Greg Jennings
New member
That's correct.
By your standard a sperm cell is human. Feel free to explain that one
More leftist hypocrisy, nicely illustrated
- Thread starter musterion
- Start date
That's correct.
By your standard a sperm cell is human. Feel free to explain that one
Greg Jennings
New member
If by "little one" you mean a fetal human prior to 22 weeks of development, then yes. For reasons that you glossed over in the post you quoted
Greg Jennings
New member
Mainly our absurdly large cerebral cortex. But there are other unique features as well
Our brains are so big relative to our bodies that they've had to change shape and fold just to stay in our heads
Greg Jennings
New member
What contradiction is there? Since when was organism synonymous with human?
A sperm cell or a ball of cells is not a human. But it can potentially become human. If that's truly over your head, then we have little to discuss
Greg Jennings
New member
Do explain
Evolution doesn't intentionally create. Talking as if it does confuses people.
I've explained how mutations work to you before. I don't recall you listening and/or understanding so I'm not doing it again
No, A sperm cell is not a human, nor is an ovum. Remember that I said that a human is a human when they have a full set of chromosomes. Life begins with a literal flash of light.
Sent from my Pixel XL using TheologyOnline mobile app
Right Divider
Body part
A sperm cell is a part of a human. When combined with an egg; a NEW human life begins.
That's simple science Greg. I thought that you believed in science.
Right Divider
Body part
No, I did not "gloss over" anything.
Your problem is that you make yourself the measure of all things.
You make yourself the master of all things, deciding who deserves to live and who deserves to die.
glassjester
Well-known member
Man, you talk like you don't know what an organism is.
A zygote is a human organism. A living human organism.
A sperm cell is not.
A sperm cell is not an individual human.
A fetus is.
Very, very basic scientific fact.
Right Divider
Body part
Really?
Of course it doesn't. That would break your predefined rules.
Ha ha ha..... funny stuff Greg. Are you here all week?
glassjester
Well-known member
So are you saying the human fetus is an organism, but not a human organism?
Then please explain - what type of organism is it, if not human?
I encourage you to appeal only to the "best scientific" data available, rather than your own biases.
What type of organism is the human fetus, if not a human organism?
I truly look forward to your answer.
Your assignation of right is arbitrary (as is any) and cannot be argued as a rational necessity. Our compact has recognized, foundationally, the idea of right and its vestment as an absolute, and the inability of our compact to alienate that right absent actions that are outside the possible in our consideration. Within the recognition that we cannot demonstrate a necessary point of vestment and the principle that the point exists and is inviolate lies the argument against abortion.
Greg Jennings
New member
That seems fair.
By our new standard, a gamete is human, however. That still doesn't jive with reality
glassjester
Well-known member
Dude, you don't know what a gamete is either?
Re-read Town Hetetic's post, and answer when you actually understand what he wrote.
Greg Jennings
New member
Organism is just another word for "living thing." There's no other connotation I'm attaching to it
Mmhmm....because I'm the one who came up with 22 weeks, not scientists who know better. (That's sarcasm)
It's just an organism. The same as a mushroom or a bacterium or a human or a waterbear or a caterpillar or an oak tree or an alligator.......
Greg Jennings
New member
I messed up. I meant zygote
glassjester
Well-known member
In that case, you're right.
A human zygote is an individual human organism.
Do you have any scientific reason to believe otherwise?
Greg Jennings
New member
Good content here
Greg Jennings
New member
No. It's a diploid cell. It takes a bit more than that to be human. I don't think you'll find many experts who would consider a zygote human
I went back and streamlined my rebuttal. It was a bit messy. Here it is again:
Your assignation of right is arbitrary (as is any) and cannot be argued as a rational necessity. Our compact has recognized, foundationally, the idea of right and its vestment as an absolute, and the inability of our compact to alienate that right absent actions that are outside the possible in our consideration. Within the recognition that we cannot demonstrate a necessary point of vestment and the principle that the point exists and is inviolate lies the argument against abortion.
A law that favors one arbitrary assignation over another is unjust and no real, rational argument for itself that doesn't make a neat circle. It doesn't really matter where you believe that right and the humanity we're speaking to may exist. If we cannot establish prima facie that it is a logical necessity, one whose conclusion is inescapable regardless of our inclination, then we have a larger duty to protect that which we are not entitled to abrogate. Otherwise, we risk doing that which we are not entitled to do and dismiss the foundation of law itself.
Or, potential, one way or another, is exactly the point here, every point along our chronological line of being being that potential point of vestment, absent the irrefutable, demonstrable and inarguable point no one can manage.