Life Begins at Conception

[smokydot]

Neither will a zygote.... Next.

Next. . .your statement is not factual. . .see #post 1522, A Case for Individual Human Life Beginning at Conception, for the facts of the matter.

EDIT: Honestly, I think this pretty sums up the anti-abortion argument.

It likewise sums up the facts of the matter.

The mother always seems to be forgotten in their arguments until their irresponsibility comes up.

Sorry the facts of the matter don't agree with your personal non-factual opinion.

 

[smokydot]

Good luck with that.
His presentation, technique, and closed mindedness reminds me of the likes of Kent Hovind, Peter Ruckman, Texx Marres, Etc.

Sour grapes. . .

All that matters are the facts of the matter. . .which are indisputable.

Get over it already.

 

[smokydot]

If you sought intellectual growth

Actually, I'm more interested in the truth of matters.

That explains why we don't agree. . .intellectual growth trumps the truth.

you would have questioned rather then declaring. Your syllogism is based on flawed premises.

Then show the premises are not factual.

Lotta' hat goin' on here. . .no cowboy.

Restating them is pointless.

Maybe to you. . .

Your conclusion is thus erroneous and your persistent arrogance labels you ignorant.
Such is how you seemingly wish it to be. Do you think by ignoring the arguments

Present the biological arguments that show the facts of the matter are in error.
Even ole Willie doesn't argue their veracity.

or insulting people like Mestemia or Angellous without addressing their disagreements is viewed as anything other then another poster suffering from delusions of adequacy? The filter you are processing this thread through in your mind is probably not viewed as rosily colored by most. (But I am just guessing)

I prefer clear vision to rose-colored vision, so it's good to know it's not viewed as "rosily colored."

Sigh.
What do you presume to be clever in your response? Do you want some witty comeback and if you do what does that serve? You like to dance? How does that to relate to the hamster dancing in the post you keep repeating over and over? Are you really standing up and dancing?

If I told you that, I'd have to kill you. . .

Which means what?

Your question is clearly answered in #post 1522, A Case for Individual Human Life Beginning at Conception, so I'm not buying that you really don't know the answer.
I see it as more false objections from the "hat," with no cowboy.

Wow... these people are on to my cut and paste genesis is the new science Kent Hovind Argument... Time for Ad Homs...
If you have no reply

If you don't really know what the answer is, then present your question in a sincere form, and I will direct you to its answer in the post.

then it is best to keep one's mouth shut and let everyone assume your an idiot rather then your chosen path. (And to be fair... That was a layup. Any educated biologist would have defecated all over that argument

Support your claim. . .until you do, it is unfounded conjecture.

yet you resorted to ad homs which shades in the details surrounding your cut and paste argument.) Shame.

If by "cut and paste," you mean I am using someone else's argument or material, the laugh is on you.
Ask ole Willie, he was present for the labor of its birth.

 

[smokydot]

I have repeatedly addressed your points, and you respond by directing me back to the same mindless dribble.
Make no mistake, you have no syllogism.

The mistake is yours.

You have a very poorly drawn circular argument. Your premises are the same as your conclusions. I know that you can't see it because you're madly chasing your tail, but if you stop just for a minute and dig deep... and be honest with yourself and others ... you just may escape.
I don't give a rat's *** if you believe that human life begins at conception.

Right. . .that's why you keep trying to discredit the case in post #1522, A Case for Individual Human Life Beginning at Conception, without biological facts to support your objections. . .and even after claiming (post #1486) you would no longer correct me on this.

What baffles me is your obstinate refusal to thoughtfully review your argument and try to come up with something that is at least partially reasonable.

So solly. . .it is 100% logic, based on 100% biological fact.

The major premise is biological fact, and you know it.
All that remains is to show that the minor premise is also biological fact, and that is clearly shown.
The factual conclusion is the only one possible, based on the biologically factual premises.

The logic is circular only if the conclusion is the same as the major premise, which it is not.
The major premise is the factual biological requirements for human life.
The minor premise shows a particular form of cellular which meets those requirements.
The conclusion is unavoidable. . .that particular form of cellular life is individual human life.

The logic is as simple as:
Major Premise: All cats are animals.
Minor Premise: Tabby is a cat.
Conclusion: Tabby is an animal.
What baffles me is that you can't see that.

And whatever happened to your claim that you would no longer correct me on this?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

And whatever happened to your claim that you would no longer correct me on this?

There's a difference between pointing out that you're wrong and correcting you.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

The logic is circular only if the conclusion is the same as the major premise, which it is not.
The major premise is the factual biological requirements for human life.
The minor premise shows a particular form of cellular which meets those requirements.
The conclusion is unavoidable. . .that particular form of cellular life is individual human life.

The logic is as simple as:
Major Premise: All cats are animals.
Minor Premise: Tabby is a cat.
Conclusion: Tabby is an animal.
What baffles me is that you can't see that.

And whatever happened to your claim that you would no longer correct me on this?

You've added "individual" to your conclusion in an attempt to distinguish your "major premise" from your "conclusion."

This distinction is not made anywhere in your premises.

If we add "individual" to the major premise and leave it in the conclusion, your major premise and conclusion are the same.

If we subtract "individual" from the conclusion, then your major premise and conclusion are the same.

Therefore, your "logic" is incontrovertibly circular.

 

[smokydot]

There's a difference between pointing out that you're wrong and correcting you.

Yeah. . .and that's been the problem.

 

[smokydot]

You've added "individual" to your conclusion in an attempt to distinguish your "major premise" from your "conclusion."
This distinction is not made anywhere in your premises.

Okay, thanks, but to me it's obvious.
A lot of the obvious has to be explained to you.

Here's the remedy for the "circular argument" in post #1522, A Case for Individual Human Life Beginning at Conception: change the minor premise so that it begins with: "The individual human zygote. . . ."

If we add "individual" to the major premise and leave it in the conclusion, your major premise and conclusion are the same. If we subtract "individual" from the conclusion, then your major premise and conclusion are the same.

Not doing either. I'm including what is obvious in the minor premise, where it belongs.

Therefore, your "logic" is incontrovertibly circular.

Try again.

 

[smokydot]

In post #1531, angellous-evangellous said: "I would appreciate better thinking."

[My first thought is "and people in hell would appreciate ice water," but let's not say that.]

Good, better, best. . .

Jesus' words were characterized by truth and simplicity.

The best thinking is characterized by the same. . .and that's the standard in my book.

The arrogant intellect captiously disdains simplicity. . .preferring instead complicated, abstract concepts.

I prefer ("appreciate") the way Paul did it:

"All the Athenians and the foreigners who lived in Athens spent their time doing nothing but talking and listening to the latest ideas. . .Paul reasoned day by day in the marketplace with those who happpend to be there. . .A group of Epicurean and Stoic philosophers began to dispute with him. Some of them asked, 'What is this babbler trying to say?'. . .Then they took him and brought him to a meeting of the Areopagus (the supreme tribunal of justice), where they said to him, '. . .you are bringing some strange ideas to our ears, and we want to know what they mean.' . . .When they heard about the resurrection of the dead, some of them sneered, but others said, 'We want to hear you again on this subject.' . . . .A few men became followers of Paul and believed. Among them was Dionysus, a member of the Areopagus. . ." (Ac 17:16-21, 32-34)

"When I came to you, brothers, I did not come with eloquence or superior wisdom. . .for I resolved to know nothing while I was with you except Jesus Christ and him crucified (nothing philosophical about that--Paul eschews philosophy in favor of simple truth). . .
My message and my preaching were not with wise and persuasive words, but with demonstration of the Spirit's power. . .
Where is the wise man (Gentile philosophers)? Where is the scholar (Jewish teachers of the law)? Where is the philosopher of this age (Greek sophists)?
Has not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? . .Jews demand miraculous signs and Greeks look for wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified (nothing philosophical about that): a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles (Greeks). . ." (1 Co 2:1-4, 1:20-23)

Paul, I am not. . .but if plain simplicity is good enough for Paul, it's darn sure good enough for me in
post #1521, A Case for Individual Human Life Beginning at Conception.

And if truth and simplicity are good enough for Jesus' words, they are more than good enough for mine.

NB: The Scriptures of both testaments are peculiarly lacking in abstract, complicated, mystical jargon.
God's truth is not esoteric, it is exoteric.
And that is my model for communicating truth.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Okay, thanks, but to me it's obvious.
A lot of the obvious has to be explained to you.

Here's the remedy for the "circular argument" in post #1522, A Case for Individual Human Life Beginning at Conception: change the minor premise so that it begins with: "The individual human zygote. . . ."
Not doing either. I'm including what is obvious in the minor premise, where it belongs.
Try again.

You're the one claiming to have a syllogism, but your major premise, minor premise, and conclusion are all essentially the same statement.

You aren't addressing the major premise, so your argument is still circular.

I'm sure repeating yourself sounds productive when you're just spinning your wheels.

Here's another issue. You think that you have facts, but you're too lazy or incompetent to look any farther than Webster. Sure, Webster can give basic definitions, but he cannot teach you broader mechanics of human development or teach you how to reason effectively.

So you have short definitions that really don't help you think in the biologically correct way that you assume.

You yourself have claimed that facts are your argument. That is circular reasoning, because the fact itself is the conclusion.

 

[dust1n]

Next. . .your statement is not factual. . .see #post 1522, A Case for Individual Human Life Beginning at Conception, for the facts of the matter.

I don't even know what you thread you are referring to. However, if you think a zygote will grow up to be a beautiful person entirely on its own, you are delusional.

It likewise sums up the facts of the matter.

That a zygote can live and grow without a womb and a mother is so far from a fact it is ridiculous, let alone that 'sums up the facts of the matter [of abortion]."

Sorry the facts of the matter don't agree with your personal non-factual opinion.

Please provide facts where a zygote, separated from any other living being, will grow up to be a baby.

 

[ellenjanuary]

CASE 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 individual 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.
(NB: The zygote develops through stages to the blastocyst, where it may then collapse, splitting the fundamental genetic material in half, leaving the same genetic material divided on two opposite sides of the embryo, and causing two separate fetuses to develop. . .in which case, there are now two individual human lives emanating from the same individual human life originating at conception.)

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 an 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.

Man, all that neck; all that pride - only to fail to define the most important term in your brief: what do you mean, begins? According to this judge, the motion to suppress 1522 is granted.

Without the ability to run the simulations - take a strip of DNA and pop it into the easy bake oven, and have something - recognizably human come out; I must contend you sense is uncommon.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Man, all that neck; all that pride - only to fail to define the most important term in your brief: what do you mean, begins? According to this judge, the motion to suppress 1522 is granted.

here, here!

 

[smokydot]

Man, all that neck; all that pride - only to fail to define the most important term in your brief: what do you mean, begins? According to this judge, the motion to suppress 1521 is granted.

Without the ability to run the simulations - take a strip of DNA and pop it into the easy bake oven, and have something - recognizably human come out; I must contend you sense is uncommon.

Tell it to the biologists.

 

[smokydot]

I don't even know what you thread you are referring to. However, if you think a zygote will grow up to be a beautiful person entirely on its own, you are delusional.
That a zygote can live and grow without a womb and a mother is so far from a fact it is ridiculous, let alone that 'sums up the facts of the matter [of abortion]."
Please provide facts where a zygote, separated from any other living being, will grow up to be a baby.

Please provide facts where a newborn, separated from any other living being, will grow up to be a child.

Who's ignorant?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Tell it to the biologists.

... the same biologists that contribute to Webster's....

 

[smokydot]

angellous_evangellous said in post #1557:
"You're the one claiming to have a syllogism, but your major premise, minor premise, and conclusion are all essentially the same statement."

Goin' 'round and 'round the same ole bush again.

Then the following classic syllogism is guilty of the same.

Major premise: All cats are animals.
Minor premise: Tabby is a cat.
Conclusion: Therefore, Tabby is an animal.

You require a lot of the obvious to be explained to you.

"You aren't addressing the major premise, so your argument is still circular."

Major premises are a given. There's nothing to "address." If you don't agree with the biological facts of the major premise, then show that they are not facts.

"I'm sure repeating yourself sounds productive when you're just spinning your wheels."

Now that's the pot calling the kettle black! . .how many times have you gone around this same ole bush. . .just chasin' your tail. . .

"Here's another issue. You think that you have facts,"

Then show the biological facts presented are not facts.

". . .but you're too lazy or incompetent to look any farther than Webster."

Webster produces a biology book? . .is that the one you use?
Webster has nothing to do with the biological facts of the case. . .and you know it.

"Sure, Webster can give basic definitions, but he cannot teach you broader mechanics of human development or teach you how to reason effectively."

Looks like he also can't teach you the standard meaning of words.

Assumes facts not in evidence, regarding Webster. My grandmother can also give basic definitions, but neither have anything to do with this case.

The biological facts of the case do not come from definitions. . .and you know that. . .you are misrepreseting, again.

"So you have short definitions that really don't help you think in the biologically correct way that you assume."

Oh, so now it's the definitions that are too short to be true. . .this is absurd! . .the man argues even with the dictionary!
Sorry you don't like the standard definitions for words in the English language. . .that's nothing more than just not wanting to be subject to objective standards. . .you want the freedom to use your own subjective standards so you can't be accountable to an objective standard outside yourself. . .that way nothing ever gets nailed down, and you get to endlessly maneuver in some foggy gray area.. . .it's not about inadequate definitions for you. . .it's about objective standards that don't allow all the gamey maneuvering.

"You yourself have claimed that facts are your argument."

The facts are my case, post #1521, A Case for Individual Human Life Beginning at Conception.

"That is circular reasoning, because the fact itself is the conclusion."

Show that the classicbasic syllogism is circular reasoning in my first response above.
No wonder you don't get it. . .you don't get the simplest syllogism. . .oh yeah, but then simple is not your thing (see post #1550).

My case is built on facts, as are cases in court.

The case is overturned only when the facts on which it is based are overturned.

You have not, and cannot do that.

Therefore, the Appeals Court overturns the lower court's dismissal of the case, due to the lower courts stated prejudice.

Goin' 'round and 'round the same ole bush again. . .been there, done that, not doin' it again. . .time to dance. . .

The emperor has no clothes.

 

[Sententia]

Actually, I'm more interested in the truth of matters.

That explains why we don't agree. . .intellectual growth trumps the truth.
Then show the premises are not factual.

Lotta' hat goin' on here. . .no cowboy.
Maybe to you. . .
Present the biological arguments that show the facts of the matter are in error.
Even ole Willie doesn't argue their veracity.
I prefer clear vision to rose-colored vision, so it's good to know it's not viewed as "rosily colored."
If I told you that, I'd have to kill you. . .
Your question is clearly answered in #post 1522, A Case for Individual Human Life Beginning at Conception, so I'm not buying that you really don't know the answer.
I see it as more false objections from the "hat," with no cowboy. If you don't really know what the answer is, then present your question in a sincere form, and I will direct you to its answer in the post. Support your claim. . .until you do, it is unfounded conjecture. If by "cut and paste," you mean I am using someone else's argument or material, the laugh is on you.
Ask ole Willie, he was present for the labor of its birth.

The entirety of your response warrants no response. :yes:

Nonetheless I will quote it for posterity. I did find your closing comments amusing though...

Ask ole Willie, he was present for the labor of its birth.

It seems you think your argument only existed after it was birthed and witnessed. :run:

 

[ellenjanuary]

Tell it to the biologists.

The only problem I have with what you're saying, is hour you're saying it. Anybody ask me, life began with multicellular organisms 1.8 billion years ago - everything else is just else. This is because of my "field of expertise" being mathematical theology - and wondering if the function of all is merely pure number. I have a head full of stuff to validate such an hypothesis - now, it seems the biggest problem is that, as a writer, the entire scope of my potential readership is cursed with a fear of death. A fear that I contend has no basis in fact - but fact, itself, is largely a function of what people believe.

Everybody says "death," yet there is not a single voice - a single I - that speaks to what death actually is. Any time I attempt to sympathize with the public, and simulate a loss of "I," the only fear I actually feel is loss of complexity. Therefore, I assume that I must first the contention that death has never begun - it is a conclusion based upon erroneous assumption.

It is not really for mathematical theology to say anything, but rather to remove the unnecessary complications brought about by what has already been said. That the only gospel "I" seek to leave behind is the clarity of my conception - and conception began 13.7 years ago.

 

[smokydot]

The entirety of your response warrants no response. :yes:

That works for me!

Nonetheless I will quote it for posterity. I did find your closing comments amusing though...
It seems you think your argument only existed after it was birthed and witnessed. :run:

Of course the presentation of my case existed only after I presented it.:areyoucra