"... breathed into his nostrils THE BREATH OF LIFE..."

[Douglas Hendrickson]

It is new none the less, because itś half of the fatherś DNA plus half of the mother's DNA combined in one fertilized egg cell.
So this human first cell is not the mother or the father, it is a new human being in the first stages of development.
Alright, it is the life of the parents that is inherited by the newcomer.
But from the point of conception (egg cell fertilized) onward, it is a new human life by itself.
But it still has to develop into a baby ready to be born.

So where would we then draw the line?
When is the stage reached that we can speak of a person?
I mean, assume a woman gets pregnant when she didn't want to? (failing preservatives, rape, ... )
And / or it would be better not to go through with it? (physical reasons, psychological reasons, ... )
How long can you wait to decide?

"New human first cells" (to roughly quote you) is correct, but you have no warrant for calling it "a new human being in the first stages of development." I'll grant you the NEW DNA part, but DNA does not a person make, as in the case of cancer cells and the severed arm. It has potential to become, to be built into, to develop into an actual person baby, but what is "potential" includes the element of being not actual, not actually a person.

To answer your question, at birth is when it becomes a human being. See post #76.

 

[Hieronymus]

"New human first cells" (to roughly quote you) is correct, but you have no warrant for calling it "a new human being in the first stages of development." I'll grant you the NEW DNA part, but DNA does not a person make, as in the case of cancer cells and the severed arm. It has potential to become, to be built into, to develop into an actual person baby, but what is "potential" includes the element of being not actual, not actually a person.

To answer your question, at birth is when it becomes a human being. See post #76.

You're mixing terms...
A human being is a being of the human kind from conception until death.
This is the life lived by an organism.
The question now is when can we speak of a person?
Another question is how long can one wait to decide for an abortion (when there are reasons to consider it)?

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

Yes, most would recognize that. But most would also exclaim that there was a chick in their egg if they cracked it open and found a formed bird rather than a yellow glob in clear, viscous fluid. Things are what they are. Both of my sons were born six weeks premature. By the "not alive until born" point of view, had these two perfectly viable lives been aborted two days before they were born, they wouldn't be life, just fetuses. But their birth demonstrated the integrity of their very real human lives.

Of course "'not alive until born' point of view" is a spurious mis-representation; "not a life" or "not an alive human being" would be more accurate.
And (this is perhaps a quibble?) their birth did NOT demonstrate the integrity of their very real human lives - it was AFTER BIRTH that that came. Once birth had happened that was the case.
BTW, they were life as fetuses, i.e. they were alive. (Until aborted, IF...)

 

[AFrazier]

" Adam " is a fiction, so it really doesn't matter

To quote the physicist W. Pauli - " Not even wrong "

Prove it.

 

[Isaacsname]

Prove it ?

And what would you do if I did ?

and how would you even know if I " proved it " ?

 

[AFrazier]

Of course "'not alive until born' point of view" is a spurious mis-representation; "not a life" or "not an alive human being" would be more accurate.
And (this is perhaps a quibble?) their birth did NOT demonstrate the integrity of their very real human lives - it was AFTER BIRTH that that came. Once birth had happened that was the case.
BTW, they were life as fetuses, i.e. they were alive. (Until aborted, IF...)

This is a contradiction in purpose. If a fetus is alive, then it is human. Trying to give it some other name for the purpose of disqualifying it as human is like trying to say that a joey isn't a kangaroo since it's still small and in the pouch, which is a reasonable enough of a comparison since the pouch is where the developmental process occurs for a marsupial. Life is life. Not life is not life. And each life, although categorized by its developmental stage, still belongs to its own genus.

 

[AFrazier]

Prove it ?

And what would you do if I did ?

and how would you even know if I " proved it " ?

The Bible is a valid history book, corroborated by plenty of secular histories, as well as by archaeology. If it says there was a man named Adam, then there is every reason to believe that there was a man named Adam. You want to say he's a fiction. The burden is on you to prove it. Not me. And if you did actually prove it, then I would reconsider some of the conclusions I've come to over the years. Wisdom considers first and reacts last. If you have any valid and credible proof, I'm all ears.

 

[civilwarbuff]

Prove it ?

And what would you do if I did ?

and how would you even know if I " proved it " ?

You made the statement....back up your claim.....

 

[Isaacsname]

Gee, I mean, if I could " prove it ", I would be " proving it " for the entire world

Sounds like a daunting task that would require some serious knowledge and insight

For certain couldn't be done in the space a of a few small forum posts

But you still haven't answered my question about whether or not you grasp the nature of " proof ", since that's what you are asking for

Why would I waste my time composing a " proof " when most people don't comprehend what " proof " actually means, or what it entails ?

See, when somebody says " prove it ", the first thing that runs through my mind is " does this person even understand what they are asking for ? "

 

[AFrazier]

Gee, I mean, if I could " prove it ", I would be " proving it " for the entire world

Sounds like a daunting task that would require some serious knowledge and insight

For certain couldn't be done in the space a of a few small forum posts

But you still haven't answered my question about whether or not you grasp the nature of " proof ", since that's what you are asking for

Why would I waste my time composing a " proof " when most people don't comprehend what " proof " actually means, or what it entails ?

See, when somebody says " prove it ", the first thing that runs through my mind is " does this person even understand what they are asking for ? "

To "prove" something is to demonstrate with tangible and credible fact that a given proposition is true. I have been working on an academic project for the last 16 years. I'm well familiar with the need to substantiate statements, and to judge the statements of others objectively based upon the substantiation provided. I am also quite used to hunting down facts to either validate or invalidate the positions of others on any number of topics.

So I do understand what I mean when I ask you to prove your statement. Like any college grad writing a paper, your statement is your thesis. It is now up to you to demonstrate with facts that it is correct, taking it from hypothesis to theory, whereas the one is an educated guess without fact, and the other is a proven position with evidence.

You say Adam is fiction. Prove it.

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

When I sigh my last breath I'm not going to stop being human. I was human when I was conceived, I'm human now, I'll be human at my death, I'll still be a human in the intermediate state, and I'll be human in the resurrection.
The breath of life has nothing to do with being human or not. CryptoLutheran

That last point is certainly true - what is growing in a human womb is therefore human (cells) with human DNA, yet NOT breathing, NEVER having "the breath of life."
One must notice the difference between "human" and "a human," between "human life" and "a human being life."

Death is the opposite of life, BTW: what we are talking about is at least alive.

 

[civilwarbuff]

Adam " is a fiction, so it really doesn't matter

See, when somebody says " prove it ", the first thing that runs through my mind is " does this person even understand what they are asking for ? "

With your initial quote I thought does this guy have a clue what he is saying? After your subsequent posts I thought I doubt it but let's see what he has to say. So, you have the floor.....prove to us that Adam is fiction.

 

[Isaacsname]

Well, you know, I actually have an extensive website on this very topic, so I won't waste time reposting everything twice

But, ask for proof and that's what I will offer

You can hit the links in my profile page

I'm sure my articles are quite self-explanatory, and the topic of the Babylonian fiction of the Torah is going to be well dissected

You'll need to know some math though, for several reasons

1. Proof
2. Babylonians were a highly mathematical society, and math is the basis of the entire Bible

If you don't know the history of the Holy Spirit in Mesopotamia, the best place to start is Enlil the head gardener, and his mighty " breath " and his being kicked out of the garden, because that is the basis for the story of " eden "

Btw, feel free to step up and take my " prove it " challenge

 

[civilwarbuff]

You made your statement here....bring your proof here. Not interested in your website.....

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

Douglas Hendrickson said: ↑
"New human first cells" (to roughly quote you) is correct, but you have no warrant for calling it "a new human being in the first stages of development." I'll grant you the NEW DNA part, but DNA does not a person make, as in the case of cancer cells and the severed arm. It has potential to become, to be built into, to develop into an actual person baby, but what is "potential" includes the element of being not actual, not actually a person.
To answer your question, at birth is when it becomes a human being. See post #76.

You're mixing terms...
A human being is a being of the human kind from conception until death.
This is the life lived by an organism.
The question now is when can we speak of a person?
Another question is how long can one wait to decide for an abortion (when there are reasons to consider it)?

There are no animal beings, no animals, in any womb. (biology)

I already answered those questions - at birth and not before there is a person. So certainly appropriate to consider abortion at any time up to that point.

 

[Hieronymus]

Douglas Hendrickson said: ↑
"New human first cells" (to roughly quote you) is correct, but you have no warrant for calling it "a new human being in the first stages of development." I'll grant you the NEW DNA part, but DNA does not a person make, as in the case of cancer cells and the severed arm. It has potential to become, to be built into, to develop into an actual person baby, but what is "potential" includes the element of being not actual, not actually a person.
To answer your question, at birth is when it becomes a human being. See post #76.

There are no animal beings, no animals, in any womb. (biology)

I explained the biology bit just there.

Look, i'm not sure what your angle is here, but you're not making too much sense.

 

[Hieronymus]

Prove it ?

And what would you do if I did ?

and how would you even know if I " proved it " ?

Genetics point to Eve, the woman we all descend from.
I think they identified genetic Adam as well, but not sure.

 

[Hieronymus]

2. Babylonians were a highly mathematical society, and math is the basis of the entire Bible

O, right...

 

[Sistrin]

To answer your question, at birth is when it becomes a human being.

That is simply not true, not to mention being completely unsupported by fact.

There are no animal beings, no animals, in any womb. (biology)

What are you trying to say here? Of course there are animal beings in wombs, as the mammalian reproductive process follows the same basic pattern throughout the animal kingdom.

At least, however:

I already answered those questions - at birth and not before there is a person. So certainly appropriate to consider abortion at any time up to that point.

We have identified your hidden agenda.

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

Douglas Hendrickson said: ↑
Looks human? Looks like what might become an actual human baby, yes.

Ey yi yi...
Human reproduction leads to human offspring. There is no might about it, no maybe, no could be. From the moment of conception there is only one track for the developing offspring to follow, that of becoming another 'actual human baby.' You have no point here.

You my dear, have no point here.
Who would have ever thought "human reproduction" is not about producing human offspring?
(Note the term "offspring," like in birth! Note the "off" part, and the "spring" part.)
Obviously from the moment of conception there is NOT only one track for the developing not yet offsprung to follow - it can be aborted! (Did you notice?) It can be sprung from its prison of darkness, and NEVER become an actual baby!