2 of 5
2
Nose scratching is mass genocide?
Posted: 05 January 2008 12:06 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 16 ]  
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1453
Joined  2005-01-22

Perhaps we agree then frankr, that a fertilized egg is genetically a human being.  The word genetically makes the distinction between potential and existent moot, however we’re back to making a skin cell scratched from my nose (through cloning) a genetically intact human being (although egg cells and sperm cells individually are genetically incomplete).

As to my use of the word ‘force’ on your behalf, I should have said “make illegal” - a different kind of force than if taken in a purely physical interpretation.

Bob

 Signature 

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

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 January 2008 01:36 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 17 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2338
Joined  2006-02-19
mcalpine - 05 January 2008 03:33 PM

Now is a good time to test the “life begins at conception” issue. On December 31, any woman who is pregnant should claim an extra dependent for income tax purposes. No guts, no glory.

I hope you are not relying on the IRS for your biology, but in order to claim a dependant the child must be born alive. To be born is to exit the womb. Birth and life are not the same.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 January 2008 01:40 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 18 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2338
Joined  2006-02-19
CanZen - 05 January 2008 05:06 PM

Perhaps we agree then frankr, that a fertilized egg is genetically a human being.  The word genetically makes the distinction between potential and existent moot, however we’re back to making a skin cell scratched from my nose (through cloning) a genetically intact human being (although egg cells and sperm cells individually are genetically incomplete).

As to my use of the word ‘force’ on your behalf, I should have said “make illegal” - a different kind of force than if taken in a purely physical interpretation.

Bob

The fertilized egg is more than a skin cell. They do both have a complete genetic code but the fertilized egg is the first point in the continuum of every human life. The skin cell is a part of the human but it does not become human nor can it. To say it can be cloned is to misrepresent what cloning does. Cloning does not manipulate a skin cell into a human being. Cloning extracts the genetic code from a skin cell and inserts it into an egg. The egg with a full set of chromosomes instead of a half is now a zygote. The skin cell is not a zygote.

[ Edited: 05 January 2008 01:43 PM by frankr]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 January 2008 02:54 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 19 ]  
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1632
Joined  2006-09-23
frankr - 05 January 2008 12:20 PM

Biology tells us what is human life,

JPII disagreed with you. (He said that biology/medicine can only tell us whether the elements of what we agree to be human life are present.)

The present pope may have a different point of view.  I haven’t kept up.

 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: 05 January 2008 02:56 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 20 ]  
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1632
Joined  2006-09-23
CanZen - 05 January 2008 05:06 PM

Perhaps we agree then frankr, that a fertilized egg is genetically a human being.  The word genetically makes the distinction between potential and existent moot, however we’re back to making a skin cell scratched from my nose (through cloning) a genetically intact human being (although egg cells and sperm cells individually are genetically incomplete).

It may be nit-picking, but actually both egg and sperm have all the DNA instructions to make a new person.

 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: 05 January 2008 08:31 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 21 ]  
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1632
Joined  2006-09-23
frankr - 05 January 2008 03:25 PM

Pierre was a Jesuit priest. I think he was involoved in the piltdown man troubles. Some even accuse him of being the forger. When I was in the seminary my classmate was a big fan of him. I found him a little goofy.

Lordy, lordy.  You could read only Frank’s posts and get an idea of official Church stance on so many things.

Nonetheless even in light of evolution, the first man did not start off as bacteria. The first man and all men started off as a fertilized egg.

“Frank” was never an egg.  “Frank” came into being at some early point after his birth, just as “Frank” may go out of being before his heart stops beating and his lungs respiring.  (And the Church itself agrees with me on the latter point.)

When the Church unequivocally endorsed evolution it had a similar problem on the other end of life: when does the “total integration of the unitary and integrated whole that is the personal self” occur?  It can’t be at fertilization, or we would at some point in time have had human babies being raised by animal parents.  JPII recognized this in the case of evolution, but couldn’t do so when it came to anything sexual.)

I don’t force woman to do anything. Any more than I force my fellow human beings not to steal. There are human beings that do steal despite me saying it is wrong. It is still wrong.

Actually forced pregnancy is like forcing someone to be stolen from.  Withholding from that person the ability to protect his/her belongings. 

When it comes to the protection of one’s very person, it’s more like government-imposed slavery or rape.

 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: 05 January 2008 08:33 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 22 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5404
Joined  2006-09-27
frankr - 05 January 2008 06:40 PM

The fertilized egg is more than a skin cell. They do both have a complete genetic code but the fertilized egg is the first point in the continuum of every human life. The skin cell is a part of the human but it does not become human nor can it. To say it can be cloned is to misrepresent what cloning does. Cloning does not manipulate a skin cell into a human being. Cloning extracts the genetic code from a skin cell and inserts it into an egg. The egg with a full set of chromosomes instead of a half is now a zygote. The skin cell is not a zygote.

From the WikiPedia article on parthenogenesis:

On August 2, 2007, after much independent investigation, it was revealed that discredited South Korean scientist, Hwang Woo-Suk, produced the first human embryos through parthenogenesis. Initially, Hwang claimed he and his team had extracted stem cells from cloned human embryos, a result which was later found to be fabricated. Further examination of the chromosomes of these cells show the same indicators of parthenogenesis in those extracted stem cells, as are found in the mice created by Tokyo scientists in 2004. Although Hwang deceived the world about being the first to create artificially cloned human embryos, he did contribute a major breakthrough to stem cell research by creating human embryos using parthenogenesis. The process may offer a way for creating stem cells that are genetically matched to a particular woman for the treatment of degenerative diseases.
The news of Hwang’s breakthrough came just a month after an announcement from the International Stem Cell Corporation (ISC), a California based stem cell research company, that they had successfully created the first human embryos through parthenogenesis. Although the truth about the results of Hwang’s work were just discovered, those embryos were created by him and his team before February 2004, making Hwang the first to perform the human process of parthenogenesis successfully. In 2006, a group of Italian researchers announced they had achieved the same feat, but have yet to publish their results, which eventually, if confirmed, may make ISC only the third organization to achieve artificial parthenogenesis of humans in the laboratory.

Tell me again why we are discussing zygotes, specifically? Just trying to get your ‘gote, here, Frankie.

[ Edited: 05 January 2008 08:37 PM by Traces Elk]
 Signature 

INVEST in cynicism!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 January 2008 09:19 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 23 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2338
Joined  2006-02-19
M is for Malapert - 06 January 2008 01:31 AM
frankr - 05 January 2008 03:25 PM

Pierre was a Jesuit priest. I think he was involoved in the piltdown man troubles. Some even accuse him of being the forger. When I was in the seminary my classmate was a big fan of him. I found him a little goofy.

Lordy, lordy.  You could read only Frank’s posts and get an idea of official Church stance on so many things.

Nonetheless even in light of evolution, the first man did not start off as bacteria. The first man and all men started off as a fertilized egg.

“Frank” was never an egg.  “Frank” came into being at some early point after his birth, just as “Frank” may go out of being before his heart stops beating and his lungs respiring.  (And the Church itself agrees with me on the latter point.)

When the Church unequivocally endorsed evolution it had a similar problem on the other end of life: when does the “total integration of the unitary and integrated whole that is the personal self” occur?  It can’t be at fertilization, or we would at some point in time have had human babies being raised by animal parents.  JPII recognized this in the case of evolution, but couldn’t do so when it came to anything sexual.)


You seem to think that if you say something with authority then it is true. The church did not unequivocally endorse evolution nor does it have the authority to do so. Lest we forget the Church’s authority and the pope’s is restricted to faith and morals. A pope can endorse evolution or string theory but he cannot do so in the name of the Church.

Your argument about the self is a philosophical argument about personhood. It is not a biological argument about human life. You are saying on your authority and your concept of what a human person is that it is impossible for a human person to be a fertilized egg or even a newborn. You are very much like Pete Singer. This position, though dangerous and monstrous in the hands of a cruel pater familias (I know such monsters don’t exist in your utopia), does not have anything to do with biology. The life of the human being begins at conception. The end of life is a bit more tricky in this technological world but the beginning of life is not. It is not a question. It is what we call a scientific fact.

[ Edited: 05 January 2008 09:21 PM by frankr]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 January 2008 10:32 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 24 ]  
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1632
Joined  2006-09-23
frankr - 06 January 2008 02:19 AM

Your argument about the self is a philosophical argument about personhood.

Indeed.  So is yours.  As JPII used to point out, it is not the job of science or medicine to decide what is or is not a human being; science can only say whether or not the criteria we decide to qualify are present.

It is not a biological argument about human life.

A prefertilized egg is human life.  It is human and it is alive.  Under the right conditions, it can become a human being.  Same is true of the postfertilized egg.

However, neither can be human beings yet, since they may not become human beings, or may become something else.  Such as part of a human being, as I’ve pointed out to you many times.

The life of the human being begins at conception.

Let me refer you again to the Brazilian woman who is a single, normal woman who originated as two separate conceptions (fertilized eggs), neither of which died or disappeared.  With which conception did her life begin?

How about the little boy who is the product of a fertilized and an unfertilized (parthenogenetic) egg?  Did his life begin when the unfertilized egg activated or when the other egg was fertilized with a sperm?

The only reason single parthenogenetic eggs don’t come to term in humans, yet, is because the gene to develop a placenta doesn’t function (although it is there).  Women’s eggs self-activate and start becoming embryos commonly.  Are you discriminating against these zygotes just because they are genetically unable to implant and grow normally unless they happen to hook up with an ordinarily fertilized egg?  That is like saying that an anencephalic (also genetically lacking) baby isn’t a human being.  Try telling its mother that.  Incidentally, such babies are legal persons.

  The end of life is a bit more tricky in this technological world

Right.  And yet just a couple of generations ago, it wasn’t.  In some parts of the world, it still isn’t—“brain death” is not the legal definition of “death”.  In fact, part of the “right to life” movement covers the question of brain death, and disagrees with you.  If you’d ever seen a pink, breathing body torn apart to harvest its heart and lungs you might wonder yourself.

but the beginning of life is not. It is not a question. It is what we call a scientific fact.

Not in this technological or even in the entirely natural world.  Before there were petri dishes, there were never-fertilized eggs becoming 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: 05 January 2008 10:50 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 25 ]  
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1632
Joined  2006-09-23
Salt Creek - 06 January 2008 01:33 AM

Tell me again why we are discussing zygotes, specifically? Just trying to get your ‘gote, here, Frankie.

It’s particularly unfortunate that the Church chose fertilization as the beginning of a person’s life when zygotes are so plastic.  See my following post to Frank: they can become one baby, several babies, part of a baby, no baby, or a baby unable to survive birth although legally still a person, among other possibilities.

One thing is for sure: something which can become xyz, is not now xyz.

Then there’s that little-known fact elucidated by the masters of the zygote and its potentials, the scientists who carefully studied eggs in order to clone the sheep Dolly:

Contrary to popular and even most medical belief, the second stage of meiosis does not finish until the egg is fertilized.

Sperm do not fertilize haploid eggs.  They fertilize MII oocytes, which are still diploid. The egg doesn’t have a nucleus at that point either. 

“When the sperm first makes contact, the oocyte is still diploid, still only halfway through its second meiosis. The oocyte has no nuclear membrane at this stage; the chromosomes are suspended within the cytoplasm, held in position by the spindle. The touch of the sperm on the oocyte’s outer membrane stimulates the second meiosis to move to completion. The second polar body is then extruded; the remaining chromosomes acquire a new nuclear membrane and so for the first time form a haploid pronucleus.”

And did you know that that the chromosomes of the egg and sperm never meet in the zygote?

“There is no diploid nucleus, with a complete complement of chromosomes, until we reach the two-cell stage. This biological detail has all kinds of implications. For example, most people tend to assume that a new individual is ‘conceived’ when sperm and egg meet to create a zygote. But in the zygote the male and female genomes remain separate until the zygote itself divides. Do two divided individuals form ‘an individual’?”

Both quotes are from The Second Creation: Dolly and the Age of Biological Control (Ian Wilmut and Keith Campbell). Even I learned things I didn’t know about gametogenesis and fertilization.

Yes, the fixation on zygotes was definitely an error—not a baby but “two divided individuls” with separate genomes.  This tricky technological age is full of pitfalls when the facts don’t square with primitive assumptions.

 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: 05 January 2008 10:59 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 26 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2338
Joined  2006-02-19

You are the queen of distraction. The case of the Brazilian woman and the boy are not even exceptions. There was a moment in each life when they began to grow in their humaness. They went from single cell to two cells. It there was a mixture of eggs or genes is irrelevant. The continuum began ata point. If a women was capable of parthogenesis and were self activating all the time (as you claim but which I doubt) then as soon as the self activating began the egg would becaome a human being even if all these human being died in utero.  A genetic defect like anencephaly (with which I am quite familiar) is a human being as well. I do not dee how it relates but I think them all human. So yes on the technicality you may have got me. Fertilization may be the wrong word. What is a better one activation? Nonetheless a human being is a human being from the conception/activation. An egg is not a human being nor is a sperm. If parthogenesis happens then the egg is no longer a egg but a human being.

Before there were petri dishes, there were never-fertilized eggs becoming human beings.

We call him Christ.

[ Edited: 05 January 2008 11:04 PM by frankr]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 January 2008 02:11 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 27 ]  
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1632
Joined  2006-09-23
frankr - 06 January 2008 03:59 AM

You are the queen of distraction.

Thank you.

The case of the Brazilian woman and the boy are not even exceptions. There was a moment in each life when they began to grow in their humaness.

But when?  You said that the life of every person begins with fertilization.  With which fertilization did the life of the Brazilian woman begin?  You do realize that she would have been a completely different woman if those eggs hadn’t fused.

They went from single cell to two cells. It there was a mixture of eggs or genes is irrelevant. The continuum began ata point.

Just not at fertilization.  Thanks for agreeing.  And the mixture is highly relevant to the person involved, I’d say.

If a women was capable of parthogenesis and were self activating all the time (as you claim but which I doubt)

References available eventually on demand.  I will have to Google and for some reason it’s not bringing up many of my posts.  The statistic is 5-6%.

However,then as soon as the self activating began the egg would becaome a human being even if all these human being died in utero.

Accepting your terms for the sake of argument, I agree—this is at least internally inconsistent.  In that case, we are dealing with reckless negligence.  Women should have sexual intercourse every month with a view to giving those human beings a chance to live.  We would not tolerate an activity (or a failure to act) which resulted in the death of 5 to 6 percent of children.  Heck, far fewer children die as the result of not wearing seat belts or sitting in car seats, but it’s a crime not to buckle them in.

A genetic defect like anencephaly (with which I am quite familiar) is a human being as well. I do not dee how it relates but I think them all human. So yes on the technicality you may have got me.

But you’re arguing on technicalities.  This is a wretched mistake, as we discover more and more about mammalian reproduction.  It’s best that we leave it as we always have (as we do with death): science has no place in determining what constitutes a human being, any more than in deciding where heaven is.

Fertilization may be the wrong word. What is a better one activation? Nonetheless a human being is a human being from the conception/activation. An egg is not a human being nor is a sperm. If parthogenesis happens then the egg is no longer a egg but a human being.

Well, as I say, then you have to deal with the terrible negligence of letting all those human beings die without even being given a chance to live.

Remember that in the evolutionary environment, women hardly ever ovulated or menstruated.  When they had ripe eggs, they also had sex, giving those eggs their best chance at life.  When women ovulated, they got pregnant, and their parthenogenetic eggs at least had an opportunity to hook up with a buddy and survive.  Today’s 400 or so barren ovulations, resulting in dozens of certain deaths (on your view) is completely at odds with how humans evolved.

Before there were petri dishes, there were never-fertilized eggs becoming human beings.

We call him Christ.

I believe that’s scripturally incorrect, isn’t it?  Didn’t God do something to Mary’s egg?

[ Edited: 06 January 2008 02:37 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: 06 January 2008 05:35 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 28 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2338
Joined  2006-02-19

5 to 6 % seems ludicrous. Still it does not matter. I also hear that as many as one in three fertilized eggs miscarry (this seems high as well) usually before a woman is aware she is pregnant. Even if those numbers hold up then all it means is that many human beings die in the first stages of life. This is consistent with the rest of nature.
\
You again are arguing for personhood. Fine make the argument but it is not in any wy scientific. I feel like this argument is like the scopes argument in reverse. The science is clear and parthogenesis, and twinning, and combined embryos make for interesting philosphical debate but they do not contradict or refute the fact that a human life begins as a single cell.

Christ received his body from Mary. I do not know if there is an official doctrine on his genetic profile. The overshadowing of the Mary by The Holy Spirit did not involve sexual intercourse or divine semen.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 January 2008 08:15 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 29 ]  
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1632
Joined  2006-09-23
frankr - 06 January 2008 10:35 PM

The science is clear and parthogenesis, and twinning, and combined embryos make for interesting philosphical debate but they do not contradict or refute the fact that a human life begins as a single cell.

Wrong.  As Stephen Jay Gould once said, “Natural historians tend to avoid tendentious preaching in th[e] philosophical mode.  Our favored style of doubing is empirical: if I wish to question your proposed generality, I will search for a counterexample of flesh and blood.”

A single counterexample will suffice.

Christ received his body from Mary. I do not know if there is an official doctrine on his genetic profile. The overshadowing of the Mary by The Holy Spirit did not involve sexual intercourse or divine semen.

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?

 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: 06 January 2008 08:31 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 30 ]  
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1453
Joined  2005-01-22

M, you asked, ““Was Jesus a cross-dressing woman?”“

That’s funny in several ways.  I wonder if his apparel was appropriate for the cross?

Bob

 Signature 

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

Profile
 
 
   
2 of 5
2
 
RSS 2.0     Atom Feed