If your wife was raped, would you make her have the baby?

[GBuck]

You got at least one thing right! An unferfertilized egg that has already been busted out of its shell is not an adult chicken and can never grow into one. Good job!

If it were still in the shell, it would not change that it is not a chicken.. of any variety.

 

[Ted]

Actually it does follow - they are all things that have the potential to be something else, but are not that "something else". The things are what they are - not what you perceive they could become in the future.

It is not illustrating the difference between a human and a chicken, it is illustrating the difference between an acorn and a tree - etc.

Please then instruct me when life actually begins, and cite the competent and authoritative scientific source. As far as I see, an uninterupted fertilized chicken egg and a germinated acorn are still life....the same as a multicellular diploid eukaryote.

 

[GBuck]

Please then instruct me when life actually begins, and cite the competent and authoritative scientific source. As far as I see, an uninterupted fertilized chicken egg and a germinated acorn are still life....the same as a multicellular diploid eukaryote.

You're demanding a scientific answer that does not exist. You're welcome to your opinions, they are not mine.

 

[IncendiaryGunner]

Please then instruct me when life actually begins, and cite the competent and authoritative scientific source. As far as I see, an uninterupted fertilized chicken egg and a germinated acorn are still life....the same as a multicellular diploid eukaryote.

If you look at it like that, the sperm and egg are "life". Should I be punished for wearing condoms? Should my girlfriend be punished for using birth control? Should both condoms and other forms of birth control be outlawed?

Mosquitoes are living things. We would both classify Mosquitoes as life. I kill mosquitoes on an epic, genocidal scale. Should I be punished? Should that be outlawed?

What you truly want to address is not "what is life" - but "at what point does a human come into existence, being granted the protections we reserve for human life?".

There is no authoritative scientific source for that, because that belongs to the realm of theory. We are not talking 'almost law' stage theory either - we are talking struggling for significant partial consensus stage of theory.

 

[GBuck]

What you truly want to address is not "what is life" - but "at what point does a human come into existence, being granted the protections we reserve for human life?".

There is no authoritative scientific source for that, because that belongs to the realm of theory. We are not talking 'almost law' theory either - we are talking struggling for scientific agreement stage of theory.

Agreed, and until we can do better, I'll go with the following. Once the capability for life outside the womb exists, it is a baby. Not before.

 

[Ted]

You're demanding a scientific answer that does not exist. You're welcome to your opinions, they are not mine.

Science has defined what life is. Even a high school biology student knows this.

Though it would seem that legal scholars are more expert upon such determinations.

If you look at it like that, the sperm and egg are "life". Should I be punished for wearing condoms? Should my girlfriend be punished for using birth control? Should both condoms and other forms of birth control be outlawed?

Mosquitoes are living things. We would both classify Mosquitoes as life. I kill mosquitoes on an epic, genocidal scale. Should I be punished? Should that be outlawed?

What you truly want to address is not "what is life" - but "at what point does a human come into existence, being granted the protections we reserve for human life?".

There is no authoritative scientific source for that, because that belongs to the realm of theory. We are not talking 'almost law' stage theory either - we are talking struggling for significant partial consensus stage of theory.

Yet another non seq. argument.

Are sperm and the ovum, considered to be single cell organisms? Certainly, thus they are indeed life as scientifically defined by even loose scientific definition. This is not theory, as science has pretty much determined what life is, though what you may be arguing, is what sentient life is.

Are mosquitoes a protected species? No, but many other types of species of non human life is protected by law.

Are such single cell organisms sentient? Not in any meaningful manner, though they still are life. So what is an ovum that forms into a fetus, and reacts to temperature changes and light?

Agreed, and until we can do better, I'll go with the following. Once the capability for life outside the womb exists, it is a baby. Not before.

....and if I tell you that the capability exist for medically assisted viability outside the womb, during that state during the 2nd trimester where abortion is still legal?

 

[88GT]

Cells?

ETA: this definition could be used for a plant, virus, fungus, bacteria, etc.

Except that you forget one little thing: deoxyribonucleic acid.

Actually it does follow - they are all things that have the potential to be something else, but are not that "something else". The things are what they are - not what you perceive they could become in the future.

It is not illustrating the difference between a human and a chicken, it is illustrating the difference between an acorn and a tree, an egg and a human - etc.

So you're arguing that something isn't something until it reaches a particular stage of development. It's not the DNA that defines it? It's how old it is?

Interesting. What if I said it wasn't a life until it reached 5 y/o?

 

[Bunnykid68]

Don't shoot an eagle though, that would be bad

 

[GBuck]

....and if I tell you that the capability exist for medically assisted viability outside the womb, during that state during the 2nd trimester where abortion is still legal?

You don't have to tell me. I already know this, and don't think abortion should be allowed once the capability to survive outside the womb is attained. I've been very clear about this.

Except that you forget one little thing: deoxyribonucleic acid.

Yes, because none of the other things I mentioned have DNA. You're right, I'm a moron.

 

[Ted]

......You're right, I'm a moron.

QFT.

j/k

 

[IncendiaryGunner]

Yet another non seq. argument.

Are sperm and the ovum, considered to be single cell organisms? Certainly, thus they are indeed life as scientifically defined by even loose scientific definition. This is not theory, as science has pretty much determined what life is, though what you may be arguing, is what sentient life is.

Are mosquitoes a protected species? No, but many other types of species of non human life is protected by law.

Are such single cell organisms sentient? Not in any meaningful manner, though they still are life. So what is an ovum that forms into a fetus, and reacts to temperature changes and light?

The first one was not a non seq., and neither is this one. They are both logical points that you wish to avoid for arguments sake.

Plants react to light and temperature change - are plants sentient beings?

"When a human being is technically created" and can be considered a person is not something that has ever been defined objectively by science - and the basic definition of life doe not change that.

You want it to, and you hold it up as if it does - but it simply does not.

Just because a human falls into the category of "living", does not equate to anything that can be labeled as life falling into the category of human being.

So you're arguing that something isn't something until it reaches a particular stage of development. It's not the DNA that defines it? It's how old it is?

Interesting. What if I said it wasn't a life until it reached 5 y/o?

I am arguing that a chicken is a chicken, and a tree is a tree.

An apple is not a tree - it is a piece of fruit.

A seed contained within an apple is not a tree unless and until it actually become one - even if it is composed of genetic material inherited from the tree that created it. A seed that is eaten, and never becomes a tree - is never a tree in it's entire existence. At one point it had the potential to become a tree - but it did not. The potential to become a tree, does not define it as a tree.

If you said it wasn't a life until it reached 5 y/o, I would point out that a five year old already has developed into our generally accepted definition of a person. So, you can choose to believe that - but don't expect society to base their laws on your extreme belief.

Which comes to the crux of the argument - at this point in time, it is a subjective exercise to define at what point in time sperm and an egg can create a legal "person". Since it is not objective, and the population is roughly split on the concept - laws outlawing a practice are not called for.

 

[PAMom]

Agreed, and until we can do better, I'll go with the following. Once the capability for life outside the womb exists, it is a baby. Not before.

When is that? How do we handle the practical side when that time is frequently changing?

 

[88GT]

Yes, because none of the other things I mentioned have DNA. You're right, I'm a moron.

Did you just say that a plant, fungus, virus, and bacteria do not have DNA?

I am arguing that a chicken is a chicken, and a tree is a tree.

An apple is not a tree - it is a piece of fruit.

A seed contained within an apple is not the tree, unless it actually grows into the tree - even if it contains genetic material. A seed that is eaten, and never becomes a tree - is never a tree in its entire existence. At one point it had the potential to become a tree - but it did not.

If you said it wasn't a life until it reached 5 y/o, I would point out that a five year old already has developed into our generally accepted definition of a person. So, you can choose to believe that - but don't expect society to base their laws on your extreme belief.

Which comes to the crux of the argument - at this point in time, it is a subjective exercise to define at what point in time sperm and an egg can create a legal "person". Since it is not objective, and the population is roughly split on the decision - laws outlawing a practice are not called for.

I'm not arguing the subjectiveness of the definition. But I'm not arguing the legality of the definition either.

I'm pointing out that if you can not objectively define the difference between the seed and the tree, then how can you objectively define the difference between a 5y/o and a 50y/o?

Physical manifestation doesn't define what it is.

 

[GBuck]

Did you just say that a plant, fungus, virus, and bacteria do not have DNA?

 

[IncendiaryGunner]

I'm not arguing the subjectiveness of the definition. But I'm not arguing the legality of the definition either.

I'm pointing out that if you can not objectively define the difference between the seed and the tree, then how can you objectively define the difference between a 5y/o and a 50y/o?

Physical manifestation doesn't define what it is.

A 5 year old is a human being that has remained alive for five years after the date of their birth.

A 50 year old is a human being that ha remained alive for fifty years after the date of their birth.

Time, being a quantifiable form of measurement, objectifies the difference in age.

Contrast the two, and you have yourself a definition.

Both of which are considered humans, because they both went through the process of being birthed - having their umbilical cord cut from their mother - and coming into existence as their own separate being in our world.

Remember, those that wish to change society's definition of birth are the one that have something to illustrate - not those who stick to the definition our society has accepted for a long period of time.

A seed, by it's definition - is the seed, and not a tree. A tree, by definition - is a tree, and not a seed. The definitions themselves, and cultural understandings of what they are - already articulate the difference between the two.

 

[PAMom]

and coming into existence as their own separate being in our world.

They are always their own separate being, in utero.

 

[IncendiaryGunner]

and coming into existence as their own separate being in our world.

They are always their own separate being, in utero.

Not by our society's traditional definition.

Birth has traditionally been the point in time in which we recognized the existence of a separate being. Actually, that is the definition of the term "birth" .....

Noun:The emergence of a baby or other young from the body of its mother; the start of life as a physically separate being.

For instance, I do not count the time I spent in the womb when you ask me "How old are you?"

If someone attempted to purchase alcohol twenty one years and one day from the time of their conception, they would be denied - because our society would not consider them twenty one years of age, and our laws are based on society's commonly accepted definition.

 

[PAMom]

Not by our society's traditional definition.

Birth has traditionally been the time recognized as the existence of a separate being.

For instance, I do not count the time I spent in the womb when you ask me "How old are you?"

That does not change the fact that this life is developing completely separate from that Mother.

 

[IncendiaryGunner]

That does not change the fact that this life is developing completely separate from that Mother.

They are not completely separate while she is carrying the child.

At that point in time, the embryo is still physically attached, and physically part of the mother.

Birth is the time in which they are separated.

 

[PAMom]

They are not completely separate while she is carrying the child.

At that point in time, the embryo is still physically attached, and physically part of the mother.

Birth is the time in which they are separated.

I said that life is developing separately - even their blood does not ever come in contact until placental separation. Are they physically connected? - yes. Are they separate beings? - yes. Actually kind of like a parasite.