What does it mean to be human" thread -split from Obama 'fail' thread

[Calabrio]

It isn't scientific for you or me, but the concept of human life to someone who is an atheist it is scientific - isn't it?
...

From a purely scientific perspective, the distinction that you or I might grant to "human life" doesn't exist. That's purely a creation of spirituality and faith. From a scientific view, "human life" is a designation that society has created and grants.

Some credible scientists will argue that a robot is capable of becoming "alive" simply because we (humans) can impart it with such. So determining "human life" from a purely scientific perspective will be impossible.

And with this scientific view, there is no distinction between human "life" or any other kind of life. Aborting a fetus at conception or the day after it's been born is no different. The organism is more complicated, but that's all. These are all moral and ethical decisions that people and our society has imposed, but they aren't scientific.

Issues of life, by their very definition are spiritual and ethical. If you feel that there is a spirituality, that there is a unique human spirit, then you are ethically required to defend it. And if you can't, then you need to acknowledge the destruction of the "life." And if you take a position like that, I would expect the person to be able to explain why it's acceptable. (as I mentioned in the case of the death penalty.)

I don't think this is a "freedom of religion" question at all. I think it's a fundamental issue that defines our society. Regardless you're religion, you don't have a right to destroy those that society regards as the living. And because a particular religion, sect, or philosophy, doesn't share that recognition, that doesn't exempt them from.

It's far to easy to hide behind "science" in this discussion. The truth is, science doesn't have all the answers. Without the cover of science, we can't fall back on moral relativism and we're forced to contemplate difficult issues.

I don't presume to have the answer for this one... I'm still trying to get my head around the questions.
I think I've pretty much responded to everything in your last post, so I'll avoid any further quoted replies.

 

[alexfranke]

Read the wording of your questions. They're completely open ended, and sound like essay questions.

Well, I certainly wasn't expecting essays. I find I usually get more thoughtful answers with open ended questions, so I guess I tend to phrase them that way. So I'll take a stab at the first one to give you an example of the type of thing I was hoping to see.

"Before I formed you, I knew you" suggests that the soul is in the mind of God even before conception. Is this a reasonable interpretation? If not, why? How do you interpret this in the context of this discussion? How would biblical scholars interpret this in the context of this discussion?

And my (completely fudged and pulled from thin air) layman's response might be:

Usually no. God was talking specifically to Jeremiah with a unique purpose in mind. God makes similar statements in (?) and (?), but always under the same circumstances. In fact the Hebrew "know" used here isn't even used to describe tangibles. Think of it as, "I've had a plan for you all along." So I would say that birth control isn't abortion because there's no human life. Most Protestant scholars would probably agree, but Roman Catholics would not because the Pope decreed it a mortal sin.

...shortest essay I ever wrote.

I'm going to drop this now. If you want to answer, then I'm all ears. (I struggle with these types of things sometimes.) But I would hope that if you do, that you would also be open to discussion without feeling like I'm playing games.

 

[alexfranke]

It isn't scientific for you or me, but the concept of human life to someone who is an atheist it is scientific - isn't it? Looking at the Ayn Rand site, which is very atheist, and to them there is no question that 'human' life doesn't start at conception, they would allow abortion all the way until birth.

I was actually talking about this very issue with an atheist today. She's an explicit strong atheist. Her biggest beef was with a government (any government) telling her what she can and can't do. She conceded that the baby should have the moral right to be protected by society and that she should be expected to protect the fetus/baby starting from when its brain becomes active. In her words, "brain activity = thought = person."

I can inquire more in you're interested.

 

[fossten]

I was actually talking about this very issue with an atheist today. She's an explicit strong atheist. Her biggest beef was with a government (any government) telling her what she can and can't do. She conceded that the baby should have the moral right to be protected by society and that she should be expected to protect the fetus/baby starting from when its brain becomes active. In her words, "brain activity = thought = person."

I can inquire more in you're interested.

I would ask her why she uses brain activity as a bright line to determine that a life is worth protecting or preserving.

Should euthanasia be performed on an adult who has lost his brain functions in a hospital?

Does the government get to tell her that she can't kill her 2 year old son if he has a stroke or gets a head injury that causes memory loss?

 

[foxpaws]

Alex...

This goes back to my point earlier about the philosophical versus the scientific discussion. People here are free to believe whatever they want. (Heck, I know someone who believes that her walls talk to her.) So anytime you try to use a belief as a basis for an argument, you're on very shaky ground...

That is why I wouldn't try to use my 'beliefs' to tell anyone how they should feel or act about this subject or any subject. There isn't anyway I could prove what I believe - so I am on shaky ground with my beliefs regarding the start of life.

As far as the brain wave thing - I know a lot of people who use that as an origin point for defining 'human life', not just atheists. It seems to mean something the 'brain activity = thought = person' correlation.

...another interesting side-track. I think it's very important that we respect cultural differences, but I have a hard time defining the line. That a living, breathing baby is precious and deserves protection is practically universally axiomatic (although there are some that don't see it so black and white), but what about things like mutilation rituals? Maybe that's a different thread...

We are all guilty of wandering about a bit here - this side track of Cal's is interesting, but as you said, probably a different thread.

I still disagree with this terminology. I would argue scientifically that it does have life, and that it does have human life. What I can't argue, though, is whether it's a human being.

I am very guilty of this - I stated really, really early on that biologically there is no question, all life begins at conception, but I guess what we have been discussing all along is when does that biological life become a human being.

That's a nice thought, but I think it would hardly be over and done with... It might be a different set of complaints and debates, but even when the people make their voices heard, not everyone agrees...

Well, what would be over and done with is Roe vs Wade - and the argument that the Supreme Court shouldn't be the one that decides this issue. The debate would continue, but it would be easier to argue the 'what if' parts if there wasn't the court to contend with. We wouldn't have to guess what the people wanted if somehow it got to the amendment stage.

Seems to me that the federal government could set parameters and let the states figure out the details. Something like, "We value human life and recognize that human life becomes a human being before before or when it is born. But you can't deny an abortion if the mother's life is a risk, and you can't allow a late-term abortion if the mother's life is not at risk. Beyond that, you (the states) figure it out."

I think that since the constitution defines many things that depend on the word 'life' that it would make sense if 'life' was defined on a federal level. Unlike marriage, which the constitution doesn't address. Marriage would make sense to a be state by state issue. As far as the word life - something that Cal brings up, the 14th amendment. What about those rights in the 14th amendment - they really can't be different from state to state. They need to be based on a strict definition of life. So, if that moment it decided as 22 weeks... then those 'rights' kick in then.

 

[alexfranke]

I would ask her why she uses brain activity as a bright line to determine that a life is worth protecting or preserving.

She says it's because she doesn't consider it a "sentient human life" until it has brain activity.

Should euthanasia be performed on an adult who has lost his brain functions in a hospital?

She says she would hope that the patient had a living will with instructions about how he/she wanted to be treated in this type of case. In the case there's not one, she says she feels the family could make that determination and any disagreements could be handled by the courts, if necessary. She says her living will says to pull the plug if she's brain dead, and after any needed organs are removed.

Does the government get to tell her that she can't kill her 2 year old son if he has a stroke or gets a head injury that causes memory loss?

She happens to have a 2 year old son -- nearly 3, I guess. She says the parents and society/government have a responsibility to protect the injured child, and that killing him if he's not already brain dead is murder. So I guess the short answer is yes.

Edit: One other thing, she said that personally abortion is not an option, with just a couple of exceptions (such as "if I'm likely to die in labor").