So is it or isn't it a human

[Doc_Keele]

What it is full of is facts that you can’t answer, hence your continuing obfuscation. You’re the only one here who hasn’t noticed that you’re hiding from the truth in plain sight.

YAWN. Couldn’t see a single fact. Do you get a bonus for every time you type “obfuscation”?

No, what we have here is your typical liberal BS where you never actually put out one single fact, but alluded to your thinking being the same as Worthy5. Are you the same person? If not, quit messing around with everyone’s time and debate

I don’t have to resort to profanity or conspiracy theories. Or inane pseudo-insults like “liberal”.

But, then again, you’re not here to debate. You’re here as a flamer, trying to rouse people’s passions by stupid little petty games of obfuscation

More YAWN.

LOL And how are you going to prove such a stupid statement without actually challenging me on EXACTLY what I said, instead of making up ****?

More profanity.

This is about as close as we will ever get from you actually admitting to any point. I suppose we might take some mild comfort in that.

YAAAAAWN. Such a lack of grace.

So what? Many people believe that the area of abortion is one place that we need to have laws AGAINST it. As a matter of fact, poll after poll shows clearly that at the very minimum, people believe that there should be some restrictions on abortion. Many states have tried to place restrictions that state that no abortion can be carried out except in the case of the mother’s life, but courts keep on striking those decisions down based upon nonsense

So you’re shifting from a moral position to a populist position. I imagine the same polls have not been able to find a majority in favour of banning abortion in all situations.

Certainly not by you. No one here knows any reason that you believe that abortion should have no laws restricting it. We keep on asking, and you keep on obfuscating. People like you NEVER answer direct questions because they know that direct answers will ultimately lead to conclusions that they cannot bear, or defend against. Hence, your obfuscating

I’ve made my position clear. You are the flamer, you are the obfuscator. You don’t want a debate, you just want to verbally abuse anyone who DARES stand up to you and disagree.
I can defend my position robustly, but you cannot defend yours.

I know that you fancy me, as well as most of the pro-lifers on this forum, as idiots that couldn’t possibly ever get anything figured out about why you do and say what you do and say. But the fact is, we do understand clearly that there is a profound difference in what you BELIEVE and what is reality. You believe that human life is not human, and therefore, you defend your nonsense against all scientific evidence

LOL! This requires no comment whatsoever.

We also understand that you BELIEVE that “laws affecting autonomy in such a profound way as anti-abortion laws” are not moral laws, because you operate on a “higher” moral plane than the rest of us pro-lifers. Your higher plane of morality sees that there is some moronic right to privacy embedded within the Constitution that supercedes God’s moral law of “Thou shalt not kill.”{/quote] Oh dear, you are so far from the mark. It is quite amusing to see the way you make these wonderful straw man arguments (although “straw man” is surely too small a concept for these magnificent plant-fibre based follies of an epic nature).

LOL I am literally ROFLMBO!!! Another wonderful game that liberals like you play, is to PROJECT their failing upon their opponents. You have mastered this losing tactic well

No need to comment here

Of course not, because Doc Keele resides on a higher plane of moral consciousness than us mere peons of pro-life. Besides the fact that you know that it is IMPOSSIBLE to do so, so you obfuscate some more

Again, no need to comment.

No doubt you are quite wrong. I understand ABSOLUTELY what you are saying. The difference is that I REJECT your belief, because it fails to recognize the life that is being ended is a human life. You seem to be able to reject all modern science that clearly indicates that this is a human life

Clearly you don’t understand at all, otherwise you would attribute all this nonsense above to me.

True. Laws are like locks. They are placed there to keep honest people honest

Utter nonsense.

Another famous pasttime of liberals: every chance you get, liken those pesky prolifers and other Christians who insist that you live a moral life as the equivalent of the Iranian Islamic Republic

Again, this pseudo-insult whilst avoiding the issue.

Enough of your obfuscating, Ok? Since you failed to answer the WHOLE REASON FOR THIS POST AND MY LAST POST, let’s get back to business, and you explain to me, if you can, why it is that people can have imposed on them laws such as “do not steal, do not murder, do not lie, do not speed, etc.” but they can’t have imposed on them a law not to abort a baby? The question is a WHY question, which actually demands more than a simple yes or no. It demands thought and reason

Yes, it does - and I have tried to provide this, only to have this massive demented rant in response. Given the success of my limited attempts, any more sophisticated answer is doomed to be swamped by a raft of abuse, accusations of being “liberal”, cries of obfuscations and more.

If you can’t answer the question, just say so. Don’t attempt to bring us on another rabbit trail.

No need to comment! Yet another quasi-vitalist monomaniac who likes to shout people down, a tactic which works well here.

 

[elts1956]

I thought this should be an interesting thread. Basicly, is, or isn’t, a fetus a human?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d2/4dsonogram.jpg/120px-4dsonogram.jpg

Social Justice begins in the womb!

 

[elts1956]

I thought this should be an interesting thread. Basicly, is, or isn’t, a fetus a human?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d2/4dsonogram.jpg/120px-4dsonogram.jpg

technically, the pregnant woman has rights over the fetus, because the fetus is in her uterus, and that uterus belongs to her. Her body belongs to her, not to the fetus.

No one has the right, technically speaking, to kill another human being.

 

[elts1956]

Mr. Justice Blackmun, Mr. Justice Powell, Mr. Justice Stewart, Mr. Justice Marshall, Mr. Chief Justice Burger, Mr. Justice Brennan (a Catholic) and Mr. Justice Douglas: Could you please explain further the distinction between and issue of law and an issue of morality? Are friend seems to be having some difficulty.

The law is usually based on morality, this time it just didn’t happen.

 

[Doc_Keele]

Ultimately, cutting out all the personal abuse you’ve resorted to, you’re asking if I have the capacity to discuss jurisprudence. I know I do, but the question is do you?
If you wish, we can discuss jurisprudence and positivism vs natural law theories. I suspect you either can’t or won’t, and will start flinging out epithets again.

 

[elts1956]

Mr. Justice Blackmun, Mr. Justice Powell, Mr. Justice Stewart, Mr. Justice Marshall, Mr. Chief Justice Burger, Mr. Justice Brennan (a Catholic) and Mr. Justice Douglas: Could you please explain further the distinction between and issue of law and an issue of morality? Are friend seems to be having some difficulty.

Abortion is not the killing of a child.

Amazing how semantics can make a difference in attitudes of some. So zygote, foetus, embryo are not stages of development of what will later become a baby, toddler, pre teen, teen, young adult, adult etc.? Life is a process and it begins in the womb.

 

[Doc_Keele]

Amazing how semantics can make a difference in attitudes of some. So zygote, foetus, embryo are not stages of development of what will later become a baby, toddler, pre teen, teen, young adult, adult etc.? Life is a process and it begins in the womb.

Not semantics at all.

 

[Eric_Hilbert]

Return to topic please

 

[Phil_Stone]

Just to be clear, American law is derived from English Common Law, which antedates the arrival of Chrisitanity in England. Most nations had civil and criminal law which carries the same basic requirements to maintain a society, long before Chrisitanity. Does anyone really think that the ancient Egyptians and Romans, ect. lived in anarchy? Not to mention the ancient americans?

To claim that a pre-born is a child requires some definition of “child”, and if it is just “immature human” it doesn’t help except to explain, only to emotionally load the language. If a child is something besides just something (normally) in the process of development, then what those things include (eg. trying to understand the world, interacting with it, interacting with others, experiancing…) then depending upon what those characteristics include, “child” may well be inappropriate for the pre-born.

It seems to me that to term a newly fertilised ovum a “child” is to strip away nearly all of what we normally mean when we say “child”. Indeed, some english speakers normally distinguish a child from even an infant. Which doesn’t answer the question of when it becomes a person, but clarifies the terms of the debate.

 

[PEPCIS]

Just to be clear, American law is derived from English Common Law, which antedates the arrival of Chrisitanity in England.

I think you are mistaken. Christianity dates back to the time of Christ, while present-day England only came on the scene in some form during the reign of Egbert, King of Wessex from 802 A.D. Although the particulars could be debated, the point is that you are using this statement as a foundation to launch an attack against present-day laws in England and the US as being somehow separate from Christian law and principles which ultimately guide us in our handling of the abortion controversy.
Phil Stone:

To claim that a pre-born is a child requires some definition of “child”, and if it is just “immature human” it doesn’t help except to explain, only to emotionally load the language.

I believe that you are attempting to define away the humanity of the child, by cloaking the in utero child with euphemisms. Calling a dog a “puppy” will not change the fact that the “puppy” is nothing more or less than a dog in a different stage of growth.
Phil Stone:

If a child is something besides just something (normally) in the process of development, then what those things include (eg. trying to understand the world, interacting with it, interacting with others, experiancing…) then depending upon what those characteristics include, “child” may well be inappropriate for the pre-born.

Why is it “inappropriate” to call a 2-week in utero pre-born a child, any less than it is to call a 9month pre-born a child? You’re attaching emotional significance to the term “child” as if somehow the 2-week in utero pre-born is lacking the ability to perform certain functions, and therefore is unworthy of protection???
Phil Stone:

It seems to me that to term a newly fertilised ovum a “child” is to strip away nearly all of what we normally mean when we say “child”. Indeed, some english speakers normally distinguish a child from even an infant. Which doesn’t answer the question of when it becomes a person, but clarifies the terms of the debate.

You’re placing too much emphasis on the nomenclature which defines the stages of human life. A human is a human from the moment of inception - scientific fact. The term “child” can include the stages of pre-born, newly-born, infant, 2-18 years old, and even beyond that.

Humans are not defined by the terms we use to describe their stages of life, but by the inherent qualities that God has embedded within each human, as being worthy of His protection and love.

 

[jmcrae]

A “child” is the human product of a human mother’s and a human father’s combined DNA.

My father, for example, has been the child of his parents from the moment of his conception, even until now, in extreme old age, and even until the end of eternity. His age has nothing to do with it - his mother will forever be his mother, and his father will forever be his father - and he will forever be their child.

 

[nicole22]

I’ve seen pro-abortionists accept the science and logic that an embryo is a human person, but that abortion is still acceptable as a means of “self-defense” against an unwanted “intruder” in the woman’s body.

At that point, I have real trouble holding down my lunch, so I usually stop arguing.

Also… would it ever be acceptable to tell a person born because of rape that they are less of a person because of the way they were conceived? The same decency should apply to this person in the womb.

 

[Phil_Stone]

If one differentiates the idea of a person from the idea of a human, you have to explain why a human is a person, and something else, dog, dolphin, chimp, alien, whatever, is not. With a definition of a person, you can then say, “this is a person, and this is not.” And then one can argue whether/when a human embryo becomes a person. Lacking such a definition, even if incomplete, one cannot say why any of those are or are not persons. To simply equivocate human and person, as is sometimes done, eliminates an important means of understanding our ethical relationship to other creatures. Is my dog a person? No. Why not? Because it is not a human. Is the alien? No. For the same reason. But it has no explanatory value, the why is almost tautological.

If for example, an adult human is a person, but “a clump of cells” is not, it is easy enough to say that an adult who was concieved in rape is just as much as a person as one concieved in love, because being a person is usually thought of as what you are, rather than from where you came, or how you got there. One wouldn’t say that a Martian must not be a person just because they came from Mars. Or, one probably wouldn’t say that one could be a Republican (or Democrat) and the other not.Certainly not in the way one would question my dog being a Republican (or Democrat).

Rather, the "clump of cells’ at some point becomes a person, and/or at some point aquires the rights of personhood. Before that, it didn’t have the rights, and could be treated accordingly. (Which doesn’t end all discusion of its possible rights, unless only persons can have rights.)

A clearer example perhaps might be drivers rights. At a certain point one may gain the right to drive a car. To suggest that they formerly lacked the rights is not an insult to the present driver.

I didn’t bring up the notion of “Child”, I only suggested that its use seems to muddy the waters of the debate. I certainly did not mean to use “child” as a way to prove that the “clump of cells” is not a person. Only that using that emotionally laden term tends to beg the question. Call it what you will, but calling “a clump of cells” a "child " doesn’t make it one, nor prove it is a person. I originally said that the issue is not whether the clump of cells is human, but when it becomes a person.

As for English law, my point was just that (unless you are some weird variation on a Mormon) Christianity did not reach England for quite a while after Christ, and that there was civilization and law there already. Just as the other ancient civilizations had law without Chrisitanity.

 

[jmcrae]

I didn’t bring up the notion of “Child”, I only suggested that its use seems to muddy the waters of the debate. I certainly did not mean to use “child” as a way to prove that the “clump of cells” is not a person. Only that using that emotionally laden term tends to beg the question. Call it what you will, but calling “a clump of cells” a "child " doesn’t make it one, nor prove it is a person. I originally said that the issue is not whether the clump of cells is human, but when it becomes a person.

There is no point at which the embryo or fetus is ever a “clump of cells,” apart from (arguably) the first day or so after conception, when it is still only a few cells big (hardly a “clump”) - once there are a sufficient number of cells, cell differentiation begins, and we have skin, rudimentary organs including the stomach, and a spinal cord in place (this is the embryo) which then implants by means of the stomach on to the womb, where the child then begins to grow limbs, a head, and other very human-like features, thus becoming a foetus.

 

[kimmielittle]

If one differentiates the idea of a person from the idea of a human, you have to explain why a human is a person, and something else, dog, dolphin, chimp, alien, whatever, is not.

Fine, A person is always a human life. A dog is always a dog - Never a person…A Dolphin is always a Dolphin - never a person

With a definition of a person, you can then say, “this is a person, and this is not.” And then one can argue whether/when a human embryo becomes a person.

Done

 

[PEPCIS]

If one differentiates the idea of a person from the idea of a human, you have to explain why a human is a person, and something else, [like a] dog, dolphin, chimp, alien, whatever, is not [a person].

This one sentence is why you are wrong, because this sentence is the sole basis for your BELIEF. You somehow believe that personhood is something that humans bestow upon a human at some magical point in their life. It’s as if you are saying that personhood is a quality that must be achieved in order to gain the protections of the state.

This is what differentiates Christian thinking and philosophy from that of the World’s thinking and philosophy. Christian thinking understands that God declares a human’s personhood FROM BEFORE the foundation of the world (see eph.1:4). But to the world, where life is derived from chance, evolutionary processes, there is no difference between a dog and a human, apart from their place on the evolutionary chain, and therefore the human has no higher moral plane or advantages than the brute animal.

Because your mind is steeped in Worldly philosophies, you are then able to come to the following conclusions:
Phil Stone:

If for example, an adult human is a person, but “a clump of cells” is not, it is easy enough to say that an adult who was concieved in rape is just as much as a person as one concieved in love, because being a person is usually thought of as what you are, rather than from where you came, or how you got there…Rather, the "clump of cells’ at some point becomes a person, and/or at some point aquires the rights of personhood. Before that, it didn’t have the rights, and could be treated accordingly.

And so goes the philosophy of the World - if you can be stripped LEGALLY of your personhood, then you are not a person, and therefore not deserving of the protections of the state. This is the EXACT SAME PHILOSOPHY that all facist and communist regimes have used to justify the killing of those they want to kill, by reclassifying them as “less than human.” The most famous example was with the Nazis.

(Which doesn’t end all discusion of its possible rights, unless only persons can have rights.)

Of course it does. If a “clump of cells” has no right to life, you can easily eliminate every single other protection that it has that is subservient to its right to life. Therefore, you can experiment on it, because even if it is “alive”, it is not considered a person. If you strip away its personhood, you can even reject PHILOSOPHICALLY that it is human (although you still got that pesky little thing called “science” which declares unequivocally that it is human).

 

[Suspicious_Mind]

Common sense should prevail, and some members have already pointed this out more or less.

The fetus is obviously a being as it is living, it’s begotten by humans, which makes it a human being. It can’t be a zebra or lion, neither is it something indescribable that is beyond the description of the biological sciences.