• 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
9-10ths_Penguin said:
If "holding up in court" is what matters, then you're sunk before you start. Courts have ruled over and over again that a fetus is not a person under the law.
A human zygote meets this definition of "human being".
Also, since you've given the definition for an adjective as the definition for a noun, I think you've modified the dictionary definition.
So... taking these two together, a person is a "living human being possessing a rational essence, distinguishing quality or qualities."
What exactly is a "rational essence, distinguishing quality or qualities"?
Click to expand...
smokydot said:
4. individual - existing as a distinct entity (Webster 1828, 1948, 2008)
Click to expand...
This definition begs the question.
It's also obviously false. No person "possesses all the necessary requirements for human life". We all depend on external factors (e.g. food, air, heat) to maintain our lives.
But both human gametes have qualities or characteristics of human species, and therefore meet your definition of "human being". So a human being isn't necessarily human life?
So... everything in the "nature" of a human being is "received" at conception?
What is in the nature of a human being? You mentioned rationality, but a zygote does not posess rationality. IMO, a human being isn't really capable of fully rational thought until he or she is approaching normal school age.
What is the "empirical knowledge from plain experimental evidence" that tells you about the nature of a person? What experimental evidence tells you that a zygote has a "rational nature"?
Click to expand...

All these questions are answered in the presentation of the case, post #1373, most of them in the premises (definitions).
Your assignment is to show where they are found.
 
Last edited:
A

angellous_evangellous

Guest
smokydot said:
All these questions are answered in the presentation of the case, post #1373, most of them in the premises (definitions).
Your assignment is to show where they are found.
Click to expand...

And now you're back
From outer space
 
S

smokydot

Well-Known Member
thedope said:
Ergo, (not the fungus), Human life did not begin, half egg, half chicken. All life is of common inheritance.
In this formula you simply substitute the word "being" for the word "individual" and say I am not playing by the rules
Click to expand...
No, in this formula I distinguish between your use of the word "individual" and the standard definition of "individual" which I use.
In the standard definitions, a being is individual.
Although we cannot as of yet measure the contents of the mind except with language, we know that it is associated with electrical activity in the brain and peripheral nervous system. Abstract thought, understanding, and moral consciences are physically represented by the language instinct.
Click to expand...
Very good. . .and Tuesday follows Monday.
It is not dependent on the other to move it's diaphragm, nor does it require the blood flow of another to deliver nutrients, at least not directly, and these are the distinctions I am making.
Click to expand...
Dependence is dependence, no matter the form.
There is a measure of arbitrariness in defining when an event begins or ends in a space time continuum. The "events" that we describe are mental corridors of refraction that simply reflect the quality of our focus. There are no discrete systems in reality.
Click to expand...

Thanks. . .I'm feeling a whole lot more like I do now than I did before.
 
A

angellous_evangellous

Guest
smokydot said:
No, in this formula I distinguish between your use of the word "individual" and the standard definition of "individual" which I use.
Click to expand...

:biglaugh:

(Webster does not set the standard, the Oxford English Dictionary [OED] does... and yes, I mean the 20 volume set with supplements)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
T

thedope

Active Member
smokydot said:
No, in this formula I distinguish between your use of the word "individual" and the standard definition of "individual" which I use.
In the standard definitions, a being is individual.
Click to expand...
Which definition are you using and which am I, is that definition of individual or definition of being. Frankly when I speak or write I take into account all of the conjugated definitions of a word.
Very good. . .and Tuesday follows Monday.
Click to expand...
So does Monday follow Monday.
Dependence is dependence, no matter the form.
Click to expand...
The point is, a line is drawn somewhere. That line has been, as long as we have been keeping records, Date of birth. Date of conception is not it.
Thanks. . .I'm feeling a whole lot more like I do now than I did before.
Click to expand...
No problem, I really don't care how you feel.
 
A

angellous_evangellous

Guest
smokydot said:
:facepalm: Non-germane. . .

So? . .okay. . .the topic is standards? Dabney does not set the standard for Catholic theology, Aquinas does.

You are so lost. . .
Click to expand...

You're the one who said you're using a standard definition. And you don't even know what the standard is.... :shrug:
 
S

smokydot

Well-Known Member
angellous_evangellous said:
You're the one who said you're using a standard definition. And you don't even know what the standard is.... :shrug:
Click to expand...

If you were carrying on an honest and sincere discussion, you would know that the only relevant thing regarding which standard I use is its agreement or disagreement with the "standard."

You don't deal with the real points, you just throw crap out there hoping some of it will stick to the wall.

You are so lost. . .
 
A

angellous_evangellous

Guest
smokydot said:
If you were carrying on an honest and sincere discussion, you would know that the only relevant thing regarding which standard I use is its agreement or disagreement with the "standard."

You don't deal with the real points, you just throw crap out there hoping some of it will stick to the wall.

You are so lost. . .
Click to expand...

If you don't know the standard definitions of words that you use, on which basis do you think that you're using standard meanings in the constructions of your arguments?
 
S

smokydot

Well-Known Member
thedope said:
Which definition are you using and which am I, is that definition of individual or definition of being. Frankly when I peak or write I take into account all of the conjugated definitions of a word.
Click to expand...
I am using the definition given in my post #1373. You are using one you've authored.
So does Monday follow Monday.
The point is, a line is drawn somewhere. That line has been, as long as we have been keeping records, Date of birth. Date of conception is not it.
Click to expand...
Depends on what the reason for the line is. That's the line for legal rights.
No problem, I really don't care how you feel.
Click to expand...
No problem, because I do.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top