Life Begins at Conception

[smokydot]

You're realizing that now?

I don't think it's an impasse until all objections have been heard and responded to.

But it appears that we are down to bickering, rather than substantive objections.

So it appears to me the impasse has now arrived.

 

[smokydot]

I've only been skimming this thread for a while. So what exactly is the argument going on here currently?

See post #1107 or post #1300.

 

[smokydot]

Your argument hinges on the number of human chromosomes and human DNA. Since both chromosomes and DNA weren't discovered until well after Thomas Aquinas or Webster's 1828 dictionary, I find it very hard to believe that they verify your argument in any way whatsoever.

Agreed. . .they don't.

They verify only the centuries-old definition of "person". . .which hasn't changed. . .and for which definition you required the validity.

I provided it. . .your disagreement with it doesn't alter its manifest validity as used in my case presented in post #1300.

 

[smokydot]

Is an individual not something which has individuality?

An individual has multiple things, of which individuality is only one.
The terms are not interchangeable, but you interchanged them.

Regardless, we seem to be moving away from the question of life beginning at conception and I'm not clear what you are now stating.

1) So which are you saying is my case: individuality begins at conception, as in your previous post (#1301), or life begins at conception, as above?

2) The moving away from the question of life beginning at conception was entirely of your own doing when
you interchanged the non-interchangeable terms "individual" and "individuality."

Don't be flippant. Why are the criteria of self-awareness or independence from the womb unquestionably incorrect in your opinion?

1) It seemed to me you were being flippant in your previous post (#1290) when you replied:
"So this thread isn't about life beginning at conception after all, it's about individuality beginning at conception.
Doesn't that mean we've all been wasting our time on the wrong debate for a hundred plus pages?"

2) New borns do not have self-awareness, but they are considered human beings by the Court.

3) Material human maturation involves varying degrees of independence. . .from conception to maturity.
It is inconsistent to allow some, and not all, degrees of independence in the definition of a material human being.

Not at all. Webster went out and found out how people were using words and recorded that use. Your position would be equivalent to Webster looking at the etymology of words and basing his definitions on that alone, completely ignoring how people were using those words in practice.

When Wester includes your novel definitions in his dictionaries, I will then include them in my case.
But whatever they turn out to be, my case relates to the material human being, and its based on material biological facts.

OK, so we agree your comparison of yourself to a lawyer was irrelevant?

What was that above about not being flippant?

We are not agreed.
There is a small, but significant, distinction here: I compared my case to a lawyer's case, not myself to a lawyer.
Therefore, the comparison was far from irrelevant. . .it was quite relevant.

And if you don't know "Racehorse" Haynes or "Screw you, Rusty!" Hardin, you're missing the best part!

How many times do I have to write this?

*** I am not saying your interpretation is wrong! ***

I am saying that your interpretation is only that - an interpretation and yours alone. Other people have different interpretations of exactly the same biological facts and different interpretations which bring in other facts. I don't believe you can say, so definitively and finally, that your interpretation is 100% correct and, by definition, everyone else's interpretations are entirely wrong.

I hear you. . .but I am defining a material human being, subject only to material facts.
That is my case.
I would definitely be interested in any other interpretations of those material facts which could or would alter my case for material human life beginning at conception.

Only two uses in biology and even they raise questions at the edges. I think any word which has two different definitions within a single field (let alone all the definitions in other fields) can be described as having at least a little complexity.

Okay. . .but it is not complex in relation to the area in which it is used. It has only one definition there.
However, both definitions fit my case. So its complexity is irrelevant to my case.

And I say again, it the concept of life wasn't complex, this whole debate (or at least the one that it started as) wouldn't exist.

I say that assumes facts not in evidence--facts being: demonstration that complexity is the reason for the debate.
Otther reasons come to mind for the debate, which have nothing to do with complexity.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Thanks. . .so my case fails because I didn't spell out those seven characteristics?

Human being--the nine-month guest(s) which the hostess labors to move to a new location.

The three criteria I have repeatedly stated is the definition of a human being, which exists in various forms at various times, both inside and outside the womb.

So with these improvements, my case is valid?

You built your argument on propositions that you did not define [and still haven't - the seven characteristics].

What on earth does this mean:

The three criteria I have repeatedly stated is the definition of a human being, which exists in various forms at various times, both inside and outside the womb.

There are only three criteria for something to be a human being?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Agreed. . .they don't.

They verify only the centuries-old definition of "person". . .which hasn't changed. . .and for which definition you required the validity.

I provided it. . .your disagreement with it doesn't alter its manifest validity as used in my case presented in post #1300.

When did you provide this "centuries-old definition of "person"?

 

[smokydot]

You built your argument on propositions that you did not define [and still haven't - the seven characteristics].

You were the one who corrected the number from six to seven characteristics necesssary for life.

What on earth does this mean:
There are only three criteria for something to be a human being?

I can narrow down to two the requirements for being a material human being:
1) 45-47 human chromosomes (DNA) from the producer of the human gametes,
2) seven biologocial characteristics necessary for life.

Where these are present in a living entity, there is a material human being.

NB: I extend the benefit of the doubt longer than I should, but I don't extend it indefinitely.

 

[smokydot]

When did you provide this "centuries-old definition of "person"?

I provided it to you two days ago, in post #1250.

NB: I extend the benefit of the doubt longer than I should, but I do not extend it indefinitely.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I provided it to you two days ago, in post #1250.

So this:

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

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

So you define "person" as "a human being", but then go on to define "human being" in terms of chromosomes and DNA.

How did the sources you cite, i.e. Thomas Aquinas and the 1828 Webster's, define these terms?

NB: I extend the benefit of the doubt longer than I should, but I do not extend it indefinitely.

What's that supposed to mean? I've been more than patient with you; don't act like you're doing me a favour.

 

[thedope]

In terms of human experience all things arise with conception but concepts must be cultivated to remain viable, this includes biological terms.

 

[smokydot]

So this:
So you define "person" as "a human being", but then go on to define "human being" in terms of chromosomes and DNA.

Agreed.

How did the sources you cite, i.e. Thomas Aquinas and the 1828 Webster's, define these terms?

Thomas Aquinas, 1272-73-- person is an individual substance of a rational nature

Webster, 1828 -- person is a living human being, possessing a rational nature

What's that supposed to mean? I've been more than patient with you; don't act like you're doing me a favour.

That's not what I mean.
You have been most patient with me, and I am grateful.
But when you ask, in a manner that suggests pertinence to me, that I re-provide material, re-state statements, etc., I begin to wonder about the sincerity of your responses.
I take it from this response that you are, indeed, sincere in your responses.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Agreed.

Thomas Aquinas, 1272-73-- person is an individual substance of a rational nature

Webster, 1828 -- person is a living human being, possessing a rational nature

There's nothing in either of these about DNA, and something without a brain (e.g. a zygote) cannot be "posess a rational nature" in any way I understand the word "rational".

That's not what I mean.
You have been most patient with me, and I am grateful.
But when you ask, in a manner that suggests pertinence to me, that I re-provide material, re-state statements, etc., I begin to wonder about the sincerity of your responses.
I take it from this response that you are, indeed, sincere in your responses.

Here's the thing: I get the sense that your argument makes sense to you, but to the rest of us, it seems like you're making mental leaps without justifying them. It's not clear what you mean a lot of the time, so we have to ask questions if we're going to figure it out.

 

[smokydot]

There's nothing in either of these about DNA, and something without a brain (e.g. a zygote) cannot be "posess a rational nature" in any way I understand the word "rational".

It's the word "nature" that is tripping you up, not the word "rational."

The main distinguishing characteristic between human nature and animal nature is the intellect.
Another distinguishing characteristic between human nature and animal nature is speech.

Now there is a time in the development of the human being when it cannot speak.
But it doesn't become human when it finally speaks, it finally speaks because it is human (has a human nature instead of an animal nature).
Likewise, it doesn't become human when it finally is rational, it finally is rational because it is human (has a human nature instead of an animal nature).
Your undestanding reverses cause and effect.
Now, let that sink in.

Personally, I think one of the reasons I am not understood is due to not letting statements like the bold above "sink in."
When grasped, they move the ground. . .and afford a better view of the matter. . .which then allows other facts to fall into place.

So this is the relationship of the three terms:

person = human being = criteria: (1) 45-47 human chromosomes--DNA, and (2) seven biological characteristics of life.
The three terms are interchangeable.. .a human being is a person is a human being is life that possesses the two criteria is a human
being is a person. . .ad finitum.
The DNA is in the third term--criteria, and since all three terms are interchangeable, because they all indicate the same living entity, the DNA is also included in the terms person and human being.

And that's how there is something about DNA in the definitions of person and human being.

If you would like a fuller delineation of my case, let me know.

Here's the thing: I get the sense that your argument makes sense to you, but to the rest of us, it seems like you're making mental leaps without justifying them. It's not clear what you mean a lot of the time, so we have to ask questions if we're going to figure it out.

I can see that. . .but it seems to me the statements of my case are plain and simple, and require nothing more than letting the statements "sink in" to comprehend their meaning, which then allows other things I am saying to fall into place instead of appear as "leaps."

I guess we both had homework to do here.

 

[smokydot]

In terms of human experience all things arise with conception but concepts must be cultivated to remain viable, this includes biological terms.

Thanks for that!

I feel a whole lot more like I do now than I did before!

(Modern biological concepts are cultivated and remain most definitely viable.)

 

[angellous_evangellous]

You were the one who corrected the number from six to seven characteristics necesssary for life.

Yes, but you did not specify what "characteristics" you referring to in your argument.

Again, you need to specify precisely how and why you think that the "characteristics" are applied in your argument, rather than simply declaring it.

As of yet, your argument is only:

"Life begins at conception because the zygote is a human being."

But conception happens before the zygote as you have defined it in this thread.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

So this is the relationship of the three terms:

person = human being = criteria: (1) 45-47 human chromosomes--DNA, and (2) seven biological characteristics of life.
The three terms are interchangeable.. .a human being is a person is a human being is life that possesses the two criteria is a human
being is a person. . .ad finitum.
The DNA is in the third term--criteria, and since all three terms are interchangeable, because they all indicate the same living entity, the DNA is also included in the terms person and human being.

That's a fairly low - or rather, extremely low - view of humanity.

How many gametes, zygotes, or cancer cells have produced inspiring artwork, philosophy, music, or architecture? What culture does the zygote or fetus community have that anthropologists can study and share with us their curiosities and virtues?

Then, we have the logic from Aristotle - if we show a child a picture of a zygote and then show them a picture of a man, which one would the child identify as a person or a human being?

Which would a child flee from - a wolf or its fertilized egg in a petri dish?

 

[HonestJoe]

An individual has multiple things, of which individuality is only one. The terms are not interchangeable, but you interchanged them.

No, I thought that when you were referring to something becoming an individual human being that the individuality was the key factor. You've now explained that was a misunderstanding on my part.

So which are you saying is my case: individuality begins at conception, as in your previous post (#1301), or life begins at conception, as above?

I honestly don't know. I still think your conclusion is "life begins at conception", based on religious doctrine, but I don't think you have a clear logical argument because you're working backwards from that conclusion to try to get one.

As I said, I'm not saying there isn't one, only that you haven't presented an argument complete and consistent enough to convince me (or anyone else it appears) to anything like the same level of certainty you hold yourself.

New borns do not have self-awareness, but they are considered human beings by the Court.

Sorry, that was the wrong term. I was thinking about the point a foetus develops senses to be able to respond to it's environment (that is one of the seven characteristics of life you're using after all)

Material human maturation involves varying degrees of independence. . .from conception to maturity.
It is inconsistent to allow some, and not all, degrees of independence in the definition of a material human being.

Someone could identify a specific one (in fact the point a foetus could naturally survive outside the womb is proposed by some as a relevant defining point).

Okay. . .but it is not complex in relation to the area in which it is used. It has only one definition there.
However, both definitions fit my case. So its complexity is irrelevant to my case.

I think that's a matter of opinion that we're not going to resolve. That's probably true of the whole question to be honest.

 

[thedope]

It is the breath that makes an individual.

 

[smokydot]

Yes, but you did not specify what "characteristics" you referring to in your argument.

Again, you need to specify precisely how and why you think that the "characteristics" are applied in your argument, rather than simply declaring it.

As of yet, your argument is only:

"Life begins at conception because the zygote is a human being."

But conception happens before the zygote as you have defined it in this thread.

Thanks, that's useful information. I will take it into account when I present my fully developed case.

 

[smokydot]

That's a fairly low - or rather, extremely low - view of humanity.

Thanks, you just made one of my points. . .the low view of humanity evidenced in the tens of millions of abortions in this nation alone.

My case uses a biological definition of a material human being.
That's not the total view of humanity. . .and you know that.

Are you being sincere. . .or deliberately trying to confound by omission?

How many gametes, zygotes, or cancer cells have produced inspiring artwork, philosophy, music, or architecture? What culture does the zygote or fetus community have that anthropologists can study and share with us their curiosities and virtues?

Pretty close to the same number that infants have produced, who were once zygotes just as human adults were.

Then, we have the logic from Aristotle - if we show a child a picture of a zygote and then show them a picture of a man, which one would the child identify as a person or a human being?

Are you deliberately trying to confound by omission?

If you show a child a picture of a ten-year-old and then show them a picture of a man, which one would the child identify as a person or a human being?

Both the ten-year-old and the man were once zygotes.

Which would a child flee from - a wolf or its fertilized egg in a petri dish?

Your insincerity is showing. . .right through the veil of your deliberate attempt to confound by omission.

Which would a child flee from - a wolf or its frolicking four-week-old pup?

Both the wolf and its pup were once a fertilized egg.

All of this is without substance.
The question is: do you know that, and are deliberately trying to confound by omission?

I expected more of you. . .

[/quote]