S
Shaolen
Guest
I’d like to get your thoughts on a discussion i had with a pro-choicer on when “human life” begins. Below is our conversation. I mention the scientific definition of life a lot because hes a militant atheist
PC
“Is it life if it relies on another human to sustain it? If it can survive on it’s own outside the womb then yes, if it can’t then it really isn’t it’s own life, it is part of the mother”
Me
“Wow that’s definitely not the scientific definition of life. An unborn child is growing by cellular reproduction, converting nutrients into energy, and responds to stimuli so its definitely alive. This is just a round about way of saying that unborn children live with the assistance of their mothers (just as newborns can only live with assistance from their mothers or other humans). Unborn children are (1) alive, (2) human, and (3) whole organisms. They are a new distinct living human organism, not a body part of the mother.”
PC
“Naa, can’t live on its own. It doesn’t have sovereignty.”
A different pro lifer
“Viruses need a host to survive too…Are they not life then? Totally playing devil’s advocate. if we found them on Mars, we would totally call it life.”
Me
“So you’re ok with killing newborns, infants, and todlers?”
PC
“No ,because they can’t survive without the umbilicus. Once they can, they are sovereign.”
Me
“That still falls under what I said about the child not being able to live without the mothers support. A newborn is no less dependent on its mother, it just uses different methods now instead of the umbilical cord”
PC
“No, because I could care for a newborn. It would survive without mom.”
Me
"Earlier I said “just as newborns can only live with assistance from their mothers or [other humans]”
The point is a newborn wouldn’t survive without assistance of another human. Without such it would be completely as helpless as an unborn child.
In either case you’re not following the scientific definition of life. Their dependence on their mother or any other human has no baring on whether they are considered alive or a life"
PC
“It is to me. Pro choice 4 lyfe”
Me
“So you just throw science out the door…”
PC
“That’s one side of science, my argument is valid.”
Me
“I’m sorry but your argument is completely arbitrary and unscientific. All it does is discriminates a human being based on their location (the womb), their stage of development (fetus vs infant), and their dependency on other human beings. Completely not valid”
PC
“It’s scientific. Life is not sovereign at the stage of life that requires an umbilicus. Fact. End of story. You can say what you want but it’s a simple truth. That baby cannot exist on its own anymore than your hand.”
Me
“Lol but a newborn “cannot exist on its own anymore than your hand.” Without the assistance from another human. The fact is that a child before and immediately after birth is still alive, a member of the human species, and a complete organism”
PC
"Of course a human embryo is considered life. But it is not considered a human life.
To take a human life is murder. You are equating a bacteria with a fetus, since they are both life. You kill the bacteria in milk by pasteurizing it. That is taking life. Are you arguing that someone who pasteurizes milk is a murderer? You kill the bacteria on a chicken by roasting it. Are you arguing that cooking a chicken is murder?
The open question is when a human life begins. When life (in general) becomes human life (in particular). I have seen three definitions that all seem to come to a similar conclusion:
Genesis 2:7 (KJV) “And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.”
To quote from ROE v. WADE, (1973): “With respect to the State’s important and legitimate interest in potential life, the “compelling” point is at viability. This is so because the fetus then presumably has the capability of meaningful life outside the mother’s womb.” The decision also notes: “Viability is usually placed at about seven months (28 weeks) but may occur earlier, even at 24 weeks”
Modern science has come up against the limit of fetal survivability in that a baby that is born prematurely with undeveloped lungs has a poor chance of survival. In this sense also, the breath of life is the indicator when a life becomes a human life. This generally happens about 33 weeks of pregnancy, give or take. Nowadays we have artificially pushed this back, but that does not change the fact that a fetus with an undeveloped lung is not capable of the breath of life by itself"
PC
“Is it life if it relies on another human to sustain it? If it can survive on it’s own outside the womb then yes, if it can’t then it really isn’t it’s own life, it is part of the mother”
Me
“Wow that’s definitely not the scientific definition of life. An unborn child is growing by cellular reproduction, converting nutrients into energy, and responds to stimuli so its definitely alive. This is just a round about way of saying that unborn children live with the assistance of their mothers (just as newborns can only live with assistance from their mothers or other humans). Unborn children are (1) alive, (2) human, and (3) whole organisms. They are a new distinct living human organism, not a body part of the mother.”
PC
“Naa, can’t live on its own. It doesn’t have sovereignty.”
A different pro lifer
“Viruses need a host to survive too…Are they not life then? Totally playing devil’s advocate. if we found them on Mars, we would totally call it life.”
Me
“So you’re ok with killing newborns, infants, and todlers?”
PC
“No ,because they can’t survive without the umbilicus. Once they can, they are sovereign.”
Me
“That still falls under what I said about the child not being able to live without the mothers support. A newborn is no less dependent on its mother, it just uses different methods now instead of the umbilical cord”
PC
“No, because I could care for a newborn. It would survive without mom.”
Me
"Earlier I said “just as newborns can only live with assistance from their mothers or [other humans]”
The point is a newborn wouldn’t survive without assistance of another human. Without such it would be completely as helpless as an unborn child.
In either case you’re not following the scientific definition of life. Their dependence on their mother or any other human has no baring on whether they are considered alive or a life"
PC
“It is to me. Pro choice 4 lyfe”
Me
“So you just throw science out the door…”
PC
“That’s one side of science, my argument is valid.”
Me
“I’m sorry but your argument is completely arbitrary and unscientific. All it does is discriminates a human being based on their location (the womb), their stage of development (fetus vs infant), and their dependency on other human beings. Completely not valid”
PC
“It’s scientific. Life is not sovereign at the stage of life that requires an umbilicus. Fact. End of story. You can say what you want but it’s a simple truth. That baby cannot exist on its own anymore than your hand.”
Me
“Lol but a newborn “cannot exist on its own anymore than your hand.” Without the assistance from another human. The fact is that a child before and immediately after birth is still alive, a member of the human species, and a complete organism”
PC
"Of course a human embryo is considered life. But it is not considered a human life.
To take a human life is murder. You are equating a bacteria with a fetus, since they are both life. You kill the bacteria in milk by pasteurizing it. That is taking life. Are you arguing that someone who pasteurizes milk is a murderer? You kill the bacteria on a chicken by roasting it. Are you arguing that cooking a chicken is murder?
The open question is when a human life begins. When life (in general) becomes human life (in particular). I have seen three definitions that all seem to come to a similar conclusion:
Genesis 2:7 (KJV) “And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.”
To quote from ROE v. WADE, (1973): “With respect to the State’s important and legitimate interest in potential life, the “compelling” point is at viability. This is so because the fetus then presumably has the capability of meaningful life outside the mother’s womb.” The decision also notes: “Viability is usually placed at about seven months (28 weeks) but may occur earlier, even at 24 weeks”
Modern science has come up against the limit of fetal survivability in that a baby that is born prematurely with undeveloped lungs has a poor chance of survival. In this sense also, the breath of life is the indicator when a life becomes a human life. This generally happens about 33 weeks of pregnancy, give or take. Nowadays we have artificially pushed this back, but that does not change the fact that a fetus with an undeveloped lung is not capable of the breath of life by itself"
