Enmos
Valued Senior Member
Uh? 'Legal' precedes all, and it should encompass all the others with exception of 'Religious'.
At what point, from conception does a ''phetus'' become a human being?
- Thread starter Jan Ardena
- Start date
Uh? 'Legal' precedes all, and it should encompass all the others with exception of 'Religious'.
Big Chiller
Registered Senior Member
I don't think so. Legal depends on the social norms of a population which involves morality.
It is often a devastating experience for a woman to lose an unborn child, and the later in pregnancy that it happens the worse it is. But I think for most women losing a 6-month pregnancy (say) is not in the same league as losing a two-year old child (say), let alone a 10-year old.
As for early pregnancy, about 1 in 3 pregnancies naturally end in spontaneous abortion, most of those occuring in the first 10 weeks or so. While this can also be an emotionally jarring experience, I'd say that most women would rather lose a foetus at 6 weeks than at 6 months, and I'd also say that it doesn't hurt "just about as bad" when it happens earlier.
What all this suggests to me is that the more advanced a pregnancy becomes, the more the unborn child becomes imbued with the characteristics and moral value of a newborn child. It is not an all-or-nothing thing where at some magical time (moment of conception, say) a foetus goes from being nothing/worthless to being equivalent in moral value to a grown adult human being.
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
That is what I said..
Big Chiller
Registered Senior Member
If legal depends on the social norm how can it possibly precede all? 
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
If legal depends on the social norm how can it possibly precede all?
Sorry, let me rephrase that. 'Legal' take precedence over the others.
Big Chiller
Registered Senior Member
How can legal come before moral when it comes after?
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
Precedence - Priority claimed or received because of preeminence or superiority
Technically/scientifically, the sperm is a gamete, and the unfertilized egg is a gamete. The fertilized egg is a zygote, fully human, unique in its genetic code (not the mother or the father), and it's alive (which makes abortion what it is).
Not exactly. Onan was told to carry on the family line after his brother died, and he repeatedly refused passive/aggressive style (ie, coitus interruptus). So Onan consistently deceived and disobeyed (he knew his kids would be considered his brother's kids) and was punished, but birth control is not generally prohibited in the Bible. (Genesis 38:8-10)
...but I think there's a lot of ignorance. A fertilized egg is #1 human, #2 unique and #3 alive. Men and women who have their gametes preserved (ie, sperm banks and harvested eggs) certainly think that stuff is precious and it's not even fully human. Go figure.
Well in the book of the laws it says don't spill your seed on the ground . There is a bunch of rituals you got to follow if you do . That was the law of the day.
O.K. i read the bible quote . He was wicked and murdered for spilling his seed , or better known as jerk and skirt methods of birth control which I might add is not always effective. Use a rubber it will protect you from other things too
Big Chiller
Registered Senior Member
While legal has precedence over what some individuals may think it is a tool of the social norms of a populace.
The OP has not asked at what stage the elements are human rather at what stage does the fetus becomes a human being (person)?
Last edited:
That would mean that first there was Law, and then came Morality - dependent on the Law.
This is theistic reasoning, where the Law is deemed as having been received from the Higher Source.
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
So is a cancerous growth, to give an example.
Yes, but if done right it encompasses the other ones (hopefully with the exception of 'religion'). If it does not, it's time to change some laws.
No, law is constructed from morality, medical insights etc. It takes precedence because it is more important than all those others things on their own. The law makes for a more weighed argument than the others on there own because it takes into account the others where considered reasonable by either the majority or experts or both.
Besides, if you were to do something because of some medical insight or some local or personal moral insight that the law doesn't (yet) support your are engaging in unlawful activity. That sounds much more like theistic reasoning to me (especially acting on local or personal insight alone).
Last edited:
I'll assume you are opposed to murder.
Do you oppose it because it is unlawful,
or because of the act itself??
jan.
DaveC,
I also am labelled ''human being'' therefore I have some understand of what
that ''label'' means. My essense must be the same as the essense of all human beings, and it always was even if I didn't know, or realise it.
a] the fact that it is a human being, alive, and growing, gives it the right to live. What other rights to live are there?
b] It deserves the label ''human being'', and as such should be no less valuable than any other human being. Do you agree?
jan.
I also am labelled ''human being'' therefore I have some understand of what
that ''label'' means. My essense must be the same as the essense of all human beings, and it always was even if I didn't know, or realise it.
a] the fact that it is a human being, alive, and growing, gives it the right to live. What other rights to live are there?
b] It deserves the label ''human being'', and as such should be no less valuable than any other human being. Do you agree?
jan.
Me-Ki-Gal,
Yes it does. It is a mentality unique to humans, and (IMO) can be passed
on. If done once what's to stop it being repeated?
But it's not murder.
That's a good point. It is not classed as murder because of who killed who.
Do you think the pregnant mother has a right to terminate her pregnancy on this basis?
It's a cold act, and a murderous one, when all is said and done.
There is always chance to survive in the world, but what chance did the aborted child have?
Is the unborn child not living?
So we're not to blame for abortion, it's the law makers?
jan.
Yes it does. It is a mentality unique to humans, and (IMO) can be passed
on. If done once what's to stop it being repeated?
But it's not murder.
That's a good point. It is not classed as murder because of who killed who.
Do you think the pregnant mother has a right to terminate her pregnancy on this basis?
It's a cold act, and a murderous one, when all is said and done.
There is always chance to survive in the world, but what chance did the aborted child have?
Is the unborn child not living?
So we're not to blame for abortion, it's the law makers?
jan.
Last edited:
KilljoyKlown.
Is the answer to my question yes?
What if it can survive outside of the womb, but need special care for the remainder of its life? Is it to be regarde as a human being?
jan.
Is the answer to my question yes?
What if it can survive outside of the womb, but need special care for the remainder of its life? Is it to be regarde as a human being?
jan.
Dywyddyr,
Good question.
In this context I think it means a moral right, what is good and fair.
jan.
Good question.
In this context I think it means a moral right, what is good and fair.
jan.
That leaves us at the mercy of the law makers.
The African slave was legal, therefore it was right?
jan.