Life Begins at Conception

[smokydot]

On this point I'm advising you to stop, because you're only succeeding in embarrassing yourself.

Thanks for the advice.

It would help me understand your point if you would do me the favor of explaining how my presentation of biological facts does not demonstrate human life beginning at conception.

 

[smokydot]

So what bizarre place has this thread turned now?

Read and weep. . .

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Thanks for the advice.

It would help me understand your point if you would do me the favor of explaining how my presentation of biological facts does not demonstrate human life beginning at conception.

Sure. "Biological facts" cannot demonstrate that "human life" begins at conception.

Facts don't stand by themselves as rational/logical constructs that form an argument -- in this case, the argument being that human life begins at conception.

We can use biology to find out what conception is, but then we have to figure out what human life is, which is a philosophical (or in your case, theological) question.

The biological facts cannot prove the philosophical / theological argument because the biological facts are not a premise in the philosophical/theological construct.

 

[smokydot]

The facts are the argument.

That's a logical fallacy called equivocation.

Equivocation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So show the "misleading" use of the term with more than one meaning.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

So show the "misleading" use of the term with more than one meaning.

You keep changing or making up the "biological facts."

 

[smokydot]

Precisely.
Your views have "Hitlerian consequences" as well.

Not in a democratic republic where lawmaking rests with the people through their respresentatives.

But to legislate the principle proposed that only humans with worth have human rights requires
1) determining who has "worth,"
2) standards for "worth,"
3) denying human rights to humans without "worth,"
4) determining how much "worth" is required for human rights.

I can't see that legislation ever being allowed in this democratic republic. . .therefore, it is not a useful principle

 

[smokydot]

Um, you're claiming (baselessly) that your argument is irrefutable.

If it's not, then refute it.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

If it's not, then refute it.

Sorry, I wasn't clear.

From your point of view you have an irrefutable argument.

However, since I (nor anyone else on this thread for that matter) cannot detect an argument at all, there is nothing to refute.

You're just saying stuff, which the only response from us is "you're wrong."

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Not in a democratic republic where lawmaking rests with the people through their respresentatives.

But to legislate the principle proposed that only humans with worth have human rights requires
1) determining who has "worth,"
2) standards for "worth,"
3) denying human rights to humans without "worth,"
4) determining how much "worth" is required for human rights.

I can't see that legislation ever being allowed in this democratic republic. . .therefore, it is not a useful principle

Does the person to whom you directed your comment live in a democratic republic?

(also, Hitler was elected if you recall - it was the classic fall of a democracy to a dictatorship not unlike Rome)

Edit: Ah, It's Canada. Hitler-like stuff can happen in the USA just as likely as Canada.

 

[HonestJoe]

It would help me understand your point if you would do me the favor of explaining how my presentation of biological facts does not demonstrate human life beginning at conception.

You are claiming that there is a clear biological definition of human life but you've done nothing to demonstrate this is a biological fact.

There are biological definitions of life in general, though these are designed to look at species as a whole rather than individuals and even then have significant grey areas (hence the difference between sources giving six and seven key features). Applying these definitions in such specific detail to such similar things as you have been doing is questionable at best.

You have even less basis in "biological fact" regarding your extension to defining a single human life using the above plus the number of chromosomes. I don't believe this has been suggested by anyone other than you and has no logical, scientific or even philosophical backing beyond the circular reasoning of it fitting the predetermined line of when you believe human life should be considered to start.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

circular reasoning

No my friend, this is total chaos. At least in circular reasoning things connect.

 

[smokydot]

Thanks for a sincere response.

To address the main point - no, I don't think that anything miraculous happens when the sperm and egg unite that makes a distinct human being.

'Tis one of the "miracles" of nature. . .like the lily of the valley.

As far as life beginning at conception, it's abundantly obvious that is a misnomer, not unlike the terms "sunset" and "sunrise" which are equally imprecise. Obviously, a sperm and an egg are both living, and the process of life is uninterrupted unless somehow it ends due to a number of causes.

It takes more than "living" to be a human being.
Human skin cells are also living, but they aren't human beings.

A human living precursor (sperm and egg) of a being that is human is not itself (without 45-47 chromosomes) a being that is human. That is plain and simple biology.
Biology is not "imprecise," and its terms are not "imprecise."

I need you to explain where the error is in the statement, "A human living precursor (sperm and egg) of a being that is human is not itself (without 45-47 chromosomes) a being that is human."

It is first a being that is human when it acquries 45-47 chromosomes, which is at conception.

As for ethics, I see great loss in abortion, but it is a medical necessity in certain cases. Because of this, I think that the choice for abortion should be strictly between a woman and her doctor -- so it should be legal in all its forms. Nothing should be withheld from saving the life of the mother. A human being worthy of full protection by the community is a baby that takes its first breath - I'm willing to say that it is a human from the time that it can survive on its own outside of its mother. Every other stage of development is wonderful, but it's not a human being.

If it is not a being that is human, what is it?

Unfortunately, abortion is used as birth control. I think that these surgical abortions will go out of style soon. That is, women will not be asked if they will 'keep' a child --- they would have taken care of it with a pill before anyone could pressure her to do anything. Women will tell each other about the wonderful process of development that they can watch in color - the fetus is no longer a black and white sonogram image that only a specialist can interpret.

 

[smokydot]

I imagine you'll change whatever you need to in order to pretend you have an argument. The truth is that you don't give a damn about the truth; you're just dancing all over the place trying to find some solid ground for your opinion, which you hold to blindly and without any regard whatsoever for the facts.

I need you to show your problem with the facts in post #1085.

"Dancing," "plucking," etc. have nothing to do with the veracity of the statements.

I think that yours is called a red herring argument.

 

[smokydot]

But you'll starve!

Cute.

I have food to eat that you know nothing about.

 

[smokydot]

Sigh.

BTW that is a lot of color tags... not sure how that helps your argument but is there a meaning behind your colors?

No particular meaning in the colors, just using them to separate different thoughts.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

It takes more than "living" to be a human being.
Human skin cells are also living, but they aren't human beings.

A human living precursor (sperm and egg) of a being that is human is not itself (without 45-47 chromosomes) a being that is human. That is plain and simple biology.
Biology is not "imprecise," and its terms are not "imprecise."

I need you to explain where the error is in the statement, "A human living precursor (sperm and egg) of a being that is human is not itself (without 45-47 chromosomes) a being that is human."

It is first a being that is human when it acquries 45-47 chromosomes, which is at conception.

This is what I'm talking about.

Biology is imprecise. That's why we can have babies born that shock doctors.who didn't even know beforehand that the child developed outside of the womb. There's no laws of biology like there are laws of physics.

Please clean up this nonsense:

I need you to explain where the error is in the statement, "A human living precursor (sperm and egg) of a being that is human is not itself (without 45-47 chromosomes) a being that is human."

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Human beings come from reproductive cells, they don't come from non-reproductive cells such as tumors.

Tumour cells are reproductive; that's what makes them so dangerous. If tumour cells don't reproduce themselves, then the tumour doesn't grow.

The end, in determining when the organism becomes a human being (being that is human), is to know the truth of what it is.

IOW, your point is your point? You just managed to use 24 words to say absolutely nothing.

Is my statement about scientists untrue?

Your statement that you're doing what scientists do is untrue.

How about its humanity?

What about "its humanity" necessarily implies rights?

Human gametes don't meet the requirement for a human being (being that is human) of 45-47 chromosomes.

What do the number of chromosomes matter? There are other ways to differentiate humans from other life:

- sentience
- sapience
- self-awareness
- language ability
- construction and use of advanced tools
- fire-building
- manufacture and use of clothing

Human beings are unique from other animals in all these ways as well. Why use only chromosomes as the basis for our determination of what is a "human being"?

Also, I disagree with your point about chromosomes and human gametes:

- a human sperm or egg cell is a "being" in some sense.
- a human sperm or egg cell is also uniquely "human": it isn't dolphin, monkey or meerkat... human sperm and eggs are human sperm and eggs.

So... if you're going to redefine "human being" as "a being that is human", then sperm and eggs fit that bill just as easily as an embryo.

If you're going to actually put some thought into the question of "what is a person", you'll realize that there's no viable, supported way to justify the claim that personhood begins at conception.

An egg or sperm separately do not meet the requirement for a human being (being that is human) of 45-47 chromosomes.
The embryo meets the two requirements for a human being (being that is human):
1) 45-47 chromosomes and
2) all the essential characteristics for life, including development.

A human egg and sperm are definitely "beings", and they are definitely "human", so apparently your requirement of 45-47 chromosomes (where did that come from, BTW?) is incorrect.

Edit: and BTW - if you consider a sperm cell and an egg cell together, they do have 46 chromosomes, even before they join. The chromosomes just happen to be in two separate containers.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

A human egg and sperm are definitely "beings", and they are definitely "human", so apparently your requirement of 45-47 chromosomes (where did that come from, BTW?) is incorrect.

He's accounting for chromosomal anomalies that we pointed out to him.

 

[Quiddity]

I find it sad human beings need to be broken down into descripters.

There is times I haven't been:
self-aware (knocked out or coma)
speak
feel
build a fire
etc.

......and yet I was still a human being. How many of these do you need to fulfill in order to get people to act in disgust?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

No particular meaning in the colors, just using them to separate different thoughts.

It's frustrating when you do that because when we try to quote you, your words are covered with all kinds of codes. And for those of us who are colorblind, it's terribly difficult to read.