difference between young fetus and the born

[Socrates]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' date='Oct 8 2005, 02:41 PM']first i think it'd be productive to call it a zygote from now on. i know a rose by any other name...
but at least this way it doesn't have connotations of a little person image to it. it may seem not fair to have connotations to a clump of cells, but what we're talking about is more similar to a clump of cells in image than something resembling a person.
I didn't have to think I'd explain this whole "not being human" thing. This is the poorest argument I've ever heard, a distraction. The way you just responded reaffirms yet again that you are missing the point entirely.

First I want you to read this that I posted since you didn't respond to it.
Notice that smart people affirm that you cannot really state definitely when, i'll say, "personhood" begins.
also notice that this website distinguishes between "human" and "person", the distinction I'm making is there on that site.
You ignore it completely, or at least aren't addressing it, something of minor relevance to the true philophical debate of when personhood begins.

By your logic, the cells in your arm should be deemed as human beings. You might say, they're not humans! Then by me using your logic, I'd say, well then what are they? cows?
I hope this better illustrates the irrationality of your argument.

i admit, smart rationale people think you can define a person, but their criteria fails at the level i've seen. i'm going to start a post after this to debate with myself, since you're keeping us stuck in elementary debating.
[right][snapback]750697[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Call it a zygote, fetus, baby, whatever you like, it doesn't change the fact that this is a living human being (as I have previously shown). So far, you have done nothing to refute the facts I have presented in my prior post. Changing the language so the words have different "connotations" is just rhetoric, not proof.

I understand perfectly well the "point" you are trying to make. You are saying that not every human being is a "person." You want to define "personhood" not based on the humanity of a human being, but on its extraneous characteristics, or level of development.
You're doing nothing new or orginal here - this is the standard procedure used by pro-abortion people.

Once being human is no longer enough to consider one a "person," then the "personhood" of a human being becomes something entirely subjective, and open to anybody's interpretation. Peter Singer teaches this philosophy and uses it to approve not only abortion, but infanticide and killing of the severely handicapped. He argues that human beings are not persons until some time after they are already born, and that killing of infants should be legal.
Once black slaves were not legally considered persons. The Nazis declared that Jews were not persons.
Basically, declaring certain human beings to not be persons is an easy excuse to kill those whose lives you do not deem worthwhile.

And I've already responded plenty to this "cells in the arm" foolishness.
The human zygote is a self-contained organism distinct from both the mother and the father, while cells in one's arm are just part of one's body.
Kill a cell in your arm and you've only killed that cell. You'll live on - no serious harm done. Kill a human zygote or embryo and you've destroyed an entire human life. This should be obvious. If zygotes/embryos were no different than cells in one's arm, there would be no moral debate.

Finally, calling religioustolerance.org an "objective" website is a joke. That site has a clear and obvious liberal political agenda of opposing Christian orthodoxy (or the "religious right") on various "hot-button" issues such as abortion and homosexuality.
You might as well go to a neo-Nazi site to get "objective" information on the Holocaust!

Of course, we could send you to any number of pro-life websites for information, but you'd probably reject them as "unobjective," while you expect us to accept the opinions of those on a "pro-choice" website!

[photosynthesis]

dairygirl, who are these "smart people" you're referring to?

[Jedi_StClaire]

dariygirl, would you have considered Terri Schiavo human? Because there were people that were saying she didn't need to live, etc.........just like pro aborts who say "its a product of conception" and "its just a blob of tissue" and "its not human until birth"

Its a human because humans can't give birth to dogs, cats, cows, etc.

Its human because it was created with the HUMAN mother's egg and the HUMAN father's sperm........


Unless you can find me scientific proof that a woman has given birth to a DOG or a Cat.........

[photosynthesis]

[quote name='Jedi_StClaire' date='Oct 10 2005, 03:17 PM']Unless you can find me scientific proof that a woman has given birth to a DOG or a Cat.........
[right][snapback]752816[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
I have! you mean women giving birth to cats and dogs is abnormal???

[Guest T-Bone]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' date='Oct 9 2005, 07:20 AM']


You'd say you could demonstrate on many levels why the zygote is a person. But here I have all this proof that it's not, lack of organs etc, and you can't explain away my proofs like the person who's defending that the earth is round would. For example, if I say death occurs at brain

I know you have that point where everything changes thing, but  if you can't definsignal death, by some (not necessarily yours) logic, I've "proven" when someone dies. Someone else would say death cannot occur until the heart stops, and they've "proven" when someone dies. They can't both be right. They have rationales for their argument only. It'd seem to be more objective, perhaps this is just me, to say that you can't say when pepole die for sure.
Have they both proven when the person dies?e why the zygote is different from those cells, it goes back to determing when it's a person. (again unless you can show how different...)
[right][snapback]751511[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Point #1: Where is this "proof" that a human isn't a human that you're talking about.

Point #2: If there is doubt whether or not a human is a human, moral objectivity dictates that we assume that it is a human.

[RC_]

Dairy--

Who are you to define whom is a person and whom is not?

[Sirklawd]

[quote name='Socrates' date='Oct 6 2005, 07:16 PM']Who's living in a fantasy world?
We're not the ones making illogical arguments here.

Again, I ask, if the fetus is not human, what is it?
Let's look at the possibilities.

A) A part of the woman's body? (like the cells in her arm) - We've shown that the fetus has its own distinct dna code, blood type, etc., from the mother.  It is scientific fact that it is a distinct organism from the mother.  No serious scientist can deny this.  The fetus is not part of the mother.

B) - Something non-living, not yet alive?  The fetus is definitely alive - it has life functions, otherwise it could not be killed.  No serious scientist would say a fetus that has not died is non-living.
So far, we have established scientifically that the fetus is a living organism distinct from the mother.

C) A non-human organism?  A human fetus is clearly human in species.  It has human dna, and cannot develop into any species other than human. 

Since a human fetus is a distinct, living, human organism, how can we not say it is a human being?  What else could it be?

I have proven this using accepted scientific facts.  You accuse of being "unscientific" and "mixing religion and science," yet it is you who refuses to accept scientific fact, and say (on faith alone) that a human fetus is not human (a rational absurdity).

How's it like in your little fantasy world, Dairy?
[right][snapback]748791[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

i think this post was (conveniently) overlooked. so heres a reminder.

this also shows that dairys only problem is that (somehow) for her there is a difference between being human and being a person.... the best part about this is that "human" is a more scientific term, and she claims to want us to be more scientific.

i also loved how all her comments are about how she cant argue with the points that are brough up. awww. /tear. you could atleast try to tackle the whole genetic code thing.


from dictionary.com

[b]per·son[/b] ( P ) Pronunciation Key (pûrsn)
n.
[b]1.A living human[/b]


[b]hu·man[/b] ( P ) Pronunciation Key (hymn)
n.
1.A member of the genus Homo and especially of the species H. sapiens.
[b]2. A person:[/b]

Edited October 11, 2005 by Sirklawd

[Aloysius]

in fairness, "person" is a philisophical construction (which is why, in language, it is not a proper substitute for 'man'). therefore, personhood is not necessarily humanity. for our God is three persons in One God, but those persons (except the second person who incarnated for our sake) are not human.

human is an adjective meaning "like man"... a detached arm is a human arm, a peice of hair is a human hair. so merely saying these are human cells is nothing unless we show that it is an individual person, the philisophical concept.

dictionary.com is providing the mangled form of the english language there. human is an adjective that in proper english ought only to be used with a noun following, as in "human being"... it is actually accepted slang to drop the 'being' because it makes it politically correct.

but when it does that, it diminishes the philisophical potential of the english language to differentiate between such things.

"human" is different than "person".

[Sirklawd]

you dare blaspheme the dictionary.com gods!

jk, i understand what you are saying, and can agree.

nevertheless i wish not to dtract from the genetic code arguement posed to dairy.

[photosynthesis]

[quote name='Aloysius' date='Oct 11 2005, 02:21 PM']in fairness, "person" is a philisophical construction (which is why, in language, it is not a proper substitute for 'man').  therefore, personhood is not necessarily humanity.  for our God is three persons in One God, but those persons (except the second person who incarnated for our sake) are not human.
[right][snapback]754025[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
ok, now I think I understand your linguistic reasoning. your justification in this post makes a lot more sense.

[Aloysius]

: yeah I didn't explain in the other one quite so much why person was not an adequate replacement for man.

[Didacus]

OK a just a quick note that I believe have not been mentionned thus far:

when comparing skin cells to the cell of the fetus, the main difference being ignored (thus far) is that when you consider a few cells on your arm, they only form part of a whole. But when you consider the cells of zygote or fetus or anywhere in between in terms of abortion, you are considering a whole being (or potential of being if you want to stay true to a secular argument).

Thus, to make a fair compraison, you need to compare the cells of the entire human body, to that of the cells of the fetus. If not, considering the cells on your arm is like taking in consideration only a few cells off the fetus.

The difference, is that a few cells off your arm will not astop you from living; but a few cell from the fetus, or all of them, taken away, is taking away a chance to live. Thus the comparaison is weak and does not stand.

Also, if you look at the prerequisites to life, (ie; interation with the environment, ability towards procreation, and two others), which are the scientific foundations to life, you will see clearly that an unborn child is indeed a life - SCIENTIFICALLY SPEAKING. i will look up these defintiions tonight and get back to you.


Aloysius logical and scientifally based deduction is falwless to my scrutiny and most excellent (10 years ago you could never use 'most excellent in a serious dialogue, I love it!). His statements are not propaganda or fallacies, it is called 'proof by deductioin', a logical argument that well formed (as is his) is admissible in scientific/philosophical circles.

Now back to you Bob.

[Didacus]

Here is one quick explanatioin that I found.

[quote]MOTION -- does it move in some way towards some purpose like food or air?

REPRODUCTION -- does it have some way of making more of itself,
either through sexual reproduction or by budding or fissioning in
some way?

CONSUMPTION -- does it eat or drink?  Does it take in nutrients
in one way or another in order to survive, grow, and eventually
multiply?

GROWTH -- does the organism develop over time, increase in
complexity, until it reaches a mature stage?

STIMULUS RESPONSE -- does the organism respond to external
stimuli, i.e. has a nervous system of some sort to detect
external conditions?
  To qualify as a living thing, an organism must in one way or
another meet each of those criteria.  After all, crystals grow
in solution, and take on more material from the surrounding
solution in order to do so, but do not respond neurologically
if you poke them with a pin.  Of course, you don't often see
mature Ponderosa pines strolling down Fifth Avenue either, so
the criteria are open to interpretation.  Plants move through
growth, except in special cases like the Venus flytrap; most
plants follow the sun through a complex system which floods the
side of the plant shaded from the sun with water, swelling the
shaded side and causing the plant to lean toward the sun.

Even when all the criteria are met, it may be difficult to
determine if something is alive or not.  Take a virus.  It is
a strand of either DNA or RNA, and cannot move on its own
power.  Yet when it attaches itself to a receptive host, it
inserts itself into the cell and forces the host to make more
of the virus, a clear reproductive plan.  It utilizes the host's
cellular processes to do so, in a sense taking in "nutrients"
in order to survive and multiply.  In some cases, exterior
conditions cause the virus to integrate itself into the host DNA,
in order to hide until conditions are better to reproduce, showing
a response to external stimuli.  Is it alive?
Please read more about this at your local library.
Wordsworth[/quote]

Is there any criteria that an unborn, from conception to birth, does not meet AS AN ENTITY SEPERATE FROM ITS MOTHER? It is a life, it of human flesh...

Couple this to Aloysius logical deduction, and logic stands that it is a human life.
NOW comes the personnal beliefs that ALL HUMAN LIFE IS SACRED, this is the religious part. Now if dairygirl does not agree, then I believe she just might fit the definition of being racist towards the unborn - go figure!

PS: I don't like the 'stimulus response' towards this definition, usually, (and in vast majority of papers), the term used is 'interaction with the environment', which of course includes by default eating and drinking.)


And on a last note:
Good point about dairygirl seemingly being confused over seperating 'human being' iwth 'human person'. Wish I had picked up on that myself. A+ Sirklawd!!!

Dairychick is just so hard to read....

[Cow of Shame]

I don't think she was arguing that a zygote is not life, just that is not [b]human[/b] life. It is stupid to argue that a fertilized egg is not life...the tricky part is when can you consider it a human being? That is the sticking point for a lot of people.

What makes a human a human? A soul? We cannot measure or see a soul, and must take religion's word for its presence. How then can we name a thing "human" before it visibly resembles a human being? Just as most people have no qualms cooking & eating a chicken egg, there are many out there who would never be able to decapitate, defeather, and clean their own chicken. People have a disconnect when a thing does not resemble its adult form.

People know that at the beginning, a human is just a few cells. "This glob of tissue? THIS is a human? I think not!" and thus people have no problem with ending the budding life at this stage.

For others, [i]location[/i] is paramount for determining humanity. A few layers of muscle & skin are all that separate a baby from his legal rights. If he can just make it out of the womb, all of society will favor his protection....

Or will it? Some people consider experiences to be the best benchmark for a person's worth. Children born into unloving families perhaps were better off aborted. Or those with mental retardation...surely they cannot appreciate life to the fullest, and are better off being removed from society, so as not to put undue hardship (emotionally & financially) upon their parents & others. Even those who have been injured outside the womb...can they sing? dance? perform advanced calculus? Are they in constant pain? Have they lost their 'dignity'? Our perceived quality of life of an individual...[i]that[/i] shall determine whether they should live or die?

[Didacus]

Yes, I was aware of that point and i admit it was not addressed in my posts (not properly).

I believe the burden of proof is on dairygirl to show that a 'glob of human flesh' is not human life considering that it is unique, is grows into adulthood eventually, it is a life distinct from its mother and all that good stuff. I don't know what she expects. Its like she wants us to give her the reply to a question she doesn't pose. I think she might be expecting the reply to be natural and self evidnet but how can we show it wihtout her telling us what she is looking for?

I think this thread has all the elements required to formulate the position of pro-life; where then is the lacking I ask? Where is the fault in the logic? Yet, somehow I'm certain she'll come back, re-itterate a statement she has already forwarded and then sigh away her disapointement with our unworthiness.

[Aloysius]

it is obvious that it is human life. it is not animal life or plant life. the question is whether it is a person. I stand by my argument that philisophically speaking (which is the realm we must argue personhood in) the point of an absolute change, where something exists that did not exist, must be the point of personhood. that would be the philisophical crtieria for the point of death that we have not necessarily discovered, but we have discoverd the only distinct pivotal point.

anyway, it's really not fair to continue piling post after post on dairygirl when she has not had a chance to respond. I wish we could just let one argument on our side settle for a second, she's not likely to read through two pages of posts all arguing against her the same way.

[Aloysius]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' date='Oct 9 2005, 09:20 AM'].......[right][snapback]751511[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
somehow I skipped over this post. anyhoo..

like I said, personhood is an argument to be made on philisophical grounds. and philisophically speaking, a person comes into existance when something that did not exist, suddenly begins to exist. it must be a pivitol point. it cannot be a mere stage in developement.

conception is the only occurence in the early life of a growing human embry-fetus-baby that cannot be classified as a mere developement stage. it is the creation of an entirely new set of DNA, the creation of eye color, hair color, most physical charecteristics, the specifics of the brain structure, everything. everything comes into unique existence at that one point.

scientifically, it is a human life, because it has unique human DNA and is alive.

philisophically, the only candidate for personhood is a stage that is not a mere stage of developement. it is shotty philosophy to take a stage that can be classified in the same grouping as the growth of a person's height and declare it the point of personhood. if there is to be a point of personhood, it must be something distinct. when something that did not exist before comes into existence.

anyway, just after I said not to keep piling stuff on the argument I felt the need to chime in another thing. lol... I suppose I'm a weak human being like everyone else.

[Socrates]

[quote name='Didacus' date='Oct 11 2005, 01:28 PM']OK a just a quick note that I believe have not been mentionned thus far:

when comparing skin cells to the cell of the fetus, the main difference being ignored (thus far) is that when you consider a few cells on your arm, they only form part of a whole.  But when you consider the cells of zygote or fetus or anywhere in between in terms of abortion, you are considering a whole being (or potential of being if you want to stay true to a secular argument).

Thus, to make a fair compraison, you need to compare the cells of the entire human body, to that of the cells of the fetus.  If not, considering the cells on your arm is like taking in consideration only a few cells off the fetus.

The difference, is that a few cells off your arm will not astop you from living; but a few cell from the fetus, or all of them, taken away, is taking away a chance to live.  Thus the comparaison is weak and does not stand.
[right][snapback]754061[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

I actually brought up this point here:

[quote]And I've already responded plenty to this "cells in the arm" foolishness.
The human zygote is a self-contained organism distinct from both the mother and the father, while cells in one's arm are just part of one's body.
Kill a cell in your arm and you've only killed that cell. You'll live on - no serious harm done. Kill a human zygote or embryo and you've destroyed an entire human life. This should be obvious. If zygotes/embryos were no different than cells in one's arm, there would be no moral debate.[/quote]

If I had been killed as a zygote, I would not be alive. If someone killed a cell in my mother's arm, nobody's life would be affected.

Edited October 12, 2005 by Socrates

[Socrates]

[quote name='Cow of Shame' date='Oct 11 2005, 02:01 PM']I don't think she was arguing that a zygote is not life, just that is not [b]human[/b] life.  It is stupid to argue that a fertilized egg is not life...the tricky part is when can you consider it a human being?  That is the sticking point for a lot of people.

What makes a human a human?  A soul?  We cannot measure or see a soul, and must take religion's word for its presence.  How then can we name a thing "human" before it visibly resembles a human being?  Just as most people have no qualms cooking & eating a chicken egg, there are many out there who would never be able to decapitate, defeather, and clean their own chicken.  People have a disconnect when a thing does not resemble its adult form.

People know that at the beginning, a human is just a few cells.  "This glob of tissue?  THIS is a human?  I think not!" and thus people have no problem with ending the budding life at this stage. 

For others, [i]location[/i] is paramount for determining humanity.  A few layers of muscle & skin are all that separate a baby from his legal rights.  If he can just make it out of the womb, all of society will favor his protection....

Or will it?  Some people consider experiences to be the best benchmark for a person's worth.  Children born into unloving families perhaps were better off aborted.  Or those with mental retardation...surely they cannot appreciate life to the fullest, and are better off being removed from society, so as not to put undue hardship (emotionally & financially) upon their parents & others.  Even those who have been injured outside the womb...can they sing? dance? perform advanced calculus?  Are they in constant pain?  Have they lost their 'dignity'?  Our perceived quality of life of an individual...[i]that[/i] shall determine whether they should live or die?
[right][snapback]754076[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

As I pointed out, once we decide (as Peter Singer teaches) that membership in the human race does not determine one to be a "person," what qualifies one for "personhood" is up for grabs and arbitrary.

[photosynthesis]

Lord have mercy on Peter Singer.