|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 66 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,482 Year: 3,739/9,624 Month: 610/974 Week: 223/276 Day: 63/34 Hour: 0/2 |
Summations Only | Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 2956 days) Posts: 706 From: Joliet, il, USA Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: When does human life begin? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1277 days) Posts: 3509 Joined: |
A typical nonanswer from someone trying to avoid the issue. Not that I expected anything less from you.
Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate ...creationists have a great way to detect fraud and it doesn't take 8 or 40 years or even a scientific degree to spot the fraud--'if it disagrees with the bible then it is wrong'.... -- archaeologist
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22480 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.8 |
subbie writes: A typical nonanswer from someone trying to avoid the issue. Or he may have figured there was too much potential for drawing his thread off-topic. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taz Member (Idle past 3313 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined:
|
Abortion is not actively killing the fetus. It just unhooked the fetus from the woman's organs. Again, if we are to treat the fetus as a person, the the person has no right to forcibly use the woman's body.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1277 days) Posts: 3509 Joined:
|
Those questions were not off topic. They were legitimate questions exploring the depth of his apparent position that the right to life includes the right to biological support from another person. I seriously doubt his nonanswer had anything to do with off topic issues. Instead, he saw that the logical conclusions from the position that he was trying to defend were indefensible and wasn't willing to face the consequences.
Of course, since he simply punted, we'll never know for sure.Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate ...creationists have a great way to detect fraud and it doesn't take 8 or 40 years or even a scientific degree to spot the fraud--'if it disagrees with the bible then it is wrong'.... -- archaeologist
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: |
It ceases to be black as soon as it becomes grey.
It ceases to be grey when it becomes white. Black does not actually become white. /pedantry The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer. -Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53 The explain to them any scientific investigation that explains the existence of things qualifies as science and as an explanation-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 286 Does a query (thats a question Stile) that uses this physical reality, to look for an answer to its existence and properties become theoretical, considering its deductive conclusions are based against objective verifiable realities.-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 134
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rahvin Member Posts: 4040 Joined: Member Rating: 8.1 |
It ceases to be black as soon as it becomes grey. It ceases to be grey when it becomes white. Black does not actually become white. /pedantry Neither the Bible nor Science tell us when exactly it becomes white. We can never know for certain. Therefore we should determine morally correct action by assuming that it was white from the very beginning, so that we can err on the side of caution. Anything less is obviously chromacide. /anti-choice question-dodgerThe human understanding when it has once adopted an opinion (either as being the received opinion or as being agreeable to itself) draws all things else to support and agree with it. - Francis Bacon "There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs." - John Rogers
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
frako Member (Idle past 328 days) Posts: 2932 From: slovenija Joined: |
Therefore we should determine morally correct action by assuming that it was white from the very beginning, so that we can err on the side of caution. Um it clearly isnt white at the beginning its BLACK then it gets GRAY, then muddy white, after that white. You can say if we want to err on the side of caution lets count muddy white as white too, or even gray as white too, but you cant count black as if it where white, cause it clearly is not. But since muddy white and gray are also clearly not white you have 2 whole safety steps to make sure no white gets left out. Christianity, One woman's lie about an affair that got seriously out of hand
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member
|
It ceases to be black as soon as it becomes grey. It ceases to be grey when it becomes white. Black does not actually become white. The grey is where black is becomming white. The point still stands: He's asking for a point where there's a gradient.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1.61803 Member (Idle past 1526 days) Posts: 2928 From: Lone Star State USA Joined: |
This thread is disturbing.
Life begins when a woman becomes pregnant. I thought that was a no brainer. If the woman decides she does not want the baby she can get a abortion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Perdition Member (Idle past 3260 days) Posts: 1593 From: Wisconsin Joined: |
This thread is disturbing. The necessity of this thread may be disturbing, but I don't see anything particularly disturbing about the thread itself.
Life begins when a woman becomes pregnant. It's just as easy to say that life continues when the woman gets pregnant, as the sperm and egg are each alive, too.
I thought that was a no brainer. Many people disagree with things that should be no-brainers. However, I don't think this is quite as easy to resolve. The word "life" is rolled up with a lot of baggae, including deciding whether the life in question is a human, a person, when it gets rights to life, when those rights might overcome the rights of the mother, etc. That's why this thread is needed, because people can have very legitimate disagreements on all of those points.
If the woman decides she does not want the baby she can get a abortion. How far along in her pregnancy can she decide this? Most people would agree that she can decide this within the first few days and take the morning after pill without being a horrible person. Most would agree that she can't make this decision at 8 months and 3 weeks, or she would be a horrible person (with a few medical caveats). The question comes down to where, in the middle, should the line be drawn.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1.61803 Member (Idle past 1526 days) Posts: 2928 From: Lone Star State USA Joined: |
It's just as easy to say that life continues when the woman gets pregnant, as the sperm and egg are each alive, too This depends on what one defines as alive. A sperm and egg can not reproduce. They are alive only in the sense that they contain the fuel to accomplish a mission. But once the fuel is exhausted they are reabsorbed. A cell is alive because it is being maintained by a host organism. We are a collective of cells all living in symbiosis. Do we give the same reverences to cells? It is the collective called a human that is what we call a human. Not a gamete. Life is contingent on a organisms ability to maintain homeostasis, reproduce and evolve through natural selection. A skin cell or hair contains the blueprint for life, but will never become a lifeform without the additional mechanisms necessary to carry out a gestation. Once the baby develops a brain it is a human life and should not be killed just as any other person should not be killed. If someone kills that person they should have to deal with the laws our society has set forth. I think our current laws are adequate and fair in regards to this issue.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Perdition Member (Idle past 3260 days) Posts: 1593 From: Wisconsin Joined: |
This depends on what one defines as alive. Which is partially what this thread is about.
A sperm and egg can not reproduce. Depends on how you define reproduce. You could say that reproduce is all a sperm and an egg do.
They are alive only in the sense that they contain the fuel to accomplish a mission. They're alive in the sense that cells can be alive or dead. Which is why it is sort of disingenuous to ask, as the OP did, "when does life begin?" because that's not really what they were getting at. The real question was "when is it moral to abort?"
Life is contingent on a organisms ability to maintain homeostasis, reproduce and evolve through natural selection. And yet, a person who is unable to reproduce for whatever reason is still considered alive.
Once the baby develops a brain it is a human life and should not be killed just as any other person should not be killed. This is rather simplistic, but I agree in essence. First, we need brain activity, not merely the presence of the organ. Secondly, killing a person is sometimes justified.
If someone kills that person they should have to deal with the laws our society has set forth. I think our current laws are adequate and fair in regards to this issue. Unfortunately, the laws are a hodgepodge across the country. I agree with some laws in some states, but not others. I agree that a law outlawing abortion after brain activity develops except where the mother's life is endangered by continuing to carry the pregnancy to term would be morally right and lawful. Restricting it more than that should not be the place of the politicians. The decisions should be left to a mother, her family, and her physician.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1.61803 Member (Idle past 1526 days) Posts: 2928 From: Lone Star State USA Joined: |
Depends on how you define reproduce. You could say that reproduce is all a sperm and an egg do. Yes but not one without the other, unless you believe in parthenogenisus or immaculate conception.
The real question was "when is it moral to abort?" Morality is subjective, but my opinion is once the baby develops a brain and begins to think.
Secondly, killing a person is sometimes justified. But must be justified by our legal system.
The decisions should be left to a mother, her family, and her physician. I believe that is the law of the land. Edited by 1.61803, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined:
|
Are those who are infertile for whatever reason "alive"....?
I don't think you can define life in terms of ability to reproduce without facing some rather silly consequences.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Perdition Member (Idle past 3260 days) Posts: 1593 From: Wisconsin Joined: |
Yes but not one without the other, unless you believe in parthenogenisus or immaculate conception. But that's exactly the same of humans. We can't reproduce without, at least, the germ cells of the opposite sex. The sperm requires the egg, and vice versa, just as a man requires a woman and vice versa (or at least their germ cells).
Morality is subjective, but my opinion is once the baby develops a brain and begins to think. This is where I would draw the line as well. (As long as the health of the mother is kept in mind as well.)
But must be justified by our legal system. Legally, but not necessarily morally. A legal system should be moral, but not all are, and in fact, I'd say most have some morally ambiguous laws.
I believe that is the law of the land. Not in every state. In many states, if the mother is a minor she is required to get the consent of her parents to terminate her pregnancy, in more states, she is required to at least notify her parents. Many other states require a "waiting period" or counselling. Counselling often involves a religious or emotional appeal not to abort the baby. Some states even have laws that, if Roe is overturned, would outlaw abortion, except in cases where the mother's life is endangered. Beyond that, even if a mother decides to get an abortion, and it is technically legal, it may not be technically feasible. In many states, almost all counties don't have a clinic or hospital that provides abortions.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024