When Does Life Begin?

Chumly wrote:

real life wrote:

Chumly wrote:

Yep and it's why I can successfully argue that if a fetus is a potential human being, then so must be human sperm and/or ova and/or any cellular material which can through bio-engineering (or otherwise) become a human being.

This is precisely (and absurdly) why neo and real life have no choice but to argue that a fertilized egg is a de facto human being.

A sperm or egg does not have the required number of chromosomes (46) to be a living human being, Chumly.

The unborn does have 46 chromosomes. Thus the unborn is not a 'potential human being'. He (or she) IS a living human being.

I know you don't understand the difference, but I thought I'd point it out for the benefit of those who can understand it.

My living skin cells all have the requisite 46 chromosomes, thus according to your argument all my skin cells are all living human beings. I'd better not scratch too hard or I'll be accused by you of derma-side.

The argument from the pro-aborts used to be that the unborn was 'part of the mother's body' or 'a parasite'.

Whatever happened to that?

Well when the heart of the unborn starts beating between the 9th and 18th day, it is kinda hard to make a case that it is part of the mother's body, isn't it?

The argument <snip> used to be that the unborn was 'part of the mother's body' or 'a parasite'. Whatever happened to that?

Well when the heart of the unborn starts beating between the 9th and 18th day, it is kinda hard to make a case that it is part of the mother's body, isn't it?

real life wrote:

Chumly wrote:

Yep and it's why I can successfully argue that if a fetus is a potential human being, then so must be human sperm and/or ova and/or any cellular material which can through bio-engineering (or otherwise) become a human being.

This is precisely (and absurdly) why neo and real life have no choice but to argue that a fertilized egg is a de facto human being.

A sperm or egg does not have the required number of chromosomes (46) to be a living human being, Chumly.

The unborn does have 46 chromosomes. Thus the unborn is not a 'potential human being'. He (or she) IS a living human being.

I know you don't understand the difference, but I thought I'd point it out for the benefit of those who can understand it.

My living skin cells all have the requisite 46 chromosomes, thus according to your argument all my skin cells are all living human beings. I'd better not scratch too hard or I'll be accused by you of derma-side.

neo, It's only funny because real contends it requires 46 chromosomes for any cell to be a viable human. Just one more of his "

Neo,
didn't your god give man the whereforall to endeavour in the sciences and haven't you been unable to demonstrate free will?

BTW since it was real life and not me that made the claim that cellular material with 46 chromosomes is a de facto human being you'd best re-aim your claim in the direction of real life as per not being on point.

Hokie,

The unborn's blood is often of a different blood type than the mother's, and it is flowing thru the veins before the end of the first month.

Chumly wrote:

Neo,
didn't your god give man the whereforall to endeavor in the sciences and haven't you been unable to demonstrate free will?

BTW since it was real life and not me that made the claim that cellular material with 46 chromosomes is a de facto human being you'd best re-aim your claim in the direction of real life as per not being on point.

I really don't know what point you are trying to make here. I thought your response to RL was funny.

The reason I thought it was off point is because I distrust scientists' determining morality.

I distrust politicians and priests, too; but that is another story.

Does anyone really believe that because we can bean count chromosomes, examine amniotic fluid, or operate on a fetus in utero, that we have the right to translate that skill into moral license?

.....didn't your god give man the whereforall to endeavor in the sciences and haven't you been unable to demonstrate free will?

. . . Given you have not been able to demonstrate free will, and if we were to accept the existence of the Christian providential interventionist god that the bible promotes, said god not only knew the full implications of giving man the whereforall to endeavor in the sciences, but would have given such endeavors his approval in the moral sense thus your claim that you "distrust scientists' determining morality" would appear incongruent.

As to your erroneous position on why you thought I was off point consider: your distrust of scientists presumably translating that skill into moral license is not germane to real life's assertion that chromosome count is the yardstick with which to measure what is or is not a human being. I see no off point reference to be made.

I am interested in your mistrust of religious authority figures.

You certainly have a way with words, Chumly. But where did you find this sophomoric solecism: "Christian providential interventionist god"?

Erroneous is your presumption. Whether RL was correct or not was not my point. In fact, my words were directed in part toward him. Neither of you would be correct in assuming science could provide a reliable moral yardstick.

Religious leaders have been overwhelmingly behind nearly every atrocity perpetrated on the human race. Whenever politicians declare war they can always count on the priests to deliver the soldiers to the front, while blessing the cannons and swords.

EDIT:
Oh, and as far as free will is concerned: Check my sig line.

Let us shun any hypothesis that makes man a puppet and God a tyrant crueler than any in history. - Erasmus

neologist wrote:

You certainly have a way with words, Chumly. But where did you find this sophomoric solecism: "Christian providential interventionist god"?

Always glad to be of service for the greater cause, I would not consider Steven Nadler to be sophomoric and the phrase in question is derivative of his (even longer ones).

neologist wrote:

Erroneous is your presumption. Whether RL was correct or not was not my point. In fact, my words were directed in part toward him. Neither of you would be correct in assuming science could provide a reliable moral yardstick.

I made no such assumption nor have you demonstrated that my response to RL was "off point", not that I would mind if you tried.

neologist wrote:

Religious leaders have been overwhelmingly behind nearly every atrocity perpetrated on the human race. Whenever politicians declare war they can always count on the priests to deliver the soldiers to the front, while blessing the cannons and swords.

Christ was religious leader, how do you feel about trusting the word of Christ?

neologist wrote:

EDIT:
Oh, and as far as free will is concerned: Check my sig line.

Let us shun any hypothesis that makes man a puppet and God a tyrant crueler than any in history. - Erasmus

Hypothesis's abound as you well know, as such where is your demonstrable evidence of free will?

Without which you cannot argue against this: said god knew the full implications of giving man the whereforall to endeavor in the sciences, and gave such endeavors his approval in the moral sense.