- Joined
- Sep 16, 2005
- Messages
- 5,623
- Reaction score
- 605
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
[Part 4 of reply to Msg #91]
THEY DON'T HAVE TO BE THE SAME, TO HAVE SIMILAR POTENTIAL. For example, consider that at the edge of a cliff might be a smallish boulder having a mass of 100 kilograms, and a largish computer system also having a mass of 100 kilograms. If an earthquake sends both off the cliff, then when they hit the ground both will have acquired equal amounts of kinetic energy --with respect to THAT they had similar potential, sitting on the cliff. SO: both the normal zygote and the cuticle cell have the complete set of human DNA code. They are simply processing different segments of that code. Both cells can divide and make more copies of themselves. If the zygote and its descendents live, then some of those descendants will eventually transform themselves to become cuticle cells. While no cuticle cell Naturally transforms to become a zygote-equivalent cell, the appropriate DNA code still exists in that cell. And cloning researchers have PROVED that the zygote code in an ordinary specialized cell's DNA **can** get processed --else no clones, like Dolly the sheep, would have been successfully created in the labs. So see above about Active External Help. The zygote absolutely cannot succeed at yeilding a whole human body without Active External Help --and abortion opponents routinely insist that that help MUST be provided. Triggering a cuticle cell, so that it starts processing zygote DNA code, perfectly would qualify as Active External Help --even a relatively trivial amount of help, compared to, say, the huge effort a woman puts forth during the labor of a delivery. Unborn humans don't claw their way out of wombs, and get born without Active External Help!
FACTS ARE INDEED FACTS, but the degree of synonymity between a zygote and a cuticle cell is far greater than you erroneously claim. I note that in a couple places I needed to modify what you wrote, to change "cuticle" to "cuticle [cell]", because **I** have consistently been talking about cuticle cells, which individually are significantly different from "cuticles", the things made up of lots and lots of cuticle cells. Rather like a single white blood cell is not equal to whole blood. IF YOU ACTUALLY WERE SPECIFYING CUTICLES INSTEAD OF CUTICLE CELLS, then your ignorance is far worse than I thought --you failed to pay attention to what I actually wrote in The Cuticle Cell Argument!
OKAY
FALSE. The one is most certainly NOT "just like" the other, since the unborn human has an attached placenta as a vital organ, while the walking-about child does not. ONE CONSEQUENCE of that difference is that scientific terminology distinguishes them with different names --the unborn human is typically called a "fetus" or "embryo".
THE ZYGOTE IS AN EARLIER STAGE OF DEVELOPMENT OF A CUTICLE CELL (since some of its descendents normally transform to become cuticle cells), yet somehow, to you, that is NOT sufficient grounds to claim the two cells are synonymous. Therefore you are exhibiting the Stupid Hypocrisy of a double standard. Meanwhile, I am not presenting a double standard. The zygote and cuticle cell are different enough to have different names, but similar enough for either to be able to transform into the other. The unborn human and the walking-about child are different enough to have different names, and similar enough for one to transform to the other, but not vice-versa. That actually makes the unborn human and the walking child MORE different than the cuticle cell and the zygote! Yet you, like most abortion opponents, fully accept the different names "zygote" and "cuticle cell", but reject the use of the perfectly valid different name, "fetus" instead of "child", for an unborn human. Stupid Hypocrisy! Tsk, tsk!
I PERFECTLY UNDERSTAND THE SITUATION. As just described above.
BRAGGING ABOUT YOURSELF, AGAIN? HAW! HAW!! HAW!!!
