Any intellectually honest person has to either admit that it is murder (with all the bad morality that entails) or that humans are not innately valuable.
2 Likes
ONLY caveat Iād have with this sentence is you mean killing instead of murder. Murder is law dependent
I actually mean murder in the moral sense. Not killing.
1 Like
People donāt have to admit anything.
As for the rest, that would depend upon the subjective opinion on when a human being is actually a human being. And since that is subjective, it makes what you posted false.
Since you brought up intellectual honesty, it would be honest to admit that oneās definition of human being is subjective and not necessarily the same as the dictionary definition. It would be intellectually honest to understand that human is not only a noun but an adjective. It would be intellectually honest to recognize that human life does not equal human being.
Right, no one has to admit anything, only if they are intellectually honest.
And human has only become āsubjectiveā as a result of mental and moral gymnastics on the abortion issue. Regardless, even accepting your contention that itās a subjective term youāre argument only works if there is a definition that would successfully change the situation. I havenāt heard any. You are welcome to give me one. It amounts to little more than āthey arenāt human because I donāt want them to beā or the one Iām more sympathetic to (but still disagree with), āthey donāt have a soul yetā. Do you have a reasoned definition as to why certain members of the human species arenāt āhumanā (specifically those in utero) and others are?
And for the record I used the noun āHumansā not the additive āhumanā.
1 Like
I tried to read this and realized I really donāt give a ratās ass what you think about anything at all.
1 Like
True, to a point. Murder has to have intent. I canāt say itās always bad intent, but is always sad.
Somewhat agreed. I canāt say I feel the same as you on these things, but in a more ideal world Iād agree that killing always represents a loss in the world.
1 Like
Unless Iām forgetting a post, you were the first poster to personally attack another poster. Pat used the āNaziā label in a general sense to compare aborting people with Downās syndrome to Nazi politicians and scientists who wanted and attempted to dictate which features people are born with or without. The Nazis arenāt the only group of people to do this, but theyāre one of the most documented groups that engaged in this practice. Pat made a generalized comparison of two groups who engage/d in a particular act but you, Zecarlo, made a personal attack.
1 Like
Perhaps you mis-typed, but ābetterā is literally subjective, not objective. Objective means true for the entire group. Subjective means true for individuals within the group but not necessarily true for the whole group.
Whatās better to one person may be worse to another. This is the definition of subjective, not objective.
Yup I had meant subjective. Just canāt type on mah phone sometimes 
1 Like
You tried to read? That explains a lot. And you do care which is why you played the SJW Nazi card.
You will see what you want. Itās called being an apologist.
Itās not my contention that itās a subjective term; it is by definition a subjective term. If it were a scientific fact that a zygote was a human being, as some erroneously contend, then abortion would already be murder in the legal sense.
Iām not saying human life does not begin at conception, it obviously does. But when we are talking about when we can consider life to be a human being then that is subjective. It also doesnāt mean that I believe a fetus is not a human being but if people want to discuss this subject as intellectuals and honest ones at that, then they need to understand what the words they use actually mean.
And why ask a question about when human life should be considered a human being or have personhood when those reasons, from all sides, have been stated ad nauseum?
If you are asking my opinion then you wonāt get an answer because I didnāt post here to argue about when life becomes a person since that is pointless. Whatever I say will be subjective, I can recognize that since I am intellectually honest. The problem with many people of faith is that they donāt recognize the limits of faith. That is intellectually dishonest or more likely ignorance.
Also, you did use the word human as an adjective.
Umā¦ again, I didnāt use the term human being. This sounds like you are being deliberately obtuse. I said the noun humans. A fetus/zygote is a member human species. Even considering the strawman nature of your argument, the mental contortions you are making are at best humorous. the notion than a Human (noun) can be non-human (adjective) is just silly in addition to tangential.
Because Iāve yet to ever hear a reasoned definition that differentiates a fetus from a child or adult human in any meaningful way. You are claiming there is a very real other option other than what Iāve listed. Iām just asking for what that other option is. Seems a reasonable request to me.
1 Like
āAny intellectually honest person has to either admit that it is murder (with all the bad morality that entails) or that humans are not innately valuable.ā
This is the post weāre discussing?
1 Like
You canāt be serious here. Are you actually saying there is no reasonable way to tell a difference between a fetus/zygote and a fully developed adult? Now I see why these conversations go nowhere.
Conversations revolving around religion and abortion typically go nowhere. ESPECIALLY on the internet.
These 2 topics seem to be the crown jewel on the āmind was made up beforehand and nothing will change thatā issue. Itās the main reason I hate discussing religion and/or abortion in general.
Please re-read in context. We are referring to their status as human. A definition of human-ness that differentiates between the different stages of the human life cycle.