Posts by Grant Dexter
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
I have been told (and do correct me if I'm wrong) that up until about 14 days after conception, there's no difference between tissue that will become the placenta and tissue that will become the embryo, and that prior to 14 days, it's still possible for it to divide, making twins. If this is true, it means that at conception, the "baby" is not a distinct organism, and is potentially, well, "babies".
That all sounds reasonable except for your conclusion. Of course he's a distinct organism. He is certainly not his mother which is the only other organism he could possibly be.
I look at it like this - throughout our lives we go through different stages of growth. At certain stages we have certain abilities and not others. When we are first conceived and up until 14 days or thereabouts we have the ability to clone ourselves. Astoundingly some of those clones also have the ability to merge back into one person!
Pretty amazing stuff to think about! People are cool! :thumb:
-
That's exactly the point. You keep mislabelling your personal definitions as "facts". (e.g. "human life" starts at conception -- by your definition). Making such a statement is not sufficient to make it true; which is why you have been asked to provide some supporting argument. Replying by a re-statement is, not surprisingly, unconvincing.
Combined with the repeated dismissal of others' observation-based statements (which might be rather better candidates for factual status!) as "so many words" ... it just screams "troll".Linger - do you believe a baby at conception is not alive?
Do you believe a baby at conception is not human?Would you like to state your opinion if it differs from mine and support it using science?
-
Grant, somethings will be denied to you in this life , like the ability to grow any life inside of you if you are male. Abortion is rational progression in society ,as we move away from sex rules set down by a jewish hill tribe thousands of years and embrace the reality of our fleeting, bizarre and finite existence in this universe. Abortion law is a consequence of an understanding of our own bizarre , ultimately useless chemistry (we all die and measured in a universal sense, it's fast).
Jeremy. That's a fairly useless position to support. If you truly believe that life is a "fleeting, bizarre and finite existence" then what is the point of opposing a view that says life begins at conception?
-
Grant,
Brent.
Is a sperm a human ?
No.
Is an unfertilised egg a human ?
No.
How is a fertalised egg more human than an unfertalised egg ?
Because he has everything any other human being has. Why would he not be?
There are millions of processes that have to occur before a sperm and an egg can become born as a baby. Why do you believe that the sperm fertalising the egg is the crucial one that turns these cells into a baby ?
Because that is when the process is completed. Everything after that is just growth. When do you think a baby becomes a person?
Brent
Grant.
-
ha, i take it you believe an acorn is not part of the genus Quercus,
It well probably is! However the logic question I provided linked the component entities through the difference in development rather than by what order, genus or phylum they belonged to.
It's OK to admit you didn't choose the right answer, you know?
你在那里做什么工作?
What manner of chicken scrawl is that?!? I mean, I understand what you're getting at, but you missed half your brushstrokes!!
I'm just messing with ya ;)
My job in Taiwan is to administrate the game of cricket such that the CTCA can be accepted as an affiliate member of the ICC. I am, nominally, the secretary of the Chinese Taipei Cricket Association and we are about to have our first foray into being actively part of the game this weekend in Taizhong.
Go the FCC :)
-
I take it you believe a baby is not a human being or a homo sapien.
-
E: human being
:rotfl:
-
Davida:
You say: 'How is the fact that a baby can die evidence against the fact that a baby is alive and human!?!?' But the argument was that there is no way to actually keep these embryos alive outside of the womb. Completely different.
I agree! It is completely different. So why would someone bring up the argument that things can die in order to refute the statement that something is alive and human?
You say: 'Is consciousness a pre-requisite for being human?' Maybe not, but a lack of conciousness doesn't necessarily make you human either. What's your point?
What's yours? I'm not the one depending on consciousness for anything.
You say: 'How is the ability to die evidence against humanity?' You know that wasn't the point being made.
I know. How about someone actually makes a relevant point?
You say: 'My position is simple...' You got that right, at least. What a shame we don't live in a simple world.
Actually we do live in a simple world. It's made difficult by people who do not want it to be so. Simple - At conception a baby is alive and human. Not simple - Everything so far in the way of a response.
-
And in reply to Peter's 'lots more words':
Your statement shows clearly that you have not understood. Try reading what I have written again. I did not ask you to choose amongst events, but *processes*, it is processes all the way down. The cortical reaction for eg is clearly a process since there is a time window within which if another sperm binds before the calcium wave reaches that part of the membrane it too will fertilise the egg resulting in polyspermy and an inviable conceptus/embryo.
When I say "at conception" that is a layman's term to acknowledge conception as the first instance of a new human's life. I understand my terminology may not be acceptable in your workplace, but I would hope that my meaning is clear. Would you mind telling me what might be the point of being so pedantic about the process of conception? Are you going to propose legislation based on what you know?
Then you are unaware of the raging debate in science over the fact that we have been unable to come up with a working, bulletproof definition of life.
I probably am. Sounds like a philosophical debate to me.
All the ones we have break down when it comes to the viruses. After all some are no more than naked rna, which is why incidentally we secrete RNAase from our skin. I have isolated and indeed made RNA many times without ill effects so clearly there is something about some RNA sequences that make them viruses while others are harmless. RNA is just a chemical polymer, you can crystalise it, turn it into a rock iow. Still sure you know the boundary between what is alive and what is not? care to share your definition?
Nope. As I implied before we are discussing a baby at conception. If you think the fact that you can't tell the difference between rocks and viruses means that I cannot tell the difference between a baby and 'not a baby' then I cannot help you...
Ah but without viruses you would not have a baby. Not only is there a surge of endogenous retroviral expression post fertilisation but there is good evidence that the mammalian placenta owes it existence to a viral infection. Which is just part of the reason biology views mammalian embryos/foetuses as parasites since that is in fact how they function, even using similar tricks to turn the maternal immune system down so it doesn't cause rejection of the foreign tissue.
Sounds like you don't quite have a full grasp on all the differences between your example and your analogy. Either way you don't seem to be making any relevant point. How is the fact that scientists regard the process as a viral infection evidence that a baby at conception is not human and not alive?
-
Reasons Tony gives for babies at conception not being human:
The most fundamental difference is that a foetus is totally dependent on a woman's body to survive. It is common to argue that born human beings can be entirely dependent on other people too (e.g. disabled persons), but the crucial difference is that they are not dependent on one, specific person to the exclusion of all others.
Independence is a pre-requisite for being a human? How does that work? Why all the qualifiers for what is and is not dependence? Why not simply acknowledge the truth? At conception a baby is entirely dependent upon his mother and removing him from that environment will kill him.
I have no problem admitting that people are dependent upon others for the entirety of their life for different things. Why do you make a judgement on the humanity of people based on a very limited aspect of this dependency?
Another key difference is that a foetus doesn't just depend on a woman's body for survival, it actually resides inside her body. Human beings must, by definition, be separate individuals. They do not gain the status of human being by virtue of living inside the body of another human being. At some point the embryo is capable of surviving without it's mothers womb. I would argue that this is closer to the point when an embryo becomes a human being.
Why? Why does dependency or location affect human nature? Do you have any scientific facts to back up this proposition?
Early embryonic forms do not share basic commonalities that define us as human beings. For example, zygotes and blastocysts are barely visible to the naked eye and have no bodies, brains, skeleton, or internal organs. Foetuses cannot breath or make sounds, and they cannot see or be seen (except by shadowy ultrasound). They absorb nourishment and expel waste via an umbilical cord and placenta, not via a mouth and anus as do all other human beings. At various stages, foetuses have eyes on stalks, notochords (instead of spines), fish-like gills, tails, downy fur, distorted torsos, spindly legs, giant heads, and alien-looking faces. Finally, the foetal brain is not yet capable of conscious thought and memory (which aren't fully actualised until two or three years after birth). But our complex brains are what set us apart from animals and define us as human beings. The human brain is the essential seat of our humanity.
Wow. You're very inventive. But you've simply insisted that people cannot be people because you don't agree that they look like people. Personally I am not surprised that a newly conceived person does not look like a person similarly to the way that a newborn does not look like an adult. Are you really prepared to deny personhood to people based on how they look?
This is not to say that human life doesn't have value. Of course it does, but only the value that we bestow on it - in biology, life is cheap, life is wasteful, and death is vital. Nature does not value humans any more than worms, and in all species, vast numbers of eggs and seeds don’t stand a chance of reaching maturity. Life has been cheap throughout human history too - it's only modern medicine that has allowed us to keep most of our babies alive for the first time. All human beings are valuable, important and special. But (of course) not all human cells are necessarily human beings.
I do not claim that all human cells are human beings. I only claim that babies at conception are humans for the rest of their life.
An acorn isn’t an oak tree and the egg you had for breakfast isn’t a chicken. Neither is a blastocyst a human being.
You don't do well at those logic tests do you. Try this one:
Acorn is to Oak as Baby is to _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
A: Adult
B: Alien
C: Anchovy
D: ArachnidBe well. :)