Summations Only

And when exactly is that? The "moment" of conception is fraught with gradualistic realities. Firstly sometimes more than one sperm penetrates the egg and it takes time for the egg to eject those extra chromosones. And even once we are down to a single sperm it can be over a day before the genes of the sperm and egg combine. And then another day for the new genome to control the cell. So the "moment" of conception is more like a 48 hour period. When during this process has a human life been created do you think? There is some medical research into the brain development of fetuses and suchlike. But there isn't a definite science defined point at which we can say - "Yes this is now a human being" or "No this is not". It is necessarily arbitrary to some extent. In the same way that adulthood is a necessarily arbitrary legal distinction loosely based on biological development. Did you know that about 60% of all conceptuses end up flushed down the toilet without anyone even realising that any conception had taken place? The majority of conceptuses never implant in the uterus.If the church really wants to save human lives and genuinely believes that human life starts at the "point" of conception they should focus on research into this majority of conceptuses rather than get too riled up about the comparatively tiny amount that get intentionally aborted.If saving human life as they have defined it really is the issue....

That seems to be the case. From Wiki on the Murder in English law: Link

So rather confusing your "moment of conception" isn't actually when conception takes place at all. What you have described is called implantation'. Implantation occurs 7-14 days after conception and like all other biological processes implantation is a gradualistic process that defies the idea of "moments".Can I ask if you believe in the existence of a soul?And if so when do you think the soul is formed?

And when exactly do you think it is that "life begins"......?How are you identifying the beginning of life on which your position depends?If I look at 2 egg-sperm combinations, one of which meets your criteria of a life and one of which doesn't, how can I tell which is which?

Are those who are infertile for whatever reason "alive"....?I don't think you can define life in terms of ability to reproduce without facing some rather silly consequences.

I've yet to see anything that can meaningfully be called a "person" that actually lacks a brain. Whilst I suspect that setting any absolute single criteria for human personhood is going to run into difficulties some sort of brain development based position seems more justifiable than most.On what basis are you suggesting we should attribute personhood?

What on Earth has taxanomic classification of species got to do with deciding whether or not any given embryo or foetus qualifies as a human being or not?Any infertile member of any species is an example of "one organism in any Taxa that does not reproduce". Any human pre-pubescent child would qualify.If ability to reproduce is the criteria then none of us qualify as human until we hit puberty. Are we really going to disqualify 8 year old kids from being human?

So what exactly is your point? That a zygote qualifies as a human life because it is capable of cellular reproduction? The same could be said of a cancerous growth.What exactly are you saying with regard to the topic here?

Firstly - If brains are your criteria why on Earth are you banging on about cellular reproduction as the defining criteria for life?Secondly - So when exactly is that? How do we identify this point where a brain has been "developed"....? Dude you are the one ranting on about life being defined by the capability to replicate cells. Not me. The same? In what sense? Morally? Physically? In terms of personhood? Are you equating dicks with zygotes now? If I wanted my dick removed I think, that as a person, that would be my personal right. Likewise if a woman wants a zygote removed I think that is her personal right.What do you think?

Profound.The thread asks - "When does human life begin?"It seems that your thinking on this issue is somewhat conflicted and very definitely confused. It has (according to you) something to do with cellular reproduction. And (according to you) something to do with brain development.But quite what, or how these things are related or reconciled, is anybodies guess. Including, I suspect, your own.

So - In summary - You define life as that which can reproduce cells but you define human life specifically as that which has a sufficiently developed brain? I'm only protesting at the conflicting ambiguities of your different criteria.How do we identify this stage where a brain has been sufficiently "developed" for you to consider the cells in question as qualifying for human life?And if brain development is your criteria why are you defining anything at all remotely relevant to this thread in terms of ability to reproduce cells?

Then what are you defining in terms of the ability to reproduce and what possible relevance does it have to this thread? OK. But that isn't "how". That is "when". What is it about the brain of a 24-28 week old foetus that qualifies it for human life?I'm not even disagreeing with you here. Just trying to clarify what the hell it is you are actually getting at. I started "fucking with" you because you were making statements about the ability to reprodeuce cells that were either idiotic or irrelevant in this thread context.You have plumped for irrelevant which is probably the more justfiable of the two options.

Your entire position in this thread depends upon there being a "point" when human life begins. But you still cannot tell us when exactly it is that you think it is that human "life begins"...... How are you identifying the beginning of life on which your position depends?If I look at 2 egg-sperm combinations, one of which meets your criteria of a life and one of which doesn't, how can I tell which is which? Is a zygote a "baby".....? If a "baby" is a human being with personhood then you are making a lot of evidentially unjustifaible assumptions. OK. If nobodies un-evidenced opinion alone should carry any weight then on what criteria do we base the judgements related to abortion upon?Are there any criteria that we can agree upon to attribute personhood to something and if so what are they?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

When is that point? Be specific. Your entire position depends upon this "point" existing. Yes. There is no 'point'.

Jolly good. Then can we also agree that anything lacking a brain of any sort fails to qualify for personhood?