Quote :

"kris, you cannot seriously say that a 8 month, 30 day old baby, is not a human being."

Well one of the criteria for being a human being is that you can survive without physically connected to a host.

It could look baby-like, but then so does a fetus from pretty much any other animal. The point is no matter how chicken-like the thing on the inside might be, it's still an egg if it hasn't hatched yet. Once a fetus can survive on it's own with out a physical connection to a specific host and without having to be inside a specific host, it becomes a child.

8/6/2005 1:14:53 PM

what about your grandfather having to be kept on life support to be kept alive. he needs a "host", is he not a human being?

also, out of curiosity, where is this "list of criteria for being a human" that you keep referring to at? I would like to see it.

[Edited on August 6, 2005 at 4:08 PM. Reason : .]

8/6/2005 4:07:31 PM

some conjoined twins wouldn't be human beings under that criteria also.

8/6/2005 4:14:46 PM

Quote :

"what about your grandfather having to be kept on life support to be kept alive. he needs a "host", is he not a human being?"

But he doesn't need to be physically connected to a human being.

Quote :

"also, out of curiosity, where is this "list of criteria for being a human" that you keep referring to at? I would like to see it."

Everyone has their own. I have mine, you probably have your own as well. The debate here is who's criteria makes the most sense.

Quote :

"some conjoined twins wouldn't be human beings under that criteria also."

At least one of them would. The one that is physically dependant on the other would really be nothing more than an apendage, since he'd likely be dead anyways.

8/6/2005 4:34:27 PM

Quote :

"There is no point in worrying about the "pile of goop" outside the uterus because nothing will ever come of it. I concern myself with the zygotes inside the uterus; they will become people."

what about when the sperm is 1 nanometer from the egg? the zygote formation is imminent, yet YOU claim its not a person?

how is that possible?

8/6/2005 4:44:22 PM

Quote :

" At least one of them would. The one that is physically dependant on the other would really be nothing more than an apendage, since he'd likely be dead anyways."

and the ones that only share a heart? I find it hard to believe that you would not consider a sensient being sharing a heart a human being.

I think you need to refine your criteria.

8/6/2005 5:04:28 PM

Kill um if you want to.

8/6/2005 5:08:05 PM

It isn't killing, it's cosmetic surgery.

8/6/2005 5:11:40 PM

Quote :

"But he doesn't need to be physically connected to a human being."

Neither does a fetus quite a ways prior to birth. I suspect that the technology that would allow us to bring a baby to term from fertilization on is not that far off.

8/6/2005 5:23:11 PM

Quote :

"There is no point in worrying about the "pile of goop" outside the uterus because nothing will ever come of it. I concern myself with the zygotes inside the uterus; they will become people."

what about when the sperm is 1 nanometer from the egg? the zygote formation is imminent, yet YOU claim its not a person?

how is that possible?









looks like i finaly won, becuase you cant say -- "well its not immenent becuase the zygote isnt formed, once it is, then you definity have live" -- becuase then i can point out that a zygote does not always become a person.




[Edited on August 6, 2005 at 9:54 PM. Reason : -]

8/6/2005 9:54:19 PM

Neither the sperm nor the egg has the capacity, in and of itself, in any environment, to grow or develop in any way. No matter what nourishment and protection I provide it, an egg or a sperm cannot and will not develop, change, reproduce, respond to stimulus, or anything else. It does not, cannot, and will not have human form or characteristics.

A zygote, on the other hand, can do all of those things, and assuming you don't kill it, it generally will.

8/6/2005 10:07:36 PM

Quote :

"and the ones that only share a heart? I find it hard to believe that you would not consider a sensient being sharing a heart a human being."

I'd consider them one person if they are not able to survive seperately. But you ignore another part of my critera which handles this case, namely that one of these twins is not inside the other. Which I don't think has ever happened (outside of the Venture Brothers).

Quote :

"Neither does a fetus quite a ways prior to birth. I suspect that the technology that would allow us to bring a baby to term from fertilization on is not that far off"

Then at that point it is a human and it should not be aborted, but not to worry, our current laws prohibt abortion well before this point.

Quote :

"Neither the sperm nor the egg has the capacity, in and of itself, in any environment, to grow or develop in any way."

Sure, you put a sperm next to an egg and the sperm will swim in the egg and create a zygote.

Quote :

"A zygote, on the other hand, can do all of those things, and assuming you don't kill it, it generally will."

An egg and a sperm will too. The sperm will swim to the egg. You are just picking one place in a linear progression of growth.

[Edited on August 6, 2005 at 10:37 PM. Reason : ]

8/6/2005 10:34:51 PM

^ So if your grandfather, connected to life support, is a human because he doesn't need to be connected to another human being, and therefore, is alive and is human, then why is a fetus not a human when we could connect the fetus to a machine and surely bring it to term?

Also, I like the point about when you are considered dead... when the heart stops. Since a fetal heart beat can be detected after only 6 weeks, often BEFORE the woman even knows she's pregnant, why is it, at the very least, not considered alive?

8/6/2005 10:39:58 PM

Your argument fails there because a fetus develops into a human.

The grandfather is already a human.

8/6/2005 10:41:28 PM

Quote :

"Neither the sperm nor the egg has the capacity, in and of itself, in any environment, to grow or develop in any way. No matter what nourishment and protection I provide it, an egg or a sperm cannot and will not develop, change, reproduce, respond to stimulus, or anything else. It does not, cannot, and will not have human form or characteristics. A zygote, on the other hand, can do all of those things, and assuming you don't kill it, it generally will."

sperm that will imminently contact an egg? i just told you we're looking at sperm thats GONNA REACH THE EGG BECUASE THERE IS NOTHING TO STOP IT. its in the correct enviroment.

that sperm and egg, though seperated, WILL become a human if you do not interfere.

Quote :

"Neither the sperm nor the egg has the capacity, in and of itself, in any environment, to grow or develop in any way. No matter what nourishment and protection I provide it, an egg or a sperm cannot and will not develop, change, reproduce, respond to stimulus, or anything else."

i just dont know what youre smoking. those two cells in a woman will become a person, they are on a collision course. you do know what a collision course is?

8/6/2005 10:45:31 PM

Quote :

"Then at that point it is a human and it should not be aborted, but not to worry, our current laws prohibt abortion well before this point."

What happens when technology advances to the point that a zygote can be brought completely to term outside of a mother's body? Does something go from being a nonperson to being a person just because we discover some new gadgets, even though the thing itself hasn't changed at all?

If you want to say we'll never advance medically, fine, what about fetuses that came around before life support technology was around?

Quote :

"that sperm and egg, though seperated, WILL become a human if you do not interfere."

This is almost entirely besides the point. I've explained why neither a sperm nor an egg deserves special treatment, now you're asking me why a situation (the imminent proximity of a sperm and an egg), in lieu of an actual organism, doesn't deserve treatment. It's nonsensical.

We don't think something is special because it "will become" a person, we think something is special because it is a person. Neither a sperm nor an egg qualifies. When they're really really close, they "will become" something that qualifies as a human, but until it does that, we're under no obligation to care. The quality of being human is what endows special rights to you.

8/6/2005 11:05:57 PM

Quote :

"This is almost entirely besides the point. I've explained why neither a sperm nor an egg deserves special treatment, now you're asking me why a situation (the imminent proximity of a sperm and an egg), in lieu of an actual organism, doesn't deserve treatment. It's nonsensical. "

THATS NOT WHAT I ASKED

these two cells are in a person, in the CORRECT enviroment. they are going to collide.


now respond. do they deserve special treatment? do they?

[Edited on August 6, 2005 at 11:17 PM. Reason : -]

8/6/2005 11:14:37 PM

Quote :

"We don't think something is special because it "will become" a person, we think something is special because it is a person."

now you are just bullshitting us. i know what a person looks like. a PERSON cannot, by definition a zygote. a zygote is a few cells.

a person is something that can think, look, or speak, right? you conservatives think vegitables are alive.

how are you soooooo sure that a zygote is a person? becuase i know what a person looks like.

8/6/2005 11:17:30 PM

Quote :

"We don't think something is special because it "will become" a person,"

Quote :

"Main Entry: 1hu·man Pronunciation: 'hyü-m&n, 'yü- Function: adjective Etymology: Middle English humain, from Middle French, from Latin humanus; akin to Latin homo human being -- more at HOMAGE 1 : of, relating to, or characteristic of humans 2 : consisting of humans 3 a : having human form or attributes b : susceptible to or representative of the sympathies and frailties of human nature <such an inconsistency is very human -- P. E. More> - hu·man·ness /-m&n-n&s/ noun"

name the qualities that a zygote has in common with a human.


NAME QUALITIES THAT ARE NOT IM COMMON WITH: my cells in my hair, a sperm, an egg






READY, GO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!





[Edited on August 6, 2005 at 11:24 PM. Reason : now youve lost. just give up.]

8/6/2005 11:23:47 PM

Quote :

"why is a fetus not a human when we could connect the fetus to a machine and surely bring it to term?"

Because you can't bring a fetus to term without it's mother. If you could then it would be a child because it would no longer be phyiscally dependant on a host person.

Quote :

" I like the point about when you are considered dead... when the heart stops."

IF you are considered dead when your heart stops then I have met a good number of zombies. In fact our old people homes would be FULL of the living dead. I could hook up a corpse to electrical leads and get his heart to strat beating, he doesn't come back to life, he's just a corpse with a heartbeat.

Quote :

"What happens when technology advances to the point that a zygote can be brought completely to term outside of a mother's body?"

Then our point would stay the same but it would be much easier to point out.

Quote :

"Neither a sperm nor an egg qualifies."

Neither does a fetus.

Quote :

"When they're really really close, they "will become" something that qualifies as a human"

To me they are in the same boat, a zygote will split just like a sperm WILL join with an egg. They are different spots on the same timeline, you simply want to arbitrarially pick one and say "THATS WHERE LIFE STARTS".

8/6/2005 11:28:46 PM

Quote :

" Because you can't bring a fetus to term without it's mother."

i think u can

8/6/2005 11:38:21 PM

Quote :

"Then our point would stay the same but it would be much easier to point out."

I'm not following you here.

Quote :

"To me they are in the same boat, a zygote will split just like a sperm WILL join with an egg."

But a sperm will not necessarily join with an egg. The overwhelming majority of sperm -- even of those sperm that get deposited in a uterus -- do not go on to be like us. A sperm, even a perfectly normal and healthy one, is almost certainly going to terminate its existence without forming a zygote and, in turn, a human being.

The same cannot be said of zygotes. A zygote, unless it is killed by the same sorts of things that kill humans, is absolutely certain to become a walking, talking person. Recognizing that you can't call mutes and cripples nonpersons, and, well, there you go.

Quote :

"name the qualities that a zygote has in common with a human."

The entirity of its DNA, and its "potential," so to speak. That is to say, all humans will do certain things along the course of their lives. A zygote person will do all of those things for as long as it survives, just like you.

Quote :

"becuase i know what a person looks like."

So now we're basing it on what something looks like? So statues of people are people, and the heavily deformed aren't?

Quote :

"a person is something that can think, look, or speak, right?"

A parrot can do all of those things, while blind and mute homo sapiens cannot.

8/6/2005 11:40:00 PM

^no, a parrot cannot think like a human. i know how humans think. i also know what deformed humans look like. they dont look like zygotes.

Quote :

"But a sperm will not necessarily join with an egg. "

i will say this as many time as its takes. this is now the third


WHAT ABOUT A SPERM WHOSE PATH WILL LEAD IT DIRECTLY TO AN EGG, A SPERM THAT WILL DEFINITLY IMPACT THIS EGG IF SOMEONE DOESNT TRANSPORT IT OUT OF THE FEMALE. I AM NOT TALKING ABOUT THE SPERM THAT DONT MAKE IT. I AM TALKING ABOUT THE SPERM THAT IS GOING TO MAKE IT.


why is this so hard. now, is THAT sperm, THE SPERM THAT WILL MAKE IT, alive? is it human? does it an the egg deserve protection, becuase we know for sure that they will both become a zygote.

8/6/2005 11:47:03 PM

Quote :

"We don't think something is special because it "will become" a person,"

Quote :

"The same cannot be said of zygotes. A zygote, unless it is killed by the same sorts of things that kill humans, is absolutely certain to become a walking, talking person."

Quote :

"The entirity of its DNA, and its "potential," so to speak. That is to say, all humans will do certain things along the course of their lives. "

grumpyGOP.


now youve lost. youve just completely contradicted a core of your argument.

Quote :

" A zygote, unless it is killed by the same sorts of things that kill humans, is absolutely certain to become a walking, talking person."

NEWFLASH:

about half of all zygotes become humans. 1/3 of all pregrancies result in a misscarage in the first month, many times women dont even know they are pregnant.



[Edited on August 6, 2005 at 11:51 PM. Reason : 0]

8/6/2005 11:48:52 PM

Quote :

"I'm not following you here."

My point was it doesn't matter. You could have assumed science has progressed to the point in which you could step into a machine an have an exact clone of yourself made. Science isn't at that point, and science may not get to that point before abortion becomes and irrelevant issue. Let's stay in the real world here and keep space age hypotheticals out of the topic as they don't apply anyways.

Quote :

"But a sperm will not necessarily join with an egg."

Sure it will barring any complications. Of course there are uncertainties, just like how a zygote may die out or fail to split. A sperm, barring any extranous complications wil join with an egg.

Quote :

"The overwhelming majority of sperm -- even of those sperm that get deposited in a uterus -- do not go on to be like us. A sperm, even a perfectly normal and healthy one, is almost certainly going to terminate its existence without forming a zygote and, in turn, a human being."

But one of them will, so if you have that one sperm and the egg, you've got a zygote. Whats the difference between before they join and after?

Quote :

"A zygote, unless it is killed by the same sorts of things that kill humans, is absolutely certain to become a walking, talking person."

The hell it will, there are billions of miscarriages that have nothing to do with abortion.

Quote :

"The entirity of its DNA, and its "potential," so to speak."

A sperm and an egg have an entire set of DNA, does that mean that a period and a jizz stain are a person?

8/6/2005 11:51:20 PM

Quote :

"name the qualities that a zygote has in common with a human." The entirity of its DNA, and its "potential," so to speak. "

I SAID NAME QUALITIES THAT ARE NOT IN COMMON WITH MY HAIR!!!!!!!!


ARE YOU SAYING MY HAIR CANNOT BE KILLED WITHOUT ME BEING CHARGED FOR MURDER

1. all my cells have DNA

2. all my cells have the "potential" to be unique humans. cloning actually isnt perfect, clones usually have some small variation.

8/6/2005 11:54:28 PM

Quote :

"A zygote, unless it is killed by the same sorts of things that kill humans, is absolutely certain to become a walking, talking person.""

i was gonna post a few links


GOOGLE IT YOURSELF. YOURE WRONG


DO SOME RESEARCH

LEARN SOMETHING
DO SOME RESEARCH

LEARN SOMETHING
DO SOME RESEARCH

LEARN SOMETHING
DO SOME RESEARCH

LEARN SOMETHING
DO SOME RESEARCH

LEARN SOMETHINGDO SOME RESEARCH

LEARN SOMETHING
DO SOME RESEARCH

LEARN SOMETHING

god man. please. dont just make crazy ass statements because you assume things.




about half of all pregancies results in misscarrages, most happen so early the woman doesnt even know.



blah.

[Edited on August 7, 2005 at 12:05 AM. Reason : =]

8/6/2005 11:58:23 PM

A hair cannot be killed

it was murdered!

8/7/2005 12:28:43 AM

Quote :

"name the qualities that a zygote has in common with a human. NAME QUALITIES THAT ARE NOT IM COMMON WITH: my cells in my hair, a sperm, an egg READY, GO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! "

we're waiting

8/7/2005 12:33:10 AM

^You can do that patiently, because it takes me a minute to go through your jumble of repetitive double- and triple-posts.

Quote :

"no, a parrot cannot think like a human."

Well, please, define for me the range of human thought. The severely handicapped can't think like I generally think a human thinks. Neither can an infant. Chimpanzees are supposedly capable of the mental function of, what, a four-year old? Are they people? They can think like some humans do.

And how deformed can a person be before he's not a person? And what about those statues I mentioned? Is a zygote the only thing a human can't look like?

Quote :

"I AM TALKING ABOUT THE SPERM THAT IS GOING TO MAKE IT."

So now we're dealing with some happy situation where we see the future?

The sperm by itself is not "special," as it were. It will not, at any point in its existence, be special. It can, at best, contibute to creation of something that can be. No degree of proximity to the egg will change that.

Quote :

"youve just completely contradicted a core of your argument."

Bullshit I have. In the second quotation I explicitly used the qualifiers "walking and talking," and you left important follows-up off of the third. There are those things that you can do now that people younger -- "less-developed" would be a better term -- cannot. They will, however, if they are permitted to live long enough.

Quote :

"about half of all zygotes become humans. 1/3 of all pregrancies result in a misscarage in the first month, many times women dont even know they are pregnant."

I stated quite plainly:

Quote :

"unless it is killed by the same sorts of things that kill humans"

Does a fetus die through any means that is fundamentally different from how other things die? Of course not. It starves, or it receives some trauma. Sure, it takes a lot less of a trauma to kill an embryo than it would, say, you, but the same could be said of a newborn or a frail old man.

Quote :

"Let's stay in the real world here and keep space age hypotheticals out of the topic as they don't apply anyways. "

Well then do the reverse. Life-support technology has not always existed, so certain fetuses that can now be kept alive outside of the mother could not be kept alive in the past. Does that mean that the "not alive/alive" line has moved? Would a fetus in one situation five hundred years ago not be a person while a fetus in the exact same situation today would be?

Quote :

"A sperm and an egg have an entire set of DNA"

No, a zygote does. The egg cell in a period stain and the sperm cell in a jizz stain cannot form a zygote; even if they happen to be directly adjacent to each other, they don't form anything that has a complete set of human DNA.

Quote :

"all my cells have the "potential" to be unique humans"

No, they don't. There is nothing I can put your hair cells into that will create a human. Cloning requires that I take the DNA from a cell and put it into an egg, which then becomes a zygote, which is the first thing in the process that has the potential to develop through all the human life stages without the introduction of anything short of what we as more developed humans require (food, a certain environment, etc).

[Edited on August 7, 2005 at 12:52 AM. Reason : ]

8/7/2005 12:51:30 AM

Quote :

"So now we're dealing with some happy situation where we see the future?"

Yeah that same place you go when you say a zygote has a 100% chance of being a human barring abortion.

Quote :

"The sperm by itself is not "special," as it were. It will not, at any point in its existence, be special. It can, at best, contibute to creation of something that can be. No degree of proximity to the egg will change that."

So a chicken egg isn't special, it just contributes to the creation of the chicken?

Quote :

"Does a fetus die through any means that is fundamentally different from how other things die? Of course not. It starves, or it receives some trauma. Sure, it takes a lot less of a trauma to kill an embryo than it would, say, you, but the same could be said of a newborn or a frail old man."

The same thing happens to sperm or eggs.

Quote :

"Life-support technology has not always existed, so certain fetuses that can now be kept alive outside of the mother could not be kept alive in the past."

But the point is that they didn't need the connection to their mother, they had completed fetal growth and can live outside thier mother.

Quote :

"No, a zygote does."

A sperm and egg do as well. Suppose you have a two peice puzzle, you have both peices, do you have the whole puzzle? Yep, you just haven't put it together, but you still have the whole puzzle.

8/7/2005 1:02:19 AM

Quote :

"So now we're dealing with some happy situation where we see the future?"

but you dont? when you say that all zygotes will become people if not misscarried?

FYI many misscarrages are random, not caused by trauma or starvation, but becuase their are chromosomal abnormalities

8/7/2005 1:06:17 AM

Quote :

"Yeah that same place you go when you say a zygote has a 100% chance of being a human barring abortion."

I never said any such goddamn thing. I said that a zygote has a 100% chance of becoming a human barring death. Point to where I said "abortion" anywhere in there.

Quote :

"So a chicken egg isn't special, it just contributes to the creation of the chicken?"

The embryonic-stage chicken inside the egg is a chicken, if that's what you mean. The egg itself is akin to a uterus, I suppose. It's just a place to keep the damn thing until it reaches a certain maturity.

Quote :

"The same thing happens to sperm or eggs."

Of course it can, but those sperm and eggs can be sustained and protected for as long as they can continue to exist and never become a zygote.

Quote :

"But the point is that they didn't need the connection to their mother, they had completed fetal growth and can live outside thier mother."

What the hell are you talking about? The whole point is that they did need to be connected to their mother for a longer period of time 500 years ago than they do today.

Certain babies that were born prematurely, or whose mothers died late-term in pregrancy, or whatever, today have the chance to live because of technology that substitutes for the mother's body. In the past that technology did not exist.

I also still think that your whole, "Well that technology is in the future so let's not talk about it" think is a cop-out, by the way. Hypotheticals get discussed in SB all the time without a complaint out of you.

Quote :

"Suppose you have a two peice puzzle, you have both peices, do you have the whole puzzle? Yep, you just haven't put it together, but you still have the whole puzzle."

If I chop you up into many tiny pieces and sit them in a pile, I've got Kris. I mean, sure, it's an utterly functionless version of Kris that does not now, nor will ever do, the things Kris does. But pretty much the same, yeah.

Quote :

"FYI many misscarrages are random, not caused by trauma or starvation, but becuase their are chromosomal abnormalities"

You mean chromosomal abnormalities cause health problems and death? Well, no kidding. I can point to plenty of people who are currently quite alive outside of their mothers who could tell you that, if they weren't all fucked up.

[Edited on August 7, 2005 at 1:14 AM. Reason : ]

[Edited on August 7, 2005 at 1:15 AM. Reason : time to sleep now. more tomorrow]

8/7/2005 1:12:45 AM

Quote :

"You mean chromosomal abnormalities cause health problems and death? Well, no kidding. I can point to plenty of people who are currently quite alive outside of their mothers who could tell you that, if they weren't all fucked up."

i mean what i said. fetus's with chromosomal abnormaties often misscary. nature doesnt want to make sick ass mutants.

Quote :

"name the qualities that a zygote has in common with a human. NAME QUALITIES THAT ARE NOT IM COMMON WITH: my cells in my hair, a sperm, an egg READY, GO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! "

we're waiting.


thats the fourth time ive asked.

[Edited on August 7, 2005 at 1:26 AM. Reason : -]

8/7/2005 1:25:23 AM

Quote :

"all my cells have the "potential" to be unique humans"[quote] [quote]No, they don't. There is nothing I can put your hair cells into that will create a human. Cloning requires that I take the DNA from a cell and put it into an egg, which then becomes a zygote, which is the first thing in the process that has the potential to develop through all the human life stages without the introduction of anything short of what we as more developed humans require (food, a certain environment, etc)."

i cant argue with someone who doesnt understand biology. do you really feel qualified to make statements what is alive considering you know so little about biology?


i cant believe nobody has told you that DNA exists in every cell in your body (almost every)




[Edited on August 7, 2005 at 1:34 AM. Reason : -]

8/7/2005 1:30:10 AM

Quote :

"I said that a zygote has a 100% chance of becoming a human barring death."

Well you put a sperm and an egg next to each other and they have a 100% chance of becoming a child barring death.

Quote :

"The embryonic-stage chicken inside the egg is a chicken, if that's what you mean. The egg itself is akin to a uterus, I suppose. It's just a place to keep the damn thing until it reaches a certain maturity."

You missed the point

Quote :

"Of course it can, but those sperm and eggs can be sustained and protected for as long as they can continue to exist and never become a zygote."

Nope, if you put a sperm next to an egg the sperm will swim to the egg and become a zygote as surely as the zygote will split and begin to grow.

Quote :

"The whole point is that they did need to be connected to their mother for a longer period of time 500 years ago than they do today."

That doesn't change the point that their neccesary dependance ended, it just changed the mortality rate.

Quote :

"Hypotheticals get discussed in SB all the time without a complaint out of you."

My point was that we could say that in the future they can make people without even being a sperm or and egg, futuristic hypotheticals can't really apply in this discussion

Quote :

"If I chop you up into many tiny pieces and sit them in a pile, I've got Kris. I mean, sure, it's an utterly functionless version of Kris that does not now, nor will ever do, the things Kris does."

But those peices can't join together in a growing process, a sperm and an egg can.

8/7/2005 1:42:39 AM

So much for sleep just yet.

Quote :

" cant argue with someone who doesnt understand biology. do you really feel qualified to make statements what is alive considering you know so little about biology? i cant believe nobody has told you that DNA exists in every cell in your body (almost every)"

I can't argue with someone who doesn't fucking read what I write to him. You goddamn ape, read the post again, especially the part where I say that cloning requires that I take the DNA from a cell in your body and put that DNA into an egg.

Of fucking course almost every somatic cell has a complete set of DNA, but are you so goddamn brain dead that you think cloning involves just taking any ol' cell and slapping it on a petri dish or in a uterus?

Quote :

"Well you put a sperm and an egg next to each other and they have a 100% chance of becoming a child barring death."

Fine, but irrelevant. The sperm is still just a sperm, the egg is still just an egg, until the moment they unite and form the zygote. It is absurd to say that one could look at two completely distinct physical entities and call their aggregate a single person.

You both seem to have misinterpreted my comments about "potential" pretty wildly, and I suppose that's partly my fault. All humans, permitted to live long enough, will pass through the same stages of development. A fetus has in common with you that it was, at some point, a less developed fetus, or an embryo, or a single zygotic cell. A sperm cell was not any of those things at any time.

Quote :

"You missed the point"

Then explain it better.

Quote :

"That doesn't change the point that their neccesary dependance ended, it just changed the mortality rate."

But their necessary dependence hadn't ended, hence the need for the technology.

Or is it that you are saying that any child that can be sustained by any means outside of the mother has ended its necessary dependence? In that case, aren't you potentially condemning millions to death if we discover more advanced means later on that show that the necessary dependence was earlier than we now think?

Quote :

"But those peices can't join together in a growing process, a sperm and an egg can."

They are physically capable of joining, yes. Just like we are physically capable, during surgery, of removing your heart and putting it or a substitute back in. Still doesn't really matter to you that we can do that until we actually do.

Until you put the puzzle pieces together, they're just fragments of an image. Until you put the sperm and the egg together, they're just fragments of a person.

8/7/2005 2:40:41 AM

Quote :

"I can't argue with someone who doesn't fucking read what I write to him. You goddamn ape, read the post again, especially the part where I say that cloning requires that I take the DNA from a cell in your body and put that DNA into an egg. Of fucking course almost every somatic cell has a complete set of DNA, but are you so goddamn brain dead that you think cloning involves just taking any ol' cell and slapping it on a petri dish or in a uterus?"

i said

Quote :

"all my cells have the "potential" to be unique humans""

you said

Quote :

"No, they don't. There is nothing I can put your hair cells into that will create a human. Cloning requires that I take the DNA from a cell and put it into an egg, which then becomes a zygote, which is the first thing in the process that has the potential to develop through all the human life stages without the introduction of anything short of what we as more developed humans require (food, a certain environment, etc).""

teh DNA from my hair cell can be placed in an egg to make a person. we'll implant this egg in a surrogate mother. all the DNA in my body has that potential. do you disagree? there. i said it very plainly.

this has been done over and over with cows, cats, dogs, dolly, ect

[Edited on August 7, 2005 at 11:18 AM. Reason : -]

8/7/2005 11:13:59 AM

Quote :

"We don't think something is special because it "will become" a person, we think something is special because it is a person. Neither a sperm nor an egg qualifies. When they're really really close, they "will become" something that qualifies as a human, but until it does that, we're under no obligation to care. The quality of being human is what endows special rights to you."

Quote :

"name the qualities that a zygote has in common with a human. NAME QUALITIES THAT ARE NOT IM COMMON WITH: my cells in my hair, a sperm, an egg READY, GO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! "

5th time ive asked.

[Edited on August 7, 2005 at 11:19 AM. Reason : im begining to wonder if their is no answer]

8/7/2005 11:16:43 AM

You guys are throwing around the term human a little carelessly, don't you think?
My skin cells are human, my DNA is human, etc.
That is all.

8/7/2005 12:06:40 PM

Quote :

"all the DNA in my body has that potential. do you disagree? there. i said it very plainly."

It has a potential, just not the potential I was describing. Read my comments to Kris for what I hope is a clearer explanation.

Quote :

"5th time ive asked."

Quote :

"A fetus has in common with you that it was, at some point, a less developed fetus, or an embryo, or a single zygotic cell. A sperm cell was not any of those things at any time."

It always entertains me to see you guys being so cavalier with the definition of a "human being." If I'm wrong, the lives of some quite probably slutty women get seriously inconvenienced. If you're wrong, tens of millions of innocent people die.

8/7/2005 12:52:17 PM

Did you say you were going to quit until the 8th?

8/7/2005 1:49:18 PM

Quote :

"Fine, but irrelevant. The sperm is still just a sperm, the egg is still just an egg, until the moment they unite and form the zygote."

A zygote is just a zygote. The joining of a sperm and an egg are just as much part of the growth process as the zygote splitting. Why do you think they are different.

Quote :

" All humans, permitted to live long enough, will pass through the same stages of development. A fetus has in common with you that it was, at some point, a less developed fetus, or an embryo, or a single zygotic cell. A sperm cell was not any of those things at any time."

Being a sperm and an egg is just one of those stages. A fetus and I have in common that we were both once a sperm and egg. You simply want to arbitrarily declare that when they join life begins, with absolutely no reasoning to do so.

Quote :

"But their necessary dependence hadn't ended, hence the need for the technology."

Then if they were still dependant they were fetuses and wouldn't survive outside the body anyways.

Quote :

"In that case, aren't you potentially condemning millions to death if we discover more advanced means later on that show that the necessary dependence was earlier than we now think?"

You are bringing up a hypothetical that may never happen, I've explained how futuristic hypotheticals cannot apply to this discussion. The stages of dependance will stay the same.

Quote :

"Until you put the puzzle pieces together, they're just fragments of an image. Until you put the sperm and the egg together, they're just fragments of a person."

Why are they fragments of a person? They are two cells. Are you billions of fragements of a person because you contain more than one cell?

Quote :

"It always entertains me to see you guys being so cavalier with the definition of a "human being." If I'm wrong, the lives of some quite probably slutty women get seriously inconvenienced. If you're wrong, tens of millions of innocent people die."

That's no excuse for stupidity. Suppose I believe that car exhast will kill billions of children in ten years. Does that mean we should "err on the side of life" and make cars illegal? If I'm wrong people get inconvieniced a little and have to walk or ride a bike to whereever they are going. If you're wrong we could lose an entire generation of people in a holocaust.

8/7/2005 1:52:16 PM

^^Error in calendar reading. If you read my original pledge you'll see that I was gone for here even longer than I had promised.

Quote :

"The joining of a sperm and an egg are just as much part of the growth process as the zygote splitting."

The "joining of a sperm and an egg" is not an organism, it is an event. The product of that event is the zygote, which is an organism.

Quote :

"A fetus and I have in common that we were both once a sperm and egg."

Yes, you do. But you do not have that in common with a sperm or an egg.

Quote :

"Then if they were still dependant they were fetuses and wouldn't survive outside the body anyways. "

You said that from the time a fetus could be supported outside of the mother's body, it qualifies as a person.

Quote :

"You are bringing up a hypothetical that may never happen, I've explained how futuristic hypotheticals cannot apply to this discussion."

This is just silly. It is not far-fetched to anticipate that medical technology will advance even just slightly, thereby pushing back the line.

Quote :

"Are you billions of fragements of a person because you contain more than one cell?"

Read what I said, dipshit. The puzzle pieces, separate, are just fractions. If you take an individual cell out of my body, it is a fragment. But, when joined with the rest of the cells, it is part of a person.

Quote :

"Suppose I believe that car exhast will kill billions of children in ten years."

The veracity of that belief can be evaluated by science. There isn't a litmus test for personality.

8/7/2005 3:55:12 PM

and science has proven that fetuses aren't children. besides, it is the recognized view that a child is not alive until it is born. Otherwise we would mark the day of existance with the conception and not when it is fucking born.

8/7/2005 3:59:45 PM

Quote :

"and science has proven that fetuses aren't children"

Oh yes?

I could see distinguishing the fetal stage of development from the newborn one, that's about it.

[Edited on August 7, 2005 at 4:07 PM. Reason : go ahead and insert a slavery analogy for the rest of your argument]

8/7/2005 4:07:30 PM

and what the fuck does slavery have to do with any of this?

8/7/2005 4:13:38 PM

Quote :

"It is the recognized view that..."

Do I really need to say more?

Just because a bunch of fuckwads think it now doesn't mean it's the gospel.

8/7/2005 4:20:52 PM

strawman

8/7/2005 4:21:08 PM

Bullshit. You're using the same sort of common consensus to back up your position that could just as easily be used by people who have supported barbarianism throughout history.

Hey, as a matter of fact:

Quote :

"It is the recognized view that a child is not alive until it is born marriage is between a man and a woman."

8/7/2005 4:25:27 PM