Political Crossfire Forums

[name]

"You liberals think that when a baby is born, you can't kill it; right. If I were "self-aware and sentient" when I were a baby, I would not have crapped in my polymer white tightes. I would also not have let my parents take embarrasing baby pictures of me naked, or I would have burned them while I was still cute enough to do the puppy eyes and get away with it. Eventually, the baby will grow up to not poop in his pants."

All right then, abort babies after they're born.
But seriously: When babies are born, they are still far from being totally developed and know absolutely nothing about their new environment, but they are cognitive, sentient beings because they actively explore their environment once capable, stimulting their own brains to develop, learn, and adapt. Even before they are able to move around to explore, their brains are on development overdrive; everything they see is new must be adapted into the baby's life. A baby is not developed enough to understand the things you mentioned, but it is self-aware. Example: By around 20 months, babies are self-aware enough to recognize themselves in the mirror. http://www.talaris.org/spotlight_embarrassed.htm
A blastocyte does not know what it is. It does not have will. It is developing only physically. Potentiality aside, there is a distinction between a physically developing life and a baby. I should add that very late in the pregnancy, the fetus is mentally capable enough to be stimulated by music and reading aloud, and even to learn. I do not support abortions of fetuses this developed.

[AllAmericanMan]

Quote: the fetus is mentally capable enough to be stimulated by music and reading aloud, and even to learn. I do not support abortions of fetuses this developed. Here is a fine example of how arbitrary the pro death agenda is. Only when a human life is developed enough for me to recognize will I assign it value. How omnipotent we all are.

[AllAmericanMan]

dp.

[LostSoul3412]

AllAmericanMan wrote: Here is a fine example of how arbitrary the pro death agenda is.

Arbitrary? The ability to learn is anything but arbitrary.

AllAmericanMan wrote: Only when a human life is developed enough for me to recognize will I assign it value.

The same could be said for you. You only assign value at conception, just as I recognize life at birth.

AllAmericanMan wrote: How omnipotent we all are.

Indeed, the individual is their own God.

[AllAmericanMan]

Quote: Arbitrary? The ability to learn is anything but arbitrary.

Its an arbitrary point at which to decide somethings value after it has began to exist. I value it from the moment of creation, which isnt arbitrary its valueing something at its very beginning, to the very end.

[LostSoul3412]

AllAmericanMan wrote: Its an arbitrary point at which to decide somethings value after it has began to exist. I value it from the moment of creation, which isnt arbitrary its valueing something at its very beginning, to the very end.

Do you "value" it through words, or actions?

[name]

"Its an arbitrary point at which to decide somethings value after it has began to exist. I value it from the moment of creation, which isnt arbitrary its valueing something at its very beginning, to the very end."

Maybe, but is it any better to blur the distinction between a thinking, aware individual, and a tiny blastocyte?

[AllAmericanMan]

Quote: Maybe, but is it any better to blur the distinction between a thinking, aware individual, and a tiny blastocyte? Both are developing living metabolizing human organisms. There is a destinction being made that is resulting in the deaths of many such organisms. I am not bluring the life of a human individual, I am revealing it in all its natural glory.

[name]

"Both are developing living metabolizing human organisms. There is a destinction being made that is resulting in the deaths of many such organisms. I am not bluring the life of a human individual, I am revealing it in all its natural glory."

Yes, both are developing living human organisms. But one is alive in the same way a bacterium is alive: a blastocyte as a simple collection of cells that happen to contain human DNA. A human being is alive on a cellular level, but is also capable of cognition, has will, and has self-awareness. A blastocyte does not; therefore those who oppose all abortions value the existance of a simple collection of cells incapable of thought over the liberty of a woman, who can- and should be able to- make choices for herself.

[AllAmericanMan]

Quote: Yes, both are developing living human organisms. But one is alive in the same way a bacterium is alive: No one is not alive in the same way a bacteria is alive, one is a newly created human life, bringing with it the destinct value of a human being. While it does not yet have the ability of thought, it is a human being who is so under developed it has not yet developed thought. A bacteria is not a human individual organism.
Simply put, a blastocyst is too young to have thought, but is a human life never the less. Placing value on it at any exact moment in that beings development is abritrary and hypocritical.

[Gilbert1908]

name wrote: "Both are developing living metabolizing human organisms. There is a destinction being made that is resulting in the deaths of many such organisms. I am not bluring the life of a human individual, I am revealing it in all its natural glory."

Yes, both are developing living human organisms. But one is alive in the same way a bacterium is alive: a blastocyte as a simple collection of cells that happen to contain human DNA. A human being is alive on a cellular level, but is also capable of cognition, has will, and has self-awareness. A blastocyte does not; therefore those who oppose all abortions value the existance of a simple collection of cells incapable of thought over the liberty of a woman, who can- and should be able to- make choices for herself.

So when exactly does the human organism achieve sentience, and exactly how is sentience defined and determined?

[name]

"So when exactly does the human organism achieve sentience, and exactly how is sentience defined and determined?"

Sentience is the capacity for basic consciousness and thought, and therefore requires a functioning mind. Once the fetus possesses its first rudimentary brainwaves, it has achieved sentience. It develops self-awareness later in development. I believe that a sentient human fetus should not be aborted except in cases of the mother's life or health being threatened.
I am aware that all organisms are alive on a cellular scale, whether human or bacteria. However, humans and other large, multicellular animals with minds also possess sentience. I define a human life by physical traits such as genes the same way you do, but I define a human being as a life with sentience and self-awareness because it is simply realistic to do so; a collection of human cells is no more a true being than a tumor because there is absolutely no possibility that these cells can think. Whether or not you decide to view these cells as a being is based on personal opinions and morals that should not interfere with the choices of the mother.

[AllAmericanMan]

There is no difference between a human life and a human being other than one is younger than the other by your definition. One has just been created, and is working on getting to that point. The other has gotten to that point in human development. I could say a human being is not a being until he grows pubes.(to steal someone elses arguments). It would be just as proveable as your statement. I believe a human life isnt a human being until he grows pubes. Therefor, we can engage in infanticide. The point is you can not arbitrarily assign rights to human individuals.

[Gilbert1908]

name wrote: "So when exactly does the human organism achieve sentience, and exactly how is sentience defined and determined?"

Sentience is the capacity for basic consciousness and thought, and therefore requires a functioning mind. Once the fetus possesses its first rudimentary brainwaves, it has achieved sentience. It develops self-awareness later in development. I believe that a sentient human fetus should not be aborted except in cases of the mother's life or health being threatened.
I am aware that all organisms are alive on a cellular scale, whether human or bacteria. However, humans and other large, multicellular animals with minds also possess sentience. I define a human life by physical traits such as genes the same way you do, but I define a human being as a life with sentience and self-awareness because it is simply realistic to do so; a collection of human cells is no more a true being than a tumor because there is absolutely no possibility that these cells can think. Whether or not you decide to view these cells as a being is based on personal opinions and morals that should not interfere with the choices of the mother.

I have no issue with peoples opinions or their philosophies and I understand what your are saying here, it is the "personhood" argument that a human life does not acquire moral value until it achieves "personhood" or as you prefer to say it becomes a "human being".

So your scientific and therefore objective measurement of "sentience" is the first measurement of brain waves. I would say that while I would disagree with you on the necessity for brain waves or sentience to define the human being, it is a logical. if arbitrary, standard and an arguable position.

When exactly are the first brain waves measurable and could you provide a link or some other independent source that supports the position.

[name]

"There is no difference between a human life and a human being other than one is younger than the other by your definition. One has just been created, and is working on getting to that point. The other has gotten to that point in human development. I could say a human being is not a being until he grows pubes.(to steal someone elses arguments). It would be just as proveable as your statement. I believe a human life isnt a human being until he grows pubes. Therefor, we can engage in infanticide. The point is you can not arbitrarily assign rights to human individuals."

If a concept is arbitrary in the sense that we are discussing, it is based on personal opinions and morality and therefore neither wrong nor right because we have the right to our own opinions. For example, considering a group of human cells to be a human being is an arbitrary point because no facts support it. The distinction between cellular life and true being is based in fact: a group of cells is not a human being because human beings think and cells do not. It's simple and factual. The argument is whether you are willing to assign human rights to a non-sentient group of human cells that trump the liberty of the mother, i.e., imposing your own personal, arbitrary morality on all others.

[name]

"http://www.ship.edu/~cgboeree/genpsyfetaldev.html"

This site marks the first detectable brain waves at weeks 13-16. I think I mentioned 2 months at some point; that was a typo, I meant 3.

[AllAmericanMan]

Quote: If a concept is arbitrary in the sense that we are discussing, it is based on personal opinions and morality and therefore neither wrong nor right because we have the right to our own opinions. Wrong life can be measured and observed and scientific patterns identified in which all living things posess. Assinging value to a life at any stage in its existence and saying only then does it now become a "person" or whatever word you want to use is arbitrary and hypocritical. Being consistant in value throughout the course of a humans life is not hypocritical or arbitrary in assinging value to that life.


Quote: a group of cells is not a human being because human beings think and cells do not. Only according to your definition of a being. A being could be defined as a cell or group of cells that work together as a system. An embryo is not just a clump of cells, it is a clump of cells forming a system or "body" in which human development is carried out.

[Gilbert1908]

name wrote: "http://www.ship.edu/~cgboeree/genpsyfetaldev.html"

This site marks the first detectable brain waves at weeks 13-16. I think I mentioned 2 months at some point; that was a typo, I meant 3.

I have no information that explains when brain wave activity actually begins so I will accept this for arguements sake, but I would make two observations;

It says this is when brainwaves are "detectable" not that this is when they are first generated.

Secondly there is no corroborating medical study or source.(the medical source sited does NOT say anything about brainwaves starting.
http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/002398.htm )

But in any case is it your position that abortions should not be performed after week 12?

[Omega1]

Quote: A being could be defined as a cell or group of cells that work together as a system.

I could care less about cells undergoing cell division. The point is, they're just cells.

[AllAmericanMan]

Omega1 wrote: Quote: A being could be defined as a cell or group of cells that work together as a system.

I could care less about cells undergoing cell division. The point is, they're just cells. You do not understand the meaning of system in this conext. A system in this conext is an individual organism.
A cell is just a cell, but a system of cells represents a body or being.