"Those who believe life begins at the moment of conception and all, I respect that – don't agree, but I respect that."
President Biden, a Catholic, reacts to Texas' heartbeat law. pic.twitter.com/O9f0Uwdupc
— Catherine Hadro (@CatHadro) September 3, 2021
News that I missed, courtesy of The Babylon Bee:
TEXAS—Democrats have come together to stop the evil Texas lawmakers who don’t want babies to be murdered in the womb. Thinking quickly on their feet they’ve decided to form a Reverse Underground Railroad.
“Unlike the real Underground Railroad that was used to liberate those without a voice and lead them to safety, our goal is the exact opposite,” explained Nancy Pelosi.
Pelosi continued, “How inhumane, and barbaric would it be to let these babies be born potentially into poverty for a time? That’s why we must rescue them and help them flee to a more civilized state where they can be murdered.”
Together Democrats have set up an elaborate network of secret routes and unsafe houses where women can flee oppressive safety, and comfort to terminate their children.
Go here to read the rest. The Democrat Party has always relied upon treating one part of the human race as if it were property, solely as a means to gain votes. The targets change over time, but the evil strategy remains the same.
It has been almost 60 years since I took and passed [believe it or not!] high school biology.
Question. Do those people think Darwinian [or some other brand of fake] evolution is played out during gestation in the womb?
Apparently, Chinese Joe, et al never heard of DNA.
Here we see the ultimate example of modern Democrat Newspeak, wherein the unanimous (AFAIK) verdict of actual scientific inquiry on the subject, i.e., that human life does indeed begin at conception, is simply reversed. “Begins”, you see, really means “does not begin.”sort of like the apostate Jesuit, Spadaro, proclaiming that two plus two can equal five. The self-contradictory notion that all truth is subjective, which has led to, among other evils, the abandonment of any and all sexual morality, is the centerpiece of all Modernist and Post-Modernist “thought”, in both its secular and religious aspects. This is why proving the Left’s overt and daily hypocrisy, contradictions, and inconsistency has no effect on them. Their response is “so what?” I don’t know how to overcome willful blindness to truth.
The one part of the abortion movement that both sides agree on is that the fetus is alive; if the kid wasn’t alive, there’d be no need to kill him before he’s born and becomes an obligation.
The pro-abortion side just argues that the living human, in that instance, may be morally killed. They are humans without rights. Non-persons.
The only time it gets conflicted is when the pro-abortion are trying to not sound like they’re saying “yes, that biological human is a non-person who may be killed at will,” because that sounds, well, Nazi.
They have to equivocate between “life” meaning “a human that has legal protection,” and (biological) life, “non-person human life,” especially if they believed it when some liar told them the “tissue” was not alive and they did something horrible.
As Matt Walsh points out, every non-Catholic believes that the Church is right on some things. If you want to say that Church teaching is sometimes right, there’s a label for you, “non-Catholic”.
“non-person human life,” is probably the most stupid argument that the pro-abortion crowd has and the pro-life crowd just seems to have that deer in the headlights look when told that it may be human but it is not a person.
Ask twenty people what makes a person and you’ll have twenty different answers. Have the pro-abortionist name one human being that was not a person, just one, and the medical evidence to prove it is not a person. It’s the same as separating biological sex and gender. It doesn’t work. A human being is a person and a person cannot be anything else but human.
They usually don’t flat-out say “that human is not a person”– in part because they really like to use “human” as a synonym for “person.” This was even used to great effect in a very fun pop philosophy book, Is Data Human?
So the equivocation between “human” the biological category and “human” as person gets used a lot, with many many much emotional attacks, and when it’s done in person it is hard to catch, because they’ll flat out lie about what they just said.
That’s why I like arguing in text.
A human being is a person and a person cannot be anything else but human.
First off, 100% all humans are people. Not precisely accurate on the second half; most famous and obvious example is the Three in One and One in Three, gets even MORE complicated with Jesus, but moves on to the angels where they’re definitely not human.
The category of “moral being” is closer to what they are thinking of for “people,” and there’s a LOT of really fun philosophy about that. 😀
I think I wrote a blog post about it for here, but I can’t get my connection to work very well…. Camping, so on phone hotspot with the typewriter replacement laptop while I do laundry. (Never fails, there’s SOME sort of emergency in the middle of a trip. 😀 )
Oooh! While I was complaining the search worked! Here, was actually my first post. Haven’t had a chance to check how many links are dead, will try to get around to it Sometime.
https://the-american-catholic.com/2011/08/18/non-human-people/
” but moves on to the angels where they’re definitely not human.”
I understand but what we are talking about here are mortal beings, not spiritual.
“Those who believe life begins at the moment of conception and all, I respect that – don’t agree, but I respect that.” Nobody cares what he thinks or takes him seriously anymore. So pathetic he still stands up there thinking otherwise in his own head. He can save those words for his Creator, if he remembers them, because that’s all that matters between now and then.
I understand but what we are talking about here are mortal beings, not spiritual.
grins Oh, but that’s where the fun part comes in– there’s nothing about ‘person’ that says they must be mortal. If there were, the phrase “the first Person of the Trinity” would be nonsense, He’s not mortal.
One of the reasons the word exists is because we have the idea of what “someone we owe moral respect to,” but we needed a word to talk about it– we can “see” that being alive isn’t needed to be a person, we have saints, they’re still people, so there’s lots of permutations to play with.
Looking at Church history, it’s pretty obvious to point out the theological theory of personhood formed the idea of humans being people, not the other way around; human as the biological category grew from that. (A biological category that keeps running into interesting things like “are there any proto-human populations that left DNA evidence that didn’t interbreed with some modern human ancestors?”)
We don’t know of any non-human mortal persons, in no small part because we made the term “human” based on how to describe all the currently living, biological, person groups. Thus, the overlap, especially since the Nazis were so open about their malice in the human non-people categorizing…and the strong desire to insist that an objectively living, homo sapen organism is “not a living human.”
FRANK wrote “proving the Left’s overt and daily hypocrisy, contradictions, and inconsistency has no effect on them.”
*
To me these actions makes them untrustworthy. What they say and promise today they will gladly repudiate tomorrow. Long-term who can believe a word that comes from out of their mouths? How can you built a lasting society on such quicksand? They destroy their own creditability, so they demonstrate that they cannot be taken seriously.
“grins Oh, but that’s where the fun part comes in– there’s nothing about ‘person’ that says they must be mortal”
Lol Foxfire I appreciate where you are going with this but if you think that the pro-abortionist cares a hoot about what constitutes a person in a theological, spiritual or philosophical setting then I would have to disagree in part with what you are saying. When I say a human being is a person it is in the context of our discussion of abortion. This is where the argument with a pro-abortionist resides. Not abortions of the Trinity and the Three Persons, or angels, saints in heaven who have undergone mortal death but an unborn physical baby in the mothers womb.
As I said earlier we can ask any number of people what makes a person and we will get pretty much different answers or variants of the same answer. I may encounter a person who says a human being is not a person because it has not met his or her criteria of what constitutes a person, basically their opinion, yet if I ask them to name me one human being who is not a person and show medical evidence to prove the human being they point out as a non-person what could they say? What could they tell me?
As I said I understand all the nuances you refer to, or I try to understand lol, but that one question, “Name me a human being who is not a person.” What could the pro-abortionist answer and what proof could they provide in the context of the abortion discussion? Thanks.
There wasn’t any argument that a human is a person; the only disagreement was your claim that only humans are people.
Pro-aborts beliefs don’t change what is true– and if we’re going to defend the truth, we need to stick to the truth. It doesn’t matter what is popular, it matters what is true.
Especially when being accurate means that they have to admit that they are saying this group of humans are non-people.
The very question of “name a human who is a non-person” will not work, because people have names. That’s part of why they insist the ‘lump of tissue’ is ‘not alive,’ and refuse to use accurate terms if they are emotionally positive.
The response will be the same as when they have to face that their logic is holding a biological human to be a non-person– they will start in on “but if they are people, then-” arguments, usually with heavy conflation of sperm with zygotes, embryos or even fully formed fetuses moments from birth.