What does it mean to be human" thread -split from Obama 'fail' thread

[Maxb49]

So when does an embryo become a human being? Put a time frame on it. Your the science professor here.

An embryo becomes a human being after the embryonic stage. Cells in the embryonic stage are by definition not human beings. Six days and 100 cells are not a human being. 100 cells has no brain, no heart, no programmed genes. They do not have the characteristics necessary to become a human being.

And at what point does 'god' jam his spirit into it, or not?

Glad to see you still have a sense of humor! LOL

Mr. DNA, have you ever considered that that little sperm and egg contain everything necessary to become a human being? Nothing is added except for nutrients and oxygen.

A sperm without the egg and an egg without the sperm are not human beings. Combined, they are.

Combined, they are still not a human being until after the embryonic stage. Just because they have the potential to become human beings doesn't make them human beings. Watching you come up with this bunk is hysterical.

 

[MonsterMark]

Just because they have the potential to become human beings doesn't make them human beings.

Raises Hand!

Teacher, where does this 'programming' come from? Are you saying it is not built in? Does mommy give it to the embryo with reading lessons?

Seriously, just when does this 'programming' occur and why haven't we had any else but a human being come out? Shouldn't a donkey pop out every once and a while for the sake of randomness?

 

[MonsterMark]

Watching you come up with this bunk is hysterical.

Life begins at the moment of conception. Watching you steer around this fact is also hysterical.

 

[Maxb49]

Life begins at the moment of conception. Watching you steer around this fact is also hysterical.

Your red herring notwithstanding, there are no human beings present in the womb at the moment of conception. Your ignorance of this simple fact is glaring. Science: 1 MonsterMark: 0. Sorry, you lose.

 

[alexfranke]

...the embryonic period occurs between fertilization and the eighth week of pregnancy. An embryo cannot survive on its own because it has no organs, body structure, and organs. During the 6th day of pregnancy as many physicians and biologists are apt to point out, the embryo is comprised of only 100 cells. (You point out to me a human being with only 100 cells ) The inner cell mass of the blastocyst is undiferentiated and the genes remain unprogrammed.

None of this really matters. The instant you can take a piece of it's DNA and identify it as a genetically unique Homo sapiens sapiens, then you've got yourself a genetically unique human. It doesn't matter what the cell ends up doing.

The question is whether or not it's a being. Philosophically you could argue it both ways in that it is actually there (as opposed to in idea), but that it lacks some essential characteristics. This is probably why the fetus is often considered the start of human being-ness.

It's a blank slate with the potential to not only produce a human being, but any organ it is programmed to produce.

Could it be programmed to become an alligator's liver?

Some people clearly believe that something is a human being if it is genetically unique from its parents, and it actually exists. Others think it needs to have at least some of the major structures in place. Others thing it's when the it can feel pain, and still other think it's not a human being until it's born alive -- there are lots of markers that people argue.

Of course it's debatable. It's been debatable for eons.

So why not try to debate it without volleying insults back and forth?

 

[Maxb49]

Raises Hand!

Teacher, where does this 'programming' come from? Are you saying it is not built in? Does mommy give it to the embryo with reading lessons?

What rock did you crawl out from under? Seriously. Read a book. A collection of 100 cells may have the potential to become a human being but at the embryonic state it is not a human being. Not every ejaculation deserves a name.

 

[foxpaws]

I'm surprised at you Fossten, you strike me as smarter than this.

Ahhhh, Max, as grasshopper you have much to learn...

 

[MonsterMark]

What rock did you crawl out from under? Seriously. Read a book. A collection of 100 cells may have the potential to become a human being but at the embryonic state it is not a human being..

Well your response sure answered my 'quoted' question.

I'll take it you are just flailing around and leave you alone.

The DNA is the programming and it is there from the beginning. Nuff said.

Not every ejaculation deserves a name.

But every lucky sperm that pierces an ovum does.

 

[Maxb49]

None of this really matters. The instant you can take a piece of it's DNA and identify it as a genetically unique Homo sapiens sapiens, then you've got yourself a genetically unique human. It doesn't matter what the cell ends up doing.

You have unique genetic material, but not necessarily a human being. To illustrate the point your fingernail clippings, beard shavings, and snot have your unique DNA but no one considers any of that to be a human.

The question is whether or not it's a being. Philosophically you could argue it both ways in that it is actually there (as opposed to in idea), but that it lacks some essential characteristics. This is probably why the fetus is often considered the start of human being-ness.[/QUOTE]

That's what I was getting at. Every distinct thing has necessary conditions to be considered a member of that set of things. Human beings have organs, structures, special tissues...these things don't exist in the embryonic stage. It's material that's ready to become a human being but hasn't at that point. Human gestation is a time dependent process. If it wasn't, it wouldn't take nine months to get a baby (slightly less to get a viable baby)

Could it be programmed to become an alligator's liver?

It could only be programmed to use the information contained in the original two cells, but those cells could be programmed to being any organ in the human body.
Some people clearly believe that something is a human being if it is genetically unique from its parents, and it actually exists. Others think it needs to have at least some of the major structures in place. Others thing it's when the it can feel pain, and still other think it's not a human being until it's born alive -- there are lots of markers that people argue.

Of course it's debatable. It's been debatable for eons. [/QUOTE]

Alex, I was referring to human embryonic development. It is a well documented process. Everyone can watch the sperm and egg combine and divide until it eventually becomes a human being but the defining characteristics of a human being don't exist in the beginning stages until after development has taken its course.

 

[Maxb49]

Well your response sure answered my 'quoted' question.

I'll take it you are just flailing around and leave you alone.

The DNA is the programming and it is there from the beginning. Nuff said.

But every lucky sperm that pierces an ovum does.

MonsterMark,

I've demonstrated again and again why an embryo is not a human being. There are plenty of resources where you can learn about embryonic development in further detail. You're fighting a losing battle by shaking your fist at facts. Despite this, the burden of proof is on you to prove that an embryo is a human being. Let's hear your argument.

 

[foxpaws]

When life begins is often debated on many 'fronts'

Scientific, medical, faith, and a mother's noesis. So, we are looking at a combination of some of at least 3 out of the 4....

Often what is missing in these sort of discussions, is where the mother stands in all of this.

 

[Calabrio]

When life begins is often debated on many 'fronts'

Scientific, medical, faith, and a mother's noesis. So, we are looking at a combination of some of at least 3 out of the 4....

Often what is missing in these sort of discussions, is where the mother stands in all of this.

The mother doesn't decide this. She may make the decision regarding the fate of said being, but the definition isn't determined or defined by any single individual, nor is it determined by circumstance.

The fact that one woman doesn't want to be inconvenienced, or has a medical condition, or has a difficult economic condition, doesn't have any bearing on WHAT she is carrying. She may decide what happens to it, she may seek rationalization or justification for the decision, but not what it is or isn't.

 

[Maxb49]

The fact that one woman doesn't want to be inconvenienced, or has a medical condition, or has a difficult economic condition, doesn't have any bearing on WHAT she is carrying. She may decide what happens to it, she may seek rationalization or justification for the decision, but not what it is or isn't.

What she is carrying is a function of time. On one day it's a zygote and not a human being. Months later, it's a fetus. At one point in time there are no organs and no defining characteristics of a human being that come later with time. It's all relative to the observed time frame. Between 0-8 weeks what is in her is a collection of genetic material that bears no organs, no heart, no brain, no stomach, no kidneys. The potential is there, often times realised and often times not. All too often, people who contend that an embryo is a human being resort to supernatural intervention (very ad hoc) because they are well aware that the embryo lacks the characteristics of a human being. The burden of proof rests with those who say an embryo is a human being.

 

[alexfranke]

You have unique genetic material, but not necessarily a human being. To illustrate the point your fingernail clippings, beard shavings, and snot have your unique DNA but no one considers any of that to be a human.
...

Human beings have organs, structures, special tissues...these things don't exist in the embryonic stage. It's material that's ready to become a human being but hasn't at that point.

It's not quite clear from your response, but I think you may be missing my point.

I do in fact have human snot (um... I think), but my snot is not a human being. There is a scientific argument of what it means to be human, and there is a philosophical argument about what it means to be a human being. A geneticist can tell me if my snot is human, but no scientist can prove the philosophical (or religious) question of when I became a human being (or when I got a soul, or when I fell in love, etc.).

MonsterMark is asserting that the "being-ness" occurs earlier than you do. You take the "defining characteristics" viewpoint, and he takes the "unique DNA" viewpoint. But it's a philosophical argument -- neither of you can prove the other wrong, no matter how rude you are

 

[alexfranke]

BTW, what does this have to do with wanting Obama to fail?

Maybe it's time to split this heated discussion into a "what does it mean to be human" thread...




DONE!

 

[fossten]

I'm surprised at you Fossten, you strike me as smarter than this. It's time to be honest with yourself. Embryos are not human beings. They have the potential to become human beings but they are not yet human beings. They lack all of the necessary conditions to be a human being.

Is a quadriplegic in a coma on a feeding tube a human being? What if he was born that way?

Originally Posted by Maxb49
The burden of proof rests with those who say an embryo is a human being.

You cannot definitively say when an embryo becomes human, so better kill it just to be safe, right? So the burden of proof should be on you, since you're the one doing the killing.

 

[alexfranke]

The burden of proof rests with those who say an embryo is a human being.

You can't prove it's not, and they can't prove it is -- unless everyone takes the philosophical issue out of the equation.

 

[alexfranke]

Is a quadriplegic in a coma on a feeding tube a human being?

Right -- or how about people with artificial hearts? Clearly they're missing one of the necessary characteristics.

...and if you can replace everything with an artificial version and still have a human being, then it's only a matter of time before science allows us to build human beings from scratch.

 

[alexfranke]

Oh -- and here's a better one to consider: What about Abigail and Brittany Hansel -- are they one human being or two?

If they are two (and just about everyone considers them), then at least one must fail your "necessary characteristics" argument. (How can you be human if you have nothing below your stomach and you're missing most of your circulatory system?)

 

[Maxb49]

You cannot definitively say when an embryo becomes human, so better kill it just to be safe, right? So the burden of proof should be on you, since you're the one doing the killing.

Necessitas probandi incumbit ei qui agit.

Whomever says an embryo is a human being assumes the onus. In a previous post, I pointed out the uncontested fact that a six day old embryo is group of 100 cells with unprogrammed genes that have not developed into any body structure, any organ. These cells lack consciousness and a "self", both of which are functions of neurological activity. They lack the necessary conditions to be human. At this point in gestation, we're looking at 100 cells. Not a person. You disagree, you contend that these cells are a unique human being. Why? Where is your evidence that 100 cells which have not developed into organs are a human being? Go ahead and say that a fetus at 7 months is a human being; it's hard to deny that. Remember that conclusions with respect to this matter are time dependent.

 

[fossten]

Necessitas probandi incumbit ei qui agit.

Whomever says an embryo is a human being assumes the onus.

Wrong, especially when it comes to deciding life or death.

In a previous post, I pointed out the uncontested fact that a six day old embryo is group of 100 cells with unprogrammed genes that have not developed into any body structure, any organ. These cells lack consciousness and a "self", both of which are functions of neurological activity. They lack the necessary conditions to be human. At this point in gestation, we're looking at 100 cells. Not a person.

You really cannot back up whether or not the embryo has consciousness or a self. You really don't know.

What else could the embryo be but a human? Has there ever been a case where an embryo became a dog?

You disagree, you contend that these cells are a unique human being. Why? Where is your evidence that 100 cells which have not developed into organs are a human being? Go ahead and say that a fetus at 7 months is a human being; it's hard to deny that. Remember that conclusions with respect to this matter are time dependent.

Are you saying that a fetus is not a human being until 7 months? Or is it 6 months 5 days? Can you pin it down?

By the way, you failed to address my other points. There is more to being human than just physical qualities.

 

[fossten]

 

[Go Fast Get Tickets]

I thought this was an Obama is going to fail, here comes the Muslims post.

 

[alexfranke]

Necessitas probandi incumbit ei qui agit.

Whomever says an embryo is a human being assumes the onus.

By the same rule, whomever says the embryo is not a human being assumes the onus. (You could easily argue that the conception claim came first.)

 

[fossten]

Common sense would argue that whomever wants to kill the embryo assumes the onus.