Life Begins at Conception

[smokydot]

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.

Cute.

But I really didn't change the meanng of the terms; e.g.,
gamete--from the beginning and now still means human reproductive cell (the facts regarding them were refined from non-living to living, which didn't change the meaning of gamete)
zygote-from the beginning and now still means the union of male and female gametes
conception--from the beginning and now still means union of gametes, etc.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Cute.

Yeah. It critically undermines your "argument."

Actually, it destroys it.... until you claim that the actual scientific process is now a fact. And that supports your "argument."

hint: If your facts are your argument, the facts change, your argument is finished.

 

[HonestJoe]

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

You've used number of chromosomes to distinguish between human gamete and human zygote - that is based on biological fact. You have completely invented the idea that difference is also the line between non-life and life - that is based on your personal opinion and nothing else.

But for the species, I use three biological criteria for human life:

Does this mean you are now accepting that this definition is aimed at the species level and not the individual one? My point has been that the definition of a species as life is an entirely different prospect to the definition of when a newly conceived individual can be considered alive. I don't think all the fiddling with this definition of the living human species helps with defining when individual human life starts.

Why not choose number of chromosomes?

There is no reason why not to just as there is no reason not to use any other human feature. You are specifically selecting it rather than anything else so you need to present a positive reason for that selection.

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?

I have no pre-determined conclusion. From a philosophical angle, I can understand the argument for saying life begins at conception and I see even early abortion as a very different prospect to contraception so I instinctively recognise the relevance of line we're discussing. I don't think it's as clear cut as you are trying to make it out to be though. The whole concept of life starting is much more complicated and while biological facts can inform the issue, I don't think they are the be-all and end-all of 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).

I've never been arguing against biological facts, only about your conclusions based up on them. I'm in complete agreement that a gamete is a different kind of thing to a zygote. I'm challenging the idea that difference can be clearly defined as being the line between life and non-life.

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

It has become a moot point given you now agreeing your definition is at the species level (which was the point of my query). Briefly though, I'm don't think a zygote is individually capable of adapting to a changing environment, responding to stimuli and certainly isn't capable of reproducing on it's own. I could be wrong though, I'm no expert.

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

Yes, it's the way you are using the facts that I disagree with.

 

[Midnight Pete]

They are both mindless single cell organisms. It lacks humanity without mind and emotion.

A man lying comatose in a hospital ward lacks mind and emotion, but does that mean he is not human?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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.

I'm not sure what you mean here - do you mean that we have a tendency to dismiss meaning as imaginary in the same sense that boogie monsters and fairy tales are imaginary?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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

How is this relevant to what I just said?

That's why the seven characterisitics essential for life are not the only feature of human life.

But all of the "characteristics essential for life" are posessed by all non-human life as well. It doesn't distinguish between human life and non-human life, because it's common to both.

Human chromosomes (DNA) are also a needed feature.
And number of chromosomes (45-47) is also a feature.

But again: this is redundant. Human chromosomes are human DNA.

And how do you define "human" as in "human chromosomes (DNA)" without avoiding a circular definition?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

A man lying comatose in a hospital ward lacks mind and emotion, but does that mean he is not human?

A man lying comatose in a hospital ward lacks the ability to express mind and emotion; how do you know he actually lacks mind and emotion themselves? Comatose people do have measurable brain activity.

Edit: also, comatose people normally have the capacity for mind and emotion. This is evidenced by the fact that they can recover.

 

[smokydot]

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.

No offense. . .but when ole "Racehorse" Haynes or "Screw You, Rusty" Hardin go to argue their cases,
do they marshall the details of phenomenology and epistemology, or do they marshall the facts?

If the facts are good enough for "Racehorse" and "Screw You, Rusty" to argue their cases, then they're good enough for me.

I prefer "boots on the ground" facts to "head in theory" argumentation.

No offense intended. Just trying to explain where I'm coming from.

So, can you explain the problem in arguing my case with the facts?

Is the "problem" really just another instance of arguing against use of the facts, rather than arguing against the facts themselves on which the case is built?

 

[smokydot]

Yeah. It critically undermines your "argument."

Actually, it destroys it.... until you claim that the actual scientific process is now a fact. And that supports your "argument."

hint: If your facts are your argument, the facts change, your argument is finished.

The issue was changing the meaning of the terms. . .which seems to have morphed into changing the facts.

So about the facts:
refining the facts--for example, regarding living or non-living gamete, or number of chromosomes in a gamete--makes no substantive alteration to the the case I am presenting.
Therefore, the case is not destroyed.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The issue was changing the meaning of the terms. . .which seems to have morphed into changing the facts.

So about the facts:
refining the facts--for example, regarding living or non-living gamete, or number of chromosomes in a gamete--makes no substantive alteration to the the case I am presenting.
Therefore, the case is not destroyed.

BTW - did you know that this guy also has 46 chromosomes?

Is he a person?

 

[smokydot]

You've used number of chromosomes to distinguish between human gamete and human zygote - that is based on biological fact. You have completely invented the idea that difference is also the line between non-life and life - that is based on your personal opinion and nothing else.

The issue in the gamete/zygote presentation is not non-life vs. life.
The issue is human cellular life (skin, gamete, etc.) vs. individual human being.
An individual human being occurs when all the genetic code is present, the necesssary number of chromosomes is present,
and the seven characteristics necessary for life are present.
It is an individual human being at that point because nothing else needs to be incorporated into it,
it needs only to be allowed to execute the program within in order to develop into a mature human being in adulthood.

That is so apparently common sensical, I can't see why you guys argue against it.
Not to mention that these are just plain biological facts.

Does this mean you are now accepting that this definition is aimed at the species level and not the individual one? My point has been that the definition of a species as life is an entirely different prospect to the definition of when a newly conceived individual can be considered alive. I don't think all the fiddling with this definition of the living human species helps with defining when individual human life starts.

There is no reason why not to just as there is no reason not to use any other human feature. You are specifically selecting it rather than anything else so you need to present a positive reason for that selection.

When making a case, does a lawyer have to give reasons for presenting material facts?
You're arguing against use of the facts, rather than the facts themselves, which are the basis for the case.
That's makes it a red herring argument.

I have no pre-determined conclusion. From a philosophical angle, I can understand the argument for saying life begins at conception and I see even early abortion as a very different prospect to contraception so I instinctively recognise the relevance of line we're discussing. I don't think it's as clear cut as you are trying to make it out to be though. The whole concept of life starting is much more complicated and while biological facts can inform the issue, I don't think they are the be-all and end-all of it.

I've never been arguing against biological facts, only about your conclusions based up on them. I'm in complete agreement that a gamete is a different kind of thing to a zygote. I'm challenging the idea that difference can be clearly defined as being the line between life and non-life.

I think my first response above makes all that very clear (if there is no bias against it).

It has become a moot point given you now agreeing your definition is at the species level (which was the point of my query). Briefly though, I'm don't think a zygote is individually capable of adapting to a changing environment, responding to stimuli and certainly isn't capable of reproducing on it's own. I could be wrong though, I'm no expert.

According to biologists, you are. They regard cells as "alive," even though they can't reproduce themselves.

Yes, it's the way you are using the facts that I disagree with.

This seems absurd.
Prosecution: We have a clear video of him, with a clear picture of his face, killing the store clerk by repeated blows with a baseball bat (the fact).
Defense: Objection, your Honor. I disagree with the use of that video (the fact) to make the prosecutor's case.

 

[smokydot]

How is this relevant to what I just said?

Life requires more than DNA to be a human being.

But all of the "characteristics essential for life" are posessed by all non-human life as well. It doesn't distinguish between human life and non-human life, because it's common to both.

Right. . .that's why my case includes three criteria to be a human being.
1) Human DNA (in chromosomes),
2) number of chromosomes necessary (45-47),
3) seven characteristics of life.

But again: this is redundant. Human chromosomes are human DNA.
And how do you define "human" as in "human chromosomes (DNA)" without avoiding a circular definition?

human -- from human reproductive cells, chromosomes from human reproductive cells

(Is your contempt showing?)

 

[smokydot]

BTW - did you know that this guy also has 46 chromosomes?

Is he a person?

He is a human being if those chromosomes contain human DNA,
and if he has the seven characteristics necessary for life. . .whoever it is we are talking about.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Life requires more than DNA to be a human being.

But anything with human chromosomes has human DNA.

Right. . .that's why my case includes three criteria to be a human being.
1) Human DNA (in chromosomes),
2) number of chromosomes necessary (45-47),
3) seven characteristics of life.

But we weren't talking about your three critieria to be a human being, we were talking about your criteria for distiguishing human life from non-human life.

human -- from human reproductive cells, chromosomes from human reproductive cells

(Is your contempt showing?)

No, it's my foresight. You just used the term "human" in your definition of "human". This is the sort of circular definition that I was talking about. Try again.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

He is a human being if those chromosomes contain human DNA,

What's "human DNA"? How do we tell the difference between human DNA and non-human DNA?

and if he has the seven characteristics necessary for life.

Well, he's alive, so I'd say he meets any characteristics for life that matter.

. .whoever it is we are talking about.

You didn't click on the link? It's a sable antelope. It's a herbivorous animal with four legs, a dark brown coat with a white belly, hooves, horns, and 46 chromosomes.

 

[smokydot]

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

Biology of human development. Check it out.

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

They come from the field of biology, which is the study of life. Check it out.

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

It's easy to find in any biological reference book on human development. Check it out.

You're only providing results, not the process.

The process seems to be pretty common knowledge.
If not, it is easily found in any biological reference book on human deveopment.

If you had questions regarding my presentation of gravity as explaining why "what goes up must come down,"
I would likewise provide only the results and not the process, and would refer you to physics reference books for the facts used, which come from the field of physics.

I'm not presenting new scientific findings to a group of scientists, which requires all the attending data to establish the new findings.
I'm presenting recognized biological findings (facts) to a common-sensical reasonable person.

 

[smokydot]

But anything with human chromosomes has human DNA.

Agreed.

But we weren't talking about your three critieria to be a human being, we were talking about your criteria for distiguishing human life from non-human life.

1) Human DNA distinguishes between human and non-human life.

2) The three criteria as a group distinguish between human cellular life and an individual human being, in whatever stage of development it happens to be.​

Where the three criteria are present, an individual human being is present, with all the genetic code, and nothing more needed to be incorporated within, to develop on its own into a unique mature human adult.

No, it's my foresight. You just used the term "human" in your definition of "human". This is the sort of circular definition that I was talking about. Try again.

human--issuing from reproductive cells produced by mature human beings; chromosomes within reproductive cells produced by mature human beings.

And that's why I am "boots on the ground" rather than "head in theory," which can facilitate gamey-ness.
Nor does "boots on the ground" preclude adequate defense of one's case against objections from "head in theory."

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

human--issuing from reproductive cells produced by mature human beings; chromosomes within reproductive cells produced by mature human beings.

But you're using "human DNA" as part of the characteristics for your definition of "human being".

Here's the problem with your definitions:

Q: what's a human being?
A: it's a being with human DNA, 46 chromosomes, and that meets the 7 requirements for life.
Q: what's human DNA?
A: it's DNA issuing from reproductive cells produced by mature human beings.
Q: so what's a human being?
A: it's a being with human DNA, 46 chromosomes, and that meets the 7 requirements for life.
Q: what's human DNA?
A: it's DNA issuing from reproductive cells produced by mature human beings.
Q: so what's a human being?
...

Your definitions are circular. They never arrive at an answer. You've defined "human being" in terms of human DNA, and you've defined "human DNA" in terms of "human being". Because your definition is circular, you haven't actually defined anything at all.

So... try again. Again.

 

[smokydot]

What's "human DNA"? How do we tell the difference between human DNA and non-human DNA?

Human DNA is the chromosomes contained in reproductive cells of mature human beings.

Well, he's alive, so I'd say he meets any characteristics for life that matter.
You didn't click on the link? It's a sable antelope. It's a herbivorous animal with four legs, a dark brown coat with a white belly, hooves, horns, and 46 chromosomes.

There was no link in the post I received.
If they aren't safe links, I don't receive them.

Humans are not the only beings with 46 chromosomes.
But they are the only beings with 45-47 human chromosomes (DNA).
And with the seven characteristics necessary for life, they are individual human beings.

You're more stuck in your "illusions" than Ole Willie says I am in mine.

 

[smokydot]

But you're using "human DNA" as part of the characteristics for your definition of "human being".
Here's the problem with your definitions:
Q: what's a human being?
A: it's a being with human DNA, 46 chromosomes, and that meets the 7 requirements for life.

That's a human being in its early stages of development in the womb, which was the issue this answer addressed.

Q: what's human DNA?
A: it's DNA issuing from reproductive cells produced by mature human beings.

That's a human being at the completion of its development.

Q: so what's a human being?
In its early stages of development,
A: it's a being with human DNA, 46 chromosomes, and that meets the 7 requiremeents for life.
Q: what's human DNA?
A: it's DNA issuing from reproductive cells produced by mature human beings.
Q: so what's a human being?
...
Your definitions are circular. They never arrive at an answer. You've defined "human being" in terms of human DNA, and you've defined "human DNA" in terms of "human being". Because your definition is circular, you haven't actually defined anything at all.
So... try again. Again.

Horse hockey! ..that's the gameyness of "head in theory" where there are no "boots on the ground."

You have turned the logical fallacy of "circular reasoning" into an absurd and meaningless word game which has no application when the term (human being) can refer to origin as well as completion, and everything in between in the process of development.
"Human being" is not (necessarily) an absolute-quantity, static term. . .subject to parlor games of static definitions.

You can't define the biological reproduction (origin) of a human being (as opposed to a rabbit) without using the words "human being."

And you can't define the nature of human DNA without using the words "human being."

This is the reproductive process, not the creation-by-God process.
"Reproduce" means to produce another of the same nature as the "producer."
You can't clarify whose process it is without using the term "human being."

It's time for you to give it another try. . .and this time ground it in material reality.