Hilarious. You somehow surpassed even the worst of my expectations and quite literally did the opposite lol.
Well, maintaining a respectful and civil tone in discussions especially as such is important. Such personal attacks, confrontational language, and projection do not contribute to a productive exchange of ideas. You may keep such to yourself as neither I, and I believe, nor anyone else here cares for them.
I would like to suggest that it would be prudent to read in full before trying to retort so you have a comprehensive understanding and fully grasp what is being communicated. This will help facilitate a more effective and meaningful exchange.
"The categorical designation of being a member of the species homo sapiens is merely a biological classification; but there is more meaning to the term human being, as noted above and throughout this response."
I'll address this statement and those above it from here.
You argue that being a person is equivalent to being a human being above this statement particularly, but this is an oversimplification and this your statement here demonstrates that.
Your reliance on layman's definitions does not capture the nuances involved in deeper discussions on personhood. That "more meaning". In ethical and philosophical discussions, personhood can involve additional criteria beyond biological membership in the Homo sapiens species. This is where (and why) the separation was made.
Regarding the definition of personhood, your provided definition aligns with the concept I previously described. Personhood refers to the state or condition of being a person, possessing qualities that confer distinct individuality. (I'll help even more a bit here, please notice how this definition is not the same thing as the definition even you have of being a human being - not saying they are exclusive.)
"Wrong. Definition: human being..."
Regarding the definition of a human being, the definition you provided also aligns with the biological concept I described. Honestly, did you read that definition? I think you did, anyway. That's where underneath, you had to add that there's the biological concept and the "more meaning". You've now separated the definition of human being you gave, the biological concept, from the "more meaning". That "more meaning" is a philosophical and ethical concept.
"There is nothing subjective about..."
It's not the biological concept we're talking about here. Different philosophical and ethical perspectives can vary in their criteria for personhood, considering factors like consciousness, self-awareness, and moral agency. These subjective determinations can lead to debates and differing views on the moral status and rights of certain individuals or entities. I talked about this in my first comment here.
"Wrong. It is factually..."
...still incorrect. A fetus is a human being in its embryonic stage. It is a stage of human development in the womb, and biologically, it possesses the genetic makeup and characteristics of a human being. While it is still developing and dependent on the mother for survival, its humanity is not in question. Denying this fact is not supported by scientific evidence.
"Nowhere in that statement do I qualify a fetus with any such qualifier..."
I didn't say that. I said you qualify "human being" with "already born" directly alluding to the fact that a human being is not necessarily already born, hence the need for the qualifier. Ironically, you're the one with such a strawman as you described here.
Thank you and I hope this meets you in good fate!
Deon
"Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son" (John 3:18)
This encapsulates so much; if only you paid attention to what you quoted. Everyone is condemned "by default" because of sin. All have sinned and fallen short of God's glory, everyone's a sinner and the wages of sin is death. Having faith in the unmerited saving grace of Christ and what He did, having the Holy Spirit is what saves from condemnation. This is why unbelievers are not saved from condemnation, they do not take the Saving Pass, the Advocate, they have not Christ. It is an indirect consequence of their unbelief and a direct consequence of their sin (though those two may not be so exclusive).
You need to not conflate being considered a person and being a human being. These terms are used very interchangeably (because all human beings are supposed to be considered persons) but are distinct and will be separated in philosophical and ethical discussions such as this.
Personhood is the philosophical and ethical concept that refers to the status of being considered a "person". The assignment of that status being relational and subjective.
Being a human being refers to being a member of the species Homo sapiens. It is a biological concept that is determined by genetics and physical characteristics. Your first statement is factually incorrect. A fetus is a human being simply in its embryonic stage. You were once adolescent, a child, an infant, a fetus, and an embryo. In all these stages of development you (if you're human) were and are still a human being.
"Murder is an already born human being taking the life of another already born human being."
Funny enough, you insinuate a fetus being a human being with the distinctive qualifier "an already born" before "human being". Also, how does them not being born give you the right to take their life.
"have legal rights, privileges and equal protections of the law - a pregnancy DOES NOT!"
Yes, in some places the rights of some human beings are not being legally respected. This is a bad thing.
It seems the main point of contention in this debate is the definition of what it means to be a person.
If we define personhood solely based on the presence of consciousness and sentience, we have to exclude certain groups of people such as those with severe dementia or brain injuries and comatose humans from being considered persons. That base is insufficient and flawed.
Historically, defining personhood based on certain characteristics has been used to ignore and deny people of their rights. For example, the racists used this tactic to justify denying black people their rights. Similarly, groups such as other slave groups, women, Jews, and various "foreigners" have at one time been excluded from being considered persons. I think we should be wary and cautious of this.
Murder is the intentional killing of one innocent human being by another. Fetuses are human beings (though their personhood is subjective). Abortion is the intentional killing of a fetus by another human. Abortion is murder.
Apart from what was presented by con, another problem that seems to occur in the description is mixing "knowing" and "planning". He can know what one will do but it is ultimately the individual who chooses what they do/did/will do. It doesn't mean He orchestrated for the individual to make that choice, but just that He knows the choice that would be made.
In fact, the Bible states that The Lord wants for all to come to repentance. 2 Pet 3:9
Hilarious. You somehow surpassed even the worst of my expectations and quite literally did the opposite lol.
Well, maintaining a respectful and civil tone in discussions especially as such is important. Such personal attacks, confrontational language, and projection do not contribute to a productive exchange of ideas. You may keep such to yourself as neither I, and I believe, nor anyone else here cares for them.
Love and Peace. :)
I would like to suggest that it would be prudent to read in full before trying to retort so you have a comprehensive understanding and fully grasp what is being communicated. This will help facilitate a more effective and meaningful exchange.
"The categorical designation of being a member of the species homo sapiens is merely a biological classification; but there is more meaning to the term human being, as noted above and throughout this response."
I'll address this statement and those above it from here.
You argue that being a person is equivalent to being a human being above this statement particularly, but this is an oversimplification and this your statement here demonstrates that.
Your reliance on layman's definitions does not capture the nuances involved in deeper discussions on personhood. That "more meaning". In ethical and philosophical discussions, personhood can involve additional criteria beyond biological membership in the Homo sapiens species. This is where (and why) the separation was made.
Regarding the definition of personhood, your provided definition aligns with the concept I previously described. Personhood refers to the state or condition of being a person, possessing qualities that confer distinct individuality. (I'll help even more a bit here, please notice how this definition is not the same thing as the definition even you have of being a human being - not saying they are exclusive.)
"Wrong. Definition: human being..."
Regarding the definition of a human being, the definition you provided also aligns with the biological concept I described. Honestly, did you read that definition? I think you did, anyway. That's where underneath, you had to add that there's the biological concept and the "more meaning". You've now separated the definition of human being you gave, the biological concept, from the "more meaning". That "more meaning" is a philosophical and ethical concept.
"There is nothing subjective about..."
It's not the biological concept we're talking about here. Different philosophical and ethical perspectives can vary in their criteria for personhood, considering factors like consciousness, self-awareness, and moral agency. These subjective determinations can lead to debates and differing views on the moral status and rights of certain individuals or entities. I talked about this in my first comment here.
"Wrong. It is factually..."
...still incorrect. A fetus is a human being in its embryonic stage. It is a stage of human development in the womb, and biologically, it possesses the genetic makeup and characteristics of a human being. While it is still developing and dependent on the mother for survival, its humanity is not in question. Denying this fact is not supported by scientific evidence.
"Nowhere in that statement do I qualify a fetus with any such qualifier..."
I didn't say that. I said you qualify "human being" with "already born" directly alluding to the fact that a human being is not necessarily already born, hence the need for the qualifier. Ironically, you're the one with such a strawman as you described here.
Thank you and I hope this meets you in good fate!
Deon
"Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son" (John 3:18)
This encapsulates so much; if only you paid attention to what you quoted. Everyone is condemned "by default" because of sin. All have sinned and fallen short of God's glory, everyone's a sinner and the wages of sin is death. Having faith in the unmerited saving grace of Christ and what He did, having the Holy Spirit is what saves from condemnation. This is why unbelievers are not saved from condemnation, they do not take the Saving Pass, the Advocate, they have not Christ. It is an indirect consequence of their unbelief and a direct consequence of their sin (though those two may not be so exclusive).
You need to not conflate being considered a person and being a human being. These terms are used very interchangeably (because all human beings are supposed to be considered persons) but are distinct and will be separated in philosophical and ethical discussions such as this.
Personhood is the philosophical and ethical concept that refers to the status of being considered a "person". The assignment of that status being relational and subjective.
Being a human being refers to being a member of the species Homo sapiens. It is a biological concept that is determined by genetics and physical characteristics. Your first statement is factually incorrect. A fetus is a human being simply in its embryonic stage. You were once adolescent, a child, an infant, a fetus, and an embryo. In all these stages of development you (if you're human) were and are still a human being.
"Murder is an already born human being taking the life of another already born human being."
Funny enough, you insinuate a fetus being a human being with the distinctive qualifier "an already born" before "human being". Also, how does them not being born give you the right to take their life.
"have legal rights, privileges and equal protections of the law - a pregnancy DOES NOT!"
Yes, in some places the rights of some human beings are not being legally respected. This is a bad thing.
It seems the main point of contention in this debate is the definition of what it means to be a person.
If we define personhood solely based on the presence of consciousness and sentience, we have to exclude certain groups of people such as those with severe dementia or brain injuries and comatose humans from being considered persons. That base is insufficient and flawed.
Historically, defining personhood based on certain characteristics has been used to ignore and deny people of their rights. For example, the racists used this tactic to justify denying black people their rights. Similarly, groups such as other slave groups, women, Jews, and various "foreigners" have at one time been excluded from being considered persons. I think we should be wary and cautious of this.
Murder is the intentional killing of one innocent human being by another. Fetuses are human beings (though their personhood is subjective). Abortion is the intentional killing of a fetus by another human. Abortion is murder.
Apart from what was presented by con, another problem that seems to occur in the description is mixing "knowing" and "planning". He can know what one will do but it is ultimately the individual who chooses what they do/did/will do. It doesn't mean He orchestrated for the individual to make that choice, but just that He knows the choice that would be made.
In fact, the Bible states that The Lord wants for all to come to repentance. 2 Pet 3:9
God bless.