Life Begins at Conception

[angellous_evangellous]

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.

So you're under the delusion that it's irrelevant what you say (your argument), only what you think are the "facts" (which you've freely changed)?

 

[smokydot]

Love that hamster! : hamster :

 

[angellous_evangellous]

A newborn infant likewise has no potential to survive with a support system.

A newborn can live outside of the womb.

This does not mean that a newborn does not need a support system to survive.

 

[smokydot]

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.

I have not proposed chromosomes as the single feature to differentiate human from non-human life.
I use a group of features:
1) human DNA,
2) 45-47 chromosomes, and
3) seven characteristics which are essential for life.

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?

It is not my sole defining feature.

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

True regarding viruses. . .but have you seen anything fuzzy about whether human cells are alive? That part of biology is not fuzzy and imprecise.

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

The three features I use apply to the human species and distinguish it from all other species, as well as distinguish the human zygote from other human cellular life.
That sounds like a good job to me.
Maybe we need to think outside the box.

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

I've addressed your guppie argument previously.
The three features I use to define human life exclude guppies.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I have not proposed chromosomes as the single feature to differentiate human from non-human life.
I use a group of features:
1) human DNA,
2) 45-47 chromosomes, and
3) seven characteristics which are essential for life.

Human chromosomes are human DNA, and any characteristic that is "essential for life" is posessed by non-human life.

 

[smokydot]

See if you can read the introduction to this book -

Philosophy of biology: a ... - Google Books

Thanks.

It doesn't allow preview of the Introduction page.

 

[smokydot]

Catholic Philosopher speaks a bit about it here:

Now we're talkin'!

 

[smokydot]

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

True, but biologists say they are not reproductive cells.
And that distinguishes them from skin cells.
And why are you arguing against biologoy that you know? Because biology doesn't support your argument?

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?

You said I claimed to be doing what scientists do. I made no such claim.

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

That depends on Canadian law.

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

I didn't say that Constitutionally the fetus is a human being.
I said biologically it is a human being.

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

I guess I missed the word justify.

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

Your "shoehorn" assertion has been demonstrated to be false in a previous post.

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.

You do like the hypotheticals, don't you. Here's one.
In a discussion comparing table salt with sodium and chlorine, one party maintains that table salt is the same as sodium or chlorine individually.
"But I'm not talking about individual sodium, the most active metal in the table, or chlorine, a poisonous chemical. I'm talking about sodium and chlorine considered together but before they were joined. There is no characteristic of table salt that wasn't present in either the sodium or the chlorine. Every one of those atoms you seem to value so highly was in one or the other before they became table salt.
Ergo: sodium and chlorine individually are no different than table salt."

 

[smokydot]

What's the biological definition of "person"?

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

"Person" is a human being, a particular individual.

That's been the understanding of "person" for centuries.

 

[Quiddity]

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.

I understand.

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".

I can see why you would see it as such and I don't completely disagree. However, Peter is not just saying that nominalism is nonsense, but that's it's destructive. That the very act of attaching meaning is as much a norm as the function of breathing. Yet, we have a tendency of reducing said faculty to boogie monsters and fairy tales. And yes it does do that, but it does more then that.

 

[smokydot]

So you're under the delusion that it's irrelevant what you say (your argument), only what you think are the "facts" (which you've freely changed)?

Either they are facts, or they are not.
A number have been shown to be subject to correction.

Even with changes, the prinicple was not altered.
For example, not having all the facts correct about human gametes did not alter the principle that individually they do not have the necessary characterisitics for a human being.
Refining the facts did not alter the principle.

So, no matter what I claim, the fact is human gametes individually either have the necessary characteristics for a human being, or they don't.
And if the principle is not altered by refining whatever are the facts, refining the facts doesn't have material consequences.

 

[smokydot]

A newborn can live outside of the womb.

This does not mean that a newborn does not need a support system to survive.

Typo there, that should have been:

Nor can a newborn cannot survive without a support system.

 

[smokydot]

Human chromosomes are human DNA,

Right, but not all human cells individually have the necessary number of chromsomes to be classified as human beings.

and any characteristic that is "essential for life" is posessed by non-human life.

That's why the seven characterisitics essential for life are not the only feature of human life.
Human chromosomes (DNA) are also a needed feature.
And number of chromosomes (45-47) is also a feature.
Where these three features are present, a human being is present.

 

[HonestJoe]

I have not proposed chromosomes as the single feature to differentiate human from non-human life.

Yes you have. Until you threw in "human DNA" you had two criteria, the other being the general characteristics of life. Even if it isn't alone, it is still in your definition and so you need to address the questions and challenges raised about it, something you've avoided doing yet again.

Why choose number of chromosomes rather than any other uniquely human feature (opposable thumbs, a level of self-awareness or intelligence etc)? It wouldn't be because only number of chromosomes fits with your pre-determined conclusion that life begins at conception would it?

True regarding viruses. . .but have you seen anything fuzzy about whether human cells are alive?

Yes, the question of whether life begins at conception. It has long been a question in fields of biology, philosophy, morality and theology and none of them has produced a clear answer in any direction.

The three features I use apply to the human species and distinguish it from all other species, as well as distinguish the human zygote from other human cellular life.

Yes, and I am saying that you are misusing the biological definition of life. Saying it "sounds like a good job" to you isn't addressing that.

Thinking about it, I'm not convinced a zygote alone does meet all of the criteria for life. Adaption, response to stimuli or reproduction?

The three features I use to define human life exclude guppies.

Only since you added "human DNA". How many more features are you going to add to plug holes until you're willing to consider that you may need to start again?

 

[smokydot]

Yes you have. Until you threw in "human DNA" you had two criteria, the other being the general characteristics of life.

I used number of chromosomes to distinguish between the precursor to human life (human gamete) and the actual human life (human zygote).

But for the species, I use three biological criteria for human life:
1) human DNA (chromosomes),
2) number of chromosomes (45-47), and
3) seven characteristics necessary for life.

Even if it isn't alone, it is still in your definition and so you need to address the questions and challenges raised about it, something you've avoided doing yet again.

Why choose number of chromosomes rather than any other uniquely human feature (opposable thumbs, a level of self-awareness or intelligence etc)? It wouldn't be because only number of chromosomes fits with your pre-determined conclusion that life begins at conception would it?

Why not choose number of chromosomes?
It wouldn't be because number of chromosomes (along with other two criteria) doesn't fit with your pre-determined conclusion that life doesn't begin at conception, would it?
You're no longer arguing against the biological facts (that's a good thing), you're arguing against using the biological facts (that's a weird thing).

Yes, the question of whether life begins at conception. It has long been a question in fields of biology, philosophy, morality and theology and none of them has produced a clear answer in any direction.

Biology is fuzzy about whether human cells are living or non-living?
That's not what my "brain trust" thinks!

So old questions don't ever get answered?
I am using the facts of material biology to show the beginning of material human life.
Mine is a biological material argument about a biological material reality.
I am not addressing non-material issues of philosophy, morality or theology.
They have no bearing on the biological material facts of the matter.

Again, you're not arguing against the facts, which are all that are relevant; you're arguing against using the facts.
Curiouser and curiouser. . .

Yes, and I am saying that you are misusing the biological definition of life. Saying it "sounds like a good job" to you isn't addressing that.

I suspect that you view using the material biological facts, to determine when material human life begins, as a "misuse" of the biological definition of life because the material biological facts do not support your personal view.
Wait! . .isn't that what I'm accused of doing? . .we've come full circle. . .

Thinking about it, I'm not convinced a zygote alone does meet all of the criteria for life. Adaption, response to stimuli or reproduction?

Then demonstrate your argument on this. Present it for examination.

Only since you added "human DNA". How many more features are you going to add to plug holes until you're willing to consider that you may need to start again?

Again, not arguing against the facts, but arguing against the use of the facts.

Isn't all this a red herring argument?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Thanks.

It doesn't allow preview of the Introduction page.

It did for me - try searching for the book by title in Google books. It might refresh what you're able to see.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

That depends on Canadian law.

I didn't say that Constitutionally the fetus is a human being.
I said biologically it is a human being.

Where does biology declare that a fetus is a human being?

Or, more precisely, what biological principles dictate that unequivocally that a fetus is a human being?

If you can answer the second question, why is it that no biologist would say that biological principles dictate that unequivocally that a fetus is a human being?

If all this is true, why doesn't every reasonable person come to your conclusions?

(and you can't make up your own biological principles)

 

[angellous_evangellous]

If you change the meaning of your terms, you should change the words to indicate the change.

That is, if you start with claiming that you understand the biology of conception, it's actually kercepsion, and it's not human development but armin perdelopment.

And human being is arm'n bean.

 

[smokydot]

Where does biology declare that a fetus is a human being?
Or, more precisely, what biological principles dictate that unequivocally that a fetus is a human being?

I use biological facts.
Fact #1: It has human DNA (chromosomes) and all the genetic code necessary to develop into a unique mature human being.
Fact #2: It has the number of chromosomes (45-47) necessary for the human species.
Fact #3: It has the seven characteristics necessary for life, which include growth and development into a unique mature human being.

So what more does it need?
We regard a new born as a human being, but it is only nine months closer to a mature human being than is a fetus.

If you can answer the second question, why is it that no biologist would say that biological principles dictate that unequivocally that a fetus is a human being?
If all this is true, why doesn't every reasonable person come to your conclusions?

I can't speak for them.

(and you can't make up your own biological principles)

I use biological facts. They are based on empirical evidence.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I use biological facts. They are based on empirical evidence.

What are your sources other than your own faulty memory and very uncreative imagination?

Why on earth do you think that your "facts" are actually "biological facts?"

If you think that your misunderstandings and delusions are based on empirical evidence, why can't you cite the empirical evidence?

You're only providing results, not the process.