Ninerfan1 Wrote:

the other Greg Childers Wrote:

Ninerfan1 Wrote:

the other Greg Childers Wrote:

Ninerfan1 Wrote:

the other Greg Childers Wrote:Is an embryo male or female? Does it have a heartbeat? Is it breathing? Does it have brain activity?

Ah deflection. The time honored tradition among those who are incapable of debate.

I will gladly answer your question when you answer mine, is an embryo life? A simple yes or no will do just fine.

It is not a human.

So for all your blustering about debate, you've just illustrated how you are so very much not capable of engaging in it.

It's always fun exposing a fraud. But that was too easy.

Go back to the kids table junior, you're out of your league up here with the adults.

We have three criteria for whether or not a human is alive.

1) a heartbeat
2) breathing
3) brain activity

An embryo has none of the above.

So then naturally you would argue that there was no life on earth until a species met all 3 of those.

Scientists would disagree.

I really want Torch to jump in here. He could have some real fun with you.

You made the leap from "human" to "no life". That wasn't very logical (since you're big on logic). There is obviously a big difference, and a few billion years, between the first rudimentary life forms and other complex forms of life (including, of course, homo sapiens).

Was human life present in the "primordial soup"? Nope. Does that have anything to do with embryos? No, again. The question of whether an embryo is a "live human" is hazy and debatable. If you lean on Biblical proofs that is you prerogative, but that has nothing to do with science or, in fact, the laws of a secular society.

blazr Wrote:

Ninerfan1 Wrote:So then naturally you would argue that there was no life on earth until a species met all 3 of those.

Scientists would disagree.

I really want Torch to jump in here. He could have some real fun with you.

You made the leap from "human" to "no life". That wasn't very logical (since you're big on logic). There is obviously a big difference, and a few billion years, between the first rudimentary life forms and other complex forms of life (including, of course, homo sapiens).

While I agree that ninerfan1 made a jump there, it isn't as bad as the jump that the other Greg Childers made here:

the other Greg Childers Wrote:We have three criteria for whether or not a human is alive.

1) a heartbeat
2) breathing
3) brain activity

Just cause he says so? Source?

Nijnerfan1's critique can hold because togc's statment implies that human life is somehow different from any other life in the entire universe. Is a Paramecium not alive because it doesn't exhibit those three criteria? Nope, so why does a human life not start until those three are active (or only one of those three, togc's statement seems unclear whether it is all three or only one of the three that needs to occur)? I'll side with ninerfan1 on this, if the definition is good enough for human life it should be good enough for any other life.

Quote:Was human life present in the "primordial soup"? Nope. Does that have anything to do with embryos? No, again.

O RLY?

Show me one case of a human that was not at some point an embryo. An embryo is a very specific part of the human developmental process. To say it isn't is dishonest.

blazr Wrote:You made the leap from "human" to "no life". That wasn't very logical (since you're big on logic). There is obviously a big difference, and a few billion years, between the first rudimentary life forms and other complex forms of life (including, of course, homo sapiens).

Actually, I really didn't.

I was illustrating that togc's criteria for what constituted life was flawed. Because based on his criteria, what science tells us constituted life billions of years ago really wouldn't be "life."

Quote:The question of whether an embryo is a "live human" is hazy and debatable.

Exactly. That's why I was attempting, unsuccessfully clearly, to debate it with togc.

Quote:If you lean on Biblical proofs that is you prerogative, but that has nothing to do with science or, in fact, the laws of a secular society.

Feel free to go back and re-read my posts. What you will find is not once have I mentioned the bible.

BR did a fine job in his post though. Couldn't have said it better myself.

Play semantic games all you want, but it still doesn't change the fact that there is no moral dilemma with embryonic stem cell research. Medical research can provide cures and therapies for illnesses and injuries. The slippery slope argument where embryonic stem cell research leads to abortion is a fallacy.

the other Greg Childers Wrote:Play semantic games all you want,

It's not semantics. As the master debator you should know that one of the first things that must happen for debate to move forward is terms must be defined. I was simply trying to ascertain what your definition of life was so we could proceed. Clearly your definition is flawed in every capacity, and my pointing that out isn't a game.

Quote:but it still doesn't change the fact that there is no moral dilemma with embryonic stem cell research. Medical research can provide cures and therapies for illnesses and injuries. The slippery slope argument where embryonic stem cell research leads to abortion is a fallacy.

Yes we know how you feel. You've stated it numerous times. Yet you are unable to defend your position and you refuse to engage in a substanitive discussion, contrary to what you said you wanted earlier.

I guess that leads us back to something I read in this thread earlier. To quote, "You never made the debate team did you?"

I'll take a stab................

I don't think an embryo is life....... because it doesn't constitute the 7 characteristics of life.


I'm reminded of an old saying.... Not all flowers become buds nor do all buds become apples. An embryo has the ability to become a life, but the embryo's that are to be used in stem cell research would never become life.

Ninerfan1, you are playing semantic games. You are also guilty of making statements with no credible sources to back them up.

Your mode of debate appears to be to avoid discussing your opinions while engaging in obfuscation.

Bourgeois_Rage Wrote:

Quote:Was human life present in the "primordial soup"? Nope. Does that have anything to do with embryos? No, again.

O RLY?

Show me one case of a human that was not at some point an embryo. An embryo is a very specific part of the human developmental process. To say it isn't is dishonest.

Ok, but I want you to find me one human being that will never become, at some point, a corpse. That corpse is still "human". The question is the distinction between "human life", not just "human" and "non-human". An embryo can be composed of "living" cells, and "human" (homo sapien more specifically) and still not constitute a "living human". Same with the embryo of any other species on Earth (with appropriate substitution for "human").

the other Greg Childers Wrote:Ninerfan1, you are playing semantic games. You are also guilty of making statements with no credible sources to back them up.

Your mode of debate appears to be to avoid discussing your opinions while engaging in obfuscation.

Projection?

Machiavelli Wrote:I'll take a stab................

I don't think an embryo is life....... because it doesn't constitute the 7 characteristics of life.


I'm reminded of an old saying.... Not all flowers become buds nor do all buds become apples. An embryo has the ability to become a life, but the embryo's that are to be used in stem cell research would never become life.

I'd be inclined to agree with your argument except for the fact that most (there are exceptions with miscarriages, etc.) embryos when left in their natural environment (i.e. the womb) will develop in to babies. The egg has already been fertilized at that point. No other work is necessary other than to provide the nutrients and blood for life to continue.

You are comparing that to a flower. A flower needs outside interaction to become fertilized and then from there continues the progression to fruit.

If you want to use a fruit analogy, a more appropriate one would be some fruit gets picked and other fruit is left to rot on a tree.

So under Machiavelli's definition of life an 80 year old suffering from the latter stages of senile dementia (catatonic state) is not alive. You just wiped out the entire nursing home industry. Congratulations.

Machiavelli Wrote:Characteristics of Life

Biology - the study of life

Properties of Life

1. Cells ......... Check
2. Organization ........... Check
3. Metabolism .................. No
4. Homeostasis ..................... No
5. Made up of DNA .............. Check
6. Responsiveness ............... No
7. Growth ................. Check

edit: Above my bolding...

Does that mean a quadriplegic is not a living being? Can we kill them without regard? I am a little nervous in asking this after the Terry Schiavo case....

Bourgeois_Rage Wrote:

the other Greg Childers Wrote:Ninerfan1, you are playing semantic games. You are also guilty of making statements with no credible sources to back them up.

Your mode of debate appears to be to avoid discussing your opinions while engaging in obfuscation.

Projection?

We really need a pot, meet kettle smiley on here.

blazr Wrote:Ok, but I want you to find me one human being that will never become, at some point, a corpse. That corpse is still "human". The question is the distinction between "human life", not just "human" and "non-human". An embryo can be composed of "living" cells, and "human" (homo sapien more specifically) and still not constitute a "living human". Same with the embryo of any other species on Earth (with appropriate substitution for "human").

See now that makes at least a bit of sense, and gets to the heart of the debate that ninerfan1 was trying to have with togc. I was only taking exception to the point that human life had nothing to do with embryos.

But as to the point of whether an embryo is life or not, to me there is no better place than conception to mark the beginning of life. Everything else is a bit odd. How about beating heart? Does that mean all life has a beating heart? Brain function? We know there is life without brain function, so that's not really objective. To me, these are all just different stages of development which is continued through the life of a person all they way until their death. If developmental biology shows us anything is is that life is a gradient with no clear marks where life changes. We can sit here and debate what point the "spark of life" is lit and get no where or we can accept that abortion is ending life no matter when it is done.

At any rate, here's the kicker: I'm probably what you would call pro-choice (though I hate the term, it implies that the other side is anti-choice; same goes for pro-life). My argument would stem from a practical point. Too many people in this world are having unwanted children who end up neglected or abandoned because of people who wish to inflict their moral views onto others.

People need to be more responsible for their actions, but if you don't allow for abortion you could end up ruining three lives: the mother's, the father's, and the child's. Forget about all of the situations of rape and incest. In my opinion, we have too many religious organization who fight to end abortion, and try convince young women to have children long before they are ready, but once the child is born, disappear leaving these mother's lost and to me that's the real moral problem.

Bourgeois_Rage Wrote:At any rate, here's the kicker: I'm probably what you would call pro-choice (though I hate the term, it implies that the other side is anti-choice; same goes for pro-life). My argument would stem from a practical point. Too many people in this world are having unwanted children who end up neglected or abandoned because of people who wish to inflict their moral views onto others.

People need to be more responsible for their actions, but if you don't allow for abortion you could end up ruining three lives: the mother's, the father's, and the child's. Forget about all of the situations of rape and incest. In my opinion, we have too many religious organization who fight to end abortion, and try convince young women to have children long before they are ready, but once the child is born, disappear leaving these mother's lost and to me that's the real moral problem.

I agree with you 100% that people should be more responsible for their actions. I do disagree with you that killing the baby is an answer. You may have made a mistake, but why should you be able to kill someone to get out of it? Carry the baby to term and then give it up for adoption. If you choose to drink and drive and then kill someone, there are no mulligans. Why should there be for having unprotected sex. (Please don't mention rape or incest. i would not include them in mistakes made by the woman).

The major problem with the abortion issue (which is completely unrelated to the topic of this thread) is that both conservatives and liberals use it as a wedge issue to define "our camp" versus "their camp" with neither side offering solutions.

No liberal is truly in favor of abortions, regardless of the incendiary rhetoric that gets tossed about. They are in favor of allowing the woman to decide.

Outlawing abortion will not end it. It existed before Roe v. Wade, and will exist even if the Supreme Court outlaws it in the future. The only difference will be the level of access to a safe procedure.

If you want to limit the number of abortions, try a different approach. There needs to be more access to sex education in schools, along with proper guidance from adults. There needs to be greater access to contraception, because people will always have sex. There needs to be better incentives to put unwanted children up for adoption, because there are many, many couples out there who can't have kids on their own.

But instead, people sit around and scream ridiculous pro-life and pro-choice rhetoric at each other while doing nothing to work towards a solution.

Machiavelli Wrote:I don't think an embryo is life....... because it doesn't constitute the 7 characteristics of life.

You don't think an embryo is life? Does it consume? Does it take in nutrients? Yes. If still not, then what the hell IS it, a f'n rock?

You can always count on Reb to enlighten the debate. Did you even read the 7 characteristics I listed? A car is highly organized and is made up of cells or compartments. It also uses energy. Too bad a 68' Cobra couldn't have twins, but it doesn't qualify. I like my apple line the best. Not all flowers produce buds and not all buds can produce an apple. But all the flowers and all the buds are important to the tree. If an embryonic stem cell can be used it should be. there are literally millions of them around our country that will never become a living human being.

Machiavelli Wrote:You can always count on Reb to enlighten the debate. Did you even read the 7 characteristics I listed? A car is highly organized and is made up of cells or compartments. It also uses energy. Too bad a 68' Cobra couldn't have twins, but it doesn't qualify. I like my apple line the best. Not all flowers produce buds and not all buds can produce an apple. But all the flowers and all the buds are important to the tree. If an embryonic stem cell can be used it should be. there are literally millions of them around our country that will never become a living human being.

Did you read my response? Your analogy is like comparing apples to oranges....But then that is probably why you like it.