Would you refresh my memory on which claims you are referring to?
All the back and forth has caused me to lose track.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Life Begins at Conception
- Thread starter Darkness
- Start date
- Status
Would you refresh my memory on which claims you are referring to?
All the back and forth has caused me to lose track.
All the twin stuff, for starters.
Here's what I've got from your argument so far - correct me if I'm wrong:
- you're saying that "personhood" exists right from the moment of conception.
- "personhood" (or perhaps individual humanity) is evidenced by DNA.
- if one zygote becomes a set of twins, then there were two "persons" in the zygote to begin with.
Is all this a fair summary of your argument? If so, how do you reconcile this with the fact that a zygote that becomes a twin has no more and no less DNA than a zygote that becomes a single birth?
Cute! . .That clip is older than your grandmother!
But ole Mickey got the job done in spite of all the blunders.
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
Now in case you haven't read the full version, the guy who comes back dies, killed by his former fellow prisoners. Plato is talking about the trial of Socrates. The people in the prison were the people who condemned Socrates to death.
note: http://www.plotinus.com/plato_allegory_copy2.htm
Review posts #963, #968, #985, and then we can start from there.
I would be interested in your response to post #904.
Last edited:
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
No it's not.
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
That isn't helpful.
If you think Plato's Allegory of the Cave has application to this part of our converstion (posts #982 thru #1001), would you please explain how?
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
For the love of God please let me know how old you are.
No doubt, you're the master at that!
If I told you that, I'd have to kill you.
So which person is you in Plato's Allegory of the Cave?
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
If I told you that, I'd have to kill you.
I respectfully decline.
If you are too many years my elder, I don't want to disrespect you.
If you are too many years my junior, I can gently lead you.
If you are around my age, well, we can dance.
I'm the perfect age--old enough to know better and young enough not to care.
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
haha - must be between 45-55.
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
Scared eem off
I did. My summary was my attempt to distil the last few pages of our discussion down to a few relevant points. Do you have any issue with my re-phrasing of your position?
BTW - does the quote function not work for you? Those posts covered a range of subject matter. It would help a great deal if you'd just point out the parts that you consider relevant to this discussion now.
Whoops - I had started a reply to that, but I got sidetracked.
Here's what I'm getting at:
- if someone is murdered or dies in a traffic collision, the state has not necessarily breached its responsibility.
- if the police are never able to find the murderer or the highway agency doesn't remedy the situation that allowed for the death, the state has not necessarily breached its responsibility.
- heck - in certain situations, police can even fatally shoot a person and this isn't considered a breach of the government's responsibility.
The way your argument was given, it sounded like you were saying that the government has a responsibility to make sure that nobody ever dies. This isn't the case; everybody dies eventually. The government's actual responsibility is to police its own actions and ensure that it never deprives anyone of their life except in accordance with the law.
Is that also the way the Declaration of Independence sounds to you?
". . .to secure these rights (Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness) Governments are instituted among Men. . ."
That to me seems pretty much my argument.
So... your argument is a statement of opinion that carries zero legal weight and is contradicted by normal practice and actual law?
It's not quite the same as my position in post #968 on twinning.
It's "broke."
Post #968 is my response to your questions on twinning.
Regarding the zygote (union of sperm and ovum) "splitting". . .
It doubles itself before cleavage to the blastomere.
It does not split without becoming a diploid.
Last edited:
Nice red herring. . .
You didn't anwer my question on whether the Declaration of Independence also sounds, as does my statement, like a misrepresentation to you. To Wit:
DofI: ". . .to secure these rights (Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness), Governments are instituted among Men. . ."
My statement: "It is the responsiblity of the State to protect human life."
Expanded version: "It is the responsibility of the State (government) to protect (secure the right to) human life."
Once again (see post #904), where is the misrepresentation in my statement?
And its legal weight, normal practice and actual law are found in the laws regarding speeding, drunk driving, product manufacture, food manufacture, health laws, neglect of children, abuse of spouse or elder, its incarceration of serial killers, etc., etc., etc.
What is your issue with this statement?
Why do you object to its readily-apparent veracity?
What is your reason for arguing against it?
There is no misrepresentation in my statement.
Last edited:
- Status