What a Baby is Alive?

[Blank]

If you have any more ideas, feel free to share them. Or if you chose the "share below" option, go ahead.

 

I just was in a curious mood, and wanted to say, "What a baby is alive?" Which is a funny way of saying, "When is a baby alive?" That question, however, can be considered to have little or much significance on the question of whether abortion is right or wrong. Which is why I am not asking that question.

[thepixiesrock]

The baby at 10-11 weeks old can urinate.

[Meshugger]

I am no parent, nor do i plan to become one in the near future. And i'm not exactly encouraged to become a loving parent when i see the general attitude among kids today.

 

So yeah, no cookies for guessing my choice in the poll.

[Blank]

The baby at 10-11 weeks old can urinate.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Thank you. We'll certainly have to take this new information into consideration. Anyone else?

[Pop]

Is a fetus alive? Sure it is. Isn't that obvious? That's really not the issue with abortion. The issue is whether or not the fetus is a person worthy of protection or consideration. If being alive informs one's right to exist, then concessions have to be made far beyond abortion. We wouldn't be able to cut down trees, or eat meat, or some vegetables for that matter.

[Tale]

On one hand, a fetus lacks intelligence, a recognizable consciousness, and is utterly physically dependent upon the mother to a degree that it can't survive under any circumstance after being removed up to a certain period of development. A zygote is no more a person than a piece skin.

 

On the other hand, I don't know that I hold life even that sacred. It's just a good idea for social development to encourage that idea.

 

So, who cares, kill 'em all!

[Blank]

Yeah, but you wouldn't abort your right hand, right? So how much less a potential human life for you to brainwash into being your right-hand man?

[Dark Moth]

But a piece of skin does not develop into a whole organism if nurtured in the womb.

[Gorth]

But a piece of skin does not develop into a whole organism if nurtured in the womb.

Cloning? :-"

[Pop]

So potential future is our new life paradigm now?

[Dark Moth]

You saying it doesn't matter?

[Pop]

It's certainly a viable paradigm if you're willing to consider all people with terminal diseases as non-humans, or for that matter, consider the young more valuable than the old. It doesn't really work otherwise.

[Tale]

But a piece of skin does not develop into a whole organism if nurtured in the womb.

Cloning? :-"

Actually... this.

[Fionavar]

As is often the case with such topics, I will only offer once the need to step with respect and compassion in this discussion.

[Dark Moth]

It's certainly a viable paradigm if you're willing to consider all people with terminal diseases as non-humans, or for that matter, consider the young more valuable than the old. It doesn't really work otherwise.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

That's not the same thing. A terminally ill person is still a person. A zygote is not the same as a piece of skin because a piece of skin is not something that develops into a person if left alone to grow.

 

As for your other point, yes human beings cut down trees and kill animals for food. But we do it for our own survival as a species. We do it because it's necessary. It's not the same thing as killing a baby simply because a person doesn't want to have one.

 

But a piece of skin does not develop into a whole organism if nurtured in the womb.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Cloning? "

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Again, not the same thing. It doesn't happen naturally. And even still, it's not the piece of skin itself that grows. It's just DNA taken from those cells and put into a living zygote inside a mother host.

Edited January 5, 2007 by Dark Moth

[thepixiesrock]

It's certainly a viable paradigm if you're willing to consider all people with terminal diseases as non-humans, or for that matter, consider the young more valuable than the old. It doesn't really work otherwise.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

You wouldn't have to consider them as non-humans, just dead humans.

 

Oh wait, but then wouldn't we have to just consider everyone as dead humans because we all eventually die?

Edited January 5, 2007 by thepixiesrock

[Pop]

It's certainly a viable paradigm if you're willing to consider all people with terminal diseases as non-humans, or for that matter, consider the young more valuable than the old. It doesn't really work otherwise.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

You wouldn't have to consider them as non-humans, just dead humans.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Same thing. They don't have potential futures, they don't have value. If we want to consider them people we have to have some different criterion for personhood.

 

Oh wait, but then wouldn't we have to just consider everyone as dead humans because we all eventually die?

Sure. Thus no one has value or rights. Who are you arguing with?

Edited January 5, 2007 by Pop

[thepixiesrock]

I'm not arguing against anyone, I was just pointing out. I just finished writitng my debate for this topic for tomorrow, I think that's why Blank started this topic.

[Dark Moth]

^^^ See point on previous page, Pop.

[Pop]

Wait, wait.

 

That's not the same thing. A terminally ill person is still a person. A zygote is not the same as a piece of skin because a piece of skin is not something that develops into a person if left alone to grow.

That's not an assertion of potential future as a paradigm for personhood. We can reasonably say that a man with ALS has no future. A zygote does. If we say then that the man with ALS is a moral agent (or "person") with the same value as a zygote, we're denying that potential future has anything to do with whether or not we consider someone a moral agent. We're making an argument from humanity, which is much different.

[Dark Moth]

It's not the same thing. You're making two big logical errors here. First, you're trying to say that just because one principal applies to one then it must apply to everything. Secondly, you're making it seem like potential future is the only thing that applies to both a zygote and a terminally ill person. Besides, the original point was not comparing a zygote to a terminally ill person. The point was comparing a zygote to just a piece of skin and explaining why a zygote could have more value than it. A terminally ill person is an entirely subject altogether - which is why it's pointless to try to compare the two.

[Tale]

As for your other point, yes human beings cut down trees and kill animals for food.  But we do it for our own survival as a species.  We do it because it's necessary.  It's not the same thing as killing a baby simply because a person doesn't want to have one.

Except we don't. Humans don't need paper to survive. I won't argue against wood for building materials, because that's just so convenient. Humans also don't need meat to survive, we can survive healthy and efficiently off fruits and vegetables.

 

And do another thing you posted, why is the criteria the ability to develop into a whole organism while nurtured in the womb? Why not the criteria be the ability to develop outside of the womb? At least the latter is more recognizable as an organism.

[Krookie]

Anytime after the baby is out of the womb.

[Laozi]

You're human when you make it into the phone book, not before

[Dark Moth]

Except we don't.  Humans don't need paper to survive.  I won't argue against wood for building materials, because that's just so convenient.  Humans also don't need meat to survive, we can survive healthy and efficiently off fruits and vegetables.

 

And do another thing you posted, why is the criteria the ability to develop into a whole organism while nurtured in the womb?  Why not the criteria be the ability to develop outside of the womb?  At least the latter is more recognizable as an organism.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It's still a concept of survival, no matter how you look at it. And some people are against the killing of animals for meat anyway, so that's a moot point. As for your second point, the issue is not whether or not it's outside the womb, just it's ability to grow into a whole new organism. Also, see my post above.

Edited January 5, 2007 by Dark Moth