- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: I have a science question
Posted on 1/19/19 at 10:55 pm to L.A.
Posted on 1/19/19 at 10:55 pm to L.A.
The fetus is a homo sapian sapian, at least genetically speaking. “Human” is more of a state of being than a scientific descriptor though.
A fetus with anencephaly is genetically human, but one wouldn’t generally refer to them as “human” in any practical sense as they lack the ability to experience any aspect of the human experience.
So to answer your question, I would tend to say that a fetus isn’t “human” in the normal social context of the word until it can survive for any relevant length of time outside the womb and interact with its environment. Until then it’s the genetic precursor to a functional human.
I’m pretty staunchly pro-life but to deny there’s a difference between a 12 week old fetus and a 12 week old baby is so absurd that it hurts your underlying premise. You don’t have to espouse nonsense to be against abortion.
A fetus with anencephaly is genetically human, but one wouldn’t generally refer to them as “human” in any practical sense as they lack the ability to experience any aspect of the human experience.
So to answer your question, I would tend to say that a fetus isn’t “human” in the normal social context of the word until it can survive for any relevant length of time outside the womb and interact with its environment. Until then it’s the genetic precursor to a functional human.
I’m pretty staunchly pro-life but to deny there’s a difference between a 12 week old fetus and a 12 week old baby is so absurd that it hurts your underlying premise. You don’t have to espouse nonsense to be against abortion.
2
Posted on 1/19/19 at 11:06 pm to Roger Klarvin
quote:
I’m pretty staunchly pro-life but to deny there’s a difference between a 12 week old fetus and a 12 week old baby is so absurd that it hurts your underlying premise. You don’t have to espouse nonsense to be against abortion.
Here's my OP:
quote:
A human female is pregnant. The fetus inside her is a human being, correct? I’m not talking about religion or society or politics or anything else like that. Strictly from a scientific POV. It’s a human being, right?
Tell me which part of that compares a 12 week old baby to a 12 week old fetus. Then tell me which part of that espouses nonsense.
Posted on 1/19/19 at 11:11 pm to arcalades
quote:
...politics, science...they're all so intertwined that you really can't separate them.
Now if we can just get the left to concede this point we’ll really be getting somewhere.
Posted on 1/19/19 at 11:17 pm to Powerman
I’d prefer the left get real about what the science really says with regards to these issues:
(1) Abortion
(2) Gender Issues
(3) Climate Change (not so much the link between CO2 concentration and warming, but the fear mongering and zealotry around the appropriate action to be taken, which loves to use science as a justification but really abuses scientific means to justify non-scientific ends).
(4) Reclaiming the importance of the Nuclear Family as a scientific issue (as opposed to being solely a religious issue)
I’d also prefer the right get real about:
(1) Climate Change (more so admitting there is some amount of correlation between CO2 concentrations and warming without buying into all of the hysterical derivatives of that)
(2) Young Earthism and Other Religious views that don’t need to be included in science class
In other words, no one can claim they are the party of science until they stop cherry picking when they defer to science and when they defer to politics or ideology.
(1) Abortion
(2) Gender Issues
(3) Climate Change (not so much the link between CO2 concentration and warming, but the fear mongering and zealotry around the appropriate action to be taken, which loves to use science as a justification but really abuses scientific means to justify non-scientific ends).
(4) Reclaiming the importance of the Nuclear Family as a scientific issue (as opposed to being solely a religious issue)
I’d also prefer the right get real about:
(1) Climate Change (more so admitting there is some amount of correlation between CO2 concentrations and warming without buying into all of the hysterical derivatives of that)
(2) Young Earthism and Other Religious views that don’t need to be included in science class
In other words, no one can claim they are the party of science until they stop cherry picking when they defer to science and when they defer to politics or ideology.
Posted on 1/19/19 at 11:21 pm to Roger Klarvin
Even if I accepted the first part of your definition of human (being able to survive outside the womb), I would still have a problem with the environmental interaction component. Comatose individuals are human.
Posted on 1/19/19 at 11:22 pm to L.A.
When I said “your”, I meant the general pro life sentiment as a whole. I wasn’t specifically referring to you.
Posted on 1/19/19 at 11:24 pm to L.A.
Human life exists in stages.
Stage 1 - Egg and sperm;
Stage 2 - Fetus;
Stage 3 - Baby;
Stage 4 - Toddler;
Stage 5 - Prepubescent;
Stage 6 - Teenager;
Stage 7 - Young adult;
Stage 8 - Middle aged adult;
Stage 9 - Older adult.
Stage 1 - Egg and sperm;
Stage 2 - Fetus;
Stage 3 - Baby;
Stage 4 - Toddler;
Stage 5 - Prepubescent;
Stage 6 - Teenager;
Stage 7 - Young adult;
Stage 8 - Middle aged adult;
Stage 9 - Older adult.
This post was edited on 1/19/19 at 11:25 pm
Posted on 1/19/19 at 11:25 pm to RedStickBR
quote:
Comatose individuals are human.
Someone in a persistent vegitative state, or any other entirely incapacitating, permanent, irreversible neurological insult (including brain death), has lost the social aspect of their humanity. They are human in a purely biological sense only, which is why we (usually) mercifully withdraw care and allow them to die.
Not all comatose individuals will remain in that state, though. Most have reversible causes.
This post was edited on 1/19/19 at 11:27 pm
Posted on 1/19/19 at 11:30 pm to RedStickBR
quote:
Comatose individuals are human.
But if you're in a persistent vegetable state are you really human? What does it mean to be human or alive?
Posted on 1/19/19 at 11:31 pm to Roger Klarvin
quote:
Someone in a persistent vegitative state, or any other entirely incapacitating, permanent, irreversible neurological insult (including brain death), has lost the social aspect of their humanity. They are human in a purely biological sense only.
More precisely, those persons are no longer conscious. Consciousness is the most defining characteristic of being human.
Humans don’t typically develop consciousness until the toddler stage of life. Some humans, such as psychopaths, don’t fully develop consciousness at all.
Posted on 1/19/19 at 11:51 pm to Powerman
Human life is just a subset of life as it specifically relates to Homo sapiens.
Life can be biologically defined. Here’s what good ol’ Wikipedia has to say:
Fetuses and persons in vegetative states should satisfy all of the above. Thus, if all of the above are satisfied and we are talking about an organism whose genetic code would make it a Homo sapien, it’s a human life.
Life can be biologically defined. Here’s what good ol’ Wikipedia has to say:
quote:
The definition of life is controversial. The current definition is that organisms are open systems that maintain homeostasis, are composed of cells, have a life cycle, undergo metabolism, can grow, adapt to their environment, respond to stimuli, reproduce and evolve.
Fetuses and persons in vegetative states should satisfy all of the above. Thus, if all of the above are satisfied and we are talking about an organism whose genetic code would make it a Homo sapien, it’s a human life.
Posted on 1/20/19 at 12:15 am to Rougarou13
quote:
Where in the world wide frick did you come up with that? When has scientific fact EVER depended upon the law? If they pass a law that gravity is now 1/2 of its original value would it change scientific fact?
Scientifically, he's correct.
Scientifically, he’s actually nothing more than a blob of cells too.
Posted on 1/20/19 at 12:18 am to L.A.
quote:
A human female is pregnant.
Did you just assume their gender?
Posted on 1/20/19 at 12:25 am to L.A.
A human being. What is a being? Does that not imply a living creature?
Posted on 1/20/19 at 6:14 am to L.A.
I think it’s the willful termination of human life anyway you church it up, but there are small instances where abortion is understandable. I would be in support of making abortion outside that small subset illegal.
Posted on 1/20/19 at 6:19 am to Powerman
quote:
Here’s a science question also. Human sperm is alive, right? It’s also human right? It doesn’t need to ever find an egg to be alive. It isn’t dead right?
He specifically used the term fetus in his question. He didn't mention sperm and he didn't mention unfertilized eggs.
But that’s the entire point, isn’t it? There is no point on the continuum where there isn’t life, human life. So you have to draw the line somewhere. And wherever you draw the line, science will say it is an arbitrary line, because it is.
I prefer to draw the line well after the sperm and egg, after the woman can figure out she’s pregnant. That gives her the right to have a meaningful opportunity to say no, she’s not ready to have a kid.
Posted on 1/20/19 at 6:21 am to L.A.
Here's how to keep it straight forward...if you kill the woman carrying the fetus...do you get charged for 2 murders or one?
Posted on 1/20/19 at 6:30 am to MSMHater
quote:
Im agnostic and believe it's a life at conception.
Same here - but I am willing to make concessions for legitimate reasons.
And here, 'legitimate' is always conditioned by conflicts between other principles.
For instance - I do not believe in killing other people UNLESS they are trying to kill me.
So - I believe the life in the womb should be protected UNLESS that pregnancy iwill kill the host.
Having taken that step, I am willing to consider further concessions, but hold firm on insisting that the life in the womb has a divine right to existence, only to be abridged by serious circumstance. And nowhere does mere 'convenience' or 'changed my mind' qualify as serious consideration.
Posted on 1/20/19 at 6:35 am to BradPitt
quote:
Also liberals: how dare you eat fried eggs. They're baby chickenz for frick's sake.
Where do the libs stand on pet abortions? Bet they'd be against them.
Casting Crowns has a line in one of their Christmas songs about the leftist philosophy of "saving the trees and killing the children".
Leftists truly are a cult of evil.
Posted on 1/20/19 at 7:40 am to L.A.
Who is arguing that it’s jot “human”?
I thought he argumwnt was always that the fetus had not yet become a “person”?
I thought he argumwnt was always that the fetus had not yet become a “person”?
Page 3 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News