Posted on 03/23/2014 8:19:43 PM PDT by Olog-hai
The U.S. Justice Department is telling the Supreme Court that killing a human embryo by preventing the embryo from implanting in his or her mother’s uterus is not an “abortion” and, thus, drugs that kill embryos this way are not “abortion-inducing” drugs.
On Tuesday, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in the case of Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby. The crux of the administration’s argument in this case is that when Christians form a corporation they give up the right to freely exercise their religion—n.b. live according to their Christian beliefs—in the way they run their business.
It is in the context of this case, that the administration is making its argument that killing an embryo seeking to implant in his or her mother’s womb is not an abortion.
The dispute involves a regulation that Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius issued under the Affordable Care Act. This regulation says that virtually all health insurance plans must cover, without any fees or co-pay, all FDA-approved “contraceptives.” …
(Excerpt) Read more at cnsnews.com ...
That is an entirely subjective philosophical statement as there are no scientific means to verify it. It isn't even possible to verify that a person in a coma can think or perceive.
differentiatedif·fer·en·ti·ate
[dif-uh-ren-shee-eyt] Show IPA verb (used with object), dif·fer·en·ti·at·ed, dif·fer·en·ti·at·ing.
1. to form or mark differently from other such things; distinguish.
2. to change; alter.
3. to perceive the difference in or between.
4. to make different by modification, as a biological species.
5. Mathematics . to obtain the differential or the derivative of.
If those 150 cells were not differentiated (different from each other) then they would never form the different parts of the body they would just keep replicating exact duplicates of themselves making an ever bigger ball of cells all the same as every other.
If that is the definition of a living being then the grass you cited earlier is not a living being. (you cited it not me) But even many thousands of animals do not have brains so they would also not be considered living beings by that criteria.
Those are all considered living beings aren't they? Each different even from individuals of their own kind.
Does their unique DNA make them human beings? Does it make protection of their lives an absolute moral imperative? I would say not. DNA is not some magical, mystical substance. It is one of many biological molecules that form a living organism, a purely physical and non-magical molecule.
Based on the other criteria of a living being, able to self-replicate its own cells which would begin as soon as you combined the components present in normal gametes thus artificially mimicking conception.
You probably won't like to hear this, but the replication of cells is an automatic chemical process, much like any other chemical process. Under the right conditions, cells divide.
When you have to grasp at straws stretched so thin as to bring up laboratory manipulations of living organisms you have gone a long way from a simple scientific recognition of what makes a living organism a living organism. Even your manipulated examples have the basic biological processes of self-replication and the potential of species replication inherent in them. They only share the exact DNA of another being through a manipulated process that mimics the natural occurrence of identical twins.
I am trying to get through your rather thick sense of mysticism to get you to see the physical reality of the world around you, even of your own body. Relating my experience observing living human cells with unique DNA is hardly "grasping at straws." When you observe, every single day, that uniqueness of DNA is a meaningless parameter, that "human" is merely a descriptive term for a species and does not describe personhood, that human cells, no matter how well you take care of them, are not human beings and do not have the potential to become human beings--then you fully understand that a human being is far more than the physical characteristics of a cell.
When a human organism has differentiated to the point where it has a functional brain and is able to sense and respond to its environment, then it has assumed the one and only defining characteristic of a human being. Until and unless that occurs, no person exists. And when that brain ceases to function, the person no longer exists.
Try to understand what I am saying, and stop grasping at straws to try to give scientific status to your romantic religious belief that life "starts" at conception and that the zygote is as conscious and aware as a child that is several weeks post-conception. Your romantic notions fuel the pro-abort rejection of pro-life arguments as being mere religious views that can and should be dismissed.
Also, are you going to call every woman you meet a murderer, just because she has used contraceptives?
If we can't even agree on a definition of a 'living being' it is superfluous to debate what makes a living being a human being.
Also, are you going to call every woman you meet a murderer, just because she has used contraceptives?
Having failed completely to make any scientific argument for your POV you finally drop the semantics and sophistry and come to the essence of all of your arguments. Emotion.
That would also be true of the 3 to 5 week old fetus you described. It cannot be proved that it has awareness or consciousness or thought of any kind.
Seriously? You are aware, aren't you, that it is possible to measure brain activity? That it is possible to measure the function of a single cell? Also--you are probably unaware of this--when cells differentiate into tissues, they take on the function of those tissues. There is no such thing as an inactive differentiated cell. When cells differentiate to become brain tissue, they function as brain tissue.
Not every living person's brain as the example of my mother with Alzheimer's addressed. But I don't think brain waves have ever been detected in a five week old fetus. If it has it is still irrelevant. Not all living beings have brains so it isn't a defining characteristic of a living being.
Your mother with Alzheimer's may have diminished brain function, but she is still a human being and will remain so until she dies. And so what if alpha, beta, theta waves have or have not been detected in a 5 week old embryo? That is irrelevant. As I pointed out in my previous posts, as soon as the cells differentiate, they take on the function of their differentiated form. So brain cells act like brain cells. It is irrelevant whether they coordinate in such a fashion as to produce brain waves at 5 weeks--as they continue to grow, they will learn to work together to make the brain waves.
You really are all over the place. On the one hand, you try to elevate a tiny clump of cells--a number of cells vastly outnumbered by the cells you kill if you get a tiny scratch--to the status of a thinking, feeling human being. Then you turn around and try to argue that there is no way to prove that an observably feeling, aware human being is actually feeling and aware. Your inconsistency makes me think you are a troll.
Yet many living beings don’t even have brains. Nor can you determine that brain waves signify thoughts are happening or that perception is occurring. As in a coma patient. Your ever-shifting esoteric bases for defining a ‘living being’ fails repeatedly.
That is not the measure, and no matter how many times you try to make it so, it isn't.
If we can't even agree on a definition of a 'living being' it is superfluous to debate what makes a living being a human being.
As a scientist, I care little about trying to stretch the definitions of words. My only goal is to describe the physical reality as accurately and precisely as possible. Do not project your desire to change the meanings of words to try to shoehorn descriptions into your preconceived incorrect world view. *I* do not shift the meanings of words.
Cells are alive for as long as chemical reactions are taking place in those cells. When the chemical reactions stop, the cells are dead. Living cells do not feel nor are they aware of anything. Whether those cells are human or come from some other organism is irrelevant. Living human cells do not have any special moral status that makes it wrong to kill them; what makes killing a human being wrong is that the human being has the higher-order physical structures necessary to be aware.
Also, are you going to call every woman you meet a murderer, just because she has used contraceptives?
Having failed completely to make any scientific argument for your POV you finally drop the semantics and sophistry and come to the essence of all of your arguments. Emotion.
That was actually a rhetorical question, meant to make you step outside your preconceived notions and make you think. Obviously, the question failed in its purpose, because you still haven't thought. I will try again (only because it amuses me, and engaging with the unthinking helps keep my thinking skills sharp):
1) The vast majority of women (including most Catholic women) use some form of contraceptive.
2) Some contraceptives (e.g. the IUD) work by preventing implantation.
3) Since you seem to morally equate prevention of implantation with the murder of a living, aware, feeling human being, do you really and truly believe that the majority of women are murderers because of their contraceptive use?
I have been attempting to describe the difference between a human being and something that is human, but not a human being. Your inability to understand that difference is because you have some emotional resistance, not because I have shifted anything.
Your understanding of physical science is really bizarre, I might add. When the brain is functioning, those functions can be measured in a number of ways--EEG, MRI, PET, etc. The fact that those brain functions cause perception and thought isn't even debatable. Frankly, the belief you seem to express that the physical measurable activity of the brain is not related to perception, thought, or feeling is utterly bizarre. If the physical activity of the brain is unrelated to thought and perception, then why was the field of anesthesiology invented? In your odd unscientific view, what is the purpose of chemically suppressing brain function if such suppression is completely unrelated to consciousness?
That is not the measure, and no matter how many times you try to make it so, it isn't.
That is actually the only measure that is relevant.
If everything that is human and alive has the same moral status as a human being that is able to feel and respond to its environment, then you'd better start arresting scientists for the murder of countless trillions of living human cells. Because we keep killing them, and we won't stop (while we still receive grant money).
The will to live is evidence of life and by the time the new life reaches the womb a portion of the cells that new life has made are already tasked to seek implantation. And another set of those cells created by the new life are tasked with forming the protective water zone in which that new life will grow a body for life in the air world. THAT is astonishing differentiation, and at the earliest age this differentiating begins which is the signal that a new will to be has come into the spacetime realm we all inhabit with bodies.
I am never going to get a straight answer out of this other poster and she doesn’t have a clue what differentiates science from philosophy and esoteric thought. So far she hasn’t made a single statement that could be classified as science based. Rattling test tubes doesn’t make someone a scientist. Obviously. lol
Nope, that’s not the measure and the measure changes from post to post.
Wrong.
It is pointless to discuss that with you. Your reasoning is like a Democrat, an atheist, a progressive.
Did you mean to post that to me?
I am in agreement with you.
And again you try the leftist filth methodology of conflating organs with organism. Peddle your liberal bilge on a site where ignorance is bliss, hun.
Is that supposed to be an argument?
I thought so, but wasn’t 100% sure.
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.