Unborn Baby Not A Person?

[havok579257]

to the person who says its ok to abort an unborn baby because they are not a person, i ask them who says it not a person?

1. God says life begins at conception
2. sciencists say life begins at consception


if they say the state decided and right now the state says an unborn baby is not a person I will remind them that not long ago the state did not consider slaves a person, so then they would be ok with the murder of slaves not to many years ago?


i wil ask them who defines a person and see them fumble in the wind. i show them how illogical their stance is since everyone and everything says the unborn baby is a person.

[Varg]

[quote name='KeenanParkerII' date='22 January 2010 - 01:47 AM' timestamp='1264142836' post='2042135']
I argue that it is irrelevant whether or not a baby is considered a person. The difference between an embryonic cell and a skin cell is that one has the overwhelming potential to develop into a full grown human being with all the experiences and rights that a human deserves.
[/quote]
So does every single sperm in every single testicle of every single man on the planet. Are we going to give them human rights?

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Varg' date='09 February 2010 - 12:47 PM' timestamp='1265741227' post='2054180']
So does every single sperm in every single testicle of every single man on the planet. Are we going to give them human rights?
[/quote]
Lol, welcome back.

An isolated sperm cell has no potential to become anything.

[Veridicus]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' date='09 February 2010 - 12:53 PM' timestamp='1265741603' post='2054187']
Lol, welcome back.

An isolated sperm cell has no potential to become anything.
[/quote]

Yeah Varg should have read the preceding pages where we amply demonstrated this fact. Its a materialist's lie and scientifically disingenuous to state that a sperm OR egg have equal potency to the zygote. The zygote is not equivalent to any differentiated or stem cell of the adult human.

Unethical scientists desire to experiment upon embyonic cells precisely because of their unique potency to develop into an adult human (and all of the adult human's tissue types).

Edited February 9, 2010 by Veridicus

[Varg]

[quote name='Veridicus' date='09 February 2010 - 02:50 PM' timestamp='1265745054' post='2054233']
Yeah Varg should have read the preceding pages where we amply demonstrated this fact.
[/quote]
You know that would be far too sensible for me.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Varg' date='09 February 2010 - 02:20 PM' timestamp='1265746818' post='2054258']
You know that would be far too sensible for me.
[/quote]
To be fair, you've been gone for a long time. Who can be bothered to read all that pesky stuff that happened in the meantime, really? Just pick up where you left off.

[Varg]

Sooooo....What have I missed?

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Varg' date='09 February 2010 - 03:15 PM' timestamp='1265750158' post='2054293']
Sooooo....What have I missed?
[/quote]
EVERYTHING.

We solved every problem ever.

[Winchester]

[quote name='Varg' date='09 February 2010 - 03:20 PM' timestamp='1265746818' post='2054258']
You know that would be far too sensible for me.
[/quote]
Well played.

[dairygirl4u2c]

if they truly believe it's not a person-- there's really nothing you can say except argue the science of it. i don't think it's a setttled issue, necesarily, they would be entitled to reasonably hold that view. as a person of virtue and honor etc, as most people purport to be, they should 'defer' to it being a person- legally, and otherwise. if it's a matter of deference, there are other arguments that says perhaps we should allow some abortions, given there's other considerations and the uncertainty does exist, but at least let the issue begin with 'we will defer to this being a true human person from the very start"

Edited February 15, 2010 by dairygirl4u2c

[Winchester]

If we separate personhood from humanity, then personhood can be revoked as easily as it is bestowed. One either comes up with a strict and comprehensive definition of person (which I have yet to see anyone do)or one creates a standard so mystical as to be incomprehensible. For there is no other explanation for bestowing personhood upon the mentally weak, the infirm or the comatose.

For the atheist, there is no soul. So one's actions are all that we may evaluate. "There's a person in there" is not a usable argument to preserve an apparently deficient life. Personhood becomes, practically an observable set of behaviors. It become subjective. Our personhood in extreme cirsumstances is subject to technology. Can we verify that the comatos person retains his personhood without probing the circuitry of his mind? Shall we even go that far? Is part of the criteria for personhood the ability to argue that one is not the same as a sea sponge? Personhood, when left to observable behaviors, is vague. It is subjective. I believe there will never be any such comprehensive definition of personhood. The modern abortion supporter is not motivated by strong ideology. He is not Plato, he is not Margaret Sanger, even. He is lazy, and the supporting argument for abortion is convenience. They talk about rights, but do not get into the business of determining the nature of human rights; they talk about tyranny but do not get into the business of describing human authority. They are hedonists, but they are not courageous enough to stand up and embrace their hedonism. This is because the modern atheist is merely a Christian who doesn't want to be bothered with Christ. Even that Peter Singer guy is a wimp, talking about animal rights. Sissy.

For the religious, there can be recourse to the human soul. They have the advantage of claiming ensoulment occurs at this or that point. When one is desouled is another matter. More vagaries, more hedonism, similar lack of courage. Again, it's about convenience.

The only viable option to argue in favor of legal abortion is power. Now this opens the door to other sorts of killings (the mentally retarded, the aged, the injured), but it's the only real option. Assuming one believes in logic and consistency (which doesn't appear to be an impediment to modern hedonists--who are unaware they even are hedonists), of course.

[Veridicus]

GIANT +! to Winnie's post.



[quote name='Winchester' date='15 February 2010 - 10:26 AM' timestamp='1266251198' post='2057546']
Personhood, when left to observable behaviors, is vague. It is subjective.
[/quote]
This is precisely what they want. And endless debate which leaves their moral inconsistencies shrouded in subjectivity and vagueness. I think evil likes the shadows even more than utter blackness because in the shadows you can always feel confident that you have more light than the darker shadows around you. Shades of gray.

[Winchester]

[quote name='Veridicus' date='15 February 2010 - 11:43 AM' timestamp='1266252211' post='2057557']

This is precisely what they want. And endless debate which leaves their moral inconsistencies shrouded in subjectivity and vagueness. I think evil likes the shadows even more than utter blackness because in the shadows you can always feel confident that you have more light than the darker shadows around you. Shades of gray.
[/quote]
How base is this, though? Philosophy used to be about seeking the Truth. There were questions, of course, about whether or not there was truth, but the idea was to understand what was going on. The new way is to run from decisions. Absolutists are criticised for believing without questioning. But if one questions the new hedonism, one is shouted down.

[dairygirl4u2c]

"This is precisely what they want. And endless debate which leaves their moral inconsistencies shrouded in subjectivity and vagueness. I think evil likes the shadows even more than utter blackness because in the shadows you can always feel confident that you have more light than the darker shadows around you. Shades of gray."

i do know that my weakness lies in the shadows, i can attest to this personally. not that that makes it okay, that im aware of the problem. i try to fight it, much better than most others. it all starts with satan in the garden of eden, with his lies "eat it-- surely, you shall not die", and folks like pilate, even way back when he was about to have Jesus crucified, "What is truth?". as is echoed on down through the ages, both things of satan, and pilate.

[Winchester]

Shhh, the [i]sane [/i]people are talking.