Posted on 01/04/2007 5:51:39 PM PST by Coleus
It implies nothing of the sort, you inferred it because you are inept, scientifically speaking. And that's being generous. One could actually say you simply lied when you attributed that nonsense to me.
Since we were referring to a single cell, you are implying that the definition of human is extended to a single cell if it contains the human DNA sequence.
You really should hit the books before you engage in this sort of debate. The impression you leave is one of ignorance, pig headedness and a child stamping his/her feet.
You can pick up any book on Human Embryology and it will tell you that new human life begins at conception. That's the science of the matter.
Your are free to argue that killing human life at that stage of human life is Okey Dokey but you are not free to make ridiculous arguments eqauting your dandruff to a zygote. Grow up.
The aliveness of the zygote, once established establishes that soul is present since all living ORGANISMS have a soul, a soul of life. [This is a line of reasoning; I prefer it to nabob meanderings.] The Bible states that He knitted me together in the womb. I would take the 'me' to mean the soul and spirit, so it is reasonable--if one believes there is a human spirit--to take the aliveness of the zygote aged being as the arrival of the spirit also.
Life begins when you're self-employed.
Wonder why, if people evolved, people have unique fingerprints..
Even twins and quints have unique fingerprints..
What would be gained by that evolving.. unless man didn't evolve at all..
Probably even Chimps have unique fingerprints..
Maybe God signs his master pieces..
This is an issue of simple common sense to me. I think your argument is very learned. And I suppose I betray my own ignorance when I state here that I cannot understand how it is that we have allowed ourselves to be sucked into this debate at all. The Bible states:
"And God said, 'Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds;.....God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds....." (Genesis 1:24, 25). Then in the second chapter of Genesis, He clearly introduced the human spirit: "And the LORD God formed man, from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and man became a living being." (Genesis 2: 7)
I think that in this as in so many other matters, we have refused to listen to the voice of the Lord. Once the human egg and human sperm join, there is human life; spirit and all!
life begins the moment the deed is done and one of his fellas breaks through her girl's door.
I have a similar view: "When is it not human life?" is the appropriate question.
Is pupae of a Monarch butterfly not a living form of species D. Plexippus?
Just a part of the life cycle of the species.
My point is that fetal humans are still Homo Sapien, and they are certainly alive.
It would be very interesting if you stopped asking obfuscating questions and ANSWERED some.
This last is biting you in the butt.
If the 'cell' ( that you say is not a human being ) splits, it becomes TWO human beings. Not two livers or kidneys or tumors.
Answer my question- what other 'cell' in the human body will turn into a completely separate human being?
The meeting of sperm and egg becomes a 'cell' like no other.
A cell from your fingernail contains your DNA, but it won't become a baby, even if you insert it into the womb.
A fertilized egg can produce more than one human being, it can produce a deformed human being, but it can be nothing other than a human being.
To compare a fertilized human egg to any other 'cell'in the human body is ignorant.
Abortions are not needed to remove unwanted 'cell's'. NO one is pregnant with a 'cell'. 9 months later, a 'cell' is not born. Just the one, particular 'cell' produced by sperm fertilizing egg. And that 'cell' can be nothing BUT a human being. Humans don't produce dogs or cats or chimpanzees- they produce human babies. Always have, always will. No getting around that- no matter what semantics you hide behind.
I'd respect people like you- even people who are pro-abortion- more if you had the guts to say 'Yes, it's a baby, and I don't want it.( insert reason) Kill it.'
Creative definitions do not negate biology.
--To compare a fertilized human egg to any other 'cell'in the human body is ignorant.--
I wasn't. Another had implied a definition of a human was a cell that contained human DNA. That was the discussion.
OTOH, human DNA has been placed in cow's eggs and allowed limited developement. Is that a human?
Well- if wasn't you who contended that any cell containing human DNA is a human being, I apologize. The statement is ignorant whoever said it. Otherwise your fingernail clippings would be able to vote- given enough time.
And here you go offering ANOTHER bizarre aside- cows now!
We're talking about HUMAN sperm meets HUMAN egg= human being.
Want to talk about sci-fi human crosses? Start another thread. Human + anything else biologically possible would be humanoid. You won't admit human egg+sperm produces human beings. Would you argue that the cow egg wouldn't produce a cow?
Answer my questions.
--Want to talk about sci-fi human crosses? Start another thread.
It's not sci-fi. It happened.
--Human + anything else biologically possible would be humanoid. You won't admit human egg+sperm produces human beings.
Why should I have to 'admit' human egg+sperm produces human beings. I don't know anyone that would deny such an obvious fact.
--Would you argue that the cow egg wouldn't produce a cow?
Answer my questions.
It would have human DNA. Are you saying it would be a cow?
It was he who argued that perspective. Others are talking specifically about the fertilised egg that results from the union of a human sperm and human egg. THAT cell is what was being discussed as being a disticnt human being and it was clear to anyone who read the posts. The ridiculous rabbit trail of *any cell having human DNA is a human being* was not proposed by any of the pro-life crowd. They, at least, see the distinction.
You stated:
"thus I would assume our souls are present at the time of conception...."
and provide several biblical phrases to support. Now, those phrases support that life begins in the womb. Do you support that life begins in the womb or prior to the womb?
--It was he who argued that perspective.--
Never did.
A fertilized human egg that is dividing and growing is alive. Deliberately stopping that process is killing it, and when it involves a human being it's called *murder*.
Questioning when life begins about something that is clearly alive makes you look like a moron.
When you get your driver's license!!!
ok.....
@ conception!
When Does Life Begin?
at 40, you retard.............
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.