So is it or isn't it a human

[Doc_Keele]

I am staying on-topic.

You are now on my “Ignore” list

…now who’s avoiding questions?

 

[Kay_Cee]

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.

I am a pro-lifer, and I’m afraid you’ve got me all wrong.

Here is what I believe: You, ceciliatheresa, were created by God in His own Image and Likeness. He endowed you with an immortal soul, and since it is immortal, is is worth infinitely more than all the stars and planets in all the universes that could possibly exist. The Supreme Intelligence, Who could have chosen to create anything, in His infinite wisdom chose to create you. Not only that, but He has created you for eternal and unimaginable bliss with Him in heaven. This give you infinite value. That is how precious you are.

So when you talk about some people having more rights than others, to me it is as if you are speaking a foreign language, for how can one human being of infinite value have more value than another human being of infinite value?

Sexual intercourse is the means God has chosen by which to bring new life into the world. That is why sex is incredibly sacred. That is why you are incredibly sacred.

It is also why I will never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never give up the battle to protect the preciousness of you and all other human beings.

 

[Ender]

Doc Keele (106):

My turn to do what?
Make my own assertions without presenting formal arguments?
Doc Keele (108):

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

So, are you going to present formal arguments for your assertions - or was the question rhetorical?

I had hoped that at least one person could make a half reasonable representation of the Church’s position - how wrong I was!

The Church makes no distinction between “human”, “person”, and “human being.” Human life begins at conception; no other distinction is appropriate. I’m surprised you asked. How is it relevant to this discussion?

Ender

 

[Biggie]

So, are you going to present formal arguments for your assertions - or was the question rhetorical?

Ender

I had to laugh. You’re doing an amazing job.

 

[Doc_Keele]

So, are you going to present formal arguments for your assertions - or was the question rhetorical?

Once you’ve presented formal arguments, I will do likewise. Reciprocity.

The Church makes no distinction between “human”, “person”, and “human being.” Human life begins at conception; no other distinction is appropriate. I’m surprised you asked. How is it relevant to this discussion?

Ender

That’s a restatement, not the formal argument I was seeking. I think it’s pretty poor that no one on the site was able to step up to the plate, given the name of the site.

 

[LittleSoldier]

I am a pro-lifer, and I’m afraid you’ve got me all wrong.

Here is what I believe: You, ceciliatheresa, were created by God in His own Image and Likeness. He endowed you with an immortal soul, and since it is immortal, is is worth infinitely more than all the stars and planets in all the universes that could possibly exist. The Supreme Intelligence, Who could have chosen to create anything, in His infinite wisdom chose to create you. Not only that, but He has created you for eternal and unimaginable bliss with Him in heaven. This give you infinite value. That is how precious you are.

So when you talk about some people having more rights than others, to me it is as if you are speaking a foreign language, for how can one human being of infinite value have more value than another human being of infinite value?

Sexual intercourse is the means God has chosen by which to bring new life into the world. That is why sex is incredibly sacred. That is why you are incredibly sacred.

It is also why I will never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never give up the battle to protect the preciousness of you and all other human beings.

Well said!

 

[lil_flower_luv]

…now who’s avoiding questions?

I get a kick out of reading posts by people who embrace smarts and science and new technology before they see the simple truths of God. Murder was never in the gray, thanks be to God. Humans are the ones who made it that way. Let’s try to keep the black and white things black and white. And apply some God-given common sense for that matter.

Peace

 

[Ender]

That’s a restatement, not the formal argument I was seeking. I think it’s pretty poor that no one on the site was able to step up to the plate, given the name of the site.

If you wanted to know the basis for the Church’s position then you should have requested it. You asked for my position and I gave it; you asked for the Church’s position and I gave that; I also gave the scientific position but you weren’t interested in that. This would go faster if, instead of complaining about what hasn’t been presented, you were a little more specific about what it was you wanted.

***DECLARATION ON PROCURED   ABORTION (1974)***

10. There is precisely a certain number of rights which society is not in a position to grant since these rights precede society; but society has the function to preserve and to enforce them. These are the greater part of those which are today called “human rights” and which our age boasts of having formulated. 11. The first right of the human person is his life. He has other goods and some are more precious, but this one is fundamental - the condition of all the others. Hence it must be protected above all others. It does not belong to society, nor does it belong to public authority in any form to recognize this right for some and not for others: all discrimination is evil, whether it be founded on race, sex, color or religion. It is not recognition by another that constitutes this right. This right is antecedent to its recognition; it demands recognition and it is strictly unjust to refuse it.
12. Any discrimination based on the various stages of life is no more justified than any other discrimination. The right to life remains complete in an old person, even one greatly weakened; it is not lost by one who is incurably sick. The right to life is no less to be respected in the small infant just born than in the mature person. In reality, respect for human life is called for from the time that the process of generation begins. From the time that the ovum is fertilized, a life is begun which is neither that of the father nor of the mother, it is rather the life of a new human being with his own growth. It would never be made human if it were not human already.
13. To this perpetual evidence - perfectly independent of the discussions on the moment of animation[19] - modern genetic science brings valuable confirmation. It has demonstrated that, from the first instant, there is established the program of what this living being will be: a man, this individual man with his characteristic aspects already well determined. Right from fertilization is begun the adventure of a human life, and each of its capacities requires time- a rather lengthy time- to find its place and to be in a position to act. The least that can be said is that present science, in its most evolved state, does not give any substantial support to those who defend abortion. Moreover, it is not up to biological sciences to make a definitive judgment on questions which are properly philosophical and moral such as the moment when a human person is constituted or the legitimacy of abortion. From a moral point of view this is certain: even if a doubt existed concerning whether the fruit of conception is already a human person, it is objectively a grave sin to dare to risk murder. “The one who will be a man is already one.”

You’re turn.

Ender*
*

 

[Doc_Keele]

You expect 200 words to represent a formal argument with proofs? When people publish articles of 5,000 words in journals which fail to capture all the arguments?

 

[Doc_Keele]

I get a kick out of reading posts by people who embrace smarts and science and new technology before they see the simple truths of God. Murder was never in the gray, thanks be to God. Humans are the ones who made it that way. Let’s try to keep the black and white things black and white. And apply some God-given common sense for that matter.

Peace

This is nothing to do with science and new technology actually - and no one is saying murder is in the gray (although legally and morally actually there’s some interesting issues about culpability).
“Let’s try to keep the black and white things black and white”. There’s a massive problem with this statement.
“And apply some God-given common sense for that matter.” Yes, Charlemagne II keeps on appealing to commonsense. Is it “commonsense” or intuitive to let two people die instead of one? Most people would say not.

 

[Ender]

You expect 200 words to represent a formal argument with proofs? When people publish articles of 5,000 words in journals which fail to capture all the arguments?

This is another dodge; you are either unwilling or unable to address the issue in any way other than by complaining “that’s not good enough.” If anything, my previous answer was too long rather than too short - so here’s a shorter one.

Human life is a gift from God.
*
The inviolability of the innocent human being’s right to life “from the moment of conception until death” (14) is a sign and requirement of the very inviolability of the person to whom the Creator has given the gift of life. By comparison with the transmission of other forms of life in the universe, the transmission of human life has a special character of its own, which derives from the special nature of the human person. *(CDF - Instruction on Respect for Human Life in its Origin … 1987)

Ender

 

[Doc_Keele]

Ender, you haven’t provided what I need. There’s no “dodging”

 

[JohnCS]

Pro-murder people have nothing to stand on other than word games. Choice, human or human being, blah blah blah. I can call a person a rock, or I can call a person a pencil, the language doesn’t matter. It (person, rock, pencil, fetus, what ever you want to call “it”) was made in God’s image, He knew us BEFORE he put us in our mothers womb and we ALL have an inherant right to live.

 

[Tamsulosin]

Doc, when Jesus was just conceived, what was he?
According to you a “zygote”-God?

 

[Ender]

Ender #150:

you are either unwilling or unable to address the issue in any way other than by complaining “that’s not good enough.”

Doc Keele #151:

Ender, you haven’t provided what I need.

The defense rests.

Ender

 

[Doc_Keele]

LOL Ender. It’s not a competiton, this isn’t adversarial

 

[Doc_Keele]

Doc, when Jesus was just conceived, what was he?
According to you a “zygote”-God?

You’re making several erroneous assumptions here, Tamsulosin. I suggest you relax like your namesake does the muscles of the bladder neck?

 

[Doc_Keele]

Pro-murder people have nothing to stand on other than word games. Choice, human or human being, blah blah blah. I can call a person a rock, or I can call a person a pencil, the language doesn’t matter. It (person, rock, pencil, fetus, what ever you want to call “it”) was made in God’s image, He knew us BEFORE he put us in our mothers womb and we ALL have an inherant right to live.

Where do I start with all the logical fallacies in this post?
Language is important. Of course what we call something doesn’t change its essential nature, but you’re completely missing the point

 

[LittleSoldier]

Where do I start with all the logical fallacies in this post?
Language is important. Of course what we call something doesn’t change its essential nature, but you’re completely missing the point

(I’ve taken you off my “Ignore List”). Why don’t you just go ahead and list all the fallacies you can find in the above argument?

Let’s see you actually do something instead of making little remarks that, in themelves, are completely meaningless.

Ave Maria! Ora pro nobis.

 

[Doc_Keele]

Well the whole thing is just one massive circular argument isn’t it?
It’s just saying abortion is murder over and over again, and also arguing ad hominem along the way. No attempts to prove the position at all. Appeal to authority. There would have to be more actual argument for there to be more logical fallacies, so in that respect it does OK.