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:
40.png
EZweber:
40.png
Wozza:
But there are a significant number of people who consider that what the pregnancy consists of at the moment of conception to be a very long way from ‘a person’. They consider that there is no specific moment when what the woman is carrying becomes a person
Click to expand...
You have to prove that it’s not a person before you can kill it. There are also a lot of people, myself included, who think that they are a person from the moment of conception.
Click to expand...
This is not something one can ‘prove’. Is the dna human? Yes. Just as the dna of the egg and the sperm. So that gives us no help. Is it a person? Not in any form of the definition I could possibly use for a fertilised egg.

That’s what it is. A fertilised egg. A potential person? Yes. A person? No.
Click to expand...
The DNA of the new human being is not the same as the dna of the mother, and it is not the same as the dna of the father. That doesn’t make any sense.

The mother and the father are two distinct human beings with a set of dna. The dna of the new human being is unique, distinct from any other human being. The new human being is not only human like it’s mother and father, it is a distinct and unique human being. Basic science affirms this, not religious belief.

The new human being has all the potential that any human being has. If that new human being is given all the natural care that it’s parents are called to give it, the new human being will grow through it’s full potential.

This is not very complicated. Your denial of the word person to the new human being means nothing. You are simply denying recognition that is due to any human being, whether black, white, Jew, Mexican, Hindu, defenseless, or leader of the UN.

Your denial of the word person is simply an arrogant excuse to oppress a defenseless human being.
 
Last edited:
Given some of the nebulous morality displayed here, it ought to be moral to shoot at any movement in the woods.
Hunters can appreciate this: you don’t shoot at anything that moves in the woods because you unsure what it is. Why? Because we give human beings the benefit of the doubt, whether we are sure a human being is there or not.
 
Last edited:
AlbMagno said:
The DNA of the sperm and the egg are incomplete. The DNA of the fertilised egg is complete and is different than that of the mother. The fertilised egg is also totipotent, unlike any other cell proceding from the mother.
Click to expand...
It is a new and distinct individual of the human species. All individuals of the human species have the moral aspect of personhood regardless of their stage of development.
 
Wozza said:
No. It’s not the case that I think ‘Gee, it MIGHT be a person, therefore…’. It isn’t. By any definition of the term.
Click to expand...
It is by my and a lot of other people’s definition of the term. Unless you define “person” specifically to exclude or include them, you are not certain what they are.
 
Last edited:
In reality, we are just a more mature “clump of cells” in that case. That argument is bogus.
 
Elf01 said:
40.png
Wozza:
No. It’s not the case that I think ‘Gee, it MIGHT be a person, therefore…’. It isn’t. By any definition of the term. I’m not worrying about maybe making a mistake in thinking this. It’s a fact.
Click to expand...
What is a person?
Click to expand...
I think what you mean to ask is this: ‘Wozza, when does your ‘clump of cells’ become a person?’ Which I already answered. There is no definitive point. But I can definitely tell you when it hasn’t become a person. A few weeks after conception.

You have a specific point: Conception. Most people don’t. Keep asking when it’s not ok and expecting ‘A week next Thursday around 3:00pm’ type of answer ain’t going to get you far.
 
goout said:
40.png
Wozza:
40.png
EZweber:
40.png
Wozza:
But there are a significant number of people who consider that what the pregnancy consists of at the moment of conception to be a very long way from ‘a person’. They consider that there is no specific moment when what the woman is carrying becomes a person
Click to expand...
You have to prove that it’s not a person before you can kill it. There are also a lot of people, myself included, who think that they are a person from the moment of conception.
Click to expand...
This is not something one can ‘prove’. Is the dna human? Yes. Just as the dna of the egg and the sperm. So that gives us no help. Is it a person? Not in any form of the definition I could possibly use for a fertilised egg.

That’s what it is. A fertilised egg. A potential person? Yes. A person? No.
Click to expand...
The DNA of the new human being is not the same as the dna of the mother, and it is not the same as the dna of the father. That doesn’t make any sense.

The mother and the father are two distinct human beings with a set of dna. The dna of the new human being is unique, distinct from any other human being. The new human being is not only human like it’s mother and father, it is a distinct and unique human being. Basic science affirms this, not religious belief.

The new human being has all the potential that any human being has. If that new human being is given all the natural care that it’s parents are called to give it, the new human being will grow through it’s full potential.

This is not very complicated. Your denial of the word person to the new human being means nothing. You are simply denying recognition that is due to any human being, whether black, white, Jew, Mexican, Hindu, defenseless, or leader of the UN.

Your denial of the word person is simply an arrogant excuse to oppress a defenseless human being.
Click to expand...
Here’s a question for you. A mosquito is bothering you. So you spray it. You kill it. No problem whatsoever. And then next door’s dog is bothering you. But you wouldn’t consider killing it (pleease don’t tell me there are better ways of controlling it).

So we have an organism that shows no real sentience. Exhibits no emotion. Seems to operate instinctively. There’s no thought process in zapping the mozzie. But move up the food chain and at SOME point you will think twice.

Where is that point? Is it a specific animal or size of organism? Is everyone going to agree with you as to the exact situation whether you can kill something?

Now please don’t insult my intelligence by suggesting I am making a direct comparison. You seem like a smart guy so you’ll understand what I mean. That sometimes there IS no point at which there can be agreement as to when an abortion can be performed. Unless you believe that it’s at conception.
 
EZweber said:
40.png
Wozza:
I think what you mean to ask is this: ‘Wozza, when does your ‘clump of cells’ become a person?’
Click to expand...
Well then, I’ll ask. What is a person?
Click to expand...
Good grief…

We can all agree what a person is. I have never used that term to say that it is a point at which we cannot perform abortions. I have used to emphasise a lot of people’s beliefs that cells at the point of conception is NOT a person.

Will it become a person? It could have. And that’s a good argument against abortion (with which I don’t agree). But when will it BECOME a person?

There’s no definitive point. But what a woman is carrying a few weeks into a pregnancy is not a person. That’s my belief. And it’s the belief of a lot of people. You need to accept that. Because that argument ain’t going to fly.

Take some advice. Try a different approach. Because if the people you are trying to convince tell you quite categorically that what you are saying is something with which they will never agree, then quite frankly, you are wadting your time repeating it.
 
EZweber said:
40.png
Wozza:
We can all agree what a person is
Click to expand...
Obviously not. A fertilized egg fits my definition, while it certainly doesn’t fit yours. I have no clear idea what you think is a person.
Click to expand...
Don’t be facetious. Read it again. We can’t agree on what it’s NOT. But do you really and honestly want to state that we can’t agree on what it IS? Seriously?

Use any definition from any dictionary you’d care to Google. Have a go. Give it your best shot. Give a definition of ‘person’ to which we both agree.
 
A human being. Looking for the definition of “human being.”
 
I find that the one I best agree with is “a person as distinguished from the other animals.” And a fertilized egg certainly fits this definition.
 
EZweber said:
I find that the one I best agree with is “a person as distinguished from the other animals.” And a fertilized egg certainly fits this definition.
Click to expand...
Was that the exercise? To find a definition that is one that you best agree with?

I think I’ll skip on further discussion for a while. This is going nowhere.
 
If you can find a better definition, I am open to it. I have given mine. Perhaps we can’t agree on what is a person after all.
 
EZweber said:
If you can find a better definition, I am open to it. I have given mine. Perhaps we can’t agree on what is a person after all.
Click to expand...
Darn it. My wife just poured another drink. So one more effort.

A person is a being that has certain capacities or attributes such as reason, morality, consciousness or self-consciousness, and being a part of a culturally established form of social relations such as kinship, ownership of property, or legal responsibility

That would describe you and me. Persons. Yes, I know it doesn’t include a fertilised egg. But that would be something we’d DISAGREE on. The above is something we can agree on.

Unless this is going to deteriorate into a claim that ‘person’ MUST include fertised eggs. In which case I have DEFINITELY been wasting my time.
 
Last edited:
Wozza said:
Here’s a question for you. A mosquito is bothering you. So you spray it. You kill it. No problem whatsoever. And then next door’s dog is bothering you. But you wouldn’t consider killing it (pleease don’t tell me there are better ways of controlling it).

So we have an organism that shows no real sentience. Exhibits no emotion. Seems to operate instinctively. There’s no thought process in zapping the mozzie. But move up the food chain and at SOME point you will think twice.

Where is that point? Is it a specific animal or size of organism? Is everyone going to agree with you as to the exact situation whether you can kill something?

Now please don’t insult my intelligence by suggesting I am making a direct comparison. You seem like a smart guy so you’ll understand what I mean. That sometimes there IS no point at which there can be agreement as to when an abortion can be performed. Unless you believe that it’s at conception.
Click to expand...
You just made a great pro-life argument.
You don’t kill innocent human beings, because they have an inherent dignity that mosquitos and even dogs don’t have.
That sometimes there IS no point at which there can be agreement as to when an abortion can be performed. Unless you believe that it’s at conception.
Click to expand...
And because we are talking about human beings, we don’t give murder the benefit of the doubt when we are not able to agree on what is human.
If you can’t discern what you are shooting at, you don’t shoot into the woods because you disagree with your buddy whether you’re shooting at a human being, or at a deer. You give the possibility of humanity the benefit of the doubt.
 
Wozza said:
40.png
EZweber:
If you can find a better definition, I am open to it. I have given mine. Perhaps we can’t agree on what is a person after all.
Click to expand...
Darn it. My wife just poured another drink. So one more effort.

A person is a being that has certain capacities or attributes such as reason, morality, consciousness or self-consciousness, and being a part of a culturally established form of social relations such as kinship, ownership of property, or legal responsibility

That would describe you and me. Persons. Yes, I know it doesn’t include a fertilised egg. But that would be something we’d DISAGREE on. The above is something we can agree on.

Unless this is going to deteriorate into a claim that ‘person’ MUST include fertised eggs. In which case I have DEFINITELY been wasting my time.
Click to expand...
It’s not good to waste your time. You should go to the side of reason.

Science says we have a unique human at conception, distinct from all other human beings.
You should not be a science denier. Go with science, and you will not be wasting your time anymore.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top