Pew: 77% of Catholics who are Democrats say abortion should be legal

[Freddy]

Freddy:

Some of you guys really don’t get the difference between some thing being human and some one being a human being. It’s been explained a number of times so I’m putting this down not so much as a lack of understanding of the difference but rather an unwillingness to accept it.

Freddy, perhaps this simple experiment would help you to understand human life:

Why don’t you go ask your own mother (or any mothers) what it was like carrying you (or anyone) in her womb? I can assure you that your mother would say something like; “When I was pregnant with “you” (Freddy the person)—NOT when I was pregnant with “something” like you…

Don’t make light of the early process of human life development by referring human life as “something”. This is a pathetic argument laid out by abortionists to label early human life development as “something” so that they could justify abortion.

Human life begins at conception. This means that at conception a human soul is also formed—although not yet a fully developed person.

We can look at it from the other perspective as well. I know a woman who lost her pregnancy very early on and was depressed about it as she and her husband had been trying for a baby. But it was a case of ‘ah well, we’ll keep trying’. And I know another woman who lost her child very late in tbe pregnancy. And she wasn’t merely depressed. She was grief stricken.

Do you see the difference in attitude between the two pregnancies? Can you appreciate that people consider there to be a substantial difference between what a woman is carrying just after conception and just before giving birth?

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

goout:

Freddy:

o_mlly:

Freddy:

Again, I agree with you that life begins at conception. I really have no problem with that. And it’s human life. I have no problem with that either. It’s undeniable. But I don’t agree with it being referred to as a person immediately after conception.

Here’s your problem with this sophistry: it is moral to kill an innocent human being but immoral to kill an innocent person. You really want to make that your argument?

Some of you guys really don’t get the difference between something being human and someone being a human being. It’s been explained a number of times so I’m putting this down not so much as a lack of understanding of the difference but rather an unwillingness to accept it.

I find it interesting that an atheist materialist is hinging an argument on the difference between
a thing that can be clearly and scientifically classified as human
and a being that somehow passes an un-provable threshold to your satisfaction

It puts you of all people in the realm of personal, subjective, superstitions that are anti science.
How do you handle that sort of contradiction?

Did anyone say it wasn’t personal and subjective? But it’s certainly not anti science. Unless you can find a scientific article that describes a zygote as a person. And I don’t think that you’re going to be able to do that.

Which won’t prove you wrong by the way.

You yourself are choosing the value of “human-ness”, based on personal and subjective criteria that are anti science.
At the same time you are a materialist.
How do you handle the contradiction?

It seems you handle it by simply denying humanity, other than what is ascribed by your personal and subjective determinations.
That’s not reason, it’s arrogance. A materialist ought to have better grounds, especially when it comes to something as weighty as the value of humanity.

You are simply repeating yourself, goout (to such an extent that I had to check it was a different post). I shan’t bother repeating my answer. And if it’s anti science then please find a science article that describes a human zygote as a person.

 

[Randolph]

We can look at it from the other perspective as well. I know a woman who lost her pregnancy very early on and was depressed about it as she and her husband had been trying for a baby. But it was a case of ‘ah well, we’ll keep trying’. And I know another woman who lost her child very late in tbe pregnancy. And she wasn’t merely depressed. She was grief stricken.

Do you see the difference in attitude between the two pregnancies? Can you appreciate that people consider there to be a substantial difference between what a woman is carrying just after conception and just before giving birth?

And the reason for all the griefs and depression from these women:

—The loss of her baby—a human being—(NOT a loss of something)

 

[goout]

goout:

Freddy:

goout:

Freddy:

o_mlly:

Freddy:

Again, I agree with you that life begins at conception. I really have no problem with that. And it’s human life. I have no problem with that either. It’s undeniable. But I don’t agree with it being referred to as a person immediately after conception.

Here’s your problem with this sophistry: it is moral to kill an innocent human being but immoral to kill an innocent person. You really want to make that your argument?

Some of you guys really don’t get the difference between something being human and someone being a human being. It’s been explained a number of times so I’m putting this down not so much as a lack of understanding of the difference but rather an unwillingness to accept it.

I find it interesting that an atheist materialist is hinging an argument on the difference between
a thing that can be clearly and scientifically classified as human
and a being that somehow passes an un-provable threshold to your satisfaction

It puts you of all people in the realm of personal, subjective, superstitions that are anti science.
How do you handle that sort of contradiction?

Did anyone say it wasn’t personal and subjective? But it’s certainly not anti science. Unless you can find a scientific article that describes a zygote as a person. And I don’t think that you’re going to be able to do that.

Which won’t prove you wrong by the way.

You yourself are choosing the value of “human-ness”, based on personal and subjective criteria that are anti science.
At the same time you are a materialist.
How do you handle the contradiction?

It seems you handle it by simply denying humanity, other than what is ascribed by your personal and subjective determinations.
That’s not reason, it’s arrogance. A materialist ought to have better grounds, especially when it comes to something as weighty as the value of humanity.

You are simply repeating yourself, goout (to such an extent that I had to check it was a different post). I shan’t bother repeating my answer. And if it’s anti science then please find a science article that describes a human zygote as a person.

Yes, bears repeating, when un-reason puts human life at the bottom of the ethical heap.

 

[Rau]

That a zygote is human is my point. Which is that it’s nonsensical to deny it. But it is not a human being. It is not a person. It is not just a tiny version of the parent.

Surely the zygote is a very young human being. Wait a while and we get…a “not as young” human being.

Whereas a baby the day before it’s born obviously is a smaller version of the parents.

We age through our entire existence. Do you feel the condition of “human being” is subject to a minimum age? That seems odd. After all, our species is fixed from the beginning, even though it’s name “homo sapien” (wise man) refers to attributes not yet in evidence. I’m surprised it concerns you that what you envisage to be the meaning of “human being” is not evident till late in pregnancy. But just like our species, the term “human being” is applicable from the beginning.

It’s like asking when your son becomes a man.

It’s not like that. It’s like asking when your son became a human being.

 

[Miketdobbs]

Who said anything about excusing abortion? I’m sorry you came to that assumption based on my insistence on care and outreach for pregnant women and my complete belief in its inadequacy . Not just women who are pregnant but women with young children.

I am against abortion entirely. This does not change the fact that many women (single and coupled) contemplating abortion lack the necessary societal and economic assistance that are due them.

I think to neglect women in need of these things and to say we are pro life is hypocritical.

 

[goout]

And if it’s anti science then please find a science article that describes a human zygote as a person.

You are the one using arbitrary definitions of personhood to determine humanity, against direct scientific (materialst) evidence.
Your question points directly at you.

 

[pnewton]

Clearly you do not understand the correct interpretation of your own reference. Or the one I cited. I could help you out, if you like.

No thank you. My own council will I keep.

 

[Miketdobbs]

To truly believe that there is somehow this distinction between “something” being human and
“someone” being human requires to many hoops to have to jump through. Because the argument that logically follows is … well you can terminate a something that is human because it is not yet a someone. This just sounds so illogical to me. Maybe I am misunderstanding or you are just stating a difference between a biological homo sapien and a person in the philosophical sense. Whereas I see no difference in the 2, I assume you do?

Is conception not just one of many stages of human life? Why does it lack personhood?

 

[Shakuhachi]

Corporate personhood is the legal notion that a corporation, separately from its associated human beings (like owners, managers, or employees), has at least some of the legal rights and responsibilities enjoyed by natural persons.

If corporations can be persons certainly embryos can be persons.

 

[JimG]

When does a human being begin? Obviously, at the union of sperm and ovum. That forms a new and distinct individual of the human species.

The new human being’s first job is to complete its own development, and it does that, transitioning through all the stages of embryogenesis up to birth.

But the new individual is the same individual throughout the process. The zygote is genetically distinct from both parents–a new individual of the human species. It remains that same individual thereafter. The two week from conception embryo is the exact same individual as at two weeks before birth. The exact same individual at birth and as a toddler and a teenager.

Why do we insist on making arbritray distinctions based only on stage of development, especially if we are using developmental stage as a marker as to when the new human individual can be licitly killed? Some would allow killing the new human being at 20 weeks, some would allow it even as late as 6 months post birth. It’s all arbitrary.

Yes, one can have another baby, but the human individual that was killed is gone for good.

 

[Steeevyo]

There does not even need to be a religious doctrine for me to know that abortion is absolutely wrong.
The scientific evidence available is more than enough to prove that performing an abortion results in the killing of a defenseless human.
This leads me to believe that many pro-choice Catholics are followers of a second religion: The religion of progressivism, or at least the religion of self.
Of course there are also those who are simply ignorant about the gruesome facts about abortion. It is rare to hear something about the unborn during the general intercessions these days.

 

[Erikaspirit16]

Why do we insist on making arbritray distinctions based only on stage of development, especially if we are using developmental stage as a marker as to when the new human individual can be licitly killed?

Right. Let’s send 10-year olds into the army, allow 3 -olds to drink, and why not let 2-year olds vote, and let 9-year olds get married? Nah, we don’t need no stinkin’ arbitrary distinctions. They are all “human persons,” so treat them exactly the same, with the same rights and duties as anyone else. Oh wait, we should repeal those arbitrary child labor laws too!

 

[Erikaspirit16]

The zygote is genetically distinct from both parents–a new individual of the human species.

Not for 24-36 hours, it isn’t. Individual DNA isn’t formed until then.

 

[vz71]

Some of you guys really don’t get the difference

Actually, some of us are horrified that people try to make a distinction like this to justify murder.

 

[Erikaspirit16]

My own council will I keep.

Use the Force, Newton! Use the Force!

 

[JimG]

No need to treat every human being the same, as long as we don’t separate out one group as eligible to be killed at will.

 

[vz71]

Do you see the difference in attitude between the two pregnancies? Can you appreciate that people consider there to be a substantial difference between what a woman is carrying just after conception and just before giving birth?

Can’t you see that these emotional responses are purely subjective?

 

[JimG]

Okay then maybe we should allow abortion for the first two days of human existence. Maybe NARAL would accept that as a compromise.

 

[Erikaspirit16]

Okay then maybe we should allow abortion for the first two days of human existence.

Then you would be back at an arbitrary cutoff–10 AM is OK, but not 11 AM. But it does help explain why some Catholic hospitals didn’t have any problem giving women the “morning after” pill.