dairygirl4u2c Posted March 3, 2004 Share Posted March 3, 2004 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jake Huether Posted March 3, 2004 Share Posted March 3, 2004 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.SIGGA Posted March 3, 2004 Share Posted March 3, 2004 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
God Conquers Posted March 3, 2004 Share Posted March 3, 2004 A human person is a living being whose cell's DNA is human. ie Any being with the human genome. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cmotherofpirl Posted March 3, 2004 Share Posted March 3, 2004 A human is an embodied soul. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adeodatus Posted March 3, 2004 Share Posted March 3, 2004 Absolutely!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dairygirl4u2c Posted March 4, 2004 Author Share Posted March 4, 2004 (edited) 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jake Huether Posted March 4, 2004 Share Posted March 4, 2004 [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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dairygirl4u2c Posted March 4, 2004 Author Share Posted March 4, 2004 (edited) [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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jake Huether Posted March 4, 2004 Share Posted March 4, 2004 [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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carrie Posted March 4, 2004 Share Posted March 4, 2004 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the_rev Posted March 5, 2004 Share Posted March 5, 2004 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
God Conquers Posted March 5, 2004 Share Posted March 5, 2004 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
photosynthesis Posted March 6, 2004 Share Posted March 6, 2004 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
foundsheep Posted March 7, 2004 Share Posted March 7, 2004 AMEN Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now