Overturning Roe V Wade

[Subduction Zone]

It does not matter if the human has a soul. This is about when human life begins. Whether the human has a soul is irrelevant to this debate.
#537 Trailblazer

Then you have missed the point. When does personhood begin? When does it end? A brainless glob of tissues does not have the qualities of personhood. That is why aborting it is not immoral. Just as pulling the plug on granny is not immoral if here head is chopped off but her body is alive.

 

[Trailblazer]

smh

Still trying to use an equivocation argument. Drop it. You can do better than this.

I see you are still obfuscating and trying to focus on me rather than the issue we are discussing.

This debate is not about me. Why can't you address the issue at hand, which is when human life begins?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

It does not matter if the human has a soul. This is about when human life begins. Whether the human has a soul is irrelevant to this debate.
#537 Trailblazer

Then delete all your posts abouts souls as they are not relevant to the debate about abortion.

 

[Trailblazer]

The bold is not science.

I never said it was. I was only pointing out how the scientific consensus of when life begins is the same as my religious beliefs.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I see you are still obfuscating and trying to focus on me rather than the issue we are discussing.

This debate is not about me. Why can't you address the issue at hand, which is when human life begins?

Yes, it is. you brought in the soul, so it is about you and your conflating of biological human and soul human. You just did so here Overturning Roe V Wade

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I never said it was. I was only pointing out how the scientific consensus of when life begins is the same as my religious beliefs.

No, biological human is not soul human.

 

[Trailblazer]

Then delete all your posts abouts souls as they are not relevant to the debate about abortion.

Not necessary. That is just obfuscation.

What is relevant to the debate about abortion is when human life begins.
A Scientific View of When Life Begins

So far, nobody seems to want to address that.

 

[Trailblazer]

Yes, it is. you brought in the soul, so it is about you and your conflating of biological human and soul human. You just did so here Overturning Roe V Wade

I am not conflating anything. All I did was point out that the scientific view concurs with my religious view.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Not necessary. That is just obfuscation.

What is relevant to the debate about abortion is when human life begins.
A Scientific View of When Life Begins

So far, nobody seems to want to address that.

We have.
But this is not science:
"Each individual life begins when the soul associates itself with the embryo at the time of conception. But the association is not material; the soul does not enter or leave the body and does not occupy physical space. Bahá’u’lláh uses the metaphor of the sun to explain the relationship between the soul and the body: “The soul of man is the sun by which his body is illumined, and from which it draweth its sustenance, and should be so regarded.”[4]
The Rational Soul | The Human Soul | The Life of the Spirit | What Bahá’ís Believe"
From your post.

I accept biological human, but not soul human.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I am not conflating anything. All I did was point out that the scientific view concurs with my religious view.

It doesn't. This is not science:
"Each individual life begins when the soul associates itself with the embryo at the time of conception. But the association is not material; the soul does not enter or leave the body and does not occupy physical space. Bahá’u’lláh uses the metaphor of the sun to explain the relationship between the soul and the body: “The soul of man is the sun by which his body is illumined, and from which it draweth its sustenance, and should be so regarded.”[4]
The Rational Soul | The Human Soul | The Life of the Spirit | What Bahá’ís Believe"

 

[Subduction Zone]

I see you are still obfuscating and trying to focus on me rather than the issue we are discussing.

This debate is not about me. Why can't you address the issue at hand, which is when human life begins?

You are discussing a false issue. There is no obfuscation on my part. And once again as in previous debates more than one person has pointed out your logical fallacy. Don't make this personal. It is your argument that fails. Until you present an argument properly there is no issue to address.

 

[Trailblazer]

Then you have missed the point. When does personhood begin? When does it end? A brainless glob of tissues does not have the qualities of personhood. That is why aborting it is not immoral. Just as pulling the plug on granny is not immoral if here head is chopped off but her body is alive.

You are missing the point. Whether it has personhood or not is irrelevant. It is still a human being according to science.

No, it is not like granny because granny can never be a person again but the zygote will become a person of allowed to continue developing.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

You are missing the point. Whether it has personhood or not is irrelevant. It is still a human being according to science.

No, it is not like granny because granny can never be a person again but the zygote will become a person of allowed to continue developing.

Biological human versus soul human.

 

[Subduction Zone]

@Trailblazer , if you want to claim that is your religious belief that is fine. Then simply do not get an abortion. But it appears that you are supporting preventing others from getting abortions. For that you would need some sort of proper argument. A religious one does not cut it.

 

[80s fashion girl]

Why now? No more "my body, my choice"? Pertains to more than just abortion rights.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You are missing the point. Whether it has personhood or not is irrelevant. It is still a human being according to science.

No, it is not like granny because granny can never be a person again but the zygote will become a person of allowed to continue developing.

Wrong, I am not missing the point since no one has denied that fact. But to claim that it has rights then you take on the burden of proof to prove that it is a person, and not just a lump of human flesh. And you miss the point with granny. She is not a person now, that is why it is okay to pull the plug. The embryo or fetus is not a person now so an abortion is not immoral unless you can show some other factor.

 

[Trailblazer]

You are discussing a false issue. There is no obfuscation on my part. And once again as in previous debates more than one person has pointed out your logical fallacy. Don't make this personal. It is your argument that fails. Until you present an argument properly there is no issue to address.

More obfuscation as a way to avoid answering my question.
talking about me so you won't have to address the topic of the debate, a typical atheist ploy.
You can't point out how my argument fails or you would point it out.

This debate is not about me. Why can't you address the issue at hand, which is when human life begins?

Human life begins at conception so abortion is taking a human life. You cannot get around that no matter how hard you try.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

There is a clear answer as to when life begins.

A neutral examination of the evidence merely establishes the onset of a new human life at a scientifically well-defined “moment of conception,” a conclusion that unequivocally indicates that human embryos from the one-cell stage forward are indeed living individuals of the human species; i.e., human beings.
A Scientific View of When Life Begins

There is also a clear answer as to when death occurs.

Death is the irreversible cessation of all biological functions that sustain an organism.[1] Brain death is sometimes used as a legal definition of death.[2] The remains of a former organism normally begin to decompose shortly after death. Death is an inevitable, universal process that eventually occurs in all organisms.
Death - Wikipedia

Even death is not clear.
What Is Death, Exactly?

Pronouncing a patient dead in a hospital seems relatively simple: palpate for lack of pulse, determine that the patient's neurological function is absent, then disclose, out loud, his or her full name and the time of death. Except it isn’t that simple at all—in the inpatient setting.
...
Here’s my problem with this situation: when I pronounce a patient dead, neither I nor that person’s family (nor, frankly, the patient himself or herself) should be faced with uncertainties. I should know, for instance, what the definition of death is. I should also know how to medically determine when the patient is no longer alive. I’ll even settle for being certain that a person passed away at the actual time I pronounce it, but physicians and their patients aren’t even afforded that luxury.

It's also not helpful you keep using the same source. I pulled up a few in a couple minutes exploring the complications when trying to determine when life begins. It is no different for when life ends.

 

[Trailblazer]

It doesn't. This is not science:
"Each individual life begins when the soul associates itself with the embryo at the time of conception. But the association is not material; the soul does not enter or leave the body and does not occupy physical space. Bahá’u’lláh uses the metaphor of the sun to explain the relationship between the soul and the body: “The soul of man is the sun by which his body is illumined, and from which it draweth its sustenance, and should be so regarded.”[4]
The Rational Soul | The Human Soul | The Life of the Spirit | What Bahá’ís Believe"

I never said my religious beliefs are science. Why do you keep saying I am saying that?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Wrong, I am not missing the point since no one has denied that fact. But to claim that it has rights then you take on the burden of proof to prove that it is a person, and not just a lump of human flesh. And you miss the point with granny. She is not a person now, that is why it is okay to pull the plug. The embryo or fetus is not a person now so an abortion is not immoral unless you can show some other factor.

Well, person is not a fact. That is a social construct.
You won't get me to do a contradiction on the word fact and claim biology is a fact and personhood is a fact. You might catch me on another one, but not this one.