[QUOTE="nbtrap1212"]Consciousness is a philosophical quality that belongs with intellect and soul. Let's stick with biology.no_more_faythwhen did the "soul" become part of biology?
It doesn't, and neither does consciousness. You misunderstood.
nbtrap1212's forum posts
A human embryo is a living organism with human DNA.
GabuEx
Let's be clear here; you are claiming that a human embryo is merely a living organism with human DNA, in the same sense that a human redblood cell is merely a living organism with human DNA. Your mistake is elementary, and it is a biological one. A human embryo not only contains unique human DNA, but it is moreover the highest form of life possessing that unique DNA, i.e. it is not a part of a larger organism containing that DNA, as is a red blood cell. Thus, a human embryo has the fullness of what it means to be a member of the human species.
But it cannot be declared a human life, for the reasons that I said: it has no respiratory, circulatory, or cerebral functions of any kind. A human can suffer brain death, and its basic bodily functions may continue, but as far as a human being, he or she is dead.
GabuEx
You ignored my answer to this "objection" of yours.
It is unclear whether you are arguing that a human embryo is dead or non-human or both. No matter which one you are implying, however, you are stuck in a mess of self-refutation:
1. If you maintain that a human embryo is a human but not alive, then you must also imply that it becomes alive at a certain point, which, for reasons I hope you're intelligent enough to understand, is absurd and, as far as we know, self-refuting, since life cannot come from non-life.
2. If you maintain that a human embryo is alive but not a human (biologically speaking, i.e. possessing the fullness of the human species, not just human DNA, regardless of age), then you must explain what it is if not a human. You must argue either that it is not human (adjective), in which case it must be of another species, or, that it does not possess the fullness of the human species, i.e. that it is merely a part of a larger life-form possessing the same DNA code, in the same sense that a red blood cell does not possess the fullness of the human species, even though it contains all the DNA. Your argument that appeals to respiratory, circulatory and cerebral functions will not work here, since the fact that a human embryo does not yet possess these does not imply that a human embryo is only a part of a larger whole and therefore not a full human being.
3. If you maintain that a human embryo is neither alive nor a human, see 1 & 2.
If an organism with human DNA and basic human bodily functions, but without a brain, is not a human life, then the conclusion is clear: a newly fertilized egg is not a human life.
GabuEx
Here is your argument in a more organized form:
Major premise: An organism without a brain is not a human.
Minor premise: A newly fertilized human egg does not possess a brain.
Conclusion: Therefore, a newly fertilized human egg is not a human
Your logic is flawless, but a conclusion like this is dependent on more than sound logic; it is dependent on true premises, and I have proved above that your major premise is false. I have argued that a human embryo, although it doesn't contain a brain, is in fact a human life, possessing not only unique human DNA, but also the actual fullness of the life contained in that DNA ("fullness" meaning not that the embryo contains all the organs for which the DNA contains instructions, but again, that it is not a part of some larger whole). Therefore, we are not compelled to conclude that a newly fertilized human egg is not a human.
Beyond the absence of even basic human bodily functions that keep the body alive, it additionally has no brain, no consciousness, no sentience of any kind.
GabuEx
Consciousness is a philosophical quality that belongs with intellect and soul. Let's stick with biology.
Sentience is the state of being capable of feeling (with the senses) or susceptible to sensation, and it belongs to all living organisms by definition, unless by sentience you mean consciousness, in which case, see above.
Your attempt to clothe your claims in alleged biological soundness does not hide the fact that - no offense - they are weightless and grounded in nothing scientific of any kind.
GabuEx
Let me repeat again: a human embryo is both alive and an individual member of the human species. If you are implying that this is somehow unsound, then you haven't made your case.
[QUOTE="nbtrap1212"]
[QUOTE="GabuEx"]
No, it is not, biologically speaking, a human life. It is a clump of cells with human DNA. If you would not classify the cells in a corpse as human life, then neither is the embryo immediately after conception.
GabuEx
It is much more than a clump of cells with human DNA. If you cut a chunk of flesh off of my arm, that is merely a clump of human cells with DNA. A fertilized egg cell, on the other hand, is itself a living human person. The differences between you as a life form now and you as a life form immediately after conception are differences in time and the physical development that comes with time. You cannot say the same thing about you and a chunk of your arm.
To put it plainly, a fertilized human egg cell is both alive as well as a member of the human species. That is, it is a living human being. Go ahead and try to deny it.
You cut off the entirety of my post in which I went on to justify the statement that an embryo is not a human life. I find it a little ironic that you are accusing me of denial when your post seems to be acting as though I did not make any argument beyond what you quoted there.
A newly fertilized egg has no respiratory, circulatory, or cerebral functions of any kind. Hence, not a human life. Since you did not even attempt to address that portion of my post, there is nothing further I need to add.
I did not intend to imply that that was your entire post.
The answer to your objection is quite simple: the definition you give for the time of death is necessarily restricted to human beings possessing respiratory, circulatory and cerebral functions, i.e. human beings who are so old or older. But that does not imply that humans not possessing those functions are necessarily non-living or non-human. To maintain that, you would have to argue that a human embryo is, biologically speaking, neither a living organism, nor a unique member of the human species, which you cannot do.
Let me repeat: a human embryo is both alive and a unique member of the human species. These are biological facts. Do you deny them?
I don't care if babies have fingernails at a few weeks, they're still not alive. Despite that, you also have to look at how she got pregnant. If she was a 14 year old girl who was raped by their dad then I'd tell her to go for it. If it's a 30 year old who is too lazy, then thats wrong.
darthmario123
Sorry to disappoint you, but an embryo is alive in every sense of the word.
Pro-choice isn't pro-death.
darthmario123
Genocide: the deliberate and systematic extermination of an entire class of human persons.
Pro-choice: that movement which is not opposed to the deliberate and systematic extermination of an entire class of human persons, namely, the unborn.
I am firmly pro-choice. I believe that a fetus is alive when it gets circulatory and neural functions in development. so my only reasoning for keeping abortion legal is you cannot kill that which is not alive.
FOR THE PRO-LIFE CROWD, THE RAPE EXCEPTION MAKES NO SENSE. here's an old quote from years ago in OT
[QUOTE="MrGeezer"]
The anti-abortion movement focuses on one thing, the sanctity of human life. And if they are right, that each new life deserves a chance to be born, then that is not affected AT ALL by whether or not the mother was raped.
And if you bring up the standard "rape exception" point about the mother's mental state, then that's still tricky as hell. If she doesn't want to raise the child, can't she just put it up for adoption the same way that anti-abortion advocates think that EVERY OTHER abortion seeker should put their kids up for adoption?
And if abortion is "murder", and rape victims are allowed to "murder" their "children" in order to spare the mother from the emotional trauma of carrying her rapist's child for nine months, then once again we're back to square one. The woman's "feelings" are justification for "murdering" a "person". In which case, we're STILL left with the situation in which it's okay to murder babies as long as the mom has a reason for not wanting it. And if we're going that route, then we're right back to abortions for every woman who wants one.
darkIink
I agree that we cannot call ourselves pro-life and make an exception for certain cases. This is why I say that the position that abortion is wrong in all circumstances and without exception is the only position that is morally tolerable, scientifically sound and logically consistent.
[QUOTE="nbtrap1212"]
You are lying to yourself. A fertilized egg is, biologically speaking, a human life. If you wish to deny its status as such, then you must define human life in metaphysical terms (i.e. in terms of intellect, consciousness, soul &c.), but those who do not oppose the genocide that is abortion (they maliciously and deceitfully call themselves "pro-choice") are often opposed to such terms, so I will stick with biology, in the terms of which a fertilized egg is still a human life.
GabuEx
No, it is not, biologically speaking, a human life. It is a clump of cells with human DNA. If you would not classify the cells in a corpse as human life, then neither is the embryo immediately after conception.
It is much more than a clump of cells with human DNA. If you cut a chunk of flesh off of my arm, that is merely a clump of human cells with DNA. A fertilized egg cell, on the other hand, is itself a living human person. The differences between you as a life form now and you as a life form immediately after conception are differences in time and the physical development that comes with time. You cannot say the same thing about you and a chunk of your arm.
To put it plainly, a fertilized human egg cell is both alive as well as a member of the human species. That is, it is a living human being. Go ahead and try to deny it.
[QUOTE="nbtrap1212"]
I never said they did. I said a fertilized egg does itself constitute human life. That is a biological fact. The difference between a newborn and a fetus is a difference in time alone. They are the same living organism at different stages of development--not the same as, for instance, a human red blood cell.
GabuEx
No, that is not a biological fact. A fertilized egg is nothing more than a human cell. If left unto itself, it will develop further, but the fact that it will become a human life does not make it a human life. A clump of human cells with no brain, heart, or internal organs of any kind is in no way, shape, or form a human life.
Count yourself among those who are pro-life if you wish, but don't abuse science to support your position.
You are lying to yourself. A fertilized egg is, biologically speaking, a human life. If you wish to deny its status as such, then you must define human life in metaphysical terms (i.e. in terms of intellect, consciousness, soul &c.), but those who do not oppose the genocide that is abortion (they maliciously and deceitfully call themselves "pro-choice") are often opposed to such terms, so I will stick with biology, in the terms of which a fertilized egg is still a human life.
Log in to comment