Does life begin at conception? I think it does.

[Starboy]

Quote by: Pale RIder I never said that we recognize teenagers as full grown adults...but they are human beings...it is you who has suggested that no one becomes a human being until he or she is able to reproduce...strike that, you said that we are not human beings until we HAVE reproduced...you most certainly are in a corner with that one and you simply are not going to be able to get out without first admitting how terribly wrong you are in such a silly assertion...children and adolescents not human...what a goofball...

Call me a goof ball if you like but the question was in the biological context of a species. It is a fact that successful reproduction is one of the requirements of a species. Now if you want to frame the question in a social context that is fine as well, but surely such an intelligent and well education person as yourself *cough* knows that over history and even today different societies have different standards as to when offspring are vested as humans. It is not as if it is set by nature in any definite way.

It isn't that I don't like your answer..hell, I laugh out loud at your answer...How about you give me a link to some credible source that says that one does not become human until one is able to reproduce...for that matter, how about a credible source stating that any creature is not a member of its species until it can reproduce...

There have been many notable cases of people that were dead yet still connected to life support. Their bodies were alive but they were dead. The point that apparently eludes you is that human live is an emergent phenomenon. It is not enough for all the cells in a body to be alive, they must also work together to create a living human being. A single cell doesn't qualify. Ten cells do not qualify. One million cells do not qualify, but there is a point during gestation when they do qualify. When if what is in the womb was removed from the womb it could survive as a baby. At that point it becomes it becomes human. And as we grow old and our cells slowly cease to work well together we also die, even though at the moment of the human death most of the cells in the body are still alive. The presence of living human cells doesn’t in and of it self constitute a living human being.

Brain Death

Brain Death

Death

Conversely it is also possible for the organism to die and for cells and organs to live and to be used for transplantation. In the latter case, though, the still-living tissues must be removed and transplanted quickly or they too will soon die without the support of their host. Rarely, cells can be immortal as in the case of Henrietta Lacks HeLa cell line.

Today, where a definition of the moment of death is required, we usually turn to "brain death" or "biological death": people are considered dead when the electrical activity in their brain ceases. It is presumed that a stoppage of electrical activity indicates the end of consciousness. However, those maintaining that only the neo-cortex of the brain is necessary for consciousness sometimes argue that only electrical activity there should be considered when defining death. In most places the more conservative definition of death (cessation of electrical activity in the whole brain, as opposed to just in the neo-cortex) has been adopted (for example the Uniform Definition of Death Act in the United States).

Note that in this definition most of the cells in a body could still be alive but the human is still considered to be dead.

The other thing to note is that many dead people are kept alive after they are dead long enough to harvest their organs. So most of their major organs are functioning but they are still dead. Again living human cells != living human.

Why don't you give an accurate description rather than trying to dance around the truth...the words you are looking for are brain dead...and again, one can not compare the condition of a human that is vital and growing to one who is injured and in the process of atrophy...in either case, growing, or dying both are human until body function ceases and a time of death is pronounced...

But that is my point. That what dies is the ability of the cells in the body to act as an animal organism. That living cells in and of themselves do not constitute a human. That human life is an emergent phenomenon.

Emergent Phenomenon

Emergent processes or behaviors can be seen in many places, from any multicellular biological organism to traffic patterns or organizational phenomena to computer simulations and cellular automata.

Note that in the medical jargon one is kept ALIVE by artificial means...not kept dead by artificial means..

Okay. So what?

Do you suppose that one just takes "bio chemistry" courses....is that your impression of higher education? Does it not occur to you that if one is to major in biochemistry that one must have a thourough education in both biology and chemistry...as well as math and physics? Maybe you should look up a generic cirriculum for biochemistry...

I am not a biochemist but know a few. They are more concerned with molecular biophysics than multicellular organisms. It is not as if they have the cell figured out.

And still I wait for you to enlighten me as to what species you belonged to before you became a human....you realize that people are reading this don't you...how silly you must look to them suggesting that their kids have not yet become human...that unless they have kids of their own that they are not yet human...again...goofball comes to mind...

At least I know how to count and at least I know the difference between a single cell and an animal organism. But we appear to be going around in circles. You want to play this word game. You want to say that an embryonic cell of any species is the same as an animal of that species. No one thinks an egg is a chicken. Except apparently you and you think I am silly. And yes you are right. Lots of people are reading this. Keep it up and there will be no doubt you are a moron.

Starboy

[Pale RIder]

Quote by: Starboy Call me a goof ball if you like but the question was in the biological context of a species. It is a fact that successful reproduction is one of the requirements of a species. Now if you want to frame the question in a social context that is fine as well, but surely such an intelligent and well education person as yourself *cough* knows that over history and even today different societies have different standards as to when offspring are vested as humans. It is not as if it is set by nature in any definite way.

It is sad when one has to explain in juvenile terms the blatantly obvious, but for you star boy, I will do it. When "reproduction" is discussed in a taxonomical context, what is being discussed is not whether each individual breeds, what is being discussed is whether there is enough genetic similarity between to individuals to facilitate reproduction, It in no way depends upon whether two particular individuals actually reproduce... Cats and dogs are not genetically similar enough to facilitate reproduction so they are clearly of a different species...a juvenile dog is still classified as canis familiaris and a juvenile cat is still classified as felix cattus...and believe it or not, a juvenile human being is still homo sapiens whether he or she has reproduced or not...

Let me get out my crayons here and see if I can draw you a simple picture that you can follow…Mules are not a species by virtue of the fact that all mules are born sterile. Mules are sterile hybrids. But all horses…even those who are sterile by virtue of a birth defect are equus caballus, and all donkeys, even those who were born sterile are equus assinus…mules are classified as a hybrid - equus assinus x equus caballus…such classification does not apply to humans as there are no hybrid humans.

Quote by: ”star boy” There have been many notable cases of people that were dead yet still connected to life support. Their bodies were alive but they were dead. The point that apparently eludes you is that human live is an emergent phenomenon. It is not enough for all the cells in a body to be alive, they must also work together to create a living human being. A single cell doesn't qualify. Ten cells do not qualify. One million cells do not qualify, but there is a point during gestation when they do qualify. When if what is in the womb was removed from the womb it could survive as a baby. At that point it becomes it becomes human. And as we grow old and our cells slowly cease to work well together we also die, even though at the moment of the human death most of the cells in the body are still alive. The presence of living human cells doesn’t in and of it self constitute a living human being.

What seems to elude you here is that when all the cells are working in concert, and doing exactly what they are supposed to do and no man made apparatus is required in order to facilitate respiration, then the organism is alive…in the case of a developing human being, if the development is proceeding normally then the human is alive…at whatever stage of development that it happens to be…as much as you might wish it to be true, there simply is no valid comparison between a normally developing growing human, and one who is damaged and on an artificial life support system…perhaps you haven’t noticed…or don’t have the intellectual wattage to grasp the obvious but a uterus is not artificial in any way…

Quote by: ”star boy” But that is my point. That what dies is the ability of the cells in the body to act as an animal organism. That living cells in and of themselves do not constitute a human. That human life is an emergent phenomenon.

It is strange that you have somehow confused the beginning of life with the beginning of death. If you want to discuss what death is, then a thread in which death is the topic would be appropriate…It doesn’t, however, have much to do with the beginning of life. A zygote has the ability to act as a living organism…mitosis occurs and it does exactly what it is supposed to do at that stage of its development…perhaps single living muscle cells do not constitute human life, but in the case of a human in the very early stages of development, what cells are present represent the being in its entirety…and if they are working in concert and all parts are normal, healthy, and growing, then they do indeed constitute a living human being at whatever stage of development they happen to be…

If you had read a bit deeper into the links that you provided you would have noticed that the information included what constitutes life as well as death…and a growing embryo certainly meets the criteria for life…and since its DNA clearly identifies it as human, it must be a living human…

Quote by: ”star boy” I am not a biochemist but know a few. They are more concerned with molecular biophysics than multicellular organisms. It is not as if they have the cell figured out.

If they are competent biochemists, they know far more about how cells work than a biologist…

Quote by: ”star boy” At least I know how to count and at least I know the difference between a single cell and an animal organism. But we appear to be going around in circles. You want to play this word game. You want to say that an embryonic cell of any species is the same as an animal of that species. No one thinks an egg is a chicken. Except apparently you and you think I am silly. And yes you are right. Lots of people are reading this. Keep it up and there will be no doubt you are a moron. Starboy

Again, you seem to fail to grasp what is being said…I did not say that an embryonic human being is the same as a 325 pound linebacker…I said, and accurately, I might add, that they belong to the same species and unless you can offer up some credible evidence to the contrary you should, if you have the level of maturity required to see when you are mistaken, admit that you were overzealous in your argument and stepped outside the realm of scientific fact……Perhaps this would be easier if you tried to read for comprehension…

Also, as to the egg statement...perhaps you believe that the "egg"is the shell rather than the contents..actually the shell is just a calcite layer that is deposited around the "egg"in the lower part of the hen's oviduct....I don't know where you are from or how you grew up, but I grew up on a farm with chickens and cows and pigs and the whole Old Macdonald bit...occasionally when we gathered eggs we would get one that we had missed for the previous few days...when you crack those eggs there is blood, and tissue and there is no doubt that the "egg" is no longer just an egg...it is obvious that there is a chicken growing inside the shell.

Wait 7 days and there is a definite chicken in there...wait 10 days and there are eyes and feet...wait 14 days and there is a beak and wings..at 16 days there are feathers developing...crack it open at 18 days and it is possible, under the right conditions, for the chick to survive...

The point is that just because the chicken is microscopic at 1 day (when most eggs are gathered) doesn't mean that it isn't a chicken...The yolk and albumin is simply a food source for the chicken, not the chicken itself...there is a germinal disk on the yolk that is the actual chicken.

I am surprised that you do not know this stuff...As I remember, I learned this back in the 4th or 5th grade...(of course I went to school before the fed took over education and dumbed down the cirriculum for generations of kids in the pursuit of higher test scores)

So….once again I ask, what species did you belong to before you were born…I suppose I should ask if you were alive before you were born but I tremble with laughter when I consider what answer that may pull out of your ass..

[Starboy]

Quote by: Pale RIder It is sad when one has to explain in juvenile terms the blatantly obvious, but for you star boy, I will do it. When "reproduction" is discussed in a taxonomical context, what is being discussed is not whether each individual breeds, what is being discussed is whether there is enough genetic similarity between to individuals to facilitate reproduction, It in no way depends upon whether two particular individuals actually reproduce... Cats and dogs are not genetically similar enough to facilitate reproduction so they are clearly of a different species...a juvenile dog is still classified as canis familiaris and a juvenile cat is still classified as felix cattus...and believe it or not, a juvenile human being is still homo sapiens whether he or she has reproduced or not... Let me get out my crayons here and see if I can draw you a simple picture that you can follow…Mules are not a species by virtue of the fact that all mules are born sterile. Mules are sterile hybrids. But all horses…even those who are sterile by virtue of a birth defect are equus caballus, and all donkeys, even those who were born sterile are equus assinus…mules are classified as a hybrid - equus assinus x equus caballus…such classification does not apply to humans as there are no hybrid humans.

Hey you are doing fine. The crayons are helping you. You got it. If it is a species then it can reproduce. Possible not a species for those that are born sterile, it all depends on why they are born sterile. If it is because of genetic reasons then they are not genetically equivalent to reproductive donkeys, or horses or asses. They are not official members of that species. Because if you cloned the non-reproducing horses or asses or whatever and the clones could not reproduce then they would not be a member of a species. That is the whole point. This is how natural selection works to create species. Changes occur in individual animals that can be passed on reproductively and for whatever reason groups of animals continue to accumulate changes until they are now a new species because they will not naturally reproduce with animals that are outside their group. Reproduction is a key element as to what constitutes a species and members that cannot reproduce for genetic reasons are not a member of that species because they can’t reproduce. So get out your crayons again and figure that one out.

What seems to elude you here is that when all the cells are working in concert, and doing exactly what they are supposed to do and no man made apparatus is required in order to facilitate respiration, then the organism is alive…in the case of a developing human being, if the development is proceeding normally then the human is alive…at whatever stage of development that it happens to be…as much as you might wish it to be true, there simply is no valid comparison between a normally developing growing human, and one who is damaged and on an artificial life support system…perhaps you haven’t noticed…or don’t have the intellectual wattage to grasp the obvious but a uterus is not artificial in any way…

Okay, now apply that in reverse. If all the cells in a fetus were working properly then when it is born it will not need a man made apparatus to facilitate respiration or any other important function for life. Apparently you have figured it out for a thing with human cells that is not alive on the dying side but you have not quite grasped the exact same principle as applied to the fetus side. But hey, pull out your crayons again. Maybe that will help.

It is strange that you have somehow confused the beginning of life with the beginning of death. If you want to discuss what death is, then a thread in which death is the topic would be appropriate…It doesn’t, however, have much to do with the beginning of life. A zygote has the ability to act as a living organism…mitosis occurs and it does exactly what it is supposed to do at that stage of its development…perhaps single living muscle cells do not constitute human life, but in the case of a human in the very early stages of development, what cells are present represent the being in its entirety…and if they are working in concert and all parts are normal, healthy, and growing, then they do indeed constitute a living human being at whatever stage of development they happen to be…

You are doing it again. You are confusing a living human cell with a living human being. You must learn to at least count. It would help you make this distinction.

If you had read a bit deeper into the links that you provided you would have noticed that the information included what constitutes life as well as death…and a growing embryo certainly meets the criteria for life…and since its DNA clearly identifies it as human, it must be a living human…

Any living human cell meets the criterion for life, but any living cell does not meet the criterion for human life. You have already admitted this. Get out your crayons again. Maybe they will help you. If you just take a collection of human cells you will not get a human. Even if you manage to get most if not all of the kinds of cells that are present in the human body and just slap them together you will still not get a human being. Any moron knows that there is more to a human than just the presence of living cells. That it is the way those cells are connected to each other and how they interact that makes a human. That all the cells in the body could all be alive but if they stop working as an organism then the organism is dead even though the cells are alive. This is called an emergent phenomenon.

If they are competent biochemists, they know far more about how cells work than a biologist…

Agreed, but they don't know jack about organisms. And they don't really care at the moment. My bet is after they have figured out how the cells work they will attack the problem of emergent phenomenon in multicellular organisms.

Also, as to the egg statement...perhaps you believe that the "egg"is the shell rather than the contents..actually the shell is just a calcite layer that is deposited around the "egg"in the lower part of the hen's oviduct....I don't know where you are from or how you grew up, but I grew up on a farm with chickens and cows and pigs and the whole Old Macdonald bit...occasionally when we gathered eggs we would get one that we had missed for the previous few days...when you crack those eggs there is blood, and tissue and there is no doubt that the "egg" is no longer just an egg...it is obvious that there is a chicken growing inside the shell. Wait 7 days and there is a definite chicken in there...wait 10 days and there are eyes and feet...wait 14 days and there is a beak and wings..at 16 days there are feathers developing...crack it open at 18 days and it is possible, under the right conditions, for the chick to survive... The point is that just because the chicken is microscopic at 1 day (when most eggs are gathered) doesn't mean that it isn't a chicken...The yolk and albumin is simply a food source for the chicken, not the chicken itself...there is a germinal disk on the yolk that is the actual chicken.

Yes everyone knows that, but they still do not call an egg a chicken. You can repeat this all you like. All you have described is how an egg becomes a chicken. The fact that an egg cell can change into a chicken by a process doesn't make an egg a chicken any more than the fact that you can make an egg can be transformed into a meringue make an egg a meringue. If you ask the chef for an egg and expect a meringue then you are an idiot.

I am surprised that you do not know this stuff...As I remember, I learned this back in the 4th or 5th grade...(of course I went to school before the fed took over education and dumbed down the cirriculum for generations of kids in the pursuit of higher test scores) So….once again I ask, what species did you belong to before you were born…I suppose I should ask if you were alive before you were born but I tremble with laughter when I consider what answer that may pull out of your ass..

I was never a single cell. No one ever went up to a single cell and said, “Hi Starboy”. Going up to a single cell and greeting it as Starboy is just silly. It will also be silly to go up to my dead body on a respirator when the brain has ceased to function and say “Hi Starboy”. There is no Starboy there. It would also be silly to try to feed an egg chicken feed because there is no chicken there. Only stupid or very confused people make this mistake. A single cell is not a human being, and even billion cell collections are not necessarily a human being. It becomes human when it can function as a human. And it stops being a human being when it doesn’t function as a human being even with life support. If whatever in the womb cannot function as a human being even on life support when it is out of the womb, then it is not human. People who cannot function as human being even when they are on life support are said to be dead humans. The same goes for what is in the womb except that it was never an alive human. It was a human egg that was becoming a human but it up to that point it is not human.

Starboy

[Pale RIder]

Quote by: Starboy Hey you are doing fine. The crayons are helping you. You got it. If it is a species then it can reproduce. Possible not a species for those that are born sterile, it all depends on why they are born sterile. If it is because of genetic reasons then they are not genetically equivalent to reproductive donkeys, or horses or asses. They are not official members of that species. Because if you cloned the non-reproducing horses or asses or whatever and the clones could not reproduce then they would not be a member of a species. That is the whole point. This is how natural selection works to create species. Changes occur in individual animals that can be passed on reproductively and for whatever reason groups of animals continue to accumulate changes until they are now a new species because they will not naturally reproduce with animals that are outside their group. Reproduction is a key element as to what constitutes a species and members that cannot reproduce for genetic reasons are not a member of that species because they can’t reproduce. So get out your crayons again and figure that one out.

Do you see where you are going?...and how far away from the topic you have had to get in order to torture the facts badly enough to make your eroneous point? The topic is when does life begin...and you are talking about cloning sterile horses and donkys in an effort to prove that human beings that have not yet reached sexual maturity are not human beings...and you missed the part about hybrids...mules are not a species because they are a hybrid...we are not talking about hybrid humans either....this discussion is just about when life begins...

[quote="star boy"]Okay, now apply that in reverse. If all the cells in a fetus were working properly then when it is born it will not need a man made apparatus to facilitate respiration or any other important function for life. Apparently you have figured it out for a thing with human cells that is not alive on the dying side but you have not quite grasped the exact same principle as applied to the fetus side. But hey, pull out your crayons again. Maybe that will help.

So you are saying that a child born with any disorder that requires medical intervention is not human...do you realize what an absolutely stupid statement that is to make...how about some proof...show me any credible source that suggests that a child that needs medical intervention is not a human being...


[quote="star boy"]You are doing it again. You are confusing a living human cell with a living human being. You must learn to at least count. It would help you make this distinction.

I don't get your reference to counting...are you suggesting that a human who weighs 350 pounds is somehow more human than one that weighs 100 because the larger human has more cells?...

Quote by: star boy Any living human cell meets the criterion for life, but any living cell does not meet the criterion for human life. You have already admitted this....

But a zygote is not "just" a living human cell...it is not to be confused with a platet a white blood cell...those cells will simply reproduce themselves and never become more than what they were...a zygote on the other hand is a developing being...it is a unique being among all the beings that ever lived...

Quote by: star boy Agreed, but they don't know jack about organisms. And they don't really care at the moment. My bet is after they have figured out how the cells work they will attack the problem of emergent phenomenon in multicellular organisms.

Yeah...I suppose that one who has a thourough understanding of the cell would not know jack about organisms...like one who is proficient at calculus would not necesarily know how to add or subtract..you are talking out of your ass star boy...are you still in high school?...or perhaps junior high?...and simply have never looked at a college catalog or course requirements and prerequisites?

Quote by: star boy Yes everyone knows that, but they still do not call an egg a chicken. You can repeat this all you like. All you have described is how an egg becomes a chicken. The fact that an egg cell can change into a chicken by a process doesn't make an egg a chicken any more than the fact that you can make an egg can be transformed into a meringue make an egg a meringue. If you ask the chef for an egg and expect a meringue then you are an idiot.

They?...who are "they"...if you are in a lab setting they are most certainly called embryonic chickens...if "they" are the cooks at the waffle house, then I wouldn't expect "them" to recognize the biological signifigance of an egg...to "them" it is just an item on the menu to be cracked and cooked.

And as I have already tried to explain to you...and you can go check this out if you need to, there is a germinal disk on the yolk that is the actual chicken...it is microscopic, but believe it or not, just because you can't see a thing with your naked eye does not mean that it does not exist...

Here is a link to a web site for you...it is at a very elementary level but the information is biologically correct...

http://chickscope.beckman.uiuc.edu/explore/embryology/

Note that throughout the entire process, the developing embryo is described as a chick (juvenile chicken)

Note this page...24 hour chick...

http://chickscope.beckman.uiuc.edu/e...o_drawing.html

The point is if "they" are cooks at the waffle house, or chefs at the 4 seasons...or star boy...one would not realy expect them to describe what is inside the shell of an egg with any particular scientific accuracy...but if "they" are educated in the biological sciences, "they" know that there is a chicken at one stage of development or another inside that shell...

Quote by: star boy I was never a single cell. No one ever went up to a single cell and said, “Hi Starboy”. Going up to a single cell and greeting it as Starboy is just silly.

Of course you were...do you think that you just sprang, fully formed, from your mother's body...You can trace your existence back to a singluar moment in time...you and every other human being. Chances are that your mother talked to you quite often before you were born...and there is a good chance that you already had a name before you were born....your mother knew that you were a human being, even from the very beginning even if you can't quite grasp the fact....

Quote by: star boy t would also be silly to try to feed an egg chicken feed because there is no chicken there. Only stupid or very confused people make this mistake.

It would be just as stupid to try to feed an infant BBQ ribs...the fact that the infant can not eat meat does not mean that it is not a human...and the developing chicken derives its nutritional requirements on exactly what it is supposed to...it must develop further before it can eat feed just as a child must develop further before it can consume meat...I would suggest that only a confused person would fail to recognize such an obvious difference...

Quote by: star boy A single cell is not a human being, and even billion cell collections are not necessarily a human being. It becomes human when it can function as a human. And it stops being a human being when it doesn’t function as a human being even with life support.

An unborn human functions at the level that it is supposed to function at...A toddler can't swim at the level of an olympic swimmer, but the toddler is no less human for that fact..hell, you can't swim at that level either, does that make you less human? Ahuman at conception + 1 second is functioning exactly as a human at conception + 1 second is supposed to ...just as a child learning to walk is functioning at its appropriate level...

Quote by: star boy If whatever in the womb cannot function as a human being even on life support when it is out of the womb, then it is not human. People who cannot function as human being even when they are on life support are said to be dead humans.

Perhaps you should have read your own "brain dead" links...they explained quite clearly that one is only considered dead when the brain condition is irreversable...lots of people need life support for a short time and recover...they were never dead...and some people need support for a very long time and recover...they also were never dead...

Quote by: star boy The same goes for what is in the womb except that it was never an alive human. It was a human egg that was becoming a human but it up to that point it is not human.

Again I ask you, what species did you belong to before you were born...before you answer, here is a link to some scientific information for you...

http://embryology.med.unsw.edu.au/

Note that when the topic is being discussed by actual scientists it is called a HUMAN embryo, and the gestation period is called the HUMAN embryonic period...no one with an actual science background...even the most rabit pro abortionist would suggest that the embryo is not a human embryo...and a human embryo is just a human being at a particular stage of development...

SO..AGAIN...what species did you belong to before you were born?

[Starboy]

Quote by: Pale RIder Do you see where you are going?...and how far away from the topic you have had to get in order to torture the facts badly enough to make your eroneous point? The topic is when does life begin...and you are talking about cloning sterile horses and donkys in an effort to prove that human beings that have not yet reached sexual maturity are not human beings...and you missed the part about hybrids...mules are not a species because they are a hybrid...we are not talking about hybrid humans either....this discussion is just about when life begins...

You brought up species. But I disagree that it is not relevant. In fact it illustrates your basic difficulty. It is germane to the discussion because at issue is the same concept. That a species is more than just a living organism. Just as at issue is a living organism is more than just living cells.

But a zygote is not "just" a living human cell...it is not to be confused with a platet a white blood cell...those cells will simply reproduce themselves and never become more than what they were...a zygote on the other hand is a developing being...it is a unique being among all the beings that ever lived...

Good you know the difference between cells. Now find the zygote in all human beings.

Yeah...I suppose that one who has a thourough understanding of the cell would not know jack about organisms...like one who is proficient at calculus would not necesarily know how to add or subtract..you are talking out of your ass star boy...are you still in high school?...or perhaps junior high?...and simply have never looked at a college catalog or course requirements and prerequisites?

Sure I am in highschool. Yes I am a pimply faced highschool freshman. And if you like I have dyslexia and ADD. If you like my IQ is 75. And I was raised by wolves. And yet I am running circles around a dentist. A dentist that doesn't know how to count.

They?...who are "they"...if you are in a lab setting they are most certainly called embryonic chickens...if "they" are the cooks at the waffle house, then I wouldn't expect "them" to recognize the biological signifigance of an egg...to "them" it is just an item on the menu to be cracked and cooked.

Sure, sure. Even farmers call eggs chickens. So do grocers. And yes of course people ask for a dozen chickens all the time when they want a dozen eggs. My you fancy dentists got us low IQ, pimply faced HS freshman with dyslexia and ADD that were raised by wolves beat! Those dental schools have done a fine job. I'll bet that you would never say that shit and shinola are different either. I mean after all they are made of atoms and pretty much the same atoms so they must be the same. Why heck, they both started with atoms and there were always atoms there so they must be the same.

And as I have already tried to explain to you...and you can go check this out if you need to, there is a germinal disk on the yolk that is the actual chicken...it is microscopic, but believe it or not, just because you can't see a thing with your naked eye does not mean that it does not exist... Here is a link to a web site for you...it is at a very elementary level but the information is biologically correct... http://chickscope.beckman.uiuc.edu/explore/embryology/ Note that throughout the entire process, the developing embryo is described as a chick (juvenile chicken) Note this page...24 hour chick... http://chickscope.beckman.uiuc.edu/e...o_drawing.html

So? This does nothing to refute my point. All you have done is show that there is process that takes an egg to a chicken. Not that an egg is a chicken. There is a process that takes all sorts of things and turns them into other things. People do not then say that the result is the starting material. The fact that there is a process that takes eggs to chickens is how people can easily differentiate between the inputs and the outputs. People do not call eggs chickens because they are not chickens. In order to become chickens they must go through the process that you describe.

The point is if "they" are cooks at the waffle house, or chefs at the 4 seasons...or star boy...one would not realy expect them to describe what is inside the shell of an egg with any particular scientific accuracy...but if "they" are educated in the biological sciences, "they" know that there is a chicken at one stage of development or another inside that shell...

We are not talking about the anatomy of the egg. We are talking about the distinction that all people make between the inputs and the outputs after they have been processed. That just because two results have the same input does not make them the same or the same as the inputs. If you believe that then I would like to sell you a shipping pallet and charge you the same price as a house because they are both made of wood so therefore they are the same.

Of course you were...do you think that you just sprang, fully formed, from your mother's body...You can trace your existence back to a singluar moment in time...you and every other human being. Chances are that your mother talked to you quite often before you were born...and there is a good chance that you already had a name before you were born....your mother knew that you were a human being, even from the very beginning even if you can't quite grasp the fact....

But I can't trace my existence back to a single cell. There was a point when I did not respond as a human being. I do not remember being a single fertilized cell. There is no way for me to remember it. I didn't have any brain cells let alone any brain cells that could remember anything. I cannot trace my existence as a human being back to a single cell because it is impossible for a single cell to be a human being. If you think that a single cell is a human being, even a cell specialized to grow into a human being in a womb then all I gotta say is that you probably should not be in a medical field even if it is dentistry.

It would be just as stupid to try to feed an infant BBQ ribs...the fact that the infant can not eat meat does not mean that it is not a human...and the developing chicken derives its nutritional requirements on exactly what it is supposed to...it must develop further before it can eat feed just as a child must develop further before it can consume meat...I would suggest that only a confused person would fail to recognize such an obvious difference...

Hey it is stupid to feed BBQ ribs to an egg. So what?

An unborn human functions at the level that it is supposed to function at...A toddler can't swim at the level of an olympic swimmer, but the toddler is no less human for that fact..hell, you can't swim at that level either, does that make you less human? Ahuman at conception + 1 second is functioning exactly as a human at conception + 1 second is supposed to ...just as a child learning to walk is functioning at its appropriate level...

I never said that it wasn't but there are functions that we do expect humans that are alive to perform and a healty toddler qualifies, but a brain dead person, toddler or otherwise, does not. And it doesn't matter that the body of the dead person is still alive. And it doesn't matter if they are dead after they have lived or before they have lived. They are dead. I have said this to you many dozens of times by now. Living cells do not in and of themselves constitute a living human being. This is so obvious that I hope that your patients visit here and know who you are so that they can leave your practice because you have no business in any kind of medical field.

Perhaps you should have read your own "brain dead" links...they explained quite clearly that one is only considered dead when the brain condition is irreversable...lots of people need life support for a short time and recover...they were never dead...and some people need support for a very long time and recover...they also were never dead...

Hey I agree, and if you remove a fetus from the womb before the brain is formed that is irreversible. That in order for a fetus to be considered alive it must have a functioning brain.

Again I ask you, what species did you belong to before you were born...before you answer, here is a link to some scientific information for you...

Why do you keep on asking this question. Do you know what the definition of an idiot is? A person that does the same thing over and over again and expects a different result. Did they teach you that in dental school?

But I am done. I am beginning to feel like an idiot myself. I have heard your broken record enough. I'll just make sure that I don't ask you for any eggs.

Starboy

[Pale RIder]

Quote by: ”star boy” You brought up species. But I disagree that it is not relevant. In fact it illustrates your basic difficulty. It is germane to the discussion because at issue is the same concept. That a species is more than just a living organism. Just as at issue is a living organism is more than just living cells.

Yeah…I brought up species…and you have yet to demonstrate in any real way that an unborn human is not a human being…in fact you went in the other direction and suggested that no one is an actual human being until they have reproduced…

Quote by: ”star boy” Good you know the difference between cells. Now find the zygote in all human beings.

Find the buds that developed into your teeth…the bud is not a separate entity from the tooth, the bud is the tooth at an early stage of development…find the seed crystal that becomes a diamond…it isn’t a separate crystal, it is the diamond at its beginning…just as the zygote doesn’t turn into a human, the zygote is the human at that particular stage of the human’s development. This isn’t rocket science star boy…it is basic and easily understood by most people…I must say that I have had this discussion many times and I have never encountered someone who butchers basic science into an unrecognizable hodge podge of half truth in quite the way that you do.

Quote by: ”star boy” Sure I am in highschool. Yes I am a pimply faced highschool freshman. And if you like I have dyslexia and ADD. If you like my IQ is 75. And I was raised by wolves. And yet I am running circles around a dentist. A dentist that doesn't know how to count.

Well, you are running in circles...whether they are around me…that is open for discussion. You are sounding quite panicked starboy…you sound like you are getting close to even your tolerance level for BS…

Quote by: ”star boy” Sure, sure. Even farmers call eggs chickens. So do grocers. And yes of course people ask for a dozen chickens all the time when they want a dozen eggs. My you fancy dentists got us low IQ, pimply faced HS freshman with dyslexia and ADD that were raised by wolves beat! Those dental schools have done a fine job. I'll bet that you would never say that shit and shinola are different either. I mean after all they are made of atoms and pretty much the same atoms so they must be the same. Why heck, they both started with atoms and there were always atoms there so they must be the same.

This should be a lesson to you…never ask a farmer, or a grocer or people who are shopping for breakfast food to explain scientific concepts to you…I doubt that many people go into jewelry stores and ask to see the nicest piece of crystalline carbon set in a 75% pure au circle with a 6 element radial designed pt head either but whether one asks for that or a diamond ring in an 18 karat mounting with a platinum, 6 prong head, one is asking for the same thing…ask one way and almost everyone knows what you are asking for…ask another and one would most likely need a certain level of specialized education to understand what is being asked…
Ask a grocer or a farmer or star boy and an egg is just an egg…ask someone with a background in science and first they will ask if it is a fertilized egg…and if it is then they will tell you that you have a chicken embryo at some particular stage of development…and there will be no question as to what species that embryo belongs to…whether it has mated or not…

Quote by: ”star boy” So? This does nothing to refute my point. All you have done is show that there is process that takes an egg to a chicken. Not that an egg is a chicken. There is a process that takes all sorts of things and turns them into other things. People do not then say that the result is the starting material. The fact that there is a process that takes eggs to chickens is how people can easily differentiate between the inputs and the outputs. People do not call eggs chickens because they are not chickens. In order to become chickens they must go through the process that you describe.

That process, star boy, is called growth…it is the same process that turns an infant into an adolescent…and an adolescent into a young adult…and a young adult into an old geezer. The infant, and the adolescent, and the young adult, and the old geezer are not separate beings…they are the same being…just changing…and all of them were at one time, just a zygote…just like you. You, star boy, are not a separate entity from the zygote that you once were, you have just developed past that point…this is not difficult…if you hadn’t placed yourself so far out on a limb initially, you wouldn’t be in the indefensible position that you are now…

[Pale RIder]

Quote by: ”star boy” We are not talking about the anatomy of the egg. We are talking about the distinction that all people make between the inputs and the outputs after they have been processed. That just because two results have the same input does not make them the same or the same as the inputs. If you believe that then I would like to sell you a shipping pallet and charge you the same price as a house because they are both made of wood so therefore they are the same.

I believe that you even lost yourself on that one…of course we are not discussing the anatomy of an egg…we have established, however, that if it is fertilized that there is indeed a chicken inside the shell…even from the earliest moments it is a chicken…and unless it is molested in some way, it will grow through all the developmental stages that it must go through in order to be recognized as a chicken by someone like you… I apologize if I have overestimated your intelligence and as such put you in a defensive position. It is clear that if you don’t see feathers, a comb, a beak, and real ugly feet that you can not grasp that what you are looking at might still be a chicken...perhaps you believe that full fledged chickens just materialize from the ether…

Quote by: ”star boy” But I can't trace my existence back to a single cell. There was a point when I did not respond as a human being. I do not remember being a single fertilized cell. There is no way for me to remember it. I didn't have any brain cells let alone any brain cells that could remember anything. I cannot trace my existence as a human being back to a single cell because it is impossible for a single cell to be a human being. If you think that a single cell is a human being, even a cell specialized to grow into a human being in a womb then all I gotta say is that you probably should not be in a medical field even if it is dentistry.

If you can’t…it is due to a lack of imagination on your part…and that is quite unfortunate…Considering the content of most of your side of this discussion I would have guessed that you have quite the imagination…in fact, I would have thought that you might have a future as a fiction writer…perhaps biological science fiction…
It is not required that you have memory of a thing for it to still be reality…I am quite sure that you have no memory of being delivered into this world, but you were, none the less. When you were a mere zygote, you had no need of brain cells…you were on a path of development that would eventually provide them for you when you actually had a place to put them…you had brain cells when you were born yet you have no memory of the event..brain cells are not what make you human…
Do you know what a human being is? Have you ever looked at the words and considered their meanings? Human..simply a member of species homo sapiens…an unborn’s DNA clearly identifies it as human…and being..one who exists in reality…an unborn certainly exists in reality. The fact that you don’t recognize a human being unless it is wearing blue jeans and sporting a pair of Oakleys is a reflection on your intelligence…like not being able to recognize a chicken if it doesn’t have feathers, a comb, a beak, and real ugly feet…

Quote by: ”star boy” Hey it is stupid to feed BBQ ribs to an egg. So what?

You are sounding quite unintelligible there star boy…desperation is such an ugly thing..

Quote by: ”star boy” I never said that it wasn't but there are functions that we do expect humans that are alive to perform and a healty toddler qualifies, but a brain dead person, toddler or otherwise, does not. And it doesn't matter that the body of the dead person is still alive. And it doesn't matter if they are dead after they have lived or before they have lived. They are dead. I have said this to you many dozens of times by now. Living cells do not in and of themselves constitute a living human being. This is so obvious that I hope that your patients visit here and know who you are so that they can leave your practice because you have no business in any kind of medical field.

So…now you are saying that a healthy toddler is a human being? Gracious of you to admit that little defeat…
An unborn isn’t brain dead and as such can not be compared to someone who has suffered some trauma… Let me get this straight…now you are suggesting that unborns not only don’t belong to species homo sapiens, but they are dead as well?...Really….
I have heard you say over and over that living cells do not, by themselves, constitute a living human being…and I have agreed with you...but all the cells that make up a healthy body working in concert with one another…growing and functioning without the benefit of manmade life support do…and all the cells that make up a healthy unborn constitute its body (at whatever stage of development) and as such constitute a human being.
And I am not worried about losing my patients over a discussion with someone like you…I am a Michaelangelo among restorative dentists…In fact, I was going to ask if you mind if I copy our little conversation to show to some acquaintances, and to some that I am having this same sort of conversation with on other sites. You are absolutely priceless…you could have been a star on Art Linkletter’s show.

Quote by: ”star boy” Hey I agree, and if you remove a fetus from the womb before the brain is formed that is irreversible. That in order for a fetus to be considered alive it must have a functioning brain.

And if we remove you from your natural environment to…say…1500 meters or so below the surface of the ocean with no life support you also would not have a functioning brain…we would have murdered you…just as we murder an unborn when we remove it from its natural environment.

Quote by: ”star boy” Why do you keep on asking this question. Do you know what the definition of an idiot is? A person that does the same thing over and over again and expects a different result. Did they teach you that in dental school? But I am done. I am beginning to feel like an idiot myself. I have heard your broken record enough. I'll just make sure that I don't ask you for any eggs. Starboy

Yeah…I know what an idiot is…I have been talking to one for some time now…a person who is so twisted in his logic that he believes that he has not always been alive..and has not always been human…

Again…do you mind if I copy this conversation for the enjoyment of some other people? have a friend in the field of psychology that I would particularly like to show this to…perhaps he can give me some insight into why you are like you are…why you would be so desperate to win your point that you would go so far outside the bounds of scientific reality…and then there are a few who would just get a good laugh…

It has been a hoot star boy…

[Redcomet]

Quote by: dotcoma In this society killing is wrong. If you do not share this value I am sorry I included you lol.

how can you make the assumption that everyone in "this society" thinks that "killing" is wrong (not even gonna pull the death penalty card out). i mean, thats what pro-choice is about, its not anti-life, but it trusts the people making the decisions to make the one that THEY make not YOU, because frankly, their situation has nothing to do with you. so if you are pro-life, good, life is precious, dont get an abortion. but do not force your morals onto others who do not think the way you do. last time i checked, this was a free country. then again, i checked in 99'.

[MerlinsByte]

by: Gorgo Why don't I have a right to destroy that life?

Merlin.....The difference (I will put it into very simple terms for the pro choice people here), between a human cell and tissue is that pesky word…HUMAN.

Is it a baby or fetus or zygote or ? Its human.

Anyone who would kill , on a whim, with the hopes of what they are killing isn’t human, should examine themselves to make sure that they are human.

mb

[Gorgo]

Unless you have the superstitious idea that "human" means something superhuman, who cares what you call it? It is not a fully-formed human. It is inside and connected to an already grown person. Society can say that you can kill fifteen-year-olds if we want to. However, it has decided that it is best for all of us to have a certain amount of respect for everyone that has been born. In fact, it has extended that respect to those-that-could-possibly-be-kept-alive-though-not-born. I think that's a reasonable line to draw. Why isn't it?

[Hekate]

What kind of "life"? Do you mean with "life" perhaps the Psyche (Anima)?

Is it the existence of Psyche, that gives motion to the organism? Aristotle thinks so.
Has anyone studied the Psyche? Plato has.

So please clarify the question, in order to be answered: do you define "life" the way it has been defined in classical philosophy and related to Anima or do you mean something else?

A question whether Psyche enters the body at conception or at a later point, could be answered, but the way you put it is too general and not at all clear and specific.

[Kuldeep]

Does life begins at conception?
To answer this precisely, we should first know what we call life! Leaving all religons, philosphies, scietific findings, theologies etc aside: -
I would like to explain what life is to me as everydody says I am living
I usually speak I, my and mine etc. example my relatives, my body, my mind, my intellect, my memory to the extent my soul. so behind all these coceptinal things there lies abstractive noun I. I would like to call this I as source of life. Then naturally question would arise, who this Bloody I is??? To the best of my capability I can say that I-ness is the "feeling of my existance or cosiousness of existance". This I-ness when imbeded with memory, intellect, mind, physical organs in proper fuctioning order makes me as independent person. My soul as they call it, probably will be very similar to what I feel in dream, in the absence of full physical body. This I- ness among all human beings, animals, birds, insects is not probably different. I may extend this feeling of I-ness to whole living kindom including to mocro-organism and even to plants. How can you say a bird is not having a soul. Try to harm it pysically or take away its young one and see how it resists and reacts. It definitely proves their feeling is ver