difference between young fetus and the born

[dairygirl4u2c]

[quote]This logic that they aren't people, based on stages of development, is flawed, b/c then by that logic, my little brother is less of a person than i am since I'm at a completely different stage of development. And as for the fact that he/she can't think conciously, then by that logic, when i'm sleeping, since i'm not conscious of my thoughts, i am not a person. Or, if presence of organs is necessary for personhood, then, if i had a kidney or an apendix removed, i just have had a bit of my personhood removed. [/quote]
The stage you are compared with your brother is not exactly similar to a born and a zygote. Both you and your brother have at least some organs. If someone wanted to define you as person and your brother as not has to show why the discrepancy, other than time? Remeber, I've shown that the zygote has no organs at all, while the born/later fetus does.

I apologize for introducing the consciousness argument. I knew the counter argument. I was thinking more along the lines of a born person has proved to have consciousness at one point, and so when the person is uncsoncious he's at least had that inital. Though I suppose one could be born unconscious? Hmmm... (this is the type of debate we need, I'll respond later if I can and have time) I don't want to use this argument though.
I'd rather just stick with the unconsicous argument moreso. But this ultimately rests with the organs debate: how do we know a person who does not have consciousness has unconscious? We'd have to assume so based on the bodily functions, so we're back to the Combination or Combination with at least some organs debate.

You did not have a bit of your personhood removed. Either you have some organs or you don't. You'd still have organs. (I admit we could debate when does the cells finally form organs, but we could also argue when does the sperm really microscopically speaking as we are, form the fretilized egg? So anyway, let's not go here.. no need)

Edited October 8, 2005 by dairygirl4u2c

[avemaria40]

just because a zygote has no organs yet doesn't mean he/she is not a person. We were all once a zygote, an embryo, a fetus. Let's be thankful we got the chance to be born.

Edited October 8, 2005 by avemaria40

[dairygirl4u2c]

I think what it might come down to is this. CC has facts for believing what it does. Though, that doesn't mean it's proven what it claims per se. It means it has a rationale. Like if I think people die when their brain signals are gone, I have a rationale. I don't think I have any truly outside transcending arguments proof though, like I can't prove my death theory with the same confidence that something certain physics principles are true. Someone else might think that other factors are what should cause clinical death.

[Aloysius]

dairy, I read all your posts. and you know, you're just confusing yourself and everyone else.

but you seem to have just merely described what applies to everything. people disagree... wow you've made a breakthrough ... people have rationale for why they disagree... amazing? you can't just dismiss our arguments to call it "rationale" instead of proof.

by the same logic, I can dismiss a lot of physics principals. I could argue geocentrism because, while the non-geocentrists have rationales, they cannot prove beyond all doubt that the earth isn't the center of the universe.

the fact is, we have to argue our rationales for which is the best one, which explains more.

yours so far is reducing personhood to when the entire body functions with all its necessary and vital organs. while that's an interesting assertion... the fact remains that these organs have not changed anything. by the time the baby has developed all of its vital organs, it already had a brain I believe...

which organs must be present? the heart? the brain? the lungs? the stomach?

the best sign of an event being the beginning of personhood is that it be an absolute exact event. it has to be, at the moment of a unique human form existing, that is the moment of personhood. it would be much less fitting to say 'at the moment the brain is formed'... or 'at the moment the brain is fully formed'... those things are not stark events. those things develop out of something human that already exists.

the moment that is the best candidate for the moment of personhood is the moment in which an entirely unique and distinct human genetic code has been formed, complete with every charecteristic about its body already decided.

saying it's the moment his heart forms is about aing that was already a distinct and unique human form. the best candidate for personhood is a moment when EVERYTHING changes, where something human that once did not exist, now exists. anything other than a moment like that is really just a stage of developement of something that already exists, it's adding on to something from within itself that it had planned to add on from the beginning. it is no different than any other stage of developement through our entire lives.

the one moment that cannot be categorized with all other mere stages of developement like the formation of fingers is the only plausible candidate for personhood.

and death? death happens when the person will no longer live. that's the moment it happens. just like personhood happens when something that did not exist suddenly begins to exist, so too death happens when something that did live ceases to continue life. that's the moment. now doctors have not necessarily discovered just what that point is, but we know philisophically that that would be the point at which someone died. the point where everything changes. it'd be the only candidate for the end of a life, just like the point where everything changes is the only candidate for the beginning of a life. we've been able to determine the point where everything changes at the beginning of life. just because we haven't identified that point in scientific terms for the end of life doesn't change anything.

we attain personhood when a distinct and unique human that did not exist, begins to exist. we die when a distinct and unique human that did live, ceases to live. it's that simple.

[Lounge Daddy]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' date='Oct 8 2005, 03:41 PM']first i think it'd be productive to call it a zygote from now on. i know a rose by any other name...
but at least this way it doesn't have connotations of a little person image to it.
[right][snapback]750697[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
right... right...
we wouldn’t want "little human" imagery getting in the way of factual discussion, would we?

[dairygirl4u2c]

[quote]yours so far is reducing personhood to when the entire body functions with all its necessary and vital organs.[/quote]
Right now all I'm arguing is that the zygote is not a person. A zygote has no organs at all. (unless you're putting in my mouth i said all organs must be present by me not having my own definition of when it begins? Well, I've pretty much said so far at least for the sake of arguement that if you have any organs then you're a person. i'm sticking with my zygote argument)

[quote]the moment that is the best candidate for the moment of personhood is the moment in which an entirely unique and distinct human genetic code has been formed, complete with every charecteristic about its body already decided.[/quote]
How is this moment the best candidate other than because you say so? I'm pretty sure you could have a dead person's cells living in a tube.... that means it's unique DNA from any other living cells.
you might be able to, but i want to see more of a definition than what you've given. see, you're going to have to do a lot more than make simple declarations like that.
like something about the zygote, may it's got some sort of chemicals in it that are different (do we know this? it might be able to be inductively proven, though I'd like some sort of reputable website at least saying so)

[quote]the point where everything changes. it'd be the only candidate for the end of a life, just like the point where everything changes is the only candidate for the beginning of a life. we've been able to determine the point where everything changes at the beginning of life.[/quote]
So, what about that unique DNA set that lives in a tube?

People who would say the earth is flat are denying overwhelming cirumstantial evidence and inductive proofs. It can be demonstrated on many levels why the earth is round.
You'd say you could demonstrate on many levels why the zygote is a person. But here I have all this proof that it's not, lack of organs etc, and you can't explain away my proofs like the person who's defending that the earth is round would. For example, if I say death occurs at brain signal death, by some (not necessarily yours) logic, I've "proven" when someone dies. Someone else would say death cannot occur until the heart stops, and they've "proven" when someone dies. They can't both be right. They have rationales for their argument only. It'd seem to be more objective, perhaps this is just me, to say that you can't say when pepole die for sure.
Have they both proven when the person dies?

I know you have that point where everything changes thing, but if you can't define why the zygote is different from those cells, it goes back to determing when it's a person. (again unless you can show how different...)

Edited October 9, 2005 by dairygirl4u2c

[MissScripture]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' date='Oct 9 2005, 08:20 AM']Right now all I'm arguing is that the zygote is not a person. A zygote has no organs at all. (unless you're putting in my mouth i said all organs must be present by me not having my own definition of when it begins? Well, I've pretty much said so far at least for the sake of arguement that if you have any organs then you're a person. i'm sticking with my zygote argument)
[right][snapback]751511[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Is it just me, or did that not make any sense at all?

[photosynthesis]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' date='Oct 5 2005, 10:50 AM']Many here claim that the first few days a fetus is conceived is the same as a person. I claim that the differences are these off the top of my head:
the fetus has no organs *at all*
the fetus has no previous indications of consciousness to warrant considering it a person, unlike a parapalegic who has that "consciousness".

I suppose we'll debate th consciousness thing, but the organ thing is pretty black and white. I'll add more things later, my list is a list in progress. Eventually I might get to why the fetus is more like a few ordinary cells than a person.
[right][snapback]746749[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
so... i have a friend who had to have one of her kidneys removed because of cancer. is she less of a human than I am? of course not! your argument about having to have a complete set of organs in order to be a person is ridiculous.

what is consciousness? Mirriam-Webster defines it as "the quality or state of being aware especially of something within oneself." basically, consciousness is the ability to percieve what is going on around you. if you go into a coma, while you might not be conscious, you are still a person, a human being. Nothing can change that.

your argument comes from the body of thought known as eugenics, which was what Hitler used to destroy six million Jews, along with many Catholics, homosexuals, disabled people and communists.

Edited October 9, 2005 by photosynthesis

[Cow of Shame]

[quote name='photosynthesis' date='Oct 9 2005, 01:11 PM']so...  i have a friend who had to have one of her kidneys removed because of cancer.  is she less of a human than I am?  of course not!  your argument about having to have a complete set of organs in order to be a person is ridiculous.

[right][snapback]751683[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

I believe her argument is that you need at least one organ to be categorized as human. I personally think this is a really bizarre argument, and haven't found a logical way to approach it yet. However, the lack of one organ doesn't make you less human, nor do I think the milkmaid would argue so.

Defining when life starts is easy. Giving a definitive answer as to when your humanity starts, without any use of religious beliefs, is a bit sketchy....

Edited October 9, 2005 by Cow of Shame

[photosynthesis]

[quote name='Cow of Shame' date='Oct 9 2005, 05:16 PM']I believe her argument is that you need at least one organ to be categorized as human. 
[right][snapback]751760[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
:

I'm sorry but that argument is so stupid it's funny.

[Socrates]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' date='Oct 8 2005, 02:41 PM']first i think it'd be productive to call it a zygote from now on. i know a rose by any other name...
but at least this way it doesn't have connotations of a little person image to it. it may seem not fair to have connotations to a clump of cells, but what we're talking about is more similar to a clump of cells in image than something resembling a person.
I didn't have to think I'd explain this whole "not being human" thing. This is the poorest argument I've ever heard, a distraction. The way you just responded reaffirms yet again that you are missing the point entirely.

First I want you to read this that I posted since you didn't respond to it.
Notice that smart people affirm that you cannot really state definitely when, i'll say, "personhood" begins.
also notice that this website distinguishes between "human" and "person", the distinction I'm making is there on that site.
You ignore it completely, or at least aren't addressing it, something of minor relevance to the true philophical debate of when personhood begins.

By your logic, the cells in your arm should be deemed as human beings. You might say, they're not humans! Then by me using your logic, I'd say, well then what are they? cows?
I hope this better illustrates the irrationality of your argument.

i admit, smart rationale people think you can define a person, but their criteria fails at the level i've seen. i'm going to start a post after this to debate with myself, since you're keeping us stuck in elementary debating.
[right][snapback]750697[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Call it a zygote, fetus, baby, whatever you like, it doesn't change the fact that this is a living human being (as I have previously shown). So far, you have done nothing to refute the facts I have presented in my prior post. Changing the language so the words have different "connotations" is just rhetoric, not proof.

I understand perfectly well the "point" you are trying to make. You are saying that not every human being is a "person." You want to define "personhood" not based on the humanity of a human being, but on its extraneous characteristics, or level of development.
You're doing nothing new or orginal here - this is the standard procedure used by pro-abortion people.

Once being human is no longer enough to consider one a "person," then the "personhood" of a human being becomes something entirely subjective, and open to anybody's interpretation. Peter Singer teaches this philosophy and uses it to approve not only abortion, but infanticide and killing of the severely handicapped. He argues that human beings are not persons until some time after they are already born, and that killing of infants should be legal.
Once black slaves were not legally considered persons. The Nazis declared that Jews were not persons.
Basically, declaring certain human beings to not be persons is an easy excuse to kill those whose lives you do not deem worthwhile.

And I've already responded plenty to this "cells in the arm" foolishness.
The human zygote is a self-contained organism distinct from both the mother and the father, while cells in one's arm are just part of one's body.
Kill a cell in your arm and you've only killed that cell. You'll live on - no serious harm done. Kill a human zygote or embryo and you've destroyed an entire human life. This should be obvious. If zygotes/embryos were no different than cells in one's arm, there would be no moral debate.

Finally, calling religioustolerance.org an "objective" website is a joke. That site has a clear and obvious liberal political agenda of opposing Christian orthodoxy (or the "religious right") on various "hot-button" issues such as abortion and homosexuality.
You might as well go to a neo-Nazi site to get "objective" information on the Holocaust!

Of course, we could send you to any number of pro-life websites for information, but you'd probably reject them as "unobjective," while you expect us to accept the opinions of those on a "pro-choice" website!

[photosynthesis]

dairygirl, who are these "smart people" you're referring to?

[Jedi_StClaire]

dariygirl, would you have considered Terri Schiavo human? Because there were people that were saying she didn't need to live, etc.........just like pro aborts who say "its a product of conception" and "its just a blob of tissue" and "its not human until birth"

Its a human because humans can't give birth to dogs, cats, cows, etc.

Its human because it was created with the HUMAN mother's egg and the HUMAN father's sperm........


Unless you can find me scientific proof that a woman has given birth to a DOG or a Cat.........

[photosynthesis]

[quote name='Jedi_StClaire' date='Oct 10 2005, 03:17 PM']Unless you can find me scientific proof that a woman has given birth to a DOG or a Cat.........
[right][snapback]752816[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
I have! you mean women giving birth to cats and dogs is abnormal???

[Guest T-Bone]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' date='Oct 9 2005, 07:20 AM']


You'd say you could demonstrate on many levels why the zygote is a person. But here I have all this proof that it's not, lack of organs etc, and you can't explain away my proofs like the person who's defending that the earth is round would. For example, if I say death occurs at brain

I know you have that point where everything changes thing, but  if you can't definsignal death, by some (not necessarily yours) logic, I've "proven" when someone dies. Someone else would say death cannot occur until the heart stops, and they've "proven" when someone dies. They can't both be right. They have rationales for their argument only. It'd seem to be more objective, perhaps this is just me, to say that you can't say when pepole die for sure.
Have they both proven when the person dies?e why the zygote is different from those cells, it goes back to determing when it's a person. (again unless you can show how different...)
[right][snapback]751511[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Point #1: Where is this "proof" that a human isn't a human that you're talking about.

Point #2: If there is doubt whether or not a human is a human, moral objectivity dictates that we assume that it is a human.