About Individual Human Life Beginning at Conception...

[Sunstone]

I assume for the sake of this thread that no one on RF would actually argue that human life begins at conception, and instead that people who appear to argue that human life begins at conception actually mean to say something along the lines of individual human life begins at conception.

If so, if individual human life begins at conception, then precisely what makes it an individual human life"? What does that word "individual" mean in this context? And what doesn't it mean?

And why is the presence of an individual human life a rational basis on which to oppose abortion?

Although this thread is in the debate section, I myself am not so much interested in debating this issue as I am interested in reading the sound answers, if any, that will be offered to those questions.

 

[McBell]

I assume for the sake of this thread that no one on RF would actually argue that human life begins at conception, and instead that people who appear to argue that human life begins at conception actually mean to say something along the lines of individual human life begins at conception.

If so, if individual human life begins at conception, then precisely what makes it an individual human life"? What does that word "individual" mean in this context? And what doesn't it mean?

And why is the presence of an individual human life a rational basis on which to oppose abortion?

Although this thread is in the debate section, I myself am not so much interested in debating this issue as I am interested in reading the sound answers, if any, that will be offered to those questions.

Why at conception?
Why not each individual spermatozoa and each individual ovum?
I mean, both have to be alive in order to join...

 

[Storm]

I assume for the sake of this thread that no one on RF would actually argue that human life begins at conception, and instead that people who appear to argue that human life begins at conception actually mean to say something along the lines of individual human life begins at conception.

Of course. Matter of fact, the need for this to be said at all strikes me as rather desperate on the part of the pro-choice camp, and I'm part of it.

If so, if individual human life begins at conception, then precisely what makes it an individual human life"? What does that word "individual" mean in this context? And what doesn't it mean?

When and if it develops, it will be a distinct organism, a new individual.

And why is the presence of an individual human life a rational basis on which to oppose abortion?

Well, personally I don't think it is. If the anti-choice was more consistent in their high regard for life in general, rather than ceasing to care at the moment of birth, I could at least accept the argument of "murder" as valid, much as I disagreed. And, to be fair, I have encountered a handful of actual pro-lifers over the years. Mostly, though... they're just anti-choice.

 

[Storm]

Why at conception?
Why not each individual spermatozoa and each individual ovum?
I mean, both have to be alive in order to join...

Because until they do join, they are no more distinct organisms than skin cells. It's only at fertilization that a complete entity begins to form.

 

[McBell]

Because until they do join, they are no more distinct organisms than skin cells. It's only at fertilization that a complete entity begins to form.

So it matters not which sperm joins with which egg?
I find that hard to believe given the sperm determines the sex.

 

[Storm]

So it matters not which sperm joins with which egg?
I find that hard to believe given the sperm determines the sex.

I have no idea how you got that from my post, since I didn't even hint at it.

The answer to the question though, is so obvious that I can only assume you're working up to a "GOTCHA!" moment, and I refuse to play that game. If you have a valid rebuttal, make it.

 

[Sunstone]

Why at conception?
Why not each individual spermatozoa and each individual ovum?
I mean, both have to be alive in order to join...

Near as I can figure, an answer to your question might go something like this: While sperm A and egg A are each two individuals, at the union of sperm A and egg A, a new individual -- genetically distinct from either sperm A or egg A -- is created.

But I'm not more than proposing that as one possible answer to your question.

 

[Storm]

Near as I can figure, an answer to your question might go something like this: While sperm A and egg A are each two individuals, at the union of sperm A and egg A, a new individual -- genetically distinct from either sperm A or egg A -- is created.

Actually, I don't think anyone would go so far as to claim an individual spermatazoa or egg are "individuals." They don't even have a functional genetic code on their own, much less a snowball's chance in hell of independent survival.

While I won't go so far as "nobody would be that stupid," it's only because there's no better way to ensure that someone will take it as a personal challenge. I won't defend them when they do, though.

 

[McBell]

I have no idea how you got that from my post, since I didn't even hint at it.

The answer to the question though, is so obvious that I can only assume you're working up to a "GOTCHA!" moment, and I refuse to play that game. If you have a valid rebuttal, make it.

I got the impression that it is your position that the sperm and eggs are the same regardless until after they join together.
Thus the reason you decide that conception is the starting point of an individual life.

I contend that it does matter which sperm joins simply because it is the sperm that determines the sex of the individual.

Thus leading me back to: why at conception?

 

[McBell]

Near as I can figure, an answer to your question might go something like this: While sperm A and egg A are each two individuals, at the union of sperm A and egg A, a new individual -- genetically distinct from either sperm A or egg A -- is created.

But I'm not more than proposing that as one possible answer to your question.

Fair enough.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Because until they do join, they are no more distinct organisms than skin cells. It's only at fertilization that a complete entity begins to form.

The sperm and egg cells were distinct organisms before. Each had unique DNA - IIRC, each only gets half of the person's genome, and which bits go into the half in that sperm or egg is going to be different every time.

As for the fertilized egg, I would think that the lower limit for when an "individual" might be present is the point at which twins might form.

 

[Storm]

I got the impression that it is your position that the sperm and eggs are the same regardless until after they join together.

Thus the reason you decide that conception is the starting point of an individual life.

I take no responsibility for your baseless assumptions.

I contend that it does matter which sperm joins simply because it is the sperm that determines the sex of the individual.

Among billions of other variables, duh.

Thus leading me back to: why at conception?

I've only answered this three times, from three perspectives. I'm out of starting points, so why don't you read my posts, and let me know when you have a follow up question that's at least partially based on something I actually said?

 

[Storm]

The sperm and egg cells were distinct organisms before. Each had unique DNA - IIRC, each only gets half of the person's genome, and which bits go into the half in that sperm or egg is going to be different every time.

Already addressed in post # 8.

As for the fertilized egg, I would think that the lower limit for when an "individual" might be present is the point at which twins might form.

Twins are a fluke, and iirc more likely to be fraternal than identical. I don't know what the actual percentage of monaygotic double births are, buut I see no reason to base the general rule on the proving exception.

 

[McBell]

I take no responsibility for your baseless assumptions.


Among billions of other variables, duh.


I've only answered this three times, from three perspectives. I'm out of starting points, so why don't you read my posts, and let me know when you have a follow up question that's at least partially based on something I actually said?

Nevermind.
I have no interest in discussion with someone so hostile.

Have a nice day.

 

[Sunstone]

Actually, I don't think anyone would go so far as to claim an individual spermatazoa or egg are "individuals." They don't even have a functional genetic code on their own, much less a snowball's chance in hell of independent survival.

While I won't go so far as "nobody would be that stupid," it's only because there's no better way to ensure that someone will take it as a personal challenge. I won't defend them when they do, though.

I believe you think it stupid merely because you haven't thought it through. Go back to base one, and consider the context in which the world "individual" was being used there. Then notice that your condemnation of that usage as stupid relies on your not so subtle departure from the original usage, and the imposition of your own usage for "individual" -- i.e. the fallacy of equivocation.

 

[Storm]

Nevermind.
I have no interest in discussion with someone so hostile.

Have a nice day.

Since when is it hostile to spit out the words you're shoving in my mouth? I neither articulated or even hinted at the point you're attributing to me. Honest miscommunication is one thing, but I have no patience for strawmen. If the best you can do is make things up and pretend I said them, it's best for everyone that you withdraw from the discussion, but please don't accuse me of hostility to cover your own failure.

 

[Sunstone]

Nevermind.
I have no interest in discussion with someone so hostile.

Have a nice day.

I feel the same way.

 

[Storm]

I believe you think it stupid merely because you haven't thought it through. Go back to base one, and consider the context in which the world "individual" was being used there. Then notice that your condemnation of that usage as stupid relies on your not so subtle departure from the original usage, and the imposition of your own usage for "individual" -- i.e. the fallacy of equivocation.

I disagree entire, and would appreciate it if you addressed the actual point.

 

[Storm]

I feel the same way.

I don't think I've been hostile at all. I just ask that people respond to my arguments instead of resorting to armchair psychology. I don't think that's at all unreasonable, either.

 

[Sunstone]

I don't think I've been hostile at all. I just ask that people respond to my arguments instead of resorting to armchair psychology. I don't think that's at all unreasonable, either.

In my judgement, you are indeed being hostile. I ask that if you cannot refrain from unnecessarily mean spirited remarks this morning that you get out of my thread until such time as you are confident you can refrain.