Religion and Moral Status of the Pre-born

[Daniel9v9]

To answer your main question, "Is the unborn alive or not alive, scientifically speaking?" the answer would be no, at least prior to about 24 weeks. For a human to be "alive" -- as defined medically (if not scientifically), there must be higher brain function -- the ability for conscious thought. In a human embryo, this does not typically occur until between the 24th and 25th weeks.

To define humanity as having the potential for higher brain function is a philosophical distinction, not a scientific one. It's arbitrary it falls short if you press the idea. Life and death is binary, and so is our species, human or not human, and if you put these two things together, you have a living human being.

I think even if some people subscribe to this philosophy, many don't in praxis. For if a woman is pregnant and is invited into a clinic, the medical professional will either identify the unborn as alive or not alive.

 

[disciple Clint]

If you have flatlined, you are considered to be medically dead. Perhaps you think we should grant "live" status to Molar Pregnancies? After all, it is growing and is composed completely of human DNA -- how, by your definition, is it not "human." I guess no abortions for women with molar pregnancies?

He asked scientifically -- and scientifically (medically) we judge "human life" by having upper level brain waves that indicate consciousness.

ABSTRACT: The predominance of human biological research confirms that human life begins at conception—fertilization. At fertilization, the human being emerges as a whole, genetically distinct, individuated zygotic living human organism, a member of the species Homo sapiens, needing only the proper environment in order to grow and develop. The difference between the individual in its adult stage and in its zygotic stage is one of form, not nature. This statement focuses on the scientific evidence of when an individual human life begins. American College of Pediatricians – March 2017
You are being redirected...

 

[Ana the Ist]

To answer your main question, "Is the unborn alive or not alive, scientifically speaking?" the answer would be no, at least prior to about 24 weeks. For a human to be "alive" -- as defined medically (if not scientifically), there must be higher brain function -- the ability for conscious thought. In a human embryo, this does not typically occur until between the 24th and 25th weeks.

So....right before the end of the 2nd trimester?

Where are you getting this from? I've seen babies born 4-8 weeks earlier than that....the doctors don't just chuck it in the trash and tell the mother it's was dead.

They try to keep it alive...because it's alive.

 

[The IbanezerScrooge]

The state can prosecute parents for neglecting to take care of their child.

Yes, the state can prosecute for neglect of a living, breathing, already born child which would be not providing the material support necessary for the already born and unambiguously a "person" to thrive. That is not the same thing as compelling a parent to provide body fluids or organs from their own bodies to keep the child alive. They can't do that. Can you refute that point?

 

[KCfromNC]

not at all.
Life begins at conception: Why a Human Being Begins At Conception - NAAPC
The law recognizes an unborn child as a crime victim when the mother is killed.
Murder of Pregnant Woman Could Bring Death Penalty
Human DNA begins at conception. There is no doubt that a human child exists from the moment of conception.

I'd think most people would realize it might take looking at more than two whole opinions about a subject before concluding that there's "no doubt" about it.

 

[Ana the Ist]

What the government does through military force is a big topic in and of itself, but if they ever abuse their power to murder innocent life, then that is also wrong.

I don't know if it's an abuse of power ( it's a power) but I know these actors aren't given a trial first.

Such things aren't practical.

As such I cannot agree with your first premise as I do find murder acceptable morally in at least some circumstances.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Pacificism and a path of non-violence are fine paths of life.

That being said there is a difference between "Thou shall not kill" and "Thou shall not murder".

You suggest that war is murder. That is indeed a reasonable moral approach, but certainly not the only acceptable one. If one is engaged in war, it is not all clear whether the use of drones results in more or fewer deaths and injuries. Most would suggest that we use them because fewer are expected to be die and/or be injured.

I wasn't speaking of warfare.

I'm talking about the hundreds of strikes made against non state actors yearly.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Yes, the state can prosecute for neglect of a living, breathing, already born child which would be not providing the material support necessary for the already born and unambiguously a "person" to thrive. That is not the same thing as compelling a parent to provide body fluids or organs from their own bodies to keep the child alive. They can't do that. Can you refute that point?

I can refute it...

It seems like they actually can do that....by compulsion through criminalization.

I would suggest anyone concerned wear a mask.

 

[KCfromNC]

ABSTRACT: The predominance of human biological research confirms that human life begins at conception—fertilization. At fertilization, the human being emerges as a whole, genetically distinct, individuated zygotic living human organism, a member of the species Homo sapiens, needing only the proper environment in order to grow and develop. The difference between the individual in its adult stage and in its zygotic stage is one of form, not nature. This statement focuses on the scientific evidence of when an individual human life begins. American College of Pediatricians – March 2017
You are being redirected...

An opinion piece by a group with literally hundreds of members? Stop the presses.

For those who don't know, this group is a conservative group of doctors who advocate for right wing social issues. Check out their web site's FAQs - it's a grab bag of culture war talking points rather than actual medical issues.

 

[The IbanezerScrooge]

I can refute it...

It seems like they actually can do that....by compulsion through criminalization.

I would suggest anyone concerned wear a mask.

Nope. Requiring a mask to go out in public to protect everyone else around you certainly isn't it and they did not force anyone to get the vaccine. They certainly passed ordinances/directives that you had to modify your behavior in certain settings based on your vaccination status, but no one was held down and stuck with a needle against their will (except maybe prisoners, but that's a whole other conversation) or arrested solely because they didn't get vaccinated.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Yes, the state can prosecute for neglect of a living, breathing, already born child which would be not providing the material support necessary for the already born and unambiguously a "person" to thrive. That is not the same thing as compelling a parent to provide body fluids or organs from their own bodies to keep the child alive. They can't do that. Can you refute that point?

Drinking alcohol while pregnant is considered child abuse in many states and is punishable by jail time.

 

[The IbanezerScrooge]

Drinking alcohol while pregnant is considered child abuse in many states and is punishable by jail time.

Only if the child is brought to term, that is "born" and conferred legal person status with rights, and shows signs of fetal alcohol syndrome or other complications related to alcohol consumption.

Alcohol and Pregnancy: CDC's Health Advice and the Legal Rights of Pregnant Women.

Currently, no states criminalize alcohol use during pregnancy per se, nor do the CDC recommendations suggest that states do so​

 

[Ana the Ist]

Nope. Requiring a mask to go out in public to protect everyone else around you certainly isn't it and they did not force anyone to get the vaccine.

Wellz, I work for the federal government. I was definitely given only a choice between the vaccine or resigning.

You may like to imagine that's not coercion or being "forced" but let's be honest.....if I was a woman and my choice was sex or resigning you would immediately agree that I was forced.

They certainly passed ordinances/directives that you had to modify your behavior in certain settings based on your vaccination status, but no one was held down and stuck with a needle against their will (except maybe prisoners, but that's a whole other conversation) or arrested solely because they didn't get vaccinated.

Sure....and no one forced anyone to use condoms during the AIDS epidemic. No one is forcing you to now. You get to choose.

 

[durangodawood]

widely disputed based on what? Do we follow the science that should tell us something.

Faith based judgements about when its proper to apply the word "person".

 

[BNR32FAN]

Only if the child is brought to term, that is "born" and conferred legal person status with rights, and shows signs of fetal alcohol syndrome or other complications related to alcohol consumption.

Alcohol and Pregnancy: CDC's Health Advice and the Legal Rights of Pregnant Women.

Currently, no states criminalize alcohol use during pregnancy per se, nor do the CDC recommendations suggest that states do so​

I didn’t see anything about the necessity of bringing the child to term in your source. Can you quote that statement? I did find this from your source.

“Five states have civil commitment laws allowing involuntary treatment or protective custody for women found to have used or abused alcohol during pregnancy.27 Grounds for commitment include a pregnant woman having “engaged in habitual or excessive use” of alcohol28 and a woman's being “an alcoholic … who habitually lacks self-control as to the use of alcoholic beverages” and is “pregnant and abusing alcohol.” I don’t see any stipulations that the child must be brought to term in order for the mother to be prosecuted or for the state to intervene. Obviously medical intervention occurs before the child is born.”

 

[SimplyMe]

ABSTRACT: The predominance of human biological research confirms that human life begins at conception—fertilization. At fertilization, the human being emerges as a whole, genetically distinct, individuated zygotic living human organism, a member of the species Homo sapiens, needing only the proper environment in order to grow and develop. The difference between the individual in its adult stage and in its zygotic stage is one of form, not nature. This statement focuses on the scientific evidence of when an individual human life begins. American College of Pediatricians – March 2017
You are being redirected...

As was noted, you are quoting a group who literally started, in 2002, as an Anti-homosexual group, as they were opposed to adoption of children by gays. As noted, they have "hundreds" of members, most of whom are not Pediatricians, my recollection is a large percentage of their membership are not even doctors. They claim their membership is "physicians and other healthcare professionals." Their opinions are not based on science but informed by their beliefs -- and then they use whatever claims (regardless of the truth) to try and support their beliefs.

 

[jayem]

ABSTRACT: The predominance of human biological research confirms that human life begins at conception—fertilization. At fertilization, the human being emerges as a whole, genetically distinct, individuated zygotic living human organism, a member of the species Homo sapiens, needing only the proper environment in order to grow and develop. The difference between the individual in its adult stage and in its zygotic stage is one of form, not nature. This statement focuses on the scientific evidence of when an individual human life begins. American College of Pediatricians – March 2017
You are being redirected...

The issue is not biology. It’s law. Nowhere does the Constitution say, or even imply, that a zygote is legally a person. As mistaken as the Dodds decision is, the conservative SCOTUS majority knew they couldn’t just declare that the unborn are persons. The issue was essentially left to the states. To grant legal personhood status to the unborn nationwide, at all stages of pregnancy, will require a Constitutional amendment.

Think about it: An acorn is not an oak tree. A tadpole is not a bullfrog. A caterpillar is not a butterfly. Potentiality is not the same as actuality.

 

[The IbanezerScrooge]

I didn’t see anything about the necessity of bringing the child to term in your source. Can you quote that statement? I did find this from your source.

“Five states have civil commitment laws allowing involuntary treatment or protective custody for women found to have used or abused alcohol during pregnancy.27 Grounds for commitment include a pregnant woman having “engaged in habitual or excessive use” of alcohol28 and a woman's being “an alcoholic … who habitually lacks self-control as to the use of alcoholic beverages” and is “pregnant and abusing alcohol.” I don’t see any stipulations that the child must be brought to term in order for the mother to be prosecuted or for the state to intervene. Obviously medical intervention occurs before the child is born.”

I'll concede that point for the moment for those 5 states until I take the time to look into the specifics of each state law. In principle I would disagree with the implementation of such laws.

 

[Ana the Ist]

The issue is not biology. It’s law. Nowhere does the Constitution say, or even imply, that a zygote is legally a person. As mistaken as the Dodds decision is, the conservative SCOTUS majority knew they couldn’t just declare that the unborn are persons. The issue was essentially left to the states. To grant legal personhood status to the unborn nationwide, at all stages of pregnancy, will require a Constitutional amendment.

Think about it: An acorn is not an oak tree. A tadpole is not a bullfrog. A caterpillar is not a butterfly. Potentiality is not the same as actuality.

A child isn't an adult. Any point in a person's life is arguably a phase in human development.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

Think about it: An acorn is not an oak tree. A tadpole is not a bullfrog. A caterpillar is not a butterfly. Potentiality is not the same as actuality.

I like this point: Entelechy. And the human in the womb has very different potential than an acorn or caterpillar. And yet it lacks the actuality of a breathing infant. Certainly we cannot dehumanize such a being.