A question for the pro-abortion aka pro-choice crowd

[logical4u]

Its none of your business why they do it, it isn't your body, or your choice.

Who's body is it?

Can we confirm with a DNA test?

Great point! Does a child have the exact DNA as the mother? If not, wouldn't that make the developing baby an individual person?

 

[Dragon]

Great point! Does a child have the exact DNA as the mother? If not, wouldn't that make the developing baby an individual person?

No, because personhood is not a function of DNA. When the developing fetus has its own independent thoughts and feelings, THEN it's a person.

 

[Foxfyre]

Great point! Does a child have the exact DNA as the mother? If not, wouldn't that make the developing baby an individual person?

No, because personhood is not a function of DNA. When the developing fetus has its own independent thoughts and feelings, THEN it's a person.

That is your opinion. You have nothing more to go on to support your opinion than you want it to be valid.

Those of us who see the beginning and earlier development stage as every bit as important to the individual as is the time when we know they have independent thoughts and feelings cannot separate that from the person. And because there is no stage of human development that can be skipped to get from point A (the beginning) to point Z, the natural end, the prolife opinion seems to be more supportable than your opinion.

You are certainly as capable of arguing your point of view as anybody else is however.

 

[Sky Dancer]

The personhood movement is scary. The movement threatens the legality of birth control.

 

[Dragon]

That is your opinion. You have nothing more to go on to support your opinion than you want it to be valid.

No, it's not an opinion, it's a values judgment. In fact, that goes to the heart of what I've been saying here: that everything hinges on what we call a "person," and that there is no objective way of determining which concept of personhood is correct. When we are dealing with values judgments, which we are here, there is no such thing as "true" or "false." A values judgment is either accepted or rejected, either agreed with or disagreed with, but it can never be proven one way or another.

When I say that personhood depends on thoughts and feelings, that isn't saying anything you can ever go out and measure and confirm one way or another. When someone says that personhood depends on DNA, that also isn't saying anything that can ever be proven, one way or another.

I can prove easily enough that an embryo at conception has no brain, and thus has no feelings, thoughts, or personality. That is a fact.

You can prove easily enough that an embryo at conception has somewhat different (although related) DNA from its mother's. That's also a fact.

Which of these facts determines personhood? That is NOT a question of fact, but a call for a values judgment.

I say that personhood depends on thoughts and feelings because I see that as being what MATTERS. When someone has thoughts, feelings, memory, personality, then that is someone who can feel pain, suffer disappointment, be afraid. It is someone who can love and be loved, whose death is a loss for someone else.

By comparison, the mere possession of individual human DNA strikes me as not very important. And that is my judgment, which as a human being I am entitled to make. If you want to persuade me that my judgment is wrong and yours is right, what you need to do is to show me why having independent DNA is so important. Because that is by no means self-evident.

 

[Gadawg73]

If people that are not married are having sex, it is immoral (this has moved well into the tolerated category, but if you look at it logically, it is immoral, as well). BTW, there are many more forms of immoral sex, not that you would care. Are you one of those that think school children should have sexual positions taught on the tax dollar?

So does this mean you admit that your anti-choice position is all about enforcing traditional sexual morality, and not about saving lives?

By the way, the "highest power" tells me that there is nothing wrong with people loving each other and giving each other pleasure, and a marriage license is only a scrap of paper and totally irrelevant.

I swear you libs/leftists/dems/homosexual activists/islamic extremists/communists/socialists work really hard to act like idiots. You want to know how to make things better. The answer is Christianity (there are other faiths that are close); it was made for all people not just A, B, or C people.

Your second statement is even more idiodic. Should a mother and child (that love each other) be able to give each other sexual pleasure????????????????????
A father and child?
Any adult and child?
any person and animal?
Close relatives?
How about close relatives of the same sex?

Marriage is a very specific arrangement. Because you, choose to believe that it is JUST a scrap of paper does not make it so.

I really do get tired of your "pure" ideals with no basis in reality or respect for life.

"you libs/ leftists/ homosexual activists/ islamic extremists/ communists/ socialists"
You left out southern red necks like me. I disagree with you also. Call me an idiot all you want but your name calling is childish. I am not going away. Red necks never quit.

 

[Dragon]

The answer is Christianity (there are other faiths that are close); it was made for all people not just A, B, or C people.

Christianity is a wicked pack of self-serving lies, and the Christian God is a monstrous, evil tyrant.

Should a mother and child (that love each other) be able to give each other sexual pleasure????????????????????
A father and child?
Any adult and child?
any person and animal?
Close relatives?
How about close relatives of the same sex?

If any of those are wrong, it isn't because the participants aren't married.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Dragon is way, way out of his depth, I'm afraid.

Better go back to the Creationists bashing thread...you don't even have to pretend to have any understanding of the constitution, science or the faith you're bashing there...you can just jeer and point.

You have no understanding of the Constitution, either - what’s your excuse?

That is your opinion. You have nothing more to go on to support your opinion than you want it to be valid.

The same is true of those opposed to privacy rights. The issue is consequently a philosophical stalemate; neither side will ever convince the other.

Fortunately in a Nation ruled by law, the law will make the final decision.

The personhood movement is scary. The movement threatens the legality of birth control.

And the right to privacy.

 

[SW2SILVER]

Why not? I bet yer momma whishes she did. Who is gonna read the ninety- ninth millionth post here, anyway?

 

[SigTurner]

Actually, I've known you were a misinformed halfwit for a while now, so it wasn't a newsflash.

Misinformed about what, Edith? If all you have are insults, you are little more than a foul-mouthed dingbat.

Would it surprise you to know that your ability to repeat something ad nauseam doesn't constitute "proof" of anything except that you're boring?

Talk about ad nauseum! You have yet to even present an argument, or even a counterargument.

I'm well aware of what the placenta is. The only thing I'm NOT aware of is what ******* difference it makes to anything. So any time you'd like to get around to showing me proof - defined as quotes from reliable scientific sources, as opposed to you saying, "No, really, this is a fact. Honest!" - that an intact umbilical cord has any bearing on the scientific definition of a baby, in or out of the womb, as an individual, living human organism, you WILL let me know, won't you?

Hold on there, Edith. You're still confused about what the issue actually is. The issue is NOT what defines a baby, but what defines--or at least, should define--personhood. More specifically, at what point does a ZEF become an individual in the truest sense of the term? It is my argument that the ZEF does not become a true individual until the umbilical cord is cut. I base my argument on the fact that until that moment, the ZEF is quite literally an appendage of the mother. The fact that placenta tissue is comprised of both fetal and maternal tissue (and this is a scientific fact) further supports the fact that even afterbirth, the newborn is still attached to its host's tissue until the umbilical cord is cut.

Now, if you don't mind, BUBBLEHEAD, how about telling me what your argument is. Do you even have one?

That's why you're spending all this time boring me with your blather about it.

Fat, obnoxious, and stupid is no way to go through life, dear.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Actually, I've known you were a misinformed halfwit for a while now, so it wasn't a newsflash.

Misinformed about what, Edith? If all you have are insults, you are little more than a foul-mouthed dingbat.

Would it surprise you to know that your ability to repeat something ad nauseam doesn't constitute "proof" of anything except that you're boring?

Talk about ad nauseum! You have yet to even present an argument, or even a counterargument.

I'm well aware of what the placenta is. The only thing I'm NOT aware of is what ******* difference it makes to anything. So any time you'd like to get around to showing me proof - defined as quotes from reliable scientific sources, as opposed to you saying, "No, really, this is a fact. Honest!" - that an intact umbilical cord has any bearing on the scientific definition of a baby, in or out of the womb, as an individual, living human organism, you WILL let me know, won't you?

Hold on there, Edith. You're still confused about what the issue actually is. The issue is NOT what defines a baby, but what defines--or at least, should define--personhood. More specifically, at what point does a ZEF become an individual in the truest sense of the term? It is my argument that the ZEF does not become a true individual until the umbilical cord is cut. I base my argument on the fact that until that moment, the ZEF is quite literally an appendage of the mother. The fact that placenta tissue is comprised of both fetal and maternal tissue (and this is a scientific fact) further supports the fact that even afterbirth, the newborn is still attached to its host's tissue until the umbilical cord is cut.

Now, if you don't mind, BUBBLEHEAD, how about telling me what your argument is. Do you even have one?

That's why you're spending all this time boring me with your blather about it.

Fat, obnoxious, and stupid is no way to go through life, dear.

At the point where you decided to pretend that I had never made any point and got all entranced with your attempt at witty insults, you admitted defeat. As soon as you stop shouting, "La la la, can't hear you!" and take your fingers out of your ears, Junior, you may run along. Call me when you have something real to bring to the table.

"Cutting the umbilical cord makes a baby an individual person." Good God. You baby-killing boobs are sending in your "C" team now.

 

[SigTurner]

At the point where you decided to pretend that I had never made any point and got all entranced with your attempt at witty insults, you admitted defeat. As soon as you stop shouting, "La la la, can't hear you!" and take your fingers out of your ears, Junior, you may run along. Call me when you have something real to bring to the table.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7G7bNUkiwQA]doctor cures bulimia - YouTube[/ame]

 

[logical4u]

Great point! Does a child have the exact DNA as the mother? If not, wouldn't that make the developing baby an individual person?

No, because personhood is not a function of DNA. When the developing fetus has its own independent thoughts and feelings, THEN it's a person.

By that definition, you, are not yet a person. You are a "repeater".

 

[logical4u]

That is your opinion. You have nothing more to go on to support your opinion than you want it to be valid.

No, it's not an opinion, it's a values judgment. In fact, that goes to the heart of what I've been saying here: that everything hinges on what we call a "person," and that there is no objective way of determining which concept of personhood is correct. When we are dealing with values judgments, which we are here, there is no such thing as "true" or "false." A values judgment is either accepted or rejected, either agreed with or disagreed with, but it can never be proven one way or another.

When I say that personhood depends on thoughts and feelings, that isn't saying anything you can ever go out and measure and confirm one way or another. When someone says that personhood depends on DNA, that also isn't saying anything that can ever be proven, one way or another.

I can prove easily enough that an embryo at conception has no brain, and thus has no feelings, thoughts, or personality. That is a fact.

You can prove easily enough that an embryo at conception has somewhat different (although related) DNA from its mother's. That's also a fact.

Which of these facts determines personhood? That is NOT a question of fact, but a call for a values judgment.

I say that personhood depends on thoughts and feelings because I see that as being what MATTERS. When someone has thoughts, feelings, memory, personality, then that is someone who can feel pain, suffer disappointment, be afraid. It is someone who can love and be loved, whose death is a loss for someone else.

By comparison, the mere possession of individual human DNA strikes me as not very important. And that is my judgment, which as a human being I am entitled to make. If you want to persuade me that my judgment is wrong and yours is right, what you need to do is to show me why having independent DNA is so important. Because that is by no means self-evident.

You must be using the same "values" judgement that Obama does; when he signed to allow the experimentation on embryos (also included that embryos made by harvested eggs "must" be used for research or destroyed, none were allowed to become "the living"). I wonder if Hitler's army of doctors used the same "values judgement". Just because something sounds sterile and logical does not make it so.

 

[logical4u]

So does this mean you admit that your anti-choice position is all about enforcing traditional sexual morality, and not about saving lives?

By the way, the "highest power" tells me that there is nothing wrong with people loving each other and giving each other pleasure, and a marriage license is only a scrap of paper and totally irrelevant.

I swear you libs/leftists/dems/homosexual activists/islamic extremists/communists/socialists work really hard to act like idiots. You want to know how to make things better. The answer is Christianity (there are other faiths that are close); it was made for all people not just A, B, or C people.

Your second statement is even more idiodic. Should a mother and child (that love each other) be able to give each other sexual pleasure????????????????????
A father and child?
Any adult and child?
any person and animal?
Close relatives?
How about close relatives of the same sex?

Marriage is a very specific arrangement. Because you, choose to believe that it is JUST a scrap of paper does not make it so.

I really do get tired of your "pure" ideals with no basis in reality or respect for life.

"you libs/ leftists/ homosexual activists/ islamic extremists/ communists/ socialists"
You left out southern red necks like me. I disagree with you also. Call me an idiot all you want but your name calling is childish. I am not going away. Red necks never quit.

If you agree, I am sure that you are somewhere on that list. BTW, those are groups, not individual names. I have already named you as a person that embraces corruption (check out Proverbs), and works against the Bible. After that, there is really not much to say. When did you become just, righteous, upstanding, honest or "grow" integrity?

 

[Dragon]

[snip empty rhetoric and pointless personal insult devoid of any cognitive content]

I can always tell when I've scored big time, because the person I'm debating uses multiple words to disguise the fact that he has nothing left to say. Strip out the empty rhetoric, personal insults, and ad-homs, and there is literally nothing left: no points raised, no arguments offered, no evidence presented, nothing.

That's also how I can tell I'm dealing with a child.

 

[logical4u]

[snip empty rhetoric and pointless personal insult devoid of any cognitive content]

I can always tell when I've scored big time, because the person I'm debating uses multiple words to disguise the fact that he has nothing left to say. Strip out the empty rhetoric, personal insults, and ad-homs, and there is literally nothing left: no points raised, no arguments offered, no evidence presented, nothing.

That's also how I can tell I'm dealing with a child.

Have you ever considered the possibility that your "opinions" (repeated collection of big words), don't even allow many adults to be defined as "personhood"? Seriously, let's take a look: if a person is in a medicated state (that could be for coma, surgery, intense pain, etc), if a person is mentally handicapped, if a person has had a brain injury and is in the recuperation stage, any child below the age of four, etc do not "qualify" for personhood. When someone goes "silly", why bother to confront their views? They know that they are wrong, they are just trying to sound important (when everyone around them is politely smiling, hoping they will be quiet soon, so the conversation can get back to reality).

But thank you, you gave me another group to add to my list: greenies: the people that care more about a tree or a lizard than human life.

 

[Cecilie1200]

That is your opinion. You have nothing more to go on to support your opinion than you want it to be valid.

No, it's not an opinion, it's a values judgment. In fact, that goes to the heart of what I've been saying here: that everything hinges on what we call a "person," and that there is no objective way of determining which concept of personhood is correct. When we are dealing with values judgments, which we are here, there is no such thing as "true" or "false." A values judgment is either accepted or rejected, either agreed with or disagreed with, but it can never be proven one way or another.

When I say that personhood depends on thoughts and feelings, that isn't saying anything you can ever go out and measure and confirm one way or another. When someone says that personhood depends on DNA, that also isn't saying anything that can ever be proven, one way or another.

I can prove easily enough that an embryo at conception has no brain, and thus has no feelings, thoughts, or personality. That is a fact.

You can prove easily enough that an embryo at conception has somewhat different (although related) DNA from its mother's. That's also a fact.

Which of these facts determines personhood? That is NOT a question of fact, but a call for a values judgment.

I say that personhood depends on thoughts and feelings because I see that as being what MATTERS. When someone has thoughts, feelings, memory, personality, then that is someone who can feel pain, suffer disappointment, be afraid. It is someone who can love and be loved, whose death is a loss for someone else.

By comparison, the mere possession of individual human DNA strikes me as not very important. And that is my judgment, which as a human being I am entitled to make. If you want to persuade me that my judgment is wrong and yours is right, what you need to do is to show me why having independent DNA is so important. Because that is by no means self-evident.

You must be using the same "values" judgement that Obama does; when he signed to allow the experimentation on embryos (also included that embryos made by harvested eggs "must" be used for research or destroyed, none were allowed to become "the living"). I wonder if Hitler's army of doctors used the same "values judgement". Just because something sounds sterile and logical does not make it so.

Have you ever noticed that when leftists start talking about "values", the next words out of their mouths inevitably reveal that they don't actually have any?

 

[Dragon]

Have you ever considered the possibility that your "opinions" (repeated collection of big words), don't even allow many adults to be defined as "personhood"? Seriously, let's take a look: if a person is in a medicated state (that could be for coma, surgery, intense pain, etc), if a person is mentally handicapped, if a person has had a brain injury and is in the recuperation stage, any child below the age of four, etc do not "qualify" for personhood.

None of these things is true. None of them in any way follows from what I said. Having an impaired or below-average mental ability does not change the fact that thoughts, feelings, and personality all exist. And no one who has children can take seriously the idea that children below the age of four do not have personality, feelings, or thoughts.

That at least, however nonsensical, was an actual claim or argument. The remainder of your post was not, and so I have snipped it as unworthy of a response.

 

[Cecilie1200]

[snip empty rhetoric and pointless personal insult devoid of any cognitive content]

I can always tell when I've scored big time, because the person I'm debating uses multiple words to disguise the fact that he has nothing left to say. Strip out the empty rhetoric, personal insults, and ad-homs, and there is literally nothing left: no points raised, no arguments offered, no evidence presented, nothing.

That's also how I can tell I'm dealing with a child.

Have you ever considered the possibility that your "opinions" (repeated collection of big words), don't even allow many adults to be defined as "personhood"? Seriously, let's take a look: if a person is in a medicated state (that could be for coma, surgery, intense pain, etc), if a person is mentally handicapped, if a person has had a brain injury and is in the recuperation stage, any child below the age of four, etc do not "qualify" for personhood. When someone goes "silly", why bother to confront their views? They know that they are wrong, they are just trying to sound important (when everyone around them is politely smiling, hoping they will be quiet soon, so the conversation can get back to reality).

But thank you, you gave me another group to add to my list: greenies: the people that care more about a tree or a lizard than human life.

Insofar as they ever consider anything they say, of course he's considered that. You didn't really think the unborn were the ONLY group of disposable human beings the left wants to create, did you? They're just the tip of the iceberg, the foot in the door toward allowing them to declare anyone inconvenient "not a person" and therefore not deserving of any legal protection.