The unborn is not a person

[prometeus]

You took my words out of context.

How so? I asked you a direct question, specifically to ensure proper context.

I said that the sanctity of life ultimately pointed to the Creator’s own words.

Now you lie.

“Someone’s life could depend on it.”

You are confused.

No, but you are dishonest.

If someone’s life depends on me giving them a bone marrow transplant, that does not give me the right to just stab them right then and there because they depend on me.

By the bull crap diversion. The issue was dependency not stabbing.

Personally however, if someone was dying in front of me and the doctor said that they needed an immediate bone marrow transplant, I would gladly give them some of mine.

Why do they have to die in from of you? Is a dying person anywhere else less worthy?

 

[prometeus]

Could you please make your questions a little clearer?

Common sense, and the state of the patient’s body decides whether someone is at an immediate risk to die because of their pregnancy.

I asked you to define high risk specifically so we can properly apply it to pregnancy and you did not offer it. Now you introduce it again without specifying what it is. Common sense is not competent enough in such matters.

 

[Chezanie]

Dude, you’re making this way harder than it has to be.

A high-risk pregnancy is a high-risk pregnancy if a certified doctor says it is. I’m not a doctor. I don’t know the perfect definition that you want. If you want to know what it is, look it up.

Also, the stabbing part wasn’t unrelated to the dependency issue. I was using that as an example to say, if someone’s life depends on me, ie. my unborn child, that does not give me the right to have them killed. Your bone marrow analogy failed.

 

[Wan]

I asked you to define high risk specifically so we can properly apply it to pregnancy and you did not offer it. Now you introduce it again without specifying what it is. Common sense is not competent enough in such matters.

Why should she have to define high risk? That's for the medical professionals.

 

[OlNate]

Thank you for sharing your opinion that you have "won".

Is it an "opinion" when it's in the law books, though......

 

[prometeus]

Why should she have to define high risk? That's for the medical professionals.

So we all know what is acceptable to her. Any number of doctors will have differing opinions on the severity of any condition.

 

[nota bene]

I think what you are saying is that there are legal consequences for murdering persons but none for the unborn. I don't disagree but I fail to see how this answers the question of what's so special about being a person.

I don't know why you fail to see. I am worth legal protection while an unborn is not. I have the right to life; a fetus does not. Being born makes me "special."

 

[Lursa]

Basic human rights/sanctity of life comes from the Constitution I believe, and the Constitution was written by Christian men who believed in a fundamental basis for morality from their God.

Then we’ll have to prove that God exists. But that’s not what this thread is about.

How is the last question related to the subject?

No non-religious human rights organizations in the US (nor our Constitution nor DOI) or internationally, recognize rights for the unborn.

 

[Wan]

So we all know what is acceptable to her. Any number of doctors will have differing opinions on the severity of any condition.

What's acceptable to her is not important. The important thing is that when she says abortion should be allowed in cases where there is a high risk to life of the mother, she is right.

I don't know why you fail to see. I am worth legal protection while an unborn is not. I have the right to life; a fetus does not. Being born makes me "special."

Then I will simply ask you, what's so special about having been born?

 

[Lursa]

Then a mistake was made. How does this justify killing little babies?

Nobody is killing 'little babies.' Your use of such emotionally-loaded inaccurate terms indicates that your argument doesnt hold up under a more rational discussion.

 

[prometeus]

Dude, you’re making this way harder than it has to be.

Your weakness shows.

A high-risk pregnancy is a high-risk pregnancy if a certified doctor says it is.

And any number of doctors can and will disagree, making such benchmarks nebulous at best, or in other words your argument a failed one.

I’m not a doctor.

Obviously.

I don’t know the perfect definition that you want.

Yet you use it as a justification.

If you want to know what it is, look it up.

I am not the one who suggested it as an acceptable reason to abort.

Also, the stabbing part wasn’t unrelated to the dependency issue. I was using that as an example to say, if someone’s life depends on me, ie. my unborn child, that does not give me the right to have them killed. Your bone marrow analogy failed.

Just because it was over your head or you lack the integrity to admit to your failure, it does not mean it failed. Fact remains that if dependency is removed from the equation than anyone can justly demand that their lives be preserved by demonstrating dependence. Killing by denying life support is the same as stabbing.

 

[Lursa]

Common sense, and the state of the patient’s body decides whether someone is at an immediate risk to die because of their pregnancy.

However, it is my understanding that most high-risk pregnancies actually do not have to end in an abortion. Usually, by the time the pregnancy actually becomes high-risk, the child is big enough to survive in the NICU. A C-section is possible and both the mother and the child can be saved.

This happened to my aunt. She could have easily died from her pregnancy, and the doctor told her she had to terminate it. She had a C-section three weeks early and both her and my cousin are healthy now.

??? Deaths due to pregnancy/childbirth are not all predictable or preventable. In the US, 86,700 women every year die or nearly die (stroke, kidney failure, anyursm, pre-eclampsia, etc) from pregnancy/childbirth.

If they were all predictable, or preventable...would all these women have suffered such fates?

(And yes, I have the links to support this) As a matter of fact, in America, pregnancy and childbirth are becoming MORE dangerous, not less.

 

[Wan]

Your weakness shows.

And any number of doctors can and will disagree, making such benchmarks nebulous at best, or in other words your argument a failed one.

Obviously.

Yet you use it as a justification.

I am not the one who suggested it as an acceptable reason to abort.

Just because it was over your head or you lack the integrity to admit to your failure, it does not mean it failed. Fact remains that if dependency is removed from the equation than anyone can justly demand that their lives be preserved by demonstrating dependence. Killing by denying life support is the same as stabbing.

The important thing is that when she says abortion should be allowed in cases where there is a high risk to life of the mother, she is right. I don't understand why you felt the need to say "nuh-uh" to every little thing she said. Like when she said she's not a doctor and you say, "obviously". Do you really think this helps to further the discussion?

 

[JustHanging]

Thank you for qualifying that you are referring to 'person' in the legal sense. (See bold)

Our laws are based on the rights and protections laid out in the Constitution. Our BOR clearly spells out the importance of treating citizens as equals under the law. Based on those foundational documents, there have been many examinations of the unborn by the higher courts and in no cases have they found that the unborn are equal to born people or recognized any rights for them.

There are many reasons for this. But here is one that is very basic and obvious, why the unborn are not equal in the legal (or biological) sense:

The unborn has no rights that can be separated from the mother (physically, legally, ethically, practically). It's a dependency that truly demonstrates that it is not equal.

They do not have a single right that they can exercise independently.​

That complete dependence on the woman, all systems intertwined and unable to be separated without death of the unborn (but the mother would survive) makes it clear that the unborn is not equal to born people,

 

[Wan]

A clueless poster being impressed by another clueless poster. Why am I not surprised?

You do realize that she literally did not answer the question of what's so special about being a person, right? All she did was referencing the ruling of some legal authorities that conclude the fetuses aren't persons and that as such they don't get to have rights.

 

[Lursa]

You do realize that she literally did not answer the question of what's so special about being a person, right? All she did was referencing the ruling of some legal authorities that conclude the fetuses aren't persons and that as such they don't get to have rights.

This ^^ is further example that she didnt understand, and still doesnt...I did have to try and explain it in even simpler terms for her twice:

And I was very clear that that's what you specified in your OP...I even bolded it for you :doh I answered it explicitly in the context that you requested.

If you want 'other' special reasons why, that are not connected to legality, please just ask. I was only complying with your OP, as stated :mrgreen:​

and

It should have been clear from my post 20 (^^). Persons have full Constitutional rights, because they have equal status under the law.

Equality, equal status makes persons 'special' in the context you present.

My post also included why the unborn are not recognized as equal.

I'm sorry that was not clear in post 20...I will try, in the future, to spell things out even more simply for you.​

Not sure how it can be simplified for her further.

 

[Scrabaholic]

The Christian God. As far as I know, no other religion says that man was made in God’s image.

There are thousands of gods. What makes that one real as opposed to the others?

The key word being “potential.”

Doesn't change anything. The woman still has the right to abort.

This is not a justification for dismissing the sanctity of the child’s life because of what potentially might happen.

There is no "sanctity of the child's life".

I could potentially have a heart attack. That doesn’t mean I should remove my heart today.

Oh. my. god. That's all I can say within the rules of the site.

My unborn child could potentially kill me. That doesn’t give me a moral justification to end his life today.

Actually, it does.

 

[Wan]

Oh. my. god. That's all I can say within the rules of the site.

I think her point was that a woman should not abort just because the pregnancy could threaten her life. She should abort only if the pregnancy IS threatening her life.

 

[Chezanie]

Actually, it does.

Well, you could accidentally kill me someday. There’s a potential for that. Does that mean I get to kill you right now? With your logic, I could. Would that be morally justifiable using your logic? Absolutely.

 

[Chezanie]

Just because it was over your head or you lack the integrity to admit to your failure, it does not mean it failed. Fact remains that if dependency is removed from the equation than anyone can justly demand that their lives be preserved by demonstrating dependence. Killing by denying life support is the same as stabbing.

Independence is what gives people the right to live? A 30 day old baby is not independent of its mother. It needs its mother, or someone else they reliably depend on.

If a man dies because I wouldn’t donate my bone marrow, he dies because I didn’t do something.

An unborn child dies because someone did do something.

“Fact remains that if dependency is removed from the equation then anyone can justly demand that their lives be preserved by demonstrating dependence”

“Killing by denying life-support is the same as stabbing“

These statements contradict each other. You just claimed that if someone shows independence, then it is wrong to kill them. But people who are on life-support are dependent on something, and stabbing them = killing according to you?

You make no sense.

Someone’s dependence on me for bone marrow for survival does not give me the right to end their life.

 

[Angel]

What's So Special About A Person?

The word used to mean "mask."

For two hundred years before abortion law co-opted the word, it meant "penis" at law:​

(law) The human genitalia; specifically, the penis.

1824, Vagrancy Act 1824 (5 Geo. 4. c. 83, United Kingdom), section 4:

[E]very Person wilfully, openly, lewdly, and obscenely exposing his Person in any Street, Road, or public Highway, or in the View thereof, or in any Place of public Resort, with Intent to insult any Female ... and being subsequently convicted of the Offence for which he or she shall have been so apprehended, shall be deemed a Rogue and Vagabond, within the true Intent and Meaning of this Act ...

1972, Evans v. Ewels, Weekly Law Reports, vol. 1, page 671 at pp. 674–675:

It seems to me that at any rate today, and indeed by 1824, the word "person" in connection with sexual matters had acquired a meaning of its own; a meaning which made it a synonym for "penis." It may be ... that it was the forerunner of Victorian gentility which prevented people calling a penis a penis. But however that may be I am satisfied in my own mind that it has now acquired an established meaning to the effect already stated. It is I venture to say, well known amongst those who practise in the courts that the word "person" is so used over and over again. It is the familiar synonym of that part of the body, and, as one of the reasons for my decision in this case, I would use that interpretation of what was prevailing in 1824 and what has become established in the 150 years since then.

person - Wiktionary

Mask, penis? What's so special about a "person"?

The word today is a legal fiction used to make abortion appear conscionable.

It has become a bull**** term for bull**** artists to justify an immoral act.​

Thus, the OP has it right"

I see that a lot of posters here say that the unborn is not a person, and as such, does not deserve legal protection and/or the right to life.

To them, I will simply ask, "what is so special about being a person"? Note that this question is not the same as asking what is a person, nor what special traits a person has.

The way I see it, the act of designating the unborn as not a person is simply a form of discrimination against the unborn. Arbitrarily drawing a life between the unborn and the rest of humanity for the sole purpose of discriminating against them (the unborn).

So. Can someone tell me what is so special about being a person?

Bolding mine.

 

[nota bene]

Then I will simply ask you, what's so special about having been born?

Being protected by law from murder.

 

[prometeus]

The important thing is that when she says abortion should be allowed in cases where there is a high risk to life of the mother, she is right. I don't understand why you felt the need to say "nuh-uh" to every little thing she said. Like when she said she's not a doctor and you say, "obviously". Do you really think this helps to further the discussion?

Why the **** don't you stay out of things to which you have no capacity to contribute?

 

[prometeus]

Independence is what gives people the right to live?

Nowhere did I say anything about a right to live. That is your fantasy so take it and feed it to someone who falls for such crap.

A 30 day old baby is not independent of its mother. It needs its mother, or someone else they reliably depend on.

Can a fetus' dependence be satisfied by "someone else" too?

If a man dies because I wouldn’t donate my bone marrow, he dies because I didn’t do something.

So much for sanctity of life.

An unborn child dies because someone did do something.

So it is the cause that bothers you?

 

[wolfsgirl]

What do you think is special about being human? We are clearly separated from animals by something. Even if you don’t believe in any God, it’s clear to see.

It says in the Bible that “Man was made in God’s image”

—————

“For you created me In my inmost being, you knit me together in my mother’s womb. I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made. Your works are wonderful. I know that full well.”

Psalm 139, 13-14.

We may not always be a good image of God, but we all started out in the image of God. What is man’s goals? To become more creative, to become more knowledgeable, to have more power. To become more like God. The very fact that humans can talk about our origins, where we came from and where we are going, what our purpose is, and if we are made in the image of God - proves that we are a special race. Animals do not ask these questions.

More on that here: YouTube Skip to 26 minutes into it. He talks exactly about what we are talking about right now.

—————

I ask again - why does the woman’s legal rights to control a body that isn’t hers take precedence over the child’s right to life?

No matter how much the child’s life depends on the mothers life, no matter how much it systems are intertwined with the mother systems, does not dismiss the individual life of the child. What happened to the sanctity of human life?

Why is dependency used as a moral compass for what you can do and what you can’t to do in this case?

What about the sanctity of my life? If I need your blood or organs to keep me alive, can I use yours against your will? NO, because you have the right to your own body just like a woman as the right to her own body. That includes her blood, organs, uterus, and birth canal. A fetus has no more right to use her body than I have to use yours.