Life Begins at Conception

[smokydot]

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

All growth is by production of cells, as in human skin, which is not a human being.
Yet human skin cells are not reproductive cells.

IOW, your point is your point? You just managed to use 24 words to say absolutely nothing.
Your statement that you're doing what scientists do is untrue.

I didn't say I was doing what scientists do.

What about "its humanity" necessarily implies rights?

It's human. . .they're called human rights.

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"?

It is accurate, clear, narrow (without excluding any humans) and can be verified empirically.

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.

Following your logic:
A human skin cell is a "being" in some sense.
A human skin cell is also uniquely "human": it isn't dolphin, monkey or meerkat... human skin cells are human skin cells;
So... if you're going to redefine "human being" as a "being that is human", then skin cells fit that bill just as easily as an embryo.
Ergo: human skin cells are human beings
Which is why I define (normal) human being by its DNA, number of cellular chromosomes, and ability to sustain life for decades.

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.

It's not rocket science. . .a human person is a human being.

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.

Apparently it is not, according to your "logic" in the fifth response above.

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.

Which is why they are precursors of, and not actual, human life.

 

[smokydot]

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?

There you go.

 

[Quiddity]

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.

I've been down this road before; I should know better. Not for lack of an answer, but for just not being able to articulte it clearly. I have enough respect for you to give you a better answer. This is something to work off of. Probably start another thread.

 

[smokydot]

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.

Sorry. . .I didn't know that.

I don't get codes when you use colored script.

 

[smokydot]

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.

Indeed, they did. . .they had agreed upon reference points outside of science.

 

[Quiddity]

Catholic Philosopher speaks a bit about it here:

There is a common premise hidden behind all seven of these pro-choice arguments. It is the premise of Functionalism; defining a person by his or her functioning, or behavior. A "behavioral definition" is proper and practical for scientific purposes of prediction and experimentation, but it is not adequate for ordinary reason and common sense, much less for good philosophy or morality, which should be based on common sense. Why?

Because common sense distinguishes between what one is and what one does, between being and function, thus between "being a person" and "functioning as a person." One cannot function as a person without being a person, but one can surely be a person without functioning as a person. In deep sleep, in coma, and in early infancy, nearly everyone will admit there are persons, but there are no specifically human functions such as reasoning, choice, or language. Functioning as a person is a sign and an effect of being a person. It is because of what we are, because of our nature or essence or being, that we can and do function in these ways. We have human souls, and plants do not; that's why we can know ourselves and plants can't. Functionalism makes the elementary mistake of confusing the sign with the thing signified, the smoke with the fire. As a Zen master would say, "the finger is fine for pointing at the moon, but woe to him who mistakes the finger for the moon".

The Functionalist or Behaviorist would reply that he is skeptical of such talk about natures, essences, or natural species (as distinct from conventional, man-made class-groupings). But the Functionalist cannot use ordinary language without contradicting himself. He says, e.g., that there is no such thing as "river" because all rivers are different. But how then can he call them all "rivers"? The very word "all" should be stricken from his speech. His nominalism makes nonsense of ordinary language.

 

[smokydot]

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

A newborn infant likewise has no potential to survive without a support system.

 

[smokydot]

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.

The evidence is in the biological facts.
They stand or fall on their own merits.
Merits are independent.

 

[smokydot]

Calling something a fact that isn't.

Calling the made-up fact an argument.

What have I called a fact that is not a fact?

What made-up fact have I called an argument?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

All growth is by production of cells, as in human skin, which is not a human being.
Yet human skin cells are not reproductive cells.

They're not gametes, but they do reproduce. That's how we get new cells.

I didn't say I was doing what scientists do.

Sure you didn't:

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."

It's human. . .they're called human rights.

You didn't answer the question. Why are humans entitled to the set of rights we've labelled as "human rights"? What is it about a human being that entitles him/her to these rights?

It is accurate, clear, narrow (without excluding any humans) and can be verified empirically.

...and has absolutely no relevance in determining whether someone or something is deserving of any status.

Following your logic:
A human skin cell is a "being" in some sense.
A human skin cell is also uniquely "human": it isn't dolphin, monkey or meerkat... human skin cells are human skin cells;
So... if you're going to redefine "human being" as a "being that is human", then skin cells fit that bill just as easily as an embryo.
Ergo: human skin cells are human beings
Which is why I define (normal) human being by its DNA, number of cellular chromosomes, and ability to sustain life for decades.

This is why we have to consider things other than chromosomes and DNA for the basis of what makes a person a person and what gives value to human life.

It's not rocket science. . .a human person is a human being.

And what makes an embryo a "human person"?

Apparently it is not, according to your "logic" in the fifth response above.

I was using the reasoning in your argument to illustrate why the reasoning fails. I don't actually agree with it myself.

Which is why they are precursors of, and not actual, human life.

Just as an embryo is a precursor of, and not actual, human life as well.

 

[smokydot]

smokydoy said: (Your response) reminds me of a certain elected high official who is brilliant, but knows nothing substantive and speaks nothing substantive.

You're one to judge.

Brilliance is a sham where there is nothing substantive.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I've been down this road before; I should know better. Not for lack of an answer, but for just not being able to articulte it clearly. I have enough respect for you to give you a better answer. This is something to work off of. Probably start another thread.

BTW - when I gave that list, I wasn't really trying to imply that without those attributes, you can't be a person. I was trying to get at two things:

- first, that the choice of "46 chromosomes" (or even smokydot's revised "45-47 chromosomes") as the single distinguishing feature for what makes a person a person is completely arbitrary, since it has nothing more going for it than many other things that distinguish humans from other animals, and number of chromosomes doesn't inherently have anything to do with "personhood".

- second, that the choice of "46 chromosomes" doesn't work, because in the hypothetical case that if we encountered some being that meets all of those that but fails to meet the requirement of "46 chromosomes", it would be unreasonable to conclude that this entity wasn't a person deserving of the normal rights of personhood. IOW, some number of chromosomes isn't a necessary feature of a person.

IMO, smokydot picked the number of chromosomes because it just happens that people have 46 chromosomes and other animals don't. However, he could've just as easily said that a human being is "an entity that wears shoes". Just because all people do something doesn't mean that it's a necessary characteristic for a person to be a person.

Catholic Philosopher speaks a bit about it here:

I think that he's right in a sense with what I interpret as his "doom and gloom" implication of the "skeptic" position: there's a level at which common speech breaks down.

IMO, all concepts have built into them ideas - human-constructed ideas - about how the thing functions. Take his example of a river is a body of water that's essentially linear - even though we grant it a finite width and depth, we deem that its essential characteristic is that of a line. Similarily, a lake is a body of water that's essentially planar. What's the difference between a narrow lake and a wide river? Absolutely nothing except a human distinction about how we should think about that thing. So yes, the term "river" has built into it many human-created concepts and ideas.

I saw a Steven Pinker lecture that touches on this - I found it fascinating: TVO.ORG | Video | Allan Gregg - Steven Pinker: Author, "The Stuff of Thought"

Now... this isn't to say that such concepts are meaningless. The concept "river" is very useful in many contexts. However, I don't think we can necessarily say that the concept has any meaning apart from what we imbue it with. Still, "man-made" does not necessarily equal "nonexistant" or "unimportant".

 

[smokydot]

They're not gametes, but they do reproduce. That's how we get new cells.

Biologists exclude human skin cells from human reproductive cells.

(Am I now having to instruct my "brain trust?")

Sure you didn't...

My statement: "Scientists decide a theory ahead of time and then look for evidence to prove it."
is not a statement about me, it's a statement about scientists.

You didn't answer the question. Why are humans entitled to the set of rights we've labelled as "human rights"? What is it about a human being that entitles him/her to these rights?
...and has absolutely no relevance in determining whether someone or something is deserving of any status.

The Constitution guarantees rights to humans. That is the source of their entitlement. That is the source of their status.

This is why we have to consider things other than chromosomes and DNA for the basis of what makes a person a person and what gives value to human life.

Constitutional guarantees are not based on our "value," they are based on our humanity.

And what makes an embryo a "human person"?

It has the necessary characterisitics of human life. (see post #1085)

I was using the reasoning in your argument to illustrate why the reasoning fails. I don't actually agree with it myself.

Hardly.
My argument does not lead to the conclusion that human skin cells or human sperm and egg are human beings.
That is your misconstruction of it, which indeed fails.
My argument excludes human skin cells and human gametes from being human beings. (see post #1085)

Just as an embryo is a precursor of, and not actual, human life as well.

An individual embryo possesses the necessary characteristics for human life and therefore, is not a precursor of, but is actual human life.
An individual gamete does not possess the necessry characteristics for human life and therefore, is only a precursor of, and not actual human life.

 

[smokydot]

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

It matters not what I claim about it.

It either is irrefutable, or it is not irrefutable.

If it is, refute it.
If it is not, it remains unrefuted.

So enough already with me trying to make it irrefutable.
I can't make irrefutable what is refutable, or vice versa.
It either is or isn't on its own merits.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Biologists exclude human skin cells from human reproductive cells.

(Am I now having to instruct my "brain trust?")

Biologists exclude human skin cells from human gametes. They don't say that skin cells don't reproduce by mitosis.

My statement: "Scientists decide a theory ahead of time and then look for evidence to prove it."
is not a statement about me, it's a statement about scientists.

And it was given in response to a statement by me about your argument. So does your reply have something to do with my statement, or were you just giving a non-sequitir?

The Constitution guarantees rights to humans. That is the source of their entitlement. That is the source of their status.

The Constitution? I'm a Canadian, living in Canada. Do I have no rights?

Constitutional guarantees are not based on our "value," they are based on our humanity.

And Constitutionally, a fetus is not a human being. Courts have pointed this out many times over.

It has the necessary characterisitics of human life. (see post #1085)

I'm not asking you to regurgitate your list of characteristics; I'm asking you to justify your list of characteristics.

Hardly.
My argument does not lead to the conclusion that human skin cells or human sperm and egg are human beings.
That is your misconstruction of it, which indeed fails.
My argument excludes human skin cells and human gametes from being human beings. (see post #1085)

... by using arbitrary criteria to shoehorn your argument into the conclusion you want.

An individual embryo possesses the necessary characteristics for human life and therefore, is not a precursor of, but is actual human life.
An individual gamete does not possess the necessry characteristics for human life and therefore, is only a precursor of, and not actual human life.

But I'm not talking about an individual gamete, I'm talking about a male gamete and a female gamete, considered together but before they've joined. There is no characteristic of the embryo that wasn't present in either the male gamete or the female gamete. Every one of those chromosomes that you seem to value so highly was in on or the other before they became the embryo.

 

[smokydot]

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.

Thanks for the helpful info.

Biology is the study of material life (bio = life).
Human beings are material life.
Biology shows the elementary components of material human life to be:
--1) human DNA,
--2) 45-47 cellualr chromsomes, and
--3) seven characteristics of life.
Where this group is, material human life is.

This group of elementary components first comes into being in the material human zygote at conception.
Therefore, conception is where the existence of material human life begins.

I don't see why religion/philosophy are relevant at this point.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Thanks for the helpful info.

Biology is the study of material life (bio = life).
Human beings are material life.
Biology shows the elementary components of material human life to be:
--1) human DNA,
--2) 45-47 cellualr chromsomes, and
--3) seven characteristics of life.
Where this group is, material human life is.

This group of elementary components first comes into being in the material human zygote at conception.
Therefore, conception is where the existence of material human life begins.

I don't see why religion/philosophy are relevant at this point.

What's the biological definition of "person"?

When you realize that there isn't one, maybe you'll see why philosophy is relevant here.

 

[smokydot]

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."

Is this an argument?

Biology is the study of material life (bio = life).
Human beings are material human life.
Biology shows the elementary components of material human life to be:
--1) human DNA,
--2) 45-47 cellular chromsomes, and
--3) seven characteristics of life.
Where this group is, material human life is.

This grouping first occurs in the human zygote at conception.
Therefore, conception is when the existence of material human life begins.

 

[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.

Does post #1239 do it?

 

[smokydot]

Dude, you're delusional.

No more coffee. Less internet.

uh huh : hamster : uh huh