Ree: Skylar and her Dad

Ree: Skylar and her Dad

Post by m » Thu, 21 Mar 2002 01:53:13


Quote:

[snip]
> >   As well as alot of things that never develope into anything.  They also
> > look alot like animals which aren't human.  It looks like it "should"
> > because we don't really know much about it.

>   C'mon Kevin , you're starting to sway! Of course we know much about it. It
> looks exactly like a normal human being looks at that stage of development!
> You've already conceeded that an embryologist could identify it as a *human*
> zygote, even if just "barely"!

   Not exactly.  I've "conceeded" that it has all of the physical structure
of one.  In the moment just before death, and in the moment just after
it, there is no discernable change in the body, yet they are dead.  We
know not why or how, merely that it is so.  And I assert you know not
when it starts either.  And conception is the least possible moment you
could choose.  Being "alive" or "dead" may not even be an event as
much as a process.  You wish to declare it based upon an event which
doesn't even produce a discernable result that you can connect, directly,
to any condition you are willing to define as "alive" EXCEPT the occurance
of that event.  

  My question is firstly if it is functioning, and second why
that constitutes and individual in the m***sense or a "human" since
even if it begins to function, there is no particular assurance that
it is in fact functioning in a manner which would have any ability to
develope beyond exactly what it is, which is a bunch of tissue.  Where
is the conciousness?  Where is the capacity for conciousness?  We declare
folks "dead" when a certian level of activity ceases.  These don't even
yet have the CAPACITY to have that level of activity.

Quote:
>    OK Kevin, I can see I'm going to have to back up and approach this
> differently.

   Why?  The basic question I am exploring is still the same.  What
is the basis for declaring a bunch of tissue to be a "complete human
individual being"?  It's a cell. It's not even known to be functioning
and yet you are declaring it to be a complet human individual being.
I keep asking upon what basis you draw that conclusion?  Merely
because it is composed of human DNA and tissue?  

Quote:
> Let me ask you a few questions. Yes or no  answers please. ;>)

>  1)  Do you concede that each and every human was at some point in  their
> development  a  human zygote?

   concede?  No.  Agree, yes.   I'd also suggest that data are beginning
to suggest that most ferilizations are complete and utter failures.

Quote:
>  2) Do you concede that  each and every  human zygote which has ever
> developed to it's full potential has , his or herself, produced specifically
> human proteins and enzymes and genetically directed his/her own growth and
> development throughout their development process?

   No, their developement is a symbiotic relationship between the mother
and the fetus.  Personality and physical structure are still to be
determined as a function of the actions and behaviors of the mother.
Genetics CONTRIBUTES but does not necessarily dictate.

Quote:
> 3) Do you agree that the courts (and more importantly the people) should
> afford the benefit of any doubt to those whom they might deny life?    

     Not at the cost of the freedoms of a constitutional entity that
we in fact KNOW exists and is a functioning human individual being.

    Benefit of the doubt is fine and dandy up until that benefit is
extracted by force from someone else.

  You can discuss this from a m***stand point, which I can rarely get
anyone to do.  Or you can discuss it from a constitutional stand point.
Constitutionally, extending a piece of unorganized tissue full
constitutional entity status is a dangerous thing to do, and has
never really been done before.  Declaring twins to be single "duplicate"
individuals is also a dangerous thing to do (especially in the context
of cloning).  From a m***standpoint, it is a vastly less dangerous
thing to declare.  However, it is also capricious morally to declare
it so out of a fear or laziness to understand otherwise.

                                 Kevin O'Connell