toldailytopic: Do you support embryonic stem cell research?
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
A non sequitur my man!
The use of a condom prevents fertilization.
No fertilization, no embryo.
An amoeba can feel pain and will recoil away from the source of it.
A condom is not murder, but it can be a sin according to Bible teaching.
FIRST: (according to the original description of a marriage)
A person not wanting children should not join in a marriage with another partner who does want to have children ... for the marriage covenant insinuates an obligation for the partners to reproduce.
Genesis 2:23, 24 KJV
And Adam said, "This (visible manifested female wife) is now (brought forth as) bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Wo-man because she was taken out of Man.
Therefore (from this point onward) shall a man leave his father (which is one who has reproduced a new one) and his mother (a female woman who has produced offspring) and shall cleave unto his wife (one expected to reproduce): and they shall (also) be ONE FLESH.
The "be ONE FLESH" ... which they become is "a NEW FLESH" that is formed of by their separate genetic codes joining together to make "a NEW ONE" after their likeness. IOW, a "BABY". They literally do become ONE by joining (copulating).
The original description above of a man and his wife joining within a marriage situation ... implies the natural reproduction of children is the expected purpose.
SECONDLY:
It would also be a sin to withhold off-spring to a spouse according to what is taught in the OT about the sons of Judah and their sister-in-law. Judah's son, her husband, had died without leaving her with a child. It was expected that Judah would give her as the wife to another of his sons and that son would be expected to give her a child. For varied reasons each of the sons, who became her husbands, were not fulfilling their responsibility to her.
The last one was spilling his semen on the ground, because he did not want to give her children. A conclusion to all of this is ... if a man, who is expected by his partner within a marriage to produce offspring by her... were to withhold his semen... whether through abstinence, or use of a condom, or by spilling it on the ground as happened in the OT story of Judah's son, it is a sin.
IOW, both partners need to simultaneously and freely agree that a child is not their goal at the time of the marriage... or that they want to wait a specific amount of time and then have children. IOW ... have an agreement ahead of time.
If they marry saying that they don't want children at all, but then one spouse changes his/her mind later, but not the other ... I, personally don't feel that the one withholding will be sinning.
Yet, if they do become pregnant anyway even after using birth control and agreeing to no children, then they should honor God, the giver of life, regarding that conception and take the responsibility as the parents of a new ONE coming from them.
But is that a voluntary movement requiring thought on the part of the amoeba, or simply an involuntary reflex to outside stimuli. Making a distinction here.
More importantly... can the amoeba choose not to react?
Last edited:
I don't need to be able to tell if the one in the picture is a person. It might be from a duck, I don't know. But I do know that when you put a human ovum together with a human spermatozoa what you get is a human blastocyst, and that's a person.
That wasn't Granite that posted that; it was rexlunae.
some other dude
New member
I know I quoted you, but I was agreeing with you while commenting on Granite's post directly above mine that said:
I can see where it was unclear.
Anyhoo, who is surprised that a God-hater like Granite is a pro-abort?
I can see where it was unclear.
Anyhoo, who is surprised that a God-hater like Granite is a pro-abort?
Why is it a person? What does it have that makes it special compared to any other blastocyst? And how do you know that it's human?
What else do you have when those two cells [from humans] come together? Do you then have a duck? A beaver? A platypus? No, you have a human. Human begets human; person begets person.
Just one? Christopher Hitchens.
I suppose you're going to go on to point out that he once was a blastocyst too. Yet, it would be a fool's errand to try to criminalize the prevention of the actualization of a person in potentia. Think what could have been if that sperm had met a different ovum.
some other dude
New member
ghost asked: "Name one person in this world that you believe has value?"
No, besides as a human speed bump.
No, besides as a human speed bump.
A human...blastocyst. In other words, a person in potential, not in the present.
Every cell in your body is human, individually. But no cell in your body is a person, in the same way that a seed is not a tree. The person is the whole which comprises the parts.
How is it not a person presently?
It is its potential to become a fully formed human if left to do so that makes it a human before it is formed.
Every cell that is part of me is a human cell, but not a single one of them can become anything other than the cell they are. And none of them have their own individual DNA that is different than my own. Every one of my cells has the same DNA code, a blastocyst has its own unique DNA code, different from that of its mother or father; only similar enough to show who the parents are, but different enough to show them to be a separate person from either.
It has none of the traits that people have. It has no consciousness at all, it has no personal relationships. It's a clump of mostly undifferentiated tissue.
So, it's potential to be a person makes it a person? That's rather circular, and there's no particular reason that the line of reasoning should stop at the moment of fertilization.
That's not exactly true. And it is probably only a matter of time before we can create a new person from an existing cell. And when we do that, it will be an entirely separate person.
That's also not necessarily true. The rate of mutation suggests that there probably are cells in your body that don't exactly share your genome. Are they separate people?
I don't buy that personhood hinges on genome. A hundred years ago, we had no idea what a genome was, but we knew what a person was. And it creates a lot of problems to view personhood this way. For instance, does that mean that identical twins are really the same person? Does it mean the human chimeras are actually two or more people?
It is differentiated from the parents.
And what traits do people have that make them people if a blastocyst has none of those?
No, you idiot. There is no "potential" to its personhood as personhood is actual from the moment of fertilization.
Let me know when that happens.
Can you show me something other than a suggestion?
Identical twins DNA is not 100% identical. And chimera are not two living beings, except maybe in mythology.
And 100 years ago it was recognized that the one in the womb was a person.
some other dude
New member
Medical chimeras exist in the modern medical literature. They are single individuals with two sets of DNA.
See this.
I know.
Ok, sure. What makes that so important?
Consciousness, the ability to form interpersonal relationships. That's a start.
You said it was the potential to become a fully-formed human.
I suggest you hold your breath.
No, it's a hypothetical, unless you want me to disassemble you cell by cell to find the mutants. But it's a hypothetical that's likely to be actually true.
The only reason identical twins would have different genomes would be if a mutation occurred in addition to fission of the blastocyst. Other than that, you're just denying basic biological realities, and if you're relying on that to sustain your personhood arguments, you've got a hard fight ahead of you.
Right. They're one organism/animal/person with two or more distinct genomes. That was kinda my point. You just handed me unique DNA as the standard to determine personhood, and I'm trying to see if you're serious about it. Of course you aren't, but you'd rather resort to denialism of biological reality for a second time in a row than admit that you aren't.
Not the point, nor relevant. The point is that we've been able to identify people without being able to identify unique genomes. Why do you suppose that is?