Unborn Baby Not A Person?

[Happy_Catholic]

"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.

[Veridicus]

[quote name='HisChildForever' date='22 January 2010 - 12:36 PM' timestamp='1264185384' post='2042291']
It's more frustrating to talk to someone who knows abortion is murder but thinks it's "acceptable" in rape cases than someone who thinks it's not murder period.
[/quote]

This is true. Unforgivably illogical and inconsistent. We had an ethics presentation in my 1st year of medical school and a woman in my class who is a devout evangelical protestant (her husband is a youth minister). She presented abortion as her ethics topic and more or less said her opinion was that life started at conception but that in cases of rape and incest she could see why abortion was allowed. Needless to say I confronted her about the inconsistency of her argument. I'm not really sure if she cared about my opinion or its logic. Life is not dependent on circumstance or convenience or the crimes of someone else...we have an inalienable right to life bestowed by our Creator. No one 'gives' us this right but instead can only acknowledge the truth of it.

[Happy_Catholic]

[quote name='HisChildForever' date='22 January 2010 - 01:36 PM' timestamp='1264185384' post='2042291']
It's more frustrating to talk to someone who knows abortion is murder but thinks it's "acceptable" in rape cases than someone who thinks it's not murder period.
[/quote]

There's a book/study called Victims & Victors, it details the stories of women who were raped and continued their pregnancies and were better for it. It actually states the majority of women who are pregnant from rape continue their pregnancies.

What I don't like is the pro-aborts use this argument as a huge draw card for their reasoning. 1.2 million abortions a year, 98% for social reasons, that leaves 2% for foetal abnormality, maternal risk and rape. Yet, approximately <1 - 3 % of rapes end in pregnancy.

Their numbers don't support their claims that women who are raped want abortions for any pregnancy that has transpired.

As a side note, I find it absolutely abhorrent that the pro-abortion side claims to be about women's choice and then have themselves a good old harp along about how what woman could possibly want her rapists baby? Firstly, its the woman's baby too, and secondly, it places the woman in a horrid state, if she doesn't abort, people might question her claims that she was indeed raped, if she does abort, she moves from being a victim of a horrific crime to the perportrator of one.

[tinytherese]

I actually feel like I can really sympathize with women who have gotten pregnant because of rape and or incest, because as some of you know, my own dad has sexually harassed me. I avoided spending time at alone in the house with him last summer and even though it thankfully never happened, I do remember a time when I thought, "What if I did get raped by him and got pregnant?" It really hit me what could possibly happen. Believe me, I was terrified. Despite the horror and even some doubts if I could carry that pregnancy to term, I knew that I couldn't go through with it. I knew that if this did happen, my dad would need to be the one to be punished, not our baby who was completely innocent. Besides, I know that there are many infertile couples who are really torn that they can't have children in the usual way. I could find a decent couple to raise my baby.

I know that years ago, I talked with my best friend in high school about abortion and she pointed out that it would be really hard to go through the hardships of pregnancy and then the labor, only to give the baby away. Yet I know that it could be done, no matter how hard it would be. It would be possible. With God's grace this heroic sacrifice, not done out of obligation, but love could be done--even with joy. Besides, if my own mother didn't want to go through the discomforts of pregnancy and labor that I would never have been born. She did it out of love. I think that this song really summarizes it best. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DCmLmZDpB4I&feature=PlayList&p=01E1A44C1C3D6A73&index=43

[havok579257]

I tell them they are stupid

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

Just ask them.., so this baby has a heart which beats and has lungs which breath and as of right now we can hear its heartbeat as early as 14 days. Yet your going to sit there and tell me that a baby who has a heart beat and is breathing is not a person? Last I checked, according to science, if your heart beats and you breath and your human, your alive and a person. So not only does thiesm say the baby is a person, but so does science. So your either ignorant and ignore facts or your lying to yourself. Pick one, cause those are the only two options.

[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?