When Is Human Life A Human Being?

http://www.freebritannia.co.uk ^ | 6/16/2003 | Marvin Galloway

[hocndoc]

The difference that we have is that I see all humans as having the right to live and be free of the threat of some other human killing them. This right is equal for all humans: it doesn't matter whether the human is seen as a person by the powers that be or whether the human can defend himself or whether I like him.

The state should of course prevent the infringement of this right, whether the human is black, a woman, an infant or a prenatal human.
The only "conflict" comes in cases of ectopic pregnancies or the other, very rare, cases where the child's life threatens the mother's life.

I believe that the US has already survived a similar test in the abolition of slavery. Slave owners did not want to give up their "property." However, I hope that this problem can be resolved without a Civil War.

[XBob]

57 - "Actually, a correct analogy would be between the cake batter/frosting and the sperm/egg, and the cake and the human (from conception on)."

Sorry, not a good analogy - all you have to do is put the cake batter in the oven (uterus) and the ice cream pudding in the freezer (uterus) and you have cake and ice cream.

According to you, there is no difference between cake batter and cake and icecream pudding and ice cream, just as there is no difference between an acorn and an oak tree.

cake batter is a potential cake (if you do it right) ice cream pudding is potential ice cream, an acorn is a potential oak tree (if it happens right) and a fertilized egg is a potential person (if it works. - However, while 99.9% of the cake batters become cakes, and 99.9999% of the ice cream puddings become ice cream, only 60% (without even addressing abortion) of the fertilized embryos become babies (people), and I have any idea of the percentage of acorns which become oak trees.

[Hajman]

According to you, there is no difference between cake batter and cake and icecream pudding and ice cream, just as there is no difference between an acorn and an oak tree.

You're comparing things incorrectly. The cake batter is not to the fetus, as the cake is to the adult. A better analogy would be a 7 layer wedding cake. Get the bottom layer ready. It's more then batter then. It's a cake. Just not a fully 'grown' wedding cake. As for the acorn and oak tree, there's a difference, but that's because the acorn holds what's going to grow into the tree. That germinated plant inside is no different then the tree, as far as life classification goes. Might look a bit small, and no bark or leaves yet, but it's still the tree, only at the start of the development. Could be compared to a chicken egg. Once it starts to develop, it is a chicken. Usually people can't tell if it's developing or not, so for practical purposes it's an 'egg'. However, sometimes, a small developing chick does pop out when breaking an egg for an omlet..

By your definition of 'potential', a 5 year old is a potential adult. However, if we define life, then apply the unborn human, we find it's an active life, not potential. It's alive, and it develops on its own, and it sustains itself using the air and nutrients it gets from its environment. Your cake example is flawed because 1) it allows for only the materials, and the end result, by definition (on the other hand, humans grow in stages, and classification is applied to the intermediate stages, as well as to the final adult stage), and 2) it's applying a 'developed' definition (cake: the completed result, the 'adult' result) while applications to humans allow for intermediate steps (the child is still a human, even though it's not in the fully developed stage). Your cake example fails, because it's too limited. It's an example of a Black and White logical fallacy (giving only black and white 'extreams' while ignoring the intermediates).

-The Hajman-

[eleni121]

"Before I formed you in the womb I knew you. Before you were born I sanctified you. I ordained you as a prophet to the nations" (Jeremiah 1: 3).

[MHGinTN]

Above there was a specious comment regarding awareness (from Semper). For the record, it is a proven fact that prenatals can and do learn. Their brainwaves also indicate that they dream well before birth (as to what they dream is anyone's guess, my guess is they remember the where/when from whnece they are immigrating into our spacetime).

As to acorns and oaks, if one opens a peanut, the meaty portion, in one end you will find a tiny peanut plant; the same can be discovered if one opens an acorn very carefully. The tendency by one or more dolts on this thread to make specious comparisons between animate and inanimate things is only astonishing because it continues, even though the pigheaded ignorance of the poster grows more obvious with every assertion!

I'm baking a cake tomorrow or Thursday, for my own birthday celebration, but my birth was only a single day along the lifetime that began at my conception ... birthday is just another day in a lifetime of days in the water world then the air world.

[hocndoc]

Happy birthday! And hopes for many more. But, do you have to bake your own cake?

I was only responding to the definition for consciousness given. If consciousness requires the ability to remember and correlate well enough to report on the memory, then Semper doesn't count humans as persons until they are 3 years old or so.

He chooses to qualify human beingness until he has ruled out many that the law currently recognize as persons. Whenever some humans begin defining those human enough and those not human enough, they infringe on the inalienable rights we are each endowed with simply because we are humans.

(I did make my son buy and prepare all the stuff for his 18th, since I sat in a chair in the yard in a semi-coma that day. I was better a few years later when my daughter turned 18. But, I don't think I would have qualified as a human being by Semper's definition on either day)

[eleni121]

Rights are not endowed by anyone or any government or faith, otherwise rights may be limited, rationed, or revoked accordiing to latitude, longitude, law or personal belief.

True, rights are not endowed by civil authority but as a matter of fact, rights are available and applied to humans by both government and religion. What's more, this nation's government was based upon Chritian morals and beliefs and the Common Law which is also based upon the same. Faith as a word connoting the Divine arises from the beliefs that are formaulated through Jesus Christ the Lord and the Judaeo Christian tradition. Government is the only entity that can physically punish those who take or abuse human life.

The miserable quandary is that a few Supreme Court judges have decided that human life does not include those humans who live within the female.

Government also imposes punishment upon those who take human life. Again, unfortunately, since 1973 these laws do not apply to human life during its stage "protected" within the female human. Just as civil authority could not intrude upon the inhuman master slave relationship in earlier times, civil authoproty at present is equally incapable and unauthorized to protect human life.

[XBob]

cake batter grows, all on it's own into 'cake' when in the oven. sheesh.

a wedding cake is similar to a human being graduating from college. it is not cake. it is a fully developed cake. Out of the oven it is 'cake', and has not yet been sculpted and added to to make a fancy dancy wedding cake. IT IS CAKE, ALL BY IT SELF. It is part of a potential wedding cake, and actual cake.

ice cream pudding - turns into ice cream when out in a freezer. It turns into part of a super sunday when a lot of work is added. IT IS ICE CREAM, ALL BY ITSELF. It is part of a potential ice cream sunday, and actual ice cream.

An embryo is part of a potential human being.

In otherwords, according to you, the work you do at your job and in your life is without any value.

An acorn is not an oak tree. Drop it in the ground, and you have a potential oak tree.

40% of the fertilized eggs die, naturally. They are not human beings if they do not survive. They ar epotential human beings.

Did you ever hear of the wise old saying - of which you are guilty - "Don't count your chickens until they hatch."?

[XBob]

965 - "As to acorns and oaks, if one opens a peanut, the meaty portion, in one end you will find a tiny peanut plant; the same can be discovered if one opens an acorn very carefully. "

I didn't notice any root system, and respiratory system, any photosynthesis capability in an acorn.

An acorn is not even a 'seedling', let alone an oak tree.

Why do you go to church? It doesn't make any difference, as according to you, what you do after a sperm and egg unite is totally worthless.

[ReaganWarrior]

When is human life a human being? When it gets its first credit card statement, of course.

[XBob]

963 - Why don't youall work on this problem, of 'already' people, instead of trying to protect 'non-people' and trying to make more 'people' out of 'not yet people'. We only have so many resources.

http://etools.ncol.com/a/jgroup/bg_worldvision_wnd_58.html

"Every year 11 million children die of preventable diseases."

[Hajman]

963 - Why don't youall work on this problem, of 'already' people, instead of trying to protect 'non-people' and trying to make more 'people' out of 'not yet people'. We only have so many resources.

Since your query only applies to those that don't believe the unborn are people, and since I believe they are, your query is irrevelent to me, for both the born, and the unborn, are equally important. However, with your previous post, I believe we're talking past each other, opperating on the conclusion. Let's see how we get to that conclusion (that the unborn is a person). First, we need to start with if the unborn is actually alive or not, and if it's classified as human life. Which way do you go, and why?

-The Hajman-

[XBob]

972 - Why don't you concentrate first on solving the problems of numerous deaths among already born people? We both agree that the already born are people, and 11 million children are dying unnecessarily every year.

Put your efforts there, where we already agree.

[XBob]

973 - rather than expand the definition of people.

We have enough problems already, which are unsolved, and the results are very cruel.

You apparently haven't been in the military in a war, and tried to preserve the lives of the men in your unit with a limited amount of resources. You must allocate your resources to do what you can, not expand the number of people you are trying to protect.

We can't 'save' the whole world.