🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <327EAE56.1A08@teleport.com>, Rob Hocker <rah@teleport.com> wrote:

> REP wrote:
> > 
> > In article <327C1B55.2170@teleport.com>, Rob Hocker <rah@teleport.com>
wrote:
> > 
> > [...]
> > > It is a proven scientific fact that the fetus is living.  It is a
> > > proven scientific fact that the fetus is human (i.e., it has a FULL
> > > SET OF HUMAN DNA; the chemicals that DEFINE, scientifically, what
> > > it means to be human).  The fetus is GROWING.  Left in it's natural
> > > circumstances, it will continue to GROW bigger and bigger, until it
> > > grows out of the womb, then out of the crib, then out of the home,
> > > etc., etc., etc. Given these scientific FACTS, I think it is up to
> > > you to somehow prove that this living, growing "thing" with human
> > > DNA is not really human... its just er, uh, protoplasm! Yeah. That's
> > > right!  It's protoplasm!  Sure it's pretty special protoplasm in
> > > that it even can show personality traits in the womb BEFORE it
> > > magically becomes HUMAN...  But it's protoplasm nonetheless!
> > 
> > Nice to see you've found a strawman to play with. I have uet to hear
> > anyone claim that a human fetus is not human. What is disputed is whether
> > or not it is a human being; a person. There is a difference.
> >
> 
> And thus you bring up a spiritual argument.

Well, actually, I merely knocked down your strawman. 


> The fetus is fully *human*
> in the physical sense, but perhaps it doesn't have a soul or spirit
> yet... thus it's not a person.  You can't put a person's spirit in a
> test tube. (Indeed, some pure naturalists don't even believe in
> spirit -- they would be forced to see personhood as the physical
> structure.)  Anyway, once you bring in this "personhood" issue, it
> gets very complex.

No kidding. You must be new here, or have ignored the many threads that
deal with this topic.

You will never have any argument that proves you have a good reason to
force anyone to live by your religion, or spirituality, or whatever you
choose to call it. Whether or not there is such a thing as a soul, or if
there is, whether a zygote, embryo or fetus can possess one are deeply
personal matters that should not be legislated.

> Why should a two or three year-old be considered
> a "person"?  You can't measure their spirit any better than the spirit
> of a fetus.

Legal recognition of personhood has nothing to do with spirit.

> How about an old person?  Someone with Altheimer's, someone
> who's mentally retarted, etc., etc.

They are all human, born and alive. A fetus is not.
 
> I prefer to go by what can be measured and scientifically proven.
> 
> > > I addressed this in a previous post.  Sperm do not have a full
> > > set of DNA; they are not human... [...]
> > 
> > If it originated in a human male,then it is human sperm.
> > 
> 
> It's human sperm, but the sperm is not a human being.

That's not what you said above. You said "Sperm ... they are ot human."
That was a false statement, if you were referring to sperm that originated
in a human male.

-- 

"I think of myself as a person who will eat your lunch one day." 
- Ralph "Goldilocks" Taite in <4ultck$m2o@panix2.panix.com>