The husband of our vice president is telling men to "step up" to defend the right to kill a child. Real men will see through this evil charade.

[RileyG]

It seems to me that you start off with an egg cell and a sperm cell, which are not human beings, and they combine to form a human being as a zygote. Prior to zygote, not a human being. Zygote, human being. I don't think this is really important, though, since the zygote becomes an embryo before anybody starts caring about it.

Most women probably aren't aware they are pregnant yet when it's still a zygote?

Even if people don't care...that doesn't mean its humanity disappears.

 

[tall73]

Something that is non-human doesn't suddenly become human.

It's either human or it isn't.

Agreed.

Though, as he also pointed out, a hair on a brush might be human as well. But in this case, after conception, you have a living being, with Human DNA. How is it not a human being?

 

[RileyG]

Agreed.

Though, as he also pointed out, a hair on a brush might be human as well. But in this case, after conception, you have a living being, with Human DNA. How is it not a human being?

I don't know how to answer that or wrap my mind around pro-choice logic.

Makes no sense to me, personally.

 

[tall73]

It seems to me that you start off with an egg cell and a sperm cell, which are not human beings, and they combine to form a human being as a zygote.

Seems correct. I am not sure Bradskii was actually denying that. He seemed to be more honing in on the logic underlying the argument.

 

[tall73]

I don't know how to answer that or wrap my mind around pro-choice logic.

Makes no sense to me, personally.

It was neither pro-choice or pro-life. He was just saying that human is human. And it is a living being. So it is a human being.

A hair in a brush, or blood extracted by a mosquito would be human material, but not a human being, because it is not a living being.

 

[Yttrium]

Most women probably aren't aware they are pregnant yet when it's still a zygote?

Even if people don't care...that doesn't mean its humanity disappears.

The zygote stage only lasts about 5 to 6 days.

 

[RileyG]

The zygote stage only lasts about 5 to 6 days.

I'm aware.

 

[RileyG]

It was neither pro-choice or pro-life. He was just saying that human is human. And it is a living being. So it is a human being.

Ok.

My mistake.

 

[Bradskii]

It seems to me that you start off with an egg cell and a sperm cell, which are not human beings, and they combine to form a human being as a zygote. Prior to zygote, not a human being. Zygote, human being. I don't think this is really important, though, since the zygote becomes an embryo before anybody starts caring about it.

We're going with the proposal given. It becomes a human being at some point and o_mlly seems not to know what that point is. Or at least says that science doesn't know. The argument being that if we don't know then we should play safe and not abort at any time.

At no time has there been a suggestion that we have a human being at the point of conception. That is, a zygote. If that was the case then I'd reject that claim (it is human and a potential person or human being if that's the preferred term) and I'd use the example of a woman losing her pregnancy a week after conception and a week before birth. She's possibly disappointed in the first case and traumatised in the second. She obviously doesn't consider them the same. Neither do I.

To add weight to that position there's the hypothetical when there's a fire and you can only save a baby or a couple of test tubes with frozen embryos. No reasonable person would sacrifice the kid and save the embryos.

 

[Bradskii]

Something that is non-human doesn't suddenly become human.

It's either human or it isn't.

All of it was human before the egg was even fertilised. Just like your toenail or your tonsils. It's all human. It all has human dna. But I'm correlating 'human being' with 'person'. If someone prefers the former, then I've no problem. But I disagree with Hans that a zygote for example is a 'human being'. Human? Yes. 'Human being'? The common definition being: 'a man, woman, or child of the species Homo sapiens'. Obviously not.

 

[RileyG]

All of it was human before the egg was even fertilised. Just like your toenail or your tonsils. It's all human. It all has human dna. But I'm correlating 'human being' with 'person'. If someone prefers the former, then I've no problem. But I disagree with Hans that a zygote for example is a 'human being'. Human? Yes. 'Human being'? The common definition being: 'a man, woman, or child of the species Homo sapiens'. Obviously not.

Thanks for clarifying. I obviously misunderstood.

 

[Bradskii]

Thanks for clarifying. I obviously misunderstood.

No problem. I was going to give your post a heart icon, but...it seems too My-Little-Pony to me.

 

[RileyG]

No problem. I was going to give your post a heart icon, but...it seems too My-Little-Pony to me.

Lol, it’s all good

 

[o_mlly]

To become something obviously means that you are not that thing to begin with. So to become a human being you start off not being a human being in the first place.

The error in your logic is the misuse of the word "you". Just as there is no water prior to the combination of the elements, there is no "you" prior to the union of the sperm and ovum.

The very first stage of human life is a zygote. If that is to become a human being then the zygote cannot be a human being.

Firstly, exactly what is the essential difference between a "human life" and a "human being"?

Secondly, my argument does claim that in the early stages of gestation, that a living being exists. I do not scientifically claim that that being is a human being. The living being that comes into existence at the moment the egg and sperm unite is either a human being or it is not. On that question, science is ignorant. Therefore, the notion that a living being "becomes human" does not apply.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Again, your contention only serves to strengthen the argument that killing the unborn is unconscionable.

I am not engaged in the moral argument, only your abuse of "science".

I don't see the point you are trying to make. Can you clarify or expand?

It is a dictionary definition. Go consult a dictionary to find out more of what it thinks.

And exactly when does science inform us of that that "point of development" from non-human to human being occurs?

It doesn't. There is no transition of any living tissue from non-human to human. Not in the last few million years.

Yes, science is ignorant and offers no help in that determination as specified in P1.

You are asking science to tell you when human tissues become human. The answer is ca. 3 Mya. The rest is all about defining what a "being" is and if it is moral to destroy it. Science can provide you with some background information if you specify what facts of human development you want to consider in your moral decision tree, but it can not answer the moral questions for you. (Nor should it.)

No, that would be reality that determines. Science merely discovers.

However, I see in your posts that you want to dismiss science as a field of knowledge that can offer anything to this issue.

Science can't answer the moral questions, but it can provide information you may use in your consideration of the moral and legal questions. I have detailed some of those already.

So do I.

Then why are you bringing it up?

 

[Hans Blaster]

Seems reasonable. But I am not sure how "human being" became the destination, or how it wasn't already the starting point at conception.

Because someone else wants to play silly semantic games a "proof" against abortion.

 

[Hans Blaster]

All of it was human before the egg was even fertilised. Just like your toenail or your tonsils. It's all human. It all has human dna. But I'm correlating 'human being' with 'person'. If someone prefers the former, then I've no problem. But I disagree with Hans that a zygote for example is a 'human being'. Human? Yes. 'Human being'? The common definition being: 'a man, woman, or child of the species Homo sapiens'. Obviously not.

I'm not actually claiming a zygote is a human being, only that I don't really care and the science isn't in the "when is it a being/person or not" game. Coming up with a "scientific" definition of human being (transition to being a being) isn't going to resolve the "abortion debate" or win it for anyone.

 

[o_mlly]

I am not engaged in the moral argument ...

Neither am I engaged in a moral argument.

Go consult a dictionary to find out more of what it thinks.

As a so-called man of science, you do know that dictionaries are inanimate and do not think.

There is no transition of any living tissue from non-human to human.

So, I have posted many times in this thread.

You are asking science to tell you when human tissues become human.

Nope. Kindly read the posts.

Science can't answer the moral questions ...

As already posted, there is not moral question to be answered in my argument. Unless you think that the wanton killing of living beings in ignorance of their humanity is in need of debate.

It seems you have nothing to offer to challenge my argument.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Neither am I engaged in a moral argument.

You're just trying to bait us into one. Not. Gonna. Do it.

As a so-called man of science, you do know that dictionaries are inanimate and do not think.

You asked me to elaborate my meaning for text I copied from a dictionary search. You are asking the wrong person. (And drop the "so-called" garbage.

So, I have posted many times in this thread.

Nope. Kindly read the posts.

As already posted, there is not moral question to be answered in my argument. Unless you think that the wanton killing of living beings in ignorance of their humanity is in need of debate.

Sure there is. You falsely put the definition the back of science to determine when the threshold for moral acceptability of said destruction isn't "wanton killing of living being" (or rather as anyone should suspect, to define it such that no such destruction of a human embryo or fetus could ever escape that definition of immorality.) This is not a scientific question, and I don't think you are so clueless as to not know that.

It seems you have nothing to offer to challenge my argument.

Your "challenge" was ill posed.

 

[o_mlly]

You're just trying to bait us into one. Not. Gonna. Do it.

Then why to you keep posting regarding my argument?

You asked me to elaborate my meaning for text I copied from a dictionary search. You are asking the wrong person.

Nope. Again, kindly read the posts.

You falsely put the definition the back of science to determine when the threshold for moral acceptability of said destruction isn't "wanton killing of living being" (or rather as anyone should suspect, to define it such that no such destruction of a human embryo or fetus could ever escape that definition of immorality.) This is not a scientific question, and I don't think you are so clueless as to not know that.

Please stop creating more rabbit holes and deflections and directly defeat my argument; I even gave you a few tips on how you might attempt to do so. Do you have a rational rebuttal or not? Seems not.