Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade, eliminating constitutional right to abortion

Goddammit. That was my top state to debauch in because all my hot cousins live there!

 

A skin cell can be its own organism. Just as a cancer cell can be. They can exist independently of the human body. It meets the scientific definiton of life - and of human life. It is human. It is living. By your own logic, a skin cell is a human life.

Which jus goes to show how absurd your logic is. If you want to add other definitions then you are basically backing off your original definition.

You are seeing the traps you are making for yourself. Science does not define a zygote as a human being. Calling it a human life is an arbitrary thing.

You can argue that a zygote is "human" because it has human DNA and "alive" because it divides, and therefore is a "human life", and then turn around and say, "Well yes, a human cell can meet those criteria as well, but but but but"

Then man up and throw out your original definition and provide a SCIENTIFIC one that works.

 

There is a lot of moving goalpost. I think the argument would be better served by just admitting this is faith argument that an embryo is legally the same as a fully developed human than claiming science.

 

Trillions of humans inside humans.

 

On a serious note it's something to see them supposedly try to improve the birthrate by limiting abortions then attempting to pass legislation like this.

 

You're welcome, though your thanks are misplaced as I am not defending a religious position, but a logical and scientific one.

I have never seen a human skin cell spontaneously come into existence and exist as it's own organism. That is fascinating. Could you provide some links or something, I would love to read about it. In my experience and reading, human skin cells are produced by human beings as part of their skin maintenance and regeneration. What do these independent human skin cell organisms do? Do they have some sort of locomotion? Metabolism? Reproduction? Do they remain single cell organisms? What is their average life span. I would love to learn more about these alternative humans.

What definition did I add?

What trap did I make?

I am not familiar with these human skin cell organisms. Perhaps they are also human lives.

I gave you a perfectly good definition. It isn't my fault that you don't like what it means for the pro-choice position.

 

Keep in mind an embryo doesn't spontaneously come into it's own existence either and unless conditions are right, such as attaching to a uterus with the proper hormonal conditions won't develop further.

As @Invisible Fan post showed under the right conditions any cell in the human body can be coaxed into developing into something different and with cloning into another human.

Science as it further develops is not really helping the pro-life argument. As noted everything ascribed to an embryo can be found ascribed to other cells. As we've seen with several species its possible to even spontaneously create an embryo that gestates to a new animal like the stingray that was mysteriously pregnant in an aquarium with no other stingrays. Also as more research is conducted into things like virus or even self-replicating proteins called prions the definition of what is "alive" is getting murkier scientifically.

This is another reason why the Catholic Church opposes IVF, Cloning, and other similar practices and research. This isn't from a scientific perspective but from the standpoint of church philosophical ethical basis.

 

To add to the discussion.


Also:
https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases...angerous because it,way of your blood vessels.
"Melanoma is dangerous because it can spread beyond what you can see, moving deep into your skin where it can gain access to your lymphatic vessels. This allows cancer cells to travel to distant locations in your body. Cancer cells can also travel to different parts of your body by way of your blood vessels."

 

Cancer cells are human, but do they know Jesus?

If yes, then we might will need laws against doctors who administer chemo.

 

Since when has the scientific definition of life require it to spontaneously come into existence and exist as it's own organism. This is not the definition. There is life that exists both on its own and as part of an orgasm. If you are going to claim science is on your side, you need to first understand what the scientific definition is. By your definition, a virus is a living organism. But it is not scientifically.

If you understood the scientific definition of life, you'd understand why a virus is not life, but a skin cell is. You are the one creating new definitions and new meanings. That's your trap. What definition did you add? Well, you're just making up one on your own to fit the argument you need to declare a zygote a living human life or being.

Again, this is a philosophical debate you are having, couching it as science when you are in fact, not really aware of what you are talking about. Sorry to be blunt, as you seem well meaning - but you need to actually look into this before you try to argue it.

 

Indeed not, it comes into existence when sperm fuses with egg. Unlike skin cells, which are part of a being (human skin cells growing from human beings), it is a new entity formed from the gametes of two parents. Sometimes, it doesn't make it to adulthood, sometimes it does.

And once it is coaxed into developing into another human (a clone) it would be a living human, and shouldn't be killed.

Not really, no. There have been some rather sad attempts to equate a zygote to cancer, a skin cell, and a jellyfish, but none of these are living organisms that are of the species homo sapiens.

Some creatures reproduce asexually, but that doesn't change anything about the nature of a zygote.

The Catholic Church is free to oppose whatever it wants for whatever reasons it wants.

It doesn't. As mentioned above, a zygote doesn't spontaneously come into existence.

Since you were talking about skin cells being murdered, I assumed you were not talking about the skin cells that are part of a human being. It would be silly to compare an independently existing organism like a human being to a component part of the same organism. By your definition, a virus is a living organism. But it is not scientifically.[/quote]
The definition of life I used (one of over 100 accepted definitions of life, but not an uncommon one) relied on the presence of some of a number of criteria including cell structure, metabolism, reproduction, etc. Viruses do not meet these criteria. A zygote does.
Are viruses alive? And why does it matter? | Science News
Not all scientists agree that viruses are not lifeforms though, and there are probably definitions of life that would thus include a virus.

So I didn't add a definition then. Or at least you can't seem to specify what it is.

A skin cell is certainly alive (or dead, depending). That doesn't make it a life, at least not in any way that would be useful in differentiating what a human life is. I am making up nothing. I am using perfectly well established definitions of life and the species homo sapiens. The fact that such terrible counterexamples as cancer and skin cells are your arguments against the finding that these commonly accepted definitions mean a zygote is a living member of the species homo sapiens shows that you are not able to effectively counter my argument.

 

Republican Alabama governor signs IVF protections into law

March 6 (Reuters) - Alabama Governor Kay Ivey on Wednesday signed into law a measure aimed at protecting in vitro fertilization after the state Supreme Court ruled frozen embryos should be considered children, prompting at least three Alabama providers to halt the procedure. Both chambers of the state's Republican-controlled legislature passed the proposal protecting IVF providers from both criminal charges and civil lawsuits after brief debates on Feb. 29.

In a statement on Wednesday night, Ivey said IVF was "a complex issue, no doubt," and anticipated there would be more work to come. "But right now, I am confident that this legislation will provide the assurances our IVF clinics need and will lead them to resume services immediately," she said.
Republicans nationwide have scrambled to contain backlash from a Feb. 16 decision by the Alabama Supreme Court, whose elected judges are all Republican, that left unclear how to legally store, transport and use embryos, prompting some IVF patients to consider moving their frozen embryos out of Alabama.

Democrats have seized on the Alabama court ruling as evidence that reproductive rights are under assault.

IVF involves combining eggs and sperm in a laboratory dish to create an embryo for couples having difficulty conceiving. The Alabama high court issued its ruling in response to three families' lawsuits against a fertility clinic and hospital for failing to properly safeguard their frozen embryos, resulting in their destruction when a patient improperly accessed them.

The ruling was based on the state's 2018 Sanctity of Unborn Life Amendment approved by voters, which supports "the sanctity of unborn life and the rights of unborn children."
The bill that Ivey signed would not necessarily mean IVF providers could revert to business as usual, according to its sponsor, Republican state Senator Tim Melson. Replying to another senator's question about what Alabama IVF providers could do with unused embryos under the proposed law, Melson said during a state Senate debate on Thursday that, as a result of the court ruling, some providers told him they planned to start perpetually storing embryos that aren't implanted into a uterus.

"That's going to probably become their policy," he said. "That's not in effect, but that's what they're looking at doing."

Reporting by Julia Harte; Editing by Donna Bryson and Jonathan Oatis

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/re...or-signs-ivf-protections-into-law-2024-03-07/

 

All of the points you raise have been countered and you just keep repeating them as though restating them means they have not. To summarize your points:
1. A zygote has human DNA and is a unique creation of combination of human DNA. Every single human cell skin or other has human DNA. If a cell were to mutate it would be unique. This argument you undercut yourself above when you state that with cloning. A non unique DNA cell such as a skin cell could “develop” into a human being and should protected as a human.

2. A zygote can develop on its own into human. First if development is necessary to determine humanity then it wouldn’t be human but something with the possibility of humanity. Second a zygote cannot develop on its own and under certain conditions as you acknowledge a skin cell could develop into a human.

 

That ignores that a skin cell is not a being. It is part of a being. That is radically different than a zygote. The fact that you think this is a good counter argument is why I keep repeating that it is not.

The zygote is already a human. It doesn't need to develop into a human, it needs to develop into an adult. Same with an embryo, a fetus, a newborn, an infant, a toddler, a preteen, and a teen. These are all stages of development along the path from conception to adulthood. Some people make it all the way from A to Z. Some don't. A zygote will develop into and adult or it will die. A skin cell will not develop into an adult human. You can use a skin cell as part of a cloning process (also, it doesn't need to be a skin cell), but none of your skin cells will just grow into another you. You are ignoring a pretty major step, which is using the DNA from the cell to make a clone. The clone, even as a single cell, would be a new human, but until you make the clone it is just part of you.

 

"Brave new world"? "Only in the the early 1970's"? How many things have happened in the last fifty years? What a freakin' idiot...

 

You should just stop.

You are desperately fitting “facts” to your narrative.

You know that a skin cell is not a “being” because god told you?

 

I think what we need to understand about this case . . .. .
even more important than the case itself

The point that IT WAS DONE
one of the largest things no one ever thought would be taken down . . .was taken down
At this point . .. I have NO DOUBTS that this court can corrupt and change *ANY* law or institution

At this point. . . .. Nothing is Sacred .. . not even the Bill of Rights

THEY CAN TAKE THEM DOWN . . . and if it suits the agenda. . .they will

Rocket River

 

I'm not desperately doing anything. These are very simple arguments to counter. No one would ever reasonably compare a human zygote to a skin cell, and the reasons are obvious.

God has never told me anything. No, I know a skin cell is not a being because it is a component of a being. I have many skin cells. They are part of my body, my body generates them and sloughs them off. A skin cell is the beginning and the end of the process of being a skin cell. It forms part of the skin for a while, then it becomes dust. A zygote is a separate entity from the body of the mother. It is not generated by the mother. It doesn't remain a zygote. It is a separate life form. A skin cell is not.

 

Again, I am only applying YOUR logic and SHOWING the flaws.

Your claim is that a zygote is a human life because it is "human" in that it belongs to the genus/species and it is "life" because it meets the scientific definition of life.

My point is that a human skin cell in a petri dish ALSO meets that definition. So if you are using that definition to say killing a zygote is murder, than by YOUR DEFINITION, killing a human skin cell in a petri dish is also murder.

Whether or not you think that is silly, or whatever - fine but then it's not longer a scientific argument. If you want to use science to defend your position, you can't apply it when it feels right to you and throw it out in other circumstances.