|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9163 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,419 Year: 3,676/9,624 Month: 547/974 Week: 160/276 Day: 34/23 Hour: 1/3 |
Summations Only | Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 2955 days) Posts: 706 From: Joliet, il, USA Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: When does human life begin? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 415 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined:
|
When does a human being become a human being in your mind? HUH? A human being is a human being. The issue is "When does something that is not a human become a human being?" That's been answered several times.Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
hooah212002 Member (Idle past 822 days) Posts: 3193 Joined: |
What's juvenile about pointing out your absurd notion of "praying" for a single cell? I think your "praying" is the absurd bit. Perhaps even more absurd is thinking you'll acknowledge how ridiculous you sound saying you pray for zygotes and hope they are "in a better place".
Didn't actually think about it before you typed it, did ya? "Oh heavenly father, bless these skin cells I have shed today. Please bestow your mercy upon them".Mythology is what we call someone else’s religion. Joseph Campbell
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluegenes Member (Idle past 2498 days) Posts: 3119 From: U.K. Joined:
|
shadow71 writes: When does a human being become a human being in your mind? Something can't become what it already is. Presumably you mean at what stage in the human life cycle does a human being emerge. Scientifically, there's no consensus, and it's very difficult to see how there could be one. IMO, we don't have a very good definition of what we are. If we can't rigorously define a "person" and list all the attributes it should have, then how can we decide on a precise time in the cycle? Some of the most important things, like our conscious awareness of the world, don't actually seem to be there in new born babies, who act very much instinctively. But the person seems to start to emerge during the first few months. So, the closest I can say as a tentative personal suggestion is during the first few months after birth. But wherever we fix it, it's rather arbitrary. Think of it as like asking "when does a child become an adult?" How can we fix a precise point when it's really a matter of gradual transition?
shadow71 writes: I like the "I explained" part of your answer. Once you say it I guess all dialogue stops and the omniscient one has spoken the truth? Actually, I'm being polite, and assuming some intelligence on your part. When I ask you questions like "do you consider an acorn to be an oak tree?" or "do you consider yourself to be a corpse?", do you understand why I ask the questions? I've been making a simple point for a number of posts, and it's hard to tell whether you've grasped it. I'm certainly not saying that you have to agree with me, but I'm genuinely interested to know the answers to these questions. So: Do you consider yourself to be a corpse right now on the basis that your biology determines that that will be the case in the future? Yes or no?
shadow71 writes: Get a life. ????? Unlike most zygotes that were formed this year, I have one. I'm a multi-cellular large brained primate called a human being. I'm not a zygote, which is a single celled form of life.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Meddle Member (Idle past 1292 days) Posts: 179 From: Scotland Joined:
|
Have you ever seen a zygote as defined in her paper develop into any organism except a human being? So I don't agree that "It just so happens that these local interactions lead to an adult human." Well as I said it does contain human DNA, so ultimately over many generations these local interactions will lay down the tissues that can be collectively called a human. The point I was trying to make was that these interactions are not significantly different from the interactions in the cells of an adult in maintaining the human body which has developed, such as the germinal layer of the epidermis giving rise to new skin cells, or haematopoietic stem cells multiplying to produce the various blood cells. I would be interested in your views on the scenario I submitted concerning a pregnant woman being diagnosed with cancer.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined:
|
Straggler writes: Do you accept that natural abortions are the biggest killer of "human life" known to man? If so - What do you suggest we do about his tragic majority? Anything at all? Shad writes: I have read the paper and I cannot dispute it. I hope science is working on a remedy... I very much doubt it. Because nobody with a remotely rational view of human life considers aborted zygotes to be human deaths. But those who consider every zygote to be a precious soul imbued person should surely be campaigning for this overwhelming majority of "people" rather than getting worked up about a tiny tiny number of intentionally aborted zygotes. Are churches or religious groups campaigning for research into saving the 60% of humans that never actually make it past the zygote stage?
Shad writes: ...but I don't see how that justifies an intentional abortion. Given the facts of natural abortion objecting to intentional abortions seems a bit like campaigning against the deadly dangers of electric blankets in the middle of a minefield during a machine gun battle.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Kairyu Member Posts: 162 From: netherlands Joined:
|
Well, he does, because he believes even a single cell zygote having a soul, which by Christian definition would make it human.
There's a huge split in thought about life and abortion because this, and this makes it almost impossible to debate abortion between the two groups If there's no soul, well, a real ''person'' does not exist yet as a single cell The only secular argument against early abortion one could bring up, before the brain has formed, is that a zygote is now starting the long road to develop into a human, and it's immoral to abort this process. as has been stated in this topic. The definitions and morals are still up for debate , but at least the facts are mostly clear in this route, and a single cell is not a person yet, more like a acorn for a tree, like the image pointed out quite clearly. However, most of the pro-life defenders believe in a soul. Even if it's not ''aware'' yet, a person must exist, because the most important component, the soul, also already exists, regardless of the development of the body. Or that the brain that mostly governs everyday personality has yet to be formed... Yeah, dualism is murky, and the origin of the dualisticsoul/body symbiosis is murky as well. Yet, it's vital to Christianity, so this point will only be conceded if a Christian deconverts. And because there's no evidence for it, it's hard to convince somebody a soul doesn't exist. Because of of this large contrast of beliefs, getting a agreement about abortion is pretty much a futile effort. Not when the stakes are so high for Christians, because they believe in the soul,which creates personhood, while not exactly knowing how it works, or if it even exists.I'm currently in confusion about the existence of the soul, and by extension, abortion itself, I admit this. However... This is off topic, but there are plenty of troubles defending dualism, which I won't go in depth about. I'm happy to post in a topic about dualism proper though. And also,after reading that 60% of zygotes die, how can I as a critical thinker, not see the glaring troubles in claiming a Zygote already has a soul? It got me thinking quite a bit. If you allow me to be a blunt jerk a moment, ''nature'' pretty much treats zygotes like thrash. The majority just dies because of large imperfections in the pregnancy process in the body. And why would it even matter? It'll be only a month before the second chance arises, which will surely be taken, considering our natural strong desire for sex. If you view it like this, in the workings of nature zygotes are pretty much ''replaceable'', failure being compensated by our desire for sex making sure couples keep trying, even if they don't really want a baby in the first place.(I just noted in a bit of dark irony contributes the typical ''young careless couple gets pregnant and wants to abort'' situation) If God creates nature and crafted our bodies to perfection, then WHY do so many zygotes die? I don't really like the way nature works, but fact is that is does. I've got nothing against the idea that the souls go to heaven, but I and others already have pointed out this creates the question why we, the minority, do have to go through life, and the''lucky'' zygote majority , or, if I open a nasty can of dark reasoning I don't really endorse, but it must be noted, abortions(especially those who didn't suffer due only consisting of a few cells), get a free ticket to heaven. What's the point of earthy life then? The second option is that zygotes don't gain a soul if they would die, because God knows in advance It's a quick way to patch the problem , but this doesn't really make sense to me, what it life then anyway?What is a soulless zygote? 55% of morning after pills merely kills a clump of cells then? And a person in 45% of the other cases? Also, this would make the soul a optional infusion later on, and then you need to be consistent in this belief forever in order to support this solution.. And finally, the third option I can think of, is.. We don't have soul at all, and zygotes dying.. It's just as much part of nature as the millions of seed cells that die after not reaching the egg cell. Sound harsh, is harsh. Nature is not nice. In conclusion, I consider the facts to be problematic for the ''God created humanity'' and ''zygotes already have souls'' standpoints. I'm sorry to put you under stress Shadow, but this topic will be going in circles between ''there is a soul'' and ''there's only a body'' logic being applied at the same until it this this rate. Do you have some sort of explanation for this?Maybe only God knows, as JBR eventually decided , but that would make it difficult to go on discussing the topic. And besides, I don't think any more options then the 3 I provided exist. Always a soul, sometimes a soul, no soul. That's it. (Also, I started as a reply, but it turned out mostly a general post, sorry) Edited by WSW24, : patching up errors
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
But those who consider every zygote to be a precious soul imbued person should surely be campaigning for this overwhelming majority of "people" rather than getting worked up about a tiny tiny number of intentionally aborted zygotes. I think the issue there, for them, is that in the former its just nature taking its course but in the latter, its man intentionally doing it.
Given the facts of natural abortion objecting to intentional abortions seems a bit like campaigning against the deadly dangers of electric blankets in the middle of a minefield during a machine gun battle. Maybe: "Why prosecute any murderers when there's tons of people dying everyday anyways?" Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given. Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coragyps Member (Idle past 755 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: |
Just musing here.....but how does it work if a zygote/morula/blastula gets a soul, but then misdevelops into an anencephalic fetus - one with no forebrain and with no chance of ever having a conscious life?
Does the soul get resorbed when the brain fails to form? Can you have a soul without having a brain?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined:
|
CS writes: I think the issue there, for them, is that in the former its just nature taking its course but in the latter, its man intentionally doing it. Then my response would be - Why aren't they so blase about letting nature take it's course when it comes to other natural causes of death? E.g diseases. If they really believe these zygotes are people then they seem awfully apathetic about the fact that 60% of people are killed by this single factor.
CS writes: "Why prosecute any murderers when there's tons of people dying everyday anyways?" Well my answer would be that when it comes to real people rather than zygotes we should both stop murderers and tackle things like disease.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Then my response would be - Why aren't they so blase about letting nature take it's course when it comes to other natural causes of death? E.g diseases. Some of them are... But I don't think its so much about "saving life" as it is about "punishing wrong-doers". They don't really care about the child, they care about the adult doing something they think is wrong.
If they really believe these zygotes are people then they seem awfully apathetic about the fact that 60% of people are killed by this single factor. I don't think we can doubt the sincerity of their belief; and they're prolly not well aware of that fact. Too, there's not much they can do about it. Its easy to take medicine to fight a disease but stopping natural abortions isn't even something we're capable of.
Well my answer would be that when it comes to real people rather than zygotes we should both stop murderers and tackle things like disease. You can't just deny the premise like that. But that *is* what they think they're doing: stopping the "murderers" who are the people who abort.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Perdition Member (Idle past 3259 days) Posts: 1593 From: Wisconsin Joined: |
Fine. I wasn't responding to you.
As to your other post saying that things haven't been explained...it seems there's a pretty solid consensus on this board that brain activity is required to be a person. It is up to you, then, to show why this criteria is not necessary to be a person.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Perdition Member (Idle past 3259 days) Posts: 1593 From: Wisconsin Joined: |
I'm currently in confusion about the existence of the soul, and by extension, abortion itself, I admit this. I have a question for you, and I'd like you to answer it honestly. What is the part of the body that the soul interacts with in order to make its presence known? It would seem to me, that if a soul exists, it, too, is intrinsically linked to the brain. You can cut off parts of a person, and as long as life itself is not ended, the person remains largely unchanged (leaving aside emotional trauma for reasons that will become apparent.). However, when you introduce chemicals, even something as simple as caffeine, that interact with the brain, you get a different personality. If the soul is what gives you your thoughts and personality, then, either the chemicals in the brain are changing the soul itself, or are interfering with the soul's "transmission" if you will. Brain surgeries, emotional trauma (also brain located), and severe chemical dependence can permanently change a person's behaviior, thoughts and personality. Again, this all seems to indicate that the part of the body that is most linked to the soul (assuming there is one) is the brain. Which leads back to the opinion I've been espousing all thread, namely that a brain is intrinsic to what it means to be aperson...soul or no soul.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
CS writes: But I don't think its so much about "saving life" as it is about "punishing wrong-doers". And that about sums it up. The whole issue of saving souls and safeguarding the rights of poor little zygotes is just a pile of old nonsense. They don’t actually care about these things or think of them as real people any more than I do. It’s all about defining human life in emotive ways so that they can apply words like kill and murder to abortions and then view themselves as the messengers of God’s disapproval and retribution.
CS writes: I don't think we can doubt the sincerity of their belief I don’t doubt the sincerity with which they wish to impose their nonsensical beliefs onto others. What I doubt the sincerity of is the claim that this has much to do with saving souls or safeguarding the welfare of poor little conceptuses. What I doubt the sincerity of is questions like When does human life begin? because they only seem interested in science providing an answer that justifies their condemnation of others. And the whole 60% thing rather pisses on that fire. Seriously what is the point of imbuing a few cell conceptus with a soul for a day or two? So it can exert it’s freewill and be divinely judged on it’s actions? It’s laughable. Why not just cut out that pointless step and put the soul in heaven (or wherever it is supposed to end up) from the get-go? The whole notion of every conceptus having a soul is entirely potty and those who try to take that position in order to impose their beliefs on others should be shown just how insane their position is.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
CS writes:
And that about sums it up. But I don't think its so much about "saving life" as it is about "punishing wrong-doers". So you can see why they're not championing for the reduction of natural abortions.
The whole issue of saving souls and safeguarding the rights of poor little zygotes is just a pile of old nonsense. Well, it could just be a post-hoc rationalization - which I realize doesn't mean it isn't nonsense; but it could still be an honest approach.
They don’t actually care about these things or think of them as real people any more than I do. I dunno about that... they might.
It’s all about defining human life in emotive ways so that they can apply words like kill and murder to abortions and then view themselves as the messengers of God’s disapproval and retribution. I'd bet there's more to it for people who believe that unborns have souls.
CS writes: I don't think we can doubt the sincerity of their belief I don’t doubt the sincerity with which they wish to impose their nonsensical beliefs onto others. What I doubt the sincerity of is the claim that this has much to do with saving souls or safeguarding the welfare of poor little conceptuses. I don't doubt that there are people out there who do sincerely want to save the souls of the unborn, etc. But I don't think that's a position arrived at through study and thought, its more of a position from ignorance.
What I doubt the sincerity of is questions like When does human life begin? because they only seem interested in science providing an answer that justifies their condemnation of others. And the whole 60% thing rather pisses on that fire. Well, to be fair, the author of the OP was unaware of that and seems to be having cognitive dissonance in accepting it. But that doesn't mean you ought to speculate on his motives.
Seriously what is the point of imbuing a few cell conceptus with a soul for a day or two? So it can exert it’s freewill and be divinely judged on it’s actions? It’s laughable. Why not just cut out that pointless step and put the soul in heaven (or wherever it is supposed to end up) from the get-go? That's a whole 'nother discussion...
The whole notion of every conceptus having a soul is entirely potty and those who try to take that position in order to impose their beliefs on others should be shown just how insane their position is. I doubt the entirety of it. I'd bet a lot of them are ignorantly sincere and just haven't thought, or don't want to think, it all the way through. I don't think thier motives are as malicious as you're painting them, but no doubt some of them are. The militant pro-life crowd is nothing to admire, and they'll lie for Jesus, but I don't think they represent the whole anti-abortion crowd. I, myself, am pro-choice even though I'm anti-abortion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 415 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined:
|
When those that oppose Choice step up and unconditionally commit to accepting, supporting, raising and adopting every potential human being that any mother considers aborting, then, and only then, might they have any right to a voice in the issue.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024