The reason religion is so powerful

[Peebothuhlu]

At work.

Neo's reasoning was that the embryo is biologically human from conception. Any undamaged human cell is biologically human. Being biologically human doesn't make something a human being.

Right; he is using human as a noun—the embryo is a human being from conception. You're referring to human as an adjective—human hair.

Here's a word I learned from vulcanlogician: totipotency. It's the power of a cell to produce an entirely new organism.

So human genetics + totipotency + any other relevant factor = New Human (noun) organism.

Human zygotes meet this criteria. But without the cells in your cheeks achieving totipotency, for example, we cannot compare them to zygotes or call them human beings. Once they do that's another story.

Just sticking an oar into the pond.

Not quite sure how relevant the information is BUT folks are aware of tumours being removed that had started to create differentiated cells?

As in a tumour that was also growing teeth (Possibly tooth) within its mass?

I know there's a proper medical term for that kind of weirdness but my limited Googlefoo isn't comming up with it atm.

All the DNA of the person is still within the cancer. It's just the workings of those cells that are out of kilter.

Jus' sayin'.

Cheers.

[brewer]

I think you should read about acardiac/trap twin, and take note of the effect on the pump twin. Then come back and talk to us about the trap twins inherent value.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3939538/

Given that you are a retired medical professional I'm surprised you question the value of the acardiac twin. The appropriate response is clearly to look for an early intervention to prevent any developmental anomalies, and blood perfusion problems, from ever occurring in the acardiac twin.

The goal of medicine should be to save both twins, not classify one as worthless from the start, wouldn't you agree?

And insofar as you do classify one as valueless and not the other you are proving Neo's point. Such differentiation wouldn't be possible unless embryos are living human organisms from conception, and could lose their life and development. Unless your response is that both the normal twin and the acardiac twin are equal to each other before they are born, I'm not sure how this helps your case.

Your response is either willful ignorance to continue the argument or some kind of childish fantasy.

The trap twin is incompatible with life outside the womb (exactly what  acardiac[no heart] implies) and poses a high mortality rate for the pump twin. There is no known 'early intervention' to save the trap twin. By the time it's discovered it's already to late, no turning back the fetal development clock. The intervention to save the pump twin is to eliminate the trap twin.

This isn't about classification or value but biological/medical facts. One has a chance to live, one not, sometimes both not.

All unborn humans have inherent value and rights is an unsupportable statement. I gave Neo a chance to define/redefine his argument and got no response.

[John 6IX Breezy]

This isn't about classification or value but biological/medical facts. One has a chance to live, one not, sometimes both not.

No; one has a chance to be viable the other does not. (Clearly one twin is already alive in the womb unless contraindicated.)

Unless you meant to say one of them has a chance to become a human organism (the label used by Neo) and the other does not, what exactly does this bring to the table for you?

There is no known 'early intervention' to save the trap twin.

Great, then we should fix that wouldn't you agree?

[brewer]

No; one has a chance to be viable, the other does not. (Clearly one twin is alive in the womb unless contraindicated.)

Unless you meant to say one of them has a chance to become a human organism (the label used by Neo) and the other does not, what exactly does this bring to the table for you?

Great, then we should fix that wouldn't you agree?

viable........live........ mincing words does not change the biologic facts.

JFC you're going to some extreme lengths. Yes, one has the potential for life outside the womb as my previous stated position to Neo. Neo passed up his offer to define.

Great? How, at this time and with current technology do you propose the fix? Which part of to late by the time of diagnosis don't you understand?

Somebody wants unborn human rights now, without conditions.

[John 6IX Breezy]

viable........live........ mincing words does not change the biologic facts.
JFC you're going to some extreme lengths. Yes, one has the potential for life outside the womb as my previous stated position to Neo.

I don't see any disagreement here; I just don't see the relevance. As long you understand that one of the twin is alive, great, viability just means it can remain so outside the womb. What does this have to do with the nature of the twins as human organisms?

---

Which part of to late by the time of diagnosis don't you understand?

The part where you act like this is an unsurmountable obstacle.

[Astreja]

All unborn humans have inherent value and rights is an unsupportable statement...

I'm not sure that any rights could be considered "inherent." Why inherent? That implies that they're based on some demonstrable objective factor, rather than on social consensus (which is notorious for changing rapidly) or a particular philosophical viewpoint.

[John 6IX Breezy]

I'm not sure that any rights could be considered "inherent."  Why inherent?  That implies that they're based on some demonstrable objective factor, rather than on social consensus (which is notorious for changing rapidly) or a particular philosophical viewpoint.

I agree; biology and legality are separate subjects. And insofar as they should interact, biology should inform the political, not the other way around. (I think Brewer agrees as well its just that his sentence is a bit of a garden path).

[brewer]

viable........live........ mincing words does not change the biologic facts.

JFC you're going to some extreme lengths. Yes, one has the potential for life outside the womb as my previous stated position to Neo.

I don't see any disagreement here; I just don't see the relevance. As long you understand that one of the twin is alive, great, viability just means it can remain so outside the womb. What does this have to do with the nature of the twins as human organisms?

You, like Neo, need to define human and then tie it to unborn rights and define those rights. I'll go back to one of my original positions and ask, is a hydatidiform mole, the result of conception, a human that should 'human' rights? That's where my disagreement with Neo began. Are you intentionally leaving unborn rights at the time of conception out of the discussion?

This all could have been simplified if Neo had just come out and said pro-live/anti-abortion instead of being deceptive.

---

All unborn humans have inherent value and rights is an unsupportable statement...

I'm not sure that any rights could be considered "inherent."  Why inherent?  That implies that they're based on some demonstrable objective factor, rather than on social consensus (which is notorious for changing rapidly) or a particular philosophical viewpoint.

You'll have to engage Neo on this one, it's his position.

---

Which part of to late by the time of diagnosis don't you understand?

The part where you act like this is an unsurmountable obstacle.

At this time it is. Why should I debate what might be possible in some hypothetical future?

[The Grand Nudger]

No, nonono, this can't be about rights...because we're not talking law.

[John 6IX Breezy]

You, like Neo, need to define human and then tie it to unborn rights and define those rights.

We know what it means to be an organism (as opposed to an organ or tissue). We know conception is the beginning of a new organism—the rest is development (at least in sexual reproduction). We know what it means to be taxonomically human (as opposed to another ape). And we more or less know what it means to be alive (as opposed to dead).

All these things together are how we can identify a human.