State your position

[iamitter]

Actually the point at which you are drawing the line at is far more arbitrary than either birth or conception. Your line is based on subjectivity.

oh....and.... :roll:

In that case what is your definition of a human person? Because, you see, my definition fits where I draw my line.
Also, every line is based on subjectivity. If your line was based on objectivity, there wouldn't be an issue to discuss.

 

[mac]

In that case what is your definition of a human person? Because, you see, my definition fits where I draw my line.
Also, every line is based on subjectivity. If your line was based on objectivity, there wouldn't be an issue to discuss.

Both birth and conception are objective occurrences....attaining person-hood is entirely subjective.

There is no need to define person-hood to protect human life and oppose abortion. Barring some natural inhibitor, all homo sapiens will develop into fully definable persons in quick enough time. The stage of development a homo sapiens is in matters not. Ending the life of the homo sapiens is ending it's life.

 

[Bodi]

No, you're wrong here. You can't abort a 47 year old man. Abortion has a limited timeframe.

ummm what? He said that, "Abortion relates to the termination of a human life...in it's entirety". How is this not simply A FACT? He is obviously saying, "Abortion relates to the termination of a human life (the developing human)...in it's entirety".

 

[Bodi]

No, you don't. If you want to claim a fertilized egg is a person, be my guest, but don't use appeals to emotion on me.

As I already said, this debate boils down to when person-hood starts. Discussing what a person is and when that might be achieved is very relevant.

This isn't a person.

But this, now that's a person. :roll:

I draw my person-hood lines not based on arbitrary lines like birth or conception, but rather at the place where you can begin to distinguish the things that make us unique.
I have no moral qualms about it, either.

HE has been saying life from the onset, just because he said "person" in a post about "person hood" in no way invalidates the facts behind his original intent.

 

[mertex]

I'm afraid you know nothing about pregnancy/childbirth OR the recovery from it. It is vastly different from one woman to the next. But many suffer the entire 9 months from some physical problem from the pregnancy.

Some think that because their wife has been pregnant, or their sister - that they know all about pregnancy, like they have experienced it themselves! What a joke.

 

[iamitter]

Both birth and conception are objective occurrences....attaining person-hood is entirely subjective.

There is no need to define person-hood to protect human life and oppose abortion. Barring some natural inhibitor, all homo sapiens will develop into fully definable persons in quick enough time. The stage of development a homo sapiens is in matters not. Ending the life of the homo sapiens is ending it's life.

Yes, but claiming person-hood at one of those occurrences is subjective.

There is a need to define person-hood. Your words are already presuming "a homo sapiens", a person, which means you're automatically assuming your definition of person is correct. If somethings not a person, its needs shouldn't come before someone's who we know is a person.

 

[iamitter]

ummm what? He said that, "Abortion relates to the termination of a human life...in it's entirety". How is this not simply A FACT? He is obviously saying, "Abortion relates to the termination of a human life (the developing human)...in it's entirety".

I interpreted it as abortion being the termination of a human life, with in its entirety relating to when abortion can be performed. Abortion cannot be done after birth, so comparing it to a lifespan is as arbitrary as comparing it to the age of the earth.

 

[iamitter]

HE has been saying life from the onset, just because he said "person" in a post about "person hood" in no way invalidates the facts behind his original intent.

Frankly, if he doesn't claim it is a person from conception then there's no argument to be made at all - something that is not a person doesn't get the same rights a person does under the law.

 

[Whovian]

damn. I thought this was the Sex & Sexuality forum... never mind.

 

[iamitter]

damn. I thought this was the Sex & Sexuality forum... never mind.

2 clicks west of the East river.

 

[Bodi]

Some think that because their wife has been pregnant, or their sister - that they know all about pregnancy, like they have experienced it themselves! What a joke.

The joke is that I made some extremely clear statements about this matter and this is the conclusion that you came up with... that, is the joke.

 

[Badfish420]

you cant just make up your mind before you even here the scenario. just because you think up some useless definition of what a person is and where life begins doesn't mean you will have the answer to these kinds of decisions when push comes to shove. its up to the mom.

 

[Bodi]

Frankly, if he doesn't claim it is a person from conception then there's no argument to be made at all - something that is not a person doesn't get the same rights a person does under the law.

The whole point is that the law is as incomplete on this subject as it was on women's voting rights or counting a black as 3/5 of a person...

 

[OKgrannie]

Actually I've had to give up a lot of my life. In Iraq twice, Afghanistan once...years spent tooling around seemingly random parts of the worlds oceans.....

rwanda, Haiti, numerous other "give up my life" times....


Gimme a break grannie.

Did you choose that job or not?

 

[Bodi]

Did you choose that job or not?

Is this an argument towards women that did not choose to get pregnant can abort?

 

[OKgrannie]

I wouldn't say that, but that is the argument that you just used against mac, isn't it? Seems contradictory... that's all.

True. Usually my arguments for abortion rights involve studies, or info verified with links. It's a little different from asserting that pregnancy isn't miserable because you've seen a pregnant woman and she didn't LOOK miserable.

I commented on this with an analogy to my Hell with my wife... did you respond? It kinda puts your assertions here into perspective. Even though I married into a Hellish nightmare, I would consider getting married again.

But you plan if you marry again, to avoid the circumstances that made your marriage a Hellish nightmare. You really cannot make that sort of plan with a pregnancy. Things go wrong, and go wrong very quickly.

 

[Bodi]

True. Usually my arguments for abortion rights involve studies, or info verified with links. It's a little different from asserting that pregnancy isn't miserable because you've seen a pregnant woman and she didn't LOOK miserable.



But you plan if you marry again, to avoid the circumstances that made your marriage a Hellish nightmare. You really cannot make that sort of plan with a pregnancy. Things go wrong, and go wrong very quickly.

You plan on things going better with your pregnancy (herbs, massages, etc) just as easily as I can plan on avoiding my hellish circumstances, but the fact is that I can't control anything about the next woman, she could be worse, and having and issue like Borderline Personality Disorder makes detection of potential issues next to impossible to detect initially. Seriously, the two are more similar than you might think.

 

[Henrin]

I also realize that I never said it isn't. I qualified it with the development of the neocortex, the first feelings of pain and the first real point of development of something that can distinguish it intellectually from any other animal.

You realize how silly this is, I hope. Feeling or a brain is not a measurement of what is and isn't valuable in humans. Its measurement of what can feel and what can't. To claim that because it can't figure out what is going on that it can't feel so than its alright is almost to brutal for words, but the real problem is that the brain is just not important to the survival of the body of the baby when it is in the womb and has nothing to do with that stage of development nor is the pain you want it feel at all needed or most likely wanted for the baby to have yet. Each part that you talk of are not there to measure what is and what isn't, it is there to run a purpose after the birth of the child, which is nothing but yet again, a not finished stage of development of the baby and those parts that stage has gained has zero value to the baby before that stage appeared.

There is dozens of examples of real life born species that change and lose parts of their being and/or gain others and they are still considered alive and valuable to anyone that is aware of them and cares for them in all stages. The parts are parts that are important to the stage, nothing more and nothing less. So to argue as if its ok to kill it before the parts that you choose appear is total nonsense as in reality you are trying to use a moving target as the measurement tools of your argument and your reasoning.

 

[mac]

Did you choose that job or not?

I certainly did...at the age of 17. You could very well say that I had little idea of how it would impact my life. Don't give me any crap about how I don't have to "give up my life". You seriously have no idea what you're talking about. Trust me.

 

[Henrin]

If you had some physical condition that forced you to spend a year of your life in bed, or even most of the time in bed, wouldn't you consider that you had lost of year of life? I would. And many pregnant women find their activities so curtailed that they are not actually living their own lives.

I'm not really sure what I'm supposed to say here, but what I want to say is, so what.

That is not all that matters. If one cannot have some quality of life, it is better to have no life at all.

So you would pick nothingness with no way out ever instead of learning to deal with the possibility of a way out. Seems short sighted if you ask me. You think every child that is aborted would think like you and would want the most extreme and permanent solution? Oh and yes, I know the brain argument so don't bother, as its obvious I'm talking about after it was born and living this life.

You know nothing of MY personal life. When one does something, it is the individual person's choice as to whether that act is worth the sacrifice. It is not up to you or anyone else to decide for a pregnant woman that she MUST make that sacrifice and/or that it will be worth it to her.

Life is nice when there's choice, we should go out and try to open our lives to as many choices as possible, but life is not always open to it. When we make mistakes that IS one of those times. Its nice to think that the baby is nothing, and we are all that is important, but in reality past all the drivel of develop and what different parts to do what and when it is a human life the woman is accountable for the baby as soon as the pregnancy starts. Sure you can run away from your responsibilities if you wish, that is the law after all, but don't pretend that isn't what you are doing. I really don't care to hear selfish twits talk of a baby like its a horrible twisted weight that is unfair on their backs. I'm so very tried of people pretending as if their problems are new or that their problems are unfair and must be fixed. Their problems are their problems and a baby should never be thought of as a problem. When you think of it as a problem it blocks you ability to love the child, to care for the child, and in the end there is no reason to not love your children. Sorry if that sounds preachy but I'm feeling all preachy this morning.

And yes, I know nothing of your personal life, but than you know nothing of mine.

 

[mac]

Some think that because their wife has been pregnant, or their sister - that they know all about pregnancy, like they have experienced it themselves! What a joke.

Actually, what's funny is that someone that has been pregnant thinks they know all there is to know about pregnancy.

 

[mac]

Yes, but claiming person-hood at one of those occurrences is subjective.

There is a need to define person-hood. Your words are already presuming "a homo sapiens", a person, which means you're automatically assuming your definition of person is correct. If somethings not a person, its needs shouldn't come before someone's who we know is a person.

A homo sapien is the offspring of two homo sapiens. The particular stage of development and capability is absolutely irrelevant. The homo sapien transits through many stages throughout it's life (pre and post birth) and any particular stage is not the defining stage of that life.

A homo sapien is concieved a person in a preliminary stage.

 

[Yukon]

Abortiing unwanted fetal tissue from the body is the absolute right of the female person who's body that tissue is occupying. No one not the the state, not the religious fanatics, not the right-wing loons of society, not anyone has the right morally or legally to force any female person top carry parasitic fetal tissue to full term.

I fortunately live in Canada where we realized back in the mid 1980's of the above facts. There are no, repeat NO abortion laws or restrictions in CANADA !

To those who would deny women of the right to abortion I say move to one of the "enlightened" religious theocrartic states - Saudi, Iran, Iraq, Yemen, etc. - where religion is the basis of all law.

 

[OscarB63]

Actually, what's funny is that someone that has been pregnant thinks they know all there is to know about pregnancy.

I rode in a car once, that makes me a mechanic

 

[iamitter]

You realize how silly this is, I hope. Feeling or a brain is not a measurement of what is and isn't valuable in humans. Its measurement of what can feel and what can't. To claim that because it can't figure out what is going on that it can't feel so than its alright is almost to brutal for words, but the real problem is that the brain is just not important to the survival of the body of the baby when it is in the womb and has nothing to do with that stage of development nor is the pain you want it feel at all needed or most likely wanted for the baby to have yet. Each part that you talk of are not there to measure what is and what isn't, it is there to run a purpose after the birth of the child, which is nothing but yet again, a not finished stage of development of the baby and those parts that stage has gained has zero value to the baby before that stage appeared.

There is dozens of examples of real life born species that change and lose parts of their being and/or gain others and they are still considered alive and valuable to anyone that is aware of them and cares for them in all stages. The parts are parts that are important to the stage, nothing more and nothing less. So to argue as if its ok to kill it before the parts that you choose appear is total nonsense as in reality you are trying to use a moving target as the measurement tools of your argument and your reasoning.

Yeah, a brain kind of is a measurement of what is valuable in humans. We would not be "exceptional" as some claim we are, if we had the brains of a sheep.