The beginnings of life, embyro = cancer?

[kallipolis]

I offer my thanks to Stardreamer for offering this excellent thread and for his input expanding my understandings on how matters work in the United States on this topic.

 

[Kulindahr]

Are you suggesting that the zygote programming lacks the head, brain etc. because the beginning of the development process of the human person has yet to develop those distinctly human features?

Does this early level of development of the human person make the human person less human, or merely evidences its very early stages of development?

I'm suggesting this:

And this is where I know that I should not continue this discussion with you any further, for if you are so removed from the reality that you are going to argue that either 1) a brain is always present or 2)the only other alternative is brain implantation from an external source, I know that I am not conversing with a person that is on a level consistent with reality. Your biological background is highly suspect after such a statement. A quick lesson. The brain is not present at conception, nor is it implanted from an external source. The same is true for eyes, ears, nose, mouth, heart, kidneys, intestines, bones, muscles, lymph nodes, blood vessels, or hair. The zygote progresses through various stages of growth during which all of these DEVELOP. They develop at different rates, at different stages, and at different times. There is a point where none of these things exist, a point where all of them exist, and a point where only some exist, all with varying degrees of completion. Some may have the misfortune of developing abnormally or not at all.

I understand now why you define a single celled zygote as a human life. It is your gross misunderstanding of the actual process of biological development.

Firma said it well. Your knowledge of biology is so inadequate there's no point trying to communicate with you.

I'll add to that: you display an inability to apply logic or follow it that makes your claim to a scientific education extremely doubtful.

 

[PolterGUYst]

Human or not, a woman who desires an abortion is an unwilling host to another lifeform. It's living off of her, deriving nutrients from her, growing in her. Her body is hers to use how she wants or doesn't want. If she doesn't want to use her body to support another lifeform, who are you to say that she has no right to make that decision?

I do believe in human rights, and that's precisely why I defend a woman's right to her own body and her right to not be forced to support another life using that body.

 

[kallipolis]

I'm suggesting this:



Firma said it well. Your knowledge of biology is so inadequate there's no point trying to communicate with you.

I'll add to that: you display an inability to apply logic or follow it that makes your claim to a scientific education extremely doubtful.

Bags more of personalisation and a complete unwillingness to address my two previous posts replying to your posts on matters of substance rather than time consuming innuendo.

Good night, all.

 

[kallipolis]

Human or not, a woman who desires an abortion is an unwilling host to another lifeform. It's living off of her, deriving nutrients from her. Her body is her's to use how she wants. If she doesn't want to use her body to support another lifeform, who are you to say that she has no right to make that decision?

We are discussing human life, and not just another life form as you so conveniently characterise human life.

 

[PolterGUYst]

Humans are just another form of life. Are you one of those people that likes to say, "I'm not an animal, I'm a human!"

 

[Stardreamer]

I don't think it is a person until it is autonomous enough to survive outside of the mother (which happens before it is born btw). But I am fascinated by how only one person addressed my rape scenario. Or are we gonna say women should accept the consequences of their action? I mean, they shouldn't have gotten themselves raped, knowing a conception might occur.

The rape scenario really falls in the period that most of the folks arguing in this thread would consider the acceptable period for an abortion anyway, the first trimester before the brain develops. So it is really of little use in defining when the new life's 'rights' start to balance or exceed the mother's. I understand you want to really debate the far right extreme position that there should be no abortions at all but I don't think anyone here is taking that position.

 

[frankfrank]

A single celled zygote does not have a brain, measurable or unmeasurable by medical science.

However, the single-celled zygote has the blueprint for the brain, and a "time clock" that determines when the brain will develop. (I find it so amazing that something that is thousands of times smaller than we can see with the naked eye - a single strand of DNA - carries all the information to develop and grow something as complex as a human being - brains, fingernails, corpuscles, rib cage, eardrums, and all.)

Most certainly a zygote has a brain even though its activity is not measurable by medical science until its further development. To believe otherwise is to imagine that the brain suddenly implants - by an external source - itself into the fetus at some future stage in the development of the fetus.

No, I'd say that a zygote carries the BLUEPRINT for a brain, within its strand of DNA. There is a built-in timetable, also, which doesn't allow the brain to start until there's actually a place to put it. This stuff is all amazing...

The question is, if that entity be a person, why anyone should have the right to murder it.

So lies the entire controversy about abortion - ALL sides and aspects of it. First, I'm not entirely sure when the developing embryo-foetus reaches a point when it would be considered "homo sapiens" - perhaps after the brain develops? (The "sapiens" part implies a high-functioning brain.) The embryo is definitely identifiable as a developing human being long before birth, and if one were to break open the single-celled zygote and examine the DNA at that point, it would be identifiable as something that should eventually (barring developmental mishaps, abortions, miscarriages, etc.) develop into a walking, talking human being.

However, when does this huge cluster of cells become a PERSON???? There is no standard interpretation of that, and I don't believe there is a scientific definition that tells at what instant the cells become a PERSON. I think of a "person" as being somebody who has developed cognitive self-awareness, voluntary control over their own bodies (such as telling it to close the left hand into a fist, or to cry), and at least the beginnings of thought. But, clearly, the real answer is probably a developmental stage much earlier than this.

Non scientist here,
embyro is not = cancer or parasite !!!
Both cancer or parasite have zero benefits to its host.

Not always true. Cancers never benefit the host, truly so - but some species have actually done extremely well via the relationships they have with parasites, and the parasites actually cause the host to live longer and better, perhaps via special secretions or removing/eating pests that otherwise often kill the host, or by ingesting and expelling toxins, etc.

I think it can be successfully argued that the bacteria that we all have in our intenstines, which help to digest food and release the nutrients, are mandatory for our human existence...AND it can be argued that they are parasites.

It's not a COMMON thing for the parasite to be helpful to the host, though - just that there are some exceptions. But if parasites were always lethal to their hosts, the parasites would lose their livelihood. However there are some parasites which seem to be exactly that - and they prey on hosts which otherwise would overpopulate.

I understand you want to really debate the far right extreme position that there should be no abortions at all but I don't think anyone here is taking that position.

There are enough people who believe in no abortions///no exceptions, that I think it would be statistically impossible for this thread to have nobody taking that position.

 

[Rolyo85]

The rape scenario really falls in the period that most of the folks arguing in this thread would consider the acceptable period for an abortion anyway, the first trimester before the brain develops. So it is really of little use in defining when the new life's 'rights' start to balance or exceed the mother's. I understand you want to really debate the far right extreme position that there should be no abortions at all but I don't think anyone here is taking that position.

Are we sure of that? It's not the impression that I'm getting. I mean, why else are we arguing whether it's a "person" on the single cell level?

 

[Stardreamer]

However, the single-celled zygote has the blueprint for the brain, and a "time clock" that determines when the brain will develop. (I find it so amazing that something that is thousands of times smaller than we can see with the naked eye - a single strand of DNA - carries all the information to develop and grow something as complex as a human being - brains, fingernails, corpuscles, rib cage, eardrums, and all.)

No, I'd say that a zygote carries the BLUEPRINT for a brain, within its strand of DNA. There is a built-in timetable, also, which doesn't allow the brain to start until there's actually a place to put it. This stuff is all amazing...

Isn't it though! The wonder of life and creation

However, when does this huge cluster of cells become a PERSON???? There is no standard interpretation of that, and I don't believe there is a scientific definition that tells at what instant the cells become a PERSON. I think of a "person" as being somebody who has developed cognitive self-awareness, voluntary control over their own bodies (such as telling it to close the left hand into a fist, or to cry), and at least the beginnings of thought. But, clearly, the real answer is probably a developmental stage much earlier than this.

Want to be careful there though, Prof Singer makes a truly monstrous argument using that exact same criteria to justify the euthanization (retroactive abortion) of 6 month old babies.

Not always true. Cancers never benefit the host, truly so - but some species have actually done extremely well via the relationships they have with parasites, and the parasites actually cause the host to live longer and better, perhaps via special secretions or removing/eating pests that otherwise often kill the host, or by ingesting and expelling toxins, etc.

I think it can be successfully argued that the bacteria that we all have in our intenstines, which help to digest food and release the nutrients, are mandatory for our human existence...AND it can be argued that they are parasites.

It's not a COMMON thing for the parasite to be helpful to the host, though - just that there are some exceptions. But if parasites were always lethal to their hosts, the parasites would lose their livelihood. However there are some parasites which seem to be exactly that - and they prey on hosts which otherwise would overpopulate.

Generally the term parasite is used for harmful or at least non-beneficial organisms. Organisms that benefit a host are generally called symbiotic or symbiotes.

There are enough people who believe in no abortions///no exceptions, that I think it would be statistically impossible for this thread to have nobody taking that position.

Haven't seen anyone taking that position yet but I may have missed a post. If there are, they are more than welcome to chime in though it will be a hostile crowd hehe.

 

[Stardreamer]

Are we sure of that? It's not the impression that I'm getting. I mean, why else are we arguing whether it's a "person" on the single cell level?

Mainly because we have arguments equating it to a cancerous tumor or another growth of the mother instead of distinct but yet primitive unique life. I've not seen one single post saying that it is wrong to abort it at that stage of development. Have I misinterpreted that? Anyone here think that abortions should be uncategorically banned in the first trimester?

 

[Kulindahr]

Human or not, a woman who desires an abortion is an unwilling host to another lifeform. It's living off of her, deriving nutrients from her, growing in her. Her body is hers to use how she wants or doesn't want. If she doesn't want to use her body to support another lifeform, who are you to say that she has no right to make that decision?

I do believe in human rights, and that's precisely why I defend a woman's right to her own body and her right to not be forced to support another life using that body.

When she made the choice to engage in the activity that brought that organism, and she's fiddled around for three months until that life form has become a person, she has no business deciding to ditch it. It's murder.

Eighty days is plenty of time to make up her mind.

 

[Kulindahr]

Are we sure of that? It's not the impression that I'm getting. I mean, why else are we arguing whether it's a "person" on the single cell level?

I don't know that we're really "arguing" it so much as trying to get across to someone who isn't listening that the position is ridiculous.

Mainly because we have arguments equating it to a cancerous tumor or another growth of the mother instead of distinct but yet primitive unique life. I've not seen one single post saying that it is wrong to abort it at that stage of development. Have I misinterpreted that? Anyone here think that abortions should be uncategorically banned in the first trimester?

I think the tumor comparison has kind of gone away; we've moved to considering whether it's a parasite.

 

[Stardreamer]

I don't know that we're really "arguing" it so much as trying to get across to someone who isn't listening that the position is ridiculous.



I think the tumor comparison has kind of gone away; we've moved to considering whether it's a parasite.

tumor, parasite it still a method desensitizing us to the idea of what it really is. How can we intellectually deal with the defining what a Human Being is or is not, if we ignore the basic biology for the sake of making a point?

 

[Rolyo85]

When she made the choice to engage in the activity that brought that organism, and she's fiddled around for three months until that life form has become a person, she has no business deciding to ditch it. It's murder.

Eighty days is plenty of time to make up her mind.

I would be surprised if more than 50% of pregnancies are really a "choice". There are so many situations, especially for young girls, where you are uninformed, the guy lies to you, you are unaware of what's happening. Not even going in rape-land, it's all about kids being kids...

But the 80 days argument is not too important to me anyway, considering that soon after that period abortion becomes dangerous for the mother as well. What I care about is the difference between "yes, until a certain time has passed" and "absolutely not, this is sacred human life, you'll burn in hell!"

 

[Kulindahr]

I would be surprised if more than 50% of pregnancies are really a "choice". There are so many situations, especially for young girls, where you are uninformed, the guy lies to you, you are unaware of what's happening. Not even going in rape-land, it's all about kids being kids...

Most eight-year-olds know how girls get pregnant, so I don't get the "uninformed" part. I don't get the "unaware" bit, either -- if you mean they're unconscious, that's rape.

But the 80 days argument is not too important to me anyway, considering that soon after that period abortion becomes dangerous for the mother as well. What I care about is the difference between "yes, until a certain time has passed" and "absolutely not, this is sacred human life, you'll burn in hell!"

It becomes more dangerous for the mother because the unborn has become essentially complete. All the organs are as functional as they'll ever be -- it's just a matter of getting larger.

I agree it's human life from conception -- but that doesn't make it a human life -- and there's a vast difference.

 

[Semirhage666]

The brain is not absent when it is growing even though its presence is not measurable by medical science.

Yes, the brain damn well IS absent in a fertilized egg. And continues to be absent until well along in the pregnancy.

 

[Semirhage666]

Most certainly a zygote has a brain even though its activity is not measurable by medical science until its further development. To believe otherwise is to imagine that the brain suddenly implants - by an external source - itself into the fetus at some future stage in the development of the fetus.

A fully formed brain does not suddenly appear, but the BEGINNINGS of a brain most certainly. One moment there's no brain, the next moment a brain is starting to form.

 

[bankside]

Actually rape doesn't change anything once a gestating fœtus acquires rights. The rights would then exist regardless of te psychological impact on anyone else. Certainly a woman could discover her partner had had an affair with another woman and gotten her pregnant. The pregnancy could be causing the legitimate partner of them man a great deal of psychological torment. But this would not giver her licence to have the other woman's baby aborted simply because it's presence was psychologically damaging to her.

 

[Semirhage666]

The baby's mother should assume responsibility for her choices when engaging in sexual intercourse fully knowing that conception is possible, even highly likely were contraception not being used.

That's a very misogynistic point of view. It's not a woman's responsibility to do ANYTHING during sex. People have the right to consensually fuck who they want, when they want, how they want, without having the threat of a forced pregnancy looming over them.