Life Begins at Conception

[gnomon]

Here's my opinion.

Strap yourself in.

At the moment of conception life begins. That's obvious. The definition of life includes every cell in your body which would include a sperm cell and an unfertilized egg.

What about a fertilized egg? It's living.

So what. Some estimates place the rate of spontaneous abortion of unrecognized pregnancies at 50%. Which would mean that half of all possible human beings are aborted. Spontaneously.

Good design you have their God. Not meant facetiously since a possible God may have intended such a thing for population control. Anyway.......

That's not touching upon the number of miscarriages. A rate of 95% for chromosomal abnormalities. Increasing rates among women over a certain age. Yada, yada, yada.

It seems to me that abortion is part of the norm. Spontaneously. Why the hell should we give women such a large amount of grief if they choose to abort willingly.

Life? Life is the tumor growing on your nose. Life is the virus killing your children. The majority of life on this planet is known to be that of parasitic life.

Who cares about the term life. Those who don't know better. That's who.

I want to see one of these zealous pro-life individuals tell someone with Harlequin type Ichtyosis that they were meant to be born that way. Unfortunately, most of those with such a condition died after childbirth. Thanks to reason, however, some of those with such a condition have survived.

Life. Quality of life. Human.

Whatever. The religious argument against abortion by basing it on life at conception is foolhardy.

 

[thedope]

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

The cataloging of breadth of meaning represents serious scholarship and in turn that cataloged meaning is useful in determining the accuracy of linguistic formula.
If we give like consideration to the terms smokydot is using a new argument is exposed.

The word conception it turns out is always associated with consolidating information.
What conception constitutes the inception of life. Isn't conception as much a property of mind as it is reproductive biology, by definition? So using smokydots criteria of proof, life begins when a little girl plays with a doll and dreams of having a child. Shouldn't then, the thought police, compel that child to become pregnant?

As I said to smokydot, I think the life of an individual begins with the breath. If a child emerges from the womb at whatever term, if the child can breath on its own, I would consider it protected. Before that time, it is symbiont with the mother, at the mothers invitation.

 

[smokydot]

What?
im·mor·tal [i máwrt'l]
adj
1. never dying: able to have eternal life or existence 2. famous: very famous and likely to be remembered for a long time n (plural im·mor·tals)

You need to can this reference source, it is in error.

In the NT, eternal life does not mean to live forever.

Those who end up in hell will live forever, but they do not have eternal life.

Eternal life is the life of God in the spirit of the regenerated.

Look for theological references when dealing with theological terms.
Secular references are inadequate.
And for heaven's sake, use a reference that has a shelf life of more than a week.

 

[smokydot]

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.

Are you smokin' whacky tobacky?

This is more red herring.

And you said I had a low view of humanity. . .

Put you money where your mouth is and demonstrate the linguistic errors.

(You'd complain even if they hung you with a brand spankin' new rope.)

 

[smokydot]

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.

All smoke and no fire. . .both are included in my case.

More red herring. . .

Address the linguistics.

 

[smokydot]

That's not different from my claim.

So that's the problem. . .you miss distinctions.

Your "since it is alive coming from living cells, it is human" allows it to be a chimpanzee.

My "since it is alive coming from living human cells, it is human life" allows only a human nature.

 

[thedope]

You need to can this reference source, it is in error.

English language dictionary

In the NT, eternal life does not mean to live forever.

Do you have a glossary of special meaning for terms in the bible?

Those who end up in hell will live forever, but they do not have eternal life.

I thought we were talking about when life begins. I think you started this line of reasoning glibly without really considering what I said.

Eternal life is the life of God in the spirit of the regenerated.

Is "regenerated" in the bible.

Look for theological references when dealing with theological terms.
Secular references are inadequate.

I thought we were discussing biological terms, i.e., when life begins.

And for heaven's sake, use a reference that has a shelf life of more than a week.

Eternal?

 

[smokydot]

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.

You need to show the error in the linguistics.

Assumes facts not in evidence. You don't know what Webster keeps up with.

 

[thedope]

a human nature.

The mammalian brain is supported by the lizard brain. There is no human nature apart from nature. There is human behavior.

 

[smokydot]

The cataloging of breadth of meaning represents serious scholarship and in turn that cataloged meaning is useful in determining the accuracy of linguistic formula.
If we give like consideration to the terms smokydot is using a new argument is exposed.
The word conception it turns out is always associated with consolidating information.

Always? . .Oh, my.

What conception constitutes the inception of life. Isn't conception as much a property of mind as it is reproductive biology, by definition? So using smokydots criteria of proof, life begins when a little girl plays with a doll and dreams of having a child. Shouldn't then, the thought police, compel that child to become pregnant?
As I said to smokydot, I think the life of an individual begins with the breath.

Not according to biology.
Life begins when the biological requirements necessary for biological life are met, and human life begins when the biological requirements for human life are met.
Breath is not included in the biological requirements of either.

If a child emerges from the womb at whatever term, if the child can breath on its own, I would consider it protected. Before that time, it is symbiont with the mother, at the mothers invitation.

 

[smokydot]

English language dictionary

By whom?

Do you have a glossary of special meaning for terms in the bible?

Yes.

I thought we were talking about when life begins. I think you started this line of reasoning glibly without really considering what I said.

You said life is breath. I responded that eternal life is Breath.

Is "regenerated" in the bible.

Yes.

I thought we were discussing biological terms, i.e., when life begins.

We took a turn at eternal ife.

Eternal?

That reference book would be the Bible.

 

[smokydot]

The mammalian brain is supported by the lizard brain. There is no human nature apart from nature. There is human behavior.

Check out the field of philosophy. . .

 

[thedope]

Always? . .Oh, my.

Yes

Not according to biology. Life begins with the biological requirements necessary for biological life, and human life begins with the biological requirements for human life.
Neither is predicated on breath.

I said the life of an "individual" begins with the breath. I invite you to demonstrate how an individual human being can continue to live, biologically speaking, without breathing.

 

[smokydot]

Yes
I said the life of an "individual" begins with the breath. I invite you to demonstrate how an individual human being can continue to live, biologically speaking, without breathing.

We're talking beginnings here.

In biology, life begins with possession of the necessary requirements for biological life.
In biology, human life begins with possession of the necessary requirements for human life.

One of the necessary requirements for biological life is development.
Breathing occurs in development, not at the beginning.

 

[thedope]

By whom?

Microsoft

Yes.

I don't.

Yes.

Example?

We took a turn at eternal ife.

You attempted to deflect.

That reference book would be the Bible.

The bible states no definition for eternal.

 

[thedope]

We're talking beginnings here.

In biology, life begins with possession of the necessary requirements for biological life.
In biology, human life begins with possession of the necessary requirements for human life.

There is something fundamentally wrong with this definition. Everything begins at the beginning.

Yes we are talking beginnings and the beginning you are referring to is human life deserving of legal and moral protections.

Speaking philosophically then, this question had already been answered in antiquity. Astrologically the individual is tethered to the diaphragm. By his words a man is justified and he speaks from the abundance of his heart.

 

[smokydot]

Microsoft
I don't.
Example?

Wanna' see how far away we can get from the subject with one word answers?

Regenerate = to revive, to reform completely

"No one can (even) see the kingdom of God unless he is born again (regenerated). . .the Spirit gives birth to spirit. You should not be surprised at my saying you must be born again."

You attempted to deflect.
The bible states no definition for eternal.

You know the Bible?

"Now this is eternal life: that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent."

 

[thedope]

Wanna' see how far away we can get from the subject with one word answers?

I don't care to find out. The number of words in my answers match the number of words in the questions.

Regenerate = to revive, to reform completely

"No one can (even) see the kingdom of God unless he is born again (regenerated). . .the Spirit gives birth to spirit. You should not be surprised at my saying you must be born again."

Could easily apply to the word reincarnation. Like I say the word regeneration is not used.

You know the Bible?

The bible is useful but I fundamentally rely on the holy spirit to teach all things.

"Now this is eternal life: that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent."

Again, I said definition for eternal.

 

[smokydot]

thedope said:

There is something fundamentally wrong with this definition. Everything begins at the beginning.
Yes we are talking beginnings and the beginning you are referring to is human life deserving of legal and moral protections.

Have you read post #1326? It says nothing about legal and moral protections. That's an assumption on your part.

Speaking philosophically then, this question had already been answered in antiquity.

I'm not aware of any answers in antiquity.
But when speaking of human beings and human life, there is a non-material aspect, which it is not the purpose of biology to describe, that is described and clarified in the linguistics of philosophy.
But since this non-material aspect exists in physical human life or physical human being, it cannot be separated from the biology of human life or the human being.

Astrologically the individual is tethered to the diaphragm. By his words a man is justified and he speaks from the abundance of his heart.

And?

 

[smokydot]

I don't care to find out. The number of words in my answers match the number of words in the questions.

Weird. . .

Could easily apply to the word reincarnation. Like I say the word regeneration is not used.

The Bible does not teach reincarnation, so rebirth does not mean reincarnation.
For that matter, the Bible also doesn't use the word Trinity or sovereign, but both are fundamental Christian doctrines.

The bible is useful but I fundamentally rely on the holy spirit to teach all things.

How's that working out for you?

Again, I said definition for eternal.

The NT does not use the word "eternal" by itself. It is always "eternal life," which definition is in the Bible.