Abortion: wrong or just sort of wrong?

[Timshel]

your "sourced textbook" was discussing when life began and claiming they were uncertain about it.......hence my "bullshit" comment......if you didn't bother to read your "sourced textbook" you shouldn't have quoted it.....

Another goalpost move from the contextually handicapped. You did not say "bullshit..... no scientist..........is confused......................................... about.. when life be.....................................................................gin.......s." You said...

bullshit.....no scientist is confused about whether a zygote is alive.....

You did not bother to read your own comment or to understand the context of the discussion. No, one is arguing that the zygote is not alive. The only confusion on that point seems to be yours. Neither does it appear that there is any confusion on whether the human haploid (sperm/egg) is alive or dead unless it is again yours. The debate is over when the living existent may be properly classed as a human. You and your barely literate, science denying friends say whenever there is dna and ignore all the problems of such a classification.

 

[Timshel]

and a double amputee has no legs....are they less human?.....the zygote and the amputee are organisms......a liver simply isn't........

Define organism? All you are doing is trying to hide behind the problems of your classification by burying it under a pile of circular definitions. You answer with some flippant obfuscation and attempt to ignore the problematic nature of defining organism. You say the "scientific one" and either ignore or fail to understand that there is healthy debate within the scientific community on the proper definition and, apparently, complete acceptance of the limitations of such a definition. Is a virus an organism? Are sperm organisms? You want black and white and when science presents grays you ignore them or pretend they don't exist. Go back to your Bible, science is not for you. The Bible is the only thing that really matters to your opinions anyway.

 

[Timshel]

/shrugs....except its a "fact" you made up......no where does science say that humans can't have a stage at which they are single celled.......given the fact that stage lasts less than a day makes it even less significant.....lets say we were to create a legal fiction in which your argument was the truth, would that then justify abortion for the first five or six hours of the pregnancy?.......

I made up the fact that humans are multicellular organisms? Are you kidding?

http://www.sciencedaily.com/articles/h/human_biology.htm

A human being is a multicellular eukaryote consisting of an estimated 100 trillion cells.

As, I said the multicellular characteristic is just the very beginning of your problems. There are no drawers, legs or even a surface area to this thing you call a desk.

 

[PostmodernProphet]

Is a virus an organism? Are sperm organisms?

neither....

 

[PostmodernProphet]

I made up the fact that humans are multicellular organisms? Are you kidding?

http://www.sciencedaily.com/articles/h/human_biology.htm

A human being is a multicellular eukaryote consisting of an estimated 100 trillion cells.

As, I said the multicellular characteristic is just the very beginning of your problems. There are no drawers, legs or even a surface area to this thing you call a desk.

you made up the "fact" that humans have to become multicellular before they are humans.....

 

[Timshel]

neither....

Evasive. Why not? Explain yourself, chickenshit. I know you'd like to pretend this is some cut and dry, black and white absolute, but it is not. There is no testable hypothesis that scientifically determines what the definition of an organism is and any definition provided comes with certain exceptions and problems. Again, you are trying to ignore the gray areas and you should retreat to your Bible where science denying idiots like you can pretend to be certain.

 

[Timshel]

you made up the "fact" that humans have to become multicellular before they are humans.....

Strawman. I said it was a fact that humans are multicellular organisms. I implied it was a fact that a zygote is a single cell. Both of those are factually accurate. I, also, implied that this then means that a single celled zygote cannot yet be properly classed as a human. That is certainly debatable but I did NOT claim it was a fact. Neither is your poorly supported claim that the presence of dna alone makes it a human, a fact. Your definition does not work and fails simple logical tests which would force it to include many other things as human that are clearly not humans. Your only real answer to those problems is circular nonsense.

 

[J Craft]

No, clearly I am not arguing that.

I am saying there is much more to a human than dna. Dna does not make a cell a human. To begin with, humans are multicellular organisms. There is lots more but even that first simple scientific fact excludes the zygote.

At the first stage of development the Zygote's DNA can and does differentiate its species of origin. The human Zygote is fully human and can in no way become anything other. Trying to argue that humans are much more than their DNA is fallacious in the abortion argument since the question is about what we are killing through abortion.

Those supporting abortion have always been the people moving the goal posts. The question is and always has been "when does life begin?". It begins at implantation. At that point in development the human being can only be killed by natural or unnatural means.

 

[Timshel]

At the first stage of development the Zygote's DNA can and does differentiate its species of origin. The human Zygote is fully human and can in no way become anything other. Trying to argue that humans are much more than their DNA is fallacious in the abortion argument since the question is about what we are killing through abortion.

Those supporting abortion have always been the people moving the goal posts. The question is and always has been "when does life begin?". It begins at implantation. At that point in development the human being can only be killed by natural or unnatural means.

Yes, just as the dna in a liver cell, haploid or USF's bone differentiates the species of origin. None of those things are fully human or a gorilla. Arguing that humans are more than dna is not fallacious.

The zygote is a result of conception. At implantation the embryo has progressed to blastocyst. Frankly, I think that is a much more defensible position for pro lifers but it is not the one commonly argued.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

You are arguing the bone is a gorilla.

No, that was your argument.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

Your question is nonsensical, has no apparent contact with reality and shows you fail to understand how to properly classify an existent.

Maybe you don't know this, but every animal has dna. Clearly, every animal is not a human. Every living cell has dna. No cell is a human. Clearly, everything with dna is not a human.

DNA is certainly a part of what it means to be human but it alone does not make humans human.

It most certainly does make them human; because if it was chicken DNA, then we would be chickens.

 

[Timshel]

No, that was your argument.

No. That was you. It has dna, which is what you claim makes something a member of a species.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

No. That was you. It has dna, which is what you claim makes something a member of a species.

Sorry; but it was your assertion, so you own it.

Take up the challenge, biatch.

 

[Timshel]

It most certainly does make them human; because if it was chicken DNA, then we would be chickens.

The dna in a human cell does not make that cell a human. There is much more to being human or a chicken, which is why you remain chickenshit.

 

[Timshel]

Sorry; but it was your assertion, so you own it.

Take up the challenge, biatch.

No it was your assertion.

Postmodern, since you said a zygote is a human tell me what makes a human a human?

The DNA

 

[USFREEDOM911]

The dna in a human cell does not make that cell a human. There is much more to being human or a chicken, which is why you remain chickenshit.

I never said it did; even though you continued to try and make it appear that I did.
Take up the challenge, biatch.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

No it was your assertion.

I was correct.
The DNA is what makes a human, a human.
Take the challenge, biatch.

 

[Timshel]

I never said it did; even though you continued to try and make it appear that I did.
Take up the challenge, biatch.

That is what your answer means. If what makes humans human is dna then anything with that dna must be human. If you want to move this forward then explain why that is not the case and quit trying to duck the challenge, chickenshit. Obviously, there is some other characteristic that must be included to make humans human.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

Nope, that's not what it meant; even thought you've tried to build your entire house of cards on that premise.
Take the challenge, biatch; unless you just want to remain my biatch.

 

[Timshel]

The dna in a human cell does not make that cell a human. There is much more to being human or a chicken, which is why you remain chickenshit.

I never said it did; even though you continued to try and make it appear that I did.
bawk bawk bawk baaaaawwwwwk, squiirrrt

I was correct.
The DNA is what makes a human, a human.
bawk bawk bawk baaaaawwwwwk, squiirrrt

Nope, that's not what it meant; even thought you've tried to build your entire house of cards on that premise.
bawk bawk bawk baaaaawwwwwk, squiirrrt

How is it that something with the dna is not a human when the dna is what makes humans human? Take the challenge, chickenshit.