Posts by Grant Dexter
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
The evidence you support to deny that babies at conception are alive and human:
His evidence is the fact that those cells cannot survive outside of the womb
That's a bizarre thing to say! How is the fact that a baby can die evidence against the fact that a baby is alive and human!?!?have no consciousness
Is consciousness a pre-requisite for being human? How does that work?and due to the high rate of natural spontaneous abortion in humans likely to turn into a human in only around 60% of pregnancies.
Again with the "They can die so they are not human" reasoning. How is the ability to die evidence against humanity?How about looking at the DNA of a baby at conception. Whose DNA does he have?
The evidence that you have presented so far is a claim that any fertilised cell is a human.
That's not evidence. That's a statement of fact. You might like to call it an opinion for safety's sake.Do you see the difference?
Sure. My position is simple and matches the scientific data we can collect. Yours is dependent on things we cannot measure directly like consciousness or bizarre claims that the ability to die denies humanity and life.. -
Interesting, Tony. If a PhD claimed the Earth was not round, in a discussion between lay persons as to things relating to the solar system, would you be as equally critical of the different terminologies. Or would you think it was no big deal?
I claim a baby is alive at conception. Peter has a graded definition of what is alive (from what I can tell). How about you? Do you think a baby at conception is alive or not alive? Or are you willing to defend or explain sensibly a view that I think says things can be more, or less, alive?
Similarly I claim a baby is human at conception. Peter made no comment in his last post to this. How about you? Do you think a baby is human at conception? If not, what is it?
I stand accused of being sarcastic. I guess I might be read that way, but I am trying to state the facts as clearly as I can first and foremost.
I also stand accused of being ignorant of the difference between fact and opinion. I see no evidence, whatsoever, that my opinion (baby is alive and human at conception) is not true. Therefore I am completely justified in stating my opinions (limited as they have been kept) and using scientific fact to back them up.
-
Davida - Are you not able to tell the difference between a human and, say, a monkey? Or a virus! Can you tell the difference between a human and a virus?
I can. I guess if I worked as long as hard as Peter has I could determine a human conceptus from a mouse conceptus as well.
-
Amazing, Peter. I've never seen that many words in one place before! Truly you are on a plane of your own!
I understand conception as a sequence of events that generates a human being. I haven't studied in a lab for endless hours as you have, but I do speak in nothing but facts when I say that at conception a baby is alive and human.
You seem to have some graded scale for life which is an interesting thing to have. Why would you need that? I see things and I think, "Rock. =not alive. Tree. =alive."
You seem to think that calling a baby at conception "alive" equates to believing a virus is "alive". They are both alive, you know? But why would you compare a baby with a virus? A baby isn't a virus, Mr. Smith!
You insist that removing a baby at conception from his mother will kill him. I agree.
You invent something called a "difference between the potential and the actual" and expect me to adhere to your standard. I don't. A baby is not potentially alive. He is alive. A baby is not potentially human. He is human.
You claim a PhD and years of experience looking at the process of conception yet insist that you cannot see humans at that stage. Why so blind?
The simple facts, regardless of your ability to reword meaning out of existence, remain. At conception a baby is alive. At conception a baby is human.
-
Davida - they sure do!
-
I think you guys are seriously ignorant of what happens in reality. Parents are destroyed by the loss of their baby and devastated by conditions that make conception so difficult. Do you honestly believe that the (lack of) ceremonies that mark the passing of the tiniest humans have any bearing on the facts?
The facts are that at conception (before implantation) a baby is human and alive.
-
Baby? It's pretty simple really. Mothers have them. They grow into All Blacks sometimes.
-
Wow. Peter. Lots more words. I'm impressed. I would say that a person forms at some stage between the first meeting of sperm and egg and first cell duplication. I don't know exactly where in that process.
Still the facts remain that at conception a baby is alive and human.
-
Ah, I see you do not like my terminology. I will concede the term baby is not what a medical practitioner might use if you will concede that baby is the term a mother might use.
-
Lots of words there Peter, not a lot of content.
Scientific fact:
At conception a baby is alive.
At conception a baby is human.Seems to me the only reason one needs philosophy is to justify the killing of human beings.