Political Crossfire Forums

[AllAmericanMan]

If something is made by 2 humans through sexual reproduction have they not conceived a new human life? Somethings as miraculous as new human lives need time to grow and develop their bodies. They need time to produce a nervous system, and every other part of their being.

If this life is indeed subhuman before growing one of any of these characteristics, at which point in time do they become human? How can you pin point the exact time for this of every individual who is still in the womb? Do they become human at birth? If not why don't they get equal human rights before birth? Isn't awareness something even a born baby does not yet fully have? Awareness does not make something human, it is merely one characteristic of the life that is growing immediately upon conception.

Show me how abortions are not the killing of another human life. If not conception, at which point is a person a person and therefor deserving of protection under our laws. Show me how it is not conception. Show me how this is all the same as a "tumor, or a mindless non sensate hunk of flesh" as it has been so mislabeled here on these forums.

[sgtshortness]

I consider it to be human in description and life. However, I don't consider it to be a "person" or really, truly "human" in the sense of what makes us human.

What seperates us from other animals? In my opinion, it's the brain. When a fetus obtains a brain, I think regular abortions shouldn't be allowed.

I think born babies have awareness.

[Prole]

A zygote doesn't have a brain. I think that quite obviously makes it mindless.

I believe, however, that awareness is a necessary characteristic for one to be human. For what value is existence without awareness? Granted, even a preborn human that lacks awareness may be valued by some for it's potential, but potential in and of itself is no more meaningful for granting status than my potential ability to become a doctor grants me the status of being an M.D.

Why should be biologically human alone merit any sort of special treatment?

[AllAmericanMan]

First id just like to say thank you to you two who responded. Its a breath of fresh air from the other responses I've been seeing here from other pro abortionists.
At least you make an argument instead of picking apart sentences piece by piece. Now lets get down to substance.

Quote: I believe, however, that awareness is a necessary characteristic for one to be human. For what value is existence without awareness? Granted, even a preborn human that lacks awareness may be valued by some for it's potential, but potential in and of itself is no more meaningful for granting status than my potential ability to become a doctor grants me the status of being an M.D.
The value of existence BEFORE awareness is whatever you place on it. This is a developing unique individual. If you abort this individual, there will never be a human on this earth with the genes that human would of had. Basically you have robbed someone of their entire existence, just because they havent had the chance to grow a brain yet. The blueprints for their brain is there, all it needs is time to develop.

I think the term potential is a propaganda term used by abortionists to try and dehumanize what is clearly human. If its a potential life then youre not killing a human are you, but these are not potential human lives. They are human lives, just underdeveloped or young. Awareness like I said is just one characteristic of a growing life that given time it will have. I believe a person is a person and deserving of our protection no matter how young they are.

[LostSoul3412]

AllAmericanMan wrote: I think the term potential is a propaganda term used by abortionists to try and dehumanize what is clearly human. If its a potential life then youre not killing a human are you, but these are not potential human lives. They are human lives, just underdeveloped or young. Awareness like I said is just one characteristic of a growing life that given time it will have. I believe a person is a person and deserving of our protection no matter how young they are.

As far as I know, I am the only one on these forums who has deemed embryos as "potential life", and I do so because an embryo is not actual life. The qualifications for life are sentience and awareness. An embryo, which has no brain, has no thought or any trace of sentience within it. Therefore, it is not life. There is a major difference between life, and existence; meaning that something can exist without actually being alive, which is exactly what an embryo does: exist.

Saying that awareness will develop when given time is the same as saying that the potential life will become the actual life when given time, which it will. An egg is not a chicken, but will become a chicken if given time. A seed is not a tree, but will become one when given time. An embryo is not a child, but will become a child when given time. The issue is not what the embryo will become, but rather what they actually are. The issue stands that an embryo is not actual life, it is the potential to become life.

The point where the potential becomes the actual, is at birth. When a baby is forced to be physically independent, then it becomes an sentient being. Awareness and individuality are not suddenly gained at birth, they are forced upon the child through physical detachment from its mother.

[thebreadloaf2003]

if being aware is being human, then i guess you don't believe that people in a coma are human. it's hard to be aware of anything in reality when you are in a constant state of unconciousness.

my thought s that awareness should not be the determiing factor of whether a being is human or not, but rather the ability to process information. once a brain is developed, then consideration of being human comes forth into play.

no brain=no human=dispensible being if desired

[Prole]

AllAmericanMan wrote:
Quote: I believe, however, that awareness is a necessary characteristic for one to be human. For what value is existence without awareness? Granted, even a preborn human that lacks awareness may be valued by some for it's potential, but potential in and of itself is no more meaningful for granting status than my potential ability to become a doctor grants me the status of being an M.D.
The value of existence BEFORE awareness is whatever you place on it. This is a developing unique individual. If you abort this individual, there will never be a human on this earth with the genes that human would of had. Basically you have robbed someone of their entire existence, just because they havent had the chance to grow a brain yet. The blueprints for their brain is there, all it needs is time to develop.

Every time a woman menstruates without getting pregnant, there is a being who would have come into existence but does not. Every time a man ejaculates without attempting to conceive, hundreds of millions of potential lives were denied. And even when attempting to get someone pregnant, there are hundreds of millions (and likely billions) of potential beings which do not come into existence for every one that does.

There are billions upon billions of potential human minds which do not come into existence for every one that does, and the means by which they do not (or do, for that matter) come into existence is irrelevant. What matters is if an individual actually does exist, not whether they may in the future.

LostSoul, biologically, something is just as alive and just as much a member of a species whether it contains sentience or not. However, I see no justification on non-religious and rational grounds for why biology alone should dictate legality. Furthermore, birth doesn't suddenly change a being's intellect or sentience; just it's independence. A 28th week fetus has all the same mental capacities as a newborn. So I do not believe that birth is the qualifier for sentience (though as far as autonomy is concerned, you have a valid point).

[LostSoul3412]

thebreadloaf2003 wrote: if being aware is being human, then i guess you don't believe that people in a coma are human. it's hard to be aware of anything in reality when you are in a constant state of unconciousness.

my thought s that awareness should not be the determiing factor of whether a being is human or not, but rather the ability to process information. once a brain is developed, then consideration of being human comes forth into play.

no brain=no human=dispensible being if desired

Actually, people in comas are still aware of their surroundings though sentient thought, which does not end until death. The difference is that those in comas are unable to express those thoughts, or their awareness. The ability to process information is only gained through birth, when the embryo truly becomes an individual though physical separation from its mother. Without the child's individuality, it does not live, it only exists.

Also, embryos do not develop brains until the third trimester of pregnancy. And furthermore, simply having a brain does not automatically qualify as being sentient. The brain must be used as well.

[LostSoul3412]

Prole wrote: LostSoul, biologically, something is just as alive and just as much a member of a species whether it contains sentience or not. However, I see no justification on non-religious and rational grounds for why biology alone should dictate legality. Furthermore, birth doesn't suddenly change a being's intellect or sentience; just it's independence. A 28th week fetus has all the same mental capacities as a newborn. So I do not believe that birth is the qualifier for sentience (though as far as autonomy is concerned, you have a valid point).

Life is more than biology, so I agree that biology alone should not determine life. "Life" is an abstract term and needs to be defined abstractly. But it is that independence that makes the child its own life. Without that independence or autonomy, no matter how intelligent or sentient an embryo is, it is still completely dependent on the mother without thought to its own awareness. A child cries when it is hungry, and that act of crying shows that the child is self-aware of its own body. One without the other does not qualify as life, merely existence. To be life, both sentience and autonomy must be achieved.

[steen]

AllAmericanMan wrote: If something is made by 2 humans through sexual reproduction have they not conceived a new human life? that description fits the hydatidiform mole. It seems like you are saying that the hydatidiform mole is "a new human life." So what is the significance of "a new human life," then?

Quote: Somethings as miraculous as new human lives need time to grow and develop their bodies. They need time to produce a nervous system, and every other part of their being. Yet, God flushes 70%+/- down the sewer as rat food instead. Hmm....

Quote: If this life is indeed subhuman before growing one of any of these characteristics, at which point in time do they become human? Now, maybe my memory fails me, but where did any pro-choice person claim the embryo or fetus to be "subhuman"? You are not just making up lies here, are you?

Quote: How can you pin point the exact time for this of every individual who is still in the womb? Could you please provide evidence that the embryo or fetus is an individual? Your claim seems rather overblown.

Quote: Do they become human at birth? Well, they become persons at birth. The species designation has not been in doubt.

But note that you are showing a rather serious ignorance here, trying to invalidly applying the species concept to intra-species comparisons of developmental stages. This is an invalid application of the species concept, showing you being rather undereducated ion the concept you are trying to argue.

Quote: If not why don't they get equal human rights before birth? Ah, now you are talking legal issues rather than biological issues. To try to prove a legal right through the discussion of biology is rather stupid and ignorant, not to mention outright deceptive

Quote: Isn't awareness something even a born baby does not yet fully have? It certainly has some form of awareness, which could not be said of the fetus 4 mths earlier.

[/quote]Awareness does not make something human, it is merely one characteristic of the life that is growing immediately upon conception.[/quote]Well, my appendix has no awareness, and it certainly i a human appendix. So your argument seems rather irrelevant here. care to clarify?

Quote: Show me how abortions are not the killing of another human life. If not conception, at which point is a person a person and therefor deserving of protection under our laws. For some reason you come across as so illiterate here as to mixing up and confusing terminology. certainly, a person becomes a person at birth. "Person" is a legal term and has been clearly found to not apply to the unborn. As such, despite your weird implication, "Person" does not apply to the developmental stage of any time during the pregnancy.

[steen]

thebreadloaf2003 wrote: my thought s that awareness should not be the determiing factor of whether a being is human or not, but rather the ability to process information. once a brain is developed, then consideration of being human comes forth into play.

no brain=no human=dispensible being if desired And the actual connection that allows signals to reach the brain's cortex does not connect until the end of the 26th week of pregnancy, as has been documented many times by now here. As such, there is not even the physical possibility of awareness before this time. And then, even after that time, it takes awhile for the brain to "learn" to interpret and sort out stimuli.

[Saf]

Humanness is an artificial concept with no meaning outside of emotional discourse. Anything with homo sapien DNA is basically human from a biological standpoint, but until it is able to function on its own outside the womb, think, and feel, it is not a "human being."

[Plodder]

Quote: Quote:
If this life is indeed subhuman before growing one of any of these characteristics, at which point in time do they become human?

Now, maybe my memory fails me, but where did any pro-choice person claim the embryo or fetus to be "subhuman"? You are not just making up lies here, are you?
I think it is failing you:

Quote: If this life is indeed subhuman before growing one of any of these characteristics, at which point in time do they become human? How can you pin point the exact time for this of every individual who is still in the womb? Do they become human at birth? If not why don't they get equal human rights before birth? Isn't awareness something even a born baby does not yet fully have? Awareness does not make something human, it is merely one characteristic of the life that is growing immediately upon conception.




Quote: For some reason you come across as so illiterate here as to mixing up and confusing terminology. certainly, a person becomes a person at birth. "Person" is a legal term and has been clearly found to not apply to the unborn. As such, despite your weird implication, "Person" does not apply to the developmental stage of any time during the pregnancy. A person is a philosophical term since you cannot tell me what makes you a person. is it your hand? is it your foot? is it your brain? is it your awreness? what makes you here? what makes you human? what makes you alive?

thse are not legal terms. It wont change no matter how many times you say it.

[LostSoul3412]

Plodder wrote: A person is a philosophical term since you cannot tell me what makes you a person. is it your hand? is it your foot? is it your brain? is it your awreness? what makes you here? what makes you human? what makes you alive?

thse are not legal terms. It wont change no matter how many times you say it.

Exactly! Which is why abortion should not be controlled by law.

By Jove, he gets it! :woo:

[steen]

Plodder wrote: Quote: Quote:
If this life is indeed subhuman before growing one of any of these characteristics, at which point in time do they become human?

Now, maybe my memory fails me, but where did any pro-choice person claim the embryo or fetus to be "subhuman"? You are not just making up lies here, are you?
I think it is failing you:

Quote: If this life is indeed subhuman before growing one of any of these characteristics, at which point in time do they become human? How can you pin point the exact time for this of every individual who is still in the womb? Do they become human at birth? If not why don't they get equal human rights before birth? Isn't awareness something even a born baby does not yet fully have? Awareness does not make something human, it is merely one characteristic of the life that is growing immediately upon conception. Is allamericanman now a pro-choice person? Because that is the person you are quoting. AAm has taken a pro-life position, so quoting HIM as evidence for what pro-choice says is utter nonsense. It is either an ignorant thing to do, or it is you trying to lie to us. As you have shown both traits many times, it is hard to determine which it is this time.

Quote: Quote: For some reason you come across as so illiterate here as to mixing up and confusing terminology. certainly, a person becomes a person at birth. "Person" is a legal term and has been clearly found to not apply to the unborn. As such, despite your weird implication, "Person" does not apply to the developmental stage of any time during the pregnancy. A person is a philosophical term since you cannot tell me what makes you a person. it is a legal term and I can tell you what makes you a person, namely birth.

[straw man]

Babies do not become aware, or have any sentience or feelings, or otherwise know that they are there, nor they can they feel pain or have a mind or any form of their own conscious thought, until the doctor slaps them on the butt.

Once the doctor slaps the baby's butt, THEN and only then is when the baby gains the ability to feel. That is why that is the point where the baby starts crying. NOW is when they show they have pain and are capable of feeling it. The contact between the doctor hand and the baby butt is what "turns on" the baby's consciousness. Prior to this the baby cannot be aware or feel, and the baby is not a human being or a person until it has had it's butt slapped.

[Plodder]

Quote: Prior to this the baby cannot be aware or feel, and the baby is not a human being or a person until it has had it's butt slapped. that sinteresting cause im sure that the baby kicking inside the womb is not some form of brain function.

[LostSoul3412]

Plodder wrote: that sinteresting cause im sure that the baby kicking inside the womb is not some form of brain function.

"Until your newborn can think for himself, most of his movements, from kicking to sucking, are purely reflexive." - From PlannedParenthood.com

Evidence shows, even from motherhood sites, that a child kicking inside the womb is purely a reflex, and not an intentional action. Therefore, kicking is not a form of brain function, but rather a random activity that the embryo engages in out of reflex, not organized thought or though brain function. The embryo does not fully become aware of its own actions until it is born, where it then is forced to become aware and its own person.

[straw man]

How does the existence of a reflex action prove the complete absence of awareness?

Hell fully grown adults have reflex actions too and are we not aware?

[straw man]

"Until your newborn can think for himself, most of his movements, from kicking to sucking, are purely reflexive."

That's odd, they said MOST of his movements. This quote is not attesting that fetuses are not self aware. The movements or behaviors of a creature, no matter how much we study them, do not provide insight into the experience of the creature.