| User |
Post
|
Ziff
B2BB
BACKTOBASICSBITCHES
   
   
    
   
Since: 11-18-05
From: A room
Last post: 6295 days
Last view: 6295 days
|
| Posted on 04-25-06 03:23 AM |
Link
| |
That none of you did. Congratulations 
(edited by Plus Sign Abomination on 04-25-06 02:23 AM)
|
Silvershield
  
580
Since: 11-19-05
From: Emerson, New Jersey
Last post: 6308 days
Last view: 6295 days
|
| Posted on 04-25-06 10:13 AM |
Link
| |
| It wasn't exactly vital to the content of the discussion... |
Tarale
2710
Affected by 'Princess Bitch-Face Syndrome' ++++!!
Persona non grata
Since: 11-17-05
From: Adelaide, Australia
Last post: 6295 days
Last view: 6295 days
|
| Posted on 04-25-06 10:14 AM |
Link
| |
Originally posted by Silvershield
It wasn't exactly vital to the content of the discussion...
I would have thought it would be, seeing as the discussion concerns a particular area of the human body / human life..... |
Silvershield
580
Since: 11-19-05
From: Emerson, New Jersey
Last post: 6308 days
Last view: 6295 days
|
| Posted on 04-25-06 11:57 AM |
Link
| |
| What nobody bothered to look up was the proper terminology for a zygote that's begun cell division. I originally called it an embryo, somebody remarked that it's a blastula, and then Ziff arrived with the more precise answer. It's a matter of semantics, and has no impact whatsoever on the discussion aside from influencing which specific term a person uses, which changes nothing. |
Tarale
2710
Affected by 'Princess Bitch-Face Syndrome' ++++!!
Persona non grata
Since: 11-17-05
From: Adelaide, Australia
Last post: 6295 days
Last view: 6295 days
|
| Posted on 04-25-06 12:00 PM |
Link
| |
Well, I would have thought it does, as traditionally a lot of arguments argue when it might be OKAY to abort something during this process.
IE, at what point does it become human / attain a soul / whatever?
Is it right from the get-go when it divides into two cells? Or exactly when ? 
Is there EVER a point after sperm meets egg that it's okay to terminate that mass of cell structure? |
Rom Manic
Since: 12-18-05
From: Detroit, WHAT?!
Last post: 6295 days
Last view: 6295 days
|
| Posted on 04-25-06 01:21 PM |
Link
| |
Originally posted by mattp
By default, a person is wrong until he supports his claim with evidence.
If I'm not mistaken, this issue was just discussed somewhere else. In Vietnam, there was a discovery of some kind of mammal living in the woods, and nobody believed the natives until scientists actually found it for themselves. Apparently it was some kind of Gorilla or somesuch.
In this case, the person you quoted may be wrong, but neither of the 2 parties have any evidence to support that claim. The criminal code is on the internet, why not look it up? |
Silvershield
580
Since: 11-19-05
From: Emerson, New Jersey
Last post: 6308 days
Last view: 6295 days
|
| Posted on 04-25-06 04:07 PM |
Link
| |
Originally posted by Tarale
Well, I would have thought it does, as traditionally a lot of arguments argue when it might be OKAY to abort something during this process.
IE, at what point does it become human / attain a soul / whatever?
Is it right from the get-go when it divides into two cells? Or exactly when ?
Is there EVER a point after sperm meets egg that it's okay to terminate that mass of cell structure?
I think you're missing what I'm saying. The only thing missing from the discussion was the exactly correct terminology for what was being discussed. But, it's completely arbitrary, so it changes nothing. A rose by any other name, and all that.
Originally posted by Rom Manic
The criminal code is on the internet, why not look it up?
Is that in reference to my remark that a law exists, but that I wouldn't know how to find it? |
Skydude
Armos Knight
Since: 02-18-06
From: Stanford, CA
Last post: 6569 days
Last view: 6569 days
|
| Posted on 04-25-06 04:09 PM |
Link
| |
| Yes, the law is on the internet, almost certainly. That doesn't mean, however, that it's easy, or even feasible, to FIND it and reference it. |
Silvershield
580
Since: 11-19-05
From: Emerson, New Jersey
Last post: 6308 days
Last view: 6295 days
|
| Posted on 04-25-06 05:56 PM |
Link
| |
| In any case, I don't see why anyone would require concrete documenation for a law that is so widely known. A parent abuses his child, either physically or through failure to provide food, clothing, etc., and he can be prosecuted. Nobody is aware of that? |
Jomb
Deddorokku
Since: 12-03-05
From: purgatory
Last post: 6298 days
Last view: 6298 days
|
| Posted on 04-25-06 08:19 PM |
Link
| |
"I don't find it an odd insistence. Scientifically, a zygote (and any advanced form of it) is alive. The requisite follow-up question is the issue of what species of life it is, and its genetic code clearly asserts its humanity. So, we know it's alive, and we know it's human - it's human life. That's my logic. "
This comes down to our difference of opinion on when meaningful life begins. To you it is immediately at the single-cell stage, to me it is after thoughts and feelings develop. By your definition other forms of sentient life are'nt worth protecting, in my definition they are.
"I tried to dismiss this as a simple difference of opinion. You believe that awareness and sentience are prerequisites for humanity, I believe my above stated criteria are. We can't argue much there, except that I'll point out how a very young child is hardly all that aware, yet you wouldn't approve of its death. "
A child immediately after birth, and even to some degree before birth has thoughts and feelings. Fear is a common one just after birth. A zygote has none of these things and wont have them for many months.
"You talked about how the loss of a single life from an abortion would not be such a big deal, considering the world's overpopulation. My diatribe about rescue workers and whatnot was to point out that, even in a world that is overpopulated (which is not necessarily true, depending on your source), a single life is held in great regard. "
No, i said the loss of a POTENTIAL life is not a big loss in a world overpopulated by humans. You immediately turned it into some thing about rescue workers as if i had said one actual life is meaningless, which i did not say. Any source that claims there are too few humans on Earth is bordering on criminal misrepresentation of the facts. You need only look around or compare the actual number of humans on Earth to the number of any other mammal.
"You remarked that a zygote is the epitome of mechanical process, and I pointed out that it's impossible for a zygote to satisfy that distinction because once some mechanical process actually occurs - that is, it begins to divide - it is no longer a zygote at all. I don't have enough of a familiarity with the biological terminology to be perfectly accurate at all times, but that doesn't change anything beyond the fact that the word "embryo" in one of my previous posts should be changed to "blastula." "
We're getting caught up in semantics here and its not important to either of our arguments. A zygote up to several months later is simply a mechanical chain of cell divisions, this is all i meant.
"I don't mean to be incendiary when I place such emphasis on this statement, but it makes no difference what the source of my opinion is - that is not up for contention. I've said that several times, and I can no longer find a way to phrase it any differently. Whatever my motivation for my views - belief in a soul, DNA, whatever - the views themselves stay the same and would not change even if I never even mentioned that part about the soul. I could edit it out right now, and it wouldn't change a thing. "
Actually yes it does. An opinion formed on logic and reason is a flexible opinion which can change with changing facts. An opinion based on religious faith is an inflexible opinion which cannot be changed by reasoning, logic or new facts.
"I know that a zygote has no functioning nervous system. This isn't an issue of my limited knowledge of science. And no, I would not begin to argue on the basis of a soul; any argument I've set forth so far has not even alluded to any religious basis, and none of those arguments would change all of a sudden. "
Whether you realize it or not, this sort of reasoning is exactly what screams religious argument to me. If you realize a zygote has no nervous system, no thoughts, no feelings.... other than a soul what could possibly make it the equivalent of a full grown human being? You are'nt arguing the zygote's loss would be cruel to the zygote because it has no feelings, you are'nt arguing it would feel pain. So what logical reason could you have for considering its loss a capital crime? This is where i'm not following you.
"Since that zygote cannot survive outside of the womb, I would argue that you are indeed commiting an act of murder. Just as abortion, even at an early stage, is reprehensible to me, so is that roughly equivalent act. It doesn't matter whether it's been killed while in its natural "home" or in vitro."
How is this any different than a woman having her period or a man ejaculating? Those sperm and eggs each have human DNA and are potential humans, just mix them together.
"Give me a hard source before I will address this. "
I'm not online at home to sit around digging for online information, but a quick search came up with this
This article mentions the very mouse i saw in Wired a couple years ago with the human ear growing on it. Is this a human now? Would killing it be murder? Its got the DNA you so treasure.
"In that inarguably distant, perhaps even impossible, circumstance, I would hardly encourage that other sentient beings be "slaughtered" but I would not afford them the same protection of humans. But I'm not really sure it's a valid topic for debate, considering that it's a distant and unimaginable hypothetical that has no real world precedent. "
Thats where you are wrong. This has actually happened before here on Earth. Maybe not with aliens per se, but there was a time in the past when Homo Sapiens was not the only species which had sentience. In the distant past Neanderthals and Homo Erectus existed alongside Homo Sapiens. All of which were sentient beings. Even today the great apes and dolphins are also sentient beings, though not as intelligent as man.
(edit- my link does'nt seem to show up, try this:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2001/02/05/BU135680.DTL
)
(edited by Jomb on 04-25-06 07:23 PM)
|
C:/xkas bio.asm
Compiled ASM code
Since: 11-17-05
Last post: 6296 days
Last view: 6295 days
|
| Posted on 04-25-06 08:26 PM |
Link
| |
this make me wonder, since a zygote can't live separated from the mother is he/she/it even technicaly alive?
Originally posted by Jomb
Even today the great apes and dolphins are also sentient beings
actually, I renember some recent discovery proved that dolphins are... well, very stupid, since their brain can't asociate thing together(even rat can )
Originally posted by Jomb
I'm not online at home to sit around digging for online information, but a quick search came up with this
This article mentions the very mouse i saw in Wired a couple years ago with the human ear growing on it. Is this a human now? Would killing it be murder? Its got the DNA you so treasure.
thank to proving that the speciey change thing is possible
(edited by Bio on 04-25-06 07:30 PM)
(edited by Bio on 04-25-06 07:30 PM)
(edited by Bio on 04-25-06 07:33 PM)
(edited by Bio on 04-25-06 07:45 PM)
|
Silvershield
580
Since: 11-19-05
From: Emerson, New Jersey
Last post: 6308 days
Last view: 6295 days
|
| Posted on 04-25-06 08:57 PM |
Link
| |
Originally posted by Jomb
This comes down to our difference of opinion on when meaningful life begins. To you it is immediately at the single-cell stage, to me it is after thoughts and feelings develop. By your definition other forms of sentient life are'nt worth protecting, in my definition they are.
If by "other forms of sentient life" you mean animals, then you're right, I don't believe in affording them the protection given to humans. That shouldn't be construed as the right to slaughter them without prejudice, though.
Originally posted by Jomb
A child immediately after birth, and even to some degree before birth has thoughts and feelings. Fear is a common one just after birth. A zygote has none of these things and wont have them for many months.
An infant has no coherent thoughts of any consequence, and its feelings are the same instinct-driven reponses common to any lower animal. In short, any mental processes are comparable to or even less advanced than those of certain animals.
Originally posted by Jomb
No, i said the loss of a POTENTIAL life is not a big loss in a world overpopulated by humans. You immediately turned it into some thing about rescue workers as if i had said one actual life is meaningless, which i did not say. Any source that claims there are too few humans on Earth is bordering on criminal misrepresentation of the facts. You need only look around or compare the actual number of humans on Earth to the number of any other mammal.
In my response, I did make an allowance for the fact that you consider an prenatal infant "potential life" and I consider it full life. Reread my post - I wasn't trying to "turn it into" anything else.
Also, the ratio of humans to any other mammal is hardly an indication of the over- or underpopulation of either species. Like I said, depending on your source, Earth may either be nearing disaster from overpopulation, or things may be just fine.
Originally posted by Jomb
We're getting caught up in semantics here and its not important to either of our arguments. A zygote up to several months later is simply a mechanical chain of cell divisions, this is all i meant.
I agree that is was merely a semantic issue, and I've said that more than once now.
However, just because a zygote (which is not the proper term, I know) is simply a mass mechanically dividing cells doesn't compromise its value. The human body, save for the brain, is very much a mechanical being.
Also, after only a period of weeks, more commonly accepted "human" traits begin to be displayed by the embryo. Not "several months."
Originally posted by Jomb
Actually yes it does. An opinion formed on logic and reason is a flexible opinion which can change with changing facts. An opinion based on religious faith is an inflexible opinion which cannot be changed by reasoning, logic or new facts.
Your opinion is not based on religion, yet I don't recall it adapting to the changing arguments presented in this thread.
Originally posted by Jomb
Whether you realize it or not, this sort of reasoning is exactly what screams religious argument to me. If you realize a zygote has no nervous system, no thoughts, no feelings.... other than a soul what could possibly make it the equivalent of a full grown human being? You are'nt arguing the zygote's loss would be cruel to the zygote because it has no feelings, you are'nt arguing it would feel pain. So what logical reason could you have for considering its loss a capital crime? This is where i'm not following you.
I have made that exact argument - that a zygote is equivalent in worth to a full-grown human - several times over in this thread. And not one of those times have I used religion as any sort of justification for what I've said. Why do you repeatedly question my motives instead of addressing those arguments that I've put forth, each of which has been backed by non-religious rhetoric?
Originally posted by Jomb
How is this any different than a woman having her period or a man ejaculating? Those sperm and eggs each have human DNA and are potential humans, just mix them together.
Because in neither a woman's period nor a man's ejaculation is a zygote expelled. I've never tried to equate a single sperm or egg cell with a full-fledged zygote; the former two are expendable in my eyes.
Originally posted by Jomb
I'm not online at home to sit around digging for online information, but a quick search came up with this
This article mentions the very mouse i saw in Wired a couple years ago with the human ear growing on it. Is this a human now? Would killing it be murder? Its got the DNA you so treasure.
Is cutting a human's ear off considered murder? It may not be a nice thing to do, but I certainly wouldn't equate it with a legitimate killing.
The day a full human grows out of a mouse's back is the day I begin taking issue with it. I don't think the current line of experimentation is that great of an idea in the first place, but it's not murder.
Originally posted by Jomb
Thats where you are wrong. This has actually happened before here on Earth. Maybe not with aliens per se, but there was a time in the past when Homo Sapiens was not the only species which had sentience. In the distant past Neanderthals and Homo Erectus existed alongside Homo Sapiens. All of which were sentient beings. Even today the great apes and dolphins are also sentient beings, though not as intelligent as man.
The great apes and dolphins are not sentient in the human sense of the word. They do not have the degree of mental complexity seen among man.
In any case, Neanderthals and Homo erectus aren't around anymore, so it's inconsequential. |
Jomb
Deddorokku
Since: 12-03-05
From: purgatory
Last post: 6298 days
Last view: 6298 days
|
| Posted on 04-25-06 09:29 PM |
Link
| |
"An infant has no coherent thoughts of any consequence, and its feelings are the same instinct-driven reponses common to any lower animal. In short, any mental processes are comparable to or even less advanced than those of certain animals. "
I'm not sure i buy this, infants i've known convincingly displayed fear, likes, dislikes, joy, sadness, etc.
"Also, the ratio of humans to any other mammal is hardly an indication of the over- or underpopulation of either species. Like I said, depending on your source, Earth may either be nearing disaster from overpopulation, or things may be just fine. "
It is when the ratio is ridiculously skewed towards man and man's own livestock. You view man as the rightful ruler and dominator of the world i'm assuming, which is again a religious conviction. I see man as one part of the natural world, when men outnumber other mammels to an absurd degree it's disturbing to me. When man extincts other animals in a need to accomodate his ever increasing mass of bodies, that it also disturbing to me.
"However, just because a zygote (which is not the proper term, I know) is simply a mass mechanically dividing cells doesn't compromise its value. The human body, save for the brain, is very much a mechanical being. "
This is my point exactly, what seperates a sentient form of life from a beetle or a salmon or whatever, is that very part you mention, the brain.
"Also, after only a period of weeks, more commonly accepted "human" traits begin to be displayed by the embryo. Not "several months." "
The only human trait i consider to be worth preserving is the ability to think and feel, to be self-aware. Any other trait minus that is not worth fighting for to me. Would you consider a vacate human body worth saving? One without a brain other than the parts related to sustaining the mechanical processes of the body?
"Your opinion is not based on religion, yet I don't recall it adapting to the changing arguments presented in this thread. "
But it COULD, that is the point. If a new study came out which convincingly showed that a very early embryo actually did have more of a mind than we thought and was thinking and dreaming, then my position would change and i'd be wanting to fight for their rights along side of you.
"I have made that exact argument - that a zygote is equivalent in worth to a full-grown human - several times over in this thread. And not one of those times have I used religion as any sort of justification for what I've said. Why do you repeatedly question my motives instead of addressing those arguments that I've put forth, each of which has been backed by non-religious rhetoric? "
The only argument i recall you making was that human DNA in any form what-so-ever (except when its inconvenient for you, like an amputated limb) is equal to a full grown human life. This is an argument which makes no sense to me and i've been trying to get you to explain it in a way i can understand. So far the only thing you've said to justify it which made any sense was that you believe in souls.
"Because in neither a woman's period nor a man's ejaculation is a zygote expelled. I've never tried to equate a single sperm or egg cell with a full-fledged zygote; the former two are expendable in my eyes"
A sperm an egg and a zygote all contain human DNA, are potential human life and all have no feelings. Why do you make a distinction between them?
"Is cutting a human's ear off considered murder? It may not be a nice thing to do, but I certainly wouldn't equate it with a legitimate killing. "
bravo, thats what i've been saying all along. But that ear contains human DNA. every bit as much as a zygote does, so why do you treat them differently?
"The day a full human grows out of a mouse's back is the day I begin taking issue with it. I don't think the current line of experimentation is that great of an idea in the first place, but it's not murder. "
I agree once again, but still dont see how you fit this into your "any human DNA should be protected the same we are" world view.
"The great apes and dolphins are not sentient in the human sense of the word. They do not have the degree of mental complexity seen among man.
In any case, Neanderthals and Homo erectus aren't around anymore, so it's inconsequential."
Are'nt they? They can recognize their reflection in a mirror, something lower animals cant do. They are self-aware. They have the same fore-thought we have to make tools. They can be taught language. They have complex social structures they live in, just like we do. They are as intelligent as us, but they are still sentient.
Neanderthal and Homo Erectus may now be extinct, but the fact is they lived alongside man at one time, and you said that Homo Sapiens encountering another sentient species was so remote as to be not worth thinking about. But the fact is that it happened before, so you are wrong in thinking its impossibly unlikely. |
mattp
Red Paratroopa
Since: 03-04-06
Last post: 6560 days
Last view: 6560 days
|
| Posted on 04-25-06 11:15 PM |
Link
| |
| Silvershield- Many times you have said "This is inconsequential, it will never happen in real life." They are not asking for your practical solution. They want to know if you would stick to your principle behind your argument or you would be a hypocrite. |
Rom Manic
Since: 12-18-05
From: Detroit, WHAT?!
Last post: 6295 days
Last view: 6295 days
|
| Posted on 04-25-06 11:56 PM |
Link
| |
Let's take the time to question and observe, shall we?
1) Is it not a logical explanation that, as a developing fetus, any movements might be the body strenghtening itself? Breathing, kicking, and general movement are all included. That makes the most sense to me
2) What logical, scientific purpose would being conscious still in the womb provide? It just wouldn't make sense. It would be like being trapped in a cocoon where you can't move, you can hardly breathe, and you definitely can't see.
3) Is a fetus a living being? Yes, without question. Right from conception, that mass of mytosising cells is a living organism. This is why I agree with anti-abortion, because no matter how you look at it, the cells still think to reproduce, the cells are made up of living tissue, and the cells all have a brain (The Nucleus, of course).
4) Does the zygote have a soul? It's hard to make an observation on this, because it's highly arguable. But there really is no difference between a fetus and a zygote because all they are are different stages in the reproductive cycle. There's nothing to differentiate a movement of a limb or an electonic pulse of the brain, and the mytosis of a cell dividing in two.
Feel free to make any other observations or add questions, I've forgotten the original point of this topic. |
Skreename
Giant Red Paratroopa
Since: 11-18-05
Last post: 6302 days
Last view: 6295 days
|
| Posted on 04-25-06 11:58 PM |
Link
| |
Originally posted by Rom Manic
3) Is a fetus a living being? Yes, without question. Right from conception, that mass of mytosising cells is a living organism. This is why I agree with anti-abortion, because no matter how you look at it, the cells still think to reproduce, the cells are made up of living tissue, and the cells all have a brain (The Nucleus, of course).
I may just be being nitpicky, but... cancerous cells are still made up of living tissue, and they still have a brain, no matter how twisted in purpose. |
Rom Manic
Since: 12-18-05
From: Detroit, WHAT?!
Last post: 6295 days
Last view: 6295 days
|
| Posted on 04-26-06 12:01 AM |
Link
| |
I may just be being nitpicky, but... cancerous cells are still made up of living tissue, and they still have a brain, no matter how twisted in purpose.
No doubt. Never said anything otherwise, but I think the soul is what gives is consciousness, which cancer cells are apparently not.
Though, I think seeing a cancer cell evolve into a living being would be interesting. |
C:/xkas bio.asm
Compiled ASM code
Since: 11-17-05
Last post: 6296 days
Last view: 6295 days
|
| Posted on 04-26-06 12:04 AM |
Link
| |
Originally posted by Rom Manic
Though, I think seeing a cancer cell evolve into a living being would be interesting.
not sure if it is possible since cancer cell act like a deadly parasite, they kill the host leading to their own destruction(kinda stupid isn't it?). also to be considered alive you need more than just having cell |
Rom Manic
Since: 12-18-05
From: Detroit, WHAT?!
Last post: 6295 days
Last view: 6295 days
|
| Posted on 04-26-06 12:06 AM |
Link
| |
But the cell itself is alive. You are the cell at one point, no?
EDIT: That is the purpose of a cancer cell, just like the purpose of a mosquito is to bite living beings to surive. Land on someone, and there's a pretty good chance that will lead to it's demise.
(edited by Rom Manic on 04-25-06 11:08 PM)
|
Silvershield
580
Since: 11-19-05
From: Emerson, New Jersey
Last post: 6308 days
Last view: 6295 days
|
| Posted on 04-26-06 12:53 AM |
Link
| |
Originally posted by Jomb
I'm not sure i buy this, infants i've known convincingly displayed fear, likes, dislikes, joy, sadness, etc.
Not to any more magnitude than the family dog will display those same behaviors.
Originally posted by Jomb
It is when the ratio is ridiculously skewed towards man and man's own livestock. You view man as the rightful ruler and dominator of the world i'm assuming, which is again a religious conviction. I see man as one part of the natural world, when men outnumber other mammels to an absurd degree it's disturbing to me. When man extincts other animals in a need to accomodate his ever increasing mass of bodies, that it also disturbing to me.
I do view man as the ruler and dominator of the world, but it's hardly a religious conviction and more of an acknowledgement of how things are. We as humans have the greatest mental capacity, by far, of any lifeform on this planet, and we have the unique ability to devise tools with any degree of proficiency. It is the logical chain of events that the most well-suited creature should rise to a seat of absolute control. I would say that it is that creature's responsibility to harness that power and care for the natural world that surrounds him, but you can't compel all of humanity to wake up one day and just start caring about the environment...
No species becomes extinct because of the bulbous mass of manflesh is suffocating it. Unwise ecological action - sawing down rainforest and similar acts - are what adversely affect animal life, and that action is not representative of a wildly expanding human population. When wildlife in Prince William Sound was devastated in 1989, it wasn't because a bunch of humans suddenly moved in and set up camp there, it was because of a stupid error that caused a human resource to spill from a boat. Lack of responsibility in man's interaction with the environment is what hurts animals, not simply brute overpopulation.
Originally posted by Jomb
This is my point exactly, what seperates a sentient form of life from a beetle or a salmon or whatever, is that very part you mention, the brain.
What also separates a sentient form of life - namely, humans - from a lower lifeform is simply the status of "human." Surely it's something of an intangible, but it's worth considering nonetheless.
Originally posted by Jomb
The only human trait i consider to be worth preserving is the ability to think and feel, to be self-aware. Any other trait minus that is not worth fighting for to me. Would you consider a vacate human body worth saving? One without a brain other than the parts related to sustaining the mechanical processes of the body?
Babies are not self-aware, as I've said at least twice, and you think they're worth preserving.
A vacant human body, one without a brain, cannot live anyway. So, no, it's not worth saving; you can't save something that's already dead.
Originally posted by Jomb
But it COULD, that is the point. If a new study came out which convincingly showed that a very early embryo actually did have more of a mind than we thought and was thinking and dreaming, then my position would change and i'd be wanting to fight for their rights along side of you.
And if a new study came out proving, through some criterion, that a zygote is not a human being, I would change my mind in a flash. But, until that day, I'm not going to surrender any more than you will. It's not because I'm religious, it's because I have a point of view that I am able to logically and reasonably defend.
Originally posted by Jomb
The only argument i recall you making was that human DNA in any form what-so-ever (except when its inconvenient for you, like an amputated limb) is equal to a full grown human life. This is an argument which makes no sense to me and i've been trying to get you to explain it in a way i can understand. So far the only thing you've said to justify it which made any sense was that you believe in souls.
I don't recall ever stating that human DNA in any form is to be protected. Skin cells die and fall from the body every minute of every day, to the tune of several billion (or a similarly immense number) over the course of a lifetime, but I'm not taking issue with that. The only time I invoke the human DNA line is in justifying the humanity of a zygote: it is alive, so that can't be argued, and when determining what "kind" of life it is, its DNA indicates that it is human. Therefore, it is human life, and worth preserving. I haven't been fighting for the DNA argument only when it's convenient, I've brought it up under very specific circumstances.
Originally posted by Jomb
A sperm an egg and a zygote all contain human DNA, are potential human life and all have no feelings. Why do you make a distinction between them?
Good luck turning a sperm cell into a person.
Originally posted by Jomb
bravo, thats what i've been saying all along. But that ear contains human DNA. every bit as much as a zygote does, so why do you treat them differently?
See my response two quotes above this one.
Originally posted by Jomb
I agree once again, but still dont see how you fit this into your "any human DNA should be protected the same we are" world view.
As above.
Originally posted by Jomb
Are'nt they? They can recognize their reflection in a mirror, something lower animals cant do. They are self-aware. They have the same fore-thought we have to make tools. They can be taught language. They have complex social structures they live in, just like we do. They are as intelligent as us, but they are still sentient.
I've never argued humanity on the basis of how intelligent we are. I know that apes, while not nearly of the mental capability of even a young human, still have some degree of ability. That's not in question.
Originally posted by Jomb
Neanderthal and Homo Erectus may now be extinct, but the fact is they lived alongside man at one time, and you said that Homo Sapiens encountering another sentient species was so remote as to be not worth thinking about. But the fact is that it happened before, so you are wrong in thinking its impossibly unlikely.
I said Homo sapiens encountering an extraterrestrial lifeform, as in your example, is so remote as to be not worth thinking about. |
| Thread closed
