If you generalize to semen meets womb, long before that. The people who thought about things like when the soul enters the body knew that the fetus grows from a blob with no limbs. Aristotle's idea was that they started with a plant soul, eventually got an animal soul, and finally got a human one. Early Christians mostly thought the soul enters at conception, there was that phase I mentioned when it moved to quickening, probably due to a resurgence of interest in Greek philosophers, and then it eventually moved back to conception.

Bag o' Water
 

:lol:

I concur. Our damn egos are so big we've (most of us, anyway) created this notion that we are "special," and then we created the idea of god/gods to reinforce that notion. But, evolutionarily speaking, why do so many cultures arcross the board have this notion? Perhaps religious belief is itself some sort of evolutionary mechanism that is used to comfort and protect us from the reality of our essential meaninglessness. That makes us atheists/materialists anomalies in the human kingdom. But I'm not afraid or bummed out that I'm just a bag o' water:neutral:

Bradshaw called it 'the child in the man'. You can observe it. A factual post that is blunt (not politically correct) will be seen by an adult in factual terms and yet will hype an emotional response in the still childish adult.

The child within us always wants an adult figure. So we create pagan gods as if it were our parents. A child is also self centered. Child views a world that revolves only around the child and those who serve that child (parents or gods). And so even Galileo had his problems with an infantile church that insisted even the sun revolves around us. The infant will suddenly discover his finger and become excited. And yet the child will never even ask why.

Adults put the world in terms that are not glorious. Adult learns there is no such thing as 'good and evil'. Adult learns of a world chock full of perspectives and deeper mysteries. A world where life ends and is then done (no such things as ghosts and spirits). Where knowledge first demands reasons why. None of this bodes well with a person so emotional as to insist they are that important - there must be more.

When a post is blunt and politically incorrect, the only relevant part is its facts. However many want to have an Oprah Winfrey or "Sign of the Times' response. Instead they want to judge by feeling. Demonstrates the child inside an adult. Children care about feelings. Adults grow up to instead learn about a bigger world well beyond a child's perspective.

Perhaps people found they needed a better reason to enforce rules and laws than 'I say so, that's why'. In a world where right and wrong are encased in the individual you can't use regular logic such as 'it's better for everyone' because there is nothing forcing them to acknowledge the value of mutual prosperity other than force. Also, calling people who don't agree with your values ignorant is really pointless if value systems are personal and of equal merit.

Thank you, You said it much without the sarcastic bite my message to him would have had.


I thought to address bluec instead.



You say what ever you want bluecuracao...someof us want to hear what other people have to say. Especially from those who don not set themselves up as god while professing there isn't one.

Speaking as a God (TW worships me), I'd like to read what everyone has to say. ;)

I voted at birth.
I don't know that anyone will ever be able to definitively determine biologically or mechanically when life begins. But philosophically, I think "IT", whatever "IT" is, becomes a human when the one carrying it decides it is. Fetuses are like turtles. If you name it and care for it, it is a pet, and part of your family. Or you can make soup out of it. In support of this, I would point out that I've never heard of a funeral for a miscarried fetus. It is NOT treated the same as a human child. Even anti-choice folks differentiate between an unborn entity and one which has been delivered.

I vote at birth too. But only because it's a nice neat place to draw a line. I really think that it's somewhere around the third trimester, when the fetus/baby is pretty much fully developed and could survive outside the womb.

And having had kids, I can say that there's another threshold after that. The baby becomes a person somewhere around 6-9 months after birth, when you can actually interact with the creature. Before that, it's an eating, peeing, and pooping machine that makes a ton of unpleasant noise, but there's nobody home. After that, you can see a real person in there and actually get some acknowledgement out of them that you exist.

Well crap, all the hair color commercials have been telling me life begins at 40. I was clinging to that!

I know a woman who had one. Though I don't think it was a very mentally healthy step for her.

Meh. I'd put the line closer to 2-3 months. My kid smiles, recognizes me and his father, and responds to rudimentary play. Does he have a personality? Not much of one. But he's definitely more of a person than a newborn.


On the viability issue, the whole debate will shift radically when medicine manages to create an artificial womb--instead of aborting, it could be removed and then cared for until "birth" then given up for adoption. The sick thing is, I know some women who would absolutely prefer abortion, because they can't bear the idea of someone else having their child.

I interact with my child, who won't be born for about another month.

Santorum brought his home from the hospital to show his kids, and then held a funeral.

I'm having a really hard time understanding how you could reasonably say that a child is not human until 2-3 months old. Remember that this isn't just a philosophical debate on what characteristics we like most, but that this is the dividing line in law. Before it is human no laws protecting it apply. Do you think that a mother who drowns a 1 month old child isn't doing anything wrong?? Plus, it would leave a massive loophole for buying and selling children. Also, I bring up the argument again that if a child is not human before birth then you dont have any basis to ban procedures like embrionic gene doping and and cloning (just in case your kid dies you have a healthy supply of him on-hand).
I laughed my ass off when the reports about parents in China selectively aborting children based on sex described it as a 'horrific abuse'. If a woman doesn't want the baby because it's the wrong sex is that any worse than because she wants a few more years to climb the social ladder??? And what about the parents who abort children with genetic disorders or diseases, or deformities??? If "it's the woman's right to choose" then why can we pass judgement depending on whether we agree with her motive for doing so????

The hypocracy is nausiating.

Some people need to stop thinking the world is a wonderful place that can be run on philisophical musings instead of hard practicalities.

9th, I wasn't saying a child is fit to be aborted until 2-3 months old. I'm a brain-function/viability woman for legal purposes, myself. I was just saying they move beyond being eating/pooping machines sooner than 6 months.

Is humanity determined by the projection of ones perceptions/expectations?

i mean that i believe that souls endure. the physical manifestation completes the person, but is not what gives one 'humanity'. I believe that i was 'human' long before i was born into this body, and will continue to be so long after i die. I've no idea when a soul first inhabits a physical body....could be before OR after or during birth. i just dont know. it doesn't really matter, i guess.

I don't think either Clodfobble or I were saying that.

I just went back and looked at baby pictures, and you are right. My daughter stopped being an eating/pooping machine at about 3 months. There's a person in there at 3 months.

It's a good thing to get one particular term right, and that's "human"

A thing is human if it has the right chromosomes. A living blood cell is human even if it is on the sidewalk. What we are discussing is either what human thing has rights, or what confers a new level of specialness to that human thing. The thread title calls this "humanity", which I find confusing. I prefer the term "person" or "personhood", in that all cells/collections of cells with the right chromosomes are human, but not all are persons.

I think all sides can agree on these terms and that the terms are neutral to the argument.

I did this with my daughter. Toward the end of my pregnancy, we would tap on my belly, and she would kick out at us. It was a riot!!

I don't really want to get too involved, but I had to comment on both of these statements which are complete and utter bullshit. There are many women that I know that were heartbroken when they had miscarriages and still consider them children. They felt and had services just the same as if a 5 month old would die. They are treated the same as a human child because to them (and me), it IS a human child.



My brother and sister in law are going through this. Whenever he laughs, the baby kicks, making him laugh, making the baby kick, etc etc. Needless to say, I don't know how funny my sister in law thinks this is. :D

That's your experience. My experience is different, not bullshit any more than yours is. :mad:
I didn't say people weren't upset. I said they don't have funerals.

So maybe only radical right wing conservative self-espoused religious fundamentalist whackos have funerals for their miscarriages.

What would you think of a woman who had an abortion, then had a funeral for it? :eyebrow:

Lots of people have funerals, they just aren't talked about because people don't like talking about miscarriages. After it happens, people that it didn't affect (and sometimes, sadly, people it did) don't acknowledge that the woman was ever pregnant, had a child, or had a traumatic event happen in their life.

I am sorry if I offended you, I probably shouldn't have used the word bullshit, but I have seen many women struggling with loss and with people treating their child like it wasn't human and doesn't deserve to be remembered or to have a funeral.

Usually the big issue with the Chinese abortions is the fact that it's due to China's one-child policy.

It's a Catholic thing.

They use dead fetuses to raise money? :eek:

a buck a piece. All proceeds to benefit pedophilia.

Fundraiser organized by NMBLA?:right:

No, NAMFLA.

:mg: The North American Man/Flag Love Association gets the money from dead fetuses?

NAMBLA, my bad. what the heck is NAMFLA?

North American Man-Fetus Love Association, I'm assuming.

Of course.

Had this thought a couple of nights ago, not sure if it will come out in typing as well as it did in my head ...

A woman learns that she is pregnant. This is, depending on the woman and her circumstances, either a joyous event, or a fear-inducing one, but, biologically, it is the same event. This is at the SAME point in the pregancy (let's say about week 6, for the sake of argument).

The happy woman thinks to herself, "I am having a baby!" The woman desiring a termination (yes, I am simplifying this, I know that for many it is not an easy decision) thinks to herself, "I am ridding myself of this fetus."

One woman sees regards her clump of cells as a person. The other does not.

How can it be both at the same time?

Let's say the six-week woman "delivers" (miscarries) and calls you up and says "Wolf come see my beautiful baby!" And when you get there she picks it up and shows you:

http://cellar.org/2006/sixweeks.jpg

Do you say "What a cutie! What have you named her?" or is it closer to "I'm sorry, do you have a phone? I shall have to see you on a professional basis" ?

"I'm having a baby" isn't the same as "I have a baby". If you have a fetus, you could have a baby in the future.

One person sees a pet turtle as part of their family, another sees it as lunch. It's still just a turtle, either way.

Another analogy - 1855 US. Southern slave owners see black slaves as property, something on the level of animals, while northern anti-slavery advocates see them as human beings that should be given equal status.

or

Bush tells us that the clear sky initiative will be good for the environment. People with an IQ over 73 know that he's spewing bullshit.

Perspective and predjudices can greatly impact what we perceive as "fact" and "truth".

There is nothing either good or bad but thinking makes it so.

No, she responds by mourning the loss of her baby ... not her fetus.

(Haven't been here myself, know many who have. This is a devestating loss)

Discussing what a mother calls her unborn child is irrelevant, why would you think that has anything to do with the rights of the fetus???? The legal issues are being doged here, lets stop arguing over who holds a funeral and who uses what terminology to describe a miscarriage. None of this matters here. Once again, science and popular opinion are getting mixed inappropriately. I believe it was mentioned in the thread that we arn't discussing when the child becomes human according to the most basic scientific definitions, but rather when it gains human status in law and society. The legal reprecussions need to be balanced, we absolutely cannot afford to pretend that we can be hazy about when the laws 'kick in' just to remain PC regarding abortion.

Nonscientific and non-legal references are just clouding this issue and making it emotional.

I appreicate that you grasp the concept.

I hate to break it to you, but this is not a forum for legal professionals. But if you find one, the answer will be just as clear as it is here.
There isn't a clear cut legal answer to that question and if you did some research you would know that. Legal professionals are all over the map, on this one, as are the multitude of federal/state/local laws governing fetuses/babies/cell clumps.

The only thing we can logically discuss here is what we feel the law should be and why...... be it emotional, logical, religious, tradition or whatever.
We can change/form our personal opinion, or not, by hearing the opinions and feelings of others.

It's much easier to discuss things that follow rules, are based on provable facts, but man, this topic is as far as you can get from that. :D

Heh, I was really counting on there being no legal professionals here since you're absolutely right that they're all over the map on this issue. Rather than having people post exhausting lists and references to case precidents I'm trying to emphasize the impact that any decision about this will have.

This is really the point that I think is getting lost in the mix. I don't want the discussion to become a yes/no rant about abortion, but if it's appropriate to put emotion to the side on issues like immigration and gay marriage the same should be done here.
My generation (I'm 20) has been hyper-indoctrinated with rhetoric concerning the sacred right (my teachers phrase) of a mother to abort her pregnancy. This sets up a dichotomy that really quite amusing to watch. I've seen people talk themselves into a complete wall, one sentence they'll tell me that a fetus is just a lump of tissue no different than the woman's appendix and the next they refer to it as a baby if I ask whether you can clone it.

Everything else aside, is cloning a three day old fetus or performing genetic experaments on it too dangerous to be allowed???

If the fetus is to be aborted then simply discarded, then of course I believe genetic testing is fine, as long as the woman it came out of agrees.

The way I look at the abortion issue is that, since it's all over the board... If you are against abortions, simply do not get one. It's really that simple.

But I stand by my position that since I'm never going to get a baby taken outta me, its definitely not my descision to make.

While I believe that a woman has a right to control her own body, I also believe that life begins at conception. As for the issue of unwanted pregnancies if you don't want a kid keep it in your pants. A little bit of self control will go along way towards keeping the population under control.

So far I've got the impression that if a child isn't a child, then it's ok to get rid of a 'clump of cells' but if that clump is considered a child then it's not ok to get rid of it.

One could give analogy after analogy about where something begins and another ends eg. a circle. Hate to quote The Lion King here, but there is a circle of life. What goes around comes around. Even the Budhists believe that...along with the fatalists and all the other ists.

I guess until such time as we live in a Utopian society, where everyone lives by the same moral/religious/ethical code, there'll always be differences of opinion on these sort of issues. Human beings live for conflict, and none of us have ever learned how to love thy neighbour without judging them. The biggest issue I see here is that one side judges the other, and there's no real middle ground.

I've grown to realize that you can never judge another person till you've walked a mile (or a thousand) in their shoes. You can never understand they choices they make about these kinds of issues unless you've lived their life. You will never know what it's like to choose whether your 'clump of cells' becomes a human being or not till you've had to face the choice for whatever reason.

Understanding how someone can abort their 'child' isn't something anyone can have any concept of unless they've had to make that choice, and anyone who hasn't had to face it doesn't have a right to condemn those who have.

I'd take a different slant.
You can judge me all you want.
But if you interfere, I get real pissy.

I get real pissy with the government, a lot. :haha:

In my experience, the ones that judge you are the only ones that ever interfere. The ones that don't judge you are happy to let you do your thing your own way.

I prefer the middle of the road, I don't judge, but I don't give a sh*t if you screw yourself up and/or kill yourself in the process. To many assholes out there bent on their own destruction to care, that's probably my main libertarian slant.
btw, who else thinks a great way to throw some bleach in the gene pool would be to legalize all drugs, but write in a clause so that no one with drugs in their system may be given emergency care.

Much as I like that one ... even junkies have real medical emergencies not related to their substance use.

My own answer is legalize all drugs, but stop paying for detox and rehab. Recognize that drug and alcohol use is a decision, not a disease. In some of my softer moments, I include a plan to allow each person ONE chance at government-funded rehab.

I see too many repeat customers, which, incidentally, includes people with 20+ years sober who were working as drug and alcohol counsellors before they "slipped up."

Ah. Now I know why you don't like me.

I was hoping against hope.