Debates
18 Sep 07
24 Sep 07
Originally posted by eagleeye222001The word "person" is not clearly defined as far as I can tell, which is a failing of the law. Or, possibly, it's simply a case where the law remains flexible enough to let the juries decide.
But, nevertheless, the unborn baby is a human person right? How is it not?
The unborn baby is not being artificially kept alive as someone one life-support is.
My only point is that it is a developing human being, right?
Here's one definition:
In recent years a kind of consensus among secular scholars has emerged, which might be referred to as "personhood theory".[citation needed] This is strongly influenced by Locke's approach. The criteria a person must have in being a person are one or more of the following:
1. Consciousness,
2. The ability to steer one's attention and action purposively,
3. Self-awareness, self-bonded to objectivities (existing independently of the subject's perception of it),
4. Self as longitudinal thematic identity, one's biographic identity.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Person
The fetus lacks 1-3. I don't have any idea what 4 means.
24 Sep 07
Originally posted by eagleeye222001I have heard it all before.
I was wondering how people justify abortion? I mean, how is a fetus not "human." Last time I checked, an unborn baby doesn't magically turn human - or does it?
1. The fetus is a parasite not a human being. It's all about the womans body.
2. It will reduce the crime rate
3. It will reduce poverty
4. It will reduce the number of stupid people in the world
5. What do you want, back alley abortions?
6. What do you want, women forced to give birth when they are raped?
7. It's not a child, its a choice.
The only problem with these arguements is that they do not address the basic notion that an unborn child might be a human being. Within the scientific community this topic is controversial and not all agree as to when an unborn child becomes a human being or even if it occurs at all. All we know is that we don't know 100% so by all means lets end the controversy by silencing the opposition and continue killing the unborn.
24 Sep 07
Originally posted by AThousandYoungSo the product of two humans is alien for a period of time and then magically becomes human?
The word "person" is not clearly defined as far as I can tell, which is a failing of the law. Or, possibly, it's simply a case where the law remains flexible enough to let the juries decide.
Here's one definition:
In recent years a kind of consensus among secular scholars has emerged, which might be referred to as "personhood theory".[citati ...[text shortened]... dia.org/wiki/Person
The fetus lacks 1-3. I don't have any idea what 4 means.
My thinking is that since nothing interferes with the development process, meaning it is not like we tell it how to grow into a human, it grows into a fully functioning human by itself (besides having the right womb environment and receiving nutrients from the mother-which happen automatically).
How can it not be a human being when it is doing this? Does it not qualify as human because it IS (note "is" instead of "can"😉 developing into a fully functioning human?
If it is not a human being, then it would not ever begin to develop into a human. How can something that is not human ever begin to develop into a human? It would have to be human. I am not saying that the egg and sperm separately are human but when the sperm fertilizes the egg, then it must be human because it is then you have an automatic process that will bring the cell to an adult size.
24 Sep 07
Originally posted by agrysonI put "person into merriam-webster and it's first definition was "human."
Well, now you're connecting the words human and person. They are two different things, there's no argument as to the cells being human. ATY I think referred at one point that a developing embryo at various stages resembles various stages of our evolutionary past, but that is not the same as saying that it is not human. The crucial point is that it is not a p ...[text shortened]... eed to make between a person and a human. It is possible to be one without being the other.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/person
it also had "bodily appearance"
A ferilized egg has a distinictive genetic make-up. The unborn baby's eye color, hair color, and other characteristics are already determined.
I don't see how a person could not be human or vice-versa.
24 Sep 07
Originally posted by eagleeye222001Than Merriam Webster is wrong, human is a very specific term, person more all encompassing given that theoretically one doesn't need to be human to have personhood. As for your continued insistence on this genetic point, what exactly do you think genes are? They don't have mystical powers any more than the 1's and 0's flying around inside my computer do. Genes are just code.
I put "person into merriam-webster and it's first definition was "human."
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/person
it also had "bodily appearance"
A ferilized egg has a distinictive genetic make-up. The unborn baby's eye color, hair color, and other characteristics are already determined.
I don't see how a person could not be human or vice-versa.
Now to get back to the root of the matter, the reason you don't see the difference between person and human is probably because every person you know is also a human, and that every human you know is a person, but going back to an example I gave earlier, someone who is braindead and being kept alive artificially is not a person any more, but they are still human. Refer to ATY's definition of person, point 4, their continuous autobiographical self image, i.e. their personal experience, has ceased now and forever so they stop being a person by definition.
24 Sep 07
Originally posted by mdhallActually, in the developed world, UNDERpopulation is becoming a problem. The populaton of Europe is expected to be lower twenty years from now than it is currently. One of the big lies of our time is that there are too many people.
The human race is overpopulate.
24 Sep 07
Originally posted by gaychessplayerWell, it is probably possible to argue that we are underpopulated, but not in this way. Or do you think that every population level under the current one is underpopulated ? And why do you think so ?
Actually, in the developed world, UNDERpopulation is becoming a problem. The populaton of Europe is expected to be lower twenty years from now than it is currently. One of the big lies of our time is that there are too many people.
25 Sep 07
Originally posted by Wheelythat egg you ate for breakfast wasn't fertilized 😛
Yeah, and that small, hard, roundish thing I boiled for four minutes this morning, cracked the top off with a knife, then watched as yellow goo dripped down the side and all over my kitchen table and finally stuck bits of bread in was a chicken.
25 Sep 07
I am wondering why pro-choice people need to justify their freedom to make a choice before birth? It seems to me that the government, some overly ethical sensitized individual or some religious freak has zero right to tell you that you must take care of a fetus, wait for it to be born, then pay in time and money to raise the child once it is born. Living cells doesn't mean it is a human being and the fact that it will one day become a human always semed wholely irrelevant.
25 Sep 07
Originally posted by eagleeye222001You're totally ignoring my point. I'm not sure why.
So the product of two humans is alien for a period of time and then magically becomes human?
My thinking is that since nothing interferes with the development process, meaning it is not like we tell it how to grow into a human, it grows into a fully functioning human by itself (besides having the right womb environment and receiving nutrients from ...[text shortened]... because it is then you have an automatic process that will bring the cell to an adult size.