[HisServant]

Abortion should never be necessary unless the fetus is in such a position to kill its mother.

Seriously, given the ready availability of birth control, there is no excuse for a women to have an unplanned pregnancy unless it is rape, and if it is rape, someone better be going to jail for it.

[alwight]

Originally Posted by Cruciform

Your claim that a being which is human is somehow not a human being is noted.

I think you know what I meant; you’re just being perhaps rather typically dogmatic and pedantic perhaps?

Originally Posted by Cruciform

I trace personhood to the moment of conception, just as with life and humanity. You, by contrast, arbitrarily extend personhood to some later point of development (an internally inconsistent and unworkable notion, as has already been shown). For me, personhood is intrinsically connected with life and humanity while, for you, it is not.

But you can’t explain physically why, and more specifically how, a person exists at the moment of conception. Eyes and legs don’t instantly appear, so what makes you think anything specifically human is instantly created at the moment of conception other than just by it being a dogmatic belief?

Originally Posted by Cruciform

As I've already explained, personhood goes hand-in-hand with the status of every living human being, which describes the embryo but not your fingernail.

Dogma driven un-evidenced belief and bald assumptions, you can show me nothing factual beyond that?

Originally Posted by Cruciform

As already observed, I've gone precisely to the physical fact of conception as the starting point of every living human being, and held that the intrinsic status of personhood goes right along with these other qualities.

Then please explain specifically and factually exactly how a “person” exists within a human cell from the moment of conception but not just before. All you have done so far is to dogmatically presume and purport some vague metaphysical notions that somehow it is the case regardless of any need at all for supporting physical evidence of it.
It’s simply much more convenient imo for you to believe as you do because of your Christian beliefs, while I only look at the physical evidence alone. Without your religious dogmatism I’m rather sure that you too would see no reason to suppose that anything “magical” and un-evidenced had happened and then try to pretend that you were actually being scientific at the same time.

Originally Posted by Cruciform

I would certainly deny no such thing.

Good.

Originally Posted by Cruciform

No, personhood is not something "going on" (like a physical process) but merely what IS by nature (as with any ontological status), just as with life and humanity.

Bald assertion. What then actually is a “person” in your opinion if it requires no apparent physics at all, a purely magical ethereal metaphysical thing perhaps?

Originally Posted by Cruciform

Of course, this merely reduces to a complaint that I don't happen to support your particular metaphysical assumptions.

But I don’t make any metaphysical assumptions, I don’t even suppose there even is such a thing.
However I think I can therefore assume then that you have no physical scientific reasoning to suppose that anything other than the combining of DNA occurs at conception.

Originally Posted by Cruciform

The deeply comatose, for example, do not exhibit any physical sign of a personhood or personality. Are they therefore "not persons," from your viewpoint? Again, connecting personhood to one's physical features or abilities is categorically self-defeating and functionally unworkable.

Yes while they are comatose I would suggest that their personhood was possibly in a state of suspension assuming there was no neural activity at all. It could well be resumed later of course so I at least am not going to advocate switching off any life support. A zygote however has never actually been a person in the first place afaic.

Originally Posted by Cruciform

Of course. My wife and I experienced two ourselves. Is your point really that the uncomfortable implications of the facts render those facts somehow "unfactual"?

Sorry to hear that, but that’s just how life can be it seems. I remain quite sure that no actual person is there from the early stages at least, and yes the thought of sometimes routine abortive events does not summon up for me the idea of people or persons being coldly created and then discarded. Yes I do rather find that a much more comfortable thing to believe than to believe as you apparently do.

Originally Posted by Cruciform

Merely a Category Fallacy on your part, since you and I are decidedly not God. Nice try though.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

I do rather feel the need to poke at the Christian idea of God with a Christian occasionally but nevertheless I think the point was well made and would be true if indeed your God is.

[Cruciform]

This will be my last long response on this subject. By now, you're either going to get it or you're not. Moving on...

Originally Posted by alwight

I think you know what I meant; you’re just being perhaps rather typically dogmatic and pedantic perhaps?

Your statement was that the entity is both "human" and "a being," but not "a human being." What intelligent person could possibly "know what you meant" in such an assertion? It is directly and categorically contradictory. (That is, it's entirely irrational, complete nonsense.) Apparently like yourself, no one knows what that means.

But you can’t explain physically why, and more specifically how, a person exists at the moment of conception.

Not so. I traced personhood to the physical moment of conception, when both life and humanity also come into existence in the embryo.

Eyes and legs don’t instantly appear, so what makes you think anything specifically human is instantly created at the moment of conception...

It's all right there in the embryo's DNA. A fully human being is present from the moment of conception. It's simply a fact of biological and medical science, as has already been shown. If this is, as you claim, a dogmatic belief, then it's one held by virtually every qualified scientist in the field.

Dogma driven un-evidenced belief and bald assumptions, you can show me nothing factual beyond that?

Already answered.

Then please explain specifically and factually exactly how a “person” exists within a human cell from the moment of conception but not just before.

For the obvious reason that prior to conception, a living human being does not yet exist. (This is pretty basic stuff.)

It’s simply much more convenient imo for you to believe as you do because of your Christian beliefs...

Rather, it's simply much more convenient for you to believe as you do because of your un-Christian---and wholly unscientific---beliefs. (See how that works?)

Bald assertion.

No, rather one based upon the scientific facts, as already observed (repeatedly).

What then actually is a “person” in your opinion if it requires no apparent physics at all, a purely magical ethereal metaphysical thing perhaps?

No. As I've already explained in previous posts, personhood is a STATUS enjoyed by all living human beings. A person is something you are simply by virtue of your identification as a living human being. It is not a physical feature you possess, or a physical action you're able to perform.

But I don’t make any metaphysical assumptions...

Nonsense. You adhere to a materialist/physicalist worldview, which is loaded with metaphysical assumptions and premises. Thinking does not occur in a vacuum, after all.

However I think I can therefore assume then that you have no physical scientific reasoning to suppose that anything other than the combining of DNA occurs at conception.

I have the scientific fact that a living human being exists subsequent to the moment of conception.

Yes while they are comatose I would suggest that their personhood was possibly in a state of suspension assuming there was no neural activity at all.

So, then, it would be morally acceptable to, say, shoot them in the head at any time during their comatose state, correct? After all, you wouldn't be killing a "person," just "a bunch of cells." Such are the troubling implications of your irrational position.

A zygote however has never actually been a person in the first place afaic.

Irrelevant, since---in your opinion---neither the zygote nor the comatose individual is a "person"---though each is a living human being.

I do rather feel the need to poke at the Christian idea of God with a Christian occasionally but nevertheless I think the point was well made and would be true if indeed your God is.

Already answered.


On human personhood:

"Should humans be recognized as persons under the law? Yes, because humans are persons. Something is a person if it has a personal nature. In other words, something is a person if, by nature, it has the capacity to develop the ability to think rationally, express emotion, make decisions, etc. This capacity is something that a person has as soon as he begins to exist, since it is part of his nature (in other words, if he exists, he has it). Since humans have a personal nature, humans are persons. As for the fetus, since it is a human (something with a personal nature), it is a person. Just as a cat qualifies as a feline simply by being a cat, a fetus qualifies as a person simply by being a human. So, it is impossible for a fetus to not be a person." [http://www.abort73.com/abortion/personhood/]

Also, see here.




Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

[alwight]

Originally Posted by Cruciform

This will be my last long response on this subject. By now, you're either going to get it or you're not. Moving on...

I think you may be right, I’m probably not going to get it.

Originally Posted by Cruciform

Your statement was that the entity is both "human" and "a being," but not "a human being." What intelligent person could possibly "know what you meant" in such an assertion? It is directly and categorically contradictory. (That is, it's entirely irrational, complete nonsense.) Apparently like yourself, no one knows what that means.

Well, I simply don’t agree, the “context” of “a human being” is almost always understood by most rational people as a living breathing fellow biped, which is why I talked of context before. Sadly however you don’t seem to get this in your dogmatic desire to deem a human cell a human being apparently only in order to make it sit more comfortably with your pre-conclusions about personhood.

Originally Posted by Cruciform

Not so. I traced personhood to the physical moment of conception, when both life and humanity also come into existence in the embryo.

You certainly haven’t shown anywhere that a physical place exists within the structure of a human zygote for anything even remotely approaching a mental process in any way to do with a human person because it just isn’t there and you know it. You will bleat about it being in the DNA below but clearly my personhood at least is not to be found in my fingernail nor in any of the DNA in all the cells of my body, anymore than a Ferrari actually exists in its blueprints.

Originally Posted by Cruciform

It's all right there in the embryo's DNA. A fully human being is present from the moment of conception. It's simply a fact of biological and medical science, as has already been shown. If this is, as you claim, a dogmatic belief, then it's one held by virtually every qualified scientist in the field.

Clearly then you are in fact quite wrong:

Identical Twins
The correct term for identical twinning is monozygotic. Monozygotic twins form from a single (mono) fertilized egg (zygote). The zygote splits into two parts after conception, resulting in the development of two individual embryos. Because the two embryos are the result of a single egg/sperm combination, they have the same genetic origins. They have the same DNA.

http://multiples.about.com/od/funfac...ticaltwins.htm
Please do explain then how it is that identical twins are always two quite separate individuals and persons since they genetically have the same origins?
I say that their two individual "personhoods" must simply have to develop separately after conception btw.

Originally Posted by Cruciform

Already answered.

I don’t think so.

Originally Posted by Cruciform

For the obvious reason that prior to conception, a living human being does not yet exist. (This is pretty basic stuff.)

We may not exactly agree on the usage of “a human being” here, which I don’t apply to a zygote, but clearly you want to try to imply that because it is of human origin and, I agree, could loosely be termed a “being”, that it then indicates “personhood”. Clearly all you are trying to do is to disingenuously conflate the attributes of a fully developed human being with a zygote simply because they both have human DNA and because it suits your metaphysical dogma so to do.

Originally Posted by Cruciform

Rather, it's simply much more convenient for you to believe as you do because of your un-Christian---and wholly unscientific---beliefs. (See how that works?)

I always refer to real facts and evidence which can be falsified if they are wrong while all you have to offer it seems is un-falsifiable dogma and bald assertion.

Originally Posted by Cruciform

No, rather one based upon the scientific facts, as already observed (repeatedly).

More bald assertion.

Originally Posted by Cruciform

No. As I've already explained in previous posts, personhood is a STATUS enjoyed by all living human beings. A person is something you are simply by virtue of your identification as a living human being. It is not a physical feature you possess, or a physical action you're able to perform.

So apparently then it’s a “status” somehow granted by virtue of its origin, but which is not simply an abstract title because an actual person, presumably, also requires a physical element to contain its "personess" otherwise it could only be metaphysical and un-falsifiable scientifically, everywhere and nowhere, but yet you can’t apparently indicate where it physically resides in a human zygote or explain identical twins, but it just does anyway, right?
Are you sure?

Originally Posted by Cruciform

Nonsense. You adhere to a materialist/physicalist worldview, which is loaded with metaphysical assumptions and premises. Thinking does not occur in a vacuum, after all.

Metaphysics is philosophy and perhaps like science making assumptions is not a good idea or even science, but perhaps what I should have said here was that I try not to make any metaphysical assumptions, if I do then by all means point them out.

Originally Posted by Cruciform

I have the scientific fact that a living human being exists subsequent to the moment of conception.

Arguable, but as before that is just your ascribed (perhaps metaphysical) title but there remains no physical possibility of a personality or a personhood existing within a cell simply because it happens to have human DNA, admit it you cannot show that.

Originally Posted by Cruciform

So, then, it would be morally acceptable to, say, shoot them in the head at any time during their comatose state, correct? After all, you wouldn't be killing a "person," just "a bunch of cells." Such are the troubling implications of your irrational position.

Of course not, don’t be so ridiculous.

Originally Posted by Cruciform

Irrelevant, since---in your opinion---neither the zygote nor the comatose individual is a "person"---though each is a living human being.

Since you’ve rather conveniently not bothered to include my reasoning which has already answered this imo then a strawman and misrepresentation seems to be your only objective here.
Yes I too think we are just about done here.

[jeffblue101]

Originally Posted by alwight

Clearly then you are in fact quite wrong:

http://multiples.about.com/od/funfac...ticaltwins.htm
Please do explain then how it is that identical twins are always two quite separate individuals and persons since they genetically have the same origins?
I say that their two individual "personhoods" must simply have to develop separately after conception btw.

This is a misconception, identical twins do not have the same DNA.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...-not-identical
secondly, I don't see how this helps your argument that they are not human at conception.

[alwight]

Originally Posted by jeffblue101

This is a misconception, identical twins do not have the same DNA.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...-not-identical
secondly, I don't see how this helps your argument that they are not human at conception.

I was not saying it was not human I was disputing "person-hood".
I know that there are some resulting genetic differences but they both nevertheless began with the same DNA which must therefore mean that any differences would have likely occurred during or after separation.

From your link:

Geneticist Carl Bruder of the University of Alabama at Birmingham, and his colleagues closely compared the genomes of 19 sets of adult identical twins. In some cases, one twin's DNA differed from the other's at various points on their genomes. At these sites of genetic divergence, one bore a different number of copies of the same gene, a genetic state called copy number variants.
Normally people carry two copies of every gene, one inherited from each parent. "There are, however, regions in the genome that deviate from that two-copy rule, and that's where you have copy number variants," Bruder explains. These regions can carry anywhere from zero to over 14 copies of a gene.

[alwight]

Clearly if DNA can change after conception, as it seems to with identical twins, then that alone would indicate to me that a supposed "personhood" is not already somehow fixed within it.

[Cruciform]

I'll see if I can find a few points that I haven't already answered...

Originally Posted by alwight

I think you may be right, I’m probably not going to get it.

Up to you.

Well, I simply don’t agree, the “context” of “a human being” is almost always understood by most rational people as a living breathing fellow biped...

A zygote IS a "living breathing fellow biped," merely at a very early stage in its development.

Please do explain then how it is that identical twins are always two quite separate individuals and persons since they genetically have the same origins?

You're going to have to clarify this, since I fail to see a problem.

So apparently then it’s a “status” somehow granted by virtue of its origin, but which is not simply an abstract title because an actual person, presumably, also requires a physical element to contain its "personess"...

Of course, and that "physical element" is the living human being initiated at conception.

Of course not, don’t be so ridiculous.

Sorry, but bare mockery does not an argument make.

Since you’ve rather conveniently not bothered to include my reasoning which has already answered this imo then a strawman and misrepresentation seems to be your only objective here.

Go ahead and demonstrate how the context changes the fact that---according to you---neither is a "person."



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

[alwight]

Originally Posted by Cruciform

A zygote IS a "living breathing fellow biped," merely at a very early stage in its development.

Actually it isn’t physically any of those things (other than "living" of course) at that point.

Originally Posted by Cruciform

You're going to have to clarify this, since I fail to see a problem.

You really don’t want to understand do you, if perhaps real material facts rather get in the way of supernatural fantasy?
You claimed before that human personhood exists in a zygote within the now combined DNA, from the moment of conception.
Sometimes as with identical twins, as described in the source I quoted, the zygote will split into two (note, after conception). Two zygotes now and thus two independent personhoods and personalities would therefore be expected to result from just the one original. Are you telling me now that two or maybe even more “personhoods” already exist somehow within just the one original DNA at conception and then in the following original single zygote?
Or is it not far more likely that these two different people (personhoods?) actually took some time to come about and develop after and not from conception along with all the other human features and attributes?
Each zygote twin now having perhaps slightly differing DNA from the original? Perhaps too, as I think it is, individual “personhood” is not even remotely there until well after the first signs of a human nervous system appearing?

Originally Posted by Cruciform

Of course, and that "physical element" is the living human being initiated at conception.

So how many “personhoods” are actually present in the original DNA, only one presumably, where did the second one come from in the case of identical twins?

It’s really no good on the one hand claiming that a human status exists as an abstract notion while also claiming that there is a hard physical scientific reality to it, because I can call you on the latter if not the first. When I ask you to explain the detail of the physical reality it suddenly all becomes explained in abstract terms of something called the “living human being” magically existing at conception. What you perhaps want to do is fudge things enough to squeeze in your dogmatic beliefs, cake and eat it style.

Originally Posted by Cruciform

Sorry, but bare mockery does not an argument make.

Do you really think I want to just kill people or even potential people?
As a caring human being I want to see the best possible results coming from adversity that is humanly possible in any given situation.
I don’t accept your religious spiritualistic viewpoint about conception, nor in it being other than simply evolution’s and nature’s way of combining DNA as a potential and first step in producing a human person during gestation. IOW “Personhoods” afaic develop and come about during pregnancy and not just before.
From that position I may well conclude that to compel a raped woman to gestate and give birth to a rapist’s child not only tramples all over her personal human rights to decide for herself but would also be heartless, callous and cruel to put her through it.
You would seem to want to do this simply because of your dogmatic theistic beliefs imo, which I say can’t and should not be superimposed on material reality and particularly not on those who don’t happen to share them.

Originally Posted by Cruciform

Go ahead and demonstrate how the context changes the fact that---according to you---neither is a "person."



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

As I’ve already explained if a person’s brain has totally shut down then so has that person afaic.
If like my car it is likely to start up again then I see no good reason at all to do away with it.

[Cruciform]

Originally Posted by alwight

You really don’t want to understand do you, if perhaps real material facts rather get in the way of supernatural fantasy?

My view of the human person is firmly founded upon real material facts which you apparently find inconvenient for your naturalistic fantasy.

You claimed before that human personhood exists in a zygote within the now combined DNA, from the moment of conception.

You haven't been paying attention. I never suggested that personhood "exists in" a zygote (in any ontological sense). Rather, I hold that personhood is a status possessed by the zygote as a living human being. Big difference there. (You do know what "status" means, yes?)

Sometimes as with identical twins, as described in the source I quoted, the zygote will split into two (note, after conception). Two zygotes now and thus two independent personhoods and personalities would therefore be expected to result from just the one original. Are you telling me now that two or maybe even more “personhoods” already exist somehow within just the one original DNA at conception and then in the following original single zygote?

I've already pointed out your error here in the answer just above. Regarding twins, two living human beings means two persons---both twins possess the intrinsic human status of personhood. Simple.

So how many “personhoods” are actually present in the original DNA, only one presumably, where did the second one come from in the case of identical twins?

There's your fundamental error once again.

When I ask you to explain the detail of the physical reality it suddenly all becomes explained in abstract terms of something called the “living human being” magically existing at conception.

I thought we already covered this. Are you now suggesting that the embryo is not a living human being?

Do you really think I want to just kill people or even potential people?

Given that the embryo is in fact a living human being, it appears that you want the moral latitude to end such a life in its earliest stages of physical development. Your reasons for this are frankly irrelevant to the question of whether your opinions here are true and right.

As a caring human being I want to see the best possible results coming from adversity that is humanly possible in any given situation.

Does this include a concern for the most helpless human being in your scenario, i.e., the unborn living human embryo?

I don’t accept your religious spiritualistic viewpoint about conception...

Nor do I accept your secular materialistic viewpoint about personhood.

“Personhoods” afaic develop and come about during pregnancy not just before.

No, "personality" develops during pregnancy. "Personhood," however, is an intrinsic status enjoyed by all living human beings, including those in their eariest phases of physical development.

From that position I may well conclude that to compel a raped woman to gestate and give birth to a rapist’s child not only tramples all over her personal human rights to decide for herself but would also be heartless, callous and cruel to put her through it.

A few observations* concerning the "rape-makes-abortion-acceptable" argument:

• First, you seem to assume that pregnancy due to rape is somehow a rather common occurrance, yet nothing could be further from the truth. The fact is that conception in such violent cases is extremely rare---around one in a thousand instances. So your argument, even if true, would only apply in an astronomically miniscule percentage of actual cases.
• Second, rape is never the fault of the embryo (a living human being); the guilty party, not a defenseless and innocent human being, should be punished.
• Third, the violence of abortion parallels the violence of rape. As one woman has said, "When a woman exercises her right to control her own body in total disregard of the body of another human being, it is called abortion. When a man acts out that same philosophy, it is called rape." There is a close parallel between the violent attack on an innocent woman that happens in a rape and the violent attack on an innocent unborn human being that happens in an abortion. Both are done in response to a subjective and misguided sense of need, and both are done at the expense of an innocent human being. The violence of abortion is no solution to the violence of rape. The killing of the innocent by abortion is no solution to the hurting of the innocent by rape.
• Fourth, contrary to your apparent assumptions, abortion does not bring healing to a rape victim. Imposing death upon the innocent offspring of a sex offender does nothing bad to the rapist and nothing good for the woman. Creating a second victim doesn't undo the damage to the first.
• Fifth, the embryo is a living human being regardless of the particular circumstances of his conception. Women often think that a child conceived by such a vile act will be a constant reminder of their pain. On the contrary, the innocence of the child often has a healing effect. But in any case, the woman is free to give up the child for adoption, which may be the best alternative. Aborting the child is an attempt to deny what happened, and denial is never good therapy. As one woman observed, "A baby is the only beautiful thing that can come out of a rape." Having and holding an innocent child can do far more good for a victimized woman than the knowledge that an innocent child died in an attempt to deny or reduce her trauma.

You would seem to want to do this simply because of your dogmatic theistic beliefs imo, which I say can’t and should not be superimposed on material reality and particularly not on those who don’t happen to share them.

This is definitely a path you don't want to take, since you hold to your own "dogatic anti-theistic beliefs" that should not be imposed upon "those who don't happen to share them." See how that works? Ideas and beliefs are not formed in a vacuum, and this includes your ideas and beliefs.

As I’ve already explained if a person’s brain has totally shut down then so has that person afaic.

So, then, they lack the quality of personhood, and all bets are off, it seems.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+



_______________
*Adapted from R. Alcorn, ProLife Answers to ProChoice Arguments (Multnomah, 2000).

[Jordan Fontenot]

Originally Posted by mighty_duck
It depends on if your innocence relies only on your lack of malicious intent (or error/negligence). If a person unknowingly (and through no fault of their own) still imposes on the will of another, are they still innocent?

I think they are, but I'm not sure how how Cruciform would answer.

I could also get nitpicky, and point out there are quite a few things that qualify as "human life" that we routinely kill. But it is a bit of a definition game.

forget definition games. Think about the principle. That fetus has not done anything wrong it cannot even make a decision. It is the beginnings of another human life. It doesn't matter where you define conception or innocence, that's just drawing lines. If you want to put a stop to the production of human life for any reason whether they are inside or outside the womb it won't really matter how you define those terms that principle is still there.

[alwight]

Originally Posted by Cruciform

My view of the human person is firmly founded upon real material facts which you apparently find inconvenient for your naturalistic fantasy.

How can that be true, all you do is to simply presume a human being personhood status exists apparently because of some DNA in a human cell? I’m sorry but you simply don’t have any science to show how an actual person exists in just that.
Natural testable physics that we might both concur exists is a fantasy then according to you? Could be perhaps, if we’re both just brains in vats being fed an illusion of reality I suppose. But since we can’t really know otherwise I simply choose to assume that what appears to be real actually is real, while you choose to assume that something non tangible and supernatural is true even within your possible brain in a vat illusion.

Originally Posted by Cruciform

You haven't been paying attention. I never suggested that personhood "exists in" a zygote (in any ontological sense). Rather, I hold that personhood is a status possessed by the zygote as a living human being. Big difference there. (You do know what "status" means, yes?)

But this supposed “status” is not a scientific fact of any such personhood existing, it is merely an assumed abstract notion or a belief that you have chosen to give it. You claim to want to accept physical facts but whenever I try to talk about actual physics you simply resort again to your bald assertions of a supposed “status”, as you duck and dive.

Originally Posted by Cruciform

I've already pointed out your error here in the answer just above. Regarding twins, two living human beings means two persons---both twins possess the intrinsic human status of personhood. Simple.

How do they exactly, by the means of the status you have chosen to apply perhaps?
That is simply a belief it isn’t science however you look at it, it has nothing to do with the DNA nor the substance of the cell it is just a supernatural belief, admit it.

Originally Posted by Cruciform

There's your fundamental error once again.

No on the contrary, this is where you continue to avoid actual physics and science and demonstrate that all you have is a belief, nothing more.

Originally Posted by Cruciform

I thought we already covered this. Are you now suggesting that the embryo is not a living human being?

What I am suggesting is that you seem to expect me to simply accept that what you assert to be a complete human being with “personhood” when clearly the physical evidence rather contradicts that or at least gives such an assumption no support at all.

Originally Posted by Cruciform

Given that the embryo is in fact a living human being, it appears that you want the moral latitude to end such a life in its earliest stages of physical development. Your reasons for this are frankly irrelevant to the question of whether your opinions here are true and right.

Well it’s not a given that a zygote qualifies for the status of “a human being” by me any more than my fingernail. Yes it is of human origin, yes it lives and yes it exists, but as before when I talk about “a human being”, my context is of a living fellow biped with human features and at least some capacity for neural activity.
Since you can’t seem to establish it is any more than a cell containing human DNA then I see no particular reason to give it any such special status since I don’t share your beliefs.

Originally Posted by Cruciform

Does this include a concern for the most helpless human being in your scenario, i.e., the unborn living human embryo?

In this scenario it is a zygote and no more a person than an almost infinite number of potential persons are that will never actually become human beings.
No I have no particular regard for a cell with human DNA in it, but show me a human foetus with at least some basic functioning nervous system then I will think again as I un-dogmatically weigh up all the human factors involved in a given scenario.

Originally Posted by Cruciform

Nor do I accept your secular materialistic viewpoint about personhood.

I gathered as much.

Originally Posted by Cruciform

No, "personality" develops during pregnancy. "Personhood," however, is an intrinsic status enjoyed by all living human beings, including those in their eariest phases of physical development.

Sorry but I don’t agree with your supposed given status, but at least you seem to have stopped pretending that science supports your belief.

Originally Posted by Cruciform

A few observations* concerning the "rape-makes-abortion-acceptable" argument:
• First, you seem to assume that pregnancy due to rape is somehow a rather common occurrance, yet nothing could be further from the truth. The fact is that conception in such violent cases is extremely rare---around one in a thousand instances. So your argument, even if true, would only apply in an astronomically miniscule percentage of actual cases.

Actually this thread is about any possible abortion being 100% wrong, so the actual numbers are not important.

Originally Posted by Cruciform

Second, rape is never the fault of the embryo (a living human being); the guilty party, not a defenseless and innocent human being, should be punished.

If I agreed than an actual person was any part of a zygote then I would probably have more sympathy with your emotional appeal, but I don’t.

Originally Posted by Cruciform

Third, the violence of abortion parallels the violence of rape. As one woman has said, "When a woman exercises her right to control her own body in total disregard of the body of another human being, it is called abortion. When a man acts out that same philosophy, it is called rape." There is a close parallel between the violent attack on an innocent woman that happens in a rape and the violent attack on an innocent unborn human being that happens in an abortion. Both are done in response to a subjective and misguided sense of need, and both are done at the expense of an innocent human being. The violence of abortion is no solution to the violence of rape. The killing of the innocent by abortion is no solution to the hurting of the innocent by rape.

Again if I considered say a zygote to be a human person then this emotional appeal would also carry more weight when un-dogmatically making my decision, perhaps for the least worst case choice.

Originally Posted by Cruciform

Fourth, contrary to your apparent assumptions, abortion does not bring healing to a rape victim. Imposing death upon the innocent offspring of a sex offender does nothing bad to the rapist and nothing good for the woman. Creating a second victim doesn't undo the damage to the first.

That very much depends on the woman and her situation imo but for you and your dogmatic insistence that any abortion is always wrong, you are simply being disingenuous here. It’s all very well for you to pontificate about every possible outcome but you really do have no intent to understand all the factors of a particular case do you? For you abortion is always wrong 100% all of the time and any unwanted short or long term after-effects of the rape on this woman or her own wellbeing don’t really concern you one little bit I think.

Originally Posted by Cruciform

Fifth, the embryo is a living human being regardless of the particular circumstances of his conception. Women often think that a child conceived by such a vile act will be a constant reminder of their pain. On the contrary, the innocence of the child often has a healing effect. But in any case, the woman is free to give up the child for adoption, which may be the best alternative. Aborting the child is an attempt to deny what happened, and denial is never good therapy. As one woman observed, "A baby is the only beautiful thing that can come out of a rape." Having and holding an innocent child can do far more good for a victimized woman than the knowledge that an innocent child died in an attempt to deny or reduce her trauma.

Equivocation, sometimes this may be true other times it won’t be, which is why dogmatic responses are wrong imo. Human choices made with the best intent will sometimes be wrong of course but secular minded informed and responsible people without a dogmatic religious stance will often feel duty bound and compelled to sometimes make hard choices for what is thought to be for the best outcome, after weighing up all the facts.

Originally Posted by Cruciform

This is definitely a path you don't want to take, since you hold to your own "dogatic anti-theistic beliefs" that should not be imposed upon "those who don't happen to share them." See how that works? Ideas and beliefs are not formed in a vacuum, and this includes your ideas and beliefs.

If I am dogmatic at all, which I doubt, then it is that I am dogmatically anti-dogma. I’d never ever try to stop people being theistic because that is very much their choice not mine, but that doesn’t mean I can’t dispute it. If you and yours object to any and all abortions then that’s your business, just let others decide for themselves on their own business.

Originally Posted by Cruciform

So, then, they lack the quality of personhood, and all bets are off, it seems.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

No on the contrary, but if there seems to be no hope for a return then it just might be the right choice in some cases to not dogmatically keep a body alive anyway on the assumption that a personhood still resides in a brain dead but otherwise living body. This again is where many honest responsible people will sometimes feel both morally and duty bound to make such choices and not to simply rely on a dogma. But not you apparently.

[Cruciform]

I'm not going to bother responding to everything in this mile-long post, particularly since it merely repeats your initial, already-answered assertions.

Originally Posted by alwight

But this supposed “status” is not a scientific fact of any such personhood existing, it is merely an assumed abstract notion or a belief that you have chosen to give it.

Personhood is not a physical feature, as you assume, but an intrinsic status possessed by all human beings. If---as medical science has unambiguously established---the embryo is a human being, then it is likewise a person, as all human beings are.

Essentially, the difference is this:

• ME ~ Personhood is qualitative
• YOU ~ Personhood is quantitative

The biological and medical sciences have demonstrated the latter.


I think I've given you more than enough time on this. Take care, and God bless.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

[alwight]

Originally Posted by Cruciform

I'm not going to bother responding to everything in this mile-long post, particularly since it merely repeats your initial, already-answered assertions.

You may have dutifully responded Cruciform but I didn't see any sign of real answers, only your own assertions, pre-conclusions and beliefs concerning what you deem as the supposed status of (say) a zygote.

Originally Posted by Cruciform

Personhood is not a physical feature, as you assume, but an intrinsic status possessed by all human beings. If---as medical science has unambiguously established---the embryo is a human being, then it is likewise a person, as all human beings are.


Essentially, the difference is this:

• ME ~ Personhood is qualitative
• YOU ~ Personhood is quantitative

The biological and medical sciences have demonstrated the latter.


I think I've given you more than enough time on this. Take care, and God bless.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

I have simply tried to pin you down on specifics particularly as to what a human zygote is physically capable of, considering what it actually is. Your response is simply to continue to deem and assert that it has a supposed special abstract quality, for no material reason that I could see.
OK that is your belief perhaps and not mine. But I had rather hoped, at least, that you might have tried to understand how someone without your, let's face it, religious belief/faith/doctrine, might perhaps instead want to deal with such human situations honestly and sincerely by considering just the material facts as they appear to be, while ignoring none. To restate, I see on one side a human zygote without any apparent physical capabilities other than to exist as a potential future person mainly as a container of human DNA, while on the other a wronged human woman with fully extant human capabilities, an existing life and relationships, who has absolutely every right imo not to be compelled to gestate and give birth a rapist's child

[Cruciform]

Originally Posted by alwight

But I had rather hoped, at least, that you might have tried to understand how someone without your, let's face it, religious belief/faith/doctrine, might perhaps instead want to deal with such human situations honestly and sincerely by considering just the material facts as they appear to be, while ignoring none.

I understand what someone with your, let's say it, philosophical belief/faith/doctrine believes just fine.

Take care now.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+