Hardly, wilbur. The subject of this thread is/was/has been about killing an unborn child for convenience; in this case it was killing a child for it's sex (female).
No, the topic of this particular tangent in which we are currently embroiled was whether the term "human" (ie, "human being", "human zygote", "human fetus") implies moral value.
I don't blame you for not addressing the points in the post you are quoting, though. You don't seem to do very well when you can't "frame" the debate.
Heh - If we remove all the ad hominem attacks, insults, ridicule, and the points where you just reassert your position without argument (that abortion is murder, or killing for convenience, etc), there'd be precious few words left. Almost nothing. That's how YOU try to frame the debate - just act like an ass and pretend like you've made argument. To the unreachable here, it probably looks like you're doing a bang up job... but to those who aren't entrenched already, I'd have to say, you probably aren't looking very good at all.
Not to toot my own horn, but I've been mostly calm, polite, fairly articulate, open minded and I have been earnestly wishing that you and others could actually make genuine attempts to understand my beliefs. You, on the other hand, come off as someone who is unhinged and one step shy of going on a shooting spree at an abortion clinic.
Words have meaning, wilbur. You don't get to pick and choose what you want them to mean.
...
No, I quoted the ones you purposefully glossed over. You know, the ones that take the meaning of "human" far past a species categorization?
...
Sorry, kid, I don't play by your rules.
Haha, Ok, so you blatantly endorse equivocation as a form of argument. Nice. But really, the multiple definitions of "human" you listed are
independent of one another. They are to be used separately, not all at once - as is the case with any word which has multiple definitions. They aren't always necessarily mutually exclusive, but you need to be clear about that. Here's why that's a problem in this debate.
Take the case of a newly conceived embryo. When one identifies it as human, what characteristics is one looking at that to make that determination? Well, about the best we can say is that it is a distinct organism from the mother, and its got DNA that is characteristic of a human. Other than that, its got no similarity to you or I. If one challenges the humanity of an embryo, most pro-lifers will cite the fact that embryos are distinct organisms and that they have human DNA as a refutation of said challenge. And they're right, embryo's do have those traits. And those traits are actually enough to conform to a
scientific definition of the term "human" (aka, homo sapein). Great. I agree. "Human" means "a distinct organism with human DNA", therefore embryos are human.
So then there is much rejoicing right?! You can now declare victory! You've won the argument, right? You just classified an embryo as human, and "human" necessitates moral value? Wrong.
You've succeeded in classifying an embryo according to a scientific definition of the term human. And that particular definition of the term "human", as I've said a million times now, doesn't even consider or acknowledge moral value (ie, its
amoral), much less necessitate it, and was created based on essentially two criteria - the ability to interbreed, and/or DNA. That's it.
Other definitions of the term "human" are more poetic and/or ambiguous and may or may not imply some moral value; we use these other definitions when we say things like "to err is human", "she's only human", "its just human nature"). They usually smuggle in or assume the existence of a wide range of characteristics which are usually present in mindful people (ie, people with thoughts, feelings, desires, wishes - in other words,
minds). These sorts of definitions are quite a ways departed from the amoral species designation used by scientists - the designation used by pro-lifers to establish the humanity of a mindless embryo or fetus. As soon as you add any more content to the definition of the term "human", you then necessarily exclude embryos, fetuses and generally any human thing without a mind.
Get it?
That's an equivocation, and that's exactly what your argument depends on.
