Stem cells nurture damaged spine: study

[Coyote]

The law doesn't define a human being. Taxonomy is the realm of science. The law simply states that all human beings are persons.



Are you arguing now that unborns are corporate entities? Corporate entities also are entitled to their day in court before they are terminated.



Once again, are you arguing that unborns are corporate entities. If you aren't, why bring that strawman here if not to divert the conversation off topic again?

Damn...5am...yer nuts to be up on the internet that early


Here's my take on your whole argument: 4 points only

1. The product of two human beings is always a human being.
   
2. A human being is worthy of life because the law (specifically the Constitution) states it using the term "person".
   
3. The legal definition of a "person" is a human being.
   
4. Therefore all stages of human life are constitutionally protected.

Lets examine this using cold logic.

Point number one: That is true in so far as it will never be anything but the species homosapiens, being defined by you as "human being". No argument from me there. However - going form there to "person" - and what makes a human being a "person" - is not at all clear cut scientifically nor can you present scientific evidence to support your position beyond identifying it as a species of animal. So - you jump to the law instead of science to make your point.

Point number two: Constitutional law. The word "person" was specifically used in the Constitution. What is a "person"? If we look at intent of the framers of the Constitution we see it was a fairly limited definition that excluded blacks and women for example. I think we can be fairly certain that the founders did not intend for that definition to include blastocysts. If we look at the later amendments we can see that definition was broadened. As of yet however - there is no amendment broadening it to the blastocyst. Therefore the Constitution does not yet recognize the blastocyst as a "person".

Point number three: The definition of "person". You claim it is a "human being". It is not that clear cut. In several legal references I look up there is a distinction between "person" and "natural person". A "natural person" woh's legal definition is a "human being". If you are going to use semantics to bolster your points then you have to accept this as well since you choose to interpret the Constitution literally when it says "person". Well, quite literally - nowhere in the Constitution does it state "natural person" the legal definition of a human being. Obviously the intent of the framers was that it meant a "human being" (though their definition of a "human being" did not match either mine or yours at the time). If you look at intent to bolster your argument (ie - person = human being) then you also have to look at intent in terms of what they considered human beings or persons and what subsequent amendments considered human beings or persons.

Point number four: All stages of human life are constitutionally protected. I disagree - looking at the above - they are not.

 

[Coyote]

Any evidence to support this idea is sorely lacking.
Because I am not making a moral argument. You are the one caught up in morals and souls and magical thinking if theyserves your purposes and in denial of them if they do not.

But you are making a moral argument once you bring law into it. Law is not based upon pure science because law, not science defines what is a person in our society.

 

[Coyote]

As I have already shown, legal precedent has already been established for the personhood of the unborn. People are in jail right now for both manslaughter and murder for killing unborns. You can be sentenced for neither unless you kill a person. The law is slow to change, but it is changing and the character of the supreme court is very different that it has been for the past 50 years or so. Prescedent is relentless. You have already lost and still believe in victory.

Legal precedent was set supporting segregation at one time and then overturned. Legal precedent is occuring in attempting to change the death penalty. Hard to say if it will change or not. If it does - then this debate will change in terms of law - but that hasn't happened yet.

When it does I forsee a real can of worms. For example - how will "unborns" be taxed, will the need SS numbers?

Will a mother's poor care of herself constitute child abuse during pregnancy?

Will every miscarriage be looked at as potential manslaughter - ie suspicious death?

Will miscarriages, however early be legally required to be handled under the same funeral laws as adult humans? Very expensive.

Can a child born disabled have the right to sue it's parents for poor neonatal care - wether by chance or ignorance?

Will a victim of rape be forced to carry the child to term?

Will a mother suffering life or health threatening complications (such as toxemia) be forced to continue to carry the child?

What child victims of incest or pedophilia or rape who aren't even mature enough to carry a baby to term with out serious consequences be forced to do so?

What about contraception that prevents implantation?

Would contraception itself even remain legal? After all - every egg and sperm are a potential human being too - do we have the ethical right to prevent them from meeting?


You can argue all you want Palerider - but I do not regard every homosapiens as a person. I feel there is a difference between a person and a potential person. There is no conscienceness or awareness in a blastocyst - there is only the potential for a human being. When I ask you what makes a human being so special - you answer "the law".

Well - the Constitution does not yet recognize the blastocyst as a "person" so that is a cop out.

So I'll ask you again: what makes a human being so special?

 

[palerider]

Do you mind if I put on the brakes here for a few minutes so we can examine where we are on this debate? Tell me if I have anything wrong with respect to your position.

1) You and I and everyone we have ever known and are likely to ever know are physical organisms?

2) That the physical organism that you are, came to be when the fertilization of your mother's egg by your father's sperm was complete and that you have simply matured from that point. That is, you did not come from a zygote, blastocyst, embryo, infant, toddler... but you were, in reality, a zygote, blastocyst, embryo, infant, toddler etc and have simply grown and matured through those various stages of your life.

3) Your position is that before you were born, (any stage) you will conceed that you were a physical human organism, but were not a person.

Am I correct with regard to your position so far?

 

[Coyote]

Do you mind if I put on the brakes here for a few minutes so we can examine where we are on this debate? Tell me if I have anything wrong with respect to your position.

1) You and I and everyone we have ever known and are likely to ever know are physical organisms?

2) That the physical organism that you are, came to be when the fertilization of your mother's egg by your father's sperm was complete and that you have simply matured from that point. That is, you did not come from a zygote, blastocyst, embryo, infant, toddler... but you were, in reality, a zygote, blastocyst, embryo, infant, toddler etc and have simply grown and matured through those various stages of your life.

3) Your position is that before you were born, (any stage) you will conceed that you were a physical human organism, but were not a person.

Am I correct with regard to your position so far?

[looks around suspiciously]


umh...yes.

 

[palerider]

OK. If you admit that you are, and always have been a physical human organism, that is a human being since you could be nothing else, but not always a person, then let me see if I can put a finger on what you are actually arguing.


Since you conceed that you always have been a human, but don't conceed that you have always been a person, then are you arguing that a person is not a physical, biological organism and as such, didn't come into existence when the physical organism came into existence. If this is your argument, are you holding the position that the "person" is not physical but some sort of spiritual being (not necessarily religious) that simply inhabits the physical human being? Or perhaps that the "person" is a series of experiences that are somehow associated with the physical human being?

In essence, are you arguing that the physical, biological being is no more than a container or vehicle for the "person"?

 

[Coyote]

OK. If you admit that you are, and always have been a physical human organism, that is a human being since you could be nothing else, but not always a person, then let me see if I can put a finger on what you are actually arguing.


Since you conceed that you always have been a human, but don't conceed that you have always been a person, then are you arguing that a person is not a physical, biological organism and as such, didn't come into existence when the physical organism came into existence. If this is your argument, are you holding the position that the "person" is not physical but some sort of spiritual being (not necessarily religious) that simply inhabits the physical human being? Or perhaps that the "person" is a series of experiences that are somehow associated with the physical human being?

In essence, are you arguing that the physical, biological being is no more than a container or vehicle for the "person"?

I never thought of it quite that way.

I don't know if a person is exactly a spiritual being - you can't measure or define that very well. I don't think think a "person" exists independent of the body...maybe a "person" is a conglomeration of physical things coming together to create a unique individual consciousness that transcends a physical body and this occurs at some point in the physical development of the brain and can be lost when the brain is largely destroyed. It does not exist with out the brain.

 

[palerider]

I never thought of it quite that way.

I don't know if a person is exactly a spiritual being - you can't measure or define that very well. I don't think think a "person" exists independent of the body...maybe a "person" is a conglomeration of physical things coming together to create a unique individual consciousness that transcends a physical body and this occurs at some point in the physical development of the brain and can be lost when the brain is largely destroyed. It does not exist with out the brain.

Rather a shaky position upon which to give the go ahead to killing embryos for medical experiments don't you think? Woud you want to see a suspected criminal executed on the basis of such a flimsy argument? I mean, you are talking about a "thing" that you can't describe which trancends the physical body and since you can't describe this "thing" how can you say when it inhabits the physical body?

It sounds like you are stating that while you once were an embryo, blastocyst, zygote, etc., you didn't become a person and have intrinsic worth until some time later in your life. You are gambling with human lives on the basis of a very unstable philosophical argument.

 

[Coyote]

Rather a shaky position upon which to give the go ahead to killing embryos for medical experiments don't you think? Woud you want to see a suspected criminal executed on the basis of such a flimsy argument? I mean, you are talking about a "thing" that you can't describe which trancends the physical body and since you can't describe this "thing" how can you say when it inhabits the physical body?

I would define it becoming a person once it has brainwaves. Is that concrete enough?

It sounds like you are stating that while you once were an embryo, blastocyst, zygote, etc., you didn't become a person and have intrinsic worth until some time later in your life. You are gambling with human lives on the basis of a very unstable philosophical argument.

No, I don't consider it unstable. I utterly fail to see what in a blastocyst makes it a "person"? To me...it is no different then an egg or a sperm at that point. What makes it different and worthy of preserving?

 

[palerider]

I would define it becoming a person once it has brainwaves. Is that concrete enough?

Does this argument harken back to brain death? According to the law, and medical science, the basis of brain death, or absence of brain activity is not that a brain dead person is a living organism, but not a person. Instead, brain death is accepted as the end of life because the "irreversable" collapse of brain function destroys the capacity for self directed function of human beings who have matured to the point that a brain is required to carry out that task. It isn't the brainwaves themselves that give the person any particular standing, but what the brainwaves represent.

After brain death, an unbroken, individual no longer exists. This argument can not apply to a very young unborn. The fact that a very young unborn has not yet developed a brain does not mean that it is not capable of self directed growth and development since it clearly is. The absence of brainwaves at the end of life only signal death because the condition is irreversable and the person whose brain has ceased to function will never recover. It isn't the brainwaves themselves that make the person intrinsically valuable, and worthy of the protection of the law, but the fact that the brainwaves signal that the human being is still capable of self directed intergal organic function and unborns at any stage are clearly experiencing self directed growth and development.

No, I don't consider it unstable. I utterly fail to see what in a blastocyst makes it a "person"? To me...it is no different then an egg or a sperm at that point. What makes it different and worthy of preserving?

If, to you, a blastocyst is no different than an egg or a sperm, then you are arguing from a position of complete ignorance since such a position completely and totally ignores even the most basic scientific truth.

What makes you worthy of preserving? Is it only your brain waves that make you worthy of preserving? Are you only valuable because your body matured to the point that you are capable of transmitting brain waves? Or are you valuable, and worthy of the protection of the law because of what the brain waves represent? That being, that you are a living organism capable of self directed growth and development?

 

[ArmChair General]

Does this argument harken back to brain death? According to the law, and medical science, the basis of brain death, or absence of brain activity is not that a brain dead person is a living organism, but not a person. Instead, brain death is accepted as the end of life because the "irreversable" collapse of brain function destroys the capacity for self directed function of human beings who have matured to the point that a brain is required to carry out that task. It isn't the brainwaves themselves that give the person any particular standing, but what the brainwaves represent.

After brain death, an unbroken, individual no longer exists. This argument can not apply to a very young unborn. The fact that a very young unborn has not yet developed a brain does not mean that it is not capable of self directed growth and development since it clearly is. The absence of brainwaves at the end of life only signal death because the condition is irreversable and the person whose brain has ceased to function will never recover. It isn't the brainwaves themselves that make the person intrinsically valuable, and worthy of the protection of the law, but the fact that the brainwaves signal that the human being is still capable of self directed intergal organic function and unborns at any stage are clearly experiencing self directed growth and development.



If, to you, a blastocyst is no different than an egg or a sperm, then you are arguing from a position of complete ignorance since such a position completely and totally ignores even the most basic scientific truth.

What makes you worthy of preserving? Is it only your brain waves that make you worthy of preserving? Are you only valuable because your body matured to the point that you are capable of transmitting brain waves? Or are you valuable, and worthy of the protection of the law because of what the brain waves represent? That being, that you are a living organism capable of self directed growth and development?

wow..and you still keep going..after you've been defeated already.

Just look at the mental gymnastics you have to go through to even look like you still have a point.

Dodge Shuck Jive! lol

 

[Coyote]

What makes you worthy of preserving? Is it only your brain waves that make you worthy of preserving? Are you only valuable because your body matured to the point that you are capable of transmitting brain waves? Or are you valuable, and worthy of the protection of the law because of what the brain waves represent? That being, that you are a living organism capable of self directed growth and development?

No. It's not my brainwaves, but what those brainwaves signify - that I am a person, not a kidney or a tumor or a blastocyst.

You dismiss the linking of brainwaves, the absence of life and the presence of life. You state that there is a big difference between a damaged human and a human yet to be. The only difference I see is one of potential.

Consider how death has been defined and redefined. Prior to about 1960, a person would be declared dead if both their heartbeat and breathing had ceased and could not be re-started. That was the accepted definition of death. But now - technology has made this definition invalid. Heart pacemakers can keep the heart beating indefinitely long after all other internal systems have wound down. Respirators can keep the person apparently breathing forever. So how do we define death? Death is generally defined in most U.S. states as a situation in which the brain "flat-lines" and there is no major central nervous system activity and there is no detectable electrical activity in the brain's cerebral cortex even though machines keep the heart beating and keep the lungs breathing.

If the point of death is defined as a lack of electrical activity in the brain's cerebral cortex - why not use the same criteria to define the start of human life as a person? Why choose conception over brain activity? It's completely arbritary isn't it?

Consider the various thoughts of people as to when an 'unborn" becomes a person.

When medical ethicist Bonnie Steinbock was interviewed by Newsweek and asked the question "So when does life begin?," she answered:

"If we’re talking about life in the biological sense, eggs are alive, sperm are alive. Cancer tumors are alive. For me, what matters is this: When does it have the moral status of a human being? When does it have some kind of awareness of its surroundings? When it can feel pain, for example, because that’s one of the most brute kinds of awareness there could be. And that happens, interestingly enough, just around the time of viability. It certainly doesn’t happen with an embryo."​

According to author Richard Carrier:

"...the fetus does not become truly neurologically active until the fifth month (an event we call 'quickening.' This activity might only be a generative one, i.e. the spontaneous nerve pulses could merely be autonomous or spontaneous reflexes aimed at stimulating and developing muscle and organ tissue. Nevertheless, it is in this month that a complex cerebral cortex, the one unique feature of human -- in contrast with animal -- brains, begins to develop, and is typically complete, though still growing, by the sixth month. What is actually going on mentally at that point is unknown, but the hardware is in place for a human mind to exist in at least a primitive state."​

Halacha (Jewish law) does define when a fetus becomes a nefesh (person). "...a baby...becomes a full-fledged human being when the head emerges from the womb. Before then, the fetus is considered a 'partial life.'

"Whether or not abortion should be legal turns on the answer to the question of whether and at what point a fetus is a person. This is a question that cannot be answered logically or empirically. The concept of personhood is neither logical nor empirical: It is essentially a religious, or quasi-religious idea, based on one's fundamental (and therefore unverifiable) assumptions about the nature of the world." Paul Campos, professor of law at the University of Colorado. (2002)

 

[9sublime]

Let me ask you something Palerider.

If they found out they could create a human out of the DNA in snot, would you stop blowing your nose as it is wasting a potential human life?

 

[palerider]

wow..and you still keep going..after you've been defeated already.

Just look at the mental gymnastics you have to go through to even look like you still have a point.

Dodge Shuck Jive! lol

I am still waiting for you to bring forward that science that you said defeated me. It must have been a figment of your imagination.

Do you have an actual argument or not? You sound like the democrats who want to declare victory in iraq and then cut and run as if declaring victory is the same as achieving victory.

 

[palerider]

No. It's not my brainwaves, but what those brainwaves signify - that I am a person, not a kidney or a tumor or a blastocyst.

All your brain waves signify is that you are still capable of internal self direction. No more, no less. They are electrical signals that show that your body is still directing itself. If you believe that they are magic, then say so.

You dismiss the linking of brainwaves, the absence of life and the presence of life. You state that there is a big difference between a damaged human and a human yet to be. The only difference I see is one of potential.

Hold on. We have already established, and you have agreed that the unborn is a human. Your argument now is that they are not persons.

Consider how death has been defined and redefined. Prior to about 1960, a person would be declared dead if both their heartbeat and breathing had ceased and could not be re-started. That was the accepted definition of death. But now - technology has made this definition invalid. Heart pacemakers can keep the heart beating indefinitely long after all other internal systems have wound down. Respirators can keep the person apparently breathing forever. So how do we define death? Death is generally defined in most U.S. states as a situation in which the brain "flat-lines" and there is no major central nervous system activity and there is no detectable electrical activity in the brain's cerebral cortex even though machines keep the heart beating and keep the lungs breathing.

Death has been redefined by philosophers looking for a way to kill unborns guilt free.

And once again, the presence of brain waves are only a signal that indicate to doctors that the person is still capable of internal self direction. That no outside help is needed for the victim to simply carry on with the internal biological functions of living. Unless you are claiming some spiritual character to the brain waves of course.

If the point of death is defined as a lack of electrical activity in the brain's cerebral cortex - why not use the same criteria to define the start of human life as a person? Why choose conception over brain activity? It's completely arbritary isn't it?

The point of death is defined as the irreversable loss of brain activity. This signals that the person is no longer capable of carrying on the internal functions of living. It does not signal that the victim is no longer a person since the brain waves are not what made him or her a person. It is a signal that the person is not going to recover.

Doctors call death when they have a clear signal that the person will not recover. No more, no less. Absence of brain activity in a healthy individual who has not yet matured enough to have a brain is not a signal that the individual is no longer capable of internally directing the functions of living. Absence of brain activity in the unborn is not a signal that they will never recover.


I will have to pick this up later, I am late for an appointment and I will be away fishing all weekend. I will pop in if possible, if not, have a good holiday and we will take this up again on tuesday.