10 things that suggest pro-lifers are not consistent in treating the unborn as human, in the sense that born people are human

  • Thread starter Thread starter FiveLinden
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
FiveLinden said:
Unborn children do not have the right to sue or be sued
Click to expand...

Man charged with two counts of murder after pregnant woman shot to death in Cordova Walgreens parking lot​

Man charged with two counts of murder after pregnant woman shot to death in Cordova Walgreens parking lot (wreg.com)

Also, sometimes, if a pregnant woman is murdered, the suspect is accused of 2 murders in some jurisdictions. That can only be seen as both counting as human beings.

Unborn in some cases can be designated as heirs. But your arguments seem to be about personhood.


 
Perhaps you do not understand the importance of birth, and hence the importance of rebirth.

The Annunciation is such a big deal, at least in part, because it is when Christ was conceived. But Christmas is such a huge celebration because it is when He was born.
What is the big deal with birth?
It is when we go into the world. Previously, Jesus was within Mary’s holy womb. Imagine her gladness! But He was in her womb, hidden from the world. But Mary and God gave US the gift of Christ Jesus in the flesh at the nativity!

Any child in the womb, it would seem to me, is hidden from the world. But when he or she breaks from the womb, that is the beginning of their life with the world. Christians are baptised and are not supposed to be of the world, but of the Kingdom of God.

I also suspect some of the procedural stuff, like census counting, is affected by the large rate of miscarriages (not to mention not everyone realizes they are pregnant, somehow!). It is a sad thing in this vale of tears. But, what can we physically do aside from try to make prenatal care more easily available (I imagine most prolifers are for this already)?
 
fhansen said:
48.png
Freddy:
Each person should have equal rights.

Do you note the operative word there?
Click to expand...
Ok, well, I guess we’ll have to allow 4 year-olds to drive then, the right to vote, etc. The point is that we already treat people who’re born differently as well.
Click to expand...
Note the operative word there as well?
 
Last edited:
Ok?? So any unbirthed being of human stock is not a person. Should there be any logic to be found in that thought somewhere?
 
fhansen said:
48.png
Freddy:
Yes. I was emphasising the term ‘person’.
Click to expand...
Yep-got it .
Click to expand...
Not many do. The conversation usually follows this path:

C: How can you support abortion?
F: I don’t consider what a woman is carrying immediately after conception to be a person.
C: But it’s human. How can you support abortion?
F: Yes but not a person.
C: Science says it is. How can you support abortion?
F: No it doesn’t. It says it’s human, not a person.
C: Yes, a human being. How can you support abortion?
F: Human is an adjective. Human being is a noun. A person is human but something that’s human is not necessarily a person.
C: So we can kill anything that’s human. How can you support abortion?
F: No, we cannot kill anyone whom we agree is a person.
C: But if you take personhood away then we have atrocities. How can you support abortion?
F: A few cells hasn’t gained personhood. You’re not taking anything away.
C: I don’t agree. How can you support abortion?
F: I’ve just told you.
C: But you’re wrong. How can you support abortion?

Rinse and repeat…
 
Freddy said:
Rinse and repeat…
Click to expand...
The real issue is that there’s no magical time we can point to between conception and delivery for when a person becomes a person, which is the very reason why we cannot logically assign personhood after conception, as if at this point in time the fetus should have no right to life whereas a second later they should have full protection of the law.
 
Last edited:
Freddy said:
C: How can you support abortion?
F: I don’t consider what a woman is carrying immediately after conception to be a person.
C: But it’s human. How can you support abortion?
F: Yes but not a person.
C: Science says it is. How can you support abortion?
F: No it doesn’t. It says it’s human, not a person.
C: Yes, a human being. How can you support abortion?
F: Human is an adjective. Human being is a noun. A person is human but something that’s human is not necessarily a person.
C: So we can kill anything that’s human. How can you support abortion?
F: No, we cannot kill anyone whom we agree is a person.
C: But if you take personhood away then we have atrocities. How can you support abortion?
F: A few cells hasn’t gained personhood. You’re not taking anything away.
C: I don’t agree. How can you support abortion?
F: I’ve just told you.
C: But you’re wrong. How can you support abortion?

Rinse and repeat…
Click to expand...
Consider the reverse - if it’s not a human being, then how does one become a human being?
  • When it has consciousness? Then anyone in a coma is not “human.”
  • Through birth? That makes no sense; the birth canal doesn’t bestow personhood. And C-section babies aren’t “born” at all.
  • Through heart and vital organ function? Apparently not because we abort people with heartbeats.
Unless you can give a clear, definite point where personhood/humanity is assured, then we are playing a very dangerous game: 60 million unborn have been terminated who may or may not have been human, apparently we don’t know, which is the equivalent of 6 Holocausts. We believe it’s best to err on the side of caution, so we aren’t far outstripping the Nazis in innocent humans killed.
 
Last edited:
ReaderT said:
Unless you can give a clear, definite point where personhood/humanity is assured, then we are playing a very dangerous game: 60 million unborn have been terminated who may or may not have been human, apparently we don’t know, which is the equivalent of 6 Holocausts. We believe it’s best to err on the side of caution, so we aren’t far outstripping the Nazis in innocent humans killed.
Click to expand...
You are ignoring the point I made. I don’t expect you to agree with it. But it’s frustrating that you simply ignore it. If you insist on accusing people of killing people when they constantly tell you that what they consider a woman is carrying shortly after conception is not considered a human (short for human being) or a person, then your argument will fall on deaf ears.

And there is no definitive point when a person emerges within the womb. Just as there is no point when a child becomes a man outside of it.
 
Freddy said:
You are ignoring the point I made. I don’t expect you to agree with it. But it’s frustrating that you simply ignore it. If you insist on accusing people of killing people when they constantly tell you that what they consider a woman is carrying shortly after conception is not considered a human (short for human being) or a person, then your argument will fall on deaf ears.
Click to expand...
I understand the point you made and if that’s your position, okay, but then you have to - have to - answer when is it considered human - we can’t just leave that issue hanging. It’s two sides of the same coin.
Freddy said:
And there is no definitive point when a person emerges within the womb. Just as there is no point when a child becomes a man outside of it.
Click to expand...
If your position is that we don’t know if the person has developed, then why are you comfortable with any abortions, which means we may or may not be killing an innocent person, or in fact millions of innocents? Doesn’t that put us right up there with Hitler? Why not just be safe and not “roll the dice” on child murder?
 
Last edited:
ReaderT said:
If your position is that we don’t know if the person has developed, then why are you comfortable with any abortions, which means we may or may not be killing an innocent person, or in fact millions of innocents? Doesn’t that put us right up there with Hitler? Why not just be safe and not “roll the dice” on child murder?
Click to expand...
That argument is identical to one that equates a child with a woman. There is no specific point where one becomes the other so why not treat them the same? We obviously don’t. Notwithstanding that a fertilised egg is not a person.

And one more attempt to link early term abortions with the holocaust and we’re done.
 
Freddy said:
Notwithstanding that a fertilised egg is not a person.
Click to expand...
Why not?

You keep telling me there’s no way to tell when personhood starts, but then you say “it’s definitely not here”. Either tell me the criteria or you’re using to make these judgments, or stop making them, but you can’t have it both ways.
 
Last edited:
ReaderT said:
48.png
Freddy:
Notwithstanding that a fertilised egg is not a person.
Click to expand...
Why not?

You keep telling me there’s no way to tell when personhood starts, but then you say “it’s definitely not here”. Either tell me the criteria or you’re using to make these judgments, or stop making them, but you can’t have it both ways.
Click to expand...
I’ve done this dance too many times before. It’s not constructive in any way. It’s a combination of many criteria and not everyone will agree on the criteria themsleves let alone the degree to which they are important.

Again, it’s like asking what the criteria are for determining when a child becomes a man. Which ones would you choose? Do they all have to reach a certain level at the same time? Is there variation accepted? Isn’t each one a subjective decision? What if you and I disagree on one criteria? Do the others still count?

What we could both agree is that a one year old child is just that - a child. And that a forty year old man is indeed a man. Absent an arbitrary age (the day of his 18th birthday?) then isn’t it true that the child gradually becomes the man and there is no bright line?
 
fhansen said:
The real issue is that there’s no magical time we can point to between conception and delivery for when a person becomes a person, which is the very reason why we cannot logically assign personhood
Click to expand...
Sure you can.

The issue is, do people recognize this personhood.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top