What he said was "a clump of undifferentiated cells".
The Elephant in the Room
- Thread starter Jefferson
- Start date
- Status
What he said was "a clump of undifferentiated cells".
And what he said has nothing to support it except his opinion. People are not defined by the types of cells that constitute their bodies. One does not slowly turn into a person as one's cells differentiate. There is no progression or growth toward personhood. One either is, or one is not.
Wrong, they are "undifferentiated cells". The personhood issue is a made up one based on a theological/political agenda.
What is it that is wrong?
Theology and politics have hardly been touched apart from by the opposition. :idunno:
I determine personhood as belonging to the products of human conception.
Hopefully even you recognise entities that are people as distinct from entities that are not people. How do you distinguish between the two groups?
My dog is not a "people" although he is a bit brighter than some.
I see. Do you consider intelligence to be a qualifier for personhood?
What is it that is wrong?
Theology and politics have hardly been touched apart from by the opposition. :idunno:
I determine personhood as belonging to the products of human conception.
Even you recognise entities that are people as distinct from entities that are not people. How do you distinguish between the two groups?
Alate correctly said "I believe its more valuable to save actual babies rather than clumps of cells." because it doesn't matter if the cells that compose you are undifferentiated or not for you to be you.
You've also determined that Walt Brown has a valid theory. Your determination, absent evidence, is not worth much.
What evidence do you look for to determine who is and who is not a person?
What he said was, "I want to save pre-born BABIES not clumps of undifferentiated cells." post # 79.
Using the pronoun "who" assumes a person. The better statement would be "what is and what is not a person". Do you agree?
How is it that you decide who is a person and what is not?
Why not? I believe my judgment is better than yours. Why should I let you decide?
And you have not answered my question re who/what.
What evidence do you look for to determine who is a person and what is not a person?
Actually, I don't really care.
OK.
I'll answer from my point of view seeing you won't.
I believe a new human being with the right to life and protection is created at conception. It is at this point that biology shows us the dramatic change from two parts of two different human beings to one cell that is not his mother and nor is he his father. It is perfectly reasonable to assume that this new, unique human cell is a person unless there is compelling evidence that falsifies this idea.
Given that you are unwilling or unable to provide any counter evidence I guess I remain justified in what I believe.
And what you get from me is a "so what". What is a person, just one unique cell? That cannot be correct.
Because it has a soul? That is an assumption without any evidence.
I can live with that. :idunno:
Is your argument your incredulity? That's not very convincing. I think I remain justified in what I believe.
We're talking about people. You believe in people, right?
Alate_One
Well-known member
If you were actually paying attention to what I've been saying in this thread you'd already know the answers to your questions. I have said, heartbeat and brainwaves should be the determiner because they are what determine whether we deem someone alive or dead (i.e. person or dead body) at any other stage of development.
Its obviously human, but is is a PERSON? It has human DNA that's for sure, and it has settings that tell it to go through its developmental program. Biologically its a special type of cell. It isn't even tissue yet.
If you went strictly by what the Bible said about live in the womb, its clear there is some reference to personhood before birth. God, knows and knits together people, babies jump for joy in the womb. The latter doesn't happen to a zygote. Its fairly clear there's life before birth even from a Biblical perspective, but in the OT it isn't given the same rights as a born human being. With modern technology we can look see and measure when exactly a fetus has the recognizable characteristics of "personhood". It becomes rather obvious that abortion after a certain point is taking a human life.
Not scientifically. Its called a fetus after a certain point, and embryo before that, a blastocyst still earlier and a zygote or morula after fertilization. You want to call all these stages a "baby", without cause.
A single human cell should not have the same rights as a baby.
I'm not a clump of cells, neither are you. I say a clump and undifferentiated to say there are no organs, no brain, no heart, no skeleton, no digestive system, not even blood. A Zygote to blastocyst is a minimally organized group of cells i.e. a clump. So no I am not a clump of cells, I am a highly organized union of a wide variety of cell types. Some making up brain and heart which are what allow a human being (rather than a single cell) to have the functions we associate with humans.
Probably not a whole lot. I think they would fight it regardless because they recognize how draconian "personhood" based on zygotes would actually be.
- Status