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.

[Bradskii]

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

I gave the usual definition of human being. Human life is any life of human origin.

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.

Correct.

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.

You didn't say 'becomes human'. Neither did I. I'm not sure why you would try to clarify something that no-one has said. This is what you said:

Science does not know exactly when the living being in its mother's womb becomes a human being.

I'm going to have to repeat myself yet again. From that sentence of yours above, whatever the woman is carrying at the moment of conception - a zygote, to save typing out the same phrase time after time, is not a human being. In your words it 'becomes a human being'. Just like an egg becomes a chick. Just like an acorn becomes a tree. An egg is not a chick. An acorn is not a tree.

So I'm not going to ask the question again 'Do you agree that a zygote is not a human being', because it's plainly obvious that that is your position.

 

[Bradskii]

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.

Agreed and agreed.

 

[o_mlly]

I gave the usual definition of human being. Human life is any life of human origin.

Am I to infer from that that you have evidence of a life of human origin that is not a human being? If not then you're only offering your opinion, aren't you?

You didn't say 'becomes human'. Neither did I. I'm not sure why you would try to clarify something that no-one has said.

Check the thread, yes you did.

I'm going to have to repeat myself yet again. From that sentence of yours above, whatever the woman is carrying at the moment of conception - a zygote, to save typing out the same phrase time after time, is not a human being

Repeating yourself does not improve the veracity of a false claim. Do you have verifiable evidence that "- a zygote ... is not a human being"? If not then you're only offering your opinion, aren't you?

So I'm not going to ask the question again 'Do you agree that a zygote is not a human being', because it's plainly obvious that that is your position.

Once again, you are asking the wrong question. My argument is that we know at the moment of conception, (science tells us so) that a living being comes into existence. Science cannot yet tell us that that living being is, or is not, a human being. Therefore, we are ignorant on the issue.

Same advice for you as I gave to the other poster: "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."

 

[Bradskii]

Science cannot yet tell us that that living being is, or is not, a human being.

One, that's not what is being argued. And two, I'm not interested anyway.

You said it becomes a human being. So at some point it obviously and logically wasn't. That's no longer up for discussion. We have your position.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Then why to you keep posting regarding my argument?

Because it is invalid. You just don't realize it. (or you just don't care)

Nope. Again, kindly read the posts.

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.

I already have given a rational rebuttal of your premises.

 

[o_mlly]

One, that's not what is being argued. And two, I'm not interested anyway.

You said it becomes a human being. So at some point it obviously and logically wasn't. That's no longer up for discussion. We have your position.

Because it is invalid. You just don't realize it. (or you just don't care)

I already have given a rational rebuttal of your premises.

The posters above have yet to directly challenge the argument. Why, might you ask? Because they obviously cannot.

The former would have us elevate his mere opinion as fact on the matter of the initiation of a human being. He forgets that the objectivity of truth derives from the existence of a reality that is independent of our minds and of our thinking about it. Rather than conform his mind to reality, he would have reality conform to his subjective mind. He repeatedly misquotes me and, although his logical errors have been shown, he clings to them having nothing else to offer.

The latter loudly proclaims simply that the argument is "invalid" without fully explaining how it is invalid. In a very narrow sense of what he thinks is science, he claims the argument "abuses" science. It does not. However, to placate this childish objection, he may substitute the phrase "human knowledge" for the word "science" in the argument.

 

[Hans Blaster]

The latter loudly proclaims simply that the argument is "invalid" without fully explaining how it is invalid.

I have multiple times. You are asking of science to determine something that is not in its domain.

In a very narrow sense of what he thinks is science, he claims the argument "abuses" science. It does not. However, to placate this childish objection, he may substitute the phrase "human knowledge" for the word "science" in the argument.

I would *NEVER* sully the name of science to equate it with a general notion of "human knowledge". You make poor assumptions about me. (Political "science", computer "science" are not Science.)

 

[Bradskii]

The former would have us elevate his mere opinion as fact...

We can only go with your opinion. Which is that at the moment of conception we don't have a human being. That it will become such in due course. Exactly when that happens is the only thing that we differ on.

 

[o_mlly]

I have multiple times. You are asking of science to determine something that is not in its domain.

I would *NEVER* sully the name of science to equate it with a general notion of "human knowledge". You make poor assumptions about me. (Political "science", computer "science" are not Science.)

I make no assumptions about you. But I would hope that you are rational since the argument is rational.

Since the argument and you agree that science has nothing to offer on the category of life in the mother's womb, we can dismiss your posts in this thread.

We can only go with your opinion. Which is that at the moment of conception we don't have a human being. That it will become such in due course. Exactly when that happens is the only thing that we differ on.

As this is a Christian forum, rather than think you being intellectually dishonest, I assume you are merely reading challenged.

Post#83:

If one is ignorant then one does not know if the living being is, or is not, a human being.

 

[Hans Blaster]

I make no assumptions about you. But I would hope that you are rational since the argument is rational.

Is an argument based on false or broken premises rational?

Since the argument and you agree that science has nothing to offer on the category of life in the mother's womb, we can dismiss your posts in this thread.

No. My posts demonstrate the error in your argument. You seem to be trying to invoke scientific knowledge to "win" the abortion debate. There is no way to do that. Both people who favor and oppose abortion understand the human development cycle and stages.

As this is a Christian forum, rather than think you being intellectually dishonest, I assume you are merely reading challenged.

I can read. I know what I think about your intellectual honesty.

Post#83: " If one is ignorant then one does not know if the living being is, or is not, a human being."

Since everything being discussed here is made of human cells, if it is a living being it is definitionally a human being.

We know it is living. We know it is made of human cells. The *only* thing left in your question is the state of being a "being" (or as others sometimes prefer "person".) That is *NOT* a scientific question, but a philosophical question.

 

[o_mlly]

Is an argument based on false or broken premises rational?

Of course not. But so far you have failed to show the rational falsity in P1, P2 or the Conclusion. Why not?

You seem to be trying to invoke scientific knowledge to "win" the abortion debate.

? Nope, I dismissed "science" in P1. However, I am in P1 invoking rational thought.

We both agree that science has nothing to offer on identifying the category of the living being in the mother's womb. On this matter we are ignorant. Right? P2 claims that that living being if left on its own could only be a human being. Right?

That is *NOT* a scientific question, but a philosophical question.

And this is not the Physical Sciences Forum.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Of course not. But so far you have failed to show the rational falsity in P1, P2 or the Conclusion. Why not?

Yes I have, repeatedly.

? Nope, I dismissed "science" in P1. However, I am in P1 invoking rational thought.

The premise is nonsense. Here it is again:

P1: Science does not know exactly when the living being in its mother's womb becomes a human being.

Structurally, this sentence has the same form as:

"Science does not know exactly when a living tree becomes an oak tree."

which is similarly nonsensical. A premise that is not nonsensical would have been something like "Science doesn't know when a zygote/embryo/fetus becomes a human being." To which the answer is: That is not the place of science to make that determination.

We both agree that science has nothing to offer on identifying the category of the living being in the mother's womb. On this matter we are ignorant. Right? P2 claims that that living being if left on its own could only be a human being. Right?

An argument that is broken on the first premise does not need a second. It can't be unbroken.

And this is not the Physical Sciences Forum.

Of that I am aware. I have avoided needed general science lessons.

 

[o_mlly]

Yes I have, repeatedly.

The premise is nonsense. Here it is again:

P1: Science does not know exactly when the living being in its mother's womb becomes a human being.

Structurally, this sentence has the same form as:

"Science does not know exactly when a living tree becomes an oak tree."

which is similarly nonsensical. A premise that is not nonsensical would have been something like "Science doesn't know when a zygote/embryo/fetus becomes a human being." To which the answer is: That is not the place of science to make that determination.

An argument that is broken on the first premise does not need a second. It can't be unbroken.

Of that I am aware. I have avoided needed general science lessons.

No, you have not directly addressed the argument in its premises or conclusion. Rather, you have repeatedly deflected using nonsensical rabbit holes. Your latest rabbit hole leaves the mammalian category and invites us to go down a "tree" hole.

Only those with an open mind can be persuaded. Based on your replies, I judge that your mind is closed so I will only respond to your new posts that directly address the simple argument put forward.

 

[Hans Blaster]

No, you have not directly addressed the argument in its premises or conclusion. Rather, you have repeatedly deflected using nonsensical rabbit holes. Your latest rabbit hole leaves the mammalian category and invites us to go down a "tree" hole.

I have addressed the first "premise" of your "argument" multiple times. You seem incapable of grasping your failure.

Only those with an open mind can be persuaded. Based on your replies, I judge that your mind is closed so I will only respond to your new posts that directly address the simple argument put forward.

I see no attempt to persuade, only to obfuscate and weave.