Important Announcement

See here for an important message regarding the community which has become a read-only site as of October 31.

 
Post Reply
Page 78 of 85  •  Prev 1 ... 76 77 78 79 80 ... 85 Next
Switch to Forum Live View Is abortion murder?
7 years ago  ::  Jan 18, 2010 - 12:51PM #771
Bei1052
Posts: 986

Jan 18, 2010 -- 10:49AM, amcolph wrote:

Yet you have asserted that humanity 'begins' at a fixed point.  You should be able to do better than that, it seems to me, if you are going to be sarcastic about other people's arbitrary assertions of other points of beginning.



I wasn't actually being sarcastic. If I was, you'd most definitely know it. But I digress.


No, that's not what I said. I said that a human being comes into existence at the end of fertilization, which isn't a matter of philosophy, metaphysics or any thing else of the like, but a matter of scientific fact. It's an, for lack of a better word, "immature" human being, but a human being nevertheless (Given time, it wiill develop into what you perceive to be a "mature" or "fully formed human being"). Maybe there's a disconnect or something, but it seems to me that you're treating being a human to incorporate something "special", when it doesn't. Human beings aren't human beings because we're born or because we know how to walk or because we can speak or because we can reason or anything else of the like, nor are we human beings because we have the genome of one (Which doesn't make sense as, I pointed out prior, a hair follicle would also be a human being because it contains a human being's entire genome).


If "humanity" is not characterized by any special property, then what is to prevent us from arbitrarily declaring the "humanity" of any creature?



Nothing. You can declare the humanity of whatever you wish.

Quick Reply
Cancel
7 years ago  ::  Jan 22, 2010 - 6:17PM #772
Catholiclady02
Posts: 7

Abortion is definitely not murder.  If it was then just about every sexually active woman out there is a murderer because women spontaneously abort the embryo or fetus a good percentage of the time without even knowing it.

Quick Reply
Cancel
7 years ago  ::  Jan 23, 2010 - 3:53AM #773
karbie
Posts: 3,329

Amen. Some people consider it to be life from the moment the sperm fertilizes the egg, but unless it gets to imbed itself in the uterus, that's as far as that particular zef is going to go. And even that isn't a guarantee, as some women know and many others are blessed with not knowing if there's a problem with the zef that causes it to be rejected.

"You are letting your opinion be colored by facts again."
'When I want your opinion, I'll give it to you."
these are both from my father.
Quick Reply
Cancel
7 years ago  ::  Jan 23, 2010 - 7:59AM #774
faith713
Posts: 3,892

Jan 15, 2010 -- 6:51PM, Idbc wrote:


Howdy


The question of wether or not abortion is murder appears to hinge wether or not the fetus is a human being and at what point does it aquire that status.  


Now I do not know wether or not a person has a soul or not, I do not believe so, but I  could be wrong. 


Taking a purely materialist perspective perhaps we can make an analogy with cars.   At what point in its creation-manufacturing does a car become a car?  None of the parts by themselves is a car.   All the parts must be assembled in order for it to be a car.   It would therefore seem to me that the fetus attains the status of being a human being when it is capable of taking its own first breath. 


Have A Thinking Day And May Reason Guide You Smile




Your analogy is seriously flawed:


Cars are property to be bought, sold, used or destroyed at will. Human beings, including the unborn, are not property to be destroyed or used as we see fit.


A fetus is a human being, why can't you accept that fact?


 

"Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me."--John14:6

For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.-- John 3:16

"We love Him because He first loved us."--1 John 4:9-10

"There is no fear in love; but perfect love casteth out fear ... "
1 John 4:18
Quick Reply
Cancel
7 years ago  ::  Jan 23, 2010 - 8:30AM #775
newsjunkie
Posts: 5,750

Jan 18, 2010 -- 12:51PM, Bei1052 wrote:


Jan 18, 2010 -- 10:49AM, amcolph wrote:

Yet you have asserted that humanity 'begins' at a fixed point.  You should be able to do better than that, it seems to me, if you are going to be sarcastic about other people's arbitrary assertions of other points of beginning.



I wasn't actually being sarcastic. If I was, you'd most definitely know it. But I digress.


No, that's not what I said. I said that a human being comes into existence at the end of fertilization, which isn't a matter of philosophy, metaphysics or any thing else of the like, but a matter of scientific fact. It's an, for lack of a better word, "immature" human being, but a human being nevertheless (Given time, it wiill develop into what you perceive to be a "mature" or "fully formed human being"). Maybe there's a disconnect or something, but it seems to me that you're treating being a human to incorporate something "special", when it doesn't. Human beings aren't human beings because we're born or because we know how to walk or because we can speak or because we can reason or anything else of the like, nor are we human beings because we have the genome of one (Which doesn't make sense as, I pointed out prior, a hair follicle would also be a human being because it contains a human being's entire genome).


If "humanity" is not characterized by any special property, then what is to prevent us from arbitrarily declaring the "humanity" of any creature?



Nothing. You can declare the humanity of whatever you wish.




Science relies on physical evidence to determine which of its claims are deficient and which are explanations consistent with evidence. When asked by amcolph, you have failed to point to any physical evidence to support your claim that the zygote formed at the end of fertilization is a human being as murderable as baby, child or adult human being. When asked directly what it is (and it's quite clear from what amcolph wrote that he was talking about what it is physically) about the cell that forms from the union of sperm and egg that makes it a human being, you gave the nonscientific, non-answer that there isn't anything that makes something a human being. Your view is your view, and you are entitled to it, but it isn't scientific. When asked for physical evidence, you can't respond by repeating your claim, or say "there isn't any," and expect a person who is thinking scientifically or critically to accept your claim.

Quick Reply
Cancel
7 years ago  ::  Jan 23, 2010 - 9:17AM #776
Marysara722
Posts: 2,550

Jan 23, 2010 -- 8:46AM, newsjunkie wrote:


What happened to the delete post button?




News, try changing your preferences to view the thread with the "oldest" post (the OP) showing first, and the tab should reappear.

I'm not sure what's up with that glitch but it seems to work when the change goes through.



Thanks,
MSara
Bnet Host

Quick Reply
Cancel
7 years ago  ::  Jan 23, 2010 - 10:34AM #777
newsjunkie
Posts: 5,750

Jan 23, 2010 -- 9:17AM, Marysara722 wrote:


Jan 23, 2010 -- 8:46AM, newsjunkie wrote:


What happened to the delete post button?




News, try changing your preferences to view the thread with the "oldest" post (the OP) showing first, and the tab should reappear.

I'm not sure what's up with that glitch but it seems to work when the change goes through.



Thanks,
MSara
Bnet Host





ty marysara

Quick Reply
Cancel
7 years ago  ::  Jan 23, 2010 - 3:14PM #778
Bei1052
Posts: 986

Oh, look! Newsjunkie is back. I'm not sure whether to laugh or cry at the following because, as far as absolute head scratchers go, the following post is it.


Jan 23, 2010 -- 8:30AM, newsjunkie wrote:

Science relies on physical evidence to determine which of its claims are deficient and which are explanations consistent with evidence.



That's one way of putting it.


When asked by amcolph, you have failed to point to any physical evidence to support your claim that the zygote formed at the end of fertilization is a human being as murderable as baby, child or adult human being.



 


Amcolph wrote: "But you did say that a 'murderable entity'* comes into existence at the conclusion of fertilization.


Why just then?  What you have is a single cell with a human genome.  The unfertilized egg is also a single cell with a human genome.  What is the difference?"


I responded: "What's the difference? Well, one is a haploid sex cell, and the other is a gentically complete organism which will develop into what you perceive as a "fully grown himan being", given enough developmental time."


So, please, try again.


When asked directly what it is (and it's quite clear from what amcolph wrote that he was talking about what it is physically) about the cell that forms from the union of sperm and egg that makes it a human being, you gave the nonscientific, non-answer that there isn't anything that makes something a human being.



Anyway, starting from my last response above, amcolph asked where the 'humanity' of the zygote lies, to which I responded that there's no inate or special quality which makes a human being a human being. He then asked if it's not the genome nor the rest of the cellular material which makes the zygote a human being capable of being murdered the same way someone already born could be murdered, then what, to which I ultimately pointed out that, once again, someone who is unborn is as much a genetically complete organism as is someone who is born, the only difference between them being developmental time.


If you take a hair follicle, which has your full complement of DNA, and place it in a hypothetical incubator, it will forever be a hair follicle. If you take a rock and put it in a hypothetical incubator, it will forever be a rock. If you take a human zygote and place it in a hypothetical incubator, it will develop into what you perceive to be a "fully mature human being", and if it's able to develop into what you perceive as a "fully mature human being", then it must be a human being from the time it's a zygote-- Unless, of course, you're going to argue that the zygote has the propensity to "develop" into anything other than a human being or something which isn't a human being can "develop" into one.


(Oh, and please don't use the whole "An acorn isn't a tree!" response to argue that the zygote isn't a human being. It's a red herring, as you're comparing stage of development and stage of development to stage of development and species.)


But, why am I explaining this? I know I've done so time after time after time again, and every single time it gets ignored. Every single time.


Your view is your view, and you are entitled to it, but it isn't scientific.



See, this is what annoys me the most. I've noticed that some people here see only what they want to see, ignore that which they can't refute and blatantly misconstrue that which rebuffs their assertions. You've been a very good example of this in this very thread.


You don't get to hide behind the whole "Those are just your beliefs!" cop-out. You wanting to hold to whatever preconceived notions you have about the unborn not being human beings doesn't make anything I've posted is non-scientific; it means, as I've said about a bajillion times now, that you'd rather hold onto your beliefs then accept a simple fact.


When asked for physical evidence, you can't respond by repeating your claim, or say "there isn't any," and expect a person who is thinking scientifically or critically to accept your claim.



Uh-huh... You might want to try re-reading the dialogue between amcolph and myself. And then, when you're finished, you can go back and read the dialogue between myself and yourself-- Dialogue which you have simply flat out ignored and will more-than-likely continue to do so.


edited by Justme333 to conform to ROC

Moderated by Justme333 on Jan 24, 2010 - 12:30AM
Quick Reply
Cancel
7 years ago  ::  Jan 23, 2010 - 3:58PM #779
newsjunkie
Posts: 5,750

Jan 23, 2010 -- 3:14PM, Bei1052 wrote:


Oh, look! Newsjunkie is back. I'm not sure whether to laugh or cry at the following because, as far as absolute head scratchers go, the following post is it.


Jan 23, 2010 -- 8:30AM, newsjunkie wrote:

Science relies on physical evidence to determine which of its claims are deficient and which are explanations consistent with evidence.



That's one way of putting it.


When asked by amcolph, you have failed to point to any physical evidence to support your claim that the zygote formed at the end of fertilization is a human being as murderable as baby, child or adult human being.



 


Amcolph wrote: "But you did say that a 'murderable entity'* comes into existence at the conclusion of fertilization.


Why just then?  What you have is a single cell with a human genome.  The unfertilized egg is also a single cell with a human genome.  What is the difference?"


I responded: "What's the difference? Well, one is a haploid sex cell, and the other is a gentically complete organism which will develop into what you perceive as a "fully grown himan being", given enough developmental time."


So, please, try again.


When asked directly what it is (and it's quite clear from what amcolph wrote that he was talking about what it is physically) about the cell that forms from the union of sperm and egg that makes it a human being, you gave the nonscientific, non-answer that there isn't anything that makes something a human being.



 


Anyway, starting from my last response above, amcolph asked where the 'humanity' of the zygote lies, to which I responded that there's no inate or special quality which makes a human being a human being. He then asked if it's not the genome nor the rest of the cellular material which makes the zygote a human being capable of being murdered the same way someone already born could be murdered, then what, to which I ultimately pointed out that, once again, someone who is unborn is as much a genetically complete organism as is someone who is born, the only difference between them being developmental time. It really is that simple.




scratch your head, laugh and cry, get all emotional if you like. Another option is to ignore me if I bother you so much.


What is confusing is that you said to amcolph in post 778


"Human beings aren't human beings because we're born or because we know how to walk or because we can speak or because we can reason or anything else of the like, nor are we human beings because we have the genome of one"


and now you seem to be saying it is the genome of the cell that makes it a murderable entity.


 

Moderated by Justme333 on Jan 24, 2010 - 12:33AM
Quick Reply
Cancel
7 years ago  ::  Jan 23, 2010 - 4:26PM #780
Bei1052
Posts: 986

Jan 23, 2010 -- 3:58PM, newsjunkie wrote:

scratch your head, laugh and cry, get all emotional if you like. Another option is to ignore me if I bother you so much.



No one's getting emotional and you don't bother me. It boggles the mind as to how can simply "not get it" after hearing something repeated to them ad nauseum.


What is confusing is that you said to amcolph in post 778


"Human beings aren't human beings because we're born or because we know how to walk or because we can speak or because we can reason or anything else of the like, nor are we human beings because we have the genome of one"


and now you seem to be saying it is the genome of the cell that makes it a murderable entity.



That's exactly what I said, and there's nothing confusing about that. You'll also notice I said, three times now, that hair follicles aren't human beings even though they have the full complement of human DNA. A genetically complete organism capable of developing into what you perceive as a "fully formed human being" =/= have the genome of a human being (Whatever that's supposed to mean). But I type stuff out for my own amusement, so I can't fault you for ignoring that.

Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 78 of 85  •  Prev 1 ... 76 77 78 79 80 ... 85 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook