• 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!

When is a human being become a human being?

When does a human being become a human being? When, indeed, does life begin?

To answer that question, we have to ask ourselves when life ends.

If life begins at conception, when a unique DNA is created, then it follows that life is still continuing as long as there is DNA in the human body. Therefore, the Neanderthal who provided the DNA for us to sequence their genome was still living.

No, that is absurd.

If it begins when the heart starts to beat, then it follows that it ends when the heart stops. If that is so, then a lot of people have died already, but are still walking among us.

No, that is absurd also.

If it begins when the brain begins to function, then it follows that it ends when the brain ceases to function.

Now, that one seems the most logical. Life begins when there is measurable brain activity, and ends when that activity ceases. Most likely, those events coincide with the times the spirit inhabits and leaves the body behind.

So, before the spirit enters the body, it is just an uninhabited collection of cells, much like an automobile still on the assembly line. When it leaves, then the body is once again just a collection of (now dead and no longer dividing) cells, much like the same car on its way to the junkyard.
 
Dittohead not! said:
When does a human being become a human being? When, indeed, does life begin?

To answer that question, we have to ask ourselves when life ends.

If life begins at conception, when a unique DNA is created, then it follows that life is still continuing as long as there is DNA in the human body. Therefore, the Neanderthal who provided the DNA for us to sequence their genome was still living.

No, that is absurd.
Click to expand...
It would only be absurd if people claimed the DNA molecule was alive itself. If that was our reasoning, then why would we believe an aborted baby dies even though it's DNA molecule will still exist? The argument is that at fertilization it becomes a new human being with it's own DNA.
 
Korimyr the Rat said:
Just seeing humanity for what it is. We're a social animal. We can't survive alone.
Click to expand...

A human child in the womb is not alone. It can only ever be alone when born, and then left alone.

Tim-
 
digsbe said:
Sperm and egg are human gametes. Once fertilized, it is a diploid human organism. A human being becomes a human being once the egg is fertilized: at conception. Two human gametes don't fuse to create some non human organism that later becomes human once it is birthed.
Click to expand...

Agreed!


Tim-
 
Dittohead not! said:
When does a human being become a human being? When, indeed, does life begin?

To answer that question, we have to ask ourselves when life ends.

If life begins at conception, when a unique DNA is created, then it follows that life is still continuing as long as there is DNA in the human body. Therefore, the Neanderthal who provided the DNA for us to sequence their genome was still living.

No, that is absurd.

If it begins when the heart starts to beat, then it follows that it ends when the heart stops. If that is so, then a lot of people have died already, but are still walking among us.

No, that is absurd also.

If it begins when the brain begins to function, then it follows that it ends when the brain ceases to function.

Now, that one seems the most logical. Life begins when there is measurable brain activity, and ends when that activity ceases. Most likely, those events coincide with the times the spirit inhabits and leaves the body behind.

So, before the spirit enters the body, it is just an uninhabited collection of cells, much like an automobile still on the assembly line. When it leaves, then the body is once again just a collection of (now dead and no longer dividing) cells, much like the same car on its way to the junkyard.
Click to expand...



Sentience is hardly a criteria for what life is..


Tim-
 
Hicup said:
Sentience is hardly a criteria for what life is..


Tim-
Click to expand...

No, but it is a criterion for what human life is.

Once the brain ceases to function, then the individual is no longer alive. Therefore, once the brain begins to function, the zygote has become a living human being.
 
Dittohead not! said:
No, but it is a criterion for what human life is.

Once the brain ceases to function, then the individual is no longer alive. Therefore, once the brain begins to function, the zygote has become a living human being.
Click to expand...

Well, yeah ok, I get that, but I thought my comment was understood. Sentience, isn't even clearly defined. It's metaphysical, so if you choose to use a metaphysical concept to prove your criterion, then it would be kind if you'd provide what you believe sentience to be, and how to measure it? :)

I'm a stickler for such things..


Tim-
 
Hicup said:
Well, yeah ok, I get that, but I thought my comment was understood. Sentience, isn't even clearly defined. It's metaphysical, so if you choose to use a metaphysical concept to prove your criterion, then it would be kind if you'd provide what you believe sentience to be, and how to measure it? :)

I'm a stickler for such things..


Tim-
Click to expand...

You measure it with an electroencyphlograph. No brain waves, no human life. A zygote doesn't have brain waves, so its human life hasn't begun, and it is still just a potential and uninhabited human body. Someone whose brain has flatlined is no longer alive, so the body is dead and uninhabited at that point.

In both cases, there is just an empty body, the spirit, which is the real human being, is alive but elsewhere. It's much like my car analogy above: Once the driver has abandoned it, it is just a dead machine. When the driver is aboard, then there is life inside. Likewise, the human body is just a dead mechanical thing until it is inhabited by the human being, the spirit.
 
Last edited:
Dittohead not! said:
You measure it with an electroencyphlograph. No brain waves, no human life. A zygote doesn't have brain waves, so its human life hasn't begun, and it is still just a potential and uninhabited human body. Someone whose brain has flatlined is no longer alive, so the body is dead and uninhabited at that point.

In both cases, there is just an empty body, the spirit, which is the real human being, is alive but elsewhere. It's much like my car analogy above: Once the driver has abandoned it, it is just a dead machine. When the driver is aboard, then there is life inside. Likewise, the human body is just a dead mechanical thing until it is inhabited by the human being, the spirit.
Click to expand...

Having brain activity isn't what I personally would associate with sentience, but if you do, then I'm ok with that. :)

Tim-
 
Dittohead not! said:
When does a human being become a human being? When, indeed, does life begin?

To answer that question, we have to ask ourselves when life ends.

If life begins at conception, when a unique DNA is created, then it follows that life is still continuing as long as there is DNA in the human body. Therefore, the Neanderthal who provided the DNA for us to sequence their genome was still living.

No, that is absurd.

If it begins when the heart starts to beat, then it follows that it ends when the heart stops. If that is so, then a lot of people have died already, but are still walking among us.

No, that is absurd also.

If it begins when the brain begins to function, then it follows that it ends when the brain ceases to function.

Now, that one seems the most logical. Life begins when there is measurable brain activity, and ends when that activity ceases. Most likely, those events coincide with the times the spirit inhabits and leaves the body behind.

So, before the spirit enters the body, it is just an uninhabited collection of cells, much like an automobile still on the assembly line. When it leaves, then the body is once again just a collection of (now dead and no longer dividing) cells, much like the same car on its way to the junkyard.
Click to expand...

DNA is not the definition of life. A fetus with it's own DNA makes it an individual life, not necessarily a person. Judging the begging and end of life under the same criteria is wrong too as the begging and end are far different circumstances. Two different set of variables can not be assessed under the same conclusions.
 
I would say a human being is defined by the DNA, and living human DNA = human life. As for personhood, civil rights, etc... well, that is up to each person to decide.
 
Life on this planet began as a single solitary cell. I don't think anoyone would argue that point. Hoe then can anyone argue tat life begins at conception? It's bewildering to me?


Tim-
 
mac said:
DNA is not the definition of life. A fetus with it's own DNA makes it an individual life, not necessarily a person. Judging the begging and end of life under the same criteria is wrong too as the begging and end are far different circumstances. Two different set of variables can not be assessed under the same conclusions.
Click to expand...

Isn't a living person someone who is between the beginning and the ending of life? Why then, can't we apply the same criterion to determine the beginning of life as to the end of life?
 
Dittohead not! said:
Isn't a living person someone who is between the beginning and the ending of life? Why then, can't we apply the same criterion to determine the beginning of life as to the end of life?
Click to expand...
exactly!! ditto the criterion we have put on the end of life is "brain death" so "brain life" should be the beginning.
 
mac said:
I'm not against contraception, I don't feel that preventing life from commencing is anything close to terminating a life that has commenced.
Click to expand...

Birth control like IUDs and other types of hormones used in pills are abortifacients.. meaning they don't prevent conception, they prevent a zygote from implanting on the lining of the uterus. Abortifacients don't prevent life from commencing, they destroy a tiny life (a fertilized egg/zygote)..

That is one reason why the Catholic Church is so against bc..
 
JohnLocke said:
When do you a human being is a human being? The moment it becomes a zygote or the moment it is conceived?
Click to expand...

When the human egg and sperm conjoin, it is also human.. yes it is alive at conception, but I don't think this has anything to do with the issue.

Nobody has a right to life that supersedes the right to another person's body. It doesn't matter if it is a innocent child or not. If somebody is going to die if they don't get a new kidney or matching bone marrow courtesy of a volunteer donor, the government doesn't forcibly take it away from you.

Nobody is obligated to physically support the life of another human being or person (if you prefer). It doesn't matter who that person is or their social rank. Therefore, I don't think abortion is some inhuman violation of human rights on the level of the Holocaust or anything similar.

My body is not a life support system, and my own identity as a person matters in this discussion.
 
SheWolf said:
Birth control like IUDs and other types of hormones used in pills are abortifacients.. meaning they don't prevent conception, they prevent a zygote from implanting on the lining of the uterus. Abortifacients don't prevent life from commencing, they destroy a tiny life (a fertilized egg/zygote)..

That is one reason why the Catholic Church is so against bc..
Click to expand...

Yes, I am aware of that.
 
SheWolf said:
My body is not a life support system, and my own identity as a person matters in this discussion.
Click to expand...

If that's the way you feel, then don't get pregnant. Simple.
 
mac said:
If that's the way you feel, then don't get pregnant. Simple.
Click to expand...

Or do, and then have an abortion.
Equally simple.
 
mac said:
If that's the way you feel, then don't get pregnant. Simple.
Click to expand...

And if I do get pregnant, then be forced to gestate?

Why should women only have to sacrifice our bodies for your morals? Why not just make all males get vasectomies at a young age, then when they want children.......... reverse it!

That is the least complex solution... no unintended pregnancies ever, no rape babies, just children who are wanted and will be taken care of will be born

But I seriously I hope you are kid... because it's comments like that, that don't deserve to be taken seriously. Unintended pregnancies are not the real problem, and very few actually end in abortion. The real problem are the situations women and young girls are in.

It's hard to take a person seriously in this debate, when they say this is simple.. when they play ignorant to the fact that children are being molested and raped by adults. That adult women and teen girls are trapped in violent and abusive relationships, and sometimes find themselves pregnant. It isn't simple at all. And what makes even more complicated, is that a bunch of pro lifers don't even believe I should access to birth control.

Where is the simplicity, because I don't see it at all..
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom