Are you aware that some babies are born as early as day 160?

At the beginning of gestation (ie. day 1 of a pregnancy), the mother carries something that isn't a human being yet, but has the potential to be.
At day 274, the mother carries what is effectively a human being. The 274 day process is gradual, such that there isn't a clear point at which a blob of cells becomes a human being.

Are you aware that some babies are born as early as day 160? (see below)

That would be 114 days before they are a human being according to your beliefs.

In other words, 114 days before they stop being a "blob of cells" according to your beliefs.


I have never understood why atheists try to say the 160 day old baby is not a person, not a human, etc. rather than just say of course a 160 day old baby is a human person but our laws say their mother has the right to decide their future since they are still in her womb.

freida-2.jpg
 

Whateverman

Well-known member
Are you aware that some babies are born as early as day 160? (see below)

That would be 114 days before they are a human being according to your beliefs.
THAT IS FALSE AND A LIE.

I explicitly stated that there wasn't a clear line as to when a fetus is a human being and when it wasn't. I spent an entire post explaining this.

If you want me to portray you and your point of view accurately accurately and fairly, you need to first demonstrate that you're willing to do the same. So far, you've demonstrated the opposite.
 

Temujin

Well-known member
Are you aware that some babies are born as early as day 160? (see below)

That would be 114 days before they are a human being according to your beliefs.

In other words, 114 days before they stop being a "blob of cells" according to your beliefs.


I have never understood why atheists try to say the 160 day old baby is not a person, not a human, etc. rather than just say of course a 160 day old baby is a human person but our laws say their mother has the right to decide their future since they are still in her womb.

View attachment 221
As I have consistently said that any foetus capable of surviving birth should be considered a person, this op clearly doesn't apply to me or indeed all atheists

In fact, as many atheists oppose abortion and many Christians support it, the whole premise of the OP is false. Abortion is not a religious question. It has nothing to do with atheism or theism.
 

The Pixie

Active member
Are you aware that some babies are born as early as day 160? (see below)

That would be 114 days before they are a human being according to your beliefs.

In other words, 114 days before they stop being a "blob of cells" according to your beliefs.


I have never understood why atheists try to say the 160 day old baby is not a person, not a human, etc. rather than just say of course a 160 day old baby is a human person but our laws say their mother has the right to decide their future since they are still in her womb.
Are you aware that around two thirds of fertilised embryos miscarry naturally.

That means God is aborting way more babies than mankind.

Worth thinking about.
 
THAT IS FALSE AND A LIE.

I explicitly stated that there wasn't a clear line as to when a fetus is a human being and when it wasn't. I spent an entire post explaining this.

If you want me to portray you and your point of view accurately accurately and fairly, you need to first demonstrate that you're willing to do the same. So far, you've demonstrated the opposite.

I may have misunderstood your statement.

So to clarify...

Is a baby at 160 days old a human being?

Every baby at 160 days looks basically like the one above who was born. It is just that most babies stay in the womb longer.
 

Whateverman

Well-known member
I may have misunderstood your statement.

So to clarify...

Is a baby at 160 days old a human being?
I don't know.

I only know that at day 1, it's a clump of cells with the potential to be a human being. At day 274, it's a fully-formed human being.

Just as an acorn isn't a tree, a zygote isn't a human being.
 

Whateverman

Well-known member
Is a baby at 160 days old a human being?
This is a valid question, and it deserves an answer:

If a baby survives being brought into the world, no matter its age, it deserves to be treated as a human being.

Many fetuses/babies don't survive 9 months (aka. a full term), and some even die while being born. If medical technology makes it possible for a baby to be born-and-survive premature birth, then that baby is a human being (in my book). Thus, I would say surviving birth - whether artificially or natural - is one of the hallmarks of what it takes to be a human being.

Babies in the premie ward are human beings struggling to survive.
 

jonathan_hili

Well-known member
THAT IS FALSE AND A LIE.

I explicitly stated that there wasn't a clear line as to when a fetus is a human being and when it wasn't. I spent an entire post explaining this.

If you want me to portray you and your point of view accurately accurately and fairly, you need to first demonstrate that you're willing to do the same. So far, you've demonstrated the opposite.
Hi Whateverman, even though this isn't the abortion forum, I'd like to know how you distinguish between a foetus (human foetus?) and a human being?
 

jonathan_hili

Well-known member
This is a valid question, and it deserves an answer:

If a baby survives being brought into the world, no matter its age, it deserves to be treated as a human being.

Many fetuses/babies don't survive 9 months (aka. a full term), and some even die while being born. If medical technology makes it possible for a baby to be born-and-survive premature birth, then that baby is a human being (in my book). Thus, I would say surviving birth - whether artificially or natural - is one of the hallmarks of what it takes to be a human being.

Babies in the premie ward are human beings struggling to survive.
Why is "surviving birth" an essential property of a human being? Would you say the same applies to all other species? And how about non-living entities? Would an apparent-microwave, for instance, need to pass quality assurance before it becomes a microwave?
 
This is a valid question, and it deserves an answer:

If a baby survives being brought into the world, no matter its age, it deserves to be treated as a human being.

My question was not clear enough.


I think you took it to mean...

Is a baby born at 160 days old a human being?

You answered Yes and I agree.


But I was not distinguishing between a born or unborn 160 day old baby.

So just to be clear...

Is an unborn baby at 160 days old a human being?

I say Yes. They are equally developed as the baby born at that age.
 

Temujin

Well-known member
Why is "surviving birth" an essential property of a human being? Would you say the same applies to all other species? And how about non-living entities? Would an apparent-microwave, for instance, need to pass quality assurance before it becomes a microwave?
I prefer the term "person" in this context rather than "human being" because the latter is ambiguous.

I consider that a person is a self-aware being capable of living independent of the uterus and placenta. Thus a foetus that is capable of surviving birth, even though it is not yet born, should be regarded in my view as a person with all the rights that apply to persons. This is my rationale for banning late term abortions except in rare circumstances.

Thus the answer to your question is not that they have survived birth, but that they are assumed to be capable of surviving birth. Does that help? Please bear in mind that my answer may differ from others.
 

Whateverman

Well-known member
Why is "surviving birth" an essential property of a human being? Would you say the same applies to all other species?
I haven't thought about it prior to posting this - but Yes. I think it would apply to all species.

And how about non-living entities? Would an apparent-microwave, for instance, need to pass quality assurance before it becomes a microwave?
I was going to tack this onto my answer above, but I excluded it for the sake of brevity. Thanks for giving me another reason to state the following:

It's important to keep the context in mind here, which is that we're discussing rights. For example, a human being's right to not be killed by someone else.

Does a dog have the right to not be killed by another dog? That's doubtful. Does it have the right to not be killed another another human being? In some case, yes; in others, no. Does a microwave have the right to be sold as a properly-functioning microwave?

N/A

Yours is a valid question too, but the/my answer explains why I've said surviving birth is an essential part of what it means to be a human being.
 

Whateverman

Well-known member
My question was not clear enough.


I think you took it to mean...

Is a baby born at 160 days old a human being?

You answered Yes and I agree.


But I was not distinguishing between a born or unborn 160 day old baby.

So just to be clear...

Is an unborn baby at 160 days old a human being?

I say Yes. They are equally developed as the baby born at that age.
I think I understood what you were asking, and I assumed that you'd keep my previous responses in mind:

If a 160 day-old fetus is still in the womb, my answer is "I don't know". If it's removed and survives, my answer is "Yes".
 

Bob Carabbio

Well-known member
Are you aware that some babies are born as early as day 160? (see below)

That would be 114 days before they are a human being according to your beliefs.

In other words, 114 days before they stop being a "blob of cells" according to your beliefs.


I have never understood why atheists try to say the 160 day old baby is not a person, not a human, etc. rather than just say of course a 160 day old baby is a human person but our laws say their mother has the right to decide their future since they are still in her womb.

View attachment 221
Totally UNIMPORTANT. The parents and the "Doctors" don't give a rosy rodent's posterior whether their unborn baby is "a person" of not. All the parents want to do is GET RID OF IT for their own convenience. And the LEGAL answer to their dilemma is to hire an authorized Contract Murderer to make it go away - safely for them. What the courts Decide about the "Age of viability" doesn't mean SPIT. And since the components of a more mature baby are worth more, later term murders will certainly become legally approved PARTICULARLY under Democratic administrations.
 
I think I understood what you were asking, and I assumed that you'd keep my previous responses in mind:

If a 160 day-old fetus is still in the womb, my answer is "I don't know". If it's removed and survives, my answer is "Yes".

Thank you for you honest answers.

I personally wouldn't distinguish a difference between a baby in the womb and a baby outside the womb of the same age.
 

Whateverman

Well-known member
Thank you for you honest answers.

I personally wouldn't distinguish a difference between a baby in the womb and a baby outside the womb of the same age.
I know (or rather, I'm not surprised). Pro-life people tend to not see a difference between a zygote and a newborn.
 

jonathan_hili

Well-known member
I prefer the term "person" in this context rather than "human being" because the latter is ambiguous.
Wouldn't "personhood" be more ambiguous than what makes a member of the human species (which is a pretty easy genetic question)?
I consider that a person is a self-aware being capable of living independent of the uterus and placenta. Thus a foetus that is capable of surviving birth, even though it is not yet born, should be regarded in my view as a person with all the rights that apply to persons. This is my rationale for banning late term abortions except in rare circumstances.
Thanks for the definition. I can see at least three/four criteria here for personhood:
- self-awareness
- a being (existing - well, duh!)
- alive
- independent of the uterus and placenta

Would you say these properties are essential to personhood (or at least human personhood)? If so, must they be actively possessed properties or could they be only inactively possessed (by which I mean, they being will eventually actuate them as part of its natural lifecycle but is not actively doing so now)?

Thus the answer to your question is not that they have survived birth, but that they are assumed to be capable of surviving birth. Does that help? Please bear in mind that my answer may differ from others.
Sure. I think we can get into this criterion but I'd like to get a better understanding of where you stand with regards to the prior questions first.
 
I know (or rather, I'm not surprised). Pro-life people tend to not see a difference between a zygote and a newborn.

That seems just as odd to you as your view that two babies of the same age may or may not be a human being seems odd to me.

I am willing to agree to disagree. :)


How about babies after they are born...

Do you distinguish/rate babies in any way after they have been born?

For example, a baby born perfectly healthy and a baby born with a serious health problem.

I do not.
 

jonathan_hili

Well-known member
I haven't thought about it prior to posting this - but Yes. I think it would apply to all species.


I was going to tack this onto my answer above, but I excluded it for the sake of brevity. Thanks for giving me another reason to state the following:

It's important to keep the context in mind here, which is that we're discussing rights. For example, a human being's right to not be killed by someone else.

Does a dog have the right to not be killed by another dog? That's doubtful. Does it have the right to not be killed another another human being? In some case, yes; in others, no. Does a microwave have the right to be sold as a properly-functioning microwave?

N/A

Yours is a valid question too, but the/my answer explains why I've said surviving birth is an essential part of what it means to be a human being.
Okay, but I think rights are a secondary question to ontology. I mean, if you haven't settled what a thing is first, it's kind of difficult to talk about whether the thing has rights or not.

So, let's assume that an unborn who cannot survive birth doesn't have rights like you or I do. Can't we, given this assumption, define whether it is a human being or not?
 

Authentic Nouveau

Well-known member
I don't know.

I only know that at day 1, it's a clump of cells with the potential to be a human being. At day 274, it's a fully-formed human being.

Just as an acorn isn't a tree, a zygote isn't a human being.
Your sources are junk. You can't cough up any Board certified Docs that know you and back that drivel.
 
Top