When Does Life Begin?

Intrepid wrote:

Perhaps, Chumly, it is time that you DID make a definitive claim as to what is considered a human being.

You may have not read Post: 2926784 else I assume you would not have made your request. In any case, understand Intrepid, that your request is a Straw Man Logical Fallacy.

Why is your request a Straw Man Logical Fallacy one may well ask?

See here & all will be revealed:

Quote:

A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.[1] To "set up a straw man" or "set up a straw man argument" is to create a position that is easy to refute, then attribute that position to the opponent

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

For further convenience I repost Post: 2926784 below:

Chumly wrote:

Bartikus wrote:

I have told you how I came to that conclusion! You just didn't think my answer was good enough, since it has to do with God and the Lord Jesus! Y ou still are evading all of my questions. Why is that??

The bible does not scripturally dictate what is or is not human being. Your claim is false.

I will answer your query now:

I do not have a strict definition of what is or is not a human being. I am not sure that is presently possible. I consider it an open question as whether that level of assessment is within Man's present philosophical-technological grasp.

If you twisted my arm, my definition would be anything that can pass a human-being-equivalence Turing Test. My concern as noted is the question of the extent to which human levels of sentience and self-awareness and independence of thought can be assessed at all!

I should add that current and past events such as war, corruption, starvation, environmental decimation, prejudice, racism, etc suggest Man is often unable / unwilling to make the assessment as to what constitutes a human being.

Bartikus wrote:

cicerone imposter wrote:

No, Bartikus, a human cell called the fetus begins at conception. It's still not a human "life."

Of coarse!

cicerone imposter wrote:

Correction of terms from earlier post: No, Bartikus, a human cell called the *delete "fetus" and replace with "embryo" begins at conception. It's still not a human "life."

Corrections are good!

What's this CI?

cicerone imposter wrote:

Ofcoarse human life begins at conception; it sure ain't a boid if the parents are human. What's your point? Some die before birth of natural causes. Many die after birth from starvation.

So which is it CI?

No kidding Intrepid.

Round....Round...get around...CI gets around! yeh get around.

He'll be coming around that mountain when he comes......you runnin boy.

Is a human embryo....alive CI...if so what kind of life is it? I gave a clue and so did you. lol Do you need corrected again? lol

Don't you understand the English language? To repeat; what it says is that a "human embryo" is a human cell, and not another form of animal. Yes, it's a "live" cell - with no brains, no feelings, and feels no pain.

You continue to input words never stated or intended. How did you do in school, BTW?

Chumly wrote:

Bartikus wrote:

So you wish to extend what's considered human beings to human clones?

Caught lying again! I never made any such definitive claim as "what's considered human beings" but you sure did, so you now have to include skin cells as you include fertilized cells.

How is it a lie or a claim when it is posed in the form of a question? (this is a question too in case you cannot tell the difference)

Answer this Chum chum please!

http://www.sfuhl.org/

Chumly wrote:

Intrepid wrote:

Perhaps, Chumly, it is time that you DID make a definitive claim as to what is considered a human being.

You may have not read Post: 2926784 else I assume you would not have made your request. In any case, understand Intrepid, that your request is a Straw Man Logical Fallacy.

Why is your request a Straw Man Logical Fallacy one may well ask?

See here & all will be revealed:

Quote:

A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.[1] To "set up a straw man" or "set up a straw man argument" is to create a position that is easy to refute, then attribute that position to the opponent

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

For further convenience I repost Post: 2926784 below:

Chumly wrote:

Bartikus wrote:

I have told you how I came to that conclusion! You just didn't think my answer was good enough, since it has to do with God and the Lord Jesus! Y ou still are evading all of my questions. Why is that??

The bible does not scripturally dictate what is or is not human being. Your claim is false.

I will answer your query now:

I do not have a strict definition of what is or is not a human being. I am not sure that is presently possible. I consider it an open question as whether that level of assessment is within Man's present philosophical-technological grasp.

If you twisted my arm, my definition would be anything that can pass a human-being-equivalence Turing Test. My concern as noted is the question of the extent to which human levels of sentience and self-awareness and independence of thought can be assessed at all!

I should add that current and past events such as war, corruption, starvation, environmental decimation, prejudice, racism, etc suggest Man is often unable / unwilling to make the assessment as to what constitutes a human being.

I was wondering when your straw man card was going to be played.

Also, you only picked one line out of my post. In any event, for purposes of clarification, I take the answer to mean that you do not know when a human life begins. Is that correct?

cicerone imposter wrote:

Bartikus wrote:

cicerone imposter wrote:

No, Bartikus, a human cell called the fetus begins at conception. It's still not a human "life."

Of coarse!

cicerone imposter wrote:

Correction of terms from earlier post: No, Bartikus, a human cell called the *delete "fetus" and replace with "embryo" begins at conception. It's still not a human "life."

Corrections are good!

What's this CI?

cicerone imposter wrote:

Ofcoarse human life begins at conception; it sure ain't a boid if the parents are human. What's your point? Some die before birth of natural causes. Many die after birth from starvation.

So which is it CI?

No kidding Intrepid.

Round....Round...get around...CI gets around! yeh get around.

He'll be coming around that mountain when he comes......you runnin boy.

Is a human embryo....alive CI...if so what kind of life is it? I gave a clue and so did you. lol Do you need corrected again? lol

Don't you understand the English language? To repeat; what it says is that a "human embryo" is a human cell, and not another form of animal. Yes, it's a "live" cell - with no brains, no feelings, and feels no pain.

You continue to input words never stated or intended. How did you do in school, BTW?

I know the English language well enough to know that you....


1.)First said human life begins at conception.


Show me?

2.)Then said a human cell called the fetus is not a human life. (a fetus is not a cell)

Again, show me? I said a human cell is an embryo. I corrected the mistake of the difference between a fetus and the embryo. Give me a break!

3.)then finally said a human cell called an embryo begins at conception and is not a human life!

No, it's not a human life; it's a human embryo at conception. It has no brain, no pain, and no feelings.

Your jumping around here. You seem to be clueless.

You're the one that's clueless; read my lips - not what you think I'm saying. If you're confused about what I said, ask for clarification; that's a lot more than you ever offered.

Question:

If your latest assertion is that a human embryo is not a human life....what kind of lifeform is it...if not human?

Bartikus wrote:

cicerone imposter wrote:

Bartikus wrote:

cicerone imposter wrote:

No, Bartikus, a human cell called the fetus begins at conception. It's still not a human "life."

Of coarse!

cicerone imposter wrote:

Correction of terms from earlier post: No, Bartikus, a human cell called the *delete "fetus" and replace with "embryo" begins at conception. It's still not a human "life."

Corrections are good!

What's this CI?

cicerone imposter wrote:

Ofcoarse human life begins at conception; it sure ain't a boid if the parents are human. What's your point? Some die before birth of natural causes. Many die after birth from starvation.

So which is it CI?

No kidding Intrepid.

Round....Round...get around...CI gets around! yeh get around.

He'll be coming around that mountain when he comes......you runnin boy.

Is a human embryo....alive CI...if so what kind of life is it? I gave a clue and so did you. lol Do you need corrected again? lol

Don't you understand the English language? To repeat; what it says is that a "human embryo" is a human cell, and not another form of animal. Yes, it's a "live" cell - with no brains, no feelings, and feels no pain.

You continue to input words never stated or intended. How did you do in school, BTW?

I know the English language well enough to know that you....


1.)First said human life begins at conception.


Show me?

2.)Then said a human cell called the fetus is not a human life. (a fetus is not a cell)

Again, show me? I said a human cell is an embryo. I corrected the mistake of the difference between a fetus and the embryo. Give me a break!

3.)then finally said a human cell called an embryo begins at conception and is not a human life!

No, it's not a human life; it's a human embryo at conception. It has no brain, no pain, and no feelings.

Your jumping around here. You seem to be clueless.

You're the one that's clueless; read my lips - not what you think I'm saying. If you're confused about what I said, ask for clarification; that's a lot more than you ever offered.

Question:

If your latest assertion is that a human embryo is not a human life....what kind of lifeform is it...if not human?

It's a human cell; nothing more, nothing less.[/color]

I ask you again Chumly. I insist on an answer just as you insisted.

Bartikus wrote:

I ask you again Chumly. I insist on an answer just as you insisted.

Argumentum Ad Nauseum not withstanding I again draw your attention to the deceitful use of Logical Fallacies.

Going forward as per Argumentum Ad Nauseum: say something new.

Bartikus wrote:

Chumly wrote:

Bartikus wrote:

So you wish to extend what's considered human beings to human clones?

Caught lying again! I never made any such definitive claim as "what's considered human beings" but you sure did, so you now have to include skin cells as you include fertilized cells.

How is it a lie or a claim when it is posed in the form of a question? (this is a question too in case you cannot tell the difference)

Answer this Chum chum please!

http://www.sfuhl.org/

I ask you again Chumly. I insist on an answer just as you insisted.

Answer the question!

lie 2 (l)
n.
1. A false statement deliberately presented as being true; a falsehood.
2. Something meant to deceive or give a wrong impression.
v. lied, ly·ing (lng), lies
v.intr.
1. To present false information with the intention of deceiving.
2. To convey a false image or impression: Appearances often lie.
v.tr.
To cause to be in a specific condition or affect in a specific way by telling falsehoods: You have lied yourself into trouble.
Idiom:
lie through one's teeth
To lie outrageously or brazenly.

lie 2 (l)
n.
1. A false statement deliberately presented as being true; a falsehood.
2. Something meant to deceive or give a wrong impression.
v. lied, ly·ing (lng), lies
v.intr.
1. To present false information with the intention of deceiving.
2. To convey a false image or impression: Appearances often lie.
v.tr.
To cause to be in a specific condition or affect in a specific way by telling falsehoods: You have lied yourself into trouble.
Idiom:
lie through one's teeth
To lie outrageously or brazenly.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/lie

Bartikus, You have the habit of misstating what we say by changing words or adding words we never included in our statements. That's a lie; ergo, you are a liar.