Does life begin at conception? I think it does.

[Starboy]

Quote by: carriew I have suppported my claim you have not

Okay. Maybe I am wrong. Please state again your purported support.

Starboy

[carriew]

not like you are going to actually read it. but here ya go. read thru the links how many times they say it over and over and how many books that are written by experts in thier fields are noted in reference.

Quote by: carriew just incase some of you aren't following the is a fertilized ovum a living member of its species thread ill repost it. "The development of a human being begins with fertilization, a process by which two highly specialized cells, the spermatozoon from the male and the oocyte from the female, unite to give rise to a new organism, the zygote." [Langman, Jan. Medical Embryology. 3rd edition. Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins, 1975, p. 3] http://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/ar...yoquotes2.html now its your turn if you want more proof check these out also http://www.prolifephysicians.org/lifebegins.htm http://www.epm.org/articles/life_conception.html http://www.etters.net/WDLB4.htm http://www.vanderbilt.edu/SFL/francis_beckwith_004.htm http://www.global-gts.com/gt00131.htm http://www.prolife.com/life_begins.html http://www.visembryo.com/baby/index.html ADDED www.michaelclancy.com

[Starboy]

Quote by: carriew just incase some of you aren't following the is a fertilized ovum a living member of its species thread ill repost it. "The development of a human being begins with fertilization, a process by which two highly specialized cells, the spermatozoon from the male and the oocyte from the female, unite to give rise to a new organism, the zygote." [Langman, Jan. Medical Embryology. 3rd edition. Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins, 1975, p. 3]

This does not support your claim that a fertilized ovum is a human being.

http://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/a...ryoquotes2.html

This says pretty much the same thing as the quote above. Again, this is not a question of whether human life is present. The issue is and has always been is a single cell a human being.

now its your turn if you want more proof check these out also http://www.prolifephysicians.org/lifebegins.htm

From that site

A scientific textbook called “Basics of Biology” gives five characteristics of living things; these five criteria are found in all modern elementary scientific textbooks: 1. Living things are highly organized. 2. All living things have an ability to acquire materials and energy. 3. All living things have an ability to respond to their environment. 4. All living things have an ability to reproduce. 5. All living things have an ability to adapt.

1) A human skin cell is also highly organized.

2) A human skin cell has the ability to acquire materials and energy

3) A human skin cell has the ability to adapt. They change color depending on the amount of sunlight they are exposed to. They toughen up depending how often they come into contact with rough surfaces.

4) A human skin cell has the abity to reproduce.

5) This is just a restatement of 3) I guess the author thought that four bullets were not enough and they had to copy a previous bullet so they would have at least five.

In any case a human skin cell fits these criteria, but it is still not a human being.

http://www.epm.org/articles/life_conception.html

For as many scientists that you can find that think a single cell is a human being there are justa as many if not more so that think it is not. The opinions of scientsts is just opinion. If you think that a single cell is a human being then produce a single cells that behaves like a human being.

http://www.etters.net/WDLB4.htm

This is a dishonest argument. You completely ignore that there are entire organizations of medical professionals that do not see a single cell as a human being and therefore are for abortion.

http://www.prochoice.org/membership/index.html

http://blog.bioethics.net/2005/07/ya...priations.html

Senator Specter, members of the Committee, thank you for inviting me to testify before you. My name is George Daley. I am here today representing the American Society for Cell Biology, a professional society of nearly 12,000 basic biomedical researchers in the United States and 50 nations around the world. I am Associate Professor of Pediatrics and Biological Chemistry at Boston Children’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, the Associate Director of the Stem Cell Program at Children’s Hospital, a member of the Executive Committee of the Harvard Stem Cell Institute, and Board Member and President-elect of the International Society for Stem Cell Research (term to begin June 2007). ....... Science certainly cannot define when in the gradual course of human development we deserve individual and autonomous rights. I do not agree with the premise that the single celled zygote should be given the same considerations as living persons and I do not view the embryo as a human being, particularly when it is frozen in a freezer.

This guy is speaking for the American Society for Cell Biology, nearly 12,000 scientists. He is not just speaking for himself.

http://www.vanderbilt.edu/SFL/francis_beckwith_004.htm

This appears to be a cheat sheet for pro-choice people who lack the intelligence to form their own arguments. In any case it is not evidence of anything other than people argue about this. But then I already knew this.

http://www.global-gts.com/gt00131.htm

This is a repeat of a previous link. I guess you thought you didn't have enought links so you decided to post links that repeat the same information. So what?

http://www.prolife.com/life_begins.html

There is no point from fertilization until death when, biologically, the human nature of that human being is altered. That human being continuously creates specifically human enzymes and, once formed, is on a path to grow and develop in the natural course of human growth. As we’ve said, all he or she needs is nutrition and a warm place to grow.

This is characteristic of the argument of why an embryo is a human being. For some reason they completely overlook that simply because there is a human cell at the beginning that has the basic machinery of all other cells in a human being that therefore they are the same. It completely ignores that what makes a human being a human being is not the enzymes that cells use but the number, kinds and arrangement of the cells that makes a human being. I am always amazed that this point just eludes them.

http://www.visembryo.com/baby/index.html

No one is claiming that a single human cell does not develop into a human. In fact because it does undergo the transformation as shown on that website the beginning cell is not the final product. If it were there would be no need for that process to take place in the first place.

ADDED www.michaelclancy.com

Again no one is claiming that it doesn't develop into a human being, just that it doesn't start off as a human being.

Starboy

[MerlinsByte]

BY NORTHTEXAN...Ok, good, that's one step. Now, the tough one for everyone: what don't you agree with? why?

Merlin writes…This are simple but profound differences between religious and non religious people. We process information different and use different quantifiers to substantiate our claims of reality. We religious types say that all sentient beings have a soul. Atheists and all the secular humanists I have had the pleasure of communicating with don’t believe in a soul. To religious types, well to me a soul and self awarness is interchangable.

Ok, how does this have anything to do with this abortion issue? Everything! I feel that its conceivable that the soul and self-awareness could be instilled at any point after fertilization. Most secular/atheists not believing in a soul use their science reasoning and ummm reason that a child cannot have self-awareness before the brain is formed. At the present time we cannot prove either claim.

So as I’ve said many oh so many times why take the chance of murdering a self aware fetus for the sake of convenience, or birth control?

Thanks for your response Northtexan

Mb

Ps science has many dearly held theroys that cannot be proven , so they are not so much different that a Mayan priest with their own paradigm that requires the sacrifice of 50,000 to appease the gods. It explained their universe and worked for millennia.

[quik]

While I understand someone having a problem destroying the chance of a childs life by having an abortion in earily stages, I believe you should have the option of doing so. If you want to go as far back as conception, you might as well say you're also killing the opportunity of life every time you have sex with a condom on, or just ejaculation without a egg. How is it any different? It's just an earlier stage of life. With that being said, I think I am PRO-CHOICE. In early stages of pregnecy from what we know, we arent "alive" yet.. We do not have a soul, and we can't make our own decisions. If the person responsible feels that the life would be better lived without the child, and for the childs sake - I don't see why you can't do it. (And obviouslly in cases such as rape etc)

[carriew]

Quote by: Starboy This does not support your claim that a fertilized ovum is a human being. This says pretty much the same thing as the quote above. Again, this is not a question of whether human life is present. The issue is and has always been is a single cell a human being. From that site 1) A human skin cell is also highly organized. 2) A human skin cell has the ability to acquire materials and energy 3) A human skin cell has the ability to adapt. They change color depending on the amount of sunlight they are exposed to. They toughen up depending how often they come into contact with rough surfaces. 4) A human skin cell has the abity to reproduce. 5) This is just a restatement of 3) I guess the author thought that four bullets were not enough and they had to copy a previous bullet so they would have at least five. In any case a human skin cell fits these criteria, but it is still not a human being. Starboy

actually thats in reference to how to tell if somethings alive not if its human.

Quote by: Starboy For as many scientists that you can find that think a single cell is a human being there are justa as many if not more so that think it is not. The opinions of scientsts is just opinion. If you think that a single cell is a human being then produce a single cells that behaves like a human being. Starboy

A fertilized human ovum

Quote by: Starboy This is a dishonest argument. You completely ignore that there are entire organizations of medical professionals that do not see a single cell as a human being and therefore are for abortion. Starboy

yes there is much controversy I agree

Quote by: Starboy http://blog.bioethics.net/2005/07/ya...priations.html This guy is speaking for the American Society for Cell Biology, nearly 12,000 scientists. He is not just speaking for himself. Starboy

Ok now see what I reas was 12000 BIO MEDICAL RESEARCHERS NOT SCIENTISTS.

and where is the link for me to read myself not that it would matter because he said I not the orignazation or everyone in the medical community besides he trying to convince poeple to let him continue he Biomedical research NO?

and thats your link not mine why did you try to sneak that in the middle of my quotes

Quote by: Starboy http://www.prochoice.org/membership/index.html This appears to be a cheat sheet for pro-choice people who lack the intelligence to form their own arguments. In any case it is not evidence of anything other than people argue about this. But then I already knew this. Starboy

Quote by: Starboy This is a repeat of a previous link. I guess you thought you didn't have enought links so you decided to post links that repeat the same information. So what? Starboy

I dont think I made a double if I did it was in error I dont see one but ill recheck thanks?

Quote by: Starboy This is characteristic of the argument of why an embryo is a human being. For some reason they completely overlook that simply because there is a human cell at the beginning that has the basic machinery of all other cells in a human being that therefore they are the same. It completely ignores that what makes a human being a human being is not the enzymes that cells use but the number, kinds and arrangement of the cells that makes a human being. I am always amazed that this point just eludes them. No one is claiming that a single human cell does not develop into a human. In fact because it does undergo the transformation as shown on that website the beginning cell is not the final product. If it were there would be no need for that process to take place in the first place. Again no one is claiming that it doesn't develop into a human being, just that it doesn't start off as a human being. Starboy

I dont see any evidence to refute anything Ive presented except your say so...

or any proof to anything you have claimed oh but thats right its as obvious as gravity.

duh silly me.

I think thats a problem...

but I might just be retarded as you so elequantly put it earlier...

[Starboy]

Quote by: carriew actually thats in reference to how to tell if somethings alive not if its human.

Yup. It has nothing to do with your argument. It is just filler. But apparently you thought it was an argument since you posted it.

A fertilized human ovum

There are many names for it. But it is still starts off as a single cell.

yes there is much controversy I agree

Then why bring it up? More filler. Why did you post it?

Ok now see what I reas was 12000 BIO MEDICAL RESEARCHERS NOT SCIENTISTS.

A cellular biology researcher is a scientist. What do you think they are doing? Cooking?

and where is the link for me to read myself not that it would matter because he said I not the orignazation or everyone in the medical community besides he trying to convince poeple to let him continue he Biomedical research NO?

He said very clearly that he spoke for the organization. An organization devoted to human stem cell research would not see a zygote as a human being.

and thats your link not mine why did you try to sneak that in the middle of my quotes

Sorry. Typo. Those quotes can get tricky.

I dont see any evidence to refute anything Ive presented except your say so... or any proof to anything you have claimed oh but thats right its as obvious as gravity.

Funny, but you agreed with several of my observation. But in science the way you make your case is with natural evidence. You claim that a zygote is a human being yet you cannot show that it at all resembles or acts like a human being in any way. My evidence is that you have no actual scientific evidence to support your claim. Just a few quotes from some websites that either offer opinion, or make statements regarding human life but not statements about zygotes being human beings. And what few sites that you have that make such statements that is basically all it is. There is no reason other than the author thinks that is the way it ought to be. But again it is very simple. Show how a single cell could act in any way like a human being. That is all you have to do. Quoting websites that do nothing more than make the claim but do not back it up is not any kind of argument at all.

So I repeat myself again. Show that a zygote acts like a human being. Not that it is alive or that it is the potential to be a human being or that it develops into a human being but that it is a human being. That a zygote behaves like and is treated like a human being. Show me a clip of a biology class with a row of containers with zygotes in them and high school girls approaching and instead of saying, '*EWWWWWW* THAT IS GROSS!' they smile and say 'Oh such a cute little human being.'

Starboy

[carriew]

again just becasue its not obvious to you and a class full of teenage girls doesn't make it not true.

it is a human being.

there were numerous references given

wheres your evidence its not besides your mouth(fingers) and a class full of teenagers?

[MerlinsByte]

[/quote]If you want to go as far back as conception, you might as well say you're also killing the opportunity of life every time you have sex with a condom on, or just ejaculation without an egg. How is it any different?[/quote]


The difference is that ovulating is a natural process, so is spermie porduction, most egg and sperm will die naturally ie not helped along by man. Matter of fact some religions do forbid masturbation, (that's going a bit far).

A FERTILIZED EGG WILL BECOME A BABY IN A MAJORITY OF THE CASES. No one knows when this being is self aware. ahhh' just read my post again.

This is the question; when is it self aware? If you know give me the proof because you are deluding yourself, no one knows. I would not kill a dog for convenience much less a cute alien looking fetus. This is the fundamental difference between those of a religious nature and the secular/atheists, a respect for life, the secular/athiest has none. Abortion on demand (using my tax dollars) is in most cases murder protected by law.

mb

[carriew]

what is a being?


being (PERSON) [Show phonetics]
noun [C or U]
a person or thing that exists or the state of existing:
A nuclear war would kill millions of living beings.
Strange beings from outer space are still a popular subject for sci-fi films.
We do not know exactly how life first came into being (= began to exist.)

so I still contend that a single celled undivided fertilized human ovum is a human BEING because it is definatley existing.

[Starboy]

Quote by: carriew what is a being? being (PERSON) [Show phonetics] noun [C or U] a person or thing that exists or the state of existing: A nuclear war would kill millions of living beings. Strange beings from outer space are still a popular subject for sci-fi films. We do not know exactly how life first came into being (= began to exist.) so I still contend that a single celled undivided fertilized human ovum is a human BEING because it is definatley existing.

Fine then. The human cells that have human life and exist are also human beings. So the next time you take a dump lock yourself up because you just flushed human beings down the toilet.

Starboy

[carriew]

What does the nature of death tell us about the beginning of human life? From the earliest stages of development, human embryos clearly function as organisms. Embryos are not merely collections of human cells, but living creatures with all the properties that define any organism as distinct from a group of cells; embryos are capable of growing, maturing, maintaining a physiologic balance between various organ systems, adapting to changing circumstances, and repairing injury. Mere groups of human cells do nothing like this under any circumstances. The embryo generates and organizes distinct tissues that function in a coordinated manner to maintain the continued growth and health of the developing body. Even within the fertilized egg itself there are distinct “parts” that must work together—specialized regions of cytoplasm that will give rise to unique derivatives once the fertilized egg divides into separate cells. Embryos are in full possession of the very characteristic that distinguishes a living human being from a dead one: the ability of all cells in the body to function together as an organism, with all parts acting in an integrated manner for the continued life and health of the body as a whole.
Linking human status to the nature of developing embryos is neither subjective nor open to personal opinion. Human embryos are living human beings precisely because they possess the single defining feature of human life that is lost in the moment of death—the ability to function as a coordinated organism rather than merely as a group of living human cells.

just so you know where i found this
http://print.firstthings.com/ftissue...es/condic.html

A. Basic human embryological facts

To begin with, scientifically something very radical occurs between the processes of gametogenesis and fertilization — the change from a simple part of one human being (i.e., a sperm) and a simple part of another human being (i.e., an oocyte — usually referred to as an "ovum" or "egg"), which simply possess "human life", to a new, genetically unique, newly existing, individual, whole living human being (an embryonic single-cell human zygote). That is, upon fertilization, parts of human beings have actually been transformed into something very different from what they were before; they have been changed into a single, whole human being. During the process of fertilization, the sperm and the oocyte cease to exist as such, and a new human being is produced.

theres tons of references in this one too...

http://www.vanderbilt.edu/SFL/dnirvi..._beginning.htm
different excerpts. all references named on website.

Also, note O'Rahilly's statement that the use of terms such as "ovum" and "egg" — which would include the term "fertilized egg" — is scientifically incorrect, has no objective correlate in reality, and is therefore very misleading — especially in these present discussions. Thus these terms themselves would qualify as "scientific" myths. The commonly used term, "fertilized egg," is especially very misleading, since there is really no longer an egg (or oocyte) once fertilization has begun. What is being called a "fertilized egg" is not an egg of any sort; it is a human being.

The fusion of the sperm (with 23 chromosomes) and the oocyte (with 23 chromosomes) at fertilization results in a live human being, a single-cell human zygote, with 46 chromosomes — the number of chromosomes characteristic of an individual member of the human species.

[Matt W]

Starboy - carriew has gone to the lengths of researching & posting backup. Please do her the courtesy of doing the same.

[Pale RIder]

Quote by: Starboy What lies? I have the book, I have looked. I have found nothing that indicates that a single cell of any kind is a human being. As I have said before, I can't find it. You say it is there. So fine, post the quote. That is all you have to do. This has nothing to do with my honesty. If it will make you feel better think anything you like about me. But it is your claim. Until you can substantiate your claim with a quote then it is your honesty that is in question, not mine. Starboy

The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology, 6th ed.
Keith L. Moore, Ph.D. & T.V.N. Persaud, Md., (Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Company, 1998), 2-18.

" A zygote is the beginning of a new human being. Human development begins at fertilization, the process during which a male gamete or sperm ... unites with a female gamete or oocyte ... to form a single cell called a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marks the beginning of each of us as a unique individual."

It has always been your honesty at question and still is.

[Pale RIder]

Quote by: Starboy Also what results is a new organism. It is a cell. All cells are organisms. A skin cell is an organism. Starboy

Again, your lack of scientific knowledge makes a liar out of you. There are only three classes of cells that can be considered organisms. They are Monera, Protista, and Fungi. Human beings belong to none of these classes. This is the thing with you. You have childlike misconceptions of biology and human development. You don't grasp the science and what you don't know you simply make up. Case in point "all cells are organisms" This statement is a lie. Deliberate or a result of ignorance makes no difference, it is still a lie. Your whole argument is overflowing with this sort of misinformation.

[Pale RIder]

Quote by: Starboy You have all the proof you need all around you. There are no single cells that live the life of a human being. Single cells don't vote, they don't get driver licenses, they do not attend school or learn their ABCs. Such an idea is just absurd. It is so absurd that it is a wonder that you would think for a moment that your claim is at all reasonable. Starboy

Infants don't vote or get drivers licences or attend school but they are still human. One doesn't have to vote to be human. The idea that because humans don't vote, or drive, or attend school they are not human is absurd.

All you have succeeded in doing is pointing out that we have to go a long way from being a single cell in order to do any of those things. No one is arguing that as a single cell we are mature human beings, but science says that we are human none the less. You have yet to provide a whit of science that states otherwise. It is becoming self evident that you can't.

[Matt W]

Pale Rider - can you not edit your posts to add these points rather than posting 3, maybe 4 times in a row? Just a thought.

[Pale RIder]

Quote by: Matt W Starboy - carriew has gone to the lengths of researching & posting backup. Please do her the courtesy of doing the same.

Now you have gone and chased him off. We all know that he can't provide a bit of scientific evidence to support his stance. If he could, he would have done it long before we got to page 114 in this thread.

Just kidding. I would like to see him produce something besides his endless uncoroborated mantra.

[MerlinsByte]

Pale Rider - can you not edit your posts to add these points rather than posting 3, maybe 4 times in a row? Just a thought.

Matt does have a point in both cases. (SB&PR). Its much information to assimilate. And Carriew is providing sources with her rebuttal. Matt W is fair if pesky. (just kidding Matt)

[Starboy]

Quote by: Matt W Starboy - carriew has gone to the lengths of researching & posting backup. Please do her the courtesy of doing the same.

Sometimes the evidence is obvious. As obvious as gravity. Also argument by authority is a fallacy. Look it up. Posting an argument based on the opinion of an authority is not a valid argument. It doesn't merit a response. And responding with another authority only compounds the fallicy and does nothing to advance the argument. It is very simple. The claim is that a single human cell is a human being. Fine then, show that it behaves as a human being. That is all the evidence they need provide. But as I have said, it is common knowledge and very obvious that a single human cell of any kind cannot behave like a human being. It is not until it has developed for many weeks that it even starts to imitate a human being.

Starboy