C
Contrabass101
Guest
We are not discussing when something is human, but when someone is a human person.
Did I deny that?
- CB
- Status
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
This is a retro-argument. Prior to Rore vs Wade (and for a good while afterwards), no one argued that it was possible to be a human and not be a person.
A being with human DNA is a human being – a person.
E
estesbob
Guest
A distinction without a difference.
C
Contrabass101
Guest
Read the post I replied to.
Of course there is a difference.
A cell from your hair or skin is “human”, but it is not “a human”.
Of course there is a difference.
A cell from your hair or skin is “human”, but it is not “a human”.
M
Man
Guest
The zygote is one organism, that is, one being. Thus, the embryo is a “human being.” Both fully one organism and fully human.
Abortion is as unnatural as an number of suicide methods, only it is homocide instead.
The arguement is whole and reasonable.
Abortion is as unnatural as an number of suicide methods, only it is homocide instead.
The arguement is whole and reasonable.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
I might be a very smart person, but I have always had a problem with the position some take that a human embryo can only be considered a human being at this stage or at that stage or at another one. It’s the same problem I have with Roe vs. Wade and its progeny, which are really based on the same thing.
If I am sitting in a hotel window near a crowded football stadium, but not near enough to actually make out an individual, and if I have a high-powered rifle without a scope, and if I shoot into that mass of dots I see inside that bowl-like structure, I know I might kill a human being and I might not.
But absolutely no one would consider my act anything but heinous; an abominable crime showing total disrespect for human life.
I see no difference at all between that and considering abortion okay, but only if at this stage or that or the other. I have never understood why anyone else can.
If I am sitting in a hotel window near a crowded football stadium, but not near enough to actually make out an individual, and if I have a high-powered rifle without a scope, and if I shoot into that mass of dots I see inside that bowl-like structure, I know I might kill a human being and I might not.
But absolutely no one would consider my act anything but heinous; an abominable crime showing total disrespect for human life.
I see no difference at all between that and considering abortion okay, but only if at this stage or that or the other. I have never understood why anyone else can.
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
Until quite recently, it was perfectly legal to murder the fully-developed baby in the birth canal. And there are supposedly Catholic legislators who opposed outlawing that particularly grisly form of murder.
G
Gardening_Mommy
Guest
Actually, your friend has already shown his ignorance; he’s probably been reading too much of the pro-aborts’ stuff. Implantation happens 6 to 12 DAYS after fertilization. How would it be growing for so long without having attached to the uterine lining otherwise? (Experiment: try growing a seed in nothing but a damp paper towel or a kitchen seed sprouter. They don’t last forever! There’s enough in the seed to get started, but, if there are no nutrients available, they die within a couple of weeks.)
Most abortions take place around 8 weeks, because, before that, you can’t make sure that you got all the ribs, hands, etc. (If any remains are left in the womb, the mother could die of the infection from the rotting parts.) So, pro-aborts frequently try to make excuses for why “anyone” would be okay with it until that point.
Why is this milestone “reasonable”? What reason do you (or he) have for giving it? The baby has already started to grow rapidly before it even implants in the uterine lining, proving viability. Also, if you want to talk about 8 weeks, the baby had a heartbeat around 20 days and detectable brainwaves by 40 days. By 8 weeks, it is already a well-formed, albeit tiny, human.
As other posters have noted, the Bible is not a science textbook. They didn’t fully understand how fertilization worked, anyways. They were, however, well aware of abortifacient herbs available in the Roman world and were highly condemning of them. This Rock had an excellent article (which I can’t find) about contraceptives as specifically condemned in the New Testament. St. Paul talks about a list of things Christians should avoid, including pharmakaia. The article explained that that word would be interpreted as we interpret “the pill.” If you say you’re on “the pill,” nobody asks if you mean aspirin!
The early church mostly condemned abortion and contraception as contrary to the will of God. It was so obvious to everyone that it was a baby from the beginning that the church didn’t have to address questions of “is it human?” In St. Luke, Elizabeth tells Mary that “the baby” lept for joy in her womb. Even today, few expectant parents call the baby “my embryo”. Until science comes along, nobody saw a difference between the born baby and the unborn one, except for size and location.
Not that that will help your atheist friend…
If you’re Catholic, then, no, the Church and Tradition can’t be wrong. Even when we didn’t understand the exact mechanisms of the beginning of life, it was protected and respected in the strongest of terms.
Very few types of cells in the human body are stem cells: bone marrow, some fat cells, parts of umbilical cord blood, etc. Even stem cells will not spontaneously start to develop into a human being when put in a petri dish; it takes some work to get them to act like a zygote (a fertilized egg). Again, your atheist friend’s science is sorely lacking.
IF a stem cell from a person was manipulated into developing and splitting like a zygote, then it would be a separate human person, just like any baby conceived in a lab through IVF.
L
LumenGentium
Guest
if you are a man, there are living sperm floating around in your body at this very moment. daily.
the sperm are alive, not dead. (human sperm)
the ovum are also living tissue in the woman’s womb and waits around for sperm and if none show up, it dies. (human ovum)
therefore when living human sperm and living human ovum collide or unite there is new human life. the sperm and ovum are transformed into new life. a whole new being will be created and grow from the fertile garden that it has been implanted in. it has no choice but to become a human being.
the atheist proposes an false analogy that even a geneticist/biologist/astronomer/physicist would refute. but you could compare the molecular level of a cell of any portion of the human body to the atoms and neutrons and electrons to the vastness of the universe and the whole human body. All these planets or heavenly bodies, that’s me and you, revolve around each other and say HI and blow kisses and ice skate without crashing. but sometimes two of these heavenly bodies get in a car accident and there is a black hole as they obliterate each other’s lives out. there goes their energy down the drain. caput. hmmm…i bet the scientist would bet that energy went somewhere and didn’t just disappear.
a logician would refute the atheist by saying, the part is not the whole. and aesop has the same idea in his parable of the 3 blind men and the elephant. the atheist is blind.
that zygote is human…no doubt about it. i don’t see it could be any other life form, like a fish or a monkey, for example.
L
LumenGentium
Guest
to answer your scientific question, new life begins at conception. the sperm and ovum were life before they met and united as one.
to answer your ethical dilemna, when is it ok to abort?
i think its airtight that there is new life at conception and that it is human if the parents are human.
i think its insulting obfuscation, and distracting smoke and mirrors to make this an argument about skin cells or hair or toenail clippings and compare it to a newly formed life. toenail clippings, hair and dead skin cells are not alive. they are dead.
zygotes are living and alive because when the sperm and ovum met, they were living. as i am sure you will agree, your sperm is alive. it reminds you on a daily basis its alive. but you don’t take orders from it. after all, its only an army of 1/2 men or 1/2 women. they aren’t even complete. they are incomplete. it doesn’t get executive decision making powers. and it shouldn’t. it shouldn’t hijack you. you are the bigger person. you are in control of yourself and your output.
i think i have solved your biological question and your ethical dilemna in one fell swoop.
to answer your ethical dilemna, when is it ok to abort?
i think its airtight that there is new life at conception and that it is human if the parents are human.
i think its insulting obfuscation, and distracting smoke and mirrors to make this an argument about skin cells or hair or toenail clippings and compare it to a newly formed life. toenail clippings, hair and dead skin cells are not alive. they are dead.
zygotes are living and alive because when the sperm and ovum met, they were living. as i am sure you will agree, your sperm is alive. it reminds you on a daily basis its alive. but you don’t take orders from it. after all, its only an army of 1/2 men or 1/2 women. they aren’t even complete. they are incomplete. it doesn’t get executive decision making powers. and it shouldn’t. it shouldn’t hijack you. you are the bigger person. you are in control of yourself and your output.
i think i have solved your biological question and your ethical dilemna in one fell swoop.
C
Contrabass101
Guest
Thank you.
I have reached the conclusion I least wanted to. The fertilized egg is a human being. A baby is killed with every abortion.
Makes you kinda sad.
-CB
I have reached the conclusion I least wanted to. The fertilized egg is a human being. A baby is killed with every abortion.
Makes you kinda sad.
-CB
T
Texas_Roofer
Guest
Contrabass101
I may have missed in the reading the issue of the “infusing of the soul” which Christians believe is done by God, probably at conception. We believe at conception because of the visitation of the Holy Spirit to the Virgin Mary. In that visitation there was no gap for the zygote to develop in to a human. Second scripture tells us God knew us before our birth, thus we reject the Atheist position of - life being controlled by the actions of man. I doubt your Atheist friend will accept either; your friend is using the legal [US Law] definition not a moral definition. Your friend may be young and could out grow the position over time. I am curious tough please ask " If the zygote which became you had been destroyed, how would you have survived, as you are human but the zygote was not?” If the zygote was not human and you claim attaching made the zygote human, then would attaching not be the definition of human? If the only separation between humans and zygotes is the attachment, then being human by such a definition is purely a physical action. Such a definition makes no sense; as all the human is, was in the zygote whether attached or not.
I may have missed in the reading the issue of the “infusing of the soul” which Christians believe is done by God, probably at conception. We believe at conception because of the visitation of the Holy Spirit to the Virgin Mary. In that visitation there was no gap for the zygote to develop in to a human. Second scripture tells us God knew us before our birth, thus we reject the Atheist position of - life being controlled by the actions of man. I doubt your Atheist friend will accept either; your friend is using the legal [US Law] definition not a moral definition. Your friend may be young and could out grow the position over time. I am curious tough please ask " If the zygote which became you had been destroyed, how would you have survived, as you are human but the zygote was not?” If the zygote was not human and you claim attaching made the zygote human, then would attaching not be the definition of human? If the only separation between humans and zygotes is the attachment, then being human by such a definition is purely a physical action. Such a definition makes no sense; as all the human is, was in the zygote whether attached or not.
M
Man
Guest
I met a atheist who defined who was unique in his philosophy, which was also reasonable, but, obviously, lacked any belief in divinity.
His arguement was based on brain development what constituted capable of thought and ability to feel pain. He ceded to the desires of man, thus, cutting of “formation” philosophy, which is… also very conclusive here…
He denied man had any right over animals. He was a vegan.
I countered using near death experience.
And theoretical conciousness including a discussion on string theory. While these things required some contemplation, he was not swayed.
He accepted that “human life” was killed, but defined a “being” as one able to feel and/or understand (be in) pain.
Hope that helps someone!
His arguement was based on brain development what constituted capable of thought and ability to feel pain. He ceded to the desires of man, thus, cutting of “formation” philosophy, which is… also very conclusive here…
He denied man had any right over animals. He was a vegan.
I countered using near death experience.
And theoretical conciousness including a discussion on string theory. While these things required some contemplation, he was not swayed.
He accepted that “human life” was killed, but defined a “being” as one able to feel and/or understand (be in) pain.
Hope that helps someone!
M
Man
Guest
Since when does a vegan that doesn’t believe in killing animals sound like someone who would condone kill during sleep.
He believed that you can’t kill anything with a developed brain.
I argued that this was absurd, because it favored animals.
His logic was reasonable.
It is a unique kind of humanism. Somewhat admirable for the value of life he places on animals, though, I believe irresponsibly liberal.
M
Man
Guest
Again, no, by his philosophy you don’t kill anything with a brain.
You don’t need to nit pick my words. His philosophy didn’t allow for violence on anything that “could think.” That’s different than “is thinking” or “will die instantly.”
Is that clear?
You don’t need to nit pick my words. His philosophy didn’t allow for violence on anything that “could think.” That’s different than “is thinking” or “will die instantly.”
Is that clear?
M
Mimi
Guest
(From various references)
The developmental geneticist Jerome Lejeune (1926-1994), discoverer of the chromosomal basis for Down’s Syndrome, stated:
“…each of us has a unique beginning, the moment of conception … As soon as the 23 chromosomes carried by the sperm encounter the 23 chromosomes carried by the ovum, the whole information necessary and sufficient to spell out all the characteristics of the new being is gathered … a new human being is defined which has never occurred before and will never occur again … [it] is not just simply a non-descript cell, or a ‘population’ or loose ‘collection’ of cells, but a very specialized individual …” (10).
Bavo, Susan!!! :clapping:
I’m going to copy that for use as a handout at Face the Truth and other pro-life activities.
Thanks,
Mimi
Dr. Kischer, emeritus professor of Anatomy at the University of Arizona, writes, “…the first thing learned in human embryology [is] that the life of the new individual human being begins at fertilization (conception)” (11). He continues, “we should respect a microscopic human embryo because at that time it is an integrated whole organism, just as the human is at every moment in time until death. Every human embryo deserves as much respect as you or I because it is formed as a new individual human life within the continuum of life …” To deny this, Kischer says, is “a trivialization and corruption of the science of human embryology.”
“The birth of a human life really occurs at the moment the mother’s egg cell is fertilized by one of the father’s sperm cells.” (Life Magazine, April 30, 1965).
It is a scientific fact that at the moment of conception a brand new human being begins. Although tiny, he or she is genetically distinct and separate from his or her mother.
On Day 1: Genetic make-up of the unborn child is already determined (e.g. sex, eye color, hair color, etc.). The only changes are in location. The fertilized egg now moves on through the fallopian tube and implants itself in the lining of the uterus, known as the endometrium (within first 7 days). All that is needed is time and nourishment.
There is no point from fertilization until death when, biologically, the human nature of that human being is altered. That human being continuously creates specifically human enzymes and, once formed, is on a path to grow and develop in the natural course of human growth. As we’ve said, all he or she needs is nutrition and a warm place to grow.
M
Mimi
Guest
Didn’t the pro-slave agenda use that view or argument?
This is something the pro-life/anti-abortion movement uses in its defense. That at one time slavery was legal, but people came to realize that Africans were indeed people with unalienable rights just as much as every American or Caucasian.
I think you can find an article on that at Priests for Life.
If you like I will look it up for you – I’ll do it anyway and post the link.
Mimi
M
Mimi
Guest
Congratulations, Contrabass!!Thank you.
I have reached the conclusion I least wanted to. The fertilized egg is a human being. A baby is killed with every abortion.
Makes you kinda sad.
-CB
It is shocking, isn’t it? Worldwide, there are about 2 abortions per SECOND occurring. And that probably doesn’t include the ones that aren’t realized, that happen via hormonal contraceptives.
It is interesting that science continues to back up what the Catholic Church has always taught on this, isn’t it?
Here is a good site for information:
hli.org/
Peace,
Mimi
- Status