The law of the land, and abortion

[Richca]

I believe we may be talking past each other. It would seem to me that if large groups of people whether they be a christian theologian, a biologist - or whatever are having difficulty in a certain field - then the layman will have that same difficulty. I’m not talking about individual fields - everything taken together as a whole cannot come to a conclusion - even theologically. There is no direct evidence anywhere of when person hood happens.
There is a descriptive difference between what is human and what is a human being. Peoples varied positions are the conclusion of the varied arguments.

There appears to be direct evidence in the Bible that a human being is a person at conception. Take a look at these scripture passages:

"Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I dedicated you,
a prophet to the nations I appointed you.(Jeremiah 1:5)

“Behold, I was born in guilt, in sin my mother conceived me” (Psalm 51:7).

“You formed my inmost being; you knit me in my mother’s womb. I praise you, because I am wonderfully made; wonderful are your works! My very self you know. My bones are not hidden from you, When I was being made in secret, fashioned in the depths of the earth.
Your eyes saw me unformed; in your book all are written down; my days were shaped, before one came to be” (Psalm 139: 13-16).

“And behold, Elizabeth, your relative, has also **conceived a son **in her old age, and this is the sixth month for her who was called barren” (Luke 1:36).

Are there any passages in scripture where it is said that a woman can lawfully abort her unborn child?

 

[ManRay]

The difference here is that what you do makes no difference if you’re NOT killing people. But if people are alive, it makes every difference.

It would make all the difference in the world if people died trying to save a canister of embryos.

Not really-you are for abortion. This is extremely relevant.

Another straw man- I’ve stated multiple times that abortion isn’t a good idea. I’ve never had an abortion - never supported anyone getting an abortion. I’ve stated that I’m in support of rights, and educated decisions. I don’t believe a mothers rights are subject to an unborns rights. I believe there exists plausible and logical instances where a mother would have the ability to make an informed decision - especially if her life was in danger. ( the catholic church actually supports me on the later - and 90% of the catholics on here are so insane with murder fever that they don’t even know this.

This makes zero sense. Every stage of development of a human is still a human. To say otherwise is silly. And I agree-a a zygote is a person. This is my point.

Ok - I will now refer to you as a fetus. Fair enough.

Er, no, you’ve shown that people are debating what a PERSON is. What a human is is something that’s ridiculously obvious.

The whole debate is about person hood - sheesh - are you arguing that pro choice people think that fetus’s are alien creatures from the land of bungaloo? Cmon - man -

 

[ManRay]

Let’s get something straight before this is all over. I NEVER denied that scientists disagreed about when a “person” should be recognized. That’s what the abortion debate is about.

I DO say that scientists know when something becomes biologically human.

Unbelievable. I’m just …wow…let me go get a drink…wow

 

[ManRay]

There appears to be direct evidence in the Bible that a human being is a person at conception. Take a look at these scripture passages:

"Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I dedicated you,
a prophet to the nations I appointed you.(Jeremiah 1:5)

“Behold, I was born in guilt, in sin my mother conceived me” (Psalm 51:7).

“You formed my inmost being; you knit me in my mother’s womb. I praise you, because I am wonderfully made; wonderful are your works! My very self you know. My bones are not hidden from you, When I was being made in secret, fashioned in the depths of the earth.
Your eyes saw me unformed; in your book all are written down; my days were shaped, before one came to be” (Psalm 139: 13-16).

“And behold, Elizabeth, your relative, has also **conceived a son **in her old age, and this is the sixth month for her who was called barren” (Luke 1:36).

Are there any passages in scripture where it is said that a woman can lawfully abort her unborn child?

That’s like me writing

Genesis 9:16: Those who kill the Image of God must themselves be killed.
Exodus 21:22: If a man causes a woman to miscarriage, he is not killed,
but has to pay the woman a price determined by the court.
Therefore, the fetus does not have the Image of god.
Image of God–personhood–is obtained at birth. It is a Birth-right.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

It would make all the difference in the world if people died trying to save a canister of embryos.

Fair point. I’ll concede.

Another straw man- I’ve stated multiple times that abortion isn’t a good idea. I’ve never had an abortion - never supported anyone getting an abortion. I’ve stated that I’m in support of rights, and educated decisions. I don’t believe a mothers rights are subject to an unborns rights. I believe there exists plausible and logical instances where a mother would have the ability to make an informed decision - especially if her life was in danger. ( the catholic church actually supports me on the later - and 90% of the catholics on here are so insane with murder fever that they don’t even know this.

By what I consider “for abortion” you certainly are. Perhaps I should clarify terms. I consider somebody “for abortion” if they do not think the killing of an unborn child is tantamount to killing a born human.

And it sounds like you’re making the distinction between direct and indirect abortion here.

Ok - I will now refer to you as a fetus. Fair enough.

What? A fetus is a stage in development of a human. Are you going to refer to old men as teenagers now?

The whole debate is about person hood - sheesh - are you arguing that pro choice people think that fetus’s are alien creatures from the land of bungaloo? Cmon - man -

Talk about strawmen-what I said was that biology agreed that humans were created, if you will, at conception, and you posted a whole thing on how biologists did NOT agree with that. Which they do.

You’d be surprised how many people who support abortion will use the argument that fetuses aren’t human, actually, although this is besides the point.

What I DO think is that the philosophical position that a human somehow isn’t a person is ridiculous.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

Unbelievable. I’m just …wow…let me go get a drink…wow

Are you implying that this is really obvious? Okay-good. We agree then.

In that case, I think it’s extreme bigotry for us to try and decide which humans are persons and which aren’t.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

Okay, I’ll spell out exactly what I’m saying.

The unborn are human. That we’re debating whether certain humans are persons is bigotry akin to debating whether or not blacks or the mentally challenged or disabled are people. They’re human, and that’s enough. The “personhood” distinction is made up and arbitrary. Defining what humans are persons is bigotry, plain and simple. And abortion is the killing of unborn people.

 

[ManRay]

The debate is in regards to personhood.
Everyone knows that the eggs, sperm, and what becomes after are human. My dry skin cells are human. They aren’t human beings.
There are logical problems, legal problems describing cells, as people. Which is why Scientists, Philosophers, Theologians, Bioethics etc…ARE NOT IN AGREEMENT AS TO WHAT DEFINES PERSONHOOD, OR WHEN IT BEGINS. (neither was aquinas)

 

[Marc_Anthony]

The debate is in regards to personhood.
Everyone knows that the eggs, sperm, and what becomes after are human. My dry skin cells are human. They aren’t human beings.
There are logical problems, legal problems describing cells, as people. Which is why Scientists, Philosophers, Theologians, Bioethics etc…ARE NOT IN AGREEMENT AS TO WHAT DEFINES PERSONHOOD, OR WHEN IT BEGINS. (neither was aquinas)

I never said they were. But a skin cell is not a human, because a skin cell will not naturally develop into an adult human. I defy you to find a biologist that will say that a zygote is the equivalent of a skin cell.

You are beating up a strawman here. I am not denying that many biologists are pro-choice. I am saying that it’s ridiculous that they are.

 

[ManRay]

Okay, I’ll spell out exactly what I’m saying.

The unborn are human. That we’re debating whether certain humans are persons is bigotry akin to debating whether or not blacks or the mentally challenged or disabled are people. They’re human, and that’s enough. The “personhood” distinction is made up and arbitrary. Defining what humans are persons is bigotry, plain and simple. And abortion is the killing of unborn people.

I can destroy that argument when speaking of twins…when do twins become two people? Specifically - when do monozygotic twins become 2 PEOPLE. I already know that this is going to give you all kinds of trouble - but I want to hear how you go about this.

You need to study the law of identity stating that whether or not blacks or the mentally challenged or disabled are people is really obtuse and lacking in critical thought. Of course challenged an disabled people are people because they possess the form - the necessary characteristics that identify them as people. Cells do not. Cells are cells. People are people. An acorn is not an oak tree.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

I can destroy that argument when speaking of twins…when do twins become two people? Specifically - when do monozygotic twins become 2 PEOPLE. I already know that this is going to give you all kinds of trouble - but I want to hear how you go about this.

You need to study the law of identity stating that whether or not blacks or the mentally challenged or disabled are people is really obtuse and lacking in critical thought. Of course challenged an disabled people are people because they possess the form - the necessary characteristics that identify them as people. Cells do not. Cells are cells. People are people. An acorn is not an oak tree.

This is where pro-choicers totally lose me, because the “Acorn-oak tree” thing is ridiculous. OF COURSE an acorn is an oak tree, just one in a different stage of development, like a teenager as opposed to an adult. That it looks different means nothing. We treat oak trees different than acorns because we value trees differently than humans-in the developmental stage of an acorn, the oak is not really that important to us, but as an oak tree, we assign a completely different value to it. Humans, however, are humans, whether they’re infants, adults, teenagers, or unborn. Trying to assign different values to different humans is bigotry-yes, bigotry akin to deciding whether blacks or the mentally disabled are people.

The “twins argument” is another bad one. Siamese twins are two people. That they share, for a time, what is for them a body is irrelevant. If their DNA splits off at one point, then once the DNA splits off it’s a new human being.

But this is irrelevant anyway-just because we’re not sure when one separates from the other doesn’t mean that once we know we’re separate they’re both not humans-it’s a scientific error, not a philosophical one. Once we figure out exactly how to differentiate between the two different people then we know exactly when they’re both human. It could be as simple as, for a time there was one person. Then it split. Now there are two.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

Philosopher Lydia McGrew on the acorn tree argument:

Here is the answer to that question: The reason that acorns and trees are treated differently is because trees aren’t (sorry, tree-huggers) of the kind of ultimate importance that human beings are. Hence, it isn’t of tremendous significance that, in fact (this is true), there is a tiny embryonic tree inside of a tree-seed–that is, an acorn. Who cares? The value we place on trees really is related to ourselves–to what we need from trees, what we notice about trees, what we value from trees. So the fact that there is really a baby tree inside an acorn just isn’t that big of a deal. It can’t provide timber. It isn’t awesome and big. It is soft rather than hard. This is what’s important to us, because a tree is just a biological entity, period.

On the other hand, to admit that an embryonic human being really is an embryonic human being is a matter of vast importance. That there is a tiny baby human being inside the amniotic sac matters in a way that it doesn’t matter that there is a tiny baby oak tree inside the acorn, because tiny baby human beings are a heck of a lot more important than tiny baby trees.

It’s really that simple.

Actually, this is a great, and relevant, article in general: whatswrongwiththeworld.net/2012/10/the_sillyclevers_on_the_subjec.html#comments

 

[Richca]

That’s like me writing

Genesis 9:16: Those who kill the Image of God must themselves be killed.

 

[ManRay]

This is where pro-choicers totally lose me, because the “Acorn-oak tree” thing is ridiculous. OF COURSE an acorn is an oak tree, just one in a different stage of development, like a teenager as opposed to an adult.

It confuses you because you have no grounding in philosophy or logic. No offense- it’s fine to believe what you believe but you shouldn’t be part of the debate. An acorn is a potential tree. But it IS NOT A TREE. There is nothing ridiculous about it. To argue otherwise means that you do not understand the law of Identity (which is one of the three axioms congruent with all known knowledge). - which makes sense because you have no idea what anything is apparently. A teenager is a simple descriptor withing what had already been established as personhood It possess the same unique characteristics as an adult regardless of size or shape, they are the same. An acorn does not possess these same characteristics. An acorn doesn’t have a layer of bark, roots, leaves, etc…etc…An acorn in and of itself cannot produce another acorn. An acorn is not a tree!!!

The “twins argument” is another bad one. Siamese twins are two people. That they share, for a time, what is for them a body is irrelevant. If their DNA splits off at one point, then once the DNA splits off it’s a new human being

.

I feel like I’m having a discussion with a first year student. You don’t seem to get the gist of anything. Monozygotic twins start off as one blastocyst. (also that has nothing to do with being a siamese) Monozygotic twins are identical twins. The cell cleaves into another blastocyst which is where twins start off on their way to personhood when they will eventually become two people. Understand? So when you talk about human blastocysts being people - you can’t even logically define it! You argue that it is a person at the time of conception, and then you have to argue that it is a person at the time of cleavage into another person. Your argument falls apart…badly.

But this is irrelevant anyway-just because we’re not sure when one separates from the other doesn’t mean that once we know we’re separate they’re both not humans-it’s a scientific error, not a philosophical one. Once we figure out exactly how to differentiate between the two different people then we know exactly when they’re both human. It could be as simple as, for a time there was one person. Then it split. Now there are two.

Aaaaaack! Monozygotic twins are identical twins!!! Why are you talking about Siamese twins…aaaaack???

 

[ManRay]

Genesis 9
6 “Whoever sheds human blood,
by humans shall their blood be shed;
for in the image of God
has God made mankind.

Where in Genesis 9:16 is this stated? Maybe you mean Genesis 9:6. This is the Old Testament. Jesus’ teaching about an eye for eye, tooth for tooth, etc. is different. Look at Matthew 5:38-48.

 

[Richca]

Genesis 9
6 “Whoever sheds human blood,
by humans shall their blood be shed;
for in the image of God
has God made mankind.

Brother I’m not wasting my time with your semantical nonsense. Your catholic - you’ll twist anthing to fit your context. I could argue the fact that he is being punished signified a crime in the first place. Any point I make will be lost on you anyway.

My point is that you can’t jump to a conclusion that pairing Genesis 9:6 with Exodus 21:22 gives the result that a human being isn’t a person until birth. One commentary on Exodus 21:22 that I’ve read says that the law of retaliation of Genesis 9:6 is already being mitigated in Exodus 21:22. The commentaries I have on hand say that the law of retaliation of Genesis 9:6 was probably never strictly enforced by the Israelites in a regular manner and that it was progressively refined to include forgiveness especially in the teaching of Jesus. Simply put, Exodus 21:22 does not say that an unborn child is not a person before birth so your logic fails.

 

[ManRay]

My point is that you can’t jump to a conclusion that pairing Genesis 9:6 with Exodus 21:22 gives the result that a human being isn’t a person until birth. One commentary on Exodus 21:22 that I’ve read says that the law of retaliation of Genesis 9:6 is already being mitigated in Exodus 21:22. The commentaries I have on hand say that the law of retaliation of Genesis 9:6 was probably never strictly enforced by the Israelites in a regular manner and that it was progressively refined to include forgiveness especially in the teaching of Jesus. Simply put, Exodus 21:22 does not say that an unborn child is not a person before birth so your logic fails.

No it doesn’t - but thanx.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

It confuses you because you have no grounding in philosophy or logic. No offense- it’s fine to believe what you believe but you shouldn’t be part of the debate. An acorn is a potential tree. But it IS NOT A TREE. There is nothing ridiculous about it. To argue otherwise means that you do not understand the law of Identity (which is one of the three axioms congruent with all known knowledge). - which makes sense because you have no idea what anything is apparently. A teenager is a simple descriptor withing what had already been established as personhood It possess the same unique characteristics as an adult regardless of size or shape, they are the same. An acorn does not possess these same characteristics. An acorn doesn’t have a layer of bark, roots, leaves, etc…etc…An acorn in and of itself cannot produce another acorn. An acorn is not a tree!!!

So you’re saying personhood is what we define it to be?

So you understand where I get this from:

A teenager is a simple descriptor withing what had already been established as personhood

In that case, I can change my definition of “person” to whatever I want it to be.

Also, a white oak (Quercus alba) acorn is emphatically and beyond all question a member of the Quercus alba species, which membership is in no way conditioned by stage of development. So a human zygote is beyond all question a member of the human species. That we are deciding what members of the human species are persons and what aren’t is bigotry. “Personhood” isn’t a quality a human gets. It’s a quality that comes with being human. To think otherwise is to arbitrarily decide who’s human and who isn’t.

I thought I knew the Axiom of Idenity, and I looked it up to confirm it (I do). I want to make sure, though, that you mean this:

The axiom of identity states that existence is identity, or that to be, is to be something. This axiom is perceptually self-evident because identity is affirmed in everything we experience. Every perception is of something – having certain properties and not others.

Infants have different properties than adults. Blacks have different properties than latinos who have different properties than whites.

We know that there ARE a certain set of properties that identify something as human as opposed to something else, in the same way we know an acorn and a tree as Quercus Alba as opposed to something else. Otherwise there would be no criteria to determine what is human and what isn’t.

And since there are a shared set of qualities that we use to define something/somebody as “human”, my position does not change…

I feel like I’m having a discussion with a first year student. You don’t seem to get the gist of anything. Monozygotic twins start off as one blastocyst. (also that has nothing to do with being a siamese) Monozygotic twins are identical twins. The cell cleaves into another blastocyst which is where twins start off on their way to personhood when they will eventually become two people. Understand? So when you talk about human blastocysts being people - you can’t even logically define it! You argue that it is a person at the time of conception, and then you have to argue that it is a person at the time of cleavage into another person. Your argument falls apart…badly.

FYI-I mentioned siamese (I suppose I should use “conjoined”) because I had no idea where you were going with this and I was trying to cover my bases. You’ve clarified it with these posts, but I still think you’re trying to make a failed point.

Aaaaaack! Monozygotic twins are identical twins!!! Why are you talking about Siamese twins…aaaaack???

I think we’re talking past each other, because I not only know what they are, I looked it up to confirm it. Monozygotic twins: There was a human being. Then there were two, because something dramatic happened to the first one. It would be the same as cloning. A clone of me, which is really just a younger identical twin, has nothing to do with the concept that a human being forms at conception.

You bring up the “Axiom of Identity” when all the while we agree that there ARE shared properties between zygotes and embryos that allow us to define them both as humans. THIS is why I brought up the biology quotes. Everything else is a distraction.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

You can dismiss me, but from what I’ve seen the points you’re making are no different than any other pro-choicer I’ve talked to, and the arguments are no better. You’re just using more complex terminology. It’s just another way of saying the same thing-an unborn human isn’t a person because…and then to get past the “because” you need to jump through hoops to justify yourself, instead of just accepting the obvious-an unborn human IS a person because humans are people.

 

[ManRay]

You can dismiss me, but from what I’ve seen the points you’re making are no different than any other pro-choicer I’ve talked to, and the arguments are no better. You’re just using more complex terminology. It’s just another way of saying the same thing-an unborn human isn’t a person because…and then to get past the “because” you need to jump through hoops to justify yourself, instead of just accepting the obvious-an unborn human IS a person because humans are people.

You have no idea what you are talking about. You don’t understand the law of identity. You don’t understand a single point Ive made. It is beyond you. You read something and then you twist the context to fit your position. Fine - but you are wrong. Black children possess the form of person hood. You’re arguing since it is smaller, or has a different color then it should be different according to me - That’s complete idiocy. It’s not JUST properties, its not JUST characteristics - it is the culmination these things that identify it in it’s totality. A red, car, a blue car, a green car ARE ALL CARS - they possess the necessary characteristics, and properties IN TOTALITY that identify it as a CAR, to further identify it would be that it was, a blue CAR, or a green CAR…because it possesses the characteristics, and properties, as a WHOLE that defines it as a car. A small car with a broken headlight and a door missing is still a car because it still possess the characteristics in totality of what can be identified as a car. An acorn does not. A cell does not. Something at a different stage cannot be identified in totality as what it is at another stage or what it has the potential to become. The only way your argument makes sense is if we really don’t have a way of knowing what anything is - and this is axiomatically untrue. You would argue that since a pen, and a pencil are both part of the group known as writing instruments - that a pen and a pencil are the same thing. That isn’t true. They are both writing instruments - but a pen is a pen, and a pencil is a pencil. They have their own unique and particular identity in totality. A blastocyst is of course human…but it is not a person. It is a blastocyst. There are inseparable characteristics of form, and properties that identify a thing.

Things you left out in your argument of error…

Axiom of Identity

Everything that exists has a SPECIFIC nature. Each entity exists as something in particular and it has characteristics that are a part of what it is. “This leaf is red, solid, dry, rough, and flammable.” “This book is white, and has 312 pages.” “This coin is round, dense, smooth, and has a picture on it.” In all three of these cases we are referring to an entity with a specific identity;* the particular type of identity, or the trait discussed, is not important.* Their identities include all of their features, not just those mentioned.

When you sit down to describe a person - or draw a person - unless you’re insane, daft, or blind you will invariably come across the same unique characteristics, and properties that identify it as such. Arms, organs, legs, heart, skin, eyes…etc…etc…not just specifics of each - but in totality.

Now describe a cell in this way, and give it to someone who doesn’t know what you are describing. Let me know how far you get. Why isn’t a caterpillar a butterfly or vise versa? You have no argument because you have no idea what you are talking about.

Also the twinning argument completely destroys the argument that “people” begin at conception in and of itself.** Monozygotic twins split into two zygotes at some time early in the pregnancy.** There was one cell after the process of conception then it becomes another sometime later. This new (person) as you would incorrectly call it came about DURING PREGNANCY - complete evidence that you once again have no idea what you are talking about. I’m satisfied, and I’m done. It’s clear that you will never get it because your religious mind won’t let you understand the facts because it destroys your world view. You have succumbed to cognitive dissonance - a condition that runs rampant on this board and in the world.