Abortion

[gfm7175]

even though millions of sperms may meet their end every time it happens.

Sperm lack a heartbeat and a complete set of DNA (only 23 chromosomes instead of 46). Sperm in and of themselves will NEVER EVER grow/develop into a living human (and any/all of the associated growth/development stages). There is no "living human" involved with sperm.

Similarly, few would consider it a crime every time an unfertile egg is flushed out of fertile female's body.

See above.

Apparently, things change for a fair amount of people if that same egg were to be fertilized by an egg.

I think you meant to say "same egg were to be fertilized by a sperm". Yes, all sorts of "things" change at that point. At that point, there's now a zygote (a diploid cell) containing a FULL/COMPLETE unique set of DNA from both parents (46 chromosomes, 23 from the father's sperm and 23 from the mother's egg).

At that point, the now-formed zygote (a newly formed human with a unique set of DNA, distinguishing it from any other human) will continue to grow/develop as a human, going through all of the various stages of human growth/development [from zygote to elder] (unless, of course, some killer-doctor gets contractually hired by the child's mother to snuff the life out of the child before it can even be born).

As I've mentioned previously, both Into the Night and gfm believe that this would be murder.

Indeed, we do believe that.

I find it interesting that you have decided not to answer this question as of yet. Perhaps you aren't sure?

I think he just finds it to be irrelevant. Like I said, he's like a "buck in rut" when it comes to staying laser-focused on the relevant information.

 

[gfm7175]

Actually, they do.

Actually, they don't.

They just don't have -2- complete sets of DNA, like regular cells.

There is no "2 complete sets" of DNA. There's only one complete set (46 chromosomes). Complete = 46 chromosomes. Sperm and Egg, however, only have 23 chromosomes, which is HALF of 46, so they are HALF sets, not complete sets.

This is so that they can join with each other and thus form a set of DNA that combines the male and female's genes together.

IOW, a COMPLETE set of DNA (46 chromosomes). See above. Also, I'd recommend saying 'father' and 'mother' instead of "male and female" because it's more specific/precise (a particular male and female instead of a generic male and female).

You don't seem to believe me, so I'll quote some sources:
**
The human sperm cell is haploid,

Correct.

so that its 23 chromosomes

Correct. This means a HALF set of DNA (23 / 46)

can join the 23 chromosomes of the female egg

Correct. This means another HALF set of DNA (23 / 46)

to form a diploid cell with 46 paired chromosomes.

Correct. This means a WHOLE/COMPLETE/FULL set of DNA (46 / 46).

 

[gfm7175]

It's a catch all for all stages of human development. I know of no other term that can encompass them all.

Great, then we've found the correct term. Living humans are living humans regardless of the particular stage of growth/development they happen to be in at any given time.

You, Into the Night and gfm all exclude the human stages of human development known as human sperm and human egg from the term "living human". I don't.

"Human sperm" and "human egg" are NOT stages of human development, as they are NOT a new living human in and of themselves, even though they are both necessary components in order to form a new living human.

Let's say that you have four legs and a seat as components. The four legs are not a stool. The seat is not a stool. However, the four legs and the seat, when joined together, become a new stool.

You don't have a new stool until the components join together to form a whole. You don't have a new human until the components join together to form a whole.

 

[IBDaMann]

Definitely. In response to this question, Into the Night answered in the affirmative in post #504. So did gfm in post #528. Is that your answer as well?

That's not my point. I'm wondering why I should answer any of your questions? Can you give me a good reason? You won't answer any of mine.

Let me know when we can focus on my list on nine questions that you have EVADED thus far with really lame excuses.

 

[IBDaMann]

But I doubt you can deny that human sperms and eggs are living and they are certainly human.

I deny it, for the moment. Where does that leave you? I notice that you won't acknowledge the lack of a heartbeat. I notice you won't acknowledge what we have already established that runs counter to what you are trying to walk back.

 

[gfm7175]

No.

Great. That means that a living human is getting the 'living' aspect snuffed out of him by another living human. What would you call it when one living human forcefully ends the life of another living human?

Can you think of any living human sperm that is not living and not human?

Can you think of any living human sperm that has a heartbeat and has a "full" set of DNA (46 chromosomes)?

Why? A frozen embryo doesn't yet have a heartbeat. You have to wait at least 16 days after conception for that to happen:

First of our three billion heartbeats is sooner than we thought | University of Oxford

When does our heart first start to beat? Until now, researchers thought that the first time our heart muscle contracted to beat was at eight days after conception in mice, which equates to around day 21 of a human pregnancy.

www.ox.ac.uk

Because it's my belief that life begins at "conception" (fertilization). However, you're also quite aware that this particular scenario falls outside of the purview of IBD's definition for 'living human' (homo sapien with a heartbeat).

Sounds reasonable.

Close. The correct answer is 'yes, it most definitely is'.

I do.

Then you'd also accept that {abortion} is a proper subset of {contract killing}.

 

[gfm7175]

Wikipedia explains:

 

[IBDaMann]

but IBD is like a "buck in rut" when it comes to any potential distractions from the task at hand... he's very laser-focused, eye always on the ball.

I get the "laser-focused" bit, thank you ... but what's a "buck in a rut"? I'll have to look this up.

Aaaahhh, I get it now. So I'm a single-minded, laser-focused buck-in-a-rut. I might have to change my avatar.

 

[IBDaMann]

You, Into the Night and gfm all exclude the human stages of human development known as human sperm and human egg from the term "living human". I don't.

Do you include urination and defecation as stages of human development?

We've already been over this and you have not refuted what you have been taught. Nothing preceding the existence of a specific living human can be a "stage" of that living human. The DNA of a sperm that makes a specific living human differs from the sperm of that living human. The sperm cannot be a life stage of any human.

A dictionary, encyclopedia or legal tome is far more than just an IP address.

It's a full API. Yes, I get it.

 

[gfm7175]

Human sperms and eggs are living and human.

Depends on how you define living. Under IBD's definition, both sperm and egg fail to meet the criteria for 'living' ("has a heartbeat") and are thus summarily dismissed.

But even if one DOES define living in a manner that allows for sperm to be considered both living and human, a sperm is not an individual organism (it lacks the other 23 chromosomes that are necessary to form a new organism). Sperm are not new organisms, but are rather sex cells that are produced BY existing organisms. Sperm do not go through the stages of human growth/development like living humans (which are individual organisms) do. It is not until a sperm fertilizes an egg (and forms a new organism with a "full" set of DNA - 46 chromosomes) that the human growth/development process begins.

Together,

Key word: TOGETHER. That means that a sperm and an egg, SEPARATE, are merely COMPONENTS of living humans (namely, their sex cells) and are not actually new living humans in and of themselves.

Four legs are not a stool. A seat is not a stool. Four legs and a seat, joined together and securely fastened, create a new stool.

A sperm is not a living human. An egg is not a living human. A sperm and an egg, joined together and fertilized, creates a new living human.

they can create embryos, fetuses and if a pregnancy comes to turn, born babies, but that doesn't change the fact that they are still living humans even if they don't join.

See above.

 

[gfm7175]

Setting aside your description of performing an abortion, I was actually thinking of cases where the mother decides to freeze her fertilized eggs thinking that she may wish to conceive at a future date, but then decides not to conceive. I suppose you would consider her pulling the plug on the life support of her fertilized eggs to be murder?

I suppose you already know the answer to your question, but those cases are totally irrelevant within IBD's framework of 'living human'. (homo sapien with a heartbeat).

 

[AProudLefty]

I suppose you already know the answer to your question, but those cases are totally irrelevant within IBD's framework of 'living human'. (homo sapien with a heartbeat).

As per your definition, the termination of fertilized eggs without heartbeat is not murder.

 

[gfm7175]

As per your definition, the termination of fertilized eggs without heartbeat is not murder.

Under the framework: 'living human' (homo sapien with a heartbeat), there's no heartbeat in this example, so this example falls outside the purview of discussion.

 

[AProudLefty]

Under the framework: 'living human' (homo sapien with a heartbeat), there's no heartbeat in this example, so this example falls outside the purview of discussion.

Ok so it isn't a murder.

Now does heartbeat indicate consciousness/awareness/sentience?

 

[Into the Night]

Oh look! @gfm7175 and @Into the Night liked your post!

Random pivot. No apparent coherency.

 

[AProudLefty]

Random pivot. No apparent coherency.

A wild bird appears!

 

[Into the Night]

Where did you see this? Your imagination?

Trying to deny posts never works, LeftNut.

You're the one who evaded my answers to your questions.

Inversion fallacy. Answer the questions put to you.

Multiple personalities can disagree with each other.

You cannot blame Sybil's problem on anybody else, LeftNut.

You might not have MPD, but you certainly use the same language!

You cannot blame Sybil's problem on anybody else, LeftNut.

Be yourself. Don't copy. You are unique!

No one is copying, LeftNut. You are hallucinating.

 

[Into the Night]

You can define the term "living human" however you like. Since I have been unable to find a dictionary definition for the term, there isn't even a guide as to how people usually define the term. But I doubt you can deny that human sperms and eggs are living and they are certainly human.

False authority fallacy. Dictionaries do not define any word.
Word games won't work, Scotch. RAAA.

 

[AProudLefty]

Trying to deny posts never works, LeftNut.

Inversion fallacy. Answer the questions put to you.

You cannot blame Sybil's problem on anybody else, LeftNut.

You cannot blame Sybil's problem on anybody else, LeftNut.

No one is copying, LeftNut. You are hallucinating.

Roll em dice!

 

[Into the Night]

I value the different stages of human life differently.

Obviously. You try to justify murder.