• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Life Begins at Conception

Status
Not open for further replies.
S

smokydot

Well-Known Member
Thanks, HonestJoe. I will present my full case to see if that helps.

HonestJoe said:
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.

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.

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)

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).

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.
Click to expand...
 
A

angellous_evangellous

Guest
smokydot said:
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?



Pretty close to the same number that infants have produced.



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?



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?

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. . .



wolf2.jpg
Click to expand...
[/QUOTE]

AND this is why more than one person on this thread has pointed out that you have no argument.
 
S

smokydot

Well-Known Member
This is my "case."
Sincere, objective, substantive (holding up in court) objections and/or comments are invited. Thanks, everyone. -- smokydot

(Keep those definitions in mind!)

HUMAN REPRODUCTION

Definition of Terms:

1. human being - having qualities or characteristics of human species (Webster 1828, 1948, 2008)

2. person - living human being possessing a rational nature (Webster 1828, 1948, 2008)

3. nature - essence; distinguishing quality or qualities (Webster 1828, 1948, 2008)

4. individual - existing as a distinct entity (Webster 1828, 1948, 2008)

5. form, n. - shape, structure or external appearance of a thing (Webster 1828, 1948, 2008)

6. substance - essential part; that which underlies all outward manifestations; real, unchanging essence or nature (Webster 1828, 1948, 2008)

7. transform, v. - to change the form of; to change the shape or appearance of; to metamorphose (Webster 1828, 1948, 2008)

8. gametes - reproductive cells (sperm, egg)

9. conception - formation of zygote by union of two human gametes

10. zygote - union of two human gametes at conception, which union possesses all the necessary requirements for human life

11. human life - cells possessing 45-47 human chomosomes (DNA) and necessary requirements for biological life

12. necessary requirements for biological life - cells, organization, metabolism, homeostasis, reproduction, growth and development

The Case:

Human biology reveals that the human reproductive process results in human life at conception.
Consider the biologicalf facts:

1) Two human reproductive cells (precursors of human life),
neither of which is human life (each lacking necessary number of chromosomes);

2) unite to form the zygote, which contains the 45-47 chromosomes (DNA) necessary for human life, as well as the biological characteristics necessary for all life;

3) which zygote from the moment of its formation (conception) is of the same human nature as the human gametes which formed it;

4) and which zygote then transforms through various forms and stages into a unique mature human being of the same human nature as the human gametes which formed it.

Because the human zygote from the moment of its formation (conception) has all the requirments for human life, is a unique human individual with its own genetic code, and needs no new genetic information to make it a unique individual, the zygote is a human being in its initial form.
The zygote--like the newborn, the infant and the adolescent--needs only to develop in accordance with its already-designed nature received at conception.

This is not a metaphysical contention, it is empirical knowledge from plain experimental evidence.
Humans do not come from a zygote, embryo, fetus, adolescent--humans once were a zygote, embryo, fetus, adolescent.
The conceived is a being who is in the process of becoming, it is not a becoming who is striving toward being.
It is not a potential human life, but is a human life with great potential.

The same being that begins as a zygote continues to birth and adulthood. There is no decisive break in the continuous development of the human entity from conception to death that would make this entity a different individual before birth.

Therefore, common sense, based on human biology, verifies that human life begins at conception.
 
Last edited:
A

angellous_evangellous

Guest
smokydot said:
Therefore, common sense, based on human biology, verifies that human life begins at conception.
Click to expand...

Using Webster to defend your claims is useless and frankly an insult to people who actually think out this problem.

Basically your claim is this: since the product of conception is alive coming from living cells, it is human.

So far you have been unable to connect what it means to be alive to what it means to be human. You certainly haven't done it here.
 
S

smokydot

Well-Known Member
1) angellous_evangellous said: Using Webster to defend your claims is useless and frankly an insult to people who actually think out this problem.

smokydot says: Do I detect a hint of elitism in your reference to "people who actually think out this problem,"
inferring that those who use recognized standard definitions of words are "people who do not actually think?"

What do you think physicists, mathematicians, scientists, etc., who make real progress in human knowledge through objective standards and definitions,
would think of your comment?

2) angellous_evangellous said: "Basically your claim is this: since the product of conception is alive coming from living cells, it is human."

smokydot says: Nope. . .my claim is this: since it is alive coming from living human cells, it is human life. . .what other kind of life could it be?

3) angellous_evangellous said: "So far you have been unable to connect what it means to be alive to what it means to be human. You certainly haven't done it here."

smokydot says: That's not how it works.
What it means to be alive and what it means to be human are already connected.

The quality of humanness exists only in human life or human being. It cannot exist apart from it.
It is not the quality of humanness which makes life a human life, but a human life which makes the quality of humanness.
There first must be human life, the existence of which is the subject of this case.
The quality of humanness is a part of development. . .as are self awareness, teeth, self mobility, comprehension, speech, rationality, puberty, etc.

Methinks the lady doth protest too much.
Methinks the lady doth wish to be free of objective standard definitions
so the lady can mucketh around in subjectivity.

Methinks the Webster thing is a red herring.
 
Last edited:
Katzpur

Katzpur

Not your average Mormon
dawny0826 said:
Not exactly. But in the book of Jeremiah,it's implied, that our purpose in this life may be predetermined before our birth. The Lord told Jeremiah, when he was called to be a prophet...

"Before I formed you in the womb, I knew you; Before you were born I sanctified you; I ordained you a prophet to the nations." Jeremiah 1:5
Click to expand...
I don't believe it was just our purpose in this life that was determined before our birth. I believe that our spirits existed before our birth. In other words, we were cognizant entities before we were physical beings.
 
S

smokydot

Well-Known Member
'dressed in edits of post #1330. . .

smokydot said:
Your objection to my case in post #1326 on human life beginning at conceptions is 'dressed in edits of post #1330. . .to wit:

1) angellous_evangellous said: Using Webster to defend your claims is useless and frankly an insult to people who actually think out this problem.

smokydot says: Do I detect a hint of elitism in your reference to "people who actually think out this problem,"
inferring that those who use recognized standard definitions of words are "people who do not actually think?"

What do you think physicists, mathematicians, scientists, etc., who make real progress in human knowledge through objective standards and definitions,
would think of your comment?

2) angellous_evangellous said: "Basically your claim is this: since the product of conception is alive coming from living cells, it is human."

smokydot says: Nope. . .my claim in post #1326 is this: since it is alive coming from living human cells, it is human life. . .what other kind of life could it be?

3) angellous_evangellous said: "So far you have been unable to connect what it means to be alive to what it means to be human.
You certainly haven't done it here."

smokydot says: That's not how it works.
What it means to be alive and what it means to be human are already connected.

The quality of humanness exists only in human life or human being. It cannot not exist apart from it.
It is not the quality of humanness which makes life a human life, but a human life which makes the quality of humanness.
There first must be human life, the existence of which is the subject of this case.
The quality of humanness is a part of development. . .as are self awareness, teeth, self mobility, comprehension, speech, rationality, puberty, etc.

Methinks the lady doth protest too much.
Methinks the lady doth wish to be free of objective standard definitions
so the lady can mucketh around in subjectivity.

Methinks the Webster thing is a red herring.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
A

angellous_evangellous

Guest
Methinks the Webster thing is a red herring.
Click to expand...

No, it's just a stupid thing to base several points of your argument on. Particularly when you're pretending that Webster's definitions are biological facts.
 
A

angellous_evangellous

Guest
1) angellous_evangellous said: Using Webster to defend your claims is useless and frankly an insult to people who actually think out this problem.

smokydot says: Do I detect a hint of elitism in your reference to "people who actually think out this problem,"
inferring that those who use recognized standard definitions of words are "people who do not actually think?"

What do you think physicists, mathematicians, scientists, etc., who make real progress in human knowledge through objective standards and definitions,
would think of your comment?
Click to expand...

Webster does not represent the empirical research that you pretend to use [having not cited any sources].

It's not a matter of elitism, it's a matter of laziness. Webster will not teach you basic biology and philosophy that you'll need to address our question.

And yes, if a student were to quote Webster even as an undergrad, it is completely unacceptable in any field because it shows the laziness of the student and insults the intelligence of the professor.

And yes, I am making real progress in human knowledge myself.
 
A

angellous_evangellous

Guest
2) angellous_evangellous said: "Basically your claim is this: since the product of conception is alive coming from living cells, it is human."

smokydot says: Nope. . .my claim in post #1326 is this: since it is alive coming from living human cells, it is human life. . .what other kind of life could it be?
Click to expand...

That's not different from my claim.
 
A

angellous_evangellous

Guest
3) angellous_evangellous said: "So far you have been unable to connect what it means to be alive to what it means to be human.
You certainly haven't done it here."

smokydot says: That's not how it works.
What it means to be alive and what it means to be human are already connected.
Click to expand...

First of all, Webster does not represent an objective standard definition. It represents the majority current usage of words within certain time periods. It does not mean that Webster keeps up with the latest scientific, ethical, and philosophical developments. That's why we have journal articles coming out all the time in every field re-defining and clarifying words and phrases that will not appear in dictionaries for several years.

You have not shown: [what] "it means to be alive and what it means to be human are already connected."

You need to think about this and see if you can argue your point without circular non-rationaling.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top