P
Phinehas2
Guest
To EnemyPartyII,
literally millions of things had to be added to the foetus that became you for it to become "you". Not to mention all the water and nutrients, your intelect, experience, personality, and sense of self awareness all had to be added, since none of these things were present in the foetus in the womb. [/quote] Sorry but the water and nutrients have to be added to all life, my intellect wasn’t added, how was it added? Who added it? Do you understand the distinction between ‘add’ and ‘develop’
Sorry but you said
Besides a well qualified professor or surgeon who amputates a leg instead of an arm because he can’t tell the difference is in my view, if not in his and others views, in error. and I would be leaving such a hospital.
Are you sure? My apologies please repeat them if that’s the case.You havn't addressed any of my challenges to yours either. You pretend they didn't happen and ignore them.
For someone who doesn’t even know the dictionary definition of human as human being, I hardly think you are in a position to make that claim.The only "challenges" of yours I havn't responded to are the ones that don't make anly logical or gramatical sense.
But if its me and I am a person then it is a person. Your point contradicts itself. Its not a case of potential for the foetus to develop, the potential is it won’t develop and abortion is one of the dangers. Naturally the person develops from zygote to foetus, to baby to child to adult. That is develops sentience at one stage and puberty at another is no reason for some to suggest one criteria determines how viable a person is.MY point... is that even though a foetus will, under the right conditions, develop INTO a person, it is not a person YET. Merely having the POTENTIAL to be something doesn't make something the same as what it has the potential to be. An acorn has THE POTENTIAL to be an oak tree, an oak tree has THE POTENTIAL to be a bed... but that does not mean that they are all interchangeable.
You see the problem is if it wasn’t me who would have been aborted who was it. Your view is merely based on your arbitrary criteria of sentience, but no even those who hold your view can agree when that happens. So regardless of the pro-life position which has no doubt about when a life and person begins, the pro-choice abortion position cant even agree when the person begins.I disagree. It wouldn't have been you that was aborted, because you, in the sense of the sentient, self aware being that is you, didn't exist YET.
so what was added?Strongly disagree.
literally millions of things had to be added to the foetus that became you for it to become "you". Not to mention all the water and nutrients, your intelect, experience, personality, and sense of self awareness all had to be added, since none of these things were present in the foetus in the womb. [/quote] Sorry but the water and nutrients have to be added to all life, my intellect wasn’t added, how was it added? Who added it? Do you understand the distinction between ‘add’ and ‘develop’
Ok so even on your basis you were partly wrong.The physical is PART of you,
Read the rest of the definition. Human CAN mean "human being", but it can ALSO mean only related to, or coming from human beings.
Sorry but you said
is said why terminate the life of human beings by abortion and you repliedHumans are organisms.
As you see from the dictionary definition a human is a member of the species homo sapiens: a human being, so your claim it isn’t, is evidently wrong according to the dictionary!!They aren't human BEINGs. Not all organisms are human BEINGS.
Pro-life means no abortion by choice.I'm pro-life, please remember that.
So how does the pro-choice abortion lobby know they aren’t licensing the killing of people if they can’t decide when they become people?So no, we don't all agree on when a person becomes a person.
Because its not arbitrary. Do you understand what arbitrary means? Its having only relative application or relevance; not absolute. Unless you can tell me how life naturally begins apart from conception of sperm and egg, it is not arbitrary.And I'm waiting to hear any reason to think your decision about when a person is a person is any less arbitrary than mine?
On the contrary, as to the issue, if you are suggesting life does naturally begin other that the conception of sperm and egg and gestation then you don’t have scientific support or Biblical support. I cant see why one would put their trust in bad science than God who was supposed to be a believer in God.Well I mean, I have scriptural and scientific support to back up my position, you have, what, a thoroughly out of context bible verse about a child leaping in a womb? Which doesn't mention conception as being the start point of personhood anyway?
Besides a well qualified professor or surgeon who amputates a leg instead of an arm because he can’t tell the difference is in my view, if not in his and others views, in error. and I would be leaving such a hospital.
Upvote
0