No, I didn’t miss it.
I just don’t subscribe to artificially created definitions that seek to classify some people as less than human.
- Status
I just don’t subscribe to artificially created definitions that seek to classify some people as less than human.
G
goout
Guest
No we understand you.vz71:
Maybe you missed tbe earlier discussion on what it means to be a person.Wozza:
They are all human life.
On what basis would you like to refute your position’s affinity with that of 3/5ers and the holocaust, both of which denied “personhood” to human beings?
Why don’t you give yourself a little separation from barbarism? You want well reasoned arguments, then be the reason you would like to see, because the position you currently have is vacuous.
Last edited:
E
Elf01
Guest
What is done to verify if two people are related?
S
Sbee0
Guest
A fertilized egg is biologically programmed to become an adult human being.
A tumor or some other nondescript “clump of cells” isn’t. Simple as that.
E
EZweber
Guest
Which has not concluded. I still haven’t heard why your definition stands.
R
RaisedCatholic
Guest
I was just discussing this with a pro-abortionist today, who used the argument that an unborn child is simply a “parasite” since the DNA, etc. is different from the “host,” so the “host” has the right to kill it. I argued since the unborn child has human DNA, that’s not the same as a parasite which is not human. So, the human person whose DNA is different from his or her mother has just as much a right to live as any other human person. So, sadly, this argument, along with the unborn child not being different from his or her mother “are” arguments still being made, despite our advancement in our knowledge of science since 1973.
V
VanitasVanitatum
Guest
Did you explain why that matters?
R
RaisedCatholic
Guest
From the moment of conception, that “clump of cells” is just as human in the eyes of God as any other human being (Jeremiah 1:5). It is irrelevant “how” he or she came into the world - rape or any other way, including being conceived in marriage. They are not any less “human” just because they were not conceived in marriage. What makes a human a human isn’t whether they can breathe on their own. People on vents are just as human as those who are not, despite not being able to breathe on their own. Their DNA is what makes them human. At the moment of conception, the fertilized egg has human DNA different from his or her mother. So, they are just as human as she is, but still a different human being, who has just as much the right to live as she does. So, yes, abortion - regardless of “how” they come into the world is murder. Why punish the innocent child with the death penalty for the crime committed by his or her father?
R
RaisedCatholic
Guest
Then by your criteria, if an unborn child at conception is “not the same person” as a child at birth because there is “no comparison between a baby, embryo, fertilized egg, etc.” then since you are “not the same person” at birth as a 90 year old man, and there is “no comparison” between a newborn baby & a 90 year old man, then is it okay to murder the baby, since there it is “not the same person” as the 90 year old, despite having the exact same DNA?
W
Wozza
Guest
If you didn’t miss it, you failed to grasp it. What was being discussed wasn’t whether something can be human or not. It was whether it could be classed as a person.Wozza:
No, I didn’t miss it.
I just don’t subscribe to artificially created definitions that seek to classify some people as less than human.
That isn’t being debated.
The only argument against it so far seems to be ‘What about angels?’Wozza:
Which has not concluded. I still haven’t heard why your definition stands.
I agree. It’s a bad argument.
Yes.Wozza:
Did you explain why that matters?
That wasn’t the argument.Wozza:
Then by your criteria, if an unborn child at conception is “not the same person” as a child at birth because there is “no comparison between a baby, embryo, fertilized egg, etc.” then since you are “not the same person” at birth as a 90 year old man, and there is “no comparison” between a newborn baby & a 90 year old man, then is it okay to murder the baby, since there it is “not the same person” as the 90 year old, despite having the exact same DNA?
It might be better if one or two of you read what was written and actually responded to the points being made.
Last edited:
And that is why I reject it.
This same logic makes a distinction between white men and black. Between Hutu and tsutsi.
Between gay and straight, between blue eyed Aryan and Jews.
Every genocide in history starts at defining someone as less than human.
G
goout
Guest
Exactly.Wozza:
And that is why I reject it.
This same logic makes a distinction between white men and black. Between Hutu and tsutsi.
Between gay and straight, between blue eyed Aryan and Jews.
Every genocide in history starts at defining someone as less than human.
And the fact that the poster constantly claims that he/she is not heard is evidence that they are not in fact listening.
G
goout
Guest
Sin darkens the intellect. It leads to the loss of right reason. The loss of reason leads to chaos and oppression.
And co-opting the language is then necessary to justify the un-reason.
And the first thing you know, a person can’t see continuity between and acorn and an oak tree, or between an unborn child and a grandmother, or between human rights and living human beings…
because they are not able to think straight.
And that’s the nut of it (pun intended) with so many moral issues: the loss of the ability to reason, which compounds the moral deficiency in question, and causes it to spread.
As Paul said in Romans 1:
And co-opting the language is then necessary to justify the un-reason.
And the first thing you know, a person can’t see continuity between and acorn and an oak tree, or between an unborn child and a grandmother, or between human rights and living human beings…
because they are not able to think straight.
And that’s the nut of it (pun intended) with so many moral issues: the loss of the ability to reason, which compounds the moral deficiency in question, and causes it to spread.
As Paul said in Romans 1:
Sin doesn’t necessarily need ill will, or the desire for sin, to propagate, the loss of reason will do just fine.
Last edited:
F
francisca.chapter3
Guest
I know that no matter how we reason it around and around, aborting a human person is always wrong and sinful.francisca.chapter3:
From the moment of conception, that “clump of cells” is just as human in the eyes of God as any other human being (Jeremiah 1:5). It is irrelevant “how” he or she came into the world - rape or any other way, including being conceived in marriage. They are not any less “human” just because they were not conceived in marriage. What makes a human a human isn’t whether they can breathe on their own. People on vents are just as human as those who are not, despite not being able to breathe on their own. Their DNA is what makes them human. At the moment of conception, the fertilized egg has human DNA different from his or her mother. So, they are just as human as she is, but still a different human being, who has just as much the right to live as she does. So, yes, abortion - regardless of “how” they come into the world is murder. Why punish the innocent child with the death penalty for the crime committed by his or her father?
Jesus has established that new covenant being prophesied by Jeremiah that each person is only guilty of his own sin. Both the mother and the fetus are victims. Since we human are not God, we just do the best we can and let nature takes its course.
Each unborn human is a new hope of life, just as the new Jerusalem, we are waiting for that new birth in hope that God will give us a new life.
No matter what the reason of that clump of cells, the unique DNA shows that it is forming a unique human being which also an indication of the uniqueness of a person, regardless how it was conceived
I am trying to comply with the church teaching: each clump of cells is a person, so abortion is murder since day 1.
Last edited:
E
EZweber
Guest
Why doesn’t that work? You haven’t shown me why not.
W
Wozza
Guest
If someone wants to class people as being less than human, then take it up with them. I think their argument will fail on all counts. Not so much with the difference between a baby and a fertilised egg.Wozza:
And that is why I reject it.
This same logic makes a distinction between white men and black. Between Hutu and tsutsi.
Between gay and straight, between blue eyed Aryan and Jews.
Every genocide in history starts at defining someone as less than human.
W
Wozza
Guest
You may find this hard to believe but I don’t believe in angels. Not a lot of common ground there, I’m afraid. You may as well have used aliens or unicorns.Wozza:
Why doesn’t that work? You haven’t shown me why not.
G
goout
Guest
edited…vz71:
If someone wants to class people as being less than human, then take it up with them. I think their argument will fail on all counts. Not so much with the difference between a baby and a fertilised egg.Wozza:
And that is why I reject it.
This same logic makes a distinction between white men and black. Between Hutu and tsutsi.
Between gay and straight, between blue eyed Aryan and Jews.
Every genocide in history starts at defining someone as less than human.
Last edited:
E
EZweber
Guest
Sigh. I thought we went over this ground already. Angels are not logically contradictory. Whether they actually exist or not is irrelevant.
V
VanitasVanitatum
Guest
Where? Or you can repeat if it’s less troublesome.
- Status