alexfranke
Active LVC Member
Dude -- clearly "I want Obama to fail" is secret code for "when does a person start being a person". (sigh!) 
What does it mean to be human" thread -split from Obama 'fail' thread
- Thread starter Maxb49
- Start date
Dude -- clearly "I want Obama to fail" is secret code for "when does a person start being a person". (sigh!) 
So, boys, isn't this rather academic for you? I have often wondered why some of the most vocal proponents and opponents on this subject are men.
Why, when you see footage of protests in front of abortion clinics, do men outnumber women by a large number?
Why, when you see footage of protests in front of abortion clinics, do men outnumber women by a large number?
And, yes, how the mother feels does have the most bearing on this, the abortion issue. Deciding when human, viable life begins affects the mothers. When that moment is decided upon allows or disallows choices that the mother can make.
Why should they be taken totally out of the equation? Aren't they the largest part of the equation?
You of all people should know better. The burden of proof rests with the one making a claim. A person who makes the claim that an embryo is a human being assumes the onus. What is so hard to understand about that? What are you running away from?
Yes, we really do know that genetic material lacking a brain lacks consciousness. Consciousness (and the self) is a function of the brain. If something doesn't have a functioning brain then it isn't conscious. Dead people whose brain has decayed aren't conscious; brain death is the criteria used to determine death.
The embryo contains human genetic information, as does your fingernail. Neither in and of themselves are human beings.
Yes. It can be pinned down at the moment the organs and processes appear that are the necessary, defining characteristics of a human being. An embryo is not a fetus. Remember that. That's another undisputed fact.
That's a nice assertion. Prove it.
alexfranke
Active LVC Member
I would guess because men are more vocal proponents and opponents of things in general...
Oh -- and I'm not a boy. In fact I had an appendectomy a while back, so I'm not really even a human being at all!
I would guess because men are more vocal proponents and opponents of things in general...
I often thought it was a combination of that, along with a certain sense of inadequacy or even awe.
Oh -- and I'm not a boy. In fact I had an appendectomy a while back, so I'm not really even a human being at all!
So, I should have stated "boys and ????". What exactly do you become sans appendix?
Certainly not eunuch...
alexfranke
Active LVC Member
BTW, Maxb49, what exactly are "the necessary, defining characteristics of a human being?"
lol -- Gosh, I dunno. It's really starting to worry me, though. What am I going to tell me kids?!? :shock:
lol -- Gosh, I dunno. It's really starting to worry me, though. What am I going to tell me kids?!? :shock:
That's a different point.
Not the one that I was addressing in response to Foxpaws post.
There are enough voices in that particular discussion that I don't need to crowd the conversation.
I don't doubt that science knows exactly when biological life begins... conception. However, when the line is crossed from potential human to a human with potential is where you find the controversy, and debate.
The issue is when does life begin, not when does a woman who wants to terminate a pregnancy decide she's comfortable terminating it. "Life" wouldn't begin in some cases at one point, but based on convenience begin at another.
Whether a woman has the legal right to terminate a life is a separate argument than being discussed here right now.
The definition of life isn't based on convenience, nor should it be.
As stated, life isn't decided based upon the mood of the mother.
No, the fetus/baby is the largest part of the equation.
Actually, the question is when do a collection of cells become a human being? Life is a continuous process that has occurred for at least several billions of years. Life doesn't suddenly begin during intercourse, at conception, any time thereafter or recently before.
For the record, I don't doubt that Fossten, MonsterMark, and Calabrio sincerely care about human beings and protecting lives. It's an honest and noble goal, the difference comes along what constitutes a human being. They should support embryonic stem cell research because the lives it will save could be their own and/or their children's.
I look to find out a defining moment for the beginning of life, at the end of life.
As a Christian, I believe in eternal life. Faith. No question, no wondering. It is as much a part of me as breathing.
When my biological body dies, 'I' do not. Heaven, hell, my choices in my earthly life will define where I spend the rest of my life.
So, biology, or 'science' doesn't define the end of my life.
So, why would it define the beginning of life?
Various faiths view the end of life differently. We could be reincarnated, life as a circle. We might end up in a holding pattern, waiting for 'rapture'. There are many different beliefs to what happens when we die. We could be recycled with a volcano ritual. As humans we wonder, maybe it helps define us as human.
So, that same part of me that knows I will not die when my body ceases to exist also knows when life begins. Once again, no question, no wondering, I know. Other faiths have their ideas as well. Jews believe life begins with the first breath. Catholics used to believe 'with blood' - when blood was present (I think about 3 weeks), although that has changed in the last 100 years or so. Hindus view all life as scared.
Which is right? Which should be 'enforced' here?
So, what makes us human - it isn't biology is it? What do we define 'human life' as?
No Calabrio - when human life begins is the largest part of the equation. And who decides that - do you decide that moment for me, for my child? My faith doesn't follow what yours does. The end of my life is not dictated by your faith. Why would your belief of when human life begins dictate when the life that grows within me, becomes my 'baby'?
As a Christian, I believe in eternal life. Faith. No question, no wondering. It is as much a part of me as breathing.
When my biological body dies, 'I' do not. Heaven, hell, my choices in my earthly life will define where I spend the rest of my life.
So, biology, or 'science' doesn't define the end of my life.
So, why would it define the beginning of life?
Various faiths view the end of life differently. We could be reincarnated, life as a circle. We might end up in a holding pattern, waiting for 'rapture'. There are many different beliefs to what happens when we die. We could be recycled with a volcano ritual. As humans we wonder, maybe it helps define us as human.
So, that same part of me that knows I will not die when my body ceases to exist also knows when life begins. Once again, no question, no wondering, I know. Other faiths have their ideas as well. Jews believe life begins with the first breath. Catholics used to believe 'with blood' - when blood was present (I think about 3 weeks), although that has changed in the last 100 years or so. Hindus view all life as scared.
Which is right? Which should be 'enforced' here?
So, what makes us human - it isn't biology is it? What do we define 'human life' as?
No Calabrio - when human life begins is the largest part of the equation. And who decides that - do you decide that moment for me, for my child? My faith doesn't follow what yours does. The end of my life is not dictated by your faith. Why would your belief of when human life begins dictate when the life that grows within me, becomes my 'baby'?
I responded to your statement that the mother was the largest part of the equation. I corrected you, the mother is NOT the LARGEST part of the equation, the fetus/baby/life is the largest part of the equation.
As for the decision- that ventures into a discussion on the legality and ethics of abortion. That's not the debate that is going on right now.
But the government does have the right, and arguably, the responsiblity to defend innocent life. This isn't necessarily up to the discretion of a mother. Using the same logic, you can argue that a Mother should have the right to terminate a life long after birth. And I'm not just saying that to be shocking, Peter Singer, an ethics professor at Princeton, will argue that infanticide by a mother is perfectly acceptable using a similar principle..
Because your "religion" doesn't exempt you from the rule of law, and the law is supposed to be designed to protect the lives and liberty of the innocent.
I use the quote tool pretty effectively, yet you keep making responses to comments that are unrelated to what I'm talking about. I was responded to something SPECIFIC that Foxpaws stated.
I'm not aware of any place that I've made any comment regarding my advocacy or opposition to stem cell research. I merely corrected an angry, impulsive rant posted early in the thread that was inaccurate.
I do not think these concepts and these inherently spiritual identification are easy to make. My background isn't biology, but I do believe that a significant number of fertilized ovum don't attach to the uterus, and are then expelled from the body. I think that's a significant biological event to note.
However, I will certainly cede that there is some gray area in the very early phases of pregnancy, there are points and they do come very quickly, where the fetus really undeniably becomes a life, be it a simple life. And that should be respected.
The notion that life doesn't begin until the head is breached is simply murderous. (note: I'm not aware of anyone having made such a claim in this thread).
well, this got out of hand. embryonic stem cell research WAS being done on, to put it bluntly, left over test tube babies. whether there was potential life or not had become irrelevant, as they were frozen and way past due without a claim being made for them.
the options left were, leave them frozen, throw them away, or use them for science. so even if you wish to call them potential life, they weren't there for that purpose anymore. for the owners, they were left overs. either pregnancy happened, or it didn't happen and they didn't care to try again.
the question to be answered is whether a group of cells OUTSIDE the womb is potential human life, without an owner to carry them. in this state they will NEVER develop to full human.
and fox, biology does define the end of "life" the rest is spiritual belief, and even in re-incarnation, it is the spirit(soul) that returns to another biological being. and they've been trying to prove a soul for years, but the evidence is highly lacking.(non-existent}
the options left were, leave them frozen, throw them away, or use them for science. so even if you wish to call them potential life, they weren't there for that purpose anymore. for the owners, they were left overs. either pregnancy happened, or it didn't happen and they didn't care to try again.
the question to be answered is whether a group of cells OUTSIDE the womb is potential human life, without an owner to carry them. in this state they will NEVER develop to full human.
and fox, biology does define the end of "life" the rest is spiritual belief, and even in re-incarnation, it is the spirit(soul) that returns to another biological being. and they've been trying to prove a soul for years, but the evidence is highly lacking.(non-existent}
alexfranke
Active LVC Member
I think there's difference between spiritual life and physical life. There's also a different between physical life and human life, and between human life and a human being. In my opinion, physical life and human life are the only ones that can be scientifically defined.
That's interesting. (But I think "owner" might not be the right word.) Why wouldn't "left over test tube babies" be able to receive government benefits and protection if they're human beings? (Or do they? I don't know...)
So, I am an incubator? You do realize there is a lot more going on than a symbiotic relationship here, don't you Cal?
Alex, while defining life, and the question of embryonic stem cell research, aren't you also looking at abortion rights? Aren't they all intertwined?
Wouldn't one point be where embryonic stem cells become 'unembryonic'? When science can no longer use them in research in the 'undifferentiated' state, and they become defined as 'differentiated' stem cells?
IS A WOMAN merely an incubator? Of course not. An incubator is an inanimate machine that has no control over what happens to it in life. And incubator has no responsibility for anything it does.
Is a woman an inanimate object that is has no responsibility for any actions it undertakes?
And as I pointed out, the opinion of the mother is not what determines when life starts. You can argue until when you have the legal ability to end it, but that is a different discussion.
Shouldn't be. This would be a biological and ethical discussion, not a legal one. The abortion laws shouldn't influence this discussion- but the conclusion of a discussion like this should influence a discussion on abortion.
My understanding is that an embroy can have both differentiated and undifferentiated cells at the same time. So the issue isn't specifically the use of stem cells, but the destruction of the embroy in the pursuit of said stem cells.
But, if you define life as starting at conception – then, remove my ‘choices’ over that now defined life – don’t I become a machine that has no control over what happens to it in life? Whenever that point is, if it is dictated by someone/something other than myself, I have had my control removed. Don't I become a machine?
But, here you are already assuming that ‘life’ has started, and that the mother will be ‘ending’ it. They are the same discussion, legally, morally, spiritually, however you want to look at it.
So since abortion laws are influenced by this discussion, why shouldn’t the reverse be true? Shouldn’t you look at the ‘when does life begin’ discussion with an eye to the future, and the all the ramifications that it creates?
I haven't stated when life does or doesn't start.
But this decision is not determined by the mood or circumstance of the mother.
No, they aren't.
If you want to support an abortion policy that ends life, then you can continue to do so. Or if you want o support an abortion policy that terminates a pregnancy before life has begun, then you can continue to do that as well.
But the issue of what is alive isn't determined by a woman, nor is it influenced by her mood or circumstance.
No, the creation of life isn't determined by convenience.
If you wish to argue that there a societal greater good by terminating a pregnancy at any point, then you may continue to do so.
This would be like me saying the death penalty isn't killing someone.
It does. Just because I think they deserve it, it's in the interest of society, or any other reason, this does not mean I can say that the condemned isn't "alive" or a "person." That designation isn't determined by social convenience. So, any debate is support of the death penalty has to recognize that there is the destruction of a life within it.
alexfranke
Active LVC Member
I think there are a few questions here. I think the main discussion here is independent of moral/ethical considerations:
At what point is a person first considered a unique human being?
...then there are bunch of other related issues that seem to stem from this question (like "Is stem cell research ethical?" or even "when does unique human life have the right to live or be kept alive?").
We seem to be agreeing that it's unethical to destroy a human being. But there's no consensus on whether or not an embryo is a human being.
It may not be decided by ‘mood’ or ‘circumstance’ but by ‘belief’ of the mother. Whether that is based on spiritual belief, scientific belief, or medical belief. And since all three of those differ within themselves, isn’t the onus on the mother? If not, you very well could create an ‘incubator’ out of a living human being.
Since religions differ in this regard (anything from conception to birth), as well as science (from 2 cells to millions of cells) and finally medical (viable outside the womb) who will determine which course to take? And whatever course is taken there is obviously always one life that will be affected, the mother. The other life in the equation has yet to be determined when it begins.
So, you should have stated earlier
” And as I pointed out, the opinion of the mother is not what determines when life starts. You can argue until when you have the legal ability to end the pregnancy, but that is a different discussion.”
Correct? Since you haven’t defined when life begins, until that point is defined you are ending a pregnancy, not a ‘life’.
So what your saying is, the definition of whether something is alive or not is based not on a societal agreement based on thoughtful discussion and debate, but upon the individual whim, mood, circumstance, or temporary belief system of an individual woman, who may be experience a traumatic experience.
Using this logic, a fetus/baby in one womb IS a life, and based on convenience and circumstance, it is NOT when being carried by another woman. That's not how law works, that affords one being with rights while denying them to another.
If you want to argue that a Mother should have the right to destroy an embryo, a fetus, and baby, based on their belief system or convenience, then you can do so. But their individual mood does not determine whether it is alive or a human being or not.
You seem to be now arguing that since there is no clear answer to the discussion of when life begins, we should leave this decision to the individual mothers.
But this isn't a sufficient "solution" either.
At what point does the Mother lose the responsibility/right of being able to terminate the life? Viability in the womb? Birth? Or at some point during the infantcy - as Peter Singer would suggest.
You're final solution doesn't resolve the issue, it actually creates more questions.
As I mentioned, we can debate and discuss when life begins or should be protected independent of a discussion about the legality of abortion.
And the discussion of abortion, particularly mid and late term abortions, should have the honesty to recognize that at some point, it is the discussion about ending a life.
No different than if we have a discussion about capitol punishment. I can't say that it's up to the victim to decide if a criminal is a living human or not. A death penalty discussion has to recognize that there is the destruction of a life involved, and any argument advocating it must be able to address that. At some point, if it's to have any honesty or integrity, the abortion discussion has to do the same thing.
Last edited by a moderator:
So women should depend on the societal whim of the moment? This decision will be made for them by whoever is wearing those black robes at this time, what current scientific study happens to be garnering favor with the scientific community, what religious group has the ear of the politicians in power, what medical advances have been made regarding viability outside the womb, and quality of life thereafter?
I don’t place a lot of trust in ‘societal’ agreement.
Society has disagreed on this point many, many times in the past, and it will continue to disagree in the future. The perimeters will change. New ideas of life will come forward. In our near future will we have to define life as far as human cloning is concerned. Life created and sustained outside the womb. Lots of questions, lots of swings in society’s view of life.
As far as the honesty of mid and late term abortions, I believe you will find there are very few people who will disagree that there is a point that abortion is ending a human life. It is at that point where you need to discuss that no longer are you ending a pregnancy, which is a choice that doesn’t involve 'life and death'. At some point the people involved will come to a decision of sustaining or ending a life.
You refuse to address any of my points, instead dance around them.
You're logic is absurd and desperate.
And now you are now saying that society shouldn't determine when life begins through thoughtful discuss and debate because as science and philosophy evolves, the opinions on the matter may change. Instead, you would rather leave this up to the whim of individual women who's would simultaneously have different opinions on the matter and who's own personal feelings may change on a day to day basis, based on their circumstance, influence, or mood.
But you've avoid all the other points and challenges I've made until this point. There's no point in my repeating them so you can conveniently dance around them again.
You're logic is absurd and desperate.
And now you are now saying that society shouldn't determine when life begins through thoughtful discuss and debate because as science and philosophy evolves, the opinions on the matter may change. Instead, you would rather leave this up to the whim of individual women who's would simultaneously have different opinions on the matter and who's own personal feelings may change on a day to day basis, based on their circumstance, influence, or mood.
But you've avoid all the other points and challenges I've made until this point. There's no point in my repeating them so you can conveniently dance around them again.