Jan 16, 2010 -- 5:31PM, amcolph wrote:

So what makes the zygote a 'human being' capable of being murdered in the same sense as a post-natal individual is capable of being murdered?

If it's not the genome nor the rest of the cellular material which contains it, what then?

The same thing that makes a post-natal individual capable of being murdered as it does a viable fetus: "Humanity" is not characterized by some special property. There is no "it". Human beings are not labeled by where we reside, what we have or what we're capable of.

Jan 18, 2010 -- 10:49AM, amcolph wrote:

Yet you have asserted that humanity 'begins' at a fixed point.  You should be able to do better than that, it seems to me, if you are going to be sarcastic about other people's arbitrary assertions of other points of beginning.

I wasn't actually being sarcastic. If I was, you'd most definitely know it. But I digress.

No, that's not what I said. I said that a human being comes into existence at the end of fertilization, which isn't a matter of philosophy, metaphysics or any thing else of the like, but a matter of scientific fact. It's an, for lack of a better word, "immature" human being, but a human being nevertheless (Given time, it wiill develop into what you perceive to be a "mature" or "fully formed human being"). Maybe there's a disconnect or something, but it seems to me that you're treating being a human to incorporate something "special", when it doesn't. Human beings aren't human beings because we're born or because we know how to walk or because we can speak or because we can reason or anything else of the like, nor are we human beings because we have the genome of one (Which doesn't make sense as, I pointed out prior, a hair follicle would also be a human being because it contains a human being's entire genome).

If "humanity" is not characterized by any special property, then what is to prevent us from arbitrarily declaring the "humanity" of any creature?

Nothing. You can declare the humanity of whatever you wish.

Amen. Some people consider it to be life from the moment the sperm fertilizes the egg, but unless it gets to imbed itself in the uterus, that's as far as that particular zef is going to go. And even that isn't a guarantee, as some women know and many others are blessed with not knowing if there's a problem with the zef that causes it to be rejected.

Jan 18, 2010 -- 12:51PM, Bei1052 wrote:

Jan 18, 2010 -- 10:49AM, amcolph wrote:

Yet you have asserted that humanity 'begins' at a fixed point.  You should be able to do better than that, it seems to me, if you are going to be sarcastic about other people's arbitrary assertions of other points of beginning.

I wasn't actually being sarcastic. If I was, you'd most definitely know it. But I digress.

No, that's not what I said. I said that a human being comes into existence at the end of fertilization, which isn't a matter of philosophy, metaphysics or any thing else of the like, but a matter of scientific fact. It's an, for lack of a better word, "immature" human being, but a human being nevertheless (Given time, it wiill develop into what you perceive to be a "mature" or "fully formed human being"). Maybe there's a disconnect or something, but it seems to me that you're treating being a human to incorporate something "special", when it doesn't. Human beings aren't human beings because we're born or because we know how to walk or because we can speak or because we can reason or anything else of the like, nor are we human beings because we have the genome of one (Which doesn't make sense as, I pointed out prior, a hair follicle would also be a human being because it contains a human being's entire genome).

If "humanity" is not characterized by any special property, then what is to prevent us from arbitrarily declaring the "humanity" of any creature?

Nothing. You can declare the humanity of whatever you wish.

Science relies on physical evidence to determine which of its claims are deficient and which are explanations consistent with evidence. When asked by amcolph, you have failed to point to any physical evidence to support your claim that the zygote formed at the end of fertilization is a human being as murderable as baby, child or adult human being. When asked directly what it is (and it's quite clear from what amcolph wrote that he was talking about what it is physically) about the cell that forms from the union of sperm and egg that makes it a human being, you gave the nonscientific, non-answer that there isn't anything that makes something a human being. Your view is your view, and you are entitled to it, but it isn't scientific. When asked for physical evidence, you can't respond by repeating your claim, or say "there isn't any," and expect a person who is thinking scientifically or critically to accept your claim.

Jan 23, 2010 -- 9:17AM, Marysara722 wrote:

Jan 23, 2010 -- 8:46AM, newsjunkie wrote:

What happened to the delete post button?

News, try changing your preferences to view the thread with the "oldest" post (the OP) showing first, and the tab should reappear.

I'm not sure what's up with that glitch but it seems to work when the change goes through.

Thanks,
MSara
Bnet Host

ty marysara