Why is abortion harmful?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Eaglejet23
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
“Personhood” (which is subjective) is different than it being alive (which is objective.) Just because it’s not a “person” by your standards does not mean it deserves to die.

For example, if you thought a certain race did not qualify for your definition of personhood, does that mean it is correct to dehumanize and terminate them? Sounds a little like the Holocaust to me.
 
Last edited:
politicalmads said:
“Personhood” (which is subjective) is different than it being alive (which is objective.) Just because it’s not a “person” by your standards does not mean it deserves to die.

For example, if you thought a certain race did not qualify for your definition of personhood, does that mean it is correct to dehumanize and terminate them? Sounds a little like the Holocaust to me.
Click to expand...
If I’d had a dollar for every time I’d heard that argument…

I think that we can both agree that when a woman gives birth we end up with a little person. That ‘personhood’ can then never be removed. Otherwise you ‘dehumanise’ them as you rightly said. Which is removing the humanity from someone. Removing their ‘personhood’. As has happened all too frequently.

Which is a lot like the Holocaust. And nothing like an early term abortion.
 
@Freddy, since you’re back in the thread, could you answer the question I put to you several times: “What is the difference between my human offspring at the very early stage (zygote) and a human being?” I say the former is a young instance of the latter, ie a human being. What do you say?
 
Last edited:
Rau said:
@Freddy, since you’re back in the thread, could you answer the question I put to you several times: “What is the difference between my human offspring at the very early stage (zygote) and a human being?” I say the former is a young instance of the latter, ie a human being. What do you say?
Click to expand...
I’ll need your definition of ‘human being’. That might sound trite but if.you could…
 
Rau said:
48.png
Freddy:
I’ll need your definition of ‘human being’.
Click to expand...
Does your need to avoid the question bring you to ask that Freddy? Seriously?
Click to expand...
I don’t consider a zygote to be a human being. That is, not a person. If you don’t want to define what you consider to be a human being then there’s no more to discuss.
 
Freddy said:
I don’t consider a zygote to be a human being.
Click to expand...
That’s a non-scientific position Fred. A human being is an individual member of the human species. Such is established at fertilization. A zygote is - scientifically speaking - a human being. As is an embryo and all the subsequent stages of maturity to which we give names.

Words like “person” - in the context of this debate - are used in an attempt to distinguish those human beings held to have earned the right not to be killed from those not to be equivalently treated. That process relies on the false belief that a human being must have reached a state of maturity whereby they look like us to deserve respect.
 
Last edited:
Rau said:
48.png
Freddy:
I don’t consider a zygote to be a human being.
Click to expand...
That’s a non-scientific position Fred. A human being is an individual member of the human species. Such is established at fertilization. A zygote is - scientifically speaking - a human being.
Click to expand...
If you could find some evidence for that claim I’d appreciate it.

And I consider the terms person and human being to be synonymous.
 
Last edited:
I also thought of the seed/flower analogy!!! I still think it’s a great one!
 
Is the human zygote a part of the development of a human person from conception to death? If so, then the zygote is as much a human being as a fetus, an infant, a toddler, a young adult, or an elderly person. All of them are human persons at a certain stage of development. You can’t decide that the first step of development of a human being just isn’t a person anymore than you can decide that the last step of development, I.e. the elderly (assuming the ‘average’ human being to be the textbook male or female whose ‘life span’ in the US is something like 85-86 years.)
 
stpurl said:
Is the human zygote a part of the development of a human person from conception to death? If so, then the zygote is as much a human being as a fetus, an infant, a toddler, a young adult, or an elderly person. All of them are human persons at a certain stage of development. You can’t decide that the first step of development of a human being just isn’t a person anymore than you can decide that the last step of development, I.e. the elderly (assuming the ‘average’ human being to be the textbook male or female whose ‘life span’ in the US is something like 85-86 years.)
Click to expand...
No. A zygote is not a human being. It’s human. And it will eventually develop into a human being. At the stage where it is a zygote, it is not.
 
WA_Catholic said:
Freddy, zygotes are human beings. It is scientific fact.
Click to expand...
We’re waiting for confirmation of that. Not that it’s human (nobody argues against that) but that it’s a human being. I really hope I don’t have to explain the difference.
 
Last edited:
It is a human being. There is no separate biological process that gives someone personhood. Being a human and being a human being are inseparable.
 
WA_Catholic said:
It is a human being. There is no separate biological process that gives someone personhood. Being a human and being a human being are inseparable.
Click to expand...
If you gave a mammalian zygote to a biologist and ask her what it was, you might get the reply that it was human. What you wouldn’t get is that biologist saying ‘It’s a human being’.

You said it was a scientific fact that a zygote is a human being. I disagree. Can you please come up with something that confirms your viewpoint.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top