 |
Bible-Discussion.com
Private Bible Studies and Christian Fellowship Available - Ask Nobby
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
RevJP
Moderator
Joined: 18 Apr 2003
Posts: 6905
Location: USA
|
 Posted: Wed Dec 20, 2006 1:57 am Post subject: |
 |
|
Many people buid the houses themselves, if they hit a snag and run out of money, then they are stuck with a pile of lumber and a flat peice of land... and no nails...
personally, this whole debate in this thread has been going nowhere. I see one side trying to assert that a thing is something it definitively is not.
Ana said it the clearest and most succinctly:
| Quote: | | Zygotes are potential humans. They are not themselves humans. In the same way, sperm cells and eggs are potential humans. |
_________________
JP's Mind - my blog
Psa 118:8 It is better to trust and take refuge in the Lord than to put confidence in man. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
nobody important
Young Wolf
Joined: 16 Nov 2006
Posts: 517
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 20, 2006 5:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
a house is not a living being
A human zygote is a living being, just as any animal zygote is a living being, the difference is the human zygote is a human being.
A house is a house from the foundations up... "how is the house coming on? well I have the foundations laid" The house may not be finished but what is there is the house |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 7643
Location: Victoria, Canada
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 20, 2006 5:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
| nobody important wrote: |
A house is a house from the foundations up... "how is the house coming on? well I have the foundations laid" The house may not be finished but what is there is the house |
No, what is there is just a foundation. A house requires much more work.
Similarly, a zygote is just a zygote. A human being requires much more development.
_________________
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction."
-Blaise Pascal
"...with or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil -that takes religion..."
-Steven Weinberg
"I would bless my children with your destruction instead."
-Someone who shall remain anonymous. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sofyst
Tiger
Joined: 11 Dec 2006
Posts: 830
Location: Tejas
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 20, 2006 5:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
How much more developement?
Do you mean it is developed enough to be called a human when it is birthed? Or perhaps it is not developed enough to be called a human being until its at least child status, maybe adult status? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 7643
Location: Victoria, Canada
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 20, 2006 6:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
| sofyst wrote: | How much more developement?
Do you mean it is developed enough to be called a human when it is birthed? Or perhaps it is not developed enough to be called a human being until its at least child status, maybe adult status? |
It's totally subjective. The best way to look at it is as a sliding scale. At one end of the scale you have an egg that has just been fertilized. At the other end of the scale you have a fully-developed adult human being.
Calling the fertilized egg a human being is unreasonable, but as you move down the scale, it becomes more and more reasonable to call it a human,.
There are some candidate milestones where it would be reasonable to call it a human. For example:
1. The point when the fetus' nervous system is sufficiently developed for it to feel things.
2. The point where it could live outside of the mother's body without life support if it were prematurely delivered.
3. Birth.
4. The point at which it becomes self-aware.
There is no 'right' answer.
There's also the issue of law. At which point should the fetus / baby receive protection under the law? This isn't necessarily the same question as asking when it becomes human.
For example, I would argue that it is reasonable to say that self-awareness is the point to start being called a human being, but that legal protection should happen at birth.
There are other reasonable interpretations, but thinking that a zygote is a human being is unreasonable.
_________________
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction."
-Blaise Pascal
"...with or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil -that takes religion..."
-Steven Weinberg
"I would bless my children with your destruction instead."
-Someone who shall remain anonymous. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sofyst
Tiger
Joined: 11 Dec 2006
Posts: 830
Location: Tejas
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 20, 2006 6:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | For example, I would argue that it is reasonable to say that self-awareness is the point to start being called a human being, but that legal protection should happen at birth. |
So your opinion is that although it should be called a human being (when it has self-awareness), it should not have legal protection?
May I ask why?
And do you not see this as echos of the entire slavery issue? And believe me, I am not attempting to appeal to emotions, I think it a valid comparison. The blacks were considered human, yet they were not protected under the law (not at least as other humans were - white humans - they were somewhat protected as property).
Wouldn't this mean we would have different classes of humans? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 7643
Location: Victoria, Canada
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 20, 2006 6:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
| sofyst wrote: | | Quote: | | For example, I would argue that it is reasonable to say that self-awareness is the point to start being called a human being, but that legal protection should happen at birth. |
So your opinion is that although it should be called a human being (when it has self-awareness), it should not have legal protection?
May I ask why?
And do you not see this as echos of the entire slavery issue? And believe me, I am not attempting to appeal to emotions, I think it a valid comparison. The blacks were considered human, yet they were not protected under the law (not at least as other humans were - white humans - they were somewhat protected as property).
Wouldn't this mean we would have different classes of humans? |
No, you've got it exactly backwards. Proper self-awareness happens well after birth. I am saying that it is reasonable to give legal protection to a baby before it becomes self-aware.
_________________
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction."
-Blaise Pascal
"...with or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil -that takes religion..."
-Steven Weinberg
"I would bless my children with your destruction instead."
-Someone who shall remain anonymous. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sofyst
Tiger
Joined: 11 Dec 2006
Posts: 830
Location: Tejas
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 20, 2006 6:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
Oh ok...I was assuming that self-awareness happened while within the womb.
So your opinion is that even though it is not a human being (as it is not yet self-aware), it should be protected by law.
May I ask why the protection should occur at birth? Why this time and not, let us say, at the six month marker? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 7643
Location: Victoria, Canada
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 20, 2006 6:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
| sofyst wrote: | Oh ok...I was assuming that self-awareness happened while within the womb.
So your opinion is that even though it is not a human being (as it is not yet self-aware), it should be protected by law.
|
Yeah, makes me sound a lot like a pro-lifer, doesn't it?
| sofyst wrote: |
May I ask why the protection should occur at birth? Why this time and not, let us say, at the six month marker? |
I think that this is the most reasonable way of doing it. If you gave legal protection at the six month marker, then people would be killing babies that are already living and breathing outside of the mother's body without any help. The baby also has feelings, and killing things that have feelings is universally considered to be evil by pretty much every culture. Plus at that point it would be a lot easier to give the baby up for adoption than to kill it.
_________________
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction."
-Blaise Pascal
"...with or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil -that takes religion..."
-Steven Weinberg
"I would bless my children with your destruction instead."
-Someone who shall remain anonymous. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sofyst
Tiger
Joined: 11 Dec 2006
Posts: 830
Location: Tejas
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 20, 2006 6:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
No, I'm sorry, I meant six months from conception. I am not sure as to when the different trimesters start, so I just thought I'd go with a random month.
Why do you say legal protection at birth, and not legal protection at sixmonths from conception.
Also, doesn't the fetus have feelings too? I seem to recall reading somewhere that the fetus will recoil in pain if poked. Again, I apologize for mentioning this without citation, but I am sure you have read such too. The 'feelings' are not imbued only at birth. They are present prior to birth. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RevJP
Moderator
Joined: 18 Apr 2003
Posts: 6905
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 20, 2006 6:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
Feelings? are we talking about the senses? the ability to feel pain, or the emotion, the ability to feel sadness or fright, or joy, etc.?
I would offer that P234 was referring to emotion and not senses.
_________________
JP's Mind - my blog
Psa 118:8 It is better to trust and take refuge in the Lord than to put confidence in man. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 7643
Location: Victoria, Canada
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 20, 2006 9:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
| sofyst wrote: |
Why do you say legal protection at birth, and not legal protection at sixmonths from conception.
|
The reason why I draw the line where I do and not at some other point is because I have looked at the issue and I have tried to factor in all of the variables including:
-When a fetus can feel pain / emotions / suffering. ie. humanity.
-The importance of women being able to control their bodies and what happens with their lives.
-The fact that most abortions happen in the first trimester and women can easily get pregnant again if they want.
-What is best for society and the world.
So why don't I draw the line at six months? Firstly, I doubt that a fetus can feel physical pain or emotional pain at six months. The nervous system is still totally underdeveloped. Secondly, it is very important that a woman be able to terminate her pregnancy at six months, if she desires.
For example, let's say her boyfriend gets her pregnant and they plan on having the child. But the guy is a *Poke with a Needle*, abandons her, and runs off with another woman. The pregnant woman knows that she doesn't have enough money to raise a child, and for her, abandoning the baby to adoption is just unthinkable. So she looks at her own situation and decides that it will be easier to live with the guilt of aborting a half-developed fetus than to live with the guilt of bringing it to term and then abandoning it. That is a decision that only she can make, and it is very important that she has that right.
| sofyst wrote: |
Also, doesn't the fetus have feelings too? I seem to recall reading somewhere that the fetus will recoil in pain if poked. Again, I apologize for mentioning this without citation, but I am sure you have read such too. The 'feelings' are not imbued only at birth. They are present prior to birth. |
At some point the fetus' nervous system becomes sufficiently well-developed so that it can feel pain, both in a physical and an emotional sense. But this point is later on in the pregnancy rather than earlier on. The majority of abortions don't cause any suffering for fetuses.
_________________
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction."
-Blaise Pascal
"...with or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil -that takes religion..."
-Steven Weinberg
"I would bless my children with your destruction instead."
-Someone who shall remain anonymous. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 7643
Location: Victoria, Canada
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 20, 2006 9:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
| RevJP wrote: | Feelings? are we talking about the senses? the ability to feel pain, or the emotion, the ability to feel sadness or fright, or joy, etc.?
I would offer that P234 was referring to emotion and not senses. |
I'm referring to both, but really the emotional part is more important. Physical pain triggers emotional pain, after all. Physical pain is nothing without the emotional aspect.
For example, if you pinch someone who has been fully-anesthetized, then their pain receptors are still firing, but it simply isn't causing the emotion of pain in the head.
_________________
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction."
-Blaise Pascal
"...with or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil -that takes religion..."
-Steven Weinberg
"I would bless my children with your destruction instead."
-Someone who shall remain anonymous. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RevJP
Moderator
Joined: 18 Apr 2003
Posts: 6905
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 20, 2006 9:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
| P123 wrote: | | Physical pain triggers emotional pain, after all. Physical pain is nothing without the emotional aspect. |
Incorrect. Physical pain CAN trigger emotional pain, but often does not - the two are mutually exclusive.
_________________
JP's Mind - my blog
Psa 118:8 It is better to trust and take refuge in the Lord than to put confidence in man. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RevJP
Moderator
Joined: 18 Apr 2003
Posts: 6905
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 20, 2006 9:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
| P123 wrote: | | if you pinch someone who has been fully-anesthetized, then their pain receptors are still firing, but it simply isn't causing the emotion of pain in the head. |
'the emotion of pain' ? This makes no sense medically.
_________________
JP's Mind - my blog
Psa 118:8 It is better to trust and take refuge in the Lord than to put confidence in man. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
FAQ 
Search 
Make a Donation 
Usergroups 
Contact
Register
Submit Articles 
Log in to check your private messages 
