Hate To Say It..

[dairygirl4u2c]

I want someone to tell me what exactly constitutes a human person.

I've been ridiculed in the past for insisting that it must be the soul. So it'd be interesting if you can find a reasonable way to constitue a person without resorting to saying the baby (talking about one with a few cells) has a soul.

I know a few answers that you should use to win your argument, but I want you to say them so that I can elaborate on your premises.

[Jake Huether]

I want someone to tell me what exactly constitutes a human person.

I've been ridiculed in the past for insisting that it must be the soul. So it'd be interesting if you can find a reasonable way to constitue a person without resorting to saying the baby (talking about one with a few cells) has a soul.

I know a few answers that you should use to win your argument, but I want you to say them so that I can elaborate on your premises.

I want someone to tell me what exactly constitutes a human person.

A human person is the product of the meeting of an egg and a sperm.

[M.SIGGA]

It's rational to say a 90 year old looks wrinkly because that's how humans look at the end of 90 years.

It's rational to say a 40 year old looks very different than a 10 year old and also a 2 year old.

We all look different as we grow and change.

A week old unborn child looks like a cluster of cells because that is what a human is supposed to look like after conception, and it steadly changes through the entirety of human life.

We are constantly growing and changing in shape and appearance and the definition of what constitutes human life in the womb is totally rational and shouldn't always be left up to religious arguments.

I think this a major dividing factor in the Pro-Life argument between religious and secular minded people.

[God Conquers]

A human person is a living being whose cell's DNA is human. ie Any being with the human genome.

[cmotherofpirl]

A human is an embodied soul.

[Adeodatus]

Absolutely!!!

[dairygirl4u2c]

I have concluded that if you think the few celled person is a baby with a soul, obviously there is nothing that I could say for allowing abortion, and reasonably so. If someone thought a box had a soul, obviously they would be obliged to defend it.

I thought that we were coming from different positions, and nothing I could say could make me change your mind if the CC taught that the baby (or theoretically a box) had a soul. But not necessarily, if phatphred is correct that the CC doesn't teach when the baby has a soul.

And I also realize that if the CC teaches what we should think as a society, there is nothing I could say to change your mind. But I digress because I would still like discussion.

I am coming from the stance that the baby in its early days may or may not have a soul and therefore we shouldn't impose our view to save it simply for the benefit of the doubt or for its own inherent worth even though personally I would myself be obliged to for these reasons.

But I understand the opposition who says we should save it in case it does have a soul and at the least for its own inherent worth. This is ultimately your case correct?



Also what could we say to someone who says the baby is just tissue, and that a kidney would be more of a human than a few cells?

I am wondering if it is the unique DNA that makes it scientifically a person to you all. If this is the case, why don't we as a society try to save the fertilized egg before implantation?

True, it is natural for the egg not to become implanted, but shouldn't we try to fix that so that half of them are not being lost as phatphred has pointed out?

If we don't because we shouldn't mess with nature, why do we try to extend our life span, or save pre-mature babies, artificially fix out health etc?

I'd like some responses to these questions. But what I am getting at is, if it is okay for God to naturally scientifically allow humans to die and not feel we have to do anything about it, why is it not reasonable (and worthy of being put in jail) for someone to think that scientifically a few celled baby is no more (if not less) of a person than a kidney?

Edited March 4, 2004 by dairygirl4u2c

[Jake Huether]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' date='Mar 4 2004, 08:20 AM'] Also what could we say to someone who says the baby is just tissue, and that a kidney would be more of a human than a few cells?

I am wondering if it is the unique DNA that makes it scientifically a person to you all.

[/quote]


It is not right to, in any way shape or form, connect humanity with the formation of organs. To say that a baby is a human only when all it's organs are formed is to deny the very consept of humanity. We are all imperfect. Some are born without ears, some without limbs. Some babies are born without certain organs. Yet, they are humans. So, why then say that a baby is just "tissue", at it's very early stages? Are we not all in developement!?

I would say that it is correct to state that scientifically a human is defined by it's unique DNA - although I don't know that this is true either, when we get into cloning...

A human, quite simply, is the product of a sperm meeting an egg. Each and every time conception occurs, there is a human. You can't say that it is a potential human, because to say this would indicate that even if it were to develope, it would have the potential NOT to be human.




[quote]If this is the case, why don't we as a society try to save the fertilized egg before implantation?[/quote]


Well, for one, you would have to rush to the hospital after every sexual act. And even if you could pin point your fertile times, you would have to remain under observation for several days perpetually so as not to miss the exact moment of conception until implantation - or the lack there of.




[quote]True, it is natural for the egg not to become implanted, but shouldn't we try to fix that so that half of them are not being lost as phatphred has pointed out? [/quote]


I don't know that it is statistically acurate to say that half are lost. Was there a source posted for this?? Even so, it is true for infant babies to naturally die too. So I don't understand the particular concern for "lost" babies before implantation. God had a plan for them. If they were "going to be baptised", then God will take that into consideration. God is a just God, and He has a special place for these children.





[quote]If we don't because we shouldn't mess with nature, why do we try to extend our life span, or save pre-mature babies, artificially fix out health etc?[/quote]


Again, I don't think it is because we "shouldn't mess with nature". God wishes us to sustain and nourish LIFE. And any "mess with nature" in favor of LIFE is acceptable, of course in accord with the will of God. It is more of a matter of, it is just plain imossible to even attempt to ensure that ALL concieved babies implant. Our greatest ensurance is to plan to have the baby baptised, and to always pray for your babies, even before they are concieved.

[dairygirl4u2c]

[quote] I understand the opposition who says we should save it in case it does have a soul and at the least for its own inherent worth. This is ultimately your case correct?
[/quote]

That is my quote. You didn't answer if this is correct or not.


[quote]You can't say that it is a potential human, because to say this would indicate that even if it were to develope, it would have the potential NOT to be human.[/quote]

A potential human is not a human, I agree. I'm not sure if you are insinuating that I am saying this? Or are you just talking out things out loud? If you are just talking, I understand the confusion here better because I do that a lot!



[quote]you would have to rush to the hospital after every sexual act[/quote]

Can't we at least try to find a better way to save them? A method or drug or something to help out.

Ultimatly, are morals based on convienience?


[quote]I would say that it is correct to state that scientifically a human is defined by it's unique DNA - although I don't know that this is true either, when we get into cloning...[/quote]

How is the tissue in my arm different from a concieved egg before implantation? They both have unique DNA and they both don't grow. It looks like potential for personhood is your stance.

But perhaps I am wrong about the tissue in the womb since it does grow. hmmm....

But your uncertainty does show that people can be uncertain of things. If you stopped a clone life at conception, would you feel violated to be put in jail for it? You can't just say you're not sure, cuz this uncertainty is what fuels the debate, you must decide.

What if the majority decided to save the conceived baby before implantation, would you feel violated for having to comply to the rules to get to the hospital?

I'm thinking maybe we should not allow abortion at all. But there's there's still the soul ? and the compassion for the woman in light of uncertainty. What do you think should be the fine for abortion?

Edited March 4, 2004 by dairygirl4u2c

[Jake Huether]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' date='Mar 4 2004, 10:15 AM'] I understand the opposition who says we should save it in case it does have a soul and at the least for its own inherent worth. This is ultimately your case correct?

That is my quote. You didn't answer if this is correct or not.




[/quote]
Are you ralking about abortion or natural death?


Save it? My possition is that we MUST stop abortion, not because it might have a soul, but because it does. It is a human!

If you are talking about natural death, then this is not a "moral" issue. Everyone dies naturally, that isn't murdered. Natural death is natural death. Should we save a pre-implanted human baby from natural death? If we can. If we can't, it isn't a morally wrong or evil event. God has a plan.





[quote]A potential human is not a human, I agree. I'm not sure if you are insinuating that I am saying this?  Or are you just talking out things out loud? If you are just talking, I understand the confusion here better because I do that a lot!  [/quote]


Maybe I was talking out loud. I was responding to your question on those people who don't concider it a human. I tried to cover the case that these people might also think it is a "potential human".




[quote]Can't we at least try to find a better way to save them? A method or drug or something to help out.[/quote]

Absolutly. We should try! But I doubt anyone wants to try life, when right now we have a hard enough time attempting to stop them from wanting to kill it.


[quote]Ultimatly, are morals based on convienience?[/quote]

No. But a natural death isn't a matter of "morals". It is the same thing with the elderly. We do what we can to help extend life. But if a person will naturally die, then it isn't immoral to let them. Death is natural. It isn't bad. Murder is bad.




[quote]How is the tissue in my arm different from a concieved egg before implantation? They both have unique DNA and they both don't grow. It looks like potential for personhood is your stance.[/quote]

I'm confused. "concieved egg". It isn't an egg anymore... And, um, how are they different? Well, the tissue of your arm is "arm" tissue. The tissue of a human baby is different because it will eventually (not potentally, but eventually) divide and become "arm", "leg", etc. tissue. Also, they both DO grow. Your arm always is growing new cells. You know that the majority of "dust" in your home is dead human cells!? The concieved baby is growing at an astounding rate even bofore implantation. Your arm doesn't have it's own "arm" DNA. DNA contains the genetic makeup of your entire body, including how your arm will be. A baby has unique DNA, including a unique set of data on how it's arm will be. An arm isn't a baby. An arm doesn't constitute a human.




[quote]But perhaps I am wrong about the tissue in the womb since it does grow.    hmmm....[/quote]

Indeed it does grow. After only a few weeks the "tissue" had already formed the shape of an adult human (i.e. hands, fingures, eyes, etc.). Even before it has implanted it will be a developement of several MILLION cells - which started from one.


[quote]But your uncertainty does show that people can be uncertain of things. If you stopped a clone life at conception, would you feel violated to be put in jail for it? You can't just say you're not sure, cuz this uncertainty is what fuels the debate, you must decide.[/quote]

I wasn't unsure about humanity. I was unsure that DNA constitutes humanity. But a concieved human (whether naturally or by cloning or by any other means) is a human. I am sure about what a human is.


[quote]What if the majority decided to save the conceived baby before implantation, would you feel violated for having to comply to the rules to get to the hospital? [/quote]

It doesn't matter what the "majority" decides. The majority right now thinks it's permissible to murder, steel, lie, cheat, lust, etc. I would not feel "violated" because natural death is...well...natural. It isn't a moral issue. I would feel sad. Even for a misscarage of a late term baby. I would grieve for my baby's death. But it isn't because I am culpable or any "evil" has occurred. It is a natural event. I will grieve at my fathers natural death too.

[quote]I'm thinking maybe we should not allow abortion at all.    But there's there's still the soul ? and the compassion for the woman in light of uncertainty. What do you think should be the fine for abortion?[/quote]


What? I don't get it? Of course there should be no abortion at all. Abortion is murder. Natural death is a differnt thing. Fine for abortion? None. She should be tried as a murderer. As well as all those who are accomplices. It's murder.

[Carrie]

Even when the baby only looks like a bunch of cells, it's already growing, changing, and feeding on the lining of the mother's uterus. That baby is a person. Can you name something that is not alive that grows, changes, and can feed? The baby is alive from the moment of conception.

We are called by the commandments not to kill. A baby just conceived is alive, therefore, we cannot kill it. That's murder.

[the_rev]

God so wanted that baby to be created, that is why he created it, but since we have free will, is it then right for us to kill that baby. God wanted that baby, that baby could of helped build up the kingdom of god, but because of free will, that baby is now dead.

Just think God wanted that baby, that is how God allowed for it's creation.

[God Conquers]

Even if we could never know if the "cells" had a soul or not (we can't), we are obligated to NOT terminate its existance. Why? Because we DON'T KNOW!

If you were demolishing a building, and didn't check inside to see whether there were people in there or not, and you destroyed it. If there were people inside YOU would be culpable for their deaths.

Just so, we can not perform abortion because we do not know whether or not a person id inside the womb.

[photosynthesis]

Why do Catholics defend human life at the beginning of conception?

because we believe that at the moment of conception, God creates something entirely new, with its own DNA. As Christians, we are called to be stewards of God's creation because "The earth is the Lord's, and all it holds, the world, and all who live there" (Ps. 24:1). At conception, the embroyo or fetus belongs to God, not the mother. Therefore, it is our duty as Christians to protect this new life, because it is not our right to decide what its future should be.

[foundsheep]

AMEN

[ICTHUS]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' date='Mar 4 2004, 09:20 AM'] I am coming from the stance that the baby in its early days may or may not have a soul and therefore we shouldn't impose our view to save it simply for the benefit of the doubt or for its own inherent worth even though personally I would myself be obliged to for these reasons. [/quote]


Most of the Protestants I know would vehemently disagree...you must be a liberal.

[Rebirth flame]

[quote name='photosynthesis' date='Mar 6 2004, 03:13 AM'] At conception, the embroyo or fetus belongs to God, not the mother. Therefore, it is our duty as Christians to protect this new life, because it is not our right to decide what its future should be. [/quote]
i agree completely.

dairygirl, i believe this debate can be taken outside of religion as well.

There was a scientist, Francesco Redi, who proved that life could not spontaneously generate. that means that babies do not just magically appear, as you know. that also means that the gift of life does not just spontaneously appear. A child is created from two living humans. it can grow, think, feel, and experience everything it's mother feels while inside her womb.

Murder is defined as "To put an end to; destroy; The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice." i don't know about you, but i don't think there is anything else as premeditated as abortion.

abortion is defined as "Any of various procedures that result in such [b][i]termination[/i][/b] and expulsion."

If abortion isn't murder, the taking of someone's life, what is there to terminate??? abortion, then, is putting an end to the childs gift to grow, learn, and experience every grace this world has to offer. In this sence, also, abortion can then be looked at as murder, because it does not give a living child the ability to develop. it puts an end to the childs development, and destroys the sanctity of life and our sexuality.

therefor, to apply logical reasoning:

if life [b][i]does[/i][/b] not spontaneously generate,
then the child in the womb is alive,
therefor abortion would be taking away the right of the child to be able to develope, and would be constituted as murder.

but why, then, is it not punishable as murder?
because that would mean that our government would have to admit that it was wrong.

on top of that, the Church recognizes it as a grave sin to take the life of anyone (unless in self-defence, which doesn't even apply to abortion) especially someone as innocent as a child in the womb.

Pax Christi
Rebirth

[Rebirth flame]

here are a bunch of quotes from the catechism pertaining to abortion;
just thought i'd post these for more common knowledge...

[quote]2271 Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable. Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law:

You shall not kill the embryo by abortion and shall not cause the newborn to perish.

God, the Lord of life, has entrusted to men the noble mission of safeguarding life, and men must carry it out in a manner worthy of themselves. Life must be protected with the utmost care from the moment of conception: abortion and infanticide are abominable crimes. [/quote]
____________

[quote]2272 Formal cooperation in an abortion constitutes a grave offense. The Church attaches the canonical penalty of excommunication to this crime against human life. "A person who procures a completed abortion incurs excommunication latae sententiae," "by the very commission of the offense," and subject to the conditions provided by Canon Law. The Church does not thereby intend to restrict the scope of mercy. Rather, she makes clear the gravity of the crime committed, the irreparable harm done to the innocent who is put to death, as well as to the parents and the whole of society.[/quote]
____________

[quote]2322 From its conception, the child has the right to life. Direct abortion, that is, abortion willed as an end or as a means, is a "criminal" practice (GS 27 § 3), gravely contrary to the moral law. The Church imposes the canonical penalty of excommunication for this crime against human life.[/quote]
____________

[quote]2274 Since it must be treated from conception as a person, the embryo must be defended in its integrity, cared for, and healed, as far as possible, like any other human being.

Prenatal diagnosis is morally licit, "if it respects the life and integrity of the embryo and the human fetus and is directed toward its safe guarding or healing as an individual. . . . It is gravely opposed to the moral law when this is done with the thought of possibly inducing an abortion, depending upon the results: a diagnosis must not be the equivalent of a death sentence."[/quote]
____________

pretty self explanatory quotes...