Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
That isn't evidence, many people believe all sorts of crazy things to be true, but cannot substantiate their beliefs with any evidence.
That doesn’t mean it’s a person
A human corpse is not a person, yet it is human. A brain dead body on life-support is not a person; yet it is human. This is why we may elect to pull the plug.what else could it be.
This is why we may elect to pull the plug.
A blastocyst may be human, but it's not a person. One may opt to pull the plug.
A blastocyst is neither a person nor a baby.On a healthy baby?
Soulds to be One Big Sin.
M-Bob
A blastocyst is neither a person nor a baby.
I am not sure but I guess the same question can be asked about where does good come from or love and hate come from. Maybe they are just things that are out there as laws are out there. I don't think we can apply our logic to this as there maybe some reason we don't comprehend. It may not be a case of looking at the origins of good and evil in isolation but as part of something bigger about existence. If there are intelligent beings who have free will and can love then maybe there has to be hate and evil for that to mean something. Maybe there is a greater cause and effect in allowing humans to exist than not and so having evil is part of allowing that to happen. Maybe evil is the price to pay for love and existence and in the end it is better to exist. Who knows.If God is good and omnipotent and omniscient, whence evil?
Of course it's a person
what else could it be.
It's not the beginning of
a rock
or a tree
or a goat.
Why do many not understand
the beginning of life?
M-Bob
Legally, or morally? Two different things. If all you have is a legal point, it doesn't hold much weight in a morality discussion.A blastocyst is neither a person
According to who?nor a baby.
This is the "Ethics & Morality" section, not the "Legal" section. The Nazis made laws to make things they did "legal". Did that, therefore, make them morally right?And an embryo is not a person in the legal sense. Nowhere does the Constitution state, or even imply, that the unborn are persons entitled to the protections of the Bill of Rights and the 14th Amendment. If that's an error, then the proper remedy is a Constitutional amendment.
A human corpse is not a person, yet it is human. A brain dead body on life-support is not a person; yet it is human. This is why we may elect to pull the plug.
What makes a person a person? Merely life? Then why isn't a skin cell a person? What makes it OK to kill a person on life support? When they aren't a person.They are people with no life in them; life has been pronounced extinct.
A foetus has life; they are not yet a fully developed human being, but they are alive.
And from about the 12th week - i.e before some women realise they are pregnant - they are pretty much fully developed, though still very small.
So, just our guesses make a compelling argument? Ok, well, it's my guess that the unborn are persons. Does that settle it now?So when aren't they a person? I'm sure you can guess.
Not really. Please be clear & specific about what morally makes the unborn be non-persons.Can you then see the parallel on the other side of a life cycle?
When does the brain develop? Can one be a person without a brain? More importantly, when does consciousness develop?So, just our guesses make a compelling argument? Ok, well, it's my guess that the unborn are persons. Does that settle it now?
Not really. Please be clear & specific about what morally makes the unborn be non-persons.
Note that it says begins to be in place. It's not even finished.Consciousness requires a sophisticated network of highly interconnected components, nerve cells. Its physical substrate, the thalamo-cortical complex that provides consciousness with its highly elaborate content, begins to be in place between the 24th and 28th week of gestation.
All well & good, except that I'm a Christian. We accept the existence of spirits, like God. God, by nature, has no physical "brain" and yet has consciousness. The angles don't have physical "brains" and yet have consciousness. Humans have a spirit/soul which has consciousness apart from a physical body.When does the brain develop? Can one be a person without a brain? More importantly, when does consciousness develop?
In this article, Tracing Consciousness In The Brains Of Infants, we see that there is some debate as recently as a year and a half ago as to whether infants (Infants!) are conscious. Here's another reference: When Does Consciousness Arise in Human Babies?.
The second article says thisNote that it says begins to be in place. It's not even finished.
Not at all. Prove these things exist and I'll consider the implications.So, all you have to do now is disprove the existence of those supernatural things. Otherwise, your argument doesn't go beyond "maybe", which is quite substandard to use to end someone's life.
I've given criteria for deciding whether a human is a person. Ergo, these situations are not comparable.Suppose you're out hunting, and there's some movement behind a bush. Which sounds like the more morally correct thing to do - 1) go ahead & shoot, maybe it's not a person; or 2) maybe it's a person there, better not shoot?
Oh, well I guess that makes it easy. Since you haven't proven consciousness rests on the presence of a physical brain, I don't need to consider the implications of the physical brain not yet being developed in the early stages of life.Not at all. Prove these things exist and I'll consider the implications.
You've given your opinion on what the criteria should be, sure. And that criteria still ultimately leaves you at the fact that you can't actually know for sure, which makes it directly comparable to the hunting scenario where you don't yet know if it's a person or not.I've given criteria for deciding whether a human is a person. Ergo, these situations are not comparable.
I have provided the lowest bounds and the largest compromise I could propose: that elective abortions after the 24th week could potentially be banned on the basis that the necessary structures for consciousness have begun to come into place.You've given your opinion on what the criteria should be, sure. And that criteria still ultimately leaves you at the fact that you can't actually know for sure, which makes it directly comparable to the hunting scenario where you don't yet know if it's a person or not.
.This is the "Ethics & Morality" section, not the "Legal" section. The Nazis made laws to make things they did "legal". Did that, therefore, make them morally right?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?