An Unborn Child is in Fact, Human

[Sixchan]

Yes theologians are smart. After all, the majority of my ideas are based on those of Plato.

[Boris Godunov]

People's religious faith, no matter how dogmatic, shouldn't be a qualification for parenthood whatsoever, considering the freedom of religion in this country. Ergo having theologians on the board would only dredge up relgious bigotry. While I may disagree with their views, a fundamentalist can raise a child who is healthy and happy and provided for. What you said sounds suspiciously like an attempt not just to make sure only responsible people have kids, but also only people who agree with your particular values. Not a good thing.

[blackice]

http://www.prolife.com/FETALDEV.html

While your at it click home page and see the abortion pics...

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Cloud9
There is no such thing as accidents.

None? So did the midair crash of aeroplanes happen intentionally? Do people intentionally drive their cars off highways, into trees and lamp poles, etc.? Do fires happen because of arson always?

I found this assertion absurd.

Originally posted by Cloud9
If you choose to have irresponsible sex that is your choice and you must live with the consequences.

Who are you to judge what is responsible and irresponsible? Besides, that was not my question.

Originally posted by Cloud9
It's logical. Think about it. When you don't know your partner well enough to know that they don't have any diseases then you are at risk for contracting an STD.

That's not what I asked. Either you have a source or you do not.

[Sava]

Boris, their individual values wouldn't come into play. The theologians would simply be there as objective observers. Religion and belief is not going to be a requirement, and it should not. But religion and faith is important in the upbringing of a child. If someone, for instance, believes that Allah will reward them in the afterlife if they martyr themselves, they should not be allowed to raise a child who is going to take on that belief as well. That is just one example. There are many Pro-Lifers who use their faith to justify their acts of violence. The theologians would be there to discuss faith and religion with them, not to discriminate.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by blackice
While your at it click home page and see the abortion pics...

So it's not pretty.

Neither are firebombed clinics nor murdered doctors.

[Ramo]

which would be done by proving that (A&B) = C

Because that's the argument you are making.

"since the zygote is human gentically (ova and sperm are not)

and becomes (everyone agrees here) a human being

[...]

thus killing it is immoral "

IMO, neither criteria should have any impact on what warrants the status of a "person." I was wondering why not only you see it this way, but why neither criterion alone warrants the status of a "person."

[Jon Miller]

obviously

because human genetically obviously does not make something a person

and I equally think it is stupid to have ova and sperm classified as human

Jon Miller

[Mr. Nice Guy]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
None? So did the midair crash of aeroplanes happen intentionally? Do people intentionally drive their cars off highways, into trees and lamp poles, etc.? Do fires happen because of arson always?

I found this assertion absurd.

Those who have sex should know the risks. Sex doesn't just happen on it's own. People have to make it happen.

Who are you to judge what is responsible and irresponsible?

The pleasures of sex are not worth the risk of an STD. Not knowing your partner well enough to know wether they have any diseases or not IS irresponsible.

That's not what I asked. Either you have a source or you do not.

I shouldn't need a source here, UR. Just think about my logic why don't you. Most transmissions of STD's are a result of people not knowing their partner well enough to know wether they have any diseases or not. 'Nuff said.

[Lincoln]

"So it's not pretty.

Neither are firebombed clinics nor murdered doctors."

Let's put this in perspective shall we:

Aborted babies= 50,000,000+

Murdered abortionists= 2 or 3?

[Ramo]

because human genetically obviously does not make something a person

Why not?
It's not obvious to me - at least no more obvious than that zygotes should be classified as people.

and I equally think it is stupid to have ova and sperm classified as human

If you meant as people istead of human, why?

Why are both criteria necessary and sufficient, and why are neither alone sufficient?

[Jon Miller]

so you are saying Ramo

that a peice of skin in a human??

don't be stupid

and I meant human on the second one

I am shooting down your straw men, and you are being purposefully dense

Jon Miller

[Sava]

Paramecium should be considered people, too. I mean, in a few billion years, they could develop into a race of sentient beings.

[Ramo]

that a peice of skin in a human??

don't be stupid

It's as much as a person as a zygote.

and I meant human on the second one

If you define humanity as having the full DNA of person, I already said a sperm wasn't human. Stop talking about humanity. That's semantics.

However, again, I think a sperm cell is as much a person as a zygote.

you are being purposefully dense

Only because you're not seeing things logically, and are stuck with your philosophical preconceptions. I'm trying to get you to tell my why you think they are justified. You have a bunch of assumptions, and call anything that is contrary to those assumptions "stupid," yet you have given no justification whatsover why you these assumptions must be true.

Again, why are both criteria necessary and sufficient, and why are neither alone sufficient?

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Ramo


It's as much as a person as a zygote.

I was trying to develope the zygote as human

since you are not being open minded, instead taking it on faith that the zygote is not human

If you define humanity as having the full DNA of person, I already said a sperm wasn't human. Stop talking about humanity. That's semantics.

However, again, I think a sperm cell is as much a person as a zygote.

so you are taking your desired result as given

that is not logical

Only because you're not seeing things logically, and are stuck with your philosophical preconceptions.

you just described yourself

I keep starting to build up a logical basis

and you say that does not matter, the zygote is not human

listen to yourself, you are being the epitome of

I'm trying to get you to tell my why you think they are justified. You have a bunch of assumptions, and call anything that is contrary to those assumptions "stupid," yet you have given no justification whatsover why you these assumptions must be true.

Again, why are both criteria necessary and sufficient, and why are neither alone sufficient?

I have been trying to say that

you stop at every point and say that it doesn't matter the zygote isn't human

I have the zygote status as undefined and am trying to show how it developes

you are being illogical and close minded

you are not worthwhile talking to in this matter
goodbye

Jon Miller