Trump Tax derail - Abortion

[Bill the Cat]

What twins shows is that the dna is not the sole determiner of who and what the individual will be. The unique environment of the womb, even the same womb, plays a part. The zygote becomes the individual during gestation. It is not the individual yet, but has the potential to become one.

Or more.


Jim

It is a self-contained and self-directing organism of our species that has a small percentage chance of splitting into 2 separate self-contained and self-directing organisms. But that split does not eliminate the original zygote's status as a self-contained and self-directing organism of our species. It is an individual, until it becomes multiple individuals.

[oxmixmudd]

It is a self-contained and self-directing organism of our species that has a small percentage chance of splitting into 2 separate self-contained and self-directing organisms. But that split does not eliminate the original zygote's status as a self-contained and self-directing organism of our species. It is an individual, until it becomes multiple individuals.

You can't avoid the implication it is not an individual until at least a significant portion of gestation has completed. Twins are completely different people yet they are the same DNA and originate from the same DNA. The potential to create an individual does not define who that individual will be. Different environments can change the outcome is what Twins show us. Triplets, Quartets. now we have 3, or 4. Even if they are identical, they are all different individuals with the same DNA.
Who that zygote can become can't be determined from the zygote alone, because there is more to come - gestation.

The zygote has the potential to become an individual. It is not yet an individual.


Jim

[Bill the Cat]

You can't avoid the implication it is not an individual until at least a significant portion of gestation has completed.

It's YOU who can't avoid the implication that it's an individual until it's not. Whether that is because of splitting in two (or more) or dying.

Twins are completely different people yet they are the same DNA and originate from the same DNA.

Again, that does not make the original zygote a non-individual. It is an individual until it splits into 2 individuals or more.

The potential to create an individual does not define who that individual will be.

Never claimed otherwise.

Different environments can change the outcome is what Twins show us. Triplets, Quartets. now we have 3, or 4. Even if they are identical, they are all different individuals with the same DNA.

But their genetic sequences are slightly different due to epigenetic changes., thus making them different individuals.

Who that zygote can become can't be determined from the zygote alone, because there is more to come - gestation.

Who is talking about what they can become? We are talking about whether or not they are individual members of our species, and therefore should be afforded protection from being destroyed.

The zygote has the potential to become an individual. It is not yet an individual.

Wrong. It is an individual, unless and until it splits into multiple individuals in the case of identical twins. Otherwise, if it doesn't split, it remains a single individual member of our species for the remainder of its life.

[Sparko]

When I was a Christian I took the view that if indeed "a soul" was something that existed in and of itself that created inside of / put inside of humans, then God would decide a sensible time to do that based on his omniscience and general competence. Since over half of conceived embryos die naturally and do not survive to term, it would seem a bit silly for God to put souls into them at conception, and it would seem more sensible for him to wait until they had survived the part where they were likely to die. Depending on his level of foreknowledge (open theism etc) he may know exactly whether a fetus would survive to term and so presumably wouldn't bother to put a soul into a fetus that was going to die pre-birth. Alternatively he could simply recycle the soul of a fetus that didn't get a chance at life back into a new fetus, until it got to live a length of life he deemed acceptable.

So as a Christian I always found it difficult to care at all about the abortion issue, because I couldn't see any reason to think God didn't have the issue well in hand, and the Bible doesn't place any emphasis on anti-abortion views to the extent that it even mentions the subject at all.

that is known as "rationalization" - coming up with a reason that your values are not from the pit of hell by imagining God will cover the back of child murderers.

[Sparko]

The zygote is not an individual, yet. Proof? One word:

Twins

Jim

A zygote can't be twins. It takes at least two cells to split into twins. A zygote is a single fertilized cell. A twin can split at the two cell stage or later, at which point it becomes two distinct individuals. So a zygote is still always an individual human being. And at no stage after fertilization are any of the cells part of the mother or father. They are a distinct individual human being from either.

[Sparko]

You can't avoid the implication it is not an individual until at least a significant portion of gestation has completed. Twins are completely different people yet they are the same DNA and originate from the same DNA. The potential to create an individual does not define who that individual will be. Different environments can change the outcome is what Twins show us. Triplets, Quartets. now we have 3, or 4. Even if they are identical, they are all different individuals with the same DNA.
Who that zygote can become can't be determined from the zygote alone, because there is more to come - gestation.

The zygote has the potential to become an individual. It is not yet an individual.


Jim

what definition of "individual" are you using?

[lilpixieofterror]

The zygote is not an individual, yet. Proof? One word:

Twins

Jim

By that logic, cloning had elimated individuals.

[oxmixmudd]

A zygote can't be twins. It takes at least two cells to split into twins. A zygote is a single fertilized cell. A twin can split at the two cell stage or later, at which point it becomes two distinct individuals. So a zygote is still always an individual human being. And at no stage after fertilization are any of the cells part of the mother or father. They are a distinct individual human being from either.

No - it is not. It is a potential human or humans. If it was 'an individual human being' as it was, it could not then become and direct the formation of two DIFFERENT human beings. It can't be 'an individual' but 'not an individual' at the same time Sparko. Why the obstinance - it's a fairly obvious conclusion?


Jim

[oxmixmudd]

By that logic, cloning had elimated individuals.

No silly, cloning creates multiple zygotes which then can create multiple individuals.

[oxmixmudd]

what definition of "individual" are you using?

BTC is saying the zygote is the embodiment of the final baby, that the zygote is for all practical purposes the same as the final baby. Clearly , it is not, as it can produce >1 baby. And those two babies are NOT identical in every way. They are individuals plural. So the zygote is a potential human being, but not a human being yet. And in fact, it can - under the right circumstances - produce more than 1 human being, which is why clearly more than just the zygote is required to determine it's final product, which is why one can't say it IS the individual. More than the zygote is required to create the baby, and variations along the way can and will produce different babies.

Jim

[Bill the Cat]

BTC is saying the zygote is the embodiment of the final baby, that the zygote is for all practical purposes the same as the final baby.

In most all cases, yes. Identical twins is an exception to the 1 to 1 ratio, but increasing the second number does not decrease the first. YOU continue to claim that 0 "becomes" 1 or 2 or 3, etc.

Clearly , it is not, as it can produce >1 baby. And those two babies are NOT identical in every way. They are individuals plural.

Again, it still doesn't change the fact that the single cell zygote is a fully contained member of our species. That sometimes, it can split into more than one is irrelevant to the original point. It's a unique human life that will NEVER start as 0.

So the zygote is a potential human being, but not a human being yet.

Wrong. It is a human being that MAY become more than one human being in the right circumstance.

And in fact, it can - under the right circumstances - produce more than 1 human being, which is why clearly more than just the zygote is required to determine it's final product, which is why one can't say it IS the individual.

It's AN individual until/if it becomes more than one.

More than the zygote is required to create the baby, and variations along the way can and will produce different babies.

That is biological ignorance. Nothing more than a sperm and egg uniting is required to make a baby. That more than one can be produced is immaterial to that fact.

[lilpixieofterror]

No silly, cloning creates multiple zygotes which then can create multiple individuals.

You can be cloned too.

[oxmixmudd]

You can be cloned right now.

But that clone will not be me

[lilpixieofterror]

But that clone will not be me

And identical twins are not the same people either, so there’s your answer.

[Mountain Man]

No - it is not. It is a potential human or humans. If it was 'an individual human being' as it was, it could not then become and direct the formation of two DIFFERENT human beings. It can't be 'an individual' but 'not an individual' at the same time Sparko. Why the obstinance - it's a fairly obvious conclusion?


Jim

"Potential human" ... you claim to be opposed to abortion but use the language favored by pro-abortionists.

At the moment of conception, the organism is not potential human life, it is ACTUAL human life.