Best argument against the abortion "clump of cells"?

  • Thread starter Thread starter RealisticCatholic
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Wozza said:
Sorry EZ. I’ve kept saying it - there is no specific point at which a ferilised egg becomes a person. So, ipso facto, there is no agreed definition of the term. If I give you one (and I have) you will just keep chipping away (as you did)…‘oh, so it doesn’t inlude this’ and ‘you don’t think it includes that’.

I’m not playing that game.

Anyway, nice talking.
Click to expand...
You have said that a fertilized egg is not a person. There must be a reason for that. What is it?
 
EZweber said:
40.png
Wozza:
Sorry EZ. I’ve kept saying it - there is no specific point at which a ferilised egg becomes a person. So, ipso facto, there is no agreed definition of the term. If I give you one (and I have) you will just keep chipping away (as you did)…‘oh, so it doesn’t inlude this’ and ‘you don’t think it includes that’.

I’m not playing that game.

Anyway, nice talking.
Click to expand...
You have said that a fertilized egg is not a person. There must be a reason for that. What is it?
Click to expand...
A human being is a person with a human body and a human soul. A fertilized cell is neither a human body and nor does it have a human soul - it is therefore not a person.
 
EZweber said:
40.png
Wozza:
Sorry EZ. I’ve kept saying it - there is no specific point at which a ferilised egg becomes a person. So, ipso facto, there is no agreed definition of the term. If I give you one (and I have) you will just keep chipping away (as you did)…‘oh, so it doesn’t inlude this’ and ‘you don’t think it includes that’.

I’m not playing that game.

Anyway, nice talking.
Click to expand...
You have said that a fertilized egg is not a person. There must be a reason for that. What is it?
Click to expand...
It’s not a man. Or a woman. Or a baby. Or a boy or a girl. Or a human being. All of which are persons.

Look, I know how the game is played. I will say ‘a conscious, feeling human who can survive outside the womb’.

And then YOU say, ‘well what about someone in a coma/frozen embryo/brain dead etc etc’.

Not going there. Done that dance. Goes nowhere.
 
edwest211 said:
A false statement. What is a designer baby? What is germline editing?
Click to expand...
What is the false statement? I said a fertilized egg is not a human body and does not have a human soul - so it is not a human person. Which part is false?
 
Wozza said:
Look, I know how the game is played. I will say ‘a conscious, feeling human who can survive outside the womb’.

And then YOU say, ‘well what about someone in a coma/frozen embryo/brain dead etc etc’.

Not going there. Done that dance. Goes nowhere.
Click to expand...
You need to be able to apply any criteria for personhood applied to a fertilized egg to any other person. Otherwise, it is not valid criteria.
 
You choose to ignore the post and link to Science?

“Lawmakers have dropped language in a draft spending bill that bars embryo editing to create a baby.”
 
Last edited:
EZweber said:
40.png
Wozza:
Look, I know how the game is played. I will say ‘a conscious, feeling human who can survive outside the womb’.

And then YOU say, ‘well what about someone in a coma/frozen embryo/brain dead etc etc’.

Not going there. Done that dance. Goes nowhere.
Click to expand...
You need to be able to apply any criteria for personhood applied to a fertilized egg to any other person. Otherwise, it is not valid criteria.
Click to expand...
No. You can explain a position by stating what is NOT included. If I say a chicken is not a cat I don’t have to list all the definitions of a chicken to indicate that. I can just say what a chicken doesn’t have (a chicken has only 2 legs. A cat has 4. Therefore a chicken is not a cat).

I’ve been trying to explain this line of reasoning for umpteen posts. Hopefully that explains it.
 
Wozza said:
No. You can explain a position by stating what is NOT included. If I say a chicken is not a cat I don’t have to list all the definitions of a chicken to indicate that. I can just say what a chicken doesn’t have (a chicken has only 2 legs. A cat has 4. Therefore a chicken is not a cat).

I’ve been trying to explain this line of reasoning for umpteen posts. Hopefully that explains it.
Click to expand...
So your position is just as arbitrary as ours, perhaps even more since we give a consistent application of what is a person or not. Also, defining something by what it is not is much harder than defining it by what it is. Every time you make a new discovery, you have to add another thing to your enormous definition.
 
vz71 said:
40.png
openmind77:
. A fertilized cell is neither a human body and nor does it have a human soul -
Click to expand...
How do you know this?
Click to expand...
It is obvious it is not human body - it does not look at all like a human body.

As for the soul: Different religions have different times for ensoulment after conception. The time most commonly believed for ensoulment is 40 days after conception. Many others believe the time of ensoulment is at birth when the fetus’s circulatory system changes - the ductus closes and the aorta is formed.
 
At what point are you willing to give an objective value to a human being?

You are being asked straightforward questions, and you have no answers.
Why is that?
 
vz71 said:
40.png
openmind77:
It is obvious it is not human body - it does not look at all like a human body.
Click to expand...
That is a matter of perspective.
You stated pretty definitively that they have no souls.
Again, how do you know this?
Click to expand...
I know quite well what a human body looks like - apparently you think it looks like a tiny cell and is practically invisible.

How do you know it has a soul at conception? I believe ensoulment takes place at birth.
 
The question is not about ensoulment. The question is: What is the starting point of a human being? The answer is conception.
 
Wozza said:
If you are insinuating that my position on early term abortion is in ANY way comparable to my opinion on the Holocaust, then I am demanding an apology.
Click to expand...
The Jews didn’t fit the Nazi’s definition of persons and, in their view, did not have a right to life.

Like it or not that is the exact argument you are making about the unborn.
openmind77 said:
A fertilized cell is neither a human body and nor does it have a human soul - it is therefore not a person.
Click to expand...
It has a human body typical for that age.
Wozza said:
It’s not a man. Or a woman. Or a baby. Or a boy or a girl. Or a human being. All of which are persons.
Click to expand...
Sex is determined by DNA so within hours it is a male or female. If human being is member of the species homo sapiens it’s that too.
 
Last edited:
edwest211 said:
The question is not about ensoulment. The question is: What is the starting point of a human being? The answer is conception.
Click to expand...
The answer is that nobody is a human being unless they have a human soul. And ensoulment does not take place at conception, so a fertilized egg does not have a soul and so is not a human person.
 
Last edited:
openmind77 said:
The answer is that nobody is a human being unless they have a human soul. And ensoulment does not take place as conception, so a fertilized egg does not have a soul and so is not a human person.
Click to expand...
If presence of a soul could be scientifically determined you would have a valid point.
 
Elf01 said:
40.png
openmind77:
The answer is that nobody is a human being unless they have a human soul. And ensoulment does not take place as conception, so a fertilized egg does not have a soul and so is not a human person.
Click to expand...
If presence of a soul could be scientifically determined you would have a valid point.
Click to expand...
Since it can not be scientifically determined, then it depends on a person’s beliefs. I am entitled to my beliefs, just as you are entitled to yours.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top