Emergence of humanity
This is a bit of a feeler thread to scope out the sentiments on the board. When do you believe a human life begins?
Some time after initial brain waves and before birth.
When the developing fetus can support life independently of the mother. (Third trimester?)
Onset of neocortical brain activity (about the same time as viability)
I would say first genetically unique cell . No one could be the person they are without that first cell . It is the beginning of a human life .
I'm with Peter Singer. I don't think they're human until 2 years old, when they become rational free agents. Anytime prior to that, do whatever you want to them.
Rational free agents at 2 ? That must be something to do with all that early learning they do in America . The British start becoming rational free agents when they are knocking on for fifty .
As soon as it is a zygote.
As soon as it is a zygote.
Now you have condemned fertility clincs as mass murders. Now you have condemned surgeons as mass murders. Anyone who would kill a living human cell, even a cancer cell, is a murder?
Onset of neocortical brain activity (about the same time as viability)
I agree.
I went for first genetically unique cell. And yes, tw, I think that abortion clinics are killing children ... the problem I have with abortion is not that it is done, but that the process is cloaked in all kinds of semantic nonsense about fetus, not baby, tissue, not clump of actual living cells, etc. etc. The marketing of abortion is what I abhor. Understand what you are really doing, and make you choices based on that.
Weighing the alternatives of safe and legal vs. available either at great risk or only to the wealthy as existed before the 1970s, until there is some better alternative, I'll stick with safe and legal ... you can't reflower that particular virgin.
wolf - tw didn't say abortion clinics.
I went for first genetically unique cell. And yes, tw, I think that abortion clinics are killing children ... the problem I have with abortion is not that it is done, but that the process is cloaked in all kinds of semantic nonsense about fetus, not baby, tissue, not clump of actual living cells, etc. etc. The marketing of abortion is what I abhor. Understand what you are really doing, and make you choices based on that.
But the same medical terminology is used (by the doctors anyway) when you plan to keep the baby.
edit: I don't have an answer to the question.... I don't think it matters.
I am not in the scientific or medical field, but for some reason, it makes the most sense to me that the first genetically unique cell is a precursor to human life. I don't believe that it is full-on human life. As for the actual question, when do I believe human life begins...I don't know.
I agree with everyone that said as soon as it can think/survive outside the mother's body.
Now lets shift the direction slightly. Based on what's been said so far about when a human's life begins, do the rights afforded to people apply to what will become human? The buying and selling of fertilized eggs/fetus's/zygots is a good starting point.
Now you have condemned fertility clincs as mass murders. Now you have condemned surgeons as mass murders. Anyone who would kill a living human cell, even a cancer cell, is a murder?
A cancer cell being compared to a zygote that will become a human inside a woman's reproductive system as the same?
Pretty sad stretch there TW, even for you. I know you like to argue, but you can't do better than that, really?
When it has learned how to walk and talk.
A cancer cell being compared to a zygote that will become a human inside a woman's reproductive system as the same?
Pretty sad stretch there TW, even for you. I know you like to argue, but you can't do better than that, really?
They are both human cells - living tissue. Therefore they must be human life according to the same reasoning that somehow ignores thousands of zygotes 'murdered' in fertility clinics. Sad that you ignore the most damning part of that post?
Zygote and cancer cells are same - stem cells. Cancer (ie breast cancer, leukemia, etc) is when stem cells have gone astray. Suddenly those stem cells are no longer human life because they replicate faster? Suddenly because they replicate faster, then they are no longer human?
Rather silly to somehow claim a zygote so different from other human cells. They are all human life according to those religious definitions. Why does a zygote instead have "god's seal of approval"? Silly emotion.
Now lets shift the direction slightly.
Well that won't work, because you've brought up the root question of all arguments on the Internet.
I'm pretty much in lock-step with wolf. Don't pretend you're doing something less than you're doing. We can honestly disagree on its morality just don't make me complicit in your choice by having me fund it. Yes, I'll extend this argument to stem cell research.
I'd say viability & at the same time, I agree with wolf, call a spade a spade. But that doesn't mean it shouldn't be perfectly legal. Stem cell research is however a whole different kettle of fish, it's a bunch of goddamn cells for crying out loud.
I'd say viability & at the same time, I agree with wolf, call a spade a spade.
The terminology wasn't invented by abortionists, it's used thoughout biology. And even in colloquial use - maybe not those particular words - there is a difference. If a woman trying to become pregnant has a period after having sex, she doesn't say "our baby died", she says "we're not going to have a baby".
Roughly two-thirds of pregnancies end in spontaneous abortion.
So if we use this new "correct" terminology, there are more babies at the wastewater treatment plant than at the hospital.
Huh. Could it be, something about this terminology seems a little emotionally loaded.
I'm against abortion, but for killing babies.
It's not whether or not a zygot is a human or just tissue that's the really important issue here. The issue is when that person is concidered human enough to have rights. If a fetus is not human enough to have a right to life then it can also be bought and sold as a commodity, simple logic. You can take it further and say that even though you cannot experiment on humans without consent you can do so with a fetus. Go another step and laws against genetically modifying and cloning humans do not apply before it becomes human. There seems to be a misunderstanding about what is really upsetting people here, it's the issues down the road that are the big problem. And please don't say that even though a fetus isn't human we can be wishy-washy and pretend it is in some cases.
...as it can think/survive outside the mother's body.
I think that would be around 6 or 7 years old. Humans, more than any other mammal, require years of protection and assistance before they can "survive" on their own.
That said, this is an issue because we humans still have sex for pleasure and bonding rather than for just procreation. It's all about technology, the technology that is used to do work for us (no more need for children for their labor) or that which is used to control (inhibit/encourage) our reproduction. We really need more research on male contraception. We men have trouble keeping our dicks in our pants and you women are always allowing them into your vaginas (except in the case of rape); yet the burden of the result (unwanted pregnancy) always seems to be carried by the woman. We all know how reason goes out the window in the throes of sexual passion, so a male contraceptive that would make sperm ineffective until the couple desires a baby would be a good solution; though I can hear Monty Python's "Every Sperm is Sacred" song playing in the background. Let's shift the burden for birth control to the men.:neutral:
It's not whether or not a zygot is a human or just tissue that's the really important issue here. The issue is when that person is concidered human enough to have rights. If a fetus is not human enough to have a right to life then it can also be bought and sold as a commodity, simple logic. You can take it further and say that even though you cannot experiment on humans without consent you can do so with a fetus. Go another step and laws against genetically modifying and cloning humans do not apply before it becomes human. There seems to be a misunderstanding about what is really upsetting people here, it's the issues down the road that are the big problem. And please don't say that even though a fetus isn't human we can be wishy-washy and pretend it is in some cases.
Valid points of possibilitys 9th Engineer.
The veto and issue I thought was from harvested eggs frozen and not fertilized ? Are they viable life? I don't think so. I think we can say the same for a chicken egg. We eat them because they are not fertilized. I don't think we would want to if even we suspected they were fertilized
even if they looked the same. So do we have some inborn instinct that a fertilized egg is viable.?
Having experienced the end of pregnancy in all of its forms (except partial birth abortion), as well as having been adopted, I have some thoughts on the matter. If the fetus could survive outside the womb (even if it is as early as 21 weeks) then I believe it is a human being. If the mother could potentially walk away (ie: give birth without the baby dying), then that fetus has become a 'baby', a person.
If you were of the opinion that the fetus was a human being prior to that point..at what stage would this determination no longer be applicable? Could it even be stretched to include unfertilized eggs and sperm? Because they have the 'potential' to become human beings, just as the unviable fetus does. The concept could reach ridiculous proportions.
I don't think there is a scientific way to decide this, it is an emotional, and sometimes religious, determination. If it feels wrong for you, then it is wrong.
I am eternally grateful for my three children as well as the fact that my birth mother chose not to abort me. I am also very grateful that I had choices available to me when I (stupidly) got pregnant as a very young woman. Having a baby while working full time to put myself through college (full time at night) with no family or support would have been disastrous for both me and the baby. Many years later, when I became pregnant while single, I had the resources and strength to have and to keep the baby (my oldest son) on my own. I do not regret my choices.
I am in favor of stem cell research. The embryos being used will either be frozen indefinately or be destroyed one way or another. The form of destruction will be either human or equipment error, or intentionally once they are no longer needed for their donor's pregnancy attempts.
Other clinics simply discard or destroy the spare embryos. Some embryos are simply flushed down a sink drain. Some are transferred to a medical waste bin where they are later incinerated. Some simply expose the embryos to the air and let them die; this normally takes four days or less.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/res_stem2.htm
If using the stem cells from an embryo that is less than 14 days old is such an issue, maybe all in vitro fertilization should be outlawed because this is the source of the embryos. 24+ eggs are extracted, fertilized and then 2-4 of them are implanted in the woman. The remainder? See above. So evidently it is ok to destroy these embryos as long as it is not in the course of scientific research? I do think that donor permission should be required as I would not want something that came from my body to be used for anything without my explicit knowledge and authorization.
Stormie
My brother used to have chickens. He served us fertilized eggs one morning and made a point of showing us said eggs before he scrambled them. You could see the sploogy mass of weirdness in the yolk:neutral: I must admit, I felt a little weird when I saw it. Once they were scrambled, they tasted like any other eggs.
We've got one egg customer who only wants fertilized eggs. mmmm.. tastes like chicken. ;)
chicken egg splooge = eww :)
If you were of the opinion that the fetus was a human being prior to that point..at what stage would this determination no longer be applicable? Could it even be stretched to include unfertilized eggs and sperm? Because they have the 'potential' to become human beings, just as the unviable fetus does. The concept could reach ridiculous proportions.
~snip
I am in favor of stem cell research. The embryos being used will either be frozen indefinately or be destroyed one way or another. The form of destruction will be either human or equipment error, or intentionally once they are no longer needed for their donor's pregnancy attempts.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/res_stem2.htm
If using the stem cells from an embryo that is less than 14 days old is such an issue, maybe all in vitro fertilization should be outlawed because this is the source of the embryos. 24+ eggs are extracted, fertilized and then 2-4 of them are implanted in the woman. The remainder? See above. So evidently it is ok to destroy these embryos as long as it is not in the course of scientific research? I do think that donor permission should be required as I would not want something that came from my body to be used for anything without my explicit knowledge and authorization.
Stormie
exactly, well said.
p.s. I am glad your brith mom decided to keep you too. See there was a stormie in there! :)
mmmm.. tastes like chicken.
:lol:
The massive dividing line between a zygote and sperm/eggs is genetic uniqueness. A sperm/egg is incomplete, whereas the zygote itself is a totally separate entity from the mother. It depends on the mothers body for nutrients during development but that by itself isn't a good measure of human vs. inhuman. I'm sure no one here would consider someone who's body has degenerated under the effects of cancer or through some other process to be less human because they require machines to supply them with oxygen, blood pressure, nutrients and kidney function just like a fetus does. I'm trying to isolate the exact criteria that give something human rights, such as 'ability to function independently'. Cortical activity is another possible point, after all it is how we determine death but it doesn't address the issue of getting around laws designed to protect people by saying a zygote isn't covered under the laws.
Understand what you are really doing, and make you choices based on that.
That's exactly what my wife says about eating meat. IE, there is no "death element" at McDonalds.
human life never begins or ends. it just is.
if you wanted to have an abortion debate, why not just say so?
you say that the crux of the abortion debate is the rights of the fetus/child, as though it were a fact. Is it? What about the rights of the host/mother? Is the baby not a part of her until it is delivered? Should you be prevented from cutting off your little finger if you wanted to because it made some busy body queasy?
If we'd just stay out of each others business.......
This was actually never intended to be an abortion debate. It's exactly what the title says, 'when does a human become human'. Once we had discussed that for a while it would probably turn to stem cells.
btw, what the heck do you mean by "it never begins or ends".:eyebrow:
This was actually never intended to be an abortion debate. It's exactly what the title says, 'when does a human become human'. Once we had discussed that for a while it would probably turn to stem cells.
Are we confusing the issue - as if human were somehow something special. Human - a bag of water, some lumps of DNA, and clumps of mineral deposits - is the physical being. When is life called life? A completely different question from the humanity question. After all, some creatures only differ significantly from others due to higher intelligence. They are all biological matter. They all have life in various degrees. There is no magic criteria for life; no digital threshold. In occurs in various degrees from viruses to other higher forms.
We routinely kill zygotes, stem cells and other human cells. They are all human life - which religious extremists must deny to impose their beliefs on all others. The emotional want to impose their emotions on all others in the name of their religion. Religious concepts have no place in a logical discussion. Religious concepts are and should never be more than a relationship between you and your god. [big period] No religion or religious teachings should appear in this discussion. This discussion is about life - not religion nor personal biases.
As even the pagan gods intended, we are expected to make life and death decisions every day. The only thing that differentiates humans is higher cognizance levels. We make life and death decisions every day as we kill off our own tissues - even bleed - even kill other life forms such as bacteria. Even blood is human life. Zygote is life. Stem cells are biological life. And we make those life and death decisions daily - not some ficticious god.
Meanwhile that is completely different from cognizant existence. But again, not one religious bias or extremist rhetoric belongs in this thread. Intelligent life is considered superior to other life forms - a basis upon which some life forms murder or preserve life. Don't kill that insect! You will go to hell! Or instead we use logic and drive those silly religious beliefs from this discussion.
Biological life exists in so many forms. And then some lives have more right to live than others. We humans routinely murder life every day - as is required to survive and is defined by the real god - sometimes called nature. Get over and ignore those silly religious concepts as if a zygote was any more special than some other stem cell. It's a cell - nothing more. And like all other living cells, it has a unique purpose. Nothing more. Religious extremists don't like blunt logic which is why religious reasoning has no acceptable purpose in this thread.
Are you alive? Fine. That was nature as others routinely determine; who lives and who dies. Using contraception? Then you are killing life that god intended - if using pervert logic that some religions mislabel as facts. And yet that too has no relevance to the question of what is life.
The question posed is about reality - not about your relationship with your god. There is no digital threshold that defines life. Mankind even created life by mixing a soup of proteins and electrically sparking them. Where is god in all this? He does not exist. The experiment simply created another type of life. Nothing special. Just a lifeform with less intelligence. And still we chose which and when life will be murdered or survives. We start this decision by throwing away all religious biases and other similar emotions.
Where is god in all this? He does not exist.
Perhaps God is the very thing that enables us do this stuff...you never know.
Perhaps God is the very thing that enables us do this stuff...you never know.
What a pathetically silly question. You and I and everyone else who wants to discuss logically don't care about god. He is irrelevant even if he does exist. The 'executive summary' for those who only believe they understand.
Then why did you bring it up?
Then why did you bring it up?
Because you posted the religious extremist rhetoric. You posted
As soon as it is a zygote.
You quoted religious extermist rhetoric word for word, and then you did only what a religious extremist would do - post no supporting facts. You filled the discussion with nonsense religous beliefs including no factual and logical supporting reasons.
He asked a simple question that required a logical answer. You replied with a classic religious extremist retort. Maybe you would like to put some 'logical meat' on a dead animal that was posted and that is quoted above? Maybe you could explain how a virus is not life - without quoting religious extremist rhetoric?
How is that religious in any way? LOL!!!
I fear for your sanity.
After reading this thread, I've decided the catholics have had it right all along. If you're a twinkle in your daddies eye, then you've got just as much right to live as anyone else, so Down with Condoms! Down with the Pill! Down with anything that could possibly stop a human life from evolving! Let's just go ahead and breed ourselves out of existance even quicker! :)
What a pathetically silly question. You and I and everyone else who wants to discuss logically don't care about god. He is irrelevant even if he does exist. The 'executive summary' for those who only believe they understand.
LMAO!! It wasn't a question, dear--it was a theoretical point of view. You're cute. And I don't mean that in a bad way.
Let's just go ahead and breed ourselves out of existance even quicker! :)
While I'm being in a theoretical mood and all...my mother has a theory that one of the reasons why gay people exist is to help us to not breed ourselves out of existence. Interesting, no?
After reading this thread, I've decided the catholics have had it right all along.
Not all along - from the 13th to 17th century, fetuses used to be ensouled at quickening, not at conception.
OK...what is ensouled and what is quickening?
Blue...I don't know about interesting as far as that goes. Particularly these days where people can have access to children in one way or another if they feel the desire to be a parent. I have gay friends with children, and they're not from previously heterosexual relationships.
Your mum might need to take the blinders off I reckon. ;)
At what point was the mechanism of conception actually understood, though? Spermatzoa meets egg and all that. Until the invention of the microscope the idea tha there were discrete cells in ejaculate would have been considered witchcraft. Throughout the medieval period human dissection was not permitted, and most medical scholarship was based on surviving Greek and Roman Texts. Even the Greek Anatomist, Galen, got information wrong because he wasn't permitted human subjects, and extrapolated from animal systems.
The linkage between sex and procreation was not always completely clear, at least in humans. Animals with an obvious estrus cycle, yes, it's understood that the sexual act results in offspring some specified amount of time later, but with humans, at what point in history was that figured out? Women knew they were pregant when they felt the child move ... lack of menstrual cycle is a clue, but not a definite indicator of pregnancy. That remains the case today, actually.
Blue...I don't know about interesting as far as that goes. Particularly these days where people can have access to children in one way or another if they feel the desire to be a parent. I have gay friends with children, and they're not from previously heterosexual relationships.
Your mum might need to take the blinders off I reckon. ;)
You're absolutely right--some of my friends have biological children, and some of my mother's friends do too, as well. :) I guess I can appreciate her theory, because I know she doesn't have blinders on in that regard.
Wolf, are you talking about the quickening?
That must be refreshing for you Blue. Although my mum was very compassionate in most regards, she had a problem with gay couples having children. I argued with her once in a while about the ethics of those situations but it didn't seem to make much difference. I guess it's true that sometimes you can't teach an old dog new tricks. I think it was more likely her strict catholic upbringing though. Religion has a lot to answer for.
Wolf, are you talking about the quickening?
I think that's what happens when one Immortal cuts the head off another one.
Oh, wait, you mean in the context of this discussion ... quickening is when the mother first feels the baby move ... which is by a lot of religious traditions when the soul is supposed to enter the body of the child. Other say when the child draws first breath.
I'm in the moment of conception camp, as previously stated.
At what point was the mechanism of conception actually understood, though? Spermatzoa meets egg and all that.
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.
a bag of water, some lumps of DNA, and clumps of mineral deposits
: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:
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.
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.
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.
Perhaps God is the very thing that enables us do this stuff...you never know.
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 ([SIZE="1"]TW worships me[/SIZE]), 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!
In support of this, I would point out that I've never heard of a funeral for a miscarried fetus.
I know a woman who had one. Though I don't think it was a very mentally healthy step for her.
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.
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.
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.
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?
btw, what the heck do you mean by "it never begins or ends".:eyebrow:
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'm having a really hard time understanding how you could reasonably say that a child is not human until 2-3 months old.
I don't think either Clodfobble or I were saying that.
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.
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 interact with my child, who won't be born for about another month.
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 agree with everyone that said as soon as it can think/survive outside the mother's body.
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.
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.
Originally Posted by Flint
I interact with my child, who won't be born for about another month.
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!!
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
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.
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.
Santorum brought his home from the hospital to show his kids, and then held a funeral.
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:
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.
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.
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.
Usually the big issue with the Chinese abortions is the fact that it's due to China's one-child policy.
Santorum brought his home from the hospital to show his kids, and then held a funeral.
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:
: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.
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:
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 woman sees regards her clump of cells as a person. The other does not.
How can it be both at the same time?
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".
One woman sees regards her clump of cells as a person. The other does not.
How can it be both at the same time?
There is nothing either good or bad but thinking makes it so.
Let's say the six-week woman "delivers" (miscarries) and calls you up and says "Wolf come see my beautiful baby!"
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.
Nonscientific and non-legal references are just clouding this issue and making it emotional.
I appreicate that you grasp the concept.
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 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.
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.
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."
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.
[SIZE=1]i figured that one out some time ago[/SIZE]
[SIZE=1]i figured that one out some time ago[/SIZE]
I was hoping against hope.