Life Begins at Conception

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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

I realized that much; I was getting more at the idea that number of chromosomes somehow defines humanity.

The concept of fundamental human rights pre-dates that discovery of chromosomes (and even cells) by centuries, if not millenia. For all that time, people were able to talk intelligently about what was a human being and what wasn't, despite not even knowing what a chromosome was, let alone that a normal human being has 23 pairs of them.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

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?

That's a great question. In the case of malfunctioning humans, they are treated like fully functioning humans because of the potential that they symbolize.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I realized that much; I was getting more at the idea that number of chromosomes somehow defines humanity.

The concept of fundamental human rights pre-dates that discovery of chromosomes (and even cells) by centuries, if not millenia. For all that time, people were able to talk intelligently about what was a human being and what wasn't, despite not even knowing what a chromosome was, let alone that a normal human being has 23 pairs of them.

Yeah, he's arguing that, too.

On your second point, the constitution of the human being was important in ethics before the scientific age. Aristotle, for instance, thought that humans received a soul after (I believe) 45 days or so after conception. And he had his own ideas about how conception happened. I'm sure we'll see the same thing in other ethical systems.

 

[Quiddity]

That's a great question. In the case of malfunctioning humans, they are treated like fully functioning humans because of the potential that they symbolize.

How does that potential differ from say a zygote?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

How does that potential differ from say a zygote?

It has no potential to survive outside of the woman's body.

 

[smokydot]

Fair enough, but that doesn't answer my key question. Is number of chromosomes used by anyone else to distinguish the point we become human beings?

Thanks, HonestJoe.

I think that's called the fallacy of arguing from authority.

Both. I've been following the thread in pretty much chronological order.

It's relevant to consensus. Much of your argument is based on recognised scientific definitions. You're not saying this is how you think it should be defined, you've saying this is how it is defined.

That's good information.
If the terms of my argument are correct in relation to recognized scientific definitions, I don't understand what the problem is with my argument.

If you can't demonstrate number of chromosomes being in any way recognised by someone other than yourself as a factor in distinguishing a point where we become human beings, you can't make flat statements that "this is how it is defined" - you need to present that new definition from first principals.

More good information.
But the fallacy of authority appears again.

Are these first principles:
There are no (normal) human beings (identifed by DNA) without 45-47 cellular chromosomes.
There are no (normal) human beings (identified by DNA) without the capacity to sustain life for more than a few days.
Where these exist, there is a being that is human (identified by DNA).

I personally don't think that is possible. A major part of the reason for this whole debate is that we have no clear way to define when "life" starts. Both "life" and "human" are defined in such a way as to make these edges more than a little fuzzy. My view is that this question is a philosophical one which science can provide information for but not all the answers alone.

What is fuzzy? . .biologists define "life" all the time.
The biological facts above ("principles") define beings that are human, as opposed to any other kind of being.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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?

My point was just that there are many ways to distinguish human beings from other animals. When I consider all of them, "number of chromosomes" is not the most important one. If I were to encounter some sort of hypothetical being that spoke, felt, was self-aware, etc., my first reaction would be to treat it as a person, not to reserve judgement and ask "how many chromosomes do you have?"

But what do you think? I think that we both agree to the general idea that people are entitled to certain rights that "non-people things" are not. So what do you think distinguishes the things that are people from the things that aren't?

 

[smokydot]

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

Equivcation is about terms.

What misleading use of a term, with more than one meaning, am I using?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I think that's called the fallacy of arguing from authority.

Little big for your britches there.

Asking for a reference is not an appeal to authority - Joe just wants more evidence for your what you are claiming. In other words, if you had a basic education in this area, you could say that you're influenced by one or two knowledgable experts and presenting their research.

Besides, Joe isn't arguing from anything, he's asking for evidence. So it's impossible that he's appealing to anything.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Equivcation is about terms.

What misleading use of a term, with more than one meaning, am I using?

Calling something a fact that isn't.

Calling the made-up fact an argument.

 

[smokydot]

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.

Thanks, Ole Willie needed the help.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Thanks, Ole Willie needed the help.

Dude, you're delusional.

No more coffee. Less internet.

 

[smokydot]

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:

Biology is precise in its empirical knowledge.
Absence of evidence (of development outside the womb) is not presented as empirical knowledge.
The empirical knowledge of biology is precise.

 

[Quiddity]

It has no potential to survive outside of the woman's body.

The same can be said of the sick. They need someone else.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Biology is precise in its empirical knowledge.
Absence of evidence (of development outside the womb) is not presented as empirical knowledge.
The empirical knowledge of biology is precise.

Come on, man. I can't explain the details of phenomenology and epistemology to you if you can't grasp the most basic principles of biology.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

The same can be said of the sick. They need someone else.

They have the potential to live outside of their mother's body. In fact, they typically have done that at some point in their lives.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The same can be said of the sick. They need someone else.

They don't need one specific, particular person. If a sick person's caregiver up and quits, another caregiver can take over without any harm coming to the sick person at all.

 

[HonestJoe]

If the terms of my argument are correct in relation to recognized scientific definitions, I don't understand what the problem is with my argument.

I am saying that the definition of human life based on number of chromosomes isn't a recognised scientific definition. I'm saying that you've just made it up.

Asking if anyone else has reached the same conclusion as you isn't seeking argument from authority, it's trying to establish if it is a recognised scientific definition as you claim.

If it isn't that doesn't automatically make you wrong but does present a need for you to back up the statement that the number of chromosomes is a useful and meaningful single feature to differentiate human from non-human life.

Where these exist, there is a being that is human (identified by DNA).

Identifying a human by DNA involved more than counting chromosomes though. There is clearly more to it than that because not only humans have 46 (or 45 or 47) chromosomes. Where is the scientific logic in making this the sole defining feature?

What is fuzzy? . .biologists define "life" all the time.

Classic example - Is a virus alive? Opinions of the experts differ so regardless of what you or I believe, it remains fuzzy.

You've also overlooked my point that the biological definitions of life are aimed at species rather than individuals.

The biological facts above ("principles") define beings that are human, as opposed to any other kind of being.

No they don't; I've already pointed out that they also define Guppies for example.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Biology is precise in its empirical knowledge.
Absence of evidence (of development outside the womb) is not presented as empirical knowledge.
The empirical knowledge of biology is precise.

See if you can read the introduction to this book -

Philosophy of biology: a ... - Google Books

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I am saying that the definition of human life based on number of chromosomes isn't a recognised scientific definition. I'm saying that you've just made it up.

:takeabow: