Posted on 12/06/2006 10:56:00 AM PST by Ultra Sonic 007
Thanks for the ping. My thought is: "Is the Pope Catholic?" The answer is for both questions.
Would you be so gracious as to thank them for me?
They say that it is not HUMAN, but theirs is not a logical statement. The unborn child is certainly not animal, vegetable or mineral. They don't want to admit it is a human BEING because it would have to be afforded basic HUMAN RIGHTS. THAT is what they want to deny the unborn.
We were going for MLA, plus his recommendations.
Exactly.
Since they can’t vote Democrat the answer is no!
Explain.
Of course the unborn child is HUMAN.
*****
An unborn child can inherit property being willed to him/her. This type of legacy was mentioned constantly in wills of previous centuries when the life of a father could be taken at a young age, when his wife was still in her childbearing years.
Would you mind telling us what grade you recieved. It looks like it deserves an A, so I'm curious.
Essentially, society has become Babylonian: no longer does the Christian ethic of protecting innocent life prevail, but instead, women in particular are allowed to kill innocent human life. That's wrong. And men need to stand up and say, "No more"!
Just a small suggestion to an otherwise well done paper and big thanks for young folks like yourself.
Actually very few of them even try that now. Most of them I've talked to say "WE DON'T CARE". In other words, it doesn't matter to them that a child is being killed, they believe they have that right since the child is a "parasite".
That's exactly the same sort of analogy I was going to mention. The Condor egg has more rights in this society than an unborn human. I would like to see a legislative movement to give at least as many rights to unborn humans as we do to vultures.
I have to say that denying humanity to the unborn might lead – or perhaps already has led – to a slippery slope with regard to American perception of life in general.
I would either leave this line out or provide specific examples.
Also, style-wise, I'd leave out conversationalisms in a formal essay such as "I have to say..." or "I would classify..." It's your essay - the above lines are self-evident, and you will sound less equivocating if you just say something like, "The entire abortion issue as a moral dilemma." instead of "I would classify the entire abortion issue as a moral dilemma."
Nevertheless, my hope is that America will one day recognize the unborn as human. The consequences of not doing so are potentially catastrophic; if the unborn child is proven to be human, that would not only entail that we have killed innocent humans for years, but that we willingly allowed it to happen. That might deliver a blow to America’s moral fabric from which she may never recover.
Your conclusion seems to contradict itself. First you say you hope America will realize that unborn children are human. But then you say that if we do that, America might not be able to recover from the blow to tthe moral fabric. I would amend that to something like saying that if the humanity of the unborn child is acknowledged, that it would deliver a blow to America's moral fabric that could only repaired by an acknowledgement of our past mistakes coupled with an understanding of what the new paradigm regarding unborn children should be. Otherwise, it seems like you're saying that if we don't want America to have a moral blow delivered to it from which we can't recover, that we shouldn't change our paradigm of what the unborn child is.
Good luck with your paper and grade!
Doh! I see I'm too late... let us know what the prof says!
As you are dealing with an issue in basic human embryology, the study of the development of a human, you might have consulted that source. You would find that even at this late hour, every human embryologist agrees that at conception, a human being is formed. Fancier language is used, but the results are the same.
As someone said above, it ain't a tadpole.
For your info:
http://abort73.com/HTML/I-A-1-medical.html
Francis
The biggest argument I have heard is that the human is TOTALLY DEPENDENT on the mother for survival. I then ask if any of the people with this view are parents. One or two will admit to this. I then request that they leave cereal, milk, fresh nappies and some clean water in a room with their 2-month old, lock that door and come back in 4 days to see what they find. The point is immediate.
Unlike other animals, God made humans to have a long period of post-gestational learning to absorb before we can function independently. Thus, their point is totally specious. Baby horses don't have this deficit; they can run in a week. As such, human babies are totally dependent on their parents for years as anybody with children knows fully well.
Looks good...
"Abortion: Should the unborn be considered human?"
Can be answered with a question...
Is that even a question to be asked--shouldn't that be an unequivocal yes?
Please FreepMail me if you want on or off my Pro-Life Ping List.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.