Child sacrifice in America dealt with by heaven

[ToddNotTodd]

While it's true that plants don't have brains, it can be said that plants are conscious under definition numbers 1, 4, 5, and 6. There are some scientists who believe that being conscious is based on a living entity. Primitive consciousness would be a sense of self-awareness or self-existence. This information is important to refute your conclusion that you would need a brain to have consciousness.

Ignoring all the other woo in you post, the part about plants having consciousness in any way like we say mammals have consciousness cracked me up.


‘As recently as 2013, cellular and molecular physiologist Clifford Slayman told Michael Pollan in the above-cited The New Yorker piece that plant neurobiology was, “the last serious confrontation between the scientific community and the nuthouse on these issues."’

big think.com

 

[Selene03]

Ignoring all the other woo in you post, the part about plants having consciousness in any way like we say mammals have consciousness cracked me up.


‘As recently as 2013, cellular and molecular physiologist Clifford Slayman told Michael Pollan in the above-cited The New Yorker piece that plant neurobiology was, “the last serious confrontation between the scientific community and the nuthouse on these issues."’

big think.com

Rather than throwing insults, Clifford Slayman should use scientific data to refute it, don't you think?

 

[InterestedAtheist]

The discussion of consciousness is relevant because you based your conclusion that zygotes don't have any consciousness. The only reason I brought up Dr. Siegel is to show that the field of science is never exact. There are always proposals and ideas, and these proposals and ideas come about as a result of their research.....studies they conducted.

That's a fair point, but I think it's obvious that the ideas you've posted are no more than speculation and hypothesis. While they make interesting conjecture, they are not worth taking seriously as they are. A few fringe thinkers making tentative assumptions is interesting in and of itself, but carries little weight in trying to disprove someone else's argument.

the definition of being conscious doesn't say anything about having a brain. Why? That is left to the scientist to discover. Today, there are studies showing that plants have consciousness.

I have to disagree with you. By the evidence you yourself have posted, any such "studies" are contentious and highly unreliable.

While it's true that plants don't have brains, it can be said that plants are conscious under definition numbers 1, 4, 5, and 6. There are some scientists who believe that being conscious is based on a living entity. Primitive consciousness would be a sense of self-awareness or self-existence. This information is important to refute your conclusion that you would need a brain to have consciousness.

First of all, as I said above, this is highly speculative, nothing more than hypotheses at present, and so does not constitute useful evidence. Second, while it may be that plants have some type of group consciousness in their fully-matured stages (and again, I have to say this is very far from being anything other than an interesting speculation) it has no bearing on humans. Plants may not need a brain to have some form of "consciousness", but humans certainly do.

Now, we go on to the zygote. A zygote doesn't have a brain, but science recognize that it's a living organism.

I must point out that, over the whole of this thread I have been quite careful never to dispute this. I am not arguing that fetuses and earlier forms are not human, or that they are not alive; what I am disputing is their personhood, and I have done this with a number of arguments in previous posts which you have yet to dispute.

The embryo is a simple living organism. Is the embryo a potential human? No. It's not a potential human. It IS human because it has human DNA; therefore, one can't say it's a potential human. It'a human life with consciousness. With the study of plants and microbes, science can conclude that a simple living organism can have consciousness, even the most primitive consciousness of self-existence.

I'm sorry, I just have to point out that you started on shaky grounds and ended with unfounded assertions.
First, I agree that an embryo is a human; I'm saying it is not a person. Second, it the generally accepted position is that an embryo has absolutely no form of consciousness, and no evidence has been presented that it has. Third, the study of plants and microbes does not at all conclude that simple living organisms can have a consciousness.

Miscarriages occur naturally without any abortionist. Also, we do respect the fetuses that are aborted by doctors and fetuses that are miscarried. My friend had a miscarriage several years ago. She had twin girls. They were given names and a burial. As Christians, we recognize the twins who were miscarried as persons.
As for the aborted fetuses, there are burial and memorial sites for aborted fetuses across the United States, including my island. You can find these burial and memorial sites in the weblink below. Those who oppose abortion have established these burial and memorial sites for the embryos; therefore, we are not indifferent.

As I said above, I recognise that some people may feel attached enough to grieve, even genuinely and deeply, at miscarriages. My point is that, as a society, we do not attach importance to miscarriages; even pro-lifers do not.
I'd like to repeat what I said above:
"If there was a similar cause of death among babies or children, some epidemic disease which regularly and without warning wiped out large swathes of them, like smallpox, or polio, or pneumonia, then there would be an outcry, and doctors and scientists would be doing all they could to stop it. Instead, none of this is happening - nor, to the best of my knowledge, are pro-life groups demanding that it should."
I was interested to note that on the page you posted, with the many monuments to and graveyards for aborted fetuses, there was no mention of miscarriages. None at all. This confirms my point - miscarriages, as a phenomenon, are not seen as a problem, even by pro-lifers.
Do you see how strange this is? I did a search for "end child cancer". There were plenty of websites and articles about it; diseases like this, which wipe out large numbers of young lives are seen as a tragedy. Never mind that it's natural causes, people are working hard to help save childrens' lives. But if you are right, and zygotes, embryos and fetuses are people, then the fact that so many of them are lost to miscarriages is a tragedy of similar proportions. So where are teams of doctors and scientists working to save innocent lives - or, where are the pro-lifers demanding action be taken to make them do so? Can you point to any? I don't think so, and that lack is logically inexplicable.

 

[Selene03]

That's a fair point, but I think it's obvious that the ideas you've posted are no more than speculation and hypothesis. While they make interesting conjecture, they are not worth taking seriously as they are. A few fringe thinkers making tentative assumptions is interesting in and of itself, but carries little weight in trying to disprove someone else's argument.


I have to disagree with you. By the evidence you yourself have posted, any such "studies" are contentious and highly unreliable.


First of all, as I said above, this is highly speculative, nothing more than hypotheses at present, and so does not constitute useful evidence. Second, while it may be that plants have some type of group consciousness in their fully-matured stages (and again, I have to say this is very far from being anything other than an interesting speculation) it has no bearing on humans. Plants may not need a brain to have some form of "consciousness", but humans certainly do.

I must point out that, over the whole of this thread I have been quite careful never to dispute this. I am not arguing that fetuses and earlier forms are not human, or that they are not alive; what I am disputing is their personhood, and I have done this with a number of arguments in previous posts which you have yet to dispute.

I'm sorry, I just have to point out that you started on shaky grounds and ended with unfounded assertions.
First, I agree that an embryo is a human; I'm saying it is not a person. Second, it the generally accepted position is that an embryo has absolutely no form of consciousness, and no evidence has been presented that it has. Third, the study of plants and microbes does not at all conclude that simple living organisms can have a consciousness.

This is why I started the discussion on consciousness because you are basing personhood on consciousness. So, we turn to the field of biology that studies living organisms, some of which have no brains. Biology have shown that even microbes (that don't have brains) show a remarkable amount of intelligence.

Secondly, you admit that the embryo is human. Being human is what makes us different from the other animals. This is why you hear a lot of protests on abortion because it involved humans. You don't hear any protests on chicken eggs. Humans are a special species. Being human....the embryo is a person. From the time that the ovum is fertilized, a life is begun which is neither that of the father nor the mother; it is the life of a new human being with his own growth. It would never be made human if it were not human already. This has always been clear, and modern genetic science offers clear confirmation. Being human is what makes it different from the rest of the living organisms. All humans are persons. And a person is someone who has a right to his or her own life.

As I said above, I recognise that some people may feel attached enough to grieve, even genuinely and deeply, at miscarriages. My point is that, as a society, we do not attach importance to miscarriages; even pro-lifers do not.
I'd like to repeat what I said above:
"If there was a similar cause of death among babies or children, some epidemic disease which regularly and without warning wiped out large swathes of them, like smallpox, or polio, or pneumonia, then there would be an outcry, and doctors and scientists would be doing all they could to stop it. Instead, none of this is happening - nor, to the best of my knowledge, are pro-life groups demanding that it should."
I was interested to note that on the page you posted, with the many monuments to and graveyards for aborted fetuses, there was no mention of miscarriages. None at all. This confirms my point - miscarriages, as a phenomenon, are not seen as a problem, even by pro-lifers.
Do you see how strange this is? I did a search for "end child cancer". There were plenty of websites and articles about it; diseases like this, which wipe out large numbers of young lives are seen as a tragedy. Never mind that it's natural causes, people are working hard to help save childrens' lives. But if you are right, and zygotes, embryos and fetuses are people, then the fact that so many of them are lost to miscarriages is a tragedy of similar proportions. So where are teams of doctors and scientists working to save innocent lives - or, where are the pro-lifers demanding action be taken to make them do so? Can you point to any? I don't think so, and that lack is logically inexplicable.

My brother, I'm sure that even you recognize that it is illogical to protest against nature. We only protest against something that is man-made. After all, you have "war memorials" such as the Vietnam Wall, because war is caused by man, not by nature. In the same way, we have burial and memorials sites of aborted humans because abortion is caused by man. Miscarriages are not man-made.

With that said, you claimed that a baby is a person once it has developed a brain. However, about 91% of abortion occurs after the baby already developed a brain, and I don't hear any public outcry from the pro-choice camp. The reason the pro-choice camp use words as "zygote", "embryos" or "mass of cells" is to dehumanize these group of humans even at 6th week when it already developed a brain. Once these groups of humans are dehumanized, it becomes easier to kill them. The Nazis used that same tactic with the Jews. And the Americans applied the same tactic with Blacks. By associating the word "property" to these group of humans, they kept them in slavery.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

This is why I started the discussion on consciousness because you are basing personhood on consciousness. So, we turn to the field of biology that studies living organisms, some of which have no brains. Biology have shown that even microbes (that don't have brains) show a remarkable amount of intelligence.

While this is not a logical approach for you to take, I'm afraid I don't think it will be fruitful. So far your evidence has not been very robust. In addition to that, if we are going to go down this road, it must be pointed out that there are certain organisms without brains, such as plants, which do indeed evolve sophisticated systems of reactions; but (a), this is a very long leap from "consciousness", as the paucity and speculative nature of the studies show; and (b) we are talking about fully-grown organisms, that have evolved to react to the environment with no brains. Humans, on the other hand, have evolved to have brains, which they do not until a short while before birth.So I don't really see how this helps your case.

For this next quote, I shall add interjections:

Secondly, you admit that the embryo is human.
I have never denied it.
Being human is what makes us different from the other animals.
All animals are different from other animals.
This is why you hear a lot of protests on abortion because it involved humans. You don't hear any protests on chicken eggs. Humans are a special species.
A very human-centric way of saying it, but I see what you mean.
Being human....the embryo is a person.
An unsubstantiated leap of logic, and not for the first time. I have already made my arguments why a "human" with no brain cannot be classed as a person. You will have to address those, to disprove them.
From the time that the ovum is fertilized, a life is begun which is neither that of the father nor the mother; it is the life of a new human being with his own growth. It would never be made human if it were not human already. This has always been clear, and modern genetic science offers clear confirmation. Being human is what makes it different from the rest of the living organisms.
I'm in complete agreement with all of that. But then...
All humans are persons.
I have argued that fetusese, and earlier stages, are not persons. You are not going to win the argument simply by claiming I am wrong. You will have to show your reasoning, and the flaw in my reasoning.

My brother, I'm sure that even you recognize that it is illogical to protest against nature. We only protest against something that is man-made. After all, you have "war memorials" such as the Vietnam Wall, because war is caused by man, not by nature. In the same way, we have burial and memorials sites of aborted humans because abortion is caused by man. Miscarriages are not man-made.

Just because a problem is not man-made, it does not mean we should not take action against it. Famines, hurricanes and floods are all caused by nature, but we all recognise these as massive problems that we can and do act to save people from. It may be illogical to protest against nature, as you say, but it is completely logical to protest against indifference to natural disasters.
Of course, from my point of view, miscarriages just happen to tiny lumps of human flesh. But from a pro-life point of view, if a new person is created at conception, then miscarriages cause the deaths of some four million children in the USA each year. And yet nobody is working to stop this - and, interestingly, we see no pro-life activists saying they should, and protesting government inactivity. I wonder why not? Around the world, there are thousands of doctors and scientists working to stop child cancer and other diseases that kill babies; it would hardly make sense for all of them to pack it all in, saying "childhood cancer is just nature; nothing we can do about it". But when fetuses and earlier stages miscarry, it's completely different. Why?

With that said, you claimed that a baby is a person once it has developed a brain. However, about 91% of abortion occurs after the baby already developed a brain, and I don't hear any public outcry from the pro-choice camp. The reason the pro-choice camp use words as "zygote", "embryos" or "mass of cells" is to dehumanize these group of humans even at 6th week when it already developed a brain. Once these groups of humans are dehumanized, it becomes easier to kill them. The Nazis used that same tactic with the Jews. And the Americans applied the same tactic with Blacks. By associating the word "property" to these group of humans, they kept them in slavery.

I wanted to keep the argument simple here, to just base it on principles. But since you have brought it up, this is not the first time I have debated abortion, and I have researched this question. In point of fact, although the human brain begins to develop fairly early, it is not "activated" or "working" until much later in development.
This essay, which is in fact where I first heard this theory, explains it well:
On the Morality of: Abortion
"Different kinds of mental activity show different kinds of brain waves. But brain waves with regular patterns typical of adult human brains do not appear in the fetus until about the 30th week of pregnancy—near the beginning of the third trimester. Fetuses younger than this—however alive and active they may be—lack the necessary brain architecture. They cannot yet think."

And to explain this further:
https://thebrainbank.scienceblog.com/2012/12/04/what-can-science-add-to-the-abortion-debate/
Almost 90% of UK abortions are performed within the first 12 weeks of pregnancy. During this time there is no scientific doubt that the developing fetus is incapable of any form of conscious awareness. The fetal brain does not begin to develop until 3-4 weeks into the pregnancy, at which point it is little more than a hollow tube filled with dividing neurons. Between weeks 4 and 8 this neural tissue grows forming the major divisions of the adult brain (forebrain, midbrain, hindbrain and spinal cord). By 8 weeks recognisable facial features have developed and the cerebral cortex separates into two distinct hemispheres. By the end of the first trimester (12 weeks) nerve cells are beginning to form rudimentary connections between different areas of the brain. However, these connections are sparse and incapable of performing the same functions as an adult brain. So by 12 weeks, although the fetus is certainly starting to look like a little human, the neural circuits responsible for conscious awareness are yet to develop.
...
"However, during these early days the neural pathways responsible for converting senses to conscious experiences have yet to develop. This means what we are seeing are just reflexes, probably controlled entirely by the developing brainstem and spinal cord. In fact, we know that the brain structures necessary for conscious experience of pain do not develop until 29-30 weeks, while the conscious processing of sounds is only made possible after the 26th week."

 

[InterestedAtheist]

By the way, I should say that it is a pleasure debating this with you. Discussions on abortion are usually too frequently interrupted by accusations that I am a Nazi, a Satanist or a tool of the devil, and references to the bible calling on me to be saved. So I do very much appreciate your civil tone, and would like to thank you for it!

 

[Selene03]

This essay, which is in fact where I first heard this theory, explains it well:
On the Morality of: Abortion
"Different kinds of mental activity show different kinds of brain waves. But brain waves with regular patterns typical of adult human brains do not appear in the fetus until about the 30th week of pregnancy—near the beginning of the third trimester. Fetuses younger than this—however alive and active they may be—lack the necessary brain architecture. They cannot yet think."

My brother, that is an atheist website, which is just as bias as a Christian website. When discussing abortion, I usually look at the science websites or newspaper rather than the Christian or atheist websites. So far, science is consistent in that the brain of the fetus develops at the 6th week. Also, science has recorded the first brain activity in the fetus from 6-8 weeks. These are the science websites and news report that says that (the bold is mine) and the weblinks are provided. You will notice that none of the websites are Christian or atheists...simply science information or news report from the science community:

Fetal Brain Development Week 6
This week sees the formation of the brain hemispheres and also some wave activity. The neural tube that connects the brain and spinal cord also closes in this duration. The formation of the Pituitary, Thymus and Parathyroid begins too.

Brain Development of Fetus

In an interesting essay, Professor Thomasine Kushner has recently attempted to show that the fetus has a life worthy of protection when fetal brain waves can be detected, ie at about eight weeks of gestation (1). Kushner's argument is a refinement of that found in a submission to the New England Jrournal of Medicine by Dr J M Goldenring (2). In his contribution Dr Goldenring suggests that medical science can indeed stipulate the point where human life begins. Given that 'brain death' has been accepted as the point where human life ends, logic would suggest that since 'brain life' indicates the emergence of a functioning brain, brain life should be considered the point when human life begins.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1375108/pdf/jmedeth00251-0050.pdf

For most people it is a functioning brain that defines a human being, as this is where our thoughts, feelings, and conscious minds come from. Some people are concerned with abortions after six weeks of pregnancy because that is when a basic spinal cord and nervous system first develop, but it is not until week eight (six weeks post-fertilisation) that the first rudimentary brain activity – the kind that is observed in organisms as simple as insects – can be observed.

The moment a baby’s brain starts to function, and other scientific answers on abortion

Even though the fetus is now developing areas that will become specific sections of the brain, not until the end of week 5 and into week 6 (usually around forty to forty-three days) does the first electrical brain activity begin to occur.

'The Ethical Brain'

Dr. Goldenring made an interesting suggestion. He pointed out that if brain death is the end of human life, then the first brain wave activity is the beginning of human life. To put it in another way, if brain death is the end of personhood, then the first brain wave activity is the beginning of personhood. Unfortunately, a vast majority of abortions take place during the 13th week when the brain was already developed and sending out brain wave activity. Nevertheless, science has also deemed that human life began at conception, and that the zygote is indeed a human living organism. This is what makes science so complicated. Nevertheless, I still love science, and Catholicism have always supported science despite that some of my Christian brothers from other denominations frown upon it.

The Christian argument, of course, is very simple and straightforward and not as complicated as science. The body and soul together makes a person. When the soul leaves the body, naturally, it loses the personhood. At conception, the soul is infused with the body making it already a person and therefore is endowed with a human right.

Likewise, I enjoyed the discussions with you, and it was nice meeting you. Peace be with you, my brother.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

My brother, that is an atheist website, which is just as bias as a Christian website.

I'm afraid that means nothing at all. It's not important who made the argument; you must either show where their argument is wrong, or agree with it. You're attempting to show that the argument is wrong, and good for you for trying, but I don't think you can do it.

When discussing abortion, I usually look at the science websites or newspaper rather than the Christian or atheist websites. So far, science is consistent in that the brain of the fetus develops at the 6th week. Also, science has recorded the first brain activity in the fetus from 6-8 weeks. These are the science websites and news report that says that (the bold is mine) and the weblinks are provided. You will notice that none of the websites are Christian or atheists...simply science information or news report from the science community:

If you look at the scientific website I posted above, you will see that although the brain shows increasing activity as it develops, it does not count as "the faculty for consciousness or thought) until much later - about the beginning of the third trimester.

The Christian argument, of course, is very simple and straightforward and not as complicated as science.

I have very grave doubts about whether it is an "argument" at all, and it being simpler than science is not necessarily a recommendation!

The body and soul together makes a person. When the soul leaves the body, naturally, it loses the personhood. At conception, the soul is infused with the body making it already a person and therefore is endowed with a human right.

I would actually be interested in seeing what scriptural evidence you have for that. As far as I know, there is nothing in the Bible saying when the soul enters the body. This, however, is merely a minor point, because the main problem is that you have now conceded the argument for applying anti-abortion laws to the general public. If your reasons for thinking that a fetus is a person are because of your religion, then you are absolutely free to believe that, but nobody else can be forced to.

Likewise, I enjoyed the discussions with you, and it was nice meeting you. Peace be with you, my brother.

Thank you, and the same to you. It has been a most educational and interesting experience.
Best wishes,
I.A.

 

[Selene03]

I'm afraid that means nothing at all. It's not important who made the argument; you must either show where their argument is wrong, or agree with it. You're attempting to show that the argument is wrong, and good for you for trying, but I don't think you can do it.

On the contrary, the source matters because such websites tend to be one-sided. Didn’t you also have reservations when someone produced a pro-life website to support their views?

If you look at the scientific website I posted above, you will see that although the brain shows increasing activity as it develops, it does not count as "the faculty for consciousness or thought) until much later - about the beginning of the third trimester.

The main problem that I see with science regarding this issue is that it’s inconclusive. I see three groups of people:

First, there are people such as yourself who believe that personhood begins at the first sign of consciousness or thought. The second group are those like the people in Ireland who believe that personhood begins at the first sign of brain wave activity, which scientific data has shown to be from 6-8 weeks. The third group of people are those like myself who say that personhood starts at conception, which science also say is the beginning of human life.

All three groups use science to support their views, and sometimes this is what makes science complicated. All three groups can show that the fetus is living and human. And all three have their own definition of personhood. Your definition of personhood is based on consciousness. There is actually nothing false in that definition. My definition of personhood is my humanity. What makes us persons is that we are human beings. I am a person because I am, and I am human. What makes me a person is not what I do. “I” have existed from the one-cell zygote stage to adulthood. As Dr. Seuss said, “A person’s a person, no matter how small.” Humans are special and our humanity makes us unique and sets us apart from the rest of the animal kingdom.....and this is not a false statement.

I would actually be interested in seeing what scriptural evidence you have for that. As far as I know, there is nothing in the Bible saying when the soul enters the body.

Genesis 2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

The Hebrew word for “breath” in the above Scripture is “neshamah” (meaning soul or spirit). The Hebrew word for “soul” in that verse is “nephesh” (meaning person). Adam didn’t become a living person until he was given a soul or spirit from God. Infusing a soul or spirit into a body is what makes it a living person. Body and soul are one. If the soul or spirit is not there, then what we have is a dead body.

This, however, is merely a minor point, because the main problem is that you have now conceded the argument for anti-abortion laws on the general public. If your reasons for thinking that a fetus is a person are because of your religion, then you are absolutely free to believe that, but nobody else can be forced to.

In my previous posts, I have stated that before I became an adult, I was a teenager, before that I was a child, before that I was an infant, before that I was a new born baby, before that I was an embryo. If I’m not mistaken, I think my mother had an ultrasound picture of me when I was in the womb. I don’t believe that my life began at birth.

A second reason I am against abortion is because a vast majority of women use it as a birth control method.

Thank you, and the same to you. It has been a most educational and interesting experience.
Best wishes,
I.A.

Best wishes

 

[InterestedAtheist]

It looks like we aren't quite ready to say goodbye yet!

On the contrary, the source matters because such websites tend to be one-sided. Didn’t you also have reservations when someone produced a pro-life website to support their views?

I certainly would be skeptical of the data, opinions or "facts" produced by a pro-life source, yes - and, I could argue, I would have reason to be. But that's not what we're talking about here; we're talking about an argument being made, a logical proposition that either makes sense or can be shown to be logically incorrect. For you to dismiss it because you don't agree with the religious views of the person who wrote it is in error. What you need to do is explain the logical fallacy that causes you to disagree with it. I'd like to repost something from earlier, and invite you to respond to it.

Let us consider what it is about us that makes us persons with a few thoughts:
First: would you still be the same person if you had a leg amputated? If you lost a hand? If you had a kidney transplant? If you had a heart transplant? No doubt this would affect how you felt, but would you be a different person? If there any part of you that could change you into a new person if it were transplanted? The answer is yes, there is one part, and only one: your brain.
Second: it is now possible for human life to be supported without a brain being present - that is to say, the body can be kept alive. Is this body a person, without the brain? No.
These are some of the arguments that prove personhood resides in a functioning brain. Can you refute them?
(If you're going to respond with "What about sleep, or a coma?" the answer is that sleeping or comatose people still have the capacity for thought, even if it is dormant at present; but that's a different discussion, and let's leave it till we've addressed the points above).

The main problem that I see with science regarding this issue is that it’s inconclusive. I see three groups of people:

The fact that three groups of people exist means very little; all that matters is the quality of their arguments and evidence.

First, there are people such as yourself who believe that personhood begins at the first sign of consciousness or thought. The second group are those like the people in Ireland who believe that personhood begins at the first sign of brain wave activity, which scientific data has shown to be from 6-8 weeks. The third group of people are those like myself who say that personhood starts at conception, which science also say is the beginning of human life.

The first group are able to present arguments for personhood that you have yet to refute. The second group you still have yet to refute, and I would point out that the scientific evidence I posted earlier shows that activity in the developing brain does not constitute the capacity for actual thought until a much later date. The third group, yourselves, need to address the arguments; so far, your attempts to do so have merely been (a) a bald claim that a human being is a person, not taking into account the questions about the role of the brain in a living body, and (b) arguments about consciousness in plants, which are neither mainstream nor applicable to humans.

Your definition of personhood is based on consciousness. There is actually nothing false in that definition. My definition of personhood is my humanity. What makes us persons is that we are human beings. I am a person because I am, and I am human. What makes me a person is not what I do. “I” have existed from the one-cell zygote stage to adulthood. As Dr. Seuss said, “A person’s a person, no matter how small.” Humans are special and our humanity makes us unique and sets us apart from the rest of the animal kingdom.....and this is not a false statement.

All you are doing there is re-stating a single claim - I am a person because I am a living being.
So, if your brain was removed but your body kept alive, would that body still be a person? If personhood does not reside in the brain, your answer must be yes, and that is obviously ridiculous.

Genesis 2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

Not that it matters to this debate, but this serves my argument better than yours! It seems clear that this is (1) The human body being formed and (2) the "soul" arriving in it. Which is exactly the opposite of what you said.
As i say, though, it doesn't really matter, because this story is only about Adam, not about all the other fetuses of history, about whose ensoulment, it still seems, the Bible is silent.

In my previous posts, I have stated that before I became an adult, I was a teenager, before that I was a child, before that I was an infant, before that I was a new born baby, before that I was an embryo. If I’m not mistaken, I think my mother had an ultrasound picture of me when I was in the womb. I don’t believe that my life began at birth.

I really have to ask that you stop misstating my position. I don't think your life began at birth either. I think your life began at conception, and that you began it as a single-celled organism, developing towards clusters of cells, then an embryo, and a fetus and, at some point almost certainly after an abortion could have taken place, the development of your ability to have thoughts enabled you to be considered to be a person, rather than just a collection of human cells.
Now so far, all you've done is say "But I have always been a human being, never anything else, no matter what my shape or size, and therefore I have always been a person." But what if you lost your brain, as might happen through brain death, but your body was still alive? Or, as a hypothetical exercise, what if your brain was transplanted?
These are the arguments that show personhood resides in the brain. If you can't address them, then you effectively lose the argument.

A second reason I am against abortion is because a vast majority of women use it as a birth control method.

I agree that this is not an ideal situation; but this is only an actual serious problem if abortion is the murder of a person. Let's deal with that first, shall we?

 

[Selene03]

It looks like we aren't quite ready to say goodbye yet!


I certainly would be skeptical of the data, opinions or "facts" produced by a pro-life source, yes - and, I could argue, I would have reason to be. But that's not what we're talking about here; we're talking about an argument being made, a logical proposition that either makes sense or can be shown to be logically incorrect. For you to dismiss it because you don't agree with the religious views of the person who wrote it is in error. What you need to do is explain the logical fallacy that causes you to disagree with it. I'd like to repost something from earlier, and invite you to respond to it.

Let us consider what it is about us that makes us persons with a few thoughts:
First: would you still be the same person if you had a leg amputated? If you lost a hand? If you had a kidney transplant? If you had a heart transplant? No doubt this would affect how you felt, but would you be a different person? If there any part of you that could change you into a new person if it were transplanted? The answer is yes, there is one part, and only one: your brain.
Second: it is now possible for human life to be supported without a brain being present - that is to say, the body can be kept alive. Is this body a person, without the brain? No.
These are some of the arguments that prove personhood resides in a functioning brain. Can you refute them?
(If you're going to respond with "What about sleep, or a coma?" the answer is that sleeping or comatose people still have the capacity for thought, even if it is dormant at present; but that's a different discussion, and let's leave it till we've addressed the points above).


The fact that three groups of people exist means very little; all that matters is the quality of their arguments and evidence.


The first group are able to present arguments for personhood that you have yet to refute. The second group you still have yet to refute, and I would point out that the scientific evidence I posted earlier shows that activity in the developing brain does not constitute the capacity for actual thought until a much later date. The third group, yourselves, need to address the arguments; so far, your attempts to do so have merely been (a) a bald claim that a human being is a person, not taking into account the questions about the role of the brain in a living body, and (b) arguments about consciousness in plants, which are neither mainstream nor applicable to humans.


All you are doing there is re-stating a single claim - I am a person because I am a living being.
So, if your brain was removed but your body kept alive, would that body still be a person? If personhood does not reside in the brain, your answer must be yes, and that is obviously ridiculous.


Not that it matters to this debate, but this serves my argument better than yours! It seems clear that this is (1) The human body being formed and (2) the "soul" arriving in it. Which is exactly the opposite of what you said.
As i say, though, it doesn't really matter, because this story is only about Adam, not about all the other fetuses of history, about whose ensoulment, it still seems, the Bible is silent.


I really have to ask that you stop misstating my position. I don't think your life began at birth either. I think your life began at conception, and that you began it as a single-celled organism, developing towards clusters of cells, then an embryo, and a fetus and, at some point almost certainly after an abortion could have taken place, the development of your ability to have thoughts enabled you to be considered to be a person, rather than just a collection of human cells.
Now so far, all you've done is say "But I have always been a human being, never anything else, no matter what my shape or size, and therefore I have always been a person." But what if you lost your brain, as might happen through brain death, but your body was still alive? Or, as a hypothetical exercise, what if your brain was transplanted?
These are the arguments that show personhood resides in the brain. If you can't address them, then you effectively lose the argument.


I agree that this is not an ideal situation; but this is only an actual serious problem if abortion is the murder of a person. Let's deal with that first, shall we?

I thought I explained my position. My position has always been that human life started at conception and therefore personhood also started at conception. Human development comes in many different stages. Regardless of what stage, it is still a human being and a person. As I said, before I was an adult, I was a teenager. Before that I was a child. Before that I was an infant. Before that, I was a newborn baby. Before that, I was an embryo. Before that I was a single-celled zygote. These are the stages of human development and each stage is a human life and a human person.

I argue from science that the unborn are distinct, living, and whole human beings, starting at conception. I didn’t come from an embryo; I once was an embryo. I argue from philosophy that there is no relevant difference between me the embryo and me the adult that justifies killing me at that earlier stage of development. Differences of size, level of development, environment, and degree of dependency are not good enough reasons for saying I could be killed then but not now.

The embryo at 6-8 weeks has a brain activity that matches the brain activity of an insect while the embryo at 20 weeks has a brain activity of consciousness. So, why is it okay to kill the embryo with a brain activity of an insect? For goodness sake, even the insects come equipped with self-defense mechanisms of their own because they don't want to die.

Do you believe that each and every human being has an equal right to life, or do only some have it based on something none of us share equally? If it’s wrong to hurt people because of skin color or gender, why is it okay to hurt them because they are smaller or less developed?

Also, Adam and Eve didn't have a human mother and father. They were not developed from an egg and sperm. The creation of man is not about abortion. It's about the dignity of mankind. All of mankind was created in the image and likeness of God. This is what makes man different and unique from other creatures. Even the angels were not created in His image and likeness. That trait belongs to man alone. Man became a living person when God gave him a soul or spirit. This doesn't mean that the soul was given when he was a full grown man like Adam. The soul was given at conception. Before God formed us in the womb, He knew and saw us as a person (Jeremiah 1:5).

 

[now faith]

Well, there is no argument you can make to convince me of any of that. Good day to you.

If I am to understand your statement , you support murder?

 

[now faith]

It's difficult, isn't it? When the bible, the holy book that is supposed to be able to guide you, and certainly not to steer you wrong, turns out to say things that directly contradict your most cherished beliefs. I understand your need to deny what you can see there, to rationalise it, to attack the messenger. I'm even quite impressed by the effort you took to do it. Let's see...
"You must have gotten that from an atheist source, so it means nothing." Check!
"It actually has nothing to do with abortion" - a passage that says "drink this special liquid, and if you have lain with a man who was not your husband, you will miscarry. Check!
"It's quite understandable that you misunderstood the passage, because you read it in the wrong way, as atheists are wont to do." Check!
"Of course nothing in the bible backs up the pro-life position. How foolish of you to think we need to cite evidence!" Check!
A hasty reference to science, to try to paper over the cracks. Check!
In fact, SPF, the text means what it says, and the reason the Bible has no condemnation of abortion is because the writers - correctly, as it turned out - realised that a fetus was not the same thing as a baby.

Also, since you seem to think that condemning abortion is an obvious and easy moral choice for a Christian, perhaps you are unaware that the pro-life stance is, historically speaking, very recent? That, well within living memory, evangelical Christians had no problems with abortion. Strange, isn't it?

Odd, a religon that is based on contradiction of another religon, that according to the first religon the second does not exist.

Atheism is a presumption that would have to disprove the personal experience of every Christian on earth.

Nevertheless do Atheist have morals?
Or a better way of asking ...
In a peaceful culture ,can murder go ignored?

I believe Atheist miss one of the greatest attributes of God.
The ability to be a Atheist by the gift of free will.
Free Will is what allows this very ugly topic.
The notion of calling murder a choice is illogical , after all there are choices of the same act that people are on death row for.
I would hope anyone could see the fall of humanity in any Nation that is selective about murder.

 

[now faith]

Atheist cannot make a informed statement on Bible Scripture.
To presume our view is contradiction of the Bible is lacking knowlage of God's Word and the circumstances there in.
God's Word is a narritive of the history of mankind.
To quote a passage out of context shows a lack of knowledge of the subject matter.
The bitter water Quote from the book of numbers , was during a time of the law of Moses.
To explain salvation through Christ to a Atheist is not easy.
They seem to couch any debate that has information found in God's Word ,unless it has served their purpose.
We are not now nor ever under the law of Moses as Christians.
The law was a proprietary Coveanut with Israel, and was temporary until it was fulfilled by Christ.
Christians for the most part are Gentiles today, unless a Hebrew person converts to Christianty.
This happened to Israel in the book of Acts many Hebrew people became part of the New Coveanut.
We are free from the law of Moses and do not abide in the precepts today ,Christ fulfilled the Law.
Christ has given those in his body, freedom from death.
Man from the beginning through free will has sinned and done many horrible things.
This thread is primarily for Christians to think about current events.
It's not to take pot shots at the validity of God's Word.
Every time I see the law of Moses quoted I almost want to modify Godwins law to include it.
That is how irrelevent it is to use.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

Odd, a religon that is based on contradiction of another religon, that according to the first religon the second does not exist.

Atheism is a religion in the same way that not collecting stamps is a hobby.

Atheism is a presumption that would have to disprove the personal experience of every Christian on earth.

Not at all. A personal experience, by definition, is not evidence for anybody except the person who experienced it.

Nevertheless do Atheist have morals?
Or a better way of asking ...
In a peaceful culture ,can murder go ignored?

Atheism is not a moral position. All atheism means is "Do I believe in a god or gods? No."
That said, yes, most atheists do have morals.

I believe Atheist miss one of the greatest attributes of God.
The ability to be a Atheist by the gift of free will.
Free Will is what allows this very ugly topic.
The notion of calling murder a choice is illogical , after all there are choices of the same act that people are on death row for.
I would hope anyone could see the fall of humanity in any Nation that is selective about murder.

I am not at all sure what you mean by this.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

I thought I explained my position. My position has always been that human life started at conception and therefore personhood also started at conception. Human development comes in many different stages. Regardless of what stage, it is still a human being and a person.

You have explained your position, and I fully understand it. The problem is, your position is now being challenged by the arguments I have made, which you have not attempted to respond to.
If your brain died but your body could, would your body still be a person?
If, a hypothetical, your brain was transplanted into a different body, swapped with another person's, would the original bodies still be the same people?
Is there any part of the body, apart from the brain, which is incapable of being transplanted without resulting in the cessation of the person?
If your answers to those questions are no, then we can see that personhood resides in the brain.

I argue from science that the unborn are distinct, living, and whole human beings, starting at conception. I didn’t come from an embryo; I once was an embryo. I argue from philosophy that there is no relevant difference between me the embryo and me the adult that justifies killing me at that earlier stage of development. Differences of size, level of development, environment, and degree of dependency are not good enough reasons for saying I could be killed then but not now.

Are you your body, or are you your brain?
I'd like to repost something from earlier, and invite you to respond to it - as you still have not (I'm not sure why).

Let us consider what it is about us that makes us persons with a few thoughts:
First: would you still be the same person if you had a leg amputated? If you lost a hand? If you had a kidney transplant? If you had a heart transplant? No doubt this would affect how you felt, but would you be a different person? If there any part of you that could change you into a new person if it were transplanted? The answer is yes, there is one part, and only one: your brain.
Second: it is now possible for human life to be supported without a brain being present - that is to say, the body can be kept alive. Is this body a person, without the brain? No.
These are some of the arguments that prove personhood resides in a functioning brain. Can you refute them?

The embryo at 6-8 weeks has a brain activity that matches the brain activity of an insect while the embryo at 20 weeks has a brain activity of consciousness. So, why is it okay to kill the embryo with a brain activity of an insect? For goodness sake, even the insects come equipped with self-defense mechanisms of their own because they don't want to die.

So, we've moved from plants to insects?
As I said earlier:
"If you look at the scientific website I posted above, you will see that although the brain shows increasing activity as it develops, it does not count as "the faculty for consciousness or thought) until much later - about the beginning of the third trimester."

Do you believe that each and every human being has an equal right to life, or do only some have it based on something none of us share equally? If it’s wrong to hurt people because of skin color or gender, why is it okay to hurt them because they are smaller or less developed?

I wonder why you continue to misstate my position? You are perfectly well aware that I am differentiating between persons and non-persons on the basis of the absence of a working brain.

Also, Adam and Eve didn't have a human mother and father. They were not developed from an egg and sperm. The creation of man is not about abortion. It's about the dignity of mankind. All of mankind was created in the image and likeness of God. This is what makes man different and unique from other creatures. Even the angels were not created in His image and likeness. That trait belongs to man alone. Man became a living person when God gave him a soul or spirit. This doesn't mean that the soul was given when he was a full grown man like Adam. The soul was given at conception.

I think it's a sign that you're getting flustered that you're talking about such a range of topics, none of them concerning what we should be talking about: you said the soul enters the "body" at conception, I asked for biblical evidence of that, and you have been unable to find any.

Before God formed us in the womb, He knew and saw us as a person (Jeremiah 1:5).

That has nothing to do with when the soul enters the body.
Not that this affects me in the slightest, of course; but you're the one who said the soul enters the "body" at conception, and I'm interested to see that you have no biblical foundation for that.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

If I am to understand your statement , you support murder?

Pro-choice people do not think that abortion is murder. And before you respond that it doesn't matter what they think, killing a person is murder, can I recommend that you read through some of the discussions on this thread? You may find your questions have been answered already.

 

[Selene03]

You have explained your position, and I fully understand it. The problem is, your position is now being challenged by the arguments I have made, which you have not attempted to respond to.
If your brain died but your body could, would your body still be a person?

According to science, a person who is brain-dead is dead; therefore, a person who is declared dead by doctors is no longer a person. I go by what the scientists and doctors say.

If, a hypothetical, your brain was transplanted into a different body, swapped with another person's, would the original bodies still be the same people?

This is science fiction. No brain transplant has ever been conducted.

Is there any part of the body, apart from the brain, which is incapable of being transplanted without resulting in the cessation of the person?
If your answers to those questions are no, then we can see that personhood resides in the brain.


Are you your body, or are you your brain?
I'd like to repost something from earlier, and invite you to respond to it - as you still have not (I'm not sure why).

I am neither a body or brain. I am human....even when I was a zygote. This is not about my body or my brain. This is about "me", "myself" and "I".....I am a human being. It's not about how I look or what I do....It's about who I am. I am a human being and a person of the human race, and my human development started at conception. And if more people would think that a zygote and an embryo is also human despite its shape, size, and level of development, then maybe a lot of women would think twice about using abortion as a birth control method.

 

[Selene03]

I am of the opinion in the first trimester the embryo only has the potential to become a living breathing human. Therefore it is best to abort the pregnancy rather than give birth to a child, which isn't wanted for whatever reason.

People who say that a woman should continue with the pregnancy and give the baby up for adoption don't realise how that can harm some children by feeling that they were unwanted. In addition to our three birth daughters we have two adopted sons with special educational needs. The eldest, now 45, has moderate learning difficulties and had eleven different homes before he joined our family when he was nine. Feeling unwanted by his birth parents has certainly affected him in a very negative way.

I commend you for adopting two children with special needs. Not all children feel that way. Many are grateful that their mothers chose life. Others struggle until they overcome those feelings of abandonment. My brother also adopted a child and treated him as his own. He was told the truth about his adoption. His biological father had abandoned him, but he felt no regrets. He met his biological father, but his real connection was to my brother who raised him up. Being a mother or father is not only biological. The love of adoptive parents can make all the difference.

Steve Jobs: An ‘Unwanted’ Child