ziurek, jau padesiu paskaityk nors kazkokiu moksliniku paaiskinimus siu laiku:
"human life", to a new, genetically unique, newly existing, individual, whole living human being (a single-cell embryonic human zygote). That is, upon fertilization, parts of human beings have actually been transformed into something very different from what they were before; they have been changed into a single, whole human being. During the process of fertilization, the sperm and the oocyte cease to exist as such, and a new human being is produced.
o cia kad nebutu daugiau kvailu klausimu is kart atsakyta ir yra daugiau, jei kam da rkas neaisku:
Myth 1: "Prolifers claim that the abortion of a human embryo or a human fetus is wrong because it destroys human life. But human sperms and human ova are human life, too. So prolifers would also have to agree that the destruction of human sperms and human ova are no different from abortions�and that is ridiculous!"
Fact 1: As pointed out above in the background section, there is a radical difference, scientifically, between parts of a human being that only possess "human life" and a human embryo or human fetus that is an actual "human being." Abortion is the destruction of a human being. Destroying a human sperm or a human oocyte would not constitute abortion, since neither are human beings. The issue is not when does human life begin, but rather when does the life of every human being begin. A human kidney or liver, a human skin cell, a sperm or an oocyte all possess human life, but they are not human beings�they are only parts of a human being. If a single sperm or a single oocyte were implanted into a woman�s uterus, they would not grow; they would simply disintegrate.
Myth 2: "The product of fertilization is simply a �blob,� a �bunch of cells�, a �piece of the mother�s tissues�."
Fact 2: As demonstrated above, the human embryonic organism formed at fertilization is a whole human being, and therefore it is not just a "blob" or a "bunch of cells." This new human individual also has a mixture of both the mother�s and the father�s chromosomes, and therefore it is not just a "piece of the mother�s tissues". Quoting Carlson:
"... [T]hrough the mingling of maternal and paternal chromosomes, the zygote is a genetically unique product of chromosomal reassortment, which is important for the viability of any species."15 (Emphasis added.)
Myth 3: "The immediate product of fertilization is just a �potential� or a �possible� human being�not a real existing human being."
Fact 3: As demonstrated above, scientifically there is absolutely no question whatsoever that the immediate product of fertilization is a newly existing human being. A human zygote is a human being. It is not a "potential" or a "possible" human being. It�s an actual human being�with the potential to grow bigger and develop its capacities.
Myth 4: "A single-cell human zygote, or embryo, or fetus are not human beings, because they do not look like human beings."
Fact 4: As all human embryologists know, a single-cell human zygote, or a more developed human embryo, or human fetus is a human being�and that that�s the way they are supposed to look at those particular periods of development.
Myth 5: "The immediate product of fertilization is just an �it��it is neither a girl nor a boy."
Fact 5: The immediate product of fertilization is genetically already a girl or a boy�determined by the kind of sperm that fertilizes the oocyte. Quoting Carlson again:
"...[T]he sex of the future embryo is determined by the chromosomal complement of the spermatozoon. (If the sperm contains 22 autosomes and 2 X chromosomes, the embryo will be a genetic female, and if it contains 22 autosomes and an X and a Y chromosome, the embryo will be a genetic male.)"16
Myth 6: "The embryo and the embryonic period begin at implantation." (Alternative myths claim 14 days, or 3 weeks.)
Fact 6: These are a few of the most common myths perpetuated sometimes even within quasi-scientific articles�especially within the bioethics literature. As demonstrated above, the human embryo, who is a human being, begins at fertilization�not at implantation (about 5-7 days), 14-days, or 3 weeks. Thus the embryonic period also begins at fertilization, and ends by the end of the eighth week, when the fetal period begins. Quoting O�Rahilly:
"Prenatal life is conveniently divided into two phases: the embryonic and the fetal. The embryonic period proper during which the vast majority of the named structures of the body appear, occupies the first 8 postovulatory weeks. ... [T]he fetal period extends from 8 weeks to birth ..."17 (Emphasis added.)
Myth 7: "The product of fertilization, up to 14-days, is not an embryo; it is just a �pre-embryo��and therefore it can be used in experimental research, aborted, or donated."
Fact 7: This "scientific" myth is perhaps the most common error, which pervades the current literature. The term "pre-embryo" has quite a long and interesting history. (See Irving and Kischer, The Human Development Hoax: Time To Tell The Truth!, for extensive details and references.) But it roughly goes back to at least 1979 in the bioethics writings of Jesuit theologian Richard McCormick in his work with the Ethics Advisory Board to the United States Department of Health, Education and Welfare,18 and those of frog developmental biologist Dr. Clifford Grobstein in a 1979 article in Scientific American,19 and most notably in his classic book, Science and the Unborn: Choosing Human Futures (1988).20 Both McCormick and Grobstein subsequently continued propagating this scientific myth as members of the Ethics Committee of the American Fertility Society, and in numerous influential bioethics articles, leading to its common use in bioethics, theological, and public policy literature to this day.
Tu gali tureti savo poziuri , as savo ir gyvenimas parodys mums ar mes teisios. tai mes tave žinom, kad tiu sprendi pagal "atrodo"
šuo kai nebegražiai atrodo, tau irgi nebe mylimu šunimi tampa, o kažkuo niekuo
Šis minčių kratinys man nesuprantamas, pagooglink ir tu.
prie ko cia atrodymas, ivardink konkreciai ko tau truksta ir kas tau zmogus, nes tikrai kvailai atorodai demonstuordama tokiu baisulini neismanyma.
tokia filosofija remesi vergoves ikurejai, vergai gi nebuvo mzone,s jie kitiap atorode, visas rasizmas tuo remesi , kitos gi rases "prastesnes, jie ne zmones, Hitleriui irgi zmone sbuvo tik baltoji rase ir t.t. plesk akirati, paksiatyk koius biologijos vaiku vadovelius gal?
Matai, aš klausiu _ tu nesugebu atsakyti ir imi mėtyti kvailinimais ir tt, bet tai neveikia. Paskaityk vietoj meilės romanų kokią Nacional geographic
cia kaip as taves klausicau, kodel tu manai,kad tu zmogus, o ne geltonas dramblys, ka atskytum? tavo klausimai tokio lygio, kaip paauglio, kuris gincyjasi bele gincytusi.
Tu nematei mano ilgiausio atsakymo???? as geriau, tiksliau, nei moklsinikai su tokiais laipsniais tau tikrai neatskaysiu, bet jei net ju mintys tau neautoritetas, tai jau beviltiska ka tau ir sakyti, ten visi tavo iskelti klausimai , pavaidnti mitais ir atskymai i juos, paaiskinimia, kodel tai mitai.
ar tu ir anglu nemoki, ne tik biologijos? nu tam tikrai gali google translateriu pasinaudoti bent, sugebesi?
kaip man kitaip jei ne kvailinti tokiu tavo postu? net 3 m vaikas protingiau pasneketu.
ps National Geographic prenumeruoju
Reikia ne tik prenumeruoti, bet ir skaityti....
tai žinoma, teisybė į akis juk neparanki
tau labiau patiktų subinlaižės, kad apsimestų, kad nesuprato apie ką čia ir nenagrinėtų tavo asmenybės. Nes tau norėtųsi tik kitų nagrinėti, pašiepti, o pačiai tai neliečiamai būt
Sėkmės nagrinėjant mano asmenybę;) linkėjimai elfams:)
