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

[Eloy Craft]

But NOT a human being. BIG DIFFERENCE

is it being something other than a human individual?

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

exchange the word womb with a hospital room with a car accident victim in it who is in a vegatative state. Therein lies your fallacy.

Yah, make the statement about something else, AND it may be false.

Great logic.

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

is it being something other than a human individual?

Same answer as #92.

 

[SPF]

Well he recognizes ANY HUMAN CELLS IN THE WOMB ARE ALIVE.

That is all that is saying, at least all it is saying that is TRUE.
He is (was) not about to say what is in the womb is NOT alive, of course.

THE FETUS (or whatever is in the womb) is usually alive. BIG HAIRY DEAL.
There is life there - big hairy deal. (Of course he also recognizes "life" the life of a human being, comes all the way from conception.)
ACTUALLY IT IS PRESENT IN THE SPERM AND OVUM TOO OF COURSE.

This is either yet another example of your wordsmithing or simply not comprehending what is being said. Everyone I know (other than you) who supports abortion still acknowledges that there is a human being in the womb. The standard abortion debate circles around distinguishing between a human being and a human person. That is the distinction that Dr. Montague would make.

Douglas Hendrickson said: ↑
"THERE IS NEVER IN THE WOMB ANYTHING LIKE THE REAL DIRECTION OF REAL HUMAN ACTIVITIES OF REAL PEOPLE WITH REAL BRAINS."


Can you in any way demonstrate there is anything false in this statement?
If you cannot,
stop with the claiming I should appeal to some AUTHORITY, which is your logical fallacy way of arguing.

Douglas, do you not understand what begging the question means? Your pink text is exactly what begging the question is. Using just the handful of references I've provided demonstrates that the current scientific position is that a new human being comes into existence at fertilization. Your position is contrary to everything we know about science, not to mention what Scripture teaches. Your pink text is begging the question because you're making an implicit assumption about what a human being is when you make that statement. So it's begging the question because you're assuming your position when you make that naked and unsupported assertion. Again, I welcome any references and material that you want to bring to the discussion. But if all you continue to fall back upon is your own subjective notions, then we may as well let this go.

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

This is either yet another example of your wordsmithing or simply not comprehending what is being said. Everyone I know (other than you) who supports abortion still acknowledges that there is a human being in the womb. The standard abortion debate circles around distinguishing between a human being and a human person. That is the distinction that Dr. Montague would make.

THIS IS RIDICULOUS.

You accuse me of not comprehending what was said.

SO WHAT IS IT I DID NOT COMPREHEND, what fact or facts did I not understand the truth of?
(Other than repeating the only thing you say, "It is a human being in the womb."?)

YOUR "standard abortion debate" is a straw man, fars I can tell.
Certainly nothing relevant to our discussion.
(Since I concede your point on it entirely. I think.)

A HUMAN BEING IS A PERSON. Pure and simple. No equivocation.
I.E., at least for us, it is nothing in dispute nothing to particularly notice.

 

[SPF]

What you failed to comprehend was that the pro-abortion medical professional I quoted acknowledges that a new human being is created at fertilization. Can you provide any cited material that disagrees with this basic scientific fact?

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

What you failed to comprehend was that the pro-abortion medical professional I quoted acknowledges that a new human being is created at fertilization. Can you provide any cited material that disagrees with this basic scientific fact?

What he said was: (Here's your cited material.)

“The basic fact is simple: life begins not at birth, but conception."

"...acknowledges that a new human being is created at fertilization" ? Really?
HE SAID SOMETHING ABOUT "LIFE BEGINS"
And nothing about "new human being" or even about being "created."

NOTHING ABOUT "NEW HUMAN BEING"
NOTHING ABOUT BEING "CREATED"

Is somebody unable to read?

Before you bother to argue any more, what I think he meant was, THAT LIFE THAT IS IN THE WOMB and sometimes even after
THAT LIFE BEGAN AT CONCEPTION. So there is that obvious newness.

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

Using just the handful of references I've provided demonstrates that the current scientific position is that a new human being comes into existence at fertilization. Your position is contrary to everything we know about science, not to mention what Scripture teaches. Your pink text is begging the question because you're making an implicit assumption about what a human being is when you make that statement. So it's begging the question because you're assuming your position when you make that naked and unsupported assertion. Again, I welcome any references and material that you want to bring to the discussion. But if all you continue to fall back upon is your own subjective notions, then we may as well let this go.

Yah, so if I read correctly, there is nothing you could find, NOTHING IN MY "RED INK" THAT YOU CAN POINT TO BEING FALSE.

In other words, MY WORDS stand true.

A bit ridiculous to think your references demonstrate anything except they are "pro-life" concoctions. GIVE ME JUST ONE (not a whole bunch at once), that I haven't refuted or cannot refute.

 

[SPF]

Yah, so if I read correctly, there is nothing you could find, NOTHING IN MY "RED INK" THAT YOU CAN POINT TO BEING FALSE.

In other words, MY WORDS stand true.

A bit ridiculous to think your references demonstrate anything except they are "pro-life" concoctions. GIVE ME JUST ONE (not a whole bunch at once), that I haven't refuted or cannot refute.

Obviously I think most everything you write about the nature of when human life begins is false, otherwise we wouldn't continue to have these laborious conversations. The difference between what you write and what I write is that I support my assertions with actual scientific and biblical evidence and material. As far as I can recall, you don't support your assertions with anything beyond bold lettering and pink text.

Anyway, if you think I'm wrong, demonstrate it by supplying credible sources that support your opinion. Otherwise it's just empty pink text.

 

[Eloy Craft]

Douglas Hendrickson said: ↑
"THERE IS NEVER IN THE WOMB ANYTHING LIKE THE REAL DIRECTION OF REAL HUMAN ACTIVITIES OF REAL PEOPLE WITH REAL BRAINS."


Can you in any way demonstrate there is anything false in this statement?
If you cannot,
stop with the claiming I should appeal to some AUTHORITY, which is your logical fallacy way



A developed brain is all that distinguishes the embryo in the womb. It's acts and any other humans are act's to perfect the powers of the soul.

 

[Eloy Craft]

Same answer as #92.

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

 

[Eloy Craft]

Come on!

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

So respond to what I actually say, not some imaginings.

Im wronly assuming you understand the terms you are using philosophically. Using them in common language makes for a debate fraught with confusion.

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

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

It means to be born - I know that much.

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

Obviously I think most everything you write about the nature of when human life begins is false, otherwise we wouldn't continue to have these laborious conversations. The difference between what you write and what I write is that I support my assertions with actual scientific and biblical evidence and material. As far as I can recall, you don't support your assertions with anything beyond bold lettering and pink text.

Anyway, if you think I'm wrong, demonstrate it by supplying credible sources that support your opinion. Otherwise it's just empty pink text.

The opinion you are WRONG is very much supported by merely pointing to what you say!

I thought you might want to CLARIFY IDEAS rather then merely correct me. Seems rather obvious you don't.

Otherwise you would not merely ATTACK ME in the way you do right here, and would instead be presenting some real argument.

You won't even acknowledge that your "pro-abortion professional" DOES NOT EVEN MAKE THE POINT YOU THINK HE MAKES !
No respect for truth, far as I can see.

 

[SPF]

You won't even acknowledge that your "pro-abortion professional" DOES NOT EVEN MAKE THE POINT YOU THINK HE MAKES !
No respect for truth, far as I can see.

He makes precisely the point that 100% of every other scientific and medical professional makes: That a new human being comes into existence at fertilization. The reason he didn’t spell it out in a way that you would comprehend is because it is so incredibly common knowledge and scientific fact st this point when a new human being comes into existence that he’s taking for granted the common sense nature of people hearing him.

I’m sorry Douglas, but I don’t have anything else to say because you don’t have anything credible to present other than your unsupported, easily refuted belief. Neither science nor Scripture agree with your unsupported opinion. I’ll continie to engage with you once you bring something more than your opinion to the table.

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

He makes precisely the point that 100% of every other scientific and medical professional makes: That a new human being comes into existence at fertilization. The reason he didn’t spell it out in a way that you would comprehend is because it is so incredibly common knowledge and scientific fact st this point when a new human being comes into existence that he’s taking for granted the common sense nature of people hearing him.

I’m sorry Douglas, but I don’t have anything else to say because you don’t have anything credible to present other than your unsupported, easily refuted belief. Neither science nor Scripture agree with your unsupported opinion. I’ll continie to engage with you once you bring something more than your opinion to the table.

And where do you get that from? SHEAR SPECULATION of what is "incredibly common knowledge."
Just like it's "incredibly common" for pro-abortion people to be saying something that supports a "pro-life" position, I suppose.

Guess one has to think one is right even when there are no firm grounds to do so.

IT IS CERTAINLY NOT WHAT HE SAYS (in what you have quoted.)

Of course if one can take any statement to say anything one wants it to say, then in one's own mind one has won the argument every time. Must be the way it works?

 

[SPF]

“The life cycle of mammals begins when a sperm enters an egg.” Okada et al., A role for the elongator complex in zygotic paternal genome demethylation, NATURE 463:554 (Jan. 28, 2010)

“Fertilization is the process by which male and female haploid gametes (sperm and egg) unite to produce a genetically distinct individual.”Signorelli et al., Kinases, phosphatases and proteases during sperm capacitation, CELL TISSUE RES. 349(3):765 (Mar. 20, 2012)

“Fertilization – the fusion of gametes to produce a new organism – is the culmination of a multitude of intricately regulated cellular processes.” Marcello et al., Fertilization, ADV. EXP. BIOL. 757:321 (2013)

“Human life begins at fertilization, the process during which a male gamete or sperm (spermatozoo developmentn) unites with a female gamete or oocyte (ovum) to form a single cell called a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marked the beginning of each of us as a unique individual.” “A zygote is the beginning of a new human being (i.e., an embryo).” Keith L. Moore, The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology, 7th edition. Philadelphia, PA: Saunders, 2003. pp. 16, 2.

“In that fraction of a second when the chromosomes form pairs, the sex of the new child will be determined, hereditary characteristics received from each parent will be set, and a new life will have begun.” Kaluger, G., and Kaluger, M., Human Development: The Span of Life, page 28-29, The C.V. Mosby Co., St. Louis, 1974

An embryology textbook describes how birth is just an event in the development of a baby, not the beginning of his/her life:

“It should always be remembered that many organs are still not completely developed by full-term and birth should be regarded only as an incident in the whole developmental process.” F Beck Human Embryology, Blackwell Scientific Publications, 1985 page vi

“It is the penetration of the ovum by a sperm and the resulting mingling of nuclear material each brings to the union that constitutes the initiation of the life of a new individual.” Clark Edward and Corliss Patten’s Human Embryology, McGraw – Hill Inc., 30

“Although it is customary to divide human development into prenatal and postnatal periods, it is important to realize that birth is merely a dramatic event during development resulting in a change in environment.” The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology fifth edition, Moore and Persaud, 1993, Saunders Company, page 1

“The zygote and early embryo are living human organisms.” Keith L. Moore & T.V.N. Persaud Before We Are Born – Essentials of Embryology and Birth Defects (W.B. Saunders Company, 1998. Fifth edition.) Page 500

“Thus a new cell is formed from the union of a male and a female gamete. [sperm and egg cells] The cell, referred to as the zygote, contains a new combination of genetic material, resulting in an individual different from either parent and from anyone else in the world.” Sally B Olds, et al., Obstetric Nursing (Menlo Park, California: Addison – Wesley publishing, 1980) P 136

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

Douglas Hendrickson said: ↑
THERE IS NEVER IN THE WOMB ANYTHING LIKE THE REAL DIRECTION OF REAL HUMAN ACTIVITIES OF REAL PEOPLE WITH REAL BRAINS.

The only way that you can state that there is "never" in the womb anything like "real human activities" of "real people" is if you assume beforehand that the unborn are not humans. And that of course, is begging the question, because what you're attempting to establish is that what is in the womb is not a human being. But you have to do that first, before making claims like this. Thus, begging the question.

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

The claim in red is NOT dependent on it being true that "the unborn are not humans."
In other words, you reconstruct what I say to mean something else.

I am asking whether there is EVER "anything like the real direction of real human activities of real people with real human brains to be found in a womb?" TO REPHRASE IT AS QUESTION.

Your reaction perhaps reveals that you know what I say is true, and that it is likely to have consequences for the question "the unborn" are human beings.
But it is a separate question. Conceivably what I say is true, and still there are grounds for claiming "the unborn are humans."

All I ask is for REFLECTION ON MY CLAIM, whether it is true or not and especially what can one point to that shows it is untrue, if anything?
If nothing about it can be shown to be untrue, then I think it stands as true.
Your response is to claim it is really some OTHER question, and I am therefore begging that other question. Guess you can find nothing false in it, or I assume you would be pointing that out, rather than PRETENDING IT SAYS SOMETHING OTHER THAN IT SAYS.
(Same as with the "pro-abortion professional," doesn't matter what is actually said so long as one's mind can manufacture something else it is supposedly saying?)

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

What else I have been doing lately, in case you are interested.

LUST IS ADULTERY Mt. 5:28

 

[SPF]

I am asking whether there is EVER "anything like the real direction of real human activities of real people with real human brains to be found in a womb?" TO REPHRASE IT AS QUESTION.

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.