Is this a person?

[syrenn]

Well, I'm not totally sure. I posted under the assumption that a human fertility clinic demo would be made with human genetic material.

And fertilizing eggs of of other animals is the exact method. Same exact pictures..... you cant tell a pig from a human for several weeks.

however..assuming it is a human egg and human sperm.... what you have is a fertilized human egg.... it is not a fetus....it is not a baby...and it surely is not a person.

even by KG standards it is not..... lmao... no beating heart of its own. It is only a mass of cells

As has been pointed out many times, YOU are a mass of cells. As to not being a fetus, since that term is defined by a specific time period of development, it means less than nothing that the embryo happens not to be in that time period. If we're going by the dictionary definition of the term "baby", an embryo qualifies. If we're going by the fuzzy, "I FEEL this is what the word means" definition, then why even bother discussing matters of opinion with no facts involved?

have a few embryos

 

[syrenn]

Looks just like your pic....goes though the exact same cellular process... same names. yes?








Say hello to a sheep..... is a sheep a person?

Ramsem Embryo Transfers Local

Well, of course a sheep embryo is not a person. My cats are people, but they're not embryonic and that's a different subject.

Right there, you've demonstrated for us why "personhood" is subjective, irrelevant, and meaningless to any sort of serious discussion.

Why thank you for providing my point. What she is showing is not a person.... and could be anything.

 

[syrenn]

Well, of course a sheep embryo is not a person. My cats are people, but they're not embryonic and that's a different subject.

I agree, cats are not people. But every animal is, at some point is embryonic.... and lets not forget that humans are animals too.

And your point would be . . . what?

And just so you know..... these are gestational... at the same point. One is human cells the other is cat cells. They look about the same.

Again I must ask, what does the ability of untrained laymen to identify species by eye have to do with anything?

Again.... that what you see could be anything. There is no "personhood" to it.....

 

[syrenn]

Yep, I don't know of any human or mammal that can begin their life without that process, do you?

That is a goat you are looking at.


I agree.... all mammals have the exact same biological start.

No, they don't. They have the same CELLULAR start, in that cells basically reproduce in the same way, but their BIOLOGICAL starts are different, because DNA is a part of biology, and their DNA is different.

Tough... abortion is legal. Bottom line, no matter what or were YOU define "living"

It is all living human cells....."living" does not mean stand along life.

 

[syrenn]

Aah, so scientific, biological fact is now determined by laws? Should save a lot of money on all that messy research, huh?

Your unwillingness to deal with the complications of applying human ideas and concepts to the realities of a universe that doesn't care spit about human opinions is as irrelevant to scientific fact as which laws are currently on the books, FYI.

In this case, personhood is determined by the law in order to protect women, and allow them the authority over their own bodies.

And that right there is why we've changed the debate from hard scientific fact to fuzzy, subjective "personhood": because the fact refused to cooperate with what you'd decided to do anyway.

You've also defined why I don't respect arguments about "personhood", or the people who argue it. To tell me, "A fetus isn't a person" is to tell me that you're a deliberately obtuse, deliberately uneducated fool deserving of no respect.

Educated, civilized people of logic and intellect find out what the facts are and make their decisions based upon them. Primitive ignoramuses make their decisions, and then choose or create "facts" to support them. Figure out which one you just declared yourself to be, and then congratulate yourself for presenting such a portrait to the world.

Hard scientific fact is that a fetus is not a life of its own in terms of it cannot live if c sections out and given all the life support known to man.

The fact is that it requires the consent of a woman to allow it to grow within her body..... unless she is FORCED to carry it.


No fuzzy facts involved.

 

[PratchettFan]

I agree, cats are not people. But every animal is, at some point is embryonic.... and lets not forget that humans are animals too.

And your point would be . . . what?

And just so you know..... these are gestational... at the same point. One is human cells the other is cat cells. They look about the same.

Again I must ask, what does the ability of untrained laymen to identify species by eye have to do with anything?

Again.... that what you see could be anything. There is no "personhood" to it.....

I have never been comfortable with the notion that we can define who is and who is not a person. That provides a lot of leeway. I just go with, if it's human it's a person. Frankly, I am not at all convinced that is not being too restrictive.

 

[syrenn]

And your point would be . . . what?




Again I must ask, what does the ability of untrained laymen to identify species by eye have to do with anything?

Again.... that what you see could be anything. There is no "personhood" to it.....

I have never been comfortable with the notion that we can define who is and who is not a person. That provides a lot of leeway. I just go with, if it's human it's a person. Frankly, I am not at all convinced that is not being too restrictive.

You can also say if it is human...its an animal.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Really?...are you sure its not a chimp or some other animal? The biology is the same.

If the lab says the origin is human, then one assumes they know what they're talking about. Certainly, splitting hairs about whether or not they're 100% positive accomplishes nothing . . . except to derail the discussion.

going by the pic that was provided..... there is nothing there that says "human" She asked if it is a " person" with nothing other to go on but two cell embryo and laboratory tour. Humans are not the only thing that start out as a two cell embryo.

Also going by the discussions we were in that spawned this thread..... the question was put there gain a response. She got one....

She asked if the picture were a person based on the lab stating it was of a human embryo. That is why it includes a caption. You decided to split hairs in order to try to derail the conversation.

It always amazes me how many people insist their position is absolutely, 100% right, and prove it by trying to shut down any discussion at all.

 

[Cecilie1200]

And fertilizing eggs of of other animals is the exact method. Same exact pictures..... you cant tell a pig from a human for several weeks.

however..assuming it is a human egg and human sperm.... what you have is a fertilized human egg.... it is not a fetus....it is not a baby...and it surely is not a person.

even by KG standards it is not..... lmao... no beating heart of its own. It is only a mass of cells

As has been pointed out many times, YOU are a mass of cells. As to not being a fetus, since that term is defined by a specific time period of development, it means less than nothing that the embryo happens not to be in that time period. If we're going by the dictionary definition of the term "baby", an embryo qualifies. If we're going by the fuzzy, "I FEEL this is what the word means" definition, then why even bother discussing matters of opinion with no facts involved?

have a few embryos

Still waiting for you to stop producing this as though it makes a point and start telling us what point you think you're making.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Well, of course a sheep embryo is not a person. My cats are people, but they're not embryonic and that's a different subject.

Right there, you've demonstrated for us why "personhood" is subjective, irrelevant, and meaningless to any sort of serious discussion.

Why thank you for providing my point. What she is showing is not a person.... and could be anything.

Oh, your point was that "personhood" is a meaningless, invented concept? Or you just decided to co-opt me into supporting your meaningless, invented concept? Because I'm fairly certain "personhood is meaningless" does NOT mean "If untrained laymen can't tell the species, it's not a person".

If you're so afraid of having a discussion that you have to present yourself as stupidly obtuse in order to shut it down, why don't you just avoid the threads altogether? Does it really threaten you so much to allow OTHER people to discuss it?

 

[Liability]

Not a mystery. Just not identified.

If that little fertilized couple of cells was the result of a couple of humans' sperm and ovum, then it is a pre-born person.

If it's the zygote of a frog's sperm and another frog's little egg, then it is not a person.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I agree, cats are not people. But every animal is, at some point is embryonic.... and lets not forget that humans are animals too.

And your point would be . . . what?

And just so you know..... these are gestational... at the same point. One is human cells the other is cat cells. They look about the same.

Again I must ask, what does the ability of untrained laymen to identify species by eye have to do with anything?

Again.... that what you see could be anything. There is no "personhood" to it.....

So you ARE, indeed, saying that your made-up nonsense concept of "personhood" has nothing to do with facts or knowledge, and is apparently decided by vote.

I appreciate you making my point that "personhood", and apparently your entire methodology on this subject, is irrelevant and should not be allowed to affect any sort of serious decision- or policy-making.

By the way, Einstein, what I see could NOT be anything. It could only be what it is. My lack of knowledge and training in embryology doesn't define it or change it at all. I'm also not a botanist, but I don't think the fact that if you showed me a plant and I said, "I have no idea what it is" would make it any less whatever plant it is.

 

[Cecilie1200]

That is a goat you are looking at.


I agree.... all mammals have the exact same biological start.

No, they don't. They have the same CELLULAR start, in that cells basically reproduce in the same way, but their BIOLOGICAL starts are different, because DNA is a part of biology, and their DNA is different.

Tough... abortion is legal. Bottom line, no matter what or were YOU define "living"

It is all living human cells....."living" does not mean stand along life.

Ahh, the other favorite diversions: abortion should be legal because it's legal, and "I can't differentiate between organisms and parts of organisms, and my ignorance should matter to you."

You must REALLY fear this subject, if you're that willing to announce yourself a biological moron in order to derail it. But I still have to ask, why do you fear letting OTHER people discuss it without your childishness and ignorance obstructing them?

By the way, hon, you might take time to actually READ my post before answering it, and notice that I said fuck-all about life or "stand-alone life". I said cellular beginnings are not all there is to biological beginnings, and you didn't even provide a response that qualified as the same conversation. Your terror is showing.

 

[Cecilie1200]

In this case, personhood is determined by the law in order to protect women, and allow them the authority over their own bodies.

And that right there is why we've changed the debate from hard scientific fact to fuzzy, subjective "personhood": because the fact refused to cooperate with what you'd decided to do anyway.

You've also defined why I don't respect arguments about "personhood", or the people who argue it. To tell me, "A fetus isn't a person" is to tell me that you're a deliberately obtuse, deliberately uneducated fool deserving of no respect.

Educated, civilized people of logic and intellect find out what the facts are and make their decisions based upon them. Primitive ignoramuses make their decisions, and then choose or create "facts" to support them. Figure out which one you just declared yourself to be, and then congratulate yourself for presenting such a portrait to the world.

Hard scientific fact is that a fetus is not a life of its own in terms of it cannot live if c sections out and given all the life support known to man.

The fact is that it requires the consent of a woman to allow it to grow within her body..... unless she is FORCED to carry it.


No fuzzy facts involved.

No, dear, your personal belief that "life" includes the criteria of "outside the womb" is not "hard scientific fact". It's personal opinion projected onto science. Hard scientific fact is that the definition of life says nothing about location, or the way nature designed the organism to sustain its life.

The fact is that scientific fact is not decided by the law, any more than it's decided by polls or personal preferences. The fact is that human reproduction is decided by nature, and human concepts like "consent" don't appear in nature.

Everything you said was fuzzy. It amounted to nothing more than "I think I can change the universe by telling it how I prefer it to be."

 

[Cecilie1200]

And your point would be . . . what?




Again I must ask, what does the ability of untrained laymen to identify species by eye have to do with anything?

Again.... that what you see could be anything. There is no "personhood" to it.....

I have never been comfortable with the notion that we can define who is and who is not a person. That provides a lot of leeway. I just go with, if it's human it's a person. Frankly, I am not at all convinced that is not being too restrictive.

Why would it be "too restrictive"? The definition of "person" - the REAL definition, not the "I feel this is what it is" definition - is "a human individual". It's been diluted over the years by fuzzy, childish thinking in order anthropomorphize non-human creatures, but that's still what it means.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Again.... that what you see could be anything. There is no "personhood" to it.....

I have never been comfortable with the notion that we can define who is and who is not a person. That provides a lot of leeway. I just go with, if it's human it's a person. Frankly, I am not at all convinced that is not being too restrictive.

You can also say if it is human...its an animal.

Which is every bit as meaningless and time-wasting as everything else you've said here. Honestly, do you have ANYTHING to say on this subject that isn't an attempt to obstruct the conversation and send it down useless, stupid tangents?

 

[Cecilie1200]

Not a mystery. Just not identified.

If that little fertilized couple of cells was the result of a couple of humans' sperm and ovum, then it is a pre-born person.

If it's the zygote of a frog's sperm and another frog's little egg, then it is not a person.

It scares me when people want the world to be defined and controlled by their ignorance. How about you?

 

[Zoom-boing]

Top pic is a kitty cat (its eyes are different and that is most def a developing paw pad)

Bottom pic is a babby (def see five fingers and just look at that developing brain!)

My eyes are untrained but I can see which is which.

A person is a person no matter how small. A just fertilized (human) egg becomes a human the minute it is fertilized and divides. Boom! brand new unique person just came into existence. That's how it works, how it has always worked and how it will always work. What it looks like, what stage of development its in, whether it can live outside the womb or not --- none of those things determine what it is because what it is from the get go is a human being and we all start out as just a teeny, tiny little microscopic blip. Pretty cool, huh?

 

[Cecilie1200]

Top pic is a kitty cat (its eyes are different and that is most def a developing paw pad)

Bottom pic is a babby (def see five fingers and just look at that developing brain!)

My eyes are untrained but I can see which is which.

A person is a person no matter how small. A just fertilized (human) egg becomes a human the minute it is fertilized and divides. Boom! brand new unique person just came into existence. That's how it works, how it has always worked and how it will always work. What it looks like, what stage of development its in, whether it can live outside the womb or not --- none of those things determine what it is because what it is from the get go is a human being and we all start out as just a teeny, tiny little microscopic blip. Pretty cool, huh?

Apparently, Syrenn's epiphanic realization that mammals all have bilateral body symmetry was supposed to be a profound "Gotcha!" revelation to the rest of us. Not sure why, though.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Is this a person?

Legally, no.

Person Definition:

An entity recognized by the law as separate and independent, with legal rights and existence including the ability to sue and be sued, to sign contracts, to receive gifts, to appear in court either by themselves or by lawyer and, generally, other powers incidental to the full expression of the entity in law.

Person Definition

Fortunately and wisely the courts have allowed individuals, philosophers, ethicists, and religious organizations to make that determination free from government interference with regard to entities that don’t meet the legal definition.