• 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
doughgirl said:
Interesting....before Roe v Wade


An important scientific gathering was convened in October 1967 in Washington D.C. to decide this question. Medical professionals, biological scientists and authorities in the fields of law, ethics and the social sciences gathered together to settle the matter. This was the First International Conference on Abortion. The first major question considered was this: "When does human life begin?" When does an unborn child become a human being? At conception when the two cells unite, at birth forty weeks later, or at some point between the two?

Here was the decision of this group (composed of biochemists, professors of obstetrics and gynecology, geneticists, etc.):




Here is some of the information that these scientists used in arriving at their decision:



Here is a statement from the Journal of the California State Medical Association:
Click to expand...

Wow, great, fine and dandy. These don't answer the most important question of why a woman should be forced to let something take nutrients from her body.
 
jimmyjack said:
Exodus 21:22
Click to expand...

Ok, yeah, I saw that in your post. It's a totally different situation. The man accidentally strikes the pregnant woman who presumably wanted to keep the pregnancy. So, yeah, the woman isn't given a choice, so that's a bad thing.
 
afr0byte said:
Ok, yeah, I saw that in your post. It's a totally different situation. The man accidentally strikes the pregnant woman who presumably wanted to keep the pregnancy. So, yeah, the woman isn't given a choice, so that's a bad thing.
Click to expand...

Now that we have established your poor comprehension do you think you could answer this question with some integrity?

Do you believe God would permit or want us to kill our unborn offspring’s?
 
jimmyjack said:
Now that we have established your poor comprehension do you think you could answer this question with some integrity?

Do you believe God would permit or want us to kill our unborn offspring’s?
Click to expand...

Well, clearly I'm not the only one that doesn't think your supplied passage forbids/speaks out against abortion: http://www.libchrist.com/other/abortion/exodus.html

Anyways, I don't believe in God, so I can't really comment on what God would or would not do. If God could make his/her/its presence known to me directly and tell me how he/she/it felt, then maybe I could answer. However, a book is not direct.
 
jimmyjack said:
Now that we have established your poor comprehension do you think you could answer this question with some integrity?

Do you believe God would permit or want us to kill our unborn offspring’s?
Click to expand...

God, as yet, is undefined and thus probably shouldn't have much say one way or the other until God comes down and speaks for him/herself. Otherwise we might as well ask the easter bunny, santa, and leprechauns too.
 
talloulou said:
God, as yet, is undefined and thus probably shouldn't have much say one way or the other until God comes down and speaks for him/herself.
Click to expand...

Hah, talloulou agrees with me on something.
 
afr0byte said:
Well, clearly I'm not the only one that doesn't think your supplied passage forbids/speaks out against abortion: http://www.libchrist.com/other/abortion/exodus.html

Anyways, I don't believe in God, so I can't really comment on what God would or would not do. If God could make his/her/its presence known to me directly and tell me how he/she/it felt, then maybe I could answer. However, a book is not direct.
Click to expand...


Then your anger should be levelled at vergiss who brought God into the debate.
 
talloulou said:
God, as yet, is undefined and thus probably shouldn't have much say one way or the other until God comes down and speaks for him/herself. Otherwise we might as well ask the easter bunny, santa, and leprechauns too.
Click to expand...


Then your anger should be levelled at vergiss who brought God into the debate.

Besides, I think if God stopped people from doing evil, how would that be fair on those who want to side with Satan?

It is only God being perfectly just, when he allows evil to exist since allowing us to choose between good and evil is fair.
 
Last edited:
jimmyjack said:
Then your anger should be levelled at vergiss who brought God into the debate.
Click to expand...

Huh? I didn't say anything about being angry.
 
jimmyjack said:
You just have.
Click to expand...

Well, you can stop being retarded, because my last post was obviously stating that I'm not angry.
 
talloulou said:
hmmm perhaps peace in the middle east is possible!:rofl
Click to expand...
Damn. Just when we are ready to seal your fate, you come up with something reasonable. :censored

Now I'll have to marry you or something.
 
jimmyjack said:
Lack of knowledge of your own religious text and further denial is the mark of defeat.
Click to expand...

Excuse me? I know more than you! :lol: Enough to debate about it myself, and not hide behind links and ridiculous claims of denial. What the f**k am I supposedly denying, anyway?

jimmyjack said:
Exodus 21:22
Click to expand...

I just completely debunked this only a page or so beforehand! :doh

The passage is as follows:

"If men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that she has a miscarriage, yet there is no further injury, he shall surely be fined as the woman’s husband may demand of him, and he shall pay as the judges decide. 23 But if there is any further injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise."

And, as I just said, if God views the foetus as a person, why the paltry fine? Why shouldn't he be put to death, as he would if she were killed?
 
talloulou, I did provide the sources.




"Wow, great, fine and dandy. These don't answer the most important question of why a woman should be forced to let something take nutrients from her body."

She made that decision when she agreed to have sex and got pregnant. The woman is responsible.
So let me ask you this question.
You obviously feel that the woman should not be forced to carry the child. Do you condone abortion even up until the natural time of delivery? Or do you you at some time during the pregnancy say she should be forced to carry the child to term?

Should the woman take any responsibility for her actions regarding the child, whether its before or after birth?
 
doughgirl said:
talloulou, I did provide the sources.




"Wow, great, fine and dandy. These don't answer the most important question of why a woman should be forced to let something take nutrients from her body."

She made that decision when she agreed to have sex and got pregnant. The woman is responsible.
So let me ask you this question.
You obviously feel that the woman should not be forced to carry the child. Do you condone abortion even up until the natural time of delivery? Or do you you at some time during the pregnancy say she should be forced to carry the child to term?

Should the woman take any responsibility for her actions regarding the child, whether its before or after birth?
Click to expand...

Yes, but first of all, just because she was having sex doesn't mean she agrees to let a fertilized egg take nutrients from her. Yes, I'd probably say she has a choice at every stage of the pregnancy. Yes, she should take responsibility for her actions regarding the child, but she does that by either bringing the child to term or having an abortion.
 
vergiss said:
Excuse me? I know more than you! :lol: Enough to debate about it myself, and not hide behind links and ridiculous claims of denial. What the f**k am I supposedly denying, anyway?



I just completely debunked this only a page or so beforehand! :doh

The passage is as follows:

"If men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that she has a miscarriage, yet there is no further injury, he shall surely be fined as the woman’s husband may demand of him, and he shall pay as the judges decide. 23 But if there is any further injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise."

And, as I just said, if God views the foetus as a person, why the paltry fine? Why shouldn't he be put to death, as he would if she were killed?
Click to expand...

I agree this passage suggests that an unborn human is not valued the same as a living person.

There is very little in the Bible about abortion. Some sections even seem to promot the concept, for example, in the case of adultry. Even in the NT, at a time it was not an uncommon practice among the Romans. If you believe that the Bible has anything to do with God, the complete absence of even a vague commandment on this issue would lead to the conclusion that God doesn't appear to have a particularly concern, or at least less concern, about a fetus versus a born child (or at least one who has made it thirty days).
 
The question of when a human being is created is a difficult one. I think many pro-lifers take their position because saying human life begins at conception provides a "bright-line" rule that is easy and clear. But IMO, the fact that the issue is difficult does not justify a rule that uncessarily harms the interest of the woman, and a potential baby to be born wanted.

On the one hand, IMO a microscopic, single celled fertilized egg is not a human being. It has none, or few of the attributes of a human being -- the things that make us different from other things and define us as human beings. It has the potential to be so, and for that reason I think the matter deserves more caution than say, talking about an ant. But IMO, consideration of the woman's -- and the potential baby's -- welfare and happiness outweigh the concern for the single celled organism.

On the other hand, the argument that a fetus is not a human being until birth is arbitrary. Few would think it is OK to kill a birthed baby for any reason, much less convenience. So what is the difference between the born baby and the fetus the day before? Not much. Not enough where you could logically argue that it is OK to destroy one but not the other.

So where along the line between the one celled organism and the born baby do we draw the line? Tough question. To me, to answer the question of when a human being is created, we have to ask: What is a human being? Not an easier question, I agree. IMO, the answer is when the embryo/fetus develops sufficient attributes of a human being.
 
vergiss said:
The passage is as follows:

"If men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that she has a miscarriage, yet there is no further injury, he shall surely be fined as the woman’s husband may demand of him, and he shall pay as the judges decide. 23 But if there is any further injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise."

And, as I just said, if God views the foetus as a person, why the paltry fine? Why shouldn't he be put to death, as he would if she were killed?
Click to expand...

Because as the text says it is an accident, do you believe people who kill people by accident should be killed?
 
jimmyjack said:
Because as the text says it is an accident, do you believe people who kill people by accident should be killed?
Click to expand...

Where does the text say it is an accident?
 
Iriemon said:
Where does the text say it is an accident?
Click to expand...


This passage of Scripture is part of a list of laws about fighting and quarrelling. It pictures a situation in which two men are fighting and the wife of one of them intervenes to make peace and she is struck in the struggle, it is widely accepted that the woman is struck accidentally.
 
jimmyjack said:
This passage of Scripture is part of a list of laws about fighting and quarrelling. It pictures a situation in which two men are fighting and the wife of one of them intervenes to make peace and she is struck in the struggle, it is widely accepted that the woman is struck accidentally.
Click to expand...

If that were true, then you wouldn't apply the "life for a life" rule because that is not applied if the death caused is accidental. That cannot be the intended meaning.

If too men are intentionally fighting, and in doing so cause injury or death to another, it is not accidental. It may not be intended; but it is not caused by an accident.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom