Perhaps a good scientific definition of when a human life begins is when cells unite to form a completely unique individual complete with its own set of genes that are completely unique.
The Proudest Hour of the Prolife Movement.
- Thread starter SirJosephPorter
- Start date
Well, I tried. As I said, though, I am an amateur scientist in about any science except the science of fire.
Well, I tried. As I said, though, I am an amateur scientist in about any science except the science of fire.
I'm not a pro scientist either. In fact, I still don't have a degree. I will by Christmas, well technically I will have to wait until next May for my Diploma.
I explained to you a while back that the embryo has it's own biochemistry, different from it's mother's. Without that difference, the embryo would die. Nobody disagrees on this. At least nobody who knows a little bit of biochemistry.
Perhaps. But how does that make it a life? A swamp or wetland has its own biochemistry. Does that mean that it is alive? There is no single, simple definition of life.
Would you agree that an entity with energetic needs, which needs biological systems to utilize energy, deal with waste products, maintain homeostasis, is a living thing?
I think so. And the embryo fulfills all these conditions, right from the birth? When it is two or four cells, it has all this?
It is living in the sense that it has a definite biochemistry system to deal with the issues of being a living thing...
Again, at what point does its have its own biochemistry? It can’t be from the moment of conception.
Quote:
The cells in human body can remain alive indefinitely in a Petri dish. - SJP
But the whole body, ie the human being, cannot. - Tonington
Same could be said of say, a one month embryo. Its individual cells can remain alive, but the embryo cannot, outside mother’s body.
Quote:
So is the embryo alive in the sense that dead body is alive, or in the sense that a human being is alive? We don’t know. - SJP
I know. You don't know. - Tonington - Tonington
That is right, you may, but I don’t know. When life begins is a very complex question, there is no simple answer. Scientists rightly stay away from the subject.
I am quite certain that your denial of modern biology and chemistry, and the complex interplay between the two is driven purely by your politics.
There is no denial here, Tonington. When there is a scientific consensus that life begins at conception, I will believe it. In matters of science, I defer to scientists, in this case biologists (I am a physical scientist, not a biologist).
Right, the DNA is what tells us it was a human. Please stop being so obtuse.
But the dead body also has DNA, the cells in the dead body have DNA. DNA tells us it is human if it is alive. However, DNA by itself does not tell us if it is alive or not.
Anyway, I am off now. We will pick it up tomorrow, if you wish.
Perhaps. But how does that make it a life? A swamp or wetland has its own biochemistry. Does that mean that it is alive? There is no single, simple definition of life.
Would you agree that an entity with energetic needs, which needs biological systems to utilize energy, deal with waste products, maintain homeostasis, is a living thing?
I think so. And the embryo fulfills all these conditions, right from the birth? When it is two or four cells, it has all this?
It is living in the sense that it has a definite biochemistry system to deal with the issues of being a living thing...
Again, at what point does its have its own biochemistry? It can’t be from the moment of conception.
Quote:
The cells in human body can remain alive indefinitely in a Petri dish. - SJP
But the whole body, ie the human being, cannot. - Tonington
Same could be said of say, a one month embryo. Its individual cells can remain alive, but the embryo cannot, outside mother’s body.
Quote:
So is the embryo alive in the sense that dead body is alive, or in the sense that a human being is alive? We don’t know. - SJP
I know. You don't know. - Tonington - Tonington
That is right, you may, but I don’t know. When life begins is a very complex question, there is no simple answer. Scientists rightly stay away from the subject.
I am quite certain that your denial of modern biology and chemistry, and the complex interplay between the two is driven purely by your politics.
There is no denial here, Tonington. When there is a scientific consensus that life begins at conception, I will believe it. In matters of science, I defer to scientists, in this case biologists (I am a physical scientist, not a biologist).
Right, the DNA is what tells us it was a human. Please stop being so obtuse.
But the dead body also has DNA, the cells in the dead body have DNA. DNA tells us it is human if it is alive. However, DNA by itself does not tell us if it is alive or not.
Anyway, I am off now. We will pick it up tomorrow, if you wish.
You're asking too much, Mr. Wolf He doesn't even understand half of what he's told.
According to an awful lot of authorities on the issue Joey isn't even close.
Last edited:
More:
Dr. Hymie Gordon (Mayo Clinic): “By all criteria of modern molecular biology, life is present from the moment of conception.”
Dr. Micheline Matthews-Roth (Harvard University Medical School): “It is scientifically correct to say that an individual human life begins at conception.”
Dr. Alfred Bongioanni (University of Pennsylvania): “I have learned from my earliest medical education that human life begins at the time of conception.”
Dr. Jerome LeJeune, “the Father of Modern Genetics” (University of Descartes, Paris): “To accept the fact that after fertilization has taken place a new human has come into being is no longer a matter of taste or opinion . . . it is plain experimental evidence.”
And:
http://www.westchesterinstitute.net/images/wi_whitepaper_life_print.pdf
So, once again, intellectually-deprived, lil Joey has done it to himself again.
Dr. Hymie Gordon (Mayo Clinic): “By all criteria of modern molecular biology, life is present from the moment of conception.”
Dr. Micheline Matthews-Roth (Harvard University Medical School): “It is scientifically correct to say that an individual human life begins at conception.”
Dr. Alfred Bongioanni (University of Pennsylvania): “I have learned from my earliest medical education that human life begins at the time of conception.”
Dr. Jerome LeJeune, “the Father of Modern Genetics” (University of Descartes, Paris): “To accept the fact that after fertilization has taken place a new human has come into being is no longer a matter of taste or opinion . . . it is plain experimental evidence.”
And:
http://www.westchesterinstitute.net/images/wi_whitepaper_life_print.pdf
So, once again, intellectually-deprived, lil Joey has done it to himself again.
No. You're confusing ecology with biochemistry. Not the same thing.
Yes. And what it doesn't, the mother's system provide.
Yes, it is. When one cell splits, it is directed by nucleic acids. That is biochemistry. Biochemistry is the science of chemical reactions governing life. That is the point...
So? You just admitted the embryo is alive. It's definitely Homo sapien.
You're painting yourself into a corner now...
There may not be a simple answer, but there are some answers, some with more merit than others.
Amongst biologists, there are competing views. Embryological (life begins at gastrulation), metabolic (no single defining moment, a smooth gradual process, even fertilization can take up to one day to complete), genetic (Les pretty much posted this already with the meeting of genetic material and the creation of a unique new genotype), neurological (related to classifying death, brain death, cardiac death, so life in this sense begins when there is a distinct EEG pattern), and humanities (when the person acquires human qualities, what are these anyways...)
Depending on your background, you'll be in one of these camps. Politics of course enters into things. I, happen to be a pro-choice person, but I am a hybrid of genetic/embryological/metabolic in my view.
I'm an aquaculturist. In my field, the womb is replaced by eggs. The eggs hatch date is dependent on temperature. If it's 500 degree days to hatch, that means it would take 50 days at 10°, or 125 days at 4°. The eggs will die is the temperature is too high/too low, if the oxygen in the water is too low, if other dissolved gasses are too high, if a fungus infects them. They are obviously living to me. A dead egg has become white, or will sink, or float, depending on the species.
To make my point, even though the fry aren't out of the eggs yet, they are alive. We need to provide specific water conditions to ensure they survive. A human embryo requires the same thing. The mitotic division of cells, the formation of a germinal disk, the production of amino acids and enzymes, the presence of glycolysis, these are all things that happen when life is progressing as the nucleic acids dictate. Nucleic acids are found in all living things that we know of. We have as yet, not found any other method of information storage and transmission in living things except through nucleic acids and proteins.
Inactive DNA. Inactive organs. Tissues can remain active because the cells that make them up have their own stored energy (glycogen) and there are still sufficient solutes in the cytosol and extra-cellular fluid to allow pumps, nervous impulses, and other minor cell functions to continue.
What a cell needs, and what a body needs are very different.
Last edited:
Quote:
I think so. And the embryo fulfills all these conditions, right from the birth? When it is two or four cells, it has all this?
Yes. And what it doesn't, the mother's system provide.
Oh, so you agree that it cannot provide everything it needs, do you?
Yes, it is. When one cell splits, it is directed by nucleic acids. That is biochemistry. Biochemistry is the science of chemical reactions governing life. That is the point...
I agree with you here. But again, I come back to my point, what kind of life. The fact that there is biochemistry means that the individual cells are alive, that does not necessarily mean that the organism is alive. Does the organism have a consciousness? We again come back to the analogy of dead body. Biochemical activity by individual cells does not necessarily indicate life at a higher level.
Quote:
Same could be said of say, a one month embryo. Its individual cells can remain alive, but the embryo cannot, outside mother’s body.
So? You just admitted the embryo is alive. It's definitely Homo sapien.
You're painting yourself into a corner now...
Not at all, Tonignton. I have already said that individual cells in the embryo may be considered alive. But is the embryo alive? That is a difficult question.
Amongst biologists, there are competing views. Embryological (life begins at gastrulation), metabolic (no single defining moment, a smooth gradual process, even fertilization can take up to one day to complete), genetic (Les pretty much posted this already with the meeting of genetic material and the creation of a unique new genotype), neurological (related to classifying death, brain death, cardiac death, so life in this sense begins when there is a distinct EEG pattern), and humanities (when the person acquires human qualities, what are these anyways...)
Now this is the first instance where we are in total agreement. The whole issue is complex and there really are no simple, easy answers.
I, happen to be a pro-choice person, but I am a hybrid of genetic/embryological/metabolic in my view.
I am pro choice as well. Then what are we arguing about? These are very complex, nebulous issues; I think we are just discussing how many angels can dance on the tip of a needle. And I am not a biologist (as I said before, I am a physical scientist), so I really couldn’t say that I am genetic, metabolic etc or any kind of hybrid.
I think so. And the embryo fulfills all these conditions, right from the birth? When it is two or four cells, it has all this?
Yes. And what it doesn't, the mother's system provide.
Oh, so you agree that it cannot provide everything it needs, do you?
Yes, it is. When one cell splits, it is directed by nucleic acids. That is biochemistry. Biochemistry is the science of chemical reactions governing life. That is the point...
I agree with you here. But again, I come back to my point, what kind of life. The fact that there is biochemistry means that the individual cells are alive, that does not necessarily mean that the organism is alive. Does the organism have a consciousness? We again come back to the analogy of dead body. Biochemical activity by individual cells does not necessarily indicate life at a higher level.
Quote:
Same could be said of say, a one month embryo. Its individual cells can remain alive, but the embryo cannot, outside mother’s body.
So? You just admitted the embryo is alive. It's definitely Homo sapien.
You're painting yourself into a corner now...
Not at all, Tonignton. I have already said that individual cells in the embryo may be considered alive. But is the embryo alive? That is a difficult question.
Amongst biologists, there are competing views. Embryological (life begins at gastrulation), metabolic (no single defining moment, a smooth gradual process, even fertilization can take up to one day to complete), genetic (Les pretty much posted this already with the meeting of genetic material and the creation of a unique new genotype), neurological (related to classifying death, brain death, cardiac death, so life in this sense begins when there is a distinct EEG pattern), and humanities (when the person acquires human qualities, what are these anyways...)
Now this is the first instance where we are in total agreement. The whole issue is complex and there really are no simple, easy answers.
I, happen to be a pro-choice person, but I am a hybrid of genetic/embryological/metabolic in my view.
I am pro choice as well. Then what are we arguing about? These are very complex, nebulous issues; I think we are just discussing how many angels can dance on the tip of a needle. And I am not a biologist (as I said before, I am a physical scientist), so I really couldn’t say that I am genetic, metabolic etc or any kind of hybrid.
Of course. Humans aren't autotrophs you know...:lol:
Does a diatom have a consciousness? Not by any definition I'm aware of. But it's certainly alive.
You're moving goal posts now. Life at a higher level? The embryo stage takes the human from the first cell division to this:
It's a living human being. It's a developing human being. After this point, when it's called a fetus, it's still a human. Nothing changes in that respect.
I don't think it's that difficult. It has everything that I had. It is a developing human. Why wouldn't it be considered alive? Could you have an abortion or miscarriage if it wasn't alive?
It's not a haircut...
We are arguing about the life of a child. Absent some horrible tragedy, it will become a newborn. It will become an adult. It's a human. It's a living thing. I can't see how anyone would say otherwise.
You set the precedent of quoting Scripture, L. Gilbert, in stating all moral stands are relative, self serving, expedient and that a single Truth cannot be assertained. I usually don't quote the Bible except in response to a similar quote.. so i've posted this, a response from a Cleric with references, as to the authority of the faith, of the Church, in ascribing Truth to certain doctrine, the doctrine of Life in this instance. This architecture goes further, since the Holy Spirit is present in every individual accorded the Gift of Life by God, this Truth is accessible, in fact innate to every person. It takes a willful act of rebellion to deny it.
This goes far beyond an 'opinion', a reasoned argument in support of a position.. it formulates a fundamental understanding of a transcendent battlefield of Truth and Lies as absolute and sovereign principalities. It's existence can only be assertained through faith, but there is no middle ground.. no non combatants in this. You will have to pick a side and will be thrown into the fight. Whatever the choice you will inextricably link yourself to the prince and ruler of that principality.
It is impossible to accept that there is a maudlin middle ground of non-allegiance here. And there has never been any contesting in Church doctrine that life begins at conception, and taking that life on an innocent is murder.
Last edited:
After the murder, CNN went looking for anyone who had been offered a late term abortion but declined it. They found a woman who proudly said she refused. The baby was born and died within 24 hours. The story was presented in a way that we were to all stand and applaud her heroics and chant pro-life. She said lots of "I feel"s. Never once considered how someone else might feel about giving birth to a baby desitined to die within hours of birth.
I have still not heard of one case where a late term abortion was done for reasons other than extreme health issues of the fetus. I get tired of this topic because the issue isn't about whether it's human life. Of course it is. It's about legal issues and it's about serious health matters. The rest of it is pure irrelevant bs.
I have still not heard of one case where a late term abortion was done for reasons other than extreme health issues of the fetus. I get tired of this topic because the issue isn't about whether it's human life. Of course it is. It's about legal issues and it's about serious health matters. The rest of it is pure irrelevant bs.
...and what are legal issues other than people telling other people what they can or can't do.