"2)Biologists tell us that all life comes from pre-existing life. In other words, life does not begin, it is transmitted. The human egg and sperm are both living, human cells. At conception, two previously existing living things come together to form another living thing. Therefore, fertilization is not the beginning of human life, but is a significant step in its continuity"
That is supposed to be a (cough) argument? Apparently you do not have anything stronger than to throw a mass of weak, sloppy, (factually and philosophically errant) arguments around hoping people will mistake sheer volume for substantive reason.
Here is the distinction that real biologists make between a fingernail and a fetus.
"Organisms are living beings composed of parts that have separate but mutually dependent functions. While organisms are made of living cells, living cells themselves do not necessarily constitute an organism. The critical difference between a collection of cells and a living organism is the ability of an organism to act in a coordinated manner for the continued health and maintenance of the body as a whole......Human life is defined by the ability to function as an integrated whole—not by the mere presence of living human cells.
What does the nature of death tell us about the beginning of human life? From the earliest stages of development, human embryos clearly function as organisms. Embryos are not merely collections of human cells, but living creatures with all the properties that define any organism as distinct from a group of cells; embryos are capable of growing, maturing, maintaining a physiologic balance between various organ systems, adapting to changing circumstances, and repairing injury. Mere groups of human cells do nothing like this under any circumstances. The embryo generates and organizes distinct tissues that function in a coordinated manner to maintain the continued growth and health of the developing body. Even within the fertilized egg itself there are distinct “parts” that must work together—specialized regions of cytoplasm that will give rise to unique derivatives once the fertilized egg divides into separate cells. Embryos are in full possession of the very characteristic that distinguishes a living human being from a dead one: the ability of all cells in the body to function together as an organism, with all parts acting in an integrated manner for the continued life and health of the body as a whole.
Linking human status to the nature of developing embryos is neither subjective nor open to personal opinion. Human embryos are living human beings precisely because they possess the single defining feature of human life that is lost in the moment of death—the ability to function as a coordinated organism rather than merely as a group of living human cells."
(Dr. Maureen L. Condic is an Assistant Professor of Neurobiology and Anatomy at the University of Utah, currently conducting research on the regeneration of embryonic and adult neurons following spinal cord injury.)
print.firstthings.com
So far You and your (cough) expert authorities have argued;
1) Morality is based solely on 50% plus one vote. All ethical and moral decisions are relative and subject to the tyrannical whims of the majority.
2) If there is no consensus we should be able to do anything we want to Human beings, (who even knows what that is) including abortion and by logical extension, (as Singer advocates based on exactly the same reasoning) infanticide.
3) A fetus is no different than a fingernail or a flake of dandruff and therefore they can be killed and thrown away like any piece of garbage. But wait; when you think about it, you are nothing but a really big blob of cells, so we should be able to do the same thing to you.
WOW!!! And those are presumably your strongest arguments???? |
