Life Begins at Conception

[smokydot]

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.

God is not mentioned in post #1408.
That's just the drum you beat. . .

 

[smokydot]

Your argument from human development (of which you obviously have no clue) does not work.
It can be reduced to:

This argument was responded to in post #1429.

And you still haven't answered the question: Do any of the defnitions in post #1408 disagree with your standard.

You are so lost. . .

 

[thedope]

The following point from post #1408 is false.

10. zygote - union of two human gametes at conception, which union possesses all the necessary requirements for human life. Zygote cannot exist absent it's interface with the mother, it is not independent of it's environment. It requires the temperature and humidity controlled environment of the womb to survive. The zygote needs air and food which must be delivered to it. Zygote is not of itself sufficient to meet all of the necessary requirements for human life.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

This argument was responded to in post #1429.

And you still haven't answered the question: Do any of the defnitions in post #1408 disagree with your standard.

You are so lost. . .

No it wasn't.

 

[logician]

All life is important, but no life is sacred. Homo sapiens seem to have forgotten this important fact, much to its own peril.

 

[thedope]

All life is important, but no life is sacred. Homo sapiens seem to have forgotten this important fact, much to its own peril.

This fact means there is no peril.

 

[Maimonides]

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.

No you are again using philosophical jargon. And no I am not arguing against biology in fact I am trying to get you to stop using logic to prove your point. Zygotes are not fully human. Hell you can google search and you'll see. A form of a human is not the same as being entirely human just as a humanoid is not entirely a human.

 

[Midnight Pete]

All life is important, but no life is sacred. Homo sapiens seem to have forgotten this important fact, much to its own peril.

What peril is there in considering life to be sacred? Or do you simply abhor the idea of sacredness?

 

[Maimonides]

Listen folks if we constitute a zygote as a human then it must be, under the laws of society granted human rights.

@smokydot

I guess my argument was slightly flawed. The composition of my argument was based on personhood, not human-ness. A morule (zygote) is not a conscious deity nor does it exercise independent thought and is entirely dependent on another human. So although it is human, its not a person and that is where our differences lie. A zygote is no different than a hair follicle

 

[smokydot]

No it wasn't.

Was tooo. . .read it again. . .your operative word was "alive". . .that's not what I said. . .

And you still haven't answered the question: Do any of the definitions in post #1408 disagree with your standard?

You are so lost. . .

 

[smokydot]

No you are again using philosophical jargon. And no I am not arguing against biology in fact I am trying to get you to stop using logic to prove your point. Zygotes are not fully human. Hell you can google search and you'll see. A form of a human is not the same as being entirely human just as a humanoid is not entirely a human.

Philosphy is where the import of the facts is grounded. I won't be changing that.

 

[smokydot]

Listen folks if we constitute a zygote as a human then it must be, under the laws of society granted human rights.

Not quite. The courts do not give the unborn legal rights.

@smokydot
I guess my argument was slightly flawed. The composition of my argument was based on personhood, not human-ness. A morule (zygote) is not a conscious deity nor does it exercise independent thought and is entirely dependent on another human. So although it is human, its not a person and that is where our differences lie. A zygote is no different than a hair follicle

You meant "entity," right?

Check the biological facts.
Hair follicles possess none of the necessary characteristics to sustain life.
Human zygotes possess them all, therefore, they are human life.

Think carefully on the import of the biological facts in post #1408.

(Your arguments are doing just fine.)

 

[Maimonides]

Philosphy is where the import of the facts is grounded. I won't be changing that.

As a.scientist I owe the foundations of empirical and inquisitve thought to philosophy, but using systematic logic is no replacement for empirical proof and repeated experiments that validate that.

 

[Maimonides]

Not quite. The courts do not give the unborn legal rights.
You meant "entity," right?

Check the biological facts.
Hair follicles possess none of the necessary characteristics to sustain life.
Human zygotes possess them all, therefore, they are human life.

Think carefully on the import of the biological facts in post #1408.

(Your arguments are doing just fine.)

Excuse my typo as I response on these forums using cellphone. However to comment on your initial statement yes in certain instances the courts can grant legal rights to unborn children.....ever heard if the lady peterson case? She was killed by her husband scott peterson and he was charged with two counts of murder, one for lady, and one for his unborn child. If the child had no right to live, why would they charge him?

"Check the biological facts.
Hair follicles possess none of the necessary characteristics to sustain life."

Neither do zygotes. Thy entirely depend on the "host." All humans started out in parasitic fashion, if we had the components of sustainability, we would be independent of our mothers. I would hope that in the future at least in respondiglng to me since I am not a philosopher you would accommodate me with research articles concerning your position since that is what I mainly read. Simply stating something is not or is, is not good enough.

Human zygotes possess them all, therefore, they are human life.

Can you provide scientic research study that shows that?

 

[smokydot]

Excuse my typo as I response on these forums using cellphone. However to comment on your initial statement yes in certain instances the courts can grant legal rights to unborn children.....ever heard if the lady peterson case? She was killed by her husband scott peterson and he was charged with two counts of murder, one for lady, and one for his unborn child. If the child had no right to live, why would they charge him?

And that, my friend, is the contradiction in our law between the right to kill in the womb (Roe vs. Wade) and the crime of murder for killing in the womb.

"Check the biological facts.
Hair follicles possess none of the necessary characteristics to sustain life."
Neither do zygotes. Thy entirely depend on the "host." All humans started out in parasitic fashion, if we had the components of sustainability, we would be independent of our mothers. I would hope that in the future at least in respondiglng to me since I am not a philosopher you would accommodate me with research articles concerning your position since that is what I mainly read. Simply stating something is not or is, is not good enough.

The answers to your questions are in the list of definitions, which defines the biological meaning of human life, at #13, as the requirements for biological sustainability. (Person is also defined there.) But you seem to be unfamiliar with the meaning of biological terms.
This definition of sustainable life is basic and common in the field of biology. You can find it in biology books.

Human zygotes possess them all, therefore, they are human life.
Can you provide scientic research study that shows that?

It's basic human biology. Check the biology books.

If by philosophy, you mean things such as syllogisms, they are not philosophy, they are logic.

 

[smokydot]

As a.scientist I owe the foundations of empirical and inquisitve thought to philosophy, but using systematic logic is no replacement for empirical proof and repeated experiments that validate that.

Agreed.

 

[thedope]

Neither do zygotes. Thy entirely depend on the "host." All humans started out in parasitic fashion, if we had the components of sustainability, we would be independent of our mothers.

Human zygotes possess them all, therefore, they are human life.

Can you provide scientic research study that shows that?

It is not required. No case needs to be made when simple observation shows premise to be false. There is certain circumstantial evidence that is compelling, like when you find "a trout in your milk".

 

[Maimonides]

And that, my friend, is the contradiction in our law between the right to kill in the womb (Roe vs. Wade) and the crime of murder for killing in the womb.

The answers to your questions are in the list of definitions, which defines the biological meaning of human life, at #13, as the requirements for biological sustainability. (Person is also defined there.) But you seem to be unfamiliar with the meaning of biological terms.
This definition of sustainable life is basic and common in the field of biology. You can find it in biology books.
It's basic human biology. Check the biology books.

If by philosophy, you mean things such as syllogisms, they are not philosophy, they are logic.

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.
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.

 

[Maimonides]

It is not required. No case needs to be made when simple observation shows premise to be false. There is certain circumstantial evidence that is compelling, like when you find "a trout in your milk".

Thedope agreed

 

[Maimonides]

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.