| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"quibbler" |
| Date: |
02 May 2004 06:36:40 PM |
| Object: |
Is a fetus innocent life? |
One often here's from the anti-abort crowd that a fetus, embryo, etc is
"innocent" life.
Even if one were to grant that a fetus has reached a meaningful level of
sentience (which is doubtful during most of pregnancy), one wonders upon
what basis is can be determined that a fetus is "innocent". Here are a
few standards upon which one might evaluate the claim of fetal
innocence. (Other people may wish to include additional categories).
(Judeo) Christian Standard:
According to Paul in Romans 3 "all have sinned and fall short of the
glory of God". Despite numerous apologetics which try to explain that
Paul does not really mean what he says, the doctrine of original sin has
been adopted by many of the thousands of variant sects of xianity on
the basis of this and other statements in the new and old testament. By
this standard we all bear some sin, usually presumed to be inherited
through Adam's fall, which would imply that a fetus or even a zygote
carries the stain of sin (and death) with it. Furthermore, even if one
does not accept the doctrine of original sin, many Xians believe that
one must accept jesus during one's life in order to be saved from
damnation. It is quite clear that a fetus cannot accept or profess
faith in jesus due to its own cognitive inability, which suggests that
it better be guilty of something, for how could a just god punish it
otherwise? Finally, irrespective of these other standards, it could be
argued, for example, that the fetus may be guilty of offenses including
stealing food from the mother, not keeping the sabbath, not honoring or
obeying its parents, sexually violating its own mother (uncovering her
nakedness) and, in the extreme, causing serious injury or death to the
mother. BTW, I'm not suggesting that I believe any of this theological
piffle, but it should cast doubt on the idea that a fetus can be easily
judged innocent, by Judeo Xian religious standards.
Legal Standard:
By the standards of a variety of modern legal systems the fetus could be
judged guilty of one or more crimes. It could be judged guilty of
trespassing within the body of the mother as well as physically
assaulting her at numerous times through the pregnancy. it is not clear
that the fetus has the intention of committing harm to the mother, but
not all laws or legal systems require that intentional harm be shown.
Additionally, some things like stealing, as mentioned above could be
alleged, especially if the mother is unwilling to bear the fetus in the
first place. The fetus could likewise be said to violate the mother's
right to privacy, her civil rights, including the fourth amendment
"right of the people to be secure in their persons". Unwilling,
uncompensated pregnancy could even be seen as tantamount to slavery.
Ethical Standard:
According to a number of ethical standards the fetus could be seen to be
physically imposing its will upon the mother by force. The fetus
attempts to assert its own rights above and beyond those of the mother.
A fetus has no regard for the utility or the consequences of pregnancy
and the impact that it has upon the mother as well as the society. The
fetus does not appear to follow principles such as the Golden Rule or
the Categorical Imperative. It recognizes no duty, nor does it have
concern about the happiness or survival of others. If it has an opinion
at all, it appears to believe that others owe it food and other forms of
free support.
Therefore, on none of these accounts can we state unequivocally that the
fetus is an "innocent" life. However, I'd be happy to entertain (and be
entertained by) any serious arguments for why a fetus should be
considered innocent despite the above statements. This is not to say
that I think that "innocence" is a particularly relevant standard to
apply to a fetus or an embryo or a zygote. But if anyone wants to
discuss the relevance of fetal innocence then I encourage them to do so.
--
Quibbler (quibbler247atyahoo.com)
"It is fashionable to wax apocalyptic about the
threat to humanity posed by the AIDS virus, 'mad cow'
disease, and many others, but I think a case can be
made that faith is one of the world's great evils,
comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to
eradicate." -- Richard Dawkins
.
|
|
| User: "Paul Anderson" |
|
| Title: Re: Is a fetus innocent life? |
08 Jul 2004 12:24:58 PM |
|
|
On 8 Jul 2004 07:50:58 -0700, (david) wrote:
elcoyote@netzero.net (Paul Anderson) wrote ...
The cut king is back - continually cutting his own posts in a weak
attempt to hide his ridiculous reasoning and assertions. Also cutting
my posts to eliminate my arguments and attempts to provide context.
I try not to do multi-hundred line posts, just to repeat the same
blather that has been posted over and over.
.....
The DEVELOPING indivdual. Again, prolepsis. Just as a hole in the
ground is a developing house. If you look at the defintiion of an
individual you will find that teh zygote is not an individual.
...
You are goof, Paul. Human beings don't finish developing physically
until 18 or so and don't reach their mental peak until 45 or so.
And a house, once construction is complete, continues to be added to,
repaired, etc..
So
born human beings aren't really individuals because they haven't
finished developing? What a joke. Your arguments are so out there.
No, what is 'out there' is just your warping of what I am saying.
.....
And you *still* dodge the question. It is becoming more and more
obvious that you have no grasp of the concept of "value." You toss
terms around and really have no idea of what you are talking about.
Hmmm.. - I still can't believe I'm wasting my time with someone who
thinks that human beings aren't valuable.
Things that are valuable are things that are of worth. Human beings
have worth, they are valuable
You switch terms without ever answering the question. Of what what
"worth" are you to me?
Some things are valuable based on what they are - this is called
intrinsic worth.
You are claiming that human beings of of value because they are human
beings? Slighgtly circular, don'tcha think?
....
human beings are intrisically valuable - we aren't valuable because of
something that we can do - we are valuable for what we are.
Why? Of what value are you to me?
....
If human beings are only instrumentally valuable then one could argue
that once human beings lose their instrumental value - say someone
with Alzheimer's - then it wouldn't be that big of a deal to kill
them.
But I do not argue that it is wrong to kill because of any 'value' or
'worth.' In fact, it is slightly scary that you think this way as
all it would take to make murder justified is that the murder is of
value to you.
Maybe I'm wrong - I thought must people would agree with that - I
guess in crazyville - that's not the case - so to you it really
shouldn't matter whether the unborn are human beings or not since
human beings aren't as valuable as plants.
I never said that -- why do you lie about what I believe? Are you
stupid or dishonest? Or both? Or what?
You said a plant was more valuable than I was, didn't you?
Yes. Which is not the same as saying human beings aren't as valuable
as plants. My tomato plant is of value to me. Of what value are you
to me? You have yet to answer this and more and more it looks like
you have no concept of what value is or why we have laws punishing the
harming of human beings.
You keep going on and on about *value* -- yet you are totally
incapable of telling me what this *value* is supposed to be.
Read above.
I have. You stated, in an expanded form, "human beings are valuable
because human beings are valuable." *SIGH*
What's the point in making a fool of yourself trying to prove that
embryos aren't organisms when you wouldn't care if they were organisms
and did get killed.
1. I am not trying to prove that embryos are not organisms. You keep
claiming that they are and I keep telling you that from what I have
read they are not. You are the one who needs to prove the unusual
claim.
2. I do care about all life and potential life. Whether or not
something is an organism has no bearing on whether or not it can be
destroyed.; or removed and allowed to perish.
1. You've stated over and over again that embryo are not organisms -
you've yet to provide an ounce of proof for your off the deep end
position - from what you've read - are you joking - are you insane -
I've provided numerous dictionary definitions that plainly say that an
embryo is an organism. What planet do you live on?
Earth. I have explained prolepsis. That you refuse to accept reality
is not my problem. An embryo does not meet the definition of an
organism.
2. If you care about all life and "potential" life (hint there's no
such thing- either something is alive or not) then why do you advocate
for the killing of the unborn?
Why do you lie about me? I have *NEVER* advocated killing anything.
.....
If organisms don't exist until they finish developing then they aren't
really organisms until after 18 or so.
That you confuse "developing into" and "developing as" does not mean
that I also am so confused.
....
An individual is "a particular being.... a single human being." A
being is " conscious existence : LIFE." An embryo is not an cannot be
conscious. Life is " the period from birth to death."
Interestingly Paul uses a definition for life that is usually not at
the top of the definition - this is the first definition for life from
AMerican Heritage -The property or quality that distinguishes living
organisms from dead organisms and inanimate matter, manifested in
functions such as metabolism, growth, reproduction, and response to
stimuli or adaptation to the environment originating from within the
organism. b. The characteristic state or condition of a living
organism.
Organic life. Using that definition each part of me is a separate
individual human life. Obviously not, so that definition is the wrong
definition for
.....
I'm not conscious either when I'm sleeping - does that mean I'm not a
being? What a joke!!!
Sleeping is a reduced consciousness, but it is not completely
non-conscious.
.....
Guess what? Born children who haven't had their umbilical cords cut
are "physically and biologically interactive with the rest of pregnant
woman?"
No. I guess 'interactive' is another term you cannot comprehend.
...
Are you that sad, Paul? How is the born child whose umbilical cord
hasn't been cut not interactive? The child is still receiving oxygen
from the mother.....
no, it is not still receiving oxygen from the mother....
.....
It is NEVER "OK" to kill ANYTHING.
....
Killing is *NEVER* all correct. Any and all killings must be
justified. Your morals may differ.
....
What? So killing an ant is never OK? You live in another world.
*SIGH* You have to admire the "Pro-Life" prople who argue that
killing is OK. (as long as they get to decide who or what dies.)
So how is killing the unborn justified?
I have never tried to justified killing the unborn.
I am trying to justify the banning of abortion.
.....
Yet you never address the fact that the law specifically separates
"unborn child" from "human beings." The punishment for harming the
unborn child is that which would be imposed if the harm happened to a
human being.
Nice cut job. Why can't you respond to my actual posts without
shredding them to next to nothing? You've lost any respect you might
of had. It defines the unborn as a member of the species homo sapiens
- aka human being - what world do you live on?
Obviously not, since the law makes the killing of the fetus is a
separate crime from the killing of a human being.
....
While DNA can *identify* individuals it does not *define* indivdiuals.
....
DNA can define what is part of an individual though, can't it? If a
hair doesn't have my DNA then it isn't my hair-it isn't part of me?
If I donate a kidney to you is that kidney a part of me or a part of
you?
If the child growing in a woman's womb doesn't have her exact DNA - it
isn't part of her.
Based upon the falsehood that DNA defines a single being. I have
repeatedly been shown that it does not. I have shown you the same
facts. That you ignore them does not mean I must also ignore them.
.
|
|
|
| User: "david" |
|
| Title: Re: Is a fetus innocent life? |
09 Jul 2004 09:49:42 AM |
|
|
(Paul Anderson) wrote in message news:<40ed75b1.1082387@news.la.sbcglobal.net>...
On 8 Jul 2004 07:50:58 -0700, (david) wrote:
(Paul Anderson) wrote ...
The cut king is back - continually cutting his own posts in a weak
attempt to hide his ridiculous reasoning and assertions. Also cutting
my posts to eliminate my arguments and attempts to provide context.
I try not to do multi-hundred line posts, just to repeat the same
blather that has been posted over and over.
....
Yet you totally cut up my discussion about value - you are so sad -
you ask for something I provide and then cut it up - just sad -
The DEVELOPING indivdual. Again, prolepsis. Just as a hole in the
ground is a developing house. If you look at the defintiion of an
individual you will find that teh zygote is not an individual.
...
You are goof, Paul. Human beings don't finish developing physically
until 18 or so and don't reach their mental peak until 45 or so.
And a house, once construction is complete, continues to be added to,
repaired, etc..
So toddlers aren't human beings until they are complete. Your house
example is sooooooo weak.
So
born human beings aren't really individuals because they haven't
finished developing? What a joke. Your arguments are so out there.
No, what is 'out there' is just your warping of what I am saying.
....
You said the zygote isn't a human being because it is a developing
individual, correct? Infants are developing individuals you goof.
And you *still* dodge the question. It is becoming more and more
obvious that you have no grasp of the concept of "value." You toss
terms around and really have no idea of what you are talking about.
Hmmm.. - I still can't believe I'm wasting my time with someone who
thinks that human beings aren't valuable.
Things that are valuable are things that are of worth. Human beings
have worth, they are valuable
You switch terms without ever answering the question. Of what what
"worth" are you to me?
I would hope that you would consider all human beings of worth to you
- I guess not.
What's with all the cutting below, Cut King? Can't you argue without
cutting my post and deleting my reasoning - I think that I'll refuse
to respond to post where you cut things. You are just soooo
intellectual dishonest.
Some things are valuable based on what they are - this is called
intrinsic worth.
You are claiming that human beings of of value because they are human
beings? Slighgtly circular, don'tcha think?
...
human beings are intrisically valuable - we aren't valuable because of
something that we can do - we are valuable for what we are.
Why? Of what value are you to me?
...
If human beings are only instrumentally valuable then one could argue
that once human beings lose their instrumental value - say someone
with Alzheimer's - then it wouldn't be that big of a deal to kill
them.
But I do not argue that it is wrong to kill because of any 'value' or
'worth.' In fact, it is slightly scary that you think this way as
all it would take to make murder justified is that the murder is of
value to you.
Your argument makes no sense. Thanks for cutting my post though -
Then why is it wrong to kill human beings if we aren't of any value?
Maybe I'm wrong - I thought must people would agree with that - I
guess in crazyville - that's not the case - so to you it really
shouldn't matter whether the unborn are human beings or not since
human beings aren't as valuable as plants.
I never said that -- why do you lie about what I believe? Are you
stupid or dishonest? Or both? Or what?
You said a plant was more valuable than I was, didn't you?
Yes. Which is not the same as saying human beings aren't as valuable
as plants. My tomato plant is of value to me. Of what value are you
to me? You have yet to answer this and more and more it looks like
you have no concept of what value is or why we have laws punishing the
harming of human beings.
I don't need to be of value to you, you goof, to be valuable
intrinsically. My happiness is instrisinically valuable even though
you may not give a hoot.
You keep going on and on about *value* -- yet you are totally
incapable of telling me what this *value* is supposed to be.
Read above.
I have. You stated, in an expanded form, "human beings are valuable
because human beings are valuable." *SIGH*
Wrong - why do you provide quotation marks when I never said that -
you are so sad.
What's the point in making a fool of yourself trying to prove that
embryos aren't organisms when you wouldn't care if they were organisms
and did get killed.
1. I am not trying to prove that embryos are not organisms. You keep
claiming that they are and I keep telling you that from what I have
read they are not. You are the one who needs to prove the unusual
claim.
2. I do care about all life and potential life. Whether or not
something is an organism has no bearing on whether or not it can be
destroyed.; or removed and allowed to perish.
1. You've stated over and over again that embryo are not organisms -
you've yet to provide an ounce of proof for your off the deep end
position - from what you've read - are you joking - are you insane -
I've provided numerous dictionary definitions that plainly say that an
embryo is an organism. What planet do you live on?
Earth. I have explained prolepsis. That you refuse to accept reality
is not my problem. An embryo does not meet the definition of an
organism.
You have yet to show or prove that those definition use prolepsis -
since they clearly don't - they say that an embryo is an organism -
not a developing organism or a soon to be organism or an organism in
the near future -
Since an embryo is defined as an organism it clearly meets the
definition of an organism.
Again - offered an chance to provide proof - Paul comes up empty
handed.
2. If you care about all life and "potential" life (hint there's no
such thing- either something is alive or not) then why do you advocate
for the killing of the unborn?
Why do you lie about me? I have *NEVER* advocated killing anything.
....
You don't advocate that abortion should be legal. Hmmm...
Abortion doesn't kill the unborn? Hmmm...
What world do you live on?
If organisms don't exist until they finish developing then they aren't
really organisms until after 18 or so.
That you confuse "developing into" and "developing as" does not mean
that I also am so confused.
Yet the definition doesn't say "developing into" does it? You assume
that because of your ignorant ideology. Sad.
...
An individual is "a particular being.... a single human being." A
being is " conscious existence : LIFE." An embryo is not an cannot be
conscious. Life is " the period from birth to death."
Interestingly Paul uses a definition for life that is usually not at
the top of the definition - this is the first definition for life from
AMerican Heritage -The property or quality that distinguishes living
organisms from dead organisms and inanimate matter, manifested in
functions such as metabolism, growth, reproduction, and response to
stimuli or adaptation to the environment originating from within the
organism. b. The characteristic state or condition of a living
organism.
Organic life. Using that definition each part of me is a separate
individual human life. Obviously not, so that definition is the wrong
definition for
....
Organic life - when does it say that? Can you not read? It talks
about organisms you goof.
I'm not conscious either when I'm sleeping - does that mean I'm not a
being? What a joke!!!
Sleeping is a reduced consciousness, but it is not completely
non-conscious.
....
So I'm not unconscious when I sleep? What? What about comas? Are
those "reduced consciousness" as well - your argument are horrible -
Guess what? Born children who haven't had their umbilical cords cut
are "physically and biologically interactive with the rest of pregnant
woman?"
No. I guess 'interactive' is another term you cannot comprehend.
...
Are you that sad, Paul? How is the born child whose umbilical cord
hasn't been cut not interactive? The child is still receiving oxygen
from the mother.....
no, it is not still receiving oxygen from the mother....
....
I'm appalled at your ignorance - my guess is that you'll cut all my
evidence or at least your quote "it is not still receiving oxygen from
the mother"
Born children still receive oxygen from their mother until their cord
is cut.
Read anything about cord clamping and you'll see that a born child is
still receiving blood filled with oxygen from the mother until the
cord is cut or clamped.
Below are so reading materials because I know that you seem unable to
look for facts yourself.
Online at http://www.cordclamping.com/History.htm
"Another thing very injurious to the child, is the tying and cutting
of the navel string too soon; which should always be left till the
child has not only repeatedly breathed but till all pulsation in the
cord ceases. As otherwise the child is much weaker than it ought to
be, a portion of the blood being left in the placenta, which ought to
have been in the child."
Erasmus Darwin, (Charles Darwin's grandfather) Zoonomia, 1801;
Vol. III page 321
1981 "Immediate cord clamping before the child has breathed should be
avoided … in certain unfavorable conditions the consequences may be
fatal."
Peltonen T. Placental Transfusion, Advantage - Disadvantage. Eur J
Pediatr. 1981;137:141-146
1998 "To avoid injury in all deliveries, especially those of neonates
at risk, the cord should not be clamped until placental transfusion is
complete."
Morley G.M. Cord Closure: Does Hasty Clamping Injure the Newborn? OBG
MANAGEMENT 1998; July 29-36.
Or here http://www.cordclamping.com/braindamage.htm - discusses how
clamping the cord early can cause brain damage because it cuts the
supply of oxygen that comes from the mother - and the newborn doesn't
have a source for oxygen until his or her lungs start working - which
is usually right away but not always.
It is NEVER "OK" to kill ANYTHING.
...
Killing is *NEVER* all correct. Any and all killings must be
justified. Your morals may differ.
....
What? So killing an ant is never OK? You live in another world.
*SIGH* You have to admire the "Pro-Life" prople who argue that
killing is OK. (as long as they get to decide who or what dies.)
So how is killing the unborn justified?
I have never tried to justified killing the unborn.
I am trying to justify the banning of abortion.
....
Not that tough - abortion kills the unborn - also known as innocent
human beings -
Yet you never address the fact that the law specifically separates
"unborn child" from "human beings." The punishment for harming the
unborn child is that which would be imposed if the harm happened to a
human being.
Nice cut job. Why can't you respond to my actual posts without
shredding them to next to nothing? You've lost any respect you might
of had. It defines the unborn as a member of the species homo sapiens
- aka human being - what world do you live on?
Obviously not, since the law makes the killing of the fetus is a
separate crime from the killing of a human being.
...
It defines the unborn are member of the species homo sapiens!!! Live
in reality. Please try to get over your experience with abortion and
move on with your life. Look for forgiveness.
While DNA can *identify* individuals it does not *define* indivdiuals.
....
DNA can define what is part of an individual though, can't it? If a
hair doesn't have my DNA then it isn't my hair-it isn't part of me?
If I donate a kidney to you is that kidney a part of me or a part of
you?
Part of you that is implanted into me. The fact that it isn't "my"
kidney is why their is such thing as graft vs. host disease - my body
doesn't recognize the kidney as part of my body because it has
different DNA.
If the child growing in a woman's womb doesn't have her exact DNA - it
isn't part of her.
Based upon the falsehood that DNA defines a single being. I have
repeatedly been shown that it does not. I have shown you the same
facts. That you ignore them does not mean I must also ignore them.
Please. You've lost about 25 different arguments to me in this line -
this is just another one.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Paul Anderson" |
|
| Title: Re: Is a fetus innocent life? |
09 Jul 2004 05:13:16 PM |
|
|
On 9 Jul 2004 07:49:42 -0700, (david) wrote:
elcoyote@netzero.net (Paul Anderson) wrote....
The DEVELOPING indivdual. Again, prolepsis. Just as a hole in the
ground is a developing house. If you look at the defintiion of an
individual you will find that teh zygote is not an individual.
...
You are goof, Paul. Human beings don't finish developing physically
until 18 or so and don't reach their mental peak until 45 or so.
And a house, once construction is complete, continues to be added to,
repaired, etc..
So toddlers aren't human beings until they are complete. Your house
example is sooooooo weak.
Only to someone who twists what I write into something else. I am
getting tired of your dishonesty.
You said the zygote isn't a human being because it is a developing
individual, correct?
No. I did not say that. Stop lying about what I post.
.....
And you *still* dodge the question. It is becoming more and more
obvious that you have no grasp of the concept of "value." You toss
terms around and really have no idea of what you are talking about.
Hmmm.. - I still can't believe I'm wasting my time with someone who
thinks that human beings aren't valuable.
Things that are valuable are things that are of worth. Human beings
have worth, they are valuable
You switch terms without ever answering the question. Of what what
"worth" are you to me?
I would hope that you would consider all human beings of worth to you
- I guess not.
Am I to simply agree with you? "Yeah, human beings have great value!
What value -- damned if I know. Ask David. He claims that human
beings are of value but he flat refuses to explain what this value is
or why human beings are valuable."
I don't think so. If you cannot explain it is obvious that you are
simply parroting ***** that you have accepted without thought.
.....
But I do not argue that it is wrong to kill because of any 'value' or
'worth.' In fact, it is slightly scary that you think this way as
all it would take to make murder justified is that the murder is of
value to you.
Your argument makes no sense. Thanks for cutting my post though -
Then why is it wrong to kill human beings if we aren't of any value?
Your question is not answerable as it starts with a false assumption.
Maybe I'm wrong - I thought must people would agree with that - I
guess in crazyville - that's not the case - so to you it really
shouldn't matter whether the unborn are human beings or not since
human beings aren't as valuable as plants.
I never said that -- why do you lie about what I believe? Are you
stupid or dishonest? Or both? Or what?
You said a plant was more valuable than I was, didn't you?
Yes. Which is not the same as saying human beings aren't as valuable
as plants. My tomato plant is of value to me. Of what value are you
to me? You have yet to answer this and more and more it looks like
you have no concept of what value is or why we have laws punishing the
harming of human beings.
I don't need to be of value to you, you goof, to be valuable
intrinsically. My happiness is instrisinically valuable even though
you may not give a hoot.
First, you have not answered as to why you lie about what I write.
Second, you have not shown that human beings have any intrinisic
value. You keep claiming that people have some sort of worth ot value
by you seem totally unable to state what this worth might be.
You keep going on and on about *value* -- yet you are totally
incapable of telling me what this *value* is supposed to be.
Read above.
I have. You stated, in an expanded form, "human beings are valuable
because human beings are valuable." *SIGH*
Wrong - why do you provide quotation marks when I never said that -
you are so sad.
Are you THAT ignorant of the English Language? I did not write that
you said those exact words.
.....
Why do you lie about me? I have *NEVER* advocated killing anything.
....
You don't advocate that abortion should be legal. Hmmm...
Finally got SOMETHING right.
Abortion doesn't kill the unborn? Hmmm...
Not intentionally. Not that it matters.
What world do you live on?
Why do you not answer the question?
If organisms don't exist until they finish developing then they aren't
really organisms until after 18 or so.
That you confuse "developing into" and "developing as" does not mean
that I also am so confused.
Yet the definition doesn't say "developing into" does it? You assume
that because of your ignorant ideology. Sad.
Nor does it say developing as, does it. You assume that because of
your ignorant ideology. Sad. Especially sad since anyong of any
intelligence could look at the whole of the English Language and see
that an embryo/fetus does not fit the concept a "a human being."
.....
I'm not conscious either when I'm sleeping - does that mean I'm not a
being? What a joke!!!
Sleeping is a reduced consciousness, but it is not completely
non-conscious.
....
So I'm not unconscious when I sleep? What?
Unconsciousness is "1 a : not knowing or perceiving : not aware"
While you are asleep you are still somewhat conscious of your
surroundings.
What about comas? Are
those "reduced consciousness" as well - your argument are horrible -
You were the one making the argument that you were not conscious while
you were sleeping. I merely pointed out that you were wrong.
.....
Born children still receive oxygen from their mother until their cord
is cut.
Read anything about cord clamping and you'll see that a born child is
still receiving blood filled with oxygen from the mother until the
cord is cut or clamped.
Below are so reading materials because I know that you seem unable to
look for facts yourself.
Online at http://www.cordclamping.com/History.htm
"Another thing very injurious to the child, is the tying and cutting
of the navel string too soon; which should always be left till the
child has not only repeatedly breathed but till all pulsation in the
cord ceases. As otherwise the child is much weaker than it ought to
be, a portion of the blood being left in the placenta, which ought to
have been in the child."
Erasmus Darwin, (Charles Darwin's grandfather) Zoonomia, 1801;
Vol. III page 321
1981 "Immediate cord clamping before the child has breathed should be
avoided … in certain unfavorable conditions the consequences may be
fatal."
Peltonen T. Placental Transfusion, Advantage - Disadvantage. Eur J
Pediatr. 1981;137:141-146
1998 "To avoid injury in all deliveries, especially those of neonates
at risk, the cord should not be clamped until placental transfusion is
complete."
Morley G.M. Cord Closure: Does Hasty Clamping Injure the Newborn? OBG
MANAGEMENT 1998; July 29-36.
Or here http://www.cordclamping.com/braindamage.htm - discusses how
clamping the cord early can cause brain damage because it cuts the
supply of oxygen that comes from the mother - and the newborn doesn't
have a source for oxygen until his or her lungs start working - which
is usually right away but not always.
All of the above speak more of the fetal/baby's blood supply in the
placental being allowed to return to the baby. Learn to read.
It is NEVER "OK" to kill ANYTHING.
...
Killing is *NEVER* all correct. Any and all killings must be
justified. Your morals may differ.
....
What? So killing an ant is never OK? You live in another world.
*SIGH* You have to admire the "Pro-Life" prople who argue that
killing is OK. (as long as they get to decide who or what dies.)
So how is killing the unborn justified?
I have never tried to justified killing the unborn.
I am trying to justify the banning of abortion.
....
Not that tough - abortion kills the unborn - also known as innocent
human beings -
I cannot justify on the basis of lies. The unborn are 'innocent human
beings' only in the rhetoric of Pro-Lifers and then only for the
purpose of opposing abortion.
.....
.
|
|
|
| User: "david" |
|
| Title: Re: Is a fetus innocent life? |
12 Jul 2004 09:29:02 AM |
|
|
(Paul Anderson) wrote in message news:<40ef0a30.4771402@news.la.sbcglobal.net>...
On 9 Jul 2004 07:49:42 -0700, (david) wrote:
(Paul Anderson) wrote....
The DEVELOPING indivdual. Again, prolepsis. Just as a hole in the
ground is a developing house. If you look at the defintiion of an
individual you will find that teh zygote is not an individual.
...
You are goof, Paul. Human beings don't finish developing physically
until 18 or so and don't reach their mental peak until 45 or so.
And a house, once construction is complete, continues to be added to,
repaired, etc..
So toddlers aren't human beings until they are complete. Your house
example is sooooooo weak.
Only to someone who twists what I write into something else. I am
getting tired of your dishonesty.
So you have no argument. OK. I don't twist what you write - I leave
it exactly as you wrote it - unlike yourself who deletes mine and your
own posts to cover up how ignorant and illogical you are.
You said the zygote isn't a human being because it is a developing
individual, correct?
No. I did not say that. Stop lying about what I post.
I asked you a question, goof.
....
And you *still* dodge the question. It is becoming more and more
obvious that you have no grasp of the concept of "value." You toss
terms around and really have no idea of what you are talking about.
Hmmm.. - I still can't believe I'm wasting my time with someone who
thinks that human beings aren't valuable.
Things that are valuable are things that are of worth. Human beings
have worth, they are valuable
You switch terms without ever answering the question. Of what what
"worth" are you to me?
I would hope that you would consider all human beings of worth to you
- I guess not.
Am I to simply agree with you? "Yeah, human beings have great value!
What value -- damned if I know. Ask David. He claims that human
beings are of value but he flat refuses to explain what this value is
or why human beings are valuable."
I don't think so. If you cannot explain it is obvious that you are
simply parroting ***** that you have accepted without thought.
....
Well, if you didn't delete my post or actually read it - maybe you'd
learn a thing or two.
But I do not argue that it is wrong to kill because of any 'value' or
'worth.' In fact, it is slightly scary that you think this way as
all it would take to make murder justified is that the murder is of
value to you.
Your argument makes no sense. Thanks for cutting my post though -
Then why is it wrong to kill human beings if we aren't of any value?
Your question is not answerable as it starts with a false assumption.
You are a coward.
Why is it wrong to kill human beings?
Maybe I'm wrong - I thought must people would agree with that - I
guess in crazyville - that's not the case - so to you it really
shouldn't matter whether the unborn are human beings or not since
human beings aren't as valuable as plants.
I never said that -- why do you lie about what I believe? Are you
stupid or dishonest? Or both? Or what?
You said a plant was more valuable than I was, didn't you?
Yes. Which is not the same as saying human beings aren't as valuable
as plants. My tomato plant is of value to me. Of what value are you
to me? You have yet to answer this and more and more it looks like
you have no concept of what value is or why we have laws punishing the
harming of human beings.
I don't need to be of value to you, you goof, to be valuable
intrinsically. My happiness is instrisinically valuable even though
you may not give a hoot.
First, you have not answered as to why you lie about what I write.
Second, you have not shown that human beings have any intrinisic
value. You keep claiming that people have some sort of worth ot value
by you seem totally unable to state what this worth might be.
What are you talking about? You're the goof who says that a HeLa cell
is an organism that is a member of the species homo sapiens but not a
human being and then try to deny it in the next post. How utterly sad
are you?
You keep going on and on about *value* -- yet you are totally
incapable of telling me what this *value* is supposed to be.
Read above.
I have. You stated, in an expanded form, "human beings are valuable
because human beings are valuable." *SIGH*
Wrong - why do you provide quotation marks when I never said that -
you are so sad.
Are you THAT ignorant of the English Language? I did not write that
you said those exact words.
Then why'd you use quotation marks?
....
Why do you lie about me? I have *NEVER* advocated killing anything.
....
You don't advocate that abortion should be legal. Hmmm...
Finally got SOMETHING right.
Abortion doesn't kill the unborn? Hmmm...
Not intentionally. Not that it matters.
NOt intentionally. Are you kidding? Are you that crazy? The whole
intention of abortion is to kill the unborn- that's what it is. You
are a complete waste of time - you avoid reality at every turn.
What world do you live on?
Why do you not answer the question?
What question?
If organisms don't exist until they finish developing then they aren't
really organisms until after 18 or so.
That you confuse "developing into" and "developing as" does not mean
that I also am so confused.
Yet the definition doesn't say "developing into" does it? You assume
that because of your ignorant ideology. Sad.
Nor does it say developing as, does it. You assume that because of
your ignorant ideology. Sad. Especially sad since anyong of any
intelligence could look at the whole of the English Language and see
that an embryo/fetus does not fit the concept a "a human being."
....
I never claimed it says "developing as," did I? You were the one who
assumed it said that. I said exactly what the definition said
"developing individual" -
Anyone of intelligence? You've lost it here. Numerous scientists,
experts in law, even pro-choice professor recognize that the unborn
are human beings - but in Paul's little world - no one of intelligence
-
I'm not conscious either when I'm sleeping - does that mean I'm not a
being? What a joke!!!
Sleeping is a reduced consciousness, but it is not completely
non-conscious.
....
So I'm not unconscious when I sleep? What?
Unconsciousness is "1 a : not knowing or perceiving : not aware"
While you are asleep you are still somewhat conscious of your
surroundings.
Really? When I'm sleeping I'm not unconscious? HAHAHAHAH!
What about comas? Are
those "reduced consciousness" as well - your argument are horrible -
You were the one making the argument that you were not conscious while
you were sleeping. I merely pointed out that you were wrong.
....
So consciousness doesn't really matter then does it? That was a bunch
of baloney. Consciousness has nothing to do with being, does it?
Born children still receive oxygen from their mother until their cord
is cut.
Read anything about cord clamping and you'll see that a born child is
still receiving blood filled with oxygen from the mother until the
cord is cut or clamped.
Below are so reading materials because I know that you seem unable to
look for facts yourself.
Online at http://www.cordclamping.com/History.htm
"Another thing very injurious to the child, is the tying and cutting
of the navel string too soon; which should always be left till the
child has not only repeatedly breathed but till all pulsation in the
cord ceases. As otherwise the child is much weaker than it ought to
be, a portion of the blood being left in the placenta, which ought to
have been in the child."
Erasmus Darwin, (Charles Darwin's grandfather) Zoonomia, 1801;
Vol. III page 321
1981 "Immediate cord clamping before the child has breathed should be
avoided ? in certain unfavorable conditions the consequences may be
fatal."
Peltonen T. Placental Transfusion, Advantage - Disadvantage. Eur J
Pediatr. 1981;137:141-146
1998 "To avoid injury in all deliveries, especially those of neonates
at risk, the cord should not be clamped until placental transfusion is
complete."
Morley G.M. Cord Closure: Does Hasty Clamping Injure the Newborn? OBG
MANAGEMENT 1998; July 29-36.
Or here http://www.cordclamping.com/braindamage.htm - discusses how
clamping the cord early can cause brain damage because it cuts the
supply of oxygen that comes from the mother - and the newborn doesn't
have a source for oxygen until his or her lungs start working - which
is usually right away but not always.
All of the above speak more of the fetal/baby's blood supply in the
placental being allowed to return to the baby. Learn to read.
LOL. Why'd you cut your previous post, Paul? Huh? Why do you do
that when proven wrong? Why do you say something, get proven wrong,
and then delete your own post where you made a ridiculous claim?
Where does the blood in the placenta come from? Hilarious.
Since many born children still receive blood from their mothers until
their cord is cut or clamped - it appears that according to your
criteria - born children who are still attached to their mothers via a
umbilical cord aren't organisms.
It is NEVER "OK" to kill ANYTHING.
...
Killing is *NEVER* all correct. Any and all killings must be
justified. Your morals may differ.
....
What? So killing an ant is never OK? You live in another world.
*SIGH* You have to admire the "Pro-Life" prople who argue that
killing is OK. (as long as they get to decide who or what dies.)
So how is killing the unborn justified?
I have never tried to justified killing the unborn.
I am trying to justify the banning of abortion.
....
Not that tough - abortion kills the unborn - also known as innocent
human beings -
I cannot justify on the basis of lies. The unborn are 'innocent human
beings' only in the rhetoric of Pro-Lifers and then only for the
purpose of opposing abortion.
....
You've yet to show how they are lies - you ignore the mountains of
evidence from science, law, and logic before you and just assert that
human beings are "born, alive, and human"
Here are some more state laws that declare that the unborn are human
beings just for fun.
Missouri State Law
http://www.moga.state.mo.us/statutes/c000-099/0010000205.htm
"The life of each human being begins at conception"
Illinois State Law
http://www.legis.state.il.us/legislation/ilcs/ilcs4.asp?DocName=072000050HArt%2E+9&ActID=1876&ChapAct=720%26nbsp%3BILCS%26nbsp%3B5%2F&ChapterID=53&ChapterName=CRIMINAL+OFFENSES&SectionID=29493&SeqStart=17000&SeqEnd=18800&ActName=Criminal+Code+of+1961%2E
"unborn child" shall mean any individual of the human species from
fertilization until birth,
Kentucky State Law
www.lrc.state.ky.us/record/04rs/hb108/bill.doc
"Unborn child" means a member of the species homo sapiens in utero
from conception onward, without regard to age, health, or condition of
dependency.
Mississippi State Law
http://billstatus.ls.state.ms.us/documents/2004/html/SB/2800-2899/SB2869SG.htm
"the term "human being" includes an unborn child at every stage of
gestation from conception until live birth and the term "unborn child"
means a member of the species homo sapiens, at any stage of
development, who is carried in the womb
Ohio State Law 2901.01
"Unborn human" means an individual organism of the species Homo
sapiens from fertilization until live birth
.
|
|
|
| User: "Paul Anderson" |
|
| Title: Re: Is a fetus innocent life? |
12 Jul 2004 02:18:27 PM |
|
|
On 12 Jul 2004 07:29:02 -0700, (david) wrote:
elcoyote@netzero.net (Paul Anderson) wrote
.....
But I do not argue that it is wrong to kill because of any 'value' or
'worth.' In fact, it is slightly scary that you think this way as
all it would take to make murder justified is that the murder is of
value to you.
Your argument makes no sense. Thanks for cutting my post though -
Then why is it wrong to kill human beings if we aren't of any value?
Your question is not answerable as it starts with a false assumption.
You are a coward.
Why is it wrong to kill human beings?
How many times do you need to be told? Your question is not
answerable as it starts with a false assumption. Where do you get
this crazy notion that it is wrong to kill human beings.
.....
First, you have not answered as to why you lie about what I write.
Second, you have not shown that human beings have any intrinisic
value. You keep claiming that people have some sort of worth ot value
by you seem totally unable to state what this worth might be.
What are you talking about? You're the goof who says that a HeLa cell
is an organism that is a member of the species homo sapiens but not a
human being and then try to deny it in the next post. How utterly sad
are you?
You lie about what I have written. I have never said that HeLa is a
member of the species homo sapiens. Why do you lie?
Why can you not support your claim that human being have value?
You keep going on and on about *value* -- yet you are totally
incapable of telling me what this *value* is supposed to be.
Read above.
I have. You stated, in an expanded form, "human beings are valuable
because human beings are valuable." *SIGH*
Wrong - why do you provide quotation marks when I never said that -
you are so sad.
Are you THAT ignorant of the English Language? I did not write that
you said those exact words.
Then why'd you use quotation marks?
You *ARE* that ignorant!
....
Why do you lie about me? I have *NEVER* advocated killing anything.
....
You don't advocate that abortion should be legal. Hmmm...
Finally got SOMETHING right.
Abortion doesn't kill the unborn? Hmmm...
Not intentionally. Not that it matters.
NOt intentionally. Are you kidding? Are you that crazy? The whole
intention of abortion is to kill the unborn- that's what it is.
Abortion is the temination of a pregnancy prior to fetal viability.
The *only* thing I support is the right of the woman to terminate her
pregnancy, at any time, for any or no stated reason.
You
are a complete waste of time - you avoid reality at every turn.
What world do you live on?
Why do you not answer the question?
What question?
Why do you lie about what I write?
.....
Really? When I'm sleeping I'm not unconscious? HAHAHAHAH!
Do you alway laugh when presented with facts that contradict your
beliefs?
So consciousness doesn't really matter then does it? That was a bunch
of baloney. Consciousness has nothing to do with being, does it?
www.m-w.com: being (n): (3)c : conscious existence : LIFE
.....
Since many born children still receive blood from their mothers until
their cord is cut or clamped....
They do not receive blood from their mothers. The blood in the cord
that they receive is their blood.
....
I am trying to justify the banning of abortion.
....
Not that tough - abortion kills the unborn - also known as innocent
human beings -
I cannot justify on the basis of lies. The unborn are 'innocent human
beings' only in the rhetoric of Pro-Lifers and then only for the
purpose of opposing abortion.
You've yet to show how they are lies.
I have researched and found them to be lies. If you dispute this then
it is up to you to answer my objections. Calling me a 'goof' and
lying about what I write does not work.
you ignore the mountains of
evidence from science, law, and logic before you and just assert that
human beings are "born, alive, and human"
Again you lie about me. I have not ignored anything.
Here are some more state laws that declare that the unborn are human
beings just for fun.
Missouri State Law
http://www.moga.state.mo.us/statutes/c000-099/0010000205.htm
"The life of each human being begins at conception"
http://www.moga.state.mo.us/statutes/C100-199/1930000015.HTM
(1) "Dead body", a human body or such parts of such human body from
the condition of which it reasonably may be concluded that death
recently occurred;
(2) "Department", the department of health and senior services;
(3) "Final disposition", the burial, interment, cremation, removal
from the state, or other authorized disposition of a dead body or
fetus;
Since a human body is a dead body, the fetus must be other than a
human body.
The laws you cite are make the unborn legally a person for some aspect
of the law. The unborn are not human beings for all intents and
purposes. The born are.
If the State of Missouri *really* believes that human being exist
from conception then why have they been allowing abortions for the
last 16 years? Better yet, why do they not allow pregnant woman to
take tax deductions for their unborn children?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Paul Anderson" |
|
| Title: Re: Is a fetus innocent life? |
25 Jun 2004 03:51:17 PM |
|
|
On 25 Jun 2004 11:58:39 -0700, (david) wrote:
"junegill" <junegill@btinternet.com> wrote....
They couldn't happen unless an egg were fertilised. The original statement
of Dr Manner's was: '"When a human sperm fertilizes a human egg, the result
is a human being -- from the moment of conception.' As you say, the
hydatidiform mole is a mass, not a human being, so you apparently agree that
not all fertilised eggs are human beings from the moment of conception.
These moles are rare, yes (about 1 in 1,000),....
As I said earlier - it would be my guess that Dr. Manner was speaking
generally - and not taking the time to go into atypical and rare cases
where two sperm fertilize an egg without its own set of genetic
material - the egg is thought to not have genetic material -
There are no exceptions to "born, human, and alive."
.....
I'll try to get to rephrase the discussion here - June do you think we
(human beings) are valuable intrinisically (because of what we are
biologically) or instrumentally (because of some asset that we have)?
Assumption not in evidence: human beings are valuable. You, as an
individual, are of no value to me.
.....
Learning from someone so enthralled with themselves that they can't
accept basic facts like that "embryos are organisms" because they
disagree.
It is not a fact. While embryos are often refered to as organisms it
is a matter of prolepsis -- they are refered to by what they will
become. Medical text agrees that the embryo/fetus is a part of the
organism that is a pregnant woman.
.....
What evidence? You've yet to provide anything that says anything
remotely near your claim that human embryos or fetuses aren't human
beings.
A human being is that which is born, human, and alive. Embryos are
not born, and thus not human beings.
.....
It is repetitive because your argument again assume that human embryos
aren't human beings....
Not an assumption.
.....
I don't tolerate people who assert ridiculous assertions and expect me
to accept them.
Such as your assertion that a human embryo is a human being? When I
first saw that assertion I cheked it out and found it to be false.
.....
.
|
|
|
| User: "david" |
|
| Title: Re: Is a fetus innocent life? |
29 Jun 2004 03:05:28 PM |
|
|
(Paul Anderson) wrote in message news:<40dc86d1.52445924@news.la.sbcglobal.net>...
On 25 Jun 2004 11:58:39 -0700, (david) wrote:
"junegill" <junegill@btinternet.com> wrote....
They couldn't happen unless an egg were fertilised. The original statement
of Dr Manner's was: '"When a human sperm fertilizes a human egg, the result
is a human being -- from the moment of conception.' As you say, the
hydatidiform mole is a mass, not a human being, so you apparently agree that
not all fertilised eggs are human beings from the moment of conception.
These moles are rare, yes (about 1 in 1,000),....
As I said earlier - it would be my guess that Dr. Manner was speaking
generally - and not taking the time to go into atypical and rare cases
where two sperm fertilize an egg without its own set of genetic
material - the egg is thought to not have genetic material -
There are no exceptions to "born, human, and alive."
Are you still trying to learn how to form an argument instead of just
asserting your position over and over and over and over again.
I'll try to get to rephrase the discussion here - June do you think we
(human beings) are valuable intrinisically (because of what we are
biologically) or instrumentally (because of some asset that we have)?
Assumption not in evidence: human beings are valuable. You, as an
individual, are of no value to me.
....
I asked her a question, you goof. I wasn't assuming anything. I was
asking a question. Did I make an assumption or did I ask a question?
Take a few seconds to actually read posts before you reply to them.
Gosh. It's like I'm talking to a 3rd grader.
Learning from someone so enthralled with themselves that they can't
accept basic facts like that "embryos are organisms" because they
disagree.
It is not a fact. While embryos are often refered to as organisms it
is a matter of prolepsis -- they are refered to by what they will
become. Medical text agrees that the embryo/fetus is a part of the
organism that is a pregnant woman.
Really? Then why didn't the definitions say anything about prolepsis?
What medical text says that the unborn from zygote to birth is not a
human being? Or that the unborn is "part" of the woman. Please
provide - instead of just saying you have it.
....
What evidence? You've yet to provide anything that says anything
remotely near your claim that human embryos or fetuses aren't human
beings.
A human being is that which is born, human, and alive. Embryos are
not born, and thus not human beings.
....
It is repetitive because your argument again assume that human embryos
aren't human beings....
Not an assumption.
....
I don't tolerate people who assert ridiculous assertions and expect me
to accept them.
Such as your assertion that a human embryo is a human being? When I
first saw that assertion I cheked it out and found it to be false.
....
Really? You looked in embryology textbooks? What did you find?
Please share the evidence instead of just acting like you have some.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lawrence E. McKnight" |
|
| Title: Re: Is a fetus innocent life? |
29 Jun 2004 05:15:59 PM |
|
|
On 29 Jun 2004 13:05:28 -0700, (david) wrote:
Are you still trying to learn how to form an argument instead of just
asserting your position over and over and over and over again.
SPROING!!!!!!!!
-
Larry
(this space unintentionally left blank .....
make obvious deletion for email
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Paul Anderson" |
|
| Title: Re: Is a fetus innocent life? |
29 Jun 2004 04:11:51 PM |
|
|
On 29 Jun 2004 13:05:28 -0700, (david) wrote:
elcoyote@netzero.net (Paul Anderson) wrote in message news:<40dc86d1.52445924@news.la.sbcglobal.net>...
On 25 Jun 2004 11:58:39 -0700, (david) wrote:
"junegill" <junegill@btinternet.com> wrote....
They couldn't happen unless an egg were fertilised. The original statement
of Dr Manner's was: '"When a human sperm fertilizes a human egg, the result
is a human being -- from the moment of conception.' As you say, the
hydatidiform mole is a mass, not a human being, so you apparently agree that
not all fertilised eggs are human beings from the moment of conception.
These moles are rare, yes (about 1 in 1,000),....
As I said earlier - it would be my guess that Dr. Manner was speaking
generally - and not taking the time to go into atypical and rare cases
where two sperm fertilize an egg without its own set of genetic
material - the egg is thought to not have genetic material -
There are no exceptions to "born, human, and alive."
Are you still trying to learn how to form an argument instead of just
asserting your position over and over and over and over again.
Sum total of exceptions posted by David:
*SIGH*
I'll try to get to rephrase the discussion here - June do you think we
(human beings) are valuable intrinisically (because of what we are
biologically) or instrumentally (because of some asset that we have)?
Assumption not in evidence: human beings are valuable. You, as an
individual, are of no value to me.
....
I asked her a question, you goof. I wasn't assuming anything. I was
asking a question. Did I make an assumption or did I ask a question?
Take a few seconds to actually read posts before you reply to them.
Gosh. It's like I'm talking to a 3rd grader.
Your question included the assumption that human beings are valuable.
Which is a false assumption. Thus your question is unanswerable.
Learning from someone so enthralled with themselves that they can't
accept basic facts like that "embryos are organisms" because they
disagree.
It is not a fact. While embryos are often refered to as organisms it
is a matter of prolepsis -- they are refered to by what they will
become. Medical text agrees that the embryo/fetus is a part of the
organism that is a pregnant woman.
Really? Then why didn't the definitions say anything about prolepsis?
What medical text says that the unborn from zygote to birth is not a
human being? Or that the unborn is "part" of the woman. Please
provide - instead of just saying you have it.
Dictionaries assume a basic working knowedge of the language.
MINXS posted from Williams' -- uncontested. Look it up. Not that it
matters, Pro-Lifers refuse to accept facts.
....
What evidence? You've yet to provide anything that says anything
remotely near your claim that human embryos or fetuses aren't human
beings.
A human being is that which is born, human, and alive. Embryos are
not born, and thus not human beings.
....
It is repetitive because your argument again assume that human embryos
aren't human beings....
Not an assumption.
....
I don't tolerate people who assert ridiculous assertions and expect me
to accept them.
Such as your assertion that a human embryo is a human being? When I
first saw that assertion I cheked it out and found it to be false.
....
Really? You looked in embryology textbooks? What did you find?
Please share the evidence instead of just acting like you have some.
No. I looked the definition of a human being. You have never
addressed the fact that a human being is that which is born, human,
and alive -- which definition is in agreement with tradition,
language, religion, and law. I do not need to look into a embryology
textbook to know that an embryo is not born alive.
.
|
|
|
| User: "david" |
|
| Title: Re: Is a fetus innocent life? |
30 Jun 2004 02:25:12 PM |
|
|
(Paul Anderson) wrote in message news:<40e1d918.7744485@news.la.sbcglobal.net>...
On 29 Jun 2004 13:05:28 -0700, (david) wrote:
(Paul Anderson) wrote in message news:<40dc86d1.52445924@news.la.sbcglobal.net>...
On 25 Jun 2004 11:58:39 -0700, (david) wrote:
"junegill" <junegill@btinternet.com> wrote....
They couldn't happen unless an egg were fertilised. The original statement
of Dr Manner's was: '"When a human sperm fertilizes a human egg, the result
is a human being -- from the moment of conception.' As you say, the
hydatidiform mole is a mass, not a human being, so you apparently agree that
not all fertilised eggs are human beings from the moment of conception.
These moles are rare, yes (about 1 in 1,000),....
As I said earlier - it would be my guess that Dr. Manner was speaking
generally - and not taking the time to go into atypical and rare cases
where two sperm fertilize an egg without its own set of genetic
material - the egg is thought to not have genetic material -
There are no exceptions to "born, human, and alive."
Are you still trying to learn how to form an argument instead of just
asserting your position over and over and over and over again.
Sum total of exceptions posted by David:
*SIGH*
So you are still trying to learn how to form an argument? Maybe you
could take a logic 101 class, learn something, and come back with an
actual argument instead of assertion after assertion.
I'll try to get to rephrase the discussion here - June do you think we
(human beings) are valuable intrinisically (because of what we are
biologically) or instrumentally (because of some asset that we have)?
Assumption not in evidence: human beings are valuable. You, as an
individual, are of no value to me.
....
I asked her a question, you goof. I wasn't assuming anything. I was
asking a question. Did I make an assumption or did I ask a question?
Take a few seconds to actually read posts before you reply to them.
Gosh. It's like I'm talking to a 3rd grader.
Your question included the assumption that human beings are valuable.
Which is a false assumption. Thus your question is unanswerable.
So humans aren't valuable? So our constitution is baloney.
Learning from someone so enthralled with themselves that they can't
accept basic facts like that "embryos are organisms" because they
disagree.
It is not a fact. While embryos are often refered to as organisms it
is a matter of prolepsis -- they are refered to by what they will
become. Medical text agrees that the embryo/fetus is a part of the
organism that is a pregnant woman.
Really? Then why didn't the definitions say anything about prolepsis?
What medical text says that the unborn from zygote to birth is not a
human being? Or that the unborn is "part" of the woman. Please
provide - instead of just saying you have it.
Dictionaries assume a basic working knowedge of the language.
MINXS posted from Williams' -- uncontested. Look it up. Not that it
matters, Pro-Lifers refuse to accept facts.
....
So your definition don't say anything about prolepsis? OK. Just
admit that you are making something up to avoid reality. You'll do
anything to avoid reality.
So you don't have it? You are basing your whole argument on something
you don't even have. Please stop embarassing yourself.
I read Malapert "Williams" post (it awhile to get out of her because
she knows it says nothing to help her cause) and it was an absolute
joke - it said nothing she or you says it says.
What evidence? You've yet to provide anything that says anything
remotely near your claim that human embryos or fetuses aren't human
beings.
A human being is that which is born, human, and alive. Embryos are
not born, and thus not human beings.
....
It is repetitive because your argument again assume that human embryos
aren't human beings....
Not an assumption.
....
I don't tolerate people who assert ridiculous assertions and expect me
to accept them.
Such as your assertion that a human embryo is a human being? When I
first saw that assertion I cheked it out and found it to be false.
....
Really? You looked in embryology textbooks? What did you find?
Please share the evidence instead of just acting like you have some.
No. I looked the definition of a human being. You have never
addressed the fact that a human being is that which is born, human,
and alive -- which definition is in agreement with tradition,
language, religion, and law. I do not need to look into a embryology
textbook to know that an embryo is not born alive.
So you don't need to study embryology - the study of what the embryo
is - to konw what an embryo is - that makes a whole lot of sense.
So you don't have any evidence just another of your usual assertion
diatribes. OK. One day I'm hoping you'll come up with something
more.
Religion really? All religions? Hmmmm... My guess is Catholics might
disagree. Plus when do PCers think that religion answers questions of
science?
Tradition, really? Is that supposed to answer a scientific question?
Then why was abortion banned in numerous states for numerous years
before 1973? If we relied on tradition for answer questions of
science - just imagine where'd we be.
Law? Is that supposed to answer a scientific question? Plus the laws
of nations change and are different in different nations. Plus, how
can Scott Peterson be charged with 2 murders if he only killed one
human being according to you.
Language? Huh? It's funny how you don't except common language that
embryos are organism but then boldly assert that language somehow
proves that the unborn aren't human beings.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Paul Anderson" |
|
| Title: Re: Is a fetus innocent life? |
30 Jun 2004 03:28:12 PM |
|
|
On 30 Jun 2004 12:25:12 -0700, (david) wrote:
elcoyote@netzero.net (Paul Anderson) wrote ....
There are no exceptions to "born, human, and alive."
Are you still trying to learn how to form an argument instead of just
asserting your position over and over and over and over again.
Sum total of exceptions posted by David:
*SIGH*
So you are still trying to learn how to form an argument? Maybe you
could take a logic 101 class, learn something, and come back with an
actual argument instead of assertion after assertion.
I am not trying to form an argument. I am stating a fact: a human
being is that which is born, human, and alive. There are no
exceptions to this.
The claim that a human being exists at the moment of conception has
many exceptions.
I'll try to get to rephrase the discussion here - June do you think we
(human beings) are valuable intrinisically (because of what we are
biologically) or instrumentally (because of some asset that we have)?
....
Your question included the assumption that human beings are valuable.
Which is a false assumption. Thus your question is unanswerable.
So humans aren't valuable?
Not particularly.
So our constitution is baloney.
That does not follow from the fact that human beings are not of great
value.
....
A human being is that which is born, human, and alive. Embryos are
not born, and thus not human beings.
....
Really? You looked in embryology textbooks? What did you find?
Please share the evidence instead of just acting like you have some.
No. I looked the definition of a human being. ...
So you don't need to study embryology - the study of what the embryo
is - to konw what an embryo is - that makes a whole lot of sense.
Why would I need to study about the unborn to learn that they are the
unborn? The fact that they are unborn means that they are not yet
born, and thus not yet human beings. What is so difficult to
understand?
Until a new definition is produced for "a human being" I will stick
with what is, in fact, the accepted definition.
....
Religion really? All religions? Hmmmm... My guess is Catholics might
disagree.
Etched in stone in Churchyards around the world is the fact that the
lifetime of a human being is from birth to death. (see m-w.com:life:
the period from birth to death -- see agreement!)
Plus when do PCers think that religion answers questions of
science?
What a human being is is not a question of science. We knew what a
human being ws long before science existed.
Tradition, really? Is that supposed to answer a scientific question?
What a human being is is not a question of science. We knew what a
human being ws long before science existed.
Then why was abortion banned in numerous states for numerous years
before 1973? If we relied on tradition for answer questions of
science - just imagine where'd we be.
Good question. Abortion was banned to protect the health of women.
Law? Is that supposed to answer a scientific question? Plus the laws
of nations change and are different in different nations. Plus, how
can Scott Peterson be charged with 2 murders if he only killed one
human being according to you.
Cal.pen.code.187 -- murder is the killing of a human being OR a fetus.
(as in what part of "OR" do you not understand.)
Language? Huh? It's funny how you don't except common language that
embryos are organism but then boldly assert that language somehow
proves that the unborn aren't human beings.
Language is more than a few selected lines from a textbook. Look up
life, birth, infant, offspring, baby, child, parent, mother, being,
entity, individual, person.... Realize that words can have multiple
meanings and you need to pick out the meaning that pertains to what
you are talking about.
.
|
|
|
| User: "david" |
|
| Title: Re: Is a fetus innocent life? |
01 Jul 2004 10:00:04 AM |
|
|
(Paul Anderson) wrote in message news:<40e31953.14508336@news.la.sbcglobal.net>...
On 30 Jun 2004 12:25:12 -0700, (david) wrote:
(Paul Anderson) wrote ....
There are no exceptions to "born, human, and alive."
Are you still trying to learn how to form an argument instead of just
asserting your position over and over and over and over again.
Sum total of exceptions posted by David:
*SIGH*
So you are still trying to learn how to form an argument? Maybe you
could take a logic 101 class, learn something, and come back with an
actual argument instead of assertion after assertion.
I am not trying to form an argument. I am stating a fact: a human
being is that which is born, human, and alive. There are no
exceptions to this.
The claim that a human being exists at the moment of conception has
many exceptions.
So you still can't do anything but assert your ridiculous "born,
human, and alive"
While ok. Maybe here are some exceptions. My arm is born, human, and
alive. Is it a human being? How about my leg? It has been born, it
is alive, and it is human? Is my leg a human being?
Are you beginning to realize how weak your assertions are?
I'll try to get to rephrase the discussion here - June do you think we
(human beings) are valuable intrinisically (because of what we are
biologically) or instrumentally (because of some asset that we have)?
...
Your question included the assumption that human beings are valuable.
Which is a false assumption. Thus your question is unanswerable.
So humans aren't valuable?
Not particularly.
So you don't give a rip about the people who died when the US bombed
Iraq or when Nazi Germany killed 7 million Jews or when
African-Americans were slaves?
So our constitution is baloney.
That does not follow from the fact that human beings are not of great
value.
...
The first sentence reads - We the People of the United States, in
Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic
Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general
Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our
Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United
States of America.
Why should we care about any of this if human beings aren't valuable?
A human being is that which is born, human, and alive. Embryos are
not born, and thus not human beings.
...
Really? You looked in embryology textbooks? What did you find?
Please share the evidence instead of just acting like you have some.
No. I looked the definition of a human being. ...
So you don't need to study embryology - the study of what the embryo
is - to konw what an embryo is - that makes a whole lot of sense.
Why would I need to study about the unborn to learn that they are the
unborn? The fact that they are unborn means that they are not yet
born, and thus not yet human beings. What is so difficult to
understand?
Until a new definition is produced for "a human being" I will stick
with what is, in fact, the accepted definition.
...
The accepted definition? What are you talking about? No embryologist
in the world would agree with your "born, human, and alive" baloney.
Not one.
Religion really? All religions? Hmmmm... My guess is Catholics might
disagree.
Etched in stone in Churchyards around the world is the fact that the
lifetime of a human being is from birth to death. (see m-w.com:life:
the period from birth to death -- see agreement!)
That's your argument. Because grave stones mark the birth and death
of a human being that somehow means that all religions agree that with
your definition. Gosh. I just can't believe how weak your arguments
are.
Plus when do PCers think that religion answers questions of
science?
What a human being is is not a question of science. We knew what a
human being ws long before science existed.
LOL.
Tradition, really? Is that supposed to answer a scientific question?
What a human being is is not a question of science. We knew what a
human being ws long before science existed.
Really? That's why men in the past often implied that women weren't
fully human because theirs brains were supposedly smaller than a
man's.
African human beings were displayed as animals in zoos next to
primates as an example of evolution.
Then why was abortion banned in numerous states for numerous years
before 1973? If we relied on tradition for answer questions of
science - just imagine where'd we be.
Good question. Abortion was banned to protect the health of women.
LOL.
Law? Is that supposed to answer a scientific question? Plus the laws
of nations change and are different in different nations. Plus, how
can Scott Peterson be charged with 2 murders if he only killed one
human being according to you.
Cal.pen.code.187 -- murder is the killing of a human being OR a fetus.
(as in what part of "OR" do you not understand.)
So what is a fetus? How can a person be convicted for two homicides
when they only killed one human being. What's the dictionary
definition for homicide?
I'll save you some time.
American Heritage - Homicide -1. The killing of one person by another.
MW - 1 : a person who kills another
2 : a killing of one human being by another
One look -# noun: the killing of a human being by another human
being
Wordsymth - 1.the act of killing another person; murder.
Language? Huh? It's funny how you don't except common language that
embryos are organism but then boldly assert that language somehow
proves that the unborn aren't human beings.
Language is more than a few selected lines from a textbook. Look up
life, birth, infant, offspring, baby, child, parent, mother, being,
entity, individual, person.... Realize that words can have multiple
meanings and you need to pick out the meaning that pertains to what
you are talking about.
So language doesn't really work for you then does it? That whole
language thing was sort of baloney.
It's funny how you even cut out your own previous posts - maybe you
don't even want to read how ridiculous your assertions are
.
|
|
|
| User: "Attila" |
|
| Title: Re: Is a fetus innocent life? |
01 Jul 2004 10:40:52 AM |
|
|
On 1 Jul 2004 08:00:04 -0700, (david) in alt.abortion
with message-id <279983a8.0407010700.491b5ac5@posting.google.com>
wrote:
So you still can't do anything but assert your ridiculous "born,
human, and alive"
While ok. Maybe here are some exceptions. My arm is born, human, and
alive. Is it a human being? How about my leg? It has been born, it
is alive, and it is human? Is my leg a human being?
But none of those are independent entities not connected to any other
biological organism.
Are you beginning to realize how weak your assertions are?
Other than being the standards recognized historically by both society
and the law?
So our constitution is baloney.
That does not follow from the fact that human beings are not of great
value.
...
The first sentence reads - We the People of the United States, in
Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic
Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general
Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our
Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United
States of America.
Why should we care about any of this if human beings aren't valuable?
Because it established a type of government that I, as a particular
human being, prefer to live in. It says nothing about and does
nothing to establish any human value.
A human being is that which is born, human, and alive. Embryos are
not born, and thus not human beings.
...
Really? You looked in embryology textbooks? What did you find?
Please share the evidence instead of just acting like you have some.
No. I looked the definition of a human being. ...
So you don't need to study embryology - the study of what the embryo
is - to konw what an embryo is - that makes a whole lot of sense.
Why would I need to study about the unborn to learn that they are the
unborn? The fact that they are unborn means that they are not yet
born, and thus not yet human beings. What is so difficult to
understand?
Until a new definition is produced for "a human being" I will stick
with what is, in fact, the accepted definition.
But the accepted definition (which is a socio-legal definition and not
subject to either scientific or medical determination) is human
species, born, and alive.
...
The accepted definition? What are you talking about? No embryologist
in the world would agree with your "born, human, and alive" baloney.
Not one.
It doesn't matter. The term is not defined by an embryologist. Would
you ask an embryologist to define capital gains?
Plus when do PCers think that religion answers questions of
science?
What a human being is is not a question of science. We knew what a
human being ws long before science existed.
LOL.
Tradition, really? Is that supposed to answer a scientific question?
What a human being is is not a question of science. We knew what a
human being ws long before science existed.
Really? That's why men in the past often implied that women weren't
fully human because theirs brains were supposedly smaller than a
man's.
For the same reason they said thunder was the gods fighting?
African human beings were displayed as animals in zoos next to
primates as an example of evolution.
It is amazing how you found an example of the only error ever made by
a zoo display.
Law? Is that supposed to answer a scientific question? Plus the laws
of nations change and are different in different nations. Plus, how
can Scott Peterson be charged with 2 murders if he only killed one
human being according to you.
Cal.pen.code.187 -- murder is the killing of a human being OR a fetus.
(as in what part of "OR" do you not understand.)
So what is a fetus? How can a person be convicted for two homicides
when they only killed one human being. What's the dictionary
definition for homicide?
The dictionary definition is irrelevant. The legal definition
prevails in law.
If a law said killing a pig at midnight by shooting it with your left
hand while it was being held by a one armed 60 year old virgin who was
deaf was homicide then there would be an new way to commit homicide.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Paul Anderson" |
|
| Title: Re: Is a fetus innocent life? |
01 Jul 2004 02:43:01 PM |
|
|
On 1 Jul 2004 08:00:04 -0700, (david) wrote:
elcoyote@netzero.net (Paul Anderson) wrote in message news:<40e31953.14508336@news.la.sbcglobal.net>...
On 30 Jun 2004 12:25:12 -0700, | | | | | | | |
