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?