Are Unborn Children Human?

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
61

[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. [/quote]

A dead body is human (adj.) as in has human characteristics, but not a living person (I think that is what you mean by human being); however, it still deserves some respect, like burying it with respect.

A unborn child is not like an organ, as it has its own unique DNA.

[quote]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]

I disagree because you’re using one word, two different ways.

A feather is light.
Light can’t be dark.
A feather can’t be dark. <— kinda what you’re doing.

A child is a human (.n), and I am not sure how you separate the noun human and the noun human being. Can you explain further the distinction, since the apparent distinction you produced doesn’t qualify for an unborn child as it doesn’t resemble a dead person, as it is alive or an organ as it has a unique DNA.

Thank you and look forward to discussing this further.

62

BC, does an unborn child have a personality?

63

[quote]pat wrote:

[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…[/quote]

Thankfully I didn’t actually spend a $1000, I got it for free (if I would have bought it would have been at wholesale, I don’t pay retail). It was a gift from my friends that thought it would be hilarious if they bought me a 20 volume dictionary. To their surprise, I was endeared by their gift (thankfully two of my friends are Jewish, so I know they didn’t pay full price). Though I was thankful they also brought bourbon and wine.

64

[quote]USMCpoolee wrote:
BC, does an unborn child have a personality?[/quote]

Yes, an unborn child has a personality. Of course I mean a personality in the sense of a quality…of being a person as distinct from a thing or animal.

Obviously unborn children are not things or animals. Or, are you referring to something else?

65

[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
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]
[/quote]

It wasn’t really adressed to you so forget it. But for the sake of discussion, do you think the problem with abortions is solved if it is prohibited? Is it going to have repercussions? Should men be bound by law to fatherhood as strongly as women are naturally bound to motherhood? If you don’t take responsibility for your child you go to jail, right? Do you go there repeatedly till your child is of full age if you refuse to act responsibly?

66

[quote]pat wrote:

[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.[/quote]

We already do in places that still have the death penalty.

67

[quote]kaaleppi wrote:

[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
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]
[/quote]

It wasn’t really adressed to you so forget it. But for the sake of discussion, do you think the problem with abortions is solved if it is prohibited? Is it going to have repercussions? Should men be bound by law to fatherhood as strongly as women are naturally bound to motherhood? If you don’t take responsibility for your child you go to jail, right? Do you go there repeatedly till your child is of full age if you refuse to act responsibly?[/quote]

I’ve said numerous times that a realistic solution would be to simply educate on birth control, and making it available. They don’t want a realistic solution, because if it had the desired effect, they wouldn’t be able to complain loudly about it anymore.

68

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]kaaleppi wrote:

[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
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]
[/quote]

It wasn’t really adressed to you so forget it. But for the sake of discussion, do you think the problem with abortions is solved if it is prohibited? Is it going to have repercussions? Should men be bound by law to fatherhood as strongly as women are naturally bound to motherhood? If you don’t take responsibility for your child you go to jail, right? Do you go there repeatedly till your child is of full age if you refuse to act responsibly?[/quote]

I’ve said numerous times that a realistic solution would be to simply educate on birth control, and making it available. They don’t want a realistic solution, because if it had the desired effect, they wouldn’t be able to complain loudly about it anymore.[/quote]

Yeah, it’s about the feel good solution. Problem solved, high five. No responsibility, though.

69

[quote]kaaleppi wrote:

[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
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]
[/quote]

It wasn’t really adressed to you so forget it. But for the sake of discussion, do you think the problem with abortions is solved if it is prohibited? Is it going to have repercussions? Should men be bound by law to fatherhood as strongly as women are naturally bound to motherhood? If you don’t take responsibility for your child you go to jail, right? Do you go there repeatedly till your child is of full age if you refuse to act responsibly?[/quote]
I don’t really know what is so difficult about this premise? Do you think the problem with any other homicide is solved if it is prohibited? Repercussions?
As to the question: Should men be bound by law to fatherhood as strongly as women are naturally bound to motherhood?

Women are not “bound” by motherhood anymore than they choose to take the risk of being impregnated. The right to partake in intercourse(liberty) and the right to property(self-ownership)does not supersede the right to life of an another human. Every action has a consequence and part of the risk involved in intercourse is the burden of a human dependent on your body. Of course in the case of intercourse as a result of force(rape), the massive(and maybe unwanted) human burden placed upon the mother is not, in fact, a result of a voluntary risk taken, but instead of an involuntary action forced upon by the father.
In this case the father should be considered not only criminally responsible for the act of rape(harm) but for the act of denying all of the violations of the right to liberty and property that the life of the child is displacing. An appropriate penalty for rape resulting in conception may include anything up to full indentured servitude to the mother during pregnancy the birth of the child and some finite reparations of property to the mother and/or the child determined at the time of birth(or the end of a miscarried pregnancy). The child itself had no part in it’s own conception and was not the responsible party in denying the liberty and property of the mother and therefore still cannot be denied the right to life.

As to the questions: If you don’t take responsibility for your child you go to jail, right? Do you go there repeatedly till your child is of full age if you refuse to act responsibly?

The “responsibility” a mother takes for the life of another human is a function of being a voluntary party in it’s conception. At conception, the new human gains the right to life which supersedes the mother’s right to liberty and property. An action taken by the mother to remove the child from her physical care in the process of pregnancy would be homicide. However, at the completion of the pregnancy the child’s right to life is no longer in conflict with the mother’s right to liberty and property. More specifically, the child has no right to demand the labor(liberty) and property of the mother beyond the period(pregnancy) in which such a denial(abortion) would result in the homicide of the child.
However, The mother also does not have the right to deny others from taking on a voluntary role in providing(exchanging voluntarily) for the child in the absence of the mother. This is the premise of adoption. Exchanging care(labor and property) for the subjective benefit(love, personal fulfillment, etc…) of guardianship that is no longer being assumed by the parent.

In the case of binding the father to such a role of guardianship, the same premises apply as to any voluntary contract. If a verbal(or written) contract is made between individuals that contains the condition of the father providing a role of guardianship for a child that may be conceived by those two individuals, then the state is within its rights to enforce such a contract. Of course, proper due process must be observed as with any contract between individuals. However if the plaintiff cannot prove that such a voluntary contract was made by the defendant, then the state cannot deny the father his right to liberty or property.
As a summary: laws mandating “child support” are unconstitutional and adoption is vital in the preservation of children relinquished from the care of their parent(s).

There you have it. A consistent reconciliation of the right to life of a human at conception with the constitution and due process.

70

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]USMCpoolee wrote:
BC, does an unborn child have a personality?[/quote]

Yes, an unborn child has a personality. Of course I mean a personality in the sense of a quality…of being a person as distinct from a thing or animal.

Obviously unborn children are not things or animals. Or, are you referring to something else?[/quote]

Honestly, I am just curious. I don’t get to discuss stuff like this often so I’m also pretty ignorant about it. What do you mean “personality in the sense of a quality”? As in, because it is an unborn human child we know, (as long as it is born) that it will have a personality? The OED Bourbon and wine, some good friends BC.

71

[quote]USMCpoolee wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]USMCpoolee wrote:
BC, does an unborn child have a personality?[/quote]

Yes, an unborn child has a personality. Of course I mean a personality in the sense of a quality…of being a person as distinct from a thing or animal.

Obviously unborn children are not things or animals. Or, are you referring to something else?[/quote]

Honestly, I am just curious. I don’t get to discuss stuff like this often so I’m also pretty ignorant about it. What do you mean “personality in the sense of a quality”? As in, because it is an unborn human child we know, (as long as it is born) that it will have a personality? The OED Bourbon and wine, some good friends BC.[/quote]
One of the definitions of personality is “the quality of being a person”.
There are other definitions that refer to character and/or emotional, social, etc… characteristics. These are mostly irrelevant to the question of humanity from which the right to life is ordered and person hood from which the constitutional protections are guaranteed.

72

[quote]USMCpoolee wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]USMCpoolee wrote:
BC, does an unborn child have a personality?[/quote]

Yes, an unborn child has a personality. Of course I mean a personality in the sense of a quality…of being a person as distinct from a thing or animal.

Obviously unborn children are not things or animals. Or, are you referring to something else?[/quote]

Honestly, I am just curious. I don’t get to discuss stuff like this often so I’m also pretty ignorant about it. What do you mean “personality in the sense of a quality”? As in, because it is an unborn human child we know, (as long as it is born) that it will have a personality? The OED Bourbon and wine, some good friends BC.[/quote]

No, I don’t do that potential stuff. I don’t even understand the argument. If it is not a human, then it is not a human. I have the potential to be a multi-millionaire, doesn’t give me the right to have the benefits of someone that holds a Visa black card.

No, personality in the sense they have the qualities or fact of being a person as distinct from a thing or animal.

The only thing I can think of for the reason of the misunderstanding of the definitions is materialism. If you deny something fundamentally human (soul), then the definitions of human and person kind of go out the window.

A person is someone with a soul (mind and will). A human is a particular person, that is compared to a thing or animal - such as a rock or dog.

Accepting materialism denies the soul, or mind and will, and at best attempts to give origin of the mind and will in material (usually the brain). So, you can see the inherent difficulty of defining person to only to human, or distinguishing human from animal or thing when there is no concept of the soul.

Though, that usually requires some study of materialism. Most people, I discuss this with have an inherent knowledge that there is a soul (even if they refrain from such religious terms).

Yes, I suppose I do have good friends.

73

[quote]TooHuman wrote:

In the case of binding the father to such a role of guardianship, the same premises apply as to any voluntary contract. If a verbal(or written) contract is made between individuals that contains the condition of the father providing a role of guardianship for a child that may be conceived by those two individuals, then the state is within its rights to enforce such a contract. [/quote]

Thats great, then you are free to fuck as many women as you please without any repercussions, just don’t sign anyting. And you can lie all you want because she can’t prove you have promised anything.

74

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[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. [/quote]

Because a 10 week old fetus is 100% dependent on it’s mother for survival + if abortion were so obviously intrinsically wrong the process of giving birth wouldn’t be so medically dangerous. Also, the degree of mental development is vastly different.

For me though, the real question (going back to my point about difference in how we value different humans) is this: If you had to choose between preserving the life of a 10 week old fetus, a 10 year old boy, a serial killer & a terminally ill cancer patient, who would you save & in what order would you save them?

^I seriously doubt most people would choose at random + I’m also fairly certain I could predict the order in which most people would preserve or not, each life, if they were pushed into making a decision^

75

[quote]pat wrote:

[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.[/quote]

The death penalty for people who have committed the most heinous of crimes isn’t something I have a moral issue with.

It’s just a shame the legal proccess involved costs so much.

76

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[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.[/quote]

We already do in places that still have the death penalty.[/quote]

A lot of innocent people died in those chairs too. The death penalty takes like 10 lives a year. While I am technically against it, I ain’t sweatin’ it a whole lot either. When the stuff that kills millions and thousands is dealt with, I’ll move my protests down the chain.

77

[quote]GorillaMon wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[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.[/quote]

The death penalty for people who have committed the most heinous of crimes isn’t something I have a moral issue with.

It’s just a shame the legal proccess involved costs so much. [/quote]

Unless their innocent, I hope.

78

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]USMCpoolee wrote:
BC, does an unborn child have a personality?[/quote]

Yes, an unborn child has a personality. Of course I mean a personality in the sense of a quality…of being a person as distinct from a thing or animal.

Obviously unborn children are not things or animals. Or, are you referring to something else?[/quote]

When ever it develops it’s attributes is irrelevant to it’s value. Would you throw away a $1 million dollar savings bond simply because it hasn’t matured yet?

79

This is the real world, stop living in utopia and realize that life is hard and brutal, freedom is not free, and to live is not a RIGHT, it is EARNED. Pro lifers live in utopia, I would rather be dead, not born at all, if i was gonna live with massive deformations, or be raped, molested, killed brutally as a baby.

More over, I would not want to be born if I was not wanted.

But I still think that many abortions are unnecessary, but not ALL of them.