No, I don't agree with you. I'm telling you that you can debate me on the issue without strawman arguments. You should read some of the other posts that I have from the last couple of days. Life does begin at conception. There is a scientific consensus on this. The debate is over. Don't be just another science denier. Yes, once the egg and sperm have joined they create a new unique single celled human being. What I didn't claim is that a zygote is a baby or a homo sapien. That would imply they are fully formed.
I don't need to hold a position to understand yours is wrong, and yet again you show how well the brainwashing has worked on you by ignoring numerous amounts of evidence that does not support your bias.
You are claimed that the straw-man was me accusing you of claiming "Science has proven the zygote is a living human/baby/Homo sapiens" Now you say that in fact you agree with this claim. You then make the claim you said you did not make ? Yes, once the egg and sperm have joined they create a new unique single celled human being. And in the next sentence contradict your own claim ?? I understand why you seem so confused. Let me try to help clear this up. In order to be a "Human Being/ Living human" that entity has to be a Homo sapiens. If something is not a "Homo sapiens" , then it is not a "Human Being" That a "human being" is not "fully formed" does not change the fact that in order to be human being that entity must be a Homo sapiens. Also, there is no such thing as a "single celled" human. A human is a multi-cellular organism.
Okay, instead of you making up a bunch of strawman arguments let me explain it to you without you making up things that I have not said. A zygote, which is of the genome homo sapiens, is a unique single celled human being. It is not a baby until it is a baby. It is not a fully formed human being until it reaches the stage of a fully formed human being. I'm sorry you are so confused on the matter and I hope that clears things up for you.
I did not make a single straw-man argument and you confirmed this in your last post ? You continue to make unsupported naked claims. A human being is a "Homo sapiens" period. A baby is not a fully formed human being. But it is still a human being. How fully formed a human is has nothing to do with whether it is a human or not. You are now claiming that at zygote is a "human being" What you have not done is shown that this claim is true. Having "Human DNA" does not made a single human cell a "human being". Do you have any other support for your claim ? Preferably something other than fallacy and more naked claims ?
Okay so here is another example of you making up strawman arguments. I'm thinking that you are so accustomed to this flawed logic that you probably do this unknowingly. I think it is something that you need to become more conscience of. "A baby is not a fully formed human being" is a strawman argument. Never did I claim that a baby was a fully formed human being. Here is what I actually said: "What I didn't claim is that a zygote is a baby or a homo sapiens. That would imply they are fully formed." Fully formed as in fully formed baby, or fully formed as in upright, fully formed homo sapiens adult. I do have something that proves that a zygote, at least one that is of the homo sapiens genome, is a human being. It is a quote from your own post: "How fully formed a human is has nothing to do with whether it is a human or not." Actually, perhaps you missed it I did prove that a zygote is a human being. Here is the link: http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=225348&page=18&p=1065752425#post1065752425 "...male and female haploid gametes (sperm and egg) unite to produce a genetically distinct individual.” “whereby the somatic chromosome number is restored and the development of a new individual is initiated.” “Human life begins at fertilization, the process during which a male gamete or sperm (spermatozoo development) unites with a female gamete or oocyte (ovum) to form a single cell called a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marked the beginning of each of us as a unique individual.” “A zygote is the beginning of a new human being (i.e., an embryo).” “The zygote is human life….there is one fact that no one can deny; Human beings begin at conception.” “The zygote and early embryo are living human organisms.” “….it is scientifically correct to say that human life begins at conception.” “The science of the development of the individual before birth is called embryology. It is the story of miracles, describing the means by which a single microscopic cell is transformed into a complex human being. Genetically the zygote is complete. It represents a new single celled individual.” "A zygote is the beginning of a new human being."
No where in your quotes does it say a fetus is a person or A human being........a zygote may be a BEGINNING but it is not complete...
We currently have a legal line between life and death. Brain Death. Brain Death In traditional Western medical practice, death was defined as the cessation of the body's circulatory and respiratory (blood pumping and breathing) functions. With the invention of machines that provide artificial circulation and respiration that definition has ceased to be practical and has been modified to include another category of death called brain death. People can now be kept alive using such machines even when their brains have effectively died and are no longer able to control their bodily functions. Moreover, in certain medical procedures, such as open-heart surgery, individuals do not breathe or pump blood on their own. Since it would be wrong to declare as dead all persons whose circulatory or respiratory systems are temporarily maintained by artificial means (a category that includes many patients undergoing surgery), the medical community has determined that an individual may be declared dead if brain death has occurredthat is, if the whole brain has ceased to function, or has entered what is sometimes called a persistent vegetative state. An individual whose brain stem (lower brain) has died is not able to maintain the vegetative functions of life, including respiration, circulation, and swallowing. According to the Uniform Determination of Death Act (§ 1, U.L.A. [1980]), from which most states have developed their brain death statutes, "An individual who has sustained either (1) irreversible cessation of circulatory and respiratory function, or (2) irreversible cessation of all functions of the entire brain, including the brain stem, is dead." Brain death becomes a crucial issue in part because of the importance of organ transplants. A brain-dead person may have organsa heart, a liver, and lungs, for examplethat could save other people's lives. And for an individual to be an acceptable organ donor, he or she must be dead but still breathing and circulating blood. If a brain-dead person is maintained on artificial respiration until his or her heart fails, then these usable organs would perish. Thus, the medical category of brain death makes it possible to accomplish another goal: saving lives with organ transplants. http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Death+and+Dying Logically it follows that the same line should go the other way. That human life is present when the brain starts to function at about 38 days. "A mere 16 days after conception, your fetuss neural plate forms (think of it as the foundation of your babys brain and spinal cord). It grows longer and folds onto itself, until that fold morphs into a groove, and that groove turns into a tube the neural tube. Once the neural tube closes, at around week 6 or week 7 of pregnancy, it curves and bulges into three sections, commonly known as the forebrain, midbrain and hindbrain. Just to the rear of the hindbrain sits the part that will soon turn into your babys spinal cord. Soon, these areas bubble into those five different regions of the brain that were most familiar with: the cerebrum, cerebellum, brain stem, pituitary gland and the hypothalamus. Of course, all of these fetal brain areas need more time to be fully up and running!" http://www.whattoexpect.com/pregnancy/fetal-brain-nervous-system/ I don't believe that abortion is ethical after this point except in cases where the mothers life is in danger. This does not mean the force of law should protect that life the same as a born child but penalties should be in place.
You should be more embarrassed for yourself, any person who is unable to question their own assertions and change their opinion is a true follower of dogma with a closed mind, but we knew that about you anyway.
I agree. While I don't disagree with the scientific understanding regarding early embryonic development, I don't think that it is necessary for novices to get into the minutia of the subject unless it is critical to the question at hand. If you believe that life begins at some stage relating to brain development, you are fully entitled to that opinion. I've made my opinion clear. You should know.
As I said I have no issue with changing my opinion when the evidence shows a change is required, you on the other hand would rather get wet than change your opinion that it is not raining ... a classic closed mind. My opinion was that life started at conception further research convinced me that opinion was incorrect and that the question of when life starts is irrelevant to the abortion debate, all I have done is to question your assertion that there is a consensus that agrees with your opinion, from the many comments and evidence here it is obvious there is not. I don't even have to propose an alternative in order to question your false consensus opinion, as it is obvious to anyone with even a basic ability to use a search engine. You may agree with those who propose that life starts at conception that however does not even come close to a consensus ergo your claim of a consensus is BS based on confirmation bias.
Gee you are right. I have been a bit rigid in my opinion. Your position makes much more sense than mine. I agree with your opinion as to when life begins. I have been persuaded by the scientific proof and evidence you have presented and by the plethora of opinions expressed by the consensus of scientists that agree with your understanding of when life begins. Did I forget to mention the supreme logical arguments and use of reason and critical thinking. I think that I am impressed by that the most. [/sarc]
I was asked for my position in the original OP and I was asked to support that position with citations which I did. I see no logical reason not to support brain function as the demarcation between alive and not alive. Beginning and end..
Good gracious .. I never said that you made such a claim. I was merely addressing your "fully formed human" banter. First off. Why did you say you did not claim that a zygote was a "Homo sapiens" and now you contradict yourself by saying it is a "human being" ? You really need to learn what words mean in relation to the abortion argument. Saying something is a Human Being means that it is a " Homo sapiens" Also - why are you posting 40 so called "proofs" that a zygote is a human ? Is one not enough ? one that you can defend ? Volumes of flawed "proof" does not make them any more flawed. You did pick a few out - thanks for that- and I will address each one. The sad thing is that I have already refuted each one of these to you already so why are you repeating things that have already shown to not support your claim ? Saying "this is a genetically distinct individual" is not the same as saying - this is a human. Not even close. 2) even if we substituted the word "human" for individual in to the sentence, it would then only constitute a naked claim. There is no " this makes it a human because" statement. It has already been proven to you that the mere having "DNA" does not necessarily make that entity a human. You need to try to figure this stuff out. Been though this already above but this claim is not even trying to say that a new human has been created. Describing something as a stage of product development. does not mean that product exists. This is just a string of naked claims "Human life begins at fertilization" 1) Just because human (descriptive adjective) life exists does not mean a "human" (Noun) exists. 2) this claim has not been proven true - Sperm and Egg are "human life" 3) colloquial descriptions (which this is) are often not meant to be taken literally. for example - a woman described as being "with child" can not be used a "proof" that a child actually exists. 4) the author makes no attempt to explain why the claim is true. There is no "It is a human because" or refutation of other perspectives which contradict this one. 5) the author is clearly a "pro life " advocate who is "intentionally" trying to fool people. She starts out with using the softer term "human life" - still fallacy but her target audience is an ignorant one. Then she uses the term "Unique individual" again this is a soft term which does not actually claim the zygote is a human being ... the term "unique" is used to give weight to her argument even thought "Uniqueness" has zero to do with whether something is a human or not. So no actual claim that the zygote is a human yet - Just stuff to make the reader think "this is stuff that bolsters her argument" when it does not. Then she spits it out the term "human being" ... "the zygote is the beginning of a new human being" 1) this is a naked claim - no explanation of why is given 2) the beginning of something is not necessarily that something so it can not be said that the statement is even claiming that a zygote is a human ... never mind constituting proof of claim. Repetition of the same claims as above. Every human cell is just as much as a living human organism as the zygote. Good for them but this does not magically turn human cells into living humans. "Human" is used as a descriptive adjective. Naked claim ... no explanation is given as to why this claim is true. Regardless, even if we accepted the claim as true it is not saying the zygote is a human. All human cells are human life. The claim "zygote is the beginning" is a naked claim - one that is disputed. 2) another example of Colloquial terminology 3) the beginning of something is not necessarily that something. 4) No explanation of why the claim is true is given 5) Despite the fact that the claim is naked (unsupported - no why is given) it is not actually claiming that the zygote is a human. A) None of the claims above actually state that the zygote is a human. B) none of the above claims constitutes proof that the zygote is a human, in fact most of the claims given are "naked" - do not prove themselves - never mind constitute proof that a zygote is a human. There is no "a zygote is a human" claim at all, never mind a statement that constitutes proof for that claim. " A zygote is a human because ....(followed by the reasons why it is a human)"
The fact that you are continuously parsing words in every sentence and each and every point only shows that you are missing the point. Life begins at conception. That is the thesis that is supported by the writings, articles or text book excerpts. The fact that they are worded differently is of no consequence. They are all arguments or statements which support the thesis. They are the evidence which supports the thesis. I don't have to provide evidence for each statement of fact. The abundance of evidence in support of the thesis is more than enough to prove the main argument that life begins at conception. The reason there is no claim that a zygote is a human is because while all humans were at one time a zygote, not all zygotes are humans. All mammals go through this stage of development. It's stupid that I have to point that out only because it will surely be challenged even though the subject is abortion and we are of course talking about humans. A zygote is a human zygote if it has human DNA. The fact that I have to state that goes to show how dumbed down the conversation gets when you parse every sentence. For instance, this is a common exchange: Life begins at conception. No, life began a long time ago. Human life begins at conception. No, humans have been around for 2 million years. Every human being begins life at conception. Human beings are multi-cellular organisms, not zygotes. Now at this point we have gotten away from the main point which is life begins at conception. Arguing each sentence does nothing to disprove the main point, life begins at conception. It all becomes worthless banter until and unless you can disprove the thesis, the evidence provided, or show flaws in the basic logic and reasoning. But you never do. It's all useless contradiction and nay-saying. I never see anyone presenting a definitive reply, and alternative thesis, evidence which refutes mine, evidence to prove their (non-existent) thesis and so on. Let's see if you do that in the next rebuttal, or will it be nothing more than a bunch of nay-saying and parsing of words.
Parsing words ? Quit making up nonsense. Give one example of me doing that. Do not blame me that you gave a bunch of so called "proof" that a zygote is a human but, none of your quotes even made that claim. Then in this post you stammer out "A zygote is a human zygote if it has human DNA" Having human DNA does not make a single human cell (zygote other human cell) a human. For the 10th time. Then after failing to provide any proof of your "zygote is a human" claim, you then attempt to change the goalposts by talking about life beginning at conception. Once again, do you have any proof for your " a human zygote is a human" claim that has not been refuted ? Get over it ... "Experts Disagree" Your claim "Science has proven" the zygote is a human is abject nonsense. I am both a scientist with degree's in chemistry and microbiology and work in microbiology on a daily basis as a function of the company I own. I do not mean for this to be a dick measuring contest but, I do have some clue what constitutes proof in science and what that proof looks like. Step 1: Define what a human is Step 2: Show that a human zygote meets this definition. I have given you the scientific definition of "Homo sapiens" .... clearly the zygote does not fit. If you wish to make a different definition feel free to do so. Experts in other areas such as Philosophy and Bioethics have made different arguments. I can even give you a couple if you like ... but "DO SOMETHING" other than continuing to repeat your claim over and over again thinking this constitutes proof of claim. I do not say that there is not a good argument out there. I just have yet to hear one. You do not even make arguments. You just keep repeating your claim.
