McBell
Unbound
No, I do not.Do you consider sperm to be human beings?
What makes you think I would?
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
No, I do not.Do you consider sperm to be human beings?
Indeed, some view life as soon precious they would not concede that any destruction of life is okay.
So, your basis for killing being okay is based on another's thoughts?
So why consider a zygote or embryo to be a human being?No, I do not.
I have no idea.So why consider a zygote or embryo to be a human being?
To me, it's a legal question. The state cannot force anyone to give up the use of their body against their will, even if someone's life is on the line. So, the question becomes, is having sex for a woman equivalent to that woman giving consent to carrying and giving birth to a child. So, at the very least, it is far more complicated than you are letting on.Are people dumb?
I mean really when I was a non Christian Science clearly showed me abortion was murder
In Post #247 you asked me "Have you heard of DNA?" in regards to an embryo younger than 21 weeks not being considered a human. Why ask me that, then? Do you hold DNA to be the deciding factor of what makes for a human?I have no idea.
Perhaps you should ask someone who does?
I do not hold any one thing to be the deciding factor.In Post #247 you asked me "Have you heard of DNA?" in regards to an embryo younger than 21 weeks not being considered a human. Why ask me that, then? Do you hold DNA to be the deciding factor of what makes for a human?
When it comes to a being, and not a numerical quantity, yes.
I knew this was coming. Comatose patients still have brain activity. More than this, they are developed human beings, already long since born. However on this strain, when a person loses complete brain function and is dead, they cease to be a human being, a "human individual" if you will, and become a corpse.
I think I'm actually being quite clear - and patient, to boot - with my language.
Now, I've answered several questions, yet mine has gone ignored twice. Do you consider sperm to be human beings?
That'd be me; as I'm a part of this discussion - often directly with you - it's somewhat rude to refer to me as "the one". And yes, at the embryonic stage human embryos are very nearly indistinguishable from chicken embryo. Just as you confused a pig embryo with a human embryo, the difference between chicken and human has been made before in other discussions that I've had.
Further than that, at the zygote stage all organism looks the same.
Just to muddy the waters... some also allow killing in war, in the case of pulling the plug, euthanasia, and capital punishment. Why are these accepted by some and are they accepted by you?No. That's a speculation. A pretty good one, I think...and fairly obvious. My basis for 'killing being OK" in some situations is on actions. People who have guns being pointed at them generally don't have enough time--or evidence--to determine motive.
However, I think it's safe to say that if someone actively attempts to kill someone else...who is NOT threatening them first...considers that the target is 'lesser' in some way; disposable. That is something that one can mull on later, though; not at the time of the event.
At THAT time, it's 'you want to kill me, I don't want to be killed, and if I have to end your life to prevent your killing me, it was your choice. I wouldn't be out to kill you if you hadn't started it."
On the other hand, isn't it rather obvious that if the would be killer did NOT think his/her target was 'lesser,' or 'disposable,' then killing wouldn't be an option, would it?
I don't happen to think that humans ARE disposable at the whim of another. I also believe that someone who not only thinks that another human IS disposable, and acts to dispose of him or her, has abrogated the right to be considered 'non-disposable' him/herself.
And from a DNA point of view, your husband's sperm is the same as him. Better start naming it, and calling people who masturbate murderers.Not from a DNA pov, they don't.
This is a really bad comparison. Female bald eagles are generally larger than the males, have a lower pitch vocalization, and darker plumage.Now...if *I* cannot tell the difference, and YOU can't (and you probably would not be able to do so at first, yourself), does that mean that they aren't eagles, or have no actual sexual differences?
No, my argument is realistic.Your argument here is disingenuous,
That has never been my argument, and I can't be sure exactly how you got that impression.no matter what you want to imply, that human embryo is NOT going to grow into a 300 pound pig.
You do understand that a coma is a temporary state, yes? That comatose patients either wake from coma, or die and become corpses? So the parallel of a coma patient to an organism in development is very uneven.Now, as to comatose patients: this is also a problem for the pro-abortion side, when it is used. You realize, don't you, that the brainstem of a human is formed by the fourth or fifth week, and though 'higher function' brain waves aren't generally recorded until week 24 (which sorta messes up your 21 week deadline, come to think), brain activity IS noticed at the formation of the brain stem, and neural activity begins even sooner than that, prompting muscle activity.
There is no 100% chance. I am not certain how you continue to miss that. Everything about pregnancy is a shot in the dark. I am also not sure what you are missing regarding bodily autonomy, and the rights of the woman to her own body and all that goes on with it.So....how is it permissible to kill a foetus to PREVENT a 100% chance that it WILL have fully measurable and conscious brain wave function?
I am growing very weary of going around in a circle, so this will likely be the last time I address this.So...Is a foetus a human being or a person? Probably not...those terms are artificial ones assigned by society. Is a foetus a human, and alive?
yep.
Just to muddy the waters... some also allow killing in war, in the case of pulling the plug, euthanasia, and capital punishment. Why are these accepted by some and are they accepted by you?
And from a DNA point of view, your husband's sperm is the same as him. Better start naming it, and calling people who masturbate murderers.
This is a really bad comparison. Female bald eagles are generally larger than the males, have a lower pitch vocalization, and darker plumage.
Your examples got progressively ridiculous. Plant bulbs and aardvarks?
No, my argument is realistic.
That has never been my argument, and I can't be sure exactly how you got that impression.
You do understand that a coma is a temporary state, yes? That comatose patients either wake from coma, or die and become corpses? So the parallel of a coma patient to an organism in development is very uneven.
Secondly brain function forming at 24 weeks does not "mess up" my stance, as I have been quite clear and consistent in stating that 21 weeks is the line in which follows a human being. Is 24 weeks after 21 weeks? It is. Thus it is within the period of development that can rationally be called "personhood."
There is no 100% chance.
Sure you are. You're comparing a cell to a human being. Among others.Yes, but I'm not the one who was doing the comparison.
97%, actually. The United States has a rate of 3% stillborn on average at 20 weeks.There is. If the foetus lives, it WILL develop brain function. 100% chance.
I'm not sure you understand what a circular argument is, or the proper application of cynical. Or sophist, for that matter. Best to not use them.It is my position that killing a foetus/zygote in order to prevent him/her from developing that brain function, using the excuse that it doesn't have brain function, is circular and cynical and sophist to the nth degree.
In what way is presenting solid, scientifically backed facts "deliberately deceptive"? You're the one who's argument relies on "fate" and loose terms for what makes a person.It is, from where I sit, not only bad logic, but deliberately deceptive.
No, we're not. Because yet again you're talking about a born child, a human capable of surviving outside the womb. Not a cellular organism or embryo.If you were to kill a two year old in order to prevent her from becoming pubescent, using the excuse that she's NOT pubescent, do you think your excuse will fly?
Yet you are using exactly that argument to excuse abortion.
No, it isn't:"Euthanasia" is the choice of someone ELSE.
No it won't fly.If you were to kill a two year old in order to prevent her from becoming pubescent, using the excuse that she's NOT pubescent, do you think your excuse will fly?
the law supports it.Yet you are using exactly that argument to excuse abortion.
Sure you are. You're comparing a cell to a human being. Among others.
97%, actually. The United States has a rate of 3% stillborn on average at 20 weeks.
I'm not sure you understand what a circular argument is, or the proper application of cynical. Or sophist, for that matter. Best to not use them.
In what way is presenting solid, scientifically backed facts "deliberately deceptive"? You're the one who's argument relies on "fate" and loose terms for what makes a person.
No, we're not. Because yet again you're talking about a born child, a human capable of surviving outside the womb. Not a cellular organism or embryo.
This argument can go no further. I'm done here.
No it won't fly.
However, it is a bad comparison given that the laws differ greatly based upon the location of the killing.
the law supports it.
My apologies.Yes it is. All the 'Death with Dignity Act' does for the person being euthanized is that the law now gives him the right to give someone else permission to kill him so that the act is not considered to be 'murder,' or to commit suicide. However, it is still the choice of the killer to do the killing.