Posted on 06/13/2003 9:59:38 AM PDT by MHGinTN
It was the intention of the author to purposely avoid defining these steps the embryonic human takes for survival as 'consciousness' in the sense that term is generally used. The term 'instinct' was also purposely avoided.
An unfertilized egg is a sub-unit cell of an organ. The conceptus, as it 'does' mitosis, fits the Dr. Condic assertion mentioned in essay one. The placenta is the first organ the newly conceived individual human builds. As to whom intended the placenta to be the essential organ for survival, I'll leave you to address that as you see fit.
The author is asserting that the placenta 'form' with its survival 'function', beginning as it does even before implantation, argues for the embryo at earliest age to be defined as a human being, a functioning integrated whole organism.
Both came close to being aborted several times in the last few years.
Sometimes I think the 19 year old is only a clump of cells.
I don't want to get into a different debate, but the placenta is there so we can gain nutrients from our mothers that we need to grow inside them. Placental mammals have an important advantage over non-placental mammals in that the young can live inside their mothers until they are at a much later stage of development. Otherwise whether we build a placenta or grow a big yolk sack would not seem to make much difference.
I assume that would require 100's of cells. That would seem to weaken your case for protection of single-celled humans. Furthermore, the placenta form is not going to resemble human form any more than any other placental mammal.
... the placenta form is not going to resemble human form any more than any other placental mammal. It is not shape that determines humanity. And even a forensic pathologist would be able to tell a human placenta from some other mammalian placenta.
You're givin' it that 'college try', but you haven't hit a good one yet. Keep trying ... the discussion is good for readers; if the author's assertion is not correct, then you may just find the flaw!
As to the first cell and the survival process inherent even with the first mitosis, an interesting aside regarding the fist two cells of mitosis might interest you (assuming you don't already know this): the first two cells will not divide in sync the next division, one will divide and the process of placental formation begins then, and all other forms of the embryonic individual's embryonic body will then form within the encapsulation, including a yolk sac.
I agree that there is a human individual that is alive and it immediately grows an organ for its survival. I don't think there serious flaws in his argument. But the author's implication of intent in the survival operation can be used to imply intent in any biological process, e.g. my milk doesn't sour, it intends to sour. The author's other implication that a coherent organism with these qualities and complete DNA is sufficient for legal protection means leaving out other moral considerations.
As to the first cell and the survival process inherent even with the first mitosis, an interesting aside regarding the fist two cells of mitosis might interest you (assuming you don't already know this): the first two cells will not divide in sync the next division, one will divide and the process of placental formation begins then, and all other forms of the embryonic individual's embryonic body will then form within the encapsulation, including a yolk sac.
Again, it's good to point out that "survival" qualities are inherent in humans from the beginning. It is not sufficient for a debate about the morality of early abortion because those "survival" qualities are nothing more than preprogrammed actions and are present in every other placental mammal regardless of the cosmetic differences in the placenta itself.
My wife asks the same question -- about me. She's hoping 50 is the right age.
I didn't think anywhere near 90% of fertilized eggs implanted successfully, even in healthy women. Certainly there are some women who, because of natural conditions, have much lower implantation rates. Should such women be forbidden from having sex, on the basis that it might fertilize an egg which might be unable to implant and consequently die?
Your first sentence addresses the 'intelligence of the design' (or designer). I'll leave you to address that further, if you wish. That this design characteristic is functioning doesn't detract from a definition of a functioning whole human organism. As to the second sentence, if one were to surreptitiously extract the embryos of endangered species for some personal gain or destruction motive, if you were caught, the law would prosecute for the actions, thus the law, at least, recognizes that with protected species the embryo is a distinct member of the species.
I can't say with certainty that there is a designer or there is not a designer. The elegance of the design may be enough to convince a person that there is a designer. Regardless of a person's beliefs, the design is an important part of convincing them of the value of human life.
As to the second sentence, if one were to surreptitiously extract the embryos of endangered species for some personal gain or destruction motive, if you were caught, the law would prosecute for the actions, thus the law, at least, recognizes that with protected species the embryo is a distinct member of the species.
True, I have never argued otherwise. The human embryo is human but it requires a technological apparatus to determine that fact because the differences from embryos of other species are small. It is much easier a short time later when the embryo takes on a distinct, visible human form.
Incidentally the law would probably punish that embryo thief while ignoring a killer of human embryos: part of the senseless legacy of liberalism. I can empathize with an actual member of an endangered species but not with the species itself. I'm not going to fry up an eagle's egg and will try to convince someone who owns an egg not to. But I'm not going to turn them in either.
GEnesis 2:4 This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created.
Genesis 2:7 the LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being. NIV (my emphasis added)
When I read those words, I am drawn to believe that the man was a being, alive, but the breath of God is the Holy Spirt, according to other scriptures. When God breathed into the man's nostrils, God imparted spirit, into the special place that is the human soul, raising man above the other animals of the earth ... or so I believe. When man fell from grace, Adam's human spirit was no longer 'living'. Because Adam's human spirit was no longer 'alive', the Grace of God comes now to the human family through the Salvation offered through Jesus ... I am lead to believe.
But I won't argue these things with you, though there are some here at FR who will likely appreciate the opportunity to address these notions, and perhaps rebuke the both of us.
Even then, they're completely dependent if not on the mother, on someone else who'll bring them food, change their diapers, burp them and whatever else they need to have done. A newborn is only slightly more self-reliant than a pre-born.
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.