Child sacrifice in America dealt with by heaven

[Selene03]

The fact remains that no woman should be forced to bring an unwanted child into this world.

We need no praise for adopting children with special educational needs. It was part of our life plan for our marriage in 1969, my husband and I, were then aged 22 and 19. We decided that we would have three birth children of our own and adopt a child less fortunate than ours. We had three birth daughters by 1976, the eldest adopted boy arrived in 1982, we fostered a 16 year old with Down's syndrome in 1984, who stayed with us for nine years, but we have since lost touch with him. In 1986 we adopted a 13 month old baby with Down's Syndrome (now 34), who has quite severe learning difficulties, but is the most FANTASTIC person anyone could ever wish to meet, he is loved and admired by everyone with whom he comes into contact. We consider ourselves very privileged to call him our son. After my husband's brain haemorrhage in 2006, which trashed half his brain, our son now lives in an excellent care home where he his very happy as I couldn't cope with both of them. When our grandchildren were very young they used to argue about who was sitting next to their special uncle, 'You sat next to Uncle J last time, it is MY turn to sit next to him today'. When our second grandson was five he asked if he could take his special uncle to school for 'show and tell'. 'Not everyone has a special uncle like me', he boasted! I was amused, but obviously had to explain that it would be improper to do so.

I should add that before we took on the boys we discussed it with our daughters first, the three are very highly intelligent, like their father was before his brain haemorrhage, so took on board when we were telling them, even though they were very young. We would not have gone ahead if they had been opposed to the idea. However, they were happy to support us, even when the going got tough with the eldest lad.

That's very inspiring. Thank you for sharing your testimony. It's testimonies like yours that I stand for the right to life.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

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.

What the scientists and doctors say supports my argument. No matter if the heart is beating and the lungs breathing and the body still alive, the person is dead without their brain.
So, there we are. We both agree that a human without a working brain is not a person. And a fetus does not have a working brain. It really is as simple as that, but I think you don't want to see it.

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

I did say - several times - that this was a hypothetical, and one that exposes your argument as false. In point of fact, it may be possible in a relatively short time, given our medical advances. Regardless of this, however, you know what the answer is. You know that you would still be you if you lost your foot. Your hand? A heart transplant? Really, any part of you could be transplanted, and you'd still be the same person? Any part? Well, there's one part of you that couldn't be, because it it was, you wouldn't be you any more. And you and I both know what that part is is. It's the part that makes you a person.

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 human being. It's not about how I look or what I do....It's about who I am. I am human being and 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.

Once again, you ignore what I am saying. I am not saying that a zygote is not human. Nor am I speaking of its size or shape or level of development. I am speaking of whether or not it possesses a working brain.

I commend you for beginning to address my points, but you're still ducking the main question, probably because you can see where it leads. So let me be as plain as I can.

• If you lost your hands and feet, would you be less of a person?
• If your internal organs were transplanted, would you now be 50% someone else? Would you no longer be you?
• Would you be a person if your brain were dead but your body still alive?
• You have said that you are willing to go with scientists who define brain death as a person's death. Are you, then, willing to accept that your brain is where your personality resides, and that without your brain you are no longer a person?

 

[Selene03]

I thought the word testimony referred to religion, which I ditched getting on for 50 years ago.

Testimony refers to what someone says. It's a word used even in the courts.

 

[Selene03]

• You have said that you are willing to go with scientists who define brain death as a person's death. Are you, then, willing to accept that your brain is where your personality resides, and that without your brain you are no longer a person?

My brother, you still don't understand. I argue from the science that says human life begins at conception. I was once a zygote without a brain, but I was still a living human being because science didn't declare me dead when I was a zygote....only you did.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

My brother, you still don't understand. I argue from the science that says human life begins at conception. I was once a zygote without a brain, but I was still a living human being because science didn't declare me dead when I was a zygote....only you did.

You haven't answered my questions yet.

 

[now faith]

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.

To my dismay, unfortunately you are correct.
A friend of mine like myself , has found that many on the Christian Web sites,
Post they agree in choice.

 

[now faith]

God Bless All here including Atheists , I have found what I was looking for.

Keep in mind free will choice does not grant anything, but it does invoke consequences.

 

[Selene03]

God Bless All here including Atheists , I have found what I was looking for.

Keep in mind free will choice does not grant anything, but it does invoke consequences.

I agree. Whatever choices one makes has consequences. God bless and have a great Sunday!

 

[ToddNotTodd]

You haven't answered my questions yet.

You’re probably not going to get any answers that actually addresses what your saying.

 

[SPF]

What the scientists and doctors say supports my argument. No matter if the heart is beating and the lungs breathing and the body still alive, the person is dead without their brain.

This of course isn't actually true. There is a real and tangible difference between a young, developing and actively growing human compared to a human that has already reached x level of development and then has an injury in which their growth ceases, or grown self ceases. Those are two very different events.

We know scientifically that a new human being comes into existence at fertilization and begins about a 25 year developmental period. But they're still a living human being at all points of their development.

It is absurd to suggest that there is a living and growing non-human organism one moment, and then the next moment after a brain synapse fires that you magically have a growing human organism. No, it was a human being from the moment of fertilization.

And with regards to brain transplants - those probably are science fiction. What isn't science fiction and is probably going to happen within the decade is a head transplant. Or as I would call it, a full body transplant. Italian doctor says world's first human head transplant 'imminent'

 

[ToddNotTodd]

This of course isn't actually true. There is a real and tangible difference between a young, developing and actively growing human compared to a human that has already reached x level of development and then has an injury in which their growth ceases, or grown self ceases. Those are two very different events.

We know scientifically that a new human being comes into existence at fertilization and begins about a 25 year developmental period. But they're still a living human being at all points of their development.

It is absurd to suggest that there is a living and growing non-human organism one moment, and then the next moment after a brain synapse fires that you magically have a growing human organism. No, it was a human being from the moment of fertilization.

And with regards to brain transplants - those probably are science fiction. What isn't science fiction and is probably going to happen within the decade is a head transplant. Or as I would call it, a full body transplant. Italian doctor says world's first human head transplant 'imminent'

No one is saying that a fetus isn’t human. The argument is that it isn’t a person. Not the same thing. It’s pretty obvious that higher brain functions is what makes us “us”...

 

[SPF]

No one is saying that a fetus isn’t human. The argument is that it isn’t a person. Not the same thing. It’s pretty obvious that higher brain functions is what makes us “us”...

The creation of a distinction between a human being and a human person is an entirely made up distinction that is 100% arbitrary and subjective. It only exists so that people can justify actions against a human non-person that would otherwise be considered immoral.

We can see the reality of this in that you can ask 10 people when a human being becomes a human person and you'll get 10 different answers. Some will tell you after the first trimester, some second, others third. Some will say viability. Some will say heartbeat. Some will say neural activity. Some will say birth. Everyone has their own subjective idea based upon nothing but their own arbitrarily decided thoughts on the subject. But in each case, the underlining assumption and belief is that so long as there is a line, we can commit actions against the non-person that would otherwise be immoral.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

Hello again SPF. Welcome back.

This of course isn't actually true.

I'd be careful about using that phrase. It might not work out so well for you.

There is a real and tangible difference between a young, developing and actively growing human compared to a human that has already reached x level of development and then has an injury in which their growth ceases, or grown self ceases. Those are two very different events.

Sure, there's a big difference. There's also a big differences between apples and oranges, but they're both fruit. In this context, neither size, nor the fact that one is growing and the other is not, is relevant.

We know scientifically that a new human being comes into existence at fertilization and begins about a 25 year developmental period. But they're still a living human being at all points of their development.

Did you hear me or anyone else arguing with this? All through this debate I have been very careful not to say that a zygote/embryo/fetus is not a living organism, or that it is not a human being.
The argument I am making is about personhood; and, time and time again, people either try to respond to it and fail, or just fail to respond to it at all.

It is absurd to suggest that there is a living and growing non-human organism one moment, and then the next moment after a brain synapse fires that you magically have a growing human organism. No, it was a human being from the moment of fertilization.

Again, you're knocking down strawmen. Nobody says it's anything other than a human organism. You're just arguing with yourself, which may be why you seem to think you're winning.

And with regards to brain transplants - those probably are science fiction. What isn't science fiction and is probably going to happen within the decade is a head transplant. Or as I would call it, a full body transplant. Italian doctor says world's first human head transplant 'imminent'

For an amusing and informative read about why this is unlikely to happen, see this article: No, there hasn’t been a human 'head transplant', and there may never be
While I think it's probably true that a brain transplant will be medically possible at some point in the future, it certainly seems out of our reach now. However, as a thought exercise it proves the point of the argument very well, which is this: you can transplant virtually any part of the body, with no intrinsic effects to the personality, proving that "personhood" does not reside in the body. But we all know that if the brain was ever transplanted to a new host body, that new body would now be the person, because the personality is the result of the brain's working.

In short: without a brain, we aren't persons; therefore, personhood resides in the brain. Fetuses don't have one, therefore they're not persons. Q.E.D.

The creation of a distinction between a human being and a human person is an entirely made up distinction that is 100% arbitrary and subjective. It only exists so that people can justify actions against a human non-person that would otherwise be considered immoral.

No, it's a plainly obvious fact, which is why we do not consider brain-dead beings to be persons.

We can see the reality of this in that you can ask 10 people when a human being becomes a human person and you'll get 10 different answers. Some will tell you after the first trimester, some second, others third. Some will say viability. Some will say heartbeat. Some will say neural activity. Some will say birth. Everyone has their own subjective idea based upon nothing but their own arbitrarily decided thoughts on the subject. But in each case, the underlining assumption and belief is that so long as there is a line, we can commit actions against the non-person that would otherwise be immoral.

All you have to do is disprove my argument. You haven't managed to do so yet, and I don't think you can. Now, that's nothing to be ashamed of, but I hope it might prompt you to reconsider your views on abortion. Considering the damage being done by the pro-life cause, that would be a very good thing.

 

[SPF]

In short: without a brain, we aren't persons; therefore, personhood resides in the brain. Fetuses don't have one, therefore they're not persons

This of course is demonstrably false or else there would be no such thing as a fetus reaching viability though still less than full term.

No, it's a plainly obvious fact, which is why we do not consider brain-dead beings to be persons.

Your problem is that you’re either unaware or unwilling to recognize the categorical mistake your argument rests on.

There is a difference between a growing and developing zygote/embryo/early fetus and an already developed human that has died. Once you’re able to grasp this then things should start making more sense to you.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

This of course is demonstrably false or else there would be no such thing as a fetus reaching viability though still less than full term.

I think I understand what you mean here, but could you clarify it?

Your problem is that you’re either unaware or unwilling to recognize the categorical mistake your argument rests on. There is a difference between a growing and developing zygote/embryo/early fetus and an already developed human that has died. Once you’re able to grasp this then things should start making more sense to you.

Of course there is. There's differences between any two things, otherwise they would all be the same thing. Sometimes the differences are important, and sometimes they aren't. In this case, the differences aren't important, compared to the point, which you have yet to address: if we see a living body without a working brain as "not a person", then we know that personhood resides in a working brain.
Let's try it again:
1. If any part of you but one can be transplanted - which is basically true - without affecting your personality, then we know that your personality resides in the one part of you which cannot be transplanted - your brain.
2. Hypothetically speaking, if your brain could be moved to a new body, would you then consider the old body to be "you"? I know that you're going to say this is impossible, which it certainly appears to be at the moment. But you can imagine it, can't you?
3. Just as a side argument, I'd like to revisit a point from earlier in the thread: if a zygote is a person, please explain why pro-lifers do not consider the miscarriage "epidemic" - to be a medical crisis. It may be a natural phenomenon, but so are other causes of infant death, like childhood cancer. Why is it that pro-lifers are not calling for research into ways to prevent miscarriages, and why do they not have burial grounds and monuments for these unborn dead?
3. I am happy to grant that zygote-fetuses have human DNA, are human organisms, are alive, and will soon (hopefully!) be full human persons. But at this stage, they are not. If you destroy one, you are destroying a potential person only, an organism that could become a person, but has not yet.
4. All I've seen so far is "But a fetus is a person, because it's a human being!" If you're planning on saying this again, please think how to respond to points 1 and 2.

 

[SPF]

I think I understand what you mean here, but could you clarify it?

You said: "without a brain, we aren't persons; therefore, personhood resides in the brain. Fetuses don't have one, therefore they're not persons"

I said: "This of course is demonstrably false or else there would be no such thing as a fetus reaching viability though still less than full term."

Put in other words, your assertion that a fetus does not have a brain is obviously not true as a it is possible to perform a c-section and remove an underdeveloped fetus and it survives just fine. Obviously they have a developed enough brain.

It sounds like based upon your logic that if a working brain is what's required for personhood, that you would consider abortions immoral after about the 5th week.

Sometimes the differences are important, and sometimes they aren't. In this case, the differences aren't important

Well, you can repeat this over and over, and I'll just continue to outright reject your assertion. It is a categorical mistake to assert that we can compare a growing, developing human being to an already developed human being that has died.

But more to the point, I again reject your attempt at creating a distinction between a human being and a human person. Human beings are either morally valuable, or they are not. As an atheist, we don't share much common ground, so I don't expect you to agree with me, nor do I have any delusions at convincing you that human beings are morally valuable.

If I was an atheist, I would have no problem with abortion because I would see morality as subjective. But as a Christian, I do believe that all human beings are created in the image of God and possess inherent moral worth and value. And as we know scientifically that a new human being comes into existence at fertilization, that's where I place their moral value.

Again, I think the distinction between a human being and a human person is demonstrably and obviously subjective and arbitrary, determined by the person making the argument. I could go find another pro-abortion atheist that disagrees with you as to where the line is and you two could argue about your subjective opinions all day long.

Point is, I believe abortion to be immoral because I believe human beings are a unique creation that possess inherent moral worth and value. You don't consider human beings as a unique creation, and therefore, I completely see why you would support abortion.

 

[Belk]

I find your question odd, and frankly makes me think a lot less of you as what I said was really straight forward, so it seems there must be an ulterior motive to asking me to spell this out for you like a middle schooler.

You said: "without a brain, we aren't persons; therefore, personhood resides in the brain. Fetuses don't have one, therefore they're not persons"

I said: "This of course is demonstrably false or else there would be no such thing as a fetus reaching viability though still less than full term."

Put in other words, your assertion that a fetus does not have a brain is obviously not true as a it is possible to perform a c-section and remove an underdeveloped fetus and it survives just fine. Obviously they have a developed enough brain.

I second that it was worded in a confusing fashion. That you felt it was straight forward and not confusing does not mean others perceive it the same way.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

Put in other words, your assertion that a fetus does not have a brain is obviously not true as a it is possible to perform a c-section and remove an underdeveloped fetus and it survives just fine. Obviously they have a developed enough brain.

To survive outside the womb, yes. What does that matter? This doesn't affect the personhood argument at all.

It sounds like based upon your logic that if a working brain is what's required for personhood, that you would consider abortions immoral after about the 5th week.

The argument is sound. Abortions almost always take place before the brain has formed and activated. See the scientific findings:
https://thebrainbank.scienceblog.com/2012/12/04/what-can-science-add-to-the-abortion-debate/

Well, you can repeat this over and over, and I'll just continue to outright reject your assertion. It is a categorical mistake to assert that we can compare a growing, developing human being to an already developed human being that has died.

Why? Neither of them has a brain, both of them have functioning bodies, and neither of them is considered to be a person. You can repeat over and over again that human=person, but it doesn't make it so.
Also, I note you haven't yet responded to the points I made above about the importance of the brain to the personality, or about miscarriages.

But more to the point, I again reject your attempt at creating a distinction between a human being and a human person. Human beings are either morally valuable, or they are not. As an atheist, we don't share much common ground, so I don't expect you to agree with me, nor do I have any delusions at convincing you that human beings are morally valuable.

I have a feeling you know less about atheists than you think. Of course I think that human persons are intrinsically morally valuable. However, let's leave the question of "can atheists have a moral code?" for another thread. The point is, a fetus has absolutely zero ability to think or feel or to be aware. In short, being nothing but a lump of flesh lacking even the capability for thought, it is completely lacking in all of the qualities that mean "being a person".
There may be huge gradations between a genius and an unconscious imbecile, and all of them have intrinsic moral value; but there is a clear distinction between all of them and a creature without a working brain. Your heart beating, your muscles twitching - none of these constitute personhood. Your brain working - or at least the faculty for it to work - do. And you know this, you just don't like the idea of applying it to a fetus.

If I was an atheist, I would have no problem with abortion because I would see morality as subjective. But as a Christian, I do believe that all human beings are created in the image of God and possess inherent moral worth and value.

Ah. Now we come down to it. You believe that abortion is murder because of a religious belief you have. By saying that, you automatically lose the argument. If being anti-abortion is part of your religion (in fact, it isn't, as we've already established on this thread, but let's say "if you have a personal religious belief that abortion is wrong") then you are free to believe that as much as you like. But your beliefs are not allowed to impact the law, and do not need to matter to people who do not share your religion.

Again, I think the distinction between a human being and a human person is demonstrably and obviously subjective and arbitrary, determined by the person making the argument. I could go find another pro-abortion atheist that disagrees with you as to where the line is and you two could argue about your subjective opinions all day long.

No, I would make the case that I have made throughout this entire thread, which you have yet been unable to refute.

Point is, I believe abortion to be immoral because I believe human beings are a unique creation that possess inherent moral worth and value. You don't consider human beings as a unique creation, and therefore, I completely see why you would support abortion.

Of course I believe a human being to be a unique creation. I'm afraid that, after all these pages, you have yet to actually read and understand, much less refute, my position.

 

[SPF]

To survive outside the womb, yes. What does that matter? This doesn't affect the personhood argument at all.

It matters because by your own logic an unborn fetus that does have brain activity is a human person. You’ve wrongly stated that a fetus does not have a working brain, and as I’ve said this is obviously false. So by your logic, at the very least we can say that abortion after about the 5th week is immoral.

Abortions almost always take place before the brain has formed and activated. See the scientific findings:
https://thebrainbank.scienceblog.com/2012/12/04/what-can-science-add-to-the-abortion-debate/

This of course has nothing to do with the discussion and the morality of abortion.

Why? Neither of them has a brain, both of them have functioning bodies, and neither of them is considered to be a person.

Youre begging the question with this statement.

Ah. Now we come down to it. You believe that abortion is murder because of a religious belief you have. By saying that, you automatically lose the argument.

Now this is just funny. I believe that abortion is immoral because I believe that all humans are created in the image of God and possess inherent moral worth and value.

If it is true that God is real and that we are made in His image and do possess inherent moral worth and value, then you automatically lose the argument, not me.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

Now this is just funny. I believe that abortion is immoral because I believe that all humans are created in the image of God and possess inherent moral worth and value.
...
If it is true that God is real and that we are made in His image and do possess inherent moral worth and value, then you automatically lose the argument, not me.

If your aim was to convince me, an atheist, that abortion is immoral, then you fail as soon as you admit that your reasons are religious.
If your aim is to argue that society should think that abortion is immoral, then you fail as soon as you admit that your reasons are religious.
But if your aim is to say that you think abortion is immoral because your religion teaches this (even though it doesn't, as we've seen in this thread) - then yes, you win.

It matters because by your own logic an unborn fetus that does have brain activity is a human person. You’ve wrongly stated that a fetus does not have a working brain, and as I’ve said this is obviously false. So by your logic, at the very least we can say that abortion after about the 5th week is immoral.
...
This of course has nothing to do with the discussion and the morality of abortion.

I'm starting to think you don't know what the phrase "of course" means. Because every time you use it, we find that it's really "of course not".
The link clearly explains the progress of the formation of the human brain and its capabilities from conception to birth, and points out that at the stage where almost all abortions occur, the brain is not capable of thought. And that's really all we need to know.