Does life begin at conception? I think it does.

[Prometheus]

Quote by: Pale RIder What you were doing was attempting to bury the relatively simple and straight forward subject of human reproduction under a small mountain of accurate, but unrelated science.

Whereas I on the other hand contend that you are oversimplifying the issue to the point of making it undebatable.

And exactly how does the argument demonstrate in any way that we are not human beings from the moment of our conception?

I never said we weren't human beings at the point of conception. All I said is that conception is an arbitrary time to draw the line of "humanity". I would contend that a sperm and egg seperately are only quantitatively seperated from the fertalized pair. I have made *no* statement about what is a human, or what can be ethically killed. All I am getting at is that to draw a line at conception is disingenuous.

Actually, there was a small window in your lifetime when it was possible for you to reproduce yourself. I am sure that you can identify the time but again, it will in no way prove that we aren't human beings for the entire span of our lives.

What, you mean when the blastocysts splits to make twins? Or do you mean when you are screwing? Either way, that dosen't give you any more qualitative reproductive ability than the sperm.

And stop with the bloody straw man. I never implied that we are not "human" for the entire span of our lives. I am only debating the arbitrary nature of where you want to say the life begins.

Don't mean to be redundant here, but the onus is on the pro choice side of the discussion to demonstrate that unborns are not humans and thus have no inalienable right to life. You obviously have a level of education such that you know that you are not going to be able to effectively do that, so why even make the attempt?

I am not making an attempt. Even though I have stated otherwise, you keep pretendling as if I am taking the pro choice side. I have said from the beginning that I am not taking sides. Stop trying to make me devend the pro choice ideal. Let me say it yet again, I am challenging your arbitrary point of defining life and humanity. If I am challenging your stance on the issue, it is only because I believe it is disengenuous to have such a strong viewpoint on this complex issue.

There was a period in my life when the possiblity existed for me to reproduced myself, there is never a period in a sperm's span that it can reproduce.

Are you speaking of morula fission? If so this is a silly argument. You have no more will over that occuring then a sperm, so that is a moot point. If you are speaking of regular reproduction, then I have already adressed it adaquetly.

And this proves that we are not human beings from the moment of our conception how?

I will say it yet again. I am not trying to demnostrate that we are not human after conceptiont. I am arguing that conception is not a good dileniator.

My stanpoint is that abortion kills a living human being. Human beings, by virtue of their humanity alone, have an inalienable right to life. Unless you can demonstrate that unborns are not human beings you are arguing for the killing of human beings for no better reason than convenience. You know as well as I that you aren't going to be able to prove that point.

And it's not the point I am trying to prove. Yet again, you try to corner me into defending a viewpoint I never advocated. That is not very nice.

I debated in college as well because it helped pay for my tuition. I didn't enjoy it much because often I was in a position of being dishonest in order to win the debate. A dishonest win is both pointless, and dishonorable.

Wewll maybe you should have changed your outlook on competitive debating. Debate is a communication event, for the purpose of improving communication skills. It dosen't matter what you are communicating about, it is a mental excercise. Not only that, but learning to debate a point you don't believe teaches you to look at the other side of a debate. Not enough people really consider the oppositon. Obviously you don't. I have always made a point of studying opposing viewpoints more than the ones I hold. I am a capatalist. Yet I have read more pages of sociolist literature then Ayn Rand has written pages (ironically enough, carl sandburg is my favorite poet). If you don't thouroghly understand the thinking and arguments of the opposition, you have no intellectual right to hold a strong opinion, because you have not honestly considered all views on the issue.

By the way, sperm is no more than the mechanism by which man passes on his genes. Man and sperm can never be identical because sperm don't have a goal.

When you speak scientifically, you can't speak of "goals". As far as science can demonstrate, both you and your sperm are ruled by chemical impulses. Some may be more or less complex, but they are qualitatively the same. The sperm is only the way the man passes his genes? Biologically speaking, you may be the way the sperm delivers it's genes. Just because it's the haploid generation, dosen't make it the tool. You may only be the tool used to deliver your fathers genes to your son.

But you know that don't you? If you were able to pull that wool over my eyes because I didn't know any better and if you won the point with it, would you feel good about yourself for winning? Or slightly greasy for being intellectually dishonest?

I was hoping not to have to say this to you, but grow up. Your straw man arguments are getting ludicris. I never claimed that "sperm and man are identical". I'm glad you are proud of yourself for recognizing that sperm and man are *not* identical. I probably had some people fooled with that one. Oh wait - I never said it. That was you putting words in my mouth.

No, you were never sperm or egg. You came into being as an individual at the same moment that the sperm and egg ceased to exist. You as an individual have never been anything but you. You have matured and changed much and you continue to change and mature, but your life span began at a singular point in time. One moment further and "You" did not exist, only the possibility of you. Upon fertilization, you left the realm of possibility and entered into reality. From that moment forward, you have been a living human being.

The sperm and the egg were only the "possibility" of me? Come come, lets not lose our ability to abstract. You could easily argue that me 5 minutes ago was not in fact me, but only the possibility of me. I am differend then and now. I am not the me from 5 minutes ago. I am also not physically the sperm and the egg. Those individual cells are gone. I am also not the blastocyst either, those cells are gone too. Once again you are being totally arbitrary.

Whether or not we are human beings from the first moment is not an ethical question. It is rock solid science.

"Human being", "first moment" ? Those are not statments that science can make any statements about, let alone "rock solid". We are debating what the "first moment" is, so obviously it is not set in stone. And as far as "human being", we all know that is a loaded term, meaning much more than our taxonomy. But I sad exactly that in my last post. You just don't listen.

The turmoil arises from the argument that we all have an inalienable right to life except for "those" humans. If the pro choice side of the argument was honest and simply stated out right that they favored killing some human beings for no better reason than convenience the debate would not exist would it. It would fail as surely as the argument that "those" people aren't really people and as such may be owned and worked like beasts in the fields.

This has no impact. You want to debate pro life with me, but that's not what I am debating here. If you really want to debate pro life, I provided you with an argument to sink your teeth into. If you want, have fun with it, but don't confuse it with this one.

Human is human, Science has no problems at all pointing out what is human and what is not. Confusion arises when one holds a position that is not defensible so one must start unilatarally redefining terms.

Youa re just ranting now.

I am not in an ethical debate. I am saying that in this country every single human being has an inalienable right to life. It is encoded into our legal system. If you can't prove that unborns are not humans, then their right to life must be specifically denied in the constitution.

And yet again, this is not what we are discussing. Youa re really trying to sidetrack this debate aren't you? I never said we could kill people. Or that fetuses aren't people. I am just saying that conception is a crappy point to use.

I am going to the coast for a few days to fish. I am not ducking, I will be back later in the week to continue.

Have fun.

[Osborn F Enready]

The fetus has as many rights as any other organ in the human body until it is SEPERATED from its host, to become a self sufficient life form.

At birth the fetus, becomes child, and then has human rights since it is SEPERATED from its mother PHYSICALLY, but limited civil rights since the parent is reponsible until the child reaches adulthood for physical, mental well being as well as protection, education, nurturing and RESPONSIBILITY for the actions of the child.

[Prometheus]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready The fetus has as many rights as any other organ in the human body until it is SEPERATED from its host, to become a self sufficient life form. At birth the fetus, becomes child, and then has human rights since it is SEPERATED from its mother PHYSICALLY, but limited civil rights since the parent is reponsible until the child reaches adulthood for physical, mental well being as well as protection, education, nurturing and RESPONSIBILITY for the actions of the child.

Please please use caps sparingly. It's reminding me of toobis.

I disagree with considering birth to be a delineating event. When a child is seperated from the mother is arbitrary. We can take babys 3 months early and still have them live.

[Athena]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready The fetus has as many rights as any other organ in the human body until it is SEPERATED from its host, to become a self sufficient life form. At birth the fetus, becomes child, and then has human rights since it is SEPERATED from its mother PHYSICALLY, but limited civil rights since the parent is reponsible until the child reaches adulthood for physical, mental well being as well as protection, education, nurturing and RESPONSIBILITY for the actions of the child.

So you are arguing for abortion along with a government that is passive about the well being of human beings?

[Prometheus]

Quote by: Athena You have a strange idea of human rights. It does not include a safe shelter, food and medical care. People, including babies die because of conditions of homelessness, and aren't you the guy who thinks is the beyond the concern of government? There are some who even want government to drop public education. They insist government shouldn't be responsible for human life while insisting a bunch of cells have human rights. HEY, DUDE, THE HUMAN RIGHT IS TO DIE FROM LACK OF NECESSITY. LET THE CELLS DIE. WE DON'T THEM, THE HOMELESS AND UNFIT. LET NATURE TAKE ITS COURSE AND IF GOD DOESN'T LIKE LET HIM INTERVENE.

Do I sence satire?

And let's not bitch too much about people who want to nix public schools.

[Athena]

Quote by: Prometheus Do I sence satire? And let's not bitch too much about people who want to nix public schools.

Yipes you got me before I realized I made a mistake. I was hoping everyone would be sleeping in. For the record I changed my post and Prometheus caught what I orginally posted.

For the record, I do not believe we have the social conditions that make it a good thing to birth all fertilized eggs. I think human beings have a long ways to go, before we should condem all souls to be among us.

[MerlinsByte]

Has anyone answered the simple question I've asked about six or seven times here and it is the only question in this debate. When is the 'ahhh, potential human self aware. Please provide your proof?

mb

[Matt W]

No, it's not the only question. And Pale Rider has, I believe - feel free to scan his posts - I think we're talking about 15 months old or so? Of course, this is just from memory, so please, correct me if I'm wrong.

[Kuldeep]

Quote by: Pale RIder The fact remains that newborns are not self aware and a good deal of research suggests that humans do not achieve a level of self awareness for about 15 months. . Aha! You are mistaken about self awareness. You are getting confused and want to wrongly relate it to memory. Do you think without self awareness 1 day old baby is sucking milk from the breast of mother. No dear no!!! Science has to learn a lot of science in this field. Please tell me who has taught him to suck. Somebody, may be you only have cofirmed that even 8 week fetus is feeling pain of surgery tool. Is that without self awareness???? Please learn who in fact feels pain/pleasure. Through science, we have learned a lot, but not everything!! For your information even less than one month old baby is able to reconize face of mother. its brain works and is well self aware. it is different it won't remember that period in later life. If you want to use self awareness as a measure of humanity, you are obligated to argue that until at least 1 year past their birth, mothers should be able to kill children they are having second thoughts about. One honest pro choicer stepped up and said that he was ok with that practice. Are you number two?

No, I am not even number one!!! I am fully with you for not aborting brain and nervous developed fetus. But before, its presence is felt by mother and it has developed the pain feeling mechanism, unwanted fetus due to variety of reasons, abortions could be used as medical aid for society. That too with the unbiased free consent of mother. I repeat, it should be before fetus does feel pain. Embrylogists can decide that better when it could be!!!!! To my mind embryo, till then is not human being in real sense having separate identity

[Two Cents]

Osborn, a fetus is not an organ.

[Kuldeep]

Quote by: Matt W No, it's not the only question. And Pale Rider has, I believe - feel free to scan his posts - I think we're talking about 15 months old or so? Of course, this is just from memory, so please, correct me if I'm wrong.

No, Pale RIder has always explained about life (more correct is individidual life obtained from two lives of egg and sperm). Prometheus has made elaboratedly clear and further mentioned the limitations of that self praised explantion by Pale RIder. Particularly, I liked when Prometheus commented

"I am also not the blastocyst either, those cells are gone too." to Pale RIder's consistently repeating argument that

"No, you were never sperm or egg. You came into being as an individual at the same moment that the sperm and egg ceased to exist.

MerlinsByte is absolutely correct, no body has answered with proof "at what point of time actually awareness of existance in individual develops"?

I tried to mention in my most of ealier posts that "first time physical observation/feeling of mother when she senses fetus started movement may be considered that fetus has become individual and also self aware". But alas!!, I do not have a scientific proof as MerlinsByte wants it. Somewhere, I also mentioned we won't be able to get proof till we develop a mind reading machine/tecnique and that too specifically for fetus. :rolleyes:

[northtexan]

Quote by: Prometheus Please please use caps sparingly. It's reminding me of toobis. I disagree with considering birth to be a delineating event. When a child is seperated from the mother is arbitrary. We can take babys 3 months early and still have them live.

This in no way makes the moment of birth arbitrary. Whenever it occurs, including early C-sections, or induced births, the baby is no longer within the mother's body. That itself is an important distinction, because the mother's body is no longer directly influenced by a fetus, nor by the actions of the mother or others with regard to a fetus.

However, there are other qualitative changes. The baby begins to breathe on its own, and will start to eat, no longer being dependent on a connection to the mother's bloodstream for everything. Yes, what a mother ingests can still affect the baby via the mother's milk; but it only CAN, not WILL, because the baby can be fed in other ways.

Most importantly, once born, the baby is in immediate interaction with others, immediately recognizing human faces, and increasingly learning to communicate. This begins the process of socialization, which has profound implications for consciousness and self-awareness (whether or not such processes already exist at birth).

Finally, the moment of birth is the traditional point at which humans are welcomed to human societies as humans, including the traditional legal point at which humans have been allocated rights, the point at which the Constituion confers citizenship to the native BORN, and so on.

[northtexan]

Quote by: Matt W No, it's not the only question. And Pale Rider has, I believe - feel free to scan his posts - I think we're talking about 15 months old or so? Of course, this is just from memory, so please, correct me if I'm wrong.

I ignore all of PR's posts. However, we do not, and likely cannot, know when self awareness exists. Even PR said something like 'some level of self-awareness' -- i.e., some outward sign or signs that are interpreted as reflecting self-awareness. Insofar as those signs are valid indicators, they indicate that self-awareness exists, not when it began to exist. So we may be able to say that self-awareness definitely exists by 15 months of age, not that it is absent at birth, and some point after birth before 15 months, nor even before birth.

PR simply wishes to denigrate anything functional, dignifying, or existentially important about being human, in favor of defining humanity in purely-biological terms.

[northtexan]

Quote by: Kuldeep No, I am not even number one!!! I am fully with you for not aborting brain and nervous developed fetus. But before, its presence is felt by mother and it has developed the pain feeling mechanism, unwanted fetus due to variety of reasons, abortions could be used as medical aid for society. That too with the unbiased free consent of mother. I repeat, it should be before fetus does feel pain. Embrylogists can decide that better when it could be!!!!! To my mind embryo, till then is not human being in real sense having separate identity

What do you mean by 'feel pain'? This is a serious question. Consider someone with a severed spine who cannot feel pain in the legs. The legs nevertheless have nerves, so can react to pain stimuli, even though such pain cannot be felt -- although the reactions to the pain also cause chemical changes that do affect the entire body (http://www.sci-info-pages.com/ad.html). Now, consider a fetus that does not yet have a functioning brain but that has already developed nerves: it can react to stimuli, but it cannot 'feel' pain, because there is nothing yet to interpret stimuli as pain.

So, at what point do you define a fetus as "having developed the pain feeling mechanism"?

[Prometheus]

Quote by: northtexan This in no way makes the moment of birth arbitrary. Whenever it occurs, including early C-sections, or induced births, the baby is no longer within the mother's body. That itself is an important distinction, because the mother's body is no longer directly influenced by a fetus, nor by the actions of the mother or others with regard to a fetus. However, there are other qualitative changes. The baby begins to breathe on its own, and will start to eat, no longer being dependent on a connection to the mother's bloodstream for everything. Yes, what a mother ingests can still affect the baby via the mother's milk; but it only CAN, not WILL, because the baby can be fed in other ways. Most importantly, once born, the baby is in immediate interaction with others, immediately recognizing human faces, and increasingly learning to communicate. This begins the process of socialization, which has profound implications for consciousness and self-awareness (whether or not such processes already exist at birth). Finally, the moment of birth is the traditional point at which humans are welcomed to human societies as humans, including the traditional legal point at which humans have been allocated rights, the point at which the Constituion confers citizenship to the native BORN, and so on.

So if the status of a human changes at birth, dosen't that advocate abortion right up untill the moment the baby is born?

[Kuldeep]

Quote by: northtexan What do you mean by 'feel pain'? This is a serious question. Consider someone with a severed spine who cannot feel pain in the legs. The legs nevertheless have nerves, so can react to pain stimuli, even though such pain cannot be felt -- although the reactions to the pain also cause chemical changes that do affect the entire body (http://www.sci-info-pages.com/ad.html). Now, consider a fetus that does not yet have a functioning brain but that has already developed nerves: it can react to stimuli, but it cannot 'feel' pain, because there is nothing yet to interpret stimuli as pain. So, at what point do you define a fetus as "having developed the pain feeling mechanism"?

Frankly speaking, I have not studied human biology in detail. In later posts, I have suggested embrylogist would be scientific judge to decide when brain is sufficiently formed, capable of responding to the pain of surgery. Again, I want to point out brain is not feeling pain. In fact it is due to brain and nerves pain is felt. But then, by whom???? It is possible that nerves might be developed ealier than brain, I do not really know. Both could be getting devloped side by side. The point is not when pain feeling mechanism is fully developed. The main point is, Is that SOMETHING present in the fetus which, later becomes Mr. X (individual); who feels pain due to pain feeling system; Or, does not feel sensation; Or, just watch the action of surgery, due to damaged pain feeling system as you pointed out!!!!!!! If it is then, it is not good to abort, since it would be murder. To make abortion legal upto the point that SOMETHING is not present in the fetus. I personally logically feel, without proof, that that point should be when mother senses first ever movement of fetus in her womb. Before that pain feeling personality SOMETHING probably does not exist in the fetus.

[Kuldeep]

Quote by: Prometheus So if the status of a human changes at birth, dosen't that advocate abortion right up untill the moment the baby is born?

No, to know exactly what the fact is, we have to develop mind reading technique first, as pointed out earlier in my post!!! Tell me, who teaches just born baby to suck mother's breast???? Fetus is aware of himself before birth, this is sure but since when that is the main point. How mother's connection through embrical chord gets diconnected with fetus and independent breathing starts?? How much science know about this?? At least I am ignorant about this. PI is requested to teach me in gist!!

[Pale RIder]

Quote by: Kuldeep Frankly speaking, I have not studied human biology in detail. In later posts, I have suggested embrylogist would be scientific judge to decide when brain is sufficiently formed, capable of responding to the pain of surgery. Again, I want to point out brain is not feeling pain. In fact it is due to brain and nerves pain is felt. But then, by whom???? It is possible that nerves might be developed ealier than brain, I do not really know. Both could be getting devloped side by side. The point is not when pain feeling mechanism is fully developed. The main point is, Is that SOMETHING present in the fetus which, later becomes Mr. X (individual); who feels pain due to pain feeling system; Or, does not feel sensation; Or, just watch the action of surgery, due to damaged pain feeling system as you pointed out!!!!!!! If it is then, it is not good to abort, since it would be murder. To make abortion legal upto the point that SOMETHING is not present in the fetus. I personally logically feel, without proof, that that point should be when mother senses first ever movement of fetus in her womb. Before that pain feeling personality SOMETHING probably does not exist in the fetus.

For at least a decade neuroscientists have been saying that the unborn should be administered a general anesthetic for any abortion past 8 weeks as the child is just as capable of feeling pain as you. This fact doesn't get much publicity for obvious reasons but it is still a fact.

[Pale RIder]

Quote by: Prometheus Whereas I on the other hand contend that you are oversimplifying the issue to the point of making it undebatable.

This is a very simple subject. When it is stripped down to just the facts, abortion becomes as undebatable as slavery. The bulk of this discussion is just getting through the smoke and mirrors. At its essence, abortion is a human rights issue. Pro lifers believe that unborns are humans and as such have rights. Pro choicers says that they are not and don't.

Quote by: Prometheus I never said we weren't human beings at the point of conception. All I said is that conception is an arbitrary time to draw the line of "humanity". I would contend that a sperm and egg seperately are only quantitatively seperated from the fertalized pair. I have made *no* statement about what is a human, or what can be ethically killed. All I am getting at is that to draw a line at conception is disingenuous.

Why is it arbitrary?. You just said that we are human from the first moment of our conception, why would it be arbitrary to say that at that moment we also belong to the family of man? You can trace your entire life back to that moment, what other moment would you name without having to rationalize the reason that we were not worthy of human rights 5 minutes earlier?

Quote by: Prometheus And stop with the bloody straw man. I never implied that we are not "human" for the entire span of our lives. I am only debating the arbitrary nature of where you want to say the life begins.

There is nothing arbitrary about my argument. I have referenced plenty of credible material to corroborate my position. To date, the other side of the discussion has not referenced a single piece of credible science suggesting that we are not alive from the moment of our conception. In fact, there hasn't been any credible science reference that puts a single statement that I have made into question and so far, all that you have posted is opinion as well.

[quote=Prometheus]I am not making an attempt. Even though I have stated otherwise, you keep pretendling as if I am taking the pro choice side. I have said from the beginning that I am not taking sides. Stop trying to make me devend the pro choice ideal. Let me say it yet again, I am challenging your arbitrary point of defining life and humanity. If I am challenging your stance on the issue, it is only because I believe it is disengenuous to have such a strong viewpoint on this complex issue.[/auote]

My stance is rooted in science. As I have said, I have produced plenty of credible material that substantiates my position. If, as you say, my position is arbitrary, it should be possible, no...easy, to produce credible material that puts my stance into question. To date, that has not happened and it is not likely to happen because no credible scientist is going to suggest that the offspring of two human beings is ever anyting but a living human being. What is disengenuous, is the attempt to cloud the issue with accurate, but unrelated material.

Quote by: Prometheus Are you speaking of morula fission? If so this is a silly argument. You have no more will over that occuring then a sperm, so that is a moot point. If you are speaking of regular reproduction, then I have already adressed it adaquetly.

Do you believe that any single celled organizm has any "will" over its division? Will is not required for the possibility to exist so still there was a time in my life when the possibility existed for me to reproduce myself whereas that possibility never exists for a sperm. It was a silly argument to suggest that philosophically we are equal to sperm in the first place.

Quote by: Prometheus I will say it yet again. I am not trying to demnostrate that we are not human after conceptiont. I am arguing that conception is not a good dileniator.

Then name a point in time that won't require that you rationalize it and not a few minutes earlier. Conception is the perfect deleniator because it is the only deleniator that can be precicely pinpointed.

Quote by: Prometheus Wewll maybe you should have changed your outlook on competitive debating. Debate is a communication event, for the purpose of improving communication skills. It dosen't matter what you are communicating about, it is a mental excercise. Not only that, but learning to debate a point you don't believe teaches you to look at the other side of a debate. Not enough people really consider the oppositon. Obviously you don't. I have always made a point of studying opposing viewpoints more than the ones I hold. I am a capatalist. Yet I have read more pages of sociolist literature then Ayn Rand has written pages (ironically enough, carl sandburg is my favorite poet). If you don't thouroghly understand the thinking and arguments of the opposition, you have no intellectual right to hold a strong opinion, because you have not honestly considered all views on the issue.

I do view all sides. Especially in this discussion as I once held the pro choice view. "Communication" that doesn't express the truth is still nothing but lies. I once debated successfully in favor of the UN. I won the debate but I knew that I had in no way represented the truth. I had merely overwhelmed my opponent with material that she was not prepared to rebutt. Someone who knew more about the UN would have easily won the debate.

I did an enormous amount of research in an effort to prove that my pro choice stance was right and another's pro life stance was wrong. The more I learned, the more evident it became that it was I who was wrong. I hold a pro life viewpoint because of a great deal of study on both sides, not in spite of.

Quote by: Prometheus When you speak scientifically, you can't speak of "goals". As far as science can demonstrate, both you and your sperm are ruled by chemical impulses. Some may be more or less complex, but they are qualitatively the same. The sperm is only the way the man passes his genes? Biologically speaking, you may be the way the sperm delivers it's genes. Just because it's the haploid generation, dosen't make it the tool. You may only be the tool used to deliver your fathers genes to your son.

Lots of maybes there. Lots of theorizing.. What if's don't go far in corroborating your position. They only indicate that you are grasping.

Quote by: Prometheus I was hoping not to have to say this to you, but grow up. Your straw man arguments are getting ludicris. I never claimed that "sperm and man are identical". I'm glad you are proud of yourself for recognizing that sperm and man are *not* identical. I probably had some people fooled with that one. Oh wait - I never said it. That was you putting words in my mouth.

I am only working with the material that you give me. If you don't want silly rebuttals, don't make silly arguments.

Quote by: Prometheus The sperm and the egg were only the "possibility" of me? Come come, lets not lose our ability to abstract. You could easily argue that me 5 minutes ago was not in fact me, but only the possibility of me. I am differend then and now. I am not the me from 5 minutes ago. I am also not physically the sperm and the egg. Those individual cells are gone. I am also not the blastocyst either, those cells are gone too. Once again you are being totally arbitrary.

How else would you describe it. Sperm and egg represent potential life and that is all. When they get together, their potential is realized, but only if they get together. Of course you are different and you will continue to be different, but that is nothing more than your life in motion. Of course you are not the blastocyst, but you were. You are not the infant, but you were. You are not the teen, but you were. You are not the old geezer, but you will be if you are lucky. You have been all of those things and if you are lucky, you will be many more things, but in all of the things you have been or will be there is an undeniable constant. You have always been a living human being.

continued...