When Does Human Life Begin?

[filiusInFilio]

[url="http://catholiceducation.org/articles/abortion/ab0004.html"]Human Personhood Begins At Conception - Peter Kreeft[/url]


another great argument by a great philosopher

[Socrates]

[quote name='track2004' post='1474422' date='Mar 8 2008, 09:25 PM']Legally no one is alive until they are born. Sometimes a case of murder becomes double homicide because the woman was pregnant, but I think that is gray. I don't think that anyone is alive until they are physically capable of living outside the womb. Birth is the only real test of that, so I'm saying at birth. I also just don't think it's right to keep people alive by machines so babies in really serious incubators is weird to me. But it is just IMO, so whatever, esp because I'm a bit tipsy right now.... [/quote]
It is a scientific fact that a human being is alive from conception, whether the law chooses to acknowledge that fact or not. Any biologist could easily tell you the baby/embryo/fetus is a living creature - it feeds, grows, has its own dna, bloodtype, heartbeat, brainwaves, etc. The unborn baby is not a piece of dead matter. Abortion kills a baby; you can't kill that which is not alive to begin with.
Whether or not the baby is dependent on its mother for survival is irrelevent as to whether the baby is alive and human.

[Fidei Defensor]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1478961' date='Mar 17 2008, 06:58 PM']It is a scientific fact that a human being is alive from conception, whether the law chooses to acknowledge that fact or not. Any biologist could easily tell you the baby/embryo/fetus is a living creature - it feeds, grows, has its own dna, bloodtype, heartbeat, brainwaves, etc. The unborn baby is not a piece of dead matter. Abortion kills a baby; you can't kill that which is not alive to begin with.
Whether or not the baby is dependent on its mother for survival is irrelevent as to whether the baby is alive and human.[/quote]
I'm sorry, did you miss the first post overviewing different viewpoints? Not all of science agrees that human personhood begins at conception. And if you want to mention things like heartbeat and brainwaves, those don't occur until some point after conception.

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='fidei defensor' post='1473350' date='Mar 3 2008, 10:42 PM']Please feel free to offer your opinions![list]
[*]The metabolic view: There is no one point when life begins. The sperm cell and egg cell are as alive as any other organism.
[*]The genetic view: A new individual is created at fertilization. This is when the genes from the two parents combine to form an individual with unique properties.
[*]The embryological view: In humans, identical twinning can occur as late as day 12 pc. Such twinning produces two individuals with different lives. Even conjoined ("Siamese") twins can have different personalities. Thus, a single individuality is not fixed earlier than day 12. (In religious terms, the two individuals have different souls). Some medical texts consider the stages before this time as "pre-embryonic." This view is expressed by scientists such as Renfree (1982) and Grobstein (1988) and has been endorsed theologically by Ford (1988), Shannon and Wolter (1990), and McCormick (1991), among others. (Such a view would allow contraception, "morning-after" pills, and contragestational agents, but not abortion after two weeks.)
[*]The neurological view: Our society has defined death as the loss of the cerebral EEG (electroencephalogram) pattern. Conversely, some scientists have thought that the acquisition of the human EEG (at about 27 weeks) should be defined as when a human life begins. This view has been put forth most concretely by Morowitz and Trefil (1992). (This view and the ones following would allow mid-trimester abortions).
[*]The ecological/technological view: This view sees human life as beginning when it can exist separately from its maternal biological environment. The natural limit of viability occurs when the lungs mature, but technological advances can now enable a premature infant to survive at about 25 weeks gestation. (This is the view currently operating in many states. Once a fetus can be potentially independent, it cannot be aborted.)
[*]The immunological view: This view sees human life as beginning when the organism recognizes the distinction between self and non-self. In humans, this occurs around the time of birth.
[*]The integrated physiological view: This view sees human life as beginning when an individual has become independent of the mother and has its own functioning circulatory system, alimentary system, and respiratory system. This is the traditional birthday when the baby is born into the world and the umbilical cord is cut.
[/list][/quote]

Literature Cited

Ford, N. M. 1988. When Did I Begin? Conception of the Human Individual in History. Cambridge University Press, NY.

Grobstein, C. 1988. Science and the Unborn: Choosing Human Futures. Basic Books, NY.

McCormick, R. 1991. Who or what is a pre-embryo? Kennedy Inst. Bioethics J. 1: 1-15.

Morowitz, H. J. and Trefil, J. S. 1992. The Facts of Life: Science and the Abortion Controversy. Oxford University Press, New York.

Renfree, M. B. 1982. Implantation and placentation. In Austin, C. R. and Short, R. V. (eds.) Reproduction in Mammals 2. Embryonic and Fetal Development (Second edition). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. pp. 26-69.

Shannon, T. A. and Wolter, A. B. 1990. Reflections on the moral status of the pre-embryo. Theol. Stud. 51: 603-626.

SOURCE [url="http://8e.devbio.com/article.php?ch=2&id=7"]http://8e.devbio.com/article.php?ch=2&id=7[/url]

[rkwright]

[quote name='track2004' post='1474422' date='Mar 8 2008, 09:25 PM']Legally no one is alive until they are born. Sometimes a case of murder becomes double homicide because the woman was pregnant, but I think that is gray. I don't think that anyone is alive until they are physically capable of living outside the womb. Birth is the only real test of that, so I'm saying at birth. I also just don't think it's right to keep people alive by machines so babies in really serious incubators is weird to me. But it is just IMO, so whatever, esp because I'm a bit tipsy right now.... [/quote]

This is incorrect. Legally the baby can be protected when the baby is viable, which right now some say is 20 weeks. Thus we have the partial birth aborition ban.

However the law is wrong on this, and the baby should be considered a 'person' at the moment of conception.

For the aborition debate, it seems most stay away from trying to prove if the baby is alive or not. It doesn't really mater, the baby has rights as soon as its a human person. Most people will concede that whatever it is, its alive. Whether or not its a human person is where the pro-choicers make their stand.

Now I caused a huge stir in my class since I was the only pro-life person to stick up for things during our Roe v. Wade discussion. The pro-choicers offer the following argument as to when the human becomes a person. I haven't written a full response yet, what do you guys think? Heres the email I recieved...

[quote]There are two senses to the term “human being,” a genetic sense and a moral sense. There is no sound reason to believe that something genetically human has the right to be considered a moral person. Rather, what gives human beings moral considerability are characteristics we possess which give us interests. Six criteria for determining when there is a person could be a capacity for: (1) sentience- the capacity for conscious experiences, usually to experience pain and suffering; (2) Emotionality- the capacity to feel happy, sad, angry, loving, etc.; (3) reason- the capacity to solve new and relatively complex problems; (4) communication- ability to make messages and manipulate symbols; (5) self-awareness- having a concept of oneself, as an individual and/or as a member of a social group; and finally (6) moral agency- the capacity to regulate one’s own actions through moral principles or ideals. It is difficult to produce precise definitions of these traits and an entity may not possess all six of these traits to be considered a person. However, by examining the creature in light of these six criteria we can better determine whether or not it has the requisite interests to be considered a moral person. This definition would include non-humans like androids and aliens.



To demonstrate the fetus is not a person, all I have to do is show it has none of these six criteria. Sentience is the lowest rung on the latter for moral considerability. Being able to experience pain grants a being like an animal interests in not being tortured. Beings capable of suffering have lives that matter to them. A 7 month fetus can feel pain and can respond to stimuli like light. Nevertheless, it is probably not conscious, or as capable of emotion as even a young infant is. Because of this, the fetus is less like a person than many animals are. Many animals like elephants, cetaceans, or apes are not only sentient, but clearly possess a degree of reason, and perhaps even self awareness (though highly limited). Therefore, a 7 month fetus can have no more rights then these creatures and should probably be held to a lower standard since it has less interests.[/quote]

[filiusInFilio]

[quote name='rkwright' post='1479064' date='Mar 18 2008, 12:20 AM']This is incorrect. Legally the baby can be protected when the baby is viable, which right now some say is 20 weeks. Thus we have the partial birth aborition ban.

However the law is wrong on this, and the baby should be considered a 'person' at the moment of conception.

For the aborition debate, it seems most stay away from trying to prove if the baby is alive or not. It doesn't really mater, the baby has rights as soon as its a human person. Most people will concede that whatever it is, its alive. Whether or not its a human person is where the pro-choicers make their stand.

Now I caused a huge stir in my class since I was the only pro-life person to stick up for things during our Roe v. Wade discussion. The pro-choicers offer the following argument as to when the human becomes a person. I haven't written a full response yet, what do you guys think? Heres the email I recieved...

[quote]
There are two senses to the term “human being,” a genetic sense and a moral sense. There is no sound reason to believe that something genetically human has the right to be considered a moral person. Rather, what gives human beings moral considerability are characteristics we possess which give us interests. Six criteria for determining when there is a person could be a capacity for: (1) sentience- the capacity for conscious experiences, usually to experience pain and suffering; (2) Emotionality- the capacity to feel happy, sad, angry, loving, etc.; (3) reason- the capacity to solve new and relatively complex problems; (4) communication- ability to make messages and manipulate symbols; (5) self-awareness- having a concept of oneself, as an individual and/or as a member of a social group; and finally (6) moral agency- the capacity to regulate one’s own actions through moral principles or ideals. It is difficult to produce precise definitions of these traits and an entity may not possess all six of these traits to be considered a person. However, by examining the creature in light of these six criteria we can better determine whether or not it has the requisite interests to be considered a moral person. This definition would include non-humans like androids and aliens.



To demonstrate the fetus is not a person, all I have to do is show it has none of these six criteria. Sentience is the lowest rung on the latter for moral considerability. Being able to experience pain grants a being like an animal interests in not being tortured. Beings capable of suffering have lives that matter to them. A 7 month fetus can feel pain and can respond to stimuli like light. Nevertheless, it is probably not conscious, or as capable of emotion as even a young infant is. Because of this, the fetus is less like a person than many animals are. Many animals like elephants, cetaceans, or apes are not only sentient, but clearly possess a degree of reason, and perhaps even self awareness (though highly limited). Therefore, a 7 month fetus can have no more rights then these creatures and should probably be held to a lower standard since it has less interests.[/quote]
[/quote]


seems as though they're basing their argument on [b]Functionalism [/b]which is defining a person by his or her functioning or behavior.

here's what Kreeft says....i suggest you check out the full article i posted above



[quote]A “behavioral definition” is proper and practical for scientific purposes of prediction and experimentation, but it is not adequate for ordinary reason and common sense, much less for good philosophy or morality, which should be based on common sense. Why? Because common sense distinguishes between what one is and what one does, between being and fun functioning, thus between “being a person” and “functioning as a person.” One cannot function as a person without being a person, but one can surely be a person without functioning as a person. In deep sleep, in coma, and in early infancy, nearly everyone will admit there are persons, but there are no specifically human functions such as reasoning, choice, or language. Functioning as a person is a sign and an effect of being a person. It is because of what we are, because of our nature or essence or being, that we can and do function in these ways. We have human souls, and plants do not; that’s why we can know ourselves and plants can’t. Functionalism makes the elementary mistake of confusing the sign with the thing signified, the smoke with the fire. As a Zen master would say, “The finger is fine for pointing at the moon, but woe to him who mistakes the finger for the moon.”

The Functionalist or Behaviorist would reply that he is skeptical of such talk about natures, essences, or natural species (as distinct from conventional, man-made class-groupings). But the Functionalist cannot use ordinary language without contradicting himself. He says, e.g., that there is no such thing as “river” because all rivers are different. But how then can he call them all “rivers”? The very word “all” should be stricken from his speech. His Nominalism makes nonsense of ordinary language.

The Functionalist claims he is being simple and commonsensical by not speaking of essences. He says that traditional talk about essences is dated, dispensable, mystical, muddled, and anti-scientific. But he is wrong. Talk about essences is not dated but perennial, built into the very structure of language, for most words are universals predictable of many individuals. Essence-talk is not dispensable without dispensing with understanding itself and reducing us to an animal state of mind where brute empirical fact reigns alone. Essence-talk is not mystical but commonsensical. It is not muddled but clear to any child. It is not anti scientific, for science seeks universal laws, truths about the species, not quirks of the specimen.

Functionalism is not only theoretically weak, it is also practically destructive. Modern man is increasingly reducing his being to functions. We no longer ask “Who is he?” but “What does he do?” We think of a man as a fireman, not as a man fighting fires; of a woman as a teacher, not as a woman teaching.

Functionalism arises with the modern erosion of the family. Our civilization is dying primarily because the family is dying. Half of our families commit suicide, for divorce is the family committing suicide qua family. But the family is the place where you learn that you are loved not because of what you do, your function, but because of who you are. What is replacing the family, where we are valued for our being? The workplace, where we are valued for our functioning.

This replacement in society is mirrored by the replacement in philosophy of the old “Sanctity of Life Ethic” by the new “Quality of Life Ethic.” In this new ethic, a human life is judged as valuable and worth living if and and only if the judgers decide that it performs at a certain level — e.g., a functional I.Q. of 60 or 40; or an ability to relate to other people (it would logically follow that a severely autistic person does not have enough “quality” in his life to deserve to live); or the prospect of a fairly normal, healthy and pain-free life (thus active euthanasia, or assisted suicide, is justified). If someone lacks the functional criteria of a “quality” life, he lacks personhood and the right to life.

I find this ethic more terrifying than the ethic of the Mafia, for the Mafia at least do not rationalize their assassinations by inventing a new ethic which pretends that the people they want to kill are not people. I would feel more comfortable conversing with a hired killer than with an abortionist, for an abortionist is also a hired killer, but pretends not to be.

The Functionalism that is the basis of the “Quality of Life Ethic” is morally reprehensible for at least three reasons. First, it is degrading, demeaning and destructive to human dignity; it treats persons like trained seals. Second, it is elitist; it discriminates against less perfect performers. Third, it takes advantage, it is power play, it is might over right rationalized. To see this point, let us dare to ask a very naive and simple question, a question a child might ask, especially a child like the one in “The Emperor’s New Clothes”: Why do doctors kill fetuses rather than fetuses killing doctors? Fetuses do not want to die. They struggle to live. (I hope you have all seen “The Silent Scream” and its sequel.) The answer is power. Doctors have power, fetuses do not. If fetuses came equipped with suction tubes, poisons, and scalpels to use to defend themselves against their killers, there would be no abortions.

The eventual are George Bernard Shaw’s utopia of the future in which each citizen would have to appear annually before a Central Planning Committee to justify the social utility of his or her (or its) existence, or else be painlessly “terminated.” That is the crotch of the Functionalist camel whose nose is already under our tent. The nose is abortion. The camel is all one piece. Let the nose in and the rest will follow. To keep the camel out you must hit it on the nose.[/quote]

[BeenaBobba]

[quote name='fidei defensor' post='1473350' date='Mar 4 2008, 12:42 AM']The metabolic view: There is no one point when life begins. The sperm cell and egg cell are as alive as any other organism.[/quote]

Yes, they certainly are alive -- i.e., they're alive in the sense that they're not dead. Some of my skin cells are alive, too, and I, like everyone else, lose about 40,000 dead skin cells every minute. The difference, however, between a metabolically living embryo and a metabolically living sperm cell is potentiality and individuality (individuality in relation to its parents). My skin cells and my egg cells contain [b]my[/b] DNA. They are part of me; they're completely mine. An embryo is an entirely different organism in that it's different and distinct from the egg and sperm cells from which it came. Unlike the egg and sperm cells that created the individual embryo, the embryo cannot be said to belong to either the mother or the father alone.

[quote]The genetic view: A new individual is created at fertilization. This is when the genes from the two parents combine to form an individual with unique properties.[/quote]

I would agree. I believe that attempts to place the beginning of human life at times other than conception are arbitrary. If one were to believe that life begins at implantation, for example, the question of what caused the genesis of this new life would arise. The implanted embryo was unique from its parents [i]before[/i] implantation, and it was also a living, developing organism, so what then caused it to take on a life of its own at implantation?

The reason I believe that life begins at conception is because the organism is alive and unique, though not yet fully developed. It's the absolute start of human development. From the moment of conception, the individual is growing. One can argue that life begins at some other point during pregnancy, but the fact of the matter is that this new life was growing and developing far before that point.

[quote]The embryological view: In humans, identical twinning can occur as late as day 12 pc. Such twinning produces two individuals with different lives. Even conjoined ("Siamese") twins can have different personalities. Thus, a single individuality is not fixed earlier than day 12. (In religious terms, the two individuals have different souls). Some medical texts consider the stages before this time as "pre-embryonic." This view is expressed by scientists such as Renfree (1982) and Grobstein (1988) and has been endorsed theologically by Ford (1988), Shannon and Wolter (1990), and McCormick (1991), among others. (Such a view would allow contraception, "morning-after" pills, and contragestational agents, but not abortion after two weeks.)[/quote]

I disagree that this view is shared by all embryologist, so I'm not sure it can accurately be called the embryological view. Off the top of my head, I know of an embryologist who disagrees. His name is Dr. C. Ward Kischer, and he wrote that "every human embryologist, worldwide, states that the life of the new individual human being begins at fertilization. [. . .] We exist as a continuum of human life, which begins at fertilization and continues until death, whenever that may be”; he then went on to write that “from the one-celled embryo to a 100-year-old senior, all of the characteristics of life change, albeit at different rates at different times: size, form, content, function, appearance, etc.” You can read the rest of what he wrote [url="http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/817022/posts"]here[/url].

Personally, I've never been troubled by the twinning argument. At conception, one individual exists, and within the next two weeks, another human being comes into existence when the embryo splits.

[quote]The neurological view: Our society has defined death as the loss of the cerebral EEG (electroencephalogram) pattern. Conversely, some scientists have thought that the acquisition of the human EEG (at about 27 weeks) should be defined as when a human life begins. This view has been put forth most concretely by Morowitz and Trefil (1992). (This view and the ones following would allow mid-trimester abortions).[/quote]

There are important differences between someone who is brain dead and an unborn child who doesn't yet show signs of brain activity. First of all, someone who is irreversibly brain dead but is still breathing is almost certainly doing so with the aid of machines. He or she is being kept "alive" unnaturally and by extraordinary means. An unborn child in its mother's womb is developing naturally. Death is irreversible. The child, unlike someone irreversibly brain dead, is only in a state without brain activity temporarily; therefore, the unborn child is not dead.

[quote]The ecological/technological view: This view sees human life as beginning when it can exist separately from its maternal biological environment. The natural limit of viability occurs when the lungs mature, but technological advances can now enable a premature infant to survive at about 25 weeks gestation. (This is the view currently operating in many states. Once a fetus can be potentially independent, it cannot be aborted.)[/quote]

This view has always struck me as quite problematic. Someone who's on dialysis awaiting a kidney transplant is totally dependent on a machine to stay alive. Obviously, I disagree that this person isn't alive. Someone who's heart has been stopped during surgery for a prolonged period of time is totally dependent on a heart-lung machine to stay alive. Again, I disagree that this person isn't alive. Some people are dependent on medication, without which they'd die. Heck, even newborn babies can't survive independently. That said, I think the viability argument is a poor one.

[quote]The immunological view: This view sees human life as beginning when the organism recognizes the distinction between self and non-self. In humans, this occurs around the time of birth.[/quote]

The thing is, immune function varies. Newborn babies' immune systems are a lot less developed than my immune system, but that doesn't make me more of a human being than a newborn baby. Immune function is quantitative.

[quote]The integrated physiological view: This view sees human life as beginning when an individual has become independent of the mother and has its own functioning circulatory system, alimentary system, and respiratory system. This is the traditional birthday when the baby is born into the world and the umbilical cord is cut.[/quote]

This is very close to the viability argument, so my argument to this point is the same.

I definitely believe that life begins at conception, and I think that all people should err on the side of life if they're unsure. If someone is unsure of when life begins (as a lot of scientists claimed during the Roe v. Wade case, actually), it would be unethical to allow abortion. It'd be wrong/unethical to demolish a building when there [i]could[/i] be people inside. Know what I mean?

Edited March 18, 2008 by BeenaBobba

[BeenaBobba]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1473564' date='Mar 7 2008, 02:58 PM']and yet, while i maintained it's not clear when life begins, i heard an anaolgy very recently that really shook it up.

if you look at a see that jsut starts growing, most would say that it's the plant, at least intuitively.

now, the seed itself might not be the plant. so, from that, life might not begin at conception, but actually at implantation.[/quote]

I'm not sure that's completely analogous, dairygirl. The seed begins to grow when it's planted (or placed in water), but an embryo has been growing and developing before implantation.

[BeenaBobba]

[quote name='CatherineM' post='1473383' date='Mar 4 2008, 01:27 AM']I would defy anyone who has felt a life move inside them, heard its heart beat, to say that life only begins at birth.[/quote]

Yeah, exactly. The funny thing is, the presence of human life is usually only contested when that life is unwanted. In pregnancy books for expectant mothers, embryos and feti are always referred to as babies, but when that unborn child is unwanted, he or she is called an embryo or fetus that is "nothing more than part of the woman's body." I've never heard a pro-choicer call their wanted unborn child "my little embryo/fetus who is parasitic and part of my body like a tumor."

[kafka]

BeenaBobba, interesting thoughts you must be a doctor or studying some sort of medicine.

From a more philosophical/theological viewpoint I have something to contribute that is implied in Scholasticism and articles like Peter Kreeft's:

From a theological point of view: The soul is infused at the moment of conception so that the soul does not exist without the body and the body does not exist without the soul. As Catholics we know this by certitude because of none other than the infallible definition of the Immaculate Conception by Pope Pius IX:

"We declare, pronounce, and define that the doctrine which holds that the most Blessed Virgin Mary, [b]in the first instance of her conception[/b], by a singular grace and privilege granted by Almighty God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Savior of the human race, was preserved free from all stain of original sin, is a doctrine revealed by God and therefore to be believed firmly and constantly by all the faithful."

I bolded "first instance of her conception" since how could she be "preserved free from all stain of original sin" if her soul was not infused at the moment of her conception. If this were not the case the doctrine of the Incarnation would not make sense either.


From a philosophical point of view: In the Scholastic/Aristotlean tradition (and I think they are right in this point) the soul is a substance and the form of the body wherin personhood resides. The soul is the first actuality and final cause of the body wherein lies the principle life force of the whole human namely soul-body-spirt. There is a hierarchy in the human that is a reflection of the Trinity. The body recieves its source of life from the soul, kind of like the Son proceeds from the Father. The soul is the source of all intellectional and volitional life as well as the cause of sensient and vegetative life of a human being. Therefore, a prenatal, though it largely depends on the womb and nutrients of the mother, would not develop, would not grow, etc. if it were not for the presence of his soul from the first moment of conception.

[kafka]

[quote name='kafka' post='1479327' date='Mar 18 2008, 02:58 PM']Therefore, a prenatal, though it largely depends on the womb and nutrients of the mother, would not develop, would not grow, etc. if it were not for the presence of his soul from the first moment of conception.[/quote]
a little typo here:

Therefore, a prenatal, though [b]he[/b] largely depends on the womb and nutrients of the mother, would not develop, would not grow, etc. if it were not for the presence of his soul from the first moment of conception.

~a prenatal is a person(hence he or she) not an it.

[Socrates]

[quote name='fidei defensor' post='1478975' date='Mar 17 2008, 08:49 PM']I'm sorry, did you miss the first post overviewing different viewpoints? Not all of science agrees that human personhood begins at conception. And if you want to mention things like heartbeat and brainwaves, those don't occur until some point after conception.[/quote]
I was replying to the claim that a baby only is alive when able to survive outside the womb. But a baby is not dead or non-living before this point. And it has a heartbeat and brainwaves well before being able to survive outside the womb, but the baby is alive before either its heart or brain are developed.

Your other objections have been answered quite well by others in this thread.

Scientifically, a newly-formed human embryo is both alive and human from conception. I've seen absolutely no scientific evidence offered to convince me otherwise.
All your other criteria for "human personhood" are arbitrary - they say that a human being must reach some point of physical development before being considered a "human person." The fact that none of these people can seem to agree at which stage of development this is should tell you something.
It becomes an ultimately arbitrary judgment.
The atheist pro-abortion philosopher Peter Singer argues that because a young infant is not substantially different than an unborn fetus, that infanticide should be also be legal up to around two years. (Singer admits this date is arbitrary).
This basically boils down to people deciding which human beings have lives worthy of "personhood" and which are not - and we're all familiar with where that path has led in the past.

[rkwright]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1479539' date='Mar 18 2008, 07:38 PM']I was replying to the claim that a baby only is alive when able to survive outside the womb. But a baby is not dead or non-living before this point. And it has a heartbeat and brainwaves well before being able to survive outside the womb, but the baby is alive before either its heart or brain are developed.

Your other objections have been answered quite well by others in this thread.

Scientifically, a newly-formed human embryo is both alive and human from conception. I've seen absolutely no scientific evidence offered to convince me otherwise.
All your other criteria for "human personhood" are arbitrary - they say that a human being must reach some point of physical development before being considered a "human person." The fact that none of these people can seem to agree at which stage of development this is should tell you something.
It becomes an ultimately arbitrary judgment.
The atheist pro-abortion philosopher Peter Singer argues that because a young infant is not substantially different than an unborn fetus, that infanticide should be also be legal up to around two years. (Singer admits this date is arbitrary).
This basically boils down to people deciding which human beings have lives worthy of "personhood" and which are not - and we're all familiar with where that path has led in the past.[/quote]

Sounds more like Nazi Germany defining Jews as sub-humans or America defining blacks as 3/5ths a person. Sounds like justification of genocide to me...

[BeenaBobba]

[quote name='kafka' post='1479327' date='Mar 18 2008, 03:58 PM']BeenaBobba, interesting thoughts you must be a doctor or studying some sort of medicine.[/quote]

Thanks. I'm not a doctor or anything like that, though it's always been something that's interested me.

Oh, and sorry for the typos in my original message. I wrote that late at night.

[BeenaBobba]

[quote name='rkwright' post='1479543' date='Mar 18 2008, 09:46 PM']Sounds more like Nazi Germany defining Jews as sub-humans or America defining blacks as 3/5ths a person. Sounds like justification of genocide to me...[/quote]

Yes, that's exactly where that logic would lead if it were followed consistently. Thankfully, however, it's not . . . yet. Bad things happen when people try to separate human life from human personhood. To argue that unborn children are not living human persons because they're less developed, less cognizant, etc. compared to newborn babies, for example, is to likewise argue (even if done so unintentionally) that the qualities that define human personhood are quantitative as well. Some people are more aware than others, but that's certainly not to say that someone who is more intelligent or more cognizant is more of a person than others. To believe otherwise would be disastrous for less cognizant members of society, like infants and the mentally handicapped.