Pro-Life, Pro-Science

[redleghunter]

Of course human life exists at conception. A sperm is "human life" as is every other human cell (brain, heart and so on).

The question is whether or not the entity is "a human". Notice the noun usage of the word "Human" vs the descriptive adjective (human cell, human life, human heart and so on )

The difference is the human life at conception is a human being. Distinct from the mother’s egg and fathers sperm.

 

[redleghunter]

One of the problems is conflating an 8 month old fetus with the early stages of pregnancy - say the single cell at conception.

While there are valid arguments (from science and otherwise) for an 8 month old Fetus meeting enough criteria to be classified as a living human - this is not the case for the early stages.

While science works for the pro life cause in the later stages - it works against it in the early stages.

Why?

We are human beings at conception. That’s a fact. When we are a zygote we are exactly what a human zygote is supposed to be in human development. Conception is the beginning of human development which lasts upwards to 20 years of age.

Or are you implying via a subjective standard that if it does not “look human” it is not human? Then the question is what is your relative subjective standard for determining what is human?

 

[redleghunter]

Having unique DNA does not make an entity a living human. Neither does you claiming "its a human"

Actually it does biologically.

What is the significant difference between the single human cell at conception (zygote) and other human cells that makes one a human and the others not ? A heart cell has DNA which is distinct from both the mother and father. That does not magically turn a heart cell into a human.

They are distinct from one another. The zygote is its own human life with its own DNA. This is basic biology.

 

[redleghunter]

You claiming "a living human exists at conception" - does not make it so.

No actually that is scientific fact.

There is only one definition of when a distinct (from parents) human being begins. That is at conception.

A zygote [fertilized egg] is the beginning of a new human being. Human development begins at fertilization, the process during which a male gamete … unites with a female gamete or oocyte … to form a single cell called a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marks the beginning of each of us as a unique individual.

Keith L. Moore’s The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology (7th edition, Philadelphia, PA: Saunders, 2003)

http://www.textbookrush.com/browse/...calinventory&gclid=CJGkm7nNncoCFQqpaQodVZINSA


The French geneticist Jerome L. LeJeune has stated:

“To accept the fact that after fertilization has taken place a new human has come into being is no longer a matter of taste or opinion. The human nature of the human being from conception to old age is not a metaphysical contention, it is plain experimental evidence.” [The Human Life Bill: Hearings on S. 158 Before the Subcommittee on Separation of Powers of the Senate Judiciary Committee, 97th Congress, 1st Session (1981). See Norman L. Geisler, Christian Ethics: Options and Issues (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1989), p. 149 also Francis J. Beckwith,Politically Correct Death: Answering the Arguments for Abortion Rights (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1993), p. 42.] (Emphases mine – VJT.)

Dr. Hymie Gordon, professor of medical genetics and Mayo Clinic physician stated:

“I think we can now also say that the question of the beginning of life – when life begins – is no longer a question for theological or philosophical dispute. It is an established scientific fact. Theologians and philosophers may go on to debate the meaning of life or purpose of life, but it is an established fact that all life, including human life, begins at the moment of conception.” [The Human Life Bill – S. 158, Report 9, see Francis J. Beckwith, Politically Correct Death: Answering the Arguments for Abortion Rights (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1993), p. 42.] (Emphases mine – VJT.)

To cite just a few examples, the American Heritage Science Dictionary defines “conception” as “the formation of a zygote resulting from the union of a sperm and egg cell; fertilization.” (For reference, a zygote is the first stage of a human embryo.)

Likewise, the entry for “life” in the American Heritage Dictionary of Sciencestates that life is “the form of existence that organisms like animals and plants have and that inorganic objects or organic dead bodies lack; animate existence, characterized by growth, reproduction, metabolism, and response to stimuli.”

[The] statement that “human life begins at conception” is consistent with both of these definitions, because human zygotes display all four empirical attributes of life:

1. Growth – As explained in the textbook Essentials of Human Development: A Life-Span View, “the zygote grows rapidly through cell division.”

1. Reproduction – Per Human Sexuality: An Encyclopedia, zygotes sometimes form identical twins, which is an act of “asexual reproduction.” (Also, in this context, the word “reproduction” is more accurately understood as “reproductive potential” instead of “active reproduction.” For example, three-year-old humans are manifestly alive, but they can’t actively reproduce.)

1. Metabolism – As detailed in the medical text Human Gametes and Preimplantation Embryos: Assessment and Diagnosis, “At the zygote stage,” the human embryo metabolizes “carboxylic acids pyruvate and lactate as its preferred energy substrates.”

1. Response to stimuli – Collins English Dictionary defines a “stimulus” as “any drug, agent, electrical impulse, or other factor able to cause a response in an organism.” Experiments have shown that zygotes are responsive to such factors. For example, a 2005 paper in the journal Human Reproduction Update notes that a compound called platelet-activating factor “acts upon the zygote” by stimulating “metabolism,” “cell-cycle progression,” and “viability.”

Furthermore, the science of embryology has proven that the genetic composition of humans is formed during fertilization, and as the textbook Molecular Biology explains, this genetic material is “the very basis of life itself.”

In accord with the facts above, the textbook Before We Are Born: Essentials of Embryology and Birth Defects directly states: “The zygote and early embryo are living human organisms.” This may be controversial from a political perspective, but the sciences of embryology and genetics leave no doubt as to when human life begins.

The science of abortion: When does life begin? - Just Facts


I will answer the next question. What is the definition of Human Being:

noun
1.
any individual of the genus Homo, especially a member ofthe species Homo sapiens.
2.
a person, especially as distinguished from other animals or as representing the human species:

 

[redleghunter]

No it doesn't .. how does having unique DNA make some entity a living human. Deer cell has unique DNA - but it is not a human. You keep making naked claims -

Again, unless you have some alternative science your claim is personal opinion.

There is only one definition of when a distinct (from parents) human being begins. That is at conception.

A zygote [fertilized egg] is the beginning of a new human being. Human development begins at fertilization, the process during which a male gamete … unites with a female gamete or oocyte … to form a single cell called a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marks the beginning of each of us as a unique individual.

Keith L. Moore’s The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology (7th edition, Philadelphia, PA: Saunders, 2003)

http://www.textbookrush.com/browse/...calinventory&gclid=CJGkm7nNncoCFQqpaQodVZINSA


The French geneticist Jerome L. LeJeune has stated:

“To accept the fact that after fertilization has taken place a new human has come into being is no longer a matter of taste or opinion. The human nature of the human being from conception to old age is not a metaphysical contention, it is plain experimental evidence.” [The Human Life Bill: Hearings on S. 158 Before the Subcommittee on Separation of Powers of the Senate Judiciary Committee, 97th Congress, 1st Session (1981). See Norman L. Geisler, Christian Ethics: Options and Issues (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1989), p. 149 also Francis J. Beckwith,Politically Correct Death: Answering the Arguments for Abortion Rights (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1993), p. 42.] (Emphases mine – VJT.)

Dr. Hymie Gordon, professor of medical genetics and Mayo Clinic physician stated:

“I think we can now also say that the question of the beginning of life – when life begins – is no longer a question for theological or philosophical dispute. It is an established scientific fact. Theologians and philosophers may go on to debate the meaning of life or purpose of life, but it is an established fact that all life, including human life, begins at the moment of conception.” [The Human Life Bill – S. 158, Report 9, see Francis J. Beckwith, Politically Correct Death: Answering the Arguments for Abortion Rights (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1993), p. 42.] (Emphases mine – VJT.)

To cite just a few examples, the American Heritage Science Dictionary defines “conception” as “the formation of a zygote resulting from the union of a sperm and egg cell; fertilization.” (For reference, a zygote is the first stage of a human embryo.)

Likewise, the entry for “life” in the American Heritage Dictionary of Sciencestates that life is “the form of existence that organisms like animals and plants have and that inorganic objects or organic dead bodies lack; animate existence, characterized by growth, reproduction, metabolism, and response to stimuli.”

[The] statement that “human life begins at conception” is consistent with both of these definitions, because human zygotes display all four empirical attributes of life:

1. Growth – As explained in the textbook Essentials of Human Development: A Life-Span View, “the zygote grows rapidly through cell division.”

1. Reproduction – Per Human Sexuality: An Encyclopedia, zygotes sometimes form identical twins, which is an act of “asexual reproduction.” (Also, in this context, the word “reproduction” is more accurately understood as “reproductive potential” instead of “active reproduction.” For example, three-year-old humans are manifestly alive, but they can’t actively reproduce.)

1. Metabolism – As detailed in the medical text Human Gametes and Preimplantation Embryos: Assessment and Diagnosis, “At the zygote stage,” the human embryo metabolizes “carboxylic acids pyruvate and lactate as its preferred energy substrates.”

1. Response to stimuli – Collins English Dictionary defines a “stimulus” as “any drug, agent, electrical impulse, or other factor able to cause a response in an organism.” Experiments have shown that zygotes are responsive to such factors. For example, a 2005 paper in the journal Human Reproduction Update notes that a compound called platelet-activating factor “acts upon the zygote” by stimulating “metabolism,” “cell-cycle progression,” and “viability.”

Furthermore, the science of embryology has proven that the genetic composition of humans is formed during fertilization, and as the textbook Molecular Biology explains, this genetic material is “the very basis of life itself.”

In accord with the facts above, the textbook Before We Are Born: Essentials of Embryology and Birth Defects directly states: “The zygote and early embryo are living human organisms.” This may be controversial from a political perspective, but the sciences of embryology and genetics leave no doubt as to when human life begins.

The science of abortion: When does life begin? - Just Facts


I will answer the next question. What is the definition of Human Being:

noun
1.
any individual of the genus Homo, especially a member ofthe species Homo sapiens.
2.
a person, especially as distinguished from other animals or as representing the human species:

 

[straykat]

This seems more like a gambling issue than a scientific one to me. I'd rather play it safe out of fear that I committed murder, and just say that an early conception qualifies as human life. Why risk the chance of being wrong here? The price is too high. For both the fetus and myself.

Settling on distinctions is more dangerous, when it's easier to just cover the whole spectrum. The only people who I expect to mock this are people who don't believe in hell. Unfortunately, I do.

 

[redleghunter]

What are you talking about - nothing in your post supports your claim that having unique DNA makes that entity a living human.

Actually the quotes support that.

In addition you are also talking over all my counter points - nor answering the questions related to your claim.

Because your “counterpoints” contain no defeaters. Such requires evidence and you provided your opinion.

You go on to the question of "when human life begins" which is a different question from whether or not a living human exists.

If a human life does not exist it is dead. Are you really making this assertion?

Therefore, the burden of proof is on you to make a distinction between human life and a living human exists. Good luck.

Yet as already stated:

Likewise, the entry for “life” in the American Heritage Dictionary of Sciencestates that life is “the form of existence that organisms like animals and plants have and that inorganic objects or organic dead bodies lack; animate existence, characterized by growth, reproduction, metabolism, and response to stimuli.”

[The] statement that “human life begins at conception” is consistent with both of these definitions, because human zygotes display all four empirical attributes of life:

1. Growth – As explained in the textbook Essentials of Human Development: A Life-Span View, “the zygote grows rapidly through cell division.”

1. Reproduction – Per Human Sexuality: An Encyclopedia, zygotes sometimes form identical twins, which is an act of “asexual reproduction.” (Also, in this context, the word “reproduction” is more accurately understood as “reproductive potential” instead of “active reproduction.” For example, three-year-old humans are manifestly alive, but they can’t actively reproduce.)

1. Metabolism – As detailed in the medical text Human Gametes and Preimplantation Embryos: Assessment and Diagnosis, “At the zygote stage,” the human embryo metabolizes “carboxylic acids pyruvate and lactate as its preferred energy substrates.”

1. Response to stimuli – Collins English Dictionary defines a “stimulus” as “any drug, agent, electrical impulse, or other factor able to cause a response in an organism.” Experiments have shown that zygotes are responsive to such factors. For example, a 2005 paper in the journal Human Reproduction Update notes that a compound called platelet-activating factor “acts upon the zygote” by stimulating “metabolism,” “cell-cycle progression,” and “viability.”

Furthermore, the science of embryology has proven that the genetic composition of humans is formed during fertilization, and as the textbook Molecular Biology explains, this genetic material is “the very basis of life itself.”

In accord with the facts above, the textbook Before We Are Born: Essentials of Embryology and Birth Defects directly states: “The zygote and early embryo are living human organisms.” This may be controversial from a political perspective, but the sciences of embryology and genetics leave no doubt as to when human life begins.

The science of abortion: When does life begin? - Just Facts

Just because we say life that can be categorized as human begins here - does not mean a living human exists.

If it is not life what is it?

Then your comments in relation to the "when human life begins" question are not correct. There are 5 different scientific perspectives on when human life begins: Metabolic, Genetic, Ebryological, Neurologial, Ecological.

Is not the zygote produced in human procreation called a human zygote?

Only one puts "the beginning" at conception - (Genetic) - while this perspective is popular among the public - it has lost favor among scientists.

And why would that be? What is the spontaneity which leads these scientists to believe prior human development is not life. Again if it is not life then what is it?

Then you give the definition of human being as "Homo sapiens".
Human Taxonomy a subject matter domain of biology which determines what a Homo sapiens is / essentially what a human is - lists the characteristics an organism must have to be classified as Homo sapiens.

In order to get into that club you need memberships in a bunch of other clubs first - Domain, Kingdom, Phylum, Class, Order, Family, Genus, Species.

In order to get in the club one must be human at the very beginning. Which is conception.

Unfortunately the zygote only manages membership in one ... Domain - Eukaryota .. It is a single eukaryotic cell. Not even close to membership in the club "Homo sapiens"

Yet in our human being development we have a start at conception which continues to we are adults.

You have yet to establish your subjective point in which we become human beings.

In fact you are denying at conception we are alive at all.

Burden of proof on you to establish your claims.

 

[straykat]

Science also teaches that the entire universe appeared by mere chance. I've yet to see anyone reproduce this in a small scale experiment (let alone a large one). Yet I'm supposed to take their words on what qualifies as "life" now too? They first made ALL existence so trivial as to merely appear by chance. They hold nothing in value.

This is a battle of memology really. One meme that designates everything as trivial and occurs in happenstance vs a meme that says each life is precious and the universe has purpose. And each one steers culture in a specific way. I choose the later. And I will happily suppress the other.

 

[redleghunter]

None of what you posted explained why having "Unique" DNA makes some entity a human.

Are you denying the fact that at conception we do not have distinct from parents DNA after each parent gives us 23 chromosomes? And are you denying this is human DNA?

 

[redleghunter]

You keep on explaining characteristics of the zygote that are the same in the heart cell. They are both human cells, human life, human.

If I were to take a heart cell from your heart it would contain your DNA. If you were pregnant and I take a cell from your heart and the human zygote it would not match. The human zygote would be distinct. It is its own life.

A heart cell is not a zygote.

The question is what is the significant difference that makes one "a human" while the other is not a human.

One is a part of a human being the other is its own human being.

That’s the distinction.

 

[SPF]

the fact that there are 5 different scientific perspectives on when human life begins. Metabolic, Genetic, Embryological, Neurological Ecological.

Source?

 

[redleghunter]

Then you completely ignore the fact that according to human taxonomy - a zygote is not a Homo sapiens - even though it was you that stated Homo sapiens as your definition of a human.

Then a two year old baby is not homo sapien by that estimation.

Human development has a beginning. That’s at conception. What is present at conception is a human life. If it is not a living human life (using your oxymoron) then what is it?

The heart cell is fallacious and I think you should know this. Because a human heart is a part of a human. It is not a distinct human life as is the human zygote. We know this because at birth of my sons I cleaned and weighed a human being not a human heart.

 

[redleghunter]

I would not worry about hell on the basis of abortion. The Bible proscribes abortion in the case of a suspicious husband.

Actually no Numbers 5 does not call for abortion. Unless you can show me that in the original language.

 

[redleghunter]

It is not me that is claiming a human being exists at conception. Burden of proof is on you.

And provided the evidence twice. Now waiting for your subjective opinion on when a human being begins.

 

[redleghunter]

Science is not the determining factor in any case.

However informs us quite well and confirms much.

The arguments with respect to what constitutes personhood are Philosophical.

Actually first theological. Which in the case of Christianity is based on objective standards and not subjective theories. Philosophy can expand on the Theological understanding applying logic and human knowledge to explain the theological objective truths.

The problem is that as soon as you define what a human is be it from a scientific perspective or on the basis of what we value in our humanity - the zygote does not cut it.

Why? Was not the Divine Logos when taking human nature once a human zygote?

 

[redleghunter]

The question you are avoiding is: What is the significant difference between this human cell(Zygote) and other human cells (a heart cell - with exactly the same DNA) that makes the Zygote a human and the heart cell just a human cell.

One is a human heart and the other is a complete human being at that stage of development. The heart will continue to be a heart and the human zygote will continue its 20 year development to an adult.

I think this is the third time addressing your false equivalence.

 

[redleghunter]

You need only google the name of any one of those perspectives - go to wiki and so on. This is from a chapter in a developmental biology textbook

science.jburroughs.org/mbahe/BioEthics/Articles/Whendoeshumanlifebegin.pdf

That is a very good run down of philosophical positions. Which are subjective by nature.

 

[redleghunter]

You continue to conflate human life with a living human.

Because there is no difference.

 

[redleghunter]

What on earth are you talking about. What characteristics - required in human taxonomy - does a two year old baby not have?



It is not "a human life" it is "human life" Repeating your premise is not proof of claim. Until you "PROVE" a human exists - assuming that it does is fallacy. The whole point of this conversation is for you to explain "why" .. to justify your claim. Repetition of claim is not an argument for anything.

An argument consists of 2 things 1) a premise or claim 2) evidence or rational which explains "why" that claim is true.

Repeating 1 over and over is not 2.

You continue to conflate human life with a living human. Every human cell is "human life" this does not make them living humans. What part of this distinction do you not understand ?



At least a heart cell is part of a living human - a zygote is not. The zygote will never be part of the cells that make up the cells of the human that will be constructed. Never ever.

How is a heart cell not as much of a distinct human life as the zygote ? I have been asking you this repeatedly.

What is the significant difference between the zygote and other human cells .. what is fallacious nonsense is you saying "One is a human and the other is not" given the whole point of this conversation is about whether or not the zygote is a living human. Repeating your premise over and over is not proof of claim.

When your son was born what you cleaned and weighted was not a zygote ... it was a living human. A living human that was "created" by the zygote and all that came before. The zygote just happened to have a complete human DNA.

Just because a single cell exists (unique or otherwise) with a complete human DNA - does not make that single cell a living human.

Just because that single cell is not part of a human - does not make that single cell living human. If you extract a heart cell from a human - such that it is no longer part of that human - this does not make it a living human.

Yet a human heart cell is not a zygote. Thus making your quote above a false equivalence.

You are trying to argue from a common principle. In this case anything that is human can be compared as the same.

The human zygote is compared to a human heart cell because (1) both are human and contain in general human DNA and (2) they are roughly similar in cellular makeup. They are small.

(3) you make the leap of faith equating they are the same because of (1) and (2).

Yet a human heart cell is not a human zygote. That’s a fact no matter how many similarities exist, one is a cell from a human organ and one is a new human life in development with its own distinct DNA.

Now that’s the scientific reality. You then mixed in a biology paper trying to explain the differences in philosophical opinions which the paper conflates between life and personhood. They are not the same thing. Personhood is not a biological term. It is a philosophical term.

Therefore, now a few pages of back and forth I’ll let everyone catch up, as what you have been presenting is a philosophical argument for personhood and not a scientific argument for when human life begins. We know that to be conception.

Your determination is if this is really life at all because the zygote is small like a heart cell.

Yet where your argument fails is a human heart does not develop as a distinct human being. Precisely the human zygote is a production of human procreation. The zygote will go on to human embryo to fetus to infant to toddler, to child to adolescent to adult to elderly adult and then death. All human being development and at every point from conception a human being.

Now I think your contention is what secular philosophers call personhood. Again that is not a scientific term.

 

[redleghunter]

At least a heart cell is part of a living human - a zygote is not. The zygote will never be part of the cells that make up the cells of the human that will be constructed. Never ever.

Again if the human zygote is not alive then what is it. If that zygote fails to develop then there is no embryo. Are you truly making this an argument?

How is a heart cell not as much of a distinct human life as the zygote ? I have been asking you this repeatedly.

I’ve answered several times (is this Douglas?) one is not the other.

We are not quibbling over science with your question above, we are actually dealing with reality. A human heart is not a human zygote.