Life Begins at Conception

[9-10ths_Penguin]

That's a human being in its early stages of development in the womb, which was the issue this answer addressed.



That's a human being at the completion of its development.

But the same word, "human", was used in both cases, and when I asked for your definition of "human DNA", it was in the context of your definition for early stages of development.

Horse hockey! ..that's the gameyness of "head in theory" where there are no "boots on the ground."

You're making no sense at all now.

You have turned the logical fallacy of "circular reasoning" into an absurd and meaningless word game which has no application when the term (human being) can refer to origin as well as completion, and everything in between in the process of development.
"Human being" is not (necessarily) an absolute-quantity, static term. . .subject to parlor games of static definitions.

Ah... so logical consistency is a "parlor game", is it?

You can't define the biological reproduction (origin) of a human being (as opposed to a rabbit) without using the words "human being."

And you can't define the nature of human DNA without

Just because you haven't figured it out doesn't mean it's impossible.

This is the reproductive process, not the creation-by-God process.
"Reproduce" means to produce another of the same nature as the "producer."
You can't clarify whose process it is without using the term "human being."

You're the one trying to argue that a fetus is a human being. If you just argue in circles, then you haven't presented a valid argument.

It's time for you to give it another try. . .and this time ground it in material reality.

I have no reason to try to defend your position.

 

[smokydot]

But the same word, "human", was used in both cases, and when I asked for your definition of "human DNA", it was in the context of your definition for early stages of development.

Agreed.

You're making no sense at all now.

Not agreed. . .see post #1283 for use of "boots on the ground" and "head in theory."

Ah... so logical consistency is a "parlor game", is it?

The nature of a human being and of human DNA is a matter of biological fact.
It doesn't require logic to make it a fact.

Just because you haven't figured it out doesn't mean it's impossible.

Nor does it mean there's actually anything to figure out.

You're the one trying to argue that a fetus is a human being. If you just argue in circles, then you haven't presented a valid argument.

My case is grounded in biological fact.
Refute the biological facts and their necessary implications to demonstrate that I don't have a valid case.
Short of that, you're just kicking dust with word games hoping the dust will cloud the biological facts.

I have no reason to try to defend your position.

You can't even defend your own position. . .so again, it's time for you to give it another try.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

No offense. . .but when ole "Racehorse" Haynes or "Screw You, Rusty" Hardin go to argue their cases,
do they marshall the details of phenomenology and epistemology, or do they marshall the facts?

This is what we're dealing with here.

Education truly is "irrigating deserts."

[if you don't know what epistemology or phenomenology is, look it up]

 

[angellous_evangellous]

It appears smoky knows even less about philosophy than he does about basic biology.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

My case is grounded in biological fact.

No, it's not. It's grounded, apparently, in your own preconceptions and some logical leaps that just don't work.

Refute the biological facts and their necessary implications to demonstrate that I don't have a valid case.
Short of that, you're just kicking dust with word games hoping the dust will cloud the biological facts.

It doesn't work that way. You're the one putting forward the claim that a zygote is a person. To do this properly, here's what you need to do:

- define what it means to be a "person".
- demonstrate that this definition is valid.
- demonstrate that a zygote meets the definition.

You haven't done this yet. You've danced around the issues and called people names when they don't accept your logical leaps, but you haven't actually presented a valid argument.

You can't even defend your own position. . .so again, it's time for you to give it another try.

I've given no position to defend... other than my position that you've failed to present a decent argument.

 

[smokydot]

No, it's not. It's grounded, apparently, in your own preconceptions and some logical leaps that just don't work.
It doesn't work that way. You're the one putting forward the claim that a zygote is a person. To do this properly, here's what you need to do:

- define what it means to be a "person".
- demonstrate that this definition is valid.
- demonstrate that a zygote meets the definition.

I've already done all that. Therefore, my case has been properly presented.
Now it's up to you to refute the facts of the case instead of kicking up dust hoping to cloud the facts.

And I'll do it again. . .just for you.

1) Definition: person--a human being, a particular individual

2) Validity: definition of "person" for centuries. (See Thomas Acquinas, 13th century, and Wesbster's 1828 Dictionary)

3) Zygote meets definition of human being: zygote has all the exclusive characteristics of a human being; i.e.,
--a) 45-47 human chromosomes (DNA),

--b) all the genetic code to develop into a mature human being on its own, with no new genetic info needed to make it a unique individual,
needing only to develop in accordance with its already designed nature in the zygote, and

--c) the seven characteristics necessary for life.

You haven't done this yet. You've danced around the issues and called people names when they don't accept your logical leaps, but you haven't actually presented a valid argument.

Horse hockey. . .
I've alread done it, and I just did it again, above.

I've presented a valid case based in material biological facts.
It's up to you to disprove my case by refuting its facts.

I've given no position to defend... other than my position that you've failed to present a decent argument.

Agreed. . .you definitely have no position to defend.

 

[smokydot]

Double post mistake. . .???

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Agreed.

Not agreed. . .see post #1283 for use of "boots on the ground" and "head in theory."

My case is grounded in biological fact.

Refute the biological facts and their necessary implications to demonstrate that I don't have a valid case.

Short of that, you're just kicking dust with word games hoping the dust will cloud the biological facts.

He's under the delusion that if he says something, it's suddenly a fact.

The rest is just a stubborn refusal to think.

 

[HonestJoe]

The issue in the gamete/zygote presentation is not non-life vs. life.
The issue is human cellular life (skin, gamete, etc.) vs. individual human being.

So this thread isn't about life beginning at conception after all, it's about individuality beginning at conception? Doesn't that mean we've all been wasting our time on the wrong debate for a hundred plus pages?

An individual human being occurs when all the genetic code is present, the necesssary number of chromosomes is present, and the seven characteristics necessary for life are present.
It is an individual human being at that point because nothing else needs to be incorporated into it, it needs only to be allowed to execute the program within in order to develop into a mature human being in adulthood.

Alternatively, an individual human could be defined only when it has achieved self-awareness or independence of the womb. Your view of how it can be defined is perfectly rational but it isn't as definitive or undeniable as you like to think it is.

When making a case, does a lawyer have to give reasons for presenting material facts?

You're not a lawyer and this isn't a court. A lawyers job is to establish the facts, not interpret them. The facts you are using are already largely established - your argument is based on interpreting them. The two roles are entirely different.

According to biologists, you are. They regard cells as "alive," even though they can't reproduce themselves.

That is a different use of the word life with a different definition. As I've already said, it's a complex area.

 

[smokydot]

He's under the delusion that if he says something, it's suddenly a fact.

Then show that it is not a fact.

The rest is just a stubborn refusal to think.

And from where I sit, the objections presented are just a stubborn refusal to acknowledge the validity of my case.

So what do we do now. I say we are at impasse.

The only valid objections presented were corrections of details in the biological facts.
I incorporated those corrected details into my case.
Nothing else presented had bearing on the facts of the case.

And you have yet to show my case is not true.

Case: Human life begins at conception.
Factual Proof:
1) Conception occurs with the formation of the human zygote from two human gametes.

2) The human zygote contains all the criteria for a human being:
--a) 45-47 human chromosomes (DNA) with all the genetic code necessary to develop into a mature human being, requiring no new genetic info to make it a unique individual, and needing only to develop in accordance with its already designed nature in the zygote;

--b) all seven characteristics necessary for sustained human life, including growth and development;

therefore, the zygote is a human being, beginning at conception.

 

[smokydot]

So this thread isn't about life beginning at conception after all, it's about individuality beginning at conception? Doesn't that mean we've all been wasting our time on the wrong debate for a hundred plus pages?

"Individual" and "individuality" are not the same. I used "individual."

Alternatively, an individual human could be defined only when it has achieved self-awareness or independence of the womb.

It could also be defined as pea soup, but that also would be incorrect.

Your view of how it can be defined is perfectly rational but it isn't as definitive or undeniable as you like to think it is.

It's as definitive or undeniable as Webster's authority on the meaning of words.

You're not a lawyer and this isn't a court. A lawyers job is to establish the facts, not interpret them. The facts you are using are already largely established - your argument is based on interpreting them. The two roles are entirely different.

Obviously, you aren't a lawyer either. The most important part of a lawyer's job in court is to interpret the facts.

But since I'm not a lawyer, that means, according to you, I'm not restricted from interpreting facts.
And since it is the aim of the court to determine the truth of a matter, that makes it a most appropriate pattern for my case.

So show the interpretation is incorrect already.

That is a different use of the word life with a different definition. As I've already said, it's a complex area.

it's not complex, there are only two uses:
1) the standard definition which includes seven necessary characteristics, and
2) the cellular definition which includes only some of the standard characteristics.

 

[smokydot]

This is such an Aspie argument ...

Perceptive. . .as in outside the box?

But the issue is: is it a valid case?

If you think it is not, then show that it is not by refuting the facts on which it is built.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Then show that it is not a fact.

So what do we do now. I say we are at impasse.

You're realizing that now?

 

[ButTheCatCameBack]

I've only been skimming this thread for a while. So what exactly is the argument going on here currently?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

The only valid objections presented were corrections of details in the biological facts.
I incorporated those corrected details into my case.
Nothing else presented had bearing on the facts of the case.

And you have yet to show my case is not true.

Case: Human life begins at conception.
Factual Proof:
1) Conception occurs with the formation of the human zygote from two human gametes.

2) The human zygote contains all the criteria for a human being:
--a) 45-47 human chromosomes (DNA) with all the genetic code necessary to develop into a mature human being, requiring no new genetic info to make it a unique individual, and needing only to develop in accordance with its already designed nature in the zygote;

--b) all seven characteristics necessary for sustained human life, including growth and development;

therefore, the zygote is a human being, beginning at conception.

On point #2b - You don't outline the "seven characteristics," so your conclusion doesn't match your propositions.

You haven't defined what a human being is, so you can't conclude that a zygote is a human.

 

[Sunstone]

Life begins after the second or third beer. I thought everyone knew that.

 

[ButTheCatCameBack]

As a non drinker does that make me a golem or.......a member of the undead!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I've already done all that. Therefore, my case has been properly presented.
Now it's up to you to refute the facts of the case instead of kicking up dust hoping to cloud the facts.

And I'll do it again. . .just for you.

1) Definition: person--a human being, a particular individual

2) Validity: definition of "person" for centuries. (See Thomas Acquinas, 13th century, and Wesbster's 1828 Dictionary)

3) Zygote meets definition of human being: zygote has all the exclusive characteristics of a human being; i.e.,
--a) 45-47 human chromosomes (DNA),

--b) all the genetic code to develop into a mature human being on its own, with no new genetic info needed to make it a unique individual,
needing only to develop in accordance with its already designed nature in the zygote, and

--c) the seven characteristics necessary for life.

Your argument hinges on the number of human chromosomes and human DNA. Since both chromosomes and DNA weren't discovered until well after Thomas Aquinas or Webster's 1828 dictionary, I find it very hard to believe that they verify your argument in any way whatsoever.

 

[HonestJoe]

"Individual" and "individuality" are not the same. I used "individual."

Is an individual not something which has individuality? Regardless, we seem to be moving away from the question of life beginning at conception and I'm not clear what you are now stating.

It could also be defined as pea soup, but that also would be incorrect.

Don't be flippant. Why are the criteria of self-awareness or independence from the womb unquestionably incorrect in your opinion?

It's as definitive or undeniable as Webster's authority on the meaning of words.

Not at all. Webster went out and found out how people were using words and recorded that use. Your position would be equivalent to Webster looking at the etymology of words and basing his definitions on that alone, completely ignoring how people were using those words in practice.

Since I'm not a lawyer, I'm not restricted as is a lawyer from interpreting facts.

OK, so we agree your comparison of yourself to a lawyer was irrelevant?

So show the interpretation is incorrect already.

How many times do I need to write this?

*** I am not saying your interpretation is wrong! ***

I am saying that your interpretation is only that - an interpretation and yours alone. Other people have different interpretations of exactly the same biological facts and different interpretations which bring in other facts. I don't believe you can say, so definitively and finally, that your interpretation is 100% correct and, by definition, everyone else's interpretations are entirely wrong.

it's not complex, there are only two uses:

Only two uses in biology and even they raise questions at the edges. I think any word which has two different definitions within a single field (let alone all the definitions in other fields) can be described as having at least a little complexity.

And I say again, it the concept of life wasn't complex, this whole debate (or at least the one that it started as) wouldn't exist.

 

[smokydot]

On point #2b - You don't outline the "seven characteristics," so your conclusion doesn't match your propositions.

You haven't defined what a human being is, so you can't conclude that a zygote is a human.

Thanks. . .so my case fails because I didn't spell out those seven characteristics?

Human being--the nine-month guest(s) which the hostess labors to move to a new location.

The three criteria I have repeatedly stated is the definition of a human being, which exists in various forms at various times, both inside and outside the womb.

So with these improvements, my case is valid?