Life Begins at Conception

[DarkSun]

That's the point. You're asking "Will it become human?". That implies it's not already human. Therefore, there shouldn't be much of a problem, here.

The questions were skewed and you still misunderstood.

The zygote will become human if placed in an artificial womb. The gamete won't.

The gamete can't become "human" until a male gamete inserts itself into an oocyte.

 

[McBell]

The questions were skewed and you still misunderstood.

The zygote will become human if place in an artificial womb. The gamete won't.

The gamete can't become "human" until a male gamete inserts itself into an oocyte.

um...
so what kind of gamete is it?
Canine perhaps?
Feline?

You still miss the point.

 

[Vile Atheist]

I responded to 1 in my previous post.

2 - Personally, I see no difference between a child directly after birth and a child one week before birth. Both are human, both are equally "self aware" and sentient, so each should be treated just as humanely as the other. For this reason, to kill a newborn is no different from killing a twenty-week-old fetus. In both instances, you would be wrong to do such a thing.

I define sentience (at least with regard to humans) pretty much as brain activity.

3- I keep using the word "potential life' as well as the word "life" because I see the two words as the same thing. If you take away the potential for a human to develop into a complete human, then you have in turn killed that human - in much the same way that if you killed a child at birth, you would have killed that child.

They obviously aren't the same. You have the potential to become a Rhodes Scholar, if you study hard enough. You are not a Rhodes Scholar.

5 - I understand that mothers who feel they have to abort must feel they have no choice but to abort. And they probably have very valid reasons to do so, as well. But that does not negate the fact that in aborting their child, they would have been taking away a human life. So by definition of the word murder, they are killing another human -- even if they might be justified in doing so.

Mestemia already answered 4. Sure, it's killing by the definition of murder, but not by your definition of a human. Potential life is not the same as life.

Sure you're killing unspecialized cells that have no brain function and therefore aren't sentient, aren't self-aware, don't feel any pain.

6 - I really can't be bothered listing statistics. I have to go study now. Bye.

I only request them if you claim something I find out of the ordinary.

 

[McBell]

What if you put a zygote in an artificial womb with the same concentrations of chemicals, nutrients, hormones, antibodies that you would find in a mother? Could it then become human?

Now. If you put a gamete in the same circumstance, giving it all the nutrients it needs to survive - will it become human?

you fail to understand.
the FACT that you use the word "until" shows that the potential you claim is not there is actually there.

If the potential you claim is not there wasn't there, then you would not use the word "until".

 

[Vile Atheist]

The questions were skewed and you still misunderstood.

The zygote will become human if placed in an artificial womb. The gamete won't.

The gamete can't become "human" until a male gamete inserts itself into an oocyte.

Yes, it's human in the sense that it has human genetics. But following this logic, you must cringe at the Holocaust of skin cells that occur on your body everyday.

With today's reproductive technology, we can take a skin cell from you and make a "potential" life. Yet, all that potential life is destroyed whenever you scratch yourself.

*scratches your back* Stop aborting yourself! Stop aborting yourself!

 

[DarkSun]

um...
so what kind of gamete is it?
Canine perhaps?
Feline?

It was a hypothetical.

I was just saying that if the zygote were allowed to develop outside of the mother - and if that were possible to do - it could become human, whereas a gamete on its own would not.

You still miss the point.

No, I just don't think a gamete on its own is a potential human life. It can't develop until conception - where a zygote is formed. And a zygote can become a human life.

 

[DarkSun]

Yes, it's human in the sense that it has human genetics. But following this logic, you must cringe at the Holocaust of skin cells that occur on your body everyday.

With today's reproductive technology, we can take a skin cell from you and make a "potential" life. Yet, all that potential life is destroyed whenever you scratch yourself.

Epithelium does not have the potential to become a human life, in much the same way that a gamete doesn't.

 

[DarkSun]

you fail to understand.
the FACT that you use the word "until" shows that the potential you claim is not there is actually there.

If the potential you claim is not there wasn't there, then you would not use the word "until".

I use the word "until" because the potential isn't there unless you have the merging of a male and female gamete.

This is evidenced by the fact that you can't put a gamete in an artificial environment and transform it unto a human. But you can do this to a zygote.

 

[McBell]

It was a hypothetical.

I was just saying that if the zygote were allowed to develop outside of the mother - and if that were possible to do - it could become human, whereas a gamete on its own would not.

It would become human?
So what is it BEFORE it BECOMES human?
Canine?
Feline?
Equine?

No, I just don't think a gamete on its own is a potential human life. It can't develop until conception - where a zygote is formed. And a zygote can become a human life.

It cannot DEVELOP before conception.
This I can agree with.

However, it is not what you were saying before.
You were saying that it does not have any potential UNTIL.......

It does not matter in the least, most, slightest ways at all what it is you are talking about. the statement "it has no potential until" is not correct.

 

[McBell]

I use the word "until" because the potential isn't there unless you have the merging of a male and female gamete.

But the fact is that the POTENTIAL is still there.

This is evidenced by the fact that you can't put a gamete in an artificial environment and transform it unto a human.

I beg to differ.
You merely add the other gamete and guess what?

So your fact is not a fact after all.

 

[DarkSun]

It would become human?
So what is it BEFORE it BECOMES human?
Canine?
Feline?
Equine?

It was a cell.

It cannot DEVELOP before conception.
This I can agree with.

However, it is not what you were saying before.
You were saying that it does not have any potential UNTIL.......

It does not matter in the least, most, slightest ways at all what it is you are talking about. the statement "it has no potential until" is not correct.

If it cannot develop into a human before conception, then it cannot become a human before conception.

Really, I don't see how this is such a mental hurdle.

 

[DarkSun]

But the fact is that the POTENTIAL is still there.

Put a single gamete into an artificial environment and turn it into a human then. You'll win the Nobel Prize.

beg to differ.
You merely add the other gamete and guess what?

So your fact is not a fact after all.

It is a fact, because by adding the other gamete, you have caused fertilization. So now we're talking about a zygote, which can become human.

 

[Vile Atheist]

Epithelium does not have the potential to become a human life, in much the same way that a gamete doesn't.

Research in Assisted Reproductive Technologies


I beg to differ.

Edit: The most relevant part of the source:

Since the mid 1980s, technology has been developed to transfer the nucleus from either a blastomere (cells from early, and presumably undifferentiated cleavage stage embryos) or a somatic cell (fibroblast, skin, heart, nerve, or other body cell) to an enucleated oocyte (unfertilized female egg cell with the nucleus removed). This “nuclear transfer” produces multiple copies of animals that are themselves nearly identical copies of other animals (transgenic animals, genetically superior animals, or animals that produce high quantities of milk or have some other desirable trait, etc.). This process is also referred to as cloning. To date, somatic cell nuclear transfer has been used to clone cattle, sheep, pigs, goats, horses, mules, cats, rabbits, rats, and mice.

Double Edit: I know my list doesn't include humans, but there have been attempts, and we're not that far away from the technology.

 

[McBell]

It was a cell.

and yet you still do not offer up WHAT KIND of cell it is..
Is it a canine cell before it becomes a human cell?
Perhaps it is a feline cell before it becomes a human cell?

If it cannot develop into a human before conception, then it cannot become a human before conception.

What the hell does this have to do with it?

Look, you made the claim that it is not a potential life until both gametes join.
That is flat out false, not true, wrong, incorrect.

each gamete still has the POTENTIAL to join with the right gamete to become a human.
though you STILL have not told me what it is BEFORE it is human.

Really, I don't see how this is such a mental hurdle.

Nor do I.
But you sure ain't getting it...

 

[DarkSun]

I define sentience (at least with regard to humans) pretty much as brain activity.

Really? I define sentience as self-awareness.

And so does Google Definitions.

They obviously aren't the same. You have the potential to become a Rhodes Scholar, if you study hard enough. You are not a Rhodes Scholar.

No, but if you kill a Rhodes Scholar before they become a Rhodes Scholar, then you've pretty much killed a Rhodes Scholar.

Mestemia already answered 4. Sure, it's killing by the definition of murder, but not by your definition of a human. Potential life is not the same as life.

Why not?

Sure you're killing unspecialized cells that have no brain function and therefore aren't sentient, aren't self-aware, don't feel any pain.

A newborn baby isn't sentient, isn't self-aware and doesn't have very many active nerve endings. Are you suggesting we kill newborn children if they're inconvenient to us?

I only request them if you claim something I find out of the ordinary.

Okay.

 

[McBell]

Put a single gamete into an artificial environment and turn it into a human then. You'll win the Nobel Prize.

Really?
So by adding another gamete I will win the Nobel Prize?

I suspect that this has been done before.

It is a fact, because by adding the other gamete, you have caused fertilization. So now we're talking about a zygote, which can become human.

so the potential for becoming a life is there all along.
JUST LIKE I SAID!!

So until the zygote becomes human, what is it?
Perhaps it is a frog zygote?

 

[Vile Atheist]

I'm going to try and sum up both Mestemia's and my own points as we're arguing the same thing from different angles.

If you argue that there is a "potential" for human life, this can be extended to anything. There is a "potential" a male gamete will meet a female one. There is a "potential" assisted reproductive technology can clone you. These are "potentials" that may result in the successful birth of a human life.

 

[DarkSun]

Research in Assisted Reproductive Technologies


I beg to differ.

Reproductive cloning is just another form of fertilization. In which case you would have a zygote which is developing into a human life. Not a cell.

Double Edit: I know my list doesn't include humans, but there have been attempts, and we're not that far away from the technology.

I'm not an idiot...

 

[Vile Atheist]

Really? I define sentience as self-awareness.

And so does Google Definitions.

I include self-awareness in that, but brain activity is necessary for self-awareness in humans.

No, but if you kill a Rhodes Scholar before they become a Rhodes Scholar, then you've pretty much killed a Rhodes Scholar.

No, you haven't. You've killed a potential Rhodes Scholar which isn't the same thing at all.

Why not?

Because potential for something implies that it doesn't already exist. If it doesn't already exist, how can you kill it?

A newborn baby isn't sentient, isn't self-aware and doesn't have very many active nerve endings. Are you suggesting we kill newborn children if they're inconvenient to us?

How are they not self-aware? And they still have active nerve endings, meaning they feel pain.

And where did I suggest killing newborn infants for convenience? I'd like you to quote me on that.

 

[DarkSun]

Really?
So by adding another gamete I will win the Nobel Prize?

I suspect that this has been done before.

Are you being deliberately dense?

By adding another gamete you would get a zygote.

Put a gamete in isolation and you will not get another human life. Adding the other gamete defeats the point of trying to make a human life from one gamete on its own.

By adding the other gamete you are affirming the fact that the zygote can develop into a human life, while the gamete can't.

What don't you understand about that?

so the potential for becoming a life is there all along.
JUST LIKE I SAID!!

Yes. The potential to become a human life is there. After conception.

So until the zygote becomes human, what is it?
Perhaps it is a frog zygote?

No. It was a human zygote. And the gamete was a human cell - which could not develop into an individual human until conception. Which is my entire point.