Montana Catholic Bishops Will Not Support Constitutional Amendment Defining Personhood

[Nohome]

Nohome, you are posting on a thread regarding the subject of which humans received the legal status of personhood and which ones haven’t.

I am pointing out that a group of humans, based solely on their location and their specific stage of development, are given a status of non-person legally. This status, as clarified by the government, endorses the killing of these humans.

Historically, such a status has been used only for reasons of control, mutilation, extermination, slavery, discrimination, etc.

You asked how in the world I read into your post as being pro-killing of a non-person humans.

I am asking, what is the purpose of a government in labelling groups of humans as non-persons?

And furthermore, by doing so, I am stating that those who support calling certain humans non-persons must consistently follow their statement; thus, every human can be called a non-person and thus, whatever that means to the particular government in question must be done to the human now defined as a non-person.

Your deliberately obtuse jumping is only clarifying the obvious.

An your responses to my comments are emotional, illogical and poorly rationalized. You want civil, secular law to fit neatly into your religious beliefs. It now makes sense to me that you would pursue the folly of CI-100. Pardon my laughter at you and Montana when it fails.

Nohome

 

[hasikelee]

An your responses to my comments are emotional, illogical and poorly rationalized. You want civil, secular law to fit neatly into your religious beliefs. It now makes sense to me that you would pursue the folly of CI-100. Pardon my laughter at you and Montana when it fails.

Nohome

Nohome, please don’t utilize religion in your debate with me. I argue from a secular/scientific point of view and would appreciate if you could withhold your religious beliefs when arguing about civil law.

Again, the question is awaiting your reply.

What is the purpose of a government in labelling groups of humans as non-persons?

 

[Nohome]

I argue from a secular/scientific point of view

A non-fertilized egg is comparable to an acorn.

Very scientific indeed!

What is the purpose of a government in labelling groups of humans as non-persons?

First tell me WHERE the government is labeling groups of humans as non-persons. I’ll save you some time and remind you that all your previous lame attempts to do so have missed the mark.

Now back on subject. CI-100 is hopeless and the Montana bishops were wise not to waste resources chasing it.

Nohome

 

[Dale_M]

Nohome, could you explain how you define a human? You seem to exclude human zygotes from this category.

 

[Ender]

montanaknights.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/03/bishopsstatement.pdf

Here is their official statement.

From their official statement, here is their reasoning: “We … do not believe CI-100 is the most beneficial venue to pursue necessary change.” Color me underwhelmed. I was actually hoping for an explanation of why they opposed it.

The question isn’t about species, or if it is human life. They are calling a zygote a human.

A human zygote is a human; that’s a fact of embryology. You seem to be looking to make a philosophical distinction between human life and a human being.

Ender

 

[mark_a]

What? I thought, as Catholics, going for the Hail Mary would be a natural.

Not to mention the Immaculate Reception.

 

[Nohome]

A human zygote is a human; that’s a fact of embryology. You seem to be looking to make a philosophical distinction between human life and a human being.

Ender

While a human zygote is human, it is not A human. This is not a philosophical distinction, it is a physiological one.

An acorn isn’t a tree. A caterpiller isn’t a butterfly. A tadpole isn’t a frog.

Nohome

 

[rlg94086]

Not to mention the Immaculate Reception.

 

[Nohome]

Nohome, could you explain how you define a human? You seem to exclude human zygotes from this category.

I don’t think it really matters how I define a human. The issue is individual rights. I don’t see how you can bestow rights on the unborn without creating all kinds of legal problems.

Let me reiterate that I am not saying, not even for a second, that this makes abortion O.K. Nor do I even think that the fact that the unborn are not yet citizens should deny them some protection under civil law. Just that they can’t be viewed the same as a walking, breathing human under civil law.

Nohome

 

[childofmary1143]

I don’t think it really matters how I define a human. The issue is individual rights. I don’t see how you can bestow rights on the unborn without creating all kinds of legal problems.

The only legal problems that would be created by bestowing rights on the unborn would be those involved in the abortion industry. If they don’t like it then tough ****.

Let me reiterate that I am not saying, not even for a second, that this makes abortion O.K.

You might believe that but by not allowing the unborn to have rights it ensures that abortion is legal.

Nor do I even think that the fact that the unborn are not yet citizens should deny them some protection under civil law. Just that they can’t be viewed the same as a walking, breathing human under civil law.
Nohome

Any rights/freedoms you wish to bestow on them would be useless if the right to life is not granted. Since citizens enjoy right to life then the appropriate measure is to grant them the same rights as citizens

 

[Nohome]

The only legal problems that would be created by bestowing rights on the unborn would be those involved in the abortion industry.

Have you read the proposed Montana constitutional amendment? In other words, do you know what CI-100 grants the unborn?

Nohome

 

[hasikelee]

Very scientific indeed!

First tell me WHERE the government is labeling groups of humans as non-persons. I’ll save you some time and remind you that all your previous lame attempts to do so have missed the mark.

Now back on subject. CI-100 is hopeless and the Montana bishops were wise not to waste resources chasing it.

Nohome

Nohome, this thread is talking about personhood, and a specific law regarding that.

Again, you made a claim, now back it up. You claimed I read into your posts (aka came up with the wrong premise that non-person status = abortion). Now provide the evidence that our country did not marginalize certain humans to legalize killing them.

 

[hasikelee]

I don’t think it really matters how I define a human. The issue is individual rights. I don’t see how you can bestow rights on the unborn without creating all kinds of legal problems.

Let me reiterate that I am not saying, not even for a second, that this makes abortion O.K. Nor do I even think that the fact that the unborn are not yet citizens should deny them some protection under civil law. Just that they can’t be viewed the same as a walking, breathing human under civil law.

Nohome

And furthermore, on your philosphy that you are attempting to make scientific…

The issue with your acorn to oak as zygote to adult is an acorn has yet to be while a zygote already is. There is no scientific dispute to that, although I suspect your philosphical/religious view of personhood gets in the way of accepting a scientific fact.

The zygote is already here, already living and already human. A zygote is not an acorn; your words are inherently incorrect.

 

[seekerz]

While the proposed measure seems logical on the face of it, I don’t think the implications have been thought out.

Nohome’s comments about every miscarriage being investigated as murder is not far-fetched. In the unlikely event CI-100 passed, that would be one of the natural consequences. A person dies under mysterious circumstances, (no one knows for sure what causes miscarriage and some losses are self-induced) the death must be investigated.

If that sounds ridiculous, it’s no more so than the poster who’s being made to feel guilty by her relatives because of a D&C done for a miscarriage.
Miscarriage is a very common even - I can just see the witch hunts that might result from such an amendment…

 

[hasikelee]

While the proposed measure seems logical on the face of it, I don’t think the implications have been thought out.

Nohome’s comments about every miscarriage being investigated as murder is not far-fetched. In the unlikely event CI-100 passed, that would be one of the natural consequences. A person dies under mysterious circumstances, (no one knows for sure what causes miscarriage and some losses are self-induced) the death must be investigated.

If that sounds ridiculous, it’s no more so than the poster who’s being made to feel guilty by her relatives because of a D&C done for a miscarriage.
Miscarriage is a very common even - I can just see the witch hunts that might result from such an amendment…

You know, this reminds me of the story on a pregnant woman…her husband was drugging her beverages to force an abortion.

Now, if she hadn’t been a nurse aware of the drugs in their house and the symptoms, but rather a laywoman, perhaps she would have chalked it up to a miscarriage.

All in all, it’s a very interesting concept.

 

[Nohome]

And furthermore, on your philosphy that you are attempting to make scientific…

The issue with your acorn to oak as zygote to adult is an acorn has yet to be while a zygote already is. There is no scientific dispute to that, although I suspect your philosphical/religious view of personhood gets in the way of accepting a scientific fact.

The zygote is already here, already living and already human. A zygote is not an acorn; your words are inherently incorrect.

You are so wrong, you couldn’t be more wronger.

An acorn is a fertilized egg. Genetically, it is a tree. All it has to do is implant in mother Earth. Failing this, it will never be a tree.

This is much the same for the zygote. If it fails to implant, it will never be a human being.

Nohome

 

[Nohome]

Nohome, this thread is talking about personhood, and a specific law regarding that.

You’ve made it obvious that you are clueless to science, but it looks like you need a civics lesson too. This isn’t about a law, it is about a constitutional amendment.

Duh!

Nohome

 

[Ender]

While a human zygote is human, it is not A human. This is not a philosophical distinction, it is a physiological one.

Fine, give me the physiological definition of a human. At what point in development does a zygote/fetus become human and what physiological change takes place?

Ender

 

[Nohome]

Fine, give me the physiological definition of a human. At what point in development does a zygote/fetus become human and what physiological change takes place?

Ender

There are a number of milestones on the road to humanity; fertilization, implantation, gestation and birth.

You become an individual, a person and a citizen at the moment of birth. That is why we issue birth certificates. What would Montana do? Issue certificates of conception or fertilization?

Even the Catholic Church recognizes the significance of birth. If you don’t believe me, try and get your unborn child baptized.

Again, I’m not making this distinction to justify abortion. I’m just pointing out the obvious flaws to CI-100 and why it is doomed to failure.

Nohome

 

[Ender]

There are a number of milestones on the road to humanity; fertilization, implantation, gestation and birth.

I asked for a physiological definition of a human as well as the physiological point at which a human entity becomes a human being. You were the one who claimed there is a physiological distinction. Birth is not a physiological event and gestation is not even a milestone.

You become an individual, a person and a citizen at the moment of birth.

That is a political distinction, not a scientific one. There is no physical difference between a child five minutes before it is born and five minutes after it is born.

Even the Catholic Church recognizes the significance of birth.

You’re dancing around the issue. You claim there is an essential distinction between a human entity (viz. an embryo) and a human being and I’m asking for a scientific explanation of that difference.

Ender