F
FallingPianos
what does it mean to be a human being?
at what point (if any) during development does a fetus become a human being?
at what point (if any) during development does a fetus become a human being?
Well, either way, a single cell (or group of cells) doesn't have any type of brain.talloulou said:As far as when the brain is sufficiently developed.....I don't even know what that means. That's very vague. If you are born with brain damage is your brain ever sufficiently developed? At what gestational age are we deciding the brain is sufficiently developed?
afr0byte said:Well, either way, a single cell (or group of cells) doesn't have any type of brain.
I would agree.Korimyr the Rat said:Just like the pro-lifers tell you, it's a living human being from the point of conception, because it couldn't possibly be anything else.
I think people that argue to the contrary are confused; they're really trying to argue about whether or not a given human being is a person or not, but they allow the pro-lifers to frame the entire debate in their favor.
Personally, I think a living human being becomes a person when the doctor and the parents sign the birth certificate.
:rofl So if I deliver my baby in some backwoods mountain forest or swamp and I don't register my child and never sign a birth certificate then my child is not recognized by the law as a person?Korimyr the Rat said:Just like the pro-lifers tell you, it's a living human being from the point of conception, because it couldn't possibly be anything else.
I think people that argue to the contrary are confused; they're really trying to argue about whether or not a given human being is a person or not, but they allow the pro-lifers to frame the entire debate in their favor.
Personally, I think a living human being becomes a person when the doctor and the parents sign the birth certificate.
Of course. Isn't that called "capital punishment"?Judge said:When you debate when a unborn human becomes a person ... realize that you must decide when a person will stop being a person and can be killed without punishment because no-one wants him.
Well, it's definitely not a piece of hair, because the hair on our head is in fact not living.talloulou said:Personhood in regards to law is different from a living human being. Furthermore the law has always and continues to give various persons different rights at various ages and the law will also take away rights by legally declaring a person incompitent or by administering the death penalty.
To argue an unborn is not a living human being is inane. It's ignorant at best and total bullshit at worst.
What prochoicers should argue is that yes it's a human being but one who has no rights at all. That's a much harder statement to debate. And theres tons of legal precedent to back it up. A 4 yo does not have the same legal rights as a 16 yo, 18, yo, 21 yo and so on. The unborn human being has no rights unless it is wanted. If it is wanted it can be treated like a person in respect that a surgeon will perform life saving in utero operations! In some states you may be charged criminally for the murder of a pregnant women on two counts, hers and her unborn babiy.But even in those cases it is the rights and desires of the parents that are being shown respect. If it is unwanted it can be killed. But either way it's human and its not a flake of skin, parasite, or piece of hair.
Obviously, there needs to be some conditions by which we simply assume "implied personhood". It's not the legal document that makes the difference to me-- it's what the legal document stands for, the child's declared membership in society.talloulou said:So if I deliver my baby in some backwoods mountain forest or swamp and I don't register my child and never sign a birth certificate then my child is not recognized by the law as a person?
I think you'd spend the rest of your life in a hospital for the criminally insane. Which is precisely where you'd belong for doing such a thing.talloulou said:... you think I'd get away with it.
I think that's why so many are afraid to do so. People would rather take a moral position that "feels good" than one that makes sense.talloulou said:What prochoicers should argue is that yes it's a human being but one who has no rights at all. That's a much harder statement to debate.
Life-saving operations are performed for other living beings with no rights. Veterinary surgeons will perform surgeries for housepets or even for livestock, if the owner prefers it over much cheaper euthanization.talloulou said:If it is wanted it can be treated like a person in respect that a surgeon will perform life saving in utero operations!
Yipeeee Korimyr! We agreed on something in the ABORTION forum.....and people say theres no hope for peace in the middle east!Korimyr the Rat said:I think you'd spend the rest of your life in a hospital for the criminally insane. Which is precisely where you'd belong for doing such a thing.
Wow, dude - good job at sounding like you don't know what you're talking about.talloulou said::rofl So if I deliver my baby in some backwoods mountain forest or swamp and I don't register my child and never sign a birth certificate then my child is not recognized by the law as a person?
I'm sure if I slaughtered my five year old and proclaimed....hey I never registered the kid, the law didn't legally know about the kid till now, and therefore get off my land and quit with those accusations of murder.....you think I'd get away with it:rofl :rofl
vergiss said:Wow, dude - good job at sounding like you don't know what you're talking about.![]()
Nice job of twisting what was said, too.talloulou said:Why 'cause I suggested that perhaps a birth certificate wasn't the best way to decide when someone becomes a human being?
Parasitic twins are a variation on conjoined twins—except one of the twins stopped developing during gestation and is now vestigial to a healthy, otherwise mostly fully-formed individual twin. They are defined as parasitic, rather than conjoined, by being incompletely formed or wholly dependent on the body functions of the complete fetus...
...Fetus in fetu describes an extremely rare abnormality that involves a fetus getting trapped inside of its twin. It continues to survive as a parasite even past birth by forming an umbilical cord-like structure that leeches its twin's blood supply until it grows so large that it starts to harm the host, at which point doctors usually intervene....
...An acardiac twin, also called the TRAP sequence, is a parasitic twin that fails to develop a head, arms and a heart. The resulting torso survives by leeching blood flow from the surviving normal twin by means of an umbilical cord-like structure, much like a fetus in fetu, except the acardiac twin is not enveloped inside the normal twin's body...
I hope that's not your attempt at proving that all unborn fetuses are parasites. Anyway that's an abnormality where one twin leeches from the other causing great harm. The one twin didn't create or produce the other twin. Sometimes one twin completely absorbs another leaving nothing! It certainly does not prove STEENS claim that all unborn babies are parasites or parasitic.star2589 said:
it certainly is not.talloulou said:I hope that's not your attempt at proving that all unborn fetuses are parasites.
very true.talloulou said:Anyway that's an abnormality where one twin leeches from the other causing great harm. The one twin didn't create or produce the other twin. Sometimes one twin completely absorbs another leaving nothing! It certainly does not prove STEENS claim that all unborn babies are parasites or parasitic.
Well I would think that of course both twins are human beings. Obviously something went horribly wrong but that doesn't make them less human. Just like if a women delivers a stillborn or has a spontaneous abortion.....there was a developing human being but it died. Usually the parasitic twin is completely absorbed and no one knows it ever existed. Ever seen those weird pictures where a tumor was removed and the tumor has teeth and hair and stuff? But I don't think we exclude deformities, even massive ones, from the definition of human being. Most parasitic twins don't survive and sometimes one has to be purposely killed to save the other as is the case sometimes with conjoined twins. But just cause it horrifies our sensabilities does not mean it's not a human being.star2589 said:it certainly is not.
very true.
I do think though, that cases like these make it necessary to form a more precise definition of a human being. a parasitic twins were at one point a zygote, and they are "alive" in the sense that they are not dead. under the definition of a human being used by most of the pro-lifers on this forum and myself, a parasitic twin would be a human being.