September 2016

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
        1 2 3
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17
18 19 20 21 22 23 24
25 26 27 28 29 30  


« Speaking for God - Judging Nations | Main | How Robertson Was Right »

January 14, 2010


Hi RonH, I dont think you're being faithful to the word "intrisic", and your use of the word"acquire" [since you specifically excluded developement] doesn't really operate in a compatible way with the word intrinsic. This is key to the way people look at the unborn i.e. assembly line vs. developement.

You clearly use the assembly line framework, but I dont think you can use "intrinsic" with that view, since the phrase "by nature" is associated with the definition. I looked to see if I'm making a mountain out of a mole hill, but nearly every one of the approx. 10 references I looked at include that phrase. Thus, the unborn at conception *has* by nature sentience as essential to her being, as an intrinsic quality. This would be a faithful use of the word intrinsic.

If you want to argue against this position, you might want to tell from where does this acquisiton of sentience come from. If it is acquired from outside the being, I'll relent from my position on the use of the word intrinsic.

Oh wow, there were several posts since I started and then actually submitted, I'll catch up.


I've offered you a few examples of non-sentient things we ascribe interests to. What of them?

Also, I've been asking you to tell us when/where sentience appears for some time now. You are asserting that sentience is required for interests, yet you have not identified a specific point when sentience is achieved/acquired/developed (what term do you even want to use here?).


I am a little confused at what you're getting at. Are you trying to say that nothing can be known objectively? That there are no objective facts to be learned about the universe and the way it operates? That everything is just a matter of someone's opinion? I am uncertain of what your point is.


i'm saying SOME systems are not objective in that they are not 'discovered truths' of the universe.

For example, the Dewey Decimal system is not the one and only divinely inspired system of book organization.

its just a useful tool.

same with the 'linnean taxonomy'

carl linnaeus and Melvil Dewey had great organization skills.

but they werent gods.

So what does this have to do with when a human life begins?
Scientifically speaking it begins at the moment of sperm and egg fusion.
For details see


I've read this paper. And i've exchanged several emails with Dr. Condic.

What's quite disheartening is she posed a question that lies deep in the heart of the Philosophy of Biology. yet, she never even mentioned the word.

It was an odd paper. Basically a very brief introduction to embryology, with a very big title on the first page, "When does human life begin".

For a much better treatment, see "What Is Life?" by Lynn Margulis.

So you said "Scientifically speaking [a new life] begins at the moment of sperm and egg fusion"

Suppose Tony said "Scientifically speaking [a new life] begins at the creation of the ovum."

Using "scientific principles" how might you prove Tony wrong?

The comments to this entry are closed.