Best argument against the abortion "clump of cells"?

  • Thread starter Thread starter RealisticCatholic
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Continue hair splitting as you will. You have no argument. The woman’s body responds to this new human being: morning sickness.
 
goout said:
40.png
Wozza:
This will be interesting. OK - let’s say that because someone denies that a fertilised egg is not a person then that someone doesn’t consider a slave to be a person.

Off you go. Where to, I don’t know. But make a start.
Click to expand...
Do you know what subjectivity is?
Humanity should not be subject to opinion, like you are proposing. The value of a distinct and unique human life should have an objective value.
When humanity is subject to opinion, the result is things like the 3/5 rule, and the holocaust, where you have people parsing what it means to be human, and denying humanity to a class of people (like the unborn), and using power to subject them to oppression.

So to be consistent in your opinion, you ought not have a problem with the 3/5 rule.
Why can’t you own your own position?
Click to expand...
You mention terms like humanity and people. People being the plural of person and humanity consisting of all the people. But we aren’t talking about persons. Just fertilised eggs. Tbey are not the same. Do I have to keep pointing this out ad nauseum?
 
edwest211 said:
Continue hair splitting as you will.
Click to expand...
It’s not hair splitting, Ed. You may as well talk about ‘boy’ or ‘girl’ or ‘man’ or ‘woman’ when you say human being. All members of homo Sapien. A fertilised egg is not a human being. Definitions, as we have seen, are important.

Please get them right.
 
Your attempt at justification is just that. It is an empty claim.
 
EZweber said:
40.png
Wozza:
It’s because it is just a fertilised egg. A ferilised egg doesn’t fit any definition of person that you will find anywhere. Other than personal opinion. Yours for example.
Click to expand...
I could use that exact same argument to refute your position by switching a few words. My question is in what way does a fertilized egg fail to fit the definition of person?
Click to expand...
Yet again…

Find me a definition that isn’t simply personal opinion that includes a fertilised egg in the definition of person. Do that and we’re good.
 
Wozza said:
40.png
goout:
40.png
Wozza:
This will be interesting. OK - let’s say that because someone denies that a fertilised egg is not a person then that someone doesn’t consider a slave to be a person.

Off you go. Where to, I don’t know. But make a start.
Click to expand...
Do you know what subjectivity is?
Humanity should not be subject to opinion, like you are proposing. The value of a distinct and unique human life should have an objective value.
When humanity is subject to opinion, the result is things like the 3/5 rule, and the holocaust, where you have people parsing what it means to be human, and denying humanity to a class of people (like the unborn), and using power to subject them to oppression.

So to be consistent in your opinion, you ought not have a problem with the 3/5 rule.
Why can’t you own your own position?
Click to expand...
You mention terms like humanity and people. People being the plural of person and humanity consisting of all the people. But we aren’t talking about persons. Just fertilised eggs. Tbey are not the same. Do I have to keep pointing this out ad nauseum?
Click to expand...
I assert that fertilized human beings are, ummmm, human beings.
Assertions are like pie holes. Everyone has one. What else you got?
Science?
Nope
Morality?
Nope.

3/5 rule?
Yep.
Holocaust?
Yep.
 
Wozza said:
Find me a definition that isn’t simply personal opinion that includes a fertilised egg in the definition of person. Do that and we’re good.
Click to expand...
I got my definition of person out of the first dictionary that met my eye. Stop avoiding the question.
 
EZweber said:
40.png
Wozza:
Find me a definition that isn’t simply personal opinion that includes a fertilised egg in the definition of person. Do that and we’re good.
Click to expand...
I got my definition of person out of the first dictionary that met my eye. Stop avoiding the question.
Click to expand...
It didn’t include ‘fertilised egg’ did it…

And you should stop looking now. You won’t find one. Anywhere.
 
Wozza said:
It didn’t include ‘fertilised egg’ did it…

And you should stop looking now. You won’t find one. Anywhere.
Click to expand...
The definition implicitly included fertilized eggs. And you’re still avoiding my question.
 
goout said:
I assert that fertilized human beings are, ummmm, human beings.
Assertions are like pie holes. Everyone has one. What else you got?
Science?
Nope
Morality?
Nope.

3/5 rule?
Yep.
Holocaust?
Yep.
Click to expand...
Let’s get this straight, goout. What are you saying by the term Holocaust there? It seems to me that you are implying something that I find excessively abhorrent. Maybe you wanna back track a little.

I’ll tell you something that might sound convenient but is the absolute truth. I’m in middle Europe at the moment and I was at Auschwitz less than a week ago. I needn’t tell you what effect a visit to that hell hole can have on anyone.

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.

I have never reported anyone in any forum I have ever been involved with over very many years, but depending on your answer, you may be the first.
 
What I am trying to pin down here is this question. What is the essence of a person? What is it that all persons have that nothing that is not a person has? When we find that, we have found a good definition.
 
EZweber said:
40.png
Wozza:
It didn’t include ‘fertilised egg’ did it…

And you should stop looking now. You won’t find one. Anywhere.
Click to expand...
The definition implicitly included fertilized eggs. And you’re still avoiding my question.
Click to expand...
This was your definition:

‘a person as distinguished from the other animals’.

Please tell me that you are not suggesting that a fertilised egg is ‘implicit’ in that definition.
 
Wozza said:
This was your definition:

‘a person as distinguished from the other animals’.

Please tell me that you are not suggesting that a fertilised egg is ‘implicit’ in that definition.
Click to expand...
“Person” in this case obviously means human. From there, it’s fairly straightforward. Please answer my question.
 
EZweber said:
40.png
Wozza:
This was your definition:

‘a person as distinguished from the other animals’.

Please tell me that you are not suggesting that a fertilised egg is ‘implicit’ in that definition.
Click to expand...
“Person” in this case obviously means human. From there, it’s fairly straightforward. Please answer my question.
Click to expand...
You mean ‘human being’.
 
I only have a little more time for now. Make my day and answer my question.
 
EZweber said:
I only have a little more time for now. Make my day and answer my question.
Click to expand...
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.
 
A human being is a distinct individual of the human species.

A new human being begins at conception, which is the start of a new and unique individual of the human species.

The new individual of the human species remains the same individual from conception through all stages of development, to birth and to adulthood. It remains the same individual from conception to death.

Any individual member of the human species is a human person.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top