What is it? Part II

Hilarious that you claim to not know which article is being referred to when we have been talking about this specific article in numerous consecutive posts and you post from this article in this post.

What part of "when life begins" begins did you not understand. There is no difference between "new human life" and human life for the purposes of my responses or the authors obfuscation as all the "perspectives" on when life begins are referring to "new human life".

You have presented zero refutation to anything I had stated in my post.

It would not make a difference as the perspectives which disagree with the author are also referring to "new human life".

.

What part of "it is an obfuscation that we do not know when life begins" do you not understand ? The author is talking about anyone who claims "we do not know when life begins"

The fact that there is no consensus proves that it is "NOT" an obfuscation to say that we do not know when life begins.

The fact of the matter that the Authors perspective has fallen out of favor with many scientists.

Simply put, the editor is flat out wrong.

It is absolute nonsense to claim that those that hold other perspectives do so frequently because of religious belief.

If you write a paper that categorically states that life begins at conception ... yes, you need to address at least some of the dominant claims to the contrary in order to not be laughed out of the room.

It is not my opinion that there are other perspectives, it is a statement of fact. I have proved this to you before but would be happy to do so again if you wish to be publically humiliated.

I will address this in the next post.

 

Joy , happiness .... the Author is finally going to tell us why a zygote is a living human, or is she ?

Of course the zygote acts as a complete whole .. other than the fact that the environment which the zygote is in an intrinsic part of its existence.

The zygote continues developing towards its mature state. OK but what is meant by this. Once the zygote divides it ceases to exist as a zygote. The DNA continues on in the daughter cells but the zygote, as a whole unit is gone. No clarification is given so not much more can be said.

Regardless no reason is given as to why the zygote is a living human.

Still talking about the zygote but nothing telling us why it is a human at this point.

The zygote initiates a program of development ! Indeed it does however it is really the DNA which controls the activity of the cell but ok.

What is this program of development initiated by the zygote ? It is a program to form the definitive body. A program to form the structure of a human.

This is exactly what I have said to you numerous times except I give a more detailed explanation. The DNA inside the zygote initiates a program the objective of which is to create the human structure.

No part of this structure exists at the zygote stage, not one single cell. Not one cell of the structure that is to be created exists at the zygote stage.

No human exists at the zygote stage.

What coordinated behavior ? Initiating the process which will result in the creation of a human.

Does initiating a process which will result in the creation of a human make the zygote a human ? Interesting question.

So the authors argument is " The zygote is a human because it initiates a process that will result in the creation of a human"

Do you agree with the Author ?

 

1. In the interim, I had posted excerpts from another abortion article / link: JustFacts.com

Did you miss that?

Also

2. When I reply to a post, I don't normally pre-read it. So, it was only after getting further into the reply that it became obvious - which article you were referring to. I had hoped you would have read and considered the 2nd article and indeed the two articles together by now.

Any reader willing to scroll back through your posts will find your comments about "life being a continuum" pap - when you knew (or should have known) that the topic was not about "when did life begin - in the general." The topic the author was (is) trying to address is "when does a human (individual's) life begin."

You are trying to add confusions where there is none.

That is called 'obfuscation."

In

Your

..... you know the rest.

I understand the author completely - and I agree with him / her.

Rather I agree with that particular comment in the context in which it was written.

I would only add (the above in bold) "A" to that.

You have not demonstrated anything to me that supports your claim - that there is no consensus among scientists as to when A human life begins.

Indeed, claiming that there is no consensus (when there is enough of one) is an obfuscation in and of itself.

Unsupported, appeal to ridicule, poisoning the well... blah blah blah.

in

your

..... fill in the blank.

Read the quote again.

Show me where the author is claiming " those that hold other perspectives do so frequently because of religious belief."

You have completely twisted what he /she actually said.

The author is saying that people are using obfuscations - when they bring religion INTO the debate - as a means to turn it into a philosophical question - instead of focusing on the science.

Appeal to ridicule. noted.

There is no such requirement nor expectation.

Have I ever doubted that there are any other 'opinions' on when and how a human life begins?

 

The title of the paper is "When does human life begin" not When does a human life begin.

You want to add a word and call me the one who is obfuscating. What is sillier is that for the purposes of anything I have said it does not matter which terminology is used.

That you add a word to the Authors paper and then accuse me of getting the perspective wrong is priceless. This is just you trying to avoid the fact that you are wrong.

You do not even know what you are agreeing with.... clearly as you have to add a word here and there to make it fit what you want the article to say.

You have not demonstrated any consensus. You have not even been able to come up with a reason why your claim is true.

.

What is unsupported is your claim that a zygote is a human

The Author is wrong ... sorry if this troubles you. There is no consensus that human life begins at conception or "a human life begins at conception"

Here is a link to a chapter in a college level developmental biology textbook which describes the different perspectives and discusses that the genetic perspective has fallen out of favor and gives the reason why.

http://biology.franklincollege.edu/Bioweb/Biology/course_p/bioethics/When does human life begin.pdf

Maybe in the world of Chuz when Chuz agrees with a claim an author does not need to address or refute positions that contradict the authors claim but in the real world, and especially in science, certain standards apply.

One of those standards is a peer review process where perspectives that contradict the Authors position are brought up.

If an Author makes bold claims such as " We know when human life begins", this claim must show that the contradictory claims are false.

Perhaps that is your problem. Lack of objectivity and narrow mindedness.

 

You seem to be the only one that is confused here.

The paper (article) was submitted because we were debating ZYGOTES and the origins of A human life and whether or not a human being in the zygote stage of their life is A did you really forget that?

Also, the paper itself uses 'a human being' at least five times in the article as it gives the scientific reasoning for why a human zygote is one.

Aren't laws a sign of a consensus?

Sure I have.

In
your
opinion.

It also provides the (should be obvious) rebuttal to that 'falling out.'

Did you miss it?

Poorly worded but the point is well made.

Remaining personal attacks omitted for brevity's sake.

 

Here is your quote from the paper on when life begins that you think gives a reason for why a zygote is a living human.

So lets see if there is any rational for why a zygote is a human.

It is the DNA that directs the activities of the cell so this would be a more technically correct description of what is happening but no matter, this is describing the formation of the zygote after fusion.

The Author does not comment on what is meant by "its mature state" so we can only guess what is meant here.

Perhaps this commentary on the genetic perspective from a developmental biology textbook can shed some light on what the author means.

Perhaps the Author is referring to a mature or later phase of the fertilization process.

Regardless of what the author means; no reason so far as to why the zygote is a human.

More info on the development of the zygote.

Here the Author states what I have stated numerous times although I give a more technically correct description.

The DNA in the zygote initiates a program which will result in the formation/creation of the "definitive body".

The zygote cell will never be part of this definitive body and in fact ceases to exist after the first mitotic division. The DNA however carries on implementing the program of creation.

Interesting stuff but nothing here stating why a zygote is a human. (In fact it is not even stated that the zygote is a human)

The author is arguing that the zygote should be considered an organism because it is exhibiting coordinated behaviour.

While it is interesting to ponder whether or not the zygote should be considered an organism on the basis of "coordinated behaviour", the fact of the matter is that the zygote is not yet considered an organism at least by some experts.

http://en.allexperts.com/q/Biology-664/species-membership.htm

Whether or not the zygote is an organism matters not to the question at hand.

Not only are there no reasons given for why a zygote is a human, your quote does not even claim that a zygote is a human.

This unfortunately means that you still have not come up with a single reason why a zygote is a human.

 

Enough bickering already.

I'm beginning to see that your not even capable of admitting that you are wrong about anything.

Ontogeny

Ontogeny (morphogenesis) describes the origin and the development of an organism from the fertilized egg to its mature (adult) form.

 

ROFL You put forward a quote from a paper that you claim explained why a zygote is a human.

It turns out that there is nothing in that quote that states a zygote is a human never mind giving a reason for why a zygote is a human...

And you accuse me of not being able to admit wrong.

Talk about pot calling kettle black.

 

Quote where I said the definition 'proves' that a human being in the zygote stage of their life is "a human being."

Ontogeny is the developmental history of an organism from its origin to maturity. It starts with fertilization and ends with the attainment of an adult state, usually expressed in terms of both maximal body size and sexual maturity...

I'm going to continue posting links and definitions such as this - just to see how far you will go to maintain your denials - AND to inform others on some of these facts.

Nothing else seems to have an effect.

 

LOL you completely dodged the fact that the paper that you claimed supported your position did not.

Quoting a definition from some other source does not change that fact.

How does the definition of a discipline which looks at the developmental history of an organism from fertilization through birth explain why a single human cell is a human ?

I have addressed all your points. You are the one who ignores my posts refuting your points.

You have yet to produce anything that explains why a zygote is a human.

Give one argument that you have made that I have not refuted ? (as they all turned out not to explain why a zygote is a human)

 

May I try to explain why a zygote is a human?

 

I would be overjoyed if you were able to do so.

 

Might as well since Chuz Life has been banned.

 

Good. My head hurts from banging it against the wall.

 

Yes, I get migraines from this sort of thing too sometimes. lol

 

I should probably post a list of common comments from lifers that do not answer the question "why is a zygote a human"

1) Restating the premise ( Its a human because its a human)

2) Appeal to Authority (Its a human because some group made a law) nor does it explain why a zygote is a human.

Hitler made a law that claimed Jews were subhuman. The fact that some group makes a law that makes a claim does not make that claim true.

3) Look this definition I found on some website or in some dictionary says a zygote is a human. This is someone restating your claim which only means that someone agrees with you. I can and have posted relevant experts that disagree. Restating a claim does not explain why a zygote is a human see (1)

4) Some expert said, "a zygote is a human" Same as (3) I have experts that claim otherwise but neither claim has any merit unless reasons are given as to why that claim is true.

5) Its not a cat or a dog, what is it if not a human. The fact that something is not a cat or dog does not make it a human so even if I did not know what it was, not knowing does not make it a human.

In fact, and there is no disagreement from either side on this, the zygote is a single human cell.

6) The zygote is a human because it will become a human. That the zygote "may" become a human, or multiple humans, at some point in the future does not make it a human now.

Further it does not seem technically correct to say that the zygote will become a human when that cell will never be part of the structure of the human undergoing creation.

The zygote does not become the human and it does not exist as a single cell for very long. The DNA within the zygote is implementing a process of creation.

Regardless of the debate surrounding the semantics of the creation process, stating that a human will be created in the future or the zygote will become a human in the future does not make that entity a human now.

I likely missed a few but these are the most often used fallacies (6 could be argued in a way that is not fallacy however, for some reasons lifer's do not go down this road)

 

All good points but I have always disliked the invoking of Godwin's Law in any debate, even if it ever so clearly makes your point. lol

 

Perhaps I should use recent legislation in some African countries which outlaw being gay or in Muslim countries which relegate women to a lower level than men.

At the end of the day - stating "its a law" gives no reason as to why the claims in that law are true.

 

Couldn't agree more. Appeal to Authority is a waste of time because if they are going to appeal to authority and laws then why don't we just point them right back at Roe v Wade which they clearly disagree with? lmao

 

Is failing logic class a criteria for membership in the anti abortion movement ?

 

Meh, I wouldn't say all pro-choicers are totally perfect either. I have seen plenty on our side use appeals to emotion and other logical fallacies. Haha~

It goes both ways.

 

Fair enough but I have yet to see a lifer, on this site or anywhere, that does not rely on fallacy.

 

I do it a lot for one reason, to use the very type of arguments pro-lifers use, I enjoy watching them squirm when laws etc are put to them that directly blow their whole premise full of holes.

as the saying goes .. when in Rome ...

 

Oh seriously, every time I see an appeal to law I am like, yeah? While your UVVA law states this and that my Roe v Wade states this, and RvW trumps your UVVA any day. lmao

What's the point of appealing to law when you totally disagree with a law that says abortion is ok? I don't get it.

 

Neither do I, but it is pretty funny watching them try to defend against laws that don't adhere to their way of thinking .. it usually boils down to them saying "it's a bad law", as soon as I see that I know they have nothing but their own preconceived ideology