Originally posted by Double-J:
[quote]
[QUOTE] 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
My argument doesn't dispute this. However, all of those cells still original from the original diploid cells that fuse (conception). Of course those cells have 46 - I've already described mitosis.
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.
Not really - because cloning is not a natural procedure. It is the manipulation and replication of genes.
And of course clone cells don't have to come from sperm or eggs - IT IS A COMPLETE REPLICA OF THE ORIGINAL 46 CHROMOSOMES. In all sexual reproduction, N+N creates the 46. In cloning, this process is already complete, because it isn't changing anything - it is copying the exact makeup of the original 46 of that person.
You don't need sperm and egg cells to make an exact copy.
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.
So what is your point?
I'm assuming you're saying that an embryo would be no different than a human embryo. But what you're failing to see is that all of these cells you've mentioned - hair, skin, teeth, etc. - all of these derive from the original cell that is formed at conception.
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.
There is no bias or interpretation in my scientific analysis. It comes from taking quite a few biology, human anatomy, and chemistry courses at the college level. What I'm saying IS true, to the letter, of science.
[/quote]OK, let me put foth my argument slightly differently. You object to destroying fetuses becasue they develop to become babies in the future. I am saying that even stem cells can develop into babies in right environment. Ofcourse hair, teeth etc that I gave examples of, are not stem cells. But do you think that destroying a stem cell will also constitute murder then? I am not convinced by your 'artificial' tag for cloning, because, I would object to killing a cloned baby, even if it was produced artificially.
What do you think?
[quote] Seems like a bad idea to me. Endless punishments for the woman for no fault of hers
Rape is a violent, despicable crime. But do two wrongs make a right? By killing her own baby (which is half hers) rather than giving it up for adoption, she is NO better than the rapist. She is a murderer. Plain and simple.
[/quote]Okay, if we stick to your definition that fetus and baby are same, then ofcourse it would amount to murder. Though I do not quite agree with it, I will accept that definition for a moment. In that case, only way I see is if a technology exists to remove the fetus from the uterus and transfer it to an artifical incubator even as early as 2 or 3 months of pregnancy, so that the woman doesn't have to endure pain for prolonged period. But right now we don't have the technology. The NICU equipments in hospitals don't have that kind of sophistication.
