Political Crossfire Forums

Plodder · Joined: 01 Nov 2005 Posts: 803 Location: USA

Quote: As abstract as what? Your babbling makes no sense. only to you. lost soul sure got it.

Quote: My point exactly, which is where there should not be a law restricting something that cannot be proven. The government has no right to regulate what cannot be understood, and should therefore be left to the individual citizen to decide for themselves.

From that, there should be no law that restricts a mother's right to choose whether or not to have an abortion. howver LIFE is a clearly defined thiing. No scientist will ever tell you that an embryo is not human life. I mean just go to any OBGYN specialist

steen · Joined: 14 Jan 2006 Posts: 1430 Location: Upper Midwest

Izzibeth wrote: although i am pro-choice... my stance has been that until the embryo develops a working brain and heart, it is not "alive". please note the quotations. i will not explain what i mean by "alive" as i would hope that despite your views you understand what i mean.

just to make a quick correction. the human embryo develops a working brain and heart at approximately 55 days after conception. False. There is no "working brain" until after the 26th week of pregnancy.

Quote: that is about 2 months. i know that legal abortions are allowable up to 3 months and in my opinion, that is stretching it... but i would definitely agree with allowing the termination of pregnancy up to 2 months. from a medical perspective. until that point it does not have a brain (functioning) and does not have a (functioning) heart. The heart is nothing but a pump. And no, the brain doesn't work until it actually start receiving signals to the cortex. And the physical connection necessary for this are not connecting until the end of the 26th week of pregnancy, when the thalamocortical tract connects.

Quote: in MY opinion (and that is all it is) those are the two main parts of a human being (or any being) and therefore, make you a life. without those two key organs, you will not be alive when you are born. If you are missing ANY organ at birth, you would not be alive.

Quote: what i mean by this is.... let's say you are born without.. a liver. you may survive for a time Nope. You would be born dead.

Quote: and be given a chance by our modern science to have a liver given to you or a fake liver or whatnot. false.

Quote: if you are born without a brain or a heart... you are born dead. So you are saying that without a functioning brain, you are dead? Then the fetus is not alive until the 27th week of pregnancy.

Quote: it's more complicated than that (and yes, i know there are other organs that could easily lead to your death if not developed or completely omitted.. but we are talking about basic development here and trying to distinguish between a living human in the womb and the point BEFORE that). Which by YOUR argument about a "functioning" brain, now must be the before/after 27th week of pregnancy as the dividing mark.

straw man · Joined: 19 Apr 2006 Posts: 2948

steen wrote: Izzibeth wrote: although i am pro-choice... my stance has been that until the embryo develops a working brain and heart, it is not "alive". please note the quotations. i will not explain what i mean by "alive" as i would hope that despite your views you understand what i mean.

just to make a quick correction. the human embryo develops a working brain and heart at approximately 55 days after conception. False. There is no "working brain" until after the 26th week of pregnancy.

Quote: that is about 2 months. i know that legal abortions are allowable up to 3 months and in my opinion, that is stretching it... but i would definitely agree with allowing the termination of pregnancy up to 2 months. from a medical perspective. until that point it does not have a brain (functioning) and does not have a (functioning) heart. The heart is nothing but a pump. And no, the brain doesn't work until it actually start receiving signals to the cortex. And the physical connection necessary for this are not connecting until the end of the 26th week of pregnancy, when the thalamocortical tract connects.

Quote: in MY opinion (and that is all it is) those are the two main parts of a human being (or any being) and therefore, make you a life. without those two key organs, you will not be alive when you are born. If you are missing ANY organ at birth, you would not be alive.

Quote: what i mean by this is.... let's say you are born without.. a liver. you may survive for a time Nope. You would be born dead.

Quote: and be given a chance by our modern science to have a liver given to you or a fake liver or whatnot. false.

Quote: if you are born without a brain or a heart... you are born dead. So you are saying that without a functioning brain, you are dead? Then the fetus is not alive until the 27th week of pregnancy.

Quote: it's more complicated than that (and yes, i know there are other organs that could easily lead to your death if not developed or completely omitted.. but we are talking about basic development here and trying to distinguish between a living human in the womb and the point BEFORE that). Which by YOUR argument about a "functioning" brain, now must be the before/after 27th week of pregnancy as the dividing mark.

Nope.

Izzibeth · Joined: 12 May 2006 Posts: 423

alright. i'm sorry. the brains' higher functions do not turn on until approximately 6 months (though functions begin around 2-2.5 months) and a detectable heartbeat does not start until approximately 3 months. i suppose you become "sentient" at about 6 months.

but my point was that in my opinion the human becomes alive when their brain and heart are developed. so approximately 2.5 to 3 months. at that point, i belive, you would be killing something. before that... i believe you are terminating a process which would lead to a life. not the life itself. yes, in effect you are 'killing' underformed cells. but there is a difference between underdeveloped cells that would lead to a human being and a human being itself. again, i'm just saying.. that i feel you are killing a human being when it has a developed heart and brain. heart definitely starts beating by 3 months and the brain is working.. the higher functions have not been turned on, but it is working. so... i personally would not advocate anything after 2.5 to 3 months (which is the way it is now anyway). i am not sure why the cutoff point legally is 3 months but i wouldn't be surprised if it had something to do with the fact that the heart and brain have developed at that point and are working. i understand not at full capacity for all of you nitpickers out there striving to be "right"... but they are working.

straw man · Joined: 19 Apr 2006 Posts: 2948

Izzibeth wrote: alright. i'm sorry. the brains' higher functions do not turn on until approximately 6 months (though functions begin around 2-2.5 months) and a detectable heartbeat does not start until approximately 3 months. i suppose you become "sentient" at about 6 months.

but my point was that in my opinion the human becomes alive when their brain and heart are developed. so approximately 2.5 to 3 months. at that point, i belive, you would be killing something. before that... i believe you are terminating a process which would lead to a life. not the life itself. yes, in effect you are 'killing' underformed cells. but there is a difference between underdeveloped cells that would lead to a human being and a human being itself. again, i'm just saying.. that i feel you are killing a human being when it has a developed heart and brain. heart definitely starts beating by 3 months and the brain is working.. the higher functions have not been turned on, but it is working. so... i personally would not advocate anything after 2.5 to 3 months (which is the way it is now anyway). i am not sure why the cutoff point legally is 3 months but i wouldn't be surprised if it had something to do with the fact that the heart and brain have developed at that point and are working. i understand not at full capacity for all of you nitpickers out there striving to be "right"... but they are working.

A heart or a brain is not a requirement for being alive. Even a single skin cell is alive, possessing such functions as growth and metabolism. Naturally, the embryo is alive through every step of the way as it grows (unless somebody decides to kill it via an abortion).

straw man · Joined: 19 Apr 2006 Posts: 2948

And steen, before you get your panties in a bunch over me labelling an embryo as "alive", don't bother, because I'm using the top definition for the word this time!

LostSoul3412 · Joined: 11 Feb 2005 Posts: 8283

Sure, individual cells are alive, but that does not make them "human life". The difference between being alive in general, and being a human life is the notions of awareness, central brain functions, and a self-sufficient body (except in the case of energy, though food and sleep). Since an embryo does not have a brain or heat, it is impossible to have a central nervous functions, because it lacks a central nervous system altogether! Also, an embryo cannot be deemed self-sufficient because of the physical attachment, and dependence, on the umbilical cord for its prolonged existence.

I realize I mentioned the issue of awareness, but since we have determined on multiple threads that it is impossible to determine if an embryo is aware (which is why there should be no law), I won't press into that issue.

straw man · Joined: 19 Apr 2006 Posts: 2948

LostSoul3412 wrote: Sure, individual cells are alive, but that does not make them "human life".

Okay well I got you to agree with me that a fetus is indeed a life. So I guess you're just wrapped up on the "human" descriptor.

An embryo is human, because it is "Of, relating to, or characteristic of humans"

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=human

We are not talking about whale embryos, or gopher embryos, we are talking about homo sapien embryos. They are made from two humans, are developing as a human being, have the human number of chromosomes etc. So that makes them "human life"..

Besides, being able to exist independently is not criteria for being a human life. There are lots of fully grown people who are just as dependent on a pacemaker or oxygen tank to live, as the baby is dependent on an umbulical cord. Are they not human beings?

LostSoul3412 · Joined: 11 Feb 2005 Posts: 8283

straw man wrote: Okay well I got you to agree with me that a fetus is indeed a life. So I guess you're just wrapped up on the "human" descriptor.

I believe that it is the potential to become life, all that I said was that it was alive, like a kidney, but it is not a life.

straw man wrote: Besides, being able to exist independently is not criteria for being a human life. There are lots of fully grown people who are just as dependent on a pacemaker or oxygen tank to live, as the baby is dependent on an umbulical cord. Are they not human beings?

But being able to think independently is. An embryo cannot think, because it has no brain. Those on a pacemaker or oxygen tank are still life through their own thoughts. An embryo, on the other hand, has no such thoughts, and therefore is not life.

Izzibeth · Joined: 12 May 2006 Posts: 423

straw man wrote: A heart or a brain is not a requirement for being alive. Even a single skin cell is alive, possessing such functions as growth and metabolism. Naturally, the embryo is alive through every step of the way as it grows (unless somebody decides to kill it via an abortion).

now you are nit-picking and this is why these conversations get nowhere. you know full-well what i meant by needing a heart and brain to be "alive". speaking about humans... which is the only place in which aborting a pregnancy becomes an issue. i was not talking about single cell organisms.

and i believe i also stated in a previous post what i meant by "alive". yes, single cell organisms (including the egg and sperm when they first join) are 'alive'... but they are not sentient and they are not a human being. the cell is alive.. but the human being is not. the human being does not become alive until it's human heart and human brain have been formed and it starts its human life (again... this is my opinion. and how i gauge my own PERSONAL views on when aborting a pregnancy should be allowed through the choice of the mother).

yes, i agree that an embryo is alive. but at what point are you 'murdering' a human being and at what point are you stopping the process of growth of an embryo which would, at a later time, become a human being? yes, those cells are "alive". we agree. but there is a difference between underdeveloped cells and developed cells. therein lies the problem.

LostSoul3412 · Joined: 11 Feb 2005 Posts: 8283

Izzibeth wrote: straw man wrote: A heart or a brain is not a requirement for being alive. Even a single skin cell is alive, possessing such functions as growth and metabolism. Naturally, the embryo is alive through every step of the way as it grows (unless somebody decides to kill it via an abortion).

now you are nit-picking and this is why these conversations get nowhere. you know full-well what i meant by needing a heart and brain to be "alive". speaking about humans... which is the only place in which aborting a pregnancy becomes an issue. i was not talking about single cell organisms.

and i believe i also stated in a previous post what i meant by "alive". yes, single cell organisms (including the egg and sperm when they first join) are 'alive'... but they are not sentient and they are not a human being. the cell is alive.. but the human being is not. the human being does not become alive until it's human heart and human brain have been formed and it starts its human life (again... this is my opinion. and how i gauge my own PERSONAL views on when aborting a pregnancy should be allowed through the choice of the mother).

yes, i agree that an embryo is alive. but at what point are you 'murdering' a human being and at what point are you stopping the process of growth of an embryo which would, at a later time, become a human being? yes, those cells are "alive". we agree. but there is a difference between underdeveloped cells and developed cells. therein lies the problem.

Agreed. Brain cells are killed everyday by every individual, but that does not make us all murderers. The issue is whether or not an embryo is a human, not whether or not the cells are alive.

straw man · Joined: 19 Apr 2006 Posts: 2948

LostSoul3412 wrote: straw man wrote: Besides, being able to exist independently is not criteria for being a human life. There are lots of fully grown people who are just as dependent on a pacemaker or oxygen tank to live, as the baby is dependent on an umbulical cord. Are they not human beings?

But being able to think independently is. An embryo cannot think, because it has no brain. Those on a pacemaker or oxygen tank are still life through their own thoughts. An embryo, on the other hand, has no such thoughts, and therefore is not life.

So if a boxer gets knocked out during a fight, then he ceases to be a human being while he lies unconscious? What would you call him then? Or if someone falls into a coma, then suddenly they are not human life? I guess that must be why the killers who pulled the plug on Schiavo didn't have any qualms about it.

straw man · Joined: 19 Apr 2006 Posts: 2948

LostSoul32 wrote: The issue is whether or not an embryo is a human, not whether or not the cells are alive.

And an embryo is a human. See my thread about human beings for proof on that one.

Izzibeth · Joined: 12 May 2006 Posts: 423

if i boxer gets knocked out during a fight and goes unconscious... his brain does not stop working. he is not a "non-human" and he does not revert back to the stage at which he was simply a small lump of cells which, given time, would have formed into him. the moment you become a human being... you are a human being until you die and rot away. his brain was fully formed and his heart was working and he was knocked unconscious. a human being... who was knocked unconscious. he did not lose his cell make-up and he did not go into pre-development stages. he got knocked out. that is a completely different matter.

a person who goes into a coma... and let's just say they are "brain-dead".... their brain is STILL WORKING. and they are still alive.
(in terms of Terry Schiavo, who was brain-dead and had been for many years... had they not hooked her up to life support in the first place... her body would have shut down and she would have died. i'm not saying that medical science should be not put in place to keep people alive but the point at which the brain dies and there is absolutely no hope of that persons brain 'living' again... is the point at which they are, for all intensive purposes.. and i'm sure she would have agreed if she could have... it is the point at which they are dead. they will not enjoy life, they will not hate life.. they are simply there. and YOU.. by plugging them up.. have forced them into this state of perpetual nothingness until the day they finally are released from that.. anyway!... sidetracked)

a person who goes into a coma and is brain-dead is still a human being. again. i say the same thing. they did not revert back to the point in the womb at which they were a little group of cells. they are a human being. any killing of you after the point at which you are formed into a human being is murder. is the killing of someone "bad" in every case? i don't think so. sometimes it is a release and a welcome one. many people will agree that if they got into an accident of some sort and were to be brain dead for the rest of their lives... that it would be better to allow them to die than to 'live out' their days in that state. i have, personally, never come across someone who would want to stay in that state. you ARE still a human life. you have not ceased to be human. whether or not you are 'living'... that is up to you to decide NOW while you are conscious... would you say you are 'living' if you are brain dead and will forever be that way? your brain is not functioning and without help it will not even work your lungs to breathe?

regardless... in both of your examples, you are still human. you have not ceased being human. and that is very different than what we are talking about which is the real question (which matters to some and doesn't matter to others in this abortion issue) "at which point do you stop being a group of cells with the potential to become human given time.... and start being a human being?"

Izzibeth · Joined: 12 May 2006 Posts: 423

real quick... i know i said, in regards to being "brain dead", the brain is "still working" at the beginning and the brain is "not functioning" at the end. i meant that even if you are "brain dead" there is still activity, although minimal and not of "higher" functions going on. your brain still "works". when i said "your brain is not functioning and without help..." i meant it is not communicating with the rest of your body to keep your body alive.. without help it would die. so it still "works"... but it is not "functioning... properly (that would have been better to throw in there)" and depends on outside technology to keep it alive.

just very quickly because that sounded confusing.

straw man · Joined: 19 Apr 2006 Posts: 2948

Actually I wasn't talking about simple brain functioning in those examples.

I was responding to comments about the ability to think, and to have thought, as being the criteria required in order to be a human being.

Even if they do have brain activity, a comatose person or a knocked out boxer are no more capable of "thinking" or "thought" then an embryo at any stage. Therefore under this same requirement, they could not be regarded as a human being.

steen · Joined: 14 Jan 2006 Posts: 1430 Location: Upper Midwest

Izzibeth wrote: alright. i'm sorry. the brains' higher functions do not turn on until approximately 6 months (though functions begin around 2-2.5 months) Well, what do you mean with "function," then?

Quote: and a detectable heartbeat does not start until approximately 3 months. I had no quibble with your description of heart beat, only about how you assign it extraordinary importance. It is just a muscle contracting as a pump, that's all. It, like several other body organs, can be mechanically substituted, and thus its importance is solely mechanical.

Quote: i suppose you become "sentient" at about 6 months. Rather, at about 6 months (end of the 26th week of pregnancy), the final connection that lets signals from sensory nerves actually reach the brain's cortex, they finally connect. until then, no signal at all will reach the cortex.

Then the brain need to 'learn" what the signals mean and develop synapses, kind of like building up a computer chip layer by layer. When is sentience? When the brain is able to process signals into meaningful interpretations? That doesn't happen until quite a bit later.

Quote: but my point was that in my opinion the human becomes alive when their brain and heart are developed. What do you mean with "developed"? It doesn't make sense in the time-frame you are providing.

Quote: so approximately 2.5 to 3 months. At that time you have some neural tissue, that's all.

Quote: at that point, i belive, you would be killing something. Well, even masturbation kills something, namely sperm which certainly are live cells.

Quote: before that... i believe you are terminating a process which would lead to a life. not the life itself. yes, in effect you are 'killing' underformed cells. but there is a difference between underdeveloped cells that would lead to a human being and a human being itself. Can you justify using "being" before there is an independent, biological organism?

Quote: again, i'm just saying.. that i feel you are killing a human being when it has a developed heart and brain. "being" is a loaded word. Ad to claim that the brain is "functioning" at 3 months seems a wildly exaggerated claim. certainly, there is absolutely no processing of sensation of any kind for many months after that.

Quote: heart definitely starts beating by 3 months and the brain is working..the higher functions have not been turned on, but it is working. so... I really can't agree that the brain is "working." No more than a computer is working when it is not turned on and has no software. It is matter that sits there, nothing else.

Quote: i personally would not advocate anything after 2.5 to 3 months (which is the way it is now anyway). i am not sure why the cutoff point legally is 3 months but i wouldn't be surprised if it had something to do with the fact that the heart and brain have developed at that point and are working. i understand not at full capacity for all of you nitpickers out there striving to be "right"... but they are working. Again, what do you mean with 'working"? What is it you think the brain can do at 2.5-3 months?

steen · Joined: 14 Jan 2006 Posts: 1430 Location: Upper Midwest

straw man wrote: And steen, before you get your panties in a bunch over me labelling an embryo as "alive", don't bother, because I'm using the top definition for the word this time! All cells are alive. Sperm and egg are alive as well. I have no problem with that word use. Why would you think I would? perhaps you should get a clue about my views before trying to call me on views I don't hold, do you think?

steen · Joined: 14 Jan 2006 Posts: 1430 Location: Upper Midwest

LostSoul3412 wrote: I realize I mentioned the issue of awareness, but since we have determined on multiple threads that it is impossible to determine if an embryo is aware (which is why there should be no law), I won't press into that issue. I still disagree. There is no awareness in an embryo. Awareness is physically impossible without the ability to process sensory input from nerves. And that ability is not even physically there until the end of the 26th week of pregnancy, when the thalamocortical tract connects. before then, awareness is impossible. As such, an embryo is never aware.

steen · Joined: 14 Jan 2006 Posts: 1430 Location: Upper Midwest

straw man wrote: We are not talking about whale embryos, or gopher embryos, we are talking about homo sapien embryos. They are made from two humans, are developing as a human being, How do you define a "being"? If you claim any kind of individual existence in such a definition, then there is no being until birth, when the umbilical cord is clamped or cut.

Quote: have the human number of chromosomes etc. That also fits a hydatidiform mole.

Quote: So that makes them "human life".. And a hydatidiform mole is human life as well, then. It is formed through conception, it has a normal number of human chromosomes, it grows through extracting nutrients from the woman's body and sends its waste metabolites back through the umbilical cord to be cleaned up by the woman's kidney and liver. Exactly as a "normal" embryo or fetus does.

Quote: Besides, being able to exist independently is not criteria for being a human life. There are lots of fully grown people who are just as dependent on a pacemaker or oxygen tank to live, but they are not dependent on another person's bodily resources, so that's just a silly strawman.

Quote: as the baby is dependent on an umbulical cord. Are they not human beings? Actually, when there is a baby, there is no longer an umbilical cord.