You mean a person needs a free will, ability to form memories, and intelligence in order to be considered a person, correct? By that definition, a newborn would not be considered a human being, and in fact, since most first memories occur after the age of 9 months, most babies younger than 9 months wouldn’t be considered human beings either. Moreover, the severely mentally handicapped wouldn’t be considered human beings because they lack basic intelligence any relatively normal child older than 5 years has.VanitasVanitatum:
On this we agree. Which is why as soon as you say “human being” a whole host of logical consequences follow from that–but are either ignored or denied by people on this thread. But of course we mean totally different things by “human being.” By the way, feel free to go back to my earlier post, #172 I think—
Here is a case where the Church is trying to explain what a “human being” is–and of course it’s nothing like the pro-life definition. And you can legitimately say “Well, wait a minute–they weren’t trying to define what I mean by “human life” when I’m discussing embryos.” And they weren’t. I’m sure it didn’t enter their minds (although it should have…once again, we have cherry picking and inconsistency). But my point in citing that is that although the Church clearly says “human life” (I’ll leave it in quotation marks) begins at conception, they don’t expand on that. What is “human life”? What is “conception”? And when they DO issue a statement about human beings as the image of God, what they describe is what I would describe–not what the pro-life supporters would describe.
I think you’re overlooking the fact that this type of death would far outnumber any other type of death.
And I said in an earlier post that at least Pence and Indiana were being consistent with their pro-life beliefs. What about the other 49 states and all the other countries of the world? A consistent pro-life position would advocate for laws similar to Indiana’s–the remains are not “medical waste” but “human life” and should be treated as such with a burial.
I don’t follow or see the connection to this debate.Sbee0:
I find this response a little maddening. If someone here in CAF says, for example, that homosexuality is “natural” because it occurs in the natural world and has been observed and documented there by scientists in many other species besides humans, they will be told that this is irrelevant because that “natural”, the kind that exists in the natural world described by scientists, is unimportant when talking about humans. The important “natural” is the one used in the philosophy called “natural law” (which is not scientific) where homosexuality would be “unnatural”. They will say that it is “natural law” which tells us what reality is. So, in that case, a particular philosophy trumps science as the measuring stick used to make decisions about whether something is right or wrong, natural or unnatural. But in this discussion, it is science that is supposedly most important, not philosophy.
So…? If they don’t do it for any other death than it is consistent regardless.
It could easily be that this isn’t a priority when many others are dying from abortion.
Well said. We already know what happens in history when we pick and choose who has rights based on our own arbitrary definition of personhood. It’s not good.
So, if someone went on another person’s property and stepped on one of his acorns and crushed it, would that be the same as if he went on that person’s property and cut down his oak tree? Does the acorn have the same worth as an oak tree?
Actually no. Infants can recognize their mothers. That’s memory.
Hey, I’m just quoting an official Vatican document. Address your issue to the Vatican or to St. Augustine. I fully realize the issues you raise–if you start demanding certain qualities be present to be a “human being” then you can point to extreme cases where these qualities are not present and yet we consider the person to be a “human being.” On the other hand, as I keep saying, if the sole quality to qualify as a “human being” is human DNA, I think that’s nonsense. And certainly “Communion and Stewardship” agrees.
The unborn child does not yet have the right to drive, drink, etc. But they do have the right to life. They are what they are biologically programmed to be at that stage.
Well I say at conception there is a human person there. No pro choicer can give me any evidence, any proof, any tangible grounds, any reason to doubt, none, nada, nothing for me to conclude that I am wrong. I wonder why?
Hence the entire problem with this argument.Are you proposing that the Catholic Church does not affirm the unique humanity of every human being starting at conception?Benjinho:
Actually no. Infants can recognize their mothers. That’s memory.
Hey, I’m just quoting an official Vatican document. Address your issue to the Vatican or to St. Augustine. I fully realize the issues you raise–if you start demanding certain qualities be present to be a “human being” then you can point to extreme cases where these qualities are not present and yet we consider the person to be a “human being.” On the other hand, as I keep saying, if the sole quality to qualify as a “human being” is human DNA, I think that’s nonsense. And certainly “Communion and Stewardship” agrees.
Yes. Deception depends on co-opting language. Even language that has common sense and self evident meaning must be called into question and co-opted, because precise and honest communication do not aid deception.
You distort these passages for your own purposes. That is intentional deception.
You should stop distorting what the Church teaches. It is shameful and scandalous to those wanting to learn.
So a clump of cells two days old should have exactly the same status as a 30-year-old mother who is healthy and normal in all respects? I’m sorry, that’s just mind-boggling to me. I can’t buy it.
Exactly. That’s what the pro-lifers are saying.