Ok; so why do you buy into the idea that "I" was a "complete human being" at the point of genotype establishment? What are the foundations of that assertion? What evidence would you cite?
BTW JeanPaulBob, I'm not really asking about biology here; I'm asking about the foundations of why you think the life of a zygote is worth as much as the life of an adult. And merely stating that the would-be adult and the zygote have the same genotype isn't a satisfying answer. And citing the survival needs of the zygote isn't a satisfying answer. There are some drastic practical differences in form and function between zygote and infant, and I'd like to know why those differences shouldn't matter, because there's tons of evidence (particularly from neuroscience) indicating that they *do* matter .
And I don't buy the idea that at any of the stages of your development, you were less than a human organism, or that there's any distinction between human organism and human being, or between human being and "person with rights to be protected".
Ok; so why do you buy into the idea that "I" was a "complete human being" at the point of genotype establishment? What are the foundations of that assertion? What evidence would you cite?
Every time in the past that people have accepted such distinctions, we've come to realize the horror of what we were allowing, endorsing, or even praising.
Regardless of definitions of "human being", "person", and so on: I don't understand what you're talking about. What "horror"? Please describe the nature of suffering that results (potentially or actually) from the destruction of a blastocyst. Or if that's not possible, please explain why you think the horror you mention has some actual referent outside your imagination.
I'm asking because I don't merely want to verbally tear into right-to-lifers; I honestly want to understand where you're coming from, and so far your position doesn't make sense to me, and I don't even see how it makes sense to you.
Also: I recognize that you don't agree with my position (briefly: "components of brain clearly generate components of the mind; therefore 'no brain' strongly indicates 'no person', for some definition of 'person' that includes the existence of emotions, impulses, perceptions and the like"). But do you at least understand how it makes sense to me?
As regards soul, the greco-roman ideal was that there was an ethereal substance, soul. I don't know when they thought it arrived at the body. Hebrew (language of OT) word for soul literally meant 'that which breathes' Also, blood is equated with soul in OT.
I was not aware of the supposed equivalence to blood.
I wonder if you don't mind answering me this, what, other than nourishment, oxygen, and protection (albeit in relatively unorthodox ways), does a living (as in respiring) blastocyst or embryo or fetus need from anything?
I don't know the answer; sorry. I Am Not A Developmental Biologist.
In answer to your further questions in other posts about gametes, no human beings have 1/2 genetic code of any other human beings. However, AFAIK the zygote that became "NeutralStone" had the exact same DNA that you do now.
What differentiates Humans from other great Apes? Our DNA. When does that happen? At fertilization.
Sorry; did you mean to ask, "When does *DNA* happen?" If so then I don't understand your question. I do recognize fertilization as the point where my present-day genotype was established, and since I have no twin, I understand that my genotype is unique. I also understand that my genotype resulted from a kind of fusion of chromosomes from my parents' gametes.
Were you just checking to make sure of all that?
Unless I misread the article. It seems they found a way to make Adult Stem Cells behave like embryonic stem cells. The moral issue of Stem Cells isn't the Stem Cells but the fact that if you needed Embryonic Stem Cells you needed to Abort/Terminate/Kill/(whatever verb you think best describes the process) the fetus.
Be careful with the terms! A fetus is *never* involved in *embryonic* stem cell research. Instead, blastocysts are employed.
An embryo left in a Petri dish has the same chance to develop into an adult as an newborn infant abandoned in the woods. It's already a "human". It doesn't need to develop into one. It's a human organism--as opposed to sperm or unfertilized eggs, which are part of a human organism. (Even outside the body, it's still a "part" in the same way that a heart outside the body is a "part".) All it needs is nourishment and friendly environment--while sperm is a body part that has to combine with another body part in order to form a new organism.
So, for a moment let's set aside uses of the term "human", since different people want to use different definitions and that's confusing.
Are you saying that a sperm cell should not be regarded as having rights because it's not able to grow into an adult without coming into contact with an egg?
In that case, it seems you have a similar problem with blastocysts: *they* don't grow into later-state embryos (let alone adults) if they fail to bind to the uterine wall (and that failure naturally happens quite often). What is it about the difference between:
that it causes you to see one as "deserving rights" and not the other?
It is easier to write an incorrect program than understand a correct one.