Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,821 Year: 3,078/9,624 Month: 923/1,588 Week: 106/223 Day: 4/13 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   When does human life begin?
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 76 of 327 (649650)
01-24-2012 5:41 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by frako
01-24-2012 4:09 PM


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.
I completely agree with you.
I was simply re-writing the post I replied to from the perspective of shadow and other typical pro-lifers. "We aren't sure when, so we jsut assume it happens at the beginning to err on the side of caution," and so to them a clump of cells that doesn't even possess a single neuron and likely will never implant is just as morally significant as a toddler. More so even, because their positions require the value of the clump of cells to be greater than that of the mother's life, because she is (to them) morally obligated to risk her own life in favor of the clump of cells.

The 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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by frako, posted 01-24-2012 4:09 PM frako has not replied

  
1.61803
Member (Idle past 1504 days)
Posts: 2928
From: Lone Star State USA
Joined: 02-19-2004


Message 77 of 327 (649651)
01-24-2012 5:50 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by Straggler
01-24-2012 5:40 PM


I don't think you can define life in terms of ability to reproduce without facing some rather silly consequences
In the definition of life, reproduce is often cited as a criteria. In order to keep the post concise I did not get into a long drawn out text book definition. Assuming the reader would be able to gleen the meaning of my post.
However "ability to reproduce" is in the definition.
Name me one organism in any Taxa that does not reproduce.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by Straggler, posted 01-24-2012 5:40 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by Perdition, posted 01-24-2012 5:53 PM 1.61803 has replied
 Message 97 by Straggler, posted 01-25-2012 7:18 AM 1.61803 has replied

  
Perdition
Member (Idle past 3238 days)
Posts: 1593
From: Wisconsin
Joined: 05-15-2003


(1)
Message 78 of 327 (649652)
01-24-2012 5:53 PM
Reply to: Message 77 by 1.61803
01-24-2012 5:50 PM


Name me one organism in any Taxa that does not reproduce.
An infertile male human being.
What the definition of life does is comes up with generalities. Of course, we also get things like viruses that seem to be alive in some respects but not in others. Still, the ability to reproduce does not disqualify a single organism, though it may be used to define a species or describe whether a group of similar organisms are alive.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by 1.61803, posted 01-24-2012 5:50 PM 1.61803 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by 1.61803, posted 01-24-2012 5:55 PM Perdition has replied

  
1.61803
Member (Idle past 1504 days)
Posts: 2928
From: Lone Star State USA
Joined: 02-19-2004


Message 79 of 327 (649653)
01-24-2012 5:55 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by Perdition
01-24-2012 5:53 PM


That sterile male human being came from a fertile reproducing human being.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by Perdition, posted 01-24-2012 5:53 PM Perdition has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by Perdition, posted 01-24-2012 5:58 PM 1.61803 has replied

  
Perdition
Member (Idle past 3238 days)
Posts: 1593
From: Wisconsin
Joined: 05-15-2003


(1)
Message 80 of 327 (649654)
01-24-2012 5:58 PM
Reply to: Message 79 by 1.61803
01-24-2012 5:55 PM


That sterile male human being came from a fertile reproducing human being.
A skin cell came from a fertile, reproducing human being.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by 1.61803, posted 01-24-2012 5:55 PM 1.61803 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by 1.61803, posted 01-24-2012 6:05 PM Perdition has not replied

  
1.61803
Member (Idle past 1504 days)
Posts: 2928
From: Lone Star State USA
Joined: 02-19-2004


Message 81 of 327 (649655)
01-24-2012 6:05 PM
Reply to: Message 80 by Perdition
01-24-2012 5:58 PM


My point is ALL organisms in all taxa can trace they're existence to the previous reproducing organism that preceded it.
Hence the inclusion of the word reproducing in part of the definition of life. But as with many things there are exceptions to the rule. eg: virus.
However in general it is usually accepted that Homo Sapiens sapiens are reproducing organisms.
I did not mean a sterile man or woman is NOT alive. So several post later I pay the price for my folly.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by Perdition, posted 01-24-2012 5:58 PM Perdition has not replied

  
shadow71
Member (Idle past 2934 days)
Posts: 706
From: Joliet, il, USA
Joined: 08-31-2010


Message 82 of 327 (649659)
01-24-2012 7:59 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by subbie
01-23-2012 7:21 PM


subbie writes:
So you value the possible life of the fetus over the actual, extant life of the woman?
that for me is a difficult question. If a mother's life is in danger as a result of her pregancy that is not the same as a "mother" who terminates because of "social " reasons.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by subbie, posted 01-23-2012 7:21 PM subbie has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by subbie, posted 01-24-2012 8:10 PM shadow71 has seen this message but not replied

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 1255 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 83 of 327 (649660)
01-24-2012 8:10 PM
Reply to: Message 82 by shadow71
01-24-2012 7:59 PM


If a mother's life is in danger as a result of her pregancy that is not the same as a "mother" who terminates because of "social " reasons.
And what would you consider "social reasons?" How do you determine whether the mother's reasons are "social reasons" or something else? Who are you to say whether a woman's reasons are a sufficient basis for her to have control over what happens in and to her body?

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by shadow71, posted 01-24-2012 7:59 PM shadow71 has seen this message but not replied

  
shadow71
Member (Idle past 2934 days)
Posts: 706
From: Joliet, il, USA
Joined: 08-31-2010


Message 84 of 327 (649661)
01-24-2012 8:14 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by Rahvin
01-23-2012 7:50 PM


Rahvin writes:
I'm sorry to hear that. Clearly you felt (and feel) the loss of your unborn child. For what it's worth, this would be the third trimester and I would consider the fetus to be worthy of moral consideration - it would have a developed nervous system and have passed the point where brain waves can be detected, meaning it could potentially be aware of its own existence.
However...your wife has almost certainly had many other eggs fertilized by your sperm, but fail to implant correctly in her uterine wall or otherwise naturally fail to proceed to a point where you could even tell she was pregnant. It's estimated that around 60% of all pregnancies end this way, without anyone even noticing.
thank you for your empathy.
I have given my opinion as to when life begins. If in fact the evolutinary process has not begun, such as when the egg fertilized by the sperm has not implanted and begun to grow, that is nature, that is not an intentional act.
jRahvin writes:
Did those embryos have "souls?" Did they carry (to you) the same moral weight as the daughter who died just 8 weeks before birth, or the children you were able to see grow? If not, then again, there is a massive and obvious inconsistency in your moral reasoning. This question is not rhetorical, I'd like to know your opinion.
If they did not begin the process of life then that was nature taking it's course. I believe the soul is placed in active life, whenever the Lord wishes.
So once life begins and the soul is in fact in the human being then the destruction is almost never acceptable. Remembering this is my "human" opinion. God knows.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Rahvin, posted 01-23-2012 7:50 PM Rahvin has not replied

  
shadow71
Member (Idle past 2934 days)
Posts: 706
From: Joliet, il, USA
Joined: 08-31-2010


Message 85 of 327 (649663)
01-24-2012 8:29 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by Rahvin
01-23-2012 8:05 PM


Rahvin writes:
Let's put it another way. You and I are trapped by a deranged supervillain, who gives us a diabolical choice: he will try to kill us both. There is a slim chance that we will both survive. However, one of us could sacrifice his life in a distraction that would almost certainly save the other person.
Am I morally obligated to sacrifice myself to save you? Are you morally obligated to sacrifice yourself to save me?
That is not the same as abortion when a mother has the choice all to herself.
Rahvin writes:
Is a mother morally obligated to sacrifice herself to preserve the life of an unborn child? If so, then you must be placing more moral weight on a fetus than you place on the mother - which opens a number of other moral consequences as related to miscarriages, such as a pregnant woman becoming guilty of homicide if she has a miscarriage due to smoking, drinking, heavy exercise, or even just not staying in bed the entire time to make sure she can't fall.
If not, then you must support abortion in the case of a threat to the life of the mother.
Any other position is logically inconsistent. Which position do you take?
First of all a mother choosing to smoke or drink ect. is not a intentional act to destroy her fetus. It may or may not happen and one cannot place absolute belief in studies such as what occurs when a pregnant women drinks or smokes.
The question of whether a mother is morally obligated to sacrifice herself to preseve her fetus is difficult. What information does the mother have and how valid is it in re her health and the life of her child?
If you and your child were confronted by an armed violent criminal who told you one of must die from his or her hands, You would have to make the choice.
I would choose to allow my child to live.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by Rahvin, posted 01-23-2012 8:05 PM Rahvin has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by jar, posted 01-24-2012 8:36 PM shadow71 has seen this message but not replied
 Message 87 by hooah212002, posted 01-24-2012 10:06 PM shadow71 has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 395 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 86 of 327 (649665)
01-24-2012 8:36 PM
Reply to: Message 85 by shadow71
01-24-2012 8:29 PM


If you and your child were confronted by an armed violent criminal who told you one of must die from his or her hands, You would have to make the choice.
And if I had to make the choice I'd choose to let the armed violent criminal die.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by shadow71, posted 01-24-2012 8:29 PM shadow71 has seen this message but not replied

  
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 802 days)
Posts: 3193
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 87 of 327 (649667)
01-24-2012 10:06 PM
Reply to: Message 85 by shadow71
01-24-2012 8:29 PM


I would choose to allow my child to live.
As would most anyone. However, we aren't talking about children, are we? We are talking about clumps of cells that could potentially turn into children..... But this is the sort of rhetoric that is to be expected from the anti-choice camp: "you're killing children!". Tug on the heart strings and make the other side out to be kid-killing monsters.....

Mythology is what we call someone else’s religion. Joseph Campbell

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by shadow71, posted 01-24-2012 8:29 PM shadow71 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by Panda, posted 01-25-2012 5:14 AM hooah212002 has seen this message but not replied
 Message 113 by shadow71, posted 01-25-2012 3:51 PM hooah212002 has replied

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 3713 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


(2)
Message 88 of 327 (649687)
01-25-2012 5:14 AM
Reply to: Message 87 by hooah212002
01-24-2012 10:06 PM


Hooah writes:
"you're killing children!"
The cell at the top is the brain (or is it the head?).
The cells at the sides are the arms and those at the bottom are the legs.
Draw a smiley face on the top cell and you will instantly see it is an actual child!

If I were you
And I wish that I were you
All the things I'd do
To make myself turn blue

This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by hooah212002, posted 01-24-2012 10:06 PM hooah212002 has seen this message but not replied

  
Just being real
Member (Idle past 3936 days)
Posts: 369
Joined: 08-26-2010


Message 89 of 327 (649689)
01-25-2012 5:53 AM
Reply to: Message 52 by Wounded King
01-24-2012 4:21 AM


Jbr: the prognosis for the patient is almost 100% better than most coma patients, in that, within 9 months that "clump of skin" (as you put it) will have a fully functioning and healthy brain that is totally self aware.
WK: The fact is that the chances of a new conceptus/zygote reaching successful term in 9 months is very far from 100% as has been detailed in several posts in this thread. Do you dispute the figures that have been quoted?
Are you considering the context of my statement or just simply want to appear right? In context we were discussing specifically those zygotes that are being considered for termination. Are you suggesting that those zygotes that reach the stage in which the mother is aware they even exist to consider for termination, are still statistically far from ever reaching full term naturally? You are correct only if you consider the over all zygote population including those that are not ever even known to exist by the mother. However this obviously was not the intent or context of my comment and therefore to twist this in order to give the appearance of some simulation of a valid argument, is simply deplorable.
It is slightly confusing to say it is a 100% better chance,
I said "almost." I gotta watch you...
do you mean they have twice the chance or are you saying that no coma patients ever recover self awareness?
I actually didn't say the word "chance" WK. I really gotta watch you. What "I" said was that the prognosis is almost 100% better. What I mean by that is that if you line up a line of healthy fetus' in the womb in one line and a line of coma patients in the other line, "almost" 100% of the time, doctors will give a better prognosis for the fetus becoming self aware within the next 9 months as opposed to the coma patients.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by Wounded King, posted 01-24-2012 4:21 AM Wounded King has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 98 by Wounded King, posted 01-25-2012 7:47 AM Just being real has replied

  
Just being real
Member (Idle past 3936 days)
Posts: 369
Joined: 08-26-2010


Message 90 of 327 (649690)
01-25-2012 5:53 AM
Reply to: Message 53 by frako
01-24-2012 5:12 AM


And most countries do have such laws about abortion, its allowed during the first 3 months of pregnancy give or take a few weeks.
You seem to be suggesting that because a "law" was passed that this is some sort of final arbitration that conclusively proves when person hood begins. Well I'm sorry but it is immoral to decide one's person hood based on something as wishy washy as majority opinion. This was done in the past in Nazi Germany, and even in the history of our own United States with black slavery.
Basicily your if you are against this you are saying a pile of goo the size of your thumb has more right to live then the mother has rights to her own body or her right lo live.
I think I have been pretty clear on what I was saying and I never once implied anything of the sort. What I am "basically" saying (and pardon me if I sound like Horton the Elephant) but a person is a person no matter how big or how small.
If it is only "goo" then by all means expel it like snot in a tissue if you want. But if you have created a person, then as a person he or she has the right to live, so long as that right does not pose an immediate or direct threat on the life of the mother.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by frako, posted 01-24-2012 5:12 AM frako has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by Larni, posted 01-25-2012 6:57 AM Just being real has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024