Pro-Life or Pro-Choice?

[Mr. Nice Guy]

Personally, I think it's embarrassing to think that I (myself) was not human in my embryotic stage. It's embarrassing to think that I was some kind of alien before I was born.

[November Adam]

Originally posted by loinburger


A parasite is: "An organism that grows, feeds, and is sheltered on or in a different organism while contributing nothing to the survival of its host."

This matches the description of an embryo. It does not match the description of a newborn, an invalid, or any of the multitude of useless misguided sociological examples you have brought up.

Unless you are implying that a human fits this description, then what the hell do you mean by "you have no idea what a human is"?



You said:



Therefore, embryos (which come before the fetal stage) would not be human. QED

I'm sorry loin, but yous eem to be mixing definitions.

Is a human not a member of the homo sapien species?

You seem to be implying that a parasite is a special species? That an embryo is prot-human, or non-human. Which species is that?

Biologists' will often classify an ogranism by its adult stage, this is not to say that an organism isn't a member of that species until it is an adult, only that this is the stage that is the most devlopmentally stable.

Loin why are you missing this obvious nature of an organism? You seem to be trying to say that an embryo, and fetus are somesort of non-entity, even when giveing it an identity, in which to argue that it doesn't have one.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Cloud9
Personally, I think it's embarrassing to think that I (myself) was not human in my embryotic stage. It's embarrassing to think that I was some kind of alien before I was born.

Is that why you're "pro-life"? To avoid embarassment?

[Mr. Nice Guy]

Originally posted by loinburger
Is that why you're "pro-life"? To avoid embarassment?

No. I believe that a human embryo is just in the early stages of human development. And even after the baby is born it is still developing. Does this mean that the baby is not human? Of course not!

[loinburger]

Originally posted by November Adam
Is a human not a member of the homo sapien species?

A human is a homo sapien. What's your point?

You seem to be implying that a parasite is a special species?

No, there are several species that fall under the category of "parasite" (lampreys and tapeworms, to name a few). There is not one single "parasite" species. Note, however, that under the biological definition of a parasite, humans are not parasites.

That an embryo is prot-human, or non-human. Which species is that?

Let's make up a name for it! My vote goes for "Cell Sac".

I'm more of the mind that an embryo is simply another body part on its mother, similar to the placenta or amniotic sac. Calling an embryo a "parasite" is only relevant when working from the assumption that the embryo is a separate life form from its host mother; therefore, it is your job to come up with a new species name for the embryo, not mine, since it is your assumption that the embryo is a separate life form, not mine.

Biologists' will often classify an ogranism by its adult stage, this is not to say that an organism isn't a member of that species until it is an adult, only that this is the stage that is the most devlopmentally stable.

No problem there, a newborn is a human just as much as an adult is a human.

Loin why are you missing this obvious nature of an organism?

What nature would that be? I'm willing to assume for the sake of argument that an embryo is a separate life form from its host mother, so what's the problem?

You seem to be trying to say that an embryo, and fetus are somesort of non-entity, even when giveing it an identity, in which to argue that it has one.

What are you talking about? Like I said, I'm assuming for the sake of argument that the embryo is a separate life form from its host mother, in which case it would be parasitic and thus non-human. That's conceding an awful lot, since it is still open to question whether or not the embryo is actually a separate life form; I apologize for any inconsistencies on my part with regards to considering the embryo a separate life form, as I'm trying to adopt your assumption for the sake of showing that the embryo is still a non-human even if everybody accepts that it is a separate life form.

[November Adam]

Originally posted by Gibsie


True, but people still mourn the deaths of people who die through means other than murder. I've never seen someone who is pro-life bemoan an embryo that fails to implant itself into the womb of its mother... do you consider such a failure as much a tragedy as when a child dies?

It is unfortunate when an ebryo does fail to implant, the same as the loss of a child though? Biologicaly speaking, yes. Sociologicaly, no, as the child has had a chance to implant itself in the psyche of others. But then again my emotions are irrelevant to the nature of the organism.

Anyone who claims a feotus is otherwise is burying their head in the sand. If they can't deal with the notion that humans are being aborted, then they should surely be pro-life too.

This is what it comes down to in my opinion. People are not comfortable with the thought of humans being aborted, so to be comfortable it is easier to say, it isn't human.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Cloud9
No. I believe that a human embryo is just in the early stages of human development. And even after the baby is born it is still developing. Does this mean that the baby is not human? Of course not!

Ohhhhhh, you were being facetious! Okay, glad that's cleared up, I thought you were contributing something new to the debate.

[November Adam]

Originally posted by loinburger


A human is a homo sapien. What's your point?

An embryo has the DNA of a human, it is a seperate organism, uhm ,must be of the homo sapien species.

No, there are several species that fall under the category of "parasite" (lampreys and tapeworms, to name a few). There is not one single "parasite" species. Note, however, that under the biological definition of a parasite, humans are not parasites.

Kay follow me on this one..

1. Embryo is seperate entity (which has to be the case due to the fact that any part of an organism exists for the organism, where an embryo does not)

2. Embryo must have scientific classification... hmmm, lets look at the DNA structure, oh it's homo sapien. So embyo must belong to homo sapien species.

3. Dictionary gives definition of parasite... a seprate organism that lives off of another organism no benefit to the host..

4. Embryo exhibits these specifications.

5. Embryo is homo sapien> exhibits parastic nature> thus homo sapiens are parasitic in its early stage.

Just so you know they would look at the adult stage to determine if a creature is parasitic or not, so unless you are telling me that an embryo is the adult stage of this organism, it is not parasitic!

I'm more of the mind that an embryo is simply another body part on its mother, similar to the placenta or amniotic sac. Calling an embryo a "parasite" is only relevant when working from the assumption that the embryo is a separate life form from its host mother; therefore, it is your job to come up with a new species name for the embryo, not mine, since it is your assumption that the embryo is a separate life form, not mine.

If I where to scientifically classify the embryo, I would either a) look at it's DNA, or b) do as they did in the old days and wait for it to reach it's adult stage. oh wait... either way it's homo sapien..


No problem there, a newborn is a human just as much as an adult is a human.



What nature would that be? I'm willing to assume for the sake of argument that an embryo is a separate life form from its host mother, so what's the problem?

What are you talking about? Like I said, I'm assuming for the sake of argument that the embryo is a separate life form from its host mother, in which case it would be parasitic and thus non-human. That's conceding an awful lot, since it is still open to question whether or not the embryo is actually a separate life form; I apologize for any inconsistencies on my part with regards to considering the embryo a separate life form, as I'm trying to adopt your assumption for the sake of showing that the embryo is still a non-human even if everybody accepts that it is a separate life form.

Well it does make it easier to argue, if we are both on the same page. So thanks.

[November Adam]

Originally posted by loinburger


Ohhhhhh, you were being facetious! Okay, glad that's cleared up, I thought you were contributing something new to the debate.

loin, play nice with the new folks.

[Mr. Nice Guy]

human embryos are not born dogs. human embryos are not born cats. and vice versa. human embryos are not born as anything but humans and therefore are of the homo sapien species and deserve to be protected.

a human embryo or fetus may be parasitic, but should that be cause to take away it's human rights?! OF COURSE NOT!!!

[Tom201]

Originally posted by DarkCloud

DEVELOPMENTAL STAGE DOES NOT MATTER-"
The fact that they *could* be born and that they actually do already exist as formed creatures- soon to become human beings- Makes them human.

The problem is that u could say the same about sperm and egg (the earliest develpment stages of humans). But I dont expect anyone to opose killing sperms and eggs.
What makes a cell just created by the sperm and egg any diffrent from them being seperate (moral speaking)?

Originally posted by November Adam
You seem to think that humans aren't animals, that something has to seperate "us" from "them". Well how does having a brain make us human? Other animals have brains. We eat, sleep, and procreate just as other animals do. What makes us different is our gentic make up. Yes our blood cells have the same DNA (human blood), does that make them human? No, because they are a part of the whole. Just as a fertilized egg in our zygote stage is the whole of us, AT THAT TIME.

I would say that the ability of being intelegent makes us diffrent from animals, bzw. the other animals and thats the diffrence between human brains and animal brains. So just replace my statement about brains with human brains.

So without a human brain its an animal. There is no problem in killing animals for the profit of humans. Or do you opose killing animals (for example to eat them), too?
Sperm also contains human DNA and could form a child. Thus the DNA reasoning when defining a human is flawed.

For me an embryo in its early development stage is a creature comparable to an animal. Ok to kill for the profit of humans (in this case the mother).

[November Adam]

Originally posted by Tom201


The problem is that u could say the same about sperm and egg (the earliest develpment stages of humans). But I dont expect anyone to opose killing sperms and eggs.
What makes a cell just created by the sperm and egg any diffrent from them being seperate (moral speaking)?

The reason sperm, and an unfertilized egg aren't part of the cycle, is due to the issue of time. No matter how long an egg or a sperm sit there they do not develop further, yet a zygote does. It is not a static cell, that keeps it same form over time.

I would say that the ability of being intelegent makes us diffrent from animals, bzw. the other animals and thats the diffrence between human brains and animal brains. So just replace my statement about brains with human brains.

So without a human brain its an animal. There is no problem in killing animals for the profit of humans. Or do you opose killing animals (for example to eat them), too?

Do animals have human DNA?

Sperm also contains human DNA and could form a child. Thus the DNA reasoning when defining a human is flawed.

As I said before a sperm is a static cell, it does not develope any further then where it is at. A zygote does develope further. Thus the difference in consideration.

A zygote is removed from the "typical" cell, thus it is no longer a part of the women. Unless one thinks that the women is forming a new neurvous system for her own use.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by November Adam
1. Embryo is seperate entity (which has to be the case due to the fact that any part of an organism exists for the organism, where an embryo does not)

I'm granting this for the sake of argument, but I'll get back to this point later.

2. Embryo must have scientific classification... hmmm, lets look at the DNA structure, oh it's homo sapien. So embyo must belong to homo sapien species.

3. Dictionary gives definition of parasite... a seprate organism that lives off of another organism no benefit to the host..

4. Embryo exhibits these specifications.

5. Embryo is homo sapien> exhibits parastic nature> thus homo sapiens are parasitic in its early stage.

Just so you know they would look at the adult stage to determine if a creature is parasitic or not, so unless you are telling me that an embryo is the adult stage of this organism, it is not parasitic!

Fair enough, I guess I won't be able to form a tautology on this one; I realized that there are several species that go through an early parasitic stage, particularly insects and arachnids, so my argument that "an embryo is not a human because it is parasitic" doesn't work. I can no longer assume that "an embryo is a separate organism from its host mother" for the sake of argument, as doing so begs the question.

So, if everybody agrees that an embryo is a separate organism from its host mother (and not merely another cluster of cells that make up the host mother), then it follows that it is human. The matter is therefore a question of whether or not an embryo can be classified as a separate organism from its host mother, which it cannot.

Getting back to your statement,

1. Embryo is seperate entity (which has to be the case due to the fact that any part of an organism exists for the organism, where an embryo does not)

My counterargument is that the embryo is a part of its host mother that exists for the purpose of procreation, just as the testes and sperm or ovaries and eggs are parts of males and females, respectively, that exist for the purpose of procreation.

[Mr. Nice Guy]

Originally posted by Tom201
What makes a cell just created by the sperm and egg any diffrent from them being seperate (moral speaking)?

So without a human brain its an animal. There is no problem in killing animals for the profit of humans. Or do you opose killing animals (for example to eat them), too?
Sperm also contains human DNA and could form a child. Thus the DNA reasoning when defining a human is flawed.

A fertilized embryo is different from a sperm or an egg because it is a complete homo sapien; i.e. it has the complete DNA pattern of a homo sapien.

Even though an embryo does not have organs in it's early stages, it still has human DNA and will eventully form a brain, a heart, lungs, kidneys and so on.

[November Adam]

Originally posted by loinburger


My counterargument is that the embryo is a part of its host mother that exists for the purpose of procreation, just as the testes and sperm or ovaries and eggs are parts of males and females, respectively, that exist for the purpose of procreation.

Kay so if we can hammer out whether the embryo is seperate or not we can move on to an actual discussion regarding abortion. Otherwise it is a mute point.

To the quote:

The embryo exists after the act of procreation, it is no there before, unlike sperm, eggs testies, or ovaries.

edit: not there.....

english is my first language really!