Alabama votes no more abortion!

[Economist]

Personality perhaps, but it doesn’t remove the worth of human life.

The brain is the only organ that cannot be removed or replaced. Therefore without a brain there is no human life. Therefore before the brain develops, there is only a blob of cells, which cannot be considered to be human being, or human person. It is human tissue, or human cells, but not a being or a person. Nothing can be clearer or more obvious - either biologically or philosophically.

You can argue that there is a difference between a tumor and a blastocyst, by pointing out that the tumor cannot grow spontaneously into a human being (at least according to our current knowledge, which is subject to change) - while the blastocyst can. This would be a valid argument, but it would only argue that the blastocyst is “more valuable” for what it MIGHT become, but not for what it is now.

It would be a good idea, if you (in general) would differentiate between human DNA, cells, tissue, organ and being. Otherwise there is only confusion. Any chance of that?

Besides, the concept of “value” is totally subjective. Personally, I place no “value” on the life of a serial killer or anyone who plans to do some genocide. There is no “value” without a “valuer” and without a personal, subjective value system.

 

[qui_est_ce]

And even though the majority of women on this board might be against abortions, the majority of Catholic women and the overwhelming majority of ALL women do not share this attitude.

Substitute the word abortion for slavery and you will see the absurdity of your argument.

If you are a Thomist, you need to understand the difference between the “potential” and the “actual”

St. Thomas wondered about when the child was infused with a soul, not whether the child was scientifically human.

 

[vz71]

It’s possible to play semantic games to confuse an issue, but the debate over personhood has been a topic in western philosophy and law since well before abortion was an issue.

As well demonstrated.
But the issue is still human life.
Attempts to convey some lesser value to life for a condition of that life serve only to cloud the issue.

Of course, the pro-abortion side of the argument wants to cloud the issue.
The last thing someone wants when they are devaluing life is for people to think clearly about the issue.

 

[vz71]

Therefore without a brain there is no human life.

Untrue.
At the moment of conception, the organism is fully alive and fully human and unique from either father or mother.

 

[Economist]

Substitute the word abortion for slavery and you will see the absurdity of your argument.

Why would I substitute apples for oranges?

St. Thomas wondered about when the child was infused with a soul, not whether the child was scientifically human.

Aquinas’ concept of potential vs. actual has nothing to do with “soul” or “child”. It is a fully secular and philosophical concept.

At the moment of conception, the organism is fully alive and fully human and unique from either father or mother

Until you start to differentiate between DNA, cell, tissue, organ and being there is nothing to talk about.

 

[qui_est_ce]

Aquinas’ concept of potential vs. actual has nothing to do with “soul” or “child”. It is a fully secular and philosophical concept.

Aquinas was a fallible human who had no authority to declare doctrine.

 

[vz71]

Until you start to differentiate between DNA, cell, tissue, organ and being there is nothing to talk about.

“Being”??
There you go again. Vocabulary with no concrete meaning.

Just confusing the issue.
Every criteria for life is met at the moment of conception. The organism is unquestionably human, and it is unique from father or mother.

One cannot get around the basic facts here. It is a fully human life, and is therefore of incalculable value and must be protected.

 

[blackforest]

In related news: Caravan Of Unborn Babies Heads Toward Alabama To Apply For Asylum | The Babylon Bee

 

[Economist]

“Being”??
There you go again. Vocabulary with no concrete meaning.

Well, if you don’t understand this simple concept, I will wait until you figure out its meaning. See you sometime. Bye.

 

[Vanny]

The RH issue only underscores the point that the embryo is not just part of the woman’s body.
In fact, in my case, I am RH negative my two children are both RH positive and have a completely different blood type then I do. So they had their own circulation systems which did not cross mine(I had a RH titter done to make sure I wasn’t sensitized.) And also both male, so I carried two boys with a different blood type and gender then myself. With complete body systems and a beating heart within just a few weeks. Not just an extension of my body.

 

[Economist]

The RH issue only underscores the point that the embryo is not just part of the woman’s body.

Certainly true. It is an intruder, and the woman’s body fights against it.

 

[vz71]

Well, if you don’t understand this simple concept, I will wait until you figure out its meaning.

I believe everyone here understands the concept better than you realize.

The effort to confuse the real issue is readily apparent.

 

[Annie]

The unborn human in a womb is in no way an intruder.

In fact, in the vast majority of cases, it was invited…

 

[Annie]

Actually, if you would argue that abortion should be eliminated after the brain’s activity starts, you would have the agreement of most pro-choicers. Definitely mine.

Brain activity starts at 6 weeks.

Withing hours of conception, the first cells which will become the brain are already differentiated.

Not to say that means we should not protect human life from conception.

 

[Economist]

The unborn human in a womb is in no way an intruder.

Biologically speaking, of course, it is. The woman’s BODY fights against it, especially if it is a male.

Brain activity starts at 6 weeks.

Approximately. Nevertheless, it might serve as a good starting point to make a discussion.

Not to say that means we should not protect human life from conception.

vz71 already declined to discuss the differentiation between DNA, cell, tissue, organ and being. Do you consider these terms synonyms?

 

[Annie]

It is absurd to deny it. The point is that at that age we do speak of a human being, (zygote, blastocyst) much less a human PERSON. Every organ in the body can either be removed or substituted with a natural transplant or an artificial prosthesis, EXCEPT the brain. We are literally our mind, the product of the brain.

We do not need to provide an unborn human with a brain. Within hours after conception, the first cells which will form the brain are already differentiated.

It is an aspect of the human species that its young mature in this way.

Those who fight to keep abortion legal impose a death penalty against unborn humans due to the fact that they advance in a perfectly normal way.

It would be like turning down 2-year-olds for football teams because they lack kneecaps.

 

[Annie]

Biologically speaking, of course, it is. The woman’s BODY fights against it, especially if it is a male.

If this were true, no one of us would be here.

it might serve as a good starting point to make a discussion

I meant to exclude the commencement of brain activity as a starting point. You have not shown that the brain has anything to do with the issue.

DNA, cell, tissue, organ and being. Do you consider these terms synonyms?

These are very clearly different things. I do not understand what the point of thinking of them as the same thing would be or what the point of this question or earlier comment are.

 

[Cathoholic]

Economist on DENYING in PRINCIPLE, that a small oak tree is still an oak tree even though it has no acorns, wide girth, and only has scant foliage at that stage in its life. (I used the same PRINCIPLE, with Condors and Humans in my example.)

Every rational person believes it.

No economist.

Only IRRATIONAL people think that.

Or rational people that have not thought it through.

.

What you are attempting to put forth here is a MATERIALIALISTIC view of a human.

If you want you can attempt to defend that.

And I will show how a materialistic view of the person is a superstitious belief system not based on science and rationality, much less reality.

 

[vz71]

I do not understand what the point of thinking of them as the same thing would be or what the point of this question or earlier comment are.

To rile others and obfuscate the issue.

One has to realize the pro-abortion side has no rational argument.
They have to confuse the issue to gain any ground at all.
If they can get the pro-life side bound up in negative emotions, even better.

One can expect cheap shots and no substance.

 

[CradleRC58]

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)