So is it or isn't it a human

[Worthy5]

=kimmielittle;6540355]No, they are not.

So by your reasoning an attached twin should be granted select rights over the other both being functioning equally ] to destroy life?

That life that is intrinsically attached - is unique. It is uniquely it’s own life.

Nice try, but twins are born person right? My friend, we will say it again, and apologies if you have heard this before:

Limited govt means------the govt does not get to make every decision in this society. The ‘realm of privacy’, the Court was saying that, despite what may be morally at stake with the early fetus, the govt police power cannot regulate in that area—that is what a limited govt means. This is not a govt design to solve all problems with its police power. The Court is saying----use other methods to deal with this problem.

Regards,

God Bless

 

[Ender]

Limited govt means------the govt does not get to make every decision in this society. The ‘realm of privacy’, the Court was saying that, despite what may be morally at stake with the early fetus, the govt police power cannot regulate in that area—that is what a limited govt means.

That was Roe; Casey abandoned that pretext. The right to an abortion is no longer based on a presumed right to privacy; keep the rationalizations straight.

Ender

 

[Worthy5]

=Ender;6541025]That was Roe; Casey abandoned that pretext. The right to an abortion is no longer based on a presumed right to privacy; keep the rationalizations straight.

Ender

]

The central holding of Roe was affirmed.

 

[kimmielittle]

Quit trying to turn it around. One can simply make the reverse statement to you.

Prove my statement wrong then. I don’t want interpretation. I want proof or reasonable cause that this isn’t true.

There was not, or is now, any Constitutional base to provide a select population a right to kill another selected population. Nor is there a base to define human life.

If there is no evidence - then my statement has merit…AND the Court abused their authority.

 

[kimmielittle]

Nice try, but twins are born person right? My friend, we will say it again, and apologies if you have heard this before:

Limited govt means------the govt does not get to make every decision in this society. The ‘realm of privacy’, the Court was saying that, despite what may be morally at stake with the early fetus, the govt police power cannot regulate in that area—that is what a limited govt means. This is not a govt design to solve all problems with its police power. The Court is saying----use other methods to deal with this problem.

Regards,

God Bless

Nice try, yourself

Again, the sole reason for Government to exist is to protect the weak and innocent. In this case it provides one select population a right to kill murder ] another select population.

 

[Worthy5]

kimmielittle;6542841]

Nice try, yourself

It was no try my friend, that is what the Court said. You lose.

Again, the sole reason for Government to exist is to protect the weak and innocent. In this case it provides one select population a right to kill murder ] another select population

Your are looking for a quarrel with a win/lose ending—none exist. Be legally pro-life fine—it is a reasonable position to have. But the Court did not see it that way—its position is also reasonable—but more importantly—it has the authority.

When the Church speaks in its area of authority—you accept correct? So why do you find it so difficult to accept the Court’s authority when it speaks in its area of authority?

 

[Worthy5]

=kimmielittle;6542813]

Prove my statement wrong then.

That is the point, there is nothing to prove or disprove. This is not science. Its a judgment about what the govt should be doing.

I don’t want interpretation.

Well, that is what you are stuck with—its called the nature of language—its indeterminate and so are the arguments on the best means to promote the multiple policies society must deal with.

I want proof or reasonable cause that this isn’t true

.

See above.

If there is no evidence - then my statement has merit…AND the Court abused their authority

.

No it does not, or at least not anymore than the other side. Go ahead believe that the Court abused its authority----fine----go amend the Constitution.

 

[awantz]

Science says a fetus is a human.

 

[jpernicano]

Personally, I am sick and tired of the semantics. The Merriam-Webster definition of fetus is as follows:

Main Entry: fe·tus
Pronunciation: \ˈfē-təs
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Latin, act of bearing young, offspring; akin to Latin fetus newly delivered, fruitful
Date: 14th century
: an unborn or unhatched vertebrate especially after attaining the basic structural plan of its kind; specifically : a developing human from usually two months after conception to birth.

In other words it’s a baby. The word fetus makes it sound as though it’s an inanimate object which is exactly the way the pro aborts want to portray the unborn child. It’s so much easier to kill when one doesn’t have to confront the reality that it is a real person albeit not yet born.

 

[Phil_Stone]

Biologically, it is rather simplew to say, based upon DNA, what species it is. But whether it is Human or not does not answer the question of when it becomesa person, or bears the rights of a person.

The Supreme Court didn’t rule as it did in Roe v Wade because it was not sure whether a human baby or a puppy would be born, but rather because it found it difficult to ascribe personhood at any particular time without appeal to religious beliefs. That in turn meant that the decision had to be made by the woman, until birth.

 

[Ender]

Biologically, it is rather simple to say, based upon DNA, what species it is. But whether it is Human or not does not answer the question of when it becomes a person, or bears the rights of a person.

Since the term “person” has no meaning other than what is assigned to it as a matter of definition, a person becomes a person whenever the law says it does.

The Supreme Court didn’t rule as it did in Roe v Wade because it was not sure whether a human baby or a puppy would be born, but rather because it found it difficult to ascribe personhood at any particular time without appeal to religious beliefs. That in turn meant that the decision had to be made by the woman, until birth.

I don’t think this is correct; can you cite where the Court says this?

This decision is so full of piffle and nonsense it is embarrassing.

“We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man’s knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer.”

Those trained in medicine know exactly when life begins; the question is not even debated. The Court looked at what was believed in the past and deviously concluded that, because they didn’t know then, we can’t know now.

Ender

 

[remjsmom76]

Of course its human. For me, and this is my oppinion ONLY…from the time sperm and egg meet, it has the POTENTIAL of being a human being with LIFE. Its not guaranteed…it still has to travel down the fallopian tube and IMPLANT itself into the mothers womb.

I think thats where the problem with the whole thing. When is it considered LIFE? I honestly consider it LIFE at the moment it attaches itself to the uterus. Not before…again thats me. I believe that once its starts to draw nourishment from mom, that we OWE it the courtesy of becoming and evolving into itself…a new human with his/her own potential for the world.

 

[jmcrae]

Of course its human. For me, and this is my oppinion ONLY…from the time sperm and egg meet, it has the POTENTIAL of being a human being with LIFE. Its not guaranteed…it still has to travel down the fallopian tube and IMPLANT itself into the mothers womb.

Actually, from a biological point of view, it already has everything it needs to grow up and become a man or woman, since we see that, if it implants itself somewhere else, it still grows into a fetus (though usually it dies of lack of nourishment if it does that) and also, that when it does properly implant itself into the womb, there is nothing added to it except nourishment. But clearly, it is alive before then, and scientists tell us that cell division (that is to say, life) begins at the very moment of conception.

 

[remjsmom76]

Yes I know…just like me making cake batter has all the ingredients to make a cake, but If I dont put in the oven it wont become a cake. WE are saying the same thing but I guess I have a different twist to it. I read of a woman whos baby GREW outside of her uterus…it was attached to her intestine…so I should say when it attaches to MOTHER…not the uterus. However, in my oppinion…even though yes the ingredients are all in the mixing bowl, unless it attaches itself to SOMETHING…it wont become anything…yes life has the possibility to take root, but it could also be flushed down during mensus as well.

Actually, from a biological point of view, it already has everything it needs to grow up and become a man or woman, since we see that, if it implants itself somewhere else, it still grows into a fetus (though usually it dies of lack of nourishment if it does that) and also, that when it does properly implant itself into the womb, there is nothing added to it except nourishment. But clearly, it is alive before then, and scientists tell us that cell division (that is to say, life) begins at the very moment of conception.

 

[jmcrae]

Yes I know…just like me making cake batter has all the ingredients to make a cake, but If I dont put in the oven it wont become a cake. WE are saying the same thing but I guess I have a different twist to it. I read of a woman whos baby GREW outside of her uterus…it was attached to her intestine…so I should say when it attaches to MOTHER…not the uterus. However, in my oppinion…even though yes the ingredients are all in the mixing bowl, unless it attaches itself to SOMETHING…it wont become anything…yes life has the possibility to take root, but it could also be flushed down during mensus as well.

Only if it dies, first - which presumes that at some point it was alive.

If it remains alive, menses will actually cease to occur for the duration of the pregnancy, so there is no way the living zygote could ever accidentally be washed away in menstrual blood.

 

[remjsmom76]

A woman who has scaring of the uterus can not (usually does not ) get pregnant because the tissue is so badly scared the fertilized embryo will not attach itself…therefore she will still go through menses. ONLY when the embryo attaches itself to the uterus (or something else) will the signal to the brain start to stop menses and start higher hormones to promote proper fetal development. I have 2 very dear friends who had…forgot what it was called, but they can not get pregnant…THEY DO RELEASE EGGS, but fertilized eggs will NOT attach themselves to the womb (uterus) because of the disease in there. So they had surrogate moms…no they are not catholic.

So my comment was about “babies” who were not attached to mom in some form at all. yes they can be washed out, esp if the woman has some sort of disorder that prevents pregnancy.

Only if it dies, first - which presumes that at some point it was alive.

If it remains alive, menses will actually cease to occur for the duration of the pregnancy, so there is no way the living zygote could ever accidentally be washed away in menstrual blood.

 

[PEPCIS]

I have a PhD in Molecular Biology – and I would have been laughed out of university if I had claimed that a human’s fetus is anything but human.

It is disingenuous and blatantly dishonest for anyone to claim that a fetus is not human – At a much earlier stage of development - yes. But human nonetheless.

(and Kristie - I like the way you think, “snide” or not. Your baby vs. cat comment pretty much hits the nail on the head )

Peace to all,
CLM

I know I’m coming to the discussion late, but I’m wondering what you meant by the “At a much earlier stage of development - yes” comment. Do you mean to say that anyone that claims a fetus is not human might be “less” disingenuous and blatantly dishonest if it’s only two cells? I guess they might argue that, but it still comes down to the fact that those first two cells are uniquely Human cells, so the union of a human egg with a human sperm can only result in a human being - even if it is only 2 cells big.

What do you think?

 

[PEPCIS]

Quit wasting time—be legal pro-life that is fine. But there is a reasonable counter argument that govt should not be excessively involved in this matter—which is to say completely unsurping the decision of the women from day one of conception.

The Church should spend more time helping women make their own correct moral decisions on their own than going on about the legal status of the early fetus.

The Supreme Court has NEVER stated when life began, so you are wrong. The Church can and should spend whatever time is necessary in protecting human life. Your comment that the “Church should spend more time helping women make their own correct moral decisions” is doublespeak for saying that the Church should not interfere with a woman’s legal right to choose abortion if she so chooses.

 

[PEPCIS]

What constitutes a ‘just society’? Is not part of what a ‘just society’ is one that is to a measure a free societ? Does not a free society necessarily mean a limited government?

A “just society” is one in which the members of society act justly one to the other, and where the government acts justly toward each member. There is no guarantee that the government, or any participant (member of society) will act justly toward each other. Freedom is that quality that Americans pride themselves in having, but freedom is based upon self-governance, and without self-governance there is no such thing as freedom, or a free society.

We are so far removed from the moral thinking of our Founding Fathers, that we simply don’t understand the concepts of “just society” and “free society”. Our Founding Fathers recognized that there was no such thing as a Constitution that could make people free. They understood that freedom is the result of a group of people who will collectively govern themselves according to a standard rule of law. Since that rule of law has long since been abandoned, we are no longer a free society. If you doubt that, just look at the proliferation of laws that tell us how we should live our lives.

In any case, there is nothing wrong with a law that tells us not to murder other humans.

 

[Worthy5]

=PEPCIS;6554005]The Supreme Court has NEVER stated when life began, so you are wrong.

My friend, that post,nor any post, every stated that the Supreme Court decided when life began.

The Church can and should spend whatever time is necessary in protecting human life.

No one said it should not, the Church should stick to its role as a moral voice.

Your comment that the “Church should spend more time helping women make their own correct moral decisions” is doublespeak for saying that the Church should not interfere with a woman’s legal right to choose abortion if she so chooses.

Yes it is saying exactly that—there is no double speak involved.