Conquer Club

According to patches, all humans are a bunch of sperm penetrating an egg.



NEW TOPIC:


Probability argument! "You can't kill that fetus/Symmetrian blob* because it will become human."

What's wrong with this argument, or is it teh best? How can it be improved, etc., etc.,


Against it
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=179873&p=3930631#p3930599
(see last paragraph)





*Symmetry has a knack for bogging down a discussion for the most mundane and non-essential issues on generally understood definitions of words, e.g. "fetus."

show

So, does this mean that the result of immaculate conception is not alive?

Let's bring in Aristotle.

In metaphysics book 7, he discusses substance. Basically, it's matter, shape, and the compound of those two. For example, matter = bronze, shape = pattern/form, and compound = bronze statute.


What is a human being?

Because we can't say the form of a fetus and especially the form of a fertilized egg is equal to the form of a human being at age 2 or at age 30... Clearly, their forms are not the same. It's self-evident. (Google the pictures and try arguing otherwise).

The matter, i.e. the stuff of humans (cells, carbons, biology stuff-lol), is the same, but that matter is the same in other animals, so we can't rely on matter alone for determining what a human is.

And if the matter and form of the two substances (fertilized egg and human) differ, then it follows that the compound cannot be the same. Therefore, the fetus/fertilized egg can't be a human being.

personally, i'm not really concerned about whether a fertilized egg qualifies as a human life... i'm only concerned with the probability (usually high) that the fertilized egg will become a human life.

john9blue wrote:i'm not really concerned about whether a fertilized egg qualifies as a human life... i'm only concerned with the probability (usually high) that the fertilized egg will become a human life.

(Therefore, the fertilized egg is not human. )


And, I'm not talking about it qualifying as human or not. I'm talking about the substance. Not the qualities.


But this is off-topic, j9b. Let's focus on those who claim that the human life begins at the stage of conception. That's the OP.

BigBallinStalin wrote:Because we can't say the form of a fetus and especially the form of a fertilized egg is equal to the form of a human being at age 2 or at age 30...

A human at age 2 is not equal to a human at age 30.

A human at age 2 does not have secondary molars or pubic hair while a human at age 30 does. A human at age 2 has fontanelles, while a human at age 30 does not.

The human body is in a continual state of development and change through death. At some points that development may be more dramatic (e.g. fetal stage) than other points (e.g. puberty).

john9blue wrote:personally, i'm not really concerned about whether a fertilized egg qualifies as a human life... i'm only concerned with the probability (usually high) that the fertilized egg will become a human life.

This.

Even if you chose to track miscarriages as human fatalities, what benefit would that be for anyone? Why not track them as miscarriages? Some people do have memorial services for miscarriages while some people just simply get on with their own life. Everyone treats it differently as everyone has their own feelings towards what it represents. As John mentions, without intervention, the natural path the conceived fetus is taking, is that of becoming a walking/talking person. And there is a difference between a natural miscarriage and a forced abortion, just as those grieve the close friend that was murdered in cold blood more than their 110 year old grandma that had been sick for 15 years. Same end result, just a different path of getting there.


BBS - the reason some view conception as the key point and not before, is because that is when the DNA of the new individual is determined by receiving half of it's DNA from the egg (i.e. from the mother) and half from the sperm (i.e. from the father).

saxitoxin wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:Because we can't say the form of a fetus and especially the form of a fertilized egg is equal to the form of a human being at age 2 or at age 30...

A human at age 2 is not equal to a human at age 30.

A human at age 2 does not have secondary molars or pubic hair while a human at age 30 does. A human at age 2 has fontanelles, while a human at age 30 does not.

The human body is in a continual state of development and change through death. At some points that development may be more dramatic (e.g. fetal stage) than other points (e.g. puberty).

Yeah you right! It gets really annoying in trying to define a human, which further complicates thus undermining the "stage of conception = human life" argument.

BigBallinStalin wrote:

saxitoxin wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:Because we can't say the form of a fetus and especially the form of a fertilized egg is equal to the form of a human being at age 2 or at age 30...

A human at age 2 is not equal to a human at age 30.

A human at age 2 does not have secondary molars or pubic hair while a human at age 30 does. A human at age 2 has fontanelles, while a human at age 30 does not.

The human body is in a continual state of development and change through death. At some points that development may be more dramatic (e.g. fetal stage) than other points (e.g. puberty).

Yeah you right! It gets really annoying in trying to define a human, which further complicates thus undermining the "stage of conception = human life" argument.

The mainstream Left sees lawmaking as a morality exercise. Laws are good, therefore laws must enforce goodness.

It's not possible for people of this mindset to both (a) accept abortion as an immoral act, and, (b) support maintaining its legality. If something is bad it should be made illegal. Therefore, to keep abortion legal, backwards rationalizations have to be applied to make abortion moral. There is no room for compromise - no matter how much evidence is offered - because it erodes the very essence of their view on the nature of the State.

People free of this prudish mindset can accept both that (a) abortion is a homicidal act, and, (b) homicide under these circumstances should be legal.

My two cents on the matter:
Most people that argue that life does not begin at conception use this as justification for abortion. According to Wikipedia.com/abortion the average age of the aborted fetus is 9.5 weeks. Here is a link to a photo of a ten week old fetus:
http://www.minti.com/members/ellamia/photos/41649/10-Week-Old-Fetus/

Looks like a living human to me...

patrickaa317 wrote:

john9blue wrote:personally, i'm not really concerned about whether a fertilized egg qualifies as a human life... i'm only concerned with the probability (usually high) that the fertilized egg will become a human life.

This [argument] ... is irrelevant ITT

fixed.

patrickaa317 wrote:Even if you chose to track miscarriages as human fatalities, what benefit would that be for anyone? Why not track them as miscarriages? Some people do have memorial services for miscarriages while some people just simply get on with their own life. Everyone treats it differently as everyone has their own feelings towards what it represents. As John mentions, without intervention, the natural path the conceived fetus is taking, is that of becoming a walking/talking person. And there is a difference between a natural miscarriage and a forced abortion, just as those grieve the close friend that was murdered in cold blood more than their 110 year old grandma that had been sick for 15 years. Same end result, just a different path of getting there.

The benefits are irrelevant to this discussion. The consistency of one's sincere definition is what matters, and that's what one of my arguments deals with. So, one must be logically consistent while asserting that the fertilized egg = a human being; otherwise, they're being contradictory.

Feelings have nothing to do with logic. Feelings do contribute to defining something, but if the definition of that thing is not consistently applied, then the belief of that thing (human=fertilized egg) is contradictory. The argument renders itself asunder. That's the main point about this.

I agree with you in the distinction between murder and abortion, but murder is an unjust killing, and an abortion can either be "terminating a living thing" or "terminating a human being." So, (to drive my argument home) if one believes that human life/being = fertilized egg, then one must be logically consistent with that definition by admitting that "yes, abortion is 'terminating a human being'. Miscarriages are a natural occurrence (or it can be induced), but the outcome would be the same: a fertilized egg (human being) has been ended, or its life has ended. It's about being logically consistent with one's definition.

notyou2 wrote:So, does this mean that the result of immaculate conception is not alive?

Good job it has never happened then,although the idea of Mary being some sort of zombie is strangely intruiging..

3.141592... wrote:My two cents on the matter:
Most people that argue that life does not begin at conception use this as justification for abortion. According to Wikipedia.com/abortion the average age of the aborted fetus is 9.5 weeks. Here is a link to a photo of a ten week old fetus:
http://www.minti.com/members/ellamia/photos/41649/10-Week-Old-Fetus/

Looks like a living human to me...

Awww, shiggity. It's pi!

Yeah, I'll just put you on hold in this thread. Thanks for joining though! Maybe someone will notice that your pic says 10-week old and scream, "a fertilized egg is not 10 weeks old, wut!? r u stupid or just..."

patrickaa317 wrote:BBS - the reason some view conception as the key point and not before, is because that is when the DNA of the new individual is determined by receiving half of it's DNA from the egg (i.e. from the mother) and half from the sperm (i.e. from the father).

My skin cells contain my human DNA; therefore, my skins cells are human beings--or homunculi, if you prefer!

(I'm not saying you hold that "DNA merger = Human" position, but it still doesn't make sense when it's subjected to the reductio ad absurdum test).


Or is it the act of a DNA merger between human sperm and human egg = human being? I guess that's their case.

That's an interesting argument... but there's still the problem of defining what a human being is...
(see viewtopic.php?f=8&t=179873&view=unread#p3928214) if you wish to run with their argument to help me understand it.

patrickaa317 wrote:This.

Even if you chose to track miscarriages as human fatalities, what benefit would that be for anyone? Why not track them as miscarriages? Some people do have memorial services for miscarriages while some people just simply get on with their own life. Everyone treats it differently as everyone has their own feelings towards what it represents. As John mentions, without intervention, the natural path the conceived fetus is taking, is that of becoming a walking/talking person. And there is a difference between a natural miscarriage and a forced abortion, just as those grieve the close friend that was murdered in cold blood more than their 110 year old grandma that had been sick for 15 years. Same end result, just a different path of getting there.


BBS - the reason some view conception as the key point and not before, is because that is when the DNA of the new individual is determined by receiving half of it's DNA from the egg (i.e. from the mother) and half from the sperm (i.e. from the father).

saxitoxin wrote:
The mainstream Left sees lawmaking as a morality exercise. Laws are good, therefore laws must enforce goodness.

It's not possible for people of this mindset to both (a) accept abortion as an immoral act, and, (b) support maintaining its legality. If something is bad it should be made illegal. Therefore, to keep abortion legal, backwards rationalizations have to be applied to make abortion moral. There is no room for compromise - no matter how much evidence is offered - because it erodes the very essence of their view on the nature of the State.

People free of this prudish mindset can accept both that (a) abortion is a homicidal act, and, (b) homicide under these circumstances should be legal.

these are both really good posts. i would award saxbucks for them, if i had any.

BigBallinStalin wrote:I never really understood how the life of a human being begins at the stage of conception. (a) Why not before?

Cuz without fertilization the egg will never be anything more than an egg. After fertilization the egg starts the process of creating a future human being. It seems a logical starting point to me since before that point in time there is only the potentiality of a human being and after there is a very good possibility, considering everything goes without a hitch. To me its about potentiality versus actuality.

Funkyterrance wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:I never really understood how the life of a human being begins at the stage of conception. (a) Why not before?

Cuz without fertilization the egg will never be anything more than an egg. After fertilization the egg starts the process of creating a future human being. It seems a logical starting point to me since before that point in time there is only the potentiality of a human being and after there is a very good possibility, considering everything goes without a hitch. To me its about potentiality versus actuality.

AH! A Process of a Future human being.

Still isn't a human being though... :p


Yeah, I'm familiar with the potentiality --> actuality argument, but that ain't this thread.

BigBallinStalin wrote:

Funkyterrance wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:I never really understood how the life of a human being begins at the stage of conception. (a) Why not before?

Cuz without fertilization the egg will never be anything more than an egg. After fertilization the egg starts the process of creating a future human being. It seems a logical starting point to me since before that point in time there is only the potentiality of a human being and after there is a very good possibility, considering everything goes without a hitch. To me its about potentiality versus actuality.

AH! A Process of a Future human being.

Still isn't a human being though... :p


Yeah, I'm familiar with the potentiality --> actuality argument, but that ain't this thread.

This is not an argument I've plucked from somewhere else, it's my own but w/e. Of course its not a little miniature guy/girl swimming around in the egg but its something that will eventually be a little guy/girl. Why doesn't the aspect of time enter into the question?
Or are you arguing that an egg is the same thing as a chicken?

Funkyterrance wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:

Funkyterrance wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:I never really understood how the life of a human being begins at the stage of conception. (a) Why not before?

Cuz without fertilization the egg will never be anything more than an egg. After fertilization the egg starts the process of creating a future human being. It seems a logical starting point to me since before that point in time there is only the potentiality of a human being and after there is a very good possibility, considering everything goes without a hitch. To me its about potentiality versus actuality.

AH! A Process of a Future human being.

Still isn't a human being though... :p


Yeah, I'm familiar with the potentiality --> actuality argument, but that ain't this thread.

This is not an argument I've plucked from somewhere else, it's my own but w/e. Of course its not a little miniature guy/girl swimming around in the egg but its something that will eventually be a little guy/girl. Why doesn't the aspect of time enter into the question?
Or are you arguing that an egg is the same thing as a chicken?

But ideas can be legendary. The potentiality--> actuality approach stems from Aristotle and perhaps before him. He was using it (in Posterior Analytics, I think) to describe the process of a "thing becoming to be" and a "thing not becoming to be" in order to explain first what the thing is. In other words, in some cases, we examine the actuality (i.e. outcome) in order to explain what it is--from before. Thus, it's about using posterior analysis to explain prior things. (IIRC).

Our language is embedded, and so are 'one's own' ideas, so I'm hesitant whenever I claim that "this argument is my own." Of course, new ideas can be forged, but in only in reference to prior ideas because a self-contained language free of others' influence (private language) would no longer become a public language (English, and all the ideas in which it encompasses). In other words, a private language cannot be discernible if it does not relate to a public language. You'd have to use a private language to justify that an idea/argument is 100% your own, but in doing so, you must admit that you would not be able to articulate your idea without the influence of your use of the public language. In turn, your own argument/idea can't be 100% your own.

For example, the first paragraph I got mainly from Aristotle, but also from my interpretation and also other people's interpretations of Aristotle (remix). The second paragraph I recall from mainly Wittgenstein's Philosophical Investigations, and the rest of it, I'm not sure. In the context of our discussion, since one's language is not really one's own, then one's ideas can't really be one's own.


Does the development or remix of prior ideas lead to the actualization of an 'original' idea? In this sense, is 'your' idea actually original? Yes and no. Sometimes, an original idea can be created independently by two separated persons, but who's to say that the role of the same set of past ideas both influenced them toward that same outcome? So, in this sense, it's not original, and not one's own argument. There's this ambiguity here...


Anyway, NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!! we're talking about the "stage of conception = human life" argument. We'll deal with the potentiality argument later (perhaps in this thread if no challenger approaches to defend the "SoC = HL" argument).

saxitoxin wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:

saxitoxin wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:Because we can't say the form of a fetus and especially the form of a fertilized egg is equal to the form of a human being at age 2 or at age 30...

A human at age 2 is not equal to a human at age 30.

A human at age 2 does not have secondary molars or pubic hair while a human at age 30 does. A human at age 2 has fontanelles, while a human at age 30 does not.

The human body is in a continual state of development and change through death. At some points that development may be more dramatic (e.g. fetal stage) than other points (e.g. puberty).

Yeah you right! It gets really annoying in trying to define a human, which further complicates thus undermining the "stage of conception = human life" argument.

The mainstream Left sees lawmaking as a morality exercise. Laws are good, therefore laws must enforce goodness.

It's not possible for people of this mindset to both (a) accept abortion as an immoral act, and, (b) support maintaining its legality. If something is bad it should be made illegal. Therefore, to keep abortion legal, backwards rationalizations have to be applied to make abortion moral. There is no room for compromise - no matter how much evidence is offered - because it erodes the very essence of their view on the nature of the State.

People free of this prudish mindset can accept both that (a) abortion is a homicidal act, and, (b) homicide under these circumstances should be legal.

I have no problem with the MS Left as long as they keep their "enterprise of governing human conduct"[1] or law in their own free and voluntary associations (but that probably does not constitute as MS). Either way, I dispute your pigeon-holing of all "morality exercisers" into the MS Left category because nearly all people across that inept dichotomy are constantly in the pursuit of creating and maintaining good laws in order to attain goodness--however that's defined.

Nevertheless, as you scale-up the application of law and enforcement across larger political boundaries, then I'll marginally agree with you about the MS Left categorization. If by 'law' you mean formal law but not informal law*, then I'll agree even more. According to my econometric analysis, I would be at a 95% approval rate of your entire post (margin of error = +/- 3%, p-value = 0.000).

*State v. Customary law (for clarity's sake, and I think your 'law' is 'formal/State law').


[1] Enterprise of Law. (Bruce Benson is a BAMF).

Although it would not be what I would personally define as "a human", I would agree that it is fair to call a zygote the beginning of a eukaryote's "life", as it is the stage in which, rather than the meiotic division, the organism begins mitosis; becoming an individual distinct complex organism with a metabolism.

Just for clarification I certainly dont think that human life starts with conception and am slightly bewildered as to where the idea came from.

BigBallinStalin wrote:

patrickaa317 wrote:BBS - the reason some view conception as the key point and not before, is because that is when the DNA of the new individual is determined by receiving half of it's DNA from the egg (i.e. from the mother) and half from the sperm (i.e. from the father).

My skin cells contain my human DNA; therefore, my skins cells are human beings--or homunculi, if you prefer!

(I'm not saying you hold that "DNA merger = Human" position, but it still doesn't make sense when it's subjected to the reductio ad absurdum test).


Or is it the act of a DNA merger between human sperm and human egg = human being? I guess that's their case.

That's an interesting argument... but there's still the problem of defining what a human being is...
(see viewtopic.php?f=8&t=179873&view=unread#p3928214) if you wish to run with their argument to help me understand it.

Your skin cells contain your DNA, are you not alive? My opinion is once your DNA has been defined, you become a person as that DNA represents everything that defines a person.

BigBallinStalin wrote:We're talking about the "stage of conception = human life" argument. We'll deal with the potentiality argument later (perhaps in this thread if no challenger approaches to defend the "SoC = HL" argument).

My opinion:

"stage of conception" = "life"

i would be willing to concede that a newly fertilized egg is not a "human" as "human" is defined though it does not mean that it is not "alive".

My stance is pro-life with the only exceptions being if a woman was raped or she could potentially die from having a child.
Though if she was raped, it absolutely must be taken care of as early as possible. The closer you get to it's birth, the more I frown upon the act.