Is America great?

[Sancocho]

Now, we were having a respectful discussion over abortion and you had to resort to a hyperbolic rhetorical device. (Popularly viewed as a pro-life death knell.)

Conventional wisdom would dictate that prior to our current level of scientific advancements pregnant individuals over the centuries have had a firm intuitive grasp that the unborn inside of their womb is of the human species. That is, we need not science to know humans beget human offspring. What novel discovery does the current state of science bring to the table?

There is nothing more disrespectful than trying to defend homicide. Try to recognize that.

 

[Sancocho]

I've tries to clarify our different uses of similar words, but let's try one more time on the issues than can be muddied with wordplay:

Moral personhood One of the first issues that need clarifying when thinking about abortion is the idea of what we mean when we talk about 'human life.' When people talk about 'human life' they may mean: * a member of the biological human species - having the human genetic code​ But they may mean something very different: * a being that possesses certain human characteristics in addition to the human genetic code * characteristics often suggested might be the ability to think, to imagine, to communicate * but the lists of characteristics put forward may be designed to limit the definition of human in the way the speaker wants​ * a being that is a 'moral person', i.e. one that has rights, and probably duties too ​ And the time at which a foetus gets the right to life because it's achieved the relevant list of characteristics can vary from the moment of conception to the time the baby is born. (In fact for some philosophers, very young babies don't really qualify as having earned the right to life by possessing the right characteristics. Fortunately for young children, these philosophers concede that young babies do have the right to life as a result of tradition and law instead.) Does it matter? Yes of course it does, because without getting the point sorted out people can find themselves arguing about completely different things, even though they're both using words like 'human being'. But it may not matter in terms of pure moral philosophy, since there are cases when most people agree that even if the foetus is a person, abortion may be morally justified. And some philosophers have argued that abortion can be morally justified even where there is no risk to the physical or mental health of the mother.

from the ethics pages here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/abortion/philosophical/moralperson.shtml

Rather than just ignore opposing opinions as plain wrong and scientifically disproved, you would benefit from at least trying to understand our reasoning when you try to attack it.

You are confusing the issues. Nothing you have posted challenges what science says, ie that a life is created at the moment of conception.

The argument is therefore not scientific but philosophical with reference to science. Therefore, the argument is nothing more than trying to justify the homicide of a child.

 

[Sancocho]

"Buddy" is patronizing. You are an idiot. That is not patronizing.

I do let some people call me "Buddy", but they are usually naive. You are not naive, you are sinister.

What is sinister is giving any credibility to the diabolical argument that abortion is anything less than the homicide of an innocent human being.

 

[Sancocho]

Jesus say's, that if it were up to Him, He seriously would protect and defend religious liberty sparing no expense. And most of the worlds civil government's --including the Vatican itself --are currently taking Jesuses' advice, and strongly fighting for religious liberty.

Jesus would never support "religious" liberty at the expense of the genocide of the innocent. Nor does the RCC for that matter. Pope Francis is a clear advocate for protecting the unborn. He would be more of an advocate if he understood the level of homicide that abortion is, but I don't believe he does due to the manipulation of statistics by one of the most diabolical organizations this world has ever known - the Guttmacher Institute.

 

[noguru]

What is sinister is giving any credibility to the diabolical argument that abortion is anything less than the homicide of an innocent human being.

Your strategy is a reflection of your character. Your character is of a lazy thinking person who thinks he does not have time to consider the other side. In doing this you do yourself a disservice as well as anyone who follows you.

 

[Sancocho]

Your strategy is a reflection of your character.

Somebody has to fight for the weak and innocent.

 

[noguru]

I believe there is a "knowing" that is instinctual and oriented to self-preservation.

From an evolutionary perspective, it is thought that all altruistic behavior is but an extension of motherly nurturing.

It is that upon which good parenting and mentoring builds.

If you give a man a fish he eats for a day. If you teach a man to fish he eats for a lifetime.

As a child one learns incrementally. As knowledge is absorbed one has the beginnings of a tool kit which enables one to begin to think exponentially.

Very well said and accurate.

It is in the guidance and nurturing of our children That moral thinking and moral behavior blossom.

Refer to my first response. In the Bible it says "That God's law is written on our hearts". That is just a poetic way of saying "empathy".

 

[gcthomas]

You are confusing the issues. Nothing you have posted challenges what science says, ie that a life is created at the moment of conception.

No. It is life continuing. Before conception there were two living cells and after there is one. No creation, just a mixing of two sets of genes and cellular machinery. It was cells before conception and cells after. What is the specific change that you think merits extra protection in the later cell? It is not a person yet.

 

[gcthomas]

Somebody has to fight for the weak and innocent.

Go! Fight for the rights of the single celled organism! Single cells are innocent!

 

[bybee]

No. It is life continuing. Before conception there were two living cells and after there is one. No creation, just a mixing of two sets of genes and cellular machinery. It was cells before conception and cells after. What is the specific change that you think merits extra protection in the later cell? It is not a person yet.

But the only thing it can become is a person.

 

[gcthomas]

But the only thing it can become is a person.

And then it shall have the rights and duties of a person.

 

[bybee]

And then it shall have the rights and duties of a person.

Nature grants this fertilized egg nine months protection in utero.
To interrupt that protection is to go against nature.

 

[noguru]

Somebody has to fight for the weak and innocent.

You do not have the skills for that. If you were truly fighting for the weak and innocent you would not hide yourself from reality. Claiming that it is for them that you do this. You would honestly and courageously face reality squarely. You are the Capt of a ship of fools.

 

[noguru]

Nature grants this fertilized egg nine months protection in utero.
To interrupt that protection is to go against nature.

A (potential) mother is part of nature. It is best that we make them realize the potential they are sacrificing rather than force them through ignorance.

 

[Sancocho]

No. It is life continuing. Before conception there were two living cells and after there is one. No creation, just a mixing of two sets of genes and cellular machinery. It was cells before conception and cells after. What is the specific change that you think merits extra protection in the later cell? It is not a person yet.

Let's make this simple. Please post a scientific reference that supports the claim that a unique human being is not created at conception with unique DNA.

What you have posted, including your opinion, has nothing to do with real science, sorry.

 

[gcthomas]

Nature grants this fertilized egg nine months protection in utero.
To interrupt that protection is to go against nature.

That may be true, but we do plenty of things that go against nature and many of those are morally desirable, leaving us with longer and happier lives as a result.

 

[gcthomas]

Let's make this simple. Please post a scientific reference that supports the claim that a unique human being is not created at conception with unique DNA.

What you have posted, including your opinion, has nothing to do with real science, sorry.

Please define human being for me, as you seem to understand something different from my understanding. Then I'll answer.

 

[noguru]

Let's make this simple. Please post a scientific reference that supports the claim that a unique human being is not created at conception with unique DNA.

What you have posted, including your opinion, has nothing to do with real science, sorry.

It is the start of a human being, and it has the potential to become one. Even after birth a human being is a process, not a finished product.

 

[Sancocho]

You do not have the skills for that. If you were truly fighting for the weak and innocent you would not hide yourself from reality. Claiming that it is for them that you do this. You would honestly and courageously face reality squarely. You are the Capt of a ship of fools.

No one here doubts my stance on child sacrifice, the same can't be said for you.

As far as "facing reality", good grief I can't believe you are trying to minimize homicide again.

I would rather be a fool than a facilitator for justifying the dismemberment of others.

 

[Sancocho]

It is the start of a human being, and it has the potential to become one.

There is no scientific reference that can support the claim that a human being is not created at the moment of conception.