Stem cells nurture damaged spine: study

[ArmChair General]

I am still waiting for you to explain how anyting you have posted disqualifies an unborn from being a human being. I have provided credible science that states explicitly that we are human beings from the time fertilization is complete. A ruling by 9 judges, none of which have any training in medicine or science made 35years ago is the best you can do to prove your point?

I can show you rulings by the supreme court that said that blacks were not human beings. So much for their credibility on deciding what is and isn't a human being.

One of the first things you said in this thread, was that this wasnt about emotions or morals for you, it was about the law.

The law clearly states that you are wrong.

Deal with it. Or try to change the law and what the definition of a human being is.

 

[Coyote]

And that constitutes a "personal attack" in your mind? Everyone should be so polite.

Yes. Don't most people?

 

[Coyote]

So you would favor abolishing murder and manslaugher laws because such laws make you feel like you are forcing your preference not to be killed on the street on others?

No. I draw the line in a different place then you do. Murder and manslaughter do not take into account a person's right to control what his/her own body.

Do you favor abolishing the death penalty since it is killing a human being?

 

[Coyote]

Coyote,

Maybe my question got lost in the noise of all the posts. Let me ask again.

Can you offer or provide any credible proof that unborns at any stage of develpment are not human beings?

First of all:

What are "unborn"? For the purposes of this thread, we are referring to blastocysts, embryos, fetus' of the species Homosapiens.

What are Homosapiens? they are a bipedal mammelian primate species of the following classification.

Kingdom: Animalia
Phylum: Chordata
Class: Mammalia
Order: Primates
Family: Hominidae
Genus: Homo
Species: H. sapiens
Subspecies: H. s. sapiens

What are Human Beings? According to Wikipedia:

Humans, or human beings, are bipedal primates belonging to the mammalian species Homo sapiens. Humans have a highly developed brain capable of abstract reasoning, language, and introspection. This mental capability, combined with an erect body carriage that frees their upper limbs for manipulating objects, has allowed humans to make far greater use of tools than any other species.​

These are the definitions I go by. I don't see how a blastocyst fulfills the definition of a human beyond strict biology.

I can forsee the next stage of the argument here: what about a severely retarded person - is that person a human being? I would say yes - because that person is still capable of expression, albeit severely limited.


What about a newborn? I would say yes too - it still has a highly developed brain.

 

[Coyote]

Well According to the law, one of the best tests of personhood or when a human life is a human being, is viability, upon which Roe vs. Wade was based.

Viability is defined as the ability to live outside the womb. It is based upon the broader logic that "a person is as a person does." In other words, people normally breathe on their own, circulate blood on their own, fight off most germs on their own and sustain normal cellular activity on their own.

A fetus is able to achieve these functions once it reaches a weight of about 5 pounds. This usually occurs between the 7th and 8th month of pregnancy, coincidentally, about the time that the baby has finished its brain and central nervous system.

So perhaps you should be trying to change the law and the defintion of a human being then?

That's a good definition....

 

[palerider]

Yes. Don't most people?

Not to me. Not on this sort of board. Personal attack to me is name calling in lieu of argument. Not goading as part of an argument.

Do you favor abolishing the death penalty since it is killing a human being?

No. Because the death penalty is in accordance with the 14th amendment. Give each unborn his or her day in court and legally show just cause that their life should be forfiet, and you won't hear a peep out of me.

What are "unborn"?

Human beings at any stage of development prior to birth or prior to viability if they are the result of IVF. It is telling that you find that you must equivocate on something as straight forward as what constitues an unborn.


I asked a question because I was trying to get past the rhetoric and have a genuine conversation with you. I will ask again. Can you provide any credible science that says that blastocysts, embryos, or foeti, or those at any other stage of human development are not human beings? It is a simple yes/no answer. Thus far, no credible science has been brought forward as evidence. Are you holding some back for a sneak attack?

 

[palerider]

One of the first things you said in this thread, was that this wasnt about emotions or morals for you, it was about the law.

The law clearly states that you are wrong.

Deal with it. Or try to change the law and what the definition of a human being is.

No. Science clearly states that the law is wrong. I can't think of any time that the law has proven science wrong. Can you?

 

[ArmChair General]

No. Science clearly states that the law is wrong. I can't think of any time that the law has proven science wrong. Can you?

Dodge. Shuck. Jive.

haha...your funny.

 

[ArmChair General]

I asked a question because I was trying to get past the rhetoric and have a genuine conversation with you. I will ask again. Can you provide any credible science that says that blastocysts, embryos, or foeti, or those at any other stage of human development are not human beings? It is a simple yes/no answer. Thus far, no credible science has been brought forward as evidence. Are you holding some back for a sneak attack?

actually, credible science has been brought forward, you just don't except anything that contradicts you.

 

[Coyote]

Not to me. Not on this sort of board. Personal attack to me is name calling in lieu of argument. Not goading as part of an argument.



No. Because the death penalty is in accordance with the 14th amendment. Give each unborn his or her day in court and legally show just cause that their life should be forfiet, and you won't hear a peep out of me.




Human beings at any stage of development prior to birth or prior to viability if they are the result of IVF. It is telling that you find that you must equivocate on something as straight forward as what constitues an unborn.


I asked a question because I was trying to get past the rhetoric and have a genuine conversation with you. I will ask again. Can you provide any credible science that says that blastocysts, embryos, or foeti, or those at any other stage of human development are not human beings? It is a simple yes/no answer. Thus far, no credible science has been brought forward as evidence. Are you holding some back for a sneak attack?

Palerider, I am not holding out for a sneak attack though I'd very much like to nip you in the butt.

I gave you the most honest answer I can - I do not view things in such black and white terms.

My answer is that I can not provide any credible sicence that says that the above are not human beings because the definition of what is human transcends scientific explanation. Can science explain the human soul for example? Science can not explain everything and the defintion of what is human and what makes defines a human changes the more we learn.

 

[Coyote]

No. Science clearly states that the law is wrong. I can't think of any time that the law has proven science wrong. Can you?

The law defines what is considered a "person" in our society...science has never entered into it.

 

[palerider]

actually, credible science has been brought forward, you just don't except anything that contradicts you.

No armchair, it hasn't. Fonz's single reference was not a medical textbook. It was a companion book. It clearly stated that it was stating various views. It supported my stance in one section and his in another, and neither of our stances in another.

Credible science looks like this:

Pathology of the Fetus and the Infant, 3d ed.
E.L. Potter and J.M. Craig, (Chicago: Year Book Medical Publishers), vii.

"Every time a sperm cell and ovum unite a new being is created which is alive and will continue to live unless its death is brought about by some specific condition."

and this:

Human Embryology, 3rd ed.
Bradley M. Patten, (New York: McGraw Hill), 43.

"It is the penetration of the ovum by a spermatozoan and resultant mingling of the nuclear material each brings to the union that constitues the culmination of the process of fertilization and marks the initiation of the life of a new individual."

These are from textbooks that have been used in medical schools around the world in a dozen different languages. They state explicitly that a new being exists after fertilization is complete. There is no ambiguity there. This is what science looks like. No hair splitting, no weaseling around words, no equivocating. It is what it is.

Now if you are fine with killing human beings for the purpose of medical experimentation then just say so and if you are only fine with killing those that aren't mature enough to even ask to be defended, then say so. If the truth of your postion is too distasteful for you to even express, then the problem isn't me, it is your position.

 

[Coyote]

I wonder. If an "unborn" is considered a "person" then....should the mother die during childbirth or pregnancy, can it be charged and tried for involuntary manslaughter?

 

[palerider]

The law defines what is considered a "person" in our society...science has never entered into it.

And according to legal dictionaries a person is a human being. Science has clearly stated that we are human beings from the time fertilization is complete.

Can you offer any credible science that states that unborns are not human beings? Is your argument so tenuous that you can't answer such a simple question? You argue on other boards and it is clear that you have some skill at it. Tell me, what do you think of the quality of another's arguments when they find that they are unable to answer the most basic questions on a topic.

This isn't a trick question. I simply want to know if you are holding in reserve some credible science that says clearly that we are not human beings until we are born. I would like to know if your position is based on some fact or on your opinion.

 

[Coyote]

So...

What makes human life so important?

Is it only the fact that it is of the human species?

Or is there something unique to the human species that puts it above all others?