Political Crossfire Forums

Gilbert1908 · Joined: 26 Jan 2005 Posts: 5357 Location: Boston, MA

Prole wrote: I accept, gilbert, that a preborn human is biologically a human from conception. That said:

Prole, whose question got overlooked wrote: Merely because someone meets the biological definition of a word does not mean that they meet the moral definition of a word. And yes, there is certainly debate as to whether there is a difference, your attempt to base morality upon the existence of synonyms in the English language nonewithstaninding.

Would abortion be acceptable if we used a language that did not lump together "human" in the moral sense and in the biological sense?

I know you do. And you then choose to make a moral judgement I can not make.

You then make the moral judgement that some human life is worthy of its life because it has reached some addition standard which you might call humaness or personhood. This is not unreasonable at all,

I respect you for saying so instead of hiding behind the obfuscations others do.

Our arguement (yours and mine) can then be had on an honest basis.

steen · Joined: 14 Jan 2006 Posts: 1430 Location: Upper Midwest

galba wrote: A child will develop into a human. A child already IS a human.

steen · Joined: 14 Jan 2006 Posts: 1430 Location: Upper Midwest

Gilbert1908 wrote: So cancer is human???? In humans, it certainly is. The tissue is of that species designation.

steen · Joined: 14 Jan 2006 Posts: 1430 Location: Upper Midwest

Gilbert1908 wrote: An embryo is both human and alive. And I really don't see where anybody have disagreed with this.

Prole · Joined: 02 May 2005 Posts: 2356 Location: Edinburgh

I admire your honesty and directness, gilbert, so I'll repeat the question: do you think that someone is entitled to moral status merely because they meet one of the characteristics of being "human" do to the language that we use (English)? If yes, would you feel differently if the language we used happened to not lump what is biologically and morally human together into the same word; that our language did not have synonyms? If so, then can you appreciate you disgustingly intellectually dishonest I find it to hear people say, "It's human, and it's wrong it to kill a human" while ignoring that this statement completely sidesteps that it can only hold true because of (co)incidental nuances of the language we use?

If you think that being biologically an individual human being is what makes someone worthy of having moral status, then I can respect that, though will wholeheartidly disagree. But at least it's honest.

But those who constantly critisize abortion of the grounds that, "It's a human, so it's wrong" are ignoring that such a statement only holds true because of the language we use. And language, I believe, should play no part in dictating morality, or more importantly, legislating what is legal.

Sailor Moon · Joined: 22 Sep 2005 Posts: 2782 Location: O-town, Florida

Quote: But those who constantly critisize abortion of the grounds that, "It's a human, so it's wrong" are ignoring that such a statement only holds true because of the language we use. And language, I believe, should play no part in dictating morality, or more importantly, legislating what is legal.

Ah, but those who made it legal, used such terms AS personhood, etc, to define the legality, not just the fetuses life. YET, they distinctly are protective of third trimester fetuses due to their viability.

Its one thing to decriminalize the act of abortion, its a different story when its done on such a regular basis, and mostly due to a lack of knowledge as to "what it is" that human life, in particular, is rendered worthless, rather than invaluable, as it should be.

galba · Joined: 23 Nov 2005 Posts: 675 Location: Texas

steen wrote: galba wrote: A child will develop into a human. A child already IS a human.
Sorry, will develop into man/women.

Gilbert1908 · Joined: 26 Jan 2005 Posts: 5357 Location: Boston, MA

Prole wrote: I admire your honesty and directness, gilbert, so I'll repeat the question: do you think that someone is entitled to moral status merely because they meet one of the characteristics of being "human" do to the language that we use (English)? If yes, would you feel differently if the language we used happened to not lump what is biologically and morally human together into the same word; that our language did not have synonyms? If so, then can you appreciate you disgustingly intellectually dishonest I find it to hear people say, "It's human, and it's wrong it to kill a human" while ignoring that this statement completely sidesteps that it can only hold true because of (co)incidental nuances of the language we use?

If you think that being biologically an individual human being is what makes someone worthy of having moral status, then I can respect that, though will wholeheartidly disagree. But at least it's honest.

But those who constantly critisize abortion of the grounds that, "It's a human, so it's wrong" are ignoring that such a statement only holds true because of the language we use. And language, I believe, should play no part in dictating morality, or more importantly, legislating what is legal.

I think it is more accurate to characterize my position as saying that I am unwilling to DENY moral status of any living human being.

It is similar to the reason some people are opposed to the death penalty. They believe that the risk of killing one innocent man outweighs the cost of killing the rest of the guilty murderers.

And remember I am not thumping a bible here, I am not calling anyone a murderer nor do I tolerate such speech.

My purpose is to find a way to have the fewest abortions possible and I believe that the best way to do that is to have frank and honest discussions about what women are choosing when they choose to have an abortion, and to be intolerant of those who are on either end of the extremes because they are not part of the solution.

steen · Joined: 14 Jan 2006 Posts: 1430 Location: Upper Midwest

galba wrote: steen wrote: galba wrote: A child will develop into a human. A child already IS a human.
Sorry, will develop into man/women. OK. Agreed. Now, does a potential give actualized status to the potential?

steen · Joined: 14 Jan 2006 Posts: 1430 Location: Upper Midwest

Gilbert1908 wrote: My purpose is to find a way to have the fewest abortions possible and I believe that the best way to do that is to have frank and honest discussions about what women are choosing when they choose to have an abortion, and to be intolerant of those who are on either end of the extremes because they are not part of the solution. I must disagree. The fewest possible abortions would be per the European model where the rates are much lower. It involves much better and non-dogmatic sex-ed, cheaper and more accessible contraception and much better support for pregnant women and new families.

THIS will lower abortion rates. We could, over the years, have seen many fewer abortions if there had been a political will for these items.

Instead, we have seen a resistance against these measures, which I feel is the main reason why the US has an abortion rate so much higher that that of the other western countries.

galba · Joined: 23 Nov 2005 Posts: 675 Location: Texas

steen wrote: galba wrote: steen wrote: galba wrote: A child will develop into a human. A child already IS a human.
Sorry, will develop into man/women. OK. Agreed. Now, does a potential give actualized status to the potential?
No. Children can't vote, they don't get access to half the Bill of Rights, they are not allowed to make and important decisions, etc.

Mycroft147 · Joined: 20 Feb 2006 Posts: 142 Location: minnesota

galba wrote: steen wrote: galba wrote: steen wrote: galba wrote: A child will develop into a human. A child already IS a human.
Sorry, will develop into man/women. OK. Agreed. Now, does a potential give actualized status to the potential?
No. Children can't vote, they don't get access to half the Bill of Rights, they are not allowed to make and important decisions, etc.

None of this is really relevant. Science proves that human life starts at conception.

The embryo is obviously alive, and has human DNA which differs from the mother. Case closed.

Sailor Moon · Joined: 22 Sep 2005 Posts: 2782 Location: O-town, Florida

Why do people want so much more power, anyways, to dictate "Status" to another individual, or "status OVER", either? I thought that "ranking system" became rude, and went out of style a couple decades ago, anyways.. hmm, I guess not.. Does that mean that everyone should be allowed to call low income people "low class", "indecent" or "peasants", or "the haggard ones", and wealthy folks, "ROYALTY" "diplomats" or "worthy ones"??

Sure we can, if we listen to the words of some of the pro choicers on here. :lol: