|
|
Post by kav on Dec 19, 2023 16:23:15 GMT -8
certainly rape is an extreme interruption.
|
|
|
|
Post by jcjames on Dec 19, 2023 16:36:08 GMT -8
Do kidney cells, through their natural uninterrupted growth, become children, teachers, nurses, etc? We've now established that the fertilized ovum is not "just a blob of goo" (that's actually, word-for-word, what a psychiatrist told a family member of mine who had an abortion in her past and has been struggling for years after learning what she had actually done) but is living unique human individual. Now the next step is to your point about "potential" vs "actual" human. Fair enough? thry cloning a kidney cell could through uninterrupted growth become a human. And fertilization itself is an interruption. left alone, no female ever just spontaneously gets pregnant. Okay you're going off on a tangent. I'm referring to "natural uninterrupted growth". We can, for the moment, table the highly advanced and intrusive technology of converting a terminally-differentiated somatic cell (like a kidney cell) back into a pluripotent stem cell and then even more advanced technology to convert it to a viable cell equal in function to that of a fertilized ovum. We can come back to it later. Fertilization is NOT an interruption of growth - it's actually necessary for the oocyte to complete its own meiosis (a type of cell growth, uniquely different than somatic mitosis). Without fertilization, the oocyte cannot complete it's final stage of growth/meiosis. The point you made was one of "potential" vs "actual" human. That's a point that is often brought up at this point. So, what does "potential" as you use it refer to? Potentially large? (if so, then how large?) Potentially self-sufficient? (if so, then what's the definition of self-sufficient?) Potentially conscious? (if so, then to the extent that such later-realized consciousness can be perceived by another?) I'm interested to understand the distinction you made between "potential" and "actual", because it does get brought up often and I'm trying to understand for clarity. |
|
|
|
Post by jcjames on Dec 19, 2023 16:39:00 GMT -8
btw, I have enchiladas waiting for me, so I will try to pick this discussion up later this evening.  |
|
|
|
Post by kav on Dec 19, 2023 16:56:21 GMT -8
thry cloning a kidney cell could through uninterrupted growth become a human. And fertilization itself is an interruption. left alone, no female ever just spontaneously gets pregnant. Okay you're going off on a tangent. I'm referring to "natural uninterrupted growth". We can, for the moment, table the highly advanced and intrusive technology of converting a terminally-differentiated somatic cell (like a kidney cell) back into a pluripotent stem cell and then even more advanced technology to convert it to a viable cell equal in function to that of a fertilized ovum. We can come back to it later. Fertilization is NOT an interruption of growth - it's actually necessary for the oocyte to complete its own meiosis (a type of cell growth, uniquely different than somatic mitosis). Without fertilization, the oocyte cannot complete it's final stage of growth/meiosis. The point you made was one of "potential" vs "actual" human. That's a point that is often brought up at this point. So, what does "potential" as you use it refer to? Potentially large? (if so, then how large?) Potentially self-sufficient? (if so, then what's the definition of self-sufficient?) Potentially conscious? (if so, then to the extent that such later-realized consciousness can be perceived by another?) I'm interested to understand the distinction you made between "potential" and "actual", because it does get brought up often and I'm trying to understand for clarity. thanks for explaining meiosis to a biologist. potential to become a human. every cell in the body has the potential to become a human. |
|
|
|
Post by jcjames on Dec 19, 2023 17:31:36 GMT -8
Okay you're going off on a tangent. I'm referring to "natural uninterrupted growth". We can, for the moment, table the highly advanced and intrusive technology of converting a terminally-differentiated somatic cell (like a kidney cell) back into a pluripotent stem cell and then even more advanced technology to convert it to a viable cell equal in function to that of a fertilized ovum. We can come back to it later. Fertilization is NOT an interruption of growth - it's actually necessary for the oocyte to complete its own meiosis (a type of cell growth, uniquely different than somatic mitosis). Without fertilization, the oocyte cannot complete it's final stage of growth/meiosis. The point you made was one of "potential" vs "actual" human. That's a point that is often brought up at this point. So, what does "potential" as you use it refer to? Potentially large? (if so, then how large?) Potentially self-sufficient? (if so, then what's the definition of self-sufficient?) Potentially conscious? (if so, then to the extent that such later-realized consciousness can be perceived by another?) I'm interested to understand the distinction you made between "potential" and "actual", because it does get brought up often and I'm trying to understand for clarity. every cell in the body has the potential to become a human. Well, you said fertilization is an interruption, I just clarified that it's not an interruption but actually a completion. Now we need to define what "a human" is, because potential-human vs actual-human is your point. Earlier you drew a line at the end of the 1st trimester, so is that about the point at which you hold that a potential-human becomes an actual-human? |
|
|
|
Post by kav on Dec 19, 2023 17:34:17 GMT -8
thanks for explaining meiosis to a biologist.potential to become a human. every cell in the body has the potential to become a human. Well, you said fertilization is an interruption, I just clarified that it's not an interruption but actually a completion. Now we need to define what "a human" is, because potential-human vs actual-human is your point. Earlier you drew a line at the end of the 1st trimester, so is that about the point at which you hold that a potential-human becomes an actual-human? No one can define a human. |
|
|
|
Post by jcjames on Dec 19, 2023 17:56:18 GMT -8
Well, you said fertilization is an interruption, I just clarified that it's not an interruption but actually a completion. Now we need to define what "a human" is, because potential-human vs actual-human is your point. Earlier you drew a line at the end of the 1st trimester, so is that about the point at which you hold that a potential-human becomes an actual-human? No one can define a human. That's such a Ketanji Jackson level cop-out, and you're well above stooping to that. You've been using that word to state your position, and yet now you can't define it? Who uses such common words that they insist are undefinable? Especially in regards to such important issues as human rights, human dignity, human suffering... human life. You've stated that the end of the 1st trimester is an important point for objecting to abortion. Why that point? Does it tie in to your other points about potential-human vs actual-human? |
|
|
|
Post by kav on Dec 19, 2023 18:01:07 GMT -8
No one can define a human. That's such a Ketanji Jackson level cop-out, and you're well above stooping to that. You've been using that word to state your position, and yet now you can't define it? Who uses such common words that they insist are undefinable? Especially in regards to such important issues as human rights, human dignity, human suffering... human life. You've stated that the end of the 1st trimester is an important point for objecting to abortion. Why that point? Does it tie in to your other points about potential-human vs actual-human? I've been using my definition-you have another. I do not consider a single cell to be a human. You do. No one can define human. |
|
|
|
Post by kav on Dec 19, 2023 18:08:14 GMT -8
Biologists would not consider a zygote to be a human. They would say it is a human zygote. asked to define human, any good biologist would say that is not possible.
|
|
|
|
Post by jcjames on Dec 19, 2023 18:51:15 GMT -8
That's such a Ketanji Jackson level cop-out, and you're well above stooping to that. You've been using that word to state your position, and yet now you can't define it? Who uses such common words that they insist are undefinable? Especially in regards to such important issues as human rights, human dignity, human suffering... human life. You've stated that the end of the 1st trimester is an important point for objecting to abortion. Why that point? Does it tie in to your other points about potential-human vs actual-human? -you have another. I do not consider a single cell to be a human. You do. No one can define human....asked to define human, any good biologist would say that is not possible. You see how your statements are confusing, even juxtaposed together? You have a definition, yet you say no one can define it. What is your definition that you're using? Because I don't think I've seen it here yet. |
|
|
|
Post by kav on Dec 19, 2023 18:54:56 GMT -8
I've been using my definition-you have another. I do not consider a single cell to be a human. You do. No one can define human....asked to define human, any good biologist would say that is not possible. You see how your statements are confusing, even juxtaposed together? You have a definition, yet you say no one can define it. What is your definition that you're using? Because I don't think I've seen it here yet. No one can make a definitive definition. We all have our own definitions. Its not rocket science. |
|
|
|
Post by kav on Dec 19, 2023 19:02:16 GMT -8
words are imperfect. we have hazy ideas of what words mean to us, but trying to define definitively 'human' is impossible. try it. what human means to me is different than what human means to you. In fact we are far off in our hazy inner definition of 'human'.
Mostly the inner definition is used to say "that is a human" and "That is not a human". but there is wide disagreement. You think a cell is a human. I do not. even if someone asked me were cro magnons humans? were neanderthals humans? my inner definition would erode.
Any attempted definition of human would likely have words like 'vertebrate' and 'mammal' but the definitions of those words-creatures with a vertebrae and creatures with mammary glands would not apply to a single cell. potential for vertebrae and mammary glands yes but then we're back to the word 'potential'.
|
|
|
|
Post by Prince Namor on Dec 19, 2023 21:21:14 GMT -8
Well, you said fertilization is an interruption, I just clarified that it's not an interruption but actually a completion. Now we need to define what "a human" is, because potential-human vs actual-human is your point. Earlier you drew a line at the end of the 1st trimester, so is that about the point at which you hold that a potential-human becomes an actual-human? No one can define a human. Comedian Bill Hicks (who didn't like children) once said, "They're not a human until they're in the phone book."! |
|
|
|
Post by kav on Dec 19, 2023 21:22:15 GMT -8
No one can define a human. Comedian Bill Hicks (who didn't like children) once said, "They're not a human until they're in the phone book."! ok now thats a definition. |
|
davidpg
TCBF Member
Joined: January 2021
Posts: 114
|
Post by davidpg on Dec 20, 2023 6:02:40 GMT -8
No one can define a human. Comedian Bill Hicks (who didn't like children) once said, "They're not a human until they're in the phone book."! I'm not in the phone book...  |
|
