US Federal Law, The Fetus/Embryo Is A Human Being.

Douglas Hendrickson said:

Sorry you cannot see there are two (or more) different claims at play here. My claim and your "interpretation."

Click to expand...

SPF is posting reference that uses the terms properly. You are using the terms with your personal bias.

Douglas Hendrickson said:

It means to be born - I know that much.

Click to expand...

No that isn't the definition of a human individual.

Douglas Hendrickson said:

All I ask is for REFLECTION ON MY CLAIM,

Click to expand...

your claim is behind the curve in the current debate amongst philosophers and theologians

SPF said:

Human beings in the womb act exactly like they’re supposed to, doing what real human beings do. The development of human beings lasts about 25 years. We act differently and have different capabilities at the different levels of development. I don’t compare toddler activities to adult activities, nor would I compare activities in a womb to activities outside a womb. But we are still talking about a human being at whatever stage of development they’re at.

And Don’t think it goes unnoticed to myself and everyone following along that you have not been able to provide any outside support for your opinions.

Click to expand...

I don't, like you, BELIEVE IN EMPLOYING THE LOGICAL FALLACY of an appeal to Authority.

SPF said:

... nor would I compare activities in a womb to activities outside a womb.

Click to expand...

That's a wise course to follow, since there is no comparison.

Douglas Hendrickson said:

I don't like you BELIEVE IN EMPLOYING THE LOGICAL FALLACY of an appeal to Authority.

Click to expand...

The reality is you can’t support your position with anything other than capital letters and pink text. You don’t respond with resources because none exist that would actually support your view.

If asked to write a paper on your position you would fail because you would have no bibliography.

And don’t think it went unnoticed that you didn’t actually respond to the content of the post you quoted.

Eloy Craft said:

your claim is behind the curve in the current debate amongst philosophers and theologians

Click to expand...

Prove it!

Douglas Hendrickson said:

That's a wise course to follow, since there is no comparison.

Click to expand...

Correct, because human beings inside the womb act differently than human beings outside the womb. Again, I also wouldn’t compare an infant’s behavior to an adult’s behavior as they are at different levels of development. But of course, all are still human beings.

Douglas Hendrickson said:

Prove it!

Click to expand...

It has been proven with all of the cited material I’ve provided.

SPF said:

Correct, because human beings inside the womb act differently than human beings outside the womb. Again, I also wouldn’t compare an infant’s behavior to an adult’s behavior as they are at different levels of development. But of course, all are still human beings.

Click to expand...

Because you say so. "Of course."

And there are even supposedly biologically informed people that say so.

SPF said:

It has been proven with all of the cited material I’ve provided.

Click to expand...

I doubt you've ever even quoted any recent philosopher's or theologian's views.

Either to "prove" your point, or the other guy's who mentioned theology and philosophy.

Douglas Hendrickson said:

Prove it!

Click to expand...

What would prove it to you? Links to 'authoritative' websites? That isn't a problem. You were claiming that a logical fallacy. For me to bother with that I need you to offer a reason that the rebuttals I post to you are not true. You must not put these aside as that implies they are a threat.

A consensus of embryonic biologists agree ( no significant number disagrees if any number)that a human individual begins at fertilization. Philosophers and Theologians debate whether or not a human individual is a person. Their arguments involves the debate surrounding ensoulment. A debate you should be familiar with. The consensus among them all is that life is a continuum. This consensus forms the basis for meaningful discussion. Your argument inherently denies that life is a continuum. Therefor no meaningful discussion is possible.
I posted this as a main theme and it got ignored. Science recognizes human life as a continuum. In fact so do the sciences of Philosophy and Theology. Do you disagree?

Douglas Hendrickson said:

"IT" is existing ("being") as human flesh, just like your arm or anything else COMPOSED OF HUMAN CELLS.

Click to expand...

Your claim is inaccurate on a couple of levels. A human arm is said to be human life but does not possess human life. In other words as human life it is contingent and is not in of it'self human life. The zygote is human life that is not contingent but exist's in of it'self as human life. Also, a human arm is not a continuum of human life. A zygote is. A human arm isn't directing it's own growth, cut off from the human life that is directing it's growth, it decomposes and seizes to be human life. Can you refute these claims?

Douglas Hendrickson said:

I never say a cancer is a being an human individual.

Click to expand...

Since there exists a consensus that the embryo is an individual human being, when you claim that a cancer cell is the same as an embryo you are saying that a cancer cell is an individual human being. You must prove that the arguments of the consensus are wrong to be able to make your claim that an embryo is like a cancer cell.

Eloy Craft said:

your answer doesn't include what it means to be a human individual. Apparently you don't know.

Click to expand...

Your answer below is an odd claim. What change in the body of the child occurs that proves it is not an individual human being inside the womb and a moment later that it is outside the womb?

Douglas Hendrickson said:

It means to be born - I know that much.

Click to expand...

Eloy Craft said:

The consensus among them all is that life is a continuum.

Click to expand...

Eloy Craft said:

Your argument inherently denies that life is a continuum. Therefor no meaningful discussion is possible.
I posted this as a main theme and it got ignored.

Click to expand...

I don't think you posted that - at least I didn't see it.

Your claim that my argument "inherently denies that life is a continuum" is a bit much.
You certainly cannot quote me saying that is not true, that it is not true that life is a continuum. Seems "inherently denies" is simply another way of claiming I said something I never said.

Of course "life is a continuum." It NEVER STOPS.
I specifically posted on this thread that there is no new life at conception, for even that comes from the life of the sperm and the egg. And of course their life, THE LIFE THEY HAVE (and the zygote continues to have) comes from the life found in the person producing the egg, and the life present in the person producing the sperm.

Eloy Craft said:

A human arm is said to be human life but does not possess human life. In other words as human life it is contingent and is not in of it'self human life. The zygote is human life that is not contingent but exist's in of it'self as human life. Also, a human arm is not a continuum of human life. A zygote is. A human arm isn't directing it's own growth, cut off from the human life that is directing it's growth, it decomposes and seizes to be human life. Can you refute these claims?

Click to expand...

Now the zygote ITSELF is a "continuum of human life." Really? Continuing from where to where?
It is one cell - when it exists is ONLY one cell. That is a continuum, what you mean by "continuum"?

Perhaps you think a zygote is more and better than an arm, since it is a continuum. Perhaps you mean to say it is ON a continuum, but then I suppose ANYTHING can be seen in some way or another to be "on a continuum.
NO ONE THING is ever a continuum, I think.

Eloy Craft said:

when you claim that a cancer cell is the same as an embryo

Click to expand...

This is falsity.
NOWHERE have I said that.

If you wish to attribute something to me, please, please quote me.
(It is not at though I have never written here on these matters, I think.)

[Note if you do not want me to miss something, do not post big bunches of things all at once in the same post. I can't answer four questions all at once, and after I have answered one or two I may forget there are others to go back to. Just a note on the limitations of my memory, Sorry.]

Eloy Craft said:

What change in the body of the child occurs that proves it is not an individual human being inside the womb and a moment later that it is outside the womb?

Click to expand...

Well, there are quite a lot of them.
A number of systems (organs) only begin to work at birth, when there is a person born. A digestive system - would that be good for you? I mean mean that COULD YOU THEN BE A HUMAN BEING?

Not to mention BREATHING without which everyone is dead.

But I digress,
DOUGLAS