So is it or isn't it a human

[Doc_Keele]

Where’s the word “generally” here? Or the room for it?

Look, Doc, you have painted yourself into a corner and you are trying to tiptoe over the wet paint without leaving marks. I am trying to help you out. If you have this argument your way, we cannot know when life begins because we cannot know, not whether someone is male or female, not even if someone is fat. I could let it rest there for you and allow anyone who reads you to understand that’s your position in all its absurdity.

We know a male from a female, a fat guy from a skinny guy, and we know we know. The aberrations at the edges do not make those determinations arbitrary but merely qualified. We can tolerate the qualification because the significance is subjective. They are of a different order than the determination of humanity.

It is possible to be less agnostic and take your position, and your profound agnosticism is prompted by your need to find a morality of sorts in your opinion. Surrendur that. Then you can simply hold we know but it doesn’t matter. Simple.

My profound agnosticism? Eh? According to whom?
My point isn’t that we cannot know, nor that the distinctions are arbitrary.

I’m not sure that taking someone off a ventilator would ever be murder actually. I was thinking of the cases of R v Malcherek and R v Steel.
Can you define female and male?
If so, please give me the definitions. Then I will pick holes in them.
The significance of male and female is rather more than subjective, certainly according to the Church.

 

[Ender]

My point isn’t that we cannot know, nor that the distinctions are arbitrary.

If your point is that we can’t know when life begins that is simply wrong because there is no scientific controversy on that question. If your point is that we cannot know when a human becomes a human being I would agree with that … because the term “human being” is a subjective construct and has no particular meaning at all.

I am also struck by your insistence that neither birth nor viability are arbitrarily chosen for points at which human beingness begins. The fact that you suggest two unrelated points is itself an indication of arbitrariness. I mean, if one of them is right surely the other must be arbitrary and given that viability itself can only be arrived at arbitrarily you should really stick with birth. At least that has a specific meaning on which we can all agree.

The male/female references are irrelevant. Whether or not we can answer that question makes absolutely no difference to whether we can know what it means to be a human being. If fact, before we can know at what point a human becomes a human being, we really need to know what it is that distinguishes the two so we can begin to discuss when a human acquires those characteristics. You believe the term has some meaning so explain the differences between humans and human beings.

Ender

 

[Doc_Keele]

I said that my point isn’t that we can’t know, Ender
we agree that human and human being are separate concepts
we agree that scienceand the facts are important

it’s a non sequitur to say because there’s two possible points that could be chosen (there’s others) that they must be arbitrary

the male/female references are making a point which has eluded you - they are certainly no irrelevant to the argument

 

[Biggie]

My profound agnosticism? Eh? According to whom?
My point isn’t that we cannot know, nor that the distinctions are arbitrary.

I’m not sure that taking someone off a ventilator would ever be murder actually. I was thinking of the cases of R v Malcherek and R v Steel.
Can you define female and male?
If so, please give me the definitions. Then I will pick holes in them.
The significance of male and female is rather more than subjective, certainly according to the Church.

Doc, I’m with Ender and I’m not going to follow you into the tall grass. The above captioned point is circular on its face and, I agree, irrelevant. Neither does anyone seem to understand your human vs. human being point and I certainly do not.

 

[Doc_Keele]

Whatever:thumbsup:

 

[Doc_Keele]

Obviously the concepts I have been expounding have confused you for some reason, so I will try and skirt them. Maybe abstract concepts are beyond you, who knows?
My position is that the conceptus is NOT a human straightaway at the point of formation of a zygote.

 

[spn82756]

An illegal alien? lol…could not resist. Yes, indeed it is a human being!

Not a whale??? LOL

Of course it’s a human.

I do take umbridge (sp) with the person that referenced cats! I’m a dog person myself.

 

[Biggie]

Obviously the concepts I have been expounding have confused you for some reason, so I will try and skirt them. Maybe abstract concepts are beyond you, who knows?
My position is that the conceptus is NOT a human straightaway at the point of formation of a zygote.

You have found a new word, and of course we know that for someone capable of abstract thought that changes everything.

 

[spn82756]

Obviously the concepts I have been expounding have confused you for some reason, so I will try and skirt them. Maybe abstract concepts are beyond you, who knows?
My position is that the conceptus is NOT a human straightaway at the point of formation of a zygote.

Now see…that is where the Catholic Church is quite clear. The conceptus most certainly is a human. It’s when we philosophically TRY to reason that away that we run into problems. When does it become a human. When you or those you ascribe to say so. Is a severely deformed baby a human? While I am no way suggesting that you hold the same ideas as Dr. Sanger…it’s a slippery slope. I’m glad that I have the Church to guide me in the spiritual sense of the issue. It’s a human.

 

[Doc_Keele]

You have found a new word, and of course we know that for someone capable of abstract thought that changes everything.

Which new word would that be Biggie?

There’s various posters including yourself who don’t seem to understand the importance of language. I find myself wondering what area you work in.

 

[Doc_Keele]

Now see…that is where the Catholic Church is quite clear. The conceptus most certainly is a human. It’s when we philosophically TRY to reason that away that we run into problems. When does it become a human. When you or those you ascribe to say so. Is a severely deformed baby a human? While I am no way suggesting that you hold the same ideas as Dr. Singer…it’s a slippery slope. I’m glad that I have the Church to guide me in the spiritual sense of the issue. It’s a human.

You’re mistaking what I mean. This is why initially before certain posters started complaining I used the term “human being” to differentiate from “human”.

Has the Church given formal arguments as to why the conceptus from formation of zygote has the same rights etc as a newly born baby. Until that has been established, no one has to reason away anything.

As for the slippery slope argument, there are various counter-arguments to that.

 

[Biggie]

Which new word would that be Biggie?

There’s various posters including yourself who don’t seem to understand the importance of language. I find myself wondering what area you work in.

“Conceptus” - new to this discussion and I think we understand the importance in the use of language to disguise intent. You introduction of the word does not constitute an argument that logically defends it, a mistake commonly made by those capable of abstract thought.

 

[ceciliatherese]

If there is a more selfish conception of ones rights it is hard to imagine what it could be. Having cooperated in the creation of human life it is asserted here that a woman may destroy that life as a matter of property rights. In this twisted hierarchy it is apparent that property rights trump human rights. Again, this argument is not changed if the word uterus is replaced with the word house as a house is surely private property that no one is allowed to use against the owner’s will. There is no logical reason, if this argument held, that you couldn’t invite someone into your house and then decide to terminate that person if you decided he was using your private property against your will. For that matter it would seem consistent that you could shoot the next person who arrived uninvited at your door. Clearly, however, we are not debating logical arguments.

Ender

choosing to have sex isn’t the same as choosing to be pregnant. Apparently pro-life people think pregnancy is a punishment for daring to actually have sex… The ProLife side does not believe women can be trusted to decide when to have sex, can be trusted with the use of birth control, does not believe that single women ‘should’ keep and raise their children but that instead they ‘should’ give them up for adoption, does not believe decisions about medically necessary abortions can be left up to those involved because they are an ‘excuse’ for abortion - intervention never really being necessary to save a woman’s life because “that never happens”, and don’t believe those actually involved can be trusted to weigh the costs/benefits to fetus of continuing a pregnancy in cases of malformed/nonviable fetus.
a child (or any other person) cannot force it’s parents (or any other person) to undergo any form of bodily invasion (including a blood test) without that persons consent. You wish for the fetus to be able to force the woman to sustain it (even at the risk of serious bodily or psychological harm to the woman) without her consent. Why is it okay for a fetus to have rights which no person has? Even if you consider a thousandth of an ounce second old fertilized egg to be a person, you would be, in essence, be giving the fertilized egg “superior person” status which is unconstitutional. You wish to deny a woman (whose rights are protected by our constitution) her right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Sorry… there are no circumstances wherein a fertilized egg should have more (or any)rights than a pregnant woman.

 

[Doc_Keele]

Biggie, I think you need some exercises in clarity of thought.
I’m sorry if you think the term “conceptus” is evidence of yet another Orwellian plot, it just happens to be the most precise term for what I was describing.
The term used by practitioners is not “conceptus”, incidentally, I don’t suppose you even know what the standard initials for a therapeutic abortion are in the UK and what they stand for?

 

[TheWatcher]

The question is poorly worded.

I picked “no” because I think the question implied all fetuses are human.

I would have otherwise answered yes, if the question made it clear that we were talking about a human fetus being a human.

 

[Ender]

Apparently pro-life people think pregnancy is a punishment for daring to actually have sex…

Actually I’m rather sure they see pregnancy as a consequence of sex. Even pro-abortion people should be aware of that much.

The ProLife side does not believe women can be trusted to decide when to have sex, can be trusted with the use of birth control, does not believe that single women ‘should’ keep and raise their children but that instead they ‘should’ give them up for adoption, does not believe decisions about medically necessary abortions can be left up to those involved because they are an ‘excuse’ for abortion - intervention never really being necessary to save a woman’s life because “that never happens”, and don’t believe those actually involved can be trusted to weigh the costs/benefits to fetus of continuing a pregnancy in cases of malformed/nonviable fetus.

Ah, the Bogey Man argument. Tell you what: you tell us what you believe and we’ll tell you what we believe. As your comment shows, a person usually goes wildly wrong when he tries to explain what someone else thinks.

You wish for the fetus to be able to force the woman to sustain it (even at the risk of serious bodily or psychological harm to the woman) without her consent. Why is it okay for a fetus to have rights which no person has? Even if you consider a thousandth of an ounce second old fertilized egg to be a person, you would be, in essence, be giving the fertilized egg “superior person” status which is unconstitutional.

Did you make this stuff up or is this an actual argument being made by abortion supporters?

You wish to deny a woman (whose rights are protected by our constitution) her right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Sorry… there are no circumstances wherein a fertilized egg should have more (or any)rights than a pregnant woman.

If you want to present a serious argument then it really can’t start with your twisted view of what you think someone else believes; it has to be a statement of what you believe. Next time, start your comments with “I believe” instead of “You believe.”

Ender

 

[ceciliatherese]

Actually I’m rather sure they see pregnancy as a consequence of sex. Even pro-abortion people should be aware of that much.
Ah, the Bogey Man argument. Tell you what: you tell us what you believe and we’ll tell you what we believe. As your comment shows, a person usually goes wildly wrong when he tries to explain what someone else thinks.
Did you make this stuff up or is this an actual argument being made by abortion supporters?
If you want to present a serious argument then it really can’t start with your twisted view of what you think someone else believes; it has to be a statement of what you believe. Next time, start your comments with “I believe” instead of “You believe.”

Ender

well, apparently, you can’t logically answer my arguments… maybe someone else can.

 

[Ender]

My position is that the conceptus is NOT a human straightaway at the point of formation of a zygote.

Did you mean to use “human” or “human being” in that statement? If you actually meant that a human zygote is not human then you are mistaken. As I said earlier, there is no scientific debate on the point that human life begins at conception.

I said that my point isn’t that we can’t know,

Well then what ***is ***your point?

we agree that human and human being are separate concepts

This is kind of a bait-and-switch argument. I agree that there is an implied difference and that some people see a real difference between them - so in that respect they are different concepts, but the argument really is whether the difference is real or imaginary. Are they or are they not validly separate concepts?

Ender

 

[Doc_Keele]

Ender, bringing scientific debate is missing the point.
Now you can see the problem with using the wrong language! Except when I use the right language, then I get accused of distorting reality or doing “bait-and-switch”

 

[jmcrae]

Little Soldier - most synonyms are not exact matches, and as I said before, if “human” the noun described the state, why would we then add human the adjective to “being” to make a synonym unless there was a subtle difference? Even if we accept they mean exactly the same thing, then I would submit that we still attribute more to a human than simply the biological tangible attributes, we are not just human animals.

I think the word you are grasping for is “person.” A “person” is an entity with rights. Corporations have recently been declared to be “persons” for the purpose of enjoying certain legal rights.

At present, an unborn child is not legally recognized as a person (just as women and individuals of colour were not recognized as “persons” in certain jurisdictions, until quite recently), but she or he is certainly recognizable as a human being.