What party am I?

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by DaShi
It becomes human when God breathes a soul into it.

well, yes, but I don't know when that occurs

and it doesn't seem very scientific...

so why not just go with the physical scientific definition.. which is brainwaves..

(Che has a social definition, as a more physical oreined person I favor the physical definition (but as I said, that would be too hard to argue against right now))

JM

[GePap]

Originally posted by Jon Miller


how have any of my arguments been religious in nature?

in fact, the only area where my religion comes into it, is that it says that it is wrong to murder people

which I think is not a stance held only by Christians (but apparently is not a stance held by Imran)

JM

This is not a biological arguement. It's that simple.

It boils down to the definition not only of what is human, but when a human gains rights and becomes a member of society.

In my mind you can make all sorts of humanist arguements and philosophical arguements about the equality of all human life once it enters the world independently. BUt until a fetus is independently viable, it is little more than a parasite on the female's body. If something has no chance of life outside the mother, then how could it have a right to anything?

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
so why not just go with the physical scientific definition.. which is brainwaves..

I don't see why that should make it "human," as pretty much every non-human animal has brainwaves, too.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Jon Miller


well, yes, but I don't know when that occurs

and it doesn't seem very scientific...

so why not just go with the physical scientific definition.. which is brainwaves..

(Che has a social definition, as a more physical oreined person I favor the physical definition (but as I said, that would be too hard to argue against right now))

JM

There is no "physical definition" whatsoever. All creatures with brains have brain waves, and they start at some point or another. The fact neurons are shooting off in the brain means nothing to the question of humaness, and certainly nothing to the question of rights, or choice.

[Ben Kenobi]

Once again, both sides are not addressing the critical underlying question: Is a fetus human life?

Thank you Zkribbler. It is the most important question, which is why I left it to see if anyone would drive home that point.

Pro-lifers assume that it is, and they argue from there. And, if their assumption is correct, then their argument is nearly impossible to counter. Pro-lifers argue that because a fetus is human life, it is due the governmental protections provided to humans, i.e. not to be killed.

Excellent point. So what is the argument in favour of the personhood of the unborn? I think the strongest argument looks at the genetics of the unborn child. When a child is born, you don't just get this brand new person, entirely different from the unborn child within the womb. Rather you have the same person genetically, right from the beginning of conception. The only difference from conception onwards is one of development, in that the infant is more developed then an embryo. That is all.

The unborn child is human, because she has human parents. If you want to know what species a child is, ask what the parents are. If the parents are human, then they will have a human child.

The unborn child is living, because living things can only come from other living things. Abiogenesis has been refuted, in that you cannot get living things from dead things. If the sperm and egg are both living, and the infant is living, then the embryo within the womb must also be living. You cannot go from living to dead to living.

Finally, the question is whether someone that is a living, human being ought to be considered a person. Some societies refuse to recognise some born people as persons, in the legal sense. So the question should be, if the unborn child is a living human being, why shouldn't we consider her to be a person?

As to whether a fetus is life, pro-lifers take the too-easy stance that: a fetus is living, it is human, and therefore it is human life. This argument is overly simplistic because the same thing can be said about human white blood cells. Distinguish the scientific difference between a fetus and a white blood cell, and we'll have something to talk about.

The difference is one of nature. A zygote and a white blood cell may appear to be similar, but a white blood cell does not possess the capacity to grow and develop beyond being a white blood cell. The zygote, through her genetic code does have this capacity, given nourishment and shelter, to grow and develop as a human being. That is the difference, this capacity already possessed by the zygote at conception.

[Ben Kenobi]

BUt until a fetus is independently viable, it is little more than a parasite on the female's body. If something has no chance of life outside the mother, then how could it have a right to anything?

Biological definitions exclude the young of any species since they recognise that in order for the species to propagate, requires that they be sustained by their parents.

Now, if you are relying on a more broader definition, then why shouldn't we kill 25 year olds who live and sponge off their parents since they are parasites too?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov


I don't see why that should make it "human," as pretty much every non-human animal has brainwaves, too.

cause the question isnt whether its human (as opposed to a different species) but when it becomes a seperate life.

[DaShi]

Originally posted by Jon Miller


well, yes, but I don't know when that occurs

40 days boys
80 days women (women are more complex, obviously )

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by GePap


This is not a biological arguement. It's that simple.

It boils down to the definition not only of what is human, but when a human gains rights and becomes a member of society.

In my mind you can make all sorts of humanist arguements and philosophical arguements about the equality of all human life once it enters the world independently. BUt until a fetus is independently viable, it is little more than a parasite on the female's body. If something has no chance of life outside the mother, then how could it have a right to anything?

so you can be human and not have human rights?

that seems to me to be fundamentally wrong, and ideas similiar to that could allow things like slavery...

it is human, therefore it is wrong to murder it

there is nothing that you gain from living to society which makes it suddenly wrong to murder you

it would be wrong for us in the west to go murder natives in south america or africa

but our cultures are not at all related.. our societies are not related

how is it not biological?

we are talking about a human beings

and as I said, in america we kill babies who are independently viable.. we stick in little things to chop them up, and then suck them out with a vacuum...

it is disgusting, it is inhumane, it is monsterous, as bad as what was done by the Aztecs or the Romans

Jon Miller

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov


I don't see why that should make it "human," as pretty much every non-human animal has brainwaves, too.

if it has human DNA

man, I didn't think you were stupid

brainwaves = living, independent creature
human DNA = of the type human

Jon Miller

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by DaShi


40 days boys
80 days women (women are more complex, obviously )

ISTR its 40 days for both, according to the Talmud. Which rabbi are you quoting?

[Ben Kenobi]

cause the question isnt whether its human (as opposed to a different species) but when it becomes a seperate life.

Separate life? What do you mean by that? I would think that having a genetic code distinct from the parents would be enough to establish that the embryo is not part of the mother's body. I mean, if she is a parasite, as gepap has said, than that assumes that the child is not part of the mother's body, since parasites are distinct from their hosts.

So even if you do believe that the unborn child should not be inside the womb of her mother, you cannot deny that the child is still distinct from her mother.

[DaShi]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


Thank you Zkribbler. It is the most important question, which is why I left it to see if anyone would drive home that point.



Excellent point. So what is the argument in favour of the personhood of the unborn? I think the strongest argument looks at the genetics of the unborn child. When a child is born, you don't just get this brand new person, entirely different from the unborn child within the womb. Rather you have the same person genetically, right from the beginning of conception. The only difference from conception onwards is one of development, in that the infant is more developed then an embryo. That is all.

The unborn child is human, because she has human parents. If you want to know what species a child is, ask what the parents are. If the parents are human, then they will have a human child.

The unborn child is living, because living things can only come from other living things. Abiogenesis has been refuted, in that you cannot get living things from dead things. If the sperm and egg are both living, and the infant is living, then the embryo within the womb must also be living. You cannot go from living to dead to living.

Finally, the question is whether someone that is a living, human being ought to be considered a person. Some societies refuse to recognise some born people as persons, in the legal sense. So the question should be, if the unborn child is a living human being, why shouldn't we consider her to be a person?



The difference is one of nature. A zygote and a white blood cell may appear to be similar, but a white blood cell does not possess the capacity to grow and develop beyond being a white blood cell. The zygote, through her genetic code does have this capacity, given nourishment and shelter, to grow and develop as a human being. That is the difference, this capacity already possessed by the zygote at conception.

As a Catholic you can't use the genetic argument to defend because it is just as applicable to all living things. Animals and other non-humans don't have souls. Therefore it doesn't matter whether they are killed or not unless it affects a human, which has a soul. So the abortion issue in the Church must be restricted to the definition of the soul.

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


Thank you Zkribbler. It is the most important question, which is why I left it to see if anyone would drive home that point.

Ben, I know it is hard to beleive. But unfortunately there are some like Imran, who don't care whether humans are being killed or not.

As long as he can have a nice, carefree life...

Jon Miller

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
cause the question isnt whether its human (as opposed to a different species) but when it becomes a seperate life.

That's not what they've been arguing.

The only point of bringing up brain waves is to imply that, on some level, the fetus in question is experiencing something, which makes terminating it morally more questionable than an obviously non-thinking fetus. But if the level of brain activity is no different than, say, a rabbit or dog fetus at the same time, then it's a pointless differentiation (since nobody is complaining about abortions of animals). So this brainwave argument is just another version of the "potential humanity" argument, not really a separate one.