Political Crossfire Forums

[Addison]

Sentience is a biological term.

Most of my knowledge on human embryology comes from Embriologia Humana the 3rd Edition. The point of this thread was about abortion, if you wish to stray from the topic, PM me about it.

I use the term "potential" only as an analogy. The idea is simply that there is no sentience, or rational thought in the embryo, and therefore how can you call it human, especially if you would be very hard-pressed indeed to pick a human embryo out of a line-up ofchickens, turtles, fish, and pigs, as the first few stages of embryo development in these organisms are nearly identical.

The first 8 to 14 weeks of an infants development is called the embryo stage. The stage is comprised of the 23 Carnegie stages. Only at stage 17-19 does the embryo show any evidence of being human origin. At this point the embryo has developed enough to be considered human. Before this it is simply a jumble of dividing cells, with no ontogenical evidence of its origin that can be seen and understood by the normal person. Humanity is also an adjective, remember, and it describes the ability of descent behaviour and rational thinking. Since humanity is gained and lost, according to actions, it can be assumed that there is some metaphysical stage in the embryonic development that humanity is gained, which can be attributed to the achieving of morality and rational thought.
I resort to metaphysical ponderings only since you blatantly ignore the facts of comparative and human embryology which have repeatedly proven my points.
Anything else I will respond to tomorrow. It is late and I am tired.

[Gilbert1908]

Addison wrote: Sentience is a biological term.

Most of my knowledge on human embryology comes from Embriologia Humana the 3rd Edition. The point of this thread was about abortion, if you wish to stray from the topic, PM me about it.

I use the term "potential" only as an analogy. The idea is simply that there is no sentience, or rational thought in the embryo, and therefore how can you call it human, especially if you would be very hard-pressed indeed to pick a human embryo out of a line-up ofchickens, turtles, fish, and pigs, as the first few stages of embryo development in these organisms are nearly identical.

The first 8 to 14 weeks of an infants development is called the embryo stage. The stage is comprised of the 23 Carnegie stages. Only at stage 17-19 does the embryo show any evidence of being human origin. At this point the embryo has developed enough to be considered human. Before this it is simply a jumble of dividing cells, with no ontogenical evidence of its origin that can be seen and understood by the normal person. Humanity is also an adjective, remember, and it describes the ability of descent behaviour and rational thinking. Since humanity is gained and lost, according to actions, it can be assumed that there is some metaphysical stage in the embryonic development that humanity is gained, which can be attributed to the achieving of morality and rational thought.
I resort to metaphysical ponderings only since you blatantly ignore the facts of comparative and human embryology which have repeatedly proven my points.
Anything else I will respond to tomorrow. It is late and I am tired.

Don't bother.

As a biology student, Phd, Methodist Catholic Priest theologian I think I have heard all I need to from you.

[Addison]

Quote: Don't bother.

As a biology student, Phd, Methodist Catholic Priest theologian I think I have heard all I need to from you.

What a well supported argument from such a vehement and intelligent contributor to the sciences! I have answered your questions without fail, I have repeatedly bended to your pointless and off-topic whims, as well as explained again and again things that are scientifically proven.

If you are going to post in a topic, sir, please make it more relevant to it than simply flaming some one who has different, though scientifically proven, views from your own. If you best argument against me is calling me a Methodist Priest, than that is your own business. But for the others who wish to learn about an unbiased biological viewpoint upon the nature of human embryology and abortion, let them learn and don't clog the pipes with personal attacks against me.

Thank you.
And I would be obliged if any other personal attacks against me could be directed through the Personal Messaging system, so at least the other people who read this topic for its true meaning won't be distracted by your incessant hate for me.
Thanks again, buddy.

[Gilbert1908]

Addison wrote: I have repeatedly answered that it is simply potentially alive.

And, yes, I removed two of the laws of classifying organisms as organic or inorganic (living or nonliving) as they had no point in this conversation, and I don't enjoy wasting space or bringing petty arguments up about the number of things.

A zygote is not human, because human is characterized as sentient, and the zygote is not sentient. It will be human, most likely, but at this point it is not.

All of the textbooks which I posted that teach the science of human embryology state the opposite of your claim here. They state categorically that a zygote is both a new human individual and alive.

These are not my claims they are not my words, they are referenced excerpts. Do you have ANY medical or biological source material which states that a human embryo is NOT human and NOT alive?

For the convenience of those who wish not to go back to page one here they are

"Zygote: This cell results from the union of an oocyte and a sperm. A zygote is the beginning of a new human being (i.e., an embryo). The expression fertilized ovum refers to a secondary oocyte that is impregnated by a sperm; when fertilization is complete, the oocyte becomes a zygote." Pernaud & Moore Pg.2 (common textbook in Embryology courses)

"... [W]e begin our description of the developing human with the formation and differentiation of the male and female sex cells or gametes, which will unite at fertilization to initiate the embryonic development of a new individual." Larsen Pg 1 (Human Embryology Textbook)

"Fertilization is an important landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new, genetically distinct human organism is thereby formed” O'Rahilly, R. and F. Muller. 1996. Human Embryology & Teratology, Wiley-Liss, New York.

"It is the penetration of the ovum by a spermatozoa and the resulting mingling of the chromosomal material each brings to the union that culminates the process of fertilization and initiates the life of a new individual. Every one of the higher animals starts life as a single cell the fertilized ovum. The union of two such sex cells to form a zygote constitutes the process of fertilization and initiates the life of a new individual." Bradley M. Patten, M.D. Foundations of Embryology (3rd Edition, 1968), New York City: McGraw-Hill.

"The term conception refers to the union of the male and female pronuclear elements of procreation from which a new living being develops. It is synonymous with the terms fecundation, impregnation, and fertilization ... The zygote thus formed represents the beginning of a new life". J.P. Greenhill and E.A. Freidman. Biological Principles and Modern Practice of Obstetrics. Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Publishers. Pages 17 and 23.

"The formation, maturation and meeting of a male and female sex cell are all preliminary to their actual union into a combined cell, or zygote, which definitely marks the beginning of a new individual." Leslie Arey. Developmental Anatomy (7th Edition, 1974). Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Publishers.

"Zygote. This cell results from fertilization of an oocyte by a sperm and is the beginning of a human being ... Development begins at fertilization, when a sperm unites with an oocyte to form a zygote. Each of us started life as a cell called a zygote." K.L. Moore. The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology (2nd Ed., 1977). Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Publishers. Pages 1 and 12.

[Addison]

Hypothetically, if all of these are unedited and untampered evidence, then I will stray back to the main topic of these boards--abortion.

What, then is your view on abortion as legal or illegal, Gilbert.

You have monopolized a single point and phrasing of my argument for your own gains without looking at the big picture as a whole. Address the fact that abortion will always be around, and we will never be able to get rid of it, as many people will take it into their own hands; handguns, coat hangers, etc. So, if you see there is always human life in a zygote, then you think abortion is horrid, and should be illegal in all forms? That is irrational. There must be a compromise. I simply define "human" as capable of rational thought and feelings, which a zygote is NOT. If there will be abortion, let it be at the point where the zygote is not capable of feeling the pain of being aborted. This is a compromise, and it is far different from the pointless monopolizing of petty premises and details that have no point. I am against abortion at certain times, but you can never quench something entirely, and so, I offered a compromise which you have taken apart with inexpert tools to examine the minutest detail of each analogy and word-phrasing while ignoring the bigger picture of my point.
What do you think about abortion, then?
If you fail to answer this question in your next post, I really will pay no attention to it, as no credible person would avoid such a direct question who had firm bearings on his own beliefs.

[Gilbert1908]

Addison wrote: Hypothetically, if all of these are unedited and untampered evidence, then I will stray back to the main topic of these boards--abortion.

What, then is your view on abortion as legal or illegal, Gilbert.

You have monopolized a single point and phrasing of my argument for your own gains without looking at the big picture as a whole.

If you view factual refutation of the central assertion of your "unbiased" biological evidence of the thread you started which concluded that an embryo was neither human nor alive, as MY monopolizing a phrase then I plead guilty.

It is precisely that abortion is legal and a personal decision that I make the arguement.

If a woman needs to make such a difficult and life altering decision and she believes falsely that what she is terminating is neither human nor alive it is a very different decision that if she knows factually that she carries a human life with a heart beat she can hear during a sonogram ( heartbeat starts around 22 days after conception and is audible as early as 8 weeks after conception).

Now as to abortion. I am not the idealogue you assume me to be. I simply have a low threshold for false claims.

While I would like to see Roe V Wade reversed, which would NOT make abortion illegal but permit the states to regulate abortion, I do not believe that criminalizing abortion makes either legal or practical sense.

I believe a real and substantive discussion of the science leads to better informed decisions. And like most Americans (65% in the last CBS poll and there are many others I have posted here numerous times) I believe abortion at the very least should be more greatly restricted than it is today but not made a civil right nor social anathema.



Addison wrote: Address the fact that abortion will always be around, and we will never be able to get rid of it, as many people will take it into their own hands; handguns, coat hangers, etc. So, if you see there is always human life in a zygote, then you think abortion is horrid, and should be illegal in all forms? That is irrational. There must be a compromise. I simply define "human" as capable of rational thought and feelings, which a zygote is NOT. If there will be abortion, let it be at the point where the zygote is not capable of feeling the pain of being aborted. This is a compromise, and it is far different from the pointless monopolizing of petty premises and details that have no point. I am against abortion at certain times, but you can never quench something entirely, and so, I offered a compromise which you have taken apart with inexpert tools to examine the minutest detail of each analogy and word-phrasing while ignoring the bigger picture of my point.
What do you think about abortion, then?
If you fail to answer this question in your next post, I really will pay no attention to it, as no credible person would avoid such a direct question who had firm bearings on his own beliefs.

How was that?

[Ek0nomik]

Addison wrote: The compromise I make is that abortion be illegal after a certain date in the pregnancy, and legal before it.

I agree. I think the only thing that can, and should be done is a compromise on the subject. I think we can all agree that abortion shouldn't take place very late in the pregnancy unless it is to save the womans life. What time frame do you suggest Addison? Keep in mind the statistics I was able to find earlier:

Ek0nomik wrote:
As far as the time frame for abortion goes, 50% of all abortions occur within the first eight weeks (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 1999). 88% of all abortions occur within the first 12 weeks (National Abortion Federation 2000).

Gilbert1908, while I do agree with some of what you're saying on the topic, your post regarding your textbooks doesn't seem to necessarily make your argument clean cut. It's just a play on words. You can view it as the potential of life, or life really does begin at that moment. Just taking out a sentence or two doesn't necessarily show us what is being said.

[Gilbert1908]

Ek0nomik wrote: Addison wrote: The compromise I make is that abortion be illegal after a certain date in the pregnancy, and legal before it.

I agree. I think the only thing that can, and should be done is a compromise on the subject. I think we can all agree that abortion shouldn't take place very late in the pregnancy unless it is to save the womans life. What time frame do you suggest Addison? Keep in mind the statistics I was able to find earlier:

Ek0nomik wrote:
As far as the time frame for abortion goes, 50% of all abortions occur within the first eight weeks (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 1999). 88% of all abortions occur within the first 12 weeks (National Abortion Federation 2000).

Gilbert1908, while I do agree with some of what you're saying on the topic, your post regarding your textbooks doesn't seem to necessarily make your argument clean cut. It's just a play on words. You can view it as the potential of life, or life really does begin at that moment. Just taking out a sentence or two doesn't necessarily show us what is being said.

Of course YOU can view it as anything you like. The assertion here was an unbiased conclusion that an embryo is not human and not alive. This assertion is false, but by being false it does not need to change anyone's opinion about abortion, because if you then add the arbitrary and nonmedical term of "personhood" or "humaness" to the discussion you move from unbiased science to personal philosophy.

I am addressing only the unbiased science. If one asserts that a human life prior to achieving sentience has no value and therefore can be aborted that is an intellectually honest position. But to claim a human embryo is NOT human or alive is simply NOT intellectually honest nor is it medically or scientifically supportable, which was the claim of this thread.

[dras4liberty]

so if i understand this right, its not alive, as in not living. that means it must be dead, right? or is it a ringwraith? if it is in fact a ringwraith then i can't argue. but as far as i can tell, those don't exist. so if its not alive its dead, and if its dead, then why is it growing? are there other things i don't know about, that aren't alive, but are actively growing and developing?

what about potential.....if it is not a human, then what is it? is it a cat? is it a just like a womb stone or something? as far as i can tell, it has the genes of both it's parents, so unless at least one parent was a cat or a stone, doesn't that make it a human?

maybe thats no good. how about sentience? if a human is a sentient being, as in produces rational thought, does that mean that terry schaivo was not human when they removed her tubes, or just that she wasn't alive? if that means that she wasn't alive, then why hadn't they buried or cremated or frozen her yet, and what happened to her after they took the tubes out? but if it means she wasn't a human, then what exactly was she.....or it? maybe thats completely different from a zygote as far as sentience, and if it is, then how?

are you saying that sentience determines whether or not it is living? if it does, then i guess that would mean that nothing in the plant kingdom is alive.

[Selfish_Meme]

http://www.politicalcrossfire.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=47068

The exerpt in this post has a very good definition of human beings and life and the devlopment process. A zygote, embryo or fetus is human, from a species standpoint, and it is alive biologically.

Wikipedia wrote: The word sentient is often confused with the word sapient, which can connotate knowledge, higher consciousness, or apperception.
Sentience is the ability to feel/percieve, the fetus does'nt aquire this ability until after the 23rd week. It doesn't become properly sapient until well after birth.

After birth it is a Human Being because the word being implies independance or extended difference from the mother.