|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,890 Year: 4,147/9,624 Month: 1,018/974 Week: 345/286 Day: 1/65 Hour: 0/1 |
Summations Only | Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 2962 days) Posts: 706 From: Joliet, il, USA Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: When does human life begin? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 94 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Numbers writes: The thread Topic is:When does human life begin? Yes. Indeed it is.
Numbers writes: One of the criteria used in the definition of life is the ability to reproduce. Numbers writes: To which I responded with citing my use of the term reproducing in describing "Life" and pointing out that infertile organisms still reproduce they're cells. So you have on one hand defined a human life as that which has the ability for cellular reproduction. By this definition a zygote of a day or so old qualifies as "human life".
Numbers writes: In my opinion a human life begins when a woman becomes pregnant and the baby develops a brain. Well OK. But this occurs (according to you - and I roughly agree for many of the reasons you cite) between 24 and 28 weeks after conception. So are you saying that a zygote capable of cellular production qualifies as a "human life" or are you saying that to qualify as a "human life" a somewhat developed brain is required? Can you see how your position seems somewhat contradictory? Question: Are you defining human life in terms of cellular reproduction or brain development?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Just being real Member (Idle past 3964 days) Posts: 369 Joined: |
Jolly good. Then can we also agree that anything lacking a brain of any sort fails to qualify for personhood? I just pointed out that we can not determine this. We know that scientifically the new human individual begins to form from conception on. But where in there can we draw the line and say "This is exactly when person hood happens?" It's really impossible to pin point. Let's say for argument sake (and I'm not at all saying I agree with this) but let's just say... "No brain... No person." So even if we all went with this idea we would still be having this same debate. That's because just like the entire development process, the brain doesn't just form in an instant. It forms slowly as well. So then, the only thing that would change is, we would be arguing over how much of the brain need to have developed before it becomes a person. Or if we all agreed that person hood starts when there is measurable brain waves... Even with everyone in agreement with that concept, what happens in the future when we have more sophisticated equipment that is able to detect brain waves much earlier? Are we going to move the stage of person hood back even earlier, and then just look at all those persons we disposed of because of the older equipment, and just say... "OOPS."?? My whole point here is this. We are like a bunch of sleepy bumbling idiots stumbling around in a darkened room with a loaded shot gun, ready to blast away at any noise we hear. The problem is we also have children living in the house. I just think its time for the "Shoot first and ask questions later," mentality to end. We have real lives at stake here so we better know what the hell we are shooting at!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Just being real Member (Idle past 3964 days) Posts: 369 Joined: |
Is a conjoined twin still just a growth attached to the Mother? Look!!! I get it friend. Even though your statements clearly implied that criteria for person hood should be based on attachment to the mother, you want to clarify now that you meant if it is only a growth and not a person. I agree. YES! "Something that is not a person doesn't have person hood." I have no idea why you would feel the need to state the obvious, but I agree with you. Happy now?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 422 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
So as long as the growth is inside the mother and attached with an umbilical cord it is not person.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Perdition Member (Idle past 3266 days) Posts: 1593 From: Wisconsin Joined: |
I just pointed out that we can not determine this. We know that scientifically the new human individual begins to form from conception on. But where in there can we draw the line and say "This is exactly when person hood happens?" It's really impossible to pin point. I think a lot of us feel it's not that difficult to pinpoint. You're just uncomfortable with the point many of us have chosen.
No brain... No person." So even if we all went with this idea we would still be having this same debate. That's because just like the entire development process, the brain doesn't just form in an instant. It forms slowly as well. But there is definitely a point at which it begins to develop.
So then, the only thing that would change is, we would be arguing over how much of the brain need to have developed before it becomes a person. But we would have narrowed down the window. Right now, you're arguing that we can't be sure, so we need to go all the way to conception "to be safe." If we accept a brain as a necessary part of being a person, then we can close this window of "Just to be safe" to the couple of weeks where brain formation might begin.
Or if we all agreed that person hood starts when there is measurable brain waves... Even with everyone in agreement with that concept, what happens in the future when we have more sophisticated equipment that is able to detect brain waves much earlier? Are we going to move the stage of person hood back even earlier, and then just look at all those persons we disposed of because of the older equipment, and just say... "OOPS."?? Well, if we stick with the "no brain, no person" paradigm, we'd be safe, on matter how early it ends up being that brain waves begin. Besides, we know for a fact that the embryo can't feel pain, have thoughts, have dreams, or be self-aware without a brain. Ignoring the "potential" person argument, it seems pretty clear that without a brain you don't have a person.
My whole point here is this. We are like a bunch of sleepy bumbling idiots stumbling around in a darkened room with a loaded shot gun, ready to blast away at any noise we hear. The problem is we also have children living in the house. I just think its time for the "Shoot first and ask questions later," mentality to end. We have real lives at stake here so we better know what the hell we are shooting at! If we know there are no children in the house (like no brain in the fetus) then we have no chance of killing our children. We should definitely keep looking to make better sure we know what we're "shooting" at, but the chance of shooting our kids before we have kids is pretty minimal, to say the least.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Just being real Member (Idle past 3964 days) Posts: 369 Joined: |
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. Actually for those of us who have faith in God and the Bible, I think this is also a fitting part of this thread. That's because in a discussion about person hood (see post #28) people of faith want to consider when does the soul enter the body? For people of faith this would be the moment that it becomes a person. However I am not aware of any scriptural basis one can use to establish when exactly the soul enters the body. The only place I know where it describes this is in Genesis 2:7 where it tells us:
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..And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. Some have attempted to use this passage to claim that person hood doesn't happen until the first breath is taken. However the problem with this is there are other passages in scripture that make references to persons while they are still in the womb. There is no place in scripture that tells us exactly when the soul enters the body.
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 there may be another theological answer to this dilemma that you haven't considered. Within the construct of your own equation you are allowing for the possibility of an infinite, omnipotent, and omniscient God. This would mean that such a being would have the foreknowledge to know which "zygotes" He has chosen to mature to person hood and only those would receive a soul. This of course would theologically mean that only God with his omniscient knowledge would have the right to terminate a zygote before it matures.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Perdition Member (Idle past 3266 days) Posts: 1593 From: Wisconsin Joined: |
Within the construct of your own equation you are allowing for the possibility of an infinite, omnipotent, and omniscient God. This would mean that such a being would have the foreknowledge to know which "zygotes" He has chosen to mature to person hood and only those would receive a soul. This of course would theologically mean that only God with his omniscient knowledge would have the right to terminate a zygote before it matures. If the above is true, wouldn't he also know which children would be aborted, and thus not give them souls as well, making it possible to abort at any time without worrying about a soul?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Just being real Member (Idle past 3964 days) Posts: 369 Joined: |
We should definitely keep looking to make better sure we know what we're "shooting" at, but the chance of shooting our kids before we have kids is pretty minimal, to say the least. Well in keeping true with the analogy we must at least allow for the possibility for kids to be present. But of course no analogy could be perfect here because we are talking about the development of a person. Bottom line though, there isn't any scientific way to determine personhood in a developing fetus, and therefore the notion that an absent or undeveloped brain should be the qualifier... that's only personal opinion. And nothing good ever came out of deciding fate based on that alone.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Just being real Member (Idle past 3964 days) Posts: 369 Joined: |
If the above is true, wouldn't he also know which children would be aborted, and thus not give them souls as well, making it possible to abort at any time without worrying about a soul? Well gee... with that kind of logic then Peterson could have justified murdering his wife and unborn child by saying that God foreknew the murder, and therefore didn't give his wife a soul either.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Perdition Member (Idle past 3266 days) Posts: 1593 From: Wisconsin Joined: |
Bottom line though, there isn't any scientific way to determine personhood in a developing fetus, and therefore the notion that an absent or undeveloped brain should be the qualifier. So you keep asserting. Please tell me how you can have "personhood" without a brain? If you can't have a persona, how can you have personhood?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Kairyu Member Posts: 162 From: netherlands Joined: |
Or there may be another theological answer to this dilemma that you haven't considered. Within the construct of your own equation you are allowing for the possibility of an infinite, omnipotent, and omniscient God. This would mean that such a being would have the foreknowledge to know which "zygotes" He has chosen to mature to person hood and only those would receive a soul. This of course would theologically mean that only God with his omniscient knowledge would have the right to terminate a zygote before it matures. So, Zygotes only receive a soul when they would mature anyway? And they do receive a soul when the would mature if not for the morning after pill, regardless of God knowing that this would happen as well. And what about Shadow's daughters miscarriage at 7 months? Did she not receive a soul either, because her biological body was fated to die in the womb? This strikes me as absurd. So where do you draw the line for fetuses that die receiving a soul? I personally am very doubtful over this ''soul receiving'' It seems more logical for me that either a human gets a soul right at the start of the conception, and it's somehow a ethereal cornerstone for all life(this ties in with my belief in evolution, but that's beyond the scope of this topic) or we simply lack a soul at all. Some ''life'' existing without a soul, and it may or may not receive one, just seems doesn't seem right. What would the theoretical result be if such a soulless zygote would just go through the pregnancy without ''receiving'' a soul? Would it lack humanity, emotions,morals, and free will, even if the brain functions that usually govern these functions? Dualism between body and soul already difficult enough to fit into modern neurology as is. So I conclude that the idea that the large amount of fetuses that do not survive pregnancy stay soulless, doesn't make a huge amount of sense. With all respect, I personally find it a rather easy way to escape the problem, which makes the meaning of life is even more complicated then it already was. Edited by WSW24, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Perdition Member (Idle past 3266 days) Posts: 1593 From: Wisconsin Joined:
|
Well gee... with that kind of logic then Peterson could have justified murdering his wife and unborn child by saying that God foreknew the murder, and therefore didn't give his wife a soul either. Firstly, if you can be a person, having emotions, thoughts and dreams without having a soul, then I guess you've just argued that a soul is unecessary, and is a bad determiner for personhood. Secondly, this would seem to be a logical extension of the thought that God, being omniscient and omnipotent, would only give souls to those zygotes that would actually develop. If the conclusion bothers you (as it should) perhaps the premise needs to be looked at.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Just being real Member (Idle past 3964 days) Posts: 369 Joined: |
So you keep asserting. Please tell me how you can have "personhood" without a brain? If you can't have a persona, how can you have personhood? Listen to what you are saying here. You are trying to say you can determine when personhood begins by the presence of persona. That's like saying a corn plant becomes a corn plant when it produces corn. That's an over statement of the obvious. Of course it will be a person after there is presence of persona. But what we want to figure out is just exactly when does this take place? Can we truly define personhood this way? You can't decide personhood based upon its level of development, because whatever level you choose will ultimately only be an opinion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Just being real Member (Idle past 3964 days) Posts: 369 Joined: |
So, Zygotes only receive a soul when they would mature anyway? And they do receive a soul when the would mature if not for the morning after pill, regardless of God knowing that this would happen as well. And what about Shadow's daughters miscarriage at 7 months? Did she not receive a soul either, because her biological body was fated to die in the womb? This strikes me as absurd. So where do you draw the line for fetuses that die receiving a soul? What part of "We don't know cause God didn't tell us," don't you understand? We only know that somewhere between conception and birth it becomes a person with a soul. The details belong to God alone.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coragyps Member (Idle past 763 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: |
with that kind of logic then Peterson could have justified murdering his wife and unborn child by saying that God foreknew the murder..... But Peterson isn't God, and "cannot know the mind of God." When people say they do, they either are called popes and such or schizophrenics........
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024