It's not just the point of something being alive. We've been over this before. It is necessary for it to carry on the processes of life. Something with the ability to carry on the processes of life would not self-abort. It would carry on the processes of life. Again, what is the purpose of a zygote?
To grow. That is the sole purpose of a zygote. It was carrying on the processes of life.
Exactly! So this nonsense from folks on here saying unique DNA proves something is a human being is just that, nonsense. We agree.
Nobody on here has said that. They have said it makes it a human being, because it is human and "being", they have said it makes it human life.
If it was carrying on the processes of life a baby would have resulted. Just because human tissue is living does not mean the zygote is carrying on the processes of life. It could very well be carrying on partial processes, just enough to keep the tissue alive for a short period on time.
Again, life interrupted by a naturally caused death was still a life. It was carrying on the process of life until that was interrupted by the occurrence of its death. Just like you are currently carrying on the processes of life which could at any moment be interrupted by some naturally caused death.
As I've said before there is no logical reason to discount the possibility the mutations are of such a degree it is unable to carry on the processes of life. In fact, that is the reason the majority of cells/conceptions/zygotes do spontaneously abort, genetic mutation. That is stated in the links I provided.
Right, the mutation would be the natural cause of death of the human life.
Once again, it is not a point of whether it's human tissue. Of course it is. The point is it was/is not an organism capable of carrying on the processes of life and that is the qualifying factor.
Is it growing? What caused its death. The mutation is simply the natural cause that interrupted the cycles of life.
In order for it to be considered a human being it has to be an organism which means it has to be able to carry on the processes of life. If, as in the majority of cases, the genetic defects are so severe the cells/conceptions/zygotes can not carry on the processes of life it means it is not an organism which, in turn, means it is not a human being. I don't see with what you could possibly have difficulty understanding. If the genetic defects prevent the organism from carrying on the processes of life that means it's not a human being because the organism has to be able to carry on the processes of life before it can be considered a human being. How more straight forward can one say it?
Again, it was carrying on the process of life. It was simply interrupted by a natural cause of death.
Perhaps you might start by comprehending everyday English language. If an organism can not carry on the processes of life it can not be a human being. If it's inability is due to genetic mutations then genetic mutations are the reason it is not a human being. It's that simple and that conforms to scientific knowledge.
Perhaps you might, it was carrying on the processes of life, which was then interrupted by a natural cause of death.
That's where you go wrong. They were not human lives as in denoting a human being. Of course, it was human material and that material was temporarily living but there was no organism capable of carrying on life's processes. That's why a human being has to be an organism and an organism has to be able to carry on the processes of life. It's not just a case of a sperm and an egg uniting and BAM, a human being. If that was the case there would be no mention of organisms and processes of life.
Again. I haven't suggested they are a "human being", I have simply pointed out that it is human life, separate from, but dependent on, the mother.
That's fine but as you said we have to determine when something is a human being and we know it has to be an organism first and that organism has to be able to carry on the processes of life.
No, I have said "person", because different people are using different definitions of "being".
As for my views not being based on science it is the views of those who do not understand what "carrying on" means. It does not mean a living sperm and a living cell unite, even though being so genetically mutilated certain processes may continue, the product produced is unable to carry on the processes of life. Carrying on a few, temporarily, is twisting the meaning. That's where viable come in.
No, it is you who are confused as to what processes a zygote would be going through. It is a human organism once it begins to grow, we even posted a link to a scientific paper on the subject that made that clear in the definition.
You talk about me taking the extreme view. The product produced by the combining of the sperm and egg has to be able to carry on the processes of life. The normal, naturally expected process of life is for the cell/conception/embryo to produce a baby, not to wither or be absorbed or otherwise disappear in a hour or a day.
Again. It is carrying on the process of life when it begins to grow. That it may be interrupted by a naturally caused death doesn't change that.
