Beginning of Human Life

[leroy]

Oooh, you admitted defeat again. No one is killing a child.

I am sincerely and truly disappointed

I honestly thought that you where going to make an honest reply to my comment.

But anyway your silence is a tacit admittion that my arguments are good

 

[Subduction Zone]

I am sincerely and truly disappointed

I honestly thought that you where going to make an honest reply to my comment.

But anyway your silence is a tacit admittion that my arguments are good

Using semantic games is not honest. That is what you just did.

You are once again accusing others of your sins. Don't complain about others not being honest when you use those tactics.

 

[cladking]

I find it far more cruel to dismiss someone's opportunity to live because you prejudge the quality of their life.

No. Everyone has the right to live and this obviously applies to unborn fetuses after 5 1/2 months. There is no such right to potential humans. Just as there is no such right to the eggs in a fetus' womb.

I think perhaps you are misusing the term "defining charactetistic".

No. I am not. A stone in the shape of a man is not human no matter how good the artist. A human by definition has consciousness and the ability to be concerned with human things.

Ah, so endangered plant species deserve no protection.

I consider plants to be conscious and to have an "external" brain. All life is individual and all life is conscious. It is against the interests of society (humans) to cause the extinction of ANY species and this even includes plant life. It should be avoided but this hardly means we are required to gather and plant every dandelion seed carried on the wind.

One might think that what unloved babies should be offered from society is... love. Not destruction. Oh well.

The problem is they often never get it. The mothers don't give them up or they are taken into foster homes and orphanages for financial reasons. If there's a dollar to be made someone will grab it.

We legislate morality all of the time. This is nonsense.

I don't see that in my world.

Society is supposed to make laws to foster the liberty and pursuit of happiness of the greatest possible number while protecting itself from miscreants. Some societies do this well and others allow religious concepts to creep into the legislative process.

Protecting zygotes from evil women is certainly an example of the latter.

That's certainly an authoritative stance.

Science has no definition for "human" or consciousness. Anyone saying otherwise is selling something.

 

[Mister Emu]

I consider plants to be conscious and to have an "external" brain.

It would have been much easier if you started by saying you had no intention of basing your beliefs in fact and objectivity.

Science has no definition for "human".

That's not accurate. Science defines human as any member of the homo sapiens species.

 

[cladking]

It would have been much easier if you started by saying you had no intention of basing your beliefs in fact and objectivity.

Slime molds leave trails for memory. There's absolutely no reason to believe every individual on the planet is not conscious. Our inability to communicate with even our closest relatives may be indicative of something other than lack of intelligence or lack of consciousness. It is quite apparent that there is other interspecies communication.

That's not accurate. Science defines human as any member of the homo sapiens species.

No. It is hardly that simple. There are many reasons it's not that simple but one of the big ones is many of the characteristics that don't involve gross differences in genetics are simply undefined.

Humans are simply named "homo sapiens" just as we call little hopping rodents "rabbits". It doesn't mean all rabbits are alike or are in any way interchangeable just as "rodent" is a taxonomy and an abstraction. Rabbits nor humans are abstraction. Naming something does not impart anything concrete to it just as calling out "here rabbit rabbit" will rarely result in a bunny hopping up to you. Even dead humans might house living sperm, eggs, or zygotes. An egg in its grandmother's womb is certainly alive but then there's a "grandmother" in name only and she might die before any fetus has a child. The egg, the zygote, and even the grandmother are mere words until the fetus is conscious and "grandmother" is a mere word until the woman born of the fetus has a child.

People confuse words with reality.

 

[rational experiences]

If men knowingly said I claim legality of life.

We all know life anywhere is life.

So when humans caused the unnatural attack sacrifice of all living things. Confessed. As no human owned why anything existed. It was Known.

So today you own no argument about life's atmospheric new experiments. You had caused it yourself. Why he argues his claim is.... I don't own gods mass.

Neither comment as first advice is listened to. As in nature laws natural first any position mutual it hadn't caused it. Another advice he ignores.

So Mr ego destroyer human man said I am a hypocrite. I know everything I say I secretly don't believe in any of it. As himself.

So men said my own human man confession status.... I am a hypocrite.

But my oath is by my self-control.

So his new order his oath was celibacy.

As every single problem he incurred for life on earth was his onus. Man's choice.

Knew.

Stated so. I need to re order my civilisation strategy about my own self. I knew I was out of control.

So rich man became father of the church and re order was celibate.

As he said everything wrong I man personally committed all life to. So I need to enforce a model of my own self control.

Was his correct self reviewed answer.

Designer rich man of human god inferred lies...was designer to designer science man. Stopped science. Built the first natural healing centre. Church by structure resonating.

He served the people. Knew.

Hence legally man said my want of human sex my own life continuance had caused a lot of Inherited life problems.

As it's true.

No sex. We'd all age. Naturally die consciously and human body removed. Earth would be safe from human abuse and so would each other. Known real review.

As it is historically a real and true human realisation. Re order celibacy.

To re order by order as he had caused all things to be harmed. His new order was service only. An oath to service. To serve family.

Who by scientific review had been so mind brain body damaged they would not stop having sex. He knew he had to establish his position. For future reference.

As they knew the mind body control of humans had been so damaged. Family no longer lived unified for sanctity of life on earth.

Therefore when a man chose then owns forced penetration of a woman's body he knew he was wrong. When nature had sealed her womb.

And due to his miscarriage of justice notice sexual connotation is involved...
God had caused some women to lose damaged feotus.

As men had caused body damage to all things by science causes a fallout constat. When even the star hadn't fallen constantly. As proven as a Christ star wanderer.....then he knew that women's health his life equal was his first lawful review.

Why medical law oath upheld mother's life was first in a medical decision.

Why the church medical oaths were originally mutual.

Marriage as a legality certificate was enstated to try to overcome bastardry. Civil problems were acute.

Therefore they had to support sex but only in marriage. And made it a legal binding.

Hence any civil problem is involved. It's not just about right or wrong.

Right to life said the tribunal review stated that they impose no sex first. As it was written by the holy father's fight for human rights.

The review said yet legally there is no stopping human sex.

As it was just a humans review in legal terms civilisation status. Won't listen to his advice. Celibacy.

Stated after human life mind had changed as did behaviours.

 

[Mister Emu]

There's absolutely no reason to believe every individual on the planet is not conscious.

There's equal reason to believe that rocks and dandelions are conscious.

If you want to base your philosophy on wishful thinking, arbitrary supposition, and convenient definitions, by all means.

Our inability to communicate with even our closest relatives may be indicative of something other than lack of intelligence or lack of consciousness.

What inability? Are you uninformed on the fact that several higher primates have not just communicated, but expressed abstract thought and self-awareness in human language?

No. It is hardly that simple.

Yes. You can look it up if you'd like. In the sciences human is defined as a member of the homo sapiens species. I know that is inconvenient for your argument, but that doesn't change the reality of the situation. It fits with an objective look at things as well, all things that have a human nature are human, the reason that a human adult develops only from a human zygote is precisely because they are both human. Developmental stages don't perform alchemy to produce what was not there before.

Naming something does not impart anything concrete to it just as calling out "here rabbit rabbit" will rarely result in a bunny hopping up to you.

I'm flabbergasted that you would compare naming something for the purpose of understanding identification with calling for a wild animal to produce specific action. They are so thoroughly unrelated I can't imagine what merit you found in this.

An egg in its grandmother's womb is certainly alive

But, it is not a life.

Nor is a grandmother a a grandmother until her child produces a child, just as an egg is not a human until it is fertilized by sperm and become a zygote, a new member of the homo sapiens species.

But I do enjoy how the goalposts have shifted from "science has no definition of human" to 'words and definitions don't matter'. Well, no one ever challenged that you can believe whatever you want contrary to relevant facts and expert opinion.

 

[rational experiences]

Most human grandmother's biology doesn't own life conception anymore for the theist Satanism.

All life begins by human sex is exact.

Two humans a man adult not you. A woman adult not you. As you begin by sperm ovary equality. Mutual.

Never can you claim personally two parents by earths God law.

Said legal.

Sperm isn't conscious it's body status exists just in your man's balls as a man's law. Body law only.

What it exists as is a law of its owned biology that does not make it actually a motivated conscious. As it lives in your balls only.

Law.

You claim a creator by term is conscious and knows what it is doing.

No it doesn't. As it does not order you by thoughts to put it into a woman's human body. It's a man's stimulated human want.

It's already just what it is. Any thought of a human man is just his own.

Including inferring self a God type.

As a human just a thinker first does all comparing from his own thoughts so you said you are a God type yourself

Which you Claim is electrical. In just a head state only.

I can claim bio chemical impulses. Same advice.

You make the subject of your intent a title by choices only.

You said a substance in your head taught by thinking via human head unknown had somehow been colder first with heat. That created everything.

Without knowing the substance as an origin.

You said yourself that substance base owned any type of energy. And variable energy was because energy masses separated into its own bodies.

So anything existed by the same origin so it was all the same. Yet in reality it isn't as it's created a variable.

You don't create.

Your mind though self possessed said a man human created life. Which in most humans contexts is a lie.

Yet you wanted your human dominion to be even greater than origin creator.
By all man's terms. Your choices.

Your claim is because by another human you can create beyond yourself. Creator had stopped.

Your maths mother however created destruction only. Theist of terms human men only. Subject chosen. Titles chosen also.

So you said why women by all your ego terms was less than you. Physically and personally. As you keep claiming as I'm the greater creator.

It's all mans ego.

My mother human memories are sick and tired of your human man lies.

Your sick so called electrical thoughts did not invent my being human. Liars theists.

If a human legal review was done about your behaviour it would be legal. Because it was before. A destroyer humans men tal..ity.

 

[rational experiences]

There's equal reason to believe that rocks and dandelions are conscious.

If you want to base your philosophy on wishful thinking, arbitrary supposition, and convenient definitions, by all means.


What inability? Are you uninformed on the fact that several higher primates have not just communicated, but expressed abstract thought and self-awareness in human language?


Yes. You can look it up if you'd like. In the sciences human is defined as a member of the homo sapiens species. I know that is inconvenient for your argument, but that doesn't change the reality of the situation. It fits with an objective look at things as well, all things that have a human nature are human, the reason that a human adult develops only from a human zygote is precisely because they are both human. Developmental stages don't perform alchemy to produce what was not there before.


I'm flabbergasted that you would compare naming something for the purpose of understanding identification with calling for a wild animal to produce specific action. They are so thoroughly unrelated I can't imagine what merit you found in this.


But, it is not a life.

Nor is a grandmother a a grandmother until her child produces a child, just as an egg is not a human until it is fertilized by sperm and become a zygote, a new member of the homo sapiens species.

But I do enjoy how the goalposts have shifted from "science has no definition of human" to 'words and definitions don't matter'. Well, no one ever challenged that you can believe whatever you want contrary to relevant facts and expert opinion.

Brother human. You knew animals can be taught by humans.

If you didn't express such a huge ego you'd remove your human ideas from the abstract review.

You would see the primate exactly as it exists without your interference.

Lying because of your want and intentions to claim if I find consciousness then I own the first God energy body.

As if you the human man are that God.

 

[Polymath257]

OK, first the science.

Homo sapiens is a species. Like all mammals, it has a haploid stage and a diploid stage to its life cycle. BOTH stages are *human*.

Our haploid stage is single celled and consists of our sperm and egg cells. They have half the number of chromosomes (23) as the diploid stage (which has 46 chromosomes, this is what defines haploid and diploid stages), which is multicellular.

Life does not begin at conception; it continues *through* conception. The haploid stage *is alive*. Human life (Homo sapiens) has been ongoing for the last 1-200,000 years.

So, sperm and egg cells are *human life*. They are also *individuals* in the sense that they are each genetically *unique*. The sperm and egg cells do NOT have the same DNA as the parents: they have half the chromosomes and each sperm and egg have a different mix in that half.

Next, every cell of the diploid stage has the same set of DNA. Liver cells, kidney cells, nerve cells, etc ALL have the same human DNA. A liver is alive, is human, and has a full DNA complement.

Conception (unification of sperm and egg cells) is not the same as becoming pregnant. To become pregnant, implantation has to occur. And implantation happens a couple of days after conception. Many conceptions don't implant: they are expelled with no resulting pregnancy.

No *new* DNA is formed as a result of conception. All that happens is that the chromosomes from the egg and sperm *together* constitute the chromosomes of the diploid stage. The 46 chromosomes constitute 23 pairs.

While the basic structures for many organs are laid out early in pregnancy, most do not actually start functioning until later. Most relevant for this discussion, the basic outline of the brain is laid down by the 6th week of pregnancy, but the interconnections between neurons that *define* brain activity don't appear until after the 23rd/24th week of pregnancy.

The developing embryo or fetus uses the resources of the individual carrying it in her uterus. It affects the immune system, the endocrine system, and puts a great deal of stress on the body.

It is also relevant to discuss a bit of what happens at the end of life. Death is *defined* by brain death: the cessation of brain activity at or above the brain stem. The neurons don't interact with other neurons and we call that brain death.

BUT, brain death does NOT mean the other organs of the body are dead. The brain is particularly susceptible to deprivation of oxygen and starts to die in a few minutes when the supply is stopped. Other organs, like liver, kidneys, heart, etc continue to live, sometimes for a quite extended period after brain death.

This is why we can do organ transplants and they work. Death is a process, not an event.

That is the science (well, a part of it).

Now, several questions arise in the *legal, philosophical, and moral* discussion about abortion.

One question is about individuality. When is a new individual formed? The scientific answer depends on how you define the term 'individual'. Does genetics define an individual? or does independent existence? or does consciousness? Science cannot answer these questions because science can't address how things *should* be defined. It can only take the definition given and attempt to supply the answer based on that definition. Which definition is to be used is a legal, philosophical, or moral question.

A few things are clear:

1. Whether something is human and alive is NOT the central question.

A liver or kidney are living human tissue. They have a full DNA complement and are diploid tissue. But we don't give them *moral* weight.

2. Whether something is a living human individual is NOT the central question.

Sperm and egg cells are living human individuals, but we don't have moral qualms when they die.

3. Whether abortion is right or wrong is NOT a scientific question. Science can't even answer the question of when a new individual begins without a definition of the term 'individual' and *that* is a philosophical question and not a scientific one.

Science can *inform* our debate. But it cannot answer moral or legal questions alone. Those require us to figure out our *values* and science cannot answer the question of which values to adopt.

So, the question is whether we value the developing embryo or fetus that is growing inside of an adult human more than the desires of the adult human it is growing in. And that is not a scientific question.

 

[Polymath257]

So you agree then that humans do not go through any evolution stages like from fishes to humans in the womb but are completely human from the moment of conception? And same with horses, lions, and fish that carry offspring? Or maybe you think they could be transitioning somehow.

Development is much more complex than that.

The developing embryo does NOT go through all of the stages of evolution during development. We don't get recapitulation of phylogeny.

BUT, the genes we have are modified genes we acquired through evolution and those genes are activated in sequence. So, in evolution, a developing fetus of a fish might go through certain stages. When fish evolved into amphibians, those stages were *modified* to end up with an amphibian. When the amphibian evolved into a reptile, those new stages were *modified* to end up with a reptile. When the reptile evolved into a mammal, those stages were *modified* to end up with a mammal.

What that means is that even if the *exact* stages of evolution don't replay exactly, there *are* remnants of the stages that can be seen.

Yes, at each stage the developing embryo or fetus is *human*, but that simply means that the development has been modified to end up with a human form at the end. The term 'completely human' is a rhetorical twist that doesn't describe what the stages really are.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Development is much more complex than that.

The developing embryo does NOT go through all of the stages of evolution during development. We don't get recapitulation of phylogeny.

BUT, the genes we have are modified genes we acquired through evolution and those genes are activated in sequence. So, in evolution, a developing fetus of a fish might go through certain stages. When fish evolved into amphibians, those stages were *modified* to end up with an amphibian. When the amphibian evolved into a reptile, those new stages were *modified* to end up with a reptile. When the reptile evolved into a mammal, those stages were *modified* to end up with a mammal.

What that means is that even if the *exact* stages of evolution don't replay exactly, there *are* remnants of the stages that can be seen.

Yes, at each stage the developing embryo or fetus is *human*, but that simply means that the development has been modified to end up with a human form at the end. The term 'completely human' is a rhetorical twist that doesn't describe what the stages really are.

If you ever hear the phrase "evo devo" this is what they are talking about.

 

[YoursTrue]

Development is much more complex than that.

The developing embryo does NOT go through all of the stages of evolution during development. We don't get recapitulation of phylogeny.

But -- not to go on right now -- wasn't that taught? I know it was when I was in the NYC school system. And, of course, it was debunked with bravery as time went on. BUT you had to know the answer at the time as if it were TRUE in order to pass tests, which I did with flying colors, also being a National Merit Scholar. I believed EVERYTHING they taught me. (I no longer do.)

 

[YoursTrue]

Development is much more complex than that.

The developing embryo does NOT go through all of the stages of evolution during development. We don't get recapitulation of phylogeny.

BUT, the genes we have are modified genes we acquired through evolution and those genes are activated in sequence. So, in evolution, a developing fetus of a fish might go through certain stages. When fish evolved into amphibians, those stages were *modified* to end up with an amphibian. When the amphibian evolved into a reptile, those new stages were *modified* to end up with a reptile. When the reptile evolved into a mammal, those stages were *modified* to end up with a mammal.

What that means is that even if the *exact* stages of evolution don't replay exactly, there *are* remnants of the stages that can be seen.

Yes, at each stage the developing embryo or fetus is *human*, but that simply means that the development has been modified to end up with a human form at the end. The term 'completely human' is a rhetorical twist that doesn't describe what the stages really are.

OK, I don't want to divert from my previous reply, but you are speaking about developing embryo. So then, would you say it is a HUMAN embryo right from the beginning? By that I mean fertilization...

 

[Polymath257]

OK, I don't want to divert from my previous reply, but you are speaking about developing embryo. So then, would you say it is a HUMAN embryo right from the beginning? By that I mean fertilization...

Yes, it has human genetics, which are the result of evolution from the genetics of previous species. The genetics are also slightly different than either parent.

The *human* stages are those inherited from previous species as modified by evolution.

And, as I pointed out in a previous post, life continues *through* fertilization. It does not *begin* at fertilization.

 

[Polymath257]

But -- not to go on right now -- wasn't that taught? I know it was when I was in the NYC school system. And, of course, it was debunked with bravery as time went on. BUT you had to know the answer at the time as if it were TRUE in order to pass tests, which I did with flying colors, also being a National Merit Scholar. I believed EVERYTHING they taught me. (I no longer do.)

I don't know what was taught. It never had general scientific consensus, but that may not be relevant for what was taught in public schools, which tend to oversimplify things as a matter of necessity.

 

[cladking]

There's equal reason to believe that rocks and dandelions are conscious.

Rocks are not conscious.

If you ever watch a plant disperse its seeds or pollen you'll see much more than just random movement. It waits for days with variable winds and then it releases them not proportionately to the amount of movement but the wind direction, speed, and into uplifts.

Are you uninformed on the fact that several higher primates have not just communicated, but expressed abstract thought and self-awareness in human language?

I am aware that some people interpret communications from animals as being abstractions. I've even seen elephants draw self portraits. I don't believe any of this is abstraction in the sense I'm using the word, or to say it in other words most abstractions have some meaning in the literal and concrete. We are misinterpreting literal and concrete just as we do with Ancient (human) Language.

In the sciences human is defined as a member of the homo sapiens species.

It is merely a word. It is irrelevant. I don't even believe we are still homo sapien but this is irrelevant as well. We exist. THAT is what is relevant and we all exist as individuals and we are each conscious by definition.

"Consciousness" might be defined as the non-random firing of neurons in the brain/ body. So long as they are not random there is behavior. Twitches are not behavior.

I'm flabbergasted that you would compare naming something for the purpose of understanding identification with calling for a wild animal to produce specific action. They are so thoroughly unrelated I can't imagine what merit you found in this.

It's akin to saying dandelions and rocks are not conscious.

But, it is not a life.

Nothing else has ever led to a homo sapien.

Nor is a grandmother a a grandmother until her child produces a child, just as an egg is not a human until it is fertilized by sperm and become a zygote, a new member of the homo sapiens species.

And it is just a zygote or a potential human until it implants and has non-random neural activity.

There is no "person" with no "personality". It's just a potential person. ...A potential potentate.

 

[Valjean]

OK, I don't want to divert from my previous reply, but you are speaking about developing embryo. So then, would you say it is a HUMAN embryo right from the beginning? By that I mean fertilization...

Why do you ask? What does humanness entail?

 

[cladking]

Science can *inform* our debate. But it cannot answer moral or legal questions alone. Those require us to figure out our *values* and science cannot answer the question of which values to adopt.

So, the question is whether we value the developing embryo or fetus that is growing inside of an adult human more than the desires of the adult human it is growing in. And that is not a scientific question.

I personally don't feel this is a religious, philosophical, or scientific question. I think that the issue is hidden behind and within words and rhetoric. It is hidden in layers of metaphysics and epistemology.

We all want nice easy words to describe reality but nothing in reality can be expressed in nice easy words because it is all far too complex for this.

We need to consider every question in terms of the experience, facts, reason, and experimental results. In these terms it is simply inconceivable that a zygote or early terms fetus can be considered a "human being", "person", "homo sapien", or even an individual in the sense that a child or dandelion is an individual. Unlike the will'o'the wisp dandelion seed the zygote would turn into an adult human if nothing goes wrong but all living things are always exposed to things that can go wrong like being murdered by its father along with his mother shortly before birth.

There are many very good reasons that abortion was illegally allowed by the supreme court in Roe vs Wade. We should not forget that there were such good reasons. We should not forget what it means to be human nor what "liberty" means. We should not forget the great evils perpetrated on young women and their unwanted babies before Roe vs wade.

 

[cladking]

We should not forget the great evils perpetrated on young women and their unwanted babies before Roe vs wade.

Nor should we forget great evils perpetrated on young women and their unwanted fetuses before Roe vs Wade.