• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

when does a human being become a human being?

when does a human being become so?

  • at conception

    Votes: 21 53.8%
  • when its brain is sufficiently developed

    Votes: 9 23.1%
  • at viability

    Votes: 5 12.8%
  • at birth

    Votes: 4 10.3%

  • Total voters
    39
talloulou said:
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.

there are also cases where someone has 3 legs, for instance. the 3rd leg biologically being part of a twin. the person has control over that leg because their brain is connected to it.
 
Since we are on the topic of twins though it is interesting that scientists in support of stem cell research will argue that any embryo can split up until the 14th day...making twins. Their argument states that therefore until the 14th day an embryo can not be considered an individual since it could actually be more than one individual. Since that is possible, they claim, it is pointless to argue for the individual personhood of an embryo under 14 days old.
 
talloulou said:
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?

I just looked it up. thats actually different. they dont come from a fertilised egg.

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

A teratoma is a type of tumor that derives from pluripotent germ cells. The word comes from a Greek term meaning roughly "monster tumor". Teratomas (more correctly teratomata) usually start from cells in the testes in men, the ovaries in women and in the sacrum in children....

Teratomata often contain well-differentiated cells which can result in tissues growing in a teratoma which are quite different from the surrounding tissue—ovarian teratomata have been known to grow hair and teeth.
 
talloulou said:
Oh I didn't know that......

I am confused about one thing. it talked about "pluripotent germ cells". seems a bit of an oxymoron to me. i'll have to look into it further.
 
star2589 said:
what does it mean to be a human being?

at what point (if any) during development does a fetus become a human being?


I haven't answered the poll just yet..........still pondering to be honest.

But in this same line of questioning, the whole when does *humanity* begin, when does it end?? When do we lack enough humanity for plug pulling to become a consideration?

I understand where the law currently falls on this, but there are other more subtle methods of allowing someone to pass on and these have been practiced for an age.........perhaps forever.

Because each of us will have a different answer to this question, doesn't it make sense we will also each have a different view of when humanness begins? And, in turn, doesn't it mean these decisions have to be personal, with only the broadest of government controls placed upon something so intimate?
 
talloulou said:
A human being is easily defined as a live homo sapien at any stage of development.
Why?

Now you can argue that human beings at the earliest stage of development should not have rights, legally. But to argue that they aren't human beings poses problems.
Nope.

For example if you try to define human being but exlude the unborn you end up excluding newborns, the disabled, the very old, senile, ect.
Why?

You also end up accidently including the great apes and other intelligent animals.
Why?

You are spewing a lot of "just because I say so" postulations, but seem unable to provide any kind of explanation.

That is why for all intents and purposes a human being is a human (homo sapien) that is alive. Not a piece of homo sapien like a hair or flake of skin. But a homosapien from its earliest stages up until death.
Why?
 
talloulou said:
To argue an unborn is not a living human being is inane. It's ignorant at best and total bullshit at worst.
Ah, look. Another lame pro-life "just because I say so" postulation.

What prochoicers should argue is that yes it's a human being but one who has no rights at all.
That also is irrelevant. pro-choice alreayd has an argument, an argument that has stood up to 30+ years of pro-life theocratic assault, that the woman has the right to control her own body.

quote] But either way it's human and its not a flake of skin, parasite, or piece of hair.[/quote]Who says it is a parasite?
 
star2589 said:
I'm sure you'll love these, steen. :2wave:
I already know about them. :2razz: That's the benefit of having gone to school for all this stuff, after all.
 
talloulou said:
It certainly does not prove STEENS claim that all unborn babies are parasites or parasitic.
Hmm, did I ever claim that the embryo or fetus were parasites? But they certainly function in a parasitic fashion.

As for the blabbering about "unborn babies," do we really have to call you the "undead corpse"?
 
steen said:
I already know about them. :2razz: That's the benefit of having gone to school for all this stuff, after all.

I knew about conjoined twins, and that many are not viable, but I had only heard of parasitic twins on an episdode of the simpsons and assumed they were fictional.
 
steen said:
That's the benefit of having gone to school for all this stuff, after all.

what did you study in college? what is your profession now?
 
steen said:
Hmm, did I ever claim that the embryo or fetus were parasites? But they certainly function in a parasitic fashion.

As for the blabbering about "unborn babies," do we really have to call you the "undead corpse"?


We've already had this fight Steen. I've shown non-biased non-prolife references including dictionaries and encyclopedias that include fetus in the definition for baby. Therefore while you don't like me calling them babies I will continue to do so.
 
steen said:
Ah, look. Another lame pro-life "just because I say so" postulation.

You bounce all around this issue. Why don't you answer it once and for all.

Do you recognize that a fetus is a living homo sapien thus human being in an early stages of development?

Do you recognize that not one medical dr. or scientist refutes this claim?
 
talloulou said:
You bounce all around this issue. Why don't you answer it once and for all.

Do you recognize that a fetus is a living homo sapien
Stick an "s" on sapien and I agree.

thus human being
Nope. The analogy is false.

Do you recognize that not one medical dr. or scientist refutes this claim?
I do, so your claim is false.
 
star2589 said:
ok, but what is your educational background in biology?

There's no way in hell I'm gonna believe this guy has a background in biology!
 
star2589 said:
ok, but what is your educational background in biology?
Biology minor. MS in Environmental resource management, medical school and residency.
 
talloulou said:
There's no way in hell I'm gonna believe this guy has a background in biology!
Now, now. Just because I keep proving how insanely wrong you are all the time? Sour grapes, eh!
 
nineplus said:
But in this same line of questioning, the whole when does *humanity* begin, when does it end?? When do we lack enough humanity for plug pulling to become a consideration?

Like all moral questions, I try to see this in terms of obligation-- what do we owe, and to whom?

Our obligation to provide life support is based in our obligation to take care of family members, or in the State's obligation to take care of citizens. I would argue that this is an obligation to help them improve, and so expires whenever the person in question is no longer capable of improvement.

I don't mean "medical improvement", but the ability to learn and to reason.

nineplus said:
Because each of us will have a different answer to this question, doesn't it make sense we will also each have a different view of when humanness begins?

Of course. This is, however, not a desireable state of affairs; society should seek moral consensus so that we can handle these cases in a consistent fashion.

nineplus said:
And, in turn, doesn't it mean these decisions have to be personal, with only the broadest of government controls placed upon something so intimate?

Absolutely not. All morality is personal, including the morality of our respect for others' lives-- and the vast majority of murders are intimate affairs.

We need to find a way to come to agreement on moral issues; in the meantime, the law should merely remain flexible enough to accomodate the moral opinions of the vast majority of society.
 
"Other animals have advantages over us--in speed, strength, endurance, climbing or burrowing skills, camouflage, sight or smell or hearing, mastery of the air or water. Our one great advantage, the secret of our success, is thought--characteristically human thought. We are able to think things through, imagine events yet to occur, figure things out. That's how we invented agriculture and civilization. Thought is our blessing and our curse, and it makes us who we are.

Thinking occurs, of course, in the brain--principally in the top layers of the convoluted "gray matter" called the cerebral cortex. The roughly 100 billion neurons in the brain constitute the material basis of thought. The neurons are connected to each other, and their linkups play a major role in what we experience as thinking. But large-scale linking up of neurons doesn't begin until the 24th to 27th week of pregnancy--the sixth month.

By placing harmless electrodes on a subject's head, scientists can measure the electrical activity produced by the network of neurons inside the skull. Different kinds of mental activity show different kinds of brain waves. But brain waves with regular patterns typical of adult human brains do not appear in the fetus until about the 30th week of pregnancy--near the beginning of the third trimester. Fetuses younger than this--however alive and active they may be--lack the necessary brain architecture. They cannot yet think.

Acquiescing in the killing of any living creature, especially one that might later become a baby, is troublesome and painful. But we've rejected the extremes of "always" and "never," and this puts us--like it or not--on the slippery slope. If we are forced to choose a developmental criterion, then this is where we draw the line: when the beginning of characteristically human thinking becomes barely possible.

It is, in fact, a very conservative definition: Regular brain waves are rarely found in fetuses. More research would help… If we wanted to make the criterion still more stringent, to allow for occasional precocious fetal brain development, we might draw the line at six months. This, it so happens, is where the Supreme Court drew it in 1973--although for completely different reasons. "


......Just Sayin.....
 
Korimyr the Rat said:
We need to find a way to come to agreement on moral issues; in the meantime, the law should merely remain flexible enough to accomodate the moral opinions of the vast majority of society.


I'm not sure agreement is possible..............even in pondering your words (which I will continue to do) I'm struck with a wonder of how living in a society where everyone saw everything from the same perspective and/or agreed on these types of very personal concepts would be. Do I even want to live in such a world? While it sounds simpler, it lacks the beauty of individual sight.

But in keeping with the last part of your quote, how does a society legally remain flexibility where moral opinions are so clearly split into two inflexible camps? Each camp can firmly stand on a moral high ground..........and likewise each camp is perfectly willing to prefer the rights of one *individual* over another. How does the law remain "flexible" in such a case?

I really believe these are personal perspective questions. I've known individuals or families who have kept loved ones alive for long periods on machines. They couldn't imagine "killing" them by pulling a plug or refusing forced feedings. Other families assist their fully conscious, but suffering, loved ones in bringing their pain to an end. Obviously both sides suffer loss, but one group of thought can't bear to help that loss along and the other can't bear to have it dragged out. Both sides are HIGHLY emotional, personal, gut wrenching...........no one is taking this choice lightly, but what should be done seems obvious, as if coming from deep inside. This isn't a societal thing. It's something at a much deeper, much more personal level.

Abortion is handled the same way by most of us in that we *know* deep inside if it's a right or wrong thing to do. We may hold political beliefs to the contrary of our inner knowledge, but most of us really do *know* where our gut stands on this issue. I don't think it's the place of a government or a society to strive for all of our guts to match kwim?
 
nineplus said:
I'm not sure agreement is possible...

It's not-- at least not to the level that you're thinking about. However, it is necessary to have some agreement, and it is always desirable to seek more.

nineplus said:
Do I even want to live in such a world? While it sounds simpler, it lacks the beauty of individual sight.

Honestly, I could not imagine living in such a world either. Luckily, it's not a possible world.

This world, for all of its flaws, its conflicts, and its sheer stupid arbitrariness... suits me. I would rather live in a world with something worth fighting against than a world in which I would serve no purpose.

Besides, it is not perfection itself which is desirable, but the struggle towards it.

nineplus said:
But in keeping with the last part of your quote, how does a society legally remain flexibility where moral opinions are so clearly split into two inflexible camps?

Honestly, if you look at "normal" people, and even some of the political types on this forum, you can tell that mainstream moral opinions aren't nearly as divided or as inflexible as the pro-life and pro-choice camps would have you believe.

Most people want legal abortion, but they don't like mid-term abortions, they don't like casual abortions, and they don't like multiple abortions. People who believe that abortion is murder and people like me-- who support euthanasia and abortion-on-demand until the 26th week-- are the exceptions, the radical fringe of the debate.

If you moved the deadline back to the 16th week or the 12th-- with exceptions for trauma and the mother's health-- this issue would die. There would be the fringes, like me and my opponents, but there would be no political leverage for either side to change the law.

Despite my own preferences in this matter, it would be more desirable for the law to fit that compromise than my own position-- unless public opinion shifted significantly in my favor in the near future.

nineplus said:
Each camp can firmly stand on a moral high ground...

Everyone does. Everyone always does. I think the world would be a better place if more people understood this.

To our enemies-- whoever our enemies are-- we are the villains and they are only fighting to defend themselves against our egregious assaults on truth and justice. And, if you pay attention to their arguments, most of the time you realize that they are standing firm on high moral principles.

But if your positions are mutually exclusive, one of you still has to win. You still have to fight for what you believe in.

nineplus said:
I don't think it's the place of a government or a society to strive for all of our guts to match kwim?

You can't have a society or a government in which everyone hates everyone else's guts-- and the only way we can ever appreciate our neighbor's guts is by comparing them to our own.
 
Korimyr the Rat said:
If you moved the deadline back to the 16th week or the 12th-- with exceptions for trauma and the mother's health-- this issue would die. There would be the fringes, like me and my opponents, but there would be no political leverage for either side to change the law.

Despite my own preferences in this matter, it would be more desirable for the law to fit that compromise than my own position-- unless public opinion shifted significantly in my favor in the near future.



I would love to believe you're right.........truly, honestly, I desperately want you to be right, but quite frankly, I believe you are viewing the entire battle from a far too *sensible* viewpoint...........I'll compromise here, you'll compromise there, walla, problem solved. I wish, wish, WISH I could see things through your eyes, but I know too many anti-abortion supporters to believe for one moment they intend to compromise. While I'd be the first to admit the largest portion of our society would embrace such laws, it's the quiet majority of which we speak............the loud minority are organized and have no intention of compromise. And they manage to shame the quiet majority into inaction often enough to be a real threat.

My personal views are that everyone hates abortion.........not necessarily for the same reasons right-wingers hate it, but for some reason or another. I don't feel any laws, beyond the obvious checks/balances our litigatious society causes within the medical world, are necessary. Women don't wake up at 8mo pregnant and decide on a whim to have an abortion. Even if they did, good luck finding a doctor who'd agree to do it. Society pressures, human *ick* constraints and so on are enough to control late term abortion imho.........these same factors would likewise control most mid-term abortions as well, minus certain special circumstances. Most abortions are going to take place before the 16th week for a great many practical, personal, financial and social reasons. Like other elective procedures, I believe it would control itself within the current confines of how our medical system is run. Sure, you're always going to hear the oddball story or two, but you occasionally hear these things surrounding other elective procedures as well. The vast majority of behavior would be tempered, imho, by all the normal boundaries of any elective mecial behavior.

But, perhaps, it is now my turn to be the one viewing something too *sensibly* :)
 
Back
Top Bottom