APP - Proof That God Exists

Now you understand that abortion does not kill a human being.

A 'human being' is a living human organism in the state of being. Abortion ends that process, by definition.

Abortion has nothing to do with ones soul, the very thing that makes a person.

No, a person is the same as a human being. Abortion stops the person from being, by destroying the vessel. (See boat analogy above.)
 
Abortion eliminates the vessel which holds the soul. It's as if you are sinking boats on the high seas, claiming that you aren't effecting the lives of the people on board, you are merely sinking their boats. In other words, this takes the cake for most preposterous and outrageous strawman ever constructed! Well done!

Just when I thought we'd had a breakthrough. You wrote, "Your physical vessel is the product of human conception, that has not a thing to do with your soul or where it comes from, or what becomes of it when you die." That's what you wrote and now, when I repeat it, you say it's the most preposterous and outrageous strawman ever constructed. :palm:
 
A 'human being' is a living human organism in the state of being. Abortion ends that process, by definition.

An organism has to be able to carry on the processes of life. We have no idea if fertilized cells can carry on the processes of life and considering 50% of them spontaneously abort it's reasonable to conclude many of them don't have the ability to cary on the processes of life.

No, a person is the same as a human being. Abortion stops the person from being, by destroying the vessel. (See boat analogy above.)

So what happens to the spirit, the soul. It stops "being"?

Try a bus analogy. If a soul is waiting for a bus and misses it, it will catch the next one. :)
 
An organism has to be able to carry on the processes of life. We have no idea if fertilized cells can carry on the processes of life and considering 50% of them spontaneously abort it's reasonable to conclude many of them don't have the ability to cary on the processes of life.

So what happens to the spirit, the soul. It stops "being"?

Try a bus analogy. If a soul is waiting for a bus and misses it, it will catch the next one. :)

We've been through this same argument before, and my mind hasn't changed. You have not convinced me, and you won't. We know that an egg cell is fertilized by a male sperm cell, so once fertilization transpires, there is no longer "a" cell, fertilized or otherwise, there is a fusion of two cells, the egg and sperm. If those two fused cells produce a cell, they have met the criteria of an organism, because they carried on the process of life by reproducing another third cell. Science says this is when the criteria for a living organism is met, and you have never offered any evidence to refute science. Sorry.

Now you've done a splendid job of misinterpreting the "carry on the process of life" part! But you somehow think that this means the carrying on has to continue for some indeterminate amount of time or something, I have never understood that. Once the cells reproduced another cell, they carried on the process of life, it's as simple as that. If they expire afterward, that ends the cycle of life they carried on. If the cells are aborted, that ends the cycle of life they were carrying on. The point at which they stopped being a cell, was at conception, when two cells merged. Technically speaking, the term "fertilized cell" when referring to a human, is incorrect, as the cell has already become two cells when fertilization happens, through the process of conception. Now... these two fused cells may not ever produce another cell, in which case, they are discarded as decayed cells, like a fingernail or skin cells. They never met the criteria for a living organism because the two fused cells never replicated. It is only when the two cells are able to "carry on the process" by producing another cell, that a human organism begins. It will be a living human organism until it dies, whether it's through natural spontaneous abortion, or intentionally terminated, or perhaps when it has reached a ripe old age of 112... but it never stops being a living human organism and doesn't turn into something else.

As for the "soul" and if/when it enters the human body (or vessel), this is outside the realm of physical science, and is part of the spiritual realm. Therefore, it is largely dependent upon spiritual faith, and not physical science faith. There is no way to "prove" it, at least not with scientific proof, because this doesn't relate to the physical realm.
 
We've been through this same argument before, and my mind hasn't changed. You have not convinced me, and you won't. We know that an egg cell is fertilized by a male sperm cell, so once fertilization transpires, there is no longer "a" cell, fertilized or otherwise, there is a fusion of two cells, the egg and sperm. If those two fused cells produce a cell, they have met the criteria of an organism, because they carried on the process of life by reproducing another third cell. Science says this is when the criteria for a living organism is met, and you have never offered any evidence to refute science. Sorry.

So, according to you and science the fertilization of a cell is not the start of a human being's life. Therefore, we can scrap the anti-abortionist argument that life begins at fertilization. The fertilized cell or the fusion of two cells have to produce a third cell. At least we've managed to come that far.

Now you've done a splendid job of misinterpreting the "carry on the process of life" part! But you somehow think that this means the carrying on has to continue for some indeterminate amount of time or something, I have never understood that. Once the cells reproduced another cell, they carried on the process of life, it's as simple as that.

That's where logic disappears. How does anyone know if the cell that is produced is a "good" cell? I understand your position that a "good" cell can die from some unknown cause but let's suppose the cell is missing the necessary ingredients. Neither scientists nor anyone else knows if the cell that is produced is whole so no one knows if it's an organism that could carry on the processes of life.

For example, scientists are considering removing the nucleus of an elephant cell and implanting the nucleus of an extinct mammoth. Cloning. (Excerpt) The scientists plan to extract cell nuclei from a frozen mammoth they dug up in Siberia and implant them in egg cells of the mammoth's closest living relative, the elephant. They are hoping that the elephant will give birth to a real-live woolly mammoth.(End) http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wo...ted-scientists/story?id=12646477#.T7hLmUVYtQQ

When the nucleus is removed from the elephant cell it is, for a time, still "living". It is neither an organism nor an elephant as it has no nucleus. It is elephant material. Similarly, we do not know if the cell produced by a human fertilized cell has a nucleus or part of a nucleus or a nucleus so genetically damaged it isn't and never will be a human being. We just don't know so for one to unequivocally state that every cell produced in that fashion is an organism or human being is absurd. They have absolutely no idea.

If they expire afterward, that ends the cycle of life they carried on. If the cells are aborted, that ends the cycle of life they were carrying on. The point at which they stopped being a cell, was at conception, when two cells merged. Technically speaking, the term "fertilized cell" when referring to a human, is incorrect, as the cell has already become two cells when fertilization happens, through the process of conception. Now... these two fused cells may not ever produce another cell, in which case, they are discarded as decayed cells, like a fingernail or skin cells. They never met the criteria for a living organism because the two fused cells never replicated. It is only when the two cells are able to "carry on the process" by producing another cell, that a human organism begins. It will be a living human organism until it dies, whether it's through natural spontaneous abortion, or intentionally terminated, or perhaps when it has reached a ripe old age of 112... but it never stops being a living human organism and doesn't turn into something else.

You're assuming the cell that is produced by the two fused cells is a complete cell and no one knows that. Science can not or has not been able to thoroughly examine and understand that particular type of cell to determine if it has the necessary ingredients to become a human being or is a human being and considering half of those cells spontaneously abort there is definitely reason to at least question it.

Human beings produce cancer cells. Can we say with 100% certainty that the cell produced by the two fused cells is not simply a cancer cell? No, we can not.

As for the "soul" and if/when it enters the human body (or vessel), this is outside the realm of physical science, and is part of the spiritual realm. Therefore, it is largely dependent upon spiritual faith, and not physical science faith. There is no way to "prove" it, at least not with scientific proof, because this doesn't relate to the physical realm.

I agree. In the same vein knowing if every cell produced by a fertilized cell or two fused cells is a human being is currently outside the knowledge of science. One can not take such a cell, analyze it, then state with absolute certainty it contains all the necessary ingredients to be considered an organism or human being or has the potential to become a human being.

We've barely scratched the genetic code. There are thousands of genes of which we know absolutely nothing. We don't know what is required to be a human being. We don't know what a cell has to contain but we do know that 50% of the cells that some people claim are human beings or organisms spontaneously abort for reasons unknown. At the vary least we can say it's a bit premature to claim all such cells are human beings. If we were to produce such inconclusive evidence to support any other position it would be summarily dismissed, yet, there are people who offer up such flimsy evidence in support of denying half the population a most basic right, a right to ones own body. That is the outrage.
 
So, according to you and science the fertilization of a cell is not the start of a human being's life. Therefore, we can scrap the anti-abortionist argument that life begins at fertilization. The fertilized cell or the fusion of two cells have to produce a third cell. At least we've managed to come that far.

If "fertilization" has happened successfully, then an organism begins. If the fertilization was unsuccessful, the cells decay and expire and no organism is created. This is the moment of conception, regardless of the outcome. Life begins at conception. The two fused cells either successfully reproduce a cell, or they collapse and decay, never to become an organism or complete the conception (fertilization) process. If the fertilization is successful, is totally dependent upon the result, if a cell is produced, it was successful. If a cell is not produced, the fertilization was unsuccessful, and no organism has begun. More aptly stated, life both begins -or- doesn't begin at conception, there are no guarantees. The fact that sometimes, life does not begin, doesn't mean that life can begin at some later time. If the cells reproduce another cell, the life process has begun. Science defines this as an "organism."

That's where logic disappears. How does anyone know if the cell that is produced is a "good" cell? I understand your position that a "good" cell can die from some unknown cause but let's suppose the cell is missing the necessary ingredients. Neither scientists nor anyone else knows if the cell that is produced is whole so no one knows if it's an organism that could carry on the processes of life.

It doesn't matter if the cell is good, bad or indifferent. If the two fused cells produce something, they have carried on the process, and met the criteria. It is the act of the two fused cells producing something, that makes them an organism. If they can't produce anything, they don't meet the criteria. If they produce something inadequate to continue the process of life from there, they stop being an organism when life expires, but it doesn't mean they didn't meet the criteria for carrying on the process to that point, they did that, so they were an organism for that short time.

For example, scientists are considering removing the nucleus of an elephant cell and implanting the nucleus of an extinct mammoth. Cloning. (Excerpt) The scientists plan to extract cell nuclei from a frozen mammoth they dug up in Siberia and implant them in egg cells of the mammoth's closest living relative, the elephant. They are hoping that the elephant will give birth to a real-live woolly mammoth.(End) http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wo...ted-scientists/story?id=12646477#.T7hLmUVYtQQ

When the nucleus is removed from the elephant cell it is, for a time, still "living". It is neither an organism nor an elephant as it has no nucleus. It is elephant material. Similarly, we do not know if the cell produced by a human fertilized cell has a nucleus or part of a nucleus or a nucleus so genetically damaged it isn't and never will be a human being. We just don't know so for one to unequivocally state that every cell produced in that fashion is an organism or human being is absurd. They have absolutely no idea.

Sorry, but science and biology in general, have a well-established clinical criteria for when an organism exists. In fact, they created the term. It is when cells are able to carry on the process of life by reproducing other cells. YOU just don't know... WE know!

You're assuming the cell that is produced by the two fused cells is a complete cell and no one knows that.

I am assuming that the two fused cells produced something, and since matter can't produce matter, they must be a living organism. Science agrees with me.

Science can not or has not been able to thoroughly examine and understand that particular type of cell to determine if it has the necessary ingredients to become a human being or is a human being and considering half of those cells spontaneously abort there is definitely reason to at least question it.

If it was produced by two fused cells in the process of life, it was a living organism. It has to be a living organism in order to "abort." You can't abort something that hasn't started.

Human beings produce cancer cells. Can we say with 100% certainty that the cell produced by the two fused cells is not simply a cancer cell? No, we can not.

Human organisms produce all kinds of cells, including sperm and egg cells. When they meet, conception happens and new organism is created.

Now again... why are we having the same debate all over again, Apple? Can't you search the old debate and review all of this? Do we really need to flood this thread with a repeat of the same debate? You're not winning any better this time, you're not going to. Give it up!
 
(Apple) Human beings produce cancer cells. Can we say with 100% certainty that the cell produced by the two fused cells is not simply a cancer cell? No, we can not.

Human organisms produce all kinds of cells, including sperm and egg cells. When they meet, conception happens and new organism is created.

So you're saying the fertilized cell, the fused cell, is an organism/human being once it produces an additional cell even if that additional cell is a cancer cell and all the tissue involved dies? Sure, Dix, that makes sense.

Now again... why are we having the same debate all over again, Apple? Can't you search the old debate and review all of this? Do we really need to flood this thread with a repeat of the same debate? You're not winning any better this time, you're not going to. Give it up!

Thankfully the folks on the Supreme Court, regardless of stated reason (privacy), do not see abortion as killing a human being regardless of what term scientists or anyone else uses and citizens are not governed by scientists so if anyone should be giving it up, it's you. Logic prevails.

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

If "fertilization" has happened successfully, then an organism begins. If the fertilization was unsuccessful, the cells decay and expire and no organism is created. This is the moment of conception, regardless of the outcome. Life begins at conception. The two fused cells either successfully reproduce a cell, or they collapse and decay, never to become an organism or complete the conception (fertilization) process. If the fertilization is successful, is totally dependent upon the result, if a cell is produced, it was successful. If a cell is not produced, the fertilization was unsuccessful, and no organism has begun. More aptly stated, life both begins -or- doesn't begin at conception, there are no guarantees. The fact that sometimes, life does not begin, doesn't mean that life can begin at some later time. If the cells reproduce another cell, the life process has begun. Science defines this as an "organism."



It doesn't matter if the cell is good, bad or indifferent. If the two fused cells produce something, they have carried on the process, and met the criteria. It is the act of the two fused cells producing something, that makes them an organism. If they can't produce anything, they don't meet the criteria. If they produce something inadequate to continue the process of life from there, they stop being an organism when life expires, but it doesn't mean they didn't meet the criteria for carrying on the process to that point, they did that, so they were an organism for that short time.



Sorry, but science and biology in general, have a well-established clinical criteria for when an organism exists. In fact, they created the term. It is when cells are able to carry on the process of life by reproducing other cells. YOU just don't know... WE know!



I am assuming that the two fused cells produced something, and since matter can't produce matter, they must be a living organism. Science agrees with me.



If it was produced by two fused cells in the process of life, it was a living organism. It has to be a living organism in order to "abort." You can't abort something that hasn't started.



Human organisms produce all kinds of cells, including sperm and egg cells. When they meet, conception happens and new organism is created.

Now again... why are we having the same debate all over again, Apple? Can't you search the old debate and review all of this? Do we really need to flood this thread with a repeat of the same debate? You're not winning any better this time, you're not going to. Give it up!
 
So you're saying the fertilized cell, the fused cell, is an organism/human being once it produces an additional cell even if that additional cell is a cancer cell and all the tissue involved dies? Sure, Dix, that makes sense.

I am saying that matter doesn't create matter, it is a physical impossibility. The human body is a living human organism, as such, it can produce all kinds of cells. Among them, a sperm or egg cell, depending on if the human is male or female. When the sperm and egg cell meet, conception can happen. When conception is successful, the two fused cells reproduce another cell, the living human body these two cells reside in has nothing to do with this reproduction, it is carried on by the two fused cells, qualifying them as a unique living organism. This is not the case with cancer cells, they do not function as organisms.

Thankfully the folks on the Supreme Court, regardless of stated reason (privacy), do not see abortion as killing a human being regardless of what term scientists or anyone else uses and citizens are not governed by scientists so if anyone should be giving it up, it's you. Logic prevails.

Well Apple, if the debate you think we're having, is whether or not the SCOTUS thinks abortion should be legal, then you win! That doesn't have one thing to do with when life begins.
 
I am saying that matter doesn't create matter, it is a physical impossibility. The human body is a living human organism, as such, it can produce all kinds of cells. Among them, a sperm or egg cell, depending on if the human is male or female. When the sperm and egg cell meet, conception can happen. When conception is successful, the two fused cells reproduce another cell, the living human body these two cells reside in has nothing to do with this reproduction, it is carried on by the two fused cells, qualifying them as a unique living organism. This is not the case with cancer cells, they do not function as organisms.

In msg 46 you wrote,
If "fertilization" has happened successfully, then an organism begins. If the fertilization was unsuccessful, the cells decay and expire and no organism is created. This is the moment of conception, regardless of the outcome. Life begins at conception. The two fused cells either successfully reproduce a cell, or they collapse and decay, never to become an organism or complete the conception (fertilization) process. If the fertilization is successful, is totally dependent upon the result, if a cell is produced, it was successful. If a cell is not produced, the fertilization was unsuccessful, and no organism has begun.

So, is it your position if two cells fuse and produce, say, a cancer cell the fused cell was a human being?

Well Apple, if the debate you think we're having, is whether or not the SCOTUS thinks abortion should be legal, then you win! That doesn't have one thing to do with when life begins.

It has everything to do with the debate as it's obvious the SC does not consider abortion as killing a human being.
 
In msg 46 you wrote,

So, is it your position if two cells fuse and produce, say, a cancer cell the fused cell was a human being?

If two cells produce another cell, regardless of what kind of cell it is, they have met the criteria for an "organism." It is impossible for them to be inorganic, and they aren't simply living cells belonging to the host organism if they reproduce a cell themselves, therefore, they have to be a living organism, because matter doesn't create matter.

Cancer is not an organism, cancer doesn't produce cells, the human organism produces the cells. If cancer were an organism, it would be relatively easy to get rid of, you'd just go to a clinic and have them suck the cancer organism out of your body down a tube.

It has everything to do with the debate as it's obvious the SC does not consider abortion as killing a human being.

Like I said, if the argument we are having, is whether or not the Supreme Court has found that abortion is legal.... you win! Congratulations!
 
If two cells produce another cell, regardless of what kind of cell it is, they have met the criteria for an "organism." It is impossible for them to be inorganic, and they aren't simply living cells belonging to the host organism if they reproduce a cell themselves, therefore, they have to be a living organism, because matter doesn't create matter.

So how do they grow skin in a lab for burn victims? The skin cells replicate, produce other cells. Are they an organism?
 
So how do they grow skin in a lab for burn victims? The skin cells replicate, produce other cells. Are they an organism?

Do the skin cells replicate themselves without any outside stimulation? If so, they qualify as an organism. On the other hand, if a human organism (scientist) introduces something to the cells to make them grow, they don't qualify, because they couldn't carry on the process by themselves.

Okay... that's failed Argument #32 from the previous thread... 76 more to go! You don't mind if I copy and paste the same answers from the previous thread you ignored, do you? I figure, it doesn't really matter to you, since you have no intention of acknowledging them this time either... it just saves me time.

An organism is defined by science, therefore, science knows precisely when one occurs. In the case of human reproduction, an organism is defined as soon as the two fused cells produce something else. The act of producing, makes them living organisms, they can be nothing else, it's impossible to define them as anything else. Now, you may argue, as you have, that a high percentage of these living organisms don't make it, and abort the process of life before they get started good... that's fine, I don't disagree, when something dies, it is dead. That doesn't change what it was before it died.
 
Ah, yes, that age-old question argued between seculars and non-seculars, Atheists and Christians, and greatest minds of our times. We've had the debates here before, numerous times, and it's always interesting to me, how we never begin by setting some foundations of understanding with regard to context. We immediately seem to jump into the usual talking points, and have the same argument over and over. Let us attempt to slow this down a bit, and begin by coming to understanding on the meanings and context of the question, before we attempt to answer the question.

We need to agree on what 'exists' means first. Do we mean, in a physical sense? I think it's safe to say, God doesn't exist in a physical sense. Most forms of belief in a god, require the god to be superior to physical man, therefore, we can presume any God would have to exist in a form outside of our physical world. Can we agree? Now, I can say that I know the Christian religion, for instance, believed God existed in a physical man, Jesus Christ. Much of their religious doctrine of belief is centered around his teachings, but for the most part, God's are not of the physical world, they are superior beings or entities, and outside of our physical universe. Given this information, to require God to exist in a physical sense, or to be proven to exist by physical sciences, is pretty useless and irrelevant.

So, God doesn't exist in a physical sense, and it's pointless to try and prove existence with physical parameters. In order to properly examine the question, we need to evaluate 'exist' as meaning, in a spiritual sense, because that is what God is, a spiritual entity. Now, whether something 'exists' in a spiritual sense, is very difficult, in fact, impossible to prove or disprove. Much of this relies on faith or comprehension of the individual. For instance, let's take something else that is 'not of the physical world' like a dream, and examine this. When you have a dream, did the events actually happen in the physical world? No, of course not. But the events did happen in your dream, you remember them vividly. You can come to me and tell me what you dreamed, and I can choose to have faith and believe you, or not. You can't physically prove you dreamed what you said, and your dream is in essence, your comprehension of what you recall. Did the events of your dream take place in the physical world? Then why would you require physical proof of their existence? To properly evaluate a spiritual entity, you have to apply spiritual criteria, which largely relies on faith.

Now, you will say, but we need more than "faith!" And the simple fact of the matter is, even the most sophisticated math and science, relies on faith. The very principles of all physical science, rely on the order of the universe to remain the same at all times and never change. Gravity always works in a predictable way, we have faith that it will continue to do so. If you believe in a theory of evolution, you must have faith the theory is correct. So we have faith in whatever we believe, whether it is faith in physical science applied to the physical universe, or spiritual faith applied to the spiritual realm. To conflate the difference between physical and spiritual realms, is often the result on not first properly defining the context of the question. If we are going to honestly ask the question, we must apply the proper parameters and context. We can't leap back and forth from the physical realm and demanding physical proof, and back to the spiritual realm, they are two different things.

It would be as if, you have someone who doesn't believe in physical sciences and thinks the rain is caused by God crying. You can show him all the physical proof you want, but he doesn't believe in the physical sciences. He refuses to acknowledge them, and insists the rain is caused by God crying. You ask him for 'proof' and he promptly replies; "Because God told me so! Can you prove he didn't?" Of course, you can't, and he is basing his belief on a spiritual faith, devoid of any belief in physical science, but the point is, rain is not caused by God crying, we know through physical science, what causes rain. The same can be said for seculars and Atheists, who demand physical proof and refuse to acknowledge the spiritual realm. If you aren't willing to open your mind to the possibility of something else, you will remain as ignorant as the example presented, closed-minded to understanding and in the dark on this most prolific question.

The spiritual evidence for the spiritual existence for a spiritual God, is overwhelming. Countless spiritual believers can attest to this. Accounts of people overcoming tremendous adversities, outright 'miracles' brought about through their faith and prayers, years of oppression and bondage overcome, great nations created. The evidence of God's work can be seen in our flowers and life, in our mountains and sunsets, and in the face of every newborn child. Tracking our civilizations, we find that mankind has always been spiritual in nature. Psychologists have said, if God didn't exist, man would have to invent it. We are hard-wired this way, to worship in a spiritual way, something greater than self. This has been an aspect of humans since humans began. Some believe, it is ultimately what led to the rise of modern civilization.

Now, being that humans have always held this particular character trait, and we know through studies of animal behavior, all inherent intrinsic behavior is present for a reason, we have to presume there is a reason for humans to be inclined to spirituality, there is no other scientific explanation for this. To this day, 95% of the world population, believe in something greater than self. Of course, these beliefs range widely, and to varying degrees, but only 5% are true Nihilists, and do not believe in anything at all. We can't argue with the physical sciences here, if the species has always worshiped, there must be a fundamental purpose for it. So sayeth, Darwin, anyway.

The bottom line is, we haven't really answered the question, because the question is subject to interpretation and understanding of context. Regardless of which way you answer the question, your answer relies solely on faith and you have no physical evidence to support it. However, the spiritual existence of God doesn't require or need physical proof.

Dixie, what did I tell you about doing speed?
 
Do the skin cells replicate themselves without any outside stimulation? If so, they qualify as an organism. On the other hand, if a human organism (scientist) introduces something to the cells to make them grow, they don't qualify, because they couldn't carry on the process by themselves.

OK. We're getting there. Now, stop for a moment and think. Does the pregant woman " introduce something to the cells to make them grow"? If she does then "they don't qualify, because they couldn't carry on the process by themselves."

Just as if the scientists stopped introducing nutrients to the skin cells they would stop growing if the pregnant woman stopped introducing nutrients to the cells via the umbilical cord those cells would stop growing. Surely even you are able to see that the exact same thing occurs.

Okay... that's failed Argument #32 from the previous thread... 76 more to go! You don't mind if I copy and paste the same answers from the previous thread you ignored, do you? I figure, it doesn't really matter to you, since you have no intention of acknowledging them this time either... it just saves me time.

Copying and pasting your failed answers does not make them valid.

An organism is defined by science, therefore, science knows precisely when one occurs. In the case of human reproduction, an organism is defined as soon as the two fused cells produce something else. The act of producing, makes them living organisms, they can be nothing else, it's impossible to define them as anything else. Now, you may argue, as you have, that a high percentage of these living organisms don't make it, and abort the process of life before they get started good... that's fine, I don't disagree, when something dies, it is dead. That doesn't change what it was before it died.

The obvious is staring you in the face and you just can't see it and the obvious is, "Just as if the scientists stopped introducing nutrients to the skin cells they would stop growing if the pregnant woman stopped introducing nutrients to the cells via the umbilical cord those cells would stop growing." What is it about that statement you are unable to grasp? What is preventing you from seeing the obvious?

By the way, you forgot to answer my question. "So, is it your position if two cells fuse and produce, say, a cancer cell the fused cell was a human being?"
 
Just as if the scientists stopped introducing nutrients to the skin cells they would stop growing if the pregnant woman stopped introducing nutrients to the cells via the umbilical cord those cells would stop growing. Surely even you are able to see that the exact same thing occurs.

first of all, far more than nutrients are necessary to get the skin cells to grow....second, the skin cells will duplicate themselves and form more skin cells.....the zygote creates differentiated cells....
 
"So, is it your position if two cells fuse and produce, say, a cancer cell the fused cell was a human being?"

cancer cells don't result from two cells "fusing".....they result from an abnormal replication of a single cell.....if the abnormal cell can replicate itself, including the abnormality, a tumor develops.....
 
cancer cells don't result from two cells "fusing".....they result from an abnormal replication of a single cell.....if the abnormal cell can replicate itself, including the abnormality, a tumor develops.....

Dixie wrote, "In the case of human reproduction, an organism is defined as soon as the two fused cells produce something else. The act of producing, makes them living organisms, they can be nothing else,.."

I asked Dix, "So, is it your position if two cells fuse and produce, say, a cancer cell the fused cell was a human being?"

The two fused cells may produce a cancer cell. Or a cell missing any number of components necessary to become a human being. Neither scientists nor anyone else knows what those cells contain or don't contain but we do know a large number of them never progress past that point. For anyone to conclude they were all human beings is absurd.
 
first of all, far more than nutrients are necessary to get the skin cells to grow....second, the skin cells will duplicate themselves and form more skin cells.....the zygote creates differentiated cells....

And far more than nutrients are necessary for a fertilized cell and zygote and fetus to grow. Second, while the zygote may create differentiated cells it may also not create the necessary differentiated cells such as seen in babies born without an anus. While this one http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ectopic-pregnancy-inject-foetus-abortant.html may have been the result of administered drugs it does happen due to unknown causes. http://surgery.med.umich.edu/pediatric/clinical/physician_content/a-m/imperforate_anus.shtml.

Organism: An individual form of life, such as a plant, an animal, a bacterium, a protist, or a fungus; a body made up of organs, organelles, or other parts that work together to carry on the various processes of life.

Regarding Dixie and his organism qualification if we want to get scientific about it such babies do not qualify as an organism as they definitely would not survive without an anus and a qualifying factor of an organism is the ability of a "unit" to carry on the processes of life. Such a baby never had the ability to carry the processes of life and merely lived due to the pregnant woman supplying the necessary function of removing waste through the umbilical cord and her organs. Once again, this shows the cell and the zygote and the embryo and the fetus are not capable of carrying on the processes of life without directly depending on the woman's body and organs. The comparison anti-abortionists make with fetuses and children, as far as being fed and looked after, can't be more disingenuous. Once disconnected from the woman's body such a baby would die without alterations to it's body, alterations necessary due to the lack of ability of the fertilized cell having the necessary ingredients to produce an organism/human being.

It's time the abortion discussion was placed in proper context. If a fetus is an organism, a "unit" capable of carrying on the processes of life, then it should be able to be removed and placed in another suitable environment. Our inability to provide such an environment due to a lack of scientific knowledge does not constitute a woman desiring to kill it. She simply wants it removed from her body.
 
Back
Top