Alabama votes no more abortion!

  • Thread starter Thread starter claudine
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
That emotional response is understandable.
But in Jewish law the fetus is regarding in that way, as rodef. This us why in questions of a life-threatening pregnancy, the mother’s life is upheld over the developing child. When we empower people to use lethal force in “stand your ground” laws, we make a similarly sanction the right of an individual to take the life of another.
 
Economist said:
I am merely interested in your usage of “human being” and “human person”, and so far I am not getting any response, only evasions.
Click to expand...
I think that the word being or person is being used as a proxy for organism - which had been used in an earlier post. The attributes of being alive and genetically distinct apply for example to my skin cells, but they are not properly thought of as individual organisms. But this is the end of the biological science, IMO. The rest is philosophical.
 
dvdjs said:
The attributes of being alive and genetically distinct apply for example to my skin cells, but they are not properly thought of as individual organisms. But this is the end of the biological science, IMO. The rest is philosophical.
Click to expand...
Which is why any pro-life supporter will rightfully point out the human is unique from either father or mother.
 
Maybe this deserves it’s own topic–i do not want to derail this thread-- but

Srsly?!?!?!?! If men were more responsible and respectful of women, then women wouldn’t need abortions.

Pah! No wonder men want to stay out of the issue.
 
“Economist said:
Speciesism? They have a DNA, which is usually called human DNA - even though it is inexact. But a tumor is also a bunch of cells, having this human DNA. Besides, “species” is another inexact classification. What about a mutation, which is so severe, that the new being is a super-human, unable to procreate with ordinary humans? The concept of species is an artificially created classification, not a philosophical one.

Even in a deep coma, the brain works. Only a small percentage of the brain activity happens in conscious area, the grey cells, most of it happens in the white cells.

The only organ that counts, is the brain. The difference between potential and actual is important, and it plays a fundamental role in Thomism, which is the most important part in Catholic theology.

On the very contrary, I asserted that someone with some missing organs is still a human being, as long as it has a functioning brain. It may lose some minor or major functionality, but it is still a human.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
In all honesty at this point in seems likely that you are just trolling, but I will bite one more time. I mean really, did you just use super heroes as an argument that some humans aren’t human?!? Do you expect that to be taken seriously? Do you…do you think that Spider-Man and Wolverine are real?

The DNA of unborn humans is not sometimes called human DNA, it is always called human DNA. It is not a nebulous concept up for debate. And there you go again on a tangent about tumors. Tumors are irrelvant. Your eyeball has human DNA. Because it is a part of a human. It is living tissue. But if I cut your eyeball out, it isn’t going to hop across the road and start making a family of eyeballs. Tumors, eyeballs, skin, etc are different from a grown person and different from a human zygote or embryo because the zygote and embryo are a complete living human organism just as you are, and without some outside force or tragedy, it will continue to grow just like it is supposed to for years and years as it goes through life. Stop being specious and pretending that a zygote is the equivalent of some skin cells and that we have to wait for the rest of the parts to arrive before it becomes human. So, since you failed to answer the question again, what species is the zygote in a woman’s womb? We are very much dealing in “speciesism” here, if you want to use that made up word, because we recognize that a monkey or a dog or a cat or any other lifeform you want to equate to humans will never be anything other than a non-sentient animal that acts on pure instinct. We are discussing humans, not the endangered species list.

And since you want to play in fantasy land, let’s change the scenario a bit. A man in a coma in a hospital is completely brain dead. But, we know for a fact that he will recover brain function within 5 weeks. Kill him or nah?

I am glad that you aren’t for executing disabled people, but you are not following your own argument when you claim such. And please don’t come back using Charles Xavier as an example of why brain function is important.
 
Last edited:
Personhood is frequently considered as more important than a simple “being” - especially by the anti-abortionists.

Nope. One is saying that personhood is not determined by DNA. At best there is a loose correlation.
Click to expand...
Again, personhood is a legal fiction that has excluded persons, human beings, in the past. Like black people. Your obsession with a nonspecific term is irrelevant to the question at hand. Some states, Alabama for one, consider unborn children persons. They therefore receive legal protection as persons. Who are you to say they are wrong? Again, what species is a blastocyst in a woman’s womb? Is it alive? Do we protect living human beings?
 
The unborn child is not in and of itself considered rodef, but only when it threatens the mother’s life.

And it is permissible to kill the unborn child under the rules of rodef: the permission is the same as capital punishment.

Aren’t you one of those people who is against the death penalty?
 
When the sperm meets the egg cell and then enters it and it is attachd to its mother’s womb, it becomes a human.

If it is detached from its source of life, nutrition, oxegen, water by any means and can’t get those life sustaining things, it dies. Otherwise, if these cells are in its mother’s womb and subsequently cared for by its mother once out of the womb until it can care for itself independently it is what it was at the time of fertilization, just a plain human, not a fish or tumor or a chicken.

I think you could say the same of a cat, horse or cow actually.

I can’t see the need for all the drama and arguing and hysteria over such a simple work of nature.

So just like a horse for instance, if its zygot, embryo or colt is pulled out of the womb of its mother then it has been killed. Its a killed colt. Not a killed human.
 
Eco, see above statement.

Genocide is killing of a lot of humans, usually because of something modern people call ‘dehumanizing’.
 
dvdjs said:
I a pro-life, so of course I am. I am also against stand your ground laws, especially ones to protect property.
Click to expand...
All the SYG laws I have seen are only applicable when oneself or another is under imminent threat of death or great bodily harm. Where is/are the SYG laws which allow protection of property?
 
Annie said:
All the SYG laws I have seen are only applicable when oneself or another is under imminent threat of death or great bodily harm. Where is/are the SYG laws which allow protection of property?
Click to expand...
Please review the laws.
 
Annie said:
A “human being” is a member of the species homo sapiens.

A “human person” would be a person who is a member of the species homo sapiens, as opposed to corporations in the US, members of the Holy Trinity, angels, demons, etc.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately that does not work. Substituting one undefined word for another does not help.
dvdjs said:
I think that the word being or person is being used as a proxy for organism - which had been used in an earlier post.
Click to expand...
That is another loosely defined word.

It is a given that the ovum and the sperm are both cells, with a specific DNA structure. It is also a given that their fusion is the starting point of new entity, or organism. So far, so good. But to call it a new human being, much less a new human person is totally ridiculous. Unless it is embedded into the uterus, it will die. Even if it lives, it may split into two or more cells, thus forming several possible beings.

Then this new organism will undergo a series of quantitative and qualitative changes. The question is: at what point does the change merit a new name, or description? Zygote, blastocyst, fetus, newborn? To call all of them human beings, much less human persons makes no sense.

Here is why:

Because a seed is NOT a plant, even though it contains the information to become a plant. Because the fertilized egg is NOT a chicken, even though it contains the information to become a chicken, because a libretto is not an opera, even though it contains the information to become an opera, because the zygote is not a human being, even though it contains the information to become a human being. It is also possible to write the DNA sequence into a book, and that would be the information to construct someone, the information is not the same as referent of the information. In one simple word: “because the potential is not the same as the actual”. What is so difficult of this concept?

Especially for Thomists.

Of course this is only the first step. Once you internalized this information, it will be possible to continue.

Oh, and one more simple observation: a disagreement is NOT trolling, especially if it leads to a discussion.
 
Last edited:
Economist said:
“ because the potential is not the same as the actual ”. What is so difficult of this concept?
Click to expand...
It is not potential human life.
It is human life.

Distinct from mother and father, and fully alive.

This alone makes it of the highest value and worth every protection we can provide.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top