The beginnings of life, embyro = cancer?

[kallipolis]

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...

Well said, for you have nuanced all that I have been saying, in a much more coherent fashion. Thank you.

Human life at its most primitive development.

The beginning of the journey of the human person.

 

[bankside]

I am sorry, but this is absolute bullshit. Both the comparison and the assumption that the unborn baby has somehow not just human rights, but MORE human rights than the mother. Not to mention how utterly misogynistic it is.

As has already been said, if this is going to be both scientific AND moral discussion, the mother's feelings cannot be ignored. She has something growing inside of her. It might be a human being, but that does not change the fact it is using her as a means to come into the world. To say she must be strapped to a bed and kept alive solely to achieve that goal shows a staggering lack of understanding of both the female psyche AND how much stress goes on during even a perfectly normal pregnancy, let alone an unwanted one.

I am sorry, but this is not and can never be black or white. If it were, the argument wouldn't exist to begin with.

I am unclear, and it seems others are too - are you for ABSOLUTELY NO ABORTION AT ANY TIME after conception?

The human right to life clearly exceeds the human right to avoid being inconvenienced or upset by an unwanted pregnancy.

I think I have been fairly clear however that a zygote does not enjoy the status of a human being; it has no mental apparatus with which to enjoy the exercise of a right. So, while it would be indicative of a frivolous person, an abortion at this stage suffers no moral hardship on another being an could occur for reasons not answerable to the law, including "I don't feel like it," or "Actually I'm going on vacation in 7 months and I already booked the tickets."

Before consciousness, I have no objection. After consciousness, a reason is required like saving the life of the mother.

 

[Rolyo85]

Ok, I have no objections then. With the exception of rape, where I say that the particular circumstances should decide the situation (like, if the woman has been kept in captivity for the first three months or something like that), I don''t really care for the rest of the argument.

 

[FirmaFan]

A brain damaged person is very much alive - per the example of Terry Schiavo; otherwise, why maintain life support?

And why all the controversy over the Terry Schiavo affair, were that case as clear cut as you are attempting to suggest?

I didn't say brain damage. I said brain death.

 

[FirmaFan]

Kudos to both of ya! The Human DNA, in all stages of the developement of a human being wins hands down!

What do you mean it "wins"? Are we to impose rights onto something just because it has DNA? I scraped a few thousand skin cells from my nose just now, each one has a complete set of chromosomes. What does having DNA win?

 

[Kulindahr]

Ancient Sparta had a well established tradition of killing its less, than perfect new born to ensure that the tribal stock lived up to expectations to kill, and defeat their enemies.

The Persians were taught a lesson, or two.

LOL

I'm not convinced there's anything more than correlation there.

 

[kallipolis]

LOL

I'm not convinced there's anything more than correlation there.

I am happy you were able to see the irony.

 

[kallipolis]

I didn't say brain damage. I said brain death.

And I corrected you by referring to Mrs. Schiavo's damaged brain.

 

[kallipolis]

What do you mean it "wins"? Are we to impose rights onto something just because it has DNA? I scraped a few thousand skin cells from my nose just now, each one has a complete set of chromosomes. What does having DNA win?

You are very well aware that Mike is referring to human life.

Human life by definition possesses the right to live its life.

 

[kallipolis]

Terry was very much alert to her surroundings according to some reports.

Terri responded to a variety of stimuli however there is no disputing the fact that the brain of Terri was sufficiently damaged to make her life independent of life support impossible.

I reached the conclusion that the right decision was made for both Terri, and her family.

 

[FirmaFan]

You are very well aware that Mike is referring to human life.

Human life by definition possesses the right to live its life.

DNA does not equal human life. The presence of DNA does not alone grand rights.

 

[kallipolis]

DNA does not equal human life. The presence of DNA does not alone grand rights.

That the DNA of the zygote also evidences the beginning of the life of an individual human being - yes, that human being has the right to live its life without fear of destruction.

 

[FirmaFan]

That the DNA of the zygote also evidences the beginning of the life of an individual human being - yes, that human being has the right to live its life without fear of destruction.

The DNA evidences the fact that it has DNA. To argue that a zygote, merely by the presence of DNA, is capable of "fearing destruction", simply lends credence to what I said before - you are so out of touch with reality you aren't even worth conversing with. Projecting functioning organs (like the brain) onto a single cell, justified simply by the presence of DNA, then arguing as if that cell is equal to an organism that actually does have those functions is not in line with reality or reason.

 

[kallipolis]

The DNA evidences the fact that it has DNA. To argue that a zygote, merely by the presence of DNA, is capable of "fearing destruction", simply lends credence to what I said before - you are so out of touch with reality you aren't even worth conversing with. Projecting functioning organs (like the brain) onto a single cell, justified simply by the presence of DNA, then arguing as if that cell is equal to an organism that actually does have those functions is not in line with reality or reason.

A human zygote includes the distinctive DNA that identifies that unique human life as an individual human being distinct from its mother, and father leading me to understand that at the beginning of its journey through life each, and every human being has a right to live its life.

You have well understood that all the necessary components that make up human life are present in the blue print, or programming contained in the human zygote that merely needs time to develop - a life time of development.

 

[FirmaFan]

A human zygote includes the distinctive DNA that identifies that unique human life as an individual human being distinct from its mother, and father leading me to understand that at the beginning of its journey through life each, and every human being has a right to live its life.

You have well understood that all the necessary components that make up human life are present in the blue print, or programming contained in the human zygote that merely needs time to develop - a life time of development.

Rights are not granted based upon what something, given enough time, may one day become.

 

[kallipolis]

Rights are not granted based upon what something, given enough time, may one day become.

Those human rights were granted in your case, and also in my case - having both began our respective lives as zygotes leading me to understand that we are the rule and not the exception.

 

[FirmaFan]

Those human rights were granted in your case, and also in my case - having both began our respective lives as zygotes leading me to understand that we are the rule and not the exception.

No, my mother was granted the right to conceive, granted the right to choose to maintain the pregnancy, and granted the right to carry to term, during which time I sufficiently developed into a being capable of having rights bestowed upon.

 

[Kulindahr]

A human zygote includes the distinctive DNA that identifies that unique human life as an individual human being distinct from its mother, and father leading me to understand that at the beginning of its journey through life each, and every human being has a right to live its life.

You have well understood that all the necessary components that make up human life are present in the blue print, or programming contained in the human zygote that merely needs time to develop - a life time of development.

Ah. So you would call the blueprints for a house a dwelling, and commend it to people as a habitation, yes?

 

[frankfrank]

she gets eighty days to make up her mind, and that's it. If she can't make it up that fast, maybe she should be sterilized.

How much of that eighty days, if a woman doesn't get a pregnancy test, will elapse before a woman even knows she is pregnant? (Oops, I almost called this a PAP smear, which is entirely a different thing...) Not everybody does that, because there is always a significant cost attached to any kind of medical procedure nowadays.

SIDE QUESTION: Are pregnancy tests routinely covered in medical insurance? If they are, how many Legislatures will try to ban insurance coverage for these tests before this year is over?

The WAR AGAINST WOMEN is alive and well.

A comment on burials: I find the custom of sticking people in the ground in boxes that will, if all goes right, keep them from decaying for 400 years, disgusting and insulting. The scripture says we will return to the earth, and delaying that process seems a little like rebellion. It's also depriving the ground of nutrients.

As far as I'm concerned, what a graveyard should be is literally a memorial garden: a person's remains could be cremated or frozen in liquid nitrogen and then shattered or frozen then ground up, and then stirred in with fine bark dust or sawdust and yard waste, to become soil. This soil would go in the memorial garden in a location picked by the deceased or family, stirred into the existing soil or inserted in plugs, and on the wall would go a plaque: "Here in this garden are the mortal remains of X", or something like that... maybe add "Seek her in the roses", or something depending on where the remains went.

I'd call my system far more respectful of the people and the earth both than what we do now.

Interesting, I like it. I love your outside-the-box (PUN INTENDED????) thinking. The plaque or marker still honors the deceased, as well.

Terri responded to a variety of stimuli however there is no disputing the fact that the brain of Terri was sufficiently damaged to make her life independent of life support impossible.

I don't think that anybody can imagine any level of awareness, given Terri's circumstances, where aggressively making sure the situation was continued, as long as possible, regardless of costs, would have been something that Terri would have wanted.

 

[Stardreamer]

How much of that eighty days, if a woman doesn't get a pregnancy test, will elapse before a woman even knows she is pregnant? (Oops, I almost called this a PAP smear, which is entirely a different thing...) Not everybody does that, because there is always a significant cost attached to any kind of medical procedure nowadays.

The first clue will show up or actually not show up within 28 days