On abortion, I say let's go with what we know.

Your having a different conversation than one I am party to mate - is there another in the room I do not see ? . told you wasn't talking about Catholics - -- you brought up Catholics for some odd reason.

We talking about the ones who are not Christians . who are not baptized - where do they go - those Billions of people .. Heaven - Hell - or somewhere in between ?

 

I think you best take that up with the Last declared Saint.The phenomenally
disciplined Catholic ... Mother Teresa.She devoted her life to helping the
Poorest of the Poor.Holding and helping the lepers in Calcutta who others
would not even go near.Calcutta was so treacherous that most Airline pilots
would not leave their cockpits when Arriving in Calcutta.
Mother Teresa was a small woman with Man's Hands.She seldom
ever Proselytized.But she never missed an Opportunity to give a stern
lecture on the Evils of Abortion.
Tell us all how wrong she was.This Declared Saint.

 

I can't speak to what happens to others.Only God makes that decision.
Which proves yer lack of understanding behind Faith.The best way to
practice Faith is with a Religion.Catholics by and large do not condemn
others of different religions,like certain Christian faiths.Like Pentecostals.
Who are unwaivering in their attitudes.
Just as Christopher Hitchens { The Portable Atheist } was unwaivering in his
dislike of ALL Religions and mocked Mother Teresa.

 

What lack of understanding ? - You are the one said some go here some go there ... like you know the mind of God .. sayin those baptized make it ...

Now you say that those not baptized can make as well .as you don't know no different by yer own admission .. and yeah... them fundamentalists are a controling bunch for sure .. under the influence of some sophisticated vulcan mind control.

Don't be to hard on Chris - alot to mock about the Universal Church - given its sordid history and all.

 

So I can come and kill you because you will be born again? That is upon what our laws about killing someone should be based?

 

Pro-lifers who go too far, as they have in Texas, they will reap what they sow. Women will not rest until their abortion rights are restored.

 

What's "Pro-Abortion?" There's "Pro-Life" and "Pro-Choice."

 

Embryologists will no doubt agree that a fetus is a human being.

But, as this PHD explains...

https://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/wdhbb.html

The question as to when the physical material dimension of a human being begins is strictly a scientific question, and fundamentally should be answered by human embryologists not by philosophers, bioethicists, theologians, politicians, x-ray technicians, movie stars, or obstetricians and gynecologists. The question as to when a human person begins is a philosophical question.


Myth 1: "Prolifers claim that the abortion of a human embryo or a human fetus is wrong because it destroys human life. But human sperms and human ova are human life, too. So prolifers would also have to agree that the destruction of human sperms and human ova are no different from abortions and that is ridiculous!"

Is she right?

I don't know. But, I believe she is.

 

I found this, if it helps the debate:

Embryologists will no doubt agree that a fetus is a human being.

But, as this PHD explains...

https://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/wdhbb.html

The question as to when the physical material dimension of a human being begins is strictly a scientific question, and fundamentally should be answered by human embryologists not by philosophers, bioethicists, theologians, politicians, x-ray technicians, movie stars, or obstetricians and gynecologists. The question as to when a human person begins is a philosophical question.


Myth 1: "Prolifers claim that the abortion of a human embryo or a human fetus is wrong because it destroys human life. But human sperms and human ova are human life, too. So prolifers would also have to agree that the destruction of human sperms and human ova are no different from abortions and that is ridiculous!"

Is she right?

I don't know. But, I believe she is.

 

My OP was all about not letting belief systems on this issue dictate policy and laws.

Also...

You didn't read my post: Where I wrote (elaborating in brackets):

Now, If you haven't lived in a body [much, i.e., you are at the fetus stage, haven't yet acquired a life and knowledge, friends, affairs, commitments, possessions, children, friends, loved ones], etc, so if you are a fetus and if you lose that body [aborted], you are not deprived of a potential life, you are merely changing directions, finding a new mom, etc.

So, no, you won't be morally allowed to kill me anyone, once born. (because you are now past 'potential personhood' and are fully realized person at birth, but R v W sets it at 22 weeks and we have to set the line somewhere).

The above statement is only true IF my philosophical belief on reincarnation is true.

I do believe in the eternal soul. So, if you die your life will not end, it will begin anew.

However, it's just a belief, NOT to be used in the creation of laws, policies, etc.

That was the whole point of the OP. "let's go with what we know".

 

Sperm does not grow to become a human adult. Its life span is about one week's worth and then it dies. In all of human history and the study of biology has sperm ever grown and developed past anything other than what it is. No amount of nurturing or care will ever allow a sperm to change that.

So in that sense sperm is no more of human life then shedding excess skin.

So no. She's not right. And I'm shocked she would say something so incredibly wrong.

Unless she had an agenda.

 

"Embryologists" are

1) not subect matter experts nor are medical doctors - Biology - is the Science Domain - Philosophy Bioethics being the other two.
2) do not all agree on the question .. and some - like the one's quoted on the Princeton EDU Site -- are raging morons who could not make a scientific argument if their life depended on it - as evidenced by some of the quotes from that site posted on here from time to time. .. Engaging in the same circular repetition fallacy.

There are 5 different Scientific perspectives on "when human life begins" metabolic, genetic, embryological, neurological, ecological ... only one putting the existence of something we can claim is "human life" at conception -- and while the public often favors the genetic perspective -- it has fallen out of favor among the scientific community for various reasons such as the twinning argument .. "are there two souls -- two humans after the first mitotic division ... resulting in 2 zygotes - each capable of creating a living human.

and even then ... all that is claimed is that something we can identify as human life exists .. life being the noun .. human the descriptive adjective .. so this is not saying it is "A Human" ..

If you want the Biological perspective -- Human Taxonomy -- what constitutes a "Homo Sapiens" - Zygote obviously doesn't cut it lacking allmost all of the required characteristics..

So we have to turn to Bio-ethics - Philosophy - enter the concept of personhood ... is this single cell a person.

Now we have to distinguish a significant difference between the mighty zygote .. and other human cells who we don't claim are humans .. heart - liver .. and so on.

The significant difference is that the in the process of creating a human -- has the genetic codes for "create a human" activated.

Hard to argue a human is present on this basis - never heard anyone even make it this far to try. One of the problems is that every other human cell has these same codes .. they are just not turned on.

One might also argue for totipotency .. The zygote can create all types of human cells .. every one necessary for a human .. but so can the next 2-300 clones of the zygote --- all totipotent - each individually able to create a new human.

None of these totipotent cells are part of the structure in the DNA blueprint .. all will be discarded in the afterbirth ..or used for drug testing or stem cell research. These cells form a hollow sack called the blastoyst .. then start spitting out the various differentiated and specialized cells that will make up the structure of the human under creation.

All you can really then argue is "Potential" - known as the Potential Argument - that this potential for a human somehow has value..

This a super hard argument to make as even if you come up with some kind of value for this potential - it will never stack up against the value of the rights of the woman...

So even if we give this entity quazi personhood -- and the best place the Anti Aborts can get to is "Experts Disagree' from Science -Philoophy- Bioethics - how do we value the rights of the zygote against the rights of the woman on the scales of Justice .. which is what we must do when rights conflict .. how to put a value on "Experts Disagree - and claim it exceeds the weight of the womans rights ? Its no contest.

 

Um ... As Hud Bannon said form His best movie - Hud - { 1964 }
" Honey don't go shootin' all the dogs' cause one of 'em's got fleas."
" Happens to everybody.Horses,dogs,men.Nobody gets out of life alive ."
" You don't look out for yuurself,the only helpin' hand you'll ever get
is when they lower the box. "
And Hud dint go to church.

 

So then you believe in Ones Body ... ones Choice. { Abortion Mantra }.
Then you believe in the rights of the Unvaccinated.

 

Completely competent. Your failure to grasp the argument is your problem not mine. To state that the baby in the womb is not a human being is not science, it is nonsense. The equivalent of believing that 2+2=5. It is magic thinking not that this is unusual for leftists, witness the latest Biden appointees talismanic approach to the national debt

 

So then you believe in Ones Body ... ones Choice...Pro-Abortion.....
since you believe in the rights of the Unvaccinated.
??????

 

OK, if you think a fetus is A human being with rights but with ALL our rights come restrictions.
We cannot use another's body to sustain our life.
We cannot harm another without their consent.
You seem to want a fetus to have more rights than anyone one else has....why?

 

Then answer this very simple and uncomplicated question.
Since a Fetus IS a Living breathing being,with organs,eyes,hands,
feet should it be considered Innocent.As in Innocent life.
Or in your straddled mindset,no different than a fertilzed chicken egg.

 

I'm pretty sure the Catholics believe that the soul of a person not baptized goes to Limbo....

One cannot make it to heaven unless one is baptized. And of course in good standing with the Church

 

FoxHastings said: ↑
OK, if you think a fetus is A human being with rights but with ALL our rights come restrictions.
We cannot use another's body to sustain our life.
We cannot harm another without their consent.
You seem to want a fetus to have more rights than anyone one else has....why?

You didn't answer my question: You seem to want a fetus to have more rights than anyone one else has....why?

What possible difference could that make?

You'll have to explain what "straddled mindset" means...


And you could answer the question:
You seem to want a fetus to have more rights than anyone one else has....why?

 

So all those fetuses that some people call "innocent" aren't really "innocent" ?

 

You don't think humans are adults until they're 25? Why so old?

 

Not just one dog that had fleas in this case .. is a whole pack of flea infested varmants.

 

I believe she is correct. Human life of organic matter just refers to life and it's humanness merely a pertinent item, noting that cells, organic matter, etc., has life. Here, I believe she has made the distinction between 'human life', in terms of biological science, and 'personhood', being the proper province of philosophy, which, in my view, is a notable distinction that beckons to be made, and she makes it.

I concur, wholeheartedly.

 

I do beieve in the rights of the unvaxed - and what is going on is akin to medical malpractice - but that is another story.

I do not believe in forcing my personal religious belief on others through physical violence - through Law - having Gov't do the dirty work.

If it was you the one who had be doin the dirty work .. was young teenager wanted just about to take the abortion pill - would you be the one to put gun to her head to force her to stop -

Dat not what HeyZeus do - say the lord -- give to Ceasar what is his .. and to me what mine .. and don't do to others what you hate .. so if you don't want folks forcing religious or persional beliefs on you through physical violence .. w/r to essential liberty -- better not be doin to others. This sums up the law and the prophets .. the whole book mate .. now go and learn.