"Therefore, Abortion Must Remain Legal"

[WizardofOz]

All innocent humans should have a right to life unless.....

..they are not yet humans.

A human zygote is both human (adjective - just like a human fetus or a human baby) and is a human (noun - primate of the family Hominidae of the genus Homo).

A human zygote is human and is a human.

Her conclusions are based on her Catholic ethics, not the science of the situation, given that she has departed radically from scientific reasoning. Her arguments are based on biblical inspiration, not science.

Care to discuss the arguments or the person presenting them?

 

[WizardofOz]

The bold part, where she thinks a single cell can be whole human with so many parts (ie. all of the parts except for DNA) missing.

Then no fetus is whole until they are fully developed and thus, it should be legal to abort them up until they are a whole human.

When is a fetus a "whole human"?

 

[alwight]

As a Catholic she may be happy with the idea that the Eucharist bread and wine have been actually 'transformed' into the body and blood of Christ, but is her use of the same word here as scientifically questionable?

Yes it seems that for some people there is a symbolic human status given to a zygote say which in reality has no demonstrable basis in fact.

 

[WizardofOz]

I'm not trying to be annoying btw but do you mean A human "something" or just A human? I think there is a clear difference and that you are unwilling to say which. For me "A" human is also a person, do you agree? A human toe nail is not, yes?
Is a zygote a human[person] iyo?

With "a human something", "human" is an adjective, describing the something.

With "a human", " human" is a noun. It is the something.

A human zygote is both human and a human. A human toenail is human (adjective) but not a human (noun). A human toenail is not a primate of the family Hominidae of the genus Homo. A human zygote is.

Is a human zygote a primate of the family Hominidae of the genus Homo? Is a human toenail a primate of the family Hominidae of the genus Homo?

 

[WizardofOz]

Yes it seems that for some people there is a symbolic human status given to a zygote say which in reality has no demonstrable basis in fact.

A demonstrable basis in fact...

A human zygote is both human (adjective - just like a human fetus or a human baby) and is a human (noun - primate of the family Hominidae of the genus Homo).

You may want to at least attempt refuting that before giving gcthomas a high-five.

 

[alwight]

With "a human something", "human" is an adjective, describing the something.

With "a human", " human" is a noun. It is the something.

A human zygote is both human and a human. A human toenail is human (adjective) but not a human (noun). A human toenail is not a primate of the family Hominidae of the genus Homo. A human zygote is.

Is a human zygote a primate of the family Hominidae of the genus Homo? Is a human toenail a primate of the family Hominidae of the genus Homo?

You still managed to studiously avoid "person" I see. :AMR:
I don't agree that a human zygote is a human[person] btw.

 

[alwight]

A demonstrable basis in fact...

A human zygote is both human (adjective - just like a human fetus or a human baby) and is a human (noun - primate of the family Hominidae of the genus Homo).

You may want to at least attempt refuting that before giving gcthomas a high-five.

The human "status" I was referring to is "personhood" which is not implied by anything or title you've offered to my notice anyway.

 

[gcthomas]

Then no fetus is whole until they are fully developed and thus, it should be legal to abort them up until they are a whole human.

When is a fetus a "whole human"?

Yet, I haven't used the 'fully developed' argument, or else we'd be aborting fifteen-year-olds.

I HAVE been using the argument involving central nervous system functioning, which your helpful catholic ethicist ignores, along with you now.

 

[WizardofOz]

Well, I'm not seeking to be philosophical here only pragmatic and reasonable. I would like all pregnancies to be wanted but I don't think that could be called interfering. After all there is no shortage of unwanted pregnancies nor people afaic.

Adoption. Reasonable and best for all parties involved.

 

[gcthomas]

Adoption. Reasonable and best for all parties involved.

Except for those forced to carry on with a pregnancy the doctors agree is damaging their health. If adoption was best for all concerned, then it would be the most common choice. Seems many women don't agree with your judgement that they should continue with a damaging pregnancy to make you feel better about it.

 

[WizardofOz]

I HAVE been using the argument involving central nervous system functioning

Just because they may have a very basic, minimally functioning nervous system doesn't mean they are a person.

Why should it?

 

[WizardofOz]

Except for those forced to carry on with a pregnancy the doctors agree is damaging their health. If adoption was best for all concerned, then it would be the most common choice. Seems many women don't agree with your judgement that they should continue with a damaging pregnancy to make you feel better about it.

Do you, gcthomas, feel that ALL elective abortion should be illegal regardless of the duration of pregnancy?

That is, every woman should be legally compelled to carry her child to term unless she was raped or is likely to die due to the pregnancy?

All abortion should be illegal unless.....

 

[WizardofOz]

I don't agree that a human zygote is a human[person] btw.

Incredulity then?
Is a human zygote a primate of the family Hominidae of the genus Homo?

 

[WizardofOz]

The human "status" I was referring to is "personhood" which is not implied by anything or title you've offered to my notice anyway.

You use "person" and "human" interchangeably. Sorry, but they're not interchangeable terms.

 

[gcthomas]

Do you, gcthomas, feel that ALL elective abortion should be illegal regardless of the duration of pregnancy?

That is, every woman should be legally compelled to carry her child to term unless she was raped or is likely to die due to the pregnancy?

All abortion should be illegal unless.....

How many times do I need to spell it out before you understand?

I am not arguing for elective abortion. Elective abortion is illegal here and I have no desire for the law to be changed. You keep changing my 'health risk' to 'likely to die'. Why do you question why I hold an idea that you just made up and I never expressed?

A question for you this time, I have answered a lot of yours.

Would you wish to see an ill woman forced to continue with a pregnancy that risked serious injury to her (not death)?

 

[WizardofOz]

How many times do I need to spell it out before you understand?

:idea:
I am debating multiple people over a lengthy period of time. You could repeat your stance or link to the post in which you have done so.

I am not arguing for elective abortion.

Should all elective abortion be illegal? It's a yes or no question. Either would take less time to type than even "spell" did above.

Elective abortion is illegal here

Link? We may be talking past each other. I live in the US where abortion "rights" are severely abused. Many of your arguments mirror those utilized by pro-choicers here.

Who are you to tell them they are wrong to support or have an elective abortion, anyway?

You keep changing my 'health risk' to 'likely to die'. Why do you question why I hold an idea that you just made up and I never expressed?

It was simply a question. Therefore, it wasn't "your" anything.
I am trying to better understand your position. 'Health risk' is needlessly ambiguous. Every single pregnancy poses a health risk and thus, your argument can easily be used to rationalize elective abortion.

'Risk to life of the mother', is a much more concise rationalization.

A question for you this time, I have answered a lot of yours.

Would you wish to see an ill woman forced to continue with a pregnancy that risked serious injury to her (not death)?

Such as? The baby must be removed if the mothers life is in immediate peril. After all, if the mother dies, so does the child. I would like, even in this circumstance, for the unborn to also be treated as a patient, with all care used to save its life.

So sucking its brain through a vacuum or cutting its spine with a scissors would be illegal in any circumstance.

 

[WizardofOz]

What are your rationalizations? How do you justify legal abortion? If you're pro-choice, let me know why!

What would it take to change your mind?

Negative rep left by alaCarteWarrior - "You're such a phoney when it comes to supposedly being pro life. I could eat you up in a debate."

Any time you're up to it, bring it. You're all bark and gums. If you actually wanted to debate me, you wouldn't simply drive by with a neg rep :chicken:

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Negative rep left by alaCarteWarrior - "You're such a phoney when it comes to supposedly being pro life. I could eat you up in a debate."

Any time you're up to it, bring it. You're all bark and gums. If you wanted to debate you would. :chicken:

One on one Aaaaron. You can tell us how you're "pro life" and then I'll show that you're not doing a damn thing to defeat the movement that is behind abortion; in fact I'll show how you're promoting it with your Libertarian mentality.

 

[WizardofOz]

One on one Aaaaron. You can tell us how you're "pro life" and then I'll show that you're not doing a damn thing to defeat the movement that is behind abortion; in fact I'll show how you're promoting it with your Libertarian mentality.

:yawn: If you want to debate the topic of this thread, bring it on. If you want to divert attention to your soapbox rant thread where you post pic after pic of gay pride parades, get lost :loser:

You a self-loathing former homosexual. Go hate yourself and your repressed feelings elsewhere.

I have a Libertarian mentality like Ken Hutchinson, your very own (kinda, sorta) pastor?

 

[Lighthouse]

To make it simpler, here are the people we want to give rights to:

Here is something we don't want to give rights to:

Please convince us that we should change our minds regarding the last one.

You have yet to give a valid reason why they should not be recognized as human persons at that stage.

So far, your argument has been: everyone you care about belongs to group X. A Zygote also belongs in group X - therefore you should care about a zygote. This is at best a logical fallacy, and at worst linguistic trickery. Either way, it is unconvincing.

How does a living human zygote not belong to the same group as every other living human?