When Does Life End?

[TuTu Monroe]

And I do enjoy petting.

Ummmmm, OK.

 

[apple0154]

Ummmmm, OK.

That's a cute smiley.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

And your argument is all the fertilized cells/conceptions/zygotes that live for an hour or a day were all fully functioning organisms capable of carrying on the processes of life. Sure, that makes sense.

It's not an argument, and certainly not MINE... it's a scientific fact. If the zygote lives for one second, it lived as an organism. It doesn't have to keep living, that is not a prerequisite for life. It did carry on the process or it wouldn't have been alive for even one second. Whether it makes sense to you, after having it explained for weeks, by countless people, in countless ways, is totally beside the point.

You keep saying something that is completely contradictory, and I don't know whether you are just mentally retarded and don't realize it, or whether you are just plain dumb. Either way, it's logical contradiction to admit something was living, but was somehow not alive. It is an organism because it is made of various parts operating together to perform the processes of life. It doesn't have to do that for a second or a week or 100 years, it just has to do that to be an organism, and when it dies, it stops living. The only valid point you have made is, when something dies it is no longer a living organism, but I think we all understand that and aren't contesting this point. Where you break from science and logic, is in a conclusion that since it died, we can't say it was a living organism. You and I could die tomorrow, does that mean we aren't alive today?

Once conception happens, two cells fuse and become a living human organism. It's small, very tiny, but still a living organism. It may not ultimately live on, but no organism does. Eventually, they ALL die. It's a good time to point out, intentional medical abortions never happen at this point, as you said, the woman is not even aware this has happened. We should really be discussing the parameters of abortion as it pertains to the 40 million fetuses which have been sucked down a tube for the sake of convenience and vanity, in the name of some "right" you claim women have to terminate the life of another. Instead, we are stuck on stupid with you, trying to get you to acknowledge a simple fact of LIFE!

 

[Damocles]

What is "TNTL"?

 

[DamnYankee]

His cat is a beauty.

I agree, not like mine, who is evil.

 

[TuTu Monroe]

WOW!!

I agree, not like mine, who is evil.

 

[TuTu Monroe]

What is "TNTL"?

Trying Not To Laugh.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

Trying Not To Laugh.

That's all well and good; but what does TNTL mean??

 

[TuTu Monroe]

Trying to keep my composure and not split my gut open with uncontrollable laughter.

That's all well and good; but what does TNTL mean??

 

[apple0154]

LOL. It's exactly what you just said, it isn't my "spin" it's yours. According to you, in this particular conversation "majority" is all that counts, in the other the rarest of occurrences defines it all, and without consideration of the actual life that must exist in order for the event (chimerism) to occur. You absolutely haven't the credibility to even suggest that another needs a "majority" event for it to count, nor the capacity to think within parameters of logic. Your fallacies abound and your hypocrisy deepens with each demand like that.

By all means participate in the conversation, just don't ever attempt to teach another about fallacies, so far they are all you have ever offered.

What are you going on about?

Point one. It was stated DNA proved a fetus is a human life, meant as alive, and that's BS. DNA can tell what is human material. Material. Skin. Bone. Blood, etc. It can not determine what is alive.

Point two. It was stated "unique" DNA was the defining factor whether something is a human being. Again, BS. Human beings can have two sets of DNA and two human beings can have the same DNA.

Let me dumb this down for you. DNA can not tell if a fertilized cell/zygote/embryo/fetus is a human life or an alive human being and an alive human being does not have to have a "unique" DNA.

Now do you get it? If so, please stop insisting otherwise. And you're the last person to be talking about hypocrisy and fallacies. I have explained this numerous times. If you don't believe me try doing a Google.

 

[Damocles]

What are you going on about?

Point one. It was stated DNA proved a fetus is a human life, meant as alive, and that's BS. DNA can tell what is human material. Material. Skin. Bone. Blood, etc. It can not determine what is alive.

Point two. It was stated "unique" DNA was the defining factor whether something is a human being. Again, BS. Human beings can have two sets of DNA and two human beings can have the same DNA.

Let me dumb this down for you. DNA can not tell if a fertilized cell/zygote/embryo/fetus is a human life or an alive human being and an alive human being does not have to have a "unique" DNA.

Now do you get it? If so, please stop insisting otherwise. And you're the last person to be talking about hypocrisy and fallacies. I have explained this numerous times. If you don't believe me try doing a Google.

Nobody said that DNA determined if it was alive.

1. They said it was alive because it was growing.
1.a. They said it was a living organism because it was growing, that it was a human organism based on DNA.
2. They said it was human life because the DNA said it is. (I never stated that it defined if it was a "human being", you are again attempting to give me words that I did not say. I also never suggested that the DNA said it was a "person" I said it showed it was a human life as long as it lived and that every example you provided was a natural ending to a human life.)
3. They said it was separate from the mother, because the DNA says it is.

Nothing you say was asserted was. Your assertions are straw men fallacies, again showing you have nothing to offer except logical fallacies. You absolutely have no credibility, nothing you post isn't a fallacy.

You, sir, lie to yourself about what others "say" so you can pretend you are making points, but every post is a fallacy because you never actually argue about what they say.

 

[apple0154]

Nobody said that DNA determined if it was alive.

1. They said it was alive because it was growing.
1.a. They said it was a living organism because it was growing, that it was a human organism based on DNA.
2. They said it was human life because the DNA said it is. (I never stated that it defined if it was a "human being", you are again attempting to give me words that I did not say. I also never suggested that the DNA said it was a "person" I said it showed it was a human life as long as it lived and that every example you provided was a natural ending to a human life.)
3. They said it was separate from the mother, because the DNA says it is.

Nothing you say was asserted was. Your assertions are straw men fallacies, again showing you have nothing to offer except logical fallacies. You absolutely have no credibility, nothing you post isn't a fallacy.

You, sir, lie to yourself about what others "say" so you can pretend you are making points, but every post is a fallacy because you never actually argue about what they say.

Isn't it strange that in a thread titled "The Lost Wages of Youth" you write, "(Msg 13) Says the guy who brings up chimerism to say that DNA doesn't show that an embryo is human life. As if a chimera is even close to the "majority" of embryos..."

Rather than have the discussion in the proper thread you post a false comment here and then attribute it to me because you had nothing worth while to add to the original thread and that still burns your a$$.

Fine. We'll go through your nonsense again.

You wrote, "Nobody said that DNA determined if it was alive."

Great! Then that's settled. The next time someone says DNA proves a fertilized cell/zygote/embryo/fetus is a living human being or a human life, implying it's living, I'll direct the conversation to you and you can argue it with them. Deal?

You wrote, "1. They said it was alive because it was growing."

I countered the instant a cell is fertilized or a conception takes place one does not know if it is growing or not because some cells spontaneously abort without showing any signs of growth. Therefore, every fertilized cell is not a human being which negates the anti-abortionist argument that every fertilized cell is a human being.

You wrote, "2. They said it was human life because the DNA said it is. (I never stated that it defined if it was a "human being", you are again attempting to give me words that I did not say. I also never suggested that the DNA said it was a "person" I said it showed it was a human life as long as it lived and that every example you provided was a natural ending to a human life.)"

What nonsense is that? DNA says it's a human life if it's living???? No, DNA does not say that. DNA verifies if it's human material. In order to be a human life it has to be an organism and an organism has to have the ability to carry on the processes of life. No one knows if a spontaneously aborted cell had the ability to carry on the processes of life.

What I said was considering over 50% of fertilized cells spontaneously abort within hours or minutes it is a logical to conclude the majority of them didn't have the ability to carry on the processes of life. To say it is a "natural ending to a human life" is absurd considering the purpose of a fertilized cell/conception is to produce a baby.

Once again, DNA does not determine what is a human life. Take a piece of skin off your finger and a piece of a fertilized cell and DNA tests will draw the same conclusion which is both are human material. Material. It will not determine what is a human life. So let's drop this twisting of words and trying to make out like DNA, a scientific procedure, determines what is human life. It does not.

You wrote, "3. They said it was separate from the mother, because the DNA says it is."

Another wrong statement. DNA does not say it's separate from the mother. Here's where we get back to chimerism. A person can have two sets of DNA. Let's say, for example, a woman's ovaries are composed of one set of DNA and her uterus is composed of another set of DNA. Do tell us, oh-wise-one, is it the ovaries or the uterus that is not part of the woman? (Can hardly wait to hear the answer!)

You wrote, "You, sir, lie to yourself about what others "say" so you can pretend you are making points, but every post is a fallacy because you never actually argue about what they say."

Your ignorance knows no bounds. In any case, it is quickly becoming redundant. Your talk of "straw men fallacies" and "logical fallacies" further highlights your foolishness. You wouldn't know a fallacy if you tripped over one.

In closing, I’d like to remind you not to forget to let us know which part of the woman is not part of the woman.

 

[Damocles]

Isn't it strange that in a thread titled "The Lost Wages of Youth" you write, "(Msg 13) Says the guy who brings up chimerism to say that DNA doesn't show that an embryo is human life. As if a chimera is even close to the "majority" of embryos..."

Not really, it was a direct example of you doing exactly what you accused another of doing in that very thread.

Rather than have the discussion in the proper thread you post a false comment here and then attribute it to me because you had nothing worth while to add to the original thread and that still burns your a$$.

Fine. We'll go through your nonsense again.

You wrote, "Nobody said that DNA determined if it was alive."

Nobody did. Otherwise such a thing as a residual body wouldn't be possible. Ignoring what people say is your talent, that way you get to argue your fantasy rather than actually understand things. (Fallacy number 1.)

Great! Then that's settled. The next time someone says DNA proves a fertilized cell/zygote/embryo/fetus is a living human being or a human life, implying it's living, I'll direct the conversation to you and you can argue it with them. Deal?

Again, dumb as a post. When somebody says that it is alive because it is growing (just like the definition posted described), then says that it is human because of the DNA maybe you can actually understand what they say rather than bring up this tired straw man again. (2nd fallacy in 1 post.)

You wrote, "1. They said it was alive because it was growing."



I countered the instant a cell is fertilized or a conception takes place one does not know if it is growing or not because some cells spontaneously abort without showing any signs of growth. Therefore, every fertilized cell is not a human being which negates the anti-abortionist argument that every fertilized cell is a human being.

Again, those are called residual bodies, those are not alive by definition. Please catch back up. It's like you are deliberately stupid.

You wrote, "2. They said it was human life because the DNA said it is. (I never stated that it defined if it was a "human being", you are again attempting to give me words that I did not say. I also never suggested that the DNA said it was a "person" I said it showed it was a human life as long as it lived and that every example you provided was a natural ending to a human life.)"

What nonsense is that? DNA says it's a human life if it's living???? No, DNA does not say that. DNA verifies if it's human material. In order to be a human life it has to be an organism and an organism has to have the ability to carry on the processes of life. No one knows if a spontaneously aborted cell had the ability to carry on the processes of life.

Again. Let. Me. Slow. It. Down. For. The. Deliberately. Stupid (That's you, Apple.)

You are deliberately ignoring the actual definition from a scientific journal presented earlier. That definition clearly defined a zygote as an organism, and indicated it is alive because of growth. Before it grows it isn't a zygote. When it begins it is "carrying on the processes of life" and is an organism. (Fallacy 3 in one post.)

What I said was considering over 50% of fertilized cells spontaneously abort within hours or minutes it is a logical to conclude the majority of them didn't have the ability to carry on the processes of life. To say it is a "natural ending to a human life" is absurd considering the purpose of a fertilized cell/conception is to produce a baby.

You are again taking the 50% of fertilized eggs that spontaneously abort before implantation (takes place much later than "minutes" after fertilization) and assuming they happen before growth. You are applying information incorrectly where abortion sites (and only abortion sites say it) say that 50% of fertilized ovum spontaneously abort but gives no time line or actual studies to back it up. (Fallacy 4 if you are still keeping count.)

Once again, DNA does not determine what is a human life. Take a piece of skin off your finger and a piece of a fertilized cell and DNA tests will draw the same conclusion which is both are human material. Material. It will not determine what is a human life. So let's drop this twisting of words and trying to make out like DNA, a scientific procedure, determines what is human life. It does not.

It determines that the LIFE is HUMAN, not that it is ALIVE. You are cripplingly and deliberately obtuse about this point. It is a life, one that can be defined as human because of the DNA. (Fallacy 5.)

You wrote, "3. They said it was separate from the mother, because the DNA says it is."

Another wrong statement. DNA does not say it's separate from the mother. Here's where we get back to chimerism. A person can have two sets of DNA. Let's say, for example, a woman's ovaries are composed of one set of DNA and her uterus is composed of another set of DNA. Do tell us, oh-wise-one, is it the ovaries or the uterus that is not part of the woman? (Can hardly wait to hear the answer!)

Yes it does. The organism is separate from the mother because it carries a different diploid DNA index from the mother (half of it is from the father). Now you pretend that progeny isn't a separate organism because if it were twins it could become a chimera. It's absolutely against any attainable set of logic, and this is your fallacy 6 in the same post if you are still keeping count.

You wrote, "You, sir, lie to yourself about what others "say" so you can pretend you are making points, but every post is a fallacy because you never actually argue about what they say."

Your ignorance knows no bounds. In any case, it is quickly becoming redundant. Your talk of "straw men fallacies" and "logical fallacies" further highlights your foolishness. You wouldn't know a fallacy if you tripped over one.

Yes, the continued direct lies about what people have actually stated are redundant, but I have enough patience to continue pointing it out to you, because I have hope that you will some day become honest with yourself and capable of holding an argument without fallacy.

In closing, I’d like to remind you not to forget to let us know which part of the woman is not part of the woman.

Let me simplify this for you. If I put a smaller box inside a large box, I still have two boxes, no matter how much you try to pretend that it becomes one box because one is inside the other...

 

[apple0154]

Replies in blue.

Originally Posted by apple0154 Isn't it strange that in a thread titled "The Lost Wages of Youth" you write, "(Msg 13) Says the guy who brings up chimerism to say that DNA doesn't show that an embryo is human life. As if a chimera is even close to the "majority" of embryos..."

Not really, it was a direct example of you doing exactly what you accused another of doing in that very thread.

Why don’t we start by you saying who this “another” is?

Rather than have the discussion in the proper thread you post a false comment here and then attribute it to me because you had nothing worth while to add to the original thread and that still burns your a$$. Fine. We'll go through your nonsense again. You wrote, "Nobody said that DNA determined if it was alive."

Nobody did. Otherwise such a thing as a residual body wouldn't be possible. Ignoring what people say is your talent, that way you get to argue your fantasy rather than actually understand things. (Fallacy number 1.)

I said, “Fine.” We agree. DNA can not determine what is human life IF, by that, one means what is living/alive. The point is people have said that DNA proves it is a human life.

The problem is I comment on a post, you jump in, then when I reply your standard retort is, “I never said that”. I know you didn’t say that but if you are going to support what the individual whose post I am replying to did say then it’s logical to assume you are saying the same thing.

So, we agree. DNA can not determine if something is a human life.

Great! Then that's settled. The next time someone says DNA proves a fertilized cell/zygote/embryo/fetus is a living human being or a human life, implying it's living, I'll direct the conversation to you and you can argue it with them. Deal?

Again, dumb as a post. When somebody says that it is alive because it is growing (just like the definition posted described), then says that it is human because of the DNA maybe you can actually understand what they say rather than bring up this tired straw man again. (2nd fallacy in 1 post.)

I understand exactly what they’re trying to imply and I won’t let that incorrect implication slip by. DNA does not prove anything is a human life. There is a difference between knowing something is alive and then having DNA verify it is human material compared to saying DNA proves something is a human life. The distinction is a very important one.

You wrote, "1. They said it was alive because it was growing." I countered the instant a cell is fertilized or a conception takes place one does not know if it is growing or not because some cells spontaneously abort without showing any signs of growth. Therefore, every fertilized cell is not a human being which negates the anti-abortionist argument that every fertilized cell is a human being.

Again, those are called residual bodies, those are not alive by definition. Please catch back up. It's like you are deliberately stupid.

As soon as the anti-abortionist proponents stop saying every fertilized cell is a human being and/or every fertilized cell is the start of a human life I will stop calling them on it. I suggest you think a little deeper in regards to who is stupid.

As a side note it’s worth mentioning the fertilization process takes about 24 hours. Frequently, anti-abortionists either state or imply it is something that happens in the blink of an eye as if a human being miraculously appears.

You wrote, "2. They said it was human life because the DNA said it is. (I never stated that it defined if it was a "human being", you are again attempting to give me words that I did not say. I also never suggested that the DNA said it was a "person" I said it showed it was a human life as long as it lived and that every example you provided was a natural ending to a human life.)"What nonsense is that? DNA says it's a human life if it's living???? No, DNA does not say that. DNA verifies if it's human material. In order to be a human life it has to be an organism and an organism has to have the ability to carry on the processes of life. No one knows if a spontaneously aborted cell had the ability to carry on the processes of life.

Again. Let. Me. Slow. It. Down. For. The. Deliberately. Stupid (That's you, Apple.)

You are deliberately ignoring the actual definition from a scientific journal presented earlier. That definition clearly defined a zygote as an organism, and indicated it is alive because of growth. Before it grows it isn't a zygote. When it begins it is "carrying on the processes of life" and is an organism. (Fallacy 3 in one post.)

We’re right back where we started. Some fertilized cells do not grow and my point is and always has been that not all fertilized cells are a human life because they are not organisms because they do not carry on the processes of life. Do you want that slowed down?

Let me repeat it one more time. The moment of fertilization does not prove a human being has come into existence which is the backbone of anti-abortionist propaganda. Do you understand that statement? The moment of fertilization does not prove a human being has come into existence.

What I said was considering over 50% of fertilized cells spontaneously abort within hours or minutes it is a logical to conclude the majority of them didn't have the ability to carry on the processes of life. To say it is a "natural ending to a human life" is absurd considering the purpose of a fertilized cell/conception is to produce a baby.

You are again taking the 50% of fertilized eggs that spontaneously abort before implantation (takes place much later than "minutes" after fertilization) and assuming they happen before growth. You are applying information incorrectly where abortion sites (and only abortion sites say it) say that 50% of fertilized ovum spontaneously abort but gives no time line or actual studies to back it up. (Fallacy 4 if you are still keeping count.)

Regarding this particular discussion it doesn’t matter if it’s 50% or 5% or .0005%. The point is it happens which means not all fertilized cells are human beings or a human life. Just as I don’t know if every self-aborted cell grew neither do the anti-abortionists know if they didn’t grow, however, they base their argument on the assumption they all grew.

I suggest you check your infatuation with the word “fallacy” rather than keeping count how many times you can incorrectly use it.

Once again, DNA does not determine what is a human life. Take a piece of skin off your finger and a piece of a fertilized cell and DNA tests will draw the same conclusion which is both are human material. Material. It will not determine what is a human life. So let's drop this twisting of words and trying to make out like DNA, a scientific procedure, determines what is human life. It does not.

It determines that the LIFE is HUMAN, not that it is ALIVE. You are cripplingly and deliberately obtuse about this point. It is a life, one that can be defined as human because of the DNA. (Fallacy 5.)

It’s not a case of being obtuse. It’s a matter of clarifying what anti-abortionists are trying to imply, deceitfully I might add. We don’t know if it’s life unless we can show it carries on life’s processes. DNA shows it’s human material. It has nothing to do with showing “life”.Anti-abortionists state their case as DNA showing it’s a human life and that’s wrong. Plain and simple. That is what I’m arguing.

You should put a leash on your imagined fallacies.

You wrote, "3. They said it was separate from the mother, because the DNA says it is."Another wrong statement. DNA does not say it's separate from the mother. Here's where we get back to chimerism. A person can have two sets of DNA. Let's say, for example, a woman's ovaries are composed of one set of DNA and her uterus is composed of another set of DNA. Do tell us, oh-wise-one, is it the ovaries or the uterus that is not part of the woman? (Can hardly wait to hear the answer!)

Yes it does. The organism is separate from the mother because it carries a different diploid DNA index from the mother (half of it is from the father). Now you pretend that progeny isn't a separate organism because if it were twins it could become a chimera. It's absolutely against any attainable set of logic, and this is your fallacy 6 in the same post if you are still keeping count.

If you spent more time trying to comprehend what I say and less time counting imaginary fallacies we might get somewhere. Parts of the woman’s body also has different DNA.

You wrote, "You, sir, lie to yourself about what others "say" so you can pretend you are making points, but every post is a fallacy because you never actually argue about what they say."Your ignorance knows no bounds. In any case, it is quickly becoming redundant. Your talk of "straw men fallacies" and "logical fallacies" further highlights your foolishness. You wouldn't know a fallacy if you tripped over one.

Yes, the continued direct lies about what people have actually stated are redundant, but I have enough patience to continue pointing it out to you, because I have hope that you will some day become honest with yourself and capable of holding an argument without fallacy.

I addressed your imaginary fallacies. As I stated before you take up a position to defend a post and then say you didn’t say what was in the original post. Maybe you can get away with playing that game with others but not with me.

In closing, I’d like to remind you not to forget to let us know which part of the woman is not part of the woman.

Let me simplify this for you. If I put a smaller box inside a large box, I still have two boxes, no matter how much you try to pretend that it becomes one box because one is inside the other...

I see. When you can’t give an answer you offer an analogy, a poor one at that, hoping to distract. Cute. Real cute. Maybe that works with your debates with children but you’ll have to put in more effort here.

So, is it the woman’s ovaries or her uterus that is the small box? Do tell.

__________________

 

[Damocles]

Why don’t we start by you saying who this “another” is?

Dude, it's in the other thread, I quoted the post.

I said, “Fine.” We agree. DNA can not determine what is human life IF, by that, one means what is living/alive. The point is people have said that DNA proves it is a human life.

The problem is I comment on a post, you jump in, then when I reply your standard retort is, “I never said that”. I know you didn’t say that but if you are going to support what the individual whose post I am replying to did say then it’s logical to assume you are saying the same thing.

So, we agree. DNA can not determine if something is a human life.

Again, they did not. They said that it proved that the zygote (which by definition is both an organism and alive) was human. The DNA doesn't prove it is alive, but it does prove that it is human, what proves it is "a life" is the fact that it is a growing organism.

I understand exactly what they’re trying to imply and I won’t let that incorrect implication slip by. DNA does not prove anything is a human life. There is a difference between knowing something is alive and then having DNA verify it is human material compared to saying DNA proves something is a human life. The distinction is a very important one.

It proves it is HUMAN, not that it is "a life". You are again being deliberately disingenuous here. The DNA shows that it is human, it can be a residual body (never showing growth therefore never reaching the definition of conception that was listed earlier), but the DNA would still show it is HUMAN, however its growth shows it is alive. The two things together make it "a human life".

As soon as the anti-abortionist proponents stop saying every fertilized cell is a human being and/or every fertilized cell is the start of a human life I will stop calling them on it. I suggest you think a little deeper in regards to who is stupid.

As a side note it’s worth mentioning the fertilization process takes about 24 hours. Frequently, anti-abortionists either state or imply it is something that happens in the blink of an eye as if a human being miraculously appears.

Again, in this thread we have argued definitions and the definition posted that we have been using defines conception at the point the fertilized cell begins to grow, not at the point of fertilization.

We’re right back where we started. Some fertilized cells do not grow and my point is and always has been that not all fertilized cells are a human life because they are not organisms because they do not carry on the processes of life. Do you want that slowed down?

Let me repeat it one more time. The moment of fertilization does not prove a human being has come into existence which is the backbone of anti-abortionist propaganda. Do you understand that statement? The moment of fertilization does not prove a human being has come into existence.

Duh. We agree that the moment of fertilization doesn't prove anything, because that isn't what people have claimed. Where you go into fallacy-land is where you again state that they say fertilization is when this occurs. Again, conception (per the accepted definition provided earlier in the thread) begins when the cell STARTS TO GROW. Thus it becomes an organism, the DNA shows this living organism to be HUMAN.

What I said was considering over 50% of fertilized cells spontaneously abort within hours or minutes it is a logical to conclude the majority of them didn't have the ability to carry on the processes of life. To say it is a "natural ending to a human life" is absurd considering the purpose of a fertilized cell/conception is to produce a baby.

That's silly. That's like saying the "purpose of human life is to procreate, therefore you aren't 'carrying on the processes of life' and were never human if you die before you are able to procreate." or "The purpose of human life is to earn a living, therefore if you die at 6 and never had a job you were never a human."

You pick an arbitrary "purpose" assigned only by you, then say that if something doesn't reach "this point" it was never alive. It's just inane. It may not be a "person", but it certainly is alive.

Growing IS carrying on the process of life, at that stage that is all that can be expected of the organism.

Regarding this particular discussion it doesn’t matter if it’s 50% or 5% or .0005%. The point is it happens which means not all fertilized cells are human beings or a human life. Just as I don’t know if every self-aborted cell grew neither do the anti-abortionists know if they didn’t grow, however, they base their argument on the assumption they all grew.

I suggest you check your infatuation with the word “fallacy” rather than keeping count how many times you can incorrectly use it.


__________________

Again, when the cell begins to grow it is "carrying on the processes of life" and is at that point a living human organism as the DNA shows it to be.

 

[apple0154]

Dude, it's in the other thread, I quoted the post.

I still do not see any similarity between you referencing a comment I made in another post and my reply to a poster in that thread.

Again, they did not. They said that it proved that the zygote (which by definition is both an organism and alive) was human. The DNA doesn't prove it is alive, but it does prove that it is human, what proves it is "a life" is the fact that it is a growing organism.

I agree when stated that way but that is not how it has been stated previously. It was written to imply DNA determined it was a human life and DNA does not determine life and life is what it's all about.

It proves it is HUMAN, not that it is "a life". You are again being deliberately disingenuous here. The DNA shows that it is human, it can be a residual body (never showing growth therefore never reaching the definition of conception that was listed earlier), but the DNA would still show it is HUMAN, however its growth shows it is alive. The two things together make it "a human life".

Yes, the two things together. My point is it has to be determined separately if it is a life, if it is an organism. DNA does not do that and the implication was it did.

Again, in this thread we have argued definitions and the definition posted that we have been using defines conception at the point the fertilized cell begins to grow, not at the point of fertilization.

Great! I'll be sure to remind future anti-abortionists when they falsely claim a human come into existence at the moment of fertilization.

Duh. We agree that the moment of fertilization doesn't prove anything, because that isn't what people have claimed. Where you go into fallacy-land is where you again state that they say fertilization is when this occurs. Again, conception (per the accepted definition provided earlier in the thread) begins when the cell STARTS TO GROW. Thus it becomes an organism, the DNA shows this living organism to be HUMAN.

First, people have claimed that a human being comes into existence at the moment of fertilization. I know that isn't true and you know that isn't true so we agree.

The second point is the cell has to grow in order to become an organism. On that point we both agree. So, we can conclude a human life comes into existence if/when the cell grows. If, after the combining of a sperm and an egg the cell is alive but does not grow then the only conclusion we can draw it is its not a human life.

Furthermore, there is no solid evidence to indicate the cell dies immediately. It is both reasonable and logical to conclude some of those cells slowly die over a period of minutes or hours.

My argument is with the anti-abortionists who claim such cells are human lives even if they live for a second or an hour. According to all established definitions they are not human lives because they can not carry on the processes of life and, like you, believe the cell has to grow first before being considered a human life.

That's silly. That's like saying the "purpose of human life is to procreate, therefore you aren't 'carrying on the processes of life' and were never human if you die before you are able to procreate." or "The purpose of human life is to earn a living, therefore if you die at 6 and never had a job you were never a human."

You pick an arbitrary "purpose" assigned only by you, then say that if something doesn't reach "this point" it was never alive. It's just inane. It may not be a "person", but it certainly is alive.

My comment was in response to you or someone saying/implying it's "natural" for human beings to come into existence for a second or an hour. That's just plain nonsense. It's no more natural than if 50% of one year old babies died.

But to stay on topic we agree a cell has to grow in order to be considered a human life.

Growing IS carrying on the process of life, at that stage that is all that can be expected of the organism.

If it grows. There is a period of time between the sperm and egg combining and growth taking place and that's what I'm arguing. Anti-abortionists do not differentiate. They unequivocally state a human being comes into existence and that is not true if we are to accept the definitions of science.

Again, when the cell begins to grow it is "carrying on the processes of life" and is at that point a living human organism as the DNA shows it to be.

DNA shows it to be made of human material, not that it is a living organism. Let's be specific here because that's what the entire argument rests on.

The anti-abortionists say DNA proves something is a living human being implying DNA proves life and it does not. It is an important distinction. It is the backbone of their propaganda and it's not true.

 

[Damocles]

I still do not see any similarity between you referencing a comment I made in another post and my reply to a poster in that thread.



I agree when stated that way but that is not how it has been stated previously. It was written to imply DNA determined it was a human life and DNA does not determine life and life is what it's all about.



Yes, the two things together. My point is it has to be determined separately if it is a life, if it is an organism. DNA does not do that and the implication was it did.



Great! I'll be sure to remind future anti-abortionists when they falsely claim a human come into existence at the moment of fertilization.



First, people have claimed that a human being comes into existence at the moment of fertilization. I know that isn't true and you know that isn't true so we agree.

The second point is the cell has to grow in order to become an organism. On that point we both agree. So, we can conclude a human life comes into existence if/when the cell grows. If, after the combining of a sperm and an egg the cell is alive but does not grow then the only conclusion we can draw it is its not a human life.

Furthermore, there is no solid evidence to indicate the cell dies immediately. It is both reasonable and logical to conclude some of those cells slowly die over a period of minutes or hours.

My argument is with the anti-abortionists who claim such cells are human lives even if they live for a second or an hour. According to all established definitions they are not human lives because they can not carry on the processes of life and, like you, believe the cell has to grow first before being considered a human life.



My comment was in response to you or someone saying/implying it's "natural" for human beings to come into existence for a second or an hour. That's just plain nonsense. It's no more natural than if 50% of one year old babies died.

But to stay on topic we agree a cell has to grow in order to be considered a human life.



If it grows. There is a period of time between the sperm and egg combining and growth taking place and that's what I'm arguing. Anti-abortionists do not differentiate. They unequivocally state a human being comes into existence and that is not true if we are to accept the definitions of science.



DNA shows it to be made of human material, not that it is a living organism. Let's be specific here because that's what the entire argument rests on.

The anti-abortionists say DNA proves something is a living human being implying DNA proves life and it does not. It is an important distinction. It is the backbone of their propaganda and it's not true.

*sigh*

It's GROWTH shows it to be living, the DNA shows it to be human. It isn't that difficult. One shows one thing, the other shows a different thing. Together it shows that it is "a human life".

 

[NOVA]

Genetic View:

The genetic view takes the position that the creation of a genetically unique individual is the moment at which life begins. This event is often described as taking place at fertilization, thus fertilization marks the beginning of human life. During this developmental event, the genes originating from two sources combine to form a single individual with a different and unique set of genes. One of the most popular arguments for fertilization as the beginning of human life is that at fertilization a new combination of genetic material is created for the first time; thus, the zygote is an individual, unique from all others.


Scientists now choose to view fertilization as a process that occurs over a period of 12-24 hours. After sperm are released they must remain in the female reproductive tract for seven hours before they are capable of fertilizing the egg. Approximately ten hours are required for the sperm to travel up to the fallopian tube where they find the egg. The meeting of the egg and the sperm itself is not even an instantaneous process, but rather a complex biochemical interaction through which the sperm ultimately reaches the inner portion of the egg. Following fertilization, the chromosomes contained within the sperm and the chromosomes of the egg meet to form a diploid organism, now called a zygote, over a period of 24 hours. (Shannon and Wolter 1990). Thus, even if one were to argue that life begins at fertilization, fertilization is not a moment, but rather a continuous process lasting 12-24 hours, with an additional 24 hours required to complete the formation of a diploid individual.
The most popular argument against the idea that life begins at the moment of fertilization has been dubbed the "twinning argument." The main point of this argument is that although a zygote is genetically unique from its parents from the moment a diploid organism is formed; it is possible for that zygote to split into two or more zygotes up until 14 or 15 days after fertilization. Even though the chances of twinning are not very great, as long as there is the potential for it to occur the zygote has not completed the process of individuation and is not an ontological individual.


http://8e.devbio.com/article.php?id=162

 

[apple0154]

Genetic View:

The genetic view takes the position that the creation of a genetically unique individual is the moment at which life begins. This event is often described as taking place at fertilization, thus fertilization marks the beginning of human life. During this developmental event, the genes originating from two sources combine to form a single individual with a different and unique set of genes. One of the most popular arguments for fertilization as the beginning of human life is that at fertilization a new combination of genetic material is created for the first time; thus, the zygote is an individual, unique from all others.
Scientists now choose to view fertilization as a process that occurs over a period of 12-24 hours. After sperm are released they must remain in the female reproductive tract for seven hours before they are capable of fertilizing the egg. Approximately ten hours are required for the sperm to travel up to the fallopian tube where they find the egg. The meeting of the egg and the sperm itself is not even an instantaneous process, but rather a complex biochemical interaction through which the sperm ultimately reaches the inner portion of the egg. Following fertilization, the chromosomes contained within the sperm and the chromosomes of the egg meet to form a diploid organism, now called a zygote, over a period of 24 hours. (Shannon and Wolter 1990). Thus, even if one were to argue that life begins at fertilization, fertilization is not a moment, but rather a continuous process lasting 12-24 hours, with an additional 24 hours required to complete the formation of a diploid individual.
The most popular argument against the idea that life begins at the moment of fertilization has been dubbed the "twinning argument." The main point of this argument is that although a zygote is genetically unique from its parents from the moment a diploid organism is formed; it is possible for that zygote to split into two or more zygotes up until 14 or 15 days after fertilization. Even though the chances of twinning are not very great, as long as there is the potential for it to occur the zygote has not completed the process of individuation and is not an ontological individual.


http://8e.devbio.com/article.php?id=162

I love you, Bravo!!! Well, not in that way. :lol:

Thanks for taking the time and doing the research.

Good man!! Kudos to you!

 

[NOVA]

First, people have claimed that a human being comes into existence at the moment of fertilization. I know that isn't true and you know that isn't true so we agree.

Not quite true....the claim and the definition is when a viable zygote is created...

The second point is the cell has to grow in order to become an organism. On that point we both agree. So, we can conclude a human life comes into existence if/when the cell grows. If, after the combining of a sperm and an egg the cell is alive but does not grow then the only conclusion we can draw it is its not a human life.

If it doesn't grow, its not viable....if it splits from one cell into two cells, its growing

Furthermore, there is no solid evidence to indicate the cell dies immediately. It is both reasonable and logical to conclude some of those cells slowly die over a period of minutes or hours.

Irrelevant...

My argument is with the anti-abortionists who claim such cells are human lives even if they live for a second or an hour. According to all established definitions they are not human lives because they can not carry on the processes of life and, like you, believe the cell has to grow first before being considered a human life.

I'm not sure how long it takes for the growth from 1 cell into 2, but that is growth, is it not....at that moment, it is alive as you've agreed...

My comment was in response to you or someone saying/implying it's "natural" for human beings to come into existence for a second or an hour. That's just plain nonsense. It's no more natural than if 50% of one year old babies died.

The length of a zygotes life is irrelevant...as is how many actually survive

But to stay on topic we agree a cell has to grow in order to be considered a human life.

If it grows. There is a period of time between the sperm and egg combining and growth taking place and that's what I'm arguing. Anti-abortionists do not differentiate. They unequivocally state a human being comes into existence and that is not true if we are to accept the definitions of science.

Forget anti-abortionists, debate SCIENCE..why distort science to support abortion?.