Infant Found Dead At Winston-Salem Planned Parenthood

[Josie]

I'd say when a baby (not fetus) is capable of thinking and living on its own without using the body of someone else.
A non-autonomous fetus that can't feel pain is not a person.

There are many adults that cannot live on their own without using the body of someone else. There are many adults that need care 24/7 or they would starve to death, drown in their own vomit, suffocate in a pillow, etc. There are many adults whose minds are gone and can't remember the date, people's names, where they live, etc. Those people need another person in order to live.

"Feeling pain" has nothing to do with personhood.

The fetus is a human being the moment he/she is conceived. Abortion is the killing of a human being. Any attempts to dance around common sense are ridiculous.

 

[Bees]

If these so called stats are real rather than your opinion, why didn't you post a link to the source as I did? You criticize my source but offer none of your own but expect me to just accept your opinion as if its fact? Talk about arrogant, you define it.



"Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" is one of the most famous phrases in the United States Declaration of Independence, and considered by constitutionalists as part of one of the most well crafted, influential sentences in the history of the English language. These three aspects of human personal rights and dignity are listed among the "unalienable rights" or the "sovereign rights" of man. So please show me where any of our sacred secular or religious documents up to and including the bible mention that the subjective term of "Personhood" must be met before a human being deserves to be protected from being murdered at his most helpless point in life?

I marvel at how you secularists can justify and make excuses for denying human rights to some while at the very same time claiming to honor life as you argue against the death penalty for murderers on death row. The hypocrisy and double standards you represent are mind numbing.

Are you proponents of abortion incapable of seeing that fully 93% of all abortions performed in the USA are contributing to a modern day genocide? Or are you just so selfish and self serving that you will ignore the realities and moral implications for the sake of maintaining the power to kill the unborn?

My statistics were from here, the same website you cited early in your post. I thought it went without saying.

I really don't feel like attempting to argue with you anymore, because you're obviously dead set in your beliefs and my efforts will be wasted.

 

[molten_dragon]

"Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" is one of the most famous phrases in the United States Declaration of Independence, and considered by constitutionalists as part of one of the most well crafted, influential sentences in the history of the English language. These three aspects of human personal rights and dignity are listed among the "unalienable rights" or the "sovereign rights" of man. So please show me where any of our sacred secular or religious documents up to and including the bible mention that the subjective term of "Personhood" must be met before a human being deserves to be protected from being murdered at his most helpless point in life?

Well, unfortuantely for your argument, while the declaration of independence doesn't mention 'personhood', it does state that men are created equal. Men, not women, not children, not fetuses. That seems more restrictive than the term 'person' to me.

Besides, it's completely irrelevant anyway. The declaration of independence is not the document upon which our government is based. That would be the US constitution. And in the constitution (specifically the 14th amendment, which most anti-abortion arguments/legislation is based upon), it specifically uses (but does not define what it's referring to) the term 'person'. Ergo, personhood is extremely important to the abortion debate. In fact, it's very possible to argue that it's the ONLY thing that matters.

 

[molten_dragon]

A dead baby is a dead baby whether the mom tossed her in the trash or a doctor tossed her in the trash.

And a dead baby is different from an aborted fetus.

 

[Josie]

And a dead baby is different from an aborted fetus.

Not at all.

 

[Rubicon]

I'd say when a baby (not fetus) is capable of thinking and living on its own without using the body of someone else.
A non-autonomous fetus that can't feel pain is not a person.

Can you prove that a baby doesn't learn while in the womb? Because evidence exists that shows they do, here is evidence for you to consider:

BBC News | HEALTH | Babies 'can learn' in the womb

Prenatal Learning - Learn in the Womb

Babies' Language Learning Starts From The Womb

Introducing Your Baby To Books While In The Womb Isn't As Stupid As It Sounds

Babies Learn Even Before They are Born
Incredibly, information which is readily available for people who refer to the unborn as babies is never readily available to those who consider the unborn to be a fetus. Weird huh? Now educate yourself regarding when sentient life begins and turn away from your self centered point of view.

And if I can prove to you that babies have shown they respond to pain stimulus in the womb, will you then reverse your support for infanticide? I doubt it but here you go anyway:
Doctor Says Research Confirms Unborn Babies Feel Pain in 2nd Trimester

 

[molten_dragon]

Not at all.

Very much so. A dead baby has been born, then subsequently died. An aborted fetus was aborted while inside the womb. One is a tragedy (and possibly a crime), the other is perfectly legal and acceptable (in some circumstances).

 

[Josie]

Very much so. A dead baby has been born, then subsequently died. An aborted fetus was aborted while inside the womb. One is a tragedy (and possibly a crime), the other is perfectly legal and acceptable (in some circumstances).

Actually both are tragedies and possibly crimes.

 

[mac]

Not even worth an actual response.

Why not? Is a persons energy and effort to procure food, feed and otherwise care for a child not "bodily resources"? Can an infant or toddler procure food, shelter and security for his or herself?

 

[Your Star]

Why not? Is a persons energy and effort to procure food, feed and otherwise care for a child not "bodily resources"? Can an infant or toddler procure food, shelter and security for his or herself?

There is a major difference between having to rely on someone the way a child relies on a parent, or guardian, and the way a fetus relies on the mother. One is biological, and one isn't.

 

[mac]

There is a major difference between having to rely on someone the way a child relies on a parent, or guardian, and the way a fetus relies on the mother. One is biological, and one isn't.

Why is that? You're ignoring the effort and energy that goes into caring for a child. Certainly a young one.

 

[OKgrannie]

There are many adults that cannot live on their own without using the body of someone else. There are many adults that need care 24/7 or they would starve to death, drown in their own vomit, suffocate in a pillow, etc. There are many adults whose minds are gone and can't remember the date, people's names, where they live, etc. Those people need another person in order to live.

Adults or any other born person who needs assistance in living is socially dependent, meaning anyone at all can care for them, and usually a number of people provide for their needs. A fetus is physically dependent, meaning it is totally dependent upon its attachment to one person only. All care for a socially dependent entity is voluntary, no one is ever forced. That is not the case for a physically dependent entity.

"Feeling pain" has nothing to do with personhood.

OK, but don't come back and a woman shouldn't get an abortion because the poor innocent little baybee feels pain.

The fetus is a human being the moment he/she is conceived. Abortion is the killing of a human being. Any attempts to dance around common sense are ridiculous.

What Is "A Human Being"

USA
In current United States law, at the moment of birth a biological being becomes a human being. By contrast, in declaring in 1973 that abortion is a permissible medical procedure, the U.S. Supreme Court said, "The unborn have never been recognized in the law as persons in the whole sense." (Hardin 1982:138) The transition to the status of full humanity is viewed not as a biological fact, but as a legal or cultural fact. There is a practical aspect pointed out by Retired Supreme Court Justice Tom Clark: the moment of birth is known, but the moment of conception is speculative. "...the law deals in reality not obscurity--the known rather than the unknown. When sperm meets egg, life may eventually form, but quite often it does not. The law does not deal in speculation." (Swomley 1983:1)

 

[Your Star]

Why is that? You're ignoring the effort and energy that goes into caring for a child. Certainly a young one.

Because the infant is living independently on it's own. Can it survive, no, but can it live yes. You take a fetus out of a woman's body at 9 weeks it can't live. Thats the difference.

 

[mac]

Because the infant is living independently on it's own. Can it survive, no, but can it live yes. You take a fetus out of a woman's body at 9 weeks it can't live. Thats the difference.

That's a difference, for sure, but it doesn't change the fact the infant or toddler is still Dependant despite having been born. Having to carry a young child around with you everywhere you go is highly taxing on "bodily resources" I can assure you.

 

[Your Star]

That's a difference, for sure, but it doesn't change the fact the infant or toddler is still Dependant despite having been born. Having to carry a young child around with you everywhere you go is highly taxing on "bodily resources" I can assure you.

Oh, it is. But they are two completely different things. The dependence the fetus has on the mother is biological, and the dependence the infant has on the parent, is caregiving, and survival. Also the infant can receive help from anybody, where as the fetus is dependent solely on the mother, and that dependence can't be transferred to another person.

 

[mac]

Oh, it is. But they are two completely different things. The dependence the fetus has on the mother is biological, and the dependence the infant has on the parent, is caregiving, and survival. Also the infant can receive help from anybody, where as the fetus is dependent solely on the mother, and that dependence can't be transferred to another person.

Whether someone else can take over care or not does not change the fact that he/she can not survive independently, which is one of the arguments presented for person hood.

 

[Aunt Spiker]

Really? Will you join me in protesting against late term abortions then which the democrats are dedicated to not only legalizing but having the government pay for? I'll bet your answer is no which means you are either lying about how you really feel or you're a flaming hypocrite.

I am against late term and partial birth abortions *and* abortions for convenience and I also don't support any measures that lead to it or support it in any way, shape or form.

No hypocrisy here - I've been pretty firm and unwaivering on my stances when it comes to this issue.

 

[Your Star]

Whether someone else can take over care or not does not change the fact that he/she can not survive independently, which is one of the arguments presented for person hood.

No your missing the point, it's not surviving individually, it's living on your own biologically individually. That's the argument for personhood, not that an infant can survive on it's own. An infant is it's own, autonomous being, a fetus is not.

 

[Bodi]

Because the infant is living independently on it's own. Can it survive, no, but can it live yes. You take a fetus out of a woman's body at 9 weeks it can't live. Thats the difference.

It is no different at all. A baby after 24 weeks or so can survive outside the mother just as well as a baby born at full term can. They are both biological. They are both the same. A baby born full term is just as dependent on the parent or guardian as an embryo or fetus is. There is no difference... sorry.

Sorry mac, I completely disagree with your acceptance of her position on this one...

 

[Bodi]

Oh, it is. But they are two completely different things. The dependence the fetus has on the mother is biological, and the dependence the infant has on the parent, is caregiving, and survival.

Yeah... biological. What do you think feeding is. It is a bilogical function. Sorry, you are waaay off

 

[Your Star]

It is no different at all. A baby after 24 weeks or so can survive outside the mother just as well as a baby born at full term can. They are both biological. They are both the same. A baby born full term is just as dependent on the parent or guardian as an embryo or fetus is. There is no difference... sorry.

Sorry mac, I completely disagree with your acceptance of her position on this one...

There have been documented cases where babies have survived being born that early, but it certainly isn't without the help of modern medicine. To say that a baby born at week 24 is at the same developmental stage as a baby born at week 40 is absurd. And the dependence is different. An infant is an autonomous creature, while a fetus isn't.

 

[Your Star]

Yeah... biological. What do you think feeding is. It is a bilogical function. Sorry, you are waaay off

Digesting food is a biological function, not finding food. And the infant digest the food on it's own.

 

[mac]

No your missing the point, it's not surviving individually, it's living on your own biologically individually. That's the argument for personhood, not that an infant can survive on it's own. An infant is it's own, autonomous being, a fetus is not.

Yes, because that's what you want it to be. Biological separation is not the sole determining factor of person hood.

 

[Your Star]

Yes, because that's what you want it to be. Biological separation is not the sole determining factor of person hood.

The same could be said about your statement.

 

[mac]

The same could be said about your statement.

Of course it could. That's the reason for ongoing debate on the issue.