Where in the Constitution of the US...

[friday]

Indeed I am.

What is the major metaphysical difference between you and an unborn baby?

 

[molten_dragon]

And that brings us to the next question, why are you a person now when you weren't a person on the other side of your mother's skin? Is it something about her skin that affects your personhood?

I wasn't a person then because I wasn't an independent entity. I was dependent on my mother for nearly everything for much of that time.

 

[Warspite]

What is the major metaphysical difference between you and an unborn baby?

Sapiennceeeee

 

[molten_dragon]

What is the major metaphysical difference between you and an unborn baby?

I am an independent organism. I do not require the support of my mother's body to remain alive.
I have fully developed organs, including a brain.
I have been born.
I have the capacity to exercise the rights given to me in the constitution.
I have thoughts, memories, and feelings.

 

[friday]

I am an independent organism. I do not require the support of my mother's body to remain alive.
I have fully developed organs, including a brain.
I have been born.
I have the capacity to exercise the rights given to me in the constitution.
I have thoughts, memories, and feelings.

Unborn babies develop brains in the first trimester. You still required the support of others after you were born to remain alive. Do you remember the day you were born?

Sounds to me like the best argument you have here is that there is something magical about your mother's skin. On one side you're a human person, on the other you're a collection of cells, even if you are older than others who have been born.

 

[Warspite]

Unborn babies develop brains in the first trimester. You still required the support of others after you were born to remain alive. Do you remember the day you were born?

Sounds to me like the best argument you have here is that there is something magical about your mother's skin. On one side you're a human person, on the other you're a collection of cells, even if you are older than others who have been born.

Can you be successfully extracted from the womb prior to a certain stage and be given to someone else? Not yet, hence the comparison does not apply. They may have brains, but they lack sentience until about roughy 24 weeks and develop sapience a while after that.

The mother's skin argument is more of a legalistic one - the government has no business inside of a woman's womb.

 

[friday]

Can you be successfully extracted from the womb prior to a certain stage and be given to someone else? Not yet, hence the comparison does not apply. They may have brains, but they lack sentience until about roughy 24 weeks and develop sapience a while after that.

The mother's skin argument is more of a legalistic one - the government has no business inside of a woman's womb.

Babies are born at 22 weeks and survive. Do we judge the beginning of life by our medical advancements now? If someday they can extract a baby and have it survive at 1 week does that mean we were wrong all this time? Or that the basic definition of human life has changed?

 

[molten_dragon]

Unborn babies develop brains in the first trimester.

They may begin to develop brains in the first trimester, but that development is not complete until much later. Please note in my earlier post that I mentioned fully developed organs.

You still required the support of others after you were born to remain alive.

True, but that support could be provided by anyone.

Do you remember the day you were born?

No, I don't. I fail to see what the point of this question is.

Sounds to me like the best argument you have here is that there is something magical about your mother's skin. On one side you're a human person, on the other you're a collection of cells, even if you are older than others who have been born.

Please quote to me the passage where I mentioned anything 'magical' about my mother's skin. Here's a hint, you won't find it.

You asked me what the major differences are between myself and a fetus. I gave you several answers, but they don't seem to have satisfied you.

 

[molten_dragon]

Babies are born at 22 weeks and survive. Do we judge the beginning of life by our medical advancements now? If someday they can extract a baby and have it survive at 1 week does that mean we were wrong all this time? Or that the basic definition of human life has changed?

Nope. Viability should be judged by when a fetus can be delivered and have a chance of surviving without extraordinary medical care.

 

[friday]

They may begin to develop brains in the first trimester, but that development is not complete until much later. Please note in my earlier post that I mentioned fully developed organs.



True, but that support could be provided by anyone.



No, I don't. I fail to see what the point of this question is.



Please quote to me the passage where I mentioned anything 'magical' about my mother's skin. Here's a hint, you won't find it.

You asked me what the major differences are between myself and a fetus. I gave you several answers, but they don't seem to have satisfied you.

You said you were a person because you had thoughts and memories. But you don't remember the day you were born anymore than you remember the day before you were born. What is your earliest memory?

There are alot of born persons without fully developed organs. They are protected in our society, not murdered.

All your other arguments fall flat. The best you have is that there is something magical about your mother's skin. On one side youre a lump of cells, on the other youre a person.

 

[friday]

Nope. Viability should be judged by when a fetus can be delivered and have a chance of surviving without extraordinary medical care.

So a baby born at 8 months with a medical issue is not a person?

 

[Chuz Life]

So a baby born at 8 months with a medical issue is not a person?

Thank you so much for all your efforts,... but especially on this point.

I had contemplated this very scenario a few days ago and lost the thought....

I didn't know if I would ever remember it again.

You made my day!

 

[Warspite]

Babies are born at 22 weeks and survive. Do we judge the beginning of life by our medical advancements now? If someday they can extract a baby and have it survive at 1 week does that mean we were wrong all this time? Or that the basic definition of human life has changed?

"About roughly", it varies. There is a difference between "life" and "person" - if you were truly concerned about life, you should be both a vegan and rat o about antibiotics being murder.

 

[molten_dragon]

You said you were a person because you had thoughts and memories. But you don't remember the day you were born anymore than you remember the day before you were born. What is your earliest memory?

No, I answered your question about what made me different from a fetus. You did not ask what makes me a person.

There are alot of born persons without fully developed organs. They are protected in our society, not murdered.

If they're incapable of living without life support, it is legal to remove them from it.

All your other arguments fall flat.

You're welcome to your opinion of course, but I don't believe you've offered any sound counter-arguments.

The best you have is that there is something magical about your mother's skin. On one side youre a lump of cells, on the other youre a person.

Please stop putting words in my mouth. I've not said this once.

 

[molten_dragon]

So a baby born at 8 months with a medical issue is not a person?

Friday, you have a very bad habit of putting words in others mouths.

I did not say that a fetus automatically becomes a person when they become viable. This may be the case in a legal sense, but what makes a 'person' is a very complex subject and I don't believe that it's something that happens all at once.

What I did say, is that fetal viability (and the legal cutoff for abortion) should be defined by when the fetus is capable of surviving outside the mother's womb without extraordinary medical care. Fetuses with disabilities or diseases may not be capable of surviving without extraordinary medical intervention until much later (or at all), but it makes far more sense to define the date based on when a healthy fetus has a chance of surviving.

 

[Chuz Life]

Friday, you have a very bad habit of putting words in others mouths.

I did not say that a fetus automatically becomes a person when they become viable. This may be the case in a legal sense, but what makes a 'person' is a very complex subject and I don't believe that it's something that happens all at once.

What I did say, is that fetal viability (and the legal cutoff for abortion) should be defined by when the fetus is capable of surviving outside the mother's womb without extraordinary medical care. Fetuses with disabilities or diseases may not be capable of surviving without extraordinary medical intervention until much later (or at all), but it makes far more sense to define the date based on when a healthy fetus has a chance of surviving.

CITE; [1.1] Baby Theresa.

Theresa Ann Campo Pearson was born in Florida on March 21, 1992. News accounts of her story referred to her simply as “Baby Theresa.” She suffered from anencephaly (df.): the condition of an infant born with its cerebrum, cerebellum and part of its skull and scalp missing; infants born with this condition have no possibility of conscious experience and nearly always die within several days after birth. <snipped for brevity>

Accordingly, we (the Florida State Supreme Court) find no basis to expand the common law to equate anencephaly with death. We acknowledge the possibility that some infants' lives might be saved by using organs from anencephalics who do not meet the traditional definition of "death" we reaffirm today. But weighed against this is the utter lack of consensus, and the questions about the overall utility of such organ donations. The scales clearly tip in favor of not extending the common law in this instance."

So much for the sentience and viability argument.

 

[windovervocalcords]

CITE; [1.1] Baby Theresa.

Theresa Ann Campo Pearson was born in Florida on March 21, 1992. News accounts of her story referred to her simply as “Baby Theresa.” She suffered from anencephaly (df.): the condition of an infant born with its cerebrum, cerebellum and part of its skull and scalp missing; infants born with this condition have no possibility of conscious experience and nearly always die within several days after birth. <snipped for brevity>

Accordingly, we (the Florida State Supreme Court) find no basis to expand the common law to equate anencephaly with death. We acknowledge the possibility that some infants' lives might be saved by using organs from anencephalics who do not meet the traditional definition of "death" we reaffirm today. But weighed against this is the utter lack of consensus, and the questions about the overall utility of such organ donations. The scales clearly tip in favor of not extending the common law in this instance."

So much for the sentience and viability argument.

Nonsense. You have a limited understanding of sentience. Just because a being doesn't have conscious higher brain existence doesn't mean it doesn't have sentience or some sense of consciousness and feeling.

This example shows the limitations of a strictly scientific consideration in bioethics.

 

[molten_dragon]

CITE; [1.1] Baby Theresa.

Theresa Ann Campo Pearson was born in Florida on March 21, 1992. News accounts of her story referred to her simply as “Baby Theresa.” She suffered from anencephaly (df.): the condition of an infant born with its cerebrum, cerebellum and part of its skull and scalp missing; infants born with this condition have no possibility of conscious experience and nearly always die within several days after birth. <snipped for brevity>

Accordingly, we (the Florida State Supreme Court) find no basis to expand the common law to equate anencephaly with death. We acknowledge the possibility that some infants' lives might be saved by using organs from anencephalics who do not meet the traditional definition of "death" we reaffirm today. But weighed against this is the utter lack of consensus, and the questions about the overall utility of such organ donations. The scales clearly tip in favor of not extending the common law in this instance."

So much for the sentience and viability argument.

Come on Chuz, you really want to go here?

 

[windovervocalcords]

Come on Chuz, you really want to go here?

Of course he does that's why he went there. Anti-abortion 101 pick the grossest example you can think of and exploit it.

 

[Chuz Life]

Come on Chuz, you really want to go here?

Baby Theresa's case supports my claim (as do the definitions I have provided) that a 'person' in the most basic sense,... it just a living human being. An individual human organism.

It's not a matter of what I want.

It's a matter of what 'is.'

 

[Chuz Life]

Of course he does that's why he went there. Anti-abortion 101 pick the grossest example you can think of and exploit it.

And,.. she puts the knife right back where she got it...

 

[windovervocalcords]

And,.. she puts the knife right back where she got it...

You have violent visualizations chuz. I certainly don't visualize stabbing you when I post a rebuttal.

Back to topic. Why did you think you had to use that gross example?

Your earlier arguments were sounder.

 

[molten_dragon]

Baby Theresa's case supports my claim (as do the definitions I have provided) that a 'person' in the most basic sense,... it just a living human being. An individual human organism.

It's not a matter of what I want.

It's a matter of what 'is.'

Fine, then Roe vs. Wade supports my claim that a fetus is not a person, otherwise abortion would not have been legalized. It also supports my claim that the cutoff for legalized abortion is viability. And since that is a US supreme court decision, it trumps your Baby Theresa case.

Guess there's really nothing left to argue is there.

 

[Chuz Life]

You have very violent visualizations chuz. Why did you think you had to use that gross example?

Your earlier arguments were sounder.

The claim was that sentience is required for 'personhood' and for the right to life.

I can think of no example better than Baby Theresa's to disprove that claim.

Noting the images of siamese and absorbed twins that Iangb posted in another thread,....

If it grosses you out?

So be it,...

 

[jackalope]

Baby Theresa's case supports my claim (as do the definitions I have provided) that a 'person' in the most basic sense,... it just a living human being. An individual human organism.

It's not a matter of what I want.

It's a matter of what 'is.'

It does not. They actually go to some lengths to define 'life' and 'death' and distinguish a 'live birth' from 'fetal death'.


BTW, taking a breath is one of the conditions of life.


*from your link:

There are a few Florida authorities that have addressed the definitions of "life" and "death" in somewhat analogous though factually distinguishable [**17] contexts. Florida's Vital Statistics Act, for example, defines "live birth" as

the complete expulsion or extraction of a product of human conception from its mother, irrespective of the duration of pregnancy, which, after such expulsion, breathes or shows any other evidence of life such as beating of the heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, and definite movement of the voluntary muscles, whether or not the umbilical cord has been cut or the placenta is attached.

[*593] ¤ 382.002(10), Fla. Stat. (1991). Conversely, "fetal death" is defined as

death prior to the complete expulsion or extraction of a product of human conception from its mother if the 20th week of gestation has been reached and the death is indicated by the fact that after such expulsion or extraction the fetus does not breathe or show any other evidence of life such as beating of the heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles.

¤ 382.002(7), Fla. Stat. (1991). From these definitions, it is clear that T.A.C.P. was a "live birth" and not a "fetal death," at least for purposes of the collection of vital statistics in Florida. Thee definitions obviously are inapplicable to [**18] the issues at hand today, but they do shed some light on the Florida legislature's thoughts regarding a definition of "life" and "death."

Similarly, an analogous (if distinguishable) problem has arisen in Florida tort law. In cases alleging wrongful death, our courts have held that fetuses are not "persons" and are not "born alive" until they acquire an existence separate and independent from the mother. E.g., Duncan v. Flynn, 358 So. 2d 178, 178-79 (Fla. 1978). We believe the height of the evidence supports the conclusion that T.A.C.P. was "alive" in this sense because she was separated from the womb, and was capable of breathing and maintaining a heartbeat independently of her mother's body for some duration of time thereafter. Once again, however, this conclusion arises from law that is only analogous and is not dispositive of the issue at hand.