Another discussion about abortion

[Woodznutz]

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

"That which already is" depends on an actual birth doesn't it?

 

[BackAgain]

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

Perhaps it involves exactly how one beat and most accurately defines “autonomy.”

If you insist on rejecting the hyperbaric chamber or life support, let’s try a different test:

Let’s make use of how “autonomous” a person in a coma is. And let’s ratchet it up a tad. Let’s say that doctors using the most advanced medical knowledge know conclude that it all but certain that that coma patient will never come out of the coma. Is that patient not a human anymore because he or she isn’t “autonomous?”

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

As you keep missing mine, amigo.

But I will say this. At least you and I can disagree and discuss without tossing out irrelevant insults. (I find it hard to find many a lib here who can do that. And no. I’m not suggesting that you are a lib. I just enjoy this difference, in any discussion.)

 

[BackAgain]

"That which already is" depends on an actual birth doesn't it?

No. And that’s the point.

Why do you (or anybody else) believe that one stage of development yields any meaningful component of personhood?

And why would the stage we call “birth” be that line of demarcation?

 

[BackAgain]

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.

It is in fact an individual. A good clue is that its DNA is unique. Unlike a bodily organ of its mother, its DNA is its own. Hard to be more individual than that.

 

[Chuz Life]

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

Post #14 does not "explain" anything.

It only says what your conclusion is.

 

[Chuz Life]

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

You use the word "I" quite a bit (even in post #14) for someone who doesn't want to be asked directly about their other views, explanations, etc.

 

[Eman623]

"That which already is" depends on an actual birth doesn't it?

In my opinion no. I think a late term fetus qualifies as a person.

Scott Petersen was convicted of double homicide for murdering his 8 month pregnant wife and unborn son.

 

[BackAgain]

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

Nope. You don’t completely understand the biological processes. But I do concede that its DNA (in most cases) decides the issue on the basis of the X and Y chromosomes.

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

Opinion. And your opinion is based on … more opinions.

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.

The reason you won’t acknowledge the problem with your opinion is precisely because a person’s developmental stages come at differing times. And for you to admit that your “opinion” about personhood’s beginning coming somewhere else along that road necessarily means that you are unable to support your opinion.

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.

So the f a person is not a person until the arbitrary selected event of the 18th birthday, then killing a 13 or a 17 year old could not be considered “homicide.”

Interesting. Ridiculous. But interesting.

 

[Eman623]

You use the word "I" quite a bit (even in post #14) for someone who doesn't want to be asked directly about their other views, explanations, etc.

I'm happy to explain my positions on this matter. I will not let you cast me in your inane hypotheticals.

 

[Chuz Life]

It is in fact an individual. A good clue is that its DNA is unique. Unlike a bodily organ of its mother, its DNA is its own. Hard to be more individual than that.

The fact that they (abortion proponents) refer to a "zygote, embryo, fetus" as such. They know it's a separate being. Saying the fetus or even "a zygote" is much different than saying "her foot." For example.

They know it's a separate life.

 

[Chuz Life]

I'm happy to explain my positions on this matter. I will not let you cast me in your inane hypotheticals.

Still trying to get you to do that.

 

[Eman623]

Post #14 does not "explain" anything.

It only says what your conclusion is.

It explains what I think and why.

 

[Eman623]

Still trying to get you to do that.

Asking the same question will not get you a different answer.

Unless you have any new questions, I think we're at a convenient stopping point.

 

[Eman623]

Opinion. And your opinion is based on … more opinions.

Everyone's definition of personhood is an opinion. Some say it begins at birth. Others say at conception. I say it's somewhere in the middle.

The reason you won’t acknowledge the problem with your opinion is precisely because a person’s developmental stages come at differing times. And for you to admit that your “opinion” about personhood’s beginning coming somewhere else along that road necessarily means that you are unable to support your opinion.

The reason I don't acknowledge a problem is I don't think there is one. And OF COURSE the development of a new baby is a process with many stages. The fact that I'm not going to point to some arbitrary point doesn't mean my opinion is any less valid that anyone else's. I know it's not a person at the early stage but is a person at a later stage. That's all. That's enough.

So the f a person is not a person until the arbitrary selected event of the 18th birthday, then killing a 13 or a 17 year old could not be considered “homicide.”

Interesting. Ridiculous. But interesting.

The law allows charging someone with murder for killing a late term fetus.

 

[Chuz Life]

Everyone's definition of personhood is an opinion. Some say it begins at birth. Others say at conception. I say it's somewhere in the middle.


The reason I don't acknowledge a problem is I don't think there is one. And OF COURSE the development of a new baby is a process with many stages. The fact that I'm not going to point to some arbitrary point doesn't mean my opinion is any less valid that anyone else's. I know it's not a person at the early stage but is a person at a later stage. That's all. That's enough.


The law allows charging someone with murder for killing a late term fetus.

We can all see that it is your OPINION that personhood begins with consciousness.

What we can't see and what is lacking is your explanation for what you are basing that opinion on.

 

[Chuz Life]

Everyone's definition of personhood is an opinion. Some say it begins at birth. Others say at conception. I say it's somewhere in the middle.

What's wrong with using the current legal definition and applying it consistently?

Or, if you don't agree with the legal definition, provide a better one and explain why it should be the legal definition and not the one currently used.

 

[Eman623]

We can all see that it is your OPINION that personhood begins with consciousness.

What we can't see and what is lacking is your explanation for what you are basing that opinion on.

We? Are you a hive mind now, or do you feel you can speak for anyone else?

 

[Eman623]

What's wrong with using the current legal definition and applying it consistently?

Or, if you don't agree with the legal definition, provide a better one and explain why it should be the legal definition and not the one currently used.

I believe that there doesn't need to be a single legal definition. Because abortion is a state thing now.

 

[Chuz Life]

We? Are you a hive mind now, or do you feel you can speak for anyone else?

You're right.

I am the only one on the planet that would appreciate some answers and explanations to the question I asked.

 

[BackAgain]

Everyone's definition of personhood is an opinion. Some say it begins at birth. Others say at conception. I say it's somewhere in the middle.

But if My opinion is correct, then we are absolutely slaughtering millions of utterly helpless and innocent human beings.

The reason I don't acknowledge a problem is I don't think there is one. And OF COURSE the development of a new baby is a process with many stages. The fact that I'm not going to point to some arbitrary point doesn't mean my opinion is any less valid that anyone else's. I know it's not a person at the early stage but is a person at a later stage. That's all. That's enough.

An acknowledged problem is still a problem.

It’s a person and can be nothing other than a human being once its life begins.

The law allows charging someone with murder for killing a late term fetus.

“The” law? Some laws do. Others don’t. Why? Because “murder” involves the intentional and wrongful taking of the life of a person. So, laws vary depending on whether the State wishes to avoid any confrontation with abortion “rights” [sic] advocates.