It should be Murder?

[Nic Samojluk]

Yes the thread should move to a legal forum.

I see no point in retricting the conversation to

 

[Armoured]

Always? Really? How about the Hippocratic Oath which was recognized by the medical profession since before the Christian Era? Said oath prohibited abortion.

No it doesn't. Saying it again doesn't make it true.

 

[Cearbhall]

Thanks. I will bookmark this thread the next time the Climate Police here on CF appeals to science to change our liberties, economy, way of life and violates our privacy.

Oh, science can lead to laws, if we choose to use it that way. I clearly stated that it does not "automatically" lead to laws. Humans write laws. They aren't preexisting. The fact that a human zygote or embryo is a living human does not automatically mean that first-trimester abortion should be banned. Nor does the fact that I'm alive mean that the universe has entitled me to healthcare, education, or $1 million. We have to reason our way to that conclusion, as with everything.

 

[redleghunter]

Legal personhood is not a scientific matter. It is, quite literally, the question of when we as a society decide to grant a human with certain legal rights. Some are granted at viability or birth. Others are instead tied to the concept of legal adulthood.

That's more an argument for Constitutional person than legal person.

By definition a legal person is most adults. Born children who are minors are not legal persons.

What you wrote above is bestowing Constitutional civil rights on a person.

 

[Nic Samojluk]

Life began 3.5 billion years ago and has been an ongoing process ever since.

Wow! How easy it has become to add zeros to the age of the human race. It was millions, then billions, and very soon it will be trillions.

 

[Cearbhall]

I do! There is a fundamental moral difference between killing an innocent human being and executing a hardened criminal.

There's a difference, but I'm not sure it's one that allows execution to fall under the pro-life bubble.

 

[Nic Samojluk]

the few who do live to be 80, 90+ are usually wheelchair-bound, or need canes and walkers and can barely survive without loads and loads of medicine and doctor care, and many of them are barely functional physically or mentally.

Ouch, I am already 84 and thanks God I have no need of wheelchairs, canes, or medications. Should I secure some?

 

[joshua 1 9]

Ouch, I am already 84 and thanks God I have no need of wheelchairs, canes, or medications. Should I secure some?

Medication is for people that do not want to eat right.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

Reproduction is not science?

I know it starts out with two people and all who have chemical reactions attracting them and most here know the rest of the story.

Being willfully ignorant doesn't really help your argument...

 

[Cearbhall]

The Hippocratic Oath was held in high esteem by physicians for around two thousand years until it was thrashed in 1973. It prohibited abortion.

How many times do I have to correct you on the history of abortion? I can understand missing one post, but we've been over this multiple times, and other people have added to what I said. Legal abortion did not begin in 1973, even in the United States. It would be greatly appreciated if you would stop making factually incorrect claims in an attempt to fabricate a picture of moral decline.

 

[Belk]

Wow! How easy it has become to add zeros to the age of the human race. It was millions, then billions, and very soon it will be trillions.

Life precedes the human race.

 

[Belk]

Ouch, I am already 84 and thanks God I have no need of wheelchairs, canes, or medications. Should I secure some?

My mother is 71 and in the hospital. may I wish you continued good health sir.

 

[Belk]

Medication is for people that do not want to eat right.

Yes, if only those diabetics ate right. Or had been born able to produce insulin.

 

[redleghunter]

But a foetus isn't a human being, as has been explained.

I'm sure you support our atheist friends in not invoking science in the matters of human generation.

But which of their varying views of personhood do you see as valid?

In contrast I actually believe your Catholic church has it right on personhood:


The Moment of Personhood: A Commentary on Dignitas Personae,
Part One, nn 4-5
Dr. Edward J. Furton, NCBC Director of Publications

Have you ever had someone tell you that the Catholic Church does not teach that the human soul is infused into the body at conception? Would you be shocked to learn that this is pretty much true? The Church holds that a “human being” begins at conception, but you will not find any official Vatican statement asserting that there is a “human person” at conception.

Regardless of whether or not a person is present from conception, the Church has always condemned abortion. The sacredness of human life remains inviolable, whether or not we know with certitude that the embryo conceals within itself a personal presence. But it is easy to see why those who are hostile to Catholic teaching would want to use this “loop hole” to argue that abortion is not really wrong, or to say that human embryos do not really deserve the same kind of respect that babies do.

An earlier 1987 Church document, Donum vitae (DV), had said that the point at which the soul is infused into the body is not a scientific question, but a philosophical one. It observed that “no experimental datum can in itself be sufficient to bring us to the recognition of a spiritual soul,” but it also said that scientific evidence provided a valuable confirmation of the view that there is a personal presence from the moment of conception. The zygote, or single celled organism that is formed from the sperm and ovum, is a unique individual, not identifiable with the life of either the mother or father. Having stressed this unique individuality, Donum vitae then asked “how could a human individual not be a human person?” (DV I.1)

This is a nice rhetorical question, and even though it strongly implies what the correct answer must be, that was as far as Donum vitae was prepared to go. Thus it concluded that

the fruit of human generation, from the first moment of its existence, that is to say from the moment the zygote has formed, demands the unconditional respect that is morally due to the human being in his bodily and spiritual totality. The human being is to be respected and treated as a person from the moment of conception; and therefore from that same moment his rights as a person must be recognized, among which in the first place is the inviolable right of every innocent human being to life.

Enjoy the rest.


http://www.ncbcenter.org/page.aspx?pid=1310

 

[redleghunter]

Ouch, I am already 84 and thanks God I have no need of wheelchairs, canes, or medications. Should I secure some?

Good for you! Keep up whatever is keeping you young.

My grandmother lived to 100 years and 10 days. She was determined to reach triple digits.

She played 9 holes of golf three times a week, biked and danced up a storm until 95. Then the Alzheimer's hit.

For my parents they both made it to 86. Both broke a hip staying active but slowed down after the accidents.

Keep that hip intact! Keep moving.

 

[redleghunter]

Being willfully ignorant doesn't really help your argument...

How nice.

 

[redleghunter]

Life precedes the human race.

Of course you know this because of science. Sorry had to say it.

 

[Belk]

Of course you know this because of science. Sorry had to say it.

Touche.

 

[Cearbhall]

Wow! How easy it has become to add zeros to the age of the human race. It was millions, then billions, and very soon it will be trillions.

He said "life," not humanity. It's not like he made up a number.

 

[Armoured]

Yes, if only those diabetics ate right. Or had been born able to produce insulin.

Darn cystic fibrosis sufferers.