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.
According to your line of thought, a child's spiritual life doesn't begin until the brain is 100% developed, which isn't until about age 25 - & actually continues to change throughout one's life. It also reminds me of the illogical notion that it's ok to murder a child before they are able to survive on their own - which ability, legally, wouldn't be until 18 years of age.
If you're going to go by any spiritual writings - consider when John (the Baptist) lept inside his mother's womb when Mary first came to visit.
Having experienced pregnancy and similar experiences, I know that our spirits don't magically just start at birth, but are intact with our bodies before birth.
Anybody who sees a baby moving in ultrasound knows they have life - both physical and spiritual.
Anybody who knows anything about biology and human development knows that at conception, a human life begins - that life has all body systems by 8 weeks gestation, including the nervous system, which transmits pain signals. Thus, by the time many abortion murders are performed, many children can feel their body being ripped apart.
In reviewing the neuroanatomical and physiological evidence in the fetus, it was apparent that connections from the periphery to the cortex are not intact before 24 weeks of gestation and, as most neuroscientists believe that the cortex is necessary for pain perception, it can be concluded that the fetus cannot experience pain in any sense prior to this gestation. After 24 weeks there is continuing development and elaboration of intracortical networks such that noxious stimuli in newborn preterm infants produce cortical responses. Such connections to the cortex are necessary for pain experience but not sufficient, as experience of external stimuli requires consciousness. Furthermore, there is increasing evidence that the fetus never experiences a state of true wakefulness in utero and is kept, by the presence of its chemical environment, in a continuous sleep-like unconsciousness or sedation. This state can suppress higher cortical activation in the presence of intrusive external stimuli. This observation highlights the important differences between fetal and neonatal life and the difficulties of extrapolating from observations made in newborn preterm infants to the fetus.
The Bible does not mention abortion but Jewish theology does:
Quote:
Even given the designation of the embryo / fetus as intrinsic to the mother's body and thereby lacking, we might say, personhood - is feticide, the killing of at least a potential human being the same as homicide? The biblical books of Exodus and Leviticus (part of the Torah - teaching, path, law - in Judaism, and canonical "Old Testament" books for Christians), as understood through the Talmud and Rashi (one of the most important Rabbinic authorities), argue that the answer to this question is, "No."
The law of homicide in the Torah, in one of its formulations, reads: "Makkeh ish..." "He who smites a man..." (Ex. 21:12). Does this include any many, say a day-old child? Yes, says the Talmud, citing another text: "...ki yakkeh kol nefesh adam" "If one smite any nefesh adam" (Lev. 24:17) - literally, any human person. (Whereas we may not be sure that the newborn babe has completed its term and is a bar kayyama, fully viable, until thirty days after birth, he is fully human from the moment of birth. If he dies before his thirtieth day, no funeral or shivah rites are applicable either. But active destruction of a born child of even doubtful viability is here definitely forbidden.) The "any" (kol) is understood to include the day-old child, but the "nefesh adam" is taken to exclude the fetus in the womb. The fetus in the womb, says Rashi, classic commentator on the Bible and Talmud, is lav nefish hu, not a person, until he comes into the world. Feticide, then, does not constitute homicide, and the basis for denying it capital-crime status in Jewish law - even for those rabbis who may have wanted to rule otherwise - is scriptural. Alongside the above text is another one in Exodus that reads: "If men strive, and wound a pregnant woman so that her fruit be expelled, but no harm befall [her], then shall he be fined as her husband shall assess...But if harm befall [her], then shalt thou give life for life" (21:22). The Talmud makes this verse's teaching explicit: Only monetary compensation is exacted of him who causes a woman to miscarry. Note also that though the abortion spoken of here is accidental, it contrasts with the homicide (of the mother) which is also accidental. Even unintentional homicide cannot be expiated by a monetary fine. (82)
There is nothing biologically different from a person at conception and right before they die.
Entirely false. There are massive differences biologically. You honestly see no biological difference between a single undifferentiated cell and the enormous mass of differentiated cells of a human adult just before death?
Even the number of cells is different. And that is just the first difference. To declare "no difference" here could not be more false if you tried.
Quote:
Originally Posted by chuckd83
To willfully end their life is murder.
You might start by looking up some legal definitions of "murder" because abortion does not fall under many of them. Which definition are you using exactly?
Quote:
Originally Posted by chuckd83
Even abortion rights supporters know this.
Some may think it but their arguments are likely as poor as your own. Your own are bad enough without putting words in the mouths of your opponents however. Maybe refine your own arguments on this issue before straw manning others?
Quote:
Originally Posted by chuckd83
Again, I don't need the Bible or 50 states' definitions to tell me it's murder or not.
No, if you are just going to redefine words to mean whatever you want them to me you likely do not need ANY sources for this, let alone specifically the Bible.
Quote:
Originally Posted by chuckd83
Is the subject a human or something other than a human?
That entirely depends on what definition of "Human" you are using, though I suspect you will happily mediate the definition to suit your own ends in a rather fluid form.
For example the fetus is indeed Human in a Taxonomic sense. There is no denying that. But then so is a cancer cell, a sperm, and much of what you pull out of your nose when you pick it.
In terms of the philosophical discussion of "Human Rights" for example however I think you need to go beyond a taxonomic definition.
The bible does not mention abortion. The medical profession says the heart starts beating in a fetus at 5-6 weeks.
IMO that is the beginning of life as the heart is now pumping the blood carrying the necessary nutrients and oxygen to the different cells that will give the baby enough life support to eventually survive outside the womb.
That Opinion however is rather arbitrary. The heart is only one of a whole host of systems that are involved in "life support" later in the life cycle. To arbitrarily pick one, and one that can not operate without many others, is weak ground to mediate the abortion debate on.
The systems that are our "life support" are a complex interdependent system. There is nothing specifically special about the heart over or under the rest of this system. Choosing it as a starting point for "life" therefore is unfortunately rather empty.
A shame because if it had any philosophical legs to stand on it would be a very easy divide to mediate on and could eviscerate much of the debate on the matter.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Miss Blue
The brain is fully formed at about 12 weeks. It has been fed and nourished by the blood and oxygen from the heart, imo the life source. but I am no scientist
Thankfully some of us are and alas the above is quite false. In fact depending on ones definition of "Fully Formed" one can put the dividing line for a fully formed brain at being a very long way after birth, let alone conception. The formation of the brain is an ongoing thing and there are some very fascinating and wonderful stages that happen in babies, infants, toddlers, children all long after birth has occurred.
I actually think the brain, not the heart, is the place to go for seeking a philosophically defensible line in the sand with regards to abortion. However it being "Fully formed" is the last place I would go to in that endeavor.
Having experienced pregnancy and similar experiences, I know that our spirits don't magically just start at birth, but are intact with our bodies before birth.
Complete non sequitur. Being pregnant does not give you some magical insight into medical or biological science. Or some connection to the ether or souls. Or at least if it does then you need to do a lot more than simply assert it. All you are doing above is saying "I am right because I have decided to tell you I feel like I am right". The abortion issue needs actual arguments, evidence, data and reasoning applied to it. Not wishy washy feelings mothers want to assert they have had.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SuperSoul
Anybody who sees a baby moving in ultrasound knows they have life - both physical and spiritual.
It is ok to speak for yourself. You do not speak for me. And I fall under the category of "Anybody" here as I have seen many such things. I am not sure what you mean by "spiritual" here but no definition of the word I have heard yet comes to mind when I am viewing an ultrasound.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SuperSoul
Anybody who knows anything about biology and human development knows that at conception, a human life begins
Taxonomically speaking you are entirely right. However Taxonomy is not my go to source of philosophy or human rights.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SuperSoul
that life has all body systems by 8 weeks gestation, including the nervous system, which transmits pain signals.
Grossly inaccurate and over simplified. However this is far from the first time you have misrepresented biology for an anti-abortion agenda.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SuperSoul
Thus, by the time many abortion murders are performed, many children can feel their body being ripped apart.
Again entirely false. You seem to equate the transmission of sensations with the reception of them. Just because SOME nerves have developed and are capable of transmission does NOT in any way mean that anything is receiving or processing them. But do not let facts get in the way of a good propaganda stunt.
Three excellent posts in a row, Nozz. I think near the end of that last post, you responded to something referred to as abortion murder. I'm coming to the conclusion that anytime the word murder is used in reference to an abortion, the statement is just made to incite controversy, not to encourage intelligent debate.
In the sense that it is fully differentiated and recognizable as a brain, yes. But "fully formed" relative to what? The brain continues to develop after birth and is not truly mature until one's mid-twenties. Arguably you can separate that milestone from general brain plasticity / training which can be in the mix until the day you die, but I'm simply pointing out that "fully developed brain" is just another concept that is not as self evident as it first appears.
Complete non sequitur. Being pregnant does not give you some magical insight into medical or biological science. Or some connection to the ether or souls. Or at least if it does then you need to do a lot more than simply assert it. All you are doing above is saying "I am right because I have decided to tell you I feel like I am right". The abortion issue needs actual arguments, evidence, data and reasoning applied to it. Not wishy washy feelings mothers want to assert they have had.
I agree with you, actually, but I'm sure you know that you walk where angels fear to tread when you try to tell a woman who has experienced quickening that all her evolved primal reactions to that don't have a metaphysical meaning ;-)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nozzferrahhtoo
Again entirely false. You seem to equate the transmission of sensations with the reception of them. Just because SOME nerves have developed and are capable of transmission does NOT in any way mean that anything is receiving or processing them. But do not let facts get in the way of a good propaganda stunt.
Nor does it mean that nothing is receiving or processing them, either. I find late abortion advocates remarkably cavalier about this issue. It is similar in principle to the idea that animals other than humans have no sensations or emotions that matter. I am not opposed to abortion in general but I believe most late term abortions are avoidable and for those that aren't, we need to develop more humane methods, at least sedate the fetus before cutting it up for cryin' out loud.
I'm sure you know that you walk where angels fear to tread when you try to tell a woman who has experienced quickening that all her evolved primal reactions to that don't have a metaphysical meaning
I do not think I have a reputation for being scared to speak my mind around here
Quote:
Originally Posted by mordant
Nor does it mean that nothing is receiving or processing them, either.
Not alone it does not but we have quite detailed knowledge of the human development cycle. We also have quite a lot of knowledge about the pre-requisites for human consciousness and awareness. There simply is no reason whatsoever to expect that anything is "aware" of the sensations in question.
You are getting into "proving a negative" territory with the line above however. It is up to those that claim something is processing these inputs. Not on the rest of us to prove nothing is.
Context is important too. The stage of development being pointed at by the person I was replying to is very early indeed and has nothing to do with "late term abortions" which you brought up. It is a lie and a propaganda stunt by said user, nothing more. As are most of his/her posts on this topic across many threads.
That Opinion however is rather arbitrary. The heart is only one of a whole host of systems that are involved in "life support" later in the life cycle. To arbitrarily pick one, and one that can not operate without many others, is weak ground to mediate the abortion debate on.
The systems that are our "life support" are a complex interdependent system. There is nothing specifically special about the heart over or under the rest of this system. Choosing it as a starting point for "life" therefore is unfortunately rather empty.
A shame because if it had any philosophical legs to stand on it would be a very easy divide to mediate on and could eviscerate much of the debate on the matter.
Thankfully some of us are and alas the above is quite false. In fact depending on ones definition of "Fully Formed" one can put the dividing line for a fully formed brain at being a very long way after birth, let alone conception. The formation of the brain is an ongoing thing and there are some very fascinating and wonderful stages that happen in babies, infants, toddlers, children all long after birth has occurred.
I actually think the brain, not the heart, is the place to go for seeking a philosophically defensible line in the sand with regards to abortion. However it being "Fully formed" is the last place I would go to in that endeavor.
Thank you for your input Nozz. As little as I have investigated this subject, I believe that the dividing line should be when brain waves are recognized in the fetus, which you seem to support. I believe this is what distinguishes us from other animals and at that point the baby should receive the same human rights as any other human. If I'm not mistaken this is at about 20 weeks, correct?
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.
and alas the above is quite false. In fact depending on ones definition of "Fully Formed" one can put the dividing line for a fully formed brain at being a very long way after birth, let alone conception. The formation of the brain is an ongoing thing and there are some very fascinating and wonderful stages that happen in babies, infants, toddlers, children all long after birth has occurred. 
