Texas Repubs pass abortion bill

[RandFan]

Likewise, you cannot leave the homo genus by losing this nonexistent qualification. If injury or disease leaves you in a vegetative state you do not stop being a human and become a member of a different species.

And yet, the life of someone in a vegetative state can be ended upon the request of the person empowered to make medical decisions for them.

Thanks ANTPogo.

No one is arguing that sperm, ovum, zygote, blastocyst, fetus, are not living human cells and/or organisms (sperm and ovum are not strictly considered organisms).

What is being argued is that human life is a continuum and that sperm, ovum, zygote, blastocys and fetus are A.) living things B.) human C.) prior to viability lacking the most important functions that delineate human beings. Namely the ability to think and feel.

 

[gnome]

Being able to think and feel can certainly be relevant to a discussion about what, if any, rights one should have at different stages of maturity but is not relevant to whether or not one is a human.

So why not skip the semantics and discuss that?

 

[respect]

And yet, the life of someone in a vegetative state can be ended upon the request of the person empowered to make medical decisions for them.

Correct, although not relevant.

 

[A'isha]

Correct, although not relevant.

It's entirely relevant (and the reason pro-lifers entangled themselves in the Terry Schiavo case), because it shows that it's not the lack of human-ness that's the issue when it comes both to abortion and to the termination of life support for brain-dead individuals, but their lack of consciousness and sapience, the thing that makes a person a person instead of just a collection of unthinking cells with human DNA.

 

[RandFan]

Being able to think and feel can certainly be relevant to a discussion about what, if any, rights one should have at different stages of maturity but is not relevant to whether or not one is a human.

"A human"?

• Skin cells are human. They are not a human.
• Sperm are human. They are not a human.
• Ovum are human. They are not a human.
• Zygote and blastocysts are human. They are not a human.
• Prior to viability, a human fetus is human but not a human.

You need to differentiate between "human" and "a human". That a cell is human does not make it "a human".

 

[respect]

Thanks ANTPogo.

No one is arguing that sperm, ovum, zygote, blastocyst, fetus, are not living human cells and/or organisms (sperm and ovum are not strictly considered organisms).

What is being argued is that human life is a continuum and that sperm, ovum, zygote, blastocys and fetus are A.) living things B.) human C.) prior to viability lacking the most important functions that delineate human beings. Namely the ability to think and feel.

Sperm and ovum are not organisms. There is some debate about whether or not a zygote qualifies as an organism. Thinking and feeling have no relevance to this. The vast majority of organisms do not develop brains at any point of maturity. This is not a requirement for species assignment in any sense. To insist that zygotes, embryos and fetuses are not humans you are arguing that they are either not organisms or they are organisms that belong to a different species than their parents which would be very silly, the former may be applicable to zygotes but isn't going to fly later in development. Once it qualifies as an organism it is a human by definition.

Things like its ability to think and feel pain can be relevant to a discussion about its rights but are not relevant to whether or not it is a human, all members of the homo genus are humans. That is the definition of a human. Philosophical notions about what it means to be a human are irrelevant to this. There is no point where you are a human organism that is not a human. Once you qualified as an organism you became a member of the homo genus and were a human by definition.

 

[RandFan]

I think it quite clear.

 

[respect]

It's entirely relevant (and the reason pro-lifers entangled themselves in the Terry Schiavo case), because it shows that it's not the lack of human-ness that's the issue when it comes both to abortion and to the termination of life support for brain-dead individuals, but their lack of consciousness and sapience, the thing that makes a person a person instead of just a collection of unthinking cells with human DNA.

The point is that a discussion of what rights a human should have at different stages of maturity or health does not require that we ignore taxonomy. Someone who insists that a fetus isn't a human or that a person in a vegetative state is no longer a human is just ignorant of basic biology.

 

[RandFan]

Sperm and ovum are not organisms.

I just said that. You quoted me as saying that. That sperm and ovum are not organisms does not render then not human.

Once it qualifies as an organism it is a human by definition.

A.) Argument by assertion. B.) Contrary to science.

The fertilized egg is not a human life

You really need more than special pleading and argument by assertion.

Things like its ability to think and feel pain can be relevant to a discussion about its rights but are not relevant to whether or not it is a human...

It is "human", not "a human". Human beings have the form and function of humans and can think and feel.

, all members of the homo genus are humans

Circular reasoning. Begging the question. You presume a fetus is a member of the homo genus.

That is the definition of a human.

[citations missing] Again with the argument by assertion.

 

[respect]

"A human"?

• Skin cells are human. They are not a human.
• Sperm are human. They are not a human.
• Ovum are human. They are not a human.
• Zygote and blastocysts are human. They are not a human.
• Prior to viability, a human fetus is human but not a human.

You need to differentiate between "human" and "a human". That a cell is human does not make it "a human".

Are you saying that zygotes, blastocysts and fetuses are not organisms or are not members of the homo genus?

 

[A'isha]

The point is that a discussion of what rights a human should have at different stages of maturity or health does not require that we ignore taxonomy. Someone who insists that a fetus isn't a human or that a person in a vegetative state is no longer a human is just ignorant of basic biology.

It might be "human" in a taxonomic sense (in that its cells contain homo sapiens DNA), but it's not a human being.

 

[RandFan]

The point is that a discussion of what rights a human should have at different stages of maturity or health does not require that we ignore taxonomy. Someone who insists that a fetus isn't a human or that a person in a vegetative state is no longer a human is just ignorant of basic biology.

[citations missing]

Can you show where the consensus of developmental biologists believe that a fetus at all stages of development is a human?

 

[respect]

You presume a fetus is a member of the homo genus.

If its parents are then it is. There is no such thing as an organism that is not the member of a species.

 

[RandFan]

Are you saying that zygotes, blastocysts and fetuses are not organisms or are not members of the homo genus?

Define "member"? Oh, and show me where developmental biologists believe that zygote, blastocysts and fetuses are human beings?

It might be "human" in a taxonomic sense (in that its cells contain homo sapiens DNA), but it's not a human being.

Bingo.

 

[RandFan]

If its parents are then it is. There is no such thing as an organism that is not the member of a species.

You have not defined "member". That is begging the question if by member your mean "a human being".

I will not concede that it is a member. I will concede that it "belongs" to the genus. You are playing fast and loose with language.

A human has the form and function of a human.

 

[respect]

[citations missing]

Can you show where the consensus of developmental biologists believe that a fetus at all stages of development is a human?

Sigh...

hu·man (hymn)
n.
1. A member of the genus Homo and especially of the species H. sapiens.

Link.

 

[respect]

It might be "human" in a taxonomic sense (in that its cells contain homo sapiens DNA), but it's not a human being.

What is the difference between a human and a human being?

 

[respect]

You have not defined "member". That is begging the question if by member your mean "a human being".

I will not concede that it is a member. I will concede that it "belongs" to the genus. You are playing fast and loose with language.

A human has the form and function of a human.

All organisms belong to a species. There is no such thing as an organism that is not the member of a species. All homo species are humans, granted, homo sapiens are the only living species of the homo genus so any modern discussion is likely to only be about them, but all members of extinct homo species were also humans.

 

[A'isha]

What is the difference between a human and a human being?

I described it above. You even replied to the post where I did so.

Is a human heart, removed from its body and kept in an ice chest as it awaits transplantation, a human being?

 

[RandFan]

Sigh...

hu·man (hymn)
n.
1. A member of the genus Homo and especially of the species H. sapiens.

Link.

Sigh, this does not mean that a fetus is a member of the genus homo sapiens. It is human but not necessarily a member.

Skin cells are human. Does that make each "a human"?