Life does not begin & end by the dictates of Science…..
How long was the LIFE that didn’t implant?……
Science can never understand ‘Time’ in a meaningful way & can never explain anything outside the Mundane.

lobosan5 on February 25, 2008 at 11:30 AM

I agree that science is limited. It is mistaken to look to science to define values or meaning.

To answer your question on the fertilized egg that didn’t implant. It never experienced consciousness or committed an act of free will. It wouldn’t seem to be a moral creature.

I don’t happen to think that a “being” exists at conception. I think it is a blueprint and raw material. You make good points though on a topic that is difficult. I’ll have to check for additional posts tomorrow though since I need to get up early to take my son snow tubing. dedalus

Your son snow-tubing, was your son @ conception…the DNA of him was immediately in place…..so…..where is the human being walking this earth who wasn’t 1st a collection of cells in Utero????

Zygote is a scientific term but person isn’t. You are picking a law reference and asking to foot scientific terms to legal wording. Science can tell you that the zygote is a human cell, that it is living matter, and that it contains the combined DNA of mom & dad. It can tell you that it doesn’t have a brain, is not cognizant, and does not have senses. If the zygote doesn’t subsequently implant in the uterus, the woman may never know she conceived.

But Science can’t tell you anything about ‘personhood’…..
so, how many minutes…seconds….nano-seconds are needed to make a ‘human life’?…..is it based on time?…or the presence of a brain?

Life does not begin & end by the dictates of Science…..
How long was the LIFE that didn’t implant?……
Science can never understand ‘Time’ in a meaningful way & can never explain anything outside the Mundane.

There is absolutely NO SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE that a zygote is not a person. None. Zero. Zilch.

Zygote is a scientific term but person isn’t. You are picking a law reference and asking to foot scientific terms to legal wording. Science can tell you that the zygote is a human cell, that it is living matter, and that it contains the combined DNA of mom & dad. It can tell you that it doesn’t have a brain, is not cognizant, and does not have senses. If the zygote doesn’t subsequently implant in the uterus, the woman may never know she conceived.

Based on the DNA in the zygote a scientist could, theoritically, tell you if the cell possessed musical genes. He couldn’t say whether the cell was a “musician”.

Your Black’s Law Dictionary definition, I don’t think that definition covers a zygote. Additionally, the book is a reference book, not a legal decision.

dedalus on February 24, 2008 at 10:44 PM

It’s not my Black’s Law Dictionary definition; it’s Black’s Law Dictionary’s definition. Yes, a reference. A reference to over 500 years of common law. Considering that the many of the legal latin terms go back to the Roman republic, you can make the case that it spans the entire history of Western civilization.

There is a 1973 Supreme Court decision that is the law of the land. It allows abortion for any reason until “viability”. Like the decision or not it has more legal standing than a reference book.

dedalus on February 24, 2008 at 10:44 PM

If I’ve been saying anything at all, it’s that the decision is nothing but fluff.

7 people invented the idea of viability with no basis in science, nor Constitutional law.

40 million people dead, 7 justices.

They made it all up out of whole cloth.

Black’s Law Dictionary definitions are not made up out of whole cloth.

Neither is Webster’s New Universal Unabridged Dictionary;
Person: 1. A human being whether man, woman , or child 2.A human being, as distinguished from an animal or a thing 11.(Law) A human being, or group of human beings recognized by law as having certain rights and duties.

Of course I don’t like it, and I stand on what I said before:

There is absolutely NO SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE that a zygote is not a person. None. Zero. Zilch.

This isn’t fake science. This isn’t 7 people with spectacles hanging off the end of their nose, making subjective inferences about who is viable and who is not. This isn’t 7 people in robes, looking down from their bench, collecting a guaranteed lifetime paycheck from the public trust without any accountability whatsoever.

It is 100% undeniable, bonafide scientific fact.

Therefore:

The Federal Government is Constitutionally obligated, to fulfill its primary role of securing the Blessings of Liberty to our posterity by extending the rights of man to the unborn.

I’d put it at brain activity. If “brain dead” ends your life I think it is reasonable to say that brain activity begins it.

dedalus on February 24, 2008 at 10:44 PM

Brain activity, or measurable brain activity? Do we check for brain activity before allowing the abortion? In utero?

Note: I know someone, somewhere, is thinking, “Well, it would weed out the liberals.” But that’s a cheap shot.

But then, the question of “when life begins” is a totally separate question from “when do you give up and accept that a life has ended.” So I don’t know that answering one even begins to address the other.

You’ve had ample time, but have not provided the evidence that a zygote is not a person.

A rational person would now understand that the Fed has the complete legal jurisdiction to protect the unborn through mandate of the US Constitution.

And I am a die hard federalist.

Saltysam on February 24, 2008 at 9:15 PM

I generally favor Federalism, but I agree with you that ultimately a 50-state solution to who is human and who isn’t would likely be a mess. However, the idea that the states are labratories could apply here, and maybe a mess is OK before congress acts.

Re: Your Black’s Law Dictionary definition, I don’t think that definition covers a zygote. Additionally, the book is a reference book, not a legal decision. There is a 1973 Supreme Court decision that is the law of the land. It allows abortion for any reason until “viability”. Like the decision or not it has more legal standing than a reference book.

I don’t think viability should be the line. I do think it is a question of when an embryo is a person. I’d put it at brain activity. If “brain dead” ends your life I think it is reasonable to say that brain activity begins it.

What do they call you for short? LOL

Saltysam on February 24, 2008 at 9:44 PM

Theregoestheneighborhood. :->

I picked the name when I joined at the last open registration period, because I noticed a lot of old-timer posters who had basically that reaction to all the newcomers.

Shoulda gone with something much shorter, but the name cracked me up because there didn’t seem to be a lot of love at the time for socially conservative Christians.

What do they call you for short? LOL

Obviously, if you read our argument through this post, you know I’m with you.

The scientific facts are on the side of those that want to protect human life at conception.

Little known secret amongst all the noise.

I don’t happen to think that a “being” exists at conception. I think it is a blueprint and raw material. You make good points though on a topic that is difficult.

dedalus on February 24, 2008 at 1:20 AM

I’ve read this sort of, “I don’t believe that a ‘being’ exists at conception” argument before, and it always makes me ask why it matters what someone personally “believes”, unless that belief is based on some facts. If we accept that human life should be protected, then that protection ha to start at some point. The only facts I see in evidence as to when that point begins are scientific ones. We know that the beginning of a human life is not birth, but conception. If we want to pick some point between birth and conception and say, “Sure, the life began at conception, but it didn’t become ‘human’ life until…”

And now I’ve left that whole thought hanging, because there is just no way to fill in the blank. If you’re not a human at conception, when are you? Can anybody say?

Given that, I see no basis for a law protecting human life to start anywhere else but at conception. Start anywhere else, and you can’t be sure that you’re not allowing human life to be snuffed out.

The Fed is obligated by the USC to fulfill its primary role by protecting the rights of man to the unborn.

A rational person would now understand that the Fed has the complete legal jurisdiction to protect the unborn through mandate of the US Constitution.

And I am a die hard federalist.

Yes, since it gestates externally an umbilical chord isn’t practical. The chick needs to munch on the yolk.

dedalus on February 24, 2008 at 8:41 PM

Amazing.

I’m no biologist either, but isn’t the egg part of the eggy stuff nutrition for the “X” inside the eggshell at that point?

Saltysam on February 24, 2008 at 8:34 PM

Yes, since it gestates externally an umbilical chord isn’t practical. The chick needs to munch on the yolk.

dedalus on February 24, 2008 at 8:25 PM

Lol. Neither am I.

I’m no biologist either, but isn’t the egg part of the eggy stuff nutrition for the “X” inside the eggshell at that point?

And, since when is “meat” the definition of a person?

An egg is not a zygote.

Saltysam on February 24, 2008 at 8:11 PM

A fertilized chicken egg that is a day old is akin to a zygote. I’m not familiar enough with chicken embryology to know if they use the same term pre-embryo.

It is not a microscopic adult. It is a microscopic person.

And since when is the definition of person an “adult with arms, legs, circulatory system and self-awareness?”

I’ve already shown you the definition of “person” according to Black’s law dictionary.

No more than a cannibal would receive the same nutrition from a zygote than he would from an adult.

The critical difference is mass.

Saltysam on February 24, 2008 at 7:30 PM

It’s more than mass or just scaling up a zygote as though it were a microsopic adult with arms, legs, ciculatory system and self-awareness. Not sure how cannibals manage their diet, but some vegetarians will eat eggs since they don’t contain meat.

Perhaps.

Perhaps there never was an egg. Oh, sorry, I told you I would not go religious on you. :-) Go ahead, you can keep doing to though. I’m truly not offended.

No more than a cannibal would receive the same nutrition from a zygote than he would from an adult.

The critical difference is mass.

Then, we would say “X” (the fertilized egg) is the earliest stage of a chicken’s life.

Saltysam on February 24, 2008 at 5:54 PM

Yes, you are right though if you’ve eaten the egg perhaps there never was a chicken. If you’ve eaten eggs from a small farm chances are you’ve eaten a fertilized chicken egg, containing a pin-sized embryo. People who eat these eggs don’t have the experience or the nutrition of eating a chicken.

We must turn attention away from empirical logic and rely on faith to determine that a zygote is not a person.

Interesting isn’t it?

And what does it mean to be secular, reasonable and moderate again?