At 5/31/12 01:03 AM, aviewaskewed wrote:
Go back to the fallacy that people seem to keep trotting that "the cluster of cells MUST and WILL develop into a human being". This is NOT always the case.
Why would I go back to a fallacy that never put forth in the first place? Don't ask me to accept a strawman that you built out of other people's dumb arguments. NOWHERE did I suggest that the cluster of cells "MUST and WILL" develop into a surviving, self-sufficient organism. Huh, talk about one person missing another person's point!
My point is that a just because a Homo Sapien egg is fertlized by homo sapien sperm does not mean we have a guaranteed new homo sapien at that time, or really at anytime until we see the features of a homo sapien develop
Look -- I understand your point, and your point is wrong. Organisms don't leap from one taxonomic class to another based on their stage of development. A Monarch caterpillar looks entirely different than a Monarch butterfly, but they're both classified as Danaus plexippus. Likewise, a fertilized Monarch egg is still Danaus plexippus whether it hatches or not. THAT was MY point.
It's like you're putting forth some ridiculous 'SchrÃ¶dinger's Cat' type of argument that says "we don't know for sure until we know for sure!"... which ALMOST makes sense, but, actually doesn't. There is an incredible amount of variety within our species already, and yet we're still considered the same one species, CORRECT? So, what ELSE would have to change before we can call the product of two Homo sapiens something other than Homo sapiens? What are we looking for to be different? How would we even recognize it?
Let's also not forget that this fertilized egg, or the cluster of cells do not perform most of the basic functions that it is agreed are required for an organism to be considered alive.
Seriously dude? You're talking about a cluster of dividing-multiplying cells, and you're trying to sell me on the idea that it isn't doing enough to be considered alive? Wow.
So anyway, which requirements of life are you referring to, exactly?
Reproduction? It does that.
Metabolism & growth? It does that.
Homeostasis & response to stimuli? It does that.
Organization & adaptation? It does that.
Refute four of those convincingly and earn yourself a gold star.
did "human" get a new definition while I wasn't looking? Do developmental complications = 'brand new species' or 'not even a species yet'?Does everybody who seems to disagree with abortion, or want to pick at the "science" argument really need to only argue one way? Do they really have nothing better to use then the old "argue the parts I think help me, ignore the rest and hope the other guy will do the same"? Come on...
LOL. You didn't answer the question! Funny how you tried to sidestep that.
Look -- ALL life that we know of falls under one taxonomic classification or another.
So, if the developing creature is not Homo sapiens, then what is it?
Homo we-don't-know-until-we-actually-let-the-cat, i-mean-person, out-of-the-bag?
I don't know how to be clearer. Wait, maybe I do. Do you think it's fair to call a foundation a house? Because if not, then I'm not sure why you'd call a zygote a human.
A sunflower SEED is not a sunflower PLANT, but they are both Helianthus annuus.
A human ZYGOTE is not a human ADULT, but they are both Homo sapiens.
A foundation is not a house, but the house is developed from the same blueprint the underlying foundation had been.
Now, have I been clear enough for YOU?
I understand not calling a zygote/fetus a 'person' because that term has a whole different set of implications...Oh rly? What sort of different set of implications? Because I always thought being a 'person' and being 'human' went hand in hand.
I think your problem is that you take terms that are closely-synonymous and assume them to be exactly identical, as if there's no nuance between one phrase and the other.
Homo sapiens is the straight-up scientific classification for modern day people.
'Human' is the generic, non-scientific term.
'Person' is something that implies more, as in personality, as in something we can relate to as far as the experience of BEING human is concerned. Contrast "he's just a regular person" with "why, he's an absolute monster." Do you think phrases like that are in reference to a person's body structure, or rather, to how they act? When a dog owner claims their pet is "just like a person", are they making note of the dog's skeletal structure, ability to see in color, weak sense of smell, relative few number of nipples, or any other physical characteristics? Or are they commenting on the behavior of their dog instead?
A zygote/fetus is INDEED a human, is INDEED Homo sapiens, but does it BEHAVE like a person? Does it seek out relationships? Does it express its innermost thoughts and desires to others? Does it empathize with the situations of other beings? Does it fall in love, does it become jealous or spiteful, does it do much of anything that would make you say it has a recognizable personality of any sort? Can you relate to a zygote or fetus? Have you ever said to one, "man, I know exactly what you're going through"?
It's a shit-ton more difficult for a zygote to demonstrate the traits of being "a person" than it is for it to meet the requirements of "being alive" or matching the scientific, taxonomic classification of Homo sapiens.
That's why a large part of the abortion debate is over the timing of when it's okay or not okay to abort. As the organism grows, it approaches closer and closer to something we actually CAN relate to. The worry is over whether it has the thoughts and feelings of a blade of grass (in other words, none that we can reliably discern) or if it is more like us thinking, feeling, experiencing creatures. Grass doesn't reflect on the surround situation and feel good or bad about it. People do. At what point does the developing organism pass one threshold of experience and enter the other is the question that bothers folks.