Submitting to reality

[o_mlly]

Let’s stick with one religion to avoid confusion.

Let’s not.

Strange that you should appeal to religion when you have none. Arguments based on unsupported beliefs have not moved you in the past. Why now? I submit we have a cafeteria atheist who adopts a particular faith-based position only when that position seems to support the atheist’s viewpoint.

Let’s stick with the area upon which we can agree on – science and rational thought. Tell us what you have here that supports killing a newly conceived child for the sake of convenience.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

Let’s stick with one religion to avoid confusion.

Strange that you should appeal to religion when you have none. Arguments based on unsupported beliefs have not moved you in the past. Why now? I submit we have a cafeteria atheist who adopts a particular faith-based position only when that position seems to support the atheist’s viewpoint.

My position is not faith based. As you know. But it aligns with the Jewish position that abortion is acceptable. As you know. Which is a position which is faith based. As you know. A basis with which I obviously disagree. As you know.

You referred to those who did not have a problem with abortion (and contraception etc) as barbarians within the wall. The question still stands: Do you consider those of the Jewish faith who have no problem with abortion as suggested by their religious beliefs to be included in that group?

 

[o_mlly]

The question still stands: Do you consider those of the Jewish faith who have no problem with abortion as suggested by their religious beliefs to be included in that group?

No, the question does not stand. I consider all who support direct abortions whether Catholic, Jewish, Protestant, Hindu, Buddhist, Australian, American, Caucasian, African, adolescent, adult, senior – you name the group – as morally wrong.

Your misguided efforts to fish for a wedge issue among religious groups needs better bait than you have or can offer. How’s the science looking so far? Got anything to report?

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

The question still stands: Do you consider those of the Jewish faith who have no problem with abortion as suggested by their religious beliefs to be included in that group?

No, the question does not stand. I consider all who support direct abortions whether Catholic, Jewish, Protestant, Hindu, Buddhist, Australian, American, Caucasian, African, adolescent, adult, senior – you name the group – as morally wrong.

I’m not sure why you said the question didn’t stand, as you just answered it (and it was the answer I expected).

And I’m not manufacturing a wedge to separate the religions. The separation in some of these moral matters already exists.

And as far as the science goes, that will only get us definitions and an understanding of the biological processes. When we decide a time when what a woman is carrying can be described as a person is either a personal view or a religious one. Hence the difference between my position and the Catholic one (personal/secular v faith) and the Catholic one and the Jewish one (faith v faith).

 

[1Lord1Faith]

When we decide a time when what a woman is carrying can be described as a person is either a personal view or a religious one.

This is the same “person (hood)” nonsense that was brought forth by southern US slave owners and the Nazi Party. Saying that certain human beings are not in fact persons. The Catholic view is not interested in any particular group’s definition of personhood. The concern should be for a human being. One who is developing ordinary at that particular stage of development, whether it’s just after conception or at any other stage of life.

I took your last post to be a rejection of what we know a human being is in favor of a personhood argument. As in, X is a human being but does not fit a particular definition of person(hood). Am I correct in my interpretation of your post? Are you rejecting biology in favor of ideology?

 

[o_mlly]

When we decide a time when what a woman is carrying can be described as a person is either a personal view or a religious one.

C’mon, Fred. You have always preferred science to religion to decide the truth of the matter in these forums.

Science does not operate on your “when we decide” principle. Rather we look for evidence, observations that illuminate us.

Now, scientifically speaking, the being just conceived is:

1. not a human being
2. a human being
3. unknown

Science reports #3 to be the case.

Morally speaking, if scientifically we cannot know if the being is or is not human we may not kill it for the sake of the mother’s convenience.

That’s the Catholic position. Where are we wrong, scientifically or morally?

 

[JimG]

My opposition to abortion has nothing to do with ensoulment. It is based on embryology which tells us when a new human being begins. I am not in favor of killing human beings at any stage of development.

 

[o_mlly]

Certainly no experimental datum can be in itself sufficient to bring us to the recognition of a spiritual soul; nevertheless, the conclusions of science regarding the human embryo provide a valuable indication for discerning by the use of reason a personal presence at the moment of this first appearance of a human life: how could a human individual not be a human person? (Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, February 22, 1987).

Even if the presence of a spiritual soul cannot be ascertained by empirical data, the results themselves of scientific research on the human embryo provide “a valuable indication for discerning by the use of reason a personal presence at the moment of the first appearance of a human life: how could a human individual not be a human person?” ( EVANGELIUM VITAE. March 25, 1995).

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

When we decide a time when what a woman is carrying can be described as a person is either a personal view or a religious one.

This is the same “person (hood)” nonsense that was brought forth by southern US slave owners and the Nazi Party. Saying that certain human beings are not in fact persons. The Catholic view is not interested in any particular group’s definition of personhood. The concern should be for a human being. One who is developing ordinary at that particular stage of development, whether it’s just after conception or at any other stage of life.

I took your last post to be a rejection of what we know a human being is in favor of a personhood argument. As in, X is a human being but does not fit a particular definition of person(hood). Am I correct in my interpretation of your post? Are you rejecting biology in favor of ideology?

As you are making no attempt to read what I have posted, what on earth makes you think I should constantly keep repeating my arguments? That’s a serious question.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

When we decide a time when what a woman is carrying can be described as a person is either a personal view or a religious one.

C’mon, Fred. You have always preferred science to religion to decide the truth of the matter in these forums.

Science does not operate on your “when we decide” principle. Rather we look for evidence, observations that illuminate us.

Now, scientifically speaking, the being just conceived is:

1. not a human being
2. a human being
3. unknown

Science reports #3 to be the case.

Morally speaking, if scientifically we cannot know if the being is or is not human we may not kill it for the sake of the mother’s convenience.

That’s the Catholic position. Where are we wrong, scientifically or morally?

See the post above. If you haven’t yet registered that the terms human and human being are being used in entirely different ways then I can’t help you. I’m really not sure if you are doing it intentionally or you simply don’t understand. I’m going with the former.

 

[Freddy]

My opposition to abortion has nothing to do with ensoulment. It is based on embryology which tells us when a new human being begins. I am not in favor of killing human beings at any stage of development.

Yet again you are equating the term human being which is being used as a synonym for person, with human. If in your opinion there is a person at the moment of conception then we will simply disagree, as my opinion is that there is not.

 

[o_mlly]

If you haven’t yet registered that the terms human and human being are being used in entirely different ways then I can’t help you.

Passive voice again?

Who, other than you, as a scientist uses the nouns human and human being in entirely different ways? Cite a reputable scientific study that makes such an absurd distinction, if you please. If not then we’ll write this off as just another fantasy.

 

[JimG]

I think that the aspect of personhood is an element of every human individual, whether it is capable if being outwardly expressed or not at any given time.

I have observed that newborns each have a distinct personality from the earliest stages of their life. I think the same personality was present even before birth, though not expressed to the outside world.
Still, the concept of personality is not the same as personhood.

A being which is a distinct individual of the human species is of course a human being.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

If you haven’t yet registered that the terms human and human being are being used in entirely different ways then I can’t help you.

Passive voice again?

Who, other than you, as a scientist uses the nouns human and human being in entirely different ways? Cite a reputable scientific study that makes such an absurd distinction, if you please. If not then we’ll write this off as just another fantasy.

Is a woman’s egg human? Is the woman a human being? There is the difference that is being used and which I have used in every conversation and in every single post I have made on this subject since I have been posting.

You must have missed it or you must have preferred to ignore it. This time I’ll go with the latter.

 

[Freddy]

I think that the aspect of personhood is an element of every human individual, whether it is capable if being outwardly expressed or not at any given time.

I have observed that newborns each have a distinct personality from the earliest stages of their life. I think the same personality was present even before birth, though not expressed to the outside world.
Still, the concept of personality is not the same as personhood.

A being which is a distinct individual of the human species is of course a human being.

So in your opinion, this statement is valid?

‘A being which is a distinct individual of the human species is of course a person’.

 

[JimG]

Any human being can be referred to as a distinct person because that is an intrinsic character of human beings.

 

[o_mlly]

Is a woman’s egg human?

Who, other than you, as a scientist uses the nouns human and human being

Is the woman’s egg a human being? No.

Is the woman’s egg human?

Parsing from the interrogatory to the declaratory: The women’s egg is human.

the woman.n 's.p egg.n is.v human.a

Ahh, human used as an adjective. Try again, Fred.

I take it you could not find any citations to support your argument.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

Is a woman’s egg human?

Who, other than you, as a scientist uses the nouns human and human being

Is the woman’s egg a human being? No.

Is the woman’s egg human?

Parsing from the interrogatory to the declaratory: The women’s egg is human.

the woman.n 's.p egg.n is.v human.a

Ahh, human used as an adjective.

Well done. You’ve got it. Just be aware that sometimes people use the term human as being short for human being. That is, they use word as a noun. Need an example? Why not…

This sample is human: the sample is from a member of the species Homo sapien.
That chimp is almost human: The chimp exhibits characteristics of a human being.

So, leading on from that…

The woman is a week pregnant. What she is carrying is human (adjective): Correct.
The woman is a week pregnant. What she is carrying is a human (noun, aka human being/person): Incorrect.

 

[o_mlly]

So, leading on from that…

The woman is a week pregnant. What she is carrying is human (adjective): Correct.
The woman is a week pregnant. What she is carrying is a human (noun, aka human being/person): Incorrect.

The adjective “human” used alone modifies an attribute of only the category of human beings. If one wants to personify beings that possess attributes similar to the attributes of human beings then the correct and always implied modifier is “human-like”.

So leading on from that …

The woman is a week pregnant. What she is carrying is a human being. (Is correct).
The woman is a week pregnant. What she is carrying is human-like. (Is nonsense).

Now that the grammar lesson is over let’s get back to science. Cite the scientific study that shows the one week pregnant mother carries something other than a human being, i.e., a member of the human race. I suppose if the science has an observation of a mother coming to term and delivering a chimpanzee then your mental gymnastics with the language would bear closer study.

 

[MikeInVA]

The woman is a week pregnant. What she is carrying is a human (noun, aka human being/person): Incorrect.

If the creature growing inside of the woman is not a human, what is it?