Stem cells nurture damaged spine: study

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?

You would have to show some neglegence or intent on the part of the child. I doubt that you could do that manslaugher is what it is and intent or neglegnence is a requirede element for any case to achieve a conviction.
 
Werbung:
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?

You really can't bring yourself to answer can you? You either have some credible science that states that we are not human beings until we are born or you don't. I am quite sure that you don't because I have never really given up looking for something to prove that the guy who beat me on this discussion is wrong.

At this point, I am not even going to ask that you accept the evidence that I have brought here. I am just asking if you have anything credible with which to counter 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.

I am going to argue this from two points: Human and Life.

Human:
There is no credable science that says fetus' are not homosapiens. If you define "human" as strictly the biological species known as homosapiens then fetus' are human. So are organs within the human body for that matter. They aren't mice, whales, or cockroaches.

Life:
There are many definitions for "life". Most center around this (from Wikipedia):

Conventional definition: Often scientists say that life is a characteristic of organisms that exhibit the following phenomena:

1. Homeostasis: Regulation of the internal environment to maintain a constant state; for example, sweating to reduce temperature.

2. Organization: Being composed of one or more cells, which are the basic units of life.

3. Metabolism: Consumption of energy by converting nonliving material into cellular components (anabolism) and decomposing organic matter (catabolism). Living things require energy to maintain internal organization (homeostasis) and to produce the other phenomena associated with life.

4. Growth: Maintenance of a higher rate of synthesis than catalysis. A growing organism increases in size in all of its parts, rather than simply accumulating matter. The particular species begins to multiply and expand as the evolution continues to flourish.

5. Adaptation: The ability to change over a period of time in response to the environment. This ability is fundamental to the process of evolution and is determined by the organism's heredity as well as the composition of metabolized substances, and external factors present.

6. Response to stimuli: A response can take many forms, from the contraction of a unicellular organism when touched to complex reactions involving all the senses of higher animals. A response is often expressed by motion, for example, the leaves of a plant turning toward the sun or an animal chasing its prey.

7. Reproduction: The ability to produce new organisms. Reproduction can be the division of one cell to form two new cells. Usually the term is applied to the production of a new individual (either asexually, from a single parent organism, or sexually, from at least two differing parent organisms), although strictly speaking it also describes the production of new cells in the process of growth.



Do the "unborn" posess all the characteristics of life?
 
You really can't bring yourself to answer can you? You either have some credible science that states that we are not human beings until we are born or you don't. I am quite sure that you don't because I have never really given up looking for something to prove that the guy who beat me on this discussion is wrong.

At this point, I am not even going to ask that you accept the evidence that I have brought here. I am just asking if you have anything credible with which to counter it.

Geesh. Give me some time! I answered. What you are responding to was simply ruminations off the tope of my head.
 
By the way - I answered you on page 18 as well.


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.[/b]
 
Geesh. Give me some time! I answered. What you are responding to was simply ruminations off the tope of my head.

So you are saying that your position that unborns are not human beings is your opinion, and not based on any hard science? This should be an easy one to answere coyote. Hell, I provided hard science from medical textbooks and you are still claiming that it is must my opinion that unborns are human beings.
 
So you are saying that your position that unborns are not human beings is your opinion, and not based on any hard science? This should be an easy one to answere coyote. Hell, I provided hard science from medical textbooks and you are still claiming that it is must my opinion that unborns are human beings.

I stated it: I have no scientific evidence that says "unborns" are not human.

Now I ask you: Do "unborns" meet the definition of life?

In other words are they human life?
 
By the way - I answered you on page 18 as well.


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.[/b]

Ok, I must have missed that in all the noise.

Geez, that was like pulling teeth. Can we continue the conversation now?

Since from both of our points of view, the other's postion is based on his opinion, tell me this.

If at some later date absolutely indisputable evidence should come out of science that we are human beings at any and every stage of our development, (in my opinion it already exists), how many new human lives would you be willing to sacrifice to find a cure for any given disease?

And if you are not sure whether or not unborns are human beings, why would you be willing to take the risk?
 
I stated it: I have no scientific evidence that says "unborns" are not human.

Now I ask you: Do "unborns" meet the definition of life?

In other words are they human life?

Sure they are. They meet all of the criteria that you listed, but that wasn't where I was going with the conversation.
 
And if you are not sure whether or not unborns are human beings, why would you be willing to take the risk?

Let me rephrase this question. If you are not sure whether or not unborns are human beings, how do you justify taking the risk?
 
By the way - I answered you on page 18 as well.




Ok, I must have missed that in all the noise.

Geez, that was like pulling teeth. Can we continue the conversation now?

Since from both of our points of view, the other's postion is based on his opinion, tell me this.

If at some later date absolutely indisputable evidence should come out of science that we are human beings at any and every stage of our development, (in my opinion it already exists), how many new human lives would you be willing to sacrifice to find a cure for any given disease?

None.

And if you are not sure whether or not unborns are human beings, why would you be willing to take the risk?


Because I am not convinced that they are individual human lives at every stage of development. For example - I would not hold a blastocyst in the same regard as a 6 month old fetus.
 
Sure they are. They meet all of the criteria that you listed, but that wasn't where I was going with the conversation.

I don't think they do....not these factors....


1. Homeostasis: Regulation of the internal environment to maintain a constant state; for example, sweating to reduce temperature.

5. Adaptation: The ability to change over a period of time in response to the environment. This ability is fundamental to the process of evolution and is determined by the organism's heredity as well as the composition of metabolized substances, and external factors present.
 
Let me rephrase this question. If you are not sure whether or not unborns are human beings, how do you justify taking the risk?

That would be the dilemma wouldn't it?


I'd look at it this way...I think...

If I was unsure, but the risk might save someone's life I suppose I could justify it. It is not too different then the rationale used to justify research on higher mammels.
 
I don't think they do....not these factors....


1. Homeostasis: Regulation of the internal environment to maintain a constant state; for example, sweating to reduce temperature.[/qipte]

They are in constant chemical communication with their mothers from the time fertilization is complete directing her body to provide the environment that they require. That is far more control than we have over any environment that we might find ourselves in

5. Adaptation: The ability to change over a period of time in response to the environment. This ability is fundamental to the process of evolution and is determined by the organism's heredity as well as the composition of metabolized substances, and external factors present.

They are growing and maturing to adapt to an environment that they haven't even been exposed to and have no knowledge of. How much more adaptable can one be?
 
Werbung:
That would be the dilemma wouldn't it?


I'd look at it this way...I think...

If I was unsure, but the risk might save someone's life I suppose I could justify it. It is not too different then the rationale used to justify research on higher mammels.

But you said that you weren't willing to see any human beings killed in order to find a cure for any given disease.

If you aren't sure whether or not they are human beings, and you aren't willing to see human beings killed for medical research purposes, how do you justify your position?

As to higher animals. I am ok with killing a monkey to find a cure for aids, or cancer and I suppose you are as well. I am not willing to see a human being killed specifically to find a cure for those diseases however.
 
Back
Top