Finally, abortion

  • Thread starter Thread starter Samuel_Monosov
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Last I checked, mothers of newborns have to use their body to support the young human too. Holding, rocking, feeding, dressing, changing diapers, bending over to pick up, running to the other room when the baby wakes up, and cleaning.

Both newborns and zygotes need food, shelter, and motherly care to survive and grow strong.

Sounds to me like the ‘my body, my choice’ argument for abortion is bogus.
 
A single cell is not a person-atheist wise. BUT its supposed become a person. Would’ve it was going to cure cancer? From a Catholic perspective the bible says life starts at conception. So yes it is alive.
 
Samuel_Monosov said:
Why do you think a single cell can be a person? Do you think it’s a person? Is this a religious conclusion, something in metaphysics, or do you think this is based on science?

What are your arguments for it?
Click to expand...
No, it’s a potential person, but it is a unique human being
 
Samuel_Monosov said:
Some unfertilized eggs become human beings.
Click to expand...
This never happens naturally. And it has taken man an incredibly long time to induce parthogenesis in humans.

Unfertilized eggs only become human beings IF you can restore them to a diploid state… I’m not sure your science background, but gametes have 23 chromosomes, somatic cells have 46. Conception restores the halpoid egg back to a diploid. The only way to induce development of an egg (I think in virtually every species), is to restore it to its diploid number.

This is why I find it most viable to scientifically, and logically conclude beyond reasonable doubt that conception is indeed the moment that human life begins. It is the moment when the cell becomes diploid and is given its own unique set of DNA that will remain with it for the rest of its life. At that very moment it essentially has the blue prints for everything it will ever need in life. No other cell at any different moment in time (that I can think of right now at least) has this quality.

It seems like you’re looking for one specific tight rule to make this classifcation. You won’t find just one. There are many factors unique to the human zygote that make it human. Other cells may share one or several of these factors, but no cell in existence shares all of them.

Actually, as a Catholic, I try to avoid religious arguments on why it’s a human. Not that I don’t believe them, I certainly do, but as a biochem student I never even have to get that far. By the time I’ve exhausted the scientific arguments, it is clearly already human.
 
Marianna_Mills said:
A single cell is not a person-atheist wise. BUT its supposed become a person. Would’ve it was going to cure cancer? From a Catholic perspective the bible says life starts at conception. So yes it is alive.
Click to expand...
It most certainly is a person. It is a pluripotent cell with 46 chromosomes, and on those chromosomes are the instructions that code for every piece of machinery that it will build. Species classifcation is based off of DNA, and at the moment of conception the human has every single sequence that it will have for the rest of its life. It is, biochemically, a human being. The DNA in a 1s old human is the same as it will be when that human is 80 years old (and actually it’s a little longer before telomeres start being cleaved, but this happens even in adults, and is principally responsible for the effects of aging).
 
Samuel_Monosov said:
Why do you think a single cell can be a person? Do you think it’s a person? Is this a religious conclusion, something in metaphysics, or do you think this is based on science?

What are your arguments for it?
Click to expand...
I have seem this question elsewhere.
The single cell, in itself, is not a person, OK?
99.999999999999999999999999999999999999% or the cells are not persons.
God creates a person when the human spermatozoa joins a ovula. The He creates a person, call him, person, soul, spirit. I, a spirit, am talking to you, a spirit, which happen to be inside trillions of trillions of trillions of cells, which we call human body.
 
Samuel_Monosov said:
Some unfertilized eggs become human beings.

A zygote left on its own does not become a human being. It needs more material and more energy.
Click to expand...
Some unfertilized eggs become human beings.
Click to expand...
How come?
A zygote left on its own does not become a human being. It needs more material and more energy
Click to expand...
You, with your trillions of cells, probably would not survive on today’s world on your own. You need to go to the supermarket, to the doctor and so on.
 
FaithBuild18 said:
This never happens naturally. And it has taken man an incredibly long time to induce parthogenesis in humans.

Unfertilized eggs only become human beings IF you can restore them to a diploid state… I’m not sure your science background, but gametes have 23 chromosomes, somatic cells have 46. Conception restores the halpoid egg back to a diploid. The only way to induce development of an egg (I think in virtually every species), is to restore it to its diploid number.

This is why I find it most viable to scientifically, and logically conclude beyond reasonable doubt that conception is indeed the moment that human life begins. It is the moment when the cell becomes diploid and is given its own unique set of DNA that will remain with it for the rest of its life. At that very moment it essentially has the blue prints for everything it will ever need in life. No other cell at any different moment in time (that I can think of right now at least) has this quality.

It seems like you’re looking for one specific tight rule to make this classifcation. You won’t find just one. There are many factors unique to the human zygote that make it human. Other cells may share one or several of these factors, but no cell in existence shares all of them.

Actually, as a Catholic, I try to avoid religious arguments on why it’s a human. Not that I don’t believe them, I certainly do, but as a biochem student I never even have to get that far. By the time I’ve exhausted the scientific arguments, it is clearly already human.
Click to expand...
I just noticed that I spelled parthenogenesis wrong.
 
FaithBuild18 said:
It most certainly is a person. It is a pluripotent cell with 46 chromosomes, and on those chromosomes are the instructions that code for every piece of machinery that it will build. Species classifcation is based off of DNA, and at the moment of conception the human has every single sequence that it will have for the rest of its life. It is, biochemically, a human being. The DNA in a 1s old human is the same as it will be when that human is 80 years old (and actually it’s a little longer before telomeres start being cleaved, but this happens even in adults, and is principally responsible for the effects of aging).
Click to expand...
It will be a being does not mean it is a being.
 
Marianna_Mills said:
It will be a being does not mean it is a being.
Click to expand...
FaithBuild18 made no inference to future in that scientific description. The entire description of genetics and personhood is entirely in the present tense (with the inconsequential exception of comparing the person at 1 second of age to the same person at 80 years of age).

You would do well to discuss this with your sacramental preparation instructor.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top