US Federal Law, The Fetus/Embryo Is A Human Being.

[redleghunter]

"An indication" is NOT the same as "possess X number."

And it is certainly pretentious of you to pretend your position is the "scientifically considered" one. What you consider to be a human being when it is only about one trillionth of an actual human being is certainly and obviously incorrect.

Doug when we are a single cell or two what is the genetic make up of those cells? Are they human or some other species?

 

[redleghunter]

I'm not being any kind of pro-abortion. I am only pointing to truths of fetal life.

And you are trying to defend an indefensible position.

(But if we can only see it the way we have always seen it... ?)

He's already defended his position with credible and coherent facts. Now you should provide the same.

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

Doug when we are a single cell or two what is the genetic make up of those cells? Are they human or some other species?

What a ridiculous myth. "... we are a single cell or two." Simply ridiculous.

Take any single cell from your body (you won't even see it with the naked eye of course) and what do you have? One of roughly a hundred trillion cells that make up an (adult) human person. (Even a real baby is about a trillion of them.)
And of course it's a human cell.
Does NOT mean it is a human being. Most people could figure that out.

A SINGLE CELL MAY BE HUMAN, BUT NEVER A HUMAN BEING.

 

[redleghunter]

What a ridiculous myth. "... we are a single cell or two." Simply ridiculous.

Take any single cell from your body (you won't even see it with the naked eye of course) and what do you have? One of roughly a hundred trillion cells that make up an (adult) human person. (Even a real baby is about a trillion of them.)
And of course it's a human cell.
Does NOT mean it is a human being. Most people could figure that out.

A SINGLE CELL MAY BE HUMAN, BUT NEVER A HUMAN BEING.

Therefore, whether one or 100 trillion they are all human beings.

 

[SPF]

What a ridiculous myth. "... we are a single cell or two." Simply ridiculous.

Take any single cell from your body (you won't even see it with the naked eye of course) and what do you have? One of roughly a hundred trillion cells that make up an (adult) human person. (Even a real baby is about a trillion of them.)
And of course it's a human cell.
Does NOT mean it is a human being. Most people could figure that out.

A SINGLE CELL MAY BE HUMAN, BUT NEVER A HUMAN BEING.

I'm still trying to figure out how many cells it takes to qualify as a human being. I'm missing the objective standard we are supposed to use.

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

I'm still trying to figure out how many cells it takes to qualify as a human being. I'm missing the objective standard we are supposed to use.

So it's new er you that needs some precise number of cells, huh?
Perhaps at birth they should always be counted, to be sure we have everything?

There is no more objective standard than birth - when the fetus is no longer, when there is a real being alive in the world and not only a non-breathing womb appendix. (Mass of gore, like you like to show in pictures.)

 

[SPF]

There is no more objective standard than birth - when the fetus is no longer, when there is a real being alive in the world and not only a non-breathing womb appendix. (Mass of gore, like you like to show in pictures.)

"non-breathing womb appendix" lol. Clearly you aren't married and don't have children.

Also, a fetus is a real being alive in the womb. They're just located inside a womb as opposed to outside the womb. I don't see why we should discriminate against people because of their physical location. Should people residing in third world countries be considered less morally valuable because they don't reside in a first world country? Why discriminate against a person based upon their location?

Why discriminate against humans because they're developing inside a womb as opposed to humans that are developing outside a womb? Human development lasts about 25 years. Why is it we have to exist outside a womb before we possess moral worth and value?

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

Running makes us sub-human.

Yet it is better than nothing!

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

"non-breathing womb appendix" lol. Clearly you aren't married and don't have children.

Also, a fetus is a real being alive in the womb. They're just located inside a womb as opposed to outside the womb. I don't see why we should discriminate against people because of their physical location. Should people residing in third world countries be considered less morally valuable because they don't reside in a first world country? Why discriminate against a person based upon their location?
Why discriminate against humans because they're developing inside a womb as opposed to humans that are developing outside a womb? Human development lasts about 25 years. Why is it we have to exist outside a womb before we possess moral worth and value?

IN THE WORLD YET NOT OF THE WORLD right?

"They're just located inside a womb as opposed to outside the womb. I don't see why we should discriminate against people because of their physical location."

IT'S NOT ABOUT LOCATION it's more about vocation
(And it's certainly not about people.)
It's not about location, it's about being a slab of gore, a womb appendage.
Or not. A real human baby, alive in the world,
or a slab of gore, a womb appendage.



If you lived in a sea, you might be more of a fish than you think you are!

 

[SPF]

IT'S NOT ABOUT LOCATION it's more about vocation
(And it's certainly not about people.)
It's not about location, it's about being a slab of gore, a womb appendage.
Or not. A real human baby, alive in the world,
or a slab of gore, a womb appendage.

Just because you use absolutely demeaning and unrealistic descriptions of an unborn human doesn't make them true. I would encourage you to change your demeaning language towards the unborn.

A 9 month old fetus is more developed than a 5 month old preemie incapable of breathing on its own. I really don't understand why you are so hell bent on denying that a human being does not exist until he or she exits the womb. It really makes no sense.

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

A 9 month old fetus is more developed than a 5 month old preemie incapable of breathing on its own. I really don't understand why you are so hell bent on denying that a human being does not exist until he or she exits the womb. It really makes no sense.

Here is ONE SENSE that it should be part of: when you a living human being do not breath, cease breathing, then you are dead.

btw, "UNBORN" is demeaning to God and real people in its attempt to be seen to be something it is not. "Unborn" it should be born, things like that.
"Unborn" is used a lot by those who TOTALLY SLANDER REAL HUMAN BEINGS indicating that fetuses are "just like them." TOTALLY NOT ALIVE IN GOD'S WORLD, totally a hunk of flesh, a womb appendage.

 

[SPF]

Here is ONE SENSE that it should be part of: when you a living human being do not breath, cease breathing, then you are dead.

Well, the scientific and medical advances in the realm of liquid breathing demonstrate that this idea is probably false. Also, unless you can establish that an unborn human is not a human being then all you're doing is begging the question.

btw, "UNBORN" is demeaning to God and real people

Begging the question as you're assuming that an unborn human being is not a real person. You haven't established that, you're assuming it, which is begging the question.

I still haven't seen anything to date written by you that provides a substantiated and supported argument on why a fetus does not qualify as a human being. Let's review. Cell count isn't applicable because a 5 month preemie has less cells than a 9 month fetus. So we can't use cell count to determine the beingness of a human. We can't even use development as a measuring rod because human development lasts 25 years. So I don't know on what objective and non-arbitrary basis we can assert that a human must be developed to stage X before they qualify as a human being.

Thanks to advances in science, we can quite literally see what happens at fertilization. We know at this point, that a new and unique organism is created at fertilization. I don't know where the logical and supported argument is that states that the human life formed at conception is not a human being until it exits the womb and takes its first breath. I've never read a single medical journal or scientific textbook that indicates that a human being does not exist until it exits the womb. I'm honestly so confused as to why you believe that, why you would want to believe that.

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

"non-breathing womb appendix" lol. Clearly you aren't married and don't have children.

Also, a fetus is a real being alive in the womb. They're just located inside a womb as opposed to outside the womb. I don't see why we should discriminate against people because of their physical location. Should people residing in third world countries be considered less morally valuable because they don't reside in a first world country? Why discriminate against a person based upon their location?

Why discriminate against humans because they're developing inside a womb as opposed to humans that are developing outside a womb? Human development lasts about 25 years. Why is it we have to exist outside a womb before we possess moral worth and value?

I have answered these questions many times. BECAUSE WHAT IS IN A WOMB IS NOT A PERSON, whether you say it is or not. WILLFUL BLINDNESS, thinking that a womb-flesh appendage is the same thing as a real breathing (and pretty much totally functioning) human being. Just willful blindness!

SURELY you would not deny it is (AND must generally be) ATTACHED (tethered) to a womb bag, never breaths, never does many of the functions of an alive human being, and NEVER acts in the real world outside the womb.

How much more different from a real human being must it be for one to be able to recognize there is a significant difference?

GOD'S KINGDOM OF LIGHT AND LOVE, it is never anything of that.

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

Thanks to advances in science, we can quite literally see what happens at fertilization. We know at this point, that a new and unique organism is created at fertilization.

This is truly begging the question.

Whether it is an organism, an animal, the member of a species, that is precisely at issue. So you certainly do not establish it is an organism simply by calling it that!

 

[SPF]

Douglas, we've been over this literally dozens of times. It's established scientific fact that a new human being begins at conception. I have provided, and will do so again, dozens upon dozens of sources for you. You have consistently not been able to support any assertion you make. The most you've ever done in providing a reference is to take a generic definition and broad definition and manipulate its non-specific meaning to support your assertion. Both the Bible and Science refute your unsupported position. I don't know what else can be done to help you understand.

“The life cycle of mammals begins when a sperm enters an egg.” Okada et al., A role for the elongator complex in zygotic paternal genome demethylation, NATURE 463:554 (Jan. 28, 2010)

“Fertilization is the process by which male and female haploid gametes (sperm and egg) unite to produce a genetically distinct individual.”Signorelli et al., Kinases, phosphatases and proteases during sperm capacitation, CELL TISSUE RES. 349(3):765 (Mar. 20, 2012)

“Fertilization – the fusion of gametes to produce a new organism – is the culmination of a multitude of intricately regulated cellular processes.” Marcello et al., Fertilization, ADV. EXP. BIOL. 757:321 (2013)

“Human life begins at fertilization, the process during which a male gamete or sperm (spermatozoo developmentn) unites with a female gamete or oocyte (ovum) to form a single cell called a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marked the beginning of each of us as a unique individual.” “A zygote is the beginning of a new human being (i.e., an embryo).” Keith L. Moore, The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology, 7th edition. Philadelphia, PA: Saunders, 2003. pp. 16, 2.

“In that fraction of a second when the chromosomes form pairs, the sex of the new child will be determined, hereditary characteristics received from each parent will be set, and a new life will have begun.” Kaluger, G., and Kaluger, M., Human Development: The Span of Life, page 28-29, The C.V. Mosby Co., St. Louis, 1974

An embryology textbook describes how birth is just an event in the development of a baby, not the beginning of his/her life:

“It should always be remembered that many organs are still not completely developed by full-term and birth should be regarded only as an incident in the whole developmental process.” F Beck Human Embryology, Blackwell Scientific Publications, 1985 page vi

“It is the penetration of the ovum by a sperm and the resulting mingling of nuclear material each brings to the union that constitutes the initiation of the life of a new individual.” Clark Edward and Corliss Patten’s Human Embryology, McGraw – Hill Inc., 30

“Although it is customary to divide human development into prenatal and postnatal periods, it is important to realize that birth is merely a dramatic event during development resulting in a change in environment.” The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology fifth edition, Moore and Persaud, 1993, Saunders Company, page 1

“The zygote and early embryo are living human organisms.” Keith L. Moore & T.V.N. Persaud Before We Are Born – Essentials of Embryology and Birth Defects (W.B. Saunders Company, 1998. Fifth edition.) Page 500

“Thus a new cell is formed from the union of a male and a female gamete. [sperm and egg cells] The cell, referred to as the zygote, contains a new combination of genetic material, resulting in an individual different from either parent and from anyone else in the world.” Sally B Olds, et al., Obstetric Nursing (Menlo Park, California: Addison – Wesley publishing, 1980) P 136

“The term conception refers to the union of the male and female pronuclear elements of procreation from which a new living being develops. It is synonymous with the terms fecundation, impregnation, and fertilization … The zygote thus formed represents the beginning of a new life.” J.P. Greenhill and E.A. Freidman. Biological Principles and Modern Practice of Obstetrics. Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Publishers. 1974 Pages 17 and 23.

“[All] organisms, however large and complex they might be as full grown, begin life as a single cell. This is true for the human being, for instance, who begins life as a fertilized ovum.”Dr. Morris Krieger “The Human Reproductive System” p 88 (1969) Sterling Pub. Co

“The first cell of a new and unique human life begins existence at the moment of conception (fertilization) when one living sperm from the father joins with one living ovum from the mother. It is in this manner that human life passes from one generation to another. Given the appropriate environment and genetic composition, the single cell subsequently gives rise to trillions of specialized and integrated cells that compose the structures and functions of each individual human body. Every human being alive today and, as far as is known scientifically, every human being that ever existed, began his or her unique existence in this manner, i.e., as one cell. If this first cell or any subsequent configuration of cells perishes, the individual dies, ceasing to exist in matter as a living being. There are no known exceptions to this rule in the field of human biology.” James Bopp, ed., Human Life and Health Care Ethics, vol. 2 (Frederick, MD: University Publications of America, 1985)

 

[SPF]

The question of when human life begins has been answered in a variety of ways by different religious and philosophical traditions throughout the ages, leading many to conclude the question cannot be definitively answered. Yet what does science tell us about when life begins?[1] One of the basic insights of modern biology is that life is continuous, with living cells giving rise to new types of cells and, ultimately, to new individuals. Therefore, in considering the question of when a new human life begins, we must first address the more fundamental question of when a new cell, distinct from sperm and egg, comes into existence.

The scientific basis for distinguishing one cell type from another rests on two criteria: differences in what something is made of (its molecular composition) and differences in how the cell behaves. These two criteria are universally agreed upon and employed throughout the scientific enterprise. They are not “religious” beliefs or matters of personal opinion. They are objective, verifiable scientific criteria that determine precisely when a new cell type is formed.

Based on these criteria, the joining (or fusion) of sperm and egg clearly produces a new cell type, the zygote or one-cell embryo. Cell fusion is a well studied and very rapid event, occurring in less than a second. Because the zygote arises from the fusion of two different cells, it contains all the components of both sperm and egg, and therefore this new cell has a unique molecular composition that is distinct from either gamete. Thus the zygote that comes into existence at the moment of sperm-egg fusion meets the first scientific criterion for being a new cell type: its molecular make-up is clearly different from that of the cells that gave rise to it.

Subsequent to sperm-egg fusion, events rapidly occur in the zygote that do not normally occur in either sperm or egg. Within minutes, the zygote initiates a change in its internal state that will, over the next 30 minutes, block additional sperm from binding to the cell surface. Thus, the zygote acts immediately to oppose the function of the gametes from which it is derived; while the “goal” of both sperm and egg is to find each other and to fuse, the first act of the zygote is to prevent any further binding of sperm to the cell surface. Clearly, the zygote has entered into a new pattern of behavior, and therefore meets the second scientific criterion for being a new cell type.

What is the nature of the new cell that comes into existence upon sperm-egg fusion? Most importantly, is the zygote merely another human cell (like a liver cell or a skin cell) or is it something else? Just as science distinguishes between different types of cells, it also makes clear distinctions between cells and organisms. Both cells and organisms are alive, yet organisms exhibit unique characteristics that can reliably distinguish them from mere cells.[2]

An organism is defined as “(1) a complex structure of interdependent and subordinate elements whose relations and properties are largely determined by their function in the whole and (2) an individual constituted to carry on the activities of life by means of organs separate in function but mutually dependent: a living being.” (Merriam-Webster) This definition stresses the interaction of parts in the context of a coordinated whole as the distinguishing feature of an organism. Organisms are “living beings.” Therefore, another name for a human organism is a “human being”; an entity that is a complete human, rather than a part of a human.

Human beings can be distinguished from human cells using the same kind of criteria scientists use to distinguish different cell types. A human being (i.e., a human organism) is composed of human parts (cells, proteins, RNA, DNA), yet it is different from a mere collection of cells because it has the characteristic molecular composition and behavior of an organism: it acts in an interdependent and coordinated manner to “carry on the activities of life.”

Human embryos from the one-cell (zygote) stage forward show uniquely integrated, organismal behavior that is unlike the behavior of mere human cells. The zygote produces increasingly complex tissues, structures and organs that work together in a coordinated way. Importantly, the cells, tissues and organs produced during development do not somehow “generate” the embryo (as if there were some unseen, mysterious “manufacturer” directing this process), they are produced by the embryo as it directs its own development to more mature stages of human life. This organized, coordinated behavior of the embryo is the defining characteristic of a human organism.

In contrast to human embryos, human cells are alive and, under some circumstances, they can assemble into primitive tissues and structures. Yet under no circumstances do mere human cells produce the kind of coordinated interactions necessary for building a fully integrated human body. They do not produce tissues in a coherent manner and do not organize them so as to sustain the life of the entity as a whole. They produce tumors; i.e., parts of the human body in a chaotic, disorganized manner. They behave like cells, not like organisms.

The conclusion that human life begins at sperm-egg fusion is uncontested, objective, based on the universally accepted scientific method of distinguishing different cell types from each other and on ample scientific evidence (thousands of independent, peer-reviewed publications)."

Dr. Condic is Associate Professor of Neurobiology and Adjunct Professor of Pediatrics at the University of Utah School of Medicine. She is also Director of Human Embryology instruction for the Medical School and of Human Neuroanatomy for the Dental School.

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

The question of when human life begins has been answered in a variety of ways by different religious and philosophical traditions throughout the ages, leading many to conclude the question cannot be definitively answered. Yet what does science tell us about when life begins?[1] One of the basic insights of modern biology is that life is continuous, with living cells giving rise to new types of cells and, ultimately, to new individuals. Therefore, in considering the question of when a new human life begins, we must first address the more fundamental question of when a new cell, distinct from sperm and egg, comes into existence.
The scientific basis for distinguishing one cell type from another rests on two criteria: differences in what something is made of (its molecular composition) and differences in how the cell behaves. These two criteria are universally agreed upon and employed throughout the scientific enterprise. They are not “religious” beliefs or matters of personal opinion. They are objective, verifiable scientific criteria that determine precisely when a new cell type is formed.
Based on these criteria, the joining (or fusion) of sperm and egg clearly produces a new cell type, the zygote or one-cell embryo. Cell fusion is a well studied and very rapid event, occurring in less than a second. Because the zygote arises from the fusion of two different cells, it contains all the components of both sperm and egg, and therefore this new cell has a unique molecular composition that is distinct from either gamete. Thus the zygote that comes into existence at the moment of sperm-egg fusion meets the first scientific criterion for being a new cell type: its molecular make-up is clearly different from that of the cells that gave rise to it.
Subsequent to sperm-egg fusion, events rapidly occur in the zygote that do not normally occur in either sperm or egg. Within minutes, the zygote initiates a change in its internal state that will, over the next 30 minutes, block additional sperm from binding to the cell surface. Thus, the zygote acts immediately to oppose the function of the gametes from which it is derived; while the “goal” of both sperm and egg is to find each other and to fuse, the first act of the zygote is to prevent any further binding of sperm to the cell surface. Clearly, the zygote has entered into a new pattern of behavior, and therefore meets the second scientific criterion for being a new cell type.

"Cell-type" CELL TRIPE.
THIS IS NOT AT ALL A DISCUSSION OF "NEW LIFE." (Though it purports to be!)

AT CONCEPTION the life that a sperm has AND the life that an ovum carries BECOME THE UNITED LIFE of a new cell. NOT NEW LIFE, only a new cell.
IT IS THE SAME LIFE THAT CONTINUES. Not new life, only new cell.

ALL PARTS THAT WERE ALIVE INITIALLY CONTINUE BE BE ALIVE. NO NEW LIFE.
There is not any new life entering into the situation or coming out of it.
(That there can be and are dead cells means that "life" and "cell" are not synonymous.)

 

[SPF]

AT CONCEPTION the life that a sperm has AND the life that an ovum carries BECOME THE UNITED LIFE of a new cell. NOT NEW LIFE, only a new cell.
IT IS THE SAME LIFE THAT CONTINUES. Not new life, only new cell.

This is kind of what I'm talking about.... You're simply wrong. a sperm will never be anything more than a sperm. It doesn't matter what environment you put it in, it will never become anything more. The same is true of the ovum. However, when they come together, a new, and unique lifeform comes into existence that did not previously exist. We can literally see it happen. If you ever manage to have children, you will find like the rest of us that your son or daughter does not have your same DNA. They are a unique creation that is different than the sperm you donated and the ovum the woman you impregnated donated. You're demonstrably just plain wrong.

And to emphasize your wrongness even more - the most you can do is say that you're right, "because I said so". You can't actually support anything you say with cited material because nobody agrees with you! If I'm wrong, give me some credible material to work with!

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

This is kind of what I'm talking about.... You're simply wrong. a sperm will never be anything more than a sperm. It doesn't matter what environment you put it in, it will never become anything more. The same is true of the ovum. However, when they come together, a new, and unique lifeform comes into existence that did not previously exist. We can literally see it happen. If you ever manage to have children, you will find like the rest of us that your son or daughter does not have your same DNA. They are a unique creation that is different than the sperm you donated and the ovum the woman you impregnated donated. You're demonstrably just plain wrong.

And to emphasize your wrongness even more - the most you can do is say that you're right, "because I said so". You can't actually support anything you say with cited material because nobody agrees with you! If I'm wrong, give me some credible material to work with!

Come on - don't be so ridiculous.

If you responded to something I actually said, if you quoted me directly, maybe you could start to say something relevant?

You say, "You're simply wrong. a sperm will never be anything more than a sperm."
Well, I never said a sperm (qua sperm that is of course) could ever be anything more than a sperm. YOUR FALSITY IS QUITE UNBECOMING.

It is what it is, and then one might say, when united with an ovum it becomes something else. Is that what you deny" Are you trying to say there is fertilization and "poof," everything that was part of the sperm is totally gone? It would be totally ridiculous to think that.

Your "new and unique lifeform" is an interesting invention.
A substitute for the "new life" you were talking about previously, I suppose. Kinda a bait and switch sorta thing, it seems.

Anyway, glad to see you are abandoning the idea there is "new life" at the point of fertilization. Certain a myth if not outright lie.
You realize of course it is only because of the misplaced zeal of "pro-life" people and their tendency to say anything that sounds good, sounds like it would promote their position, that they have for so long spewed forth such things!

And I don't know if you can notice it, but what I just said is NOT anything like "I told you so."
SO DON'T KEEP LYING ABOUT WHAT I SAY. If I had ever said anything like that, you could have actually quoted me, but of course you cannot!

 

[SPF]

I provided you with dozens of resources that demonstrate what you’re saying is nothing beyond your own uneducated opinion. Until you can bring some support to your opinions outside your colored text, I see no reason to give your subjective opinions any consideration.