Quote:
Quote by: fushigi  So when, in your view, does that transformation magically happen?
For instance, I've never seen a one year-old infant who was a functioning member of the human race. They're totally dependent, utter sponges who - outside the sense of compassion they may evoke in their parents and some others - contribute nothing to the world but noise, urine, feces, and vomit.
Could you please specify a particular age? |
The 'magical' transformation happens inside the womb at around 18 weeks.
The one-year old is biologically independent, and possesses a consciousness (is sentient). The latter is not developed until late preganancy. 18 weeks is a good time limit for this. When I say functioning, I am being purely biological. The one year old doesnt have to have a job and be smart to be a functioning member of the human race. Going by your criteria, you would be blasting all those unemployed people who live with thier parents till they are like 50.
18 weeks is generally accepted to be a fair time limit, since around that time is where the foetus develops a working, conscious brain. Until that point, its a seething mass of arteries, nerves, and stem cells. Hardly a human being, and hardly deserving of the rights of a human being. Notice I used the word BEING.
Quote:
Quote by: 5010 Yes, it is much better to actually state what you mean. So if I understand you correctly, you believe that human life is only worthy of protection while the organism is in a conscious and aware state of being? |
Dont patronise me please.
Firstly, I define human LIFE in a much more meaningful way than you do. You define a growing embryo as human life, whereas I see it for what it actually is: a collection of stem cells undergoing development, and differentiating into thier own roles. At that point, there is hardly a 'brain' to speak of: just a tiny clump of nerves, that aren't actually being stimulated. So 'it's' alive in a biological sense, but to be 'alive' as an actual human being, it need to possess the abilty to do the most basic of things that would qualify it to be an actual human. One of those things is think. Even braindead patients that are kept alive by machine still think, though it may be in a more basic sense.
So my answer is no. Conscious and aware is quite a misleading way to describe what I mean. Must i go into even more detail? I'm assuming you have picked up where I'm coming from by now.