Vaccines and Abortion - Inconsistent Logic

[KCfromNC]

Yes it seems you have.

Could you suggest what a human fetus is, since you deny that it is a human being?

I could, yes.

ETA - but first, can you quote me where I say a fetus isn't a human being?

How does that further the discussion of your claims?

 

[Tree of Life]

I could, yes.

ETA - but first, can you quote me where I say a fetus isn't a human being?

Below are two posts of yours which suggest to me that you deny that a fetus is a human being.

Have at it. Be sure to demonstrate an objective empirical measure for when human life begins, and make sure you don't unintentionally make an argument that contraception also ends a human life in the process.

If you follow the whole "it's a distinct human life because it has different genetics from the parents" then preventing pregnancy is killing a human life. Same with the arguments that something with a potential to be a baby is basically one anyone.

It all points back to the problems of believing there's some sharp bright line between non-life and life, and non-human being and human being.

But maybe I've misunderstood you. Do you admit that a fetus is a human being?

How does that further the discussion of your claims?

I claimed that it can demonstrably be shown that abortion kills a human being. If a fetus is indeed a human being, as you might admit, then this would establish that particular claim.

 

[GodLovesCats]

No, I said that it is especially hard to use empirically-based arguments against abortion which also don't end up making contraception just as bad.

It is a side effect of there being no clear definition of when a human being arises in the process - it is a continuum.

I heard a sermon once about the Biblical argument against abortion. The pastor used chapters that quote Jesus (sorry, I can't remember them) that identifies zygotess as human beings IIRC.

 

[GodLovesCats]

I'm not saying a fetus is a person. I'm saying a fetus is a unique human individual. I would define a human individual as an organism which has human DNA.

What is the difference between a human and a person? I always thought it was like calling felines cats

 

[Tree of Life]

What is the difference between a human and a person? I always thought it was like calling felines cats

"Human" is a biological category while "person" is more of a psychological or spiritual category.

God is a person but he is not a human.
A human who is brain dead is a human but no longer a person.
If we ever encounter alien life forms it's possible that they might be persons, but they won't be humans.
It's conceivable that a computer could be a person, but not a human.
A fetus is certainly a human, although probably not yet a person.

 

[GodLovesCats]

A sperm is a cell belonging to the father (matching his DNA). An egg is a cell belonging to the mother (matching the DNA). Neither the sperm nor the egg is an organism. They have no ability to multiply on their own.

But a fertilized egg is a unique organism with unique DNA which has the ability to multiply.

Would you care to explain how this is possible when a woman has 50,000 ova and in each ovary? Prior to birth, the only way a fetus can get that many ova or sperm is those cells reproduce on their own.

I'd say it's uncontroversial in both science and philosophy that a fetus is a human being. This does not necessarily mean that a fetus is a person or that a fetus has rights. But the fact that a fetus is a human being is not seriously contested.

If a fetus is not a human being, then what is it? It is a unique organism with its own human DNA. What would it be if not a human?

The author calls the 4-6 week old organism a human. She says: "A 4 or 6 week prenatal human is not a fetus — the difference is not arbitrary, it has biological meaning." (Emphasis mine).

What's missing in this "When does a fetus become a human?" argument is the word embryo. This is really about embryos because the unborn human is not a fetus until the second trimester begins.

 

[ThievingMagpie]

There is no distinct human life where conception never occurred.

Certain pills work by weakening the lining of the uterus so that any eggs that are fertilised can't settle in the lining and develop further. The morning after pill also functions like this.

 

[GodLovesCats]

That is because the "morning after pill" (aka Plan B) is taken after an ova and a sperm had time to create a zygote. Taking pills that prevent ovulation (ova traveling down the fallopian tubes) is more reliable.

 

[GodLovesCats]

Weird you'd use the word individual for something which isn't viable on its own. I'm not sure I'd be happy with such an imprecise use of the language.

What about the fetuses that can survive in neonatal care units if they are born prematurely?

 

[GodLovesCats]

Bible Verses about Abortion

What Does the Bible Say About Abortion?

Throughout Scripture, God affirms the value of every human life—from children in the womb to the elderly. Learn more about the biblical references to ideas relating to abortion. Let these Bible verses inspire you about how valuable you are in the sight of the One who made you and gave you life.

See what Bible Study Tools did there? They consider fetuses children - and therefore people.

 

[Tanj]

Well, it would appear we finally have an answer to the age old question:

"If you combine vaccines and abortion in the same thread, which one will dominate?"

You should write this study up OP.

 

[GodLovesCats]

LOL Tanj, and this is on a message board that also has political sections. There are several forums the old abortion debate belongs in.

Now should someone start a new thread about vaccines to help that topic gain more attention?

 

[jayem]

We may understand the choice, but that does not make it morally permissible.

I can agree that terminating a pregnancy for less than medical reasons (or if said pregnancy resulted from some manner of sexual assault) may be morally suspect. But must everything that is morally questionable have to be be illegal?

 

[Sparagmos]

[QUOTE="Tree of Life, post: 73838430, member: 325007]But I suspect this tendency can be found within systems like Buddhism and perhaps even Islam./QUOTE]

Not even close.

 

[jayem]

"Human" is a biological category while "person" is more of a psychological or spiritual category.

In the context of abortion, "person" is a legal term. It means an individual with Constitutional rights. The Supreme Court ruled in Roe v. Wade that the unborn are not persons in the legal sense. This is actually a very strict, textualist interpretation. Nowhere does the plain language of the Constitution state, or even imply, that an embryo, or fetus, is a person. IMO, that's the most important part of the decision. It's the hinge on which decriminalized abortion hangs.

For the record, this is from Section IX of Justice Blackmun's majority opinion. He discusses how the term "person" is used in the Constitution. When you cut through the legalese, this is the pivotal finding. You don't have to agree, but unless Roe is overturned, or the Constitution is amended, this is the law of the land:

The Constitution does not define "person" in so many words. Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment contains three references to "person." The first, in defining "citizens," speaks of "persons born or naturalized in the United States." The word also appears both in the Due Process Clause and in the Equal Protection Clause. "Person" is used in other places in the Constitution: in the listing of qualifications for Representatives and Senators, Art. I, 2, cl. 2, and 3, cl. 3; in the Apportionment Clause, Art. I, 2, cl. 3; 53 in the Migration and Importation provision, Art. I, 9, cl. 1; in the Emolument Clause, Art. I, 9, cl. 8; in the Electors provisions, Art. II, 1, cl. 2, and the superseded cl. 3; in the provision outlining qualifications for the office of President, Art. II, 1, cl. 5; in the Extradition provisions, Art. IV, 2, cl. 2, and the superseded Fugitive Slave Clause 3; and in the Fifth, Twelfth, and Twenty-second Amendments, as well as in 2 and 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment. But in nearly all these instances, the use of the word is such that it has application only postnatally. None indicates, with any assurance, that it has any possible pre-natal application. 54 [410 U.S. 113, 158]

All this, together with our observation, supra, that throughout the major portion of the 19th century prevailing legal abortion practices were far freer than they are today, persuades us that the word "person," as used in the Fourteenth Amendment, does not include the unborn.

FindLaw's United States Supreme Court case and opinions.

 

[Sparagmos]

This is all semantics. People’s beliefs around abortion aren’t based on labels or descriptors, and changing or correcting those descriptors isn’t going to change anyone’s mind.

 

[ThievingMagpie]

That is because the "morning after pill" (aka Plan B) is taken after an ova and a sperm had time to create a zygote. Taking pills that prevent ovulation (ova traveling down the fallopian tubes) is more reliable.

Sure, but the reason I pointed this out is because you said there was a distinction between contraception and abortion - so under your view are morning after pills out now? Is taking the pill out if done so at an irregular time?

 

[Dave-W]

- so under your view are morning after pills out now?

They always have been "out."

 

[KCfromNC]

Below are two posts of yours which suggest to me that you deny that a fetus is a human being.

Want to explain how?

Do you admit that a fetus is a human being?

I don't believe I've made claims one way or the other.

I claimed that it can demonstrably be shown that abortion kills a human being. If a fetus is indeed a human being, as you might admit, then this would establish that particular claim.

"If" and "might" and relying on me to prove your case for you donesn't really inspire confidence in your claim.

 

[KCfromNC]

What about the fetuses that can survive in neonatal care units if they are born prematurely?

The context there was the claim that an embro is "demonstrably" a human being at the instant of conception.

I agree that viability is another point in time which some identify as when it becomes a human being, but I don't think the person I was discussing it with would be predisposed toward accepting that opinion.