-
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
- Thread starter Darkness
- Start date
- Status
Human beings come from reproductive cells, they don't come from non-reproductive cells such as tumors.
The end, in determining when the organism becomes a human being (being that is human), is to know the truth of what it is.
Is my statement about scientists untrue?
I didn't apply that statement to the whole argument.
I applied it only to a specific objection regarding the argument.
How about its humanity?
Human gametes don't meet the requirement for a human being (being that is human) of 45-47 chromosomes.
An egg or sperm separately do not meet the requirement for a human being (being that is human) of 45-47 chromosomes.
The embryo meets the two requirements for a human being (being that is human):
1) 45-47 chromosomes and
2) all the essential characteristics for life, including development.
Last edited:
Please show how what is biologically corrrect destroys the logic behind my argument.
You misrepresent again.
I said I felt she did not mean to present an argument which allowed for Hitlerian consequences.
On this we agree!
The value of a human being is a religious/philosophical question. . .the existence of a human being is a biological question.
It is existence that I am demonstrating.
Is there an issue for you if human life begins at conception?
There is no issue for me if human life does not begin at conception.
What is, is.
Nor can I make irrefutable, if they are not, the biological facts which demonstrate that human life begins at conception.
I can only show to be irrefutable, if they are, the biological facts which demonstrate that human life begins at conception.
The facts are the argument.
So enough already with me trying to make the argument irrefutable.
Last edited:
HonestJoe
Well-Known Member
Apparently a Guppy also has 46 chromosomes. Are they human?
Can you demonstrate anyone other than you using number of chromosomes as the biological identifier of human life? Didn't you just pluck this "requirement" out of thin air because it happened to fit the point you'd already decided that life begins?
No, all 46-chromosome organisms are not human beings.
But all human beings are 45-47 chromosome organisms.
Human beings are a subset in the set of 46-chromosome organisms.
I do not use chromosome number as an identifier. DNA is the identifier.
I use chromosome number as the distinguisher between human zygote life and human gamete life (which is the precursor of human life or human being).
Is this from your own reading of my posts, or from others' comments?
If that were how I did it, it is still irrelevant to the distinction between human gametes (which are not human beings) and human zygotes (which are human beings; i.e., beings that are human).
Veracity, not "plucking," is the only relevant thing here.
Last edited:
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
On this point I'm advising you to stop, because you're only succeeding in embarrassing yourself.
ButTheCatCameBack
Active Member
So what bizarre place has this thread turned now?
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
Last edited by a moderator:
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
Um, you're claiming (baselessly) that your argument is irrefutable.
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
To address the main point - no, I don't think that anything miraculous happens when the sperm and egg unite that makes a distinct human being.
As far as life beginning at conception, it's abundantly obvious that is a misnomer, not unlike the terms "sunset" and "sunrise" which are equally imprecise. Obviously, a sperm and an egg are both living, and the process of life is uninterrupted unless somehow it ends due to a number of causes.
As for ethics, I see great loss in abortion, but it is a medical necessity in certain cases. Because of this, I think that the choice for abortion should be strictly between a woman and her doctor -- so it should be legal in all its forms. Nothing should be withheld from saving the life of the mother. A human being worthy of full protection by the community is a baby that takes its first breath - I'm willing to say that it is a human from the time that it can survive on its own outside of its mother. Every other stage of development is wonderful, but it's not a human being.
Unfortunately, abortion is used as birth control. I think that these surgical abortions will go out of style soon. That is, women will not be asked if they will 'keep' a child --- they would have taken care of it with a pill before anyone could pressure her to do anything. Women will tell each other about the wonderful process of development that they can watch in color - the fetus is no longer a black and white sonogram image that only a specialist can interpret.
Smoke
Done here.
I imagine you'll change whatever you need to in order to pretend you have an argument. The truth is that you don't give a damn about the truth; you're just dancing all over the place trying to find some solid ground for your opinion, which you hold to blindly and without any regard whatsoever for the facts.
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
You look like how I feel.
Smoke
Done here.
But you'll starve!
Sigh.
BTW that is a lot of color tags... not sure how that helps your argument but is there a meaning behind your colors?
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
:biglaugh:
HonestJoe
Well-Known Member
Fair enough, but that doesn't answer my key question. Is number of chromosomes used by anyone else to distinguish the point we become human beings?
Both. I've been following the thread in pretty much chronological order.
It's relevant to consensus. Much of your argument is based on recognised scientific definitions. You're not saying this is how you think it should be defined, you've saying this is how it is defined.
If you can't demonstrate number of chromosomes being in any way recognised by someone other than yourself as a factor in distinguishing a point where we become human beings, you can't make flat statements that "this is how it is defined" - you need to present that new definition from first principals.
I personally don't think that is possible. A major part of the reason for this whole debate is that we have no clear way to define when "life" starts. Both "life" and "human" are defined in such a way as to make these edges more than a little fuzzy. My view is that this question is a philosophical one which science can provide information for but not all the answers alone.
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
Kontrepsion pergins art wife.
- Status