T Nation

Are Unborn Children Human?


I simply need to say nothing, besides click the link.



Now if this is not trolling , there is no such thing, No the little bastards are from planet Obama


Not only are they correct but they are a very smart bunch of kids.


Word...The acting had a little to be desired. I think the message would get across better if we hired some really smokin' bitches in bikinis....Everybody listens to them....Maybe we could get an exclusive segment on www.nakednews.com!


Well they are not zebras.


I don't think the fact that unborn children are human is in dispute. The argument (well, one of them) is over whether they are human beings and this is not addressed in the video at all.


Actually they did address that.


Something can be human and not a being as well as something can be a being and not human. While I'll grant you that the comparison of newborns and unborn babies right before birth as functionally identical touches upon this issue, it doesn't nearly begin to address it. It merely conflates being human with being a human being.

Let's see if I can make myself clearer by using an example.

Let's take these two agreed upon premises:

  1. Unborn children are living human beings at conception due to points presented in video (unique DNA, growth, reaction to stimuli, etc.)

  2. A human body missing it's head is not a living human being.

An unborn child is conceived, but an error in development causes it to form without a head. From the premises, it logically follows that the unborn child was a living human being at conception and not a living human being at birth. At what point did it cease to be a living human being? 8 months into pregnancy? 10 weeks? Sooner? Later?

The point I'm trying to make with this example is that eventually you get to a point in which the unborn child has all the qualities listed in premise 1 and premise 2 and thus can simultaneously be considered a living human being and not a living human being, an obvious contradiction. Something has to give way.

From what I've read of your posts, you seem to have a logical bent and we could probably stretch this out a bit more, but that's the gist of what I'm trying say. Such a discussion was lacking in the video.




Human is an adjective, not a noun, that describes a number of characteristics associated with higher brain functions only found in our species at this point. Any creature that displays them is a human-being, a being with human characteristics. The God of Abraham for example would be a human-being, as God is described as a being displaying these human characteristics. We are homo-sapiens, that's our species. You could argue children under 2 are not human-beings, as they haven't developed human-traits yet. There is nothing human about the unborn, just as someone who becomes severely brain-damaged to the point where they no longer even have an inner monologue is not human. Words having meanings. Human is not a species, thus we are not conceived human-beings, we develop into one assuming all goes well.


Good post.


This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.


This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.


anonfactor - Please inform me as to what they are, if not human?


Spartiates - 'Human' is an adjective when used certain ways, like describing a trait. So 'human being' is NOT a noun? REALLY? My fiancee is a second grade teacher and you need to sit down in her class and learn what a noun is. It is a charter school yet the little six year olds will make you feel stupid if you THINK 'human' cannot be a noun! Please learn the English language before you reply back to me in this thread.


To be fair, it is a good argument in favor of infanticide.


Cortes - I would grant YOU the fact it could be a GOOD argument, IF you did not have to change the definitions of ALL the words used. Yet the definition of the chosen words aren't even applicable to the discussion facepalm ; )

The boy tries to even use the Bible to defend his stance. You notice how he fails, and how miserably?!? Interesting . . . . well, not really.


I'm sorry, this is what I heard: I don't think the fact that A are B is in dispute. The argument (well, one of them) is over whether A are B and this is not addressed in the video at all.

Can you explain to me how 'A is B' is not in dispute, but the argument is whether 'A is B'? Either A is B is in dispute or not, which is it?


I'm sorry, maybe I am just tired. But your statements are not processing. Explain further please.



I don't understand, the dictionary says it is a noun though.