When Does Life End?

bravo said:
Chimerism is an extremely rare disorder that mixes the chromosomal population in a single organism. In these cases, chimerism may manifest as the presence of two sets of DNA, or organs that do not match the DNA of the rest of the organism. In some cases, hermaphroditic characteristics, in other words, having both male and female sex organs, can be signs of chimerism. Alternately, small patches of DNA can be present throughout the body.

Do you claim that this chimerism, this organism is not human...not A human
Click to expand...

Quite the contrary. It is you who proposes they are not a human because you keep insisting a human has to have unique DNA.

The bottom line is DNA can determine if something is human material. Period. It can not tell if something is a human being or if it's alive so what's the point of mentioning it when discussing zygotes and embryos and fetuses? What is your point?

Try to understand that if a DNA analysis is done on a pregnant woman's liver and one done on the fetus inside her the ONLY conclusion the results will show is that both are human material. That's it. So, once again, I ask, "What is the point of mentioning DNA?"

///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

bravo said:
The bottom line is....Life does not create DNA...DNA creates life....
The fact that the fertilized egg splits into two cells proves life .....

Why you keep about this is weird...

Chimerism is an extremely rare disorder that mixes the chromosomal population in a single organism. In these cases, chimerism may manifest as the presence of two sets of DNA, or organs that do not match the DNA of the rest of the organism. In some cases, hermaphroditic characteristics, in other words, having both male and female sex organs, can be signs of chimerism. Alternately, small patches of DNA can be present throughout the body.

Do you claim that this chimerism, this organism is not human...not A human ???????
Click to expand...
 
apple0154 said:
Quite the contrary. It is you who proposes they are not a human because you keep insisting a human has to have unique DNA.

The bottom line is DNA can determine if something is human material. Period. It can not tell if something is a human being or if it's alive so what's the point of mentioning it when discussing zygotes and embryos and fetuses? What is your point?

I'm not the one that is obsessed with DNA in this debate YOU ARE....I've said 20 times already that DNA only PROVES the material is HUMAN and the fact that the fertilized egg splits into two cells PROVES its alive and viable...thus a new human has been created....
Its YOU carrying on about DNA, Chimerism, Moms DNA not matching the babies, etc....I've explained as simply as I can to make you understand what makes the zygote alive, what proves its human, etc....
you just don't get it....

Try to understand that if a DNA analysis is done on a pregnant woman's liver and one done on the fetus inside her the ONLY conclusion the results will show is that both are human material. That's it. So, once again, I ask, "What is the point of mentioning DNA?"

///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Click to expand...
.
 
Damocles said:
Under every view it is "alive" at the point it begins to grow.
Click to expand...

So unless we know it is growing we don't know if it is alive. What we do know is some fertilized cells/conceptions (50%? 5%?) do not grow. That means we can scrap the idea every fertilized cell/conception is a human being.

Now, before you say, "I never said that!" I'm not saying you did say that. All I'm saying is not every fertilized cell/conception is a human being and that is the backbone of anti-abortionist propaganda.

If we're going to discuss when life ends and what life is or anything else to do with life we have to have a starting point and a fertilized cell/conception is not the starting point as far as determining what is and isn't alive.
 
apple0154 said:
S

Now, before you say, "I never said that!" I'm not saying you did say that. All I'm saying is not every fertilized cell/conception is a human being and that is the backbone of anti-abortionist propaganda.
Click to expand...

and somehow you think you've countered the anti abortionists "propaganda" by making claims about something no one has ever tried to abort?.....by the time anyone has even thought about the possibility of pregnancy your threshold has been met and passed......you have devoted dozens of pages of argument to something that has absolutely no meaning or value......
 
bravo said:
.I'm not the one that is obsessed with DNA in this debate YOU ARE....I've said 20 times already that DNA only PROVES the material is HUMAN and the fact that the fertilized egg splits into two cells PROVES its alive and viable...thus a new human has been created....
Its YOU carrying on about DNA, Chimerism, Moms DNA not matching the babies, etc....I've explained as simply as I can to make you understand what makes the zygote alive, what proves its human, etc....
you just don't get it....
Click to expand...

I do get it. I agree. As I wrote to Damo my point is a fertilized cell/conception is not a human being/life. It looks like we're all in agreement here. So we can finally bury the anti-abortionist argument that every fertilization/conception is a human being.
 
apple0154 said:
I do get it. I agree. As I wrote to Damo my point is a fertilized cell/conception is not a human being/life. It looks like we're all in agreement here. So we can finally bury the anti-abortionist argument that every fertilization/conception is a human being.
Click to expand...

/shrugs.....still leaves you with the problem that every unborn fetus you want to abort is a human being....I fail to see what you have accomplished here.....
 
PostmodernProphet said:
and somehow you think you've countered the anti abortionists "propaganda" by making claims about something no one has ever tried to abort?.....by the time anyone has even thought about the possibility of pregnancy your threshold has been met and passed......you have devoted dozens of pages of argument to something that has absolutely no meaning or value......
Click to expand...

Quite the contrary. If you had read the article you would have seen it has a bearing on the "morning after" pill. In case you are not aware there has been talk of some anti-abortion pharmacists refusing to dispense those pills. Now that we've concluded there is absolutely no possibility of a human life before approximately 24 hours those misguided souls can be set straight.

Furthermore, the moment of fertilization/conception was the erroneous anti-abortionist argument. It was their platform. It was at the core of every one of their arguments and it's been found to be wrong.

As I've said before down through the ages anti-abortionists have jumped on any wagon passing by just like they did with the DNA wagon. As the article concludes, "While one may have a particular belief in when the embryo becomes human, it is difficult to justify such a belief solely by science" and THAT'S the point because it never fails the anti-abortionist to say, "Why do you argue against science" or "Science proves it's a living human being" when what they're saying is sheer nonsense either due to ignorance or deliberate lies and deceit.

That was the purpose of the dozens of pages.
 
apple0154 said:
So unless we know it is growing we don't know if it is alive. What we do know is some fertilized cells/conceptions (50%? 5%?) do not grow. That means we can scrap the idea every fertilized cell/conception is a human being.

Now, before you say, "I never said that!" I'm not saying you did say that. All I'm saying is not every fertilized cell/conception is a human being and that is the backbone of anti-abortionist propaganda.

If we're going to discuss when life ends and what life is or anything else to do with life we have to have a starting point and a fertilized cell/conception is not the starting point as far as determining what is and isn't alive.
Click to expand...

Again. Duh. We agree, if the cell doesn't grow it isn't alive, where we don't agree and according to the definitions provided of conception, conception only happens when the cell begins to grow.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
/shrugs.....still leaves you with the problem that every unborn fetus you want to abort is a human being....I fail to see what you have accomplished here.....
Click to expand...

What I have accomplished is showing a fertilized cell/conception is not necessarily a human being. If every fertilized cell/conception is considered a human being then no further discussion is possible which, of course, is/was the anti-abortionist's purpose for perpetuating such an argument. It's like saying, "It's settled before it starts."

Also, science is constantly progressing. Let's say, for example, abortions are outlawed but science has progressed to the point where a sample of amniotic fluid can determine if the fetus has the necessary qualities (DNA/genes) to develop into a baby. It's discovered a two month old fetus will not grow after the fifth month. Should the woman be compelled to carry that fetus for another three months knowing it will never come to term? Would having an abortion be considered killing a human being?

As the article states there are many ways to look at the situation. Once the argument "it's a human being from day one" is removed does it make sense to classify a human being based on the idea it's an organism, carrying on the processes of life, knowing the organism is incapable of carrying on the processes to the point where a baby will result?

Would/should a fetus that has no chance of developing to the point of birth be considered a human being? Should it be equal to a born individual? If not, then when does a fetus become a human being?

As time passes and science progresses these and other questions will arise. If all fertilized cells/conceptions are considered human beings those questions and others will never be addressed.

That's the reason for arguing my position. Future discussions are impossible until it's agreed not all fertilized cells/conceptions are human beings.

EDIT: I see Damo has defined conception as growth. Again, others have argued a fertilized cell and conception are the same so that is why I have combined them. I have no problem with the difference, however, growth can only be determined after it has occurred.
 
Last edited:
Damocles said:
Again. Duh. We agree, if the cell doesn't grow it isn't alive, where we don't agree and according to the definitions provided of conception, conception only happens when the cell begins to grow.
Click to expand...

Great! And we don't know if it began to grow until it has grown. The cells have to divide. The point I was arguing against is others such as Dixie and, I believe Bravo, saying if the cell lives a nano-second it was a live human being. Considering the cell does not divide within a nano-second one can not tell if the cell was alive.

As for the "Duh" it is you who first took exception to what I wrote, not I taking exception to what you wrote so if you feel we now agree perhaps it is you who didn't comprehend earlier.
 
apple0154 said:
Great! And we don't know if it began to grow until it has grown. The cells have to divide. The point I was arguing against is others such as Dixie and, I believe Bravo, saying if the cell lives a nano-second it was a live human being. Considering the cell does not divide within a nano-second one can not tell if the cell was alive.

As for the "Duh" it is you who first took exception to what I wrote, not I taking exception to what you wrote so if you feel we now agree perhaps it is you who didn't comprehend earlier.
Click to expand...
Total rubbish. At least at this point you are finally admitting that once the cell begins to divide it is alive. Are you going to again start listing more natural deaths for that particular life and try to tell me it really wasn't alive because it died?
 
Damocles said:
Total rubbish. At least at this point you are finally admitting that once the cell begins to divide it is alive. Are you going to again start listing more natural deaths for that particular life and try to tell me it really wasn't alive because it died?
Click to expand...

Finally you are admitting not all fertilized cells are human beings. Not every egg that is penetrated by a sperm is a human being or a human life. That was my point. Why did it take you so long to get there?
 
apple0154 said:
Finally you are admitting not all fertilized cells are human beings. Not every egg that is penetrated by a sperm is a human being or a human life. That was my point. Why did it take you so long to get there?
Click to expand...
*sigh*

From the beginning I have explained what a residual body is and that it was not "alive".

Can you please just actually pay attention to what I say rather than this stupidity again? Now, when the cells begin to divide and conception has officially happened, at this point it is a human life. Now that you recognize that: what new natural death of that human life are you going to try to say means that it isn't alive?
 
apple0154 said:
So unless we know it is growing we don't know if it is alive. What we do know is some fertilized cells/conceptions (50%? 5%?) do not grow. That means we can scrap the idea every fertilized cell/conception is a human being.

Now, before you say, "I never said that!" I'm not saying you did say that. All I'm saying is not every fertilized cell/conception is a human being and that is the backbone of anti-abortionist propaganda.

If we're going to discuss when life ends and what life is or anything else to do with life we have to have a starting point and a fertilized cell/conception is not the starting point as far as determining what is and isn't alive.
Click to expand...

Its been explained to you numerous times in the course of this thread...one more time...
If the fertilized egg, does not yield a VIABLE zygote their is no human being created....the cells MUST split once to show life (viability, conception)
THAT IS THE STARTING POINT.....
its actually very very simple to those with a functioning brain....
 
apple0154 said:
I do get it. I agree. As I wrote to Damo my point is a fertilized cell/conception is not a human being/life. It looks like we're all in agreement here. So we can finally bury the anti-abortionist argument that every fertilization/conception is a human being.
Click to expand...

So we can finally bury the anti-abortionist argument that every fertilization/conception is a human being.

AGREED

And we can also agree that every fertilization/conception that results in a VIABLE zygote IS A HUMAN BEING...Viable meaning the cell has split, proving life and growth
 
apple0154 said:
Finally you are admitting not all fertilized cells are human beings. Not every egg that is penetrated by a sperm is a human being or a human life. That was my point. Why did it take you so long to get there?
Click to expand...

Why did it take you so long to get there?

Because you seem to have a problem with reading ?

It was pointed out to you as far back as Post 264 (Feb. 23....do the math)
 
Last edited:
apple0154 said:
What I have accomplished is showing a fertilized cell/conception is not necessarily a human being. If every fertilized cell/conception is considered a human being then no further discussion is possible which, of course, is/was the anti-abortionist's purpose for perpetuating such an argument. It's like saying, "It's settled before it starts."

Also, science is constantly progressing. Let's say, for example, abortions are outlawed but science has progressed to the point where a sample of amniotic fluid can determine if the fetus has the necessary qualities (DNA/genes) to develop into a baby. It's discovered a two month old fetus will not grow after the fifth month. Should the woman be compelled to carry that fetus for another three months knowing it will never come to term? Would having an abortion be considered killing a human being?

As the article states there are many ways to look at the situation. Once the argument "it's a human being from day one" is removed does it make sense to classify a human being based on the idea it's an organism, carrying on the processes of life, knowing the organism is incapable of carrying on the processes to the point where a baby will result?

Would/should a fetus that has no chance of developing to the point of birth be considered a human being? Should it be equal to a born individual? If not, then when does a fetus become a human being?

As time passes and science progresses these and other questions will arise. If all fertilized cells/conceptions are considered human beings those questions and others will never be addressed.

That's the reason for arguing my position. Future discussions are impossible until it's agreed not all fertilized cells/conceptions are human beings.

EDIT: I see Damo has defined conception as growth. Again, others have argued a fertilized cell and conception are the same so that is why I have combined them. I have no problem with the difference, however, growth can only be determined after it has occurred.
Click to expand...

You haven't shown shit; except for the fact that you'll climg to your barbaric beliefs and attempt to convince everyone else that you're correct, even when others provide evidence that your THEORY has a slew of errors.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top