Are Unborn Children Human?

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
41

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]anonfactor wrote:
Something can be human and not a being.
[/quote]

I’m sorry, maybe I am just tired. But your statements are not processing. Explain further please.[/quote]

A dead body is human; an organ being grown in an artificial matrix is human; they are not human beings.

Basically what I’m saying is unborn children are human, but not human beings at conception. Now, this seems reasonable to me, but you probably disagree. I wouldn’t mind hearing your reasons.

42

[quote]anonfactor wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]anonfactor wrote:
Something can be human and not a being.
[/quote]

I’m sorry, maybe I am just tired. But your statements are not processing. Explain further please.[/quote]

A dead body is human; an organ being grown in an artificial matrix is human; they are not human beings.

Basically what I’m saying is unborn children are human, but not human beings at conception. Now, this seems reasonable to me, but you probably disagree. I wouldn’t mind hearing your reasons.

[/quote]

  1. A dead body is matter.
  2. An organ is an organ, and an organism is an organism. The embryo is an individual organism, not an organ. In the human womb you will find a human embryo. And again, it’s an individual organism. Organism equals life. So, a human life.
43

I am serious as to understanding your point. Seriously ; ) So if a child is not a ‘being’ according to you, what are they? From my understanding of your point, which event/s christen being upon a child, born or unborn? Can you provide irrefutable and accepted science behind your stance?

I ask because science continually finds new ways to test and determine many things. I find the fact that life cannot be honestly defined, yet they still allow the slaughter of an innocent child, that is what defines tragedy in my mind. Please help me understand your point better.

[quote]anonfactor wrote:

[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
anonfactor - Please inform me as to what they are, if not human?

[quote]anonfactor wrote:

[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
I simply need to say nothing, besides click the link.

http://liveaction.org/blog/are-unborn-children-human/?utm_content=sf1962487&utm_medium=spredfast&utm_source=facebook&utm_campaign=Live+Action+Corporate&sf1962487=1[/quote]

I don’t think the fact that unborn children are human is in dispute. The argument (well, one of them) is over whether they are human beings and this is not addressed in the video at all.[/quote]
[/quote]

Perhaps I was not clear.

What I mean to say is that I agree with you, unborn children are human at conception, they are human even before then. This point is not in dispute, at least not seriously. However, they are not human beings at conception, emphasis on being. The latter is being conflated with the former. It’s understandable, but still incorrect.

It might seem like I’m playing semantics, but distinctions between the two terms can be distinctly drawn, even in the case of the unborn.

[/quote]

44

I am NOT following. Are you saying societies problems can be solved with abortion, or even the control of those problems? Please clarify.

[quote]kaaleppi wrote:
Omigod, are unborn babies human? What a relevant discussion. In this imperfect world the only thing to discuss is how balance abortions and societal problems. The number of abortions will never be zero but how low can you get in an open society, that’s worth discussing. and what are the means to reach that.

http://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/2007_Abortion_Policies_Chart/2007_WallChart.pdf[/quote]

45

Please provide irrefutable, universally accepted science as to when this ‘event’ occurs? I ask because you are trying to use semantics to further your argument. You change the English language to try and argue your stance, but I want to have a discussion none the less.

[quote]Spartiates wrote:
<< . . . . The point as it relates to this thread is that human is defined as a number of traits our species doesn’t develop until after being born: humanity is developed as we age. . . . >>[/quote]

46

Applicable video.

Mark 1:50 is GOOD if you are short on time.

47

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]anonfactor wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]anonfactor wrote:
Something can be human and not a being.
[/quote]

I’m sorry, maybe I am just tired. But your statements are not processing. Explain further please.[/quote]

A dead body is human; an organ being grown in an artificial matrix is human; they are not human beings.

Basically what I’m saying is unborn children are human, but not human beings at conception. Now, this seems reasonable to me, but you probably disagree. I wouldn’t mind hearing your reasons.

[/quote]

  1. A dead body is matter.
  2. An organ is an organ, and an organism is an organism. The embryo is an individual organism, not an organ. In the human womb you will find a human embryo. And again, it’s an individual organism. Organism equals life. So, a human life.[/quote]

We’re in agreement that an embryo is a living human organism, however, I don’t think you’ve shown yet that it’s a human being (or person if you prefer) at conception.

Now, the example I’m going to use to make my point might be a little morbid, but bear with me.

Let’s take two embryos and let’s make them identical twins just for simplicity’s sake. At conception, they’re functionally identical. One of the embryos develops abnormally in that it never forms a head. The other one develops normally but dies during childbirth. Neither are living human beings at childbirth.

For the latter, it’s clear that the child was a living human being but ceased to be one when it died during childbirth. When did the former cease to be a living human being? That distinction can’t be made because it never was a living human being even though it responded to stimuli, had unique DNA and was a growing human organism.

If it’s true that the embryos were identical at conception, then it is logically impossible for embryos to be human beings at conception and that the qualities outlined above are not sufficient to describe a human being.

Well, that’s the gist of it. There are several points you can challenge, if you so wish.

48

[quote]anonfactor wrote:

We’re in agreement that an embryo is a living human organism

[/quote]

And organism = life

Therefore, human organism = human life

Therefore, abortion always takes a human life.

As for drastic birth defects, they’re drastic. But we’re talking about premeditated human action in taking innocent human life deliberately.

49

[quote]anonfactor wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]anonfactor wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]anonfactor wrote:
Something can be human and not a being.
[/quote]

I’m sorry, maybe I am just tired. But your statements are not processing. Explain further please.[/quote]

A dead body is human; an organ being grown in an artificial matrix is human; they are not human beings.

Basically what I’m saying is unborn children are human, but not human beings at conception. Now, this seems reasonable to me, but you probably disagree. I wouldn’t mind hearing your reasons.

[/quote]

  1. A dead body is matter.
  2. An organ is an organ, and an organism is an organism. The embryo is an individual organism, not an organ. In the human womb you will find a human embryo. And again, it’s an individual organism. Organism equals life. So, a human life.[/quote]

We’re in agreement that an embryo is a living human organism, however, I don’t think you’ve shown yet that it’s a human being (or person if you prefer) at conception.

Now, the example I’m going to use to make my point might be a little morbid, but bear with me.

Let’s take two embryos and let’s make them identical twins just for simplicity’s sake. At conception, they’re functionally identical. One of the embryos develops abnormally in that it never forms a head. The other one develops normally but dies during childbirth. Neither are living human beings at childbirth.

For the latter, it’s clear that the child was a living human being but ceased to be one when it died during childbirth. When did the former cease to be a living human being? That distinction can’t be made because it never was a living human being even though it responded to stimuli, had unique DNA and was a growing human organism.

If it’s true that the embryos were identical at conception, then it is logically impossible for embryos to be human beings at conception and that the qualities outlined above are not sufficient to describe a human being.

Well, that’s the gist of it. There are several points you can challenge, if you so wish.

[/quote]

What are you talking about? You determined yourself when they each died. They were living human beings until one developed an abnormality and died as a result. It was able to maintain its life without a brain because of the unique environment despite a fatal abnormality. In other words, a brain dead human organism that was dying. Killing it before it was expelled from that environment would be homicide in the same way killing a brain dead human adult would be homicide. They don’t stop being human because they are dying.

50

[quote]Spartiates wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Spartiates wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Spartiates wrote:
Human is an adjective, not a noun.[/quote]

http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=Human#hl=en&q=human&tbs=dfn:1&tbo=u&sa=X&ei=54RDTv7EAcHnsQL8l83gCQ&sqi=2&ved=0CBkQkQ4&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_cp.&fp=14c45ae1d1586beb&biw=1280&bih=649

I don’t understand, the dictionary says it is a noun though.[/quote]

That dictionary is wrong, and is more like a wiki, identifying it’s colloquial usage, which is incorrect.
[/quote]

Really, the Oxford English Dictionary is more like a wiki?

[quote]human(hu�??�?�·man) (n.)
a human being, especially a person as distinguished from an animal or (in science fiction) an alien.
[/quote]

Read more: Oxford Languages | The Home of Language Data

I had no clue.

You’re trying to redefine what we mean. Just stop, you’re not furthering your argument. You’re just showing you can’t argue.[/quote]

I think you’d notice the first definition in OED is adjective. If you actually get the BIG book, or the full subscription version, you get a description of the entomology and evolution of the word and usage, and this would clear it up for you.

I also understand you are dead-set in your beliefs as they are informed by your religion. I have no problem with that, and am not trying to change your personal opinion about abortion. I would like to get people, who have the same personal beliefs on this issue as you, to at least entertain the idea that a secular government SHOULD see, and treat this issue differently than an individual, family or religious institution.[/quote]

Hilarious. You got called out and your response is that your word is one-higher in the dictionary you suggested we refer to?

Double plus good stuff.

51

[quote]anonfactor wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]anonfactor wrote:
Something can be human and not a being.
[/quote]

I’m sorry, maybe I am just tired. But your statements are not processing. Explain further please.[/quote]

A dead body is human; an organ being grown in an artificial matrix is human; they are not human beings.

Basically what I’m saying is unborn children are human, but not human beings at conception. Now, this seems reasonable to me, but you probably disagree. I wouldn’t mind hearing your reasons.

[/quote]

So do they become human “beings” at 12 weeks gestation? 24? How about 5 days after birth? Or does the crossing of the vaginal threshold bestow magical “scientific” “beingness” upon the human that we religious folk are just too dim witted to understand?

52

Where have I said a child without a a head is alive? Please realize you are making an argument for something that never happens, let alone something I said.

Children, all children are alive at the moment of conception. I need no hypothetical arguments to make this claim. Just simple logic. SIMPLE being key.

[quote]anonfactor wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]anonfactor wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]anonfactor wrote:
Something can be human and not a being.
[/quote]

I’m sorry, maybe I am just tired. But your statements are not processing. Explain further please.[/quote]

A dead body is human; an organ being grown in an artificial matrix is human; they are not human beings.

Basically what I’m saying is unborn children are human, but not human beings at conception. Now, this seems reasonable to me, but you probably disagree. I wouldn’t mind hearing your reasons.

[/quote]

  1. A dead body is matter.
  2. An organ is an organ, and an organism is an organism. The embryo is an individual organism, not an organ. In the human womb you will find a human embryo. And again, it’s an individual organism. Organism equals life. So, a human life.[/quote]

We’re in agreement that an embryo is a living human organism, however, I don’t think you’ve shown yet that it’s a human being (or person if you prefer) at conception.

Now, the example I’m going to use to make my point might be a little morbid, but bear with me.

Let’s take two embryos and let’s make them identical twins just for simplicity’s sake. At conception, they’re functionally identical. One of the embryos develops abnormally in that it never forms a head. The other one develops normally but dies during childbirth. Neither are living human beings at childbirth.

For the latter, it’s clear that the child was a living human being but ceased to be one when it died during childbirth. When did the former cease to be a living human being? That distinction can’t be made because it never was a living human being even though it responded to stimuli, had unique DNA and was a growing human organism.

If it’s true that the embryos were identical at conception, then it is logically impossible for embryos to be human beings at conception and that the qualities outlined above are not sufficient to describe a human being.

Well, that’s the gist of it. There are several points you can challenge, if you so wish.
[/quote]

53

I have asked this previously. ‘What are they?’ Please define.

[quote]anonfactor wrote:
<< . . . . We’re in agreement that an embryo is a living human organism, however, I don’t think you’ve shown yet that it’s a human being (or person if you prefer) at conception. . . . >>
[/quote]

54

Not to hijack the discussion. Although I am not sure there really is one. I guess that people that have abortions use justifications based on quality of life in addition to trying to ignore the fact that it is a living human being that they are killing?

The idea that women are involved in 100% of abortions seems sad to me. I would like to think that baby killing/murder was reserved for the male sex. The female sex keeps falling off of the morally superior pedestal that I would like them to stand on. It would seem that many are capabule of far more desturbing acts then even I.

55

Not to hijack the discussion. Although I am not sure there really is one. I guess that people that have abortions use justifications based on quality of life in addition to trying to ignore the fact that it is a living human being that they are killing?

The idea that women are involved in 100% of abortions seems sad to me. I would like to think that baby killing/murder was reserved for the male sex. The female sex keeps falling off of the morally superior pedestal that I would like them to stand on. It would seem that many are capabule of far more desturbing acts then even I.

56

Yes, they are human.

Though, not all humans are of equal value.

^That might sound really cold to many people, though the veracity of this statement can be found all over the place in human nature itself^

The only way round this is to either sentimentalize ALL human life as somwhow being equal & or to say: Only God can choose who lives & who dies etc.

57

[quote]GorillaMon wrote:
Yes, they are human.

Though, not all humans are of equal value.

^That might sound really cold to many people, though the veracity of this statement can be found all over the place in human nature itself^

The only way round this is to either sentimentalize ALL human life as somwhow being equal & or to say: Only God can choose who lives & who dies etc.[/quote]

Good to see you are now willing to admit that the lives are at least human lives.

And I respect your opinion a lot more than some of the people here trying to play word games in order to justify their untenable position. I do think it’s a hideous position, to say the least, but you have my respect for having the balls to at least admit what very few on your side of the fence will.

Now. Can you explain why a newborn baby is somehow more valuable than a 10 week old unborn fetus? Or use your own age/developmental stage comparison. I’d just like to see you defend this. Because from where I comfortably sit it looks like you are standing at the top of a pretty steep hill just strewn with banana peels.

58

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
P.S. I checked my 20 Volume Oxford English Dictionary…same definition as on the website. So, I don’t think my $1000 dictionary is more like a wiki.[/quote]

If you spent $1000.00 on a dictionary, your nerdiness is so large it’s not measurable…

59

[quote]GorillaMon wrote:
Yes, they are human.

Though, not all humans are of equal value.
[/quote]

I know some full grown adults that aren’t worth a shit. Can we kill 'em? Cause they actually suck as people.

60

For the debate of humans vs human-beings, wouldn’t personality come into play at some part? Just curious.

I feel the same way as your last post Pat.