 |
| |
|
|
November Adam
|
 |
Calgary, AB, Canada
Jul 2001
time: 22:18
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by loinburger
A parasite is: "An organism that grows, feeds, and is sheltered on or in a different organism while contributing nothing to the survival of its host."
This matches the description of an embryo. It does not match the description of a newborn, an invalid, or any of the multitude of useless misguided sociological examples you have brought up.
Unless you are implying that a human fits this description, then what the hell do you mean by "you have no idea what a human is"?
You said:
Therefore, embryos (which come before the fetal stage) would not be human. QED |
I'm sorry loin, but yous eem to be mixing definitions.
Is a human not a member of the homo sapien species?
You seem to be implying that a parasite is a special species? That an embryo is prot-human, or non-human. Which species is that?
Biologists' will often classify an ogranism by its adult stage, this is not to say that an organism isn't a member of that species until it is an adult, only that this is the stage that is the most devlopmentally stable.
Loin why are you missing this obvious nature of an organism? You seem to be trying to say that an embryo, and fetus are somesort of non-entity, even when giveing it an identity, in which to argue that it doesn't have one.
Last edited by November Adam on 02-04-2002 at 01:15
|
|
| |
|
|
|
loinburger
|
 |
Sweet Sauce Jones
Jul 1999
time: 00:18
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by November Adam
Is a human not a member of the homo sapien species? |
A human is a homo sapien. What's your point?
quote:
You seem to be implying that a parasite is a special species? |
No, there are several species that fall under the category of "parasite" (lampreys and tapeworms, to name a few). There is not one single "parasite" species. Note, however, that under the biological definition of a parasite, humans are not parasites.
quote:
That an embryo is prot-human, or non-human. Which species is that? |
Let's make up a name for it! My vote goes for "Cell Sac".
I'm more of the mind that an embryo is simply another body part on its mother, similar to the placenta or amniotic sac. Calling an embryo a "parasite" is only relevant when working from the assumption that the embryo is a separate life form from its host mother; therefore, it is your job to come up with a new species name for the embryo, not mine, since it is your assumption that the embryo is a separate life form, not mine.
quote:
Biologists' will often classify an ogranism by its adult stage, this is not to say that an organism isn't a member of that species until it is an adult, only that this is the stage that is the most devlopmentally stable. |
No problem there, a newborn is a human just as much as an adult is a human.
quote:
Loin why are you missing this obvious nature of an organism? |
What nature would that be? I'm willing to assume for the sake of argument that an embryo is a separate life form from its host mother, so what's the problem?
quote:
You seem to be trying to say that an embryo, and fetus are somesort of non-entity, even when giveing it an identity, in which to argue that it has one. |
What are you talking about? Like I said, I'm assuming for the sake of argument that the embryo is a separate life form from its host mother, in which case it would be parasitic and thus non-human. That's conceding an awful lot, since it is still open to question whether or not the embryo is actually a separate life form; I apologize for any inconsistencies on my part with regards to considering the embryo a separate life form, as I'm trying to adopt your assumption for the sake of showing that the embryo is still a non-human even if everybody accepts that it is a separate life form.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
November Adam
|
|
Calgary, AB, Canada
Jul 2001
time: 22:18
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Gibsie
True, but people still mourn the deaths of people who die through means other than murder. I've never seen someone who is pro-life bemoan an embryo that fails to implant itself into the womb of its mother... do you consider such a failure as much a tragedy as when a child dies?
|
It is unfortunate when an ebryo does fail to implant, the same as the loss of a child though? Biologicaly speaking, yes. Sociologicaly, no, as the child has had a chance to implant itself in the psyche of others. But then again my emotions are irrelevant to the nature of the organism.
quote:
Anyone who claims a feotus is otherwise is burying their head in the sand. If they can't deal with the notion that humans are being aborted, then they should surely be pro-life too. |
This is what it comes down to in my opinion. People are not comfortable with the thought of humans being aborted, so to be comfortable it is easier to say, it isn't human.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
November Adam
|
|
Calgary, AB, Canada
Jul 2001
time: 22:18
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by loinburger
A human is a homo sapien. What's your point?
|
An embryo has the DNA of a human, it is a seperate organism, uhm ,must be of the homo sapien species.
quote:
No, there are several species that fall under the category of "parasite" (lampreys and tapeworms, to name a few). There is not one single "parasite" species. Note, however, that under the biological definition of a parasite, humans are not parasites.
|
Kay follow me on this one..
1. Embryo is seperate entity (which has to be the case due to the fact that any part of an organism exists for the organism, where an embryo does not)
2. Embryo must have scientific classification... hmmm, lets look at the DNA structure, oh it's homo sapien. So embyo must belong to homo sapien species.
3. Dictionary gives definition of parasite... a seprate organism that lives off of another organism no benefit to the host..
4. Embryo exhibits these specifications.
5. Embryo is homo sapien> exhibits parastic nature> thus homo sapiens are parasitic in its early stage.
Just so you know they would look at the adult stage to determine if a creature is parasitic or not, so unless you are telling me that an embryo is the adult stage of this organism, it is not parasitic!
quote:
I'm more of the mind that an embryo is simply another body part on its mother, similar to the placenta or amniotic sac. Calling an embryo a "parasite" is only relevant when working from the assumption that the embryo is a separate life form from its host mother; therefore, it is your job to come up with a new species name for the embryo, not mine, since it is your assumption that the embryo is a separate life form, not mine.
|
If I where to scientifically classify the embryo, I would either a) look at it's DNA, or b) do as they did in the old days and wait for it to reach it's adult stage. oh wait... either way it's homo sapien.. 
No problem there, a newborn is a human just as much as an adult is a human.
What nature would that be? I'm willing to assume for the sake of argument that an embryo is a separate life form from its host mother, so what's the problem?
quote:
What are you talking about? Like I said, I'm assuming for the sake of argument that the embryo is a separate life form from its host mother, in which case it would be parasitic and thus non-human. That's conceding an awful lot, since it is still open to question whether or not the embryo is actually a separate life form; I apologize for any inconsistencies on my part with regards to considering the embryo a separate life form, as I'm trying to adopt your assumption for the sake of showing that the embryo is still a non-human even if everybody accepts that it is a separate life form. |
Well it does make it easier to argue, if we are both on the same page. So thanks.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mr. Nice Guy
|
 |
"I'm gonna speak softly, but carry a BIG STICK!!!"
Mar 2002
time: 23:18
|
|
human embryos are not born dogs. human embryos are not born cats. and vice versa. human embryos are not born as anything but humans and therefore are of the homo sapien species and deserve to be protected.
a human embryo or fetus may be parasitic, but should that be cause to take away it's human rights?! OF COURSE NOT!!!
Last edited by Mr. Nice Guy on 02-04-2002 at 02:02
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Tom201
|
|
Amsterdam
Dec 2001
time: 05:18
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by DarkCloud
DEVELOPMENTAL STAGE DOES NOT MATTER-"
The fact that they *could* be born and that they actually do already exist as formed creatures- soon to become human beings- Makes them human.
|
The problem is that u could say the same about sperm and egg (the earliest develpment stages of humans). But I dont expect anyone to opose killing sperms and eggs.
What makes a cell just created by the sperm and egg any diffrent from them being seperate (moral speaking)?
quote:
Originally posted by November Adam
You seem to think that humans aren't animals, that something has to seperate "us" from "them". Well how does having a brain make us human? Other animals have brains. We eat, sleep, and procreate just as other animals do. What makes us different is our gentic make up. Yes our blood cells have the same DNA (human blood), does that make them human? No, because they are a part of the whole. Just as a fertilized egg in our zygote stage is the whole of us, AT THAT TIME.
|
I would say that the ability of being intelegent makes us diffrent from animals, bzw. the other animals and thats the diffrence between human brains and animal brains. So just replace my statement about brains with human brains.
So without a human brain its an animal. There is no problem in killing animals for the profit of humans. Or do you opose killing animals (for example to eat them), too?
Sperm also contains human DNA and could form a child. Thus the DNA reasoning when defining a human is flawed.
For me an embryo in its early development stage is a creature comparable to an animal. Ok to kill for the profit of humans (in this case the mother).
|
|
| |
|
|
|
November Adam
|
|
Calgary, AB, Canada
Jul 2001
time: 22:18
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Tom201
The problem is that u could say the same about sperm and egg (the earliest develpment stages of humans). But I dont expect anyone to opose killing sperms and eggs.
What makes a cell just created by the sperm and egg any diffrent from them being seperate (moral speaking)?
|
The reason sperm, and an unfertilized egg aren't part of the cycle, is due to the issue of time. No matter how long an egg or a sperm sit there they do not develop further, yet a zygote does. It is not a static cell, that keeps it same form over time.
quote:
I would say that the ability of being intelegent makes us diffrent from animals, bzw. the other animals and thats the diffrence between human brains and animal brains. So just replace my statement about brains with human brains.
So without a human brain its an animal. There is no problem in killing animals for the profit of humans. Or do you opose killing animals (for example to eat them), too? |
Do animals have human DNA?
quote:
Sperm also contains human DNA and could form a child. Thus the DNA reasoning when defining a human is flawed.
|
As I said before a sperm is a static cell, it does not develope any further then where it is at. A zygote does develope further. Thus the difference in consideration.
A zygote is removed from the "typical" cell, thus it is no longer a part of the women. Unless one thinks that the women is forming a new neurvous system for her own use.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
loinburger
|
|
Sweet Sauce Jones
Jul 1999
time: 00:18
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by November Adam
1. Embryo is seperate entity (which has to be the case due to the fact that any part of an organism exists for the organism, where an embryo does not) |
I'm granting this for the sake of argument, but I'll get back to this point later.
quote:
2. Embryo must have scientific classification... hmmm, lets look at the DNA structure, oh it's homo sapien. So embyo must belong to homo sapien species.
3. Dictionary gives definition of parasite... a seprate organism that lives off of another organism no benefit to the host..
4. Embryo exhibits these specifications.
5. Embryo is homo sapien> exhibits parastic nature> thus homo sapiens are parasitic in its early stage.
Just so you know they would look at the adult stage to determine if a creature is parasitic or not, so unless you are telling me that an embryo is the adult stage of this organism, it is not parasitic! |
Fair enough, I guess I won't be able to form a tautology on this one; I realized that there are several species that go through an early parasitic stage, particularly insects and arachnids, so my argument that "an embryo is not a human because it is parasitic" doesn't work. I can no longer assume that "an embryo is a separate organism from its host mother" for the sake of argument, as doing so begs the question.
So, if everybody agrees that an embryo is a separate organism from its host mother (and not merely another cluster of cells that make up the host mother), then it follows that it is human. The matter is therefore a question of whether or not an embryo can be classified as a separate organism from its host mother, which it cannot.
Getting back to your statement,
quote:
1. Embryo is seperate entity (which has to be the case due to the fact that any part of an organism exists for the organism, where an embryo does not) |
My counterargument is that the embryo is a part of its host mother that exists for the purpose of procreation, just as the testes and sperm or ovaries and eggs are parts of males and females, respectively, that exist for the purpose of procreation.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
DarkCloud
|
 |
of Lists
Jul 2000
time: 05:18
|
|
Urban Ragner
quote:
Existing as formed creatures do not count since Western societies do not accord the same rights to creatures as they to humans. |
A non-issue.
quote:
Not really, because spontaneous abortions are quite common |
Another, and more obvious non-issue. Spontaneous abortions do happen, and I acknowledged it, however the natural process is for a baby to be born. It even makes sense! You would not be here if you were not born!
If the birth rate=0 and people die, then there will soon be no more people.
Thus, birth, being natural is correct.
quote:
Unfortunately for you, [3] does not logically follow [1] and [2]. As a matter of fact, [1] and [2] have very little to do with [3] |
How so?
To kill a child before he becomes an adult and can reason is murder
To kill a baby before he becomes a child and can think is murder
Thus, to kill the unborn before they can breathe is murder.
Merely becuase the unborn lack the ability to breathe,think, or reason is not a good reason to kill them.
One could even argue that they can feed themselves since they are "parasites" and suck in the nutrients. Thus, that defeats an argument down that path.
Breathing is done by the embryo at a certain stage, in fact they are breathing water, etc. (see a random Scientific American tv show)
Tom201
quote:
Originally posted by Tom201
The problem is that u could say the same about sperm and egg (the earliest develpment stages of humans). But I dont expect anyone to opose killing sperms and eggs.
What makes a cell just created by the sperm and egg any diffrent from them being seperate (moral speaking)? |
Ah, but you see-
technically the sperm and egg cells should not be killed, for the same reason that you listed.
(And it also gives credit to why the bible says that Mastrubation is wrong) example: The sperm are technically human beings that will be allowed to form when given a vessel from which to flow into.
quote:
A parasite is: "An organism that grows, feeds, and is sheltered on or in a different organism while contributing nothing to the survival of its host."
This matches the description of an embryo. It does not match the description of a newborn, an invalid, or any of the multitude of useless misguided sociological examples you have brought up. |
Ah, but Loinburger, when they are born they then provide for their families; or at least that is the logical thing for them to do- thus This "Natural Parisitism" reverses full force when in their old age, the old are cared for by the children.
quote:
So without a human brain its an animal. There is no problem in killing animals for the profit of humans. Or do you opose killing animals (for example to eat them), too?
Sperm also contains human DNA and could form a child. Thus the DNA reasoning when defining a human is flawed. |
Ah, but yet, the embryo forms into a human brain and preventing the formation is murder, etc.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
loinburger
|
|
Sweet Sauce Jones
Jul 1999
time: 00:18
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by DarkCloud
Ah, but Loinburger, when they are born they then provide for their families; or at least that is the logical thing for them to do- thus This "Natural Parisitism" reverses full force when in their old age, the old are cared for by the children. |
First off, I have been using the biological definition of "parasitism," not any sociological definition. Secondly and more importantly, I have already conceded to November Adam that if it is determined that the embryo is a separate entity from its mother that it is therefore human, and have abandoned the "embryo as non-human parasite" argument in favor of the (preferred) "embryo as body part" argument (that, in hindsight, I should have been following all along).
quote:
Ah, but yet, the embryo forms into a human brain and preventing the formation is murder, etc. |
How so? Murder is "wrongful killing", not "prevention of procreation." Unless all forms of birth control are murder because they prevent the formation of a human, then to remain consistent it would not be murder to abort an embryo.
Edit: Upon further reading your post, it appears that you do grant the same "rights as humans" to sperm and eggs as to newborns. I can't even begin to fathom this, seeing as how sperm and eggs don't even have human DNA. 
Last edited by loinburger on 02-04-2002 at 02:53
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Tom201
|
|
Amsterdam
Dec 2001
time: 05:18
|
|
Ok here a new point:
Most pro-life activists, or posters in this thread agree that abortion should be granted in special cases like rape.
This implys that an embryo is a lesser being than a newborn.
I dont expect them to also support the killing of a newborn if the father has raped the woman.
When the embryo is equal to a newborn, why make diffrences in special cases?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Tom201
|
|
Amsterdam
Dec 2001
time: 05:18
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by DarkCloud
Ah, but you see-
technically the sperm and egg cells should not be killed, for the same reason that you listed.
(And it also gives credit to why the bible says that Mastrubation is wrong) example: The sperm are technically human beings that will be allowed to form when given a vessel from which to flow into.
|
Hm, ok so what u saying is:
a) When I use a condom when having sex I kill children?
b) there is no moral diffrence between a sperm and an embryo
I agree with b
|
|
| |
|
|
|
loinburger
|
|
Sweet Sauce Jones
Jul 1999
time: 00:18
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by November Adam
How many body parts require the DNA of another organism to form? |
Not counting any parts of the immune system, I'm pretty sure that it's just the zygote.
quote:
Your right the zygote is the goal of procreation (the act of having sex), the exchange of DNA from two organisms to create a new organism with the combined DNA of the 2. |
Don't put words in my mouth, I said:
"The act of a sperm fusing with an egg creates the zygote, which may form into an embryo, which, finally, may form into an independent organism (either a fetus or a newborn, depending on where the line is drawn), thereby accomplishing procreation."
The "fetus" or "newborn" is the independent organism, not the zygote or embryo. Thus procreation is not accomplished until the fetus/newborn is formed.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
November Adam
|
|
Calgary, AB, Canada
Jul 2001
time: 22:18
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by loinburger
Not counting any parts of the immune system, I'm pretty sure that it's just the zygote.
|
The DNA of an outside force is required to activate the cells, or to tell the body to create more of the immune cells, not to actually be involved in the creation of that body part.
So just the zygote... if it is the only one than it is could be possible that it isn't a body part.
quote:
Don't put words in my mouth, I said:
"The act of a sperm fusing with an egg creates the zygote, which may form into an embryo, which, finally, may form into an independent organism (either a fetus or a newborn, depending on where the line is drawn), thereby accomplishing procreation."
The "fetus" or "newborn" is the independent organism, not the zygote or embryo. Thus procreation is not accomplished until the fetus/newborn is formed. |
 I'm not arguing about an independent organism rather a seperate organism.
I'm pretty sure the sole goal of the sperm cell is to meet with the egg cell. THIS is the act of procreation, it creates a cell that is not native to the womens body, thus it is seperate. Once the zygote is created what further act of procreation is required? The DNA has been exchanged... that's all that is necessary to start the life cycle.
Do you agree that this is the life cylce for a human:
zygote>embryo>fetus>infant>child>young adult> adult.... dead.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:18.
Apolyton Time is 00:18. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
01-04-2002 23:48
|