A
Abrosz
Guest
It is not an OR criterion. Both are significant.
- Status
E
Ender
Guest
That isn’t what you just claimed:
“If born, either naturally or in a cesarean section, then it is a human.”
You claimed biological independence was the criterion:
The point is that a born fetus is now a biologically independent being, not a parasitic, symbiotic entity.
Do you want to revise your criteria?
A
Abrosz
Guest
There is no need. In a short post I did not feel that I need to write an essay. Without a working brain (mind) there no being at all - much less a human being.
Last edited:
E
Ender
Guest
I was hoping you would at least see the need for consistency no matter how short the post. I’m asking for you to clarify your criteria as to what makes a human entity a human being. Clearly you didn’t mean it when you said “If born…then it is a human.”
A
AlsoRan
Guest
Hi everyone I am new to Catholic Forums. I am here as I enjoy deep discussion. My views are flawed, but everyone’s views are flawed.
I have joined this discussion as it is one I am interested in.
I believe the unborn are entitled to the protection of the law. I don’t think anyone, irrespective of their faith, or lack of it, would disagree with that. What is in dispute is what that protection should be? Am I correct?
I have joined this discussion as it is one I am interested in.
I believe the unborn are entitled to the protection of the law. I don’t think anyone, irrespective of their faith, or lack of it, would disagree with that. What is in dispute is what that protection should be? Am I correct?
A
Abrosz
Guest
I already qualified it before. If it has a sufficiently developed brain which makes the being sapient. It is improductive to keep on repeating the same points.
Of course, I am not particularly interested in “human” beings, that would be speciesism. Any sapient entity is important, whatever “particles” are they composed of. Human, advanced dolphin, space alien, cyborg, “robot”… and whatever label we can come up with.
E
Ender
Guest
You’re playing Wack-a-Mole. When I raise a concern about brain capacity you jump to birth as the defining characteristic, and when I raise an issue about that you jump back to brain function. The problem is that what you say about one contradicts what you say about the other.
Since this thread is about humans let’s keep the debate restricted to that. What do you mean by “any sapient entity is important”? What does “important” mean in this context? If it is a sapient human life is it a human being?
Last edited:
A
Abrosz
Guest
I am sorry, but I assumed a minimum of paying attention, and did not see the necessity of explaining everything in every post.
O
o_mlly
Guest
What is the disposition of a 5 month 30 day child? 5 month 29 days? If one does not know with certitude then one cannot kill the child.
What is the child’s status when the mother is fully dilated? What if the child is half way down the birth canal?
Your arguments would make the species of the child dependent on an accident of time or location. That’s illogical. What is absolutely true is that the being after conception will be nothing but a human being.
Last edited:
A
Abrosz
Guest
When the umbilical cord is severed, that is when the parasitic / symbiotic relationship ends, and the independent existence starts.
And stop using the word “child” in conjunction with a zygote - blastocyst - embryo - fetus. The different names designate qualitative differences.
E
Ender
Guest
If sentience/sapience is what determines whether an entity is “important”, then an unborn child at the same stage of development is just as “important” as one who was born. If that is false then your assertion about sentience is false. If it is true then an abortion (at least at the stage of sentience) is the destruction of a human just as surely as is infanticide.
That’s the problem with your assertion about sentience: it doesn’t support your position about what distinguishes a human life form from a human being.
O
o_mlly
Guest
So before formula milk, breast feeding babies were just parasites?
O
o_mlly
Guest
We are searching for substantive, not qualitative, differences. The child is, was is and will always be a human being. Have you experience of a child in the stages of being a zygote, blastocyst, embryo or fetus be anything other than a human being?
Last edited:
A
Abrosz
Guest
I talked about sapience and no sentience. They are not the same.
A
Abrosz
Guest
Get serious.
What is the difference?
Sure, they are potential not actual human beings.
How do YOU define a human being?
O
o_mlly
Guest
Get educated.o_mlly:
Get serious.
A parasite is an organism of a species different from the host.
If the child is a parasite in the womb then by what ontological process does it change its species at birth?
A
Abrosz
Guest
Pay attention. I did not say “parasite”, I called the relationship parasitic - or like a parasite.
O
o_mlly
Guest
Nope.
Be at least honest.
This site has been trolled by professionals. You do not appear to be in their league.
A
Abrosz
Guest
I wish you were honest. Go back and read the exact words that have been used. I was talking about “parasitic / symbiotic relationship”. In a parasitic relationship one party uses the body of another being, whether they are the same species, or not.
Moreover, you keep on sidestepping the question: “how do YOU define a human being?”
Oh, and having a different point of view is NOT trolling, if you understand these words.
Last edited:
O
o_mlly
Guest
- Status