When Does Life Begin?

Cicerone imposter, what makes something a human being? What seperates you and I from other things to give us the specific distinction of "human"? What do you think is the essence of humanity? What do the rest of you think it is?

0 Replies

Run 4 fun,
Look into the Turing Test, but before you leap in responsenope, I do not consider the Turing Test to be delineated by computers per se.

Computing Machinery And Intelligence

0 Replies

The essense of humanity is that we were born alive, and survived for the many years after birth. We are identified as "human beings" based on the defintion of primates. That "is" the distinction; no more, no less.

0 Replies

So by that definition the following things can be concluded: 1) a baby who has not lived many years after birth is not a human and therefore it is not murder to kill him/her. 2) An ape which has lived many years is a human being and it is therefore murder to kill it. 3)If it can be traced down to primates then it can be continually traced that our humanity is merely what sets us apart from other animals on the evolutionary scale, no more, no less; therefore, either killing any living creature is murder, or there is no murder, because we're just animals.

You know there was a concept of humanity before anyone had an inkling of a theory the we are highly developed apes. It seems that definition is inadequate. Chumly, you have confused me a good deal from the topic. Smile

Please explain the Turing connection to abortion.

I will be happy to continue this tomorrow chums, but I must go.

0 Replies

Run, You do the same thing most religious fanatics do; project things we have never said or implied. What you people have are good imaginations without any common sense.

You said: "...the following things can be concluded: 1) a baby who has not lived many years after birth is not a human and therefore it is not murder to kill him/her."

You people are sick in the head.

0 Replies

Run 4 fun wrote:

Chumly, you have confused me a good deal from the topic. Please explain the Turing connection to abortion.

The appearance of sentience is a hallmark of humanity, is that a difficult concept for you?

0 Replies

Run 4 fun,

Which is more valuable to you, a three-day-old foetus or a five-year-old child?

Not equal value surely?

0 Replies

Chumly wrote:

Run 4 fun wrote:
Chumly, you have confused me a good deal from the topic. Please explain the Turing connection to abortion.
The appearance of sentience is a hallmark of humanity, is that a difficult concept for you?

So , when EXACTLY does this occur?

If we are to base our definition of humanness, and therefore the legal right to live (or lack thereof) on sentience, you must be able with precision to pinpoint when this does and does not happen.

ALL sentient human beings MUST BE guaranteed the right to life by law and NO sentient human beings should be exterminated. Do you agree?

0 Replies

Hello Run 4 fun, welcome to A2K.

The issue of abortion as it has been dicussed in this thread has been linked to stem cell cultivation.

Do you see that to be "Murder?"

Murder is a legal term. It exists in no medical terminology. A choice is always being made on the issue of abortion, am I to believe that you think the government should have custody of these choices over the other/couple? Further, if you do can you site a reason in support of that stance? Is it only because you think the government would choose as you do?

What aout the thousands of children without homes that are already alive? I would love to promote adoption, but saying it is the obvious alternative is to make promises it can't keep.

Why can't the issue of abortion be one that is personal and private between mother/couple and doctor?

What's wrong with being Pro-Choice? Doesn't that still allow you to choose to keep a child? How does a legal system that simply allows others to decide effect you? Where/when does it become your perogative?

Are "abortionists" kicking in peoples doors, holding them down and taking the unborn from mothers who want to keep their child?

Why does the forum of law become the nessisary place for debate?

Abortion can be done for the right reasons, it can be done for the wrong reasons, but that choice for better or for worse should be the mother/couple's and not the states.

So says the law by coincidence.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

So , when EXACTLY does this occur?

Your question presupposes that there must an exact moment, why do you presuppose there must be an exact moment?

real life wrote:

If we are to base our definition of humanness, and therefore the legal right to live (or lack thereof) on sentience, you must be able with precision to pinpoint when this does and does not happen.

If you want to base your "definition of humanness, and therefore the legal right to live (or lack thereof) on sentience" be my guest, I said no such thing, Mr. Straw-man. Here is what I said

Chumly wrote:

The appearance of sentience is a hallmark of humanity......

real life wrote:

ALL sentient human beings MUST BE guaranteed the right to life by law and NO sentient human beings should be exterminated. Do you agree?

I think the Nuremberg Trial's end results were appropriate.

If you were separated by a wall, and could only communicate with the other side via a keyboard and computer screen, and other side communicated similarly to you, would it be OK to push a button causing the other side to be destroyed? What if your life depended on you pushing said button, would it be OK?

0 Replies

Your punting is getting poorer, Chumly. Perhaps the second string should be called in.

Do you not understand that if law defining who may live and who may not is to be based on when a human being exists and when they do not, then a precise date must be defined by said law?

0 Replies

Cicerone, that is simple logic that by the definition of human being that you gave, I could make those conclusions. That's the logic of finding an inadequate definition.

Eorl, as a matter of fact, they are of the same value to me, but even if they weren't, that would not mean anything in the conclusiveness of this discussion. I'm not infallible.

Diest, thank you. I do feel welcomed Very Happy

. Well, for the past several pages of post the topic focus has been abortion and if you don't mind, I would like to stick with that and not move into stem cells for now.

As for the term of murder, it was a term before our laws today. When the Hebrews were told "Thou shall not murder" they knew what that meant outside of human law. Murder is the killing of innocent human life, which encompasses more than just legal meaning. Even if there was no law, there could still be murder. This definition also carries over into the medical field. If you want couples to decide who they want to kill and when, then try to extend that to other parts of society. If the government does not enforce laws about murder, man slaughter, or criminal negligence, then chaos would ensue. (abortion must be one of these because we don't know that it isn't a life. see my early arguments several pages back.)

Your argument here is that every child should be a wanted child. I agree, but by which method do we accomplish that? By killing whatever child is unwanted, or by learning to love them and want them, not slaughter them.

It becomes my perogative when no one brings justice before those who show no concern for precious human life and the deceivers who tell them that the child is not alive. Many wrong things can be done for the right reasons, but they're still wrong.

0 Replies

run4fun wrote:

Your answer implies several assumptions: First, that life has no real value unless we say it does.

That's excactly it. Value is not something absolute and trancendental. We assign it, just as we assign meaning wherever we see fit. If we agree that something has no value, then it doesn't.

0 Replies

Run wrote: Your argument here is that every child should be a wanted child. I agree, but by which method do we accomplish that? By killing whatever child is unwanted, or by learning to love them and want them, not slaughter

Run, Your conclusion to "kill whatever child is unwanted" was never suggested or implied. It came from your own brain. Show us where anyone has made this statement, before you go on to imply we would "kill unwanted children?" Your imagination goes way beyond our statements; you've gone overboard. IT IS NOT OUR ARGUMENT; IT'S YOURS. Where do you people come from?

0 Replies

Run 4 fun wrote:

Diest, thank you. I do feel welcomed . Well, for the past several pages of post the topic focus has been abortion and if you don't mind, I would like to stick with that and not move into stem cells for now.

Quote:

As for the term of murder, it was a term before our laws today. When the Hebrews were told "Thou shall not murder" they knew what that meant outside of human law. Murder is the killing of innocent human life, which encompasses more than just legal meaning. Even if there was no law, there could still be murder.

This is soccer played with football rules. sure in the laws of your religion this would hold, but not beyond that. If the church could (have the authority to) punish those who murdered by their definition then I'm sure you'd be happy. The problem is that not everyone plays football.

When someone dies there is three scenarios: Natural death, Accidental death, and Malicious Death. The only separation between these acts is intent.

In natural death, intent is neutral, someone growing old or dying of disease is death from no direction; it is single in it's party.

In accidental death, such as a car accident, the intent is NOT malicious and the reason for death is often negligence etc.

In malicious death, a life is ended with spite, we call it murder.

Abortion is not murder. I can't speak for every person who has had an abortion, but I'd be very comfortable in saying that tha majority didn't have malicious intent towards the unborn.

Quote:

This definition also carries over into the medical field. If you want couples to decide who they want to kill and when, then try to extend that to other parts of society.

No, and no. The later of your arguement would result in the breakdown of society and collapse of any functional culture. Abortion does NOT effect the functionality of a society.

Quote:

If the government does not enforce laws about murder, man slaughter, or criminal negligence, then chaos would ensue. (abortion must be one of these because we don't know that it isn't a life. see my early arguments several pages back.)

you are correct about government enforcing laws, however being that those things are already are being enforced and abortion is legal, doesn't it then hold by your own logic that Abortion has NO effect on societal functin? How does abortion lead to chaos?

Quote:

Your argument here is that every child should be a wanted child. I agree, but by which method do we accomplish that? By killing whatever child is unwanted, or by learning to love them and want them, not slaughter them.

By what method: Enable our culture.
How: instead of putting resources into making abortion illeagal, put resources into making adoption and after school programs. Support legislation to raise the minimum wage.

The way to have fewer abortion is NOT by eliminating the choice to have one, but to enable people to CHOOSE to keep their unborn.

Quote:

It becomes my perogative when no one brings justice before those who show no concern for precious human life and the deceivers who tell them that the child is not alive. Many wrong things can be done for the right reasons, but they're still wrong.

You've described your motivation; your personal initiative, but not how it is your perogative.

Again, thank you for input.

0 Replies

Cyracuz, we are not infallible and you are implying universal subjective truth as though that should be self evident to everyone. However, it is not. You are going to have to argue for it.

Cicerone, in my defense, Diest said: "What aout the thousands of children without homes that are already alive? I would love to promote adoption, but saying it is the obvious alternative is to make promises it can't keep." I could be wrong, but it seemed that this was another way of saying the common argument that every child should be a wanted child. If they are not wanted, they should be aborted and not live unwant. However, rather than let them die instead of live unloved, let's learn to love them. It is a far more positive strategy.

Of your three deaths, none seems to encompass your view of abortion. What would you called the pre-meditated killing without malice? I'm just curious what abortion is to you.
Many people are not malicious because they have been told that the embryo is absolutely positively not a human being and that they are doing the right thing. You have no idea how many women who are planning to have an abortion come to our local Pregnancy Support Services, have an ultrasound and say, "It would be murder for me to kill this child and I am carrying this baby to term!" Those are a woman's exact words! Other women have said the same, though not those very words.

Again, because people are told that it is not human. Many consciences have simply been desensitized. That's society's sick double standard toward the unborn.

That was just a reenforcement of this double standard toward the born and unborn, even though we do not know that the unborn are not human.

All of those are wonderful and ought also to be supported, but abortion is at the point of an ignored genocide. The choice to kill a child should be a no-brainer: don't kill a child, but it is not thought of as a child, so intervention may be neccesary. I understand that the life of someone elses baby is not my choice, but it really isn't their's either. They ought not be given the free supported choice to purposefully destroy the life that they brought into existence. It just isn't their call.

I'm sorry that my post was badly worded. I'm here to learn. Laughing

0 Replies

Run, By your logic, total strangers have the decision-making for a complete stranger, pregnant woman whether she should go to full term or abort. CLUE: We don't. It's up to the woman and her doctor. Your assumptions about "killing unwanted babies" goes way beyond what is being stated or implied.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Do you not understand that if law defining who may live and who may not is to be based on when a human being exists and when they do not, then a precise date must be defined by said law?

If you were separated by a wall, and could only communicate with the other side via a keyboard and computer screen, and other side communicated similarly to you, would it be OK to push a button causing the other side to be destroyed? What if your life depended on you pushing said button, would it be OK?

0 Replies

Cicerone, it's not up to me, you, or even them to kill what may very well be human life who has done absolutely nothing deserving death. That isn't up to other humans to decide.

0 Replies

Diest TKO wrote:

When someone dies there is three scenarios: Natural death, Accidental death, and Malicious Death. The only separation between these acts is intent.

In natural death, intent is neutral, someone growing old or dying of disease is death from no direction; it is single in it's party.

In accidental death, such as a car accident, the intent is NOT malicious and the reason for death is often negligence etc.

In malicious death, a life is ended with spite, we call it murder.

You have overlooked the various modes of both mercy killing and warfare killing which are arguably neither natural death, accidental death nor malicious death but have at times to been assessed as murder.

Diest TKO wrote:

.instead of putting resources into making abortion illeagal, put resources into making adoption and after school programs. Support legislation to raise the minimum wage.

The way to have fewer abortion is NOT by eliminating the choice to have one, but to enable people to CHOOSE to keep their unborn.

You may bump into the flaws of the welfare state and excess governmental interventionism as it relates to reproductive funding "benefits" not shared by those more responsible in terms of child birth.

Increased education is a more apt alternative to the knee-jerk short-term welfare state response. Further, raising the minimum wage is apt to simply be inflationary and not have the desired effect, as opposed to enhancing the education level of the individuals in question.

0 Replies

When Does Life Begin?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know