Unborn Baby Not A Person?

[Happy_Catholic]

[quote name='havok579257' date='26 January 2010 - 02:37 AM' timestamp='1264491440' post='2044833']
I tell them they are stupid

Honestly, anyone who does not think life begins at conception is either lying to themselfs or un-educated.


[/quote]

Have you heard the story of the teacher who was asking her class what they thought of abortion, most of the kids were saying they were pro-choice. One girl said she was pro-life.

The teacher asked why she was pro-life. The girl replied because her parents were pro-life.

The smug pro-abort teacher replied with "Well, what if your parents were stupid?"

"Then I'd be pro-choice".

[kamiller42]

[quote name='Happy_Catholic' date='22 January 2010 - 05:58 PM' timestamp='1264201125' post='2042434']
"Person" is a legal term. It has no grounding in good science.

Six million people died during a particular phase of German history last century all because a certain man with a poorly cut moustache altered who the word "person" could be applied too.

The SCOUS at one point said Black people were only 1/5th of a "person", and thus slavery existed.

Words like "person" enable a group of "persons" to determine who are "persons" and who are "non-persons". There's only one reason people want to play with a word like "person" its so they can limit the rights of those who they deem "non-persons".

The reason the pro-aborts are so anti-personhood for the unborn is that Roe contains a comment that if personhood for the human uterine entity then abortion is no longer acceptable.

We get personhood for the unborn, they get to live.

Frankly, if you're human, you should be classed a person. From the moment of conception till natural death.

Zygote, embryo, foetus et cetera. These are simply stages of development. We all had to go through them, we wouldn't be here if we didn't. Remove "personhood" from the law for everyone, or apply to everyone. None of those "I'm better then them" BS.

All you have to remember is the pro-abortion argument is based on poor science, lies and general BS. Unfortunately for the unborn, until we can alter the law and get that "personhood" for them, they'll continue to be slaughtered 4,000 plus a day.
[/quote]
This is exactly why they want to argue against defining the unborn as a person. It's a legal issue.

I would ask the person arguing against personhood if they thought a business like Starbucks is a person. They would more than likely say "No." I would remind them the government has said corporations are granted personhood starting with the Supreme Court case Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad. If the court can grant personhood rights to businesses, why not unborn human life?

The person will more than likely be stumped at that point. Then you proceed outside the legal arena and focus on the idea of human life. Is the unborn human life? If not, what is it? Dog life? Cat life? You can't say it's the same as a cyst or tumor because the unborn can have a blood system different and independent from the mother's. So, the unborn is not a growth. If the person has a brain, they will eventually agree it is life of the human variety.

The argument then turns to "potential human life." "It's potential human life not realized until birth." Then the back and forth is on what makes human life "potential" and the idea of dependency. You can probably see that's another dead end argument for the anti-lifer. A birthed baby is some how less dependent on mother or guardian, i.e. host?

And then when finally backed into a corner, the anti-lifer resorts to the either the futility of enforcing a prohibition on abortion or the inability to turn Roe v Wade back because it's in place already and has been for years. Argument 1 refuted with "Stealing is illegal and yet thieves have never ceased. Therefore, make stealing legal." Argument 2 is just dumb and easily rebutted.

[Veridicus]

The real confusion lies in the artificial separation of the terms human being and human person. As personhood is subjective and defined not by data but by sociologists' fluxing perspectives it provides a perfect ground for an endless pro-choice argument.

[philbo]

[quote name='Winchester' date='22 January 2010 - 06:57 PM' timestamp='1264183053' post='2042274']
Only a theist could make the non-person argument, anyway as a materialist must believe human life begins at conception. There is no ensoulment for an atheist. A theist could argue that the soul enters the body at, for example, the quickening, but an atheist must accept that human life begins at conception.

Any atheist who argues otherwise is being stupid.
[/quote]
Sorry, but a single cell/group of cells with no nervous system, no differentiation into more than one different type of cell is not "human life".

The majority of fertilized ova do not survive to term - in your book, that means more human lives are lost than ever see the light of day. Surely that's the biggest, most dreadful thing happening on the planet: all those billions of babies who die in the womb? No? Why not? Does this mean Heaven is overflowing with blastocytes?

I'm also appalled by the straw man that says "atheists believe human life begins at birth" - I don't know *any* atheists who would say that at all.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='philbo' date='26 January 2010 - 11:55 AM' timestamp='1264528559' post='2044965']

The majority of fertilized ova do not survive to term - in your book, that means more human lives are lost than ever see the light of day. Surely that's the biggest, most dreadful thing happening on the planet: all those billions of babies who die in the womb? No? Why not? Does this mean Heaven is overflowing with blastocytes?
[/quote]
It is quite a tragic thing when a baby is not carried to term. Luckily we aren't nihilists, and don't imagine it all being a waste.

[Archaeology cat]

[quote name='Veridicus' date='26 January 2010 - 05:42 PM' timestamp='1264527767' post='2044957']
The real confusion lies in the artificial separation of the terms human being and human person. As personhood is subjective and defined not by data but by sociologists' fluxing perspectives it provides a perfect ground for an endless pro-choice argument.
[/quote]
Yep

[Veridicus]

[quote name='philbo' date='26 January 2010 - 11:55 AM' timestamp='1264528559' post='2044965']
Sorry, but a single cell/group of cells with no nervous system, no differentiation into more than one different type of cell is not "human life".

The majority of fertilized ova do not survive to term - in your book, that means more human lives are lost than ever see the light of day. Surely that's the biggest, most dreadful thing happening on the planet: all those billions of babies who die in the womb? No? Why not? Does this mean Heaven is overflowing with blastocytes?

I'm also appalled by the straw man that says "atheists believe human life begins at birth" - I don't know *any* atheists who would say that at all.
[/quote]

There exist numerous organisms who lack characteristic traits of adult forms during an earlier stage of their development. A caterpillar [i]IS [/i]Lepidopteran life even though it lacks "scaly wings". A tadpole [i]IS [/i]amphibian life despite lacking the characteristic traits of the toad. And a blastocyst [i]IS [/i]human life despite its temporary lack of the typical traits of chordates or Homo sapiens. It's scientifically disingenuous to set up these artificial considerations in the human species.

And I would argue that the statistics regarding implantation rates are speculative at best and utterly irrelevant to our argument.

Edited January 26, 2010 by Veridicus

[Veridicus]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' date='26 January 2010 - 12:06 PM' timestamp='1264529176' post='2044974']
...we aren't nihilists...
[/quote]

says the poster with the word "Nihil" in his name.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Veridicus' date='26 January 2010 - 12:12 PM' timestamp='1264529521' post='2044984']
says the poster with the word "Nihil" in his name.
[/quote]
Glad I'm not the only one amused by that.

[Winchester]

[quote name='philbo' date='26 January 2010 - 12:55 PM' timestamp='1264528559' post='2044965']
Sorry, but a single cell/group of cells with no nervous system, no differentiation into more than one different type of cell is not "human life".[/quote]
So what is it? Why not argue that unborn humans are subject to the whims of their mother? There's no way I can refute you if you argue that and there's no morality keeping you from arguing that. You can't argue that it's merely human tissue because it is the entire organism at its proper development.

[quote]The majority of fertilized ova do not survive to term - in your book, that means more human lives are lost than ever see the light of day. Surely that's the biggest, most dreadful thing happening on the planet: all those billions of babies who die in the womb? No? Why not? Does this mean Heaven is overflowing with blastocytes?[/quote]
Are you arguing that large amounts of death reduce the humanity of those who die? What's the number on that, or do you have a set percentage? And the reunification with the body doesn't take place until later, so we'd only be talking about souls.
[quote]
I'm also appalled by the straw man that says "atheists believe human life begins at birth" - I don't know *any* atheists who would say that at all.
[/quote]
You msut not know many atheists. What do you think of flipping kids around in the birth canal, puilling the body out, smashing their skulls whilst still inside the mother and sucking out their brains? Is that a human life? Apparently many either deny it is or take the other, unassailable option. Why do you have a problem saying a pregnant woman can decide if the human in her lives or dies?

[Veridicus]

Winnie I think you are right. He is more interesting in critiquing our position rather than offering and defending any argument of his own. Fulton Sheen was right, "The hardest thing to find in the world these days is an argument. There is prejudice in abundance and sentiment too..."

[Winchester]

[quote name='Veridicus' date='26 January 2010 - 01:31 PM' timestamp='1264530683' post='2045007']
Winnie I think you are right. He is more interesting in critiquing our position rather than offering and defending any argument of his own. Fulton Sheen was right, "The hardest thing to find in the world these days is an argument. There is prejudice in abundance and sentiment too..."
[/quote]
Now let's go get drunk!

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='tinytherese' date='22 January 2010 - 01:33 AM' timestamp='1264142034' post='2042129']
[size="2"]Unborn Baby Not A Person?[/size] This seems to be a popular argument among pro-choicers.
[/quote]

How would I reply?

I'd retrieve an egg from the nest of an endangered Ivory-billed woodpecker. I would then place it on the ground, and say "Because it's not really an Ivory-billed woodpecker, nobody would mind if I crushed it." I would then lift up my boot to stomp on it, and say, "Right?"

~Sternhauser

Edited January 27, 2010 by Sternhauser

[Veridicus]

[quote name='Sternhauser' date='26 January 2010 - 07:21 PM' timestamp='1264555290' post='2045333']
How would I reply?

I'd retrieve an egg from the nest of an endangered Ivory-billed woodpecker. I would then place it on the ground, and say "Because it's not really an Ivory-billed woodpecker, nobody would mind if I crushed it." I would then lift up my boot to stomp on it, and say, "Right?"

~Sternhauser
[/quote]

I heard somewhere that there are fines for the destruction of endangered Bald Eagle eggs. Not sure if its true tho.

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='Veridicus' date='26 January 2010 - 08:24 PM' timestamp='1264555454' post='2045337']
I heard somewhere that there are fines for the destruction of endangered Bald Eagle eggs. Not sure if its true tho.
[/quote]

Up to $250,000 and two years in prison.

~Sternhauser

[Veridicus]

[quote name='Sternhauser' date='26 January 2010 - 07:29 PM' timestamp='1264555764' post='2045340']
Up to $250,000 and two years in prison.

~Sternhauser
[/quote]

You mean even small Bald Eagle eggs whose embryonic "tissue mass's" neural tubes haven't sealed anteriorly and posteriorly?!?!?!??!?!?! They aren't even chordates yet and we're charging for the murder of an Eagle....WHAAAAAAA?

Edited January 27, 2010 by Veridicus

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='Veridicus' date='26 January 2010 - 08:33 PM' timestamp='1264556003' post='2045343']
You mean even small Bald Eagle eggs whose embryonic "tissue mass's" neural tubes haven't sealed anteriorly and posteriorly?!?!?!??!?!?! They aren't even chordates yet and we're charging for the murder of an Eagle....WHAAAAAAA?
[/quote]

The statute is just, because if you don't like it, there's a process for changing it. Or so I'm told.

~Sternhauser

[Veridicus]

[quote name='Sternhauser' date='26 January 2010 - 07:35 PM' timestamp='1264556126' post='2045345']
The statute is just, because if you don't like it, there's a process for changing it. Or so I'm told.

~Sternhauser
[/quote]

So draft an amendment supported by 2/3 of the states and then get 3/4 of the states to agree to it and bypass the Congress in DC altogether?

Edited January 27, 2010 by Veridicus

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='Veridicus' date='26 January 2010 - 08:41 PM' timestamp='1264556504' post='2045347']
So draft an amendment supported by 2/3 of the states and then get 3/4 of the states to agree to it and bypass the Congress in DC altogether?
[/quote]

State nullification or a constitutional amendment are two of the only ways to do it through "the system." Alternately, people could suddenly start paying attention to the already-extant Amendments IX and X.

You could also have an annual march in D.C. and blow shofar kazoos until the blackrobes and politicians take you seriously. It may take a few decades.

I choose plan X: Ignore irrational and immoral statutes and encourage others to do the same. Part B of plan X is to spread the Gospel of Life to each individual, so that the only law needed to prevent people from committing abortions is the law already written in mens' hearts.

~Sternhauser

Edited January 27, 2010 by Sternhauser

[muzikal4life]

Hmm. A bird is given more worth than a human life
Let's not forget this hypothetical ...
A pregnant woman is on her way to have her baby aborted. Currently,this would be legally acceptable but if she was murdered on the way in,it would be considered a double homicide. Ugh