David Daleiden Doubles Down

[PapaZoom]

I see no compelling evidence of a lie, just your opinion.

I can tell you that one part of your opinion is definitely wrong, that you are either for or against a woman being able to kill an unborn human being. I am definitely against that in most circumstances (medical emergencies should be taken into account). The thing is, many fetuses are not human beings, not until they begin to have higher brain function.

is that a scientific view or your personal view?

 

[SepiaAndDust]

is that a scientific view or your personal view?

We've been over that in countless threads. You really want to make your Daleiden thread about personhood?

 

[PapaZoom]

We've been over that in countless threads. You really want to make your Daleiden thread about personhood?

The thing is, many fetuses are not human beings, not until they begin to have higher brain function.

no mention of personhood was made....the quote was that fetuses are not human beings, which is scientifically false. And you should know that.

 

[SepiaAndDust]

The thing is, many fetuses are not human beings, not until they begin to have higher brain function.

no mention of personhood was made....the quote was that fetuses are not human beings, which is scientifically false. And you should know that.

OK, personhood derail, it is.

It's not scientifically false. A fetus is not a human being. It's a blob of tissue. It's human tissue, to be sure, and while connected to Mama, it's alive. But it's not a human being.

 

[PapaZoom]

OK, personhood derail, it is.

It's not scientifically false. A fetus is not a human being. It's a blob of tissue. It's human tissue, to be sure, and while connected to Mama, it's alive. But it's not a human being.

"Human development begins after the union of male and female gametes or germ cells during a process known as fertilization (conception).
"Fertilization is a sequence of events that begins with the contact of a sperm (spermatozoon) with a secondary oocyte (ovum) and ends with the fusion of their pronuclei (the haploid nuclei of the sperm and ovum) and the mingling of their chromosomes to form a new cell. This fertilized ovum, known as a zygote, is a large diploid cell that is the beginning, or primordium, of a human being."
[Moore, Keith L. Essentials of Human Embryology. Toronto: B.C. Decker Inc, 1988, p.2]

"Although life is a continuous process, fertilization is a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new, genetically distinct human organism is thereby formed.... The combination of 23 chromosomes present in each pronucleus results in 46 chromosomes in the zygote. Thus the diploid number is restored and the embryonic genome is formed. The embryo now exists as a genetic unity."
[O'Rahilly, Ronan and M�ller, Fabiola. Human Embryology & Teratology. 2nd edition. New York: Wiley-Liss, 1996, pp. 8, 29. This textbook lists "pre-embryo" among "discarded and replaced terms" in modern embryology, describing it as "ill-defined and inaccurate" (p. 12}]

Ann Furedi, the chief executive of the largest independent abortion provider in the UK, said this in a 2008 debate:

We can accept that the embryo is a living thing in the fact that it has a beating heart, that it has its own genetic system within it. It’s clearly human in the sense that it’s not a gerbil, and we can recognize that it is human life.

Naomi Wolf, a prominent feminist author and abortion supporter, makes a similar concession when she writes:

Clinging to a rhetoric about abortion in which there is no life and no death, we entangle our beliefs in a series of self-delusions, fibs and evasions. And we risk becoming precisely what our critics charge us with being: callous, selfish and casually destructive men and women who share a cheapened view of human life...we need to contextualize the fight to defend abortion rights within a moral framework that admits that the death of a fetus is a real death.

Peter Singer, contemporary philosopher and public abortion advocate, joins the chorus in his book, Practical Ethics. He writes:

It is possible to give ‘human being’ a precise meaning. We can use it as equivalent to ‘member of the species Homo sapiens’. Whether a being is a member of a given species is something that can be determined scientifically, by an examination of the nature of the chromosomes in the cells of living organisms. In this sense there is no doubt that from the first moments of its existence an embryo conceived from human sperm and eggs is a human being.

and these are quotes from choicers

 

[SepiaAndDust]

and these are quotes from choicers

I thought you were ignoring me.

In any event, all of those quotes say exactly the same thing I said. None of them say that a fetus is a human being in the context you're using the term.

Here are some more quotes you should probably avoid.

 

[KCfromNC]

We've been over that in countless threads. You really want to make your Daleiden thread about personhood?

As several anti-abortion posters have said, the actions of the CMP have made their entire movement look bad, so I think that distracting people from the criminal indictments would be quite welcome. Let's not let that happen.

 

[Vylo]

The thing is, many fetuses are not human beings, not until they begin to have higher brain function.

no mention of personhood was made....the quote was that fetuses are not human beings, which is scientifically false. And you should know that.

That would not be scientifically false. A fetus is human, but not always a human being or a person. In order to be a person, one must possess personality or human thought. Without higher brain function this is not possible.

 

[PapaZoom]

That would not be scientifically false. A fetus is human, but not always a human being or a person. In order to be a person, one must possess personality or human thought. Without higher brain function this is not possible.

You are wrong. A new and unique human being comes into existence at the moment of conception. This is basic scientific embryology. Before you respond again you need to read up on the article I posted. Your opinion doesn't matter and neither does mine. It's a scientific fact and that's what counts.

 

[Vylo]

You are wrong. A new and unique human being comes into existence at the moment of conception. This is basic scientific embryology. Before you respond again you need to read up on the article I posted. Your opinion doesn't matter and neither does mine. It's a scientific fact and that's what counts.

You do not present an scientific article that addresses this.

They aren't a person. Personhood comes from thought. Otherwise you could scoop the brain out of a body, and say that body was still a person, it isn't. But keep the brain alive and hook it up to a machine, and that's a person, because it still has their thoughts and personality.

 

[PapaZoom]

You do not present an scientific article that addresses this.

They aren't a person. Personhood comes from thought. Otherwise you could scoop the brain out of a body, and say that body was still a person, it isn't. But keep the brain alive and hook it up to a machine, and that's a person, because it still has their thoughts and personality.

I have elsewhere and I said human being. I never mentioned personhood.

 

[jayem]

I have elsewhere and I said human being. I never mentioned personhood.

Personhood is the central issue in the legal sense. Have you read Roe v. Wade? Section IX is the key. Justice Blackmun's opinion discusses this in some legal and historical detail. And this is what the Court's majority found:

All this, together with our observation, supra, that, throughout the major portion of the 19th century, prevailing legal abortion practices were far freer than they are today, persuades us that the word "person," as used in the Fourteenth Amendment, does not include the unborn.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/410/113

This is very strict, textualist construction. (Which most conservatives generally support.) The Constitution never explicitly states, or even implies, that the unborn have any rights independent of the mother. I know this invites comparison with Scott v. Sanford. And it does, because at that time, the legal rights of Black persons was also never specified in the text of the Constitution. Scott v. Sanford was corrected by the 14th Amendment. And for all the states to recognize the unborn as legal persons will also require an amendment.

 

[PapaZoom]

Personhood is the central issue in the legal sense. Have you read Roe v. Wade? Section IX is the key. Justice Blackmun's opinion discusses this in some legal and historical detail. And this is what the Court's majority found:

All this, together with our observation, supra, that, throughout the major portion of the 19th century, prevailing legal abortion practices were far freer than they are today, persuades us that the word "person," as used in the Fourteenth Amendment, does not include the unborn.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/410/113

This is very strict, textualist construction. (Which most conservatives generally support.) The Constitution never explicitly states, or even implies, that the unborn have any rights independent of the mother. I know this invites comparison with Scott v. Sanford. And it does, because at that time, the legal rights of Black persons was also never specified in the text of the Constitution. Scott v. Sanford was corrected by the 14th Amendment. And for all the states to recognize the unborn as legal persons will also require an amendment.

The question of human personhood is a philosophical one and not scientific. The "when" will vary from idea to idea and there is no way to fully test the truth of the proposition. Any good jurist can make the Constitution say just about anything with enough legalistic mumbo-jumbo. It's an argument that is necessary because the full humanity of the unborn from conception to birth is not in question scientifically. And by full humanity I am referring to the fact that at the moment of conception, a new and unique human being comes into existence. This is a scientific fact. Personhood is a philosophical speculation. No one knows for sure when this personhood actualizes. It's like suggesting that one day the human being is not a person and the next day they are. One day you can kill him/her, the next day you can't.

 

[jayem]

It's an argument that is necessary because the full humanity of the unborn from conception to birth is not in question scientifically. And by full humanity I am referring to the fact that at the moment of conception, a new and unique human being comes into existence.

What you call "full humanity" is the same thing I call personhood. And what you call a human being, I call a person. These are not questions of biology (or of linguistics) but of philosophy and law.

Look at it this way:

A acorn is not an oak tree. It's an acorn.

A tadpole is not a frog. It's a tadpole.

A caterpillar is not a butterfly. It's a caterpillar.

An embryo is not a baby. It's an embryo.

In science, potentiality is not the same as actuality.

 

[Vylo]

I have elsewhere and I said human being. I never mentioned personhood.

Human being is defined as a person, and would imply personhood. Not all that is human is a person.

 

[PapaZoom]

What you call "full humanity" is the same thing I call personhood. And what you call a human being, I call a person. These are not questions of biology (or of linguistics) but of philosophy and law.

Look at it this way:

A acorn is not an oak tree. It's an acorn.

A tadpole is not a frog. It's a tadpole.

A caterpillar is not a butterfly. It's a caterpillar.

An embryo is not a baby. It's an embryo.

In science, potentiality is not the same as actuality.

In science, and embryo is a human being

 

[PapaZoom]

Human being is defined as a person, and would imply personhood. Not all that is human is a person.

No it is not. Personhood is a philosophical construct. Understanding what constitutes a human being is a scientific one.

 

[jayem]

In science, and embryo is a human being

Is that supposed to be a convincing argument? You can do better than that.

 

[PapaZoom]

Is that supposed to be a convincing argument? You can do better than that.

When you ignore the science in this case, you show you willingness to blind yourself to the truth.

 

[KCfromNC]

Again, let's not let this thread get bogged down in rhetoric. It is supposed to be discussing how the leader of a prominent anti-abortion group has been indicted for several charges, including a felony and illegally attempting to buy human organs. That's the important message to keep in the forefront here.