Posted on 11/28/2001 2:48:37 PM PST by Caleb1411
No. It appears you knew something that I did not know.
Sorry pcl, but White Supremacists are against abortion for completely different reasons than Christians and Constitutionalists. They believe abortion is a conspiracy against the white race. Since they threaten to murder people all the time, they could not be construed by anyone as "Pro-life." People who are "pro-life" believe that taking human life is wrong in all cases
Thanks for the education. I had previously lumped all Pro-lifers together as a group.
Ya went and stuck ME in that same group as Waagner????????????????? Sheesh!!! I should NEVER have taken the time last night with my hair if I thought this would happen. Goodness sakes.
Dude, you're in denial about the violence of abortion and killing a 9 month old... all in the name of social needs such as not having to listen to a crying kid. They do those every day, killing those speaking up, that is.
Whether a fertlized ovum is a person, or should be treated as such in law, is not a testable scientific question. The statement of the doctor is not science.
Regarding your distinction between a human life and a person, what is the difference?
Cordially,
Maybe you are "whipping a dead horse" by constantly bringing up cognitive dissonance. You've brought it up twice. It is a great concept, but I don't see how it applies in any situation you have brought up with it.
I'm interested to hear your explanation of how cognitive dissonance applies to this case of your contradicting yourself. Are you saying you are conflicted about the killing of fetuses?
Offhand, I would guess you have no qualms about feticide. The words "Abortion byproduct" make an abused fetus sound like something that is so inferior that it is left out of dog food. ("No meat byproducts" is the phrase they use in advertising dog food.)
But, if you have cognitive dissonance (or qualms) about the torture and killing of human animals, we'd certainly understand. We don't like the all-too-common practice of killing human animals, either.
I believe the term can be justly applied, though not exclusively so, to human organisms with: properly functioning brains demonstrating sentience, brains without detectable pathology that for some unknown reason do not demonstrate sentience (e.g. some comatose patients), brains with pathology from which there is at least some hope of recovery, and fetal brains with measurable dream-like states (which happens fairly early, I think around 14 weeks, but don't quote me on that.)
It is and it isn't. But saying that 'person' is a legal term doesn't really tell me the difference between a human being and a person.
Main Entry: per·son
Pronunciation: 'p&r-s&n
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Old French persone, from Latin persona actor's mask, character in a play, person, probably from Etruscan phersu mask, from Greek prosOpa, plural of prosOpon face, mask -- more at PROSOPOPOEIA
Date: 13th century
1 : HUMAN, INDIVIDUAL -- sometimes used in combination especially by those who prefer to avoid man in compounds applicable to both sexes <chairperson> <spokesperson>
2 : a character or part in or as if in a play : GUISE
3 a : one of the three modes of being in the Trinitarian Godhead as understood by Christians b : the unitary personality of Christ that unites the divine and human natures
4 a archaic : bodily appearance b : the body of a human being; also : the body and clothing <unlawful search of the person>
5 : the personality of a human being : SELF
6 : one (as a human being, a partnership, or a corporation) that is recognized by law as the subject of rights and duties
7 : reference of a segment of discourse to the speaker, to one spoken to, or to one spoken of as indicated by means of certain pronouns or in many languages by verb inflection
- per·son·hood /-"hud/ noun
- in person : in one's bodily presence
...the term can be justly applied, though not exclusively so, to human organisms with: properly functioning brains demonstrating sentience, brains without detectable pathology that for some unknown reason do not demonstrate sentience (e.g. some comatose patients), brains with pathology from which there is at least some hope of recovery, and fetal brains with measurable dream-like states (which happens fairly early, I think around 14 weeks...
When you say the statement of the doctor regarding personhood is not science, it should also be noted that your distinction between human being and person, and your criteria for applying the distinction is not science either.
As you can see from the dictionary definitions above, person is synonomous with human and individual. Usage four in the dictionary above is classified as "archaic", but I cannot find any debate about the distinction between human being and person that is older than about 30 years (and you and I both know the reason for that.) In fact that usage is still present in both common and legal language today in reference to: bodily appearance, or the body of a human being.
I do not see any ontological basis for the distinction, simply because human beings are persons. Humans are personal beings. That's just the kind of being humans are. Personhood is not some separate, added quality - it is a property that is part of the essence of being human. For example, an essential part of being a cube is to have volume. A cube without volume is not a cube but a square. All cubes have volume. In the same way part of what being human entails is being a personal being, no matter at what particular stage of development a human being happens to be.
So if you are advancing the notion that there is a difference between human being and person, then it is up to you to justify the distinction and its logical corollary that there exists such a thing as a human being who is not a person.
Cordially
Looks like a baby to me. Those who cannot or who choose to not see the baby have blinders on--big time. But then, if it makes them feel better about murdering a baby out of selfish reasons, then believing that murdering a child (being pro-choice) is necessary to assuage their guilt. These people must have hearts of stone. There is no valid explanation for their insistence to kill pre-born babies. May God have mercy on their souls.
I haven't but I'm sure that they resemble the bodies of aborted babies...DEAD.
Let me ask you this: is a headless body on life support a person in law with rights and, possibly, duties?
I concede that on FR I might have met some persons without brains. ;)
I'm interested to hear your explanation of how cognitive dissonance applies...
It is probably best we leave that dead horse alone.
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.