Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
And you base that arbitrary standard on what science, exactly?
According to science, no one human being has two hearts.
Who said they did? The question was - and thank you so much for trying to dodge it - on what science do you base your arbitary opinion (as though the existence of life is a mere opinion) that "a fetus is a baby when I can hear two heartbeats"? What was the fetus before? And before you answer, please remember to show your science for THAT opinion, too.
You may not have noticed that I said when "I can hear two heartbeats." That does not include using ultrasound or a stethoscope.
"As early as the sixth week of pregnancy, when the embryo is four weeks old, a vaginal ultrasound may detect a fetal heartbeat and show it as a regular flutter, says the American Pregnancy Association. By the seventh week, detection of a heartbeat is likely. You can hear your unborn baby's heartbeat with a stethoscope by 17 to 20 weeks of pregnancy."
Amazingly enough, "But I'm counting it REALLY EARLY" in no way answers the questions.
One more time for the cojone-impaired, and let's see if you can address it head-on and honestly this time: on what science do you base your opinion that a fetus is a baby when it has a heartbeat? If it wasn't a baby before that, what was it? And whatever your answer to that second question, what is the science for THAT?
I gave you my opinion and if you have to resort to insults you can kiss my ass.
"Conservatives should focus their energies on providing for the already living children - ensuring better education opportunities for the poor to help them realize their potential."
When you do that, ultra right socons, the rest of us will listen.
Do you know what the ultimate irony is? These people focus all their energies on demonizing women who have abortions. Not a peep about the thousands of embryos left over from invitro fertilization that are destroyed. In fact - I can't find a single thread on it.
I have a real problem over rape. I understand this from here to eternity. Cripes this is hard. I think many of us do."Conservatives should focus their energies on providing for the already living children - ensuring better education opportunities for the poor to help them realize their potential."
When you do that, ultra right socons, the rest of us will listen.
Do you know what the ultimate irony is? These people focus all their energies on demonizing women who have abortions. Not a peep about the thousands of embryos left over from invitro fertilization that are destroyed. In fact - I can't find a single thread on it.
Actually, we peep about it quite a bit. We don't write a lot of separate threads specifically about it. We usually just fold it into the whole "killing unborn babies is wrong" scenario.
Pro-lifers can and do oppose IVF practices of destroying embryos. But frankly, it's a drop in the bucket, numerically, to the number of abortions taking place every year, and one only has so much time and energy.
"Conservatives should focus their energies on providing for the already living children - ensuring better education opportunities for the poor to help them realize their potential."
When you do that, ultra right socons, the rest of us will listen.
Do you know what the ultimate irony is? These people focus all their energies on demonizing women who have abortions. Not a peep about the thousands of embryos left over from invitro fertilization that are destroyed. In fact - I can't find a single thread on it.
Actually, we peep about it quite a bit. We don't write a lot of separate threads specifically about it. We usually just fold it into the whole "killing unborn babies is wrong" scenario.
Pro-lifers can and do oppose IVF practices of destroying embryos. But frankly, it's a drop in the bucket, numerically, to the number of abortions taking place every year, and one only has so much time and energy.
"Conservatives should focus their energies on providing for the already living children - ensuring better education opportunities for the poor to help them realize their potential."
When you do that, ultra right socons, the rest of us will listen.
Do you know what the ultimate irony is? These people focus all their energies on demonizing women who have abortions. Not a peep about the thousands of embryos left over from invitro fertilization that are destroyed. In fact - I can't find a single thread on it.
Actually, we peep about it quite a bit. We don't write a lot of separate threads specifically about it. We usually just fold it into the whole "killing unborn babies is wrong" scenario.
Pro-lifers can and do oppose IVF practices of destroying embryos. But frankly, it's a drop in the bucket, numerically, to the number of abortions taking place every year, and one only has so much time and energy.
"Conservatives should focus their energies on providing for the already living children - ensuring better education opportunities for the poor to help them realize their potential."
When you do that, ultra right socons, the rest of us will listen.
Do you know what the ultimate irony is? These people focus all their energies on demonizing women who have abortions. Not a peep about the thousands of embryos left over from invitro fertilization that are destroyed. In fact - I can't find a single thread on it.
Actually, we peep about it quite a bit. We don't write a lot of separate threads specifically about it. We usually just fold it into the whole "killing unborn babies is wrong" scenario.
Pro-lifers can and do oppose IVF practices of destroying embryos. But frankly, it's a drop in the bucket, numerically, to the number of abortions taking place every year, and one only has so much time and energy.
"Conservatives should focus their energies on providing for the already living children - ensuring better education opportunities for the poor to help them realize their potential."
When you do that, ultra right socons, the rest of us will listen.
Do you know what the ultimate irony is? These people focus all their energies on demonizing women who have abortions. Not a peep about the thousands of embryos left over from invitro fertilization that are destroyed. In fact - I can't find a single thread on it.
Actually, we peep about it quite a bit. We don't write a lot of separate threads specifically about it. We usually just fold it into the whole "killing unborn babies is wrong" scenario.
Pro-lifers can and do oppose IVF practices of destroying embryos. But frankly, it's a drop in the bucket, numerically, to the number of abortions taking place every year, and one only has so much time and energy.
Not only that but the destruction of froszen embryo's is much more hidden. It's not like people drive their frozen embryo's to a clinic where they can be seen getting out of their car and going to the clinic on the day of the week KNOWN to be the day that 'frozen embryos' will be destroyed.
According to science, no one human being has two hearts.
Who said they did? The question was - and thank you so much for trying to dodge it - on what science do you base your arbitary opinion (as though the existence of life is a mere opinion) that "a fetus is a baby when I can hear two heartbeats"? What was the fetus before? And before you answer, please remember to show your science for THAT opinion, too.
You may not have noticed that I said when "I can hear two heartbeats." That does not include using ultrasound or a stethoscope.
"As early as the sixth week of pregnancy, when the embryo is four weeks old, a vaginal ultrasound may detect a fetal heartbeat and show it as a regular flutter, says the American Pregnancy Association. By the seventh week, detection of a heartbeat is likely. You can hear your unborn baby's heartbeat with a stethoscope by 17 to 20 weeks of pregnancy."
Amazingly enough, "But I'm counting it REALLY EARLY" in no way answers the questions.
One more time for the cojone-impaired, and let's see if you can address it head-on and honestly this time: on what science do you base your opinion that a fetus is a baby when it has a heartbeat? If it wasn't a baby before that, what was it? And whatever your answer to that second question, what is the science for THAT?
There is no science for that - it is a ethical/religious/philosphical question. Science can only answer the question of what species it is.
Yeah, um, there IS science for all the questions I asked. Medical science deals with these questions all the time.
You saying DNA dosnt matter, when it's your unique DNA that determines you are an individual, from momont of conception, untill you die. Saying other wise is just simply wrongDNA is irrelevant when it's growing in another beings body.
DNA is only irrelevant to idiots who think "I FEEL it should be this way" is meaningful.
Chiken stated a scientific fact. You retorted with a perception with no scientific basis. You "feelz" that life is determined like real estate: location, location, location. You "feelz" that the definition of "organism" should include a clause about dependence. It doesn't.
You're 0 for 2 so far.
DNA is irrelevant. There are species which can reproduce through cloning rather than male/female fertilization. The offspring it carries is genetically identical. Unique DNA does not give that organism any special rights to another's body.
It makes no difference when it comes to rights - otherwise, how would you handle cloning?
You didn't ask me personally, but I'd handle it the same way I'd handle identical twins: a separate organism is a separate organism.
The quilt of murdering your own baby is running deep on this thread.
Ten thousand threads attempting to justify murdering a baby will never help.
No matter how many times you attempt to equate terminating a pregnancy with murdering a child and it's not. Child is a living breathing entity. Ending a pregnancy is preventing the fertilized egg from becoming a child.
One third of all pregnancies end in a spontaneous abortion or miscarriage. God never intended every fertilized egg to end in a live birth.
Conservatives should focus their energies on providing for the already living children - ensuring better education opportunities for the poor to help them realize their potential. As it stands, conservatives care about children only as long as they are in t
That is the choice of the the mother, not the state.
illogical argument. Either the unborn human being is a human being or it isn't. Tell us the exact moment when a fetus becomes a human being entitled to constitutional rights. Does it magically occur at 6 months, 9 months, the instant of birth, severing the umbilical cord?
Birth.
So, five seconds before birth the child has no rights but 5 seconds later it does? Do you really believe that?
In Bibilical times, children under one year of age, weren't counted in the census.
Babies aren't aborted 5 seconds before birth. The vast majority of abortions occur in the first trimester of pregnancy. Abortions which occur later in the pregnancy are usually because of fetal abnormalities or health risks to the mother.
Yeah, um, you know we're supposed to refer to historic tradition for philosophical views, not for scientific ones, right? I'm thinking the Bible is not the cutting edge in biological info.
You saying DNA dosnt matter, when it's your unique DNA that determines you are an individual, from momont of conception, untill you die. Saying other wise is just simply wrongDNA is only irrelevant to idiots who think "I FEEL it should be this way" is meaningful.
Chiken stated a scientific fact. You retorted with a perception with no scientific basis. You "feelz" that life is determined like real estate: location, location, location. You "feelz" that the definition of "organism" should include a clause about dependence. It doesn't.
You're 0 for 2 so far.
DNA is irrelevant. There are species which can reproduce through cloning rather than male/female fertilization. The offspring it carries is genetically identical. Unique DNA does not give that organism any special rights to another's body.
It makes no difference when it comes to rights - otherwise, how would you handle cloning?
You didn't ask me personally, but I'd handle it the same way I'd handle identical twins: a separate organism is a separate organism.
Again though, it blows the whole DNA thing out of the water. If a unique DNA is the requesite for being a seperate organism, then a clone can not be.
You are not a seperate organism until you are born. It's pretty obvious. If you were, you would not die upon being removed from your host.
Show me the science, or stuff your baseless assertions where the sun don't shine.
I get almighty tired of uneducated dinks stating bullshit at me as fact.
I'm not to impressed with you either, but I'm an optimist.
You may get a happy from "cleverly" referring to women as "hosts", implying that babies are parasites, but the fact is that all you're really saying is that a fetus's natural environment is a womb. Just to clarify another thing you probably missed in biology class, ALL organisms die if you remove them from their natural environment.
A fetus takes it's entire life from the mother - oxygen, nutrition, removal of toxins etc. It does not function as an independent being until it's born. It has NO rights to the mother's body.
All organisms do not die when you remove them from their natural environment - that is false. For example, every domestic animal species was once a wild species, removed from it's natural environment and domesticated.
Let me spell this out for you: when I say "show me the science", I don't mean "tell me the half-assed assumptions you made that you think are logic". I mean SCIENCE. That is going to require you to find a source that is NOT YOU, because nothing you have to say is scientific in the slightest.
My you make demands, considering you're sole source thus far has been...well...you.
Ooh, look, more "This is how I perceive it, so it must be OBVIOUS, and LOGICAL, and that makes it SCIENCE!"
Let me show you how this is done, since education in anything but throwing tantrums clearly passed you by.
You seem to be the only one throwing tantrums around here.
Organism - An individual living thing that can react to stimuli, reproduce, grow, and maintain homeostasis. Organism - Biology-Online Dictionary
See anything in there about dependence? Me neither.
"Embryo: the developing organism from the time of fertilization until significant differentiation has occurred, when the organism becomes known as a fetus."
[Cloning Human Beings. Report and Recommendations of the National Bioethics Advisory Commission. Rockville, MD: GPO, 1997, Appendix-2.]
It says nothing one way or the other about "dependency". It also says nothing a out DNA. I have to laugh at your pretention to "science" since all you are doing is spouting quotes without context, which most likely means you cut and pasted them from a pro-life source, correct? Some of them are 40 years old even. Is this where you found them? (they're all there....) 41 Quotes From Medical Textbooks Prove Human Life Begins at Conception
Let's look at what constitutes an organism:
Homeostasis:
Homeostasis, any self-regulating process by which biological systems tend to maintain stability while adjusting to conditions that are optimal for survival. If homeostasis is successful, life continues; if unsuccessful, disaster or death ensues. The stability attained is actually a dynamic equilibrium, in which continuous change occurs yet relatively uniform conditions prevail.
...The control of body temperature in humans is a good example of homeostasis in a biological system. In humans, normal body temperature fluctuates around the value of 37 °C (98.6 °F), but various factors can affect this value, including exposure, hormones, metabolic rate, and disease, leading to excessively high or low temperatures. The body’s temperature regulation is controlled by a region in the brain called the hypothalamus. Feedback about body temperature is carried through the bloodstream to the brain and results in compensatory adjustments in the breathing rate, the level of blood sugar, and the metabolic rate. Heat loss in humans is aided by reduction of activity, by perspiration, and by heat-exchange mechanisms that permit larger amounts of blood to circulate near the skin surface.
Can a blastocyst maintain essential homeostasis necessary for survival? An embryo? A fetus? It can not regulate it's own body temperature the mother's body does that for it. It's referred to as a "developing organism" isn't it?
Hmmm. Looks like a scientific report that disagrees with you.
"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]
Still batting 0 with the embryologists, it seems.
...again..."the development of"... if it doesn't implant, it can not maintain life. Is a zygote an independent organism?
So let's move on to natural environment, because you seem to think it's a difference between "outdoors" and "indoors".
All organisms are designed to live in a certain type of environment. Fish, for example, are designed to live underwater, and will die if you remove them from it. Likewise for marine mammals. Furthermore, those animals designed by nature to live in water can only do so in certain types: some can only live in freshwater, some only in salt. Some can only live in water at lighter pressures (near the surface, in other words), some are designed to live with greater pressure. If you remove any of them from the environment they're designed for, they will die.
Human beings are land animals, designed to live surrounded by air and subject to normal land gravity. If you remove a human from an environment surrounded by air, he will die. Likewise, if you remove humans from normal land gravity for any great length of time without compensating technology, it is also detrimental to their health and potentially life-threatening.
Also, land animals are designed for different types of environment on land. While penguins, for example, can survive quite happily in Antarctic conditions, very few other animals can without technological compensations. Meanwhile, penguins cannot live outside of that environment without human intervention.
Meanwhile, some animals are designed to live in one type of environment at one stage of their life cycle, and another at a different stage. Most tadpoles, for example, are aquatic. During that stage of their lives, they cannot live outside of water. When they leave that life stage and metamorphose into frogs or toads, their natural environment changes.
There are many species of organism for whom their natural environment is the body of another organism. If you remove them from that environment, they will die.
I'm in total agreement with the above, though "natural environment" is much broader than you put forth.
In the case of the fetuses of animals which birth live young, as humans do, their natural environment is the body of their progenitor until they outgrow that stage in their life cycle, at which time their natural environment changes.
So..you are essentially saying it is a parasite.
...an organism that lives in or on another organism (its host) and benefits by deriving nutrients at the host's expense.
This shouldn't be difficult for a leftist to grasp: it's an integral part of the environmentalist/animal rights platform. It's the reason why the EPA has regulations allowing it to seize control of specific pieces of land with endangered species on them: because those species can't live outside of THAT environment.
Fair point
Nice, unreadable blur you got going there.
Not sure I was the one all that focused on DNA as an indicator of being a separate organism, although it is a fact that babies have distinctive DNA from either of their parents. But no, because the general definition of organism is intended to apply across a very broad spectrum of scenarios (like indentical twins, for example), it's not included there.
I actually gave you the links for the sources I quoted, so your attempt to write them off as "some pro-life site" is lame. The fact that other people, including "pro-life websites", are capable of doing the same Google search I am means nothing whatsoever about the findings.
sure...the same "links" (ie references to sources, not actual links) that the website used...even the exact same partial quotes (and nothing more) and exact same method of attribution...how odd.How old scientific knowledge is is irrelevant to whether or not it's true. Isaac Newton's work was what, 400ish years ago? If I remember correctly, I was referred to the textbook citations by the Princeton University website. Feel free to take it up with them.
If a zygote does not implant, it dies, so no, it's not alive at that point. I fail to see what your point is. All things die. Doesn't mean they were never alive at all.
Yes, fetuses maintain homeostasis as much as adult human beings do. I can't maintain my own body temperature without assistance from my environment, either, which is why I live in a house with a heater and air conditioner, and why I wear clothing. Nevertheless, barring extremes of some sort, the fetus does regulate its own body functions, just as I do. A fetus is, admittedly, a less sturdy organism than I am, but so is my 7-year-old son. So is my 2-month-old granddaughter, etc.
Yes, natural environment is a very broad and complex discussion, and this is a message board post, not me trying to teach a class on something leftist baboons should already know. I'm not getting paid for tutoring, here.
Fetuses are more symbiotes than parasites, since they aren't harmful to the mother unless something goes very wrong with the pregnancy. Whichever way you want to describe them, it doesn't negate the fact that they're alive, and that they're separate organisms.
"Conservatives should focus their energies on providing for the already living children - ensuring better education opportunities for the poor to help them realize their potential."
When you do that, ultra right socons, the rest of us will listen.
Do you know what the ultimate irony is? These people focus all their energies on demonizing women who have abortions. Not a peep about the thousands of embryos left over from invitro fertilization that are destroyed. In fact - I can't find a single thread on it.
Actually, we peep about it quite a bit. We don't write a lot of separate threads specifically about it. We usually just fold it into the whole "killing unborn babies is wrong" scenario.
Pro-lifers can and do oppose IVF practices of destroying embryos. But frankly, it's a drop in the bucket, numerically, to the number of abortions taking place every year, and one only has so much time and energy.
Not only that but the destruction of froszen embryo's is much more hidden. It's not like people drive their frozen embryo's to a clinic where they can be seen getting out of their car and going to the clinic on the day of the week KNOWN to be the day that 'frozen embryos' will be destroyed.
"Conservatives should focus their energies on providing for the already living children - ensuring better education opportunities for the poor to help them realize their potential."
When you do that, ultra right socons, the rest of us will listen.
Do you know what the ultimate irony is? These people focus all their energies on demonizing women who have abortions. Not a peep about the thousands of embryos left over from invitro fertilization that are destroyed. In fact - I can't find a single thread on it.
Actually, we peep about it quite a bit. We don't write a lot of separate threads specifically about it. We usually just fold it into the whole "killing unborn babies is wrong" scenario.
Pro-lifers can and do oppose IVF practices of destroying embryos. But frankly, it's a drop in the bucket, numerically, to the number of abortions taking place every year, and one only has so much time and energy.
Not only that but the destruction of froszen embryo's is much more hidden. It's not like people drive their frozen embryo's to a clinic where they can be seen getting out of their car and going to the clinic on the day of the week KNOWN to be the day that 'frozen embryos' will be destroyed.
Where are the mass protests outside invitro clinics?
Do you know why the pro-abortion side of the debate went to the fuzzy-wuzzy, pseudo-philosophical "personhood" argument?
The pro-abortion side has not gone to the 'fuzzy-wuzzy, pseudo-philosophical "personhood" argument'. They are PISSED at Hillary for daring to say what she did. Opening the door to the consideration that a living being capable of surviving outside the womb is a 'PERSON' and thus worthy of rights - such as the right to LIFE, threatens everything Pro-Abortionists stand and have fought so hard for.
Oh? They don't try to frame every debate as being about "personhood"? Isn't that the heart of the "pissed off" you say they're feeling at Hillary, because she might have messed up their vague "based on feelz" argument?
I can't even remember the last time I had a debate with a pro-abort that didn't degenerate into "Well, I just can't see a blob of cells as a person. In my opinion, it may be alive, but it's only really a PERSON when [fill in the blank]", because they got their asses handed to them on the science.
Personhood and rights have nothing to do with science.
Well, not the way liberals apply them. But then, very little has to do with science with liberals.
In other words, you don't believe the choice is totally up to the woman?
I'd say no more than we think the "choice" to kill any other human being resides solely with the killer-to-be.
Who has the right to force a woman to house a fetus in her body against her will?
who has the right to force a woman to feed, clothe, bathe, and nurture a child for 18 years? Why not just let the mother kill the kid whenever it becomes too inconvenient to keep it?
Because birth defines the moment at which it has rights as an independent organism according to our laws.
I have asked you abortionists for a definition of birth and not one of you can provide one.
I have also asked why a person who murders a pregnant woman is charged with two counts of murder, you cant answer that one either.
so, lets try this one: at what point between conception and leaving the mothers body does one become a person?
Read the court's ruling above. Your silly question has no merit.Birth.
So, five seconds before birth the child has no rights but 5 seconds later it does? Do you really believe that?
I was responding to one of your "kill the kids" comrades who said the rights were conveyed at the moment of birth.
I didn't see a definition of "birth" in that ruling.
Did you miss the post natal part? That is a defined term.
then you oppose partial birth abortion, which Hillary Clinton approves of? yes or no.
The pro-abortion side has not gone to the 'fuzzy-wuzzy, pseudo-philosophical "personhood" argument'. They are PISSED at Hillary for daring to say what she did. Opening the door to the consideration that a living being capable of surviving outside the womb is a 'PERSON' and thus worthy of rights - such as the right to LIFE, threatens everything Pro-Abortionists stand and have fought so hard for.
Oh? They don't try to frame every debate as being about "personhood"? Isn't that the heart of the "pissed off" you say they're feeling at Hillary, because she might have messed up their vague "based on feelz" argument?
I can't even remember the last time I had a debate with a pro-abort that didn't degenerate into "Well, I just can't see a blob of cells as a person. In my opinion, it may be alive, but it's only really a PERSON when [fill in the blank]", because they got their asses handed to them on the science.
Personhood and rights have nothing to do with science.
I love it when people (especially my opponents) use absolutes like that. And also especially when it is an absolute in the negative.
Simple Definition of science
Full Definition of political science
- : knowledge about or study of the natural world based on facts learned through experiments and observation
- : a particular area of scientific study (such as biology, physics, or chemistry) : a particular branch of science
- : a subject that is formally studied in a college, university, etc.
The legal definition for a "natural person" is simply "a human being."
- : a social science concerned chiefly with the description and analysis of political and especially governmental institutions and processes.
Human beings (like all other beings) have been scientifically studied for as long as man has had the ability to do so.
Full Definition of anthropology
- 1 : the science of human beings; especially : the study of human beings and their ancestors through time and space and in relation to physical character, environmental and social relations, and culture
- 2 : theology dealing with the origin, nature, and destiny of human beings
I love it when people use simple definitions in an attempt to stretch the meaning of "science".
Westchester Institute White Paper
When Does Human Life Begin?
A Scientific Perspective
"Resolving the question of when human life begins is critical for advancing a rea- soned public policy debate over abortion and human embryo research.
This article considers the current scientific evidence in human embryology and addresses two central questions concerning the beginning of life: 1) in the course of sperm-egg interaction, when is a new cell formed that is distinct from either sperm or egg? and 2) is this new cell a new human organism—i.e., a new human being? Based on universally accepted scientific criteria, a new cell, the human zygote, comes into existence at the moment of sperm-egg fusion, an event that occurs in less than a second. Upon formation, the zygote immediately initiates a complex sequence of events that establish the molecular conditions required for continued embryonic development. The behavior of the zygote is radically unlike that of either sperm or egg separately and is characteristic of a human organism. Thus, the scientific evidence supports the conclusion that a zygote is a human organism and that the life of a new human being commences at a scientifically well defined “moment of conception.” This conclusion is objective, consistent with the factual evidence, and independent of any specific ethical, moral, political, or religious view of human life or of human embryos."
"Most human beings are produced from the union of two preexisting cells: sperm and egg. Sperm and egg cells were, in turn, generated from living cells that preceded them in the testes and ovaries, and so forth, back indefinitely to the beginning of all life. In light of the continuous nature of living cells, defining the beginning of a new organism as the onset of zygotic transcription or the breakdown of nuclear membranes is intellectually and scientifically unsatisfying.
These are arbitrary points along a continuum of life—points that are likely to vary considerably across closely related species and across individuals of the same species. Such definitions are logically akin to linking the beginning of “personhood” to the eruption of teeth in an infant or to the onset of menses in an adolescent—they are arbitrary, variable, and not indicative of any fundamental change in the entity underconsideration." - The Westchester Institute for Ethics & the Human Person
Oh? They don't try to frame every debate as being about "personhood"? Isn't that the heart of the "pissed off" you say they're feeling at Hillary, because she might have messed up their vague "based on feelz" argument?
I can't even remember the last time I had a debate with a pro-abort that didn't degenerate into "Well, I just can't see a blob of cells as a person. In my opinion, it may be alive, but it's only really a PERSON when [fill in the blank]", because they got their asses handed to them on the science.
Personhood and rights have nothing to do with science.
I love it when people (especially my opponents) use absolutes like that. And also especially when it is an absolute in the negative.
Simple Definition of science
Full Definition of political science
- : knowledge about or study of the natural world based on facts learned through experiments and observation
- : a particular area of scientific study (such as biology, physics, or chemistry) : a particular branch of science
- : a subject that is formally studied in a college, university, etc.
The legal definition for a "natural person" is simply "a human being."
- : a social science concerned chiefly with the description and analysis of political and especially governmental institutions and processes.
Human beings (like all other beings) have been scientifically studied for as long as man has had the ability to do so.
Full Definition of anthropology
- 1 : the science of human beings; especially : the study of human beings and their ancestors through time and space and in relation to physical character, environmental and social relations, and culture
- 2 : theology dealing with the origin, nature, and destiny of human beings
I love it when people use simple definitions in an attempt to stretch the meaning of "science".
Westchester Institute White Paper
When Does Human Life Begin?
A Scientific Perspective
"Resolving the question of when human life begins is critical for advancing a rea- soned public policy debate over abortion and human embryo research.
This article considers the current scientific evidence in human embryology and addresses two central questions concerning the beginning of life: 1) in the course of sperm-egg interaction, when is a new cell formed that is distinct from either sperm or egg? and 2) is this new cell a new human organism—i.e., a new human being? Based on universally accepted scientific criteria, a new cell, the human zygote, comes into existence at the moment of sperm-egg fusion, an event that occurs in less than a second. Upon formation, the zygote immediately initiates a complex sequence of events that establish the molecular conditions required for continued embryonic development. The behavior of the zygote is radically unlike that of either sperm or egg separately and is characteristic of a human organism. Thus, the scientific evidence supports the conclusion that a zygote is a human organism and that the life of a new human being commences at a scientifically well defined “moment of conception.” This conclusion is objective, consistent with the factual evidence, and independent of any specific ethical, moral, political, or religious view of human life or of human embryos."
"Most human beings are produced from the union of two preexisting cells: sperm and egg. Sperm and egg cells were, in turn, generated from living cells that preceded them in the testes and ovaries, and so forth, back indefinitely to the beginning of all life. In light of the continuous nature of living cells, defining the beginning of a new organism as the onset of zygotic transcription or the breakdown of nuclear membranes is intellectually and scientifically unsatisfying.
These are arbitrary points along a continuum of life—points that are likely to vary considerably across closely related species and across individuals of the same species. Such definitions are logically akin to linking the beginning of “personhood” to the eruption of teeth in an infant or to the onset of menses in an adolescent—they are arbitrary, variable, and not indicative of any fundamental change in the entity underconsideration." - The Westchester Institute for Ethics & the Human Person
That is a nice bit of writing but it is completely lacking an important point - how does science explain personhood? How can the scientific method be applied to determine what "personhood" is, when it begins, who it applies to?
A human being is a species. That can be proved through science. Explain how personhood can be.
