Life Begins at Conception

[angellous_evangellous]

Do you have an argument which demonstrates that?
Please present it for examination.

The statement is its own defence. And it is irrefutable, which is why you are struggling so terribly to refute it.

And if you were to deny it, you'd be misrepresenting me.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

The statement is its own defence. And it is irrefutable, which is why you are struggling so terribly to refute it.

And if you were to deny it, you'd be misrepresenting me.

I forgot to mention than seeds prove my point, along with natural theology... if you were paying attention to Romans 1, you would already know that life pergins at perkepsion.

 

[smokydot]

Do you really base the worth of a human being on its number of chromosomes?

Hypothetical scenario: an alien lands on Earth. He lives, breathes, walks, talks, thinks, and feels. He's like a human being in every measurable way that matters. There's only one difference: he has no chromosomes. Apparently, life evolved on his planet with some other mechanism instead of DNA.

Would you consider this alien's life to be worthless?

When the hypothetical occurs, I will answer your question.
Hypotheticals on this issue are desperate arguments.

BTW - a tumour also normally has 46 chromosomes, and is genetically distinct from the person it inhabits. Is a tumour a person in its own right?

Did the tumor originate from a reproductive cell?
Skin cells also have 46 chromosomes.

IMO, using number of chromosomes as some sort of measure of the worth of a human being is bass-ackward.

It's not a measure of worth, it's a determiner of human life in the human reproductive process.

It seems to me that you've decided ahead of time that an embryo/fetus is a person, and then looked from something that's common to embryos, fetuses, children and fully mature humans.

Scientists decide a theory ahead of time and then look for evidence to prove it.
It's the "scientific method."

The only problem is that you didn't bother to consider whether the thing you found has anything at all to do with the actual worth of a person.

Human rights do not depend on the actual worth of a person.
Do you not see how dangerous it is to condition anything on "the actual worth" of a person?
Who decides their actual worth. . .by what standards. . .what rights do persons have whose worth does not meet the standards. . .can you say Hitler?
I feel you don't really mean that the actual worth of a person is a measure for their human rights.

IMO, the only logically consistent argument for "personhood" beginning at the moment of conception is based on the idea that this is the point at which "ensoulment" occurs. The problem with this, though, is that it can be dismissed by anyone who doesn't agree with the "ensoulment" premise (not to mention the question of whether souls exist at all).

Human life beginning at conception can also be dismissed by anyone who doesn't agree with biological facts (not to mention the question of whether, without any of the six essential characteristics for life, cells are alive at all).

 

[smokydot]

To celebrate my victory

BOTTOMS UP!


[youtube]x_wLVCLPx0M[/youtube]
YouTube - Junior Brown "Highway Patrol"[/quote]

 

[angellous_evangellous]

*victory dance*

[youtube]xzGV9Bl6CGg[/youtube]
YouTube - jimmy cliff - i can see clearly now

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Scientists decide a theory ahead of time and then look for evidence to prove it.
It's the "scientific method."

:biglaugh:

Human life beginning at conception can also be dismissed by anyone who doesn't agree with biological facts (not to mention the question of whether, without any of the six essential characteristics for life, cells are alive at all).

:biglaugh:

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Did the tumor originate from a reproductive cell?

Most cells reproduce by mitosis, but how is this relevant?

Skin cells also have 46 chromosomes.

How is this relevant?

It's not a measure of worth, it's a determiner of human life in the human reproductive process.

To what end?

Scientists decide a theory ahead of time and then look for evidence to prove it.
It's the "scientific method."

For someone who's so touchy about being misrepresented, it seems odd that you'd misrepresent science this way.

Your argument has very little in common with the scientific method.

Human rights do not depend on the actual worth of a person.
Do you not see how dangerous it is to condition anything on "the actual worth" of a person?
Who decides their actual worth. . .by what standards. . .what rights do persons have whose worth does not meet the standards. . .can you say Hitler?
I feel you don't really mean that the actual worth of a person is a measure for their human rights.

Yes, I do. What else is there to use as a basis for human rights?

Human life beginning at conception can also be dismissed by anyone who doesn't agree with biological facts (not to mention the question of whether, without any of the six essential characteristics for life, cells are alive at all).

Gametes meet all of the essential characteristics for life. I see no conflict in placing the same sort of value on an embryo as on an egg and sperm separately.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Gametes meet all of the essential characteristics for life. I see no conflict in placing the same sort of value on an embryo as on an egg and sperm separately.

Be careful.... when smoky makes something up, he really means what is biologically correct, even if it completely destroys the logic behind his "argument."

 

[angellous_evangellous]

what rights do persons have whose worth does not meet the standards. . .can you say Hitler?

Now that's the true cry of desperation in an argument.

There's actually a name for this logical fallacy - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_Hitlerum

 

[smokydot]

Would you like to clarify this little statement before it's destroyed by basic biological insight? Just in the interest of avoiding "misrepresentation."

My statement:
"There is human non-reproductive cellular "life" without the six essential characteristics for life and therefore, it is not human life."

I am distinguishing among human cells such as
skin cells--which are not human beings (which require six essential characteristics for life);
gametes--which are not human beings (which require 45-47 chromosomes); and
zygotes (which are human beings with 45-47 chromosomes and the six essential characteristics for life).

Do you know of other biology on this?

 

[smokydot]

hmmmm

hmmmm, indeed!

See post #1095 for the latest of the posts in which I addressed your question on this.

 

[smokydot]

hmmm.... misrepresentation?!

I suspect that it's hard to remember what you've said when you're just making stuff up

My statement:
"Human seed (fertilized egg) is life, of the nature of that which produced it. In the right conditions (the womb), it will change forms. . ."

That statement does not say the womb is the only condition.
The qualifier (the womb) is in response to an objection to my statement
that the zygote can sustain life on its own for a long period of time in the same way an infant can
(in contrast to the gametes which cannot sustain life on their own).

The objection was that the zygote cannot sustain life on its own, it must be in the womb to sustain life.
The point is that the zygote cannot sustain its life as can an infant.
The point is not that the womb is the only place the zygote can sustain life.

It probably would be better if you kept up with the dialogues before objecting.

[I then showed several examples of births outside of the womb]

And I appreciate the useful info.

 

[smokydot]

Now you've been openly dishonest.

I can provide more examples of each of these statements, as you are fond of repeating yourself.

I would appreciate seeing those examples.

 

[smokydot]

This is my favorite peice of rat-poo that I would like clarified. (I asked repeatedly for clarification on the death of the zygote with no clarification)

Your repeated request for clarification was repeatedly provided, post #1095 being the latest.

smokydot said: "There is human non-reproductive cellular "life" without the six essential characteristics for life and therefore, it is not human life."

So there are reproductive cells that are not human life because they lack the six characteristics of life? I don't really know where to go with this nonsense. How are we to characterize this make-believe material?

This was addressed in post #1151. . .but I don't like rat-poo either, so let me clarify.

There are two requirements that must be met to be a human being (being that is human):
1) 45-47 chromosomes, and
2) the six essential characteristics for human life.
Short of either, it is not a human being (being that is human).

Reproductive human gametes possess neither requirement. . .and therefore are not human beings (beings that are human). But they are the precursors of human beings (beings that are human).

Non-reproductive human skin cells possess one requirement--the necessary number of chromosomes, but not the other requirement--six essential characteristics for life, which are required to sustain life for a long period (as does the zygote). . .and therefore, are not human beings (beings that are human).

The human zygote has both requirements, the 45-47 chromosomes and the six essential characteristics for human life. . .and therefore, it is a human being (being that is human ).

Please let me know what is not clarified.

 

[smokydot]

Which are lacking?

Does an individual human gamete develop (grow). . .as does an individual human zygote?

Nor does an individual human gamete live for more than a few days. . .as does the individual human zygote.

[I can't help but point out the SEVEN characteristics of life, and call biologists regard gametes as 'life' because they don't need to exhibit all seven characteristics to be considered 'alive']

note: Life - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Other sources indicate only six:

Essortment Articles: Free Online Articles on Health, Science, Education & More..

http://biology,about.com/od/apforstudents/a/aa08215a.htm

 

[smokydot]

At last, a substantive response. . .

Summary of this response below:
1) "Seeds" is not part of the argument here, and hasn't been for 20 pages.
2) The argument is stated in the five steps of post #1107, and previously in post #972.
3) Why must biology be excluded in these consideratons?
4) How does conception begin "before all these, latter processes?"
And there are other questions therein.

There's still nothing to refute.
You can't just make stuff up about biology, merge that with something else you made up about seeds, and then expect an intelligent response.

"Seeds" is another argument. It is not part of this one.

Refute the five-step argument in post #1107.

The first thing that we can do is correct the MANY biological problems that youhave,

Agreed. Are there any still remaining in post #1107?

dismiss completely the idiotic seeds crap,

That's another argument, and is not the argument of post #1107.
What problems do you see in post #1107?

tand then maybe talk about what really is the issue: the theological / philosophical concept of life.

Why must biology be excluded?

Conception begins before all of these latter processes that you don't understand,

Would you please inform me on how conception begins before all these latter processes?
By conception I am referring to the union of the two human gametes to form the human zygote, which has the 45-47 chromosomes required to be a human being.

and it's best to understand conception as the initial union of sperm and egg.

The union of sperm and egg is how i understand conception. Is that incorrect?

Then you just need to adobt a supersticious notion that somehow this union constitutes a human being worthy of human dignity, most notably the right to live.

It contains DNA from the parents and all the genetic code for development into a unique mature human being.
So what should it be called?

Your supersticion is located on your delusion concerning seeds,

"Seeds" is another argument not referred to in over 200 posts now.

and you had to go through quite elaborate reworkings of human biology to force that false analogy to stick.

The "reworkings of human biology" were simply to get the biological facts correct.
They had nothing to do with seeds, and only to do with human development.

And when the biological facts were corrected, they did not alter the principles of my argument in post #1107.

 

[smokydot]

You haven't demonstrated why we cannot deny your baseless declarations.
You have to present an argument to get a refute.

Call either one whatever you wish. . .declaration or baseless or whatever.

Can you show the "declarations" are "baseless?"

If not, they are not baseless.
If not baseless, then they are the facts demonstrating the argument that human life begins at conception.

Refute the argument that human life begins at conception by refuting the facts which demonstrate it.

 

[smokydot]

The statement is its own defence. And it is irrefutable, which is why you are struggling so terribly to refute it.
And if you were to deny it, you'd be misrepresenting me.

And my five-step statements in post #1107 and my statements in post #972 are likewise their own defense.
And they are likewise irrefutable, which is why you are likewise struggling so terribly against refuting them.

 

[smokydot]

I forgot to mention than seeds prove my point, along with natural theology... if you were paying attention to Romans 1, you would already know that life pergins at perkepsion.

I'll take a pass on involving Scripture in ridicule.

 

[smokydot]

e BOTTOMS UP. . .AGAIN!

*victory dance*

[youtube]xzgv9bl6cgg[/youtube]
youtube - jimmy cliff - i can see clearly now