Life Begins at Conception

[smokydot]

Well, this went unanswered.

They are answered in post #1408.

Your assignment is to show where they are found.

If you can't do that, then present questions that reflect honest consideration of post #1408.

 

[smokydot]

It is also the practical appearance.

It's also the birth.

 

[Maimonides]

Scientifically speaking yes the zygote is "biologically" alive because it fulfills the criteria of growth, metabolism, the ability to react to stimuli and reproduction. The zygote isn't a sentient being like a baby is and therefore it is a form of a human, not a full human. Just because it attains 46 chromosomes doesn't make it human. It makes it alive but not fully human.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

The thing is, we don't dispute what is biologically true. That's why we've had to correct your exceptionally poor understanding of basic biology.

You can't argue that "human life begins at conception" based on the fact that conception occurs. We know that conception occurs, and we know that living cells are present at conception and then eventually becomes a fetus and then after birth, a human child.

The question is: does human life begin at conception?

You say: "yes, it's alive, so human life begins at conception."

That is not an argument, but a mindless statement.

This criticism is substantial and still valid.

 

[thedope]

It's also the birth.

So you agree that at birth there is no argument about the presence of an individual human being?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

They are answered in post #1408.

Your assignment is to show where they are found.

Um, no. In post 1408 you just repost an argument rather than address criticisms.

It's your assignment to learn the difference.

 

[Midnight Pete]

Not to those who have something vested in it not beginning at conception.

Are you talking about people who say life doesn't begin until the baby is delivered? The facts don't bear that out (absolutely no pun intended).

 

[smokydot]

Scientifically speaking yes the zygote is "biologically" alive because it fulfills the criteria of growth, metabolism, the ability to react to stimuli and reproduction. The zygote isn't a sentient being like a baby is and therefore it is a form of a human, not a full human. Just because it attains 46 chromosomes doesn't make it human. It makes it alive but not fully human.

I said it was the initial form of human life.

To prosecute your principle:
A baby isn't a speaking human being like a child is and therefore it is a form of human, not full human.
A child isn't a reasoning human being like an adult is and therefore it is a form of human, not full human.
Your principle isn't adequate to define fully human.

And actually, it's not "fully" human until it is fully developed and can reproduce. But still it is no less human.

And likewise, the zygote is no less human than the baby it will become.

 

[smokydot]

This criticism is substantial and still valid.

Frogs are alive, but that doesn't make them human life.
"Alive" is not the definition of human life.

This doesn't reflect honest consideration of post #1408.

 

[smokydot]

So you agree that at birth there is no argument about the presence of an individual human being?

You don't?

 

[smokydot]

Um, no. In post 1408 you just repost an argument rather than address criticisms.

It's your assignment to learn the difference.

You are so lost. . .

 

[smokydot]

Are you talking about people who say life doesn't begin until the baby is delivered? The facts don't bear that out (absolutely no pun intended).

Actually, I had specific "people" in mind. . .those on this thread who consistently object using non-substantive objections. . .who consistently object but will show no errors in the syllogism or in the facts presented in post #1408.

 

[thedope]

You don't?

I do think at that point there is no argument.

 

[Maimonides]

I said it was the initial form of human life.

To prosecute your principle:
A baby isn't a speaking human being like a child is and therefore it is a form of human, not full human.
A child isn't a reasoning human being like an adult is and therefore it is a form of human, not full human.
Your principle isn't adequate to define fully human.

And actually, it's not "fully" human until it is fully developed and can reproduce. But still it is no less human.

And likewise, the zygote is no less human than the baby it will become.

I don't think you needed to go that far. The zygote doesn't have a brain, humans do, therefore it cannot be classified as a sentient being like a baby. Now I would like to avoid the "is the flame that flickers still the same as it was once lit" argument. However the physical composition between a baby.and zygote is different although one develops into the other.

 

[Sententia]

I win again and claim this thread for Afghanistan.

Do you have a flag?

 

[smokydot]

I don't think you needed to go that far. The zygote doesn't have a brain, humans do, therefore it cannot be classified as a sentient being like a baby. Now I would like to avoid the "is the flame that flickers still the same as it was once lit" argument. However the physical composition between a baby.and zygote is different although one develops into the other.

To prosecute your principle:

Boys do not have reproductive cells, human men do, therefore they cannot be classified as humans like a man.
The physical composition between a boy and a man is different, although one develops into the other.

Again, your principle is not adequate to define human being.

All we are talking about is different stages of development in the human being (post #1408).
No stage is less human than any other.

 

[Sententia]

Egads... To address the original post...

Life is a chain reaction. If we all stop having sex then there will be no more human life and the reaction will have ceased.

Life begins at conception is untrue... Clearly.

Unless you believe in souls and god implanting souls in eggs that get fertilized and its a crime against god?

Women have like what? 1-2 MILLION eggs... How many sperm does a man produce a year? When that sperm and egg meet god steps up and says... hmmm... Excellent form, great style, Sorry your condom broke but heres your soul.

For that argument you need a sign.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

All we are talking about is different stages of development in the human being (post #1408).
No stage is less human than any other.

Your argument from human development (of which you obviously have no clue) does not work.

It can be reduced to:

The thing is, we don't dispute what is biologically true. That's why we've had to correct your exceptionally poor understanding of basic biology.

You can't argue that "human life begins at conception" based on the fact that conception occurs. We know that conception occurs, and we know that living cells are present at conception and then eventually becomes a fetus and then after birth, a human child.

The question is: does human life begin at conception?

You say: "yes, it's alive, so human life begins at conception."

That is not an argument, but a mindless statement.

 

[Maimonides]

To prosecute your principle:

Boys do not have reproductive cells, human men do, therefore they cannot be classified as humans like a man.
The physical composition between a boy and a man is different, although one develops into the other.

Again, your principle is not adequate to define human being.

All we are talking about is different stages of development in the human being (post #1408).
No stage is less human than any other.

Ok I said a zygote is "a form of a human" but it is not considered a "full human" in the sense. If you want to try logic let us look at the following:

All humans have brains,
Zygotes don't have brains,

Therefore, zygotes aren't human.

I believe having a brain along with a central nervous system is an essential characteristic to being a human. Zygotes don't think, but small babies do. Zygotes don't own stocks, investors do. I believe zygotes are.not in a stage where they become fully human.

Any student of beginning philosophy can see that the above statement js true but realistically zygotes are alive however they (zygotes) do not exercise free thought or express feelings. Now without using philosophical jargon can you demonstrate that a zygote is the same as a baby?

 

[smokydot]

Ok I said a zygote is "a form of a human" but it is not considered a "full human" in the sense. If you want to try logic let us look at the following:

All humans have brains,
Zygotes don't have brains,

Therefore, zygotes aren't human.

I believe having a brain along with a central nervous system is an essential characteristic to being a human. Zygotes don't think, but small babies do. Zygotes don't own stocks, investors do. I believe zygotes are.not in a stage where they become fully human.

Any student of beginning philosophy can see that the above statement js true but realistically zygotes are alive however they (zygotes) do not exercise free thought or express feelings. Now without using philosophical jargon can you demonstrate that a zygote is the same as a baby?

All those of the species Homo sapiens are humans.
Some zygotes are of the species Homo sapiens.
Therefore: Some zygotes are humans.

These are biological empirical facts.

None of the species Homo sapiens are "fully" (developed) humans until adult maturity.
This is a biologica empirical fact.

It's not a matter of opinion, it's a matter of biological fact.
You're arguing against biological fact.