|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
posted April 04, 2013 12:39 AM |
|
Edited by Elodin at 00:56, 04 Apr 2013.
|
Anyone who thinks a pregnant human female has a cow or chicken or pig inside her womb is rather ignorant. Anyone who says an organism that has complete human DNA is not human is being disingenuous. Anyone who says the cells of dead organisms multiply is not living in the real world.
The simple scientific fact is that what is in the womb of a pregnant human female is a human in the early stages of the human life cycle. That is not "personal opinion" but scientific fact.
The only real question about abortion is "is it ok to snuff out innocent human life merely because the mother does not want the kid?" I think the rational and moral answer to that question is, "No."
Quote:
To accept the fact that after fertilization has taken place a new human has come into being is no longer a matter of taste or opinion. The human nature of the human being from conception to old age is not a metaphysical contention, it is plain experimental evidence.
---French geneticist Jermoe L. LeJeune
A unique individual human life begins at conception.
You did not come from a zygote.
You once were a zygote.
You did not come from an embryo.
You once were an embryo.
You did not come from a fetus.
You once were a fetus.
You did not come from an adolescent.
You once were an adolescent.
Ect
We have all experienced these various developmental stages of life. None of these stages, however, imparted to us our humanity. Hopefully well will all go on to experience old age before we experience the final physical stage in the human life cycle---death. But regardless of the life stage we are currently in or will be in, we are and will remain human.
____________
Revelation
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted April 04, 2013 12:54 AM |
|
Edited by artu at 00:58, 04 Apr 2013.
|
|
Elodin you are like a wall when proven wrong. To be qualified as a human being you need a FUNCTIONAL BRAIN. If it is not yet developed, you are not a human YET. If what you said was a scientific fact, abortion would have to be considered murder by secular law and IT IS NOT, that now, is certainly a FACT. So stop defining your perspective as scientific fact when the law itself contradicts you and stop making absurd statements like "anyone who thinks a pregnant human female has a cow or chicken or pig inside her womb is rather ignorant." when even you can understand no one is saying that.
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted April 04, 2013 01:08 AM |
|
Edited by Corribus at 19:45, 27 Apr 2013.
|
@ Elodin
For someone who claims to be an expert on the science of conception, it strikes me as a little odd that you don't even apparently know what a cycle is, at least if your image is any guide. (Here's a hint - a cycle has no endpoints.)
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 04, 2013 01:25 AM |
|
|
Elodin:
It's clear that a fetus is a human in that it has human genetic material and will develop into a child and then an adult if it is cared for in a certain way. That does not mean that it is a human that has rights. Not all humans have equal rights, I think you'll agree - for example, to send an innocent person to prison would be infringing on their rights, but to send a criminal to prison may not be. Children don't have the right to buy whatever they want, work wherever they want, etc. The severely mentally disabled are treated similarly to children, and people with severe mental illnesses can be confined to mental institutions. So I ask, why does a fetus have rights? ("It's human" is an insufficient answer because I think we agree that certain humans do not have certain rights.)
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Seraphim
Supreme Hero
Knowledge Reaper
|
|
posted April 04, 2013 01:48 AM |
|
Edited by Seraphim at 02:31, 04 Apr 2013.
|
Quote:
Count me out of this debate from now on, I ain't talking to a bunch of left-wing radical lunatics.
And no amount of debate will change my opinions, especially on abortion.
Who cares?
You are not even up for a debate, so why did you bother to write anything? Besides, there are no left-wing radicals here.
The subject of the thread is contraception and goverment regulations of it.
Religion will no doubt motivate people here. But that is not the point. The point is that people should have the right to use contracpetives and they should have the right for abortion.
Whether it is right or wrong depends on the eye of the beholder. For you its wrong, for me its right.
You dont see cigarettes being banned eventhogh they are proven to be health degrading.
Laws are not made based on morality or rationality. That is why there are laws that are both inhuman and immoral "Patriot Act".
So why is abortion such a problem? It is an affair that only CONCERNS THE MOTHER and her family.
If murder of innocent babies is so wrong and so concerning to you people, why dont you take the initiative and adopt those poor things?
Every pro-lifer should adopt 2 orphaned or to be aborted babies.
Of course, no return policy.
Quote:
We have all experienced these various developmental stages of life.
Oh,I dont remember anything during the time I was a Zygote nor do I remember how i was born, nor do I remember 5-6 years of my childhood.
No, I did not experience anything during that time. I even doubt it that I was selfaware, at least not until after the first 6 months.
Quote:
life cycle---death
Oh, so you believe in reincarnation?
There is no cycle Elo. When you die, you die.
Of course according to christian/islamic beliefs, you end up in hell or heaven.
Quote:
"is it ok to snuff out innocent human life merely because the mother does not want the kid?"
Seriously? People explained this before.
How about we freeze every unwanted fetus until we find a good family for them?
____________
"Science is not fun without cyanide"
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted April 04, 2013 11:13 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Elodin:
It's clear that a fetus is a human in that it has human genetic material and will develop into a child and then an adult if it is cared for in a certain way. That does not mean that it is a human that has rights. Not all humans have equal rights, I think you'll agree - for example, to send an innocent person to prison would be infringing on their rights, but to send a criminal to prison may not be. Children don't have the right to buy whatever they want, work wherever they want, etc. The severely mentally disabled are treated similarly to children, and people with severe mental illnesses can be confined to mental institutions. So I ask, why does a fetus have rights? ("It's human" is an insufficient answer because I think we agree that certain humans do not have certain rights.)
I disagree with you that merely being human is not enough of a reason for humans to have rights.
Government can't grant anyone any rights, for government has no rights to grant. Government can only recognize that certain rights exist or impede the exercise of said rights.
Now, as an atheist you don't believe in a Creator, so you can think of rights as being something that are innate to human beings [though I don't see how you can justify such an idea without a deity.] Regardless, US law is based on the premise that all humans have rights and that those rights come not from the government but from God. And that the government has no power but such as what the people grant it and the people can at any time dismantle the government.
Governments are formed by the people not in order to grant themselves rights but in order to preserve their inalienable rights.
Quote:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, 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,
It is noteworthy that the very first right mentioned by the founding fathers is the right to life. It is the most basic of all rights and if that right is infringed upon a human can exercise no other rights.
Now, the government was formed "to secure" the rights the people already have. As such the people empowered the government to punish those who would infringe on the rights of the people. A murderer's life could very well be forfeit at the hands of the government because the government is to keep secure the rights of the people. Even then due process must be followed to justify placing limitations on the exercise of the rights of the accused criminal.
Parental rights would be considered self-evident (obvious) by the founders. Nature itself teaches parents are to "parent" their children and that children have to learn how to behave responsibly in society.
Likewise, "to secure the rights of the people" the government confines dangerous mental patients to facilities where they will pose no threat to the people.
Now, in the case of an unborn human, he poses no threat to anyone through any action that he could possibly take. The human in the womb has the divinely granted right to life. The only justification for infringing on that right to live would be if the life of the child posed a risk to the life of the mother.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 04, 2013 11:24 AM |
|
|
|
Elodin, if you've ever discussed at all, on this page you have certainly stopped to, because you are not addressing points of others anymore. All you are doing is giving sermons to points that are irrelevant for the issue or have long been debunked.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 04, 2013 11:25 AM |
|
|
Elodin:
I agree that governments don't grant rights, merely protect them (ideally). That said, you didn't address my point that children aren't treated as having the same rights as adults, that the mentally disabled don't have the same rights as the mentally capable, or that convicted criminals don't have the same rights as innocent people. You could take the position that children should be free to run away from their parents, work for any employer who's willing to hire them, etc - I know people who hold that position, but I doubt you're one of them. But if children don't have the same right to engage in voluntary contracts as adults do, that is already a case in which not all humans have the same rights.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 04, 2013 11:36 AM |
|
|
Actually, I'm also fairly sick of people calling themselves "pro-life" who would not even allow an abortion after a rape, but advocate blasting home-invaders to pieces with a 12-gauge. What is that? Christian mind-set? Just simple bigottery? Misogyny? Ignorance? Stupidity?
In my eyes a person who starts babbling about protection of human life when it comes to abortions for rape victims, doesn't deserve to ever touch a wife or have a child, because he's just not fit for it.
Sorry, that gad to be said.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 04, 2013 11:56 AM |
|
|
It's a consistent position. If you believe that a fetus has human rights at conception, then it doesn't matter if the conception is rape or not, the fetus still has rights and aborting it is murder.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 04, 2013 12:20 PM |
|
|
Quote:
It's a consistent position. If you believe that a fetus has human rights at conception, then it doesn't matter if the conception is rape or not, the fetus still has rights and aborting it is murder.
Consistent? Are you kidding me?
Not, if it's an invader, then everyone has the right to blast him to pieces - and note that when your house is concerned the actual PRESENCE of a trespasser is enough, whether it's an accidental or involuntary trespassing or not. Shoot now, ask later.
Even without Elodin being an avid supporter of sending invaders to hell as fast as possible (which, by the way, means doing EXACTLY that, because if you kill a perp you also rob him of his chances to honestly repent and NOT go to hell, which is why Christians generally have trouble with killing people, and THIS "Christian" here should know it), the only thing that is cemented with that "consistent" position is the right of every human male to have offspring, because THAT is what is actually protected, since even if a male wouldn't be able to find a female willing to bear his offspring, he could simply rape one or a dozen and make sure the world is full of his gene pool.
Clearly, that's not only a serious infringement of the human rights of the raped and now pregnant woman/girl - and I don't even want to start to bring age, situation and so on into the equation -, it's a serious infringement of the human rights of ALL women, who are forcibly held hostage to birth life that should never have come to pass in the first place.
So give me a break with "consistent" here, will ya?
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted April 04, 2013 12:32 PM |
|
Edited by Elodin at 12:41, 04 Apr 2013.
|
@JJ
Quote:
Elodin, if you've ever discussed at all, on this page you have certainly stopped to, because you are not addressing points of others anymore. All you are doing is giving sermons to points that are irrelevant for the issue or have long been debunked.
Oh, JJ, you preach more than any pastor I know!!!! I've not been preaching I've been presenting FACTS that those in favor of killing unborn babies have been unable to counter.
And nothing I have said has been debunked. NOTHING. On the contrary I referenced scientific facts and you said science is irrelevant, seemingly because you'd rather cling to your misguided, immoral belief that it is ok to kill unborn babies even if science has establish that a fetus is indeed human and is indeed alive.
@mvass
Quote:
Elodin:
I agree that governments don't grant rights, merely protect them (ideally). That said, you didn't address my point that children aren't treated as having the same rights as adults, that the mentally disabled don't have the same rights as the mentally capable, or that convicted criminals don't have the same rights as innocent people. You could take the position that children should be free to run away from their parents, work for any employer who's willing to hire them, etc - I know people who hold that position, but I doubt you're one of them. But if children don't have the same right to engage in voluntary contracts as adults do, that is already a case in which not all humans have the same rights.
Ah well, I certainly think I have answered your questions but I'll break everything down into quotes and answer each part under the appropriate quote.
Quote:
That said, you didn't address my point that children aren't treated as having the same rights as adults
As I stated in my previous post all humans have inalienable rights but limitations can be placed on the exercise of those rights. It is self evident that children need to be parented. It is self evident that children are not physically or emotionally equipped to exercise all the rights adults exercise in their day to day lives. As such, some things like driving and marriage are off limits to children and children are under the care of their parents and not held fully accountable for their actions until they reach the age of majority. A child can't go out and buy a beer. But he can drink a beer under the supervision of his parents. A child can't rent a rated "R" movie but can watch one under the supervision of his parent. ECT. His parents theoretically prepare him for the full and responsible exercise of his rights so that the rights of "the people" are "secure."
The age of majority is the legally defined age at which a person is considered to be an adult, and is considered to be able to responsibly exercise all of his God-given rights. Until then the rights of children are restricted. Supervised. Managed. By parents and by the law.
Quote:
That said, you didn't address my point that .... the mentally disabled don't have the same rights as the mentally capable
It is self evident that certain "mentally disabled" humans don't have the capacity to responsibly exercise all of their rights. Limitations can be placed on the exercise of their rights to secure the rights of the people. For example, "mentally disabled" people who are a threat to society can be locked up in mental facilities. Their rights are restricted. Supervised. Managed. Until such time as they are capable of responsibly exercising their rights. They did not lose their rights but limitations have been placed on their ability to exercise those rights until they are mentally capable of doing so.
Quote:
That said, you didn't address my point that .... convicted criminals don't have the same rights as innocent people.
Now, the government was formed "to secure" the rights the people already have. As such the people empowered the government to punish those who would infringe on the rights of the people. A murderer's life could very well be forfeit at the hands of the government because the government is to keep secure the rights of the people. Even then due process must be followed to justify placing limitations on the exercise of the rights of the accused criminal.
So convicted criminals are prevented from exercising some of their rights because they have proven themselves to be people who will infringe on the rights of others. The government takes action to "secure" the rights of the people by managing the way and degree to which convicted criminals can exercise some of their rights.
Now, my questions to you, JJ, and anyone who does not oppose abortion:
1) Should it be legal to snuff out human life in the womb if the mother's life is not in jeopardy? Explain your answer.
2) You have agreed that a fetus is human, as it has human DNA, and that such fetus will grow into an adult human barring a tragic death before he reaches adulthood.
a) At what stages of human life (if any) should it be legal to kill that human life if said human life poses no threat to other human life? Explain your answer.
b) Being human, should/does a fetus have any rights?
____________
Revelation
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted April 04, 2013 12:39 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Actually, I'm also fairly sick of people calling themselves "pro-life" who would not even allow an abortion after a rape, but advocate blasting home-invaders to pieces with a 12-gauge. What is that? Christian mind-set? Just simple bigottery? Misogyny? Ignorance? Stupidity?
In my eyes a person who starts babbling about protection of human life when it comes to abortions for rape victims, doesn't deserve to ever touch a wife or have a child, because he's just not fit for it.
Sorry, that gad to be said.
What is bigotry is to claim to be for human rights but then say that Mommy should be allowed to kill baby simply because Mommy does not want Baby, Mommy is poor, Mommy does not want her party life interrupted, or for any other reason Mommy wants to kill Baby.
To equate Mommy killing Baby (when Baby poses no threat to Mommy) with someone killing a home invader (who poses a threat to his life)in self-defense is rather stupid in my opinion. But people who babble liberal propaganda seldom make sense. **shrugs**
Why should Mommy kill Baby because Daddy is a bad man? That is not the fault of Baby? There is not even a capital punishment for rape, so why should Baby be killed when Baby did not even rape Mommy?
____________
Revelation
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 04, 2013 12:41 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Now, my questions to you, JJ, and anyone who does not oppose abortion:
1) Should it be legal to snuff out human life in the womb if the mother's life is not in jeopardy? Explain your answer.
2) You have agreed that a fetus is human, as it has human DNA, and that such fetus will grow into an adult human barring a tragic death before he reaches adulthood.
a) At what stages of human life (if any) should it be legal to kill that human life if said human life poses no threat to other human life? Explain your answer.
b) Being human, should a fetus have any rights?
Buddy, you are REPEATING YOURSELF. I DID answer it already.
1) It should not be illegal FOR THE MOTHER (done by a doctor) and ONLY ON HER ACTUAL wish (and not for everyone), and I explained the why a thousand times and even on this page above.
2a) I explained that as well. It should not be illegal FOR A MOTHER to kill a fetus in her, as long as the fetus cannot exist without her (that is, as long as it cannot be removed and supported by someone or something else, at which stage killing it would be unnecessary).
b) Only those its mother is granting it. The reason for this, is that no one else is able to PROTECT any rights of a fetus, which means that it makes absolutely no sense whatsoever if society grants "rights" to fetuses.
Which is the underlying reason for my position, as should meanwhile be obvious.
|
|
Hobbit
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted April 04, 2013 01:04 PM |
|
Edited by Hobbit at 13:06, 04 Apr 2013.
|
Quote:
Why should Mommy kill Baby because Daddy is a bad man? That is not the fault of Baby?
Neither baby's fault nor mother's. And remember that fetus doesn't exist without mother, so it should always be her choice if she wants a baby or not.
____________
Horn of the
Abyss on AcidCave
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 04, 2013 01:26 PM |
|
|
Quote:
What is bigotry is to claim to be for human rights but then say that Mommy should be allowed to kill baby simply because Mommy does not want Baby, Mommy is poor, Mommy does not want her party life interrupted, or for any other reason Mommy wants to kill Baby.
That's another thing that's pissing me off. Calling a pregnant female human, no matter how old "Mommy", the fetus "Baby" and insinuating that women who abort are lazy snows who don't want their life style inhibited. That's just about the same, if I would go and say, people killing or wounding home invaders are just greedy snows who are too miserly to share part of their belongings to those in need.
Quote:
To equate Mommy killing Baby (when Baby poses no threat to Mommy) with someone killing a home invader (who poses a threat to his life)in self-defense is rather stupid in my opinion. But people who babble liberal propaganda seldom make sense. **shrugs**
Bollocks. You can shoot an invader NO MATTER WHAT. It's implicated that the presence alone is threat enough to justify a violent reaction. Same is true for fetus - if it's presence feels like a threat - off with it.
Quote:
Why should Mommy kill Baby because Daddy is a bad man? That is not the fault of Baby? There is not even a capital punishment for rape, so why should Baby be killed when Baby did not even rape Mommy?
Well, see above, she is no "mommy", she is a bloody rape victim, and I would like to see you telling a 14-year-old rape victim who just learned she got pregnant that kind of crap about her killing her "baby" in case she decides to abort.
NO ONE IS ASKING YOUR OPINION ON IT. IT'S JUST NOT YOUR BUSINESS TO TELL HER WHAT TO DO OR WHAT NOT TO DO. IT'S JUST HER DECISION AND HERS ALONE.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted April 04, 2013 03:10 PM |
|
|
Thread is starting to repeat itself. I cant see how someone can be incapable of understanding such a simple concept. Now, think of a person in a coma, lying in the hospital bed, but doctors still observe brain activity, then one day that stops and they claim he is brain dead. He is still breathing, he has all his vital organs present but since the brain is gone he is not considered a living human anymore, they can cut him up to use his organs if he's a donor and so on.
The fetus in the early (legal to have abortion) stages does not even have a brain. No brain means no self-awareness, screw awareness, no self at all, no pain, no feelings... It is yet a part of mother's body and not a human. It's human tissue, not a living person. "It will turn into a person" is not a valid argument. To allow that or not is the woman's decision just like wanting to get pregnant or not is the woman's decision.
I know by now, you are incapable of changing your mind about anything. You probably even think that's a good thing, some sort of not selling out or something... Just do not annoyingly repeat the same thing all over and instead of trying to sell it as science, have the decency to call it what it is, faith. There is nothing factual or scientific about believing the fetus has a soul, personality, whatever you call it. You are like a creationist saying "it's not creationism, it's intelligent design."
|
|
gnomes2169
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Duke of the Glade
|
|
posted April 04, 2013 03:59 PM |
|
|
I guess I'll answer. 
Quote:
1) Should it be legal to snuff out human life in the womb if the mother's life is not in jeopardy? Explain your answer.
If you cannot provide for the child, yes. because giving the child up for adoption will usually lead to a horrible, horrible life, if you are the victim of a rape (and thus not prepared for a child anyway) you should be allowed to bring yourself as close to the condition you were in before you were violently assaulted (Like a person may go into the hospital after being beaten bloody and expect the hospital to patch them up, a woman who was not pregnant before being raped should be able to go into the hospital to get an abortion. It's rather simple, really). I personally don't really like the idea, but I can also see why children (i.e., people who are not technically able to give legal consent/ vote, so generally people under teh age of 18) who are pregnant should be allowed to get an abortion, as having a child at all will often ruin their life socially and financially.
Quote:
2) You have agreed that a fetus is human, as it has human DNA, and that such fetus will grow into an adult human barring a tragic death before he reaches adulthood.
I have agreed to no such thing. JJ didn't either. Technically, Elodin, I could take some of your skin, modify it a bit and then inject it into an egg and create a new, genetically diverse organism. Not a stable one, mind you (science is not that crazy yet) but it could be classified as "Human." So does your skin qualify as human? If so, the dust that covers your house (which is 80% human hair/ skin) should be given a proper burial and not be thrown out in the trash or into the wild (unless you are into that whole "Scatter the ashes into the wind" thing. Then it should be burned first. )[/really weird point]
Quote:
a) At what stages of human life (if any) should it be legal to kill that human life if said human life poses no threat to other human life? Explain your answer.
If it poses no threat? Well, then I would say a life should not be terminated. On the other hand, I don't know if you can technically call a fetus "Alive." Living organisms can and do survive on their own (the beat their own heart, breathe with their own lungs, digest with their own stomach, etc), have the ability to reason (to varying degrees, even if it is only instinctual response to stimuli) and have all the equipment to propagate the species (except in very strange and very unfortunate circumstances). It is not until very late stages of development that a fetus can do any of these functions, and it tends to develop them all at the same time. When the brain develops, the other major organs (including the reproductive ones) develop as well. So brain development is where I determine life beginning, and where the child actually starts to count as human (So the late trimester).
Quote:
b) Being human, should/does a fetus have any rights?
A fetus is about as human as your left kidney. Both of them are made of human flesh, both have the potential to become human (albeit, the baby has far more natural potential, while your kidney would need science to happen to it to develop a human life) and both only survive while in their host body. Now, because of a fetus's special potential to become human, I do not believe that anyone should be able to get an abortion for any reason. It has to actually make sense and be a compelling reason to do so. And yes, compelling is entirely subjective and you can complain about that all you want. I'm not rewording it.
____________
Yeah in the 18th century, two inventions suggested a method of measurement. One won and the other stayed in America.
-Ghost destroying Fred
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted April 04, 2013 04:57 PM |
|
|
Quote:
2) Why, then, is it ok for a woman to abort?
Because it's other than above not the question whether it's "ok" or not. The fetus is NOT a person, and dependancy canNOT be institutionalized. It's a relationship EXCLUSIVELY between the pregnant woman and the fetus, and everything that influences the woman influences the fetus. NO ONE can force a woman to love the fetus in her womb or to accept what is growing in her, if she doesn't willingly embrace it or, at the very least, accept it, and NO ONE can help the fetus OR the pregnant woman. Which makes it PERSONAL. Society's obligation and responsibility stops here, because - a fetus isn't a person.
The separation of humans into "people" and "not people" is a preposterous and dangerous idea.
The idea that not all humans are people is where Germany went wrong under the Nazis. It started out at virtually the same point that we are discussing, coincidentally, with helpless children considered to be a burden on society, those with congenital defects or dementia. Then the slippery slope slide began. Now also not humans were youngsters who were "racially impure," delinquent teens, then Jews, Gypsies, Poles, homosexuals, and political dissidents. Thus goes progressivism to its logical conclusion and history repeats itself.
Personhood is NOT a separate, added characteristic that is added at some point in the human life cycle. Humans reproduce humans. Humans are personal creatures. All humans are people. A person is a member of the species homo sapiens, the human species.
Humans differ in traits at different stages of the human life cycle obviously. Only an absolute, total, and complete moron would think a human at the embryo stage needs to exhibit characteristics identical to those exhibited by a human at the adult stage in order to be human. And some humans never exhibit all of the characteristics that humans normally exhibit at the adult stage. Some humans are deaf, some blind, paralyzed, ect. Being deaf, blind, immobile, or of below normal intelligence does not make the human "less human" or "not a person."
Questions:
1) How do you justify the notion that there is such a thing as a human being who is not a person?
2) What gives anyone the right to place one human into the "person" category and another human into the "not a person" category?
3) What humans aside from unborn humans do you say are not people?
Quote:
Jon E. Dougherty of WorldNetDaily.com writes that humans are never "...'fully-developed.' We're not born 'complete.' We grow, change, mature and age constantly, which means we're always 'developing,' and we develop though the first nine months of our lives attached to a 'host' our mothers. So, the fact that the first nine months of our developmental life is in utero is of no consequence to our overall lifespan; it is just the first stage. There are many developmental stages early, middle and late. But life has to begin somewhere. We don't go from 'nothing' to adulthood....It begins when it begins at the moment a human being is biologically 'under construction'."
Quote:
Jerome Lejeune wrote: "...each of us has a unique beginning, the moment of conception...when the information carried by the sperm and by the ovum have encountered each other, then a new human being is defined because its own personal and human constitution is entirely spelled out. The information which is inside the first cell obviously tells this cell all the tricks of the trade to build himself as the individual this cell is already....to build that particular individual which we will call later Margaret or Paul or Peter, it's already there, but it's so small we cannot see it ...Its what life is, the formula is there; ....if you allow the formula to be expanded by itself, just giving shelter and nurture, then you have the development of the full person."
Quote:
Dr. Edwin Vieira, Jr. writes: "The underlying premise in the arguments pro-abortionists give against fetal personhood is that non-persons can change into persons. They are saying that a living being can undergo a radical, essential change in its nature during its lifetime. But there is a logical problem here. If the change was biologically inevitable from conception, given time, then this change is not a change in essential nature. This is because if the being naturally initiates the change, it must be in its nature from the beginning to do so. If it is in its nature to do so, then despite any changes in such characteristics as independence, place of residence, physical development, or demonstration of mental ability, what the being is in later life is what the being is from the beginning of its life. This means that if we are persons with the right to be free from aggression later in life, we are persons even at conception."
____________
Revelation
|
|
gnomes2169
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Duke of the Glade
|
|
posted April 04, 2013 05:11 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Some humans are deaf, some blind, paralyzed, ect. Being deaf, blind, immobile, or of below normal intelligence does not make the human "less human" or "not a person."
I'm not arguing that it does. I'm arguing that a being that cannot beat its own heart, breathe or otherwise make life-sustaining functions is not a living being. I think it's fair to discriminate between being alive and not, right?
"No gnomes, you can't judge someone on whether they are living or not! What if they don't want to be called dead? That would be the worst thing you could ever aushfuajfiuha!"
"Thank you for the assist zombie-jesus! One less troll for the world to deal with~"
"No problem bro! Catch you at the reunion?"
"Sure man! See you later!"
____________
Yeah in the 18th century, two inventions suggested a method of measurement. One won and the other stayed in America.
-Ghost destroying Fred
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
