Discussion in 'Clean Debate Zone' started by P@triot, Dec 23, 2016.
Correct, just like a zygote. Human cells but not independent organisms and not a human being.
No, a zygote IS a n independent living organism.
Then removing it from the mother shouldn't be a problem.
But it is because of development. That's not because the organism isn't a human being. We can do a test... let's wrap your head in Saran Wrap and deprive you of food, air and water, and see how long you can live in that condition. If you die, we can say you're not a human being. It doesn't matter if a living organism can survive outside expected environment, that makes it no less of what it already is. Even arguing about survival outside the womb admits that it's a living thing. If it's not a human organism, what life form is it? If it is a living human organism it is a human being.
Now..... We can have an intellectual and objective discussion about when it is appropriate for the "carrying host" of this human being to terminate the pregnancy. I am more than happy to have that debate with anyone. But BEFORE we can have that debate, the biological facts have to be understood. A new human being begins at point of conception. We are talking about a human life. A human being.
Exactly the point; the difference between a zygote and a human being, like the difference between an apple seed and an apple tree, is one of development. Despite your veiled desire to murder me for disagreeing with you, the fact remains an apple seed only potential to become an apple tree, but it isn't one just like a zygote only has the potential to become a human being even though it isn't one.
You can tell yourself anything you please if it makes it easier for you to kill human beings. An apple seed is like a male sperm or female egg. It is not an independent living organism. We can't draw exact parallels with plant life because it originates differently but a zygote is equivalent to a seedling. An apple tree seedling isn't a fully-grown apple tree but it's still an apple tree. For most living things (including humans and apple trees) development is a never-ending condition.
I don't want to murder you for disagreeing with me, I just wanted to illustrate where your logic takes us. We can't define what things are biologically by their ability to survive unreasonable environment. For human beings, our early environment is surrounded by amniotic fluid and attached to an umbilical cord. We could take you out in a boat and attach a rock to a rope tied to your legs and dump you overboard... hey, he couldn't survive as he would in his mother's womb so he must not be a human being and it must be okay for us to kill him!
There is no "potential" argument here. Biology is clear. At point of conception you have a new human being. It has potential to be a more developed human being but it will be a human being until it no longer lives.
1) I don't advocate murdering human beings. If you support the death penalty, then it's you who advocate killing human beings. Furthermore it was you who brought up the analogy of murdering me: "let's wrap your head in Saran Wrap and deprive you of food, air and water, and see how long you can live in that condition." You could have said "let's wrap a person's head..." but you deliberately chose to make it personal. I find that a fascinating psychological insight.
2) Please consult a biology book. An apple seed is fertilized. It only needs the proper environment to grow, not binding with another apple seed. Ergo, it is not analogous to an egg or sperm. It is analogous to a zygote.
1) I am simply presenting analogies to illustrate your logic. If you advocate women having abortions, you advocate killing human beings. It's not murder because we don't call it murder, we call it abortion. I don't support the death penalty but like with abortion, I think people should vote and decide on this at a state level. But we're not having a debate on what laws each of us prefer. The debate is on biology and when life becomes life.
2) I know everything in the biology book. You've supported nothing with biology so far. Apples are plants, they reproduce in a completely different way and their process of living is totally different. Therefore, no valid comparisons exist between plants and mammals with regard to processes of life. Any analogy you come up with is fitting a square peg in a round hole.
A zygote is a fertilized human egg and sperm cell. It becomes a living organism as soon as it meets the criteria for organisms. It has to carry on the process of life by reproducing cells. This process takes about 30 hours. If the zygote can't reproduce any cells it expires and is not a living organism. If the zygote successfully reproduces two 2n diploid cells (as expected) it qualifies as a living organism. It is a human zygote therefore it is a human being.
Biology simply doesn't care that you want to call the zygote something else so you can kill it.
Which brings us back to the main point of our little discussion; you equate a single-celled human organism with a human being and I do not. You and I are agreed on a state level issue. It's not the first time women would have to flock to another state for medical reasons.
A fascinating claim.
There is no single-celled human organism. A "human being" is a living human organism in the state of being. This is not about what you or I "consider" or "believe" ...Biology is a Science, not a faith. Biology says (not me) that when a zygote reproduces new cells it meets the criteria as an organism. I'm sorry if that is an inconvenient truth for you or if it interferes with your beliefs.
Separate names with a comma.