Pro Choice

[Tinkerlina]

[quote name='fidei defensor' post='1719527' date='Dec 5 2008, 12:56 AM']My point was that you can be against something but for allowing it to exist. I hate organized religion but I'm not about to tell you that you can't practice it.[/quote]

I understand that point, and I agree with that when it comes to some issues; however, the taking of a human life is not something I can be against but allow to exist-I think that's a contradiction. -Katie

[jmjtina]

for arguments sake:

do you still believe in abortion when a heart, lungs, head, etc are present?

or are you for abortion all 9 months and still claim the "cells" statement when the evidence is undeniable to a certain point that it is a real baby? (regardless of reasons for abortion)

[LivingStone]

[quote name='fidei defensor' post='1720023' date='Dec 5 2008, 12:50 PM']This is where science disagrees.

There are two types of being here. Being in terms of what something is, and being in terms of what it is in terms of functionality. A fertilized egg is one single cell. It is "human" in that it's a human cell. But scientifically, what makes an organism what it is, is the sum of all its parts. A human is the sum of all its cells. You can't take an organ and say, "this is human." It's a human organ, yes, but not a fully functional human. The sum of all the organs together, however, is a human.

After the egg is fertilized, it is a single cell. You are going to have a hard time convincing anyone scientifically that it's a human in the same way we are. I agree that it's a human cell, that it will become exactly like us, but I believe that the point when an embryo becomes a fully functional human happens somewhere between conception and birth. One cell is not a human, sorry. Stopping the processes of that one cell is no different than "killing" any other kind of cell. The only thing you'd be doing is ending the potential to become a fully functioning human, but potential does not equate with being.

If you want to claim that it's a human because it has a soul, that is reasonable within your belief system and I respect that. But that's a religious issue, not a scientific one, and I will disagree, then.[/quote]

I don't agree in your application of using science to determine what is and isn't human (or when specifically human life begins). If you're using biology, there is a great inconsistency in the terms used. You tie in a little bit of philosophy in your argument, but once again, it isn't logical:

I would follow that a 'being' (in the fetus form or whatever) is considered human if it has the four causes that Aristotle and a multitude of philosophers would use (I sure that you are familiar with the four causes):

A fetus not only has the efficient cause (the parents, or more immediately, the sperm and the egg (as advocated by Saint Thomas Aquinas and others)) and the material cause (the living matter of the fetus), but also the formal and final cause of being a human person. There is no difference between your 4 causes (which define you as being a human) and the 4 causes of a fetus in the womb.

Your development argument (that a fetus isn't developed enough) is illogical too because of the premises set (namely, that a human person must be fully developed). There is no degrees of humanity, one is either human or not (by way of the 4 causes). The predication of being is one that has contradictories (as opposed to contraries). For a contradictory, something can only be human or it can not be human, nothing inbetween. An example of a contrary is black and white: While it is not possible for something to be black and white, it is possible for something to not be black and not be white. You are predicating the definition of human as to having contraries. This is obviously wrong.

When you are decimating the one human cell, you aren't "stopping the potential of it becoming a human person", rather, you are eliminating its being from existence. When that cell is decimated, that being is completely gone (because it has all 4 causes). Your philosophy, once again, is lacking. That one cell holds in itself the being of that creation. This isn't the same as if I cut off a finger (even though there are more cells being destroyed, I am not dissoluting my entire being).

That one cell holds the life of the entire being of that cell. The existence of a being that is human is called life (as it contains all 4 causes of a human person). My thumb, on the other hand, does not contain all four causes of a human person.

Hope that helps. If you need any assistance on how biology really defines when life begins and ends, please refer to the BioEthics program at Franciscan University. Or if you click on the Defense Directory link above, that can further clarify any questions you might have.

I do claim that the cell is human because it contains a soul, but this can be logically reasoned as well. (not just blind faith as you would assume)

Have a blessed night, Fidei.

[Guest nvzbl]

Its above my pay-grade.

[Socrates]

[quote name='fidei defensor' post='1720023' date='Dec 5 2008, 12:50 PM']This is where science disagrees.[/quote]
Not "science," but your opinion.

[quote]There are two types of being here. Being in terms of what something is, and being in terms of what it is in terms of functionality. A fertilized egg is one single cell. It is "human" in that it's a human cell. But scientifically, what makes an organism what it is, is the sum of all its parts. A human is the sum of all its cells. You can't take an organ and say, "this is human." It's a human organ, yes, but not a fully functional human. The sum of all the organs together, however, is a human.[/quote]
A human being [i]is[/i] a human being from its conception until death.
And yes, a human being begins its life as a single cell.
This cell is a complete organism, although in a very early stage of development.
(And yes, an organism can be a single cell - ask any biologist.) The embryo is not an [i]organ[/i], or an incomplete part, waiting to be assembled to other parts. It is a complete organism in itself, and is not assembled to other parts (in the manner of auto part waiting for assembly at a factory), but [i]grows[/i] by splitting into more cells an developing more complexity.
[i]Growth[/i] in itself is one of the characteristics of a living thing, proving that the unborn child is not some non-living thing.
This process of growth is continuous and organic (and continues long after the baby has been born); a human being remains the same being it was at conception. There is no point where the human embryo/fetus suddenly changes species from non-human to human. That assertion is unscientific.


[quote]After the egg is fertilized, it is a single cell. You are going to have a hard time convincing anyone scientifically that it's a human in the same way we are. I agree that it's a human cell, that it will become exactly like us, but I believe that the point when an embryo becomes a fully functional human happens somewhere between conception and birth. One cell is not a human, sorry. Stopping the processes of that one cell is no different than "killing" any other kind of cell. The only thing you'd be doing is ending the potential to become a fully functioning human, but potential does not equate with being.[/quote]
The problem is what do you mean by a "fully functional human"?
The fact is that a human being's [i]life[/i] begins at conception. That's scientific fact.
However, if you choose to equate being human with "functionality," all sorts of problems arise.

While you acknowledge that a baby is human at some point before birth, the fact remains that
a newborn baby is itself far from "fully-functional," if you mean by that capable of doing everything a "fully developed" human being can.
A newborn infant is not at all capable of talking, walking, even controlling its movements, feeding itself, sex and reproduction, operating machinery, or debating on the internet.

Yet, despite this obvious lack of development, we don't claim a human baby is not human.
It is human because it is an individual of the human species, not because it is "fully functional."

[quote]If you want to claim that it's a human because it has a soul, that is reasonable within your belief system and I respect that. But that's a religious issue, not a scientific one, and I will disagree, then.[/quote]
No the issue of whether it's human is not religious, but scientific.
It is scientific fact that a human embryo/fetus is an organism of the human species. (I have thus far seen zero evidence presented that it is not alive, or is some species other than human).

Religion may indeed play a role in determining whether or not it is moral to kill another human being, but that's another debate.

Edited December 7, 2008 by Socrates

[Socrates]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1719929' date='Dec 5 2008, 11:42 AM']"I like the abortion debate because its not really a religious debate. The religious part only comes in whether or not you think its ok to kill a human."

so are you trying to like turn the tables?

a majority of people about fifty five percent think life begins at conception. a majority also would say that it's not a clear proposition though. it's common understanding that saying that life begins at conception, instead of at least arguing the ambiguous nature of it, is when religion comes into the picture.
you're just sticking your head in the sand like an ostrich, surrounding yourself by like minded people at a catholic board.

now, i wouldn't say it's necessarily you're only safety net to fall back onto religion.but if anyone is falling back onto religion, it's you, not me.[/quote]
This probably isn't even worth responding to, but you have failed to answer any of the points Sirklawd made in his post, instead, as is unfortunately typical of your posts, resorting to [i]ad hominem[/i] personal insults ("sticking your head in the sand like an ostrich," etc.)
That is invariably the sign of one who has already lost the debate.

And popular opinion does not determine truth. That is side-stepping the issue.