When Does Life Begin?

real life wrote:

hingehead wrote:
So what's a human being? Clarify exactly what you are asking.

Give us your definition of 'Human Being'.

Eorl previously cited a 'definition' from wikipedia, and concluded from it that since human beings were therein described as building fire, producing music and literature that it was OBVIOUS that a newborn did not qualify.

Exactly so. Proving that a definition of what DOES constitute "a living human being" is worthless. Sematic games.

The question was.... give us YOUR definition, real life !!!!

0 Replies

Eorl wrote:

real life wrote:
hingehead wrote:
So what's a human being? Clarify exactly what you are asking.

Give us your definition of 'Human Being'.

Eorl previously cited a 'definition' from wikipedia, and concluded from it that since human beings were therein described as building fire, producing music and literature that it was OBVIOUS that a newborn did not qualify.

Exactly so. Proving that a definition of what DOES constitute "a living human being" is worthless. Sematic games.

The question was.... give us YOUR definition, real life !!!!

I agree your definition of a 'human being' was useless, since you could not even include newborns.

(More than anything, I think it was your dishonest handling of the wikipedia article that was indefensible.

Requiring as proof of humanness skills such as firebuilding , production of music and literature .....?

You clearly twisted the article beyond it's intent.

If an ADULT had never built a fire, is he not a human being?)

My definition would certainly include newborns as humans.

0 Replies

Yes, of course it would. Your definition would be pre-configured to support your argument. That's the way you assess everything....by deciding on the outcome you want beforehand.

Well then, let's hear it........?
What's your independant definition of "Human being"?

Wiki's definition is too large to post, so here is the link for those who seriously think I've somehow skewed it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_being

Or perhaps you prefer Brittanica:
http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9041467/human-being

Quote:

a culture-bearing primate that is anatomically similar and related to the other great apes but is distinguished by a more highly developed brain and a resultant capacity for articulate speech and abstract reasoning. In addition, human beings display a marked erectness of body carriage that frees the hands for use as manipulative members.

0 Replies

Eorl wrote:

Yes, of course it would. Your definition would be pre-configured to support your argument. That's the way you assess everything....by deciding on the outcome you want beforehand.

Well then, let's hear it........?
What's your independant definition of "Human being"?

Wiki's definition is too large to post, so here is the link for those who seriously think I've somehow skewed it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_being

Or perhaps you prefer Brittanica:
http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9041467/human-being

Quote:
a culture-bearing primate that is anatomically similar and related to the other great apes but is distinguished by a more highly developed brain and a resultant capacity for articulate speech and abstract reasoning. In addition, human beings display a marked erectness of body carriage that frees the hands for use as manipulative members.

So are you going to argue that to qualify as a human being, one must be able to use articulate speech and abstract reasoning; and be able to walk upright?

0 Replies

No encyclopedia is going to include a fetus/unborn child in a definition of "human being", I suspect for much the same reason that the DSM makes an exception for religious believers in its definition of "delusion". The cultural debate is still too evenly divided.

0 Replies

real life wrote;

Quote:

So are you going to argue that to qualify as a human being, one must be able to use articulate speech and abstract reasoning; and be able to walk upright?

Nope. Like I keep tellin' ya. The words don't matter. So I don't need to prove to you that a "foetus" is not a "human being" besides the ease with which I can do so.

You can call a foetus a human being if you wish. It changes nothing, other than how you can twist other words like "baby" and "murder" to suit your purpose.

The only reason you want to call a zygote an "innocent human baby", is so that you can pretend to be the defender of "innocent human babies " from "murderers". "Forcing the complete development of zygotes inside a girls/women who don't wish to continue their pregnancy" doesn't quite have the same virtuous ring to it.

You need the propaganda. I don't.

Life does not begin. It continues.

0 Replies

You can't even state without equivocation that a newborn is a human being.

Why should anyone take seriously your opinion of who is and isn't human?

0 Replies

They shouldn't.

It matters not.

Just don't get it, do ya?

0 Replies

Eorl wrote:

They shouldn't.

You're right. Absolutely.

Eorl wrote:

It matters not.

You're wrong. It matters when someone dies.

Eorl wrote:

Just don't get it, do ya?

Sounds like you're out of ideas, Eorl. Perhaps you should open your mind and consider the other side.

The pro-abortion argument is headed for the dust heap of history.

Medical knowledge is making it impossible to deny that the unborn is a living human being and the law will follow, as it must, to protect the rights of the unborn.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,20668094-29277,00.html

Coming to a town near you.

The unborn cannot be arbitrarily treated as a human if the mother wants him and as a blob of tissue if she doesn't.

0 Replies

Full marks for geography real life.

I hope they lock him up and throw away the key. Maybe I'll be on the jury.

See. It's about the facts of the individual situation. It's not black and white.

0 Replies

Eorl
You say:
Nope. Like I keep tellin' ya. The words don't matter. So I don't need to prove to you that a "foetus" is not a "human being" besides the ease with which I can do so.
I'd like to hear you prove so. I've yet to hear a convincing argument that will change my mind that it isn't. And while you're at it please introduce to me one person who was not at one time a foetus because if a foetus is not a human being then how could it be that any person ever was one? Selecting a stage in a person's growth and saying that this is the point at which the law will declare ending human life a crime is one thing, but, to get back to the topic of this thread, all the stages of growth in a human life do have a beginning- conception.

0 Replies

Eorl
You said,
The only reason you want to call a zygote an "innocent human baby", is so that you can pretend to be the defender of "innocent human babies " from "murderers". "Forcing the complete development of zygotes inside a girls/women who don't wish to continue their pregnancy" doesn't quite have the same virtuous ring to it.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is something I wrote and posted to another thread.
Syndicated columnist Ellen Goodman is always claiming to be the moral superior by painting anti-abortionists as evil people who would force women to go through with their preganancies when they did not want to.

In one of her latest articles she writes:
With superb irony (Gov. Mike) Rounds promised tender care for the women he would force to continue their pregnancies....South Dakota's law would make felons out of doctors who perform nearly any abortion. The government would replace women as moral decision-makers. And it would trump doctors as medical decision-makers.

According to her Gov. Mike Rounds would FORCE women to continue their pregnancies. Take away abortion and you are in effect forcing women to remain pregnant....DUH. Even if the antiabortion measures proposed by Gov. Rounds were not taken these woman are still going to be pregnant and whose choice was that? Mike Rounds?
Talking purely about choice and not rape or incest or all those other issues that cloud the abortion debate, does that choice begin only after a woman is pregnant? A new life begins at conception. Once fertilization takes place a new life begins to grow and it just keeps on growing (unless you do something to kill it). There is no FORCING a woman to continue being preganant...she just is.
Ellen Goodman says women should have a choice. So what happened to those women with unwanted pregnancies who were being moral decision-makers. It's not Round's fault or the government's fault that these woman are pregnant as Ms. Goodman would have us believe.
My question to Ellen Goodman is at what point does the woman become responsible for her choices... or doesn't she. Anti-abortionists may seem as though they're taking a hard line, but shouldn't choice making begin before a pregnancy. Churches for years have been trying to get people to make wise choices in that respect.

0 Replies

"Fault" has no place in this discussion. Each pregnancy has many reasons that possibly cannot be identified and resolved by generalities.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

"Fault" has no place in this discussion. Each pregnancy has many reasons that possibly cannot be identified and resolved by generalities.

Just wondering... Confused

Does "fault" have place in any discussion?

What word could replace pregnancy that could "be identified and resolved by generalities"?

0 Replies

Quoted from the above post: It's not Round's fault or the government's fault that these woman are pregnant as Ms. Goodman would have us believe.

My response:
"Fault" has no place in this discussion. Each pregnancy has many reasons that possibly cannot be identified and resolved by generalities.

Even the idea that there is "fault" on the part of the woman is misguided at best.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

Quoted from the above post: It's not Round's fault or the government's fault that these woman are pregnant as Ms. Goodman would have us believe.

My response:
"Fault" has no place in this discussion. Each pregnancy has many reasons that possibly cannot be identified and resolved by generalities.

Even the idea that there is "fault" on the part of the woman is misguided at best.

I agree that each pregnancy has many reasons... - however I am unclear as to your definition of "fault". I conclude that "fault" could be included as one of the reasons in the example - however that would be based on my def. of "fault". In other words - if a woman goes to a bar, picks up a man, willingly and knowingly has unprotected sex, and ends up pregnant - I would conclude that she has (at least) partial "fault" in her predicament. However your description seems to claim otherwise. Therefore - I am trying to understand more clearly what your are saying.

0 Replies

baddog, You give a good example of one "fault," but that doesn't apply to all pregnancies. That's the reason anecdotal "fault" cannot be applied in a reasonable way to resolve the issue of all pregnancies.

0 Replies

To me, "fault" implies "guilt". It suggests that something was done that should not have been done. So, if the view is that the pregnancy is unwanted, then I think "fault" is a good word to use.
Pro-life supporters should not use the word in this sense; our hope is that every pregnancy is wanted.

0 Replies

Fault does not imply guilt. There can be subjective opinions of the same
pregnancy based on how it came about; some are even considered "an accident."

0 Replies

Fault does not imply guilt. There can be subjective opinions of the same
pregnancy based on how it came about; some are even considered "an accident." Both are "guilty?"

0 Replies

When Does Life Begin?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know