So is it or isn't it a human

  • Thread starter Thread starter Timbothefiveth
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Well there’s a few problems with that statement. 46 chromosomes doesn’t make a human being, and not having 46 chromosomes doesn’t exclude being a human being.
Very well. Add the phrase, “In the absence of radical mutations and if it is alive, …” to the beginning of my sentence, then. 🙂
It’s not quite as simple as that. Self defence is permissible when one faces a threat that is not objectively morally justified.
Self-defense implies an attacker. The unborn child is not in a position to attack anyone.
No, that’s not a logical conclusion.
If I make an icon of you, and then some vandals come along and slash the icon with a box cutter, have they not damaged an image of you? 🤷

We are created in the image of God - we are living icons of God.
 
Very well. Add the phrase, “In the absence of radical mutations and if it is alive, …” to the beginning of my sentence, then. 🙂
No, not mutations as such.
Self-defense implies an attacker. The unborn child is not in a position to attack anyone
Well I’ve told you what self defence entails. Your definition is incomplete.
To repeat it is permissible against a threat that is not objectively morally justified, as per the two mountaineers on a rope.
If I make an icon of you, and then some vandals come along and slash the icon with a box cutter, have they not damaged an image of you? 🤷
We are created in the image of God - we are living icons of God.
It’s a totally bizarre way of looking at it. I am not a “photograph” of God, and nor are you.
 
So is it or isn’t it a human?

If it is not a human, then how does it ultimately become a human? Are humans some higher form of lepidoptera?
 
Very well. Add the phrase, “In the absence of radical mutations and if it is alive, …” to the beginning of my sentence, then. 🙂
Animals that have 46 chromosomes, in the absence of radical mutations and that are alive. And on top of that, each adult animal was once a fetus! Wow!
  • Muntjacs (Muntiacus reevesi)
  • Black rat (Rattus rattus)
  • European hare (Lepus europeus)
  • Merriam’s ground squirrel (Spermophilus canus)
  • Southern short-tailed shrew (Blarina carolinensis)
  • Mountain beaver (Aplodontia rufa)
  • Beach vole (Microtus breweri)
  • Nilgai (Boselaphus tragocamelus)
  • Kirk’s dik-dik (Rhynchotragus kirki)
  • Grey vole (Microtus arvalis)
  • Large bentwing bat (miniopterus schreibersi)
  • Bolivian Tuco-tuco (Ctenomys boliviensis)
  • Grevy’s zebra (Equus grevyi)
  • Crowned Lemur (Lemur mongoz coronatus)
  • Red Titi (Callicebus cupreus)
 
So is it or isn’t it a human?

If it is not a human, then how does it ultimately become a human? Are humans some higher form of lepidoptera?
Evolutionists say apes.
I believe the Church is fine with this theory. There are several prominent scientists in the Church who oppose Intelligent Design. Kenneth R. Miller, Fr. George Coyne, and Cardinal Paul Poupard.

How does one ultimately become human? By being human. A human fetus is human.

I’m going to stick with the dna answer. At conception, the zygote has all the code needed to develop.
 
It boggles my mind that this is even being asked. If you really want to know what species an organism ( an unborn ) is, just check its DNA. I’ll bet dollars to donuts that you’ll come up “HUMAN.” The arguement that a woman can do whatever she pleases with her own body misses the point that the baby is not her own body; it is a separate being altogether.
 
There are certain things one can expect from a ‘just society’. Moral and ethical obligations, if you will. Decent living conditions, wages, etc.

Where people have gone wrong, is to think that a ‘just society’ has an obligation - morally or ethically, to provide a woman with an excuse to murder. No other citizen is provided this ‘right’ except a pregnant woman. In a just society, there is no justification for murder, or expecting a just societies support of it. -kimmie
 
Doc, when one has the ability and reasoning both gifted to him or her by God to save lives, it is up to that person not to abuse his or her gifts. Medical intervention must not cross the line into assuming God’s authority and intention to choose who lives at the expense of another, To even have that choice is acknowledgement either one of the two lives could survive independantly. Medical intervention is to aid the afflicted if at all possible to the extent possible, but it is not to choose which being gets to live and which one should die for the other. To do so is to claim who’s future life has more value or what is in God’s design. Only God knows what the future holds and who He desires to continue on.
 
=kimmielittle;6530922]There are certain things one can expect from a ‘just society’. Moral and ethical obligations, if you will. Decent living conditions, wages, etc.
So should the govt pass a law to guarantee a $ 100.00 minimum wage?
Where people have gone wrong, is to think that a ‘just society’ has an obligation - morally or ethically, to provide a woman with an excuse to murder. No other citizen is provided this ‘right’ except a pregnant woman. In a just society, there is no justification for murder, or expecting a just societies support of it.
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?
 
every pro choice person knows that the fetus is human. they also know that if any person besides a fetus were attached to a woman’s body, sharing her life resources, the woman would have the choice to separate it from her, terminating it in the process. It’s not rocket science.
 
So should the govt pass a law to guarantee a $ 100.00 minimum wage?
Did I say that?
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?
Are you trolling me?

A ‘just society’ provides equal protection to human life
 
Where is this fascination with death going to end? We now have at least one professor advocating infanticide up to 30 days after birth as one “choice” for parents of a “deformed” baby. Of course, “deformed”, like “health of the mother”, can mean anything from the wrong sex or color of eyes to all the way up.
 
Where is this fascination with death going to end? We now have at least one professor advocating infanticide up to 30 days after birth as one “choice” for parents of a “deformed” baby. Of course, “deformed”, like “health of the mother”, can mean anything from the wrong sex or color of eyes to all the way up.
It is not so much a fascination with death as it is a rejection of the value of life. The argument that there is a difference between a human life form - which is unquestionably created at conception - and a human being - which in this context is a completely arbitrary term - leads to suggestions like Professor Singer’s that infanticide is a reasonable policy. In fact, once it is accepted that a human and a human being are different things, there is no logical bar to restrict anyone from being declassified as a human being … and thereby losing all rights including the right to life. The unborn already suffer from this distinction. The elderly are about to.

Ender
 


The argument that there is a difference between a human life form - which is unquestionably created at conception - and a human being - which in this context is a completely arbitrary term - leads to suggestions like Professor Singer’s that infanticide is a reasonable policy. In fact, once it is accepted that a human and a human being are different things, there is no logical bar to restrict anyone from being declassified as a human being … and thereby losing all rights including the right to life. The unborn already suffer from this distinction. The elderly are about to.

Ender
Yes, and that is the topic of Dehumanizing the Vulnerable: When Word Games Take Lives by William Brennan.
 
…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?
Freedom or freedom of choices is freedom to choose among those things that are right and do not infringe on the rights of another. When it does infringe on the rights of another, it is no longer free to choose.

"When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator (God being the creator) with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life (Life being the first unalienable right), Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."


Now notice our forefathers who founded and established the principles of our country referred to these principles as “truths” and as “self-evident” meaning obvious and without question. Also notice they did not say, endowed by God, but in fact went further and referred to God as our “Creator”. And what is the very first “right” specifically, stated? Is it not the unalienable right to life? “Unalienable” in this reference as in rights bestowed by God not to be alienated or selectively taken away from.

The political representatives and judicial system over the last 50 years have arrogantly abandoned the principles of this declaration as set down by our forefathers who established this country. We have eliminated “God” from -]God/-] Bless America. So who do we ask to bless us now? The president? We best now pray for God to have mercy on America.
 
=kimmielittle;6534324]Did I say that?
Then clarify your statement. It can only be understood properly with a specific context.
A ‘just society’ provides equal protection to human life
But not when costs to the policy of limited government is too much. And that is what the Court decided. There are other means society can employ other than using its police power in order to try to protect the early fetus.

Your refusal to accept the $ 100.00 minimum wage is a nice example—you are against poverty yet you would not go so far as a law requiring a $ 100.00 minimum.
 
=twb1621;6535628]Freedom or freedom of choices is freedom to choose among those things that are right and do not infringe on the rights of another. When it does infringe on the rights of another, it is no longer free to choose.
No my friend, a choice is the freedom to choose either one thing or another-whether good or bad for you. But that is fine for you to argue the pro-life legal position—it is a reasonable position to have.

But the Court saw it otherwise. The “realm of privacy” analysis is saying—that the govt cannot regulate there despite what moral wrong the women maybe doing. The Court split the duty to protect the life between the women, early on, then society takes over as the fetus matures. Thus, promoting both limited govt and protection of life via the state police power. Society can use other means to try to help the early fetus—just not its police power.
"When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator (God being the creator) with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life (Life being the first unalienable right), Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."

Now notice our forefathers who founded and established the principles of our country referred to these principles as “truths” and as “self-evident” meaning obvious and without question. Also notice they did not say, endowed by God, but in fact went further and referred to God as our “Creator”. And what is the very first “right” specifically, stated? Is it not the unalienable right to life? “Unalienable” in this reference as in rights bestowed by God not to be alienated or selectively taken away from.

The political representatives and judicial system over the last 50 years have arrogantly abandoned the principles of this declaration as set down by our forefathers who established this country. We have eliminated “God” from -]God/-] Bless America. So who do we ask to bless us now? The president? We best now pray for God to have mercy on America.
Thanks my friend, but the D of I is not binding legal authority that the Supreme Court refers to. Its the Constitution. Thanks for the debate.

God Bless 🙂
 
The Declaration of Independence speaks of the right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness, as unalienable rights. Noteworthy is that the right to life is mentioned first.

The right to pursue happiness does not obligate the government to specify or enforce a minimum wage.

But laws against the killing of other human beings are perfectly reasonable. We have such laws against killing, with exceptions for self defense and capital punishment. Laws against killing other humans are not considered an overstepping of government authority, but a proper use of the law.

We used to have laws which protected the youngest human beings. It was those laws that were tossed out by Roe v Wade and Doe v Bolton. Because, just as a master could do whatever he wishes with a slave, a mother can do whatever she wishes with her children, at least while they reside in her womb. It’s a dangerous place to reside.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top