[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
if you define each word you will find a human , living sperm by definition is a living human being
I am not claiming it is a person .
be�·ing
ˈbēiNG/
1.
present participle of be.
noun
noun: being; plural noun: beings
1.
existence.
[/quote]
You’re going to ride this fail to the bitter end, huh?
[/quote]
being is a very broad word
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
if you define each word you will find a human , living sperm by definition is a living human being
[/quote]
So every single one of us has killed literally billions of living human beings in our lives?
I doubt very much that you believe this.[/quote]
very true 
[quote]budreiser wrote:
So much full retard in this thread[/quote]
You never go full retard.
Unless you have an ounce of White Widow.
Then you can go full retard all you want.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Yeah, couple hundred years, couple millennia. Who’s counting?
[/quote]
I’ll be sure to cite all my posts in the future so we can avoid any confusion.
[quote]
And you give me far too much credit. I didn’t think I was being subtle at all.
;)[/quote]
Perhaps not. It’s difficult for a, as the next poster calls it, full retard to tell what a master linguist like yourself always means.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
if you define each word you will find a human , living sperm by definition is a living human being
I am not claiming it is a person .
be�?�·ing
ˈbēiNG/
1.
present participle of be.
noun
noun: being; plural noun: beings
1.
existence.
[/quote]
You’re going to ride this fail to the bitter end, huh?
[/quote]
being is a very broad word[/quote]
Human ain’t. Thats be 'being’s we’re talking about. That’s a specific word.
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
if you define each word you will find a human , living sperm by definition is a living human being
[/quote]
So every single one of us has killed literally billions of living human beings in our lives?
I doubt very much that you believe this.[/quote]
His logic is to equate 'human being’s with non human entities in order to draw some sort of parallel between the two showing that since we discard millions of these types of cells all the time, it’s not a big deal.
The problem is that he is the only person to believe, (maybe in the world?)that a sperm is a human being. Confusing a ‘being’ of human origin as a human being. This would then include all discarded cells that a human body produces and discards.
I just simply have a hard time wrapping my brain around the lengths people will go to to justify a position. But I think once you have crossed the line into the logical and factual absurd, it’s a tacit admission of defeat.
There is no way to justify the position that a sperm=human being.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
[quote]kamui wrote:
the difference should really be obvious :
sperm can be replicated. A male body produces millions of those cells each day.
Each zygote is absolutely unique.
It is the result of a very long chain of unique events stretching back to the origin of Life on Earth.
Sperm is barely more than a biological waste.
A zygote is nothing less than a miracle.
[/quote]
Well, I wouldn’t go quite that far.
Considering how many quadrillions of human zygotes have been produced on this planet so far, it’s a bit of an overstatement to call it a miracle, but yes, an order of magnitude more significant than production of spermatozoa. [/quote]
It is not an overstatement to call it a miracle simply because it happens frequently. The miracle part is that putting the parts together in an appropriate environment results in something unique and autonomous. While we can understand the process of the transition, we do not know what makes it alive.
You can assemble all the parts of a human, and make all the chemicals flow and have electrochemical reactions take place and yet it does not live. It’s the life part that’s the miracle. And not only that it’s alive, but that it’s a new unique life unlike the host or the fertilizer that can never be replicated again.
That is unless you can explain the exact mechanism of life itself and then it’s not a miracle.[/quote]
Well, call it whatever you like. I use the words “miracle” and “miraculous” to refer to something unprecedented and incomprehensible by natural explanations. I can’t explain a man modifying the physical density of his body so that he is able to walk on water, or changing the molecular composition of water so that it becomes wine. If these events actually took place, and were verified by impartial third parties to have taken place, then I would have to concede miracle status. However, meiosis occurs in every organism that reproduces sexually, and mitosis occurs in every eukaryotic cell. Fertilization of sperm and egg is a well-understood process, and can be (and often is) performed without fanfare in a laboratory. We can clone any animal on the planet, including people, and can produce DNA strands with a 3D printer. Miracles? Okay, if you want to call them that. I call it biology. [/quote]
But what makes it live? That was the question on the table, not what biological processes take place. I already explained those are well known facts.
You cannot sum up life as a set of biological processes. You can go through all the biology you want, you cannot make it live.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Webster
per·son noun ˈpər-sən\
: a human being
Webster says they are the same thing.
sperm noun ˈspərm\
: a cell that is produced by the male sexual organs and that combines with the female’s egg in reproduction
: fluid that is produced by the male sexual organs which contains sperm cells
[/quote]
they can be , a person is a lot narrower of a definition , more specialized
per·son
Ë?pÉ?rsÉ?n/
noun
noun: person;â??plural noun: people;â??plural noun: persons;â??noun: first person;â??noun: second person;â??noun: third person
1.
a human being regarded as an individual.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
if you define each word you will find a human , living sperm by definition is a living human being
[/quote]
So every single one of us has killed literally billions of living human beings in our lives?
I doubt very much that you believe this.[/quote]
His logic is to equate 'human being’s with non human entities in order to draw some sort of parallel between the two showing that since we discard millions of these types of cells all the time, it’s not a big deal.
The problem is that he is the only person to believe, (maybe in the world?)that a sperm is a human being. Confusing a ‘being’ of human origin as a human being. This would then include all discarded cells that a human body produces and discards.
I just simply have a hard time wrapping my brain around the lengths people will go to to justify a position. But I think once you have crossed the line into the logical and factual absurd, it’s a tacit admission of defeat.
There is no way to justify the position that a sperm=human being.[/quote]
basically I am trying to point out some simple points that a Sperm is not a zygote , a zygote is not a child , a child is not an adult and an adult is not dead that is unless he is dead
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
basically I am trying to point out some simple points that a Sperm is not a zygote , a zygote is not a child , a child is not an adult and an adult is not dead that is unless he is dead :)[/quote]
The entire point you are ignoring though is:
A sperm is not a living human being
A zygote is…
A child is…
An adult is…
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
if you define each word you will find a human , living sperm by definition is a living human being
[/quote]
So every single one of us has killed literally billions of living human beings in our lives?
I doubt very much that you believe this.[/quote]
His logic is to equate 'human being’s with non human entities in order to draw some sort of parallel between the two showing that since we discard millions of these types of cells all the time, it’s not a big deal.
The problem is that he is the only person to believe, (maybe in the world?)that a sperm is a human being. Confusing a ‘being’ of human origin as a human being. This would then include all discarded cells that a human body produces and discards.
I just simply have a hard time wrapping my brain around the lengths people will go to to justify a position. But I think once you have crossed the line into the logical and factual absurd, it’s a tacit admission of defeat.
There is no way to justify the position that a sperm=human being.[/quote]
basically I am trying to point out some simple points that a Sperm is not a zygote , a zygote is not a child , a child is not an adult and an adult is not dead that is unless he is dead
[/quote]
A zygote is a stage in human development, as is infancy, childhood, etc. A sperm is not a stage in human development.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
A sperm is not a living human being
[/quote]
Is it Human ? Does it exist ? if you answer yes to both than it is a human being
[quote]pat wrote:
A sperm is not a stage in human development. [/quote]
sure it is , it is just before the sperm and the egg unite
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
A sperm is not a living human being
[/quote]
Is it Human ? Does it exist ? if you answer yes to both than it is a human being
[/quote]
So every living cell which carries my DNA is a human being?
No.
Listen, you’re clinging to a semantic flourish–“human being” is composed of the words “human” and “being,” so something that is both of human origin and exists must be a human being. You can vandalize the language of the phrase all you’d like, but this kind of wordplay is toxic to philosophy. In the philosophical sense, “human being” is being used in the context of this debate interchangeably with “human” and thus with “person.” Would you say that a single living cell scraped off a beaver’s tail is a beaver? Would you say that a dog’s eyeball, gouged free in the middle of a scrap in an alley, is a dog? No, you would not.
For that matter, would you say that a person’s eyeball, gouged free in the middle of a scrap in an alley, is a person? Say I were to come upon such a thing–an eyeball, freshly dislodged, sitting on the concrete. It’s just been ripped out, and many of its cells are consequently still living. Say its owner is nowhere to be found. Say that for some reason I set this thing on fire. Can I be prosecuted for murder? For MASS murder?
I think you have some not-terrible plays here in this thread–for example, attacking teleology–but this is absolutely not one of them.
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
A sperm is not a living human being
[/quote]
Is it Human ? Does it exist ? if you answer yes to both than it is a human being
[/quote]
So every living cell which carries my DNA is a human being?
No.
Listen, you’re clinging to a semantic flourish–“human being” is composed of the words “human” and “being,” so something that is both of human origin and exists must be a human being. You can vandalize the language of the phrase all you’d like, but this kind of wordplay is toxic to philosophy. In the philosophical sense, “human being” is being used in the context of this debate interchangeably with “human” and thus with “person.” Would you say that a single living cell scraped off a beaver’s tail is a beaver? Would you say that a dog’s eyeball, gouged free in the middle of a scrap in an alley, is a dog? No, you would not.
For that matter, would you say that a person’s eyeball, gouged free in the middle of a scrap in an alley, is a person? Say I were to come upon such a thing–an eyeball, freshly dislodged, sitting on the concrete. It’s just been ripped out, and many of its cells are consequently still living. Say its owner is nowhere to be found. Say that for some reason I set this thing on fire. Can I be prosecuted for murder? For MASS murder?
I think you have some not-terrible plays here in this thread–for example, attacking teleology–but this is absolutely not one of them.
[/quote]
I totally agree it is a semantical conversation .
One difference between the eye or other cells would be autonomy and purpose . But in this discussion you are correct an eye is a being
lol @ pitttttttttt calling me stupid in this thread, just lol…
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
A sperm is not a living human being
[/quote]
Is it Human ? Does it exist ? if you answer yes to both than it is a human being
[/quote]
So every living cell which carries my DNA is a human being?
No.
Listen, you’re clinging to a semantic flourish–“human being” is composed of the words “human” and “being,” so something that is both of human origin and exists must be a human being. You can vandalize the language of the phrase all you’d like, but this kind of wordplay is toxic to philosophy. In the philosophical sense, “human being” is being used in the context of this debate interchangeably with “human” and thus with “person.” Would you say that a single living cell scraped off a beaver’s tail is a beaver? Would you say that a dog’s eyeball, gouged free in the middle of a scrap in an alley, is a dog? No, you would not.
For that matter, would you say that a person’s eyeball, gouged free in the middle of a scrap in an alley, is a person? Say I were to come upon such a thing–an eyeball, freshly dislodged, sitting on the concrete. It’s just been ripped out, and many of its cells are consequently still living. Say its owner is nowhere to be found. Say that for some reason I set this thing on fire. Can I be prosecuted for murder? For MASS murder?
I think you have some not-terrible plays here in this thread–for example, attacking teleology–but this is absolutely not one of them.
[/quote]
He has zero, and I mean zero basis for this position. No integrity, intellectual honesty, nor ability to even debate at this point.
Thank you for the post though.
George Carlin knew what was going on.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
A sperm is not a stage in human development. [/quote]
sure it is , it is just before the sperm and the egg unite
[/quote]
No, it is not. A sperm is just a sperm, if the union takes place, the sperm is destroyed, only the information survives. At that point, there is no human being yet. It’s beyond me how you don’t understand these basics when there is reams of scientific documentation on it. Just fucking google it or go to your local library. Don’t take my word.
I am still waiting on a source that even remotely supports this point of view of yours. I am guessing there is not one.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
A sperm is not a living human being
[/quote]
Is it Human? Does it exist ? if you answer yes to both than it is a human being
[/quote]
No, Yes. Ride that horse of fail into the sunset…