would say that among most scientists, the word ‘embryo’ includes the time from after fertilization…”
[Dr. John Eppig, Senior Staff Scientist, Jackson Laboratory (Bar Harbor, Maine) and Member of the NIH Human Embryo Research Panel—Panel Transcript, February 2, 1994, p. 31]


————————————————————————————————————————

“The development of a human begins with fertilization, a process by which the spermatozoon from the male and the oocyte from the female unite to give rise to a new organism, the zygote.”
[Sadler, T.W. Langman’s Medical Embryology. 7th edition. Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins 1995, p. 3]


————————————————————————————————————————

“The question came up of what is an embryo, when does an embryo exist, when does it occur. I think, as you know, that in development, life is a continuum…. But I think one of the useful definitions that has come out, especially from Germany, has been the stage at which these two nuclei [from sperm and egg] come together and the membranes between the two break down.”
[Jonathan Van Blerkom of University of Colorado, expert witness on human embryology before the NIH Human Embryo Research Panel—Panel Transcript, February 2, 1994, p. 63]


————————————————————————————————————————

“Zygote. This cell, formed by the union of an ovum and a sperm (Gr. zyg tos, yoked together), represents the beginning of a human being. The common expression ‘fertilized ovum’ refers to the zygote.”
[Moore, Keith L. and Persaud, T.V.N. Before We Are Born: Essentials of Embryology and Birth Defects. 4th edition. Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Company, 1993, p. 1]


————————————————————————————————————————

“The chromosomes of the oocyte and sperm are…respectively enclosed within female and male pronuclei. These pronuclei fuse with each other to produce the single, diploid, 2N nucleus of the fertilized zygote. This moment of zygote formation may be taken as the beginning or zero time point of embryonic development.”
[Larsen, William J. Human Embryology. 2nd edition. New York: Churchill Livingstone, 1997, p. 17]


————————————————————————————————————————

“Although life is a continuous process, fertilization is a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new, genetically distinct human organism is thereby formed…. The combination of 23 chromosomes present in each pronucleus results in 46 chromosomes in the zygote. Thus the diploid number is restored and the embryonic genome is formed. The embryo now exists as a genetic unity.”
[O’Rahilly, Ronan and Müller, Fabiola. Human Embryology & Teratology. 2nd edition. New York: Wiley-Liss, 1996, pp. 8, 29. This textbook lists “pre-embryo” among “discarded and replaced terms” in modern embryology, describing it as “ill-defined and inaccurate” (p. 12}]


————————————————————————————————————————

“Almost all higher animals start their lives from a single cell, the fertilized ovum (zygote)... The time of fertilization represents the starting point in the life history, or ontogeny, of the individual.”
[Carlson, Bruce M. Patten’s Foundations of Embryology. 6th edition. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1996, p. 3]


————————————————————————————————————————

“[A]nimal biologists use the term embryo to describe the single cell stage, the two-cell stage, and all subsequent stages up until a time when recognizable humanlike limbs and facial features begin to appear between six to eight weeks after fertilization….
“[A] number of specialists working in the field of human reproduction have suggested that we stop using the word embryo to describe the developing entity that exists for the first two weeks after fertilization. In its place, they proposed the term pre-embryo….
“I’ll let you in on a secret. The term pre-embryo has been embraced wholeheartedly by IVF practitioners for reasons that are political, not scientific. The new term is used to provide the illusion that there is something profoundly different between what we nonmedical biologists still call a six-day-old embryo and what we and everyone else call a sixteen-day-old embryo.
“The term pre-embryo is useful in the political arena—where decisions are made about whether to allow early embryo (now called pre-embryo) experimentation—as well as in the confines of a doctor’s office, where it can be used to allay moral concerns that might be expressed by IVF patients. ‘Don’t worry,’ a doctor might say, ‘it’s only pre-embryos that we’re manipulating or freezing. They won’t turn into real human embryos until after we’ve put them back into your body.’”
[Silver, Lee M. Remaking Eden: Cloning and Beyond in a Brave New World. New York: Avon Books, 1997, p. 39]

Profile
 
 
Posted: 08 January 2008 12:18 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 45 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2338
Joined  2006-02-19
M is for Malapert - 08 January 2008 04:21 PM
frankr - 08 January 2008 02:10 AM
M is for Malapert - 07 January 2008 11:32 PM

Why isn’t this obvious to you?  Why do you make an exception for one single species? 

You know perfectly well that any scientist would agree that a fertilized egg is not a chicken.  A vegetarian scientist could eat fertilized eggs, though not chicken.  If a recipe for cake calls for eggs, it is not necessary to clarify that an equivalent number of chickens will not be a proper substitute.  For that matter, if you are making a chicken recipe you won’t just as soon use fertilized eggs either.

Any scientist, or you, would agree that an acorn is “oak” but that it is an oak embryo, not an example of the oak species.  (You have even redefined the word “embryo” for a single species, of course.)  No botanist, nor you, would have trouble distinguishing between an apple blossom visited by a bee (part of a member of the species; in process of possibly becoming a new member) and an apple tree (successfully produced, end-of-process member of the species).

This is pure equivocation because a fertilized and incubated egg is a chicken and the acorn that sprouts is an oak.

Naturally, and the embryo that is incubated is a human being.  Something (acorn) which can become another thing under the right conditions (after sprouting, an oak tree) is not yet that thing.

When the process of reproduction is finished with, of course the new member of the species exists.

A vegetarian scientist may make an omelette with a fertilized egg that was not incubated because he couldn’t tell the difference but the scientist would not knowingly use a fertilized egg especially after incubation. A recipe that calls for eggs assumes the egg is unfertilized. I would not like a cake made with a fertilized incubated egg that is ten days old or older, and I really like cake.

We certainly agree that a ten-day-old fertilized egg won’t make a cake the way a newly fertilized one will.  The only thing you’ve accomplished here is to agree with my position that designating a moment like fertilization is absurd.  Nor does it claim that you can make a chicken recipe using ten-day-old eggs, since ten-day-old eggs are not yet chickens either.  They are just enough along the way not to be able to make a cake with.

M is for Malapert - 07 January 2008 11:32 PM

For the millionth time: reproduction is the process by which one member of a species divides or detaches part of itself to become two or more members of that species.  It is a process, not an instant.  In mammals, that process is complete at birth—when a new organism “springs off” to become offspring, capable of independent survival in the appropriate environment.

For the millionth time human life is a continuum that begins in the womb and ends sometime after that. For some many years after, and others do not even make it out of the womb.

Incidentally, this brings up another problem: the death of a human being is a fairly major occurrence.  If abortion is murder—the killing of a human being—then almost half of all US women are murderers, and about 40 percent will be.  If abortion is murder, then murder is by far the most common cause of death for children, and there are millions of murders or manslaughters each year, including spontaneous abortions.  Yet we don’t behave as if any of this were the slightest bit true.  If it were, it would be a problem of such alarm that it would be a major concern for scientists (abortion is the leading cause of infant death!  We need an all-out effort to solve the reasons why it happens!), parents, sociologists, criminologists, legislators, etc. etc. etc.

We know it’s something else, and we act that way.  We may believe it’s regrettable, but that’s typically the furthest it goes.  Hardly anyone kills or wants to jail women who have abortions or the physicians who perform them.  And yet actual child murder is viewed with even more repugnance than other kinds of murder.

Abortion is the leading cause of infant death. A spontaneous abortion is a micarriage. It is a natural death. Your logic seems to be embryos die naturally what difference is it, if we kill them. Old people die as do the sick and the infirm, let’s kill them too. I

agree the killing of children is repugnant both in and out of the womb.

Profile
 
 
   
3 of 5
3
 
RSS 2.0     Atom Feed