Agreed. There's no proof of a soul. It's a belief, not science.
Is an egg a chicken?
- Thread starter Jarod
- Start date
Agreed. There's no proof of a soul. It's a belief, not science.
We have a pretty good idea of what homo sapien-sapiens are - but even then our genetic relationship to other hominids, such as homo sapien-neanderthalis and homo sapien-denisovan are less than crystal clear.
As for a broader definition of life, there is no universal scientific consensus, law, or tenet. It comes down to a matter of subjective metaphysics.
Darth Omar
Russian asset
The ‘being’ in human being doesn’t register with science. Technically, human doesn’t either but it’s equivalent to Homo sapiens.
My arm is part of me lol?
Darth Omar
Russian asset
You began to exist at conception. We began to exist at conception.
Why is this so difficult lol?
Darth Omar
Russian asset
Unless it's cut off.
I’m no less human without it.
What is "you"? "We"? You are being metaphysical about it.
Darth Omar
Russian asset
What is time? What is space? What is reality?
You just made it impossible to have a rational conversation about the subject.
When did we start discussing "consciousness" or the '"soul"? We're just discussing when the human life begins to develop...If you want to "recognize" it at a certain number of weeks....that's your choice....but it does begin at fertilization/implantation...it just does....
Sure, Mr. 61. It's all APL's fault.
The fact remains you are dancing outside the circle of science and laying down your usual pseudoscientific bullshit.
The fact remains a zygote and a human being are not the same thing just like an apple seed and an apple tree are not the same thing. You admitted yourself it's only a developing human being, not a human being yet.
Are you saying we have a soul at conception? Based on what evidence?
I made it impossible? You kept using the word "you" and "we". "You" and "we" refer to sentient beings with individuality and personalities.
Now you are backtracking.
Everyone recognizes a zygote is a collection of living cells.
But the reason you bible thumpers have been calling liberals "baby killers" for five decades, is because you want a zygote, a blastocyst, a fertilized cell at the moment of conception to be given equal legal rank with an actual person, a human being.
Darth Omar
Russian asset
Sure, Mr. 61. It's all APL's fault.
The fact remains you are dancing outside the circle of science and laying down your usual pseudoscientific bullshit.
The fact remains a zygote and a human being are not the same thing just like an apple seed and an apple tree are not the same thing. You admitted yourself it's only a developing human being, not a human being yet.
Are you saying we have a soul at conception? Based on what evidence?
I’m saying you’re flailing lol.
Again: all science can say is that organisms begin to exist at conception. Homo sapiens are organisms; therefore, these begin to exist at conception.
If you want to inject YOUR metaphysics into it and asset that YOU didn’t come along until the after OB doc turned you upside down slapped your shiny white ass, I’ll sit here and watch you try and support that assertion. And with the appropriate level of amusement.
In the meantime the organism that was you/not quite you/whatever, began to exist at conception. Most rational beings have no problem whatsoever grasping the implications to what science has to say about the subject.
Kermit Gosnell was one that struggled with it.
Darth Omar
Russian asset
Terrible example.
Might have stung a bit, but Kermit certainly struggled with the concept lol.
Stung? How so? He murdered unborn babies at third trimester. He ended up with a dead woman.
That's just ignoring science. The reality is once it begins incubation in the egg it is a chicken in the embryonic stage of life. That it doesn't "look" like a chicken to you yet, notwithstanding, the reality is it is.
The question would be whether it has the same value as a chicken that has hatched. It would be better to ask, "Would you pay the same per pound for embryonic chickens as you would for the adult birds you eat daily?" than it would be to pretend it isn't a chicken because it is in a stage of life you don't think "looks like" a chicken.
That exactly is the question. No clue why some posters here keep dancing around it.
chick·en
noun
1.
a domestic fowl kept for its eggs or meat, especially a young one.
And the definition fits the embryo in the chicken egg, because that is what it is. It is very young, but it is a chicken.