Is this a person?

[AVG-JOE]

In America, it's not a person until it's issued a Social Security number.

That said, numbered or not, we're ALL part of the family known as Momma's Little Bastards...

 

[Noomi]

Of course it isn't a person. In order to be a person, you must be born. That is just a bunch of cells. Nothing personish about it at all.

 

[AVG-JOE]

Regardless, isn't life wonderful! Sad to think such beauty can be treated so callously.

If history proves anything, its that life, especially human life, is cheap.

Abortion as an industry was as predictable as the technology that makes it possible.

 

[Cecilie1200]

And here I've been under the impression that a person has a face, limbs, a torso, hair, skin, and a belly button! What d'ya know! Now a person can be smaller than something that can infect what I've been calling a "person"!

Maybe, just maybe, that gleam in Daddy's eyes can be called a "person" too!

Why were you under that impression? What was your impression based on, other than your own personal, vague opinions?

And please, spare us your inability to tell the difference between an intention to have sex and the tangible, existing result of sex. Stupidity makes me depressed.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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

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?

 

[Cecilie1200]

A person is more, other than the constituent parts. That is why a body with a tiny hole through the head, though still 99.999 percent physically what it takes to make a human, is no longer a person.
A person is conscious, knows she/he is alive, perceives the universe. A person makes decisions, decisions don't make a person.

Based on what?

 

[Cecilie1200]

Laboratory Tour

how about these?

Well, I'll guess the species is not human for these photos.

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

So personhood is determined by untrained laymen being able to identify species by eye? Is that your theory? Why don't we just decide that personhood is determined by popular vote, or some sort of poll? Hell, who needs science or facts, when we can just make decisions by how we "feel" about them?

 

[Cecilie1200]

Laboratory Tour

Well, I'll guess the species is not human for these photos.

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.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

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?

 

[Cecilie1200]

And here I've been under the impression that a person has a face, limbs, a torso, hair, skin, and a belly button! What d'ya know! Now a person can be smaller than something that can infect what I've been calling a "person"!

Maybe, just maybe, that gleam in Daddy's eyes can be called a "person" too!

Maybe that's why men abandon their families at such an alarming rate. Why should they be punished for nothing more than a gleam on their eyes?

It's not the gleam they're in trouble for. It's what they did about that gleam.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Laboratory Tour

I appear to be the only one who responded yes in your poll. Now that I have answered your question, perhaps you will answer mine.

Does one person have the right to use the body of another person against their will?

Ahh, yes, the ever-popular "helpless women victimized by selfish, Machiavellian fetuses" argument. I always love the laughable "logic" created by trying to apply human standards of fairness to nature and biology, as if the universe can be changed by just the right legislation.

Insofar as arbitrary, human fantasies like "fairness" can be applied to the reality of nature, it is the woman who is acting upon the child through no choice on the child's part, first by creating him, then by deciding to kill him or birth him according to her own needs and desires, irrespective of his.

If you really want to take the evil position of "unborn babies are the enemies of their mothers", that's up to you. Just don't get your panties in a ruffle when you and your opinion are not treated with respect afterward.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Consider this:
a female human is born with all her eggs and makes no more.
Each woman comes from a mother born with all the mother's eggs. She was in her mother at her mother's birth.
And so on back as far as can be seen.
So, when does a human life start?

When the scientific criteria for life are met.

And by life, before anyone decides to run to the tired old "I think I'm clever because I'm too uneducated and immature to realize how stupid I sound" argument of "cells are alive, too", I am talking about life in terms of "living organism", as opposed to "living parts of an organism", and I am doing the poster the courtesy of assuming he/she is both aware of and knowledgeable about the difference, and thus making the same distinction.

 

[Cecilie1200]

you mean like this process?

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.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Of course it isn't a person. In order to be a person, you must be born. That is just a bunch of cells. Nothing personish about it at all.

Hmmm. And you base that assertion on what, precisely?

 

[Noomi]

Of course it isn't a person. In order to be a person, you must be born. That is just a bunch of cells. Nothing personish about it at all.

Hmmm. And you base that assertion on what, precisely?

Legal fact. The law does not treat a fetus as a person until birth.

If you did treat a fetus like a person, it would open up a huge can of worms.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Of course it isn't a person. In order to be a person, you must be born. That is just a bunch of cells. Nothing personish about it at all.

Hmmm. And you base that assertion on what, precisely?

Legal fact. The law does not treat a fetus as a person until birth.

If you did treat a fetus like a person, it would open up a huge can of worms.

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.

 

[Noomi]

Hmmm. And you base that assertion on what, precisely?

Legal fact. The law does not treat a fetus as a person until birth.

If you did treat a fetus like a person, it would open up a huge can of worms.

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.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Legal fact. The law does not treat a fetus as a person until birth.

If you did treat a fetus like a person, it would open up a huge can of worms.

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.

 

[Noomi]

A fetus is not a person - legal fact.

If I said that murder is legal, I would be factually wrong. Why? Because the law says murder is wrong, therefore it is a fact that murder is illegal.

As I said, if you treat a fetus as a person, you open up a huge can of worms. You are not considering the consequences of that - although lifers never do...

 

[syrenn]

It is a 2-cell embryo. That means the egg was fertilized. Then it divided once.

Human.

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....