Originally posted by Double-J:
Sorry, Plaw, but science is not on your side. Your idea of "not being a human being, a person, or even a baby" doesn't stand up. From the time of conception, a baby has 46 chromosomes, which is the unique genetic signature of a human being. All of its DNA, its genomes, are all in place. There is no question of what it is growing into.By your logic, this means that children themselves aren't humans, because, after all, they aren't fully grown and developed.
Arguing about when life begins certainly does rationalize and trivialize the subject - otherwise, it forces abortionists to admit they are killing a living human being. By concocting some non-scientific argument about how life "doesn't begin until after birth" is not only factually incorrect but, when used for the purpose of promoting infanticide, morally reprehensible.
Again, you are wholly incorrect when you say that a baby (or "fetus" or "zygote" or whatever stage in development you wish to say) is a "completely unique organism," because it is not. Why are premature babies "humans" then? Wouldn't they be some other, alien life form, by this logic?
I have to say Plaw, I'm suprised you'd be willing to make such bold, unsubstantiated statements, especially when the facts are against you.
Cheers,
Double-J
Facts:
1)All cells excepting sperms and eggs have the 46 (or 23 pairs) of chromosomes. Including hair, skin and whatnot that you don't mind losing. sperms and eggs have just 23 chromosomes and need to pair up with each other to get 46 chromosomes
2)There are stem cells, that have the capability to form living humans. They are used for cloning. They do not have to come from sperms or eggs. So the theory of eggs fertilizing with sperm loses its meaning.
3)The embryo is definitely human embryo. After 9 months, a giraffee would not come out. But the human quality of embryo is just the same as what one would find in any human cell. They consume energy, divide and carry DNA(chromosome) of humans.
DJ, you are free to interpret what you want, consistent with your beliefs. But scientific ananlysis is not trivial for me. It makes me understand things without bias. It is okay if you do not appreciate this fact. I am glad that Plaw found this approach pertinent.
Snake, I don't know if you meant to generalize, but none of my scientific arguments are to support any "left" views. They are my views, I don't even care if they are "left" or "right".
