How's your child's science curriculum? I bet it's not as "creative" as this one! (Page 9)

Lighten up, Al...err, Francis

kevin_trapp - Don't know.  Some time after the yolk is fertilized and prior to the chicken hatching .  Shoot, it may even be a chicken by the time the hen lays the egg.  But I do not personally believe you have a chicken the moment a yoke is fertilized. 

Would you agree that our personal beliefs don't trump the facts of science?

dontracy - 2013-04-30 2:29 PM

kevin_trapp - Don't know.  Some time after the yolk is fertilized and prior to the chicken hatching .  Shoot, it may even be a chicken by the time the hen lays the egg.  But I do not personally believe you have a chicken the moment a yoke is fertilized. 

Would you agree that our personal beliefs don't trump the facts of science?

What does science say?

For a chicken, when the sperm and egg come together they form a new organism, genetically distinct from the chicken's mother and father and self directional in its development.

That chicken's life has begun, and boy is it going to be tasty when it ends.

I know vegetarians who won't eat fertilized chicken eggs. They understand that a fertilized egg is fundamentally different in type that a non fertilized egg.

Listen here... I put a lot of work and effort coming up with brilliant plans... now all everyone has to do is follow them... Is that asking to much?

Too much not to much... 

DOH!!! I do know that and yes it drives me nuts when I see it.... Your just getting picky.

DOH... I did it again.

I agree that the science has spoken, which is why this is a purely philosophical debate. At the end of fertilization, you have a single celled zygote.  There is no controversy that this is a living entity, genetically different from both the male and female contributing gametes.  This is the very first stage of life, and because of that I absolutely understand why you can look at a zygote and consider it a person (I mean chicken).  I do not.  I look at a zygote as a single-celled organism, a building block to a human life, but I do not consider it to be a person.  I do not know at what point in the development of a baby that I would consider it to be a person.  Just like the chicken, I believe it becomes a person sometime after fertilization and sometime before (in my opinion a long time before) birth. 

On a side note, I’m assuming you believe in souls.  At what point in the process do you believe a soul is attached (created? not sure how that works) to a person?  Is it at the moment of fertilization when life begins?  Identical twins are the result of a split zygote.  I assume they do not share a soul.  Is it later in the process?  If so, would that mean there is a time where we were all soul-less people?

I think that's the central note.

We are clearly biologically human at conception. (I think most kids raised in a progressive system will get that question wrong while understanding at the same time that a chicken's life begins at fertilization)

There is no empirical evidence for ensoulment. Neither is there empirical evidence for personhood which conveys unalienable natural rights.

Without empirical evidence, we must assume the possibility that it occurs at conception.  Otherwise we risk, in the case of humans, killing an innocent human person.

Show me the empirical evidence that personhood occurs sometime after conception.  You can't. You're operating merely on faith, a faith devoid of reason.

Now you're on thin ice because the definition of personhood becomes something mutable.  It is captive to the majority rule.  It can change as that majority's opinions change.

In that case, our human rights are not inalienable. The existence of these rights becomes about power. Simple raw power.  It's a nietzschien world at that point.

As uninformed as believing the world is only 6000 years old is, that belief is far less dangerous than the one the progressives teach regarding the beginning of human life.

Hey Don, it's interesting that in Jewish law life begins at birth and you inherit that soul which has been waiting for you upon birth. Prior to that there is a clear difference in value between the life of the fetus and the life of the mother. Maybe I should stick this in the other thread, but when did this view diverge from Catholic teaching?

I don't know when it diverged.

Aquinas taught that "ensoulment" occurred at quickening.  I take that to mean at implantation. It's at this point that empirical evidence shown by changes in the mother's body reveals itself.  

I'm confident that if Aquinas had the evidence of modern embryology at his disposal he would form a different opinion.  If I ever get that meal with "the one person in the past you could have dinner with who would it be" I'll ask him.

It's a good question though, when did this teaching diverge.

No, we don't. Because one cell does not equal a person... or a brain, or reason, or identity of self. It's a cell.

Now I can't show when that happens. When does it become aware of self... heck, does self identity happen after birth? When does it have reason, when does it have higher brain functions associated as a "person"? I do not have the answer.

I would be comfortable saying let's be safe and call it the third trimester... but that is just as arbitrary as the moment of birth. I mean a tick of the second had determines you are not, but then you are? And then when exactly did that clock begin to tick... exactly, if we are to be accurate. Hard to argue that one minute the length of a vagina defines you as just a blob. And the next minute, 4 inches later, you are a person endowed with all human rights.

But human rights are a question of law, not science. To enforce and define laws, you have to have clear definitions and points of departure. You being a person of faith, define a person, based on biblical teachings and interpretations. It isn't based on science. Yet neither is law. It's a difficult question to answer philosophically, but at some point, it is a question of law that must have an answer. Right now, that answer is birth. And in some cases, like murder, it is a before.

 O o~        o~  o~ o~

Yay I win!!!

See, to me that seems as much an effort of putting a round peg in a square hole as does the OP test in trying to reconcile the existence of dinosaurs with a literal interpretation of the Bible.

To me, it's a simple problem to solve:

Biologically we humans begin life at conception. Embryology shows us this.  However, that's merely biological.

Do we have personhood and thus inalienable rights or not.
 

If not, fine but stock up on even more ammo than you otherwise would.  Bullets will definitely be flying in large quantities in that world.

If so, then when do we receive them.

If personhood begins after conception, show the moment using empirical evidence.
Lacking such evidence, err on the side that it begins at conception.

And I didn't even mention God.  The only point of faith is that inalienable rights exist, which is a concept that even most rationalists accept.

It's the simplest answer.

I concede.

I can go with that. Human life begins at conception.... but I do not agree human rights begin at conception. I just don't. You can't tell me a clump of 4 cells has the same rights as I do, or the mother of that clump of cells. And that is the real problem as far as the law. Because inalienable rights the embryo has can't trump those of the mother... yet they both have equal rights.

So if you want to argue that perhaps we need to change our legal definition of what a person is and when it should start being protected by law before it's birth... fine. But granting person hood and therefore full inalienable rights at the moment of conception... I'm sorry, but no. That does not make sense to me.

Obviously, this is not a biological definition question, it is a question of should or should not abortion be legal. At this time, based on current legal definitions, it is. I'm good with that simply for the fact of the rights of the mother. Because there is no denying she is a person with full rights. I personally hate the idea of abortion as birth control. We have a very simple method... use it.

That's the part of this discussion that always ticks me off.  It's ALL about the rights of the mother and to heck with the father and the baby.

So another question for you;  How do you reconcile that in most states it's considered homicide if you kill an unborn child in utero at any stage of development.  So, why is it OK for the mother to kill the baby and not a stranger?  Seems like it would just be a simple assault type offense if it were just damaging cells inside her body, like giving her a black eye.  There's not legally a life until the baby's born right.

DOH... sucked in again. First the father would have to argue for custody of a group of cells, or fetus inside the mother. Exactly how do we grant that? What does visitation look like? Second, the mother is the one with the embryo or fetus in her... but she most certainly has rights, and I am less comfortable taking hers away, than I am granting a embryo, or fetus legal protection over her.

As far as murder.... well technically I don't really agree... but hey... don't murder people. If they want to hang more charges on a murder and give him/her more time... I got no problem with that... especially if given the death penalty.

I'm going to have to leave it there. I don't have a problem with current laws. As far as when life begins... it's a fascinating question I will never know the answer to. Perhaps the true answer is not the important part, but the personal answer is. I don't know.

The way the laws seem to really read is that if the fetus is "wanted" by the mother then it's considered a human and has those rights.  As in, if I run a red light on the drive to work tomorrow and hit a pregnant woman driving a car and the baby dies, but the mother is physically fine.  I get charged and convicted of vehicular manslaughter.  However, if the baby is not wanted then the mother can choose to kill her at any time because it's her body.

So it may be easy to just dismiss fetal homicide laws as what the heck, just pile it on for murderers, but why aren't the laws consistent?  Why aren't people fighting for the rights of people convicted of fetal homicide/manslaughter?  It's either legally a life or it isn't, you can't have it both ways.

BTW, how did we get here from dinosaurs and science class.

Fetal homicde laws are feel good laws politicians use to look tough on crime and get their name in the papers. They were never based on the question of when does life begin, or rights of the fetus over the mother. It is what is is. Vehicular manslaughter needs malice aforethought... so don't do that, and you will not have to worry about it.

Irrational views held forth as truth.
Emotionally driven belief systems.

It starts with the question of a chicken. 

Just a slight correction.  Manslaughter does not require malice at all.  If I run a stoplight and hit somebody I didn't do it with any malice, but I was most certainly negligent. 

Were you there? 

Oh yeah, that dam chicken...