An Unborn Child is in Fact, Human

[November Adam]

I've got to run so I'll respond later.

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Ramo


IMO, almost certainly there exists sentient aliens
somewhere in the universe, so no.

well than for the purposes of discussion leave aliens out of this, you are just using that to be difficult

Then don't come up with illogical questions. Just because something is true for all members of a finite subset of a set does not make it true for all members of the set

when did I ever say that?

No. Sperms, ova, and fetuses break this assertion, IMO.

did you even read what I wrote??

what you would be saying by this statement is that you think that Sperm and Ova are not OK to kill now, but are OK to kill later

that is not what you meant

so reread what I wrote (carefully, I know you are bright)

Jon Miller

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by November Adam
As to the egg there is a difference, a fertilized egg will continue to grow and devlope different cell structures, as other cells don't (emphasis on different). Also a fertilized egg has a unique DNA pattern. WHich is different from the mothers and the fathers. Where as the egg has a single gamete of the mothers, and the sperm a single gamete of the fathers. Thus the fusion of the two creates an organism which is FOREIGN to the mother.

Medicine will soon find a way to "trigger" a normal body cell into acting like a feterlised egg. Maybe even within this decade. Currently, they are part way there. Most clones are made by injecting a nucleus into an adult body cell.

As a said, there is no biological difference between body cells and fertilised eggs. Given time, body cells can be grown into human beings.

Originally posted by November Adam
A single zygote biologically is a human being. Not conisdered a person (no sentience yet). But still an individual.

So are body cells. Just because they have identical DNA's do not mean they can't be grown into individuals.

Identical twins have identical DNA's.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Stefu


"Men eat meat" isn't inflammatory. Try "Men eat human meat". Or possibly "Atheists go to churches and shoot people" or "Black people riot and loot".

How does that matter? How does semantics affect the syntax?

Originally posted by Stefu
Also, since none of us is a clinic bomber, you're arguing with a ghost. Either you are saying something that everyone agrees with or you are trolling and trying to squirm out of it.

When did pointing out a fact become trolling? How is pointing out hypocrisy on the part of anti-abortionists "arguing with a ghost?"

Originally posted by Stefu
To play devil's advocate, you could say that by bombing clinics and shooting doctors, they're trying to prevent what they see as murder.

So, by extension of your logic, it is entirely moral to shoot anti-abortionists, seeing how that will prevent murders from happening.

[Ramo]

well than for the purposes of discussion leave aliens out of this, you are just using that to be difficult

Fine. Then I agree that ignoring all possibility of other sentient life, being a "person" implies being human.

when did I ever say that?

By asserting the validity of the preceding assertion.

did you even read what I wrote??

what you would be saying by this statement is that you think that Sperm and Ova are not OK to kill now, but are OK to kill later

that is not what you meant

Yes, I misread what you wrote. Surely you must realize that what you wrote is a bit muddled though.

Anyways, my answer is still no. If someone contracts some nasty disease that only causes the person constant pain, and impoverishes the person's relatives, I think euthenasia isn't immoral (provided the person consents - or this person's family if he or she is too incapacitated).

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by November Adam
In biological terms organisms are always studied in their natural environments.

That's fine, but we aren't talking about studying human zygotes here. We are talking about what they needed to develop.

Originally posted by November Adam
A human at its fetal stages natural environment is in its mothers womb (dido with zygotes). Its dependecy on its mother doesn't change that it is a seperate organism.

Assume that it is a seperate organism. Now what? There are zillions of seperate organisms on/in a person's body, and they sure aren't human beings.

I agree with you that the criterion here is sentience.

Without sentience, an embryo isn't more special than your lung, say.

Originally posted by November Adam
Consider baking powder and vinegar. Baking powder by itself is inert, like a sperm. Vinegar by itself is inert, as is an ovum. Mix the two you have a reaction which can not be reversed, like the joining of the sperm and ovum, it can't be reversed.

Those aren't quite the same thing. Neither sperms nor eggs are inert: they are alive.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
currently, everyone who has legal rights is a human genetically

so it is worth refering to

I am attempting to make it clear

Jon Miller

Yes, anybody who has legal rights is a human genetically.

L: legal rights
G: human genome

L -> G

But G doesn't imply L

You should know that.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Stefu
Most pro-choice discussion I've seen tends to base itself on smarmy attitude towards pro-lifers and sidestepping the real issue - is fetus a person deserving of same rights as other persons. "Woman's right to choose what happens with her body!" "Abortion ban will lead to back-alley abortions!" "It's not a murder, read the law book!" "Pro-lifers bomb clinics!" "Masturbation is homicide haa haa haa!"

What's the real issue? Morality? Legality? Social problem? Biological definition?

BTW, ever heard of RAA (reducto ad absurdum)?

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


Yes, anybody who has legal rights is a human genetically.

L: legal rights
G: human genome

L -> G

But G doesn't imply L

You should know that.

that's what I was saying

I did not say that G -> L

I am attempting to work from ground levels of logic and you and Ramo keep jumping the gun (and Ramo keeps misreading everything)

Jon Miller

[Urban Ranger]

I wasn't here when you debated with Ramo before

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Ramo

By asserting the validity of the preceding assertion.

huh?

I still don't get you

Yes, I misread what you wrote. Surely you must realize that what you wrote is a bit muddled though.

Anyways, my answer is still no. If someone contracts some nasty disease that only causes the person constant pain, and impoverishes the person's relatives, I think euthenasia isn't immoral (provided the person consents - or this person's family if he or she is too incapacitated).

hmm

that route is not open then

OK

will you take C & ~D -> B

where

C = immoral to take life now
D = in pain now
B = immoral to take life in the future
~ = not

Jon Miller

[Urban Ranger]

Jon,

Could you present your argument in a comprehensive form?

[Jon Miller]

I am going go point by point because I don't know which people will have problems with

Jon Miller

[Ramo]

that route is not open then

OK

will you take C & ~D -> B

No. I also don't consider it immoral to kill a person, for instance, if the defense of yourself or others necessitates it.

But let's pretend that I've agreed C->(A&B). What are you getting at, exactly?

I still don't get you

I was referring to the C->B part.

[Stefu]

So, by extension of your logic, it is entirely moral to shoot anti-abortionists, seeing how that will prevent murders from happening.

It's not my logic. It's their logic.