Life begins at....?

[adi2d]

Well, I guess it would have to become a religious discussion in another thread then, because I don't believe souls exist. I believe it's all biological. So we'll just have to agree to disagree then because I'm not trying to talk about religion here.

Edited post to 'person' instead of' soul' still the same. Just as at the end of life the breath of life separates living and not living

 

[freethinker44]

Edited post to 'person' instead of' soul' still the same. Just as at the end of life the breath of life separates living and not living

So what if someone stops breathing for whatever reason, should they be denied all human rights then?

 

[adi2d]

So what if someone stops breathing for whatever reason, should they be denied all human rights then?

STOP breathing. Not hold. Not pause not temporary. STOP. Still a person but not a living one. At that point you have no rights

 

[freethinker44]

STOP breathing. Not hold. Not pause not temporary. STOP. Still a person but not a living one. At that point you have no rights

But simply not breathing doesn't mean someone isn't living, it only means they aren't breathing. As long as the brain is functioning they are still living. I don't think ability to breath determines life, I think brain activity determines whether something is alive or not. People can be clinically dead and still be revived.

It just doesn't make sense to me to say that someone should only be granted human rights because they can breathe. Does this mean that if a person stops breathing for a short period of time, a near drowning instance for example, does that person have no rights? I mean, while the paramedic is performing CPR should we be able to sign away all their possessions because they have no rights, even though they could be revived in minutes? Doesn't make sense.

 

[adi2d]

But simply not breathing doesn't mean someone isn't living, it only means they aren't breathing. As long as the brain is functioning they are still living. I don't think ability to breath determines life, I think brain activity determines whether something is alive or not. People can be clinically dead and still be revived.

It just doesn't make sense to me to say that someone should only be granted human rights because they can breathe. Does this mean that if a person stops breathing for a short period of time, a near drowning instance for example, does that person have no rights? I mean, while the paramedic is performing CPR should we be able to sign away all their possessions because they have no rights, even though they could be revived in minutes? Doesn't make sense.

I agree that makes no sense. Fortunately that's not what I said

 

[Kalidas]

Apparently you have: The importance of 'awareness' for un... [Brain Res Brain Res Rev. 2005] - PubMed - NCBI

Since you say you're studying child development, I'm sure that you'll be able to get past the paywall to access the paper if you access it on campus. For the rest of us, here's an excerpt from an article that quotes the lead researcher discussing the study:



http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/10/magazine/10Fetal-t.html?pagewanted=3&_r=2

Putting someone to sleep does not remove awareness. Most people when asleep are still mildly aware of their surroundings. As the fetuses brains matures their "awareness" develops more and more.
All your source has showed is that the child is in a relatively "low activity" state, not a lack of awareness.

 

[freethinker44]

I agree that makes no sense. Fortunately that's not what I said

You said, if you stop breathing you are not living and have no rights. Am I wrong?

 

[Kalidas]

You said, if you stop breathing you are not living and have no rights. Am I wrong?

Lets all hold our breathe for a moment!

 

[adi2d]

You said, if you stop breathing you are not living and have no rights. Am I wrong?

I said stop breathing. Not hold your breath. Not temporarily pause. Stop breathing as in never greathe again

This really has nothing to do with the OP.

 

[Kalidas]

You said, if you stop breathing you are not living and have no rights. Am I wrong?

there is honestly no point in arguing with him right now. It's his religious beliefs which I am VERY much against. Because with his logic my child was never a "person" and I know that is not correct. BUT it is still his religious beliefs and as such really cant be argued well. Just like any other religious argument it will end in a "My God says so" "well my sciences says no" etc etc etc.

So lets just agree to disagree. His religious says something our science says something else. NOW if we were trying to make laws based on this, well then argue away.

 

[freethinker44]

I said stop breathing. Not hold your breath. Not temporarily pause. Stop breathing as in never breathe again

Ah, now we're getting somewhere. So not breathing and not being able to breathe at any point in the future means an organism cannot be considered a living person?

 

[adi2d]

there is honestly no point in arguing with him right now. It's his religious beliefs which I am VERY much against. Because with his logic my child was never a "person" and I know that is not correct. BUT it is still his religious beliefs and as such really cant be argued well. Just like any other religious argument it will end in a "My God says so" "well my sciences says no" etc etc etc.

So lets just agree to disagree. His religious says something our science says something else. NOW if we were trying to make laws based on this, well then argue away.

My religious beliefs? You have no idea what I believe. I told you my feelings on what happened to you. That was real. This other stuff is just chat

I will tell you my arguement will never say my god says. I'm just saying what makes sense to me

 

[adi2d]

Ah, now we're getting somewhere. So not breathing and not being able to breathe at any point in the future means an organism cannot be considered a living person?

Not quitethe act of first breath is what makes one a living person

 

[freethinker44]

Not quitethe act of first breath is what makes one a living person

Why the first breath? All breathing is, is oxygenating the blood, why is the first breath the defining moment, why does it have to be air entering the lungs that makes an human organism a human person?

 

[Kalidas]

My religious beliefs? You have no idea what I believe. I told you my feelings on what happened to you. That was real. This other stuff is just chat

I will tell you my arguement will never say my god says. I'm just saying what makes sense to me

Sorry I guess when you said

"Biblically. With your first breath." I got confused

 

[adi2d]

Sorry I guess when you said

"Biblically. With your first breath." I got confused

That was a conversation starter. And it worked

That is what the bible says about Adam. So what I said is true.

 

[Kalidas]

That was a conversation starter. And it worked

That is what the bible says about Adam. So what I said is true.

It's really only true if you believe in the bible. BUT if you DO believe this in scientific sense. Prove to us with logic and reason and science that your argument makes sense

 

[NobodyYouKnow]

Just making an observation - those who said 'life begins at birth' are mostly the female members involved in this discussion...

 

[freethinker44]

Just making an observation - those who said 'life begins at birth' are mostly the female members involved in this discussion...

And what does that have to do with the discussion?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Putting someone to sleep does not remove awareness. Most people when asleep are still mildly aware of their surroundings. As the fetuses brains matures their "awareness" develops more and more.
All your source has showed is that the child is in a relatively "low activity" state, not a lack of awareness.

... similar to sedation. In fact, the hormones present in the fetus that break down once respiration starts are sedatives.