Why is a single cell a person or human being?[W:1080]

[prometeus]

The incessant rants of "its a human being, its a person" probably will never stop, part because it would be an admission of being wrong and part because some simply lack the knowledge and understanding what that single cell is.
Let me just point out some of the more obvious pitfalls of the single cell human being theory.

IF that single cell is a person and I will use person in this post to have the same meaning as human being, it is just shorter to type, after the first division are there two human beings? Keep in mind that the two resulting cells are identical and have no coordinated functions as a complex organism does. That coordinated function will not exist till much later in development. So what makes it a person? What if it will become twins? How does one person become two or three or even more persons?

Since all mammalian organisms are organisms because they maintain homeostasis how does the initial cell do that and with what organs?

Looking forward to rational and supported explanations.

 

[Goshin]

Re: Why is a single cell a person or human being?

The incessant rants of "its a human being, its a person" probably will never stop, part because it would be an admission of being wrong and part because some simply lack the knowledge and understanding what that single cell is.
Let me just point out some of the more obvious pitfalls of the single cell human being theory.

IF that single cell is a person and I will use person in this post to have the same meaning as human being, it is just shorter to type, after the first division are there two human beings? Keep in mind that the two resulting cells are identical and have no coordinated functions as a complex organism does. That coordinated function will not exist till much later in development. So what makes it a person? What if it will become twins? How does one person become two or three or even more persons?

Since all mammalian organisms are organisms because they maintain homeostasis how does the initial cell do that and with what organs?

Looking forward to rational and supported explanations.

I really hate to get involved in these kind of threads, but there's a couple things I feel compelled to point out...


1. By the time someone knows they are pregnant and decides to get an abortion and actually gets one, the fetus is typically FAR more than just a single cell.

2. The fetus has all the characteristics of life and has human DNA; it is most definitely human. It certainly isn't a goat or a trilobite. If you wish to argue personhood, that is a different issue.


And with that I'm done and out of this....

 

[joG]

Re: Why is a single cell a person or human being?

The incessant rants of "its a human being, its a person" probably will never stop, part because it would be an admission of being wrong and part because some simply lack the knowledge and understanding what that single cell is.
Let me just point out some of the more obvious pitfalls of the single cell human being theory.

IF that single cell is a person and I will use person in this post to have the same meaning as human being, it is just shorter to type, after the first division are there two human beings? Keep in mind that the two resulting cells are identical and have no coordinated functions as a complex organism does. That coordinated function will not exist till much later in development. So what makes it a person? What if it will become twins? How does one person become two or three or even more persons?

Since all mammalian organisms are organisms because they maintain homeostasis how does the initial cell do that and with what organs?

Looking forward to rational and supported explanations.

There was a lot of ranting about the Jews in the 1930s. Whole nations decided they and the handicapped were Untermenschen and to get rid of them in order that the Volkskörper be clean. They made the laws and killed.
And the nuts ranted on that Jews and the challenged ones were human and persons. As it turned out, they were right and Jews were not subhuman and killing the handicapped was punishable.

 

[Henrin]

Re: Why is a single cell a person or human being?

How can someone know it is a human in its earliest stages of development and somehow not admit that it is a human being?

 

[Declan]

Re: Why is a single cell a person or human being?

How can someone know it is a human in its earliest stages of development and somehow not admit that it is a human being?

I call them Americans-In-Waiting, as such, support throwing them back over the wall or fence or whatever.

 

[joG]

Re: Why is a single cell a person or human being?

I call them Americans-In-Waiting, as such, support throwing them back over the wall or fence or whatever.

No point making them wait so long, huh,

 

[Declan]

Re: Why is a single cell a person or human being?

No point making them wait so long, huh,

Wouldn't want them to become babies, anchor or otherwise.

 

[prometeus]

Re: Why is a single cell a person or human being?

I really hate to get involved in these kind of threads, but there's a couple things I feel compelled to point out...


1. By the time someone knows they are pregnant and decides to get an abortion and actually gets one, the fetus is typically FAR more than just a single cell.

2. The fetus has all the characteristics of life and has human DNA; it is most definitely human. It certainly isn't a goat or a trilobite. If you wish to argue personhood, that is a different issue.


And with that I'm done and out of this....

Thanks for addressing the points in the OP and not going on some rant like others have done. As to your points:

1. Yes, it is far more at that points, but opposition to plan B and similar drugs is based on that single cell theory. Care to address those points?

2. So does a tumor, or sperm. Taxonomy is NOT the issue.

 

[prometeus]

Re: Why is a single cell a person or human being?

I find it quote telling that only one poster found the integrity to address the points, instead of posting diversionary drivel.

 

[joG]

Re: Why is a single cell a person or human being?

Wouldn't want them to become babies, anchor or otherwise.

No point in that at all, really.

 

[iguanaman]

Re: Why is a single cell a person or human being?

I really hate to get involved in these kind of threads, but there's a couple things I feel compelled to point out...


1. By the time someone knows they are pregnant and decides to get an abortion and actually gets one, the fetus is typically FAR more than just a single cell.

2. The fetus has all the characteristics of life and has human DNA; it is most definitely human. It certainly isn't a goat or a trilobite. If you wish to argue personhood, that is a different issue.


And with that I'm done and out of this....

Actually a fetus doesn't have all the characteristics of life, they are not self-sufficient entities.

 

[Lursa]

Re: Why is a single cell a person or human being?

I didnt think anyone really disputed that the unborn were human. They are genetically Homo sapiens, human.

Human being has many many interpretations. In order to create and enforce laws, US courts defined human beings as persons: a legal designation strictly defined. And based on a significant stage in human development.

My opinion:

Because they are not yet complete, have yet to develop the attributes beyond DNA that will make them *more* than human and may not even survive to be born to do so (15-20% are miscarried). They have not achieved the physical and mental attributes that do contribute to the status of born people as 'persons' under the law. It's not necessarily negative or positive....just fact. Until birth or at least viability, the unborn are less. To compare born persons to the unborn is to imply the born are 'less' as well.

It's also my opinion that birth is a logical and not arbitrary choice for personhood, as at that point, the unborn can act on society and society (persons) can act on the born without infringing on the rights of another person (without due process).

I didnt say 'perfect,' I said logical, meaning IMO a reasonable decision founded on science and the best interests of individual persons and society.

 

[Goshin]

Re: Why is a single cell a person or human being?

Thanks for addressing the points in the OP and not going on some rant like others have done. As to your points:

1. Yes, it is far more at that points, but opposition to plan B and similar drugs is based on that single cell theory. Care to address those points?

I have no firm opinion on Plan B as of yet, so no.

2. So does a tumor, or sperm. Taxonomy is NOT the issue.

Let's not be silly. tumors and sperm do not, in and of themselves, develop into a human being if left alone. Fertilized ova that have attached to the uterine wall normally do. Significant difference.

 

[Goshin]

Re: Why is a single cell a person or human being?

Actually a fetus doesn't have all the characteristics of life, they are not self-sufficient entities.

Neither is a 1 yr old. Not to mention many parasites that cannot long survive separated from a host.

It's a living human entity. There's no way around that. It isn't a tumor, it isn't an orangutan, it isn't a undifferentiated blob of tissue by the time a typical abortion is performed. It is a human being under construction.


I can accept and consider arguments as to whether the unborn has rights or personhood or whose rights are paramount, but trying to deny the humanity of the unborn is simply disingenuous to me.


And I really am done now...

 

[prometeus]

Re: Why is a single cell a person or human being?

I have no firm opinion on Plan B as of yet, so no.

That is fine, but overall the point still stands as all legislative push regarding fetal life so far has in some form declared "from conception" and as such it has to be addressed.

Let's not be silly. tumors and sperm do not, in and of themselves, develop into a human being if left alone.

The question is what is it NOW with no other qualifiers.

 

[iguanaman]

Re: Why is a single cell a person or human being?

I have no firm opinion on Plan B as of yet, so no.






Let's not be silly. tumors and sperm do not, in and of themselves, develop into a human being if left alone. Fertilized ova that have attached to the uterine wall normally do. Significant difference.

Even that is not true. I guess "God" is the most prolific abortionist in the universe. You have so many myths and misnomers about pregnancy, I wonder if you even know where babies come from.

Around half of all fertilized eggs die and are lost (aborted) spontaneously, usually before the woman knows she is pregnant. Among women who know they are pregnant, the miscarriage rate is about 15-20%. Most miscarriages occur during the first 7 weeks of pregnancy.

Miscarriage: MedlinePlus Medical Encyclopedia

 

[prometeus]

Re: Why is a single cell a person or human being?

Neither is a 1 yr old.

Of course A 1 year old has his her own life functions supported by his or her own organs.

Not to mention many parasites that cannot long survive separated from a host.

Itis frowned upon to compare fetuses to parasites around here.

It's a living human entity. There's no way around that.

Indeed that is true, but if that is the sole criteria then the same can be claimed about sperm or a tumor.

It isn't a tumor

It is not, but it has a lot more in common with a tumor than with you and I.

it isn't a undifferentiated blob of tissue by the time a typical abortion is performed.

It is very little more and most importantly that life is not self sustaining.

It is a human being under construction.

Yes, but like a house under construction the foundation and some walls are not sufficient for a CO.

I can accept and consider arguments as to whether the unborn has rights or personhood or whose rights are paramount, but trying to deny the humanity of the unborn is simply disingenuous to me.

It is not the "humanity" that is dispute it really is not, but rather the significance of that "life" compared to the significance of the self determination of the woman making that life possible.

 

[year2late]

Re: Why is a single cell a person or human being?

I have no firm opinion on Plan B as of yet, so no.






Let's not be silly. tumors and sperm do not, in and of themselves, develop into a human being if left alone. Fertilized ova that have attached to the uterine wall normally do. Significant difference.

Does a fertilized ova develop into a human being if left alone? Don't they require a woman to play host?

 

[applejuicefool]

Re: Why is a single cell a person or human being?

I find it quote telling that only one poster found the integrity to address the points, instead of posting diversionary drivel.

They've already been addressed in other threads, pretty much the same way Goshin addressed them. Didn't notice anyone gushing over the integrity of *those* posters.

-AJF

 

[applejuicefool]

Re: Why is a single cell a person or human being?

Actually a fetus doesn't have all the characteristics of life, they are not self-sufficient entities.

Self-sufficiency isn't a characteristic of life. Tapeworms are alive, but not self-sufficient, for example.

-AJF

 

[applejuicefool]

Re: Why is a single cell a person or human being?

I didnt think anyone really disputed that the unborn were human. They are genetically Homo sapiens, human.

Human being has many many interpretations. In order to create and enforce laws, US courts defined human beings as persons: a legal designation strictly defined. And based on a significant stage in human development.

My opinion:



It's also my opinion that birth is a logical and not arbitrary choice for personhood, as at that point, the unborn can act on society and society (persons) can act on the born without infringing on the rights of another person (without due process).

I didnt say 'perfect,' I said logical, meaning IMO a reasonable decision founded on science and the best interests of individual persons and society.

And I don't think anybody is disputing that unborn humans are less than born humans. Mass-wise, they are definitely less. Experience-wise, they are less. Nobody is suggesting that unborn have *all* the rights that born humans have. They have no need for property rights, for example. As per law, they shouldn't get the right to vote until age 18. As minors, they don't have the right to enter into binding contracts.

I still haven't been able to work out why they shouldn't have the right to life. Life is the only thing they *do* have. If you force them to surrender it, they have literally *nothing*.

-AJF

 

[applejuicefool]

Re: Why is a single cell a person or human being?

The question is what is it NOW with no other qualifiers.

Why, exactly, is that the question? Why is it verboten to take into account what it will become?

-AJF

 

[applejuicefool]

Re: Why is a single cell a person or human being?

Even that is not true. I guess "God" is the most prolific abortionist in the universe. You have so many myths and misnomers about pregnancy, I wonder if you even know where babies come from.

He said "normally". As in, the normal case. Spontaneous miscarriages happen in a minority of of pregnancies. They are not "normal".

Interestingly enough, the percentages of spontaneous miscarriages and abortions is roughly the same in the US.

-AJF

 

[Lursa]

Re: Why is a single cell a person or human being?

I still haven't been able to work out why they shouldn't have the right to life. Life is the only thing they *do* have. If you force them to surrender it, they have literally *nothing*.

-AJF

Because women would be required to give up many of their rights in order to enable the unborn the right to life against their (the woman's) will.

And that includes their right to life because even with a mandate that would allow abortion in order to save a woman's life, not all deaths can be prevented or predicted. Many women still die and abortion is legal at almost any stage now. The choice to take that risk is up to the woman...not the govt and the govt recognizes that. I suggest you at least try to wrap your mind around it. It's been explained to you many times.

 

[Lursa]

Re: Why is a single cell a person or human being?

He said "normally". As in, the normal case. Spontaneous miscarriages happen in a minority of of pregnancies. They are not "normal".

Interestingly enough, the percentages of spontaneous miscarriages and abortions is roughly the same in the US.

-AJF

15-20% of all pregnancies ending in miscarriage is a significant percentage.