everyone is born an arminian

Originally posted by twhitehead

How come there is a danger of misusing the term "human being" but you raised absolutely no cautionary note for a danger of misusing the term "fetus" ?

IE.

The danger here is misusing definitions. If someone says 'yes' or 'no' without giving a definition of 'fetus' [edited] you will have no idea what they mean.

Much better would be to ask what specific properties change at birth or during pregnancy.

What is "much better" from what I wanted to hear is whether the person [moonbase] saying he was a fetus was also a human being.

I am considering what is better for what I want to know. And what is best is that that specific poster would give his answer. He seems to be thinking about it. Good. I'm thinking about it myself.

In my own opinion there is no real change at birth other than a psychological one on our behalf.

In my opinion I was a human being from the moment of conception. I think you were also.

As for morality relating to the situation (which is probably what you are interested in) I would say there is a gradual change from conception to a while after birth during which it a child slowly gains moral 'rights'.

In my opinion a "human being" goes through many stages of development from conception, through birth, and throughout life afterwards also. All kinds of gradual changes take place upon that "human being." Ideally, we should protect them AS they pass through those gradual changes (particularly when most vulnerable to harm).

Since discussion with you so often seems to involve flipping back over pages to re-examine what I previously wrote, I inform you that in this exchange I will not be flipping back any further than my question to the poster moonbase -

Essentially that was asking him if he was a human being before he was born. That comment will be the baseline. Do not ask me or imply that I need to flip back over many previous posts to double check what I wrote.

Originally posted by sonship
How come there is a danger of misusing the term "human being" but you raised absolutely no cautionary note for a danger of misusing the term "fetus" ?

The terms definition is clearer and has less danger of suffering from definition games. In context it suggests he felt that an unborn baby is not to be granted the same rights as other humans but is to be treated quite differently. Although of course for more detail you would have to ask him.

What is "much better" from what I wanted to hear is whether the person [moonbase] saying he was a fetus was also a human being.
And if he said 'no'? What would that tell you?
If he said 'yes', what would that tell you?
In both cases, very little until he tells you what he means by 'human being'.

In my opinion I was a human being from the moment of conception. I think you were also.
But until you tell me what you mean by 'human being' you have failed to communicate your position. I too would say I was a human being from conception, but I almost certainly mean something different from what you do. So rather than spending months arguing over the definition why not simply say what you really mean and avoid a word that can only lead to confusion.

Originally posted by sonship
Since discussion with you so often seems to involve flipping back over pages to re-examine what I previously wrote, ....

Its not my fault you keep denying having said things that you did actually say and keep trying to change your claims in an attempt to get out of admitting you are wrong then pretending you have forgotten what you originally said.
But I also tire of your dishonesty so I will leave it here.