I would like to know what all the Doper’s opinions are on the following question :
When can the ‘thing’ be called a human ?
by ‘thing’ I mean that which comes before the human is called human (not that that was an accurate way of saying it, but you all get the general drift)
Please give the approximate time when it becomes human, and your personal reasoning,
i.e. at conception, because…, at birth, because…, at 7 months, because…
I am not interested in what the laws say in anybody’s country, just in your reasoning and conclusions.
And try and stay happy while you state your opinions or try to reason with somebody else
I realise that I have stunted any debate by my choice of words…
Of course it’s human all the time. It has human DNA.
I guess I’m stumbling in the dark, trying to find a way to describe something and doing a very crappy job of it !
perhaps a better way of phrasing it would be by substituting the word individual for human…
so
here goes :
When can the collection of ‘human cells/foetus’ be called an individual ?
I guess when I can feel it kicking. (=“quickening”) I don’t know! I’ll bet no two people on the board totally agree on this definition anyhow. How can anyone expect everyone in the country to agree?!
I asked this question a while back (here: [When does a human life actually start?](When do we become a person? )) and we debated it again here:When do we become a person?
I think we arrived at the general conclusion that there can be no inherent ‘point’ at which human life starts, unless you want to define one yourself and then stick to yourt own definition.
I DID run a search for the topic, but I keep coming up with no such topic found. I’ll read the suggested threads, though I like your one about the beard… thought provoking.
In an older thread covering abortion (I can’t remember which one) there was a rational argument from a poster that at one week old a child could not be considered a ‘person’.
While this conclusion leads to some gruesome ends it was an interesting argument.
I say a foetus doesn’t become a human being until it gets a steady job, moves it’s ass out, and stops mooching food from the fridge…and can do his own damn laundry.
Until then? fair game…
According to CNN yesterday, the definition of life has been declared completely arbitrary by the UN. There were many in dissent saying that this could set a dangerous precedent with France already rethinking whether or not murder should be illegal. We haven’t any word from President Bush’s administration yet, but should the United States follow in this trend started by France pundits are recommending that US citizens begin to arm themselves as their lives really hold no intrinsic value as they may or may not be human at this point. Our sources say that this could lead to a worldwide slaughter of those known as “stupid people” who oftentimes hold power positions over those that are allegedly smarter than they are. While we don’t have any information as to whether these allegations are true, we do know that these people are definitely angrier and would use the new legislation to their perceived advantage.
When it is viable outside of the womb (think the earliest date a premature birth can survive). Of course this is not an absolute date, as medical technology and technique improves, this date will become earlier and earlier. But it is a much more rational standard than, say, conception.
And of course this is a debate about abortion… but rather than saying it is a human being at conception (something that I consider an essentially religious idea – dependent on the idea of something called a “soul” being infused at that moment), or that it is not a human being until it has made its way through the birth canal (which begs the question if a child delivered by c-section is a human being) my definition has the beauty of bothering both pro-choice and anti-abortion hardliners… and if you can piss both sides of this argument off, you are getting closer to the truth.
As an atheist, I’d say we can choose the moment arbitrarily. We could even decide that babies aren’t “human” until they reach a certain age, such as 1 year old.
Except this definition cannot apply to my 7-month old grandson…
If she’s not human yet because some part is not fully grown, then you’re not human until after puberty when your gonads are finally useful.
If she’s not human yet because she’s dependent on someone else to provide her with nourishment and safety, then you’re not human until you pack your bags and move out of the house (like soudad says :))
If she’s not human yet because she lacks psycho-motor skills (and can’t kick yet / prequickening) then maybe you’re not really human until you learn to juggle. Or maybe drive a car.
If she’s not human because of her location (inside vs. outside the womb)… oh well is anyone actually arguing that? If so I’ll give it some effort to come up with something.
At conception, there is a fundamental change to the entity. It becomes human.
Now, maybe I’m wrong. Maybe life really starts a little later. But I’d like to live in a world that values life. So out of love and compassion, even if we’re not 100% certain that it’s human just yet, let it live.
(exception: when its existance endangers others, i.e. ectopic pregnancies etc.)
Well, this is the best definition I ever heard. Of course it won’t satisfy those who think that it is wrong to end the life of anything human, since an embryo is obviously human from conception. But it is a good definition of the moment at which a foetus becomes an individual, as it is at this moment that a foetus is capable of individual life. The fact that the foetus requires medical care to sustain life is irrelevant, as most of us rely on medical care at some point in our lives. For those who argue that this definition equates an embryo with, say, a ten-year-old child, the difference lies in the fact that the child, while lacking self-sufficiency, is nevertheless able to exist as a separate entity.
pennylane,
You used the wrong adjective. you said “best” but you meant “worst” definition.
Of course its the worse definition to define it as the time that technology can keep it alive. what if the hospital you are in doesn’t have the latest gizmo to keep it alive but they do next door so this thing is a human at 101 main street but not at 102 main street.
or if the hospital has the new thing ordered but its in the mail. then the definition was determined by when the mailman delivered the package.
or if you decide to kill the “thing” on friday so you can go to the opera on saturday and the hospital hooks up the machine that weekend so if you would have waited til monday.
there has to be a decision on when. exactly when. ignoring the religious point of views what do aethist think about it?
I never said it was a good definition of “human”. I said it was a good definition of “individual”. In your example, I would say that the “thing” in this case is an individual because if born prematurely it could be rushed to 101 main street.
Yes, it is.
What does this even mean? I am genuinely bewildered.
Well this is what I think about it as an agnostic with no religious point of view. justinh, you are clearly pro-life. Why not just come right out and say it? It’s nothing to be ashamed of. When do you think a foetus becomes a human/person/individual?
my example of having the “procedure” done on friday meant that it was ok because of your desire to go to the opera and not wait til monday.
I believe a fetus becomes an individual at the point of conception. I mean it has everything it needs to be the president of the united states except time.
and nosey parker, I am pro-life. (what kind of question is that ? isn’t everyone prod-life as opposed to pro-death.) I think abortion is killing . now I am not against killing. I am not moral enough I guess. I think abortion should be free and easy. I would rather have a million abortions than have a single unwanted baby born. But that is outside the bounds of this thread.
I still don’t get it, why would you be unable to go to the opera if you didn’t get an abortion on Friday? Oh, never mind…
Hmm, well, I don’t think so, I mean what if the mother just happened to drop dead after one week of pregnancy.
Well I don’t know what your definition of morality is but I find the rest of it very sweet. Personally I hope that one day the world is a place in which pregnant women are not addicted to crack, all sexually active men are responsible enough to assume their fatherly duties, all parents are loving enough to accept an unmarried pregnancy in their family, adoption agencies are efficient enough to place children rapidly into the families that want them, and then I will no longer support abortion the way I do now.
Thanks for answering my questions. I think I am beginning to understand your dilemma… I have no moral qualms about early-term abortion but I feel that capital punishment is contrary to my personal morality. And yet I am in favour of capital punishment because I feel that the unfortunate state of the world today dictates it. But that’s also a topic for another thread…
pennylane,
so we agree to agree?
of course it couldn’t grow up to be the president if it didn’t have a p**** . (smiley face. I don’t know how to do those cute little faces and I dont’ have enough estrogen to go look it up)
I just want to hear a pro-abortionist say “I think the best decision in this case is to kill the fetus because…”. and that because is the critical essence of the argument. whether you define the fetus as a growth or a human would make the reason of “I am in my sister’s wedding this summer and I don’t want to be fat with a baby then” sensible or not.
I have squirrels in my backyard, cute little funny fellows. then they started eating my trees and eating holes in my house and so I started killing everyone I could. I justify it to my friends as killing tree-rats and it doesnt sound so bad.
