The classification in law of what is a human being, with all of its attendant rights and privileges, does not rely upon a scientific classification.
And it is law that we are discussing.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
We are not discussing concepts when if comes to defining the beginning of a human being. It's scientific fact.
Do you believe the earth is undergoing climate change and if so is man contributing to it? If so what is the basis of your belief?
Not a question of rights.
It's a question of investigative procedure.
You mean like using a euphemism as in organism to make it palatable for women to dispose of human life?
If you actually read the multitude of references I posted you would see it is not a few scientists who state conception marks the beginning of a human being. So the science is clear.
Personhood is a philosophical matter.
One who believes only some human beings are entitled to personhood have the burden of proof on the matter. A serious burden of proof because we are talking about ending the life of a human being in development.
We have heard such claims of personhood defined as:
At first breath
At quickening (whenever that is)
At developed brain activity (when exactly and do they mentally infirm count?)
At ensoulment (what exactly is that?)
As the mother determines
As the state determines viability (we have several of those)
When the heart starts beating
When the fetus can feel pain
Only during the first trimester
Up to the third trimester
One month after birth (extreme view of eugenicist Peter Singer)
When the fetus looks "human."
There are probably quite a few more.
So for our non-Christians who do not have an absolute moral Law Giver, they must choose one of the subjective particulars I listed above or the hundreds of possible scenarios. Or they can pick science which they so often do for just about anything else to determine certainty but in this case, they don't.
Why is scientific fact ignored in the instance of the definition of human being?
It's painfully obvious.
The classification in law of what is a human being, with all of its attendant rights and privileges, does not rely upon a scientific classification.
And it is law that we are discussing.
In the US a warrant is required to search homes. Medical records and doctor's confidentiality protected unless a doctor deems there is a crime.
For example a man goes to the doctor and has a bullet wound the cops would be called to see if a crime was committed.
No law cannot deny something that is scientific fact. The law cannot deem the moon is the sun and the sun as Mercury.
What you are talking about is personhood.
As I stated a few posts up, there are quite a many different theories of personhood. Which tells me our current death culture does not care to deal with such matters and allows killing another human being rest with the mother of the child.
It isn't ignored. It is simply not used as the sole determinant. As is often the case in the affairs of mankind.
Determining the moment at which an organism will change from one state to another, will not inform you as to the value that you place on that organism's existence.
In law, a foetus is not considered to be a human being, in the sense that a 'reasonable person' would define it.
And the inane law proposed forbids women from obtaining an abortion from a doctor. Additionally, as you point out, there is an element of confidentiality to be preserved.
So how, under this brilliant piece of jurisprudence, do the police set about getting their 'man'?
Use whatever term you choose. It matters naught.
The situation remains that, as communities and in law, we do not consider the 'unborn', the 'child in waiting', the 'offspring', or simply the foetus to have the same qualities, rights and privileges as an independent human being.
What is the measurement of determining worth?
What is the definition of reasonable.
Show me some metrics.
That takes us back to the list:
At first breath
At quickening (whenever that is)
At developed brain activity (when exactly and do they mentally infirm count?)
At ensoulment (what exactly is that?)
As the mother determines
As the state determines viability (we have several of those)
When the heart starts beating
When the fetus can feel pain
Only during the first trimester
Up to the third trimester
One month after birth (extreme view of eugenicist Peter Singer)
When the fetus looks "human."
There are probably quite a few more. Which one is right?
That is why women need to be informed on what we do know as fact.
What we have as fact is scientific. The human being begins its distinct life at conception.
Whatever subjective "worth" or rationalized personhood claim is to be measured by the facts as we know them.
What do we know?
23 chromosomes from dad + 23 from mom= 46.
A distinct human being developing towards full adulthood if allowed to live.
The evil illegal abortionist. I told you that hundreds of posts ago.
Thanks for the statement. Now tell me why this is so.
Do you know the number of women, already distraught at having suffered a miscarriage, you would be subjecting to the humiliation and pain of having to prove that they didn't 'kill' their foetus!?
Let me guess.........you're male, correct?
No he isn't. There, that was easy.
No, it is not. Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being. Abortion is not unlawful, nor is a foetus a human being.
The community and the courts disagree with you.
Ah yes. The conservative fundamentalist.......
"Who can I hate today!?"
Yeeeeees... we get that, the point is how do you tell the difference? Does EVERY single case of a pregnancy ending get investigated, or what?
Yes, it is.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/abortion
Abortion
1.
Also called voluntary abortion. the removal of an embryo or fetus from the uterus in order to end a pregnancy.
2.
any of various surgical methods for terminating a pregnancy, especially during the first six months.
3.
Also called spontaneous abortion. miscarriage (def 1).
Abortion is a violent trauma to the womb of the mother. It should be shown in medical exam.
Oversimplification and inaccurate. What you are basically saying is, because there are miscarriages, that justifies the murder of children through abortion?
And me being male does not change the gruesome murderous nature of abortion.
God is the Creator of all life, regardless of what you believe.
God is the lawgiver, not man.
There are many in the community who agree that abortion is murder and it should be illegal.
It is not hate to want to protect the vulnerable in the womb. I don't hate women who become pregnant and want to murder their child out of convenience. Nor is it hate to stand up for the truth of God.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?