Abortion Issue Hits The work Scene

[Didacus]

First, before debating this issue, a definition of human life must be brougt forth and accepted by all who take part in the discussion. Otherwise, you will simply turn around the issue, much like you have been doing.

Let me bring forth a definition of human life:

[b][font="Geneva"]Un etre qui possede le potentiel d'un epanouissement de vie digne de l'humaniter.

A being having the potentiel of enjoyment of life dignifying that of humanity.[/font][/b]
(enjoyment is not a proper translation to epanouissement, but I am french so if someone could help me find better this would be appreciated)


I advance the notion that the destruction of an unborn child is murder, since it is the destruction of a being having the potential of life which is dignifying of humanity.

A sperm, a zygote, other human cells, are not a human life, since it takes an external intervention in order to prompt them to grow into humans.


Now, of course, feel free to advance your own definition of life, human life and whatever. The coarse of the discussion can have two avenues: 1. from the definition of human life it is proven that abortion is wrong, or 2. from the definiton of human life, it proven that no one is purely human and thus no one has the right to live. NEVER has a definition, which I have encountered, EVER NOT HAVE ONE OF THE TWO EFFECTS ABOVE WHEN ARGUING IN FAVOR OF ABORTION.

I would be very interested in your definition, LittleLes. Try to invent a definition of 'human life' that would exclude a fetus, yet keep you in it. Think about it, its a lot harder than it looks.


[u]Now lets entertain LittleLes for a few paragraphs.[/u]

An unborn child, left to its proper course, purely speaking cannot be born, since it is dependant of his/her mother's womb. A one year old child, left to its own, is equally doomed, since he/she depends on his/her parents for nurishment and other essentials of life. Being in a state of dependance, is in no way a prerequisite to being human. Or would you be ready to kill off 1 year old children as well, since after all they are only parasites incapable of proper comprehension? Certain similar arguments can be made in mass killing teenagers as well, but let's deal with one parasite at a time shall we?

Killing an unborn child, is taking from him/her their potential to live their life. Weither this child is one year old, 100 years old, or unborn, this is the core of why murder is wrong. The unborn child HAS the potential to live a full life, and none have the right to prevent them from living it.

A zygote, by itself, IS NOT A HUMAN. As it is, it cannot become a human being and live a full human life. [b] There requires intervention[/b] in order to give this zygote the potential to become human, to enjoy life in a manner dignified within humanity.

HOWEVER, once the meddling has been done, and a 'clone' has been inplanted where-ever in a manner in which it (he/she) can grow into a human, then essentially a manner of conception has occured, and this new being is human with all the potential of his/her equals. Killing such a clone at this stage would be murder as well.

This meddling into cloning is much like having sex. Sex is the meddling that enables a fetus to be created. THAT IS WHERE THE TWO COMPARE, not in their state, but in their manners of 'conception'. Destroying a sperm (zygote), is not murder, since left to its own it cannot evolve. But once the sperm (zygote) conceives in a mother's womb (the zygote is meddled with and a clone-fetus is created in a lab), THEN, a new being is created and has every right to life.

The point is simple; before the meddling, not human. After the meddling, human. Arguing this point is simply playing devil's advocate.

To quote you:
"Realistically, one has only a cell which has the potential to become a human being."

They have the potential to become human beings, but they are not. Every sperm has the potential to fertilize, but until they do, them things are not human, they have not the potential to grow and evolve as human beings.


again, your own quote (typo and all!):
"But the original quesition was at which point in their development a person exists. Not a potential person. "

The 'potential' to become a person exists in the state of 'sperm' or skin cell, which through the act of meddling (sex?) can become a fetus. When does a person exist? AT THE TIME OF CONCEPTION. Or are you just not paying attention and playing devil's advocate?


yet another quote:
"Each somatic cell (tissue cell) does hold the potential to become another complete person via cloning. "

Via cloning? That's like saying every sperm has the potential to become human and thus is precious so stop flushing them down the toilet (like teenage boys do all the time!) and keep them in a jar instead. YES, a sperm has the potential to become, but is not, a human being. What's your point? But once conception has occured, this 'potential' becomes reality.


Let me see if I can explain this in other, simpler terms:

CLONING:
Requires external intervention in order to create a human being.

ABORTION:
Requires external intervention in order to destroy a fetus (a human being).

To blurr these two questions/statements is silly, and barely worth attention. It is simply a distraction from the reality being presented to you. IT IS A RED HERRING.

You want to red herring us, well let me red herring you!

I failed also, to notice when you believe a being is ensouled. Personally, I believe that eveveryone is born without a soul.

The following is part of an advertisement that was published in the NEW YORK times during a municipal election year:


[i][font="Optima"]Proof of having a soul clearly occurs when one is able to communicate complex emotional ideas - aka, when one reaches the age of ten. Before then, it is completely natural to 'dispose' of the non-human parasitical offsprings at any time, in any manner economically viable. Their bodies can be sold as compost in many states - and thus provide to their parents (aka, the victims), at least a small return on investments.

It should be encouraged that ALL PARENTS take their children to be evaluated in the clinic closest to them in case of their children malfunctionning. This should be done PRIOR to the offspings reaching the age of ten years. Failure to do so will close the window of opportunity of disposing modern day society of a potential problem and leading cause of over loaded prisons. It is every parent's duty within society to have their offsprings evaluated by a qualified physician at the latest when their opffsprings obtain the age of nine, and dispose of any malfunctionning offspring before the creator of the universe gives them a soul, for this soul may be wasted on undeserving individuals destined for hell.[/font][/i]




[u]
[font="Geneva"][b]KILL ANOTHER FETUS NOW, I DON'T LIKE CHILDREN ANYHOW![/b][/font][/u]

[Winchester]

The position that the fetus is not human is the position of cowards, the wilfully blind, or excusably ignorant persons. I would reckon most people fall into the last category. This does not make them bad people, but it does make the cowards and wilfully blind woefully responsible for their cowardice and deceptions, respectively (but not respectfully.)

The arguments against the humanity of the unborn are niether scientific nor logical. A creature falls within its species upon having the genetic makeup of the species. This occurs at conception for human beings.

I urge all intelligent humans who support abortion to cast off the fetters of Catholic morality which makes them oppose the execution of the helpless/worthless. Many people have managed to do this and are recorded in our history books for study.

Hitler would be a good example.

And yes, I am comparing you to Hitler.

[LittleLes]

[quote name='Aloysius' date='May 29 2005, 02:36 AM'] ensoulment occurs at fertilization, even if it is in vitro. this is because in the natural order of things, fertilization forms something that will naturally grow into a human being. when it is made unnaturally in an area where it will not become a human being it is still ensouled.

an embryo in its natural state and place will be man, and as such is to be considered man already. your delayed ensoulment can only hold water if you also hold the Aristotelian view that we begin as plants, develope into animals, and then become humans. and regardless, it is considered a sexual sin in the Catholic Moral system throughout all of Catholic history.

we consider an embryo, no matter where it is created, to be rightly ordered in the design of life to have been created in the woman where it will become man. as such the embryo is considered a potential man. [/quote]
(1) If ensoulment occurs at fertilization because something is formed that will naturally grow into a human being, then when human tissue cells divide in culture into daughter cells, the nucleus of which if implanted will also grow into human beings, there is ensoulment. Should all of these cells and their daugter cells too be baptized?

(2) The concept of a purely "animal" soul preceeding the infusion of an immaterial immortal soul is logical. The daughter cells above and the zygote are animated by an "animal" soul , as indeed are animals thoguthout their lives. The immoratal soul, not generated biologically but separately by God, is added, when, as Aquinas maintained, the body is ready to receive it. At the very least, there must be an individual before ensoulment can occur.

[LittleLes]

Didacus wrote:

To quote you:
"Realistically, one has only a cell which has the potential to become a human being."

They have the potential to become human beings, but they are not.

*****************Les replies,

Exactly! This applies to a cultured human somatic cell as well as a zygote.

[LittleLes]

[quote name='Winchester' date='May 31 2005, 12:24 AM'] The position that the fetus is not human is the position of cowards, the wilfully blind, or excusably ignorant persons.


[/quote]
Lets try to correspond on the rational plane, rather than a purely emotional one.

The single nuclear transfer cell and the zygote are by species human, but not yet human beings in the sense of having a rational immortal soul. That soul is immaterial not biological, and is infused once the indiviudal is formed and the body ready to receive it.

Edited May 31, 2005 by LittleLes

[Didacus]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='May 31 2005, 07:39 AM']Didacus wrote:

To quote you:
"Realistically, one has only a cell which has the potential to become a human being."

They have the potential to become human beings, but they are not.

*****************Les replies,

Exactly! This applies to a cultured human somatic cell as well as a zygote.[/quote]
With all my comments this is the only thing you can come up with?

Two things and a question,

One, you did touch on a techincal error of mine. I mistook zygote for a gametes. A zygote, being joined by two gametes is in an 'egg' in state of fertilization. Such a state implies the zygote now has the potential to grow into adulthood and live a full life, and thus is a person.

Simply replace the term zygote in my above post with gametes.

In the above quote you judiciously choose from my text, the difference between a zygote and a skin cell being cultivated for cloning, is that a zygote ALEREADY has been meddled with and has become human, whereas a skin cell HAS NOT BEEN MEDDLED with as of yet, therefore is not a human but a mere part of one.

zy·gote (zī'gōt')
n.
The cell formed by the union of two gametes, especially a fertilized ovum before cleavage.
The organism that develops from a zygote.


Second,

If not at fertilization, then when does encoulment occur? My guess is that it would be 10 years of age. Do you disagree?

Would you claim to see or measure a soul inside a person? Did St Peter reveal to you the info on ensoulment over lunch the other day?


And a question:

And how would you define human life dignified of being protected? Its all nice and easy to shoot down other's ideas, but to bring forth your own is another story...

[Jake Huether]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='May 27 2005, 09:48 PM'] Poor analogy. A sperm only has half the genetic complement, The skin cell has the complete genome. They are therefore not the same.

It should read:

The skin cell is not man already any more than the zygote (or fertilized ovum) is man already.

Both start out as genetically complete individual cells which can reproduce under the correct circumstances.

LittleLes [/quote]
You are still comparing different steps, like I had posted about earlier.

[quote]Both start out as genetically complete individual cells which can reproduce under the correct circumstances.[/quote]

No a skin cell cannot reproduce under the correct circumstances. A skin cell must become a zygote, at which point a zygote is a zygote - regardless of the methode of it becoming what it is. A skin cell doesn't have what a zygote has - that is, it must have it's nucleus extracted and placed into an egg - at which point it becomes a zygote and is no longer a skin cell.

Probably should read:

The skin cell is no more a zygote than a sperm, and a zygote, if left to take it's natural course in it's natural environment (without third party intervention) will eventually deveope into an embryo, then a fetus, then a new-born, than a toddler, then a pre-teen, than a teen, then a young adult, then an adult, and if death isn't brought about by an outside force either, the former zygote will become an elderly individual and eventually die of old age. Niether the skin cell nor the sperm if placed in the same environment as the zygote will achieve any of these.

God bless.

[LittleLes]

[quote name='Didacus' date='May 31 2005, 08:05 AM'] With all my comments this is the only thing you can come up with?

Two things and a question,

One, you did touch on a techincal error of mine. I mistook zygote for a gametes. A zygote, being joined by two gametes is in an 'egg' in state of fertilization. Such a state implies the zygote now has the potential to grow into adulthood and live a full life, and thus is a person.

Simply replace the term zygote in my above post with gametes.

In the above quote you judiciously choose from my text, the difference between a zygote and a skin cell being cultivated for cloning, is that a zygote ALEREADY has been meddled with and has become human, whereas a skin cell HAS NOT BEEN MEDDLED with as of yet, therefore is not a human but a mere part of one.

zy·gote (zī'gōt')
n.
The cell formed by the union of two gametes, especially a fertilized ovum before cleavage.
The organism that develops from a zygote.


Second,

If not at fertilization, then when does encoulment occur? My guess is that it would be 10 years of age. Do you disagree?

Would you claim to see or measure a soul inside a person? Did St Peter reveal to you the info on ensoulment over lunch the other day?


And a question:

And how would you define human life dignified of being protected? Its all nice and easy to shoot down other's ideas, but to bring forth your own is another story... [/quote]
(1) There is a philosophical principle that there cannot be a person until there is an individual. Therefore, there cannot be ensoulment before individualization for a lack of an antecedent. The earliest individualization can be said to occur is 12 days after fertilization. (See: Shannon and Wolter, "The Moral Status of the PreEmbroyo" Bioethics, Paulist Press).

(2) Human life, should be afforded ascending degrees of protection based upon it's status. A sperm or ova should not be needlessly destroyed, a fertilized zygote whether by IVF or natural should be afforded even higher protection, and an ensouled embryo even more. Last would be the infant.

Actually, St. Peter and I didn't discuss this over lunch. The topic was sports instead.

[LittleLes]

[quote name='Jake Huether' date='May 31 2005, 03:32 PM']



No a skin cell cannot reproduce under the correct circumstances. A skin cell must become a zygote, at which point a zygote is a zygote - regardless of the methode of it becoming what it is. [/quote]
No. A skin cell contains the entire genome in it's nucleus. So does a zygote.
For all practical purposes, then, a skin cell is a zygote. Therefore, they have the same moral status. Neither yet possess an immaterial immortal soul.

Both need some external modification and implantation to continue to grow into a person, but given the right conditions, both can do it.

[God Conquers]

[quote name='LittleLes'] Human life, should be afforded ascending degrees of protection based upon it's status. A sperm or ova should not be needlessly destroyed, a fertilized zygote whether by IVF or natural should be afforded even higher protection, and an ensouled embryo even more. Last would be the infant.[/quote]

God Save Us!

So mentally handicapped people, babies, people in comas, people who sleep more than 5 hours a night, the disabled, teenagers, autistic people, the elderly, kids with broken arms, fat people, smokers, the poor...

We should start killing them all in the streets, cause clearly their *status* is different than us.

I'd really like you to come up with a definition of Person which fits your moral values expressed in this thread and is still philosophically sound. I bet it would exclude (in addition to your pre-12 day old zygote) at least some int he grouping above.

Ridiculous.

Personhood is INCLUSIVE, not EXCLUSIVE.

ALL humans are persons (as defined by Didacus, I accept that definition) but not ONLY humans are persons.

[God Conquers]

PS

I asked a Francophone friend of mine the translation of [b]épanouissement[/b] and she looked it up in a ridiculously good French/English Translator.

Here's the results: blooming, blossoming, coming out, development, lighting up, opening out, opening up.

[Iced T]

When I was younger (16/17/18) I asked my father why he was "pro-life." I wanted to know, so I could decide myself. For him it was very simple. He believed that there is no reason that a person that has become pregnant cannot complete the pregnancy and let the child live. He said that if a woman could not keep the child, there were places that would accept the child, and adoption agencies. This was a very simple matter. You have sex, and you are choosing to participate in an activity that just might result in *gasp* a child. That's the point. From then on, before it becomes a religious issue, I use the cause/effect model. Then the only argument becomes whether or not society has the right to infringe upon womens rights. This I just laugh at, because having an abortion is not a right. It's not even a biological right of women to destroy their own developing children. Still arguing, the point becomes whether the government has the right to tell women what they can and can't do with their bodies. Part of this is covered in my previous statement, but then I say to them, what right does the government/society have to restrict its citizens from murdering people/ robbing banks/ prostituting themselves? It's a right of society to promote behavior best becoming of future generations.

Edited June 1, 2005 by Iced T

[DemonSlayer]

Not sure if it's been mentioned yet (since I haven't read all the pages), but ask your workmates what if their mother had aborted them and how they feel about that prospect.

[LittleLes]

[quote name='God Conquers' date='May 31 2005, 10:51 PM'] [quote name='LittleLes'] Human life, should be afforded ascending degrees of protection based upon it's status. A sperm or ova should not be needlessly destroyed, a fertilized zygote whether by IVF or natural should be afforded even higher protection, and an ensouled embryo even more. Last would be the infant.[/quote]

God Save Us!

So mentally handicapped people, babies, people in comas, people who sleep more than 5 hours a night, the disabled, teenagers, autistic people, the elderly, kids with broken arms, fat people, smokers, the poor...

We should start killing them all in the streets, cause clearly their *status* is different than us.

I'd really like you to come up with a definition of Person which fits your moral values expressed in this thread and is still philosophically sound. I bet it would exclude (in addition to your pre-12 day old zygote) at least some int he grouping above.

Ridiculous.

Personhood is INCLUSIVE, not EXCLUSIVE.

ALL humans are persons (as defined by Didacus, I accept that definition) but not ONLY humans are persons. [/quote]


Your argument is a bit hysterical and clearly isn't very well thought out if you do not understand that a sperm cell does not have the moral status of a human being.

Edited June 1, 2005 by LittleLes

[LittleLes]

[quote name='Didacus' date='May 31 2005, 08:05 AM'] With all my comments this is the only thing you can come up with?

[/quote]
Yes I considered the validity of your comments and responded appropriately.

[Didacus]

Dear LittlesLes,

Your logic fails in your genetic definition of life.

My philosophy teacher once posed to me a question to this effect:

If a crystal ball would appear, glowing white ligth and speaking all languages of mankind, I would indulge in a conversation with this 'ball'. And should further still, this crystal ball tell jokes, laugh, cry, suffer, learn and teach, I may come to call this ball my friend.

And should someone, knowing of the crystal ball's skills and knowledge, step into the room and smash the ball on the ground into a million fragments, though that which is destroyed has never been human, I would accuse this person of committing murder.



By my definition, the crystal ball was human, since it had the potential of blossoming and enjoy a life dignifying of humantiy. (thanks for the translation, though it still falls a little short of epanouissment it is one of the best I have heard)


By your logic, the number of cells in the body, and the genetic make-up of a person DIRECTLY influences their status as human beings AND of having a very soul with which to live and be judged by God. You are threading on very very thin ice my friend. What if someone with power over you believed in your logic and decided that YOUR genetic make-up was below standards - you may be very quick to change your miond and agree with us I assure you.


Oh, and sorry, it wasn't St Peter, it was...er... whoever wrote that book.... Gee, I think you'd best discuss of something else than sports next time you see the meidum guy (the big Guy being God opf course, so Peter is just like, the medium guy). Did those people who wrote the book speak on the subject to StPeter? Personally, last time I saw him I discussed the possibility of making a copy of his keychain, just in case he breaks his first set. I offered to keep the second set for 'safe keepings', you know, just in case. He hasn't gotten back to me yet, but I feel pretty good about, I think I might have a shot!

[Jake Huether]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='May 31 2005, 04:35 PM'] No. A skin cell contains the entire genome in it's nucleus. So does a zygote.
For all practical purposes, then, a skin cell is a zygote. Therefore, they have the same moral status. Neither yet possess an immaterial immortal soul.

Both need some external modification and implantation to continue to grow into a person, but given the right conditions, both can do it. [/quote]
Littleles,

A skin cell must become a zygote. It is not a zygote.

A zygote needs no other "external modification". It only needs implantation. Whereas a skin cell needs "external modification", at which point it becomes a zygote! Then it too only needs implantation. I don't know who defined human life as hinging upon containing "the entire genome", but that's not it. While a skin cell may contain this, you cannot implant a skin cell in a mother's womb and expect it to become an embryo, fetus, new-born, etc. Again, you are skipping processing steps. You keep saying that a skin cell = a zygote, but you are wrong and seem to not want to admit it. A skin cell, without having it's nucleus extracted and placed in an ovum, will remain a skin cell. A zygote is the only cell containing an entire genome that left alone (not in a petre dish or on the sidewalk - but left to follow it's natural path in it's natural environment) will in just 21 days have it's own circulatory system! A skin cell - let's say an epidermal cell for instance - left alone (to follow it's natural path in it's natural environment) will have lived it's life and died in the same span of time (roughly 21 days!).

I don't understand why you don't get this. What point are you trying to make!? A zygote is a human, not a part of a human. A skin cell is a part of a human. Personhood doesn't come into the picture. We know a skin cell is not a person, anymore than a human hair is a human. What makes a human a human (note: I'm not saying a person, yet) is God's intention. A cat zygote is a cat the moment it becomes that zygote - that one-celled cat- because this is it’s purpose! The purpose of a cat zygote is to grow into an adult cat. The purpose of a cat skin cell is to do a number of other things, but it isn’t to become an adult cat. Humans have a start. And it's an identifiable start. We begin as one cell - a zygote! In you're arguments you seem to want to say that humanity has some mysterious start that isn't when a zygote is produced (naturally or otherwise). So in addition to saying that we aren't persons at this point, you are also saying that humanity is uncertain at this point too! It only makes your argument that much weaker.

Humanity has a start and so does personhood. And why should it be a surprise if these two begin at the same time?

If there is uncertainty... why mess with chance.

And your argument about using embryonic stem cells because the embryo is not for sure a human, while the adult with Alzheimer’s is... this is flawed to say the least. You have forgotten an important step in this process as well, and that is that the CURE is uncertain also. So you are saying that we should kill embryos because it is uncertain that they are persons, for a cure that is uncertain, for a human that is certain. In other words, we should kill potential persons for the sake of experimentation. Sounds like the Nazi’s argument too. Not calling you a Nazi, of course. But just want to draw the parallel.

God bless.

Edited June 1, 2005 by Jake Huether

[God Conquers]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Jun 1 2005, 06:42 AM']
God Save Us!

So mentally handicapped people, babies, people in comas, people who sleep more than 5 hours a night, the disabled, teenagers, autistic people, the elderly, kids with broken arms, fat people, smokers, the poor...

We should start killing them all in the streets, cause clearly their *status* is different than us.

I'd really like you to come up with a definition of Person which fits your moral values expressed in this thread and is still philosophically sound. I bet it would exclude (in addition to your pre-12 day old zygote) at least some int he grouping above.

Ridiculous.

Personhood is INCLUSIVE, not EXCLUSIVE.

ALL humans are persons (as defined by Didacus, I accept that definition) but not ONLY humans are persons. [/QUOTE]


Your argument is a bit hysterical and clearly isn't very well thought out if you do not understand that a sperm cell does not have the moral status of a human being. [/quote]
Buddy,

Sperm and ova are not people, I gave you my definition, which you continue to ignore.

A zygote is no less a person than a fetus, who is no less a person than an infant, who is no less a person than a child, who is no less a person than a pre-teen, who is no less a person than a teenager, who is no less a person than an adult, who is no less a person than someone elderly.




The challenge stands: what is the definition of a person?


.... or I guess you're having trouble formulating one which fits your *moral* beliefs which doesn't seem dangerously similar to Hitler's Stalin's and Paul Pot's.

[LittleLes]

[quote name='Jake Huether' date='Jun 1 2005, 08:37 AM'] Littleles,

A skin cell must become a zygote. It is not a zygote.

A zygote needs no other "external modification". It only needs implantation. Whereas a skin cell needs "external modification", at which point it becomes a zygote! Then it too only needs implantation. I don't know who defined human life as hinging upon containing "the entire genome", but that's not it. While a skin cell may contain this, you cannot implant a skin cell in a mother's womb and expect it to become an embryo, fetus, new-born, etc. Again, you are skipping processing steps. You keep saying that a skin cell = a zygote, but you are wrong and seem to not want to admit it. A skin cell, without having it's nucleus extracted and placed in an ovum, will remain a skin cell. A zygote is the only cell containing an entire genome that left alone (not in a petre dish or on the sidewalk - but left to follow it's natural path in it's natural environment) will in just 21 days have it's own circulatory system! A skin cell - let's say an epidermal cell for instance - left alone (to follow it's natural path in it's natural environment) will have lived it's life and died in the same span of time (roughly 21 days!).

I don't understand why you don't get this. What point are you trying to make!? A zygote is a human, not a part of a human. A skin cell is a part of a human. Personhood doesn't come into the picture. We know a skin cell is not a person, anymore than a human hair is a human. What makes a human a human (note: I'm not saying a person, yet) is God's intention. A cat zygote is a cat the moment it becomes that zygote - that one-celled cat- because this is it’s purpose! The purpose of a cat zygote is to grow into an adult cat. The purpose of a cat skin cell is to do a number of other things, but it isn’t to become an adult cat. Humans have a start. And it's an identifiable start. We begin as one cell - a zygote! In you're arguments you seem to want to say that humanity has some mysterious start that isn't when a zygote is produced (naturally or otherwise). So in addition to saying that we aren't persons at this point, you are also saying that humanity is uncertain at this point too! It only makes your argument that much weaker.

Humanity has a start and so does personhood. And why should it be a surprise if these two begin at the same time?

If there is uncertainty... why mess with chance.

And your argument about using embryonic stem cells because the embryo is not for sure a human, while the adult with Alzheimer’s is... this is flawed to say the least. You have forgotten an important step in this process as well, and that is that the CURE is uncertain also. So you are saying that we should kill embryos because it is uncertain that they are persons, for a cure that is uncertain, for a human that is certain. In other words, we should kill potential persons for the sake of experimentation. Sounds like the Nazi’s argument too. Not calling you a Nazi, of course. But just want to draw the parallel.

God bless. [/quote]
"Processing steps" do not change the nature of the somatic cell nucleus which is living and human and contains the same genetic complement as the zygote. Hence, to argue that the zygote is an ensouled human being while a somatic cell is not , is clearly in error. Both are potentially human beings.


And I understand that the outer cell wall of both the SNT (clone) and zygote must undergo modification before implantation can occur.

To argue that these are "processing steps" are different does not bear on the essential similar nature of both structures.

[LittleLes]

[quote name='Jake Huether' date='Jun 1 2005, 08:37 AM'] Littleles,

A skin cell must become a zygote. It is not a zygote.

A zygote needs no other "external modification". It only needs implantation. Whereas a skin cell needs "external modification", at which point it becomes a zygote! Then it too only needs implantation. I don't know who defined human life as hinging upon containing "the entire genome", but that's not it. While a skin cell may contain this, you cannot implant a skin cell in a mother's womb and expect it to become an embryo, fetus, new-born, etc. Again, you are skipping processing steps. You keep saying that a skin cell = a zygote, but you are wrong and seem to not want to admit it. A skin cell, without having it's nucleus extracted and placed in an ovum, will remain a skin cell. A zygote is the only cell containing an entire genome that left alone (not in a petre dish or on the sidewalk - but left to follow it's natural path in it's natural environment) will in just 21 days have it's own circulatory system! A skin cell - let's say an epidermal cell for instance - left alone (to follow it's natural path in it's natural environment) will have lived it's life and died in the same span of time (roughly 21 days!).

I don't understand why you don't get this. What point are you trying to make!? A zygote is a human, not a part of a human. A skin cell is a part of a human. Personhood doesn't come into the picture. We know a skin cell is not a person, anymore than a human hair is a human. What makes a human a human (note: I'm not saying a person, yet) is God's intention. A cat zygote is a cat the moment it becomes that zygote - that one-celled cat- because this is it’s purpose! The purpose of a cat zygote is to grow into an adult cat. The purpose of a cat skin cell is to do a number of other things, but it isn’t to become an adult cat. Humans have a start. And it's an identifiable start. We begin as one cell - a zygote! In you're arguments you seem to want to say that humanity has some mysterious start that isn't when a zygote is produced (naturally or otherwise). So in addition to saying that we aren't persons at this point, you are also saying that humanity is uncertain at this point too! It only makes your argument that much weaker.

Humanity has a start and so does personhood. And why should it be a surprise if these two begin at the same time?

If there is uncertainty... why mess with chance.

And your argument about using embryonic stem cells because the embryo is not for sure a human, while the adult with Alzheimer’s is... this is flawed to say the least. You have forgotten an important step in this process as well, and that is that the CURE is uncertain also. So you are saying that we should kill embryos because it is uncertain that they are persons, for a cure that is uncertain, for a human that is certain. In other words, we should kill potential persons for the sake of experimentation. Sounds like the Nazi’s argument too. Not calling you a Nazi, of course. But just want to draw the parallel.

God bless. [/quote]
"Processing steps" do not change the nature of the somatic cell nucleus which is living and human and contains the same genetic complement as the zygote. Hence, to argue that the zygote is an ensouled human being while a somatic cell is not , is clearly in error. Both are potentially human beings.


And I understand that the outer cell wall of both the SNT (clone) and zygote resulting from the union of a sperm and ovum either in vivo or in vitro must undergo modification before implantation can occur.

To argue that these are "processing steps" are different does not bear on the essential similar nature of both structures.

I'm afraid that you are trying to nitpick semantics to avoid the fact that the complete human genome which can develope into a human person are present in both cases.