Abortion Is Equal To Murder?

[Sparko]

Because there are things that have the human genome that are not consider a human person. Examples include:

- a severed thumb (or any part of the human body)

- a dead body

These are universally agreed upon. Other examples that are less universally agreed upon include:

- a fertilized embryo in cryogenic freeze

- a dead body in cryogenic freeze

- a brain-dead person in a coma

The world is not as black/white as most of us would wish it to be.

A human being would be a distinct human organism at any specific stage in it's existence. A thumb is not an organism, it is part of an organism. It is not distinct, it is part of a greater object.

And a dead body is still considered a person. Just a dead one. Same with someone in a coma. And they are still human beings.

[carpedm9587]

A human being would be a distinct human organism at any specific stage in it's existence. A thumb is not an organism, it is part of an organism. It is not distinct, it is part of a greater object.

Hence the distinction between "human" and "human being."

And a dead body is still considered a person. Just a dead one.

Umm...no. At least not legally. It is a human body, but not a human person, AFAICT.

Same with someone in a coma. And they are still human beings.

This one is less clear. In most cases, it depends on the status of the brain. If there is no sign of brain activity at all, most legal systems consider personhood ended, making it legally possible to disconnect life support. The higher order functions of the brain are absent, but the brain stem remains functional, the person is said to be in a persistent vegetative state. There are different views of whether or not this is still a person. If there is activity in the cortex, then the person is considered alive.

[element771]

Law.com legal dictionary:
person
n. 1) a human being.


Dictionary.com
human being

noun
1. any individual of the genus Homo, especially a member of the species Homo sapiens.
2. a person, especially as distinguished from other animals

A fetus is a human being. A human being is a person. Pretty simple FF.

Nothing about breathing.

Do you stop being a human being if you hold your breath?

What about divers who use oxygenated perfluorocarbon liquid while underwater? Are they still human?

The problem that I have noticed that occurs when people start trying to qualify when a human is "alive" (or a human being) is that their criteria often apply to humans with disabilities, infants, people in comas, people with severe brain damage, etc.

I don't think that they would advocate that a person that is in a coma on life support is no longer a human being.

[carpedm9587]

The problem that I have noticed that occurs when people start trying to qualify when a human is "alive" (or a human being) is that their criteria often apply to humans with disabilities, infants, people in comas, people with severe brain damage, etc.

I don't think that they would advocate that a person that is in a coma on life support is no longer a human being.

Which is why some people use higher-brain function (not just brain stem). But then, by definition, a very young fetus would not qualify until it has a detectable EEG. I think we have to couple the notion with the potentiality. Someone who has suffered catastrophic damage to higher brain function and only has an operational brain stem has no potentiality to regain that function. A fetus, once it is fertilized and implanted, may not actually have an EEG, but they have the potential to develop one. That is, for me, the difference.

[Sparko]

The problem that I have noticed that occurs when people start trying to qualify when a human is "alive" (or a human being) is that their criteria often apply to humans with disabilities, infants, people in comas, people with severe brain damage, etc.

I don't think that they would advocate that a person that is in a coma on life support is no longer a human being.

Carpe just did. http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...016#post543016

[carpedm9587]

Carpe just did. http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...016#post543016

It's a little disingenuous, Sparko, to misrepresent someone's argument. I'm going to assume it was unintentional.

The term "brain dead" was defined in a subsequent post. I also did not claim that all people in a coma are "not persons."

[One Bad Pig]

It's a little disingenuous, Sparko, to misrepresent someone's argument. I'm going to assume it was unintentional.

The term "brain dead" was defined in a subsequent post. I also did not claim that all people in a coma are "not persons."

You did, however, claim that some people in a coma (to wit, those who are "brain dead") are "not persons"; thus, Sparko's point stands. It's a little disingenuous to protest otherwise.

[carpedm9587]

You did, however, claim that some people in a coma (to wit, those who are "brain dead") are "not persons"; thus, Sparko's point stands. It's a little disingenuous to protest otherwise.

In conventional English...the sentence "a person that is in a coma on life support is no longer a human being," would be understood in it's absolute sense. The "all" is implied. It is why statements like "Liberals think Republicans are bigots" is useless. SOME liberals may think that way. Maybe even a lot of them do. They don't all think that way, and to assume, "you're a liberal, so you think Republicans are bigots" is an exercise in prejudice with no knowledge of what that particular person thinks.

I was fairly clear in noting the specific type of person in a coma that would be a non-person, and that qualification was omitted in Sparko's post. Hopefully it was unintentional, but Sparko appears to be a bit irritated with me right now, so I'm really not sure.

In any event, at no point did I suggest that all people in comas are nonpersons. People with zero brain activity - non-person. People with brain stem activity but no higher functions, I would also consider them non-persons. People with higher brain function (however slight) and in a coma retain their personhood.

[firstfloor]

Law.com legal dictionary:
person
n. 1) a human being.


Dictionary.com
human being

noun
1. any individual of the genus Homo, especially a member of the species Homo sapiens.
2. a person, especially as distinguished from other animals

A fetus is a human being. A human being is a person. Pretty simple FF.

Nothing about breathing.

Do you stop being a human being if you hold your breath?

What about divers who use oxygenated perfluorocarbon liquid while underwater? Are they still human?

ZYGOTE, Sparko, for that is the subject, nothing bigger.
Often the word autonomous is used to define person. A zygote is a single cell. About 30% are eventually born. Those zygotes that die (it is a brief life) are completely anonymous. They didn’t even make it to the first step of the long climb towards Human Being.

[carpedm9587]

ZYGOTE, Sparko, for that is the subject, nothing bigger.
Often the word autonomous is used to define person. A zygote is a single cell. About 30% are eventually born. Those zygotes that die (it is a brief life) are completely anonymous. They didn’t even make it to the first step of the long climb towards Human Being.

Actually - they did. The first step is fertilization. The second is implantation. Both are distinct points in the development of the person. Except for birth, all of the intermediate steps strike me as fairly arbitrary. A heartbeat doesn't "just turn on." The development of the heart is a process. An EEG doesn't just turn on. The development of the brain is a process. Motion happens throughout. There is no other place where on can clearly say, "this second it's not a human being...the next second it is." That is why I believe human personhood begins when a zygote is in a context where, without further intervention, it has the potential to proceed to adulthood. That means fertilization AND implantation. It's the only thing that makes sense to me. It eliminates the conflict of the ectopic pregnancy. It eliminates the fertilized egg in a freezer.

I know that is not a widely held or widely agreed with position from the left, but there it is.

[Tassman]

Ok...

What if a baby is born prematurely and cannot breathe on its own?

Is that a human being?

It a fetus is born prematurely than one does everything to revive it. The question is not whether or not a human fetus is “human”, it’s hardly going to be say, a reptile. The only question WHEN a human fetus is to be designated “a person” with all the rights and privileges of a person.

For the Jews it was when it took its first breath. For Roe v Wade the SCOTUS ruled that it was that point at “capability of meaningful life outside the mother’s womb, or viability”. This is the majority view of the populace.

Christians have a varying history regarding abortion rights. Baptist historian Randall Herbert Balmer, Ph.D., argues in his book, Thy Kingdom Come, that contrary to the popular belief that anti-abortion sentiments galvanised the fundamentalist evangelical movement, what actually galvanised the movement was evangelical opposition to the American Internal Revenue Service after the IRS stripped the evangelical Bob Jones University of its tax-exempt status for refusing to allow interracial dating and marriage. It was not until 1980 that the evangelical movement came to oppose abortion.

https://www.politico.com/magazine/st...origins-107133

In short, it’s a relatively recent phenomenon.

[firstfloor]

Ok...

What if a baby is born prematurely and cannot breathe on its own?

Is that a human being?

Obviously it is. Breath is life. If it lives, it breathes. Human Beings failing to breathe for several minutes transition to corpse.

[Bill the Cat]

Obviously it is. Breath is life. If it lives, it breathes. Human Beings failing to breathe for several minutes transition to corpse.

Wrong. In 2012, German freediver Tom Sietas held his breath underwater for 22 minutes and 22 seconds. Was he a corpse under water? The longest time breath held voluntarily (male) is 24 min 3.45 secs and was achieved by Aleix Segura Vendrell (Spain), in Barcelona, Spain, on 28 February 2016. Was he a corpse?

[firstfloor]

Wrong. In 2012, German freediver Tom Sietas held his breath underwater for 22 minutes and 22 seconds. Was he a corpse under water? The longest time breath held voluntarily (male) is 24 min 3.45 secs and was achieved by Aleix Segura Vendrell (Spain), in Barcelona, Spain, on 28 February 2016. Was he a corpse?

I really hope we don’t need to get into the exact details of breathing; do we? Mind you, I’m sure there’s a certain amount of danger in that type of activity. I read that one Reiss Morgan died in 2009 trying to break a record.

[element771]

It a fetus is born prematurely than one does everything to revive it. The question is not whether or not a human fetus is “human”, it’s hardly going to be say, a reptile. The only question WHEN a human fetus is to be designated “a person” with all the rights and privileges of a person.

For the Jews it was when it took its first breath. For Roe v Wade the SCOTUS ruled that it was that point at “capability of meaningful life outside the mother’s womb, or viability”. This is the majority view of the populace.

Christians have a varying history regarding abortion rights. Baptist historian Randall Herbert Balmer, Ph.D., argues in his book, Thy Kingdom Come, that contrary to the popular belief that anti-abortion sentiments galvanised the fundamentalist evangelical movement, what actually galvanised the movement was evangelical opposition to the American Internal Revenue Service after the IRS stripped the evangelical Bob Jones University of its tax-exempt status for refusing to allow interracial dating and marriage. It was not until 1980 that the evangelical movement came to oppose abortion.

https://www.politico.com/magazine/st...origins-107133

In short, it’s a relatively recent phenomenon.

So this is where I break from my Christian brothers and sisters. I don't base my view on abortion on the Bible. I base it on my scientific background and my conscience (obviously I believe that my conscience is rooted in God's distinction between good and evil). I could become an atheist tomorrow and would still not agree with those that are pro-choice.

I just want consistency. For example, some people opposed to research using fetal derived stem cells are fine with in vitro fertilization. This is not consistent. For in vitro fertilization, often a dozen or so eggs are fertilized. Several are implanted in an effort to impregnate a female. If implantation is successful, those fertilized eggs are then kept frozen indefinitely or are discarded. To me, this two positions are juxtaposed to one another.

I also don't agree with the Roe V Wade definition. There are several groups of people that cannot have a meaningful life outside of a mother's womb BUT if they were killed...it would be murder plain and simple.

Also, the legal system isn't consistent either. For example, a woman can take the abortion pill if she decides to terminate a pregnancy. However, there was a case where a man slipped this pill into his girlfriend's drink in order to cause an abortion. Now, he should have only been charged with endangering his girlfriend by slipping something into her drink. He was also charged with premeditate murder of a fetus. If it is just a ball of cells, why would be charged with murder?