Another discussion about abortion

[toobfreak]

I don’t believe “autonomy” is a requirement of personhood. I’m not autonomous if I’m forever stuck in an iron lung. But I’d still be a person.

True, but even in an iron lung, you are autonomous. No one is in there with you, and you are able to be treated as a stand-alone entity. A fetus cannot. So, looking at the strict intent of the meaning of a person, I cannot agree that a fetus is a "person," though they are alive, are human, and technically also an individual. A fetus' life is wholly connected to the life of the mother and cannot live on its own. BTW, don't trust internet dictionaries, they suck.

And to the extent that a “person” is defined as “a human being regarded as an individual,”… it follows that, from conception onward, the being with its own unique dna is a “person.”

I am not so sure. I can agree that the fetus is an individual as they are a localized, self-contained living entity, but a person, even a baby or an adult in an iron lung, is autonomous. A fetus is not and has no will yet, no ability to go by itself and be treated except by being taken by the mother. But I don't see it worthwhile to argue semantics.

The important point here is that the fetus is a human being in an early stage of development with rights, and should not be regarded as just a lump of tissue to be murdered, cut up into parts and sold for profit--- doing so in effect reduces the fetus to that of a slave, and we all know how much the left abhors slavery.

And before any leftard here argues that development implies not being human yet, I must point out that we are all "developing" all our lives. We don't ever really stop developing until we are dead--- what really changes over one's life is the /rate/ of developmental change.

 

[Chuz Life]

Well now you are really pulling at threads.

Thank you.

At times, your posts do the same for me.

I'm not sure what a natural person is, as that implies the existence of an "unnatural" person.

That's a fair observation.

In fact, when we look at the definitions for what a natural person is, it usually includes language for why it is a legal distinction that is being made, in order to distinguish a "natural person" (human being) from a "legal person" like corporations and such.

I assume you are speaking from an allodial POV. The sticky widget is that we base age on birth. Your age is counted from the time of your birth, not conception.

Do you recognize the biological fact that our biological aging begins even before parturition, though?

‘World’s oldest baby’ born in Ohio from embryo frozen over 30 years ago:​

reporthttps://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/world-s-oldest-baby-born-in-ohio-from-embryo-frozen-over-30-years-ago-report/ar-AA1JLkj7?ocid=socialshare​

I'm not sure the ramifications of clocking age from conception, that would mean you are nearly a year old already when born, so that obviates any arguments for age discrimination.

So, please clarify.

Do you agree or disagree that actual (biological) aging begins prior to parturition?

If age were counted from time of conception (which can often only be estimated to approximate dates), that might open the door for arguing that abortion is a form of age discrimination.

Though it's not the biggest point to be made, it is a supportive point (fact to be considered.) Isn't it?

In a sense, what the Left are really arguing is that the unborn fetus is simply /too young/ to have any human rights yet. But since the courts routinely prosecute the murder of a fetus (like shooting the mother with a gun), this becomes really complicated.

Oh, I understand their denials and their want for double standards completely. I just think they are weak and will eventually be defeated by a more sound arguments.

So basically, I will stick by my guns that the fetus is alive, is a human, therefore entitled to most every right any ordinary person walking around has.
And that makes abortion a murder.

I could show you photos of actual aborted fetuses to support my murder argument, but they are probably too gruesome and might either shock and disturb some people here or be deemed too graphic for display by the mods.

But believe me, no mother arguing her "rights" would ever volunteer to undergo an abortion herself.

I don't challenge any of that!

Great exchange!

 

[BackAgain]

True, but even in an iron lung, you are autonomous. No one is in there with you, and you are able to be treated as a stand-alone entity. A fetus cannot. So, looking at the strict intent of the meaning of a person, I cannot agree that a fetus is a "person," though they are alive, are human, and technically also an individual. A fetus' life is wholly connected to the life of the mother and cannot live on its own. BTW, don't trust internet dictionaries, they suck.


I am not so sure. I can agree that the fetus is an individual as they are a localized, self-contained living entity, but a person, even a baby or an adult in an iron lung, is autonomous. A fetus is not and has no will yet, no ability to go by itself and be treated except by being taken by the mother. But I don't see it worthwhile to argue semantics.

The important point here is that the fetus is a human being in an early stage of development with rights, and should not be regarded as just a lump of tissue to be murdered, cut up into parts and sold for profit--- doing so in effect reduces the fetus to that of a slave, and we all know how much the left abhors slavery.

And before any leftard here argues that development implies not being human yet, I must point out that we are all "developing" all our lives. We don't ever really stop developing until we are dead--- what really changes over one's life is the /rate/ of developmental change.

Without the mother a fetus can’t survive.

Without the iron lung, sick people couldn’t survive in days that not far gone. Like being placed on life support today. Take the person off life support, and he or she also can’t survive for long.

Autonomous is actually more akin to unique and individual.

 

[Chuz Life]

Without the mother a fetus can’t survive.

Without the iron lung, sick people couldn’t survive in days that not far gone. Like being placed on life support today. Take the person off life support, and he or she also can’t survive for long.

Autonomous is actually more akin to unique and individual.

Indeed, maybe it needs a thread of its own, but I wonder how many here would probably deny the fact that a child afflicted with "anencephalia" is still legally recognized (and should be recognized) as a "natural person."

Their personhood is not contingent on the wants or conveniences of others.

 

[toobfreak]

Without the iron lung, sick people couldn’t survive in days that not far gone. Like being placed on life support today. Take the person off life support, and he or she also can’t survive for long. Autonomous is actually more akin to unique and individual.

Still hung on the semantics. Get off the iron lung, it plays no part in autonomy. Before the person was ever placed in an iron lung, he lived an individualized life, drove to the hospital and was placed in the iron lung. And probably at some point, will be taken back off of it. So, the iron lung is simply an extraneous, temporary condition separate from autonomy. The fetus is not autonomous, it has no ability to exercise free will. Even an infant has free will, such as choosing to cry or to refuse to eat his baby food, therefore can be said to be a person(ality).


And that is all I'm going to say on that, people are free to understand my meaning or not, agree or not.

 

[BackAgain]

Still hung on the semantics. Get off the iron lung, it plays no part in autonomy. Before the person was ever placed in an iron lung, he lived an individualized life, drove to the hospital and was placed in the iron lung. And probably at some point, will be taken back off of it. So, the iron lung is simply an extraneous, temporary condition separate from autonomy. The fetus is not autonomous, it has no ability to exercise free will. Even an infant has free will, such as choosing to cry or to refuse to eat his baby food, therefore can be said to be a person(ality).


And that is all I'm going to say on that, people are free to understand my meaning or not, agree or not.

No. Autonomous has a meaning. If I’m stuck on life support or encased in an iron mung, I’m far from autonomous. Indeed, my life becomes almost entirely dependent upon the machinery.

And yes. The sad medical reliance on such a machine certainly does play a part in autonomy.

 

[toobfreak]

No. Autonomous has a meaning. If I’m stuck on life support or encased in an iron mung, I’m far from autonomous.

Semantics. Even a person in an iron lung is autonomous in the context of my meaning. At some point, they might be moved out of the hospital to another facility or even home even if they are still in the iron lung.

A person in an iron lung is not born in the lung and might not even die in one. It is just a treatment. You are conflating autonomy with mobility, which is clearly not my meaning.

 

[Chuz Life]

Semantics. Even a person in an iron lung is autonomous in the context of my meaning. At some point, they might be moved out of the hospital to another facility or even home even if they are still in the iron lung.

A person in an iron lung is not born in the lung and might not even die in one. It is just a treatment. You are conflating autonomy with mobility, which is clearly not my meaning.

Would like to get your thoughts on this related discussion.

Zone1 Thread 'A child afflicted with anencephalia, with no ability to think, breathe on their own, feel pain, to ever become self-aware, etc. is a "person."'

Aug 8, 2025

A child afflicted with anencephalia, with no ability to think, no ability to breathe on their own, no ability to feel pain, no ability to ever become self-aware, etc. is a never-the-less a "person."

• Chuz Life
• Replies: 160
• Forum: Clean Debate Zone

 

[BackAgain]

Semantics. Even a person in an iron lung is autonomous in the context of my meaning. At some point, they might be moved out of the hospital to another facility or even home even if they are still in the iron lung.

A person in an iron lung is not born in the lung and might not even die in one. It is just a treatment. You are conflating autonomy with mobility, which is clearly not my meaning.

No. Not semantics.

It’s merely one of many examples of people who lack autonomy who are nevertheless still persons.

The problem isn’t semantics. It’s that your definition of “person” includes an element that clearly gets disproved rather quickly.

 

[toobfreak]

It’s merely one of many examples of people who lack autonomy who are nevertheless still persons.

They don't lack autonomy. They are just being treated in a hyperbaric chamber.

The problem isn’t semantics. It’s that your definition of “person” includes an element that clearly gets disproved rather quickly.

Nope, I don't think so. You keep entirely missing my point.

 

[Eman623]

If only you would explain in depth how a "person" can be conceived but is not a "person" in any way, shape, or form, "when their "conception" took place.

Be pissed if you want to.

Like I said, I already know the answer to the question.

Edit to add, "if the answer to the above question does not also answer the question of what it is that makes one's biological father (and mother for that matter) their biological parents from the moment of their (the young's) conception, then please go on to answer that one too.

I said an "organism" is conceived, not a "person". Do pay attention and see my earlier comment about how people conflate terms that are not the same thing.

I lack your moral clarity and thus my definition of "person" is more nuanced than yours. Sorry if that pisses you off.

 

[Eman623]

Actually, whether it’s a he or a she comes later.

And your reference to a blastula wasn’t a point you “made.” It was one you merely attempted to make.

Personhood is co-extensive with conception. It’s merely the first stage of development.

Hey, sometimes wisdom teeth come in earlier and sometimes they come in later. Either way it’s a stage of life and not the demarcation-line of “personhood.”

Actually whether it's an "he" or "she" is baked in at the moment of conception.

Personhood is not the same thing as conception. Personhood comes later. IMO.

I won't draw a line in the sand when personhood attaches for the same reason you won't demark when wisdom teeth come in. It is a continuum. This is a philosophical and ethical question, not a legal one. Legally speaking, we will need to draw a line in the sand somewhere, the same way we do when we say 18 is the age of majority. It is admittedly an arbitrary line. But we have to draw the line somewhere so 18 seems as good a place as any according to the will of the majority.

 

[Chuz Life]

I said an "organism" is conceived, not a "person". Do pay attention and see my earlier comment about how people conflate terms that are not the same thing.

I lack your moral clarity and thus my definition of "person" is more nuanced than yours. Sorry if that pisses you off.

Help me understand.

Are you not the same human organism now that you were when your biological parents conceived you?

 

[Chuz Life]

Actually whether it's an "he" or "she" is baked in at the moment of conception.

Personhood is not the same thing as conception. Personhood comes later. IMO.

I won't draw a line in the sand when personhood attaches for the same reason you won't demark when wisdom teeth come in. It is a continuum. This is a philosophical and ethical question, not a legal one. Legally speaking, we will need to draw a line in the sand somewhere, the same way we do when we say 18 is the age of majority. It is admittedly an arbitrary line. But we have to draw the line somewhere so 18 seems as good a place as any according to the will of the majority.

Please explain why the personhood of any human being should not begin when their life as a human being (organism) begins. When their body begins, when they were conceived, when their life as a human being/ organism begins.

 

[toobfreak]

I said an "organism" is conceived, not a "person".

Actually, an "organism" is an individual living entity, and when originally conceived, the fetus is merely a grouping of zygotal cells attached to the uteral lining of the womb--- anything but individual.

 

[Eman623]

Please explain why the personhood of any human being should not begin when their life as a human being (organism) begins. When their body begins, when they were conceived, when their life as a human being/ organism begins.

I've answered that question multiple times in the thread. See post 14 for example.

Asking the same question will not get you a different answer

 

[Eman623]

Help me understand.

Are you not the same human organism now that you were when your biological parents conceived you?

Just can't stop making this about me, can you?

 

[Eman623]

Actually, an "organism" is an individual living entity, and when originally conceived, the fetus is merely a grouping of zygotal cells attached to the uteral lining of the womb--- anything but individual.

I think a fetus, and especially late term one, is much more than a mere grouping of cells.

 

[Woodznutz]

Doesn't a "person" have to have their name on a "birth certificate" to be considered a legal "person".

 

[Eman623]

Doesn't a "person" have to have their name on a "birth certificate" to be considered a legal "person".

I don't think a piece of paper confers personhood. It just documents that which already is.

If someone who was born outside of a hospital and never got a birth certificate is murdered, would that be a crime?