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

Except you are conflating alive with a life. A skin cell is alive. A zygote is a life. Glad I could clear that up for you.

 

You might as well stop arguing. It isn't just the Moniker.

 

a zygote is a unique, brand new life with it's own DNA sequence which is what the miracle of new life means. people who think life begins at conception believe that because that is when it is all decided.

 

your herped up lip isn't a miracle that has led to billions of humans. if you don't kill a baby, it develops and grows.

 

I put a zygote on the kitchen counter. It didn't do a damn thing. Just sat there. No growth. Nothing.

 

They do. Belief <> fact or truth. No one knows for a fact, scientifically or philosophically, when life truly begins.

 

Again, I am using your scientific definition. A skin cell is consider life scientifically. It is alive by scientific standards. What you are saying here is a philosophical argument. Glad I could clear that up for you.


So if you want to admit that science isn't backing up your claim, that would be nice instead of trying to constantly deflect away from you being wrong on that.

 

You don't seem to understand the difference between a part and a whole. A skin cell is alive (or dead) and human (or whatever organism's skin it is part of, could be a dead mouse skin cell). It is not a life, it is alive. No matter how long you keep the skin cell alive on your body, it will always remain a part of you. It will never be its own separate entity.

 

I don't believe you

 

We

Know when a new sequence is made. We can know what color eyes hair, possible diseases. Probably way more in the future. It's all there at conception.

 

Please show us where science defines life as being a whole organism vs a cell of a multicellular organism.

 

Sure, it is in the realm of mathematics. 1 > 0.0000000000000000001
If you don't like that one, maybe you would prefer the definition of an organism, which includes individuality (which excludes skin cells).

 

Yes, you do and some of them are there at conception (well, it's a bit later, it takes ~1 day for gametes to combine genetic material and sometime, it does fail to combine or it combined but failed to produce the right materials to successfully progress to the next stage).

You are suggesting that since a unique genetic sequence is formed at conception, and this sequence contains information about potential physical characteristics and genetic disorders, life begins at conception.

My previous statement stands (that no one knows when life truly beings). The mere presence of genetic information does not necessary equate to the existing of a living being. Below is a rehash of the some of the same old from this thread, but I'm going to repeat some of them again.

Genetic information alone does not constitute life: The presence of a unique genetic sequence is a prerequisite for potential life, but it does not automatically confer the status of a living organism. A fertilized egg (zygote) contains genetic information, but it is not yet a fully developed organism capable of sustaining life independently.

Developmental stages: Life is a continuous process that involves various stages of development, from the zygote to the embryo, fetus, and eventually, a newborn. Determining the precise moment when life begins is a complex philosophical, ethical, and scientific debate, as there are multiple stages and criteria that could be considered, such as the formation of a nervous system, brain activity, or the ability to sustain life outside the womb.

Potential for life vs. actual life: The argument for life at conception focuses on the potential for life based on genetic information, but it does not address the actual characteristics or capabilities that define a living organism. A zygote or early embryo does not possess the necessary structures or functions to be considered a living, self-sustaining entity, a common accepted definition of life.

 

A zygote won’t grow into a baby unless under specific circumstances. In fact most zygotes that come from sperm and egg within a body don’t make it.

At the sametime science has shown that under specific circumstances even skin cells could be turned into whole new human beings.

 

define new. cloning doesn't make skin cells a baby. mutations don't make skin cells a baby. The mental gymnastics taken to just admit these are humans is strange to me. so far I don't think anything has made skin cells a baby.

 

Other posters have already posted about how skin cells and other cells can be turned into other cells and grown into a whole being. This is something that is already being done with other animals. Even @StupidMoniker has acknowledged this.

 

Anyway we can go round and round on the debate about when life begins. Politically though it’s swinging heavily towards that zygotes aren’t people. Even in AL they just passed a law that allows them to be destroyed for IVF.

 

i got you to drop the word new now? wow
I get the fact that the obvious answer is inconvenient given limited resources and massive convenience and ease of murdering millions of people, but the skin cell thing doesn't really work. nor does pre 6 week survival rates.

 

Stem cell treatment from "human" skin cells was brought up on @StupidMoniker's premise that embryos are human by default.

Just because asc derived embryos are currently not viable for human birth (that we know of) doesn't mean they aren't embryos, just as the many natural birth pregnancies that miscarry within a few weeks from conception.

A suspect response for a suspect premise.

The analogy makes it more apt on the IVF issue though, as none of the "conception" of several humyns are natural or needed by the mother to host.

 

You said your view isn't religious or philosophical but scientific. yet Scientifically, a human skin cell meets your definition of human life.

Now you are bringing in a new idea to save your old one - an idea that science actually doesn't support.


Here's another scenario for you. If I have a 3D printer that prints out a sequence of human DNA but throws in some variations for fun. It prints it out using amino acids - then injects that into a chicken cell after removing the chicken cells DNA - and that cell develop into a human being.

Does that make the person using the 3D printer god?