When Does Life Begin?

cicerone imposter wrote:

Wolf, Again, you are wasting your time and energies on people who equate a zygote to a living, breathing, human. It doesn't matter that it doesn't have a brain; they want the mother to carry it to full term irregardless that it's none of their business or concern. They can't see their own hypocrisy by advocating 100 percent for the zygote they call "life," but don't have any concern for all those already living. The zygote is more important.

Religion does strange things to people's brain; they lose all common sense and logic. Trying to have a discussion with them is just a battle of wills; forget logic.

Since you do not have religion (by your own words) what is your excuse?

0 Replies

Excuse for what?

0 Replies

Bartikus wrote:

I am far from an optimist! I can see the potential in people. Because life is not worth living without hope.

I don't think you posted this correctly. If you mean what you are saying here, then you have made the point for most pro-choice arguements.

T
K
O

0 Replies

BART - survey! WTF is the hold up?

T
K
O

0 Replies

Bartikus wrote:

Chumly wrote:
A seed is not a tree.

A potential human being is not a human being.

'Ol Barty-Pooper does not appear headed toward sainthood, but perhaps martyrdom is within his grasp.

You mean like a monkey? lol

A human being with potential.......is.

In the pro choice world....you must first be considered a human being by another human being to be....a human being...when being human is not based on any such thing........in the first place.

If someone else were to regard any one of you as less than human....would that make you as such? Certainly not!

You are human still. Whether it is an attempt to relieve you of your rights or not....a human being you remain! No matter the motivation. You are still human are you not?

Some people in history were regarded as mere human 'lifeforms' of some degree or another by other humans true and true.

Does that matter to the question as to whether they were human?

Certainly not! Like you they were every bit as human!

This is true...and not because I say so...or even because we agree.

It would be true whether I said so or not....and whether we agreed or not.

......for it is self evident.

Maybe another human does not measure up to you or your standards according to your calculations and estimations of them........what does that matter regarding the question as to whether they are human?

It matters not.

"In the pro choice world....you must first be considered a human being by another human being to be....a human being...when being human is not based on any such thing........in the first place."

You're certainly enamored with logical fallacies, it would be amusing to see how many just your one post engenders; suffice it to say however you have a special relationship with the Non Sequitur:

Non sequitur is Latin for "it does not follow." In formal logic, an argument is a non sequitur if its conclusion does not follow from its premises. In a non sequitur, the conclusion can be either true or false, but the argument is a fallacy because the conclusion does not follow from the premise.

Here are two types of non sequitur:

1) Any argument that takes the following form is a non sequitur:
If A is true, then B is true.
B is stated to be true.
Therefore, A must be true.
Even if the premises and conclusion are all true, the conclusion is not a necessary consequence of the premises. This sort of non sequitur is also called affirming the consequent.

An example of affirming the consequent would be:
If I am a human (A) then I am a mammal. (B)
I am a mammal. (B)
Therefore, I am a human. (A)
"I" could be another type of mammal without being a human. While the conclusion may be true, it does not follow from the premises. This argument is still a fallacy even if the conclusion is true. It is a non sequitur (note that it is the exact same argument form as in example 1 - the form is always a non sequitur).

2) Another common non sequitur:
If A then B. (e.g., If I am in Tokyo, I am in Japan.)
Not A. (e.g., I am not in Tokyo.)
Therefore, not B. (e.g., Therefore, I am not in Japan.)
The speaker could be anywhere else in Japan. This sort of non sequitur is called denying the antecedent.

(If either of the above examples had "If and only if A, then B" as their first premise, then they would be valid and non-fallacious but unsound.)

Many other types of known non sequitur argument forms have been classified into many different types of logical fallacies. In everyday speech and reasoning, an example might be: "If my hair looks nice, all people will love me." However, there is no real connection between your hair and the love of all people. Advertising typically applies this kind of 'deduction' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_sequitur_%28logic%29

Mind you, my third line is humors, alas also totally lost on the recipient, unsurprisingly.

0 Replies

Thank you, Chumly, for explaining the "non sequitur" form of statements.

I just call em without common sense and logic.

0 Replies

Yeah either way is cool.

0 Replies

This whole thread is about the question of when does life begin, right?

Many words have been spewed about whether a fetus may be considered a living human being. I suppose for some it amounts to whichever prevailing definition one might choose.

But are there not fundamental differences in the above made connections of

fetus >>>> human being,
monkey >>> human being, and, as I remember:
sperm >>>> human being.

I could be wrong, but the fetus seems to have the greater claim to eventual humanity.

This could be the reason that so few are inclined to mourn the death of a monkey or the flushing of a used condom.

0 Replies

Oh.......the secrest joys of Argumentum Ad Nauseam!
Ho......another Non Sequitur-ian rears his ugly head!

"Eventual" is not synonymous with actual.

Your speculation that "This could be the reason that so few are inclined to mourn the death of a monkey or the flushing of a used condom" is nothing more than an Argumentum Ad Populum. That being a fallacious argument that concludes a proposition to be true because many believe it.

"fetus >>>> human being"
has equivalent logicality to
skin call >>>> human being

0 Replies

neologist wrote:

This whole thread is about the question of when does life begin, right?

That's the title, but the topic is abortion, SCNT, IVF and all related issues. We could just as easily be talking in any other thread.

As I posted earlier, life is actually modeled as a circle.
Lightning begins before the pretty light show.

T
K
O

0 Replies

His emotion just got the better of him. He can't help it!

0 Replies

Chumly wrote:

Oh.......the secrest joys of Argumentum Ad Nauseam!
Ho......another Non Sequitur-ian rears his ugly head!

"Eventual" is not synonymous with actual.

Your speculation that "This could be the reason that so few are inclined to mourn the death of a monkey or the flushing of a used condom" is nothing more than an Argumentum Ad Populum. That being a fallacious argument that concludes a proposition to be true because many believe it.

"fetus >>>> human being"
has equivalent logicality to
skin call >>>> human being

HMM!
So you are saying that a skin cell is equally as logically an eventual human being as is a fetus?

So a couple wishing to have children need only to implant a skin cell in the prospective mother's womb?
Outstanding!
You deserve the Nobel Prize for your contribution to problem of infertility.

I would venture to say that the title of valedictorian non sequitorium is most eminently yours.

0 Replies

neologist wrote:

So you are saying that a skin cell is equally as logically an eventual human being as is a fetus?

The facts of the matter are that you are saying a fertilized egg is so-called "eventual humanity".

By your logic, a skin cell must also be burdened with the same consequence. Why? Because through the god-given magic (hee-haw) of modern bio-engineering, a human skin cell can also be classified as "eventual humanity".

neologist wrote:

So a couple wishing to have children need only to implant a skin cell in the prospective mother's womb?

You wanna rhetorically argue the method by which a human being is initiated is how you decide if it's human? OK cowboy let's giddyup and go see!

By your logic, if bio-engineering was used to prompt a human skin cell to become a human being, this would not be a bouncing baby boy or girl but some sort of thing. Like the 1954 movie Creature from the Black Lagoon maybe. Or maybe like Cousin Itt from the 1964 television series the Addams Family.

Read 'em and weep to the tune of $3 billion+ neo!

Quote:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=7555718

0 Replies

Here is some more fun you all you religionists, given that Barty-pooper seems stuck in the comer with his Amy Grant CD's. I claim the Christian bible does not scripturally indicate what is or is not human, thus arguments as to when a human life begins, cannot have a scriptural basis. You can't run around bleating god says a fertilized egg is a human being but a skin cell is not a human being unless you can show that the bible defines what is or is not human.

Fess up religionists you cannot show the bible defines what is or is not human!

Here are a few of my sparkling-wondrous thoughts on defining humanity. I further argue that the definition of what is or is not a human being is the pivotal issue and not abortion per se:

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.

0 Replies

Chumly wrote:

. . . Fess up religionists you cannot show the bible defines what is or is not human! . . .

David wrote:

Your eyes saw even the embryo of me,
And in your book all its parts were down in writing,
As regards the days when they were formed
And there was not yet one among them.

(Psalm 139:16)

0 Replies

Chumly and friends?

Do you believe in evolution?

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

Does abortion have any effect on natural selection?

0 Replies

I had to come back, because I realise someone is taking something out of context. I refer you to Psalm 139:15-16

"My frame was not hidden from you
when I was made in the secret place.
When I was woven together in the depths of the earth,
your eyes saw my unformed body.
All the days ordained for me
were written in your book
before one of them came to be."

If we take the verse in context, it is talking about when God was supposed to have created human beings from clay.

P.S. No, abortion doesn't have any effect on natural selection. The dead are not affected by natural selection.

0 Replies

More context

Ps 139:13-16

13 For You formed my inward parts;
You covered me in my mother's womb.
14 I will praise You, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made;
Marvelous are Your works,
And that my soul knows very well.
15 My frame was not hidden from You,
When I was made in secret,
And skillfully wrought in the lowest parts of the earth.
16 Your eyes saw my substance, being yet unformed.
And in Your book they all were written,
The days fashioned for me,
When as yet there were none of them.

He was in his mother's womb. Apparently this is talking about David, the author, not about Adam being formed from dust.

When Does Life Begin?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know