So is it or isn't it a human

  • Thread starter Thread starter Timbothefiveth
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Doc_Keele said:
a human is human life from implantation to death … all human life is entitled to protection
Click to expand...
If all human life is entitled to protection and, as you claim above, human life begins at implantation, what level of protection would you deny to human life that you would give to human beings?
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
Click to expand...
This brings up a number of questions:
  • Is a person in a coma - who has none of the mental characteristics you identify - a human being or merely a human life?
  • It is quite possible that a case can be made that a mature chimpanzee has those qualities in greater abundance than a newborn child. In fact, it’s not clear that a newborn has any of those qualities, let alone all of them and it is highly doubtful that a fetus at 24 weeks has them. If the mental functions you mention are key to being human beings, what does it mean when chimps have them in greater degree than infants?
  • Are children who are severely mentally handicapped not human beings?
  • This is your list. How do you respond to those who have different lists? Are they free to invent their own or must they accept yours as definitive?
Ender
 
Some people choose
to gratify their immediate sexual needs during their fertile period rather than abstaining , in spite of the possibility of pregnancy.There’s an inability or desire to control their wants, having as priority to live the moment, satify a partner, etc., unless they are ignorant of the birds and the bees story:rolleyes:.
The genie lamp of nature in cases like these comes with only one choice.If we use it to engage in sex in a fertile period we have used up our allotted choice.We should be responsible for our acts and accept the consequences since they have been brought by us.That applies to all aspects of life.
In a similar way, if you love your neighbor(your baby in this case, not abort him or her) and act well, you may go to heaven. If you choose to be selfish and self centered(my rights, my choices, my gratification) you may be headed for hell. In hell you will be deprived of liberty and pursue of happiness. It would have been your choice.Where will your “rights” be there? Complain, if you can, to the supreme judge.You had your chance, you chose badly twice…You maintain it is your prerogative.

That is why HUMAN beings MUST think BEFORE they act.
The question is not if the baby is human or not.The question is :are “WE” human beings when we act as lower animals driven by ucontrolled impulses?
 
Doc_Keele said:
As an example of a formal argument? Unfortunately it’s not even close.
Click to expand...
No, it is not a formal argument. If you follow the footnotes, you may find your formal argument.

I’m just giving you Church teaching. That’s all. But Church teaching is based on something else. Have fun! 🙂

Ave Maria! Ora pro nobis.
 
Doc_Keele said:
Yes, of course.
Click to expand...
Definition
con·cep·tus kən séptəss ]con·cep·tus·es Plural

NOUN
  1. embryo or fetus with surrounding tissues: an embryo or fetus along with all the tissues that surround it throughout pregnancy, including the placenta, amniotic sac and fluid, and the umbilical cord ( technical )
    Mid-18th century. < Latin, “something conceived” < past participle of concipere (see conceive) ]
bing.com/Dictionary/search?q=define+conceptus&FORM=DTPDIA

[bolding is mine]

So, according to you, I gave birth to my son the day before I gave birth to my son, because that is when the amniotic fluid was discharged. And I suppose that I gave birth to my son after I gave birth to my son because that is when the placenta was delivered. :bigyikes:

Ave Maria! Ora pro nobis.
 
Little soldier - bizarre logic. Best not to go into flights of fancy in areas you don’t understand I think:thumbsup:
 
Doc_Keele said:
The potential for human life, a zygote which more than likely will not be implanted

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.
Click to expand...
I don’t think you understand. I asked you for operational definitions.

Intuitive feelings aren’t used in operational definitions and your other definitions aren’t operational, either. 🙂

Ave Maria! Ora pro nobis.
 
Doc_Keele said:
Little soldier - bizarre logic. Best not to go into flights of fancy in areas you don’t understand I think:thumbsup:
Click to expand...
Care to elaborate? I feel quite comfortable with my posts and you have no idea what I understand. 🙂

Ave Maria! Ora pro nobis.
 
I’m sure I did misunderstand, operational definition is a term familiar to me. You can expand as you wish or not. It’s no skin off my nose either way.
 
Doc_Keele said:
I’m sure I did. You can expand as you wish or not.
Click to expand...
Wow, those marks on the paint look like someone has been dancing around, trying to wiggle out of a true response by ignoring the facts pointed out to him.

It kinda looks like the paint job is really messed up, now. 🙂

Ave Maria! Ora pro nobis.
 
LittleSoldier said:
Wow, those marks on the paint look like someone has been dancing around, trying to wiggle out of a true response by ignoring the facts pointed out to him.

It kinda looks like the paint job is really messed up
Click to expand...
Not trying to wiggle out of a true response at all, just irritated at the responses and continual misunderstandings here

and needing to get on with the “day job”, otherwise known as my PhD
I had hoped that at least one person could make a half reasonable representation of the Church’s position - how wrong I was!
 
Doc_Keele said:
Not trying to wiggle out of a true response at all, just irritated at the responses and continual misunderstandings here

and needing to get on with the “day job”, otherwise known as my PhD
I had hoped that at least one person could make a half reasonable representation of the Church’s position - how wrong I was!
Click to expand...
I gave you Church teaching. I gave you the references to show you what that teaching is based on. If you want to know more, you need to look up the references. And perhaps you will find what you are looking for. I was trying to help. Really.

Nobody here is impressed with your attempts at receiving your PhD. There are probably people here who never graduated high school, yet show more wisdom and charity than you. Or me, for that matter.

And when you can’t answer the questions or appropriately respond to posts containing facts, you leave.

Maybe you should clean the paint off your shoes before you go off to your “day job.”

Have fun. 🙂

Ave Maria! Ora pro nobis.
 
ceciliatherese said:
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.
Click to expand...
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?

Well-expressed. This is the real issue. Some pro-lifers believe that if the fertilized egg is given the status of a person or human being, their argument is won. It is not. As you state so clearly, no person has the right to use another person’s body. Judith Jarvis Thomson advanced this argument with her violinist analogy in her essay “A Defense of Abortion.”
 
It wasn’t intended to impress LS. Are you like this with everyone?
If this is you trying to help, I hate to see what happens when you’re not trying to help.
Leaving is nothing to do with not being able to answer questions LS, but ultimately I’m not too bothered what erroneous assumptions you wish to jump to. I can’t be bothered wading thru treacle with people that aren’t going to change their opinion one jot anyway. Life’s too short.
I’ve seen all this sort of thing before on other fora from a certain sort of Catholic poster, who subscribes to the Catholic equivalent of the Scientologists’ “fair game” doctrine.

I respect other peoples’ rights to believe what they like. That same respect has not been extended to me.
 
SugarMagnolia said:
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?

Well-expressed. This is the real issue. Some pro-lifers believe that if the fertilized egg is given the status of a person or human being, their argument is won. It is not. As you state so clearly, no person has the right to use another person’s body. Judith Jarvis Thomson advanced this argument with her violinist analogy in her essay “A Defense of Abortion.”
Click to expand...
For those that do not know what you’re referring to.

It sounds plausible. But now let me ask you to imagine this. You wake up in the morning and find yourself back to back in bed with an unconscious violinist. A famous unconscious violinist. He has been found to have a fatal kidney ailment, and the Society of Music Lovers has canvassed all the available medical records and found that you alone have the right blood type to help. They have therefore kidnapped you, and last night the violinist’s circulatory system was plugged into yours, so that your kidneys can be used to extract poisons from his blood as well as your own. The director of the hospital now tells you, “Look, we’re sorry the Society of Music Lovers did this to you–we would never have permitted it if we had known. But still, they did it, and the violinist is now plugged into you. To unplug you would be to kill him. But never mind, it’s only for nine months. By then he will have recovered from his ailment, and can safely be unplugged from you.” Is it morally incumbent on you to accede to this situation? No doubt it would be very nice of you if you did, a great kindness. But do you have to accede to it? What if it were not nine months, but nine years? Or longer still? What if the director of the hospital says. “Tough luck. I agree. but now you’ve got to stay in bed, with the violinist plugged into you, for the rest of your life. Because remember this. All persons have a right to life, and violinists are persons. Granted you have a right to decide what happens in and to your body, but a person’s right to life outweighs your right to decide what happens in and to your body. So you cannot ever be unplugged from him.” I imagine you would regard this as outrageous, which suggests that something really is wrong with that plausible-sounding argument I mentioned a moment ago.
Code: 
In this case, of course, you  were kidnapped, you didn't volunteer for the operation that plugged the  violinist into your kidneys. Can those who oppose abortion on the ground I  mentioned make an exception for a pregnancy due to rape? Certainly. They can  say that persons have a right to life only if they didn't come into existence  because of rape; or they can say that all persons have a right to life, but  that some have less of a right to life than others, in particular, that those  who came into existence because of rape have less. But these statements have a  rather unpleasant sound. Surely the question of whether you have a right to  life at all, or how much of it you have, shouldn't turn on the question of  whether or not you are a product of a rape. And in fact the people who oppose  abortion on the ground I mentioned do not make this distinction, and hence do  not make an exception in case of rape. 
 
Nor do they make an  exception for a case in which the mother has to spend the nine months of her  pregnancy in bed. They would agree that would be a great pity, and hard on the  mother; but all the same, all persons have a right to life, the fetus is a  person, and so on. I suspect, in fact, that they would not make an exception  for a case in which, miraculously enough, the pregnancy went on for nine years,  or even the rest of the mother's life.
 
Now…that is probably one of the MOST RIDICULOUS ANALOGIES I HAVE EVER HAD THE MISFORTUNE TO BE INTRODUCED TO.

A mother carrying a baby is not kidnapped. She made a decision that in itself contained the possibility of conception. I’m not touting artificial contraception…but if she didn’t want a child…then she should have sinned that way rather than to murder.

I’m kind of suprised after looking at your profile SugarMagnolia. Unless I misunderstand what your saying regarding abortion…you certainly don’t indicate philosophy that is any way in sync with the church.
 
Doc_Keele said:
It wasn’t intended to impress LS. Are you like this with everyone?
If this is you trying to help, I hate to see what happens when you’re not trying to help.
Leaving is nothing to do with not being able to answer questions LS, but ultimately I’m not too bothered what erroneous assumptions you wish to jump to. I can’t be bothered wading thru treacle with people that aren’t going to change their opinion one jot anyway. Life’s too short.
I’ve seen all this sort of thing before on other fora from a certain sort of Catholic poster, who subsribes to the Catholic equivalent of the Scientologists’ “fair game” doctrine.

I respect other peoples’ rights to believe what they like. That same respect has not been extended to me.
Click to expand...
I have close to 2,000 posts on CAF (half under another username). I try my best to respond with charity and to follow Jesus’ second commandment. Sometimes I fail miserably. Then I apologize, as I did with you in another thread.

However, when I see what appear to be pontificating, blustering, condescending statements I react, especially when they aren’t aimed at myself.

I was trying to help. You asked for the Church’s position. I gave you a quote from the CCC. That is Church teaching. I also gave you a reference. I assume you know how to use references.

First you state that you can’t “be bothered wading thru treacle with people that aren’t going to change their opinion one jot anyway.” In the next paragraph you state “I respect other peoples’ rights to believe what they like.”

To me, these two statements are contradictory. Either you respect others’ opinions or you don’t.

I would like to return this thread to its original topic now and I apologize to everyone for veering it off-topic. I didn’t want to do that.

Ave Maria! Ora pro nobis.
 
chris_molter said:
Well, it ain’t a platypus.

I think almost every pro-abort agrees with … well… basic science that a human embryo or fetus is HUMAN. What they disagree with is that it’s a PERSON (with all the rights thereof).
Click to expand...
Isn’t the word “Person” refer to the “human being”? If one would restate the basic human rights replacing all word “person” by “human being,” would the statement hold still?

It’s sad to note that we sometimes need to be so technical and leave behind the true nature of our being. It just seems pro-abortionists are like being literalists when it comes to Biblical interpretations. :rolleyes:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top