Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,807 Year: 3,064/9,624 Month: 909/1,588 Week: 92/223 Day: 3/17 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   When does human life begin?
nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


(1)
Message 136 of 327 (649848)
01-25-2012 10:09 PM
Reply to: Message 130 by shadow71
01-25-2012 7:20 PM


shadow71 writes:
Could you possibly define "moral agency" for me.
I imagine that's probably a full semester class in philosophy or theology.
shadow71 writes:
I am of the opinion that human life at some point begins. Do you deny that propostion?
I agree with the proposition that you have opinions. But, not being a mind reader, I am not going to guess what those opinions are.
This is mostly a ridiculous discussion. We can get along quite well without having a precise determination of what it means to say that human life begins.

Jesus was a liberal hippie

This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by shadow71, posted 01-25-2012 7:20 PM shadow71 has seen this message but not replied

  
Just being real
Member (Idle past 3935 days)
Posts: 369
Joined: 08-26-2010


Message 137 of 327 (649849)
01-25-2012 10:20 PM
Reply to: Message 95 by Straggler
01-25-2012 7:06 AM


Re: Personhood
On what basis are you suggesting we should attribute personhood?
Actually if you will look at the post I made that seems to have started this fire storm (#28) I was clearly pointing out that there currently exists no basis in which we can establish when person hood begins.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by Straggler, posted 01-25-2012 7:06 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 146 by Straggler, posted 01-26-2012 8:06 AM Just being real has replied

  
Just being real
Member (Idle past 3935 days)
Posts: 369
Joined: 08-26-2010


Message 138 of 327 (649850)
01-25-2012 10:20 PM
Reply to: Message 98 by Wounded King
01-25-2012 7:47 AM


Really, because you were replying to a post by Rahvin the major portion of which consisted of discussing the high rate of failure to implant and other forms of spontaneous abortion or miscarriage.
Yes that is what the majority of Rahvin's comment was, however he was in response to a comment by shadow71
quote:
Yes I do belive in a soul. I know of no physical evidence for a soul. A soul is a gift from God. It enters the human when the human becomes life. Am I wrong? Maybe. Are you wrong? Maybe. It just appears to me after living my life with a wonderful wife, loving children, a little girl who died in the womb at 7 months, and beautiful grandchildren, I don't want to error on the side of being wrong as to when life begins. I can't phantom ending a possible life that is conceived by the natural process of our evolutionary process.
The context of which was the danger of erring on the wrong side. Rahvin's entire argument hinged on the notion that because the body does it naturally much of the time that this meant it was okay to do artificially. The context of my reply to him was that by the time we know to do it artificially, it will actually have an almost 100% better prognosis of achieving full mental awareness within 9 months than most coma patients.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by Wounded King, posted 01-25-2012 7:47 AM Wounded King has seen this message but not replied

  
Just being real
Member (Idle past 3935 days)
Posts: 369
Joined: 08-26-2010


Message 139 of 327 (649851)
01-25-2012 10:20 PM
Reply to: Message 99 by jar
01-25-2012 9:08 AM


Jbr #45: as a person it has the right to live so long as that right doesn't impose an immediate threat to the mothers life.
subbie #47: As I demonstrated, pregnancy does pose an immediate threat to the mother's life.
Jbr #49: Pregnancy is the "natural" risk two take, when they get in any situation that allows the sperm to get close to the egg. The "natural" result is that a person will eventually emerge from this pregnancy. Our society places great value over "persons" (normally), and tries to the best of its ability to pass laws that protect persons.
JAR #55: Natural risk is pretty much irrelevant.
Jbr #92: I'm guessing you didn't feel the need to back read and see why it became "relevant." But it does become relevant when someone tries to imply that all pregnancy is so risky that termination of another persons life is an acceptable practice just based on that risk alone.
JAR #99: But no one stated or asserted that so it is irrelevant.
Well Jar, it's clear to me that is what subbie meant by his reply.
The word "Mother" is not synonymous with the word "other".
That's just a dumb argument of semantics. Obviously that in the same way a conjoined twin might require staying connected to his sibling in order to survive, an unborn person will require remaining connected to his mother to survive. This destroys the notion that because a person requires that connection to live, that they are not a person with the right to live.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by jar, posted 01-25-2012 9:08 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 140 by jar, posted 01-25-2012 10:33 PM Just being real has replied
 Message 141 by Evlreala, posted 01-25-2012 11:36 PM Just being real has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 140 of 327 (649853)
01-25-2012 10:33 PM
Reply to: Message 139 by Just being real
01-25-2012 10:20 PM


jbr writes:
That's just a dumb argument of semantics. Obviously that in the same way a conjoined twin might require staying connected to his sibling in order to survive, an unborn person will require remaining connected to his mother to survive. This destroys the notion that because a person requires that connection to live, that they are not a person with the right to live.
If there is anything dumb it would have to be your interpretation of what I said.
Did I say "Personhood involves several things, one is being an individual. As long as the thing under discussion is simply a growth attached to the mother, it is not a person."?
Read that carefully.
Did I say "As long as the thing under discussion is simply a growth attached to the mother, it is not a person."?
Read that carefully.
In case you missed it I'll underline it for you.
"As long as the thing under discussion is simply a growth attached to the mother, it is not a person.
You might consider it an issue of semantics; but the reality is it was an attempt to misrepresent what I actually wrote.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 139 by Just being real, posted 01-25-2012 10:20 PM Just being real has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 142 by Just being real, posted 01-26-2012 12:19 AM jar has replied

  
Evlreala
Member (Idle past 3075 days)
Posts: 88
From: Portland, OR United States of America
Joined: 08-12-2009


(1)
Message 141 of 327 (649854)
01-25-2012 11:36 PM
Reply to: Message 139 by Just being real
01-25-2012 10:20 PM


Just being Real writes:
That's just a dumb argument of semantics.
I find it ironic that in a discussion about semantics, you're complainig about semantics...
Edited by Evlreala, : spelling

This message is a reply to:
 Message 139 by Just being real, posted 01-25-2012 10:20 PM Just being real has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 143 by Just being real, posted 01-26-2012 12:22 AM Evlreala has seen this message but not replied

  
Just being real
Member (Idle past 3935 days)
Posts: 369
Joined: 08-26-2010


Message 142 of 327 (649856)
01-26-2012 12:19 AM
Reply to: Message 140 by jar
01-25-2012 10:33 PM


In case you missed it I'll underline it for you.
"As long as the thing under discussion is simply a growth attached to the mother, it is not a person.
Well Jar, I didn't miss it. But you seem to have. The above is only a portion of the statement of yours that I responded to. Here is a quote of the statement in your message that I was replying to, as it is found within its context. The parts that I have italicized are the portions that you conveniently have omitted above, and are they that make my interpretation accurate and NOT at all a misrepresentation of you.
quote:
If you want to make the issue one of personhood. Personhood involves several things, one is being an individual. As long as the thing under discussion is simply a growth attached to the mother, it is not a person. There is no ere on the side of safety except when considering the mother.
Clearly in this context you stated that person hood involves several things, ONE OF WHICH IS "BEING AN INDIVIDUAL." The main topic and sentence structure of the very next line was how the thing being discussed was still attached to the mother. Since the sentence structure did not focus on "the thing" being known to only be a growth, and since the main topic was on determining when the thing becomes a person, common sense would lead anyone to interpret that you were implying connection to the mother as being the disqualifyer for personhood.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 140 by jar, posted 01-25-2012 10:33 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 149 by jar, posted 01-26-2012 10:36 AM Just being real has replied

  
Just being real
Member (Idle past 3935 days)
Posts: 369
Joined: 08-26-2010


Message 143 of 327 (649857)
01-26-2012 12:22 AM
Reply to: Message 141 by Evlreala
01-25-2012 11:36 PM


I find it ironic that in a discussion about semantics, you're complainig about semantics...
Lol. Isn't it?
However in all fairness I qualified my discussion terms in post #28 to avoid such trappings.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 141 by Evlreala, posted 01-25-2012 11:36 PM Evlreala has seen this message but not replied

  
Just being real
Member (Idle past 3935 days)
Posts: 369
Joined: 08-26-2010


Message 144 of 327 (649858)
01-26-2012 12:31 AM
Reply to: Message 134 by Admin
01-25-2012 7:35 PM


Re: Topic Reminder
Abortion is not the topic.
Howevr since the opening posts was questioning when human life begins, which was framed around the abortion issue, isn't it only logical that within the context of the actual topic, abortion will need to be discussed to some degree?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 134 by Admin, posted 01-25-2012 7:35 PM Admin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 147 by Admin, posted 01-26-2012 8:32 AM Just being real has not replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 145 of 327 (649865)
01-26-2012 3:40 AM
Reply to: Message 135 by Coragyps
01-25-2012 9:41 PM


Re: Conceptuses
Coragyps writes:
The Catholic Church, at least, seems to regard attempts to prevent sperm and ova from meeting up with each other as approximately same level of immorality as taking Plan B or having an abortion at eight weeks. What does that say about what they call "when life begins?" I say it's incomprehensible.
The Catholics are interested in control, so they say that intent is as important as action. But then they screw it up by allowing the rhythm method. (And 'concience' in the West with condoms.) Basically they make it up as they go along and do what their congregations allow them to get away with.

Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android

This message is a reply to:
 Message 135 by Coragyps, posted 01-25-2012 9:41 PM Coragyps has not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 146 of 327 (649874)
01-26-2012 8:06 AM
Reply to: Message 137 by Just being real
01-25-2012 10:20 PM


Re: Personhood
Straggler writes:
I've yet to see anything that can meaningfully be called a "person" that actually lacks a brain. Whilst I suspect that setting any absolute single criteria for human personhood is going to run into difficulties some sort of brain development based position seems more justifiable than most. On what basis are you suggesting we should attribute personhood?
JBR writes:
Actually if you will look at the post I made that seems to have started this fire storm (#28) I was clearly pointing out that there currently exists no basis in which we can establish when person hood begins.
Jolly good. Then can we also agree that anything lacking a brain of any sort fails to qualify for personhood?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 137 by Just being real, posted 01-25-2012 10:20 PM Just being real has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 152 by Just being real, posted 01-26-2012 3:59 PM Straggler has replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12995
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 147 of 327 (649877)
01-26-2012 8:32 AM
Reply to: Message 144 by Just being real
01-26-2012 12:31 AM


Re: Topic Reminder
From the opening post:
shadow71 in Message 1 writes:
Is there a medical- scientific postion on when human life begins? If so what evidence for that postion?
Yes, the OP cites abortion as the issue behind the question, but abortion is not the topic of this thread. Abortion has no more bearing on any answers science might have about when life begins than teenage pregnancy or rape.
Anyone can begin a thread in the Coffee House forum, there is no need to go through the topic proposal process for that forum.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 144 by Just being real, posted 01-26-2012 12:31 AM Just being real has not replied

  
1.61803
Member (Idle past 1503 days)
Posts: 2928
From: Lone Star State USA
Joined: 02-19-2004


Message 148 of 327 (649886)
01-26-2012 9:56 AM
Reply to: Message 128 by Straggler
01-25-2012 6:55 PM


Re: my zygote is a tumor
Straggler writes:
Then what are you defining in terms of the ability to reproduce and what possible relevance does it have to this thread?
The thread Topic is:When does human life begin?
One of the criteria used in the definition of life is the ability to reproduce. When someone asks a question or states a premise it is sometimes helpful to define ones terms.
Straggler writes:
OK. But that isn't "how". That is "when". What is it about the brain of a 24-28 week old foetus that qualifies it for human life?
That is when the brain is developed to the point where the fetus is able to have brain activity. It is regarded by some as the first sparks of consciousness. The relevance I hold at this point is one of my own sense of morality that If it is possible for that human fetus to think and move about the womb, imprint on the mother or fathers voice, suck it's thumb; then all those behaviors are consistent with human consciousness. Also 24 weeks is known as the age of viability, the earliest a infant can be delivered and survive.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 128 by Straggler, posted 01-25-2012 6:55 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 151 by Straggler, posted 01-26-2012 3:36 PM 1.61803 has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 149 of 327 (649894)
01-26-2012 10:36 AM
Reply to: Message 142 by Just being real
01-26-2012 12:19 AM


Is a conjoined twin still just a growth attached to the Mother?

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 142 by Just being real, posted 01-26-2012 12:19 AM Just being real has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 153 by Just being real, posted 01-26-2012 4:08 PM jar has replied

  
Kairyu
Member (Idle past 203 days)
Posts: 162
From: netherlands
Joined: 06-23-2010


Message 150 of 327 (649929)
01-26-2012 3:22 PM


Where do the souls go?
This might be another direction entirely, and I'm happy to move it to another thread if needed, but the OP is about the start of life.
If one assumes the soul is created during conception. Because if the soul exists, this seems to be the most logical position to me, because anything later would amount to a soulless clump of cells that magically gains a soul with a personality that also somehow bases itself on the DNA in regards of personality... That's just seems strange reasoning to me. Timing it at conception is still a bit odd ,to be honest, because of the unspecified role DNA then has in creating the personality. The only way to solve that would be to assume that a seed and a egg cell both carry some spiritual version of DNA. Not saying that I fully believe this, but otherwise I have to jump through strange logic hoops.
But my main point here, and this may be off topic is: If the majority of zygotes, or any later stage, die before childbirth.. Souls are believed to transcend death, and Christians specifically believe them to go to heaven.. This would mean that if we count humans as everything from the conception on because they have a soul, never had a physical life on earth and gets a free ticket to heaven?
Or, alternatively, they get another trail before heaven because they just began to exist, but that would still mean the majority of humans never has truly lived on Earth. This has huge theological implications, and I'm a bit puzzled why nobody pointed those out over 10 pages yet.
This doesn't fully give a answer to the OP, but I think this does illustrate what happens if a zygote is already considered life complete with a soul.
Or taking another approach, what about identical twins? If my limited knowledge is correct, they ARE based from the same zygote right? Does that mean that the ''soul'' splits as well?

Replies to this message:
 Message 156 by Just being real, posted 01-26-2012 4:52 PM Kairyu has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024