On 22/07/2006, at 8:14 PM, Brother John wrote:
Now, I don't think it's wrong to say that human life starts at
conception, but I just think it's meaningless, as a zygote isn't
actually any more human than an ovum - it's still a single cell.
Sure, it's been given the infusion of extra DNA and the biological
kick that'll
You can say it's not human if you like, but genetically you are
just wrong. It is distinctly human and not of any other living
species. Furthermore, it is alive. If it were not, there would be
no need to kill it. --JWR
Again I refer to HeLa cells. I haven't had a chance yet to respond to
JDG's point, so I will here, because it's an important issue - being
a human cell and being a human being are not the same thing.
A reminder, I referred to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HeLa to show a
case of free-living human cells.
JDG replied thus, a valid objection:
"It would seem to me that cancer cells likely fail at least one of
the two tests, or both. For one, many cancer cells do not seem to be
individuals, any more than a free-floating blood cell is an individual."
True, many cancer cells do not. But some cancer cells are very close
to amoebae in structure and behaviour, and multiply by binary
fission. Is that not individualism?
His second objection was not valid.
"For two, the wikipedia entry you posted says that these cells in
this case are not human, but are instead of another genera."
This using of "what things are called" to define what they are is a
classic trick, but it's also a serious error. The map is not the
territory. The same trick is used by creationists arguing against
human evolution. As hominid fossils are divided by the genus _Homo_
and others such as _Australopithecus_, and newly discovered fossils
in the hominid family are placed in one of these groups, it's used as
an argument that there are no transistional fossils between "ape" and
"human". If it's in _Homo_, it's human, if it's not, it's not. Even a
cursory look at the fossils shows you the stupidity of this line of
reasoning, just as a walk across the border between two countries
shows the arbitrariness of human national borders - there's rarely a
geological or topological boundary, unless it's a coastline or a
river, and even then it's still arbitrary.
HeLa cells have human DNA. They're tumour cells from a human cervical
cancer patient. It has been proposed that as these cells are free-
living that they could constitute an incidence of speciation, and a
new name has been suggested (but is not universally accepted).
But the point remains. These are free living human cells, with a full
complement of human DNA. That someone has suggested they're a new
species is beside the point - these are free-living human cells... so
why aren't they human beings with the same rights as the rest of us?
So, back to the start... "Genetically, you are just wrong". I'm not
saying it's not a human cell. I'm not saying it's not human. I'm
saying it's not the same as a human being, just as an egg isn't a
chicken, and an acorn isn't an oak tree, and just as a HeLa cell
isn't a human, even though it is genetically human and not of any
other living species.
"Killing a cell" and killing a person aren't the same thing either.
Just to make it clear, this is what we're talking about having "full
human rights":
http://www.advancedfertility.com/pics/8cellicsi.jpg
That's it. That's what these frozen embryos are.
Charlie.
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
