So is it or isn't it a human

[Doc_Keele]

I could have used that word, but I anticipated certain problems with it - the ones you brought up. Very prescient of me, rather than a failure to “grasp” anything?

 

[Ender]

Ender, bringing scientific debate is missing the point.

Well, I keep asking what your point is and you haven’t answered. Why are you surprised that I keep missing the point if you won’t tell me what it is? I asked two very specific questions in my previous post and you ignored them both; we’re not going to get very far if you won’t get away from generalities and start being specific. Regarding the relevance of science, you made the statement that *“a cenceptus is not a human straightaway.” *Why is it inappropriate to point out that that comment is incorrect?

Ender

 

[Doc_Keele]

My point is the one that I’ve made all along, and am merely restating using different words.
Probably everyone would say that the conceptus is “human”, but not everyone would say that the conceptus is a human being or a person necessarily. Therefore asking whether or not a foetus is human or not is asking the wrong question really - unless by human you actually mean “human being” or “person”, in which I don’t believe that the conceptus is a human right from the formation of a zygote. A position many people would share.
If they are different concepts then there is a difference. Asking if the difference between concepts is real or imagined is to misunderstand the nature of a concept.

 

[Ender]

Probably everyone would say that the conceptus is “human”, but not everyone would say that the conceptus is a human being or a person necessarily. Therefore asking whether or not a foetus is human or not is asking the wrong question really - unless by human you actually mean “human being” or “person”, in which I don’t believe that the conceptus is a human right from the formation of a zygote. A position many people would share.
If they are different concepts then there is a difference. Asking if the difference between concepts is real or imagined is to misunderstand the nature of a concept.

It seems your point is that because some people make a distinction between “human” and “human being” (or “person”) this demonstrates that two different concepts exist, which, because they are different, means the two things are not just conceptually different but actually different as well. Is this it?

It would also be helpful if you didn’t change terms during the discussion. Choose the terms you prefer, explain what they mean when you use them, and then stay with them.

Ender

 

[Doc_Keele]

I do normally use language consistently Ender, but my point was proven wasn’t it? That using language precisely is important and not some Orwellian plot?

There are diffierent concepts here, and many people do not consider that the zygote, even though “biologically” human, is entitled to all the rights etc of the newly born baby. This is why we need to understand exactly what each person means by their particular usage of the term “human” for example. The terms need to be defined.

 

[Ender]

There are diffierent concepts here, and many people do not consider that the zygote, even though “biologically” human, is entitled to all the rights etc of the newly born baby. This is why we need to understand exactly what each person means by their particular usage of the term “human” for example. The terms need to be defined.

OK, I’ll start.

• Human life begins at conception.
• A human being is any being that is human.
• There is no more an intrinsic difference between a fetus and a baby than there is between a teenager and an adult.
• The terms zygote and fetus are essentially no different than toddler and child - they merely describe different stages in the continuum of human life.
• All human life is entitled to the same human rights.

Your turn.

Ender

 

[Doc_Keele]

My turn to do what?
Make my own assertions without presenting formal arguments?

 

[Ender]

My turn to do what?

“This is why we need to understand exactly what each person means by their particular usage of the term “human” for example. The terms need to be defined.” DK

Explain what the terms “human” and “human being” mean to you and how you distinguish one from the other.

Ender

 

[Doc_Keele]

a human is human life from implantation to death
a human being is an autonomous being (that is, has reached viability) that has certain traits uniquely identified with humans eg sentience, a particular identity, a sense of self, higher cognitive functions
all human life is entitled to protection

 

[jmcrae]

a human is human life from implantation to death
a human being is an autonomous being (that is, has reached viability) that has certain traits uniquely identified with humans eg sentience, a particular identity, a sense of self, higher cognitive functions.

How does your definition account for conjoined twins (who remain dependent on each other after birth), and persons born with disabilities (specifically, persons who don’t exhibit the traits of sentience or higher cognitive functions)?

all human life is entitled to protection

 

[LittleSoldier]

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.

I see some shoe prints in the paint, leading out of the corner of someone’s argument.

Ave Maria! Ora pro nobis.

 

[LittleSoldier]

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.

Prolifers believe pregnancy is a punishment for daring to actually have sex? This may surprise you, but prolifers have a lot of sex themselves. I can vouch for it.

And as a woman and a prolifer, I can guarantee that prolifers believe that women can be trusted as to when to have sex. A majority of those on the proabort side consider women to be slaves to their bodies, incapable of escaping the trap of immediate gratification. Women are intelligent; they certainly can learn to use NFP and to accept the children a loving God sends them in love. Many choose to ignore and murder these gifts.

Single women should give up their children? Where did you ever get this idea? Are you serious? This is a joke, right? Is this sarcasm? It must be, because I am a single woman with a son and never had a prolifer tell me to give him up for adoption.

I don’t understand your next statement. It would help if you would break your posts into paragraphs.

Are you saying that prolifers believe that a woman’s life is never threatened by a pregnancy? This is another joke, right? Because if what you say really represents your thinking, you are ignoring the removal of ectopic pregnancies and other conditions in which it is absolutely appropriate *and necessary *to save the mother’s life. But wouldn’t it be better to save both? And if you are “prochoice,” don’t you think the mother whose life is threatened should be able to make the choice, if it comes down to choosing between her life and her child’s life? It’s a choice, right? Isn’t it her choice?

You make an unborn child sound like some sort of intruder which burst into her mother’s womb, gun in little hand, holding the mother hostage, forcing her to undergo tortuous, painful tests, such as blood tests. Yep, those blood tests are extremely dangerous. I wonder how many pregnant women have died from a blood test.

Why is it OK for a fetus to have rights which no person has? I think this is what is called a “leading question.” A fetus is a person, did not choose to be in her mother’s womb, and should be given every single protection that any other person should be given.

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.

Say what? A thousandth of an ounce, second-old fertilized ovum is a brand, spankin’ new human being (and person), and again deserves the rights given to any other human being under the Constitution.

You wish to deny a woman (whose rights are protected by our constitution) her right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Please show me where those rights are given to Americans in the American Constitution. As far as I know, they aren’t there!

Sorry… there are no circumstances wherein a fertilized egg should have more (or any)rights than a pregnant woman.

A fertilized ovum, as a human being, should have the same rights and protection as any other human being.

Honestly now, you have made several blanket statements, encompassing all prolifers, and I think that if you calm down and actually consider what you have written, you might understand that prolifers are people - many of them have lost children before birth (I lost two), many of them have had abortions for convenience, many of them are men who have loved the children that were snatched from their hearts via abortion (abortions in which they had no say because they are men), many care deeply about all human life and spend time and money in causes such as housing, medical care, Food Share, fostering children in Third World Countries, providing free clothing and other necessities to poor women who want to keep their children, helping out when local and international disasters strike, and so on.

They are not horrible, cruel people who want to take away your rights. They want all people to be protected. They want *all *people to be given the rights that all people deserve, simply because they are people.

Ave Maria! Ora pro nobis.

 

[LittleSoldier]

a human is human life from implantation to death
a human being is an autonomous being (that is, has reached viability) that has certain traits uniquely identified with humans eg sentience, a particular identity, a sense of self, higher cognitive functions
all human life is entitled to protection

What exists from conception to implantation?

How do you operationally define viability, sentience, a particular identity, a sense of self, and higher cognitive functions?

Are there other traits that you can list (I’m asking because of the “eg”)? How do you operationally define these other traits?

All human life is entitled to protection? Absolutely!! All human life!

Ave Maria! Ora pro nobis.

 

[LittleSoldier]

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.

Uh, is the “conceptus” ever a human?

Ave Maria! Ora pro nobis.

 

[LittleSoldier]

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.

“Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception. From the first moment of his existence, a human being must be recognized as having the rights of a person - among which is the inviolable right of every innocent being to life.”

CCC 2270, Cf.CDF,Donum Vitae I,1.
[italics are mine]

This may be what you are looking for.

Ave Maria! Ora pro nobis.

 

[LittleSoldier]

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.

I agree with you. Not every fetus is a human fetus (as I remember from the days I had to dissect a pig fetus).

Good catch! And thank you for explaining your vote.

Ave Maria! Ora pro nobis.

 

[Doc_Keele]

I see some shoe prints in the paint, leading out of the corner of someone’s argument.

Care to expand?

 

[Doc_Keele]

“Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception. From the first moment of his existence, a human being must be recognized as having the rights of a person - among which is the inviolable right of every innocent being to life.”

CCC 2270, Cf.CDF,Donum Vitae I,1.
[italics are mine]

This may be what you are looking for.

As an example of a formal argument? Unfortunately it’s not even close.

 

[Doc_Keele]

Uh, is the “conceptus” ever a human?

Yes, of course.

 

[Doc_Keele]

What exists from conception to implantation?

The potential for human life, a zygote which more than likely will not be implanted

How do you operationally define viability, sentience, a particular identity, a sense of self, and higher cognitive functions?

Viability - ability of the foetus to survive outside the uterus.
Sentience, sense of self, higher cognitive functions - just using the accepted definitions. All the things we intuitively feel separate us from other animals.