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

[ReaderT]

It doesn’t stop developing because it doesn’t start developing. There is nothing there to to die.

It did develop - the egg in question completed fertilization.

A fertilised egg is not a person . A zygote is not a person . A blastocyst is not a person . When it becomes a person is up for debate but in none of those cases is there any doubt (in my personal opinion).

Maybe you’re the one that’s wrong? After all, you’re not infallible. But if you are wrong, you’ve been supporting the execution of innocent people. If you’re going to risk that at all, your reasons have to be better than just (your words here) “up for debate”.

Again, your argument is akin to saying that as we can’t definitely say when a child becomes a man then it’s impossible to say when it’s a child or when it’s a man. Clearly a nonsensical position.

That’s your argument: “a child gradually becomes the man” and likewise a lump of cells “becomes” a human being. But that’s not my argument: my argument is that it’s human from conception and there’s no change in the state of its humanity at all.

 

[Freddy]

With a “blighted ovum”, something goes wrong with the process, and he dies.

He is no less human because he was sick and imperfect.

There is no ‘he’ (or ‘she’) to die. Nothing happens. There is nothing there. The process doesn’t start. There is an empty sac.

I can’t make that any plainer.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

It doesn’t stop developing because it doesn’t start developing. There is nothing there to to die.

It did develop - the egg in question completed fertilization.

A fertilised egg is not a person . A zygote is not a person . A blastocyst is not a person . When it becomes a person is up for debate but in none of those cases is there any doubt (in my personal opinion).

Maybe you’re the one that’s wrong? After all, you’re not infallible. But if you are wrong, you’ve been supporting the execution of innocent people. If you’re going to risk that at all, your reasons have to be better than just (your words here) “up for debate”.

Again, your argument is akin to saying that as we can’t definitely say when a child becomes a man then it’s impossible to say when it’s a child or when it’s a man. Clearly a nonsensical position.

That’s your argument: “a child gradually becomes the man” and likewise a lump of cells “becomes” a human being. But that’s not my argument: my argument is that it’s human from conception and there’s no change in the state of its humanity at all.

Fertilisation means that the development is meant to start. In some cases it simply doesn’t. No cells divide, nothing grows, there is no development. The original egg was human, likewise the sperm. But in some cases you are left with…nothing. An empty embryonic sac. There isn’t even a technical or scientific term for what is there because there is nothing there.

Can I be any plainer?

You seem to want to describe something that doesn’t exist and has never existed as a human being.

 

[mythbuster1]

Even then, you can only narrow down the conception to a two or three-day window. It takes hours or even days for sperm to reach the egg.

 

[ReaderT]

Freddy I understand the process you’re describing. What I’m saying is the change from non-fertilized egg to fertilized egg is a development. And while that zygote, due to a genetic anomaly (and we all agreed that’s what it was), is unable to develop further, that doesn’t make it any less human than people who die from their genetic anomalies outside the womb.

The process doesn’t start.

The process did start. Fertilization is the start of the human development process. Just because it died soon after fertilization doesn’t make it non-human.

 

[Annie]

Fertilisation means that the development is meant to start . In some cases it simply doesn’t. No cells divide, nothing grows, there is no development. The original egg was human, likewise the sperm. But in some cases you are left with…nothing. An empty embryonic sac. There isn’t even a technical or scientific term for what is there because there is nothing there .

There may be nothing there but there *was" a fertilized egg, a human fertilized egg. The fact that at this point we have given it only the name of fertilized egg is meaningless; we do not have to give something a fancy Latin name for it to exist!

The fertilized egg of which you speak existed, then died.

 

[lwest]

Freddy, the Church teaches that life begins at conception. The Church’s teachings are protected by the Holy Spirit. So your personal opinion is nothing when held up to revealed Truth. You’re embracing a heretical viewpoint.

 

[Freddy]

The process did start. Fertilization is the start of the human development process. Just because it died soon after fertilization doesn’t make it non-human.

You can say when fertilisation is complete. It’s when the genetic material has been combined and the cell is ready to start dividing. But it’s a process that has numerous stages so it’s not possible to say that it’s ocurred until it’s complete. And the problem is that there is no guarantee that it does complete. All you may have is an egg and a sperm together but not combined.

Is that ‘a person’? It’s separate genetic material.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy, the Church teaches that life begins at conception. The Church’s teachings are protected by the Holy Spirit. So your personal opinion is nothing when held up to revealed Truth. You’re embracing a heretical viewpoint.

I’m not Catholic. I’m not bound by the church’s teaching. It’s not possiblt to commit heresy towards a religion in which you don’t believe.

 

[lwest]

You have a good point there. Then why are you on a Catholic forum insisting that Catholic teachings aren’t true…which is what you’re doing by insisting that a zygot isnt’ alive, etc. Are you hoping to educate us? Learn from us? What’s your motive there, Freddy?

 

[Freddy]

You have a good point there. Then why are you on a Catholic forum insisting that Catholic teachings aren’t true…which is what you’re doing by insisting that a zygot isnt’ alive, etc. Are you hoping to educate us? Learn from us? What’s your motive there, Freddy?

Good grief…who on earth said that a zygote isn’t alive? I’m posting on the same subject on two threads and it seems that half of what I post is ignored and half of what is said I claim is complete nonsense and bears no relationship to anything I have written.

And Catholic teachings are true. For Catholics. I disagree with some of them. As do people from other religions. I am not here to convince you that you are wrong. I’m doing my best to explain why other people don’t agree with you.

 

[lwest]

I saw it somewhere, I responded to the comment and your name popped up. If you didn’t type it, I apologize. We know non-Catholics don’t agree with us. But two opposing views cannot be equally true. When it comes to believing what God has revealed through His Church and some guy saying something different, I’m going to always go with what God has revealed through His Church. Any solid Catholic would do the exact same thing. So…again…what is your motive for being on here? (good grief)

 

[TRose225]

This is kind of moot isn’t it? By the time a woman goes in to see a doctor about pregnancy, the blighted ovum(either empty sac or reabsorbed early embryo) would have been discovered by ultrasound, it’s considered a miscarriage and either through a natural miscarriage or through D&C would be removed. The blastocyst that was miscarried is scientifically speaking, a human being. Personhood is arbitrary as you’ve stated yourself, and so is not a good method of granting human rights or denying them. Common humanity leaves little room for abuse of others.

 

[0Scarlett_nidiyilii]

There is no ‘he’ (or ‘she’) to die. Nothing happens. There is nothing there. The process doesn’t start. There is an empty sac.

I can’t make that any plainer.

Well, I guess we’re at an impasse then.

I can’t make it any plainer, either.

The egg was fertilized (with all his or her set of unique chromosomes, including the sex chromosomes), grew and developed to a certain stage, something when wrong, and he died.

So I’m done.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

There is no ‘he’ (or ‘she’) to die. Nothing happens. There is nothing there. The process doesn’t start. There is an empty sac.

I can’t make that any plainer.

Well, I guess we’re at an impasse then.

I can’t make it any plainer, either.

The egg was fertilized (with all his or her set of unique chromosomes, including the sex chromosomes), grew and developed to a certain stage, something when wrong, and he died.

So I’m done.

Thanks for your (name removed by moderator)ut.

 

[Elf01]

You are entirely missing what I am saying. A fertilised egg is not a person . A zygote is not a person . A blastocyst is not a person . When it becomes a person is up for debate but in none of those cases is there any doubt (in my personal opinion). None whatsoever.

So personhood is defined by your subjective opinion?

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

You are entirely missing what I am saying. A fertilised egg is not a person . A zygote is not a person . A blastocyst is not a person . When it becomes a person is up for debate but in none of those cases is there any doubt (in my personal opinion). None whatsoever.

So personhood is defined by your subjective opinion?

The only other options are a faith based position - and that doesn’t apply to me but does to you. Or a scientific one. And there are no scientific positions on this. So we are left with a personal (secular) belief.

And I’d better mention that this is about attaining personhood. And is not to be confused with deciding if someone can have it removed. Thought that might save you some typing…

 

[ReaderT]

ReaderT:

The process did start. Fertilization is the start of the human development process. Just because it died soon after fertilization doesn’t make it non-human.

You can say when fertilisation is complete. It’s when the genetic material has been combined and the cell is ready to start dividing. But it’s a process that has numerous stages so it’s not possible to say that it’s ocurred until it’s complete. And the problem is that there is no guarantee that it does complete. All you may have is an egg and a sperm together but not combined.

Is that ‘a person’? It’s separate genetic material.

All of these steps have to have a sperm meeting an egg to begin. So it’s logical to call that event the “beginning of fertilization”. And you’re right that there are several stages in this development, just as there are several stages in pregnant gestation and human growth after birth. Just because one hasn’t reached a certain stage in the process doesn’t make one less human.

At any rate, I don’t foresee either of us budging, so I will probably stop replying now.

 

[sealabeag]

What a nonsense thread.

 

[Elf01]

The only other options are a faith based position - and that doesn’t apply to me but does to you. Or a scientific one. And there are no scientific positions on this. So we are left with a personal (secular) belief.

If we can’t know if something is a person maybe we shouldn’t kill it.