Life Begins at Conception

[smokydot]

Smokydot thanks for the clarification on syllogisms but I thought logic is a branch of philosophy? At least that was my understanding when I did undergraduate studies.

True, it is one of the parts of philosophy. I meant to distinguish it from the others.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

*buys smoky a beer*

 

[smokydot]

Again forgive the typos I am always on the run and never use my laptop to type (the name of the woman is LACY Peterson, not lady).

As far as definitions I am quite well aware of the meanings so no books needed. Look there is no denial that a zygote is a developmental form of a human. However it is not a person. Again we can go round about on this but it is of my own personal opinion that zygotes do not posses the same rights as baby or even late term fetus. Now the example I gave with the hair follicle and the zygote was to show that both had components of life (living cells, DNA etc). The only difference between the hair follicle and the zygote is that the zygote goes through gestation towards a matured state where as the hair follicle is already at a matured state, but both nonetheless have the same characteristics.

Hair follicles do not reproduce themselves, which is one of the necessary characteristics for sustainable life.

Let us be clear, just because one is living, doesn't mean its a person. I believe society unanimously hold that personhood has a high regard in the law this is why abortion isn't murder. A zygote or even a fetus can die but it is not a person but FORMS of a person or human or whatever.

Check my list of standard definitions for
person (#3) and
necessary requirements for sustainable biological life (#13) in post #1408.

 

[smokydot]

*buys smoky a beer*

Cheers!

 

[Maimonides]

I have to admit I enjoy smoky's response

 

[Maimonides]

Smokedogg give me a day or two of a response graduate school is kicking my tail.

 

[smokydot]

eCASE FOR INDIVIDUAL HUMAN LIFE BEGINNING AT CONCEPTION:

Definition of Terms:

1. being - that which exists as an actuality

2. human being - of the species Homo sapiens

3. person - living human being possessing a rational nature

4. nature - essence; distinguishing quality or qualities

5. individual - (n.) a single or particular being; (adj.) existing as a distinct entity

6. form, n. - shape, structure or external appearance of a thing

7. substance - essential part; that which underlies all outward manifestations; real, unchanging essence or nature

8. transform, v. - to change the form of; to change the shape or appearance of; to metamorphose

9. gametes - reproductive cells (sperm, egg)

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

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

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

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

Major Premise: All cellular life containing 45-47 human chromosomes (DNA) and the biological characteristice necessary to sustain life is human life.

Minor Premise: The human zygote contains 45-47 human chromosomes (DNA) and the biological characteristcs necessary to sustain life.

Biological Facts of Minor Premise:

1) Two human reproductive cells (precursors of human life),
neither of which alone is capable of producing or sustaining human life (each lacking necessry number of chromosomes to produce human life, and necessary biological characteristics to sustain human life);

2) unite to produce the zygote (conception), which has the necessary characteristics for human life: (a) 45-47 human chromosomes (DNA), and (b) the biological characteristics necessary to sustain human life;

3) which zygote from the moment of its formation (conception) is of the same human nature (DNA) as the human gametes which formed it, has its own unique genetic code, needing no new genetic information to make it a unique individual;

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 [fact 2), above], has its own unique genetic code, and needs no new genetic information to make it a unique individual,

Conclusion: Therefore, the human zygote is individual 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.

The human zygote is human life in its intial form. This is factual empirical knowledge in the field of human biology, and is not based in metaphysical contention.

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 individual human life begins at conception.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Therefore, common sense, based on human biology, verifies that individual human life begins at conception.

You're arguing that because conception occurs (and human development) that human life begins at conception.

The thing is, no one is debating whether or not conception or human development occurs. Of course it occurs, but it doesn't logically follow that human life begins at conception simply because of the fact of its occurance.

Human life is not a biological fact, but a philosophical construct including concepts such as personhood, freedom, and human dignity (and so on). Referencing a dictionary for these terms and then applying them to a shallow understanding of human development is childish and completely misses the point.

 

[thedope]

Simple

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Simple

pimple

 

[smokydot]

You're arguing that because conception occurs (and human development) that human life begins at conception.

The thing is, no one is debating whether or not conception or human development occurs. Of course it occurs, but it doesn't logically follow that human life begins at conception simply because of the fact of its occurance.

Human development occurs at conception, but human life does not. . .??
The "human development" is alive. . .the import is clear--human life.

Human life is not a biological fact,

If it meets the requirements for biological life, as well as the reguirements for Homo sapiens, it is a biological fact.

but a philosophical construct including concepts such as personhood, freedom, and human dignity (and so on). Referencing a dictionary for these terms and then applying them to a shallow understanding of human development is childish and completely misses the point.

Don't think so. . .life is biological, physical, material.
If it is life, which is human, needing no new genetic information to develop into a mature human being, it is human life.

Philosophical constructs do not trump biological facts when it comes to physical living matter.

But if something could just be created that would transcend the actual material facts. . .oh, yeah! what about "philosophical constructs". . .
then an authority would be created from which we could play God, and decree that the human being in the womb,
with all the necessary biological characteristics to be human and to sustain life,
is not really viable. . .or human. . .or a person. . .or an individual. . .or whatever else we can come up with. . .
and physical reality can just be damned!

Sorry. . .that dog won't hunt.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Did you really think that people who don't believe that life begins at conception do not know about the process of conception and human development?

 

[smokydot]

The import of the biological facts is grounded in the definitions in

post #1467, A Case for Individual Human Life Beginning at Conception.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

The import of the biological facts is grounded in the definitions in

post #1467, A Case for Individual Human Life Beginning at Conception.

But that doesn't prove that life begins at conception.

We ask the question: "Does life begin at conception?"

You answer: "Conception occurs and therefore life begins at conception."

We respond: "We know conception occurs. It's in the question."

Let me rephrase:

We know, of course, that conception occurs. That obviously does not mean that "life begins at conception," otherwise we would not ask the question.

The question is not (and this is abundantly obvious) - are cells alive or is there any cessation of life from conception to birth.

The question is simply this: does personhood and human dignity begin at conception. Is this a human being who deserves full human rights. Is it an individual?

 

[smokydot]

But that doesn't prove that life begins at conception.
We ask the question: "Does life begin at conception?"
You answer: "Conception occurs and therefore life begins at conception."
We respond: "We know conception occurs. It's in the question."
Let me rephrase:
We know, of course, that conception occurs. That obviously does not mean that "life begins at conception," otherwise we would not ask the question.
The question is not (and this is abundantly obvious) - are cells alive or is there any cessation of life from conception to birth.
The question is simply this: does personhood and human dignity begin at conception. Is this a human being who deserves full human rights. Is it an individual?

If it meets the definitions given for those terms in post #1467, A Case for Individual Human Life Beginning at Conception, which it does,
then it is a person, an indivdual.

This is not about "full human rights," this is about individual human life,
which is about the biological facts, and not about "full human rights."
Stop it with the red herrings, already.

And you still have not answered the question: do the definitions in post #1467 disagree with your standard?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

If it meets the definitions given for those terms in post #1467, A Case for Individual Human Life Beginning at Conception, which it does,
then it is a person, an indivdual.

This is not about "full human rights," this is about individual human life,
which is about the biological facts, and not about "full human rights."
Stop it with the red herrings, already.

And you still have not answered the question: do the definitions in post #1467 disagree with your standard?

It's not a red herring, but a clear reason why your thinking is confused and circular.

note: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethical_aspects_of_abortion

 

[smokydot]

And you still have not answered the question: do the definitions in post #1467, A Case for Individual Human Life Beginning at Conception,
disagree witih your standard?

The import of the case is seen in the definitions of the case.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

The import of the case is seen in the definitions of the case.

You have no case.

 

[smokydot]

You have no case.

Objection to post #1467, A Case for Individual Human Life Beginning at Conception does not constitute a demonstration that it is not.

Nor have you answered the question: do the definitions in post #1467 disagree with your standard?

You are so lost. . .

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Objection to post #1467, A Case for Individual Human Life Beginning at Conception does not constitute a demonstration that it is not.

Nor have you answered the question: do the definitions in post #1467 disagree with your standard?

You are so lost. . .

Well, see post 1468.