Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Status:
"I don't understand. But I don't care, so it works out."
(set 7 days ago)
35,629 posts, read 17,961,729 times
Reputation: 50652
Advertisements
Quote:
Originally Posted by guidoLaMoto
Ironic that you mention possible exceptions, then state categorically that anything with the full set of chromosomes MUST be a human. Yours is still an arbitrary choice. Allegorically speaking, God only sent us 10 Laws chiseled in stone, and "beginning of life" wasn't one of them. All subsequent laws have been written on paper.
In aboriginal societies, where people lived on the razor's edge of survival, any drain on resources, like a deformed infant, could spell survival disaster for the entire clan. We're all aware that deformed babies where quickly eliminated-- "post partum abortion," if you will. It was considered vital to survival of the group, not murder. At that level of technology/sociology, even completed birth didn't confer "personhood' on the individual.
Many good thoughts expressed here so far. The more I think about it, the more I'm convinced that we need to stick with an arbitrary definition..... At least with conception or birth as our choice, we have the least arbitrary situations-- those are both something "all or none." If we chose some point in between, we get more and more arbitrary and less definitive: when the 2 chambered heart starts beating? when the 4 chambered heart develops? when the nervous system is capable of reflex activity? when muscles become capable of twitching? When life independent of the womb is possible? You get the idea.
Not to change the subject, but if Lamaze is supposed to be "natural," why do you have to sign up for lessons?
Mostly the girls I taught were in the classes to form a community, and understand what they were about to face. Some of the girls actually thought their babies were growing in their stomachs.
Childbirth classes (not necessarily Lamaze) are to acquaint first time mothers with procedures used during child birth, pain medication options, hospital room choices, etc.
Status:
"I don't understand. But I don't care, so it works out."
(set 7 days ago)
35,629 posts, read 17,961,729 times
Reputation: 50652
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2mares
Of for Gods sake.
Generally speaking a newborn's body, limbs, organs, etc. are fully developed to survive outside of the womb on its own accord as opposed to a zygote, embryo, fetus. Does this really need explained to you?
No, actually, newborns aren't designed to survive outside the womb on it's own accord.
Have a baby, put it in a field, and come back in a few days to see how this is going.
Dependance on another for survival doesn't create or negate life.
My opinion is unorthodox, likely offending most readers on either side of the debate. A self-stabilized and coherent collection of living cells becomes a person through a process of development and maturation. There is a continuum of what it means to be “a person”, implying indeed (and perhaps unfortunately) that humans are fundamentally unequal. So for example, a person with a severe mental handicap is by this rubric materially and demonstrably less of a person than his/her healthy counterpart, implying diminished rights and diminished value of life. This contradicts so many of our core precepts of law, whether religious or secular… and can admittedly send us down a most unpalatable and grotesque path of abuse, eugenics and outright genocide.
A fetus is more of a person than an embryo, and a newborn baby is more of a person than a fetus. Is a newborn already a full person? Not entirely. Personhood implies a capacity to reason, to self-reflect and self-examine. It implies cognition, memory, self-expression. A 1-year-old probably can’t yet speak, and certainly can’t remember. Such a proto-person is, by my reckoning, not yet fully human. His/her rights are diminished. Does that mean that if parents regret having had a child, that their 1-year-old is still sufficiently young, as to be executed, without this being murder? No. But I do think that the murder of a 1-year-old is less of a crime than the murder of a 20-year-old. I also think that unplugging life-support from a person in a coma, who has excellent chance of recovery, and who is nowise “brain dead” – while a serious crime, is again less serious than outright murder…. Because the person in a coma is in some substantial sense less of a person.
By this reasoning, terminating a pregnancy could still be regarding as being morally suspect, and in some contexts even a crime – but without counting as outright murder.
I reiterate that because my definition (or collection of attributes) lead directly to inequality, we must tread carefully. I am not suggesting a dystopian caste-system where the intelligent enslave the dull. But I do think that how we value human life – that is, living personhood – depends on the extent to which the “person” fulfills human potential. And by the latter I mean contemplation, communication, creativity and abstract thoughts.
Ultimately, to be human means to think. It’s not the same as calculation, or even learning. The best artificial intelligence systems can resoundingly beat the best human chess-player. That doesn’t mean that they’re “thinking” about what they’re doing. A machine, if one ever gets built, that can actually think – would in some meaningful sense be properly a “person”.
The only point in this question is to settle legal issues, and this being a democracy, the question should be voted on directly by the people, all the people. Otherwise you just go round and round as there is no right answer. So just vote on it.
I think the question was when does human life become a person.
Yes, I know what the topic is and the logic still applies, isn't the spark of life what constitutes a human being? "If being human is not enough to entitle one to human rights, then the very concept of human rights loses meaning."
Last edited by sixlets82; 12-21-2018 at 01:12 PM..
....... let's discuss the question of when does a human life start, ie- become a "person." Please give your opinion ......
Human and person do not mean the same thing. Just as humanity and personality do not mean the same thing. Personhood can be applied to any living entity that demonstrates what its personality is, regardless of its nature and its species.
A human being becomes a human being at conception, but is not yet a person. The human being achieves personhood after it is born into the world. Only after birth has occurred is it able to begin to develop and demonstrate its personhood and its personality. The development of personality is dictated and influenced by both worldly and celestial forces outside of the womb.
.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
