Texas Repubs pass abortion bill

[RandFan]

I understand that its status as a human does not grant it any rights, I wish we could get past this idiotic insistence that a fetus isn't a human, anyone who has ever taken a biology class should know that that claim is wrong.

PZ Meyers is a professor of developmental biology and he says that the notion that a fertilized egg is a human being is absurd.

Can you stop trying to gain rhetorical advantage with an appeal that is nothing more than assertion? We could agree to move on.

 

[respect]

My degree is in Biology and I can confidently state that a fertilised egg is not a chicken. Neither is a tadpole a frog, nor a lettuce seed a lettuce.

That is because you are confusing colloquial references to adult appearance with species. Frogs do not change species when they go through metamorphosis. What you are referring to as a frog is an adult frog, the tadpole stage is an earlier stage is the frog life cycle. Using different terms to describe different stages makes it easier to get your point across in discussion, but there is no point in a frog's life where it changes species. Likewise, a fetus isn't a baby and a baby isn't an adult, it is the member of the same species the whole time though.

 

[GlennB]

That is because you are confusing colloquial references to adult appearance with species. Frogs do not change species when they go through metamorphosis. What you are referring to as a frog is an adult frog, the tadpole stage is an earlier stage is the frog life cycle. Using different terms to describe different stages makes it easier to get your point across in discussion, but there is no point in a frog's life where it changes species. Likewise, a fetus isn't a baby and a baby isn't an adult, it is the member of the same species the whole time though.

Well, a scrap of skin from my hand is "human" but it certainly isn't a human. A foetus might similarly be described as human without being a human.

 

[respect]

PZ Meyers is a professor of developmental biology and he says that the notion that a fertilized egg is a human being is absurd.

Can you stop trying to gain rhetorical advantage with an appeal that is nothing more than assertion? We could agree to move on.

Meyers seems to be using a definition of "human being" the way you are although he isn't entirely clear on what he thinks is a human being, just that it involves more than having the right cells and DNA. I highly doubt that he would dispute that a fetus belongs to the same species and genus as its parents though.

 

[respect]

Well, a scrap of skin from my hand is "human" but it certainly isn't a human. A foetus might similarly be described as human without being a human.

What is it with you guys and not understanding that the cells of a multicellular organism and an organism are not the same thing?

 

[respect]

Show me where developmental biologists claim that a fetus is a human being? Human sperm is human. It does not belong to any other species or genus. Developmental biologists do not refer to a fetus as a human being. They refer to it as human.

We can go around and around or we can move on. I understand your argument. It's not at all compelling IMO.

I'm not making an argument, just correcting the constant abuse of the English language.

 

[RandFan]

That is because you are confusing colloquial references to adult appearance with species. Frogs do not change species when they go through metamorphosis. What you are referring to as a frog is an adult frog, the tadpole stage is an earlier stage is the frog life cycle. Using different terms to describe different stages makes it easier to get your point across in discussion, but there is no point in a frog's life where it changes species. Likewise, a fetus isn't a baby and a baby isn't an adult, it is the member of the same species the whole time though.

If you could show me where biologists refer to a fetus as a human being I would feel your argument compelling. But they don't for a reason. A fetus isn't a human being. It's human. A fetus cannot reproduce. Before viability a fetus cannot survive on its own, think or feel.

You keep differentiating between what it means to be a person deserving of rights and "a human". I posit that both are the same.

I accept that fetus is a human organism. I reject that a fetus is a human. But there is a lot of cultural baggage there. The words are not as significant as what developmental biologists think. They don't refer to a fetus as "a human". It's a fetus.

 

[RandFan]

I'm not making an argument, just correcting the constant abuse of the English language.

Go take a long look in the mirror. If the scientific community, particularly developmental biologists believed that it is a fundamental fact that a fetus is a human then they would use that terminology. PZ Meyers, a professor of developmental biology assures us that this is not the case.

I submit that you are the one abusing the English language.

And you ARE making an argument. I can identify your premises and your conclusion.

• A fetus is human.
• A fetus is an organism.
• The organism belongs to the human species.
• Therefore a fetus is a human being.

 

[RandFan]

What is it with you guys and not understanding that the cells of a multicellular organism and an organism are not the same thing?

What is it with you not undestanding that the fact that it is an organism doesn't mean that it is a human. It's human. Just human.

 

[RandFan]

Meyers seems to be using a definition of "human being" the way you are although he isn't entirely clear on what he thinks is a human being, just that it involves more than having the right cells and DNA. I highly doubt that he would dispute that a fetus belongs to the same species and genus as its parents though .

I highly doubt that he would agree that a human spermatozoa belongs to a different species other than human.

What species would a human spermatozoa possibly belong to? What set would you put sperm from a human in? Chimpanzee?

Sperm from humans is human. It's not a human. Biologists don't make the kind of distinctions you are making. That's why you can't show me where they do make that distinction.

 

[respect]

I accept that fetus is a human organism. I reject that a fetus is a human.

Yes, I find it bizarre that you think they are different things. I am sure I could find some biologists acknowledging that a fetus is a human if I cared enough to look but I don't. However, I doubt you can find any scientific description of the human life cycle that includes any claims along the lines of, "at this point the fetus stops being a human fetus that is not a human and becomes a human fetus that is a human."

 

[respect]

Go take a long look in the mirror. If the scientific community, particularly developmental biologists believed that it is a fundamental fact that a fetus is a human then they would use that terminology. PZ Meyers, a professor of developmental biology assures us that this is not the case.

I submit that you are the one abusing the English language.

And you ARE making an argument. I can identify your premises and your conclusion.

• A fetus is human.
• A fetus is an organism.
• The organism belongs to the human species.
• Therefore a fetus is a human being.

You could restate that to simply say that my point has been that a fetus falls under the noun human. When the pro-life side says that a fetus is a human they are using the word properly.

 

[RandFan]

Yes, I find it bizarre that you think they are different things.

You find it bizarre that I think that a fetus is a different thing than a human? You can't feed and care for a fetus prior to viability. They don't look the same.

I am sure I could find some biologists acknowledging that a fetus is a human if I cared enough to look but I don't.

I can find a biologist who disputes evolution.

However, I doubt you can find any scientific description of the human life cycle that includes any claims along the lines of, "at this point the fetus stops being a human fetus that is not a human and becomes a human fetus that is a human."

You won't find a biologist saying "at this point the sperm stops being human and becomes "a human". Because developmental biologists find such distinctions absurd.

Humans (the noun) have form and function consistent with being a human being. I don't claim that there is a precise point in which a fetus becomes a human being anymore than I claim that there is a precise point when a baby becomes an adult. I know that midnight isn't day. I know that a fetus prior to viability isn't a human being (a human).

Whatever it means to be a human being, it certainly isn't an organism that cannot think or feel.

 

[RandFan]

You could restate that to simply say that my point has been that a fetus falls under the noun human. When the pro-life side says that a fetus is a human they are using the word properly.

I don't want to put words in your mouth. I accept your changes. I disagree as to your conclusion but otherwise that's fine. I think it trivially true that prior to viability human sperm, ovum zygote, blastocyst and fetus are all human. A human being is an emergent phenomenon that arises from sperm, ovum, blastocyst, zygote and fetus. When that occurs is difficult to say. It most certainly does not happen prior to viability.

Most importantly, a fertilized egg does not have the same function and form as human beings.

 

[A'isha]

What is it with you guys and not understanding that the cells of a multicellular organism and an organism are not the same thing?

What separates them?

 

[respect]

What separates them?

The individual cells of a multicellular organism do not meet criteria to qualify as an organism.

 

[respect]

I don't want to put words in your mouth. I accept your changes. I disagree as to your conclusion but otherwise that's fine. I think it trivially true that prior to viability human sperm, ovum zygote, blastocyst and fetus are all human. A human being is an emergent phenomenon that arises from sperm, ovum, blastocyst, zygote and fetus. When that occurs is difficult to say. It most certainly does not happen prior to viability.

Most importantly, a fertilized egg does not have the same function and form as human beings.

Just out of curiosity, do you think a person in a vegetative state is human but not a human being as well? What about a person who may recover from an injury but is currently not mentally aware? Were they a human being that ceased to be a human being but can become a human being again if they recover?

 

[A'isha]

The individual cells of a multicellular organism do not meet criteria to qualify as an organism.

A fetus doesn't meet most of those critera either. At least, no more than any other internal human organ.

 

[A'isha]

Just out of curiosity, do you think a person in a vegetative state is human but not a human being as well?

Not any more. That's why it's legal for the person who can make medical decisions for them to decide to let them starve them to death, effectively killing them.

 

[respect]

A fetus doesn't meet most of those critera either. At least, no more than any other internal human organ.

It doesn't have to, although it meets most of them, to qualify as an organism it must at least potentially meet the criteria at some point in its life cycle. So for example, a fetus cannot reproduce yet but it will be able to at a later point in its life cycle unless a medical condition prevents it from doing so. Likewise, if you lose the ability to reproduce later in your life this won't disqualify you from being considered an organism. Whereas there is no chance that your lung will ever impregnate or be impregnated by another lung, it cannot reproduce.