'Repeal the 8th'

[jeremyp]

Of course they are a person. It's a human being in there. The only difference between before and after birth is that after birth it's oxygenating its blood using its lungs... lungs that are already present while it is inside, just not yet being used. Plus, it gets its nutrients from its mother when its in and for a while after it comes out.
When it's a 5 day old embryo all the genes needed to develop into a person are there. So it is already a person, from the moment of conception.
You can't justify murdering it by saying it isn't a person.

From the moment of conception you say?

Given that something like half of all foetuses are spontaneously aborted before the mother is even aware she is pregnant, doesn’t that make your god, who you allege designed the human reproductive system, the murderer of half of all persons?

[Alan Burns]

Really? Justify that statement - do you really think that a 100 cell hollow ball of cells (the 5 day old embryo as an example) is a 'person'.

Of course it is a person.
It describes you five days after you were conceived.

[Sebastian Toe]

Of course it is a person.
It describes you five days after you were conceived.

Do you have a soul at that point?

[ProfessorDavey]

Of course it is a person.
It describes you five days after you were conceived.

Then how do you explain the possibility of twinning. If this 5 day old embryo is me, and then becomes identical twins, which one of the twins is me.

There are certain critical features that we ascribe to personhood (perhaps the most critical being neurological continuity) and a 5 day old embryo doesn't have that.

[wigginhall]

So what is a person?   I'm addressing this to the  pro-life people.

[ProfessorDavey]

So what is a person?   I'm addressing this to the  pro-life people.

And a follow-up question:

Are all persons (people) of equal moral value, regardless of their age.

[Alan Burns]

So what is a person?   I'm addressing this to the  pro-life people.

The earthly part of human life is a continuous, biologically controlled process which begins at the moment of conception and ends with our physical death.  Attempts to categorise any part of this process as not being human life involves making arbitrary, value based judgements.

[Sebastian Toe]

Of course it is a person.
It describes you five days after you were conceived.

Does it have a soul at that point?

[wigginhall]

The earthly part of human life is a continuous, biologically controlled process which begins at the moment of conception and ends with our physical death.  Attempts to categorise any part of this process as not being human life involves making arbitrary, value based judgements.

So no answer to  my question?

[Rhiannon]

So no answer to  my question?

I thought it was consciousness and free will?

[wigginhall]

I've noticed that pro-life people tend to slide around with the terms they use.   A foetus is a person, then a human being, then a baby, and so on.   I feel suspicious about this, as it looks like a kind of sleight of hand.   

So just now, I ask what a person is, and there is no answer, but a description of human life.  Well, sure, my toe nail is huiman.   

Why is there this slipperiness?

[Enki]

Post 76 by Alan:

Of course it is a person.
It describes you five days after you were conceived.

Post 81 by Alan:

The earthly part of human life is a continuous, biologically controlled process which begins at the moment of conception and ends with our physical death.  Attempts to categorise any part of this process as not being human life involves making arbitrary, value based judgements.

All of Which is a value judgement. Not all people would agree, of course, as they may make different value judgments to yours. In fact, within your own church, for the greater part of its history, it taught that human life did not begin with conception, and such lauded saints as Jerome and Augustine certainly didn't seem to think so.

However at least yours is a value judgment and not an arbitrary one, even though you readily confuse the two in your last sentence.

[Gordon]

The earthly part of human life is a continuous, biologically controlled process which begins at the moment of conception and ends with our physical death.  Attempts to categorise any part of this process as not being human life involves making arbitrary, value based judgements.

'Biologically controlled process' eh!

Good to see you've dropped the 'soul' silliness at last, Alan.

[torridon]

The earthly part of human life is a continuous, biologically controlled process which begins at the moment of conception and ends with our physical death.  Attempts to categorise any part of this process as not being human life involves making arbitrary, value based judgements.

A bit like valuing human life over and above other life forms is an arbitrary, value based judgement born of our partisanship and prejudice.  'Thou Shalt not kill' obviously only applies to humans, in'it ?

[wigginhall]

Also, the pro-life people seem to value the life of the mother negatively - well, put it this way, she is to be forced to give birth.

[Rhiannon]

Also, the pro-life people seem to value the life of the mother negatively - well, put it this way, she is to be forced to give birth.

You can see where Margaret Atwood got her ideas from.

[wigginhall]

You can see where Margaret Atwood got her ideas from.

Absolutely, woman as the incubator, whose own welfare is often strangely ignored by pro-life people.   She becomes subordinated to the foetus, a rather mad point of view.   Hence, the strength of the bodily dependency arguments.   Am I compelled to function as the conduit for this other life form?  Of course, an unspoken argument from pro-life people, is that you got pregnant, so now you must suffer.

[Rhiannon]

Yes, for all the sentimental stuff there’s definitely an undercurrent of the need to punish in there.

[Alan Burns]

Also, the pro-life people seem to value the life of the mother negatively - well, put it this way, she is to be forced to give birth.

Just to clarify.
All the pro life groups I know of consider the life of the mother to be a priority if there is a choice between saving the lives of either the mother or the child.

And a woman is not forced to give birth - it is a natural process.

However, deliberate force is needed to terminate the life of the unborn child.

[Alan Burns]

Does it have a soul at that point?

It does not matter when the soul comes into existence - the fact that process of life has begun is the important factor from which all other things come.  The consequence of terminating the life of the unborn child will inevitably prevent it's soul from existing in our world.

[Rhiannon]

Just to clarify.
All the pro life groups I know of consider the life of the mother to be a priority if there is a choice between saving the lives of either the mother or the child.

And a woman is not forced to give birth - it is a natural process.

However, deliberate force is needed to terminate the life of the unborn child.

Woman-hating bullshit.

[wigginhall]

Yes, pro-life often means anti-woman.   I think the Irish campaign was spurred on by the death of Savita Halappanavar.  And for any woman, birth is a dangerous event.  Why should the state prescribe it?

[Rhiannon]

Yes, pro-life often means anti-woman.   I think the Irish campaign was spurred on by the death of Savita Halappanavar.  And for any woman, birth is a dangerous event.  Why should the state prescribe it?

Childbirth is invasive, violent and very often there is nothing ‘natural’ about it. Although to be fair if it was left for the ‘natural’ process to take place (as Alan believes his god designed it) more women and babies would die in agony, so I guess we should be grateful.

[ProfessorDavey]

... human life is a continuous, biologically controlled process which begins at the moment of conception ...

Conception, better described as fertilisation is a process, not is single one off event. At what point in that process does 'human life' begin Alan. And be aware that prior to the process of fertilisation and thereafter the cells are both human and alive.

... and ends with our physical death. 

And define physical death for me please Alan.

We mostly consider nowadays that a person dies when there is irreversible and permanent loss of brain function - so called brain death. We may be able to keep the person's body biologically alive after that point, but the person has died. The loss of neurological function is the key at the end of life and should surely also be the key at the beginning of life.

As such prior to the development of any neurological tissue or function how can you describe that earlier entity as a person. Particularly as the fertilised egg (zygote) could become several people via twinning, or even two zygotes could become a single person via the rather rarer phenomenon of embryo fusion.

A zygote is no more a person than an acorn is an oak tree.

[Sebastian Toe]

It does not matter when the soul comes into existence - the fact that process of life has begun is the important factor from which all other things come.  The consequence of terminating the life of the unborn child will inevitably prevent it's soul from existing in our world.

Far far far more unborn children (using your definition) are lost through natural (God provided) causes than ever by termination.
It's almost as if God doesn't really care about those ones does he?