Unborn Baby Not A Person?

[Veridicus]

[quote name='tinytherese' date='26 January 2010 - 09:50 PM' timestamp='1264564256' post='2045562']
Why is it that so many people seem to value the lives of animals more than human beings?
[/quote]

Because the devil is a tricky little newt and some people are easily confused by their sentiments.

[philbo]

[quote name='Veridicus' date='26 January 2010 - 07:08 PM' timestamp='1264529293' post='2044977']
There exist numerous organisms who lack characteristic traits of adult forms during an earlier stage of their development. A caterpillar [i]IS [/i]Lepidopteran life even though it lacks "scaly wings". A tadpole [i]IS [/i]amphibian life despite lacking the characteristic traits of the toad. And a blastocyst [i]IS [/i]human life despite its temporary lack of the typical traits of chordates or Homo sapiens. It's scientifically disingenuous to set up these artificial considerations in the human species.
[/quote]
To quote embryologist [url=http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/serpentine-edge09/wolpert_vid.html]Lewis Wolpert[/url]:
[i]"What I'm concerned with is how you develop", he says. "I know that you all think about it perpetually that you come from one single cell of a fertilized egg. I don't want to get involved in religion but that is not a human being. I've spoken to these eggs many times and they make it quite clear ... they are not a human being[/i]

To say it's "scientifically disingenuous" is a little rich coming from someone who used developed examples to make a point about first moments - if you'd said "frogspawn is amphibian life", you'd have been closer.. but I think you realize that would probably have damaged your own argument. Nobody really thinks of frogspawn as "baby frogs", do they?

[quote name='Veridicus' date='26 January 2010 - 07:08 PM' timestamp='1264529293' post='2044977']
And I would argue that the statistics regarding implantation rates are speculative at best and utterly irrelevant to our argument.
[/quote]
On the contrary - I'd say that it's central to the lack of consistency in your position: if you believe that as soon as an egg is fertilized, it is a human being, then there's death on a scale far larger than any world war going on all the time. If you're going to say "well, it's OK if they die by natural causes, that's God's will", then surely the whole of medical science is getting in the way of God's will, too?

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='philbo' date='27 January 2010 - 08:10 AM' timestamp='1264597815' post='2045771']
To quote embryologist [url="http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/serpentine-edge09/wolpert_vid.html"]Lewis Wolpert[/url]:
[i]"What I'm concerned with is how you develop", he says. "I know that you all think about it perpetually that you come from one single cell of a fertilized egg. I don't want to get involved in religion but that is not a human being. I've spoken to these eggs many times and they make it quite clear ... they are not a human being[/i]

To say it's "scientifically disingenuous" is a little rich coming from someone who used developed examples to make a point about first moments - if you'd said "frogspawn is amphibian life", you'd have been closer.. but I think you realize that would probably have damaged your own argument. Nobody really thinks of frogspawn as "baby frogs", do they?


On the contrary - I'd say that it's central to the lack of consistency in your position: if you believe that as soon as an egg is fertilized, it is a human being, then there's death on a scale far larger than any world war going on all the time. If you're going to say "well, it's OK if they die by natural causes, that's God's will", then surely the whole of medical science is getting in the way of God's will, too?
[/quote]

Philbo,

What is the scientifically agreed-upon point at which the embryo/fetus is suddenly a human being? What is that final developmental step that makes it an "embryo" or a "fetus" one second, and a "human being" the next?


And would it be wrong to deliberately "terminate" the pregnancy of a Siberian tiger in the first 30 days?

~Sternhauser

Edited January 27, 2010 by Sternhauser

[Veridicus]

[quote name='philbo' date='27 January 2010 - 07:10 AM' timestamp='1264597815' post='2045771']
On the contrary - I'd say that it's central to the lack of consistency in your position: if you believe that as soon as an egg is fertilized, it is a human being, then there's death on a scale far larger than any world war going on all the time. If you're going to say "well, it's OK if they die by natural causes, that's God's will", then surely the whole of medical science is getting in the way of God's will, too?
[/quote]

There is no inconsistency in recognizing the patently obvious difference between what science suggests is the natural implantation fail rate and the positive action of interfering with implantation. Rather than just throwing out the statement that my argument is "inconsistent" because many embryos fail to implant naturally is hogwash. Define the inconsistency because I see none. I have argued that the positive action of interfering with implantation is morally illicit because it is perpetrated by an act of a human will and have said nothing about natural implantation failure besides the fact that I doubt the veracity of the speculated percentages.

I also said nothing about natural failure to implant being "God's will" so I would respectfully request that you refrain from QUOTING any statements I have as yet to put forth. And as a member of the medical field I resent your laughable and ungrounded claim that medical science is getting in the way of God's will as the purpose of medical science is to respect and maintain human life. Your nonsequiturs will not go unchallenged.

And if you find my scientific examples too convoluted to demonstrate my point, perhaps you could provide a viable biological alternative to the definition of 'life' that I am discussing; it is in fact the definition of life I learned during my four years of biology training. In my courses we discussed the fact that living organisms have sustaining biological processes capable of converting exogenous energy sources into the means of maintaining homeostatic parameters far from equilibrium with the surrounding environment. The human embryo satisfies this definition despite its relative paucity of cellular diversity compared to adult examples of our species. The human embryo is definitively human in its unique genetic arrangement and its MHC & HLA surface markers clearly distinguish it from its mother's tissues. The human embryo is in fact an individual human life distinct from its mother and has as its natural endpoint, unlike any other cell in the human body, the maturation over time into a sexually-capable member of the human species.

And I refuse to debate the argument of human 'personhood' as the basis of when it is morally licit to end life. This concept of personhood is based in no objective science but instead the vacillating theories of sociologists and the pseudo-intellectual ramblings of the political class. As I have mentioned in preceding posts, the argument of personhood is a neverending quagmire of moral relativism because it in fact is an argument over nothing at all.

Edited January 27, 2010 by Veridicus

[Didacus]

I don't believe it is possible to define person-hood in a manner that would not be movable; i.e.; that an unborn child is not a person, yet a born child is a person. The simple biological differences between a child minutes before and after the child is born cannot be held as the critical significance in personhood without opening a disastrous slippery slope.

Thus, I usually start by pushing the forwawrded definition of personhood to a simple yet obvious extreme to show it is inadmissible.


He who is to be man is man already!

[JimR-OCDS]

Our opposition to abortion isn't because of when or not an embryo can be defined as a person, but rather,
that its human life, regardless of the stage.

If we get hooked into the debate over person-hood, we'll have trouble defining just when a fertilized egg becomes a person. Is it before implantation in the uterus? Before then, you can't even discern it sex and even within six days after implantation takes place, twining can occur. So, where was the person at conception when you got two, six days after implantation?

Human life begins at conception, and because it is human life, regardless of the stage its in, must be
respected and not destroyed.

That being said, making early stage abortions illegal, is not likely in a pluralistic society.

Jim

[eagle_eye222001]

[quote name='HisChildForever' date='22 January 2010 - 01:36 PM' timestamp='1264185384' post='2042291']
It's more frustrating to talk to someone who knows abortion is murder but thinks it's "acceptable" in rape cases than someone who thinks it's not murder period.
[/quote]

Because they've fallen into the line given to them by relativistic moral-emotional culture

[quote name='tinytherese' date='26 January 2010 - 10:50 PM' timestamp='1264564256' post='2045562']
Why is it that so many people seem to value the lives of animals more than human beings?
[/quote]

Makes them feel good. All about feelings. Plus, since you don't value human life as much, where does your passion to protect go? It has to go somewhere. "Awwww....look at the poor seal playing in the awful oil...."

[quote name='JimR-OCDS' date='27 January 2010 - 04:18 PM' timestamp='1264627134' post='2045964']
...Human life begins at conception, and because it is human life, regardless of the stage its in, must be
respected and not destroyed.[/quote]

Correct. The whole argument rests on defending the innocense of human life. Hard to defend something that seems so small though. Small seems to make it meaningless to us, and only when we see a baby outline in the womb via ultrasound, do our emotions begin to get tied into it, and realize what "it" really is.

[quote name='JimR-OCDS' date='27 January 2010 - 04:18 PM' timestamp='1264627134' post='2045964']That being said, making early stage abortions illegal, is not likely in a pluralistic society.[/quote]

The next generation is more pro-life. We'll see. Many more to convert still.

[Veridicus]

[quote name='JimR-OCDS' date='27 January 2010 - 03:18 PM' timestamp='1264627134' post='2045964']
That being said, making early stage abortions illegal, is not likely in a pluralistic society.
[/quote]

Sad but true; there exists many evils which persist in pluralism. We will always have prayer and hope, tho.

[philbo]

[quote name='Veridicus' date='27 January 2010 - 05:01 PM' timestamp='1264608104' post='2045818']
There is no inconsistency in recognizing the patently obvious difference between what science suggests is the natural implantation fail rate and the positive action of interfering with implantation. Rather than just throwing out the statement that my argument is "inconsistent" because many embryos fail to implant naturally is hogwash. Define the inconsistency because I see none. I have argued that the positive action of interfering with implantation is morally illicit because it is perpetrated by an act of a human will and have said nothing about natural implantation failure besides the fact that I doubt the veracity of the speculated percentages.
[/quote]
It's not just implantation failures.. but basically you're saying that "human life" doesn't count if fails to implant or aborts naturally, yet it's somehow morally illicit to interfere with that implantation process. That seems to me to be a double standard, even if you obviously fail to see it that way in yourself.


[quote name='Veridicus' date='27 January 2010 - 05:01 PM' timestamp='1264608104' post='2045818']
And as a member of the medical field I resent your laughable and ungrounded claim that medical science is getting in the way of God's will as the purpose of medical science is to respect and maintain human life. Your nonsequiturs will not go unchallenged.[/quote]
Given some of the truly non-sequiturish non sequiturs I've received on this forum, I'll accept that with a degree of irony - there was a logical thread from your position to that one, but it's not one that's really worth arguing about.

[quote name='Veridicus' date='27 January 2010 - 05:01 PM' timestamp='1264608104' post='2045818']
In my courses we discussed the fact that living organisms have sustaining biological processes capable of converting exogenous energy sources into the means of maintaining homeostatic parameters far from equilibrium with the surrounding environment. The human embryo satisfies this definition despite its relative paucity of cellular diversity compared to adult examples of our species[/quote]
A human embryo is inarguably *alive*, yet so are lots of other organisms - early on, it doesn't meet any of the sort of criteria that could let it be described as "human", though.

[quote name='Veridicus' date='27 January 2010 - 05:01 PM' timestamp='1264608104' post='2045818']
is a neverending quagmire of moral relativism
[/quote]
..but, as I have argued [url=http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=101670&view=findpost&p=2049653]in another thread[/url], morals *are* relative.



[quote name='Sternhauser' date='27 January 2010 - 04:16 PM' timestamp='1264605375' post='2045803']
Philbo,

What is the scientifically agreed-upon point at which the embryo/fetus is suddenly a human being? What is that final developmental step that makes it an "embryo" or a "fetus" one second, and a "human being" the next?
[/quote]
Who said anything about "suddenly" and "one second"?

[quote name='Sternhauser' date='27 January 2010 - 04:16 PM' timestamp='1264605375' post='2045803']
And would it be wrong to deliberately "terminate" the pregnancy of a Siberian tiger in the first 30 days?

~Sternhauser
[/quote]
I'm not sure of the relevance of that question, but one major difference is that a mother Siberian tiger can't let you know whether that's what she wants.

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='philbo' date='02 February 2010 - 12:01 PM' timestamp='1265126502' post='2049700']



A human embryo is inarguably *alive*, yet so are lots of other organisms - early on, it doesn't meet any of the sort of criteria that could let it be described as "human", though.
[/quote]


Wrong. The [b]only[/b] thing required to make a human being distinct from anything else is human DNA

[Ziggamafu]

I'm no scientist, but isn't it correct to say that all human beings are (physically) nothing but multiplying cells of unique DNA? If that is true, then from fertilized egg to death, all human beings are defined by this one, universal aspect. At that point, one either universally bestows the dignity of "personhood" upon all human beings, or one has to say only this or that human being is a person. Since "person" is a metaphysical / subjectively perceived notion, it would seem most reasonable (and least dangerous) to apply the term universally.

[Socrates]

Once we start deciding that some human beings are not "persons" having a right to life, we're on a very dark path.

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='Ziggamafu' date='02 February 2010 - 02:00 PM' timestamp='1265133635' post='2049766']
I'm no scientist, but isn't it correct to say that all human beings are (physically) nothing but multiplying cells of unique DNA? If that is true, then from fertilized egg to death, all human beings are defined by this one, universal aspect. At that point, one either universally bestows the dignity of "personhood" upon all human beings, or one has to say only this or that human being is a person. Since "person" is a metaphysical / subjectively perceived notion, it would seem most reasonable (and least dangerous) to apply the term universally.
[/quote]
EXACTLY.
Human DNA defines us as human beings. There are no cognizant arguments against this basic biological fact. " Personhood"is an ambigious concept used specifically to confuse the issue.

[havok579257]

[quote name='philbo' date='02 February 2010 - 11:01 AM' timestamp='1265126502' post='2049700']
It's not just implantation failures.. but basically you're saying that "human life" doesn't count if fails to implant or aborts naturally, yet it's somehow morally illicit to interfere with that implantation process. That seems to me to be a double standard, even if you obviously fail to see it that way in yourself.



Given some of the truly non-sequiturish non sequiturs I've received on this forum, I'll accept that with a degree of irony - there was a logical thread from your position to that one, but it's not one that's really worth arguing about.


A human embryo is inarguably *alive*, yet so are lots of other organisms - early on, it doesn't meet any of the sort of criteria that could let it be described as "human", though.


..but, as I have argued [url=http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=101670&view=findpost&p=2049653]in another thread[/url], morals *are* relative.




Who said anything about "suddenly" and "one second"?


I'm not sure of the relevance of that question, but one major difference is that a mother Siberian tiger can't let you know whether that's what she wants.
[/quote]


about the tiger.... science shows us the answer. tigers don't kill their own babies in the womb or right when they are born. its convieniant how you use science when trying to support your arguement but ignore it when it goes against your arguement.

[JimR-OCDS]

[quote name='Veridicus' date='27 January 2010 - 05:36 PM' timestamp='1264628167' post='2045990']
Sad but true; there exists many evils which persist in pluralism. We will always have prayer and hope, tho.
[/quote]


But then by making this statement, you calling Jews evil, for they don't believe abortion is immoral, if done for medical reasons before viability.

Same is true with Muslims, but I won't got there.

Jim