Loren Pechtel

Originally posted by long winded fool
For the same reason that an infant is a human. It is an example of the species homo sapiens sapiens.

You are simply stating this, not proving it.

According to federal law, the crime of destroying the embryo of a golden eagle is the same crime as destroying an adult golden eagle and incurs the same penalty. The value of the eagle is based on its species and not its potential to feel pain.

Correct. The point of the law is to increase the population of Gold Eagles, it is not about wrong done to an eagle. We have plenty of people, though, we don't need a law to increase the number of people.

long winded fool

Then you disagree a human embryo is homo sapiens sapiens?

Agreed. And this is the refutation of both analogies. Since eagles and oak trees are valued for different reasons than humans, they are not valid comparisons to humans. Therefore, the oak tree analogy is not a valid analogy. If it were, the eagle analogy would also be valid and there would be a contradiction.

dk

Logic seem to demand... An acorn, fertilized eagles egg, and a human zygote have both substance and potential. Strictly speaking potential has no substance, but that’s immaterial . Clearly they are all alive, and contain all of abilities that distinguish an organism from a cell, or organ, inorganic matter or other biomaterial. An acorn is a living oak organism, an eagles egg is a living eagle organism, and a human zygote is a living human organism. If we are to be logical, I don’t see any other possibility.

dk

But you've made a stronger statement, If the point of protecting eagle eggs is to increase the eagle population, then analogically, the point of intentionally destroying fetuses must be to cull human populations. The moral lessen being that eagles are good, and people are bad; well at least the people aborted are surplus.

By the way 15 of the 30 million black people in the US have been aborted since Roe v. Wade, do you think this is voluntary genocide?

Imagine the idea of a Great Society based upon a concept of voluntary racial genocide.

Loren Pechtel

Again you are bleeding the meanings! That's why I don't like the use of the word "human" in such discussions!

The embryo is not a person.

Loren Pechtel

Originally posted by dk
But you've made a stronger statement, If the point of protecting eagle eggs is to increase the eagle population, then analogically, the point of intentionally destroying fetuses must be to cull human populations. The moral lessen being that eagles are good, and people are bad; well at least the people aborted are surplus.

No. We need more eagles so we have laws to punish things which reduce the number of eagles. We do not need more people therefore the law is neutral on it--creating more people or not is up to the individuals involved.
The world is *NOT* black and white. Just because a position doesn't favor something doesn't mean it opposes it, either.

By the way 15 of the 30 million black people in the US have been aborted since Roe v. Wade, do you think this is voluntary genocide?

So? They have less education and therefore a higher rate of contraceptive failure. This isn't genocide.

long winded fool

But a person is always a human being. Since personhood is a nebulous concept, it is not a logical line to draw for inalienable human rights. Two hundred years ago, Africans were not persons either. Their humanity is what gave them rights and therefore personhood. "Personhood" is merely a convenient way to apply the constitution to some living innocent human beings and not others. Since I take it you agree that embryos are innocent living human beings, you use "personhood" to change the constitution of the United States for the convenience of a portion of the population, to the extreme detriment of another portion. This is not rational.

Loren Pechtel

It's nebulous only reality is nebulous. Any line you draw is grey. Ok, a human fetus is human. A gorilla fetus is 98% human. Does it get 98% of human rights?
A human fetus is distinct from the mother? So's cancer! On the other hand, identical twins are not--can we kill one of them?

Mary and Mike

I said up to 6 months. Before 24 weeks a baby being born usually has a lot of complications leading to lifelong mental and physical problems. I can also push the date later for an abortion if the parent found out a serious health issue of the unborn child that was going to cause in death soon after birth.

Mary

long winded fool

Nonsense. Once you draw a line, something is either across it or its not. How can a gorilla fetus be 98% human if it is 100% gorilla? It is not 98% human, it is merely an animal with strikingly similar features to a human. Humanity comes solely from species. That is the line that has been drawn in this country, which pro-abortionists are trying (and succeeding) to erase without redrawing somewhere else. This is a dangerous and irrational step which promotes hypocritical, and therefore powerless, laws.

Cancer is distinct from its host. Since it is not human, it doesn't have inalienable rights. Since it presents a danger to its human host, it must be killed, because its host has a right to life that cannot be violated by any human or non-human entity. Indeed, if bearing a human would result in the mother's death, then the unborn human forfeits its "innocence" and is now threatening the life of another human and its life can now lawfully be sacrificed in defense of the mother's. Whether it means to threaten her life or not is irrelevant.

Identical twins are distinct from the mother as well as from themselves. Both are different human beings. Really, I can't imagine someone presenting a sound argument proving that two identical twins are one human.