So the imperatives of biological science don't hold that the successful union of sperm and egg in mammalians, for that is the what we're talking about here, is not the beginning of the life cycle of a new mammalian organism?
Is that what you're claiming?
I know you are not asking a genuine question. You still think your definition is the only conceivable definition. You are offering a loaded question, which is another fallacy closely linked to your tautological dribble.
You can surely understand that something that has the potential to become X is not therefore equivalent to X. This is another fallacy. In other words, just because something has potential to be a full moral person does not mean it
is a full moral person.
If you think we are not respecting the sanctity of life, I think it's important to consider not just the potential person but to also the would-be mother. Ya know, consider the factors of the living, not just some tautological and ideological tripe. The needs of this full moral person and her family is vital to understanding whether abortion, within certain stages, is respecting the sanctity of the actually living. We cannot decide this
a priori like you are so damned certain that you are pounding fists on the pulpit.
On the contrary, it was a genuine question. I don't play those games. I'm honesty trying to understand what you're getting at, as I know that quite often a difference in the definition of terms can get in the way of one understanding what another is trying to communicate. Hence, my response to Jake in which I take a stab at what you might be objecting to, A or B, as a means of drawing out of you a discernibly more emphatic or objectively definable assertion:
http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/345437-a-culture-of-intolerance-17.html#post8790415
“You can surely understand that something that has the potential to become X is not therefore equivalent to X.”
Yes, of course. There's nothing profound about that, the ontological concerns of being and becoming. But I didn't assert a potential something becoming or being equivalent to something else!
That's your misreading.
Go back and read my original post. I did not define a prenatal human being as a person under the aegis of constitutional law at all, because it's not; it's a person in terms of natural and divine law. The Constitution deals the political rights of persons, but as I rightly pointed out, that does not mean that the several states and the people thereof cannot protect the life of the unborn. My concern goes to the sanctity of human life, and as a matter of clarification I followed up with: "the life cycle of a new mammalian organism (or individual) begins at conception, defined as the union of male and female germ cells (fertilization)".
“Ya know, consider the factors of the living, not just some tautological and ideological tripe.”
Tripe? Hello! I quite obviously did consider the various factors relative to the imperatives of constitutional, natural and divine law, separately and together. Apparently, you missed that.
“The needs of this full moral person and her family is vital to understanding whether abortion, within certain stages, is respecting the sanctity of the actually living. We cannot decide this a priori like you are so damned certain that you are pounding fists on the pulpit.”
Indeed, I agree. Hence, I didn't use the term
abortion, but the term
abortion on demand, defined as a method of birth control for the sake of mere convenience after the event of fertilization, not to be confused with contraception. I consciously used the term
abortion on demand because I have thought the various concerns through . . . more than once over a period of decades. Abortion, in and of itself, is a legitimate medical procedure that is sometimes necessary to preserve the life of the mother. Obviously, neither the mother or the baby can survive if the mother dies before the baby is adequately developed to survive outside the womb. See. What you've just exposed here is your failure to read on. You jumped the gun. I clearly did not assert any
a priori stipulation on any medical procedure, but that which would be inconsistent with the principle of the sanctity of human life for all concerned, that of the mother and the child.
Pounding fists? Pulpits?!
I'm talking about the scientific facts regarding the life cycle of living organisms or individuals. Obviously, whether you regard a fetus (or unborn child) to be a person in any sense or not, we're talking about human life, not frog life. Also, I'm talking about the imperatives of natural and divine law regarding the sanctify of human life, in practical terms, the right of the several states and the people thereof to protect and preserve human life against the whims of abortion on demand for the sake of mere convenience, or for that matter, in any other kind of circumstance.
Even
Roe v. Wade did not entirely quash the authority of the several states and the people thereof to intervene on the behalf of the unborn child in the later stages of pregnancy. In fact, there's rarely any legitimate medical reason to abort a viable fetus, as any abortion in the later stages of gestation is especially dangerous to the life of the mother. In virtually every conceivable instance during the later stages of gestation, the safest way to save the imperiled life of the mother is not to abort the child, but to induce labor or remove the child via caesarean section, thereby saving the live of both.
I say to you that anyone who destroys human life for the sake of convenience of just because is guilty before God of an atrocity, and that the Court's action in
Roe v. Wade was an instance of tyranny committed against the terms of the original social contract. The Court essentially amended the Constitution via judicial fiat, bypassing the prerogatives of the people and in defiance of the constitutionally proscribed method of amending the same.
There's no logical fallacies in my assertions. There's only your lack of knowledge about the Constitution's historic and underlying philosophical and theological justifications.
