Replies

The issue of a fetus being a human is not a scientific one. It is a religious, moral or philosphical issue. By human, I mean something different than a Homo Sapian.

A dog is dog from the moment of conception. No doubt about it. He has dog DNA. If everything goes well, he will develop into a living, breathing dog. The same is true for a Homo Sapian. It is pure and simple (?) biology.

The question is what makes a human different than a dog. It is not just a set of dog or homo sapian DNA sequences. It is somthing else. Something that we all know is there but we can not lay our finger on precisely. For want of a better concept, most people call it a soul.

The soul is what makes man different than a another sequence of DNA. The soul is what makes a Homo Sapian a Human.

The question then becomes at what point does the soul merge with the Homo Sapian to make a Human.

The issue of a fetus being a human is not a scientific one. It is a religious, moral or philosphical issue. By human, I mean something different than a Homo Sapian.

...

The question is what makes a human different than a dog. It is not just a set of dog or homo sapian DNA sequences. It is somthing else. Something that we all know is there but we can not lay our finger on precisely. For want of a better concept, most people call it a soul.

The soul is what makes man different than a another sequence of DNA. The soul is what makes a Homo Sapian a Human.

Ah, I see now. Ok, things make a bit more sense as far as your arguments go. Just to let you know, you'd be able to get your arguments across much better if you use the terms as this board defines them (the board attempts to define the terms in a way consistent with those of the dictionary and public accepted definitions). When you say 'Human' on this board, people see that as being synonomous with Homo Sapien. The reason for this is thus: It's how the dictionary defines it (See: Merriam-Webster's dictionary, Human-noun. Or see your Dictionary.com). For what your talking about, we use the term Person (a Human is a person, yes, but is the more philisophical side of the Human, while Human is the biological side; as far as everyone on FR is concerned). If you use the terms as we generally know them, then I can assure you your explinations will be taken more seriously (but that's up to you. However, a general rule of debate is, that the new-comers need to adapt to the accepted definitions of terms already in use..or without meaning to, they'll be flamed and mocked, as you are). My suggestion is use Human as 'Homo Sapien', and Person as what you're describing (this is how everyone else on FR understands such), or you'll just be talking past about just about everyone on the board. That doesn't get either side anywhere.

I thank you for specifying how you define 'Human' (and I understand more of your arguments now that I realize you're not talking about Homo Sapien, but rather about Personhood. I might not agree with many of them, but they make far more sense to me now). Now, what about life? This definition is just as important.

Thanks in advance,

-The Hajman-

The soul is what makes man different than a another sequence of DNA. The soul is what makes a Homo Sapian a Human.

The question then becomes at what point does the soul merge with the Homo Sapian to make a Human.

Some people who do not believe a human has a soul are still anti-abortion. What argument would you use with them?