Cerebral Cortex Activity

[Marek]

Let's clarify a few things. "Human life" is different than a "human being". Technically, sperm and egg cells are a form of "human life" but they are not human beings.

I agree with you on this. Sorry for the poor terminology.

Can a sperm become a human being? Yes. Does it require other "ingredients"? Yes. So does a blastocyst an embryo and a fetus. If you insist that something cannot potentially be a human being unless it no longer requires other "ingredients" then you've just argued that abortion should be allowed until birth and maybe after.

Tell me what other "ingredients" a fetus in a healthy mother needs.

Convenient logic. I won't die unless I'm destroyed either. A fetus is NOT a human being. To say that because it "might" become a human being we should accord it all the rights of a human being is simply not logical.

I'm not saying that a fetus deserves all the rights of a human being. I'm saying a fetus deserves the same right to life in that when it is killed, it loses the same thing as a human being. That is, a future like ours.

"morally unacceptable" Who's morals? Mine don't say any such thing.

I would hope that the murder of a grown man would be morally unacceptable. (that is what I was referring to) In the case of a fetus, that is what my argument concludes. You don't agree with it; that is why you are debating it with me.

"future of good" of course, it could also remove a potential serial killer or dictator from our midst. If the only reason we shouldn't murder people is that they "might" do something wonderful one day... how do you justify executions? Sure, John Wayne Gacy killed 30+ young men but tomorrow he just "might" discover a cure for cancer.

I was not referring to the good of the society. I was talking about individual good such as feelings, experiences, love, etc. When one is murdered, they are deprived of this future of good and that is the main reason why murder is wrong.

Murder is wrong... make no mistake. It's just that your reasons don't make much sense.

That's because you misinterpreted them.

So then turning off the respirator on a person with no brain activity is also murder? After all, the person just "might" regain brain function... no?

Clearly, this would be wrong if the person actually might regain brain function. How often does this occur though? Is it even possible after a period of time?

 

[mepalmer3]

I was attempting to demonstrate that morality based on potentiality was not a valid reason to object.

In the end of course reason can say nothing about morality without some sort of moral law and some moral axioms. Are you then claiming an objective morality or a relative morality? Then what is your objective morality standard that you're using?

As far as potentiality goes... If we applied the same reasoning as potentiality means nothing as far as morality goes, then wouldn't we also say that killing off eggs of nearly extinct animals may also be completely free from any immorality? Or ruining some blood at a blood bank is also not "bad" or immoral since it at that point is just potential help, not help itself.

 

[praying]

The combination of a sperm and an egg alone is not sufficient to produce a human being, either. You need, for example, an input of energy.

That would be sex. (in most cases)

Carry on,

 

[Eudaimonist]

1. Humans are considered legally dead when cerebral cortex activity ceases -- that is, the brain flat-lines.

This is the weak point of your argument... you are trying to rest an ethical conclusion on a legal definition of life. You'll need to ethically justify the law's definition to make a successful case. Fortunately, this can be done... cerebral cortex activity can be considered the ultimate basis for life as a rational being, which is the essence of the human mode of life.

You'll also need to develop a theory of rights, and a theory of ethics that justifies it. Ouch! That's a lot! But I think it can be done.

2. Cerebral cortex activity begins in the 22nd week of gestation.

I thought that brain activity existed earlier than this, but maybe not cerebral cortex activity?

2.1. Thus, before the 22nd week of gestation, the fetus is not alive -- by any type of definition.

Not so. It is biologically alive, just not in a human mode.

 

[Shane Roach]

I thought that brain activity existed earlier than this, but maybe not cerebral cortex activity?

To me, THAT is the weakest part of his argument. So far there is very little in the way of detail to support this assertion, and repeated attempts to get him to elaborate seem to fail to catch his fancy.

The fetus reacts to stimuli reflexively very early on. The question becomes what is the nature of consciousness, and whether or not the baby is aware at all, not whether or not they are fully cognitive thinkers. This level of maturity is actually not fully realized until puberty! It is a major concern of educators to locate the places developmentally when the mind is ready for certain levels of education. So simply locating a level of cerebral cortex development and deeming it ad hoc as the spot where someone is legally alive really makes no sense at all.

Something atheists seem to have a hard time relating to is that law is not all about science. It is about values and how things make people feel. In some societies in the past violence, theft and murder were heroic as long as it wasn't perpetrated against the tribe or village or whatever that you lived in. This is why we have democractic outlets in our government. Sometimes, people's values CHANAGE. Laws have to be able to change with them. For whatever reason, a significant number of people today seem to miss this, and even believe that changing it would be a good idea. All you really achieve however is to delegitimize the government itself if you make it unresponsive to the very people it is supposed to be governing.

You end up with violent revolution. To me, this is something to be avoided. Morals change, thus motivating changes in law, which the government should facilitate in an orderly fashion. This is the real problem with the whole abortion debate. There is no outlet for the social pressures forming around the subject, so the pressure builds and builds and builds.

 

[David Gould]

You end up with violent revolution. To me, this is something to be avoided. Morals change, thus motivating changes in law, which the government should facilitate in an orderly fashion. This is the real problem with the whole abortion debate. There is no outlet for the social pressures forming around the subject, so the pressure builds and builds and builds.

But there is pressure both ways. You cannot please everyone. What the government has decided is to leave it up to individual choice as to whether you get an abortion or not, which is surely the safest way of solving the problem. It is not ideal, but no solution would be ideal.

Or perhaps you have a suggestion?

 

[Shane Roach]

But there is pressure both ways. You cannot please everyone. What the government has decided is to leave it up to individual choice as to whether you get an abortion or not, which is surely the safest way of solving the problem. It is not ideal, but no solution would be ideal.

Or perhaps you have a suggestion?

It should have been allowed to continue on as a public discourse and eventually worked out through legislation.

 

[Eudaimonist]

The fetus reacts to stimuli reflexively very early on. The question becomes what is the nature of consciousness, and whether or not the baby is aware at all, not whether or not they are fully cognitive thinkers. This level of maturity is actually not fully realized until puberty! It is a major concern of educators to locate the places developmentally when the mind is ready for certain levels of education.

All good points.

Something atheists seem to have a hard time relating to is that law is not all about science. It is about values and how things make people feel. In some societies in the past violence, theft and murder were heroic as long as it wasn't perpetrated against the tribe or village or whatever that you lived in. This is why we have democractic outlets in our government. Sometimes, people's values CHANGE. Laws have to be able to change with them.

I'd hope that laws would not change simply based on feelings. We need sober thought about the nature of values and their relation to human well-being, which is why science can make an important contribution, but I'll agree not the only contribution. My point here is simply that the contest between the various views on personhood may be very emotional, but it is really a philosophical, and to some extent scientific, one. It doesn't help to promote an idea of government as an organization that should be pushed around by public sentiment -- indeed, this is why we have a Constitution.

 

[Shane Roach]

All good points.



I'd hope that laws would not change simply based on feelings. We need sober thought about the nature of values and their relation to human well-being, which is why science can make an important contribution, but I'll agree not the only contribution. My point here is simply that the contest between the various views on personhood may be very emotional, but it is really a philosophical, and to some extent scientific, one. It doesn't help to promote an idea of government as an organization that should be pushed around by public sentiment -- indeed, this is why we have a Constitution.

I think perhaps you meant that is why we have a Bill of Rights? In any event, I am not advocating straight democracy or mob rule. I am pointing out that the understanding of when life becomes something that the government has an interest in is not necessarily entirely circumscribed in the definition of when consciousness begins. If enough people find the argument of potentiality convincing, then that argument needs to be given its proper weight in the grand scheme of things.

My own personal opinion is the line would be best drawn at 9 weeks, as I mentioned, but I really don't have a huge stake in it one way or the other. I myself am well past the age where there is any doubt that my life is protected, and I have a certain degree of control over how my own children will be treated due to my choices of who I may marry and so forth. I guess my point is that the solution is out there, but it requires that everyone be willing to comrpomise and/or accept things that they would rather not accept.

My concern is the present system lacks the ability to flex and morph with the needs of the public regarding this issue. I truly believe it was a gross overstepping of the bounds of the judiciary, even given the modern sense of judicial review as opposed to those who support 'original intent', because these men simply were not in a position to properly judge the outcome of their decision for all time and all circumstance.

It was a very unwise move to interfere with the process of consensus building to the degree that Roe V Wade did. Again, in my opinion.

 

[ASLER86]

1. Humans are considered legally dead when cerebral cortex activity ceases -- that is, the brain flat-lines.

1.1. Thus, a human can be considered alive when cerebral cortex activity begins.

2. Cerebral cortex activity begins in the 22nd week of gestation.

2.1. Thus, before the 22nd week of gestation, the fetus is not alive -- by any type of definition. [QUOTE/]

Well, Brain activity can be measured in an unborn fetus by six weeks (Curt Young The Least of These).

And if a fetus is born at 20 weeks with today's every-advancing technology it has a good chance of survival.

While in the womb, the baby's brain is constantly developing, at six weeks (or some sources say 40 days)brain activity is measured. At the time of conception the embryo has all of its DNA from his/her mother or father. At 20 weeks (or five months) if the baby is born premature it has a good chance of survival.

 

[Lifesaver]

1.Humans are considered legally dead when cerebral cortex activity ceases -- that is, the brain flat-lines.

The problem starts here. It's not just because the law of a country (or all countries) says something that it is true.

2.2.1. Thus, a fetus can be ethically aborted with a margin of safety before the 20th week of pregnancy (the third trimester).

Are you saying the fetus is not alive? Just ask any scientist and he will dismiss that crazy hypothesis.

3. There are some objections, but one in particular -- potentiality for life. This argument is absurd. Many things have the potentiality for human life that you do not hesitate to kill.

The fetus is alive. It is not life in potentiality; it is life in actuality.
But I guess your point is probably not about life itself, but personhood. You may argue the fetus is not a person (though probably could be said of a born baby in its first weeks, when it cannot even distinguish itself from its mother).
And the fetus is indeed a potential person; if not interfered with, and if the organism works healthily, it will naturally become a person. An egg won't naturally become a person; neither will a spermcell.

3.2. Skin cells, bone marrow cells, umbilical cords -- they all have the potential for life. Umbilical cords are stem cells. Put them with an egg and you have a human. Bone marrow cells are stage 1 cells. They only need be regressed slightly to become the most variable of stem cells. They have the potential to become human. Skin cells can also be regressed to stem cells, and thus become human. Think -- every time you take a shower, you are killing a literal infinite of potential humans.

I'm actually thinking of something else: if there are stem cells even on our skin, as you say, why are so many people creating such a fuss in order to get them from embryos, and kill them in the process?

Whether or not you can stomach the thought of aborting a dangerous, unliving essentially cancerous mass of cells has no bearing on the general ethics of the situation.

I do find the thought of abortion to be revolting.
But even more revolting is the ideology that cannot distinguish a fetus from a cancer. And what's worse, it will go so far as to deny a very basic biological fact: the embryo is a living being; at no point in its development is it ever dead.

 

[Phred]

I'm actually thinking of something else: if there are stem cells even on our skin, as you say, why are so many people creating such a fuss in order to get them from embryos, and kill them in the process?

Because they are different types of stem cells. Embryonic stem cells have the potential to become any type of cell. Adult stem cells are more limited in their ability to differentiate.

Usually these "embryos" are frozen when they are blastocysts. About 8 cells each. The term "kill" really doesn't apply.

I do find the thought of abortion to be revolting.

I never would have guessed.

But even more revolting is the ideology that cannot distinguish a fetus from a cancer. And what's worse, it will go so far as to deny a very basic biological fact: the embryo is a living being; at no point in its development is it ever dead.

You're incorrect. An embryo is living tissue, it is not a "being". That is the comparison to cancer. Both are living tissue within a body that is not the body. I believe a woman has the right to decide what will grow in her body and what won't. It's as simple as that.

.
​

 

[Lifesaver]

You're incorrect. An embryo is living tissue, it is not a "being". That is the comparison to cancer. Both are living tissue within a body that is not the body. I believe a woman has the right to decide what will grow in her body and what won't. It's as simple as that.

Your inability to distinguish one from the other reveals an ideology that refuses to give reason the slightest respect.
An embryo is not the same being as its mother. A simple DNA comparison reveals that they are different individuals altogether; it has chromossomes from both its father and mother.
Furthermore, a cancer is a malfunctioning of the body, and its development kills the individual that has it.
The mother is already naturally suited for the conception and development of the baby. The female body, in its natural and healthy condition, bears and nurtures the baby. And, unlike cancer, which kills the individual, child-bearing is that very thing which guarantees the survival of the species.

Really, Phred, even most abortionists already know the fetus is a separate individual. This doesn't stop them from making comparisons as ludicrous as yours (but with parasites), but at least it is a recognition of a basic fact.

 

[ASLER86]

You're incorrect. An embryo is living tissue, it is not a "being". That is the comparison to cancer. Both are living tissue within a body that is not the body. I believe a woman has the right to decide what will grow in her body and what won't. It's as simple as that.

Heck, I'm glad that I grew up to be a fully functioning cancer cell.



Even better, I'm glad that I'm an independent parasite.

(just in case anyone was wondering I'm being a tad sarcastic)

 

[Spyr]

I was taught that god had a plan for all of us; that he knew us even before we were born. Seems to me that, hypothetically, god already knows if a fetus will be aborted and if he wanted the baby to live, if it were part of his master plan, then the baby would. If an abortion is done I doubt the almight god would think to himself "Oh shoot, I need that baby to live." Plus don't aborted babies automatically go to heaven (not talking to catholics here obviously)? If so then I wish I had been aborted!

 

[ASLER86]

I was taught that god had a plan for all of us; that he knew us even before we were born. Seems to me that, hypothetically, god already knows if a fetus will be aborted and if he wanted the baby to live, if it were part of his master plan, then the baby would. If an abortion is done I doubt the almight god would think to himself "Oh shoot, I need that baby to live." Plus don't aborted babies automatically go to heaven (not talking to catholics here obviously)? If so then I wish I had been aborted!

God does have a plan for us.

You've stepped onto the idea of free will (I believe there's a thread on that). God does have plan for all of us but us humans are rather stubborn and go through with our own desires anyway (such as performing abortions). I'm not sure why God doesn't stop it, but between free will and Satan there's a couple of reasons.

*shrugs* I'm no theologian, but that seems to be the consensus.

I'm sorry that you wish that you were never born. I can assure you though, God has a plan for you, you just need to come to realize that.
There was a time when I felt similar, but that changed with my faith in Him. God does have a purpose for you, just as He has a purpose for you.

 

[Spyr]

God does have a plan for us.

You've stepped onto the idea of free will (I believe there's a thread on that). God does have plan for all of us but us humans are rather stubborn and go through with our own desires anyway (such as performing abortions). I'm not sure why God doesn't stop it, but between free will and Satan there's a couple of reasons.

*shrugs* I'm no theologian, but that seems to be the consensus.

I'm sorry that you wish that you were never born. I can assure you though, God has a plan for you, you just need to come to realize that.
There was a time when I felt similar, but that changed with my faith in Him. God does have a purpose for you, just as He has a purpose for you.

Well then it seems god's plan for many is for them to go to Hell. At any rate that's not the focus of this thread. What I was trying to point out is that if god doesn't see abortions as important enough to stop (hey he destroyed sodom and gomorrah, sent jesus to die for our sins, he cac certainly do something when he puts his mind to it) then there's no real need to worry about it. The fetus goes to heaven, the person getting an abortion is committing a sin but who cares their already sinners and no one else is harmed. There are more important things to worry about than abortions to be sure.

 

[Lifesaver]

That argument is not a good one, Spyr. God does care indeed about sin, and yet He does allow it to happen. He often punishes them, too, but He still lets people commit sins.

So from the fact that it is possible for voluntary abortions to happen it cannot be concluded that there is nothing morally wrong with them happening.

 

[ASLER86]

Well then it seems god's plan for many is for them to go to Hell. At any rate that's not the focus of this thread. What I was trying to point out is that if god doesn't see abortions as important enough to stop (hey he destroyed sodom and gomorrah, sent jesus to die for our sins, he cac certainly do something when he puts his mind to it) then there's no real need to worry about it. The fetus goes to heaven, the person getting an abortion is committing a sin but who cares their already sinners and no one else is harmed. There are more important things to worry about than abortions to be sure.

God's plan for many is not for them to go to hell, that's why He sent Christ to redeem the world so that we wouldn't have to go to hell unless (you're going to hate me for saying this) we choose too. Once again there is the issue of free will.
I feel like I've argued this point before but that's okay.

And look outside the idea of the fetus dies and goes to heaven, think outside the box--the unborn child never go a chance to experience the world or to make a difference or to experience the life that God wanted him or her to have.

 

[gallykid08]

Heck, I'm glad that I grew up to be a fully functioning cancer cell.



Even better, I'm glad that I'm an independent parasite.

(just in case anyone was wondering I'm being a tad sarcastic)

**dies laughing**

me too. im a good little overgrown cancer cell **puts on halo**

do cancer cells have a heartbeat? brain waves? able to feel pain? organs? cuz the ''fetus'' does. and did u know the word ''fetus'' is actually Latin for little one?