Abortion

Chumly wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:

And you can call the baby growing in the womb any manner of names to avoid recongizing it as human, but it won't change the fact that it is.

Would you be kind enough to provide your definition of "human" and how you justify this definition of "human"?

Human is what we call the only members of the homo sapiens species. A new human being is started when a human sperm enters a human egg which subsequently attaches itself to the wall of a human uterus and begins to grow. Following me so far?

Now there are those who say a very young human, that is one that has been growing for only a few weeks, is not human. Some say this is true because the law says it is true, but these same people would probably disagree that the law was correct when it assigned subhuman status to black people or denied women the right to own property or vote or made abortion illegal period. So we can safely say that depending on the law for our ethics and moral values is an inexact science.

The whole issue of pro-abortion people--that is those who push for, defend, advocate, or make apologies for liberal abortion rights--is that they usually choose to believe that the very young human being is not a human being at all. The prolifers' issue is no matter how young or how old a human being is, it is still a human being. If you start from the moment of birth and count forward, it doesn't matter how old s/he gets, s/he's still a person. And prolifers have no problem of believing s/he was a person in the hours before birth either, or the week before, or the month before, etc. Continuing to count back between the moment of birth and the moment of the egg attaching to the uterine wall, it is problematic for the prolifer to decide the precise moment the being stops being human and becomes something else. Most have a problem thinking that it ever does.

Hope that clears it up for you, and thank you for asking.

Foxfyre wrote:

Hope that clears it up for you, and thank you for asking.

So let's be 100% clear:

Are you saying that a fertilized egg meets your full definition of "human"?

Did I say that? I don't recall saying that. I am ignoring Frank who can't seem to make an argument without bringing in a lot of stuff that none of us have said plus adding an insult to two. I do try to be precise and complete in my statements but admittedly sometimes fall short.

Are you saying your definition of "human" is and only is "members of the homo sapiens species"?

Hi Foxfyre,

Maybe Chumly knows something that the rest of us have only read in science fiction books.

Human is what we call the only members of the homo sapiens species.

Humans are defined as hominids of the species Homo sapiens, of which the only extant subspecies is Homo sapiens sapiens (Latin for "very wise man"); Homo sapiens idaltu (roughly translated as "elderly wise man") is the extinct subspecies. Modern humans are usually considered the only surviving species in the genus Homo, although some argue that the two species of chimpanzees should be reclassified from Pan troglodytes (Common Chimpanzee) and Pan paniscus (Bonobo/Pygmy Chimpanzee) to Homo troglodytes and Homo paniscus respectively, given that they share a recent ancestor with man. [2]

Full genome sequencing resulted in these conclusions: "After 6 [million] years of separate evolution, the differences between chimpanzee and human are just 10 times greater than those between two unrelated people and 10 times less than those between rats and mice." In fact, chimpanzee and human DNA is 96% identical [3].

Are you aware of any human beings who are not members of the homo sapiens species? I don't recall that anything else qualified from biology class, but admittedly that was a long time ago.

Quote:

Are you aware of any human beings who are not members of the homo sapiens species? I don't recall that anything else qualified from biology class, but admittedly that was a long time ago.

This explains a lot. Fox's eduation stopped when she left school. Jeez, one would think she would have googled this before revealing her ignorance.

That there have been many species of humans besides homo sapiens is common knowledge or should be.

Roxxxanne wrote:

Quote:

Are you aware of any human beings who are not members of the homo sapiens species? I don't recall that anything else qualified from biology class, but admittedly that was a long time ago.

This explains a lot. Fox's eduation stopped when she left school. Jeez, one would think she would have googled this before revealing her ignorance.

That there have been many species of humans besides homo sapiens is common knowledge or should be.

Maybe you want to go back to Australopithecus. I think that any intelligent person would recognize that homo sapien is the term used for modern man. Do you know of another?