|
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
 Posted - 12/13/2007 : 09:47:27
|
In this thread: http://www.skepticfriends.org/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=9075&whichpage=1
Cune wrote: | This is an interesting discussion, but if you all want to continue (and perhaps get more input from others who, having no interest in Ron Paul, haven't followed this thread), maybe it would be a good idea to start a new thread with a more fitting subject heading? |
So I have started it.
And now I respond to this from Dude: marfknox said: | We can debate all day over whether a fertilized egg that is only a few hours old technically qualifies as human life. |
We can? Are you serious?
Ok, give me the evidence and argument that indicates a newly fertilized egg is a human life.
Because all I have ever heard from the Robbs of the world is the assertion that it is.
There is no debate, because actual debate isn't even possible when one side has nothing but an unevidenced assertion. |
This will descend into nothing but a semantics argument, but okay, I'll at least play a little to try to make my point more clear. First, I am talking about "human life" in the biological sense, not the humanistic sense. I agree with chaloobi that the unborn are not "fully realized human beings". However, being human involves one's own experiences and relations with others. These things pretty much begin in the late second trimester when the unborn start to develop brain functions and the mother first feels the baby kick. From that point on, I think the whole issue becomes much more of an ethical concern.
Anyway, back to biology. Is a newly fertilized egg "human life"? I would say yes. Because it is growing and has the DNA code which makes it able to reproduce, it qualifies as biological life. And if it is life, what type of life is it? Why, human life because it has human DNA.
I think the problem with the assertion from most pro-lifers is that they aren't talking about biology. By "human life" they don't mean the earliest stage of life for the species homo sapiens. They mean personhood. Human life in the sense of something sacred and worthy of rights and values we give to all other humans. The word "human" itself is loaded with meaning that goes way beyond biology.
To me, when prolifers and prochoicers have these arguments, I often feel like they aren't saying anything with much literal meaningful at all. They are much more so expressing themselves emotionally, and therefore it is like preaching to the choir, because they fail to articulate their real arguments clearly with words. Promoting a "culture of life" or a "woman's right to choose" is rhetoric, and people need to be able to go deeper than that.
|
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
Edited by - marfknox on 12/13/2007 09:49:05
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 12/13/2007 : 11:06:58 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by chaloobi
I argue to be a 'person', a human being must have established relationships, a place in the immediate community, some sense of it's own self and a concept of its future. This doesn't really begin until birth and for a 1st trimester fetus it's non-existant. Later on it may develop some simple awareness of itself and surroundings, but it's got to be minimal. |
Your argument essentially says that hermits are not people.| Based on this I argue a fetus is not a person, is not human and the anti-abortion argument that killing a fetus is killing a human being is false. |
Established relationships and a place in the community aren't things that even an adult can demand, they must be given (or at least there must be some give-and-take). People begin to give these things to a child long before it is born. Some people more than others (sometimes even before it is conceived). It's subjective, and a matter of degree.
As such, I argue that you can't draw a clear and unambiguous dividing line between what's a "person" and what isn't using your criteria, unless you're willing to say that we should be able to kill antisocial drifters with as much remorse as we have when killing flies. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
 |
|
|
chaloobi
SFN Regular
1620 Posts |
Posted - 12/13/2007 : 11:16:00 [Permalink]
|
This will descend into nothing but a semantics argument, but okay, I'll at least play a little to try to make my point more clear. First, I am talking about "human life" in the biological sense, not the humanistic sense. I agree with chaloobi that the unborn are not "fully realized human beings". However, being human involves one's own experiences and relations with others. These things pretty much begin in the late second trimester when the unborn start to develop brain functions and the mother first feels the baby kick. From that point on, I think the whole issue becomes much more of an ethical concern.
|
I think it's a stretch to qualify that as a relationship. It certainly isn't real awareness for the child - of course, like you already said, that starts getting into what awareness is. Then we talk about what is enough awareness to be aware and blah blah blah.
All along I just wanted to note that killing a fetus is not the same as killing a human being.
I think the problem with the assertion from most pro-lifers is that they aren't talking about biology. By "human life" they don't mean the earliest stage of life for the species homo sapiens. They mean personhood. Human life in the sense of something sacred and worthy of rights and values we give to all other humans. The word "human" itself is loaded with meaning that goes way beyond biology. |
There is also the soul to consider. The soul is what separates us from the animals. Every human being gets one at conception and it doesn't need to develop to make us human. If you kill a fetus, you killed a being with a soul and you might as well have committed murder.
|
-Chaloobi
|
|
|
|
chaloobi
SFN Regular
1620 Posts |
Posted - 12/13/2007 : 13:20:23 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Your argument essentially says that hermits are not people <snip> unless you're willing to say that we should be able to kill antisocial drifters with as much remorse as we have when killing flies.
|
Very few people have absolutely no connection with anyone else. And even if they don't, they all have past connections, have been exposed to human culture, have dreams and ideas and so forth. Unless you're talking about feral people raised by wolves or something.
I understand what you're saying Dave and I think you're right in so far as my argument is definitely missing something. I think maybe what I'm trying to speak about but have missed so far is personality development - that piece of us that comes from our interaction with others, our culture, and the world around us... Completely feral people won't have much of what we recognize as a personality, though there'd be something there. But hermits would (albeit odd) and drifters and so on. |
-Chaloobi
|
| Edited by - chaloobi on 12/13/2007 13:23:06 |
|
|
|
pleco
SFN Addict
USA
2998 Posts |
Posted - 12/28/2007 : 07:37:23 [Permalink]
|
 |
by Filthy
The neo-con methane machine will soon be running at full fart. |
|
|
|
|
chaloobi
SFN Regular
1620 Posts |
Posted - 01/03/2008 : 08:56:55 [Permalink]
|
| Oh this is great. lol. |
-Chaloobi
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
The Latest Abortion Thread - con. from Ron Paul
