F
talloulou said:Well I would think that of course both twins are human beings. Obviously something went horribly wrong but that doesn't make them less human. Just like if a women delivers a stillborn or has a spontaneous abortion.....there was a developing human being but it died. Usually the parasitic twin is completely absorbed and no one knows it ever existed. Ever seen those weird pictures where a tumor was removed and the tumor has teeth and hair and stuff? But I don't think we exclude deformities, even massive ones, from the definition of human being. Most parasitic twins don't survive and sometimes one has to be purposely killed to save the other as is the case sometimes with conjoined twins. But just cause it horrifies our sensabilities does not mean it's not a human being.
talloulou said:Usually the parasitic twin is completely absorbed and no one knows it ever existed. Ever seen those weird pictures where a tumor was removed and the tumor has teeth and hair and stuff?
A teratoma is a type of tumor that derives from pluripotent germ cells. The word comes from a Greek term meaning roughly "monster tumor". Teratomas (more correctly teratomata) usually start from cells in the testes in men, the ovaries in women and in the sacrum in children....
Teratomata often contain well-differentiated cells which can result in tissues growing in a teratoma which are quite different from the surrounding tissue—ovarian teratomata have been known to grow hair and teeth.
star2589 said:I just looked it up. thats actually different. they dont come from a fertilised egg.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teratoma
talloulou said:Oh I didn't know that......
star2589 said:what does it mean to be a human being?
at what point (if any) during development does a fetus become a human being?
Why?talloulou said:A human being is easily defined as a live homo sapien at any stage of development.
Nope.Now you can argue that human beings at the earliest stage of development should not have rights, legally. But to argue that they aren't human beings poses problems.
Why?For example if you try to define human being but exlude the unborn you end up excluding newborns, the disabled, the very old, senile, ect.
Why?You also end up accidently including the great apes and other intelligent animals.
Why?That is why for all intents and purposes a human being is a human (homo sapien) that is alive. Not a piece of homo sapien like a hair or flake of skin. But a homosapien from its earliest stages up until death.
Ah, look. Another lame pro-life "just because I say so" postulation.talloulou said:To argue an unborn is not a living human being is inane. It's ignorant at best and total bullshit at worst.
That also is irrelevant. pro-choice alreayd has an argument, an argument that has stood up to 30+ years of pro-life theocratic assault, that the woman has the right to control her own body.What prochoicers should argue is that yes it's a human being but one who has no rights at all.
I already know about them. :2razz: That's the benefit of having gone to school for all this stuff, after all.star2589 said:I'm sure you'll love these, steen. :2wave:
Hmm, did I ever claim that the embryo or fetus were parasites? But they certainly function in a parasitic fashion.talloulou said:It certainly does not prove STEENS claim that all unborn babies are parasites or parasitic.
steen said:I already know about them. :2razz: That's the benefit of having gone to school for all this stuff, after all.
steen said:That's the benefit of having gone to school for all this stuff, after all.
steen said:Hmm, did I ever claim that the embryo or fetus were parasites? But they certainly function in a parasitic fashion.
As for the blabbering about "unborn babies," do we really have to call you the "undead corpse"?
steen said:Ah, look. Another lame pro-life "just because I say so" postulation.
That was actually after college.star2589 said:what did you study in college?
Stick an "s" on sapien and I agree.talloulou said:You bounce all around this issue. Why don't you answer it once and for all.
Do you recognize that a fetus is a living homo sapien
Nope. The analogy is false.thus human being
I do, so your claim is false.Do you recognize that not one medical dr. or scientist refutes this claim?
steen said:That was actually after college.
star2589 said:ok, but what is your educational background in biology?
Biology minor. MS in Environmental resource management, medical school and residency.star2589 said:ok, but what is your educational background in biology?
Now, now. Just because I keep proving how insanely wrong you are all the time? Sour grapes, eh!talloulou said:There's no way in hell I'm gonna believe this guy has a background in biology!
nineplus said:But in this same line of questioning, the whole when does *humanity* begin, when does it end?? When do we lack enough humanity for plug pulling to become a consideration?
nineplus said:Because each of us will have a different answer to this question, doesn't it make sense we will also each have a different view of when humanness begins?
nineplus said:And, in turn, doesn't it mean these decisions have to be personal, with only the broadest of government controls placed upon something so intimate?
Korimyr the Rat said:We need to find a way to come to agreement on moral issues; in the meantime, the law should merely remain flexible enough to accomodate the moral opinions of the vast majority of society.
nineplus said:I'm not sure agreement is possible...
nineplus said:Do I even want to live in such a world? While it sounds simpler, it lacks the beauty of individual sight.
nineplus said:But in keeping with the last part of your quote, how does a society legally remain flexibility where moral opinions are so clearly split into two inflexible camps?
nineplus said:Each camp can firmly stand on a moral high ground...
nineplus said:I don't think it's the place of a government or a society to strive for all of our guts to match kwim?
Korimyr the Rat said:If you moved the deadline back to the 16th week or the 12th-- with exceptions for trauma and the mother's health-- this issue would die. There would be the fringes, like me and my opponents, but there would be no political leverage for either side to change the law.
Despite my own preferences in this matter, it would be more desirable for the law to fit that compromise than my own position-- unless public opinion shifted significantly in my favor in the near future.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?