Is a fertilized egg a "person"...?

by GreatNPowerfulOz Fri Nov 04, 2011 5:54 pm

First topic message reminder :

Is a fertilized egg a "person"...? Mississippi is voting on just that...an initiative to define personhood for the unborn.

Opinions? If the premise that a fetus doesn't have "the right to life" because it's not legally a person, then wouldn't changing the legal definition of a person to include a fertilized egg be a legitimate argument. After all, the legal right to an abortion in the U.S. is predicated upon the supposition that an unborn fetus is not a person...however, a huge contradiction exists because the law allows for the death of a fetus at the hands of a person OTHER than the mother as "fetal homocide" and "fetacide", a criminal offense.

My opinion, for those who don't know, is that abortion and the trivializing of the unborn erodes our humanity. As an atheist, I don't base this belief in religion but the unwavering stance that when we look at the unborn as mere "tissue" to be excised at will, we all lose some of our humanity.

by Shirina Mon Dec 19, 2011 4:16 pm

Hello, Hermes, and welcome to the forum.

Perhaps you missed my earlier argument to Oz in the first few pages of this thread so I'll reiterate. You may be aware that just recently we hit the 7 billion population mark. We hit the 6 billion mark in 1999. It only took us twelve years to put another billion people on the planet, and most of them are living in impoverished conditions we in the West could not even fathom. Compare that to the 127 years it took to go from one billion to two.

We can either work to control our own rampant population growth or we can wait until nature does it for us. We won't like the latter option as any ghost who died of the Black Death can attest to. Plagues tend to kill people in very slow and painful ways. Nature does have a way of knowing when enough is enough and taking decisive and unfeeling steps to curb it. Should we declare a fertilized egg the status of "Person" with all of the rights and responsibilities thereof, it would cause a population boom of epic proportions - and just like in other nations, most of those babies will be born into poverty. Competition for land, jobs, housing, and other resources will dramatically increase; the crushing weight of numbers will collapse both nationalized health care systems and insurance companies. Unemployment will skyrocket as will the directly related and associated crimes. Demand for basic products such as food and clothing will cause an all too predictable price increase that will only exacerbate the issue of poverty.

As more people fall into or are born into poverty and as clean water, nutritious food, adequate housing, and medical care become ever more difficult to obtain, the timer on the bomb will begin ticking. When the timer hits zero (at nature's choosing), the next pandemic will erupt during a time when our infrastructure is incapable of dealing with it. The plague will spread to unmanageable levels even before it is detected since the first victims will be too poor to afford to see a doctor. And by then, it will be too late.

We're already slowly marching toward that fate regardless, but if abstinence or a handful of contraceptive devices are all that's left, we would be pushing the doomsday clock that much closer to the midnight hour.

by oftenwrong Mon Dec 19, 2011 5:04 pm

Cracked it! Hermes is Spock/Nimoy.

by ROB Tue Dec 20, 2011 10:53 pm

dimsum wrote:
We have children going hungry and living on the streets and do NOT see all the furor to fix that. Nope they want to consider a egg as a person. We have so many children in foster care that would love to have a family and we worry about what a woman and her doctor are doing. Rubbish. if we can not feed the ones we have and can not get the same furor going for the hungry then something is very wrong here.

Hermes wrote:
An illogical argument based on emotive & utilitarian appeal.

The fact that a living fertilized human ovum is scientifically speaking a 'human being' is not in any way countered by the fact that we do not properly look after our parentless children.

Surely we most remedy both problems...rather than elevate one above the other in order to discard it as a matter of importance.

Dimsum, you wrote, “We have children going hungry and living on the streets and do NOT see all the furor to fix that.”

That statement is not supported by fact. I’ll begin and end with an organization to which I modestly give.

http://www.citysq.org/

When one seeks, one finds. Jesus taught (and Matthew recorded), “Seek and you shall find.”

Dimsum, you wrote, “Nope they want to consider a egg as a person.”

Nope. Some of “they”, including me, understand that a fertilized egg is human, and thus a person, no matter what you o anyone else might consider a fertilized egg to be. This statement is proven biological fact as of right now, which, given the propensity of many who worship biology, is a bit ironic, as God’s Word revealed this truth to any who desired to hear this truth during the millennium preceding he birth of Y’shua bar Yosef, Y’shua Moshiach, Jesus the Christ.

Dimsum, you wrote, “We have so many children in foster care that would love to have a family…”

Within a Southern California city, circa November-December 1986, in a 7-11 parking lot, a short White man and I continued the conversation started moments before in the checkout line. Super Big Gulp Diet Coke in hand (they hadn’t started hooking me up with Diet Mountain Dews at the time), I relaxed on the hood and bumper of my car, listening in fascination to his recent life story.

He had just stated his unequivocal opposition to abortion. I had pointed out the vast numbers of abused, neglected, and unwanted children. I was but a few years removed from service as a (1) children’s protective services abuse and neglect investigator and (2) family services social worker, two functions performed simultaneously in a somewhat rural East Texas jurisdiction, so I wasn’t talking theoretically or ideologically. In fact, one of my clients during that service, about twelve years eleven months old at the time, was about two months pregnant with her second child, so I kinda sorta knew, and know, “what I’m talkin’ ‘bout.”

He, the short White man, expressed profound experiential understanding of what I was talking about, and went on to tell me what he personally was doing about it. Turns out this man was an associate minister of an inner city Missionary Baptist Church, from which statement you can properly infer that the congregation was predominately Black, with an inordinate number of “single” mothers mis-raising Black teen-aged boys into adult black males (lowercase intentional) possessed of absolutely no clue a to the personal meaning of manhood.

So this White associate minister, a young widower, took it upon himself to officially and unofficially adopt ten Black teen-aged boys, ensuring, in addition to food, clothing, and shelter, that each got a “full dose” of fathering. At the time of our conversation, five of his sons were in junior high and high schools, on track to graduate on time, some with honors (it was an honor that they let me graduate, period), and his other five sons were either in college (for Brits, Canadians, South Africans, and Aussies, “in university) or in trade schools/apprentice programs, all on track to emerge fully empowered to establish honorable careers and thereby fully capable of supporting themselves and their families.

He took in boys, he adopted boys, he produced Men, ten at a time, his opposition to abortion remained unwavering.

Did I mention that this White Man (uppercase intentional) was about 6’6” and two forty-five? That’s what he began to look like to me as his story unfolded.

Dimsum, you wrote, “… and we worry about what a woman and her doctor are doing.”

I worry about what a female is doing to another human being, another person, who, through actions of the female, is dependent upon her desires, emotions, and sometimes whims, for her/his existence on this planet.

Hermes, you wrote, “Surely we most remedy both problems...rather than elevate one above the other in order to discard it as a matter of importance.”

Well said.

by Blamhappy Sun Apr 08, 2012 11:54 am

I think it would take too long to read this whole thread, but I read pages 1 and 2, and skimmed through 3, and got the gist of the various viewpoints and the tone of the thread.

I have no issues with any of the opinions displayed here and I think it's a bit sad when one person tells another person that his/her opinion is "wrong" and "debunked" in "no-absolute-answer" topic like this. Oz is as entitled to his opinion as anyone else, and I didn't necessarily spot personal insults. His posts certainly didn't read like troll posts (see Digital Spy for thousands of examples of those!), but that is only my take on it. (It's possible that trolling tactics have been spotted elsewhere and recognised here...)

Abortion and birth control are emotive subjects and people get passionate about their views. Good! It's nice that people care enough!

Having been brought up by parents who believe that a fertilised egg (a zygote) is a baby, I don't find that viewpoint silly or wrong. They don't see even the implantation as necessary to determine that life has begun, let alone anything more advanced. Therefore, they have issues with the morning after pill (but not contraception). I think, although they might argue this, that it probably comes from their respective religious upbringings. My mum was brought up Catholic (as was I) and my dad was sent to an evangelical free church. Whilst my dad made the realisation fairly early on that it wasn't for him, some of the principles stayed with him, and he is a traditionalist (no sex before marriage etc.).

So, in terms of the religious beliefs impacting on this issue, I do think this is true for the most part, but that's not to say that a non-religious person can't independently hold the view that a zygote is a person. It's been suggested somewhere on this thread that this is exclusively a religious belief, but I'm confused as to why. After all, someone had to have invented the idea in the first place!

Also, it was mentioned (page two? Can't remember) that the beginnings of the ability to feel pain should perhaps determine the cut-off point for allowing abortion. I'm uncomfortable with this. Pain isn't the only indicator of the existence of what is essentially a person. The current limit is 24 weeks, but the foetus is very much a baby before this. By 12 weeks, it has everything but is tiny. By 20 weeks, it is viable - i.e. if removed from the womb, it has a pretty good chance of survival.

As an aside, the heartbeat was mentioned somewhere in the thread. The zygote develops a beating heart extremely early, in fact.

I honestly don't know the answer, and I'm happy to leave it in the hands of scientists. If the churches were in charge of decisions on contraception and abortion, I think the country would be in a total mess. I wonder if they''re secretly glad that they're not in charge and, instead, can just moan loudly!

by oftenwrong Sun Apr 08, 2012 12:39 pm

I think it would take too long to read that, so I won't.

Nothing personal.

by Blamhappy Sun Apr 08, 2012 1:03 pm

oftenwrong wrote:I think it would take too long to read that, so I won't.

Nothing personal.

You didn't actually need to type that, did you?

It's a little nasty of you really, since much of the post was sticking up for others in the thread. Until this point, I'd found the forum pretty friendly.

by Shirina Sun Apr 08, 2012 2:41 pm

I have no issues with any of the opinions displayed here and I think it's a bit sad when one person tells another person that his/her opinion is "wrong" and "debunked" in "no-absolute-answer" topic like this. Oz is as entitled to his opinion as anyone else, and I didn't necessarily spot personal insults. His posts certainly didn't read like troll posts (see Digital Spy for thousands of examples of those!), but that is only my take on it. (It's possible that trolling tactics have been spotted elsewhere and recognised here...)

First of all, sometimes opinions are wrong. Just because someone is entitled to voice them does not mean that they have to be accepted as viable. Arguments can be "debunked," especially when they are based on fallacies or factually incorrect information. Otherwise we would have to accept any and all opinions as equally valid - which would be a case of having a mind so open that your brain falls out.

Secondly, Oz is a troll. I say that and I'm actually friends with him to the point where he and I have exchanged personal information, meaning I'm not saying that out of spite or anger. Oz is a troll by his own admission. In fact, the reason why he no longer posts here (a pity, really) is that he didn't have the freedom to troll, but he liked to push the boundaries.

by Blamhappy Sun Apr 08, 2012 3:01 pm

Okay, sorry then.

by Shirina Sun Apr 08, 2012 4:18 pm

Okay, sorry then.

You don't have anything to be sorry about. Smile

by True Blue Thu Apr 26, 2012 7:54 pm

One of the things the intelligentsia is discussing of late is the demise of civilizations which we are witnessing now... apparently. Essentially they are blaming secularization as it lacks the depth of meaning, place and continuity in a persons life, which the religious orders have established for their faithful... who are dwindling in numbers as they become 'enlightened' by secularism.

A significant argument which they put forward is that of the ever decreasing birth rate which brings with it a cultural demise... It is inflicting Western Civilizations now who seek to make up the numbers 'needed' for their civilizations though immigration... It will inflict the Eastern Civilizations more significantly because their shift from large to small families has been less gradual.

Too loose vast numbers of a population to old age and death in a couple of generations is significant. Not only is there the issue of caring for the elderly by a population not large enough to do so, there is the loss of cultural knowledge that those people hold and the loss of economic viability.

Seems rather odd, when civilization as we know it is dying through a lack of social depth, connectedness and sheer loss of numbers, should see its women kill their off spring in state sanctioned abortions.

by True Blue Thu Apr 26, 2012 8:07 pm

Another thing I've always found rather odd, is the idea of allowing late term abortions for various reasons, but not allowing the termination of a newly born infant of the same gestational period, for the very same and varied reasons.

If a baby is terminated at 6mths gestation, why cannot a woman who births a baby at 6mths gestation be allowed to terminate its life?

We have already accepted the fundamental principle that 'Some humans are more valuable than other humans.' For example, the infant produced from rape, is not as valuable as an infant produced from love, and few would disallow a woman the right to terminate the foetus of 6 mths gestation if it was produced from rape. So why cannot that same woman who has birthed that baby after 6 mths gestation be allowed to have its life terminated because it was born of rape.

The same argument applies to defective children which are commonly aborted and represent the most common of later term abortions. Why can't those women have the baby terminated after birth if it is found to be defective?

Why are our Spartan inclinations allowable only when the human is in the womb and not newly birthed from it?

by Shirina Thu Apr 26, 2012 9:02 pm

Essentially they are blaming secularization as it lacks the depth of meaning, place and continuity in a persons life, which the religious orders have established for their faithful... who are dwindling in numbers as they 'enlightened' by secularism.

People are always lamenting the decline of civilization and have been since the fall of Rome. I will say this, though - perhaps the worst era in Western history occurred when the Church and religion governed our every thought, deed, and intent. Science and knowledge slowed to a snail's pace, most people were illiterate, countless millions were killed or tortured in the name of religious righteousness, the Church became corrupt in actually buying and selling salvation, and people had no say in - or control over - their governments. Religion, which is exceptionally rigid and slow to change, caused the whole Western world to become equally rigid and stagnant.

A significant argument which they put forward is that of the ever decreasing birth rate which brings with it a cultural demise

In a world where we jumped from 6 billion to 7 billion people in only 12 years, having a declining population could be seen as a good thing ... even a necessary thing. Such staggering growth cannot continue unabated without serious consequences to our environment and our way of life. Already, half the world's population live in destitution, many living in areas barely out of the Stone Age, and these areas are seeing the largest population explosions. Populating a region beyond what the region can support is a cornerstone cause of the famines we see in various parts of the planet. If we allowed the West to continually increase its population in the same way, we would be just as impoverished and starving as anywhere in Somalia or Namibia.

We don't need to wait until there is a house, slum, high rise, factory, or shopping mall built on every inch of available land before we wake up and realize what's happening ... but those who make the argument of birth rate decline fail to grasp this. Whenever confronted, I've even heard them say something as ludicrous as: "Everyone on the planet could fit in the US state of Arkansas!" As if that is a valid argument for ignoring overpopulation. It's not about how many people we can fit in a given space, it's also about how much space is needed to feed, clothe, house, and entertain a singular individual. How many acres of farmland is necessary to feed one person for a year? How many square feet of housing? How many square feet of factory/office space to employ one person? How many roads, schools, stores, doctors, bridges, etc. to allow for a functioning community? Of course, if we spend our lives standing in one place, never eating, never sleeping - just standing there in Arkansas - then I suppose their argument could be construed as "valid." Yet we all know that isn't how we live.

Even as we struggle against increasing unemployment, higher prices, lower wages, and stiff competition for resources, some folks will argue that we won't have too many people until we're all lying in our own filth, starving and hopeless. If we do not correct the problem ourselves, nature will do it for us - most likely in the form of another virulent plague starting in some remote part of the world untouched by modern medical science. Or perhaps it will be another war - one started as one nation invades another to take resources depleted in their own land. Or perhaps it will be a war started by a massively populated nation like China invading a sparsely populated (but huge) nation like Russia with China claiming it needs labensraum. However it comes, it will come as nature is self-correcting.

Why are our Spartan inclinations allowable only when the human is in the womb and not newly birthed from it?

Because a society has to draw the line somewhere. It's really that simple. At least there is a definitive boundary between in the womb and out of it. Once the child is out of the womb, it is, without question, a child and a person with all the rights and privileges thereof. If we decided that a mother can kill the child after its born, then where do we draw THAT particular line? How long after birth? Why not allow a mother to kill her adult children for whatever reason? You're suggesting we flirt with a slippery slope that has no logical parameters.

by oftenwrong Thu Apr 26, 2012 11:02 pm

.... to err is human, to continue arguing is divine ....

by True Blue Fri Apr 27, 2012 3:53 am

Shirina wrote:
Essentially they are blaming secularization as it lacks the depth of meaning, place and continuity in a persons life, which the religious orders have established for their faithful... who are dwindling in numbers as they 'enlightened' by secularism.
People are always lamenting the decline of civilization and have been since the fall of Rome.

There is a lot to lament when a civilization declines and eventually falls. We loose knowledge, literature, art, craftmanship, belief systems including laws and ethics... most of which must be refashioned in order to bring about a new civilization.

I will say this, though - perhaps the worst era in Western history occurred when the Church and religion governed our every thought, deed, and intent.

When I looked up to contemplate that comment, I caught sight of the TV which sits louder and prouder as a alter in the home than any cross of Christ. And when I think of the volumes of dollars that have gone into providing the marketing and advertising for that TV alter, I can't help but wonder if the sheeple are not governed in their thoughts, deeds and intent to a greater part by that TV. For example, if the viewers claim to have grown weary of reality tv, then the marketing department will find ways of reigniting our interest and before you know it we have reality cooking shows.

Science and knowledge slowed to a snail's pace, most people were illiterate, countless millions were killed or tortured in the name of religious righteousness, the Church became corrupt in actually buying and selling salvation, and people had no say in - or control over - their governments. Religion, which is exceptionally rigid and slow to change, caused the whole Western world to become equally rigid and stagnant.

I think this is an unfair account of the Roman Catholic Civilization which usurped the Roman Civilization. For example, you lay the blame of illiteracy at the feet of The Church, when in fact most people prior to The Church rising were illiterate and it had always been thus. It is also the case that throughout history, countless people are killed and tortured for reasons that do not stand up to rational consideration including, but not exclusively: heresy, imperialism, colonialism and racism. In the end, all we need take from this is not a religious lesson but a reality check about the nature of humans in the pursuit of power.

Also, I think we need to give credit where credit is due. The Renaissance and Enlightenment were Christian movements which saw the return of and quest for knowledge amongst Christians. It marks the rise of Humanism, which is Christian philosophy now used by Secularists to justify themselves.

A significant argument which they put forward is that of the ever decreasing birth rate which brings with it a cultural demise
In a world where we jumped from 6 billion to 7 billion people in only 12 years, having a declining population could be seen as a good thing ... even a necessary thing.

I don't actually disagree with you, I was merely musing over the decline of our civilization and the future rise of another which this profound shift in population will precipitate. But it will not solve the problems of poverty and hunger... at all times through out history there has been poverty and hunger, so it is unreasonable to use such things as a justification for the demise of a civilization. More over, the problems brought by large populations are not insurmountable. We have the technology to create any means of infrastructure necessary to feed, clothe and shelter the people. What limits us yet again, is human nature and our capacity for power and greed which prevents the solutions from being actualized. In a large population, even farming can go vertical, and high rise apartment living can be community living if space is given over for shops, child care, schools, theatres, pools etc within that building itself and then land around the building given over for outdoor activities. It doesn't have to be a nightmarish future which you project.

Nonetheless, it is not a bad thing for human populations to decline but the transition from one civilization to another that such a decline will cause, will be difficult... just as the transition from a Roman to Catholic civilization was difficult... just as any civilizational transition is so.

Why are our Spartan inclinations allowable only when the human is in the womb and not newly birthed from it?
Because a society has to draw the line somewhere. It's really that simple. At least there is a definitive boundary between in the womb and out of it. Once the child is out of the womb, it is, without question, a child and a person with all the rights and privileges thereof. If we decided that a mother can kill the child after its born, then where do we draw THAT particular line? How long after birth? Why not allow a mother to kill her adult children for whatever reason? You're suggesting we flirt with a slippery slope that has no logical parameters.

Actually, I am suggesting that we already flirt with a slippery slop that has no logical parameters. And it comes in the principle that has common acceptance, which I mentioned earlier.... Some humans are more valuable than other humans. It is that principle which allows women to kill their offspring! It is also the same principle that allows capital punishment, yet, fewer humans are killed by the state than are killed by women.... funny that.

An interesting point to make here is that of defective humans which often are not noticed as such until birth. Most women would abort a defective human if it was known as such but are not afforded the same opportunity to have that defective human killed when birthed. With no pun intended, what we have here is a miscarriage of natural justice which sees those who know of the defects destroying the defective human and those who cannot know of the defects being forced to live with the consequences. We can provide humane deaths for such defective humans and in so doing reduce the suffering of that human and its parents, but we do not because the child has been birthed!

by oftenwrong Fri Apr 27, 2012 10:26 am

Eugenics is alive and well.

by True Blue Fri Apr 27, 2012 11:44 am

oftenwrong wrote:Eugenics is alive and well.

Spooky isn't it? I know I find it spooky.

Take that principle.... Some humans have more value than other humans... into the experimental world and you have to wonder why the human born of a late term abortion is not being used in experimentation. Kill off the brain and keep the human on life support and voila! You have yourself a test subject for all manner of drugs. Certainly, it would be more humane than killing other animals for our medical benefit... and the trials needed would be greatly reduced because we are working of human test subjects from day one.

by polyglide Mon Jul 02, 2012 2:53 pm

There is no doubt a fertilised egg relating to humans is a human egg and if left alone and all things being normal would turn into a human being the operative words being TURN INTO.

No one would call a caterpillar a butterfly nor a chicken egg a chicken.

A human in my opinion is formed and can be called a human when it is capable of being an independant being [independant not meaning able to look after itself but a seperate and distinctive being]

All stages between conception and birth are stages towards an end but all are just part and not the whole.

Abortion and all other relevant matters are a totally different aspect of this matter and could create endless different opinions all of which may have some merit but as a whole it is one of the biggest can of worms possible.

by oftenwrong Mon Jul 02, 2012 3:00 pm

Is a fertilized egg a "person"...?

Why don't you ask it?

by Shirina Mon Jul 02, 2012 4:32 pm

If a fertilized egg is a person, then why call it a "fertilized egg?" And if the two are synonymous, then I should be able to call anyone a "fertilized egg" and have the term be applicable. Except it's not. So ...

by trevorw2539 Mon Jul 02, 2012 5:28 pm

I'm not a Biologist so kick this into touch is you don't agree.

The Bible says that life is IN the blood. It is the blood that carries oxygen, nutrients around the body, and removes much expendable material, making life possible. Agreed that the body/baby is not independent of its mother, and it will not be for 9 months? Is the beginning of the use of the vascular system the beginning of life?

This has nothing to do with the JW's.

by ROB Mon Jul 02, 2012 5:56 pm

Approximately seven billion humans, ha adama, live today. Each of these seven billion humans started life as a fertilized human egg. That’s fact. Any discussion of killing a fertilized human egg is a discussion of killing a human, either now, or, if you believe that a fertilized human egg is not yet human but will be human in the future, in the future. That’s fact.

When one looks around town at the passers-by, one looks at past fertilized human eggs. When a person looks at her/his birth certificate, all that person need do is subtract nine months (give or take) from her/his date of birth to determine the nine months that she/he was a fertilized human egg. That’s fact.

by oftenwrong Mon Jul 02, 2012 5:59 pm

Kick this also into touch if you don't agree. The Bible is man-made, and consists only of the opinions of men like ourselves, so is not to be totally relied upon without supporting evidence from elsewhere.

by ROB Mon Jul 02, 2012 6:11 pm

oftenwrong wrote:Kick this also into touch if you don't agree. The Bible is man-made, and consists only of the opinions of men like ourselves, so is not to be totally relied upon without supporting evidence from elsewhere.

The author of the first verse of the first chapter of the Hebrew Bible precisely, concisely, and accurately described Big Bang (who, what, when, where) about three thousand three hundred and some odd years prior to Hubble questioning Steady State. That’s fact. Kick this into touch.

Or, better yet, study Genesis 1:1 (with me, if you so desire) and discover the truth of my factual statement for yourself.

by trevorw2539 Mon Jul 02, 2012 8:05 pm

oftenwrong wrote:Kick this also into touch if you don't agree. The Bible is man-made, and consists only of the opinions of men like ourselves, so is not to be totally relied upon without supporting evidence from elsewhere.

So the Bible is wrong. Life is not IN the blood? Fair enough. I always thought that biology taught that blood did what I said and more. I only offered the point as to whether this might be considered the start of life, not as a religious doctrine. Smile

by Shirina Tue Jul 03, 2012 6:19 am

When one looks around town at the passers-by, one looks at past fertilized human eggs.

Except a human is not a fertilized egg and a fertilized egg is not a human.

One is a human. The other is a fertilized egg with human DNA.

Should a person who drops a chicken egg be charged with animal cruelty?

by ROB Tue Jul 03, 2012 6:55 am

RockOnBrother wrote:
When one looks around town at the passers-by, one looks at past fertilized human eggs.

Shirina wrote:
Except a human is not a fertilized egg…

That’s opinion. Three facts are listed below.

A fertilized human egg is life. That’s fact.
The life of every human started with, and every human began as, a fertilized human egg. That’s fact.
When one looks around town at the passers-by, one looks at past fertilized human eggs. That’s fact.

Shirina wrote:
… and a fertilized egg is not a human.

That’s opinion. Three facts are listed above.

Shirina wrote:
One is a human. The other is a fertilized egg with human DNA.

According to some biological scientists, including a geneticist with whom I had a personal conversation, the presence of human DNA within a life form renders that life form human.

Shirina wrote:
Should a person who drops a chicken egg be charged with animal cruelty?

If I were a country boy, I would just as soon wring a “grown” chicken’s neck as look at the dumb bird. I don’t like chickens except on my plate in one form or another. Scrambled eggs, omelets, slow-cooked, smoked bar-b-q, southern fried, it’s all good.

The person who drops a chicken egg should be charged with destruction of good eats.

by oftenwrong Tue Jul 03, 2012 10:24 am

Is a fertilized egg a "person"...?

The question pre-supposes that all eggs are fertile, which any Doctor will confirm is not necessarily the case.

Fertilising an infertile ovum will not produce anything, least of all a human person....

Next question?

by ROB Tue Jul 03, 2012 3:06 pm

oftenwrong wrote:
Is a fertilized egg a "person"...?

The question pre-supposes that all eggs are fertile…

Hebrew Bible:

And God said, “Let us make man¹ in our image, after our likeness…” So God created man¹ in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male² and female³ created he them.

And God blessed them, and God said unto them, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth…”

Genesis 1:26-28

אָדָם, ‘âdâm, hâ âdâmâ (from אָדַם, ‘âdam, ruddy), human being (an individual or the species), person, mankind.
זָכָר, ‎zâkâr, male, man (sexual sense).
נְקֵבָה‎, neqêbâh, female, woman (sexual sense).

They, male (‎zâkâr) and female (neqêbâh), mankind (‘âdâm, hâ âdâmâ), cannot “[be] fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth” via unfertilized eggs; accordingly, the question, rather than “[presupposing] that all eggs are fertile”, instead focuses upon the only human eggs, fertilized human eggs, that matters insofar as human life is concerned.

by oftenwrong Tue Jul 03, 2012 5:24 pm

Ah. I hadn't realised that some people have a direct line to the Creator.

by ROB Tue Jul 03, 2012 6:03 pm

oftenwrong wrote:
Ah. I hadn't realized…

You have?

oftenwrong wrote:
… that some people have a direct line to the Creator.

They do?

Please introduce me to “some people”; I’d like to sit down and chat awhile with folks who’ve a direct line to the Creator. Mayhaps one of them might pass on a personal message?

by Shirina Tue Jul 03, 2012 8:18 pm

A fertilized human egg is life. That’s fact.

True. But so is a virus.

The life of every human started with, and every human began as, a fertilized human egg. That’s fact.

True. But they also began with a sperm.

When one looks around town at the passers-by, one looks at past fertilized human eggs. That’s fact.

True. But everyone also began as debris from a supernova, as well.

the presence of human DNA within a life form renders that life form human.

Thus if I cut myself and a drop of blood drips onto the floor, I should immediately call 911 because a human life is at stake.

However, viruses, sperms, supernova debris, nor drops of blood are considered to be a person. No one in this country will ever be charged with murder for killing a sperm, eradicating a virus, or bleeding.

I doubt anyone here, including myself, will argue the point that a fertilized egg isn't human in the strictest biological sense. Yet this thread was originally intended as a debate over whether or not a fertilized egg should be legally seen as a person. There are subtle differences between the words "person" and "human." For instance, a hair plucked from your head is a human hair ... but it isn't a person. We can call something "human" without giving it legal status as a "person."

A fertilized egg is merely the potential for a person to form. It is the initial building block of human creation. But to say it is actually a person is the same thing as saying a tube of paint is the same thing as the Mona Lisa.

The person who drops a chicken egg should be charged with destruction of good eats.

LOL! Well ... now I'm hungry!

by ROB Wed Jul 04, 2012 12:58 am

RockOnBrother wrote:
A fertilized human egg is life. That’s fact.

Shirina wrote:
True. But so is a virus.

A virus is not cognizant life; a virus is not human life. Cognizance-wise, a virus is somewhere way “south” of a sweet potato. At least I can make ground nut stew out of a sweet potato!

RockOnBrother wrote:
The life of every human started with, and every human began as, a fertilized human egg. That’s fact.

Shirina wrote:
True. But they also began with a sperm.

Life begins with neither a sperm nor an unfertilized egg. In fact, if I remember correctly, “the rabbis” teach that a fertilized egg is non-kosher; thus, one as surely “breaks kosher” when one consumes a fertilized chicken egg as when one consumes the flesh of a snow crab.

Amongst eggs, only fertilized eggs contains new life; accordingly, insofar as humans are concerned, no other living tissue save a living post-birth human that has developed from a fertilized human egg can logically be compared to, measured up against, or equated with a fertilized human egg. This precludes human sperm and non-fertilized human eggs.

RockOnBrother wrote:
When one looks around town at the passers-by, one looks at past fertilized human eggs. That’s fact.

Shirina wrote:
True. But everyone also began as debris from a supernova, as well.

Everyone’s life did not begin as debris from a supernova. The elements of everyone’s body, along with all of the heavy elements of our earth, as in “heavier than helium”, did indeed, according to current, prevalent cosmological thinking, originate from the unimaginable compressive gravitational force of a supernova.

We can identify the elements necessary for carbon-base life forms to exist as living organisms; we can assemble together these life-necessary elements and compounds in the approximate proportions as they are found in living organisms, we cab replicate the conditions necessary for the procreation of life, but we cannot create life. Human life emanates solely from fertilized human eggs.

RockOnBrother wrote:
… the presence of human DNA within a life form renders that life form human.

Shirina wrote:
Thus if I cut myself and a drop of blood drips onto the floor, I should immediately call 911 because a human life is at stake.

If you cut yourself, the human life which is endangered, inextricably tied to your DNA, is your human life. You might indeed need to immediately call 911 and procure paramedic services if the blood flow from the cut is life-threatening.

You see, my friend, the DNA in that blood is yours, and yours alone unless you are one of a set of identical twins, triplets, quadruplets, quintuplets, sextuplets, septuplets, or octuplets. In contrast, the DNA in the blood flowing through the baby which you carry in your womb (theoretically speaking), whether the baby be embryo or full term, I half your DNA (from the egg), half the biological father’s DNA (from the sperm) and all the new baby’s DNA, unique in the world unless your baby is one of a set of identical twins, triplets, quadruplets, quintuplets, sextuplets, septuplets, or octuplets.

Shirina wrote:
However, viruses, sperms, supernova debris, nor drops of blood are considered to be a person. No one in this country will ever be charged with murder for killing a sperm, eradicating a virus, or bleeding.

True. See above.

Shirina wrote:
I doubt anyone here, including myself, will argue the point that a fertilized egg isn't human in the strictest biological sense. Yet this thread was originally intended as a debate over whether or not a fertilized egg should be legally seen as a person.

A person is a human.

Shirina wrote:
There are subtle differences between the words "person" and "human." For instance, a hair plucked from your head is a human hair ... but it isn't a person. We can call something "human" without giving it legal status as a "person."

A “human hair” plucked from a person’s/human’s head is a conglomeration of dead human tissue.

A ‘human hair” can just as easily and correctly be called a “person hair.” We choose to use one term rather than the other term for no particular reason, just as we use the terms “quadrilateral” and triangle” rather than “quadrangle” and “trilateral”, all of which are mathematically and geometrically accurate terms. English is quirky that way.

Shirina wrote:
A fertilized egg is merely the potential for a person to form. It is the initial building block of human creation.

A fertilized human egg is in fact (not “merely”, in my view) the potential for a fully developed person, a fully developed human, to form. A fertilized human egg is in fact the initial building block of human procreation (YHVH Elohim takes care of human creation as documented in Genesis 1:26-27).

A fertilized human egg is also the only building block, the only building block, of human procreation. All of the information necessary to construct the human, the person, that is procreated at the moment egg and sperm combine DNA is contained in the fertilized human egg, the same information contained in the DNA of that procreated human/person at her/his death at one hundred years, two months, eleven days, sixteen hours, twenty-seven minutes of age, counting from live birth, or that same age plus nine months (give or take) counting from the moment of sperm and egg combining DNA, the moment of procreation.

Why “live birth?” The baby is alive prior to birth.

Shirina wrote:
But to say it is actually a person is the same thing as saying a tube of paint is the same thing as the Mona Lisa.

Non-applicable analogy. Neither a tube of paint nor the Mona Lisa is a living human/person. Neither a tube of paint nor the Mona Lisa is a living cognizant organism. Neither a tube of paint nor the Mona Lisa is a living organism of any sort. In fact, cognizance-wise, both a tube of paint and the Mona Lisa are way “south” of a virus.

Also, I don’t like the Mona Lisa; the woman is plain, the woman has no eyebrows, and the woman’s enigmatic “smile” seems a bit dis-something or the other.

Give me a photo of Chaka Khan circa 1977 anytime. Or if Chaka’s not available, Pat Benatar circa 1982… Lawd hab mucy!”

Be still, my heart… I’m okay now… a cup of good, hot coffee does wonders to calm the soul.

RockOnBrother wrote:
The person who drops a chicken egg should be charged with destruction of good eats.

Shirina wrote:
LOL! Well ... now I'm hungry!

You know it! Watch out Church’s!

by polyglide Wed Jul 04, 2012 11:30 am

The obvious answer to the quesion is NO.

Of course a fertilized egg is not a person it is a fertilized egg.

It cannot function in any way by it's own efforts and is totally dependant on the state of the person carrying the egg.

We are talking about the egg and not subsequent stages.

Unless the egg actually goes the full term as a prenancy and this results in a live and healthy baby then the possible result of any fertilized egg is a total mystery.

Wether to destroy any fertilized egg in human terms is acceptable is a totally differrent matter.

by oftenwrong Wed Jul 04, 2012 12:00 pm

Oh, well! Over to sub-atomic particles then.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Tue Oct 22, 2013 7:10 pm

GreatNPowerfulOz wrote:I don't see how defining when life begins legally has anything to do with religion.

Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:If only that were true, we could remove the hyperbole, the histrionics, and the hysteria, and rely on reasoned logic based on the latest scientific evidence, and for the broadest benefit to all.

by stuart torr Tue Oct 22, 2013 9:33 pm

Oh dear me this old topic has popped its head up again, Oz to define when life starts legally has everything to do with religion also. You say you are an atheist like myself, abortion has time limit put on it because that is when doctors and scientists have agreed that is when LIFE starts as a feotus. I myself personally am against abortion but it is legal and for some females it is a very useful procedure.Especially when the mothers life is at risk, or the female has been the victim of rape. Would you sooner the mother to be die rather than abort the feotus that is killing her? c'mon man think seriously about some of the things you want voted in,and the size of the population if you banned the pill also.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Tue Oct 22, 2013 9:58 pm

stu wrote:Oh dear me this old topic has popped its head up again, Oz to define when life starts legally has everything to do with religion also. You say you are an atheist like myself, abortion has time limit put on it because that is when doctors and scientists have agreed that is when LIFE starts as a feotus. I myself personally am against abortion but it is legal and for some females it is a very useful procedure.Especially when the mothers life is at risk, or the female has been the victim of rape. Would you sooner the mother to be die rather than abort the feotus that is killing her? c'mon man think seriously about some of the things you want voted in,and the size of the population if you banned the pill also.

Take at look at Tom M and spin's latest offerings stu

http://www.amazon.co.uk/forum/religion/ref=cm_cd_et_jump?_encoding=UTF8&cdForum=Fx24A4CS3HPMJLK&cdPage=5&cdThread=Tx1FWI1WG3F3K4S#CustomerDiscussionsLPIT

by Dan Fante Wed Oct 23, 2013 8:33 am

Looks like Spin's trying to pull you, going off that last post there, Sheldon. Laughing

by timeout Wed Oct 23, 2013 11:03 am

GreatNPowerfulOz wrote:Is a fertilized egg a "person"...? Mississippi is voting on just that...an initiative to define personhood for the unborn.

Opinions? If the premise that a fetus doesn't have "the right to life" because it's not legally a person, then wouldn't changing the legal definition of a person to include a fertilized egg be a legitimate argument. After all, the legal right to an abortion in the U.S. is predicated upon the supposition that an unborn fetus is not a person...however, a huge contradiction exists because the law allows for the death of a fetus at the hands of a person OTHER than the mother as "fetal homocide" and "fetacide", a criminal offense.

My opinion, for those who don't know, is that abortion and the trivializing of the unborn erodes our humanity. As an atheist, I don't base this belief in religion but the unwavering stance that when we look at the unborn as mere "tissue" to be excised at will, we all lose some of our humanity.

i think there's a problem here because the concept of a 'person' is more than a fertilised egg. it would be better to define a fertilised egg as 'life' and deal with the question of what rights does a life form have at conception through to birth and beyond. a lot of debate goes on regarding at what point a human life form becomes developed enough to have rights or be beyond aborting unless the mother is at risk and that seems to me to just be picking a point on a sliding scale which will continue to be debatable.

ultimately i think life begins at conception and rights begin at birth. i do however think that we should have the compassion to terminate any life form as painlessly and distress free as possible.

EDIT plus there should be some responsibility for creating life on both parties concerned.

by Kazza Wed Oct 23, 2013 11:36 am

One the one hand, we are responsible for nurturing life and recognising its potential. We are also responsible for making decisions for those those who are incapable of doing so. As we are finding ways to detect foetal anomalies during earlier stages of development, it should be easier and less controversial to abort within the first few weeks, rather than wait until the foetus develops a more human-like appearance. In theory, this should appease the pro-lifers who believe all life, however miserable it may eventually turn out to be, is viable. But I doubt they will be happy until our small world is overcrowded and impoverished, with care homes bursting at the seams with dependent adults and children.

by timeout Wed Oct 23, 2013 11:56 am

Kazza wrote:One the one hand, we are responsible for nurturing life and recognising its potential. We are also responsible for making decisions for those those who are incapable of doing so. As we are finding ways to detect foetal anomalies during earlier stages of development, it should be easier and less controversial to abort within the first few weeks, rather than wait until the foetus develops a more human-like appearance. In theory, this should appease the pro-lifers who believe all life, however miserable it may eventually turn out to be, is viable. But I doubt they will be happy until our small world is overcrowded and impoverished, with care homes bursting at the seams with dependent adults and children.

i don't think all the pro-lifers want an overcrowded world full of unwanted babies. i think the agenda for some is to stop unmarried people having sex. i think the idea is to make it illegal to have an abortion, even leaving a state to go elsewhere to have one, so that people will be so afraid of getting pregnant they will not have sex. if they do have sex and pregnancy results then marriage or adoption and shame become the only choices. i believe there is talk of dubious 'spontaneous' abortions being treated as murder unless the pregnant mother can prove otherwise! there's definitely a religious contingent out there that want to 'clean up' society's loose morals and intend to do it through draconian punishment measures.

the pro-life debate is a very emotional issue for them to push their agenda from.

by Sponsored content