Not sure why you are yammering on about the trophoblast -- cept other than to deflect from the fact that "The Science" does not state that a human exists at conception .. and you are in denial. From previous link -- US Library of Medicine. "Today, one largely accepted opinion is that until the 14th day from fertilization or at least, until implantation -the human embryo may not be considered, from the ontological point of view, as an individual. There are at least five main reasons in favour of this opinion: Before formation of embryonic disk embryo is “a mass of cells genetically human”, “a cluster of distinct individual cells” which are each one “distinct ontological entities in simple contact with the others” (18) Until approximately the 14th day after fertilization, all that happens is simply a preparation of the protective and nutritional systems required for the future needs of the embryo. Only when entity called embryonic disc is formed can develop into a foetus and thence into a foetus" and the science you so desperately want to ignore.. or perhaps just don't understand .. Yer done mate .. your position crucified .. from both sides . Now .. what about those hundreds of the totipotent zygote children you think should be sacrificed .. each independently capable of producing a human - producing every kind of cell required for the creation process. . Why Blue .. Why do you wish this sacrifice of the many for the one . .or two in some cases OH .. shart .. thats another problem LOL .. Can you say "Crucified" mate . Later.
Accepted by who? And the human life that is created at conception most certainly individual to itself, how can it not be individual? But so what, AT IMPLANTATION is what you are agreeing to, so a human life and a human being by your standard now. Where does it say those trophoblast cells are embyros? And I have no control them what do you mean I think they should sacrificed when they are nothing to be sacrificed, the lining of the womb and placenta is not a human being. Stop your inane nonsensical statements.
[QUOTE="Bluesguy, post: 1073100462, member: 48853] Accepted by who? And the human life that is created at conception most certainly individual to itself, how can it not be individual? But so what, AT IMPLANTATION is what you are agreeing to, so a human life and a human being by your standard now. .[/QUOTE] Don't blame me because the Science does not support your claim .. "Today, one largely accepted opinion is that until the 14th day from fertilization or at least, until implantation -the human embryo may not be considered, from the ontological point of view, as an individual. There are at least five main reasons in favour of this opinion" Accepted by Scienctists - Bioethicists - Philosophers .. but unlike you .. the reasons for their perspective is given "The Why" did you have trouble understanding what you were reading ? Before formation of embryonic disk embryo is “a mass of cells genetically human”, “a cluster of distinct individual cells” which are each one “distinct ontological entities in simple contact with the others” Do you know what a distinct ontological entity is ? Do you understand what "not genetically human" means ?
Don't blame me because the Science does not support your claim .. "Today, one largely accepted opinion is that until the 14th day from fertilization or at least, until implantation -the human embryo may not be considered, from the ontological point of view, as an individual. There are at least five main reasons in favour of this opinion" Accepted by Scienctists - Bioethicists - Philosophers .. but unlike you .. the reasons for their perspective is given "The Why" did you have trouble understanding what you were reading ? Before formation of embryonic disk embryo is “a mass of cells genetically human”, “a cluster of distinct individual cells” which are each one “distinct ontological entities in simple contact with the others” Do you know what a distinct ontological entity is ? Do you understand what "not genetically human" means ?[/QUOTE] You are citing philosophy not science. Here is the published peer reviewed science, the BIOLOGY. You can philosophize all you want that does not change the science. "The development of a human being begins with fertilization, a process by which two highly specialized cells, the spermatozoon from the male and the oocyte from the female, unite to give rise to a new organism, the zygote." [Langman, Jan. Medical Embryology. 3rd edition. Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins, 1975, p. 3] "Embryo: The developing individual between the union of the germ cells and the completion of the organs which characterize its body when it becomes a separate organism.... At the moment the sperm cell of the human male meets the ovum of the female and the union results in a fertilized ovum (zygote), a new life has begun.... The term embryo covers the several stages of early development from conception to the ninth or tenth week of life." [Considine, Douglas (ed.). Van Nostrand's Scientific Encyclopedia. 5th edition. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, 1976, p. 943] "The development of a human begins with fertilization, a process by which the spermatozoon from the male and the oocyte from the female unite to give rise to a new organism, the zygote." [Sadler, T.W. Langman's Medical Embryology. 7th edition. Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins 1995, p. 3] "Zygote. This cell, formed by the union of an ovum and a sperm (Gr. zyg tos, yoked together), represents the beginning of a human being. The common expression 'fertilized ovum' refers to the zygote." [Moore, Keith L. and Persaud, T.V.N. Before We Are Born: Essentials of Embryology and Birth Defects. 4th edition. Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Company, 1993, p. 1] "Although life is a continuous process, fertilization is a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new, genetically distinct human organism is thereby formed.... The combination of 23 chromosomes present in each pronucleus results in 46 chromosomes in the zygote. Thus the diploid number is restored and the embryonic genome is formed. The embryo now exists as a genetic unity." [O'Rahilly, Ronan and M?ller, Fabiola. Human Embryology & Teratology. 2nd edition. New York: Wiley-Liss, 1996, pp. 8, 29. This textbook lists "pre-embryo" among "discarded and replaced terms" in modern embryology, describing it as "ill-defined and inaccurate" (p. 12}] Not some "as an individual" whatever that is supposed to mean. The peer reviewed published science the human life begins at conception which forms the zygote. That new life is an individual as you are today.
Don't blame me because the Science does not support your claim .. "Today, one largely accepted opinion is that until the 14th day from fertilization or at least, until implantation -the human embryo may not be considered, from the ontological point of view, as an individual. There are at least five main reasons in favour of this opinion" Accepted by Scienctists - Bioethicists - Philosophers .. but unlike you .. the reasons for their perspective is given "The Why" did you have trouble understanding what you were reading ? Before formation of embryonic disk embryo is “a mass of cells genetically human”, “a cluster of distinct individual cells” which are each one “distinct ontological entities in simple contact with the others” Do you know what a distinct ontological entity is ? Do you understand what "not genetically human" means Answer the questions Mr. Biology 101 .. the process from zygote to blastocyst to placenta - is "Science" not Philosophy. Illustrating why you can't seem to figure out that a naked claim is not science .. Science doesn't just state "Its a human because its a Human" the circular fallacy that you continuously engage in .. it defines what a human is .. and explains why said living entity is "A Human" ... which is what the Science that I gave you did. Some peer reviewed article from 1975 .. in an area that is not the subject matter domain - is not worth much .. and regardless it does not give the why ... and 2) is contradicted by the Science .. some of which they would not have known in 1975. Anyhow .. this way or that .. it matters not.. the undeniable fact is that your claim that "Science" claims a zygote is a human is false... as science claims no such thing .. Science explains the Science .. it is up to Bioethicists and Philosophers to define what a Person is .. Science is the guage by which you measure whether or not your hypothesis is correct. Among subject matter experts .. on what a person is .. there is much disagreement .. so there is no right answer .. and so your defacto claim to the contrary is false. And so we return to where I started .. a long long time ago .. but your incessent denial and mindless avoidance of reality has delayed reaching this point .. Experts Disagree. And that is that.. There are 5 different Scientific "Perspectives" which do and must contain Philosophy/Bioethics ... Your claim "Science Says" is false .. you can claim "This scientist says" or "Some scientists say" but the claim that Science in General states that your claim is true .. is 100% false .. as demonstrated by "Some Scientists" disagreeing with this claim .. on the basis of Science.
I think a conception is as much a human being as one that is born here is an American. What do they know about America?...nothing. But we call them Americans. In fact, there are many liberals who I don't consider to have an American molecule in their body. Does that mean we can kill them or banish them away? To say that because a child developing in the womb isn't yet born, therefore it can be killed and it not be murder; is like the snake that says, hey don't blame me, I only bit her on the ankle and can't help it if it affects her brain. This mentality is antithetical to reason. It is macabre in thought, like a deranged psychopathic killer who dismembers his victims piece by piece. Well he reasons, a foot isn't a human being. So lop it off. Lower leg, same thing. And so on. The end.
You are citing philosophy from the ontological point of view I am citing science, biology, which you have not refuted. Before formation of embryonic disk embryo Yes before we are an embryo we are a zygote.
What part of "Experts Disagree" are you having trouble understanding .. and just because some scientist uses the word Ontological .. does not make the science go away .. good grief you are grasping at non existent straws in the throws of your denial. What part of “a cluster of distinct individual cells” which are each one “distinct ontological entities in simple contact with the others” is Mr. Biology 101 having trouble figureing out ? Does Mr. Biology 101 know what a distinct individual cell is ? and if you read further you find that each one of these "Distinct Individual Cells" is capable of creating a human. Crucified is your argument .. but tell me .. Those hundreds of innocent children you wish to die .. for the sake of the one .. do you not feel at least some remorse for their deaths ?
And further University of St. Thomas Journal of Law and Public Policy Volume 8 Issue 1 Fall 2013 Article 4 January 2013 When Does Human Life Begin? The Scientific Evidence and Terminology Revisited CONCLUSION Modem scientific evidence demonstrates that the one-cell human embryo, or zygote, is formed at the instant of sperm-egg plasma membrane fusion. The zygote has unique material composition that is distinct from either gamete. It immediately initiates a series of cellular and biochemical events that ultimately generate the cells, tissues and structures of the mature body in an orderly temporal and spatial sequence. The capacity to undergo development is a defining characteristic of a human organism at the beginning of life. The scientific evidence presented here refutes the longstanding "pre-zygote error" promoted by the Carnegie stages that the zygote is not formed until syngamy, and therefore, that the cell produced by fusion of the gametes is nothing more than a "penetrated oocyte." Ethical positions that deny the personhood of human being at all stages of life are logically inconsistent and scientifically unsound, in addition to having significant, negative implications for the ethical treatment of all human persons. https://ir.stthomas.edu/cgi/viewcon...om/&httpsredir=1&article=1085&context=ustjlpp
You were cited many experts .. You on the other hand .. have not come up with any subject matter experts .. but regardless .. I am not stupid enough to suggest that there are no biologists that hold the Genetic Perspective ... of course there are going to be a few .. hence why we end up at "Experts Diagree" with respect to the science .. but the consensus of scientists .. do not agree .. because the science does not agree with the genetic perspective .. science you were given in the last post. What part of “a cluster of distinct individual cells” which are each one “distinct ontological entities in simple contact with the others” You cried " Ontological is a Philosophical Term" lacking any ability to reconcile your perspective with "the Science" ... What term would you have preferred that Scientists use - to explain that these individual cells are each individually capable of producing a new human - and are not conected to each other as a Ontological Unit .. and in fact the genome has yet to be set .. if you read further .. there is no "Genetic Unity" at this point. T
OK good .. so present some of that evidence .. like I did .. rather than posting a link.. Lets see what some public policy moron has put together to support his/her claim Not that this will help you .. as whether or not the zygote achieves genetic unity instantaneously or not .. does not change the fact that shortly after .. you have many zygotes .. each capable of creating a new human .. nor does it change the fact that you condone killing hundreds of these "innocent children" for the sake of the one.
You have been provided the SCIENTIFIC evidence your calls for more does not refute what has been presented. And no you do NOT have many zygotes later that is biological nonsense. Fruther "The issue of when the human life begins is a very important subject since it has a significant impact on the decisions that we have to take in relation to human beings in development, particularly human embryos. In this article we discuss some of the more relevant biological evidence supporting the fact that beginning human life begins unquestionably at fertilization and the bioethical consequences." https://www.scielo.cl/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0716-97602011000200013 Dr. Micheline Mathews-Roth of Harvard Medical School, appearing before a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, testified with references from over 20 embryology and other medical textbooks said that, “It is incorrect to say that biological data cannot be decisive. … It is scientifically correct to say that an individual life begins at conception.” Dr. Jerome Lejeune, known as the father of modern genetics, stated, “Each individual has a very neat beginning: the moment of its conception.” Dr. Landrum Shettles, known for ground-breaking work on in vitro fertilization, notes, “Conception confers life and makes that life one of a kind.” In 2004 and 2017, the American College of Pediatricians issued the position "that a unique human life starts when the sperm and egg bind to each other in a process of fusion of their respective membrane and a single hybrid cell called a zygote, or one-cell embryo, is created." https://www.stltoday.com/opinion/ma...cle_550accfd-f2e9-52f3-84c4-d38cd73f8dcd.html
Who cares what some Doctor's opinion is .. seriously dude what part of "Medical School" is not the Subject Matter Domain in Science .. do you not understand ? But regardless .. she is welcome to her opinion .. other folks .. one's who are Subject matter experts - have a different opinion .. many of them .. as repeated to you and described over and over .. in explicit detail .. would you like the 5 main ones again Metabolic, Genetic, Embryological, Neurological, Ecological. See .. losts of different Scientific Perspectives on the issue of when the beginning is .. "Experts Disagree" and once again .. as usual .. you present ZERO science in support of this person's claim .. like I do to support my claims. Back to the question you are avoiding .. suppose I grant this unsupported nonsense claim .. OK .. why do you wish to kill hundreds of these "innocent children" for the sake of the the one ?
Biological Nonsense you say .. Mr. Biology 101 OK The Biologial Science says that after the zygote divides .. you have “a cluster of distinct individual cells” which are each one “distinct ontological entities in simple contact with the others” You say these are not zygotes .. these distinct cells .. each with the capability of creating a new human .. and often do go on to create a different human than the zygote offspring standing next to it. but tell me . The initial cell is gone after the first mitotic division .. now you have two children of the zygote .. but you claim these are not zygotes... what is the significant difference between the parent .. and the children of the zygote .. which makes the Zygote a person .. and the children of this person .. not zygotes .. are they a different species or something ? Tell me Mr. Biology 101 .. I want to know how it works
No they are not zygotes ontology is not biology, the processes you are talking about are conception, fertilizations, the creation of that new life learn the difference. I have proven my point with the science, the biology. Dr. Micheline Mathews-Roth of Harvard Medical School, appearing before a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, testified with references from over 20 embryology and other medical textbooks said that, “It is incorrect to say that biological data cannot be decisive. … It is scientifically correct to say that an individual life begins at conception.”
Ontology is a word .. and and if biologists wish to use this word to describe something scientific .. it is a good thing .. not a bad.. but we have moved passed the partisan doctor some political group found to testify .. and assumed you unsupported claim is true.. don't you understand .. no need to repost this moron .. your claim is assumed to be true. How is are the children of the zygote .. not people ? yet the zygote . .who does not exist anymore .. you claimed was a person .. these two distinct individual cells .. each capable of creating a human .. just like the zygote .. with all the capabilities of the zygote .. in fact .. and exact copy of the zygote .. that you claim is not a zygote .. but ok .. why are the children of the zyogote not people ? can these two cells not go on to be two people ? .. just like the zygote ? and why choose to sacrifice hundreds of these poeple .. so that one person can be created.
Words have meanings and your misguide statements about biology refute nothing. I cited the science the human life begins at conception.....................
Yes .. you did . and we moved on to the question you are so desperate to avoid .. If indeed as you say .. the zygote is a "Person" an "Innocent child" How is are the children of the zygote .. not people ? as they are exactly the same as the zygote identical clones in every way that matters .. completely independent of each other .... ohhh ohh young padawan .. Im sorry ..but your choice is to kill many of these innocent children .. for the sake of the one. .
Already gave you the definition of person and child. And stop speciously claiming I have control over the process of conception even you fallacious assertions about it. When you can refute the science let me know, not your inane statements, not metaphysical postulations, science. We do go with the science don't we? Or are you a science denier?
Yes .. and definition accepted .. never claimed you had control over anything .. but you are against abortion ..because you don't want to kill the innocent child - and yet ..by not aborting .. of these "innocent children" as defined by you .. will be killed. To say that identical clones of the zygote are not as much innocent children as the zygote ... is "denial of science" which would be not be your first time.
That is YOUR specious definition and again you can't refute the science. But since it is YOUR assertion why do you support all these claimed human beings being killed at birth and what so YOU propose to do about it?
What assertion .. what definition .. what is it that you are in denial of ? Do you deny that the children of the zygote are 1) identical to the zygote .. being totipotent - each individually able to create a new human ? Tell me the science .. perhaps I am mistaken .. what is wrong with the above scientific fact ?
