Have you always been alive?

PaleRider · #**111** (**permalink**) 02-27-2008, 11:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by George O Well

>>>I 'spect that's about the same as asking for credible science on the existence of God.

Hardly since one is a philosophical concept and the other is a matter of hard, demonstrable science.

naturemomma · #**112** (**permalink**) 02-27-2008, 12:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PaleRider

Hardly since one is a philosophical concept and the other is a matter of hard, demonstrable science.

It all depends on who you are talking to, and what crazy science they have pulled outta their ass to make their argument. Everyone has science Pale, on both sides of everything, or didn't you know?

wyse wyfe · #**113** (**permalink**) 02-27-2008, 02:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PaleRider

Any argument that the unborn is a part of its mother is an argument that during pregnancy, a woman is both male and female, has two separate blood types, two sets of organs, etc., etc. Further, since it is possible to fertilize an egg, thus forming a zygote outside of the body, making it possible, for example, to implant a white child into a black woman, a suggestion that the child is part of the woman is a suggestion that the black woman, in this case, is also bi racial.

The origin of the fetus is not important, the attachment is. A part of a person may be very different from the whole of a person, and still be a part of the person. It is possible for a person to have 2 different DNA types with one body.

Quote:

"Fertilization is an important landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new, genetically distinct human being is thereby formed"Ronan R. O'Rahilly, Fabiola Muller, HUMAN EMBRYOLOGY & TERATOLOGY , (New York: Wiley-Liss, 1996), 5-55.

A new genetically distinct human being is IN THE PROCESS of being formed.

"[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.

"In this text, we begin our description of the developing human with the formation and differentiation of the male and female sex cells or gametes, which will unite at fertilization to initiate the embryonic development of a new individual. ... Fertilization takes place in the oviduct ... resulting in the formation of a zygote containing a single diploid nucleus. Embryonic development is considered to begin at this point... This moment of zygote formation may be taken as the beginning or zero time point of embryonic development."Essentials of Human Embryology William J. Larsen, (New York: Churchill Livingstone, 1998), 1-17.

"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 "beginning" or the "initiation" of a new life is not the same as A new life.

Quote:

We know beyond a doubt that the child is not part of the woman's body. Feel free to provide some credible science that states that the child is part of her body if you want to prove your point, otherwise, bow to the overwhelming evidence of science that states quite clearly that the child is an individual

.

Such credible science has been provided. It is simply the definition of the word "individual" that proves you wrong. It is attached and deriving its whole being from a person, and cannot survive without that attachment, therefore it is not an individual.

Quote:

Again, feel free to provide some credible science that states that the unborn is part of its mother's body. You will find that no such science exists because no scientist would suggest that a woman could have two blood types, two sexes, etc. Being attatched to a thing or inside of a thing does not make one part of that thing, even if you are dependent upon it for your very life.

In the case of a fetus, it does make one a part of that thing. By the very definition, something attached is not separate.

PaleRider · #**114** (**permalink**) 02-27-2008, 03:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by naturemomma

It all depends on who you are talking to, and what crazy science they have pulled outta their ass to make their argument. Everyone has science Pale, on both sides of everything, or didn't you know?

Neither you, nor anyone else seems to have science suggesting that unborns are not living human beings from the time of conception. If there were science suggesting that unborns are not alive, you shoud be able to provide it.

PaleRider · #**115** (**permalink**) 02-27-2008, 04:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wyse wyfe

The origin of the fetus is not important, the attachment is. A part of a person may be very different from the whole of a person, and still be a part of the person. It is possible for a person to have 2 different DNA types with one body.

The argument doesn't fly wyse. If you (God forbid) suffered heart failure and found it necessary to have a heart transplant, the heart you recieve would most certainly be attatched to your body and operating in conjunction with the rest of your systems, but it would never be "part" of your body. All of your parts share your DNA. Things that are in your body but do not share your DNA simply are not, and never can be "parts" of your body. Even blood that you might recieve in a transfusion never becomes part of your body. The cells live out their lifetime and die but never become part of you.

As I said earlier, if you can provide credible science stating that the unborn is part of its mother's body, you have an argument but just saying a thing doesn't make it so. Since this is such a contentious issue and is a large part of the pro choice argument, if such hard and credible science existed, it would be easily found.

Quote:

Originally Posted by wyse wyfe

The "beginning" or the "initiation" of a new life is not the same as A new life.

Of course it is. Your life began at a particular time. You didn't "ease" your way into life, you are either alive or you are dead. There is no third state.

I also noted that you didn't highlight the "a" in each and every one of those statements. Clearly they are talking about "a" new individual.

Quote:

Originally Posted by wyse wyfe

Such credible science has been provided. It is simply the definition of the word "individual" that proves you wrong. It is attached and deriving its whole being from a person, and cannot survive without that attachment, therefore it is not an individual.

None of us are self sustaining. You require resources from outside yourself to live. Attatchment does not mean that the unborn is not separate. It's DNA proves beyond any doubt that it is separate. Even in the case of conjoined twins, there are two separate individuals. While the two may share organs, there are no organs that are a combiniation of the two. All parts have the DNA of one or the other.

Quote:

Originally Posted by wyse wyfe

In the case of a fetus, it does make one a part of that thing. By the very definition, something attached is not separate.

Sorry, but that simply isn't true. You can be "attatched" to any number of things but that attatchment will never make you "part" of the thing you are being attatched to. If you have dialasis, do you believe that you are "part" of the kidney machine or that the kidney machine is part of you? Do you not believe that the machine is a separate entity from you that is simply doing a job that your body isn't capable of?

Then there is the fact that the unborn itself is medically classified as "foriegn tissue". Further, it is illegal to execute a woman who is pregnant because the child is a separate individual who can not be executed for the crimes of its mother. Were it simply a part of her body due to its intimate relationship to her, there woud be no reason not to execute her while she is pregnant.

If your argument depends upon proving that the child is an "appendage" of its mother in order to succeed, then you need a new argument. This one is bound to fail.

Rooster · #**116** (**permalink**) 02-27-2008, 04:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PaleRider

That doesn't speak to the question of when an individual's life began. You can trace your existence as an individual back to a point in time. Any further back, and you no longer exist as the individual that you have been since your conception.

"combining male sperm and a female egg produces humans and other life forms. The fetus so produced has all the specific DNA, from previous eggs and sperm, read "life", to produce a new individual by combination, so life exists in each egg and spermatzoa prior to combining them"

Please note my word "fetus" and my reference to a "new individual"... did you miss that?

I answered that in a previous second reply, which see above. This is the third time.

How many times do you need?

Lexi · #**117** (**permalink**) 02-27-2008, 04:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rooster

"combining male sperm and a female egg produces humans and other life forms. The fetus so produced has all the specific DNA, from previous eggs and sperm, read "life", to produce a new individual by combination, so life exists in each egg and spermatzoa prior to combining them"

Please note my word "fetus" and my reference to a "new individual"... did you miss that?

I answered that in a previous second reply, which see above. This is the third time.

How many times do you need?

He's to far gone, he'll never get it....