E
Elf01
Guest
No, you’re right that it’s not scientific, and when it comes to making laws we should focus on what is scientific, namely that the unborn is a human organism from the zygote stage.
10 things that suggest pro-lifers are not consistent in treating the unborn as human, in the sense that born people are human
- Status
S
sealabeag
Guest
In your opinion, in others opinion it is. And the term “shortly after” is too vague when we are debating human life - how shortly after? 1 week? 1 month? These questions are of the utmost importance, because if we get them wrong, we are killing human beings.
Ok, so at what point does it become a person? And of course, as a Catholic, I do not agree with your first statement. I believe, in agreement with the scientific evidence and my Catholic faith, that a human being at all stages of it’s development is a human being.
Again, the reason I’m picking you up on this, even though I usually wouldn’t, is because the point @Elf01 made is one clear hole in your logic regarding this whole question - if there is uncertainty, we need to err on the side of caution with regards to potential human life. I’m afraid that thus far I do not see you doing that.
Last edited:
F
Freddy
Guest
That’s true. Now can you give me some characteristics of a person on which we can both agree?Freddy:
No, you’re right that it’s not scientific, and when it comes to making laws we should focus on what is scientific, namely that the unborn is a human organism from the zygote stage.
Last edited:
F
Freddy
Guest
The point being discussed at the moment is whether one considers what a woman is carrying - let’s say a week after conception, can be considered a person. If you don’t, then skipping that and asking when it does makes no sense. How could we possibly discuss that aspect if you don’t accept the premise?Freddy:
In your opinion, in others opinion it is. And the term “shortly after” is too vague when we are debating human life - how shortly after? 1 week? 1 month? These questions are of the utmost importance, because if we get them wrong, we are killing human beings.
Ok, so at what point does it become a person? And of course, as a Catholic, I do not agree with your first statement.
You are free to answer the question I asked Elf as well. What are the characteristics of a person on which we could both agree?
Last edited:
S
stpurl
Guest
Freddy why do you insist on using the term ‘person’ as opposed to human being?
Are some human beings not persons? Are some persons not human beings?
Are some human beings not persons? Are some persons not human beings?
S
sealabeag
Guest
Sure, you were discussing something, I asked a different question. It’s life on a forum. I asked it because I think it’s of vital importance to the whole discussion. You keep using this word “person”, which I refuse to use - we’re talking about whether a child in the womb is or is not a human being, at various stages of conception. And yes, I consider what a woman is carrying one week after conception to be a human being. Without question.
Again, I ask you - at what stage does a pregnancy become a human being? You still haven’t answered that.
And I repeat myself once again - if there is uncertainty, which there clearly is, since it is up for debate, about when a pregnancy becomes a human being, then we must err on the side of caution. Would you agree?
The question about the characteristics of a person is one that is kind of irrelevant to me because the language of “personhood” is not language I enter into. For me, a human being is a human being, and so from the moment of conception.
F
Freddy
Guest
I agree with your first point. And disagree with your second.
As to the first, if one takes my position then there obviously must be a point where you say that abortion is ok and past that point it isn’t. That’s a logical result of the position. Which is extraordinarily easy to argue against. Just as anyone could argue that it’s nonsensical to say you aren’t old enough to have sex an hour before your 16th birthday but you’re ok an hour later. And these positions we pick are, almost by definition, arbitrary. Why 16? Why not 16 1/2? Why not 6,000 days?
Therefore I consider them almost impossible to defend. If I say it’s ok at week x, then it’s all too easy to reasonably ask what is the practical difference in an hour before we get to x. But selecting a time doesn’t detract from the fact that a time needs to be selected. Just because it’s nonsensical to say that an hour before your 16th birthday is significantly different to an hour after, we still need to draw a line somewhere to prevent, for example, 12 year olds having sex. It’s not practical to do it on an individual basis.
So should a 12 year old have sex? No. Is it OK for a thirty year old woman to have sex? Yes.
Is it OK for woman to have an abortion a week after conception? Yes. Is it OK for a woman to have an abortion a week before giving birth? No.
Are there huge difficulties in agreeing where we draw the line in each case? Yes. But should there be a line drawn? Obviously yes. But your position is analogous to saying that if we can’t be certain when a woman is old enough to have sex then she shouldn’t have sex at all.
And I don’t think we are going to get agreement on personhood. It is central to my position. If it doesn’t even come up on your radar then our relative positions aren’t going to make any sense to each other.
Last edited:
S
sealabeag
Guest
Whether 16 years old, or 17 years old or 15 years and 364 days old is the right age at which to set consent is, yes, somewhat arbitrary but also a necessary legal decision. The difference is that, if the legal age is 17 and a 16 year old has sex, a law may have been broken, along with other potential consequences, but it is not a like with like comparison in any way other than the setting of an arbitrary time frame based on a best guess. Where they are very different is that in the case of abortion if that best guess is wrong, even by a second, or a day, or a week, lives, and possibly thousands of lives, could be lost. And so exactly what you stated does need to happen - “Is abortion ok at 9 months? If not, why not? 8 months? 7 months? 6? 5? 4?” So you pick a number, based in your own reasoning. Let’s say you believe it to be 3 months. After 3 months, abortion should not be allowed. Why? Why not 2 months and 29 days? That one day difference could mean the difference between killing or not killing human beings.
This might all sound pedantic, but once again, my point is, that if human life matters, if human life is the most important thing, which it should be, whatever our morality, then taking chances, making arbitrary time limits, and not always prioritising the possibility that what we’re dealing with might be a human being, is not acceptable. If there is any question, and there is, although you might disagree, that a child at say, 1 month, is a living human being, then we must err on the side of protecting potential life.
This might all sound pedantic, but once again, my point is, that if human life matters, if human life is the most important thing, which it should be, whatever our morality, then taking chances, making arbitrary time limits, and not always prioritising the possibility that what we’re dealing with might be a human being, is not acceptable. If there is any question, and there is, although you might disagree, that a child at say, 1 month, is a living human being, then we must err on the side of protecting potential life.
F
Freddy
Guest
But (and I might have to keep emphasising this - in my opinion) there is zero problem in having an abortion a week after conception. Just like there is zero problem in a thirty year old woman having sex. But your argument has become that if we are not certain that a sixteen or seventeen year old girl can do the same then we mustn’t have a line drawn anywhere. Because who to say that an eighteen year old is old enough?
My position is that it is fine to have an abortion a week after conception. And I am picking that time so we at least have a position to attack or defend. And that it is not OK to have one a week before birth. I don’t see any reasonable person arguing against that, so we have a common position.
To say that picking an arbitrary time when it changes from acceptable to not acceptable (which is required by holding to my position) does not change anything I have stated thus far. Just as picking 16 years of age does not change one’s belief that sex is ok if you’re 30 but not if you’re 12.
E
Elf01
Guest
We’re not going to agree. You’ve already said something is a person if I think it’s a person. I’m just pointing out that thats a bad basis for law, as as been shown throughout history.
F
Freddy
Guest
You can’t think of a single characteristic that would apply to ‘a person’? None whatsoever?Freddy:
We’re not going to agree. You’ve already said something is a person if I think it’s a person. I’m just pointing out that thats a bad basis for law, as as been shown throughout history.
E
Elf01
Guest
None that you’d agree with.
You’re an atheist, so you won’t accept made in the image and likeness of God.
Now what’s your definition?
F
Freddy
Guest
C’mon, elf. This isn’t difficult. Just think of a person and describe his or her characteristics.Freddy:
None that you’d agree with.
You’re an atheist, so you won’t accept made in the image and likeness of God.
Now what’s your definition?
E
Elf01
Guest
Why don’t you?
P
phil3
Guest
We need to give personhood to the unborn.
F
Freddy
Guest
I think we’re done. Thanks for your (name removed by moderator)ut.Freddy:
Why don’t you?
E
Elf01
Guest
Just to go back here. I assume you think that once personhood, whatever it is, is attained it cannot be removed. Why?
Because you know that any characteristic you could apply to a person may not be had by a born person and want to justify murdering the unborn but not the born.
F
Freddy
Guest
A one year old child is not a man. But a thirty year old person is. Your question is akin to asking “why can’t you ‘remove’ manhood?”Freddy:
Just to go back here. I assume you think that once personhood, whatever it is, is attained it cannot be removed. Why?
The question makes no sense.
P
PatK63
Guest
It is clear Jesus was named right after conception. He also made His presence felt when Mary visited Elisabeth! Also miscarriages are baptized by some parents!
- Status