-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
-
CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
Stem Cell Research
- Thread starter MarinoMan
- Start date
I already ridiculed that with a back waxing analogy.funyun said:
Unlike sperm however, a zygote has an entirely unique genetic construct.
Upvote
0
So lets suppose a person looses all his limbs in a terrible accident, and is so disfiguered to not "look" human, while retaining the cognitive abilities of a human, I'm sure you'd agree with me that they are still human.DaveS said:
Upvote
0
Velo Princesse
The Glue That Holds It All Together
Halitose said:
At best, in this case anyway, it has an entirely unique genetic construct that will be thrown away. So, we are back to why we wouldn't use them...
Upvote
0
Velo Princesse
The Glue That Holds It All Together
Halitose said:
I feel fairly confident that he's talking about the first time something looks human (in the womb) as opposed to any kind of mutilation that might happen thereafter.
Upvote
0
funyun
aude sapere...sed praeterea, aude esse
Halitose said:
You're comparing a congolomerate of cells to a single cell, and talking about uniqueness. To make the analogy applicable you'd have to talk about the fact that the gentic construct of each cell of the zygote is not unique, but identical to one another, as the genetic construct of each sperm is not unique but identical to one another. But of course, if you put it -that way, you're not making a point at all. I'm guessing that's why you didn't.
Upvote
0
The zygote is unique in itself. Unique to all other biological entities. It is unique to the both the sperm and the egg. You seem to be splitting hairs over a pointless issue here. Are you comfortable with genetics and embryology?funyun said:
Upvote
0
The point I was trying to get accross is that you don't have to "look" human to be accepted as human. Just because the average Joe doesn't sit down and have tea with an embryo doesn't mean it is not human.DaveS said:
Upvote
0
u rock dude
funyun
aude sapere...sed praeterea, aude esse
Halitose said:
No, what is splitting hairs is using the word "unique". I mean, what we base "unique" on is so arbitrary. It could be said one sperm is unique from another simply by virtue of the fact that they are different cells. Now, you say it's based on the genetic code, but what exactly makes that the objective standard? Nothing, plain and simple. The gist is, it's an arbitrary standard, just like when a zygote, or a fetus, even, becomes a person is an arbitrary standard.
Anyway, you can say a zygote is unique all you want, but it's still not a human being, nor is it conscious, nor is it capable of experiencing pain, etc. So how then, is killing the unique zygote any different from killing, say, the unique plant? And please, before you talk about how the zygote has the "potential to be human", let me refer you back to post #77.
Upvote
0
Velo Princesse
The Glue That Holds It All Together
Halitose said:
So does it being unique mean it's better used as trash? Whether you think it's a life or not, almost every time a couple uses invitro fertilization the woman is implanted with a relatively small percentage of the roughly 16 eggs that were fertilized. What is not implanted then will more than likely be thrown away, uniqueness and all. Why does that make more sense to you than using them to save "other" lives?
Upvote
0
We've already turned there and gone back again. A plant won't develop into a human in the right environment. Neither can a person in a coma feel pain. So can we kill them?funyun said:
Unique is used to explain a seperate entity. A hair is not a seperate entity, it is part of its host's body. Neither is sperm or an egg for that matter.
Your point in post #77 is a gross oversimplification. Do you understand how a diploid zygote differs from the haploid sperm and egg? I think a rudimentary knowledge of both genetics, embryology and maybe even ethics 101 would be a prerequisite to this type of discussion.
Upvote
0
I grudgingly agreed, remember, although I still question them being there in the first place.DuchessDinesOut said:
Upvote
0
Its 02h20 my time, so bed time for me. I've enjoyed this discussion. Nothing meant personally, so I hope no offence taken. Maybe we can finish it some other time.
Upvote
0
funyun
aude sapere...sed praeterea, aude esse
Halitose said:
"In the right environment". You could define "the right evironment" as the female anatomy just after sexual intercourse, in which case the available materials (egg + sperm) might eventually lead to a human.
Halitose said:
A leaf is not a sepreate entity from the tree, so therefore it cannot be unique versus other leaves by virtue of any of its other traits? Even if I were to concede the point I still don't see how uniqueness isn't still an arbitrary ruler for measuring whether or not something like stem cell research is acceptable.
Halitose said:
Don't talk down to me and try to pass it off as a form of argument. If you are going to talk about potential, you can't have the double standard between what already exists and what could exist because "what could exist" is what you are talking about in the first place! There is no difference between the zygote as function of potential and the sperm as a function of potential. Of course there are important and significant biological differences-- that's not the point.
For the record, ethics is not a prerequisite for this discussion due to the fact that that ethics is a relative subject, and a seperate argument in its own right.
Upvote
0
michabo
reason, evidence
Sorry dude, you can't use this argument and still keep your case. A zygote can't survive outside of the womb (nor can the embryo or foetus until relatively late term).Halitose said:
I do. What is the significance? You keep pointing out the differences, but why shoud we care?
Is it uniqueness that you want to preserve? (In which case you would agree to killing adults, provided we retain some of their cells. And you would agree to killing twins, after all they don't have unique genetic codes.)
What, exactly, is it about a "human" that you think is sacred and should not be killed? The genetic code? Uniqueness? There has to be something more.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
