Total Posts:37|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

When does science say that human life begins?

SNP1
Posts: 2,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/8/2014 7:45:37 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/8/2014 12:13:20 AM, SitaraMusica wrote:
I believe that life begins at fertilization when the egg is genetically separate from the mother.

Does it matter when human life begins?

The simple answer is... It is not that simple.

It is genetically human at fertilization. It is not, however, a person at that point. A fetus does not become a person until 24 weeks of development.
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/8/2014 7:49:49 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/8/2014 7:45:37 AM, SNP1 wrote:
At 10/8/2014 12:13:20 AM, SitaraMusica wrote:
I believe that life begins at fertilization when the egg is genetically separate from the mother.

Does it matter when human life begins?

The simple answer is... It is not that simple.

It is genetically human at fertilization. It is not, however, a person at that point. A fetus does not become a person until 24 weeks of development.

Define "person".

Because that's just a legal definition you are using, which seems rather arbitary.
SNP1
Posts: 2,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/8/2014 8:06:56 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/8/2014 7:49:49 AM, Envisage wrote:
At 10/8/2014 7:45:37 AM, SNP1 wrote:
At 10/8/2014 12:13:20 AM, SitaraMusica wrote:
I believe that life begins at fertilization when the egg is genetically separate from the mother.

Does it matter when human life begins?

The simple answer is... It is not that simple.

It is genetically human at fertilization. It is not, however, a person at that point. A fetus does not become a person until 24 weeks of development.

Define "person".

Because that's just a legal definition you are using, which seems rather arbitary.

A sentient and conscious (human) being.

If I am remembering correctly (and I have looked this up many times), the cerebral cortex does not function until around 24 weeks, and the cerebral cortex is one of the most important parts of the brain for the development of consciousness and sentience.
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
Chuz-Life
Posts: 1,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/8/2014 3:28:39 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/8/2014 8:06:56 AM, SNP1 wrote:
At 10/8/2014 7:49:49 AM, Envisage wrote:
At 10/8/2014 7:45:37 AM, SNP1 wrote:
At 10/8/2014 12:13:20 AM, SitaraMusica wrote:
I believe that life begins at fertilization when the egg is genetically separate from the mother.

Does it matter when human life begins?

The simple answer is... It is not that simple.

It is genetically human at fertilization. It is not, however, a person at that point. A fetus does not become a person until 24 weeks of development.

Define "person".

Because that's just a legal definition you are using, which seems rather arbitary.

A sentient and conscious (human) being.

If I am remembering correctly (and I have looked this up many times), the cerebral cortex does not function until around 24 weeks, and the cerebral cortex is one of the most important parts of the brain for the development of consciousness and sentience.

The legal definition for natural "persons" is simply "a human being" and there is no requirement that the person be sentient, sapient or able to think or to feel pain in order to be a person.

As a matter of fact, even children born with anencephalia are human beings / persons and must be treated the same as any other 'person' in a hospital. They are human beings / persons with no cerebral cortex at all. No ability to think, feel pain etc.
"Sooner or later, the Supreme Court of the Unites States is going to have explain how a 'child in the womb' is a person enough to be recognized as a MURDER victim under our fetal homicide laws but how they are not persons enough to qualify for any other Constitutional protections" ~ Chuz Life

http://www.debate.org...
SNP1
Posts: 2,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/8/2014 10:20:43 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/8/2014 3:28:39 PM, Chuz-Life wrote:
At 10/8/2014 8:06:56 AM, SNP1 wrote:
A sentient and conscious (human) being.

If I am remembering correctly (and I have looked this up many times), the cerebral cortex does not function until around 24 weeks, and the cerebral cortex is one of the most important parts of the brain for the development of consciousness and sentience.

The legal definition for natural "persons" is simply "a human being" and there is no requirement that the person be sentient, sapient or able to think or to feel pain in order to be a person.

The word person is very ambiguous. It can, in the simplest definition, mean a human being. In my mind it should be extended to all beings that have the following:
1) Intelligence
2) Sentience
3) Consciousness
The reason I would prefer that as a definition is if there is other intelligent life out there. It should still have certain rights, and by giving rights to people (under the definition I would like to follow) and not just humans, it allows for a more peaceful relation with any possible intelligent life that we may find.

The definition in which I provided for what is a person is the definition I find most often when reading biology papers that do address this issue. I rather trust the word of a biologist than that of a politician.

As a matter of fact, even children born with anencephalia are human beings / persons and must be treated the same as any other 'person' in a hospital. They are human beings / persons with no cerebral cortex at all. No ability to think, feel pain etc.

Um, anecephalia is a defect in brain development resulting in small or missing brain hemispheres. It does not specify cerebral cortex. In fact, I do not know of any case of a child being born without a cerebral cortex (though I may just not have found such a thing). If you have found a case, that can be confirmed, of a child being born without a cerebral cortex, then please provide me a link.
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
SNP1
Posts: 2,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/8/2014 10:38:19 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/8/2014 3:28:39 PM, Chuz-Life wrote:
At 10/8/2014 8:06:56 AM, SNP1 wrote:
At 10/8/2014 7:49:49 AM, Envisage wrote:
At 10/8/2014 7:45:37 AM, SNP1 wrote:
At 10/8/2014 12:13:20 AM, SitaraMusica wrote:
I believe that life begins at fertilization when the egg is genetically separate from the mother.

Does it matter when human life begins?

The simple answer is... It is not that simple.

It is genetically human at fertilization. It is not, however, a person at that point. A fetus does not become a person until 24 weeks of development.

Define "person".

Because that's just a legal definition you are using, which seems rather arbitary.

A sentient and conscious (human) being.

If I am remembering correctly (and I have looked this up many times), the cerebral cortex does not function until around 24 weeks, and the cerebral cortex is one of the most important parts of the brain for the development of consciousness and sentience.

The legal definition for natural "persons" is simply "a human being" and there is no requirement that the person be sentient, sapient or able to think or to feel pain in order to be a person.

As a matter of fact, even children born with anencephalia are human beings / persons and must be treated the same as any other 'person' in a hospital. They are human beings / persons with no cerebral cortex at all. No ability to think, feel pain etc.

BTW< I do not mean that anencephalia cannot include a missing cerebral cortex, I just have yet to hear a case where is has happened.
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
Chuz-Life
Posts: 1,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/8/2014 1:37:10 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/8/2014 10:20:43 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 10/8/2014 3:28:39 PM, Chuz-Life wrote:

The legal definition for natural "persons" is simply "a human being" and there are no requirements that the person be sentient, sapient or able to think or to feel pain in order to be a person.

The word person is very ambiguous.

Not by legal definition, it isn't.

It can, in the simplest definition, mean a human being. In my mind it should be extended to all beings that have the following:
1) Intelligence
2) Sentience
3) Consciousness

So, you use it to discriminate? Why?

Why shouldn't the definition of "personhood" be inclusive enough to include all human beings - regardless of their current (in many cases temporary) status, affliction or level of consciousness?

The reason I would prefer that as a definition is if there is other intelligent life out there. It should still have certain rights, and by giving rights to people (under the definition I would like to follow) and not just humans, it allows for a more peaceful relation with any possible intelligent life that we may find.


You assume many things. You assume there are other intelligent life forms 'out there' and you assume that they would be offended by inclusiveness that would protect the rights of the weakest and most vulnerable members of our species.

The definition in which I provided for what is a person is the definition I find most often when reading biology papers that do address this issue. I rather trust the word of a biologist than that of a politician.

Our lawmakers have access to all the definitions we do. Our laws (including fetal homicide laws) recognize a human being in "any stage of development." I see no reason why they should less inclusive than that.

As a matter of fact, even children born with anencephalia are human beings / persons and must be treated the same as any other 'person' in a hospital. They are human beings / persons with no cerebral cortex at all. No ability to think, feel pain etc.

Um, anecephalia is a defect in brain development resulting in small or missing brain hemispheres. It does not specify cerebral cortex. In fact, I do not know of any case of a child being born without a cerebral cortex (though I may just not have found such a thing). If you have found a case, that can be confirmed, of a child being born without a cerebral cortex, then please provide me a link.

https://www.lifesitenews.com...
"Sooner or later, the Supreme Court of the Unites States is going to have explain how a 'child in the womb' is a person enough to be recognized as a MURDER victim under our fetal homicide laws but how they are not persons enough to qualify for any other Constitutional protections" ~ Chuz Life

http://www.debate.org...
ChristianPunk
Posts: 1,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2014 8:11:59 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/8/2014 12:13:20 AM, SitaraMusica wrote:
I believe that life begins at fertilization when the egg is genetically separate from the mother.

Bible says life begins in the blood, so I say in the trimester where the baby is finally being pumped with blood in it's system.
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/10/2014 8:05:30 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/8/2014 1:37:10 PM, Chuz-Life wrote:
At 10/8/2014 10:20:43 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 10/8/2014 3:28:39 PM, Chuz-Life wrote:

The legal definition for natural "persons" is simply "a human being" and there are no requirements that the person be sentient, sapient or able to think or to feel pain in order to be a person.

The word person is very ambiguous.

Not by legal definition, it isn't.

It can, in the simplest definition, mean a human being. In my mind it should be extended to all beings that have the following:

1) Intelligence
2) Sentience
3) Consciousness

So, you use it to discriminate? Why?

All words discriminate in some sense. So the associated words 'personal', 'personhood', etc. strongly presuppose a requirement for those 3 attributes.

Why shouldn't the definition of "personhood" be inclusive enough to include all human beings - regardless of their current (in many cases temporary) status, affliction or level of consciousness?

Because then it becomes a useless word:

Human being - a self-sufficient organism based in Human DNA (for example)
Person - A being that is conscious. Intelligent, etc.

They're just different categories, the latter becomes much more useful when determining rights and morals since it is the latter which comprehends and has values (which are presupposed by most moral philosophies).

The reason I would prefer that as a definition is if there is other intelligent life out there. It should still have certain rights, and by giving rights to people (under the definition I would like to follow) and not just humans, it allows for a more peaceful relation with any possible intelligent life that we may find.


You assume many things. You assume there are other intelligent life forms 'out there' and you assume that they would be offended by inclusiveness that would protect the rights of the weakest and most vulnerable members of our species.

The definition in which I provided for what is a person is the definition I find most often when reading biology papers that do address this issue. I rather trust the word of a biologist than that of a politician.

Our lawmakers have access to all the definitions we do. Our laws (including fetal homicide laws) recognize a human being in "any stage of development." I see no reason why they should less inclusive than that.

As a matter of fact, even children born with anencephalia are human beings / persons and must be treated the same as any other 'person' in a hospital. They are human beings / persons with no cerebral cortex at all. No ability to think, feel pain etc.

Um, anecephalia is a defect in brain development resulting in small or missing brain hemispheres. It does not specify cerebral cortex. In fact, I do not know of any case of a child being born without a cerebral cortex (though I may just not have found such a thing). If you have found a case, that can be confirmed, of a child being born without a cerebral cortex, then please provide me a link.

https://www.lifesitenews.com...

I don't regard that girl as a person. If she is not conscious, and unintelligent, then I am indifferent about killing her, or triggering her pain receptors. Anthropomorphism isn't sufficient to grant rights.
Smikes
Posts: 11
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2014 10:05:33 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Any defining line would be an arbitrary one. People don't seem to understand the concept of semantics. We could literally define "life" to mean whatever the heck we like. We could define it to mean poop.

I think you mean to ask, how should science define human life.

An even more important question would be, "When does a human first become conscious?" But even when they do become conscious, is that important either? After all, pigs are almost certainly conscious (and smarter than dogs), but we eat them for breakfast.

If all you care about is legal definitions, the laws can be rewritten. We can define personhood however the hell we like.
Chuz-Life
Posts: 1,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2014 4:23:08 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/12/2014 10:05:33 AM, Smikes wrote:
Any defining line would be an arbitrary one. People don't seem to understand the concept of semantics. We could literally define "life" to mean whatever the heck we like. We could define it to mean poop.

I think you mean to ask, how should science define human life.

An even more important question would be, "When does a human first become conscious?" But even when they do become conscious, is that important either? After all, pigs are almost certainly conscious (and smarter than dogs), but we eat them for breakfast.

If all you care about is legal definitions, the laws can be rewritten. We can define personhood however the hell we like.

The current legal definition for a "natural person" is "a human being." No-one that I know of has a problem with that definition (semantics.) The issue has been "does a human being in the fetal stage of their life qualify?"

I for one feel that they do.
"Sooner or later, the Supreme Court of the Unites States is going to have explain how a 'child in the womb' is a person enough to be recognized as a MURDER victim under our fetal homicide laws but how they are not persons enough to qualify for any other Constitutional protections" ~ Chuz Life

http://www.debate.org...
cb123
Posts: 9
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2014 2:52:43 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/8/2014 7:49:49 AM, Envisage wrote:
At 10/8/2014 7:45:37 AM, SNP1 wrote:
At 10/8/2014 12:13:20 AM, SitaraMusica wrote:
I believe that life begins at fertilization when the egg is genetically separate from the mother.

Does it matter when human life begins?

The simple answer is... It is not that simple.

It is genetically human at fertilization. It is not, however, a person at that point. A fetus does not become a person until 24 weeks of development.

Define "person".

Because that's just a legal definition you are using, which seems rather arbitary.

I'm currently 19 weeks pregnant and can tell you very much so what's inside me could be perceived as a person, the foetus/baby inside me already has sleep/wake patterns and reaction to pressure, environment and movement how does not make it a human
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2014 2:58:48 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/13/2014 2:52:43 PM, cb123 wrote:
At 10/8/2014 7:49:49 AM, Envisage wrote:
At 10/8/2014 7:45:37 AM, SNP1 wrote:
At 10/8/2014 12:13:20 AM, SitaraMusica wrote:
I believe that life begins at fertilization when the egg is genetically separate from the mother.

Does it matter when human life begins?

The simple answer is... It is not that simple.

It is genetically human at fertilization. It is not, however, a person at that point. A fetus does not become a person until 24 weeks of development.

Define "person".

Because that's just a legal definition you are using, which seems rather arbitary.

I'm currently 19 weeks pregnant and can tell you very much so what's inside me could be perceived as a person

How does your being pregnant have anything to do with knowing the nature of what is inside of you? I am a male but that doesn't mean I have significant insight as to the nature of my testacles.

, the foetus/baby inside me already has sleep/wake patterns and reaction to pressure, environment and movement how does not make it a human

Um, so do mice, cats, dogs, and lizards etc. Yet they clearly are not human.

Regardless we are talking about personhood, to which we attack human rights to. In this thread we have pretty much concluded that personal values, awareness, consciousness, and memories are important factors in determining whether or not something should have human rights, and hence personhood.

A foetus like the one you carry does not possess those qualities.
Otokage
Posts: 2,347
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2014 5:57:09 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/8/2014 12:13:20 AM, SitaraMusica wrote:
I believe that life begins at fertilization when the egg is genetically separate from the mother.

Science doesn't say "when human life begins", the judges say it based on philosophical considerations that are mainly driven by society's desires, not scientific research. To put an example, on a municipality that is made up mainly by christians, human life could begin ie at the very moment you have mentioned. But in a society that is made up mainly by, say left-wing advocates, human life probably will be considered to start at a different, probably much later, stage.
SitaraMusica
Posts: 1,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2014 6:15:51 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/13/2014 5:57:09 PM, Otokage wrote:
At 10/8/2014 12:13:20 AM, SitaraMusica wrote:
I believe that life begins at fertilization when the egg is genetically separate from the mother.

Science doesn't say "when human life begins", the judges say it based on philosophical considerations that are mainly driven by society's desires, not scientific research. To put an example, on a municipality that is made up mainly by christians, human life could begin ie at the very moment you have mentioned. But in a society that is made up mainly by, say left-wing advocates, human life probably will be considered to start at a different, probably much later, stage.

Science does say when life begins. Life begins when the fetus is genetically different from the mother, and that happens before birth.
Otokage
Posts: 2,347
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2014 6:35:03 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/13/2014 6:15:51 PM, SitaraMusica wrote:
At 11/13/2014 5:57:09 PM, Otokage wrote:
At 10/8/2014 12:13:20 AM, SitaraMusica wrote:
I believe that life begins at fertilization when the egg is genetically separate from the mother.

Science doesn't say "when human life begins", the judges say it based on philosophical considerations that are mainly driven by society's desires, not scientific research. To put an example, on a municipality that is made up mainly by christians, human life could begin ie at the very moment you have mentioned. But in a society that is made up mainly by, say left-wing advocates, human life probably will be considered to start at a different, probably much later, stage.

Science does say when life begins. Life begins when the fetus is genetically different from the mother, and that happens before birth.

That can not be possible. Since I'm pretty sure a non fertilized egg is still a life, and I'm also pretty sure it is human. So?
SitaraMusica
Posts: 1,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2014 6:41:23 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/13/2014 6:35:03 PM, Otokage wrote:
At 11/13/2014 6:15:51 PM, SitaraMusica wrote:
At 11/13/2014 5:57:09 PM, Otokage wrote:
At 10/8/2014 12:13:20 AM, SitaraMusica wrote:
I believe that life begins at fertilization when the egg is genetically separate from the mother.

Science doesn't say "when human life begins", the judges say it based on philosophical considerations that are mainly driven by society's desires, not scientific research. To put an example, on a municipality that is made up mainly by christians, human life could begin ie at the very moment you have mentioned. But in a society that is made up mainly by, say left-wing advocates, human life probably will be considered to start at a different, probably much later, stage.

Science does say when life begins. Life begins when the fetus is genetically different from the mother, and that happens before birth.

That can not be possible. Since I'm pretty sure a non fertilized egg is still a life, and I'm also pretty sure it is human. So?

Yes it is possible. The fetus has its own genetic code.
Otokage
Posts: 2,347
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2014 6:50:17 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/13/2014 6:41:23 PM, SitaraMusica wrote:
At 11/13/2014 6:35:03 PM, Otokage wrote:
At 11/13/2014 6:15:51 PM, SitaraMusica wrote:
At 11/13/2014 5:57:09 PM, Otokage wrote:
At 10/8/2014 12:13:20 AM, SitaraMusica wrote:
I believe that life begins at fertilization when the egg is genetically separate from the mother.

Science doesn't say "when human life begins", the judges say it based on philosophical considerations that are mainly driven by society's desires, not scientific research. To put an example, on a municipality that is made up mainly by christians, human life could begin ie at the very moment you have mentioned. But in a society that is made up mainly by, say left-wing advocates, human life probably will be considered to start at a different, probably much later, stage.

Science does say when life begins. Life begins when the fetus is genetically different from the mother, and that happens before birth.

That can not be possible. Since I'm pretty sure a non fertilized egg is still a life, and I'm also pretty sure it is human. So?

Yes it is possible. The fetus has its own genetic code.

And a sperm cell is also a human life. Or are you stating it is not alive and it is not Homo sapiens?
SitaraMusica
Posts: 1,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2014 6:57:10 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/13/2014 6:50:17 PM, Otokage wrote:
At 11/13/2014 6:41:23 PM, SitaraMusica wrote:
At 11/13/2014 6:35:03 PM, Otokage wrote:
At 11/13/2014 6:15:51 PM, SitaraMusica wrote:
At 11/13/2014 5:57:09 PM, Otokage wrote:
At 10/8/2014 12:13:20 AM, SitaraMusica wrote:
I believe that life begins at fertilization when the egg is genetically separate from the mother.

Science doesn't say "when human life begins", the judges say it based on philosophical considerations that are mainly driven by society's desires, not scientific research. To put an example, on a municipality that is made up mainly by christians, human life could begin ie at the very moment you have mentioned. But in a society that is made up mainly by, say left-wing advocates, human life probably will be considered to start at a different, probably much later, stage.

Science does say when life begins. Life begins when the fetus is genetically different from the mother, and that happens before birth.

That can not be possible. Since I'm pretty sure a non fertilized egg is still a life, and I'm also pretty sure it is human. So?

Yes it is possible. The fetus has its own genetic code.

And a sperm cell is also a human life. Or are you stating it is not alive and it is not Homo sapiens?
The fetus is a human being with its own genetic code that is different than a sperm or egg.
cb123
Posts: 9
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2014 1:46:35 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/13/2014 5:57:09 PM, Otokage wrote:
At 10/8/2014 12:13:20 AM, SitaraMusica wrote:
I believe that life begins at fertilization when the egg is genetically separate from the mother.

Science doesn't say "when human life begins", the judges say it based on philosophical considerations that are mainly driven by society's desires, not scientific research. To put an example, on a municipality that is made up mainly by christians, human life could begin ie at the very moment you have mentioned. But in a society that is made up mainly by, say left-wing advocates, human life probably will be considered to start at a different, probably much later, stage.

It could be argued that a one month old baby does not have those qualities that doesn't make them any less of a human, in the comment I was commenting on it said personhood starts at 24 weeks which is ironically the general cut off date for abortion, so a 23 week old foetus is not a person but within that cut off date they are considered to be that's ridiculous I am not saying abortion should be illegal, bu it needs to be accepted what the reality is that you are terminating a human foetus.
Otokage
Posts: 2,347
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2014 6:39:39 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/13/2014 6:57:10 PM, SitaraMusica wrote:
At 11/13/2014 6:50:17 PM, Otokage wrote:
At 11/13/2014 6:41:23 PM, SitaraMusica wrote:
At 11/13/2014 6:35:03 PM, Otokage wrote:
At 11/13/2014 6:15:51 PM, SitaraMusica wrote:
At 11/13/2014 5:57:09 PM, Otokage wrote:
At 10/8/2014 12:13:20 AM, SitaraMusica wrote:
I believe that life begins at fertilization when the egg is genetically separate from the mother.

Science doesn't say "when human life begins", the judges say it based on philosophical considerations that are mainly driven by society's desires, not scientific research. To put an example, on a municipality that is made up mainly by christians, human life could begin ie at the very moment you have mentioned. But in a society that is made up mainly by, say left-wing advocates, human life probably will be considered to start at a different, probably much later, stage.

Science does say when life begins. Life begins when the fetus is genetically different from the mother, and that happens before birth.

That can not be possible. Since I'm pretty sure a non fertilized egg is still a life, and I'm also pretty sure it is human. So?

Yes it is possible. The fetus has its own genetic code.

And a sperm cell is also a human life. Or are you stating it is not alive and it is not Homo sapiens?
The fetus is a human being with its own genetic code that is different than a sperm or egg.

But sperm and eggs also have a different genetic code than you, didn't you know?
Otokage
Posts: 2,347
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2014 7:15:18 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/14/2014 1:46:35 AM, cb123 wrote:
At 11/13/2014 5:57:09 PM, Otokage wrote:
At 10/8/2014 12:13:20 AM, SitaraMusica wrote:
I believe that life begins at fertilization when the egg is genetically separate from the mother.

Science doesn't say "when human life begins", the judges say it based on philosophical considerations that are mainly driven by society's desires, not scientific research. To put an example, on a municipality that is made up mainly by christians, human life could begin ie at the very moment you have mentioned. But in a society that is made up mainly by, say left-wing advocates, human life probably will be considered to start at a different, probably much later, stage.

It could be argued that a one month old baby does not have those qualities that doesn't make them any less of a human, in the comment I was commenting on it said personhood starts at 24 weeks which is ironically the general cut off date for abortion, so a 23 week old foetus is not a person but within that cut off date they are considered to be that's ridiculous I am not saying abortion should be illegal, bu it needs to be accepted what the reality is that you are terminating a human foetus.

As I said, it is a judicial matter, not a scientific one. It is based on the population's desires. Judges can not go around deliberating if fetus are persons at 23 or 24 weeks, they are simply required to determine a number so it is of practical use to society. They are not a philosophical committee.
cb123
Posts: 9
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2014 11:06:22 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/13/2014 2:58:48 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 11/13/2014 2:52:43 PM, cb123 wrote:
At 10/8/2014 7:49:49 AM, Envisage wrote:
At 10/8/2014 7:45:37 AM, SNP1 wrote:
At 10/8/2014 12:13:20 AM, SitaraMusica wrote:
I believe that life begins at fertilization when the egg is genetically separate from the mother.

Does it matter when human life begins?

The simple answer is... It is not that simple.

It is genetically human at fertilization. It is not, however, a person at that point. A fetus does not become a person until 24 weeks of development.

Define "person".

Because that's just a legal definition you are using, which seems rather arbitary.

I'm currently 19 weeks pregnant and can tell you very much so what's inside me could be perceived as a person

How does your being pregnant have anything to do with knowing the nature of what is inside of you? I am a male but that doesn't mean I have significant insight as to the nature of my testacles.

, the foetus/baby inside me already has sleep/wake patterns and reaction to pressure, environment and movement how does not make it a human

Um, so do mice, cats, dogs, and lizards etc. Yet they clearly are not human.

Regardless we are talking about personhood, to which we attack human rights to. In this thread we have pretty much concluded that personal values, awareness, consciousness, and memories are important factors in determining whether or not something should have human rights, and hence personhood.

A foetus like the one you carry does not possess those qualities.

My baby has distinct routine movement at certain times of the day and night, dependant on wether they are asleep or awake, my baby can also react to pressure, noise and temperature, when it's cold my baby moves, if there is a loud or abrupt noise my baby moves, when I go for my scans since 16 weeks the doctor places pressure onto my stomache/womb in order to get my baby to move into a different position so as they can conduct there tests. Comparing a living, breathing, growing foetus to your sperm makes it quite obvious that you, have no idea as to the growth of a foetus nor have you ever had any experience of actually being around a pregnant woman
Otokage
Posts: 2,347
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2014 11:42:19 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/14/2014 11:06:22 AM, cb123 wrote:
At 11/13/2014 2:58:48 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 11/13/2014 2:52:43 PM, cb123 wrote:
At 10/8/2014 7:49:49 AM, Envisage wrote:
At 10/8/2014 7:45:37 AM, SNP1 wrote:
At 10/8/2014 12:13:20 AM, SitaraMusica wrote:
I believe that life begins at fertilization when the egg is genetically separate from the mother.

Does it matter when human life begins?

The simple answer is... It is not that simple.

It is genetically human at fertilization. It is not, however, a person at that point. A fetus does not become a person until 24 weeks of development.

Define "person".

Because that's just a legal definition you are using, which seems rather arbitary.

I'm currently 19 weeks pregnant and can tell you very much so what's inside me could be perceived as a person

How does your being pregnant have anything to do with knowing the nature of what is inside of you? I am a male but that doesn't mean I have significant insight as to the nature of my testacles.

, the foetus/baby inside me already has sleep/wake patterns and reaction to pressure, environment and movement how does not make it a human

Um, so do mice, cats, dogs, and lizards etc. Yet they clearly are not human.

Regardless we are talking about personhood, to which we attack human rights to. In this thread we have pretty much concluded that personal values, awareness, consciousness, and memories are important factors in determining whether or not something should have human rights, and hence personhood.


A foetus like the one you carry does not possess those qualities.

My baby has distinct routine movement at certain times of the day and night, dependant on wether they are asleep or awake, my baby can also react to pressure, noise and temperature, when it's cold my baby moves, if there is a loud or abrupt noise my baby moves, when I go for my scans since 16 weeks the doctor places pressure onto my stomache/womb in order to get my baby to move into a different position so as they can conduct there tests. Comparing a living, breathing, growing foetus to your sperm makes it quite obvious that you, have no idea as to the growth of a foetus nor have you ever had any experience of actually being around a pregnant woman

The reaction to environment and stimuli is a characteristic of virtualy every single life form on Earth, that doesn't make your foetus any distinct.
cb123
Posts: 9
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2014 12:20:30 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/14/2014 11:42:19 AM, Otokage wrote:
At 11/14/2014 11:06:22 AM, cb123 wrote:
At 11/13/2014 2:58:48 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 11/13/2014 2:52:43 PM, cb123 wrote:
At 10/8/2014 7:49:49 AM, Envisage wrote:
At 10/8/2014 7:45:37 AM, SNP1 wrote:
At 10/8/2014 12:13:20 AM, SitaraMusica wrote:
I believe that life begins at fertilization when the egg is genetically separate from the mother.

Does it matter when human life begins?

The simple answer is... It is not that simple.

It is genetically human at fertilization. It is not, however, a person at that point. A fetus does not become a person until 24 weeks of development.

Define "person".

Because that's just a legal definition you are using, which seems rather arbitary.

I'm currently 19 weeks pregnant and can tell you very much so what's inside me could be perceived as a person

How does your being pregnant have anything to do with knowing the nature of what is inside of you? I am a male but that doesn't mean I have significant insight as to the nature of my testacles.

, the foetus/baby inside me already has sleep/wake patterns and reaction to pressure, environment and movement how does not make it a human

Um, so do mice, cats, dogs, and lizards etc. Yet they clearly are not human.

Regardless we are talking about personhood, to which we attack human rights to. In this thread we have pretty much concluded that personal values, awareness, consciousness, and memories are important factors in determining whether or not something should have human rights, and hence personhood.


A foetus like the one you carry does not possess those qualities.

My baby has distinct routine movement at certain times of the day and night, dependant on wether they are asleep or awake, my baby can also react to pressure, noise and temperature, when it's cold my baby moves, if there is a loud or abrupt noise my baby moves, when I go for my scans since 16 weeks the doctor places pressure onto my stomache/womb in order to get my baby to move into a different position so as they can conduct there tests. Comparing a living, breathing, growing foetus to your sperm makes it quite obvious that you, have no idea as to the growth of a foetus nor have you ever had any experience of actually being around a pregnant woman

The reaction to environment and stimuli is a characteristic of virtualy every single life form on Earth, that doesn't make your foetus any distinct.

It makes it distinctly a life
SitaraMusica
Posts: 1,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2014 1:47:37 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/14/2014 7:15:18 AM, Otokage wrote:
At 11/14/2014 1:46:35 AM, cb123 wrote:
At 11/13/2014 5:57:09 PM, Otokage wrote:
At 10/8/2014 12:13:20 AM, SitaraMusica wrote:
I believe that life begins at fertilization when the egg is genetically separate from the mother.

Science doesn't say "when human life begins", the judges say it based on philosophical considerations that are mainly driven by society's desires, not scientific research. To put an example, on a municipality that is made up mainly by christians, human life could begin ie at the very moment you have mentioned. But in a society that is made up mainly by, say left-wing advocates, human life probably will be considered to start at a different, probably much later, stage.

It could be argued that a one month old baby does not have those qualities that doesn't make them any less of a human, in the comment I was commenting on it said personhood starts at 24 weeks which is ironically the general cut off date for abortion, so a 23 week old foetus is not a person but within that cut off date they are considered to be that's ridiculous I am not saying abortion should be illegal, bu it needs to be accepted what the reality is that you are terminating a human foetus.

As I said, it is a judicial matter, not a scientific one. It is based on the population's desires. Judges can not go around deliberating if fetus are persons at 23 or 24 weeks, they are simply required to determine a number so it is of practical use to society. They are not a philosophical committee.
Yes it is a scientific matter. Science shows that the fetus has its own genetic code that is different than a sperm or egg.
Otokage
Posts: 2,347
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2014 2:50:15 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/14/2014 1:47:37 PM, SitaraMusica wrote:
At 11/14/2014 7:15:18 AM, Otokage wrote:
At 11/14/2014 1:46:35 AM, cb123 wrote:
At 11/13/2014 5:57:09 PM, Otokage wrote:
At 10/8/2014 12:13:20 AM, SitaraMusica wrote:
I believe that life begins at fertilization when the egg is genetically separate from the mother.

Science doesn't say "when human life begins", the judges say it based on philosophical considerations that are mainly driven by society's desires, not scientific research. To put an example, on a municipality that is made up mainly by christians, human life could begin ie at the very moment you have mentioned. But in a society that is made up mainly by, say left-wing advocates, human life probably will be considered to start at a different, probably much later, stage.

It could be argued that a one month old baby does not have those qualities that doesn't make them any less of a human, in the comment I was commenting on it said personhood starts at 24 weeks which is ironically the general cut off date for abortion, so a 23 week old foetus is not a person but within that cut off date they are considered to be that's ridiculous I am not saying abortion should be illegal, bu it needs to be accepted what the reality is that you are terminating a human foetus.

As I said, it is a judicial matter, not a scientific one. It is based on the population's desires. Judges can not go around deliberating if fetus are persons at 23 or 24 weeks, they are simply required to determine a number so it is of practical use to society. They are not a philosophical committee.
Yes it is a scientific matter. Science shows that the fetus has its own genetic code that is different than a sperm or egg.

Yes, but science can not tell you if having a different genetic code from the parents must give you specific rights, ie, the same rights of your mother. That's a philosophical debate, not a scientific one.
Otokage
Posts: 2,347
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2014 2:51:03 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/14/2014 12:20:30 PM, cb123 wrote:
At 11/14/2014 11:42:19 AM, Otokage wrote:
At 11/14/2014 11:06:22 AM, cb123 wrote:
At 11/13/2014 2:58:48 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 11/13/2014 2:52:43 PM, cb123 wrote:
At 10/8/2014 7:49:49 AM, Envisage wrote:
At 10/8/2014 7:45:37 AM, SNP1 wrote:
At 10/8/2014 12:13:20 AM, SitaraMusica wrote:
I believe that life begins at fertilization when the egg is genetically separate from the mother.

Does it matter when human life begins?

The simple answer is... It is not that simple.

It is genetically human at fertilization. It is not, however, a person at that point. A fetus does not become a person until 24 weeks of development.

Define "person".

Because that's just a legal definition you are using, which seems rather arbitary.

I'm currently 19 weeks pregnant and can tell you very much so what's inside me could be perceived as a person

How does your being pregnant have anything to do with knowing the nature of what is inside of you? I am a male but that doesn't mean I have significant insight as to the nature of my testacles.

, the foetus/baby inside me already has sleep/wake patterns and reaction to pressure, environment and movement how does not make it a human

Um, so do mice, cats, dogs, and lizards etc. Yet they clearly are not human.

Regardless we are talking about personhood, to which we attack human rights to. In this thread we have pretty much concluded that personal values, awareness, consciousness, and memories are important factors in determining whether or not something should have human rights, and hence personhood.


A foetus like the one you carry does not possess those qualities.

My baby has distinct routine movement at certain times of the day and night, dependant on wether they are asleep or awake, my baby can also react to pressure, noise and temperature, when it's cold my baby moves, if there is a loud or abrupt noise my baby moves, when I go for my scans since 16 weeks the doctor places pressure onto my stomache/womb in order to get my baby to move into a different position so as they can conduct there tests. Comparing a living, breathing, growing foetus to your sperm makes it quite obvious that you, have no idea as to the growth of a foetus nor have you ever had any experience of actually being around a pregnant woman

The reaction to environment and stimuli is a characteristic of virtualy every single life form on Earth, that doesn't make your foetus any distinct.

It makes it distinctly a life

It makes it a life, yes. But I'm sure we agree not every life deserves the same rights.