Stem cells nurture damaged spine: study

[Fonz]

I don't really think that anyone here is qualified to make a medical opinion of what a human being is, but if you want a philosophical opinion, then one could make the case for any trimester you want. Just a few facts to consider:

At 6 weeks the embryo is about 1/5 of an inch in length. A primitive heart is beating. Head, mouth, liver, and intestines begin to take shape.

At 10 weeks the embryo is now about 1 inch in length. Facial features, limbs, hands, feet, fingers, and toes become apparent. The nervous system is responsive and many of the internal organs begin to function.

At 14 weeks the fetus is now 3 inches long and weighs almost an ounce. The muscles begin to develop and sex organs form. Eyelids, fingernails, and toenails also form. The child’s spontaneous movements can be observed.

At 18 weeks the fetus is now about 5 inches long. The child blinks, grasps, and moves her mouth. Hair grows on the head and body.

At 22 weeks the fetus now weighs approximately 1/2 a pound and spans about 10 inches from head to toe. Sweat glands develop, and the external skin has turned from transparent to opaque.

At 26 weeks the fetus can now inhale, exhale and even cry. Eyes have completely formed, and the tongue has developed taste buds. Under intensive medical care the fetus has over a 50% chance of surviving outside the womb.

At 30 weeks the fetus is usually capable of living outside the womb and would be considered premature at birth.

At 40 weeks the child is now ready to live outside of his mother’s womb.


In my non-professional opinion, I can't really see how someone can say that a fetus is any different from any baby once it reaches the third trimester. The second trimester and even late into the first trimester seems to be extremely dangerous territory to me. The fetus has every appearance of a human child with the exception of size, and I'm not sure that can be a very reliable determining factor. I would not be comfortable with any abortion procedure after about 8 weeks.

Thats a very good response Dave.

 

[zerorelations]

Yes, I'd have to agree with what Fonz said.

 

[palerider]

Nearly every cell in your entire body is a potential human being, given our recent advances in genetic engineering.

There is a difference between potenial and realized. Sperm and eggs are potential human beings but until they combine, their potential is just that. After they have combined, however, their potential is realized and a new human being exists.

Did you know that Embryos sometimes split? Is that a case of one human being becoming two? Sometimes Two embryos fuse into one, creating a Chimera. What happens to that extra human being in this case?

And that makes them less human than you how exactly?

This naive idea you have is both intellectually and morally wrong.

That unborns are human beings is not debated by any credible science. Practically every medical textbook in use today in the study of embryology or developmental biology acknowledges that upon the completion of fertilization, a new human being comes into existence. The only debate is whether or not it is ethically ok to kill them.

 

[Fonz]

There is a difference between potenial and realized. Sperm and eggs are potential human beings but until they combine, their potential is just that. After they have combined, however, their potential is realized and a new human being exists.

What exactly do you classify as a human being?

And that makes them less human than you how exactly?

You didn't answer the question. How can one human being become two human beings? How can two human beings become one?

That unborns are human beings is not debated by any credible science. Practically every medical textbook in use today in the study of embryology or developmental biology acknowledges that upon the completion of fertilization, a new human being comes into existence. The only debate is whether or not it is ethically ok to kill them.

The embryos that are destroyed in stem cell research do not have brains or even neurons. There is no reason to believe that they can suffer their destruction in any way at all.

Tell me why do you feel that the interests of a blastocyst supersede the interests of a child with a spinal cord injury?

 

[palerider]

What exactly do you classify as a human being?[/auote]

Any member of species homo spaiens sapiens. What do you classify as a human being?

You didn't answer the question. How can one human being become two human beings? How can two human beings become one?

Such a tired old argument. One that has been put away for quite some time. I am surprised that it is still in use. While twinning and fusion raise some interesting questions with regard to the lives (and capacities) of early embryonic life, the argument that individual life is not present from conception is specious at best. Genetic studies strongly suggest that when twinning occurs, the original embryo continues to live and a second embryo results from the splitting of the first one. Research suggests that twinning is a form of asexual reproduction and there is ample embryological evidence that human beings in the very early stages of development have the capacity to asexually reproduce under certain conditions.

The fact of twinning simply demonstrates that we have capabilities in early life that we lose as we mature. During our early development, for example, we have the capacity to grow and mature at a rate that our metabolisms simply couldn't support in later life.

If twinning happened at 16 years of age rather than at 1 to 14 days, would you suggest that no one is a human being until after the age of 16?

From a biological point of view, an occurance of monozygotic twinning completely fails to demonstrate that the embryo prior to twinning was not an individual in exactly the same way as the division of a single, whole flatworm into two whole flatworms does not show that prior to that division the flatworm was not an individual.

Fusion is even more easily understood. When fusion occurs, one embryo is simply absorbed by the other.

The embryos that are destroyed in stem cell research do not have brains or even neurons. There is no reason to believe that they can suffer their destruction in any way at all.

One doesn't need to suffer one's destruction in order to be a human being and the fact that at a certain age, the embryo has not developed certain organs or systems is also no indication that it is not, in fact, a human being. None of us are fully mature until we are well into our 20's. New borns have a great deal of developing to do before they are fully mature, but they are human beings, none the less.

Tell me why do you feel that the interests of a blastocyst supersede the interests of a child with a spinal cord injury?

A blastocyst is a human being. The interest of all of us is to live and a human being that is days old has as much right to live as a human being who is years old. Following your logic, we should be able to terminate post natal children for their organs so that older members of the species can prolong their lives or recover from injuries.

If you are using scientific terms like blastocyst, or embryo in an attempt to dehumanize a human being so that you may do with, or treat them as you wish then you are little better than a racist who uses words like ni&&er or coon in an attempt to dehumanize black people so that he may treat them how he wishes.

Here are a few references to medical text books:



"[The Zygote] results from the union of an oocyte and a sperm. A zygote is the beginning of a new human being. Human development begins at fertilization, the process during which a male gamete or sperm ... unites with a female gamete or oocyte ... to form a single cell called a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marks the beginning of each of us as a unique individual."

The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology, 6th ed.
Keith L. Moore, Ph.D. & T.V.N. Persaud, Md., (Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Company, 1998), 2-18.


"Fertilization is an important landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new, genetically distinct human organism is thereby formed... Fertilization is the procession of events that begins when a spermatozoon makes contact with a secondary oocyte or its investments... The zygote ... is a unicellular embryo... "The ill-defined and inaccurate term pre-embryo, which includes the embryonic disc, is said either to end with the appearance of the primitive streak or ... to include neurulation. The term is not used in this book."

Human Embryology & Teratology
Ronan R. O'Rahilly, Fabiola Muller, (New York: Wiley-Liss, 1996), 5-55.


"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."

Human Embryology, 3rd ed.
Bradley M. Patten, (New York: McGraw Hill, 1968), 43.


"The zygote thus formed represents the beginning of a new life."

Biological Principles and Modern Practice of Obstetrics
J.P. Greenhill and E.A. Friedman, (Philadelphia: W.B. Sanders, 1974), 17.

"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."

Pathology of the Fetus and the Infant, 3d ed.
E.L. Potter and J.M. Craig, (Chicago: Year Book Medical Publishers, 1975), vii.



If you can provide some credible science that states that the offspring of two human beings ie EVER anything but a human being, I would be very interested in seeing it.

 

[Fonz]

Any member of species homo spaiens sapiens. What do you classify as a human being?

A Homo Sapien with a consciousness. As characterized by a self awareness..etc.

Such a tired old argument. One that has been put away for quite some time. I am surprised that it is still in use. While twinning and fusion raise some interesting questions with regard to the lives (and capacities) of early embryonic life, the argument that individual life is not present from conception is specious at best. Genetic studies strongly suggest that when twinning occurs, the original embryo continues to live and a second embryo results from the splitting of the first one. Research suggests that twinning is a form of asexual reproduction and there is ample embryological evidence that human beings in the very early stages of development have the capacity to asexually reproduce under certain conditions.

So tiring yet you have no answer for it? I wasn't really asking for the scientific "how" it happens. Though IM sure you already knew that. Your making a metaphysical assertion for which you have no basis. That a Blastocyst is a human being.

If thats the case, then how can ONE human being suddenly become TWO human beings?

If twinning happened at 16 years of age rather than at 1 to 14 days, would you suggest that no one is a human being until after the age of 16?

You mean if like, somehow in fairy tale land, a 16 year old person could just like Morph into two people? what are you smoking man?

Fusion is even more easily understood. When fusion occurs, one embryo is simply absorbed by the other.

So what happens to that other human life? Can two human lives become one? Does one human being simply disappear?

One doesn't need to suffer one's destruction in order to be a human being and the fact that at a certain age, the embryo has not developed certain organs or systems is also no indication that it is not, in fact, a human being. None of us are fully mature until we are well into our 20's. New borns have a great deal of developing to do before they are fully mature, but they are human beings, none the less.

How else can we explain morality than that of the suffering and happiness of sentient creatures?

A blastocyst is a human being. The interest of all of us is to live and a human being that is days old has as much right to live as a human being who is years old. Following your logic, we should be able to terminate post natal children for their organs so that older members of the species can prolong their lives or recover from injuries.

It is not a human being. Its a group of 150 cells that has the potential to become a human being.

If you are using scientific terms like blastocyst, or embryo in an attempt to dehumanize a human being so that you may do with, or treat them as you wish then you are little better than a racist who uses words like ni&&er or coon in an attempt to dehumanize black people so that he may treat them how he wishes.

I think the real problem here, is that you are simply unaware of what happens in the real world. We are talking about embryos that are going to be tossed out and thrown to waste anyways. How can you seriously oppose the use of these embryos and instead insist that they be destroyed, thereby serving no purpose whatsoever?

I can understand why some people oppose the creation of new human embryos for the sole purpose of scientific research. I certainly, don't agree with them, but I can understand that position. But opposing the use of already created embryos that are currently destined for the trash is just willful ignorance.

 

[palerider]

A Homo Sapien with a consciousness. As characterized by a self awareness..etc.

So a person in a coma is not human?

And infants do not achieve self awareness until they are between 12 and 18 months old. Are they also not human beings because they are not self aware yet?

So tiring yet you have no answer for it? I wasn't really asking for the scientific "how" it happens. Though IM sure you already knew that. Your making a metaphysical assertion for which you have no basis. That a Blastocyst is a human being.

If thats the case, then how can ONE human being suddenly become TWO human beings?

I told you. Embryonic research has found that until a certain age, embryo's can reproduce asexually.

So what happens to that other human life? Can two human lives become one? Does one human being simply disappear?

In the case of absorption, one is absorbed by the other. The one that is absorbed dies. The two don't become one individual any more than you become part cow when you eat a burger.

How else can we explain morality than that of the suffering and happiness of sentient creatures?

This isn't a moral question for me, it is legal. Our right to live is protected by the 14th amendment.

It is not a human being. Its a group of 150 cells that has the potential to become a human being.

It is a human being. The number of cells is irrelavent. You have far more cells than a newborn but you are no more human than that newborn. The potential lies with the sperm and the egg. Once fertilizationis completed, that potential has been realized and a new human being begins his or her life.

I have provided you with credible science that states quite clearly that we are human beings from the time we are concieved. Can you, or can you not provide any sort of credible science that says that the offspring of two human beings is EVER anyting but a human being.

I have substantiated my position, yours remains uncorroborated.

I think the real problem here, is that you are simply unaware of what happens in the real world. We are talking about embryos that are going to be tossed out and thrown to waste anyways. How can you seriously oppose the use of these embryos and instead insist that they be destroyed, thereby serving no purpose whatsoever?

Completely irrelavent. They are human beings are you are advocating harvesting human beings for the benefit of others human beings.

I can understand why some people oppose the creation of new human embryos for the sole purpose of scientific research. I certainly, don't agree with them, but I can understand that position. But opposing the use of already created embryos that are currently destined for the trash is just willful ignorance.

Tell me, would you be ok with harvesting prisoners in jail who have been given life sentences with no chance of parole? They have been essentially thrown away. The fact remains that our right to live is protected by the 14th amendment. Ignorance is convincing yourself that it is perfectly fine to kill one human being to benefit another.

 

[Dave]

Pale Rider does bring up some interesting points. If there was a way to scientifically determine what could be considered human life, what things would we ask?
1. Is this being alive? Yes, he has the characteristics of life. That is, he can reproduce his own cells and develop them into a specific pattern of maturity and function. Or more simply, he is not dead.
2. Is this being human? Yes. This is a unique being, distinguishable totally from any other living organism, completely human in all of his or her characteristics, including the 46 human chromosomes, and can develop only into a fully mature human.
3. Is this being complete? Yes. Nothing new will be added from the time of union of sperm and egg until the death of the old man or woman except growth and development of what is already there at the beginning. All he needs is time to develop and mature.
I'm not sure that conciousness is really required to be considered a human life from a scientific standpoint. Even if it is not completely a human life, there is still doubt. We as humans do not bury those that we doubt are alive. We make sure first. I would suggest that the truly human way of thinking would be to give life the benefit of the doubt.

 

[palerider]

...there is still doubt. We as humans do not bury those that we doubt are alive. We make sure first. I would suggest that the truly human way of thinking would be to give life the benefit of the doubt.

I like this point. I have been asking for a very long time for someone to provide some credible science that states that the offspring of two human beings is ever anything but a human being. In all these years, none has been provided. In my mind, that erases any doubt that they are human beings. It should establish enough doubt in any thinking person to make them question whether or not they are killing living human beings. If they have no doubts, in the face of credible evidence to the contrary, then they must be working from a position of faith, and not intellect.

 

[r0beph]

3. Is this being complete? Yes. Nothing new will be added from the time of union of sperm and egg until the death of the old man or woman except growth and development of what is already there at the beginning. All he needs is time to develop and mature.

Not trying to quibble much here, but in response to this. No the being is far from complete. If removed from the mother and allowed to live on it's own, even with normal support as one would give a fully developed child, it would not survive. Without the callous connotation, unborn fetus are parasitic in nature, surviving only by taking from the mother. This isn't a cheap shot at the right to life or otherwise, or an attempt to lessen the importance of a child's life. But I must feel that objectively and without the emotional component I have to fully agree with the idea that a pregenant woman should have the right to have a fetuses removed, the fact remains that in this removal it will not remain alive and thus the "death" during abortive processes is simply a side effect of the choice to have the fetus removed.

I highly HIGHLY dislike the idea of abortion as birth control, but the right should exist. And if someone makes the choice to exercise that right the fetus should not be wasted but for the betterment of man. People die and we take their organs for transplant and medical studies. Permission for this is dependent on their authorization. In the US medical consent is remanded to the parent of a child, and thus I feel that an unborn fetus is still in the 'control' of the parent and thus medical consent remains the parent's choice. If a fetus is given to medicine it, in my opinion, should be legal due to how the law is written. The moral dilemma is one I'm going to avoid, because I know exactly where that goes when argued. I just have a serious problem with two choices existing, throw the fetus in the trash or use it to possibly better the life of all people, they choose the former, utter nonsense.

As per embryonic research I have absolutely no qualms about this. These micro-cellular organisms are completely and utterly inviable without supported assistance. Life is a hard define, science's classification once said viruses are not alive, but really what is life? Perhaps our ideas of what is living and what is non-living are flawed and merely the measure of our ignorance and restricted powers of observation. Hell many consider that the earth is alive. Even inert matter is in constant movement and change. To argue that it's LIFE that should be protected is a slightly off center mode of thinking. Life should be protected WHERE and IF it is viable in a fully healthy form (where healthy form is NOT defined by reaching a point in development) without support. In other words a comatose patient on a breathing machine, if not for the trauma/medical dysfunction that required this intervention, this being would live without external support. A Fetus in NO form could live if placed in the world without being frozen/supported by interventions/etc. It is simply not a viable unit. I hate to look at things from such a standpoint, but when it's brought in the legality field of this discussion, I have to, as do you, without pure objectivity sans emotional response, you cannot debate law since itself is a technical matter.

I have been asking for a very long time for someone to provide some credible science that states that the offspring of two human beings is ever anything but a human being.

There is a rift between the definition of life and our definition of viable functional human being. As an example of our handling of these situations let me create a hypothetical situation. Let's say a fetus forms without lungs. Obviously a defect, yet nonetheless this fetus is as all other fetuses, that is it contains all that which is required to create offspring. Although it is likely that in the case of such a defect that so many other complications would exist the child could not be brought to term, for the sake of argument let's say it is. Brought to term this fetus survives, only via the oxygenation of the mothers blood via the umbilical transfer, once removed this child has zero chances of survival. One cannot disagree with the fact that once the umbilical transfer is removed this child will die. We could argue that it may be perhaps possible to create a machine that in a manner similar to kidney dialysis, rather than removing impurities one that adds oxygen, could keep and support this life. This would in our system be completely legal to not provide. In a current real world matter, those who continually require support via artificial means (Comatose victims) are often removed from these systems. They argue Quality of Life (QOL) reasoning. But how can a completely unaware life form exhibit any QOL positive or negative? They can't, this is no different than those embryos which have no awareness.

 

[palerider]

Without the callous connotation, unborn fetus are parasitic in nature, surviving only by taking from the mother.

Another tired old argument that has absolutely no basis in fact. It is clear that you are not clear on what a parasite is. Let me enlighten you.

1. First and foremost, a parasite is defined as an organism of one species living in or on an organism of another species

A human embryo or fetus is an organism of one species (Homo sapiens) living in the uterine cavity of an organism of the same species (Homo sapiens) and deriving its nourishment from the mother. This homospecific relationship is an obligatory dependent relationship, and in no way parasitic.

2 A parasite is an invading organism -- coming to parasitize the host from an outside source

A human embryo or fetus is formed from inside the mother-- the egg coming from an inside source, being formed in the ovary of the mother from where it moves into the oviduct where it may be fertilized to form the zygote -- the first cell of the new human being.

3. A parasite is generally harmful to some degree to the host that is harboring the parasite

A human embryo or fetus developing in the uterine cavity does not usually cause harm to the mother.

4. A parasite makes direct contact with the host's tissues, often holding on by either mouth parts, hooks or suckers to the tissues involved.

A human embryo or fetus makes direct contact with the uterine lining of the mother for only a short period of time. It soon becomes isolated inside its own amniotic sac, and from that point on makes indirect contact with the mother only by way of the umbilical cord and placenta.

5. When a parasite invades host tissue, the host tissue will often respond by forming a capsule (of connective tissue) to surround the parasite and cut it off from other surrounding tissue

When the human embryo or fetus attaches to the lining tissue of the mother's uterus, the lining tissue responds by surrounding the human embryo and does not cut it off from the mother, but rather establishes a means of close contact (the placenta) between the mother and the new human being.

I can continue but I suppose that this is enough to give you the idea. Arguments that are not based in truth are worse than worthless.

I highly HIGHLY dislike the idea of abortion as birth control, but the right should exist.

The right to kill another human being for no better reason than convenience should exist? Is that across the whole human species, or do you only favor allowing the killing of the most helpless?

People die and we take their organs for transplant and medical studies. Permission for this is dependent on their authorization.

Get authorization from the unborn before you kill it and I am with you.

In the US medical consent is remanded to the parent of a child, and thus I feel that an unborn fetus is still in the 'control' of the parent and thus medical consent remains the parent's choice.

So you believe that a parent should be able to terminate their child up until the child is no longer under the parent's control? ie. 18 years?

As per embryonic research I have absolutely no qualms about this. These micro-cellular organisms are completely and utterly inviable without supported assistance.

Micro cellular organizims? They are human beings and using terms like micro cellular organizim in an attempt to dehumanize them is exactly analogous to using words like ni%ger and coon in an attempt to dehumanize blacks. Instead of a racist, you are an ageist.

Life is a hard define,

Life is very easy to define. It is the condition that distinguishes organisms from inorganic objects and dead organisms, being manifested by growth through metabolism, reproduction, and the power of adaptation to environment through changes originating internally.

 

[Dave]

Not trying to quibble much here, but in response to this. No the being is far from complete. If removed from the mother and allowed to live on it's own, even with normal support as one would give a fully developed child, it would not survive. Without the callous connotation, unborn fetus are parasitic in nature, surviving only by taking from the mother. This isn't a cheap shot at the right to life or otherwise, or an attempt to lessen the importance of a child's life. But I must feel that objectively and without the emotional component I have to fully agree with the idea that a pregenant woman should have the right to have a fetuses removed, the fact remains that in this removal it will not remain alive and thus the "death" during abortive processes is simply a side effect of the choice to have the fetus removed.

My point was that it was complete in the sense that nothing new will be added to the mixture. All the parts have been put in they are simply growing. If the stage in developement is a determining factor, then you could say that a newborn baby is less human than a 20-year old.

You are also wrong when you say that death is simply a side effect of having a fetus removed. You would be correct if the doctor removed the fetus, and the baby died afterward, but that is not, and never has been the case. Death is a deliberate part of the process. In every abortion procedure performed today, the baby is deliberately killed while inside the womb and removed afterward. What is the medical purpose of killing the fetus? None, other than the legal ramifications for doing the procedure after the fetus is removed from the uterus. In fact, in 3rd trimester abortions, there is absolutely no reason to kill the fetus other than the mother wanting it dead.

 

[palerider]

You are also wrong when you say that death is simply a side effect of having a fetus removed. You would be correct if the doctor removed the fetus, and the baby died afterward, but that is not, and never has been the case. Death is a deliberate part of the process. In every abortion procedure performed today, the baby is deliberately killed while inside the womb and removed afterward. What is the medical purpose of killing the fetus? None, other than the legal ramifications for doing the procedure after the fetus is removed from the uterus. In fact, in 3rd trimester abortions, there is absolutely no reason to kill the fetus other than the mother wanting it dead.

Death is a side effect of removing the unborn from its mother like death is the side effect of a .50 calliber round to the back of the head.

 

[r0beph]

Another tired old argument that has absolutely no basis in fact. It is clear that you are not clear on what a parasite is. Let me enlighten you.

1. First and foremost, a parasite is defined as an organism of one species living in or on an organism of another species

A human embryo or fetus is an organism of one species (Homo sapiens) living in the uterine cavity of an organism of the same species (Homo sapiens) and deriving its nourishment from the mother. This homospecific relationship is an obligatory dependent relationship, and in no way parasitic.

An organism that is intimately associated with and metabolically dependent on another living organism (the host) for completion of its life cycle, and which is typically detrimental to the host.
This definition comes from http:// biology.usgs.gov/s+t/SNT/noframe/zy198.htm
This definition does include a fetus, since it's life cycle would not begin without the mother.

2 A parasite is an invading organism -- coming to parasitize the host from an outside source

A human embryo or fetus is formed from inside the mother-- the egg coming from an inside source, being formed in the ovary of the mother from where it moves into the oviduct where it may be fertilized to form the zygote -- the first cell of the new human being.

3. A parasite is generally harmful to some degree to the host that is harboring the parasite

A human embryo or fetus developing in the uterine cavity does not usually cause harm to the mother.

4. A parasite makes direct contact with the host's tissues, often holding on by either mouth parts, hooks or suckers to the tissues involved.

A human embryo or fetus makes direct contact with the uterine lining of the mother for only a short period of time. It soon becomes isolated inside its own amniotic sac, and from that point on makes indirect contact with the mother only by way of the umbilical cord and placenta.

5. When a parasite invades host tissue, the host tissue will often respond by forming a capsule (of connective tissue) to surround the parasite and cut it off from other surrounding tissue

When the human embryo or fetus attaches to the lining tissue of the mother's uterus, the lining tissue responds by surrounding the human embryo and does not cut it off from the mother, but rather establishes a means of close contact (the placenta) between the mother and the new human being.

I can continue but I suppose that this is enough to give you the idea. Arguments that are not based in truth are worse than worthless.

All those are completely incorrect. Period.

The right to kill another human being for no better reason than convenience should exist? Is that across the whole human species, or do you only favor allowing the killing of the most helpless?

You are still assuming that the unborn fetus is a "human being" and this argument cannot be staunched since we're both very clear on our ideals

Get authorization from the unborn before you kill it and I am with you.
So you believe that a parent should be able to terminate their child up until the child is no longer under the parent's control? ie. 18 years?

The right to abortion exists. My argument was NOT about abortion. The medical consent that I was talking about was the medical consent to USE the aborted fetus' stem cells. Since you imply that consent should be given, the mother who aborted the child has under medical consent law to give that. Medical consent is given at 14, not 18. Remember, don't argue about abortion, that's legal and not up for debate.

Micro cellular organizims? They are human beings and using terms like micro cellular organizim in an attempt to dehumanize them is exactly analogous to using words like ni%ger and coon in an attempt to dehumanize blacks. Instead of a racist, you are an ageist.

To liken me to a racist is pure fluff. I don't dehumanize anything, abortion is a fact, again NOT my argument, start a new thread. I have to say your arguments are suffering from cognitive bias. On the other hand I don't necessarily implicitly care beyond the fact that I feel if we have the ability to use them, better to use than to simply not. If abortion was illegal, I'd have no argument here, but that argument is for another thread.

Life is very easy to define. It is the condition that distinguishes organisms from inorganic objects and dead organisms, being manifested by growth through metabolism, reproduction, and the power of adaptation to environment through changes originating internally.

Quoting wikipedia is fun, but that's just the first portion of the entire entry. I'll submit that it IS a living organism, however it is not quite a human being. Human yes, being no. #being(n.) - a living thing that has the ability to act or function independently

----------
robf in red.

 

[palerider]

An organism that is intimately associated with and metabolically dependent on another living organism (the host) for completion of its life cycle, and which is typically detrimental to the host.
This definition comes from http:// biology.usgs.gov/s+t/SNT/noframe/zy198.htm
This definition does include a fetus, since it's life cycle would not begin without the mother.

"A parasite is defined as an organism of one species living in or on an organism of another species (a heterospecific relationship) and deriving its nourishment from the host (is metabolically dependent on the host).
See Cheng, T.C., General Parasitology, p. 7

By definition a parasite must be of a different species than its host. Unfortunately, you don't get to pick and choose and still remain scientifically accurate. Unborns are not parasites.

You are still assuming that the unborn fetus is a "human being" and this argument cannot be staunched since we're both very clear on our ideals

I provided credible science that states matter of factly that unborns are human beings. I am not assuming anything. I await some credible science from you that suggests that the offspring of two human beings is EVER anything but a human being.

I am sure that we are both very clear on our ideals, but mine are substantiated and corroborated by science. Yours are not.

The right to abortion exists. My argument was NOT about abortion. The medical consent that I was talking about was the medical consent to USE the aborted fetus' stem cells. Since you imply that consent should be given, the mother who aborted the child has under medical consent law to give that. Medical consent is given at 14, not 18. Remember, don't argue about abortion, that's legal and not up for debate.

The right to own slaves once existed as well, but things change. I suppose you would have argued in the 1800's that slavery was legal and not up for debate either.

Quoting wikipedia is fun, but that's just the first portion of the entire entry. I'll submit that it IS a living organism, however it is not quite a human being. Human yes, being no. #being(n.) - a living thing that has the ability to act or function independently

Once again. I have provided credible science that says unborns are human BEINGS. I await some from you that says the offspring of two human beings is EVER anything but a human being. The ability to act independently is not a requirement to be a bonified member of species homo sapiens sapiens.

the primary definition of being is: to exist in reality. Unborns certainly do exist in reality so they are beings.