Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 41 to 46 of 46
  1. #41  
    Quote Originally Posted by lifes2short View Post
    You still maintain that "people-hood" begins at the point of the zygote? I do not, as I believe has been clear from the beginning of this exchange.

    By what definition do you come to that conclusion?
    I'll re-phrase:

    Apart from "carefully defined conditions" and "proper chemical treatment" the blastocyst is likely to develop into an living organism not significantly different (at the DNA level) from you and I. Surely this has been observed enough times to be considered fact. Given that, I find no harm in classifying such a being as one of us.

    I respect that you disagree.

    In light of that disagreement, I'm interested in knowing at what point in the procreation cycle you believe it is appropriate to consider the organism a "person"
  2. #42  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim View Post
    I'll re-phrase:

    Apart from "carefully defined conditions" and "proper chemical treatment" the blastocyst is likely to develop into an living organism not significantly different (at the DNA level) from you and I. Surely this has been observed enough times to be considered fact. Given that, I find no harm in classifying such a being as one of us.
    Only if half the independent group of cells you associate with are placenta.
    The blastocyst has two kinds of cell groups, a group on the surface that is capable of initiating implantation into the uterus and becoming the placenta, and the inner cell mass with the capacity to become the fetus. The inner cell mass can be removed and encouraged to divide in culture medium.
  3. #43  
    Quote Originally Posted by lifes2short View Post
    Only if half the independent group of cells you associate with are placenta.
    LOL

    Duly noted.

    Now, with that clarification in place, at what point in the procreation cycle you believe it is appropriate to consider the organism a "person"?
  4. #44  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim View Post
    LOL

    Duly noted.

    Now, with that clarification in place, at what point in the procreation cycle you believe it is appropriate to consider the organism a "person"?
    OK. To define a conclusion to this exchange so far, then, are we agreed that a human "person" does not exist until a time after the zygote and blastocyst stages, even though both stages contain the genetic material of both parents?
  5. #45  
    Quote Originally Posted by lifes2short View Post
    OK. To define a conclusion to this exchange so far, then, are we agreed that a human "person" does not exist until a time after the zygote and blastocyst stages, even though both stages contain the genetic material of both parents?
    We are not agreed on that point. However, a conclusion to the exchange has been achieved.
  6. #46  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim View Post
    We are not agreed on that point. However, a conclusion to the exchange has been achieved.
    Because your belief system is clearly not based upon cellular biology, by what standard are you making your conclusion of when a human "person" exists?
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123

Posting Permissions