abortion is uncontrollable?

Jedi said:

If I may, there's some terminology being thrown around here that might be confusing the matter.

To start, the issue here is not whether or not the subject is "alive." After all, if "life" was a quality that inherently warranted its bearer protection, we should label ourselves all murderers every time we swat a fly or smash a cockroach, as we just snuffed out a "life."

Naturally, some people will point out those things aren't "human." Very well, but now the argument has shifted from taking "life" to taking "human life." But here is where the water starts to get a little muddy. What do we mean by "human?" If something posseses human DNA, does it qualify as being "human life" and thus warrant protection from termination? If this was the case, we should condemn everyone as murderers who has ever scratched an itch, killing countless thousands of skin cells in the process - skin cells that posses both "life" and "human DNA."

So what is the difference between the living skin cell packed with human DNA and a 1-year old baby? I submit the difference is "personhood." The skin cell, the cockroach, the oranges we kill for our orange juice all lack that quality that we all suppose people to have. So the question isn't whether or not the subject possesses "life" or even "human life," but whether or not our subject is a "person."

Defining "person" is a little murkey, but I think we can all agree that a person is a sentient entity composed of a will, some degree of intelligence, consciousness, self-awareness, and all the many traits that compose someone's personality. Many of these traits, however, require the presence of the brain to develop and function; without the brain, none of these things can be present (or, at the very best, aren't detectable). If this is so, then how can we define a developing zygote or fetus as a "person" when it exhibits none of the qualities that define personhood?

This is not to say these qualities don't exist at some later time in the pregnancy, but at the earliest stages of pregnancy, I submit that the best evidence we have indicates the lack of a person in the womb. The raw materials are there and if all goes right, it will develop, but before the necessary physical pieces are present to enable the existance of sentience, desire, intelligence, consciousness, self-awareness, etc., then there is no reason to suppose that what we're dealing with is a person and if it is not a person, then this physical combination of cells is on the same level as a skin cell, different in degree but not in kind.

In short, if there is no person present at the earliest stages, then there is no person to kill. If no person is killed, then there should be no moral reprimand for killing the physical cells; at least no more moral reprimand than killing any other bundle of physical cells that lack the quality of personhood.

Click to expand...

"Personhood" is possibly the worse way to determine if it's ok to kill an innocent Human Being. There isn't a definitive definition for "Personhood". "Personhood" is a psychological argument not a scientific one. You yourself said "defining person is a little murky" and "This is not to say these qualities don't exist at some later time in the pregnancy". You cannot even tell me when the unborn becomes a person. No one can. All you can do is give me your opinion as to when you think the unborn becomes a person. And if no one knows for sure when the unborn becomes a 'person' then it is probable that some abortions, if not all, are in fact killing innocent Human Beings.

By the way, the difference between a living skin cell and the unborn is that the skin cell will never develop into a baby or a child or an adult or an elderly Human Being. In fact the skin cell is not a Human Being but only a part of a Human Being, where as the unborn is a 100% Human Being.

The unborn like every other Human Being has the right to life because it is part of the Human Race. And we should not try and think of ways to justify the killing of an inconvenient or unwanted innocent Human Being.

TomZzyzx said:

"Personhood" is possibly the worse way to determine if it's ok to kill an innocent Human Being.

Click to expand...

Define "human being," then. I highly suspect your definition of "human being" will be almost exactly what I described as "personhood." No point quibbling over semantics.

There isn't a definitive definition for "Personhood". "Personhood" is a psychological argument not a scientific one.

Click to expand...

If we were to restrict our arguments strictly to science, you should have no moral argumentation against abortion at all, as science explains what is, not what ought to be. Thus your objection that some point made was not made through the scientific method is curious.

You yourself said "defining person is a little murky" and "This is not to say these qualities don't exist at some later time in the pregnancy".

Click to expand...

Unlike the pro-life camp, I don't speak where my knowledge does not allow.

You cannot even tell me when the unborn becomes a person. No one can.

Click to expand...

Then how can you claim abortion is murder? You’re not even sure if there’s a person present.

All you can do is give me your opinion as to when you think the unborn becomes a person.

Click to expand...

Reason and evidence are quite different from an uninformed opinion.

And if no one knows for sure when the unborn becomes a 'person' then it is probable that some abortions, if not all, are in fact killing innocent Human Beings.

Click to expand...

Perhaps, but we have to go where the evidence leads. Simply because we don’t have it spelled out for us beyond all possible doubt does not mean we should refrain from said activity. For example, suppose a proclaimed psychic tells you that you shouldn’t go outside for the rest of your life. It’s possible the psychic is genuine and is trying to prevent harm from coming to you. Is it likely? Probably not, but you aren’t going to toss your hands in the air and say “Well, I just don’t know for sure, so I’m going to stop doing anything that could possibly lead to any harm.” You go where the evidence leads, even if there is a possibility of danger. To do otherwise is to clam up in fear of doing harm and cease to live as a human being.

By the way, the difference between a living skin cell and the unborn is that the skin cell will never develop into a baby or a child or an adult or an elderly Human Being. In fact the skin cell is not a Human Being but only a part of a Human Being, where as the unborn is a 100% Human Being.

Click to expand...

You’re just begging the question now. Saying “the difference between A and B is that A will never become B” tells us absolutely nothing about what makes A and B different. What is the defining quality that a person/human being has that warrants protection from termination that is not shared by the skin cell?

Jedi said:

Define "human being," then. I highly suspect your definition of "human being" will be almost exactly what I described as "personhood." No point quibbling over semantics.

If we were to restrict our arguments strictly to science, you should have no moral argumentation against abortion at all, as science explains what is, not what ought to be. Thus your objection that some point made was not made through the scientific method is curious.

Unlike the pro-life camp, I don't speak where my knowledge does not allow.

Then how can you claim abortion is murder? You’re not even sure if there’s a person present.

Reason and evidence are quite different from an uninformed opinion.

Perhaps, but we have to go where the evidence leads. Simply because we don’t have it spelled out for us beyond all possible doubt does not mean we should refrain from said activity. For example, suppose a proclaimed psychic tells you that you shouldn’t go outside for the rest of your life. It’s possible the psychic is genuine and is trying to prevent harm from coming to you. Is it likely? Probably not, but you aren’t going to toss your hands in the air and say “Well, I just don’t know for sure, so I’m going to stop doing anything that could possibly lead to any harm.” You go where the evidence leads, even if there is a possibility of danger. To do otherwise is to clam up in fear of doing harm and cease to live as a human being.

You’re just begging the question now. Saying “the difference between A and B is that A will never become B” tells us absolutely nothing about what makes A and B different. What is the defining quality that a person/human being has that warrants protection from termination that is not shared by the skin cell?

Click to expand...

Ok, here's your definition. Human Being - any individual of the genus Homo, especially a member of the speices Homo Sapiens. The unborn is a member of the species Homo Sapiens, therefore the unborn is a Human Being.

You spoke this time and your knowledge was not up to par.

I don't claim abortion is murder, I claim abortion kills an innocent Human Being.

Yes you have proved that.

Here's a better example. When they are about to implode a building and the man in charge asks if there is anyone still inside before he sets of the explosives, and the response he gets is I don't know if there is still someone in the building. Do you think he sets of the explosives anyway? Of corse not, he makes sure there isn't anyone still inside the building before he sets of the explosives. He errors on the side of life. Which means we should do the same thing. If we don't know when the unborn becomes a person, my answer is that the unborn becomes a person at conception, then abortions should never take place because each abortion could be killing an innocent Human Person. And by the way I do go where the scientific evidence leads, and the scientific evidence tells us that the unborn is a Human Being at conception.

I told you exactly what the difference is between A and B. the skin cell is is alive and is human, and the unborn is 'A Human Life', is a Human Being from conception. You are mixing parts with wholes. The skin cell is a part of a Human Being but will never develop into a Human Being.

Now either you are calling the unborn a "person/human being" or you don't know what "quality a person/human being", at any age, "warrants protection from termination that is not shared by the skin cell." either way I would hope you know that it's ok to kill a skin cell but not ok to kill a Person/Human Being.

TomZzyzx said:

Ok, here's your definition. Human Being - any individual of the genus Homo, especially a member of the speices Homo Sapiens.

Click to expand...

This answers nothing. What is a "homo sapien" and why does it warrant protection? You still have yet to list any quality that differentiates a "human being/person" from a skin cell; you have only listed synonyms or begged the question.

The unborn is a member of the species Homo Sapiens

Click to expand...

According to whom? A dead body is also technically a "member of the species Homo Sapiens," but I see no one crying about the destruction of those things, which in many way are very much "alive" (organs, tissue, etc). Why is it okay to dispose of a "homo sapien" declared medically dead and not one that hasn't reached that point? What's the difference? The biological (or "scientific") material is the same. What qualities does the former lack that the latter has, which warrant its bearer protection from termination?

You spoke this time and your knowledge was not up to par.

Click to expand...

On the contrary, you've only begged the question and answered nothing. You have yet to describe any quality or characteristic that inherently warrants its bearer protection.

I don't claim abortion is murder, I claim abortion kills an innocent Human Being.

Click to expand...

Which is... bad, yes? Something you wish to argue against? Seems like splitting hairs to me.

Here's a better example. When they are about to implode a building and the man in charge asks if there is anyone still inside before he sets of the explosives, and the response he gets is I don't know if there is still someone in the building. Do you think he sets of the explosives anyway? Of corse not, he makes sure there isn't anyone still inside the building before he sets of the explosives. He errors on the side of life.

Click to expand...

You're being fallacious now. We aren't talking about a situation where we haven't investigated the matter at all and just say "I don't know." We have looked and there simply is NO EVIDENCE of any sentient person present at the earliest stages of pregnancy. Indeed, it would be like a team doing a walk through in the building about to be imploded and saying "I have checked and seen no evidence of people present in the building." Is their knowledge certain? Of course not, but they did examine the area and after finding nothing, they implode the building. They do NOT err on the side of caution just because there might be someone hiding in the building that they missed (after all, this is always a possibility, right?). They go where the evidence leads.

If you want people to not have abortions at all - even during the earliest stages of pregnancy - then you have to provide evidence that there is something there that warrents protection: some sentient thing with the capacity for self-awareness, intelligence, desire, etc. that would differentiate it from any other cluster of cells in the human body. Saying "It's a human being!" or "It's a homo sapien!" is insufficient, as it only begs the question that something is different about those things and completely fails to pinpoint what, exactly, is different.

And by the way I do go where the scientific evidence leads, and the scientific evidence tells us that the unborn is a Human Being at conception.

Click to expand...

Biologically, a dead body is also a "homo sapien." By your logic, then, we should be morally barred from disposing of dead bodies. After all, the subject maintains its biological identity even after that.

I told you exactly what the difference is between A and B. the skin cell is is alive and is human, and the unborn is 'A Human Life', is a Human Being from conception. You are mixing parts with wholes. The skin cell is a part of a Human Being but will never develop into a Human Being.

Click to expand...

Beg, beg, beg. What's the difference between something that is "human" and "alive" versus "a human life?" You've failed to describe any quality that differentiates the two. Why should one be protected and the other not? I've already given my answer, which you have failed to even respond to. You only scoffed at the idea of personhood without providing any alternate explanation of why we should protect the cluster of cells we call "human being" and not any other cluster of cells.

Now either you are calling the unborn a "person/human being" or you don't know what "quality a person/human being", at any age, "warrants protection from termination that is not shared by the skin cell." either way I would hope you know that it's ok to kill a skin cell but not ok to kill a Person/Human Being.

Click to expand...

Oh, I know very well, as I described earlier and you apparently failed to read. The problem comes in you denying my description of how these things are different, then providing no explanation as to why you did not accept the described differences and provided no alternate explanation yourself. The issue here is "personhood," whether you like it or not. That's what a skin cell lacks and an adult human possesses that warrants protection. That's why we're not concerned about disposing of a dead body, even though its biological components are the same as they were when the body was "alive." The problem is that no one - NO ONE - has showed how a zygote possesses this unique and mandetory quality to qualify as a "person" and all the protections that follow. There is no brain, there is no mind, there is no person. Period. You cannot destroy what is not there.

Jesus said I knew you before you were born - if it was not a life, how could Jesus know it before it was born.

SharonL said:

Jesus said I knew you before you were born - if it was not a life, how could Jesus know it before it was born.

Click to expand...

Granted, but this is perhaps the most abused verse by the pro-life camp for a very simple reason: God's forknowledge of someone does not, in any way, tell us when they came to be. You might as well say, "Before you were born, God knew you, therefor you were born in July!" The connection just isn't there, but that's precisely what the pro-life camp assumes: "Before you were born, God knew you, therefore, your existence began at conception!" God may know people before they're born, but that does not mean they were persons from the point of conception or that they did not become persons some time later during the pregnancy.

Jedi said:

This answers nothing. What is a "homo sapien" and why does it warrant protection? You still have yet to list any quality that differentiates a "human being/person" from a skin cell; you have only listed synonyms or begged the question.

According to whom? A dead body is also technically a "member of the species Homo Sapiens," but I see no one crying about the destruction of those things, which in many way are very much "alive" (organs, tissue, etc). Why is it okay to dispose of a "homo sapien" declared medically dead and not one that hasn't reached that point? What's the difference? The biological (or "scientific") material is the same. What qualities does the former lack that the latter has, which warrant its bearer protection from termination?

On the contrary, you've only begged the question and answered nothing. You have yet to describe any quality or characteristic that inherently warrants its bearer protection.

Which is... bad, yes? Something you wish to argue against? Seems like splitting hairs to me.

You're being fallacious now. We aren't talking about a situation where we haven't investigated the matter at all and just say "I don't know." We have looked and there simply is NO EVIDENCE of any sentient person present at the earliest stages of pregnancy. Indeed, it would be like a team doing a walk through in the building about to be imploded and saying "I have checked and seen no evidence of people present in the building." Is their knowledge certain? Of course not, but they did examine the area and after finding nothing, they implode the building. They do NOT err on the side of caution just because there might be someone hiding in the building that they missed (after all, this is always a possibility, right?). They go where the evidence leads.

If you want people to not have abortions at all - even during the earliest stages of pregnancy - then you have to provide evidence that there is something there that warrents protection: some sentient thing with the capacity for self-awareness, intelligence, desire, etc. that would differentiate it from any other cluster of cells in the human body. Saying "It's a human being!" or "It's a homo sapien!" is insufficient, as it only begs the question that something is different about those things and completely fails to pinpoint what, exactly, is different.

Biologically, a dead body is also a "homo sapien." By your logic, then, we should be morally barred from disposing of dead bodies. After all, the subject maintains its biological identity even after that.

Beg, beg, beg. What's the difference between something that is "human" and "alive" versus "a human life?" You've failed to describe any quality that differentiates the two. Why should one be protected and the other not? I've already given my answer, which you have failed to even respond to. You only scoffed at the idea of personhood without providing any alternate explanation of why we should protect the cluster of cells we call "human being" and not any other cluster of cells.

Oh, I know very well, as I described earlier and you apparently failed to read. The problem comes in you denying my description of how these things are different, then providing no explanation as to why you did not accept the described differences and provided no alternate explanation yourself. The issue here is "personhood," whether you like it or not. That's what a skin cell lacks and an adult human possesses that warrants protection. That's why we're not concerned about disposing of a dead body, even though its biological components are the same as they were when the body was "alive." The problem is that no one - NO ONE - has showed how a zygote possesses this unique and mandetory quality to qualify as a "person" and all the protections that follow. There is no brain, there is no mind, there is no person. Period. You cannot destroy what is not there.

Click to expand...

Maybe you weren't paying attention, "this" answers the question you asked, "define Human Being". Do I have to look up everything for you? Homo Sapiens - the species of bipedal primates to which modern humans belong. I gave you the biggest difference, a skin cell is part of a Human Being but it is not 'a' Human Being. And the unborn, by the definitions I have given you, is a 100% Human Being.

According to science, not philosophy. We're not discussing the difference between a living Human Being and a dead one. That's for another thread.

But we are discussing whether to perform a procedure without knowing if there is a Human Being that might get killed.

There is scientific evidence that something is there, a Human Being. And it is wrong to kill an innocent Human Being.

If you think a dead Human Being would have the same right to life as a living one has, you might be the only one in the world who believes that.

I've answered this question already.

When we started this discussion the "issue" was Human Being, but now that you know that the unborn is a Human Being at conception you want to say that the "issue" is now "personhood". Like I said before, you determine whether to kill something by using science To determine what the thing is. You don't use phylosophy.

TomZzyzx said:

Maybe you weren't paying attention

Click to expand...

Unlikely, since I quoted you line-by-line.

"this" answers the question you asked, "define Human Being". Do I have to look up everything for you? Homo Sapiens - the species of bipedal primates to which modern humans belong.

Click to expand...

And like I explained, this definition is completely irrelevant to this discussion. Let me write this in bold so perhaps you can read it this time: what quality does a "homo sapien" possess that warrants its bearer protection from termination that other living things lack?

I gave you the biggest difference, a skin cell is part of a Human Being but it is not 'a' Human Being.

Click to expand...

And AGAIN, you're just begging the question. Saying "A is only part of B, not all of B" does NOT define the unique, defining qualities of B that set it apart from other living things.

And the unborn, by the definitions I have given you, is a 100% Human Being.

Click to expand...

So is a corpse, but I don't see you getting all red faced when people cremate them. What's the difference?

According to science, not philosophy. We're not discussing the difference between a living Human Being and a dead one. That's for another thread.

Click to expand...

No, it's for this one. If you want to condemn the action of killing a cluster of cells, you must describe why killing that cluster is bad but killing any other cluster is not inherently bad. This is not strictly limited to science, as the essence of our subject - its very soul and personality - are beyond the physical observations of science; additionally, the issue of abortion is a moral debate, which demands a philosophical/theological answer rather than a scientific one.

But we are discussing whether to perform a procedure without knowing if there is a Human Being that might get killed.

Click to expand...

Correction: we are discussing a procedure with strong evidence of the absence of a person at the earliest stages of development. Like a demolishion team searching for evidence of people remaining in a building before they implode it, there is absolutely no evidence of anything resembling intelligence, sentience, self-awareness, conciousness, etc. at the earliest stages of pregnancy. You can't destroy what was never there.

There is scientific evidence that something is there, a Human Being. And it is wrong to kill an innocent Human Being.

Click to expand...

This definition is left wanting, as it describes only the physical classification of an organism, not the level of protection is merits in its current state. Again, a dead body is also very much a "human being." If we were to limit ourselves to your terrible definition of what warrants protection, we should be aghast every time a dead body is cremated.

If you think a dead Human Being would have the same right to life as a living one has, you might be the only one in the world who believes that.

Click to expand...

I don't, but under your definition, this is what we would have to believe, as you have given absolutely NO defining qualities that would warrant a distinction.

I've answered this question already.

Click to expand...

Don't lie. Jesus would be very displeased.

When we started this discussion the "issue" was Human Being, but now that you know that the unborn is a Human Being at conception you want to say that the "issue" is now "personhood".

Click to expand...

When we started this discussion, the issue was never whether or not modern science classifies a zygote/fetus as "human." It's a moot point that has nothing to do with our discussion of whether or not terminating this thing is morally praiseworthy or condemnable.

Like I said before, you determine whether to kill something by using science To determine what the thing is. You don't use phylosophy

Click to expand...

Then get out of this discussion, as you clearly have no clue about the limitations of science. Science tells us what is, not what ought to be. It makes no sense to say "You cannot kill this thing, because science says X." Science makes no prescriptions, only observations and predictions. Observing that the cluster of cells is biologically in the same family as grown up human beings is irrelevant, as we're not strictly concerned with the biological nature of the subject. Why is a human being more worthy of protection than a skin cell, fly, cockroach, or cow? Saying, "Because it's a homo sapien" does NOT answer the question. What are you protecting here that you don't care about protecting elsewhere? Human biological matter? If so, why? And why here and not in the case of a dead body?

Skip around the matter all you want, but you'll never provide any answers in this discussion until you look past the descriptive limitations of science, completely void of any sense of value or moral prescription, and step into the world of philosophy (and learn how to spell it at that).

Jedi said:

Unlikely, since I quoted you line-by-line.

And like I explained, this definition is completely irrelevant to this discussion. Let me write this in bold so perhaps you can read it this time: what quality does a "homo sapien" possess that warrants its bearer protection from termination that other living things lack?

And AGAIN, you're just begging the question. Saying "A is only part of B, not all of B" does NOT define the unique, defining qualities of B that set it apart from other living things.

So is a corpse, but I don't see you getting all red faced when people cremate them. What's the difference?

No, it's for this one. If you want to condemn the action of killing a cluster of cells, you must describe why killing that cluster is bad but killing any other cluster is not inherently bad. This is not strictly limited to science, as the essence of our subject - its very soul and personality - are beyond the physical observations of science; additionally, the issue of abortion is a moral debate, which demands a philosophical/theological answer rather than a scientific one.

Correction: we are discussing a procedure with strong evidence of the absence of a person at the earliest stages of development. Like a demolishion team searching for evidence of people remaining in a building before they implode it, there is absolutely no evidence of anything resembling intelligence, sentience, self-awareness, conciousness, etc. at the earliest stages of pregnancy. You can't destroy what was never there.

This definition is left wanting, as it describes only the physical classification of an organism, not the level of protection is merits in its current state. Again, a dead body is also very much a "human being." If we were to limit ourselves to your terrible definition of what warrants protection, we should be aghast every time a dead body is cremated.

I don't, but under your definition, this is what we would have to believe, as you have given absolutely NO defining qualities that would warrant a distinction.

Don't lie. Jesus would be very displeased.

When we started this discussion, the issue was never whether or not modern science classifies a zygote/fetus as "human." It's a moot point that has nothing to do with our discussion of whether or not terminating this thing is morally praiseworthy or condemnable.

Then get out of this discussion, as you clearly have no clue about the limitations of science. Science tells us what is, not what ought to be. It makes no sense to say "You cannot kill this thing, because science says X." Science makes no prescriptions, only observations and predictions. Observing that the cluster of cells is biologically in the same family as grown up human beings is irrelevant, as we're not strictly concerned with the biological nature of the subject. Why is a human being more worthy of protection than a skin cell, fly, cockroach, or cow? Saying, "Because it's a homo sapien" does NOT answer the question. What are you protecting here that you don't care about protecting elsewhere? Human biological matter? If so, why? And why here and not in the case of a dead body?

Skip around the matter all you want, but you'll never provide any answers in this discussion until you look past the descriptive limitations of science, completely void of any sense of value or moral prescription, and step into the world of philosophy (and learn how to spell it at that).

Click to expand...

You quoting me line for line has nothing to do with you not paying attention. You asked me to define "Human Being", and when I did you said "this proves nothing". On the contrary it proves what the definition of 'Human Being' is.

The discussion was whether the unborn is a Human Being, and was not irrelevant to the discussion.

Am I to understand that you think that there is no quality that a "homo sapien" possess that warrants its protection from termination that other living things have?

Because a corpse's cells no longer work together to maintain the life of the being. The unborn on the other hand has all of it's cells working together in tandem toward the growth of a single Human Being.

The unborn is more than a cluster of cells. The unborn is a complete or whole Human Beings having value simply because they are human, not because of some acquired property that they may gain or lose during their lifetime.

The essential nature of a thing, not it's capacity for certain functions, determines it's value.

You are the one who brought up the 'unborn is not a human being' argument, not me. As I recall you said "highly suspect your definition of "human being" will be almost exactly what I described as "personhood." No point quibbling over semantics". Then if that true every Human Being is a person, including the unborn.

TomZzyzx said:

You asked me to define "Human Being", and when I did you said "this proves nothing". On the contrary it proves what the definition of 'Human Being' is.

Click to expand...

No, it begs the question by providing a synonym for "human being." You have completely and repeatedly failed to provide any defining quality that makes the subject "human" and warrants protection from termination. Without doing this, you have no case to condemn abortion as inherently bad.

The discussion was whether the unborn is a Human Being, and was not irrelevant to the discussion.

Click to expand...

It never was; you only injected that red herring. No one here has said the subject isn't classified as being biologically human; what has been suggested is that the cluster of cells at the earliest stages of development are different in degree but not in kind to human skin cells or identical in both degree and kind to a dead body.

Am I to understand that you think that there is no quality that a "homo sapien" possess that warrants its protection from termination that other living things have?

Click to expand...

Do you? If so, what is that quality or qualities? I've already given you my thoughts on this matter; you have only scoffed at them without providing any alternative explanation on why this cluster of cells warrants protection when others do not. You have stated that it's scientifically classified as, but have not explained why this is relevant to the subject's protection and have not explained exactly what qualities this subject has that warrant protection.

Because a corpse's cells no longer work together to maintain the life of the being.

Click to expand...

Sure they do. It's just a matter of time until the organism as a whole decomposes. Fingernails and hair continue to grow after medical death. Organs continue to be healthy and operational. That these things may decompose at a later time makes them no different than a newborn, which will also decompose at a later time.

So what's the difference? What does a living body possess that warrants it protection from termination that a body pronounced medically dead lacks?

The unborn is more than a cluster of cells. The unborn is a complete or whole Human Beings having value simply because they are human, not because of some acquired property that they may gain or lose during their lifetime.

Click to expand...

So if it's more than a cluster of cells, what is the "more?" Saying "It's human!" describes no quality that would warrant a description of "more." What does it mean to be "human" or "homo sapien?" What does this thing have that is beyond mere biological matter?

The essential nature of a thing, not it's capacity for certain functions, determines it's value.

Click to expand...

A subject's capacity for functions is part of its essential nature. Your capacity for free thought and intellect is what separates you from the desk I'm typing on.

You are the one who brought up the 'unborn is not a human being' argument, not me.

Click to expand...

Yeah? Can you provide that quote for me with a post number referenced?

As I recall you said "highly suspect your definition of "human being" will be almost exactly what I described as "personhood." No point quibbling over semantics". Then if that true every Human Being is a person, including the unborn.

Click to expand...

Incorrect, as every subject with human DNA is not a "human being." A dead body is no longer a person. Any creature that lacks sentience, self-awareness, desire, consciousness, etc. lacks the very essence of what it means to be a "person;" they lack the defining qualities of personality. If this is so, you may get upset about destroying "human" biological matter during an abortion in the earliest stages of development, much like disposing of a dead body, but there is no person present inside. And if there is no person present, there is no moral condemnation for those that terminate it.

Everyone can define abortion in any words that makes them comfortable. When I had a miscarriage, months later the Lord showed me that I would be with my baby in Heaven and I was disturbed because my baby did not have a name - the Lord showed me that the baby has been named Rose Mary and is waiting for me in Heaven. That's enough for me - everyone who is a Christian and has had an abortion, right or wrong, they will meet up with that baby in Heaven.

SharonL said:

Everyone can define abortion in any words that makes them comfortable. When I had a miscarriage, months later the Lord showed me that I would be with my baby in Heaven and I was disturbed because my baby did not have a name - the Lord showed me that the baby has been named Rose Mary and is waiting for me in Heaven. That's enough for me - everyone who is a Christian and has had an abortion, right or wrong, they will meet up with that baby in Heaven.

Click to expand...

I'm sorry to hear about your miscarriage. If you don't mind my asking, how far along were you when it happened? And just out of curiosity, how did the Lord show you these things?

I was over 3 months. I had seen a program where someone had seen a vision about their baby being in Heaven, but the baby did not have a name and God told her the angels named her baby. I then was concerned and just said to God that my baby did not have a name and He was very clear to tell me that the baby had been named Rose Mary. I don't know how to explain it, but it was just the Holy Spirit talking to me and there was no doubt whatsoever.

God gives me poems for hurting people and after this I was visiting a friend and in the middle of the night, pitch black, the Lord put this poem on my heart - I only get the poems once so I had to get out of bed and find a pen and paper - read the poem that the Lord gave me.

song - the name of the poem is 'God Never Loses even One'

Romans, I would ask them what they meant by that before discussing it with them further.

romansonesixteengirl said:

I posted this one facebook:

It's a woman's right to have an abortion?
55,559,615 abortions, half of them women.
27,779,807 women WITHOUT the most basic right: LIFE.

And got this as a response:

A lot of them are very serious and uncontrollable circumstances.

I was very confused... Does anyone have any thoughts on the matter?

Click to expand...

The misconception is that "most" abortions are on pregnancies resulting from rape, or from life or death circumstances. This is not true.

Me? I don't care WHEN life starts in regards to this issue, its not about that, though fetuses show brain activity at 10 weeks. I will never support the right for a woman to use a surgical procedure as birth control.

I know that sounds insensitive. I apologize.