Unborn Baby Not A Person?

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='JimR-OCDS' date='02 February 2010 - 01:08 PM' timestamp='1265137736' post='2049811']
But then by making this statement, you calling Jews evil, for they don't believe abortion is immoral, if done for medical reasons before viability.

Same is true with Muslims, but I won't got there.

Jim
[/quote]
The belief certainly is evil.

[Veridicus]

[quote name='JimR-OCDS' date='02 February 2010 - 01:08 PM' timestamp='1265137736' post='2049811']
But then by making this statement, you calling Jews evil, for they don't believe abortion is immoral, if done for medical reasons before viability.

Same is true with Muslims, but I won't got there.

Jim
[/quote]

By that statement I in no way called Jews or Muslims collectively evil and I resent that you put those words in my mouth. I don't think my statement by any means implied that.

Abortion as an act is immoral even for medical reasons before viability.

[philbo]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' date='02 February 2010 - 06:54 PM' timestamp='1265133298' post='2049762']
Wrong. The [b]only[/b] thing required to make a human being distinct from anything else is human DNA
[/quote]
But your skin cells have human DNA, and they fall off all the time.

What makes us human is not our DNA, it's our brain, our consciousness - take those away, you'd still have DNA, but what you have wouldn't be human.

[quote name='havok579257' date='02 February 2010 - 07:53 PM' timestamp='1265136838' post='2049802']
about the tiger.... science shows us the answer. tigers don't kill their own babies in the womb or right when they are born. its convieniant how you use science when trying to support your arguement but ignore it when it goes against your arguement.
[/quote]
What has this "science shows us the answer" rubbish got to do with anything? Why pick on the tiger, anyway? What's wrong with, say, a lion that'll kill off all the cubs of any other male when it takes over a pride? What's that got to do with anything at all? Nothing.

[Veridicus]

[quote name='philbo' date='02 February 2010 - 05:33 PM' timestamp='1265153632' post='2050019']
But your skin cells have human DNA, and they fall off all the time.

What makes us human is not our DNA, it's our brain, our consciousness - take those away, you'd still have DNA, but what you have wouldn't be human.
[/quote]

This isn't entirely true. The DNA in my skin cells is not the same as the DNA in the human zygote. There exists supragenetic alterations (acetylation, methylation, etc.) which occur to DNA as cells differentiate into more specific tissue types. The human embryo is both genetically unique AND intrinsically capable of continuing to grow into a sexually capable human with a brain; a claim which skin cells cannot make.

And what makes us human is not simply our brain or consciousness. We are human when we are comatose or asleep; human dignity is not a matter of falling within the 95th percentile of normal EEG waves. This 'personhood' or 'consciousness' argument is not really scientifically definable as far as I am concerned. It's rather subjective. I have seen no evolutionary phylogenies which isolate humans as a separate clade on account of 'personhood' or 'consciousness'.

Edited February 2, 2010 by Veridicus

[philbo]

[quote name='Veridicus' date='03 February 2010 - 12:43 AM' timestamp='1265154194' post='2050026']
This isn't entirely true. The DNA in my skin cells is not the same as the DNA in the human zygote. There exists supragenetic alterations (acetylation, methylation, etc.) which occur to DNA as cells differentiate into more specific tissue types. The human embryo is both genetically unique AND intrinsically capable of continuing to grow into a sexually capable human with a brain; a claim which skin cells cannot make.

And what makes us human is not simply our brain or consciousness. We are human when we are comatose or asleep; human dignity is not a matter of falling within the 95th percentile of normal EEG waves. This 'personhood' or 'consciousness' argument is not really scientifically definable as far as I am concerned. It's rather subjective. I have seen no evolutionary phylogenies which isolate humans as a separate clade on account of 'personhood' or 'consciousness'.
[/quote]
Oh, FFS - if you're going to say that methylation during differentiation means "your DNA is no longer human", then none of your body has human DNA apart from the very small number of stem cells.

The human embryo is a potential human being, yes. It is capable of growing into one - that's kind of the idea. But it isn't at the start.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='philbo' date='03 February 2010 - 10:24 AM' timestamp='1265214264' post='2050416']

The human embryo is a potential human being, yes. It is capable of growing into one - that's kind of the idea. But it isn't at the start.
[/quote]
It's capable of growing into one? Unless you kill it, there's nothing else it could possibly become. What other than human could it possible be?

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='philbo' date='03 February 2010 - 09:24 AM' timestamp='1265214264' post='2050416']
The human embryo is a potential human being, yes. It is capable of growing into one - that's kind of the idea. But it isn't at the start.
[/quote]
The child in the womb has all the abilities it will possess as an adult, it cannot but have them, and the only difference between a child and an adult is that the adult has actualized more of those abilities. It is irrational to assert that a substantial change occurs within a single existing organism whereby it becomes absolutely what it was not previously.

For example: I am the same person I was 10, 20, 30, and even 40 years ago. In fact, I am the same subsisting (i.e., existing) being that I was in the womb of my mother, and the only difference is that I am now older and that I have actualized – both through willed efforts and the natural process of maturation – many of the latent abilities that I possessed only in potency as a baby.

[philbo]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' date='03 February 2010 - 05:42 PM' timestamp='1265215328' post='2050425']
It's capable of growing into one? Unless you kill it, there's nothing else it could possibly become. What other than human could it possible be?
[/quote]
..or unless it dies naturally - an awful lot do. But for some reason we don't make a big song and dance about that.

And when I say "it's capable", obviously it needs a bit of help at this stage.


[quote name='Apotheoun' date='03 February 2010 - 05:52 PM' timestamp='1265215937' post='2050429']
The child in the womb has all the abilities it will possess as an adult, it cannot but have them, and the only difference between a child and an adult is that the adult has actualized more of those abilities. It is irrational to assert that a substantial change occurs within a single existing organism whereby it becomes absolutely what it was not previously.
[/quote]
On the contrary - to start with it has *none* of the abilities it will possess even by the time it's born, let alone as an adult.

Why is it irrational to say that the sort of change between a fertilized egg, blastocyte, foetus then on to baby, child, adult is becoming something it was not previously? - on the contrary: to me, it seems wholly irrational to me to see something which has the potential to become human, yet has none of the attributes of anything remotely so, should be described on an equal basis as something that has a nervous system, can react to stimuli, can think and has a sense of its own identity.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='philbo' date='03 February 2010 - 11:37 AM' timestamp='1265218630' post='2050456']
..or unless it dies naturally - an awful lot do. But for some reason we don't make a big song and dance about that.

And when I say "it's capable", obviously it needs a bit of help at this stage.

[/quote]
Unless something *unnatural* happens, it naturally becomes what you call a human. Once again, there's nothing else it can possibly be. How is that potential life? It is life. It can't be anything but *unless* something that isn't supposed to happen, happens.

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='philbo' date='03 February 2010 - 01:37 PM' timestamp='1265218630' post='2050456']
..or unless it dies naturally - an awful lot do. But for some reason we don't make a big song and dance about that.

And when I say "it's capable", obviously it needs a bit of help at this stage.



On the contrary - to start with it has *none* of the abilities it will possess even by the time it's born, let alone as an adult.

Why is it irrational to say that the sort of change between a fertilized egg, blastocyte, foetus then on to baby, child, adult is becoming something it was not previously? - on the contrary: to me, it seems wholly irrational to me to see something which has the potential to become human, yet has none of the attributes of anything remotely so, should be described on an equal basis as something that has a nervous system, can react to stimuli, can think and has a sense of its own identity.
[/quote]
And its wholly irrational to us why you refer to the child as "potentially" human. It has a unique HUMAN DNA. Its not like its gonna take a wrong turn and turn into a puppy!!

Its never gonna be anything else but human, so this argument is moot.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='philbo' date='03 February 2010 - 10:37 AM' timestamp='1265218630' post='2050456']
On the contrary - to start with it has *none* of the abilities it will possess even by the time it's born, let alone as an adult.[/quote]
That is the same as saying that something comes from nothing. Clearly this conversation will go nowhere, that is, as long as you insist on an irrational opinion.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='philbo' date='03 February 2010 - 10:37 AM' timestamp='1265218630' post='2050456']
On the contrary - to start with it has *none* of the abilities it will possess even by the time it's born, let alone as an adult.

Why is it irrational to say that the sort of change between a fertilized egg, blastocyte, foetus then on to baby, child, adult is becoming something it was not previously? - on the contrary: to me, it seems wholly irrational to me to see something which has the potential to become human, yet has none of the attributes of anything remotely so, should be described on an equal basis as something that has a nervous system, can react to stimuli, can think and has a sense of its own identity.
[/quote]
Clearly, an adult – as opposed to a child – has actualized many latent abilities that were present in his being from the first moment of his existence, but that does not mean that the child is not a person because he has not actualized his potential ability to do math, or read a book, or do any one of the many other things that come about through human effort. In fact it is not possible for a man to willfully develop ([i]actualize[/i]) an ability that was not inherently present within his nature as a "possibility", i.e., as an unrealized power, for that would involve bring something into being from nothing, and that idea is clearly contrary to right reason. Now, of course, in addition to abilities that are developed through acts of a man's will, there are also abilities ([i]powers[/i]) innately present within a man's nature that become active over time without any willed effort on his part (e.g., fertility), and these types of abilities are simply connected to the natural life cycle of the human being (i.e., to the process of maturation). Thus, in summary, some personal abilities require a man's willed effort in order to be actualized, while others become actualized as a normal part of the development of his being over time.

[Winchester]

[quote name='philbo' date='03 February 2010 - 12:37 PM' timestamp='1265218630' post='2050456']
..or unless it dies naturally - an awful lot do. But for some reason we don't make a big song and dance about that.
[/quote]
Lots of people die naturally; that's not a justification for killing them.

[Socrates]

[quote name='philbo' date='03 February 2010 - 11:24 AM' timestamp='1265214264' post='2050416']
The human embryo is a potential human being, yes. It is capable of growing into one - that's kind of the idea. But it isn't at the start.
[/quote]
A human being is a human being from the beginning of its life (at conception). A human being isn't a stage of life, such as infancy, childhood, adolescence, or adulthood.
Saying a human fetus is a "potential human being" makes no more sense than calling a newborn infant or a child a "potential human being," despite the fact that a person at either of those stages in life is not fully developed and does not have all the abilities an adult has. A human being is what a human being [i]is[/i], not something one [i]becomes[/i] at some stage of growth or development. Growth and development is a continuous process which begins right after conception, and continues until sometime in the twenties. There is no point at which one is not a human being, and then afterward becomes a human being.
A human fetus does not magically "become human" at birth; it was human all along.

The pro-abortion position is based in blatant denial of reality and reason, no matter how loudly its proponents may declare themselves "rationalists."

[KnightofChrist]

I wrote this last semester for my very liberal woman's issues class. It put my very pro-choice liberal instructor to silence, as well as the class. Later they all said they were very impressed and some thought of this whole subject in a new light.


-----


[b]The Liberty of Men[/b]

"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." 1

This is the founding principle of our Nation. The words promise Liberty for all men, but
how you interpret, Men, and Liberty changes their respected meanings.
How you interpret those words will likely effect how you answer the following questions.

What is truth? Do you hear it when it is spoken? Does it exist? Is it objective, or subjective?

What is Man? The first question of the first day in this class, if I am not mistaken.
So, What is Man, or rather who is man and who is not.
Because who is and who is not a person determines
who has Liberty and who is denied Liberty.

What is the origin of Liberty? Where do our rights come from?
Are rights given by the Law, does Government give the people Liberty?

Repeatedly through out time, again and again, man has denied the humanity and personhood of his fellow man.
Because Man has continually denied the truth. The Truth that no matter what race, sex, or creed people maybe,
everyone is human, everyone has personhood. Everyone has rights and liberty.

Yet men have always broke this truth with the use of the Law, the Government.
If rights are given by Government, rights can be taken away by Government.
These types of laws have unjustly 'justified' the oppression of women
and even greater evils such as the enslavement of the African, and the Jewish Holocaust.

These laws where based on limited Personhood. Which is based upon cognitive ability, physical form, and dependence.
Non-person persons, or less than human, humans, have always had their cognitive ability attacked,
their intelligence or their apparent lack thereof.
Their physical form such as skin color, black or white or sex, man or woman.

But that type of injustice is a thing of the past, right? In America, while by no means prefect, She has learned
something from the oppression of women, the enslavement of blacks, and the lessons of the Holocaust. Right?

Yet, what if I told you that 1,784 blacks, and 2,000 women where murdered today, completely within the Law? 2
Would you quickly demand the Government to carry out justice for the slain?

How you would feel, and your actions would be determined on your acceptance or denial of the truth,
who you classify as human, and who you deny personhood too. As well as where you believe Liberty comes from.

Most if not All Americans today will say they believe Liberty is for everyone, no matter what.

And most would be quite upset to hear that 1,784 blacks, and 2,000 women where brutally murdered every day in America.
Yet when it is revealed that those poor souls are unborn babies, suddenly Liberty is not for all,
and can be denied to the unwanted, the forgotten, the nonperson person.

Medical science has recently shown, that a flash of light within the womb accompanies the moment of conception. 3
The amount of energy given off at that moment can on a microscopic level be compared
to that of the Big Bang which created the known universe and everything within it.

Despite claims to the contrary, science has irrefutably proven that life,
human life begins at conception. At that moment a unique being exist,
one with it's own unique genetic structure, and therefor is a member of the Homo sapiens species. 4

So when it comes to the unborn child, the question is not if she is human.
But if a human can be a nonperson?
Clearly the answer is no, all humans are persons.


Yet, personhood is denied to the unborn just as slaves, and the Jewish people where legally denied personhood.
A law decreed that a group of unwanted human beings were legally nonpersons, and could be enslaved or put to death.

Laws that allow for the murder of children is based on the same reasoning of the past.
That these people are not persons, because they lack a certain cognitive ability,
or lack an approved physical form, and dependence.

If a unborn child is not human based on the lack of cognitive ability, what of the mentally handicap?
Are they less than human because of their handicap? And does it justify killing them?
What of burn victims, and persons missing both their arms and legs?
Are they also less than human because they lack "human form"? And does that justify killing them?

A child from when she is born from her mothers womb until she has at lest reached adolescence,
is completely dependent on her parents.
Does that dependence justify killing her?

No, of course not, but for some reason it justifies the killing of the unborn.

Which side will ultimately win the day is not yet known. Yet the choice is clear to those that wish to see the truth.
America and the world must decide if it wants to live
the dream of Maraget Sanger Founder of Planned Parenthood that dream that

'Colored people are human weeds and they are to be exterminated.' 5

and

"The most merciful thing that a family does to one of its infant members is to kill it." 6


I pray that we live the Dream of Liberty which is found in the preamble of the Declaration,
and was the Dream of Martian Luther King that dream that..

"We can never be satisfied as long as our children are stripped
of their selfhood and robbed of their dignity"

And

"When we allow freedom ring, when we let it ring
from every village and every hamlet, from every
state and every city.

We will be able to speed up that day when all of God's children,
black men and white men, Jews and Gentiles, Protestants and Catholics,
will be able to join hands and sing the words"

Free at last! Free at last!
Thank God Almighty, we are free at last! 7


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. The Declaration of Independence

2. Statistics provided by the Guttmacher Institute Website: Jeff J. Koloze, Abortion in the African-American Community, Sociological Data and Literary Examples

3. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA Vol. 87, December 1990 Physiology/Pharmacology

4. E.L. Potter, M.D., and J.M. Craig, M.D. Pathology of the Fetus and the Infant (3rd Edition). Chicago: Year Book Medical Publishers, 1975, page vii.: Moore, Keith L. and Persaud, T.V.N. Before We Are Born: Essentials of Embryology and Birth Defects. 4th edition. Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Company, 1993, p. 1: O'Rahilly, Ronan and Müller, Fabiola. Human Embryology and Teratology, 2nd edition. New York: Wiley-Liss, 1996, pp. 8: Subcommittee on Separation of Powers to Senate Judiciary Committee S-158, Report, 97th Congress, 1st Session, 1981: Peter Singer, Practical Ethics, 2nd ed, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993), 85-86.: David Boonin, A Defense of Abortion, Cambridge University Press: New York, p. 20

5. Killer Angel: George Grant: Reformer Press: page 65: Woman's Body, Woman's Right: p 332: see also Killer Angel: p 73

6. The Woman Rebel, Volume I, Number 1. Reprinted in Woman and the New Race. New York: Brentanos Publishers, 1922.

7. Martin Luther King Jr, I Have a Dream Speech