The new pope (Pope Benedict XVI) recently said that an embryo (not fetus) is a "full and complete" human being, despite being "shapeless." Obviously this speaks directly to the practice of abortion.

WITHOUT NECESSARILY DEBATING ABORTION, what do you think about what the pope said? Do you agree? Disagree? Why?

If you don't agree, when is a embryo or fetus a "person" - imbued with the rights and privileges of legal protection etc.? How do you make sense of this issue?

© MBM

Original Post
quote:
Originally posted by MBM:
The new pope (Pope Benedict XVI) recently said that an embryo (not fetus) is a "full and complete" human being, despite being "shapeless." Obviously this speaks directly to the practice of abortion.

WITHOUT NECESSARILY DEBATING ABORTION, what do you think about what the pope said? Do you agree? Disagree? Why?

If you don't agree, when is a embryo or fetus a "person" - imbued with the rights and privileges of legal protection etc.? How do you make sense of this issue?


Just how are you a "full and complete" human being when you are shapeless. Is that kinda a contradition in terms.

His statement is just the type of statement I would expect the Pope to make, especially this one as the story about him was that he was the enforcer of church doctrine before he became Pope. I would disagree on the grounds that in his words "shapeless" hardly defines a complete human being. It defines a mass of cells still coming together but not a "full and complete" human being.
What separates a embryo or a fetus from a person is defined by nature and not by human law or religious dogma. It's very simple really, it's the womb. It's not a person until it is a separate entity no longer directly dependant on the mother's bodily systems to support it. While in the womb, it is still a part of the mother's body, and incapable of independant life. It is similar to a hand or a finger. Is it alive? Yes. But if you cut it off it dies quickly, unable to sustain itself or be sustained by someone else.

What the Pope says doesn't suprise me in the least. But, to be honest, I don't really care what he has to say about anything. Catholics have thousands of years of murder, butchery, and countless other immoral acts to make up for before I'll even entertain hearing the judgements they're so quick to place on others. For example, before they begin worrying about the sexual and reproductive morality of you and me, perhaps they should figure out a way to convince those priests to keep thier hands off the alter boys! spank

PS. Maybe letting them have sex with women might do some good. Roll Eyes
Last edited {1}
I like the 'viable on its own without assistance' approach.

But that's science, and science says, 'Yeah, but that fetus can survive with assistance.'

I still prefer the first practice of viability.

The Pope's interpretation is religion.

I'm not Catholic.

When I was a child, until I was a full adult, you didn't take your pregnant wife to the Catholic hospital unless you didn't care about the life of you wife.

They would let her die without blinking an eye.

And...tell you that's the way God wanted it.

PEACE

Jim Chester
quote:
Originally posted by jazzdog:
quote:
Originally posted by MBM:
The new pope (Pope Benedict XVI) recently said that an embryo (not fetus) is a "full and complete" human being, despite being "shapeless." Obviously this speaks directly to the practice of abortion.

WITHOUT NECESSARILY DEBATING ABORTION, what do you think about what the pope said? Do you agree? Disagree? Why?

If you don't agree, when is a embryo or fetus a "person" - imbued with the rights and privileges of legal protection etc.? How do you make sense of this issue?


Just how are you a "full and complete" human being when you are shapeless. Is that kinda a contradition in terms.

His statement is just the type of statement I would expect the Pope to make, especially this one as the story about him was that he was the enforcer of church doctrine before he became Pope. I would disagree on the grounds that in his words "shapeless" hardly defines a complete human being. It defines a mass of cells still coming together but not a "full and complete" human being.

It makes sense if your understanding of what it means to be a human being has little or nothing to do with the body. He is talking in terms of essences, not accidents. The essence, spirit, soul, etc. is fully and completely human, what ever the accidents (read body) is in form.

I had never thought of this, but in some respects, this mirrors their understanding of the eucharist. When the words of consercration are said over the elements (wine and bread) they are transubstantiated. They become the actual body and blood of Christ. Though it may still look and taste the same (accidents), its essence, its "being" has changed.

I am not saying that I agree with it, but I see the consistency of thought here.
quote:
Originally posted by kresge:

The essence, spirit, soul, etc. is fully and completely human, what ever the accidents (read body) is in form.


off

So the soul enters the body, or is created, at conception in your opinion?

BTW - couldn't it also be argued that the soul is decidedly NOT human? That it is 'of God' or exclusively part of the 'spirit world'? Isn't the soul a conduit to God? If so - then what does it have to do with a "human being" in the sense that we're discussing? The soul/spirit defines us as humans?
quote:
Originally posted by MBM:

The new pope (Pope Benedict XVI) recently said that an embryo (not fetus) is a "full and complete" human being, despite being "shapeless."

How do you make sense of this issue?



I think it is far more truthful to include the full statements, not just a few words, MBM. By quoting just these words, meaning has been lost.

"The loving eyes of God look on the human being, considered full and complete at its beginning", and the "loving gaze of God's eyes already rest upon" the tiny, "shapeless" embryo."

In addition, you neglected to mention that Benedict was commenting on the meaning of Palm 139.

"Thou didst see my limbs unformed in the womb, and in thy book they are all recorded."

Truth, since any human cell in a totipendence state has the capability of becoming a human being.

"It is extremely powerful, the idea in this psalm, that in this 'unformed' embryo God already sees the whole future," Benedict said. "In the Lord's book of life, the days that this creature will live and will fill with works during his time on earth are already written."

Any decision about what constitutes a "full and complete" human being is arbitrary. A newborn at birth is "incomplete" and unable to sustain its life independently.

Who is or isn't a "person" is a legal concept, as you have implied. Trying to relate this term to stages of human development is untenable.
quote:
Originally posted by MBM:
The new pope (Pope Benedict XVI) recently said that an embryo (not fetus) is a "full and complete" human being, despite being "shapeless." Obviously this speaks directly to the practice of abortion.

WITHOUT NECESSARILY DEBATING ABORTION, what do you think about what the pope said? Do you agree? Disagree? Why?

If you don't agree, when is a embryo or fetus a "person" - imbued with the rights and privileges of legal protection etc.? How do you make sense of this issue?


here is what pope benedict said:

"The loving eyes of God look on the human being, considered full and complete at its beginning,"

when taken in that context, i have to agree. i am not catholic but i am a Christian who believes life begins at conception...
quote:
Originally posted by MBM:
quote:
Originally posted by kresge:

The essence, spirit, soul, etc. is fully and completely human, what ever the accidents (read body) is in form.


off

So the soul enters the body, or is created, at conception in your opinion?

BTW - couldn't it also be argued that the soul is decidedly NOT human? That it is 'of God' or exclusively part of the 'spirit world'? Isn't the soul a conduit to God? If so - then what does it have to do with a "human being" in the sense that we're discussing? The soul/spirit defines us as humans?

I am not sure what my opinion is on the first question these days. I was simply trying to offer a context in which the Pope's statement was made.

As to the latter comment, within the Christian tradition, only human beings have souls so the only souls are human. They are created by God, they are not parts of God. There is often a distinction made between soul and spirit. Spirit sometimes means simply the animating force. Thus, animals have spirits, but not souls.

There are also lines of thought within the Christian tradition that reject the notion of soul all together. They would say that it is a Greek/Platonic accretion into church doctrine and teaching. This has been dealt with on another thread dealing with the issue and nature of resurrection and the difference between this teaching and the teaching about the soul somehow being immortal.

Finally, Soul is often associatd with human consciousness, mind, sentience, or self awareness. It may in this sense be seen as a kind of conduit to God I guess. For the purposes of this thread, however, it raises questions of whether such characteristics can be attributed to an embryo, a fetus, or even an infant.
quote:
Originally posted by Black Viking:

Catholics have thousands of years of murder, butchery, and countless other immoral acts to make up for before I'll even entertain hearing the judgements they're so quick to place on others. For example, before they begin worrying about the sexual and reproductive morality of you and me, perhaps they should figure out a way to convince those priests to keep thier hands off the alter boys!


Ummm, relevancy?
quote:
Originally posted by kresge:
quote:
Originally posted by MBM:
quote:
Originally posted by kresge:

The essence, spirit, soul, etc. is fully and completely human, what ever the accidents (read body) is in form.


off

So the soul enters the body, or is created, at conception in your opinion?

BTW - couldn't it also be argued that the soul is decidedly NOT human? That it is 'of God' or exclusively part of the 'spirit world'? Isn't the soul a conduit to God? If so - then what does it have to do with a "human being" in the sense that we're discussing? The soul/spirit defines us as humans?

I am not sure what my opinion is on the first question these days. I was simply trying to offer a context in which the Pope's statement was made.

As to the latter comment, within the Christian tradition, only human beings have souls so the only souls are human. They are created by God, they are not parts of God. There is often a distinction made between soul and spirit. Spirit sometimes means simply the animating force. Thus, animals have spirits, but not souls.

There are also lines of thought within the Christian tradition that reject the notion of soul all together. They would say that it is a Greek/Platonic accretion into church doctrine and teaching. This has been dealt with on another thread dealing with the issue and nature of resurrection and the difference between this teaching and the teaching about the soul somehow being immortal.

Finally, Soul is often associatd with human consciousness, mind, sentience, or self awareness. It may in this sense be seen as a kind of conduit to God I guess. For the purposes of this thread, however, it raises questions of whether such characteristics can be attributed to an embryo, a fetus, or even an infant.


What is funny is that this "Christian" thought is borrowed from Platonism. The idea that the soul is eternal and not a part of God is Platonic and not supported in the Bible (especially the Old Testament).

According to Ezekiel "The soul that sins, dies"; in Genesis, it claims that the "soul" is actually the Breath of God which retuns to breath after death.

This doesn't support the Christian notion of an Eternal Soul that becomes human at conception (that's almost like saying that life begins when you think about having sex). A zygote is no more a complete human than a skin cell on your finger.
quote:
Originally posted by Pace Tua:

I think it is far more truthful to include the full statements, not just a few words, MBM. By quoting just these words, meaning has been lost.


Although I posted Time Magaize's rendition of his remarks, I'm curious how you think what I posted is less than truthful. The pope described an embryo as a "full and complete human being" albeit "shapeless". Is this somehow inconsistent with the full quote? What is lost in your opinion?
quote:
Originally posted by Pace Tua:

Any decision about what constitutes a "full and complete" human being is arbitrary. A newborn at birth is "incomplete" and unable to sustain its life independently.


So - you disagree with the pope?

quote:
Who is or isn't a "person" is a legal concept, as you have implied. Trying to relate this term to stages of human development is untenable.


I was merely trying to seek perspective on something that a "world leader" said. The fact that his words create something of a moral/legal/religous conundrum is precisely why I asked. bsm
quote:
Originally posted by Pace Tua:
quote:
Originally posted by Black Viking:

Catholics have thousands of years of murder, butchery, and countless other immoral acts to make up for before I'll even entertain hearing the judgements they're so quick to place on others. For example, before they begin worrying about the sexual and reproductive morality of you and me, perhaps they should figure out a way to convince those priests to keep thier hands off the alter boys!


Ummm, relevancy?


The relevancy is in response to the pope's position. As I said, his statement doesn't suprise me, but I don't really care about his moral position because I don't believe he can justifiably claim any sort of moral high road. For the reasons listed above. Smile
Last edited {1}
quote:
What separates a embryo or a fetus from a person is defined by nature and not by human law or religious dogma. It's very simple really, it's the womb. It's not a person until it is a separate entity no longer directly dependant on the mother's bodily systems to support it. While in the womb, it is still a part of the mother's body, and incapable of independant life. It is similar to a hand or a finger. Is it alive? Yes. But if you cut it off it dies quickly, unable to sustain itself or be sustained by someone else.


My opinion on this topic and the related issue of abortion is similar to how Thurgood Marshall looked at capital punishment. If we can not say that we will always be certain that ONLY the guilty are put to death, capital punishment has to great of a legal and moral risk – the death of the innocent. I've read from the "scientific" community various opinions on when a fetus is actual "alive" or a "complete human being". And I found that they are NOT in agreement. With that in mind, it is too much of a risk to oversimplify the issue as some people do with the "scientific approach".

Being a father and having "witnessed" the development of my "unborn child". My belief that it is far to simple to look at life as that which is no longer directly dependant on the mother's bodily systems to support it is even stronger. I watched this little tiny "pea" have a heat beat in just the first few WEEKS. I watched his brain, eyes, form. I watched him move and listen to him hiccup and kick inside my wife.

And just because some can point to the wrongs done by the Catholic Church does not make the popes opinion any less valid. That's like saying if we found out Einstein was a murderer that the Theory of Relativity is not valid.

quote:
Just how are you a "full and complete" human being when you are shapeless


I can only assume that those that feel this way do not believe in an after life? What are we if we have no bodies – before OR after life? Shapless? But are we less human after we die and become spirits? If you believe in this concept that is.

How sad to look at our "existence" in such a "mechanical" way?

After a child comes from the womb it is still dependent its mother and her systems. Before similac there was breast milk – the BEST form of milk for a child so says the medical industry.

quote:
So the soul enters the body, or is created, at conception in your opinion?


So if not during conception or during gestation then when? The moment the doctor slaps it on the behind?

This is what I mean by this is too much of a complex issue to be oversimplified nono
quote:
Originally posted by MBM:

Although I posted Time Magaize's rendition of his remarks, I'm curious how you think what I posted is less than truthful. The pope described an embryo as a "full and complete human being" albeit "shapeless". Is this somehow inconsistent with the full quote? What is lost in your opinion?


Omitting supporting words and modifiers diminishes the value and truth of the statement, strips it of its power, words that in this case connect it to God. Taken out of context, it is course and simplifies the speaker and what he is saying.

"The loving eyes of God look on the human being, considered full and complete at its beginning."

There is much more to this sentence than...

"The new pope recently said that an embryo is a ˜full and complete' human being, despite being ˜shapeless'.

or...

"He said we are "naked and alone"...

is not the same as saying,

"Naked and alone we are born into exile."

JMHO
quote:
Originally posted by MBM:

So - you disagree with the pope?

I was merely trying to seek perspective on something that a "world leader" said. The fact that his words create something of a moral/legal/religous conundrum is precisely why I asked.



No, I said what constitutes a "full and complete" human being is based on discretion, interpretation, and preference.

No, you said,

"If you don't agree, when is a embryo or fetus a "person" - imbued with the rights and privileges of legal protection etc.?"

You asked a general question, a question for which there is no difinitive answer.
Last edited {1}
quote:
Originally posted by MidLifeMan:
And just because some can point to the wrongs done by the Catholic Church does not make the popes opinion any less valid. That's like saying if we found out Einstein was a murderer that the Theory of Relativity is not valid.


I respectfully disagree. The Theory of Relativity is a scientific theory based on substantive, quantifiable evidence, and Einstein was a specialist in his field. The Pope's opinion is just that, and opinion. It's a moral judgement based on his belief, dispite any evidence or lack there of. If the activities of the Catholic church are any indication, he is hardly a specialist on moral judgement. If his moral judgement is to trump anyone else's, surely it must be of greater standing. I don't believe that it is.
quote:
Originally posted by Pace Tua:

quote:
Originally posted by MBM:

Although I posted Time Magaize's rendition of his remarks, I'm curious how you think what I posted is less than truthful. The pope described an embryo as a "full and complete human being" albeit "shapeless". Is this somehow inconsistent with the full quote? What is lost in your opinion?


Omitting supporting words and modifiers diminishes the value and truth of the statement, strips it of its power, words that in this case connect it to God. Taken out of context, it is course and simplifies the speaker and what he is saying.

"The loving eyes of God look on the human being, considered full and complete at its beginning."

There is much more to this sentence than...

"The new pope recently said that an embryo is a ˜full and complete' human being, despite being ˜shapeless'.

or...

"He said we are "naked and alone"...

is not the same as saying,

"Naked and alone we are born into exile."

JMHO


quote:
Originally posted by MBM:
quote:
Originally posted by Pace Tua:

I think it is far more truthful to include the full statements, not just a few words, MBM. By quoting just these words, meaning has been lost.


Although I posted Time Magaize's rendition of his remarks, I'm curious how you think what I posted is less than truthful. The pope described an embryo as a "full and complete human being" albeit "shapeless". Is this somehow inconsistent with the full quote? What is lost in your opinion?


Respectfully, I am asking about meaning, not flowery filler words. Sure those words have meaning themselves, but does omitting them take away substantively from the over-all meaning of what the pope said. Isn't the thrust of what he's saying captured in what was posted?
quote:
Originally posted by Pace Tua:

quote:
Originally posted by MBM:

So - you disagree with the pope?

I was merely trying to seek perspective on something that a "world leader" said. The fact that his words create something of a moral/legal/religous conundrum is precisely why I asked.



No, I said what constitutes a "full and complete" human being is based on discretion, interpretation, and preference.


What does that mean? I originally asked what people felt about the pope's remarks. It is the very "discretion, interpretation, and preference" that I am seeking to probe.

quote:
"If you don't agree, when is a embryo or fetus a "person" - imbued with the rights and privileges of legal protection etc.?"

You asked a general question, a question for which there is no difinitive answer.


Again, that there is no definitive answer is the point of the post: to get a sense as to how people think about this. There are no right or wrong answers. As I do in every thread I start, I am seeking to create conversation - which would be quite boring if there was only one definitive answer. bsm
quote:
Originally posted by MidLifeMan:

And just because some can point to the wrongs done by the Catholic Church does not make the popes opinion any less valid.


Respectfully, personally, I could care less about the Catholic Church as it relates to this issue. My interest in it and the pope are limited to the words that we're discussing.

I am not attacking or even questioning Catholic dogma or personalities here. I just thought that the quote was provocative and wanted to hear what other folks thought about it.

quote:
quote:
Just how are you a "full and complete" human being when you are shapeless


I can only assume that those that feel this way do not believe in an after life? What are we if we have no bodies – before OR after life?


To clarify - we're talking about human beings. Although humans may have life before and after their Earthly experience, that's all we're discussing at the moment. bsm


quote:
quote:
So the soul enters the body, or is created, at conception in your opinion?


So if not during conception or during gestation then when? The moment the doctor slaps it on the behind?


It could be when there is a heart beat. It could be when there are brain waves. It could be at a certain part in the fetus' development. The point of asking the question was to stimulate conversation; to read what YOU think. It seems like you feel the need to defend a position when nothing is being attacked! bsm
quote:
Originally posted by MBM:

Respectfully, I am asking about meaning, not flowery filler words. Sure those words have meaning themselves, but does omitting them take away substantively from the over-all meaning of what the pope said. Isn't the thrust of what he's saying captured in what was posted?



Respectfully, it is flowery filler words that give depth and modify meaning. In my opinion, there is loss.

Think of it in these terms; you're in the market for a new car. You can choose between the stripped down version, or the one with all the flowery filler options. Which one best approaches the ideal?
quote:
Originally posted by Pace Tua:
quote:
Originally posted by MBM:

Respectfully, I am asking about meaning, not flowery filler words. Sure those words have meaning themselves, but does omitting them take away substantively from the over-all meaning of what the pope said. Isn't the thrust of what he's saying captured in what was posted?



Respectfully, it is flowery filler words that give depth and modify meaning. In my opinion, there is loss.

Think of it in these terms; you're in the market for a new car. You can choose between the stripped down version, or the one with all the flowery filler options. Which one best approaches the ideal?


OK, I respect that. What was lost, in your opinion, here?
quote:
Originally posted by Black Viking:

I don't really care about his moral position because I don't believe he can justifiably claim any sort of moral high road.


I'm the most prolific killer on the planet. But I tell everyone, "Murder is wrong!"

Coming from me the words sound empty, meaningless, hypocritical. But are they true?
quote:
Originally posted by Pace Tua:
I'm the most prolific killer on the planet. But I tell everyone, "Murder is wrong!"

Coming from me the words sound empty, meaningless, hypocritical. But are they true?


Yes, those words are true. But if I wasn't certain of that, or if I completely disagreed with it, I certainly wouldn't allow your word to change my view. In fact, since your word would be highly suspect, I may take for granted that the truth is the exact opposite. Hypothetically speaking of course. bsm
quote:
Originally posted by MBM:

To clarify - we're talking about human beings.



No we're not. We're talking about when a embryo or fetus BECOMES a human being, or a "person".

So, give it a rest, already! You know full well that any attempt to "make sense of this issue" is futile. Who is and isn't a human being is legislated, now and in the past.
quote:
Originally posted by Pace Tua:
quote:
Originally posted by MBM:

To clarify - we're talking about human beings.



No we're not. We're talking about when a embryo or fetus BECOMES a human being, or a "person".


Someone earlier in the thread talked about understanding the full context of a quote. That's great advice. bsm

quote:
Originally posted by MBM:

quote:
quote:
Just how are you a "full and complete" human being when you are shapeless


I can only assume that those that feel this way do not believe in an after life? What are we if we have no bodies – before OR after life?


To clarify - we're talking about human beings. Although humans may have life before and after their Earthly experience, that's all we're discussing at the moment. bsm


PT - the point is that we weren't discussing souls or spirits or life before birth or after death. The realm of discussion was human beings. Clear?


quote:
So, give it a rest, already! You know full well that any attempt to "make sense of this issue" is futile. Who is and isn't a human being is legislated, now and in the past.


Futile? If other human beings make these kind of judgments why can't we offer our thoughts about it? sck

Why are you so afraid of this issue? Is it the religous aspect or are you just that uncomfortable with moral/ethical questions?

To reiterate something I've already said, if you're a Catholic and sensitive to what the pope said - I AM NOT ATTACKING EITHER THE POPE OR CATHOLICISM. OK? bsm

Just ignore the thread if it doesn't make sense to you or offends you in some way.
Last edited {1}
quote:
Originally posted by MBM:

To clarify - we're talking about human beings. Although humans may have life before and after their Earthly experience, that's all we're discussing at the moment.


It would be nice if you would clarity the double meaning of these combined sentences. What all are we discussing at the moment; Earthly experience or humans, which is it?


quote:
Futile? If other human beings make these kind of judgments why can't we offer our thoughts about it?


I shouldn't have to comment upon the results of those "judgments" or define their futility.

quote:
Why are you so afraid of this issue? Is it the religous aspect or are you just that uncomfortable with moral/ethical questions?


My fear is not of the issue, but of the reasons they were presented.


quote:
Just ignore the thread if it doesn't make sense to you or offends you in some way.


Pleeeze! Save the condescension for a later time.
quote:
Respectfully, personally, I could care less about the Catholic Church as it relates to this issue. My interest in it and the pope are limited to the words that we're discussing.


My comments were more directed to what OTHERS said about the Catholic church...I didn't put you in that group to be honest.

quote:
To clarify - we're talking about human beings. Although humans may have life before and after their Earthly experience, that's all we're discussing at the moment


So we are limited to YOUR view of what makes a human? The question you asked was about the popes view about the embryo...from your response I don't see how anyone can discuss this...I mean...we are talking about an embryo..which some have deemed shapeless and therefore not alive/human. Or maybe they say the "shapeless mass" that is not alive is human but dead? Confused

Are we limited to the following definition:

Humans are, from a biological perspective, bipedal primates classified as the species Homo sapiens (Latin for "wise man" or "thinking man") under the great apes family, Hominidae. Humans have an erect body carriage that frees their upper limbs for manipulating objects, and a highly developed brain capable of abstract reasoning, language, emotion, and introspection. Bipedal locomotion appears to have evolved before the development of a large brain. The origins of bipedal locomotion and of its role in the evolution of the human brain are topics of ongoing research.

Because a human is futher defined as:

Spiritual perspectives on humans state that they are spiritual beings whose destiny and purpose transcend the biological body. Those who hold this perspective see the biological explanation as either complimentary or secondary to the spiritual or as an illusion. Religious perspectives often emphasise a soul, qi or atman as the essence of being, and are often characterised by the belief in and worship of God, gods or spirits. The world religions include many different and often seemingly contradictory beliefs regarding the origin of humanity and the cosmos. Philosophy, which includes cosmology, attempts to rationally evaluate these perspectives through argumentation and dialogue.

I'm considering both parts and maybe I'm classified as "Those who hold this perspective see the biological explanation as either complimentary or secondary to the spiritual or as an illusion."

quote:
It seems like you feel the need to defend a position when nothing is being attacked!


I wasnt' defending nor did I fell that I was being attacked. I just asked a simple question to your question. Big Grin
Human life begins at conception. bsm
We're not "full and complete" until they put us in the casket (or a few days afterward).

All that's necessary to be considered a human being is to fall under a particular scientific naming category, correct? (Not asking if anyone agrees, just curious as to whether or not those tiny embryos in jars are considered Homo sapiens)
quote:
Originally posted by Frenchy:
Human life begins at conception. bsm
We're not "full and complete" until they put us in the casket (or a few days afterward).

All that's necessary to be considered a human being is to fall under a particular scientific naming category, correct? (Not asking if anyone agrees, just curious as to whether or not those tiny embryos in jars are considered Homo sapiens)


If a fetus is in the womb it cannot breathe without the mom doing so....a full born kid can.......breathe independent of their mom even being on earth..........
So let me get this straight,

A ZYGOTE IS AS MUCH OF A HUMAN BEING AS ME?



A zygote is no more a full human than skin cells. A zygote is "alive", but no more alive than a skin cell, or a hair follicle, or a tissue cell.

If you think a zygote deserves the rights of a born human, then you should also extend those same rights to skin cells. Scratching your arm should be considered muder (you kill several thousand cells every time you scratch yourself).


Come on folks, Romanticism should have it's limits. Let's be rational at SOME point.

I like how Bill Maher said it:

"Saying that life begins at conception is very close to saying that life begins when you think about fucking someone." --Bill Maher
quote:
Originally posted by Empty Purnata:

I like how Bill Maher said it:

"Saying that life begins at conception is very close to saying that life begins when you think about fucking someone." --Bill Maher


thanks I like that! appl
quote:
Originally posted by Empty Purnata:
So let me get this straight,

A ZYGOTE IS AS MUCH OF A HUMAN BEING AS ME?



A zygote is no more a full human than skin cells. A zygote is "alive", but no more alive than a skin cell, or a hair follicle, or a tissue cell.

If you think a zygote deserves the rights of a born human, then you should also extend those same rights to skin cells. Scratching your arm should be considered muder (you kill several thousand cells every time you scratch yourself).


Come on folks, Romanticism should have it's limits. Let's be rational at SOME point.

I like how Bill Maher said it:

"Saying that life begins at conception is very close to saying that life begins when you think about fucking someone." --Bill Maher


Do the big fonts help?! You've misread my post completely. I didn't even address the rights of anything. Confused

So.... no one knows the answer then? If an embryo was lying on the street and a group of scientists picked it up, would it be classified as a Homo Sapien?

Add Reply

Post
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×