Stem cells nurture damaged spine: study

[palerider]

Exactly. Its not just science that defines wether life beings at conception.

Do you also refer to necromancers and gypsys with regard to climate change? How about your personal health? Do you consult maybe a tarrot reader to determine if you should take the Rx that your doctor prescribed?

Life and when it begins, and what species it is is the realm of science. Rationalizing whether or not it is OK to kill that life is the realm of necromancers and gypsys.

 

[ArmChair General]

Do you also refer to necromancers and gypsys with regard to climate change? How about your personal health? Do you consult maybe a tarrot reader to determine if you should take the Rx that your doctor prescribed?

Life and when it begins, and what species it is is the realm of science. Rationalizing whether or not it is OK to kill that life is the realm of necromancers and gypsys.

We're speaking of when a human life becomes a Person. Not Global Warming. Science does not have a clear answer for when a human life becomes a person.

Your trying to convince people that a blastocyst deserves the same moral consideration that a human adult does.

You cite scientists that say yes, it is a human being. But the question is, why? Why is a blastocyst a human being? You havent offered up any reasons why. Why should we give it the same moral consideration that I would a newborn baby?

From reading the definition of what a Human Being is and what a Person is, it seems that either the people you quoted were quoted out of context or they don't understand what a Human being is.


It seems to me that there are two main arguments against yours. You haven't really addressed these, except to attack the sources of where they came? calling them gypsies or something...which i don't get. Anyways..

The first one is that a the embryo doesnt become an individual until gastrulation (day 14)

The other is that if the loss of a pattern of brain activity defines the death of a person, then its acquisition could be used to define the life of a person. The unborn doesn't acquire an EEG until around th 22'nd week.


To be honest, you propably wont ever succeed in convincing me to view a blastocyst as a human being. It just aint gonna happen. Just like you have no moral regard and can offer no justification for the living animals you eat and kill, I have no moral regard for a blastocyst.

You've failed to convince me that I should.

 

[Coyote]

But you believe that you were alive but not a human being and magically became a human being by some force outside of biology. By something not measurable by science.

What are you talking about? Magic has nothing to do with it.

Sorry. No awareness of self for at least 12 months and most research suggests 18.

Do you have a source for this? Since communication is limited in an infant - how do they measure this?

It is a very thoroughly studied field. What? You haven't bothered to even look up the subject? You just assume that the magic is real and there is no need to verify the science?

Do you have any sources to back up your claims?

A 12 year old is more of a human being than a 6 year old?

Where did you get that silly idea?

Aren't you embarassed that you must equivocate so? Are you saying that an 18 year old is more of a human being than a 12 year old is? Anyone knows that one is more mature, but are you saying that the 12 year old isn't as much a human being as the 18 year old?

Nope. I'm not saying that. You are. I was simply drawing an analogy.

Are you then not really a human being until you are mature?

Again, that is not what I said. Do you have a reading comprehension problem?

The law.

The law does not yet define the blastocyst as a human being.

 

[Coyote]

Cognitive ability does not equal self awareness. Have you now changed the benchmark from self awareness to mere cognitive ability? And precicely when does this happen. It is a matter of life and death and a general time simply is not good enough.

I'm trying to figure out a benchmark. It's a process, not an end.

 

[Coyote]

No you can't. With out the sense of your own mortality, the absence of your loved ones is no different than the sense of separation you might feel when they go to the grocery store or to visit relatives.

I disagree. It is not a sense of my own mortality. It is the knowledge that what I mourn is gone forever. A sense of mortality yes - but not necessarily mine.

How do we know what some of the higher species sense about mortality? I know for sure dogs and cats live in the here and now. But dolphins, whales, elephants, the great apes, ravens?

 

[Coyote]

Do you also refer to necromancers and gypsys with regard to climate change? How about your personal health? Do you consult maybe a tarrot reader to determine if you should take the Rx that your doctor prescribed?

Life and when it begins, and what species it is is the realm of science. Rationalizing whether or not it is OK to kill that life is the realm of necromancers and gypsys.

What species it is - yes, that is the realm of science.

When life begins - yes.

But when a life is a person - something higher then a chicken or a cat, science alone can't answer.

Science is only one of many tools we use to understand the world - it is the best, in my mind but not the only one.

 

[Coyote]

The other is that if the loss of a pattern of brain activity defines the death of a person, then its acquisition could be used to define the life of a person. The unborn doesn't acquire an EEG until around th 22'nd week.

That is a very interesting point General - I did not think of it in those terms

 

[9sublime]

Do you also refer to necromancers and gypsys with regard to climate change? How about your personal health? Do you consult maybe a tarrot reader to determine if you should take the Rx that your doctor prescribed?

Life and when it begins, and what species it is is the realm of science. Rationalizing whether or not it is OK to kill that life is the realm of necromancers and gypsys.

Just as I was starting to get a decent discussion out of you Palerider... All I said was science can tell you when and how the foetus develops this and that, but its up to you to decide if its a person.

Necromancers and gypsies, sorry but you are one of the ones who believes in God aren't you? Something which involves believeing in demons, angles, spirits, a devil, a person that is three and yet one, a man who can rise from the dead etc.

Sorry, but I think my answer was actually very rational in saying that emotion is also neccessary in this debate.

 

[palerider]

We're speaking of when a human life becomes a Person. Not Global Warming. Science does not have a clear answer for when a human life becomes a person.

According to the law, a human being is a person and science is crystal clear on when we become human beings. The offspring of two human beings can be nothing but a human being no matter how old or young he or she is.

You cite scientists that say yes, it is a human being. But the question is, why? Why is a blastocyst a human being? You havent offered up any reasons why. Why should we give it the same moral consideration that I would a newborn baby?

For the simple reason that the offspring of two human beings can be nothing but a human being. No matter how old you get, you will always be a human being for you can, and never could be anything else. It is you who has failed to offer up what the offspring of two human beings is if not a human being.

The first one is that a the embryo doesnt become an individual until gastrulation (day 14)

Explain how the ability to asexually produce prior to day 14 disqualifies one from being a human being. I don't remember anything in anyone's definition of what is a human being that made being an individual a requisite for being a human being.

The other is that if the loss of a pattern of brain activity defines the death of a person, then its acquisition could be used to define the life of a person. The unborn doesn't acquire an EEG until around th 22'nd week.

Death is a different thing from life. Trying to compare perfectly healthy human beings to the dead, diseased, and dying or trees, etc., highlights the weakness of your arguments.

To be honest, you propably wont ever succeed in convincing me to view a blastocyst as a human being. It just aint gonna happen. Just like you have no moral regard and can offer no justification for the living animals you eat and kill, I have no moral regard for a blastocyst.

There you have it. You want your postion and will disregard any amount of science that you can't argue against in order to have it. You have described yourself perfectly to me. A stone wall that will ignore truth in any form to maintain your postion of faith.

 

[Coyote]

Death is a different thing from life. Trying to compare perfectly healthy human beings to the dead, diseased, and dying or trees, etc., highlights the weakness of your arguments.

Death is not a different thing from life. Your second sentance here is weak - a distortion of what was said and little more than a strawman trying to deflect from the statement: The other is that if the loss of a pattern of brain activity defines the death of a person, then its acquisition could be used to define the life of a person. The unborn doesn't acquire an EEG until around th 22'nd week.

If the absence of something has traditionally defined the absence of life (ie - death) for a human - why can't it's presence be used to define the presence of life for a human?

 

[Coyote]

According to the law, a human being is a person and science is crystal clear on when we become human beings. The offspring of two human beings can be nothing but a human being no matter how old or young he or she is.

The legal dictionary defines a "person" as a "human being".

Nowhere does our law define a blastocyst as a "human being".

In fact, according to the legal dictionary http://dictionary.law.com/default2....ype=1&submit1.x=0&submit1.y=0&submit1=Look+up

there is no legal definition for human, human being, or blastocyst.

 

[palerider]

Death is not a different thing from life. Your second sentance here is weak - a distortion of what was said and little more than a strawman trying to deflect from the statement:

There is a weak argument here, but it is not mine. I am not flitting from subject to subject trying to find something, anyting that will stick.

The other is that if the loss of a pattern of brain activity defines the death of a person, then its acquisition could be used to define the life of a person. The unborn doesn't acquire an EEG until around th 22'nd week.

Loss of a pattern of brain activity. The key word here is loss. Tell me, when do the unborns lose any pattern of brain activity. Again, you are trying to equate the effects of serious injury or disease to a perfectly healthy human being.

If the absence of something has traditionally defined the absence of life (ie - death) for a human - why can't it's presence be used to define the presence of life for a human?

Ansence is not the same as loss. You are trying to equate the absence of brain activity which the new human being has not yet matured enough to have to the loss of a thing which a more mature human being has and loses if diseased or injured badly enough.

Medical science is perfecly clear that when your brain is no longer active, you are dead but I don't find any such caveat when the human being in question has not yet matured enought to have brain activity. Once again, you are trying to equate perfectly healthy humans to diseased and dying humans.

If you have a good argument, go ahead and present it. We are covering ground that you already lost earlier in the thread. It is clear that you will reject all credible science in favor of your articles of faith, and only care to hear the untestable ideas of your high priests, the necromancers and gypsys.

 

[palerider]

I disagree. It is not a sense of my own mortality. It is the knowledge that what I mourn is gone forever. A sense of mortality yes - but not necessarily mine.

And without a concept of your own mortality, how exactly do you understand that what you mourn is gone forever?

How do we know what some of the higher species sense about mortality? I know for sure dogs and cats live in the here and now. But dolphins, whales, elephants, the great apes, ravens?

Feel free to provide some credible research that says that they do. I have looked and I can't find any at all.

 

[palerider]

Necromancers and gypsies, sorry but you are one of the ones who believes in God aren't you? Something which involves believeing in demons, angles, spirits, a devil, a person that is three and yet one, a man who can rise from the dead etc.

I don't need God to tell me that the offspring of two human beings is a human being no matter how old he or she might be. That is simple common sense and anyone who even attempts to argue that the result of two human beings procreating is something other than a human being is arguing out of their ass and simply can't concoct a rational argument. The idea that the offspring of two humans is sometimes not a human being is magican thinking.

 

[palerider]

The legal dictionary defines a "person" as a "human being".

Nowhere does our law define a blastocyst as a "human being".

Since it has become painfully obvious that you can't provide any credible science that states that the offspring of two human beings is EVER anyting but a human being, even when that human is no mature than a blastocyst, you have lost this point and it has become irrelavent. It is magical thinking to believe that the offspring of two human beings is ever anyting but a human being.

there is no legal definition for human, human being, or blastocyst.

Because even the law isn't silly enough to try and argue that the offspring of two human beings is ever something other than a human being. We all know that we are human beings from the time fertilization is complete. Science is crystal clear on the issue. Those of you who resort to magical explanations and hold your position on faith are what you are.