Abortion is murder

[talloulou]

its all speculation.

Now that I can agree with :mrgreen:

 

[hipster_19]

Now that I can agree with :mrgreen:

Hey, we finally agree on something!!! Thats a start!! :lol:





By the way, Steen, thanks for the nomination!!!! Hipster in 2024!!!! :2wave:

 

[steen]

Yes I understand that is what scientists and drs. are currently saying but you do realize we went through more than a century with drs. and scientists claiming that newborns couldn't feel pain. They performed tons of circumcisions with no anesthesia.

And they had no actual, physiological, anatomical and neurological data to back this up with. Now we do.

Now they admit they were wrong on that, thankfully. So I have to assume they may in fact be wrong on their assessment of when a fetus feels pain particularly since before the time when pain is supposedly felt by a fetus the fetus will respond to stimuli and move away from a needle that comes near them.

That's a reflex. Solely run through the spinal cord. The ONLY way you can be right is if somehow the brain's cortex, where all sensation is processed, somehow is not involved in processing after all.

Now, if you could show that, it would be revolutionary and instantly give you the Nobel Price in medicine.

Baring such revolutionary evidence, your claim is nonsense.

 

[steen]

So I ask you can we honestly trust and rely on the now "current" belief that pain can only be felt after 20+ weeks. Hell no is my answer. Care to respond?

Hell Yes is my answer. Until signals can actually REACH the brain's cortex, they simply can not be processed as a sensation. And that final connection doesn't happen until the 26th week of pregnancy, never mind how much you are trying for sophistry.

 

[FutureIncoming]

it is possible to think that if parasitism is being considered equivalent to "theft" then stopping that activity can be considered equivalent to "arrest" --one definition of "arrest" is "to stop something" after all.

So every time you swap a mosquito you are also arresting it?

Heh, we all make typos, so I'll assume you meant "swat" when you wrote "swap". YES, in the sense that "arrest" means "stop", you are indeed doing that when you swat a mosquito.

so when an officer of the law wants to arrest a thief, shall he just kill him instantly to stop the crime, or should he bide his time and arrest the man upon seizing the most opportune moment?

You seem to be implying that "bide his time" may depend on the circumstances? Suppose a cop encounters a robbery in progress, say a store where loads of goods are being hauled out to a truck in a back alley. The cop might call for backup, not knowing how many thieves there are. The backup-cops may block the alley and guard the front entry, preventing any escape. Once enough backup is present, why shouldn't the robbery be interrupted (the thieves stopped/arrested)? It's not like the cops need MORE evidence in the truck, to prove that a robbery has been occurring. And further damage to store furnishings, as the thieves yank loose the stuff they are stealing, can be prevented. AND there will be less mess to clean up and less stuff to put back, when it's all over.

I claim it is stupid to suggest a foetus is committing a crime.

And Jerry agrees with you, for a reason completely alien to your mere say-so. Jerry states that by declaring a crime to be taking place, one is invoking all sorts of legal precendents that include protections for the accused, especially when the accused are juveniles. Only persons can commit real crimes, in the legal view, after all, and persons are granted rights. (Note that this agrees with what I have previously written about "persons" having the brainpower for such things as the Free Will to choose to commit a crime. Obviously if the human fetus doesn't have the brainpower to be a person, then it cannot qualify as being accuse-able of a crime, per legal definitions.) Therefore I have mostly talked about the equivalence of parasitism with theft, and have not recently put much effort into declaring them to be identical. And, as you know, I have also talked about various non-persons being called thieves, such as rats and foxes. It is a traditional thing to do, even if it falls outside the legal system. You may be quite sure that it is that tradition I was invoking when comparing unwanted fetal parasitism to theft, and not the legal traditions.

I claim it is stupid to suggest killing is the best method of stopping this crime, if you can even call it a crime.

That is a stupid statement, since from the viewpoint of calling it parasitism, there is no way to stop a parasite without killing it. If extracted like, say, a leech, it will persist in parasitic behavior given any other opportunitiy. Its parasitism cannot be stopped short of death. And when comparing to some other, more temporary parasite, such as the larva of a wasp that is eating a caterpillar out from the inside, which after a time will stop of its own accord, letting it finish most certainly does the host no good at all (the caterpillar will be dead, and in the case of pregnancy, a human female host is usually expected to do more hosting, differently, for 18 more years). Also, there is a semantic thing here, since allowing the parasite to finish of its own accord means you did not stop/interrupt it, right? So, how can there be "the best method of stopping this" if no externally forced stopping-of-it is done? Those meanings for the word "arrest" is why I have used it in this Thread. COLOR="Red"]Furthermore, pertaining to ordinary theft, not interrupting a crime means the criminal is not receiving the negative feedback that most effectively dissuades choosing criminal behavior.[/COLOR] Consider an analogy. Your dog makes a mess on the carpet, and you don't discover this until hours pass. How do you get the message across that this is undesirable behavior? Simply beating the mutt doesn't work well because the mutt doesn't do cause-and-effect reasoning very well, especially when hours intervene between cause and effect. All the dog learns is to fear you because of apparently random beatings. But catching the dog while squatting, and applying a whack then and there is highly effective -- and the equivalent interruption is also quite effective on humans, too. The subconscious mind, see, doesn't do cause-and-effect as well as the conscious mind, and where do subconscious criminal drives originate, eh? The assumption that one will be caught in the act is the most effective deterrent known, against ordinary crime. And that assumption is only made by the would-be criminal when being caught/interrupted has been experienced!

I think it is stupid to suggest the foetus is taking resources, when the foetus is forced into its situation by its parents.

That conclusion of yours is a stupidity you have spouted on numerous other occasions. The proof that it is stupid is the fact that approximately 1/7 of all couples are unable to have children, in spite of all the "forcing" tried by those couples. If the situation of a fetus was possible to force, then there would be no such couples. And the more you insist on ignoring that fact as if it does not exist, the more stupid you show yourself to be.

I think it is stupid to kill a foetus because you believe it is a criminal

See jimmyjack spout more stupidity! I have not recently stated that I believe the fetus to be a criminal, and possibly have never made that precise statement. Feel free to find such a statement in any of my postings here! Your stupid putting-of-your-stupid-words-into-other-people's-mouths must cease!

Prove a foetus is not a person.

Simple. No fetus has any of the characteristics that allow persons of all possible physical types, all possible metaphysical types, and all other possibilities, to be distinguished from mere animals. Because those characteristics depend on the abilities of a significantly powerful mind, which no fetus possesses (and which every comatose adult human --except in cases of significant brain damage-- does possess, even though it may be inactive).

 

[talloulou]

Hell Yes is my answer. Until signals can actually REACH the brain's cortex, they simply can not be processed as a sensation. And that final connection doesn't happen until the 26th week of pregnancy, never mind how much you are trying for sophistry.

Well actually you say 26th week as if it's a known fact when really if you research it on google you must sift through a multitude of answers anywhere from the 20th wk to the 34th week and wording like "studies suggest" and "this happens at approximately..."

When I did my search I specifically refused to look at any prochoice or prolife websites as they are obviously biased. I searched only medical sites and fetal neurscience sites...

That shows me that it is still sort of up in the air and unknown though they are trying to narrow it down they are far from exact at this point unless of course you have a reliable exact source for your 26th week fact?

 

[steen]

Well actually you say 26th week as if it's a known fact when really if you research it on google you must sift through a multitude of answers anywhere from the 20th wk to the 34th week and wording like "studies suggest" and "this happens at approximately..."

Which is why I use the actual, scientific/medical sources rather than second-hand information found through Google. If you weed out the non-scientific sources, you end up with the end of the 26th week of pregnancy as the time when the fibers of the thalamocortical tract penetrate the cortical plate that then dissolves, and the fibers then reach to the actual cortex and signals then can be processed.

When I did my search I specifically refused to look at any prochoice or prolife websites as they are obviously biased. I searched only medical sites and fetal neurscience sites...

And did you look at the physiology?

That shows me that it is still sort of up in the air and unknown though they are trying to narrow it down they are far from exact at this point unless of course you have a reliable exact source for your 26th week fact?

Several:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=11984786&query_hl=4&itool=pubmed_DocSum
...The major afferent fibers (thalamocortical, basal forebrain, and corticocortical) grow through the transient "waiting" subplate zone (SP) compartment and accumulate below the cortical plate (CP) between 22 and 26 W. These afferent fibers gradually penetrate the CP after 26 W. The prolonged process of dissolution of the SP can be explained by prolonged growth and maturation of associative connections in the human cerebral cortex...

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=2398142&query_hl=20&itool=pubmed_docsum
...The dissolution of the subplate zone begins during the last third of gestation with degeneration of some subplate neurons and the relocation of fiber terminals into the cortex. The subplate zone disappears faster in the visual than in the somatosensory area. The present results together with our previous findings support the hypothesis that the subplate zone may serve as a "waiting" compartment for transient cellular interactions and a substrate for competition, segregation, and growth of afferents originated sequentially from the brain stem, basal forebrain, thalamus, and from the ipsi- and contralateral cerebral hemisphere. After a variable and partially overlapping time period, these fibers enter the cortical plate while the subplate zone disappears leaving only a vestige of cells scattered throughout the subcortical white matter. ...

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=8325233&query_hl=20&itool=pubmed_docsum
....During cerebral cortical development, ingrowing axons from different thalamic nuclei select and invade their cortical targets. The selection of an appropriate target is first evident even before thalamic axons grow into the cortical plate: initially axons accumulate and wait below their cortical target area in a zone called the subplate...

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=12236093&query_hl=20&itool=pubmed_docsum
...The subplate being an outstandingly wide zone subjacent to the cortical plate, it is a "waiting compartment" for various cortical afferents that reside here prior to entering the cortical plate. The cortical plate (future layers II-VI of the cerebral cortex) contains only CR-ir neurons until the 6th gestational month...

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=9575264&query_hl=20&itool=pubmed_docsum
...The transient subplate zone is a key compartment for transient fetal neuronal circuitry, and competitive cellular interactions within the subplate zone are crucial for the areal specification of the cerebral cortex and the formation of cortical connectivity....

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=2454966&query_hl=20&itool=pubmed_docsum
....The basic features of the apical and basal dendrites of pyramidal neurons develop between 17 and 25 weeks of gestation, before the thalamocortical fibres invade the cortical plate. Intensive differentiation of the subplate neurons occurs in this period, when various types of afferent fibres reside in the subplate zone. At least five neuronal types can be distinguished in the subplate, i.e., polymorphous, fusiform, multipolar, normal, and inverted pyramidal neurons. The ingrowth of afferent fibres into the cortical plate between 26 and 34 weeks of gestation coincides with intensive dendritic differentiation and the appearance of spines on dendrites of ....

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=3714039&query_hl=20&itool=pubmed_docsum
... In the next "stage" (18-22 weeks), strongly reactive fibers can be followed from the nucleus basalis below the putamen and through the external capsule to the transient, synapse-rich subplate zone of frontal, temporal, parietal and occipital cortices..

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=16439088&query_hl=4&itool=pubmed_docsum
...During the next period (22-26 postovulatory weeks), there is the developmental peak of transient MRI features, caused by the high content of hydrophyllic extracellular matrix in the subplate zone and the accumulation of waiting afferent axons. The period between 27 and 30 postovulatory weeks is characterized by gradual blurring of the laminar structure in parallel with the formation of cerebral convolutions...

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=15371723&query_hl=4&itool=pubmed_docsum
...findings suggest that thalamocortical afferents might not segregate properly in the absence of subplate neurons because the thalamocortical synapse does not mature...

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=12453494&query_hl=4&itool=pubmed_DocSum
...Our results demonstrate that there is a few days delay between the arrival of thalamocortical axons at the subplate at E16 and the appearance of functional thalamocortical synaptic transmission at E19. Since thalamocortical connections are already functional within the subplate and in the deep cortical plate at embryonic ages, prenatal thalamocortical synaptic connections could influence cortical circuit formation before birth.
(Data from rats, but still shows the delay)

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=12451131&query_hl=4&itool=pubmed_DocSum
...As in normal mice, mutant thalamocortical axons reach the cortex, accumulate below the cortical plate, and then start to extend side-branches in the subplate and deep cortical plate...
(mice data showing the same thing)

I think that's enough, don't you?

 

[talloulou]

I think that's enough, don't you?

Except for the fact that there is a lot of description going on and none of it discerns that when this happens fetal pain may occur or before this happens fetal pain may not occur. Likewise with fetal memory, REM sleep, ect...

 

[steen]

Except for the fact that there is a lot of description going on and none of it discerns that when this happens fetal pain may occur or before this happens fetal pain may not occur. Likewise with fetal memory, REM sleep, ect...

Perhaps you are experiencing a bit of illiteracy here? It was very clear from my SCIENTIFIC/MEDICAL references that signals won't be able to reach the cerebral cortex until the end of the 26th week of pregnancy. What part of this do you not understand?

 

[talloulou]

Perhaps you are experiencing a bit of illiteracy here? It was very clear from my SCIENTIFIC/MEDICAL references that signals won't be able to reach the cerebral cortex until the end of the 26th week of pregnancy. What part of this do you not understand?

The part that explains why pain can not possibly be felt until this happens:

"These afferent fibers gradually penetrate the CP after 26 W" To be honest I don't consider myself extremely literate when it comes to medically terminology. Nor do I have blind faith in your medical literacy. It doesn't appear to me that they are discussing the possiblity of pain at all in your source.

 

[FutureIncoming]

I've mentioned in various posts that dictionaries are not always up-to-date with common usage. Do you disagree with what I've written, about what the common usage of "beings" implies? Anyway, and perhaps I should actually mention this later instead of now, I contacted the Oxford English Dictionary about these critical words. You may be willing to grant them some authority in these matters? They don't offer free-online-access to that dictionary, but I did receive the data. There's quite a bit, and I haven't, as of this writing, had time to study it thoroughly, to see how up-to-date it is. Nor do I expect to have time for a few more days. {to be continued, obviously}

Since writing that I have found the time to study the 128K (128 thousand characters) of data, and can now continue. The reason there is so much data is that a great deal of the Oxford English Dictionary is references. Every meaning of every word is associated with some source-text (both the source and the text are specified, and often there is more than one reference) that uses that word in that particular meaning. I'm not about to post everything here (it would be a copyright violation), but I can present relevent bits and pieces. Below, I'm using the OED's enumeration (which is unusual in that subsection numbers are not restarted from 1 when a new section begins):

"person"
I. A role taken by a person
1. Any of the characters in a play or story
II. A human being, and related senses
2a. An individual man, woman, or child
2b. A man or woman of high rank (personage), nowadays a modifying word accompanies "person" when this meaning is intended ("august person").
2c. In emphatic use, a human being as distinguished from an animal, thing, etc. Also, an individual regarded as having human rights, dignity, etc.
2d. An individual of low rank (! --I guess this is why a modifier is used these days when high rank is intended
2e. Esp. in recruitment advertisements, a potential employee, sex irrelevant
2f. colloq., used with an indefinite article like "a": Any person, anyone, even oneself (usually when a speaker describes self from a distance). "A person could...."
2g. The second element in compounds, when removing gender-specificness ("mailperson" replaces "mailman").
2h. With a distingushing word, an enthusiast: "cat person"
3a. The self, being, or individual personality, as in using "your person" instead of "yourself"
3b. When considered physically present: "NOW! In person!"
4a. The body only: "She wore about her person..."
4b. The outward appearance (mostly obsolete these days, or merged into one of 2a-2h)
4c. Law: the genitals, in indeceny descriptions. "exposing his or her person"
5. In general philosophical sense, a conscious or rational being.
III. Technical uses
6a. Theology: Each of the three aspects of God (Father, Son, Holy Spirit)
6b. Theology: The personality of Christ, uniting divine and human
7. Law: An individual, or a corporate body
8. Grammar: A category used in the classification of pronouns ("first person" "second person")
9. Zoology: (now rarely used) each of the individual zooids of a colonial organism.
===========================
There's more, as when "person" is used in particular phrases or compounds not already indicated above. But, as you can see, especially with respect to #5, at least one dictionary out there recognizes that you don't have to be a human to be a person.
===========================

"being"
1a. Existence itself
1b. The continuance of existing
1c. Life (one reference: "To call men from the grave into being")
1d. Occurrance (obsolete)
2a. Existence in relationship to something else ("It is good, being here")
2b. Condition (obsolete)
2c. Position/standing (obsolete)
2d. Livelihood (obsolete)
3a. Existence viewed as a property possessed by an object; synonyms are substance, constitution, nature
3b. Essencial substance, essence
4a. That which exists or is conceived as existing; in philosophical terms, the widest term applicable to all objects of sense or thought, material or immaterial. (reference: "In the nature of ideas, legal beings, as I may call them, are as capable of demonstration, as mathematical ones.") {I suppose we would need the larger context to fully understand what that was about.}
4b. Applied with a qualifier, such as "Supreme Being"
4c. A human being, a person. {Note that comma! First a nonhuman can be a person, and now a person is also a being.}
4d. Philosophical phrases, such as "conscious being", "pure being", "being-with" (regarded as membership of the community of persons)
========================
Well, I guess that's enough of that. The facts remain that no unborn human can qualify as a conscious being during the first six months of a pregnancy, and after that, it is no more of a conscious being than an ordinary animal having equivalent brainpower. For a human to become a rational being/person, brainpower is required such as does not exist until some time after birth. Those are biological/scientific facts, and the above dictionary data allows those facts to be stated in that fashion.

 

[ngdawg]

Then try thinking of it this way(sometimes these technical people get carried away). When Christopher Reeve became paralyzed, it was because of nerves severed. When nerves are severed, regardless of where, the areas they serve can not feel pain. So, until nerves are connected to the cerebral cortex, pain is not felt. Those paragraphs listed go through when and how the connections are made. Read them in the regard that connection=sensation/no connection=no sensations and you'll understand the process.
Nerves are also responsible for movement, ie: breathing, heartbeat, blinking eyes, etc. The most rudimentary nerve in an embryo is the one that causes the preliminary heartbeat(seen as a flutter on ultrasounds), but it is not cerebral cortex-based, but cellular. Cellular rudimentary response, since it is not connected to the cortex, is incapable of relaying any sensation.
Any clearer?

 

[Felicity]

What the beejeezes are you talking about??? Your definitions (galore) prove that "person" and "being" are broad terms not limiting terms. NOTE the portions I bolded and followed blue comments...

"person"
I. A role taken by a person
1. Any of the characters in a play or story
II. A human being, and related senses
2a. An individual man, woman, or child
2b. A man or woman of high rank (personage), nowadays a modifying word accompanies "person" when this meaning is intended ("august person").
2c. In emphatic use, a human being as distinguished from an animal, thing, etc. (Egad!--not the word "being!" see below...) Also, an individual regarded as having human rights, dignity, etc. (a separate "being.")
2d. An individual of low rank (! --I guess this is why a modifier is used these days when high rank is intended
2e. Esp. in recruitment advertisements, a potential employee, sex irrelevant
2f. colloq., used with an indefinite article like "a": Any person, anyone, even oneself (usually when a speaker describes self from a distance). "A person could...."
2g. The second element in compounds, when removing gender-specificness ("mailperson" replaces "mailman").
2h. With a distingushing word, an enthusiast: "cat person"
3a. The self, being, or individual personality, as in using "your person" instead of "yourself" (Note "OR" personality--the "or" indicates it is not "required.")
3b. When considered physically present: "NOW! In person!" (Now! coming to a local womb near you--Fetus--LIVE and in person!)
4a. The body only: "She wore about her person..." (The live "thing" in the womb has his own body--or rather--his own "person.")
4b. The outward appearance (mostly obsolete these days, or merged into one of 2a-2h)
4c. Law: the genitals, in indeceny descriptions. "exposing his or her person"
5. In general philosophical sense, a conscious or rational being[/B].(Dang...that word again!)
III. Technical uses
6a. Theology: Each of the three aspects of God (Father, Son, Holy Spirit)
6b. Theology: The personality of Christ, uniting divine and human
7. Law: An individual, or a corporate body
8. Grammar: A category used in the classification of pronouns ("first person" "second person")
9. Zoology: (now rarely used) each of the individual zooids of a colonial organism.
===========================
There's more, as when "person" is used in particular phrases or compounds not already indicated above. But, as you can see, especially with respect to #5, at least one dictionary out there recognizes that you don't have to be a human to be a person. (Does anyone dispute that? You insist that a fetus isn't a person...what the heck is your point?)
===========================

"being"
1a. Existence itself (the thing in the womb of a pregnant woman "exists.")
1b. The continuance of existing (unless the existing thing in the womb dies naturally or is aborted...it continues in existence)
1c. Life (one reference: "To call men from the grave into being") (the thing that exists in the womb, and continues to exist is a form of life)1d. Occurrance (obsolete)
2a. Existence in relationship to something else ("It is good, being here") (the thing that exists in the womb has a relationship with its carrier and that thing should be safe "being" there)
2b. Condition (obsolete)
2c. Position/standing (obsolete)
2d. Livelihood (obsolete)
3a. Existence viewed as a property possessed by an object; synonyms are substance, constitution, nature (you know how we've gone round and round about the "nature" of man as a being...)3b. Essencial substance, essence (likewise--"essence" as in the Aristoltian concept of entelechy)
4a. That which exists or is conceived as existing; (should be self-evident) in philosophical terms, the widest term applicable to all objects of sense or thought, material or immaterial. (THERE IT IS!!!!! That's what I have been repeating to you over and over--"What mankind is, was, and will be!" The essence--the nature! Eureka! He's GOT IT!)
(reference: "In the nature of ideas, legal beings, as I may call them, are as capable of demonstration, as mathematical ones.") {I suppose we would need the larger context to fully understand what that was about.} (Is that you talking there inside those {}? Are you trying to wiggle out of the CLEAR explanation you, yourself provided? UNBELIEVABLE!)
4b. Applied with a qualifier, such as "Supreme Being"
4c. A human being, a person. {Note that comma! First a nonhuman can be a person, and now a person is also a being.} (Grammatically, how else could it be said? --you have defined yourself right out of your own asserted definitions...you cannot pick and choose which way the words are used to limit a definition to your warped liking. )
4d. Philosophical phrases, such as "conscious being", "pure being", "being-with" (regarded as membership of the community of persons) (Aren't pregnant women often described as "being with child?" Ummmhmmm...I guess the live individual existing in the womb of a female human is "being with mother!")
========================
Well, I guess that's enough of that. The facts remain that no unborn human can qualify as a conscious being during the first six months of a pregnancy, and after that, it is no more of a conscious being than an ordinary animal having equivalent brainpower. For a human to become a rational being/person, brainpower is required such as does not exist until some time after birth. Those are biological/scientific facts, and the above dictionary data allows those facts to be stated in that fashion.

ONLY ONE definition referred to "consciousness" and that was in a definition that was SPECIFICALLY identified as a "Philosophical phrase." PHILOSOPHICAL! NOT "biological/scientific facts!" You are proving yourself wrong...:shock:

BTW...I'm assuming you cut and pasted the portions you cite...what dictionary has so many spelling errors?

 

[FutureIncoming]

What the beejeezes are you talking about???

I was trying to deal with statements to the effect that many dictionaries ONLY associate "person" with "human". The O.E.D. doesn't. Yes, it offers just about every usage of "person" that has ever been employed, that its researchers could find. Therefore you can harp to your heart's content about how old definitions are still in use. Well, English is a highly inconsistent language, as you know. Nevertheless, in a debate, reason, rationality, and consistency are important factors. So, tell me, how can a definition of "person" that merely refers to "the body only" be acceptable in this debate, unless you are willing to grant personhood to all ordinary animals out there? Consistency/rationality means that accepting that definition yields a consequence that neither side of the debate will accept. That particular definition must be rejected from the debate, therefore! And similar reasoning can eliminate some of the other definitions, too. (And the irrelevant definitions, such as "first person" in grammar, can simply be ignored.)

I repeat that the fact that a nonhuman can be a person means that "person" and "human" are different concepts these days, that makes obsolete even dictionary definitions that automatically connect the two (the historical default). Yes, the old linguistic habit will die hard, just like all other old habits. And the first place that habit can die is in a rational debate, where the fact/logic of different-concepts overrules habit.

3a. Existence viewed as a property possessed by an object; synonyms are substance, constitution, nature (you know how we've gone round and round about the "nature" of man as a being...)
3b. Essencial substance, essence (likewise--"essence" as in the Aristoltian concept of entelechy)

You are misusing the synonyms. This particular definition of "being" is equated with "nature"; "nature" is not a separate property here. That is, according to this definition, we could legitimately replace the phrase, "the nature of a being" with "the being of a being".

4a. That which exists or is conceived as existing; (should be self-evident) in philosophical terms, the widest term applicable to all objects of sense or thought, material or immaterial. (THERE IT IS!!!!! That's what I have been repeating to you over and over--"What mankind is, was, and will be!" The essence--the nature! Eureka! He's GOT IT!)
(reference: "In the nature of ideas, legal beings, as I may call them, are as capable of demonstration, as mathematical ones.") {I suppose we would need the larger context to fully understand what that was about.} (Is that you talking there inside those {}? Are you trying to wiggle out of the CLEAR explanation you, yourself provided? UNBELIEVABLE!)

I'll reply to the second part of that first. Yes, it was me "speaking" inside the braces {}, and I was talking about the reference-text, which when parsed literally, seems to imply that "mathematical beings are capable of demonstration". What is the context for such an implication??? Now back to the first part of what you wrote: I see you added "will be", which means "potential" -- which is irrelevant, as you know. Nothing you have ever written about a fetus has successfully given it traits NOW that it does not possess NOW. In the "now" it is only, totally, completely, and utterly, just an animal. Period.

4c. A human being, a person. {Note that comma! First a nonhuman can be a person, and now a person is also a being.} (Grammatically, how else could it be said? --you have defined yourself right out of your own asserted definitions...you cannot pick and choose which way the words are used to limit a definition to your warped liking. )

I should mention that one of the dictionaries I had contacted was Merriam-Webster, and they specifically indicated that the comma that preceded "individual" in their definition of "person" meant "or". I admit to assuming the same intention in the O.E.D., with a comma preceding "person". I suppose I'll have to ask them.

 

[steen]

The part that explains why pain can not possibly be felt until this happens:

"These afferent fibers gradually penetrate the CP after 26 W" To be honest I don't consider myself extremely literate when it comes to medically terminology. Nor do I have blind faith in your medical literacy. It doesn't appear to me that they are discussing the possiblity of pain at all in your source.

They are talking about when the nerves from the sensory system actually have grown far enough to reach the brain's cortex. That is, when the signals from sensory nerves are able to actually be received by the cortex and thus be processed and consciously realized as occuring.

 

[Felicity]

I was trying to deal with statements to the effect that many dictionaries ONLY associate "person" with "human". The O.E.D. doesn't.

And who has an issue with that other than you?

Therefore you can harp to your heart's content about how old definitions are still in use.

if they're still in use, and not listed as "obsolete"...I guess they still convey a needed meaning, eh?

So, tell me, how can a definition of "person" that merely refers to "the body only" be acceptable in this debate, unless you are willing to grant personhood to all ordinary animals out there?

It's not a matter of me or anyone else "granting" anything...it IS. The argument that the constitution protects persons from discrimination (as in unjust bias), is a fact. If we are discriminating (in the sense we are determining) that only human persons are due particular protections, we must look to intent of the framers and to specific rights mentioned in the Constitution and the PRO-CHOICE side has to drop the "fetuses aren't persons" angle.

And similar reasoning can eliminate some of the other definitions, too. (And the irrelevant definitions, such as "first person" in grammar, can simply be ignored.)

There is no "elimination" of particular meanings. There are no "contradictions" just some definitions that apply and some that do not.

I repeat that the fact that a nonhuman can be a person means that "person" and "human" are different concepts these days, that makes obsolete even dictionary definitions that automatically connect the two (the historical default).

But a fetus is a human person because it is "a human being, a person" (note "a person" is an adverbial phrase modifying "a human being"

Yes, the old linguistic habit will die hard, just like all other old habits. And the first place that habit can die is in a rational debate, where the fact/logic of different-concepts overrules habit.

In your dreams....

You are misusing the synonyms. This particular definition of "being" is equated with "nature"; "nature" is not a separate property here. That is, according to this definition, we could legitimately replace the phrase, "the nature of a being" with "the being of a being".

"being and nature are synonyms...and they also have other connotations...it is CLEARER to say the "nature of the being" just as it is clearer to say "ruby red."

Now back to the first part of what you wrote: I see you added "will be", which means "potential" -- which is irrelevant, as you know.

No, dear...remember...this is what the definition said..."the widest term applicable to all objects of sense or thought, material or immaterial." So encompassing "what will be" is indeed part of the the widest term applicable.

Nothing you have ever written about a fetus has successfully given it traits NOW that it does not possess NOW.

And by the very definition you provided...that is IRRELEVANT.

In the "now" it is only, totally, completely, and utterly, just an animal. Period.

But as you said...an animal is a person...:doh which is it FI??? Is it the "personhood of a fetus that is in question? or is it his "being?" Both of which seem confirmed as being applicable in the affirmative for the pre-born human.

 

[FutureIncoming]

I was trying to deal with statements to the effect that many dictionaries ONLY associate "person" with "human". The O.E.D. doesn't.

And who has an issue with that other than you?

When Laws specify persons and not humans, then anyone who uses a dictionary to declare that all humans are persons is raising an issue to be addressed. Certainly the Supreme Court didn't use a dictionary in denying person-status to unborn humans....

Therefore you can harp to your heart's content about how old definitions are still in use.

if they're still in use, and not listed as "obsolete"...I guess they still convey a needed meaning, eh?

Who specifies "needed"? Propagandists with an agenda? On what basis can you say we need all humans to be declared to be persons?

So, tell me, how can a definition of "person" that merely refers to "the body only" be acceptable in this debate, unless you are willing to grant personhood to all ordinary animals out there?

It's not a matter of me or anyone else "granting" anything...it IS.

Pardon me; I should have stated "grant personhood rights" instead of "grant personhood"

The argument that the constitution protects persons from discrimination (as in unjust bias), is a fact. If we are discriminating (in the sense we are determining) that only human persons are due particular protections, we must look to intent of the framers and to specific rights mentioned in the Constitution

TRUE. Any definition of "person" that would give mere animals a place in the Government system is ignorable. This includes human fetuses, of course, as verified/substantiated by the following:

and the PRO-CHOICE side has to drop the "fetuses aren't persons" angle.

FALSE. The framers of the Constitution were also the ones who decided, in the first Census of 1790, that unborn humans weren't persons worth being counted.

And similar reasoning can eliminate some of the other definitions, too. (And the irrelevant definitions, such as "first person" in grammar, can simply be ignored.)

There is no "elimination" of particular meanings. There are no "contradictions" just some definitions that apply and some that do not.

Pardon me, I should have stated "eliminated from consideration", which is the same thing as saying they do not apply.

I repeat that the fact that a nonhuman can be a person means that "person" and "human" are different concepts these days, that makes obsolete even dictionary definitions that automatically connect the two (the historical default).

But a fetus is a human person because it is "a human being, a person" (note "a person" is an adverbial phrase modifying "a human being"

I see we are interpreting that differently. I've already stated in Msg #489 that I will have to ask the O.E.D. to find out exactly what they meant by using that comma. You are assuming "and", and I am assuming "or". A big difference that does indeed make. Also, you are mixing up definitions to say what you wrote: "A fetus is a human" --TRUE. Note that this definition, "being: human being", which we are discussing, is not equating "being" with "human"-only. Why didn't the dictionary just use the word "human" only, eh? Perhaps because not all humans are beings? That is, this definition, even if that comma means "and", is equating "human being" with "person", but is not equating "human" with "person"!!! Which makes perfect sense after considering that one definition of "person" involves "rational beings" --and some humans definitely don't qualify for that description!

Yes, the old linguistic habit will die hard, just like all other old habits. And the first place that habit can die is in a rational debate, where the fact/logic of different-concepts overrules habit.

In your dreams....

Does this mean you will continue to prefer irrational arguments in a debate? If so, then "Tsk, tsk."

"being and nature are synonyms...and they also have other connotations...

Yes, but that does not automatically mean all the other connotations are simultaneously applicable, in a given statement. In fact, usually when more than one connotation of a word is intended, it is because a pun is being stated. Seriousness is set aside on those occasions!

I see you added "will be", which means "potential" -- which is irrelevant, as you know.

remember...this is what the definition said..."the widest term applicable to all objects of sense or thought, material or immaterial." So encompassing "what will be" is indeed part of the the widest term applicable.

FALSE, because it leads to absurditites such as saying, "Because Felicity will one day be dead, and at that time have no needs, anything she desires now can be ignored, simply because she is now the equivalent of what she will become." HAH! No human fetus is now equivalent to what it may become! Therefore none of them need to be treated as if it is, say, the President. And neither do any of them need to be treated as if its existence is of greater significance than the existence of a cat.

In the "now" it is only, totally, completely, and utterly, just an animal. Period.

But as you said...an animal is a person... which is it FI???

No I did not say that an animal is a person. I said (in essence) that if you insist that a definition of "body"="person" applies to a human fetus, then it also applies to every animal out there (not to mention trees and rocks, too; in Physics a rock is a "body", not to mention that an automobile has a "body", and so on). I also said that that conclusion was not acceptable by either side of the debate. Here:

Consistency/rationality means that accepting that definition yields a consequence that neither side of the debate will accept. That particular definition must be rejected from the debate, therefore!

Is it the "personhood of a fetus that is in question? or is it his "being?" Both of which seem confirmed as being applicable in the affirmative for the pre-born human.

Only in terms that are not legally relevant, such as "body"="person", and "being"="exists". Because laws are for those that can understand them. No one makes a law saying that birds cannot fly through the airspace over your house. And no one makes a law for human fetuses to obey, either. The protections granted by Law are largely associated with responsibilities to obey Law -- which no animal or fetus can do.

 

[Dratsaba]

Anti-Abortion is mostly republican base, yet republicans are mostly Pro-war. How come some people see the big picture when they send young people off to die in war, but the big picture disappears where abortion is concerned.

 

[talloulou]

Anti-Abortion is mostly republican base, yet republicans are mostly Pro-war. How come some people see the big picture when they send young people off to die in war, but the big picture disappears where abortion is concerned.

The two have nothing to do with one another but even if they did I can throw the same crap back in your face....


Gee why do all the prochoicers seem to be mostly democratic liberals opposed to war yet they see no problems with legal baby killing.

Neither your statement or mine is true all the time and they both compare apples with legos....but whatever.

Or how about this one.....

Q:Why are democrats opposed to the war while Republicans aren't?
A: Cause Republicans want the world to ultimately be a safer place where kids can walk to school without being captured and beheaded by crazy terrorists. Democrats abort their babies so they don't see the need for war.

Crazy statements are fun. But they don't prove or disprove anything and they rarely make valid points.

 

[hipster_19]

Anti-Abortion is mostly republican base, yet republicans are mostly Pro-war. How come some people see the big picture when they send young people off to die in war, but the big picture disappears where abortion is concerned.

Well, since the other response to your question was so blatently rude, let me see if I can respond in a more civil way. I don't necessarily think Republicans are 'pro-war', just like lableing someone that believes abortion should be legal as 'pro-abortion'. I don't think anyone, except for a very sick and depraved few, actually enjoy war. I think Republicans are more the 'get what we want by any means necessary', which is really how our country has always been. But, anti-abortion has its republican followers, normally those that are following their religious beliefs. I think the main answer to your question is that the anti-war group in the government is much smaller than the pro-choice groups are. Most people in the government are ok with going to war for a good cause, but the abortion issue is still a very heated debate.

 

[talloulou]

I think Republicans are more the 'get what we want by any means necessary',

Another crazy statement. You call me rude?

 

[talloulou]

Look there is no proof that the majority of democrats are prochoice.

There most likely are democrats who are prolife both religious and non religious.

There are most likely republicans who are prochoice.

There are republicans who are prolife both religious and non religious.

And as far as the war....Did democrats not vote for Kerry? I'm sorry but he actually didn't seem all that different to me as far as his war policy. Now if dems had chosen Dean then I might agree with the statement that most dems are ANTIWAR. But they didn't vote for the antiwar guy to run in the last election. They voted for the guy who basically had the same policy as bush. NOW many dems speak out against the war but hindsight is 20/20 and it's possible there are plenty of Republicans concerned with how things are going as well.

I'm still not sure a majority of dems would say they are antiwar as policy as much as they would say they are antiBUSH. Either way you would have to poll them with fair informative questions to find out.

There's the non rude answer to your question.

 

[talloulou]

For what it's worth since we're off topic anyway.....

I would have liked the dems to elect Dean as their party nomination. He was truly ANTIwar and I would have liked to hear more of what he had to say. I probably still wouldn't have voted for him...but I would have listened to him more and took him more seriously then I took Kerry.

 

[hipster_19]

For what it's worth since we're off topic anyway.....

I would have liked the dems to elect Dean as their party nomination. He was truly ANTIwar and I would have liked to hear more of what he had to say. I probably still wouldn't have voted for him...but I would have listened to him more and took him more seriously then I took Kerry.

With all that hooting and hollaring he was doing, it was hard to take him seriously. But, I agree, he probably would've been a better candidate than Kerry, although I like Edwards.

 

[hipster_19]

Another crazy statement. You call me rude?

Prove me wrong.