Nurse Maria Issues Advisory on Medical Manslaughter Law

[Turbo]

For the record, Bob, I was referring to a blastocyst, not an embryo. Apples and oranges. A four day old blastocyst is not the same as an embryo and I think you know that.

In what way are they different?

Everything Bob said about embryos applies to blastocysts as well:

Turbo, I imagine Granite is unaware of genetics, and the blastocyst DNA's four billion base pairs, which not only "resemble" something human, but are exactly and identically human in every "way, shape [and] form."

But then, that's just genetics, and you can't expect Granite to see much significance in something so tiny.​

...and even zygotes:

Turbo, I imagine Granite is unaware of genetics, and the zygote DNA's four billion base pairs, which not only "resemble" something human, but are exactly and identically human in every "way, shape [and] form."

But then, that's just genetics, and you can't expect Granite to see much significance in something so tiny.​

 

[Granite]

If you don't know the difference between a blastocyst and implanted embryo, Turbo, I suggest you find a bio 101 textbook or go to wikipedia.

 

[Poly]

If you don't know the difference between a blastocyst and implanted embryo, Turbo, I suggest you find a bio 101 textbook or go to wikipedia.

Since you are the one making the claim that there's a difference, isn't it up to you to provide this information that you think Turbo should find?

 

[Granite]

Since you are the one making the claim that there's a difference, isn't it up to you to provide this information that you think Turbo should find?

Poly, I don't need to "claim" there is a difference between a blastocyst and implanted embryo because they are different. Puh-LEASE don't make it sound like I'm making something up here.

Wikipedia, google, five minutes of Turbo's time. This is not difficult stuff to find. Since when is it my responsibility to do somebody's homework for them? I did that in high school one too many times. Didn't exactly see a return on my investment.

(Well, strike that. I charged for my homework.)

 

[Turbo]

If you don't know the difference between a blastocyst and implanted embryo, Turbo, I suggest you find a bio 101 textbook or go to wikipedia.

I do know the difference, but I also know what's the same: They are both alive and they both have a full and unique set of human DNA. Therefore everything Bob said about embryos applies equally to blastocysts and zygotes. Do you dispute this?

 

[Granite]

I do know the difference, but I also know what's the same: They are both alive and they both have a full and unique set of human DNA. Therefore everything Bob said about embryos applies equally to blastocysts and zygotes. Do you dispute this?

Sure do. Sentience and pain are not present in a blastocyst. Except in somebody's imagination.

 

[Turbo]

Granite, which difference makes it OK to kill human blastocysts? Is it because they are younger? Is it because they are smaller? Is it because they have fewer cells? Is it because they have not implanted? Something else?

 

[Turbo]

Sure do. Sentience and pain are not present in a blastocyst. Except in somebody's imagination.

So having human DNA does not make one "resemble anything 'human' in any way, shape, or form"?

 

[Granite]

Granite, which difference makes it OK to kill human blastocysts? Is it because they are younger? Is it because they are smaller? Is it because they have fewer cells? Is it because they have not implanted? Something else?

Let me ask you this: would you consider the trophoblast "human"? As in, and I quote: "nvasive, eroding, and metastasizing cells of the placenta...Trophoblasts mediate the implantation of the fetus into the placenta, but they are never incorporated into the mother's body or the fetus. They are not 'fetal' cells. Trophoblasts become inert during pregnancy and are completely rejected by the fetus and mother at delivery. They can be seen as the thin membrane covering the fetus at birth, the caul."

So. Are you concerned merely with the embryoblast, that is, the mass of cells that go on to become stem cells, or with the whole shooting match? How much of a blastocyst would you consider "human": the invading part that becomes membrane that surrounds what may go on to become a successful embryo and child, merely the inner cells, or both components of a blastocyst?

How much of a blastocyst, given what you know about trophoblasts, is "human"?

 

[Turbo]

Granite, you keep mentioning implanted embryos. Why is that? Do you think something significant or mystical occurs at implantation? Is the moment of implantation the point at which it become no longer okay to kill a living human being in your view?

 

[Granite]

Granite, you keep mentioning implanted embryos. Why is that? Do you think something significant or mystical occurs at implantation? Is the moment of implantation the point at which it become no longer okay to kill a living human being in your view?

Don't forget about post 29, buddy.

Do you think something significant or mystical occurs at conception?

Yes or no.

 

[Turbo]

Let me ask you this: would you consider the trophoblast "human"? As in, and I quote: "nvasive, eroding, and metastasizing cells of the placenta...Trophoblasts mediate the implantation of the fetus into the placenta, but they are never incorporated into the mother's body or the fetus. They are not 'fetal' cells. Trophoblasts become inert during pregnancy and are completely rejected by the fetus and mother at delivery. They can be seen as the thin membrane covering the fetus at birth, the caul."

So. Are you concerned merely with the embryoblast, that is, the mass of cells that go on to become stem cells, or with the whole shooting match? How much of a blastocyst would you consider "human": the invading part that becomes membrane that surrounds what may go on to become a successful embryo and child, merely the inner cells, or both components of a blastocyst?

How much of a blastocyst, given what you know about trophoblasts, is "human"?

Granite, I do not consider blood in and of itself to be a human being. A person is no less a person when a little blood is lost. But blood is necessary to sustain life. When too much blood is shed from a person's body, the person dies.

Likewise, you naturally shed skin cells regularly, and doing so does you no harm. Your skin is not a human being. But that does not give me the right to skin you, does it? Even though you will eventually shed your skin, you kind of need it for time being, don't you?

I am concerned with human life, Granite. If you attack the trophoblasts, you are attacking the unborn child because while some day that child will no longer need that membrane to sustain his life, before he is born he does.

 

[Turbo]

Don't forget about post 29, buddy.

Sometimes I actually put more than five minutes into a post.

Do you think something significant or mystical occurs at conception?

Yes or no.

Yes, when a human sperm is joined with a human egg, a brand new unique living human being is formed and his/her life begins. It is very significant, but it a natural process. (i.e. It is not mystical.)

 

[Servo]

Yes, when a human sperm is joined with a human egg, a brand new unique living human being is formed and his/her life begins. It is very significant, but it a natural process. (i.e. It is not mystical.)

But it matches up with what the Bible says, hence Granite's problem.

 

[Granite]

But it matches up with what the Bible says, hence Granite's problem.

And where does "the Bible" say that, exactly?

 

[Granite]

Sometimes I actually put more than five minutes into a post.


Yes, when a human sperm is joined with a human egg, a brand new unique living human being is formed and his/her life begins. It is very significant, but it a natural process. (i.e. It is not mystical.)

Excellent. So we are both entitled to our own beliefs as to significant or even mystical events surrounding life.

The beginning of life at conception isn't necessarily something I question, though I would question the existence of a "human being" that occurs the instant an egg and sperm are joined.

 

[Turbo]

Excellent. So we are both entitled to our own beliefs as to significant or even mystical events surrounding life.

But our beliefs cannot both be correct because they are in conflict with one another.

Note how I answered your question in a straightforward fashion, but you still haven't answered my questions:

Granite, you keep mentioning implanted embryos. Why is that? Do you think something significant or mystical occurs at implantation? Is the moment of implantation the point at which it become no longer okay to kill a living human being in your view?​

The beginning of life at conception isn't necessarily something I question, though I would question the existence of a "human being" that occurs the instant an egg and sperm are joined.

Is the life that is begins at conception not a human life? It has human DNA. It is not merely a component of the mother's body, for its DNA is unique and the life is distinct from the mother's life. Hence it is a living being that is human, is it not?

In what way is such a life disqualified from being a living human being, in your view?

 

[Granite]

But our beliefs cannot both be correct because they are in conflict with one another.

Note how I answered your question in a straightforward fashion, but you still haven't answered my questions:

Granite, you keep mentioning implanted embryos. Why is that? Do you think something significant or mystical occurs at implantation? Is the moment of implantation the point at which it become no longer okay to kill a living human being in your view?​

Is the life that is begins at conception not a human life? It has human DNA. It is not merely a component of the mother's body, for its DNA is unique and the life is distinct from the mother's life. Hence it is a living being that is human, is it not?

In what way is such a life disqualified from being a living human being, in your view?

Because a blastocyst unto itself has no potential for humanity, human life as I would quantify it, until it has been implanted in the womb.

As I have said, many times on TOL, I would define "human" life's genesis at the time when brain waves and heart activity can be detected.

 

[Servo]

And where does "the Bible" say that, exactly?

Psalm 139.

 

[Granite]

Psalm 139.

All this psalm does when speaking of us being "curiously wrought" (I love that phrase!) is the formation of the psalmist's body in the womb. There is no indication whatsoever that "life begins at conception"; if anything, given's the psalm's emphasis on the fashioning of the psalmist's body, quite the opposite.

Then there's always the issue of taking your biological lead from a book written by nomads who didn't--ah, what's the use.:chuckle: