The Personhood of the unborn needs to be settled

[Cecilie1200]

In this day and age, there is no reason for unwanted children. There is enough hell in this world. Birth control is better -- an ounce of prevention, as they say. But try being practical for once. Why would you force someone who is not willing or able to rear a child to have one and take on the life long commitment they already said they will not cannot do? What is wrong with that? Pushing adoption as a solution is not practical either--our adoption system is already full of kids who need parents.

Our abortion rate has been dropping steadily since 1980 and is now as low as when abortion was first made legal in 1973. That is good news and whatever we're doing right needs to continue, but banning abortion and making illegal again is not the answer. Better birth control and availability of family planning and public acceptance of careful contraception is the answer. Planned Parenthood is essential to this. Leave them alone.

They want to outlaw birth control to.

This isn’t about reproduction. It’s about being able to impose their religious dogma on others by force.

Do you know how many millions have died in civil wars behind others trying to impose their religious dogma on others?

We want to outlaw birth control? Prove it.

This ISN'T about reproduction. This is about abortion. The whole point of abortion is that the reproduction has ALREADY HAPPENED.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Assuming that's a normal human embryo, yes.

A person without organs, let alone any sort of high level nervous system? Seriously?

Did I miss the point where "person" was defined by the presence of specific organs?

Yes, a human being at that stage of life looks exactly like that. ALL humans at that stage of life look like that, and they always have. You might just as well tell me that an infant isn't a person because he doesn't have teeth, and humans have teeth. You're trying to define "person" by stage of development.

Doesn't look like a person to me.

Looks to me like a bunch of cells with ZERO capacity for relatable experience of the world that we associate with personhood. It has no capacity for tactile response, pain, desire - NOTHING.

First of all, it is irrelevant because by the time most abortions occur, you have a beating heart, a face, brainwaves, a little body, even little arms and legs.

It is 100% relavant, because we can't even agree that an embryo without everything you just listed is not a person.

First things first.

I don't know about Buttercup, but I'm not planning to define reality based on what you or anyone else will agree with, especially since I know you dedicated pro-aborts will disagree until the end of time, based on nothing more than your personal desires.

SCIENCE agrees about what an embryo is. Pick up any embryology textbook from any medical school if you don't believe me. Reality doesn't need your approval.

 

[buttercup]

In this day and age, there is no reason for unwanted children. There is enough hell in this world. Birth control is better -- an ounce of prevention, as they say. But try being practical for once. Why would you force someone who is not willing or able to rear a child to have one and take on the life long commitment they already said they will not cannot do? What is wrong with that? Pushing adoption as a solution is not practical either--our adoption system is already full of kids who need parents.

Our abortion rate has been dropping steadily since 1980 and is now as low as when abortion was first made legal in 1973. That is good news and whatever we're doing right needs to continue, but banning abortion and making illegal again is not the answer. Better birth control and availability of family planning and public acceptance of careful contraception is the answer. Planned Parenthood is essential to this. Leave them alone.

There is no such thing as an unwanted child. Didn’t read the rest of your post, because that first statement was wrong.

Explain that.

I meant exactly what I said. Just because a mother doesn't want her own baby doesn't mean that the baby is unwanted – it's only unwanted by her. There is ALWAYS someone who wants to adopt a baby or child. There are even people who specifically want to take in special needs children, or children who (for whatever reason) are not as 'in demand.'

In addition to that, even if every human in the entire world died, except for one baby, that baby would STILL be wanted / loved. I think you know what I mean, but I'm not going to get into that, because in abortion debates, it is completely unnecessary to go there, and since many proaborts are nonbelievers, I wouldn't expect them to accept or agree with that.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Assuming that's a normal human embryo, yes.

A person without organs, let alone any sort of high level nervous system? Seriously?

Did I miss the point where "person" was defined by the presence of specific organs?

Yes, a human being at that stage of life looks exactly like that. ALL humans at that stage of life look like that, and they always have. You might just as well tell me that an infant isn't a person because he doesn't have teeth, and humans have teeth. You're trying to define "person" by stage of development.

Doesn't look like a person to me.

Looks to me like a bunch of cells with ZERO capacity for relatable experience of the world that we associate with personhood. It has no capacity for even low level tactile response or pain NOTHING.

I see no reason here to over-ride wants of an ACTUAL person who has this embryo inside her body and does not want a child.

Again, you are trying to define "person" by stage of development, and by appearance as judged by an uneducated lay person. At no point in time has life or humanity been defined by any of those factors.

I don't care how educated or not educated you are - thats just a bunch of cells with no capacity for human experience we can relate to.

You will never get people on board with interfering with people's choices to not have a child over this.

I just heard, "I'm gonna believe dumb stuff because it suits me, **** that science shit."

Does it occur to you at all that reality doesn't change just because you shout your wishes at it? That every so-called argument you've given me is based on your personal ignorance and your feelings? That your lack of knowledge and emotional reactions have no bearing on facts?

I hate to break it to you, but the increase in knowledge in the fields of obstetrics and embryology, and the increased dissemination of that knowledge, HAS "gotten people on board". Not everyone thinks they can remake the universe by wishing really hard. That'd just be you.

 

[AntonToo]

A person without organs, let alone any sort of high level nervous system? Seriously?

Did I miss the point where "person" was defined by the presence of specific organs?

Yes, a human being at that stage of life looks exactly like that. ALL humans at that stage of life look like that, and they always have. You might just as well tell me that an infant isn't a person because he doesn't have teeth, and humans have teeth. You're trying to define "person" by stage of development.

Doesn't look like a person to me.

Looks to me like a bunch of cells with ZERO capacity for relatable experience of the world that we associate with personhood. It has no capacity for tactile response, pain, desire - NOTHING.

First of all, it is irrelevant because by the time most abortions occur, you have a beating heart, a face, brainwaves, a little body, even little arms and legs.

It is 100% relavant, because we can't even agree that an embryo without everything you just listed is not a person.

First things first.

I don't know about Buttercup, but I'm not planning to define reality based on what you or anyone else will agree with, especially since I know you dedicated pro-aborts will disagree until the end of time, based on nothing more than your personal desires.

SCIENCE agrees about what an embryo is. Pick up any embryology textbook from any medical school if you don't believe me. Reality doesn't need your approval.

Again, your science statements are just straight stupid - no one disagrees that it is in fact an embryo.

Disagreement is over this embryo being viewed as A PERSON, with personal rights that would over-ride the rights of the person carrying it.

 

[playtime]

^^^ NOT A PERSON ^^^

 

[playtime]

 

[Cecilie1200]

Did I miss the point where "person" was defined by the presence of specific organs?

Yes, a human being at that stage of life looks exactly like that. ALL humans at that stage of life look like that, and they always have. You might just as well tell me that an infant isn't a person because he doesn't have teeth, and humans have teeth. You're trying to define "person" by stage of development.

Doesn't look like a person to me.

Looks to me like a bunch of cells with ZERO capacity for relatable experience of the world that we associate with personhood. It has no capacity for tactile response, pain, desire - NOTHING.

First of all, it is irrelevant because by the time most abortions occur, you have a beating heart, a face, brainwaves, a little body, even little arms and legs.

It is 100% relavant, because we can't even agree that an embryo without everything you just listed is not a person.

First things first.

I don't know about Buttercup, but I'm not planning to define reality based on what you or anyone else will agree with, especially since I know you dedicated pro-aborts will disagree until the end of time, based on nothing more than your personal desires.

SCIENCE agrees about what an embryo is. Pick up any embryology textbook from any medical school if you don't believe me. Reality doesn't need your approval.

Again, your science statements are just straight stupid - no one disagrees that it in fact an embryo. Disagreement is over this embryo being or not being A PERSON.

Again, you're defining things on the basis of your own extremely-limited knowledge and understanding. I never said, "Science agrees that that is an embryo", Mensa Boy. Reading comprehension is your friend.

An embryo is a living organism at the earliest development stage of life. Science knows this. You don't. Science isn't wrong just because you haven't caught on yet.

Disagreement is over modern-day illiterate peasants - you and your ilk - insisting someone who looks different from you must not be human. You're the 21st century version of medieval people who thought skin blemishes and deformities were a sign that someone was a demon, and 17th century people who thought being black made someone a subhuman animal.

 

[AntonToo]

Doesn't look like a person to me.

Looks to me like a bunch of cells with ZERO capacity for relatable experience of the world that we associate with personhood. It has no capacity for tactile response, pain, desire - NOTHING.

First of all, it is irrelevant because by the time most abortions occur, you have a beating heart, a face, brainwaves, a little body, even little arms and legs.

It is 100% relavant, because we can't even agree that an embryo without everything you just listed is not a person.

First things first.

I don't know about Buttercup, but I'm not planning to define reality based on what you or anyone else will agree with, especially since I know you dedicated pro-aborts will disagree until the end of time, based on nothing more than your personal desires.

SCIENCE agrees about what an embryo is. Pick up any embryology textbook from any medical school if you don't believe me. Reality doesn't need your approval.

Again, your science statements are just straight stupid - no one disagrees that it in fact an embryo. Disagreement is over this embryo being or not being A PERSON.

Again, you're defining things on the basis of your own extremely-limited knowledge and understanding. I never said, "Science agrees that that is an embryo", Mensa Boy. Reading comprehension is your friend.

An embryo is a living organism at the earliest development stage of life. Science knows this. You don't. Science isn't wrong just because you haven't caught on yet.

Disagreement is over modern-day illiterate peasants - you and your ilk - insisting someone who looks different from you must not be human. You're the 21st century version of medieval people who thought skin blemishes and deformities were a sign that someone was a demon, and 17th century people who thought being black made someone a subhuman animal.

ummm, no. I agree that human embryo is a living organism, I don't agree that it is a person.

It's tough conversing with a total idiot that doesn't understand plain english.

 

[buttercup]

Did I miss the point where "person" was defined by the presence of specific organs?

Yes, a human being at that stage of life looks exactly like that. ALL humans at that stage of life look like that, and they always have. You might just as well tell me that an infant isn't a person because he doesn't have teeth, and humans have teeth. You're trying to define "person" by stage of development.

Doesn't look like a person to me.

Looks to me like a bunch of cells with ZERO capacity for relatable experience of the world that we associate with personhood. It has no capacity for tactile response, pain, desire - NOTHING.

First of all, it is irrelevant because by the time most abortions occur, you have a beating heart, a face, brainwaves, a little body, even little arms and legs.

It is 100% relavant, because we can't even agree that an embryo without everything you just listed is not a person.

First things first.

I don't know about Buttercup, but I'm not planning to define reality based on what you or anyone else will agree with, especially since I know you dedicated pro-aborts will disagree until the end of time, based on nothing more than your personal desires.

SCIENCE agrees about what an embryo is. Pick up any embryology textbook from any medical school if you don't believe me. Reality doesn't need your approval.

Again, your science statements are just straight stupid - no one disagrees that it in fact an embryo. Disagreement is over this embryo being or not being A PERSON.

A person is simply a human being. And it is an undeniable scientific fact that the zygote/embryo/fetus is a human being.

Here's an excerpt from an article on this topic.

No "moral in-betweeners"

Anyone who denies that conception is Day One for personhood has the burden of pinpointing when Day One is. And they must show why it is this day rather than one day earlier, or one day later. Our need for exactness on when personhood begins is inescapable, for we must not step on either a woman's or a child's rights. We need a sharp dividing line. There is no moral class between "person" and "non-person."

Abortion-choice theory, absent proof, sits on the horns of an impossible dilemma. Drawing a line even one day before personhood begins unjustly limits a woman's choice to destroy her property. To draw a line even one day after personhood begins is to permit unjust homicide.

Personhood is an either-or, an all-or-nothing, proposition because the right to be free from aggression is an either-or, an all-or-nothing. The right not to be killed cannot be put on a degree scale, because one cannot be "a little bit alive," or a "little bit dead." Killed or not killed is an either-or, an all-or-nothing. You are either dead or alive. You exist or you don't.

Thus, a so-called potential, partial, or lesser right to life—a right that can be set aside—is, in effect, no right at all. Persons have the right to life. If a being may be killed at whim, this being is not a potential person: this being is a non-person.

"Person" or "non-person" are constants. A person can have a better, or a poorer personality than other persons, but no human being has more, or less, personhood than any other. Just as the law has no power to give or withhold unalienable rights, it cannot give or withhold personhood. To be an actual person, human beings need do nothing but be alive.

When one human being can dictate whether another human being is a person, we should worry about our own prospects. I wouldn't want my personhood to be conditional under the law, subject to the arbitrary opinions of others. Would you? Yet, two tiers of humanity is precisely what abortion choicers support.

The answer to who decides when personhood begins is: Personhood is inseparable from the right to be free from aggression and both are inseparable from our life. We don't become persons; we simply are actual persons from Day One.

Source: Libertarians for Life​

 

[playtime]

Doesn't look like a person to me.

Looks to me like a bunch of cells with ZERO capacity for relatable experience of the world that we associate with personhood. It has no capacity for tactile response, pain, desire - NOTHING.

First of all, it is irrelevant because by the time most abortions occur, you have a beating heart, a face, brainwaves, a little body, even little arms and legs.

It is 100% relavant, because we can't even agree that an embryo without everything you just listed is not a person.

First things first.

I don't know about Buttercup, but I'm not planning to define reality based on what you or anyone else will agree with, especially since I know you dedicated pro-aborts will disagree until the end of time, based on nothing more than your personal desires.

SCIENCE agrees about what an embryo is. Pick up any embryology textbook from any medical school if you don't believe me. Reality doesn't need your approval.

Again, your science statements are just straight stupid - no one disagrees that it in fact an embryo. Disagreement is over this embryo being or not being A PERSON.

A person is simply a human being. And it is an undeniable scientific fact that the zygote/embryo/fetus is a human being.

it is human 'life' but a post born PERSON is a human being.

 

[buttercup]

First of all, it is irrelevant because by the time most abortions occur, you have a beating heart, a face, brainwaves, a little body, even little arms and legs.

It is 100% relavant, because we can't even agree that an embryo without everything you just listed is not a person.

First things first.

I don't know about Buttercup, but I'm not planning to define reality based on what you or anyone else will agree with, especially since I know you dedicated pro-aborts will disagree until the end of time, based on nothing more than your personal desires.

SCIENCE agrees about what an embryo is. Pick up any embryology textbook from any medical school if you don't believe me. Reality doesn't need your approval.

Again, your science statements are just straight stupid - no one disagrees that it in fact an embryo. Disagreement is over this embryo being or not being A PERSON.

A person is simply a human being. And it is an undeniable scientific fact that the zygote/embryo/fetus is a human being.

it is human 'life' but a post born PERSON is a human being.

 

[otto105]

With the recent ruling in Alabama regarding abortion, and the eventual path towards SCOTUS to settle the issue, the obvious thing to do is to define what exactly the unborn is, something Roe vs. Wade shied away from doing. After all, the reason blacks were mistreated under the Constitution was because they were not identified as equals, they were 3/5 a human being.

There are but two possibilities from my vantage point.

1. They are a parasite, defined as an organism living in, with, or on another organism in parasitism

2. Or they are a human being.

Which camp do you fall in?

A zygote is not a person.

 

[Cecilie1200]

First of all, it is irrelevant because by the time most abortions occur, you have a beating heart, a face, brainwaves, a little body, even little arms and legs.

It is 100% relavant, because we can't even agree that an embryo without everything you just listed is not a person.

First things first.

I don't know about Buttercup, but I'm not planning to define reality based on what you or anyone else will agree with, especially since I know you dedicated pro-aborts will disagree until the end of time, based on nothing more than your personal desires.

SCIENCE agrees about what an embryo is. Pick up any embryology textbook from any medical school if you don't believe me. Reality doesn't need your approval.

Again, your science statements are just straight stupid - no one disagrees that it in fact an embryo. Disagreement is over this embryo being or not being A PERSON.

Again, you're defining things on the basis of your own extremely-limited knowledge and understanding. I never said, "Science agrees that that is an embryo", Mensa Boy. Reading comprehension is your friend.

An embryo is a living organism at the earliest development stage of life. Science knows this. You don't. Science isn't wrong just because you haven't caught on yet.

Disagreement is over modern-day illiterate peasants - you and your ilk - insisting someone who looks different from you must not be human. You're the 21st century version of medieval people who thought skin blemishes and deformities were a sign that someone was a demon, and 17th century people who thought being black made someone a subhuman animal.

ummm, no. I agree that human embryo is a living organism, I don't agree that it is a person.

It's tough conversing with a total idiot that doesn't understand plain english.

Oh, good, so now we're going to go with "Science doesn't agree with me, so I'm going to make up fuzzy emotional concepts instead."

See above, re: illiterate peasant who thinks appearance defines humanity.

You're right that it's tough conversing with a total idiot, but I will nevertheless persevere in trying to educate you, anyway.

For the record, I have no more idea what half-assed, feelz-driven definition you've invented in your fevered imagination for the word "person" than I have an idea how you became convinced that your opinions mean something to reality. Don't really care.

A human embryo is not just a living organism; he is a living HUMAN BEING. That's what a living organism with human DNA is called, among educated people (should you ever aspire to become one). I get that these technical terms confuse you, but try to concentrate.

I get that your talking point memos on abortion have led you to believe "person" is some amorphous word you can use to convey personal approval, or withhold to indicate disapproval. However, we educated people - and yes, I do recall that you dismissed education as something silly you didn't wish to bother with - have these books we call "dictionaries". They contain the ACTUAL meanings of words, so that people can communicate. And these "dictionary" books tell us this:

Definition of person

1: HUMAN, INDIVIDUAL —sometimes used in combination especially by those who prefer to avoid man in compounds applicable to both sexeschairpersonspokesperson

So however much you love your cat and think he's your bestest buddy, he's not actually a person. No, it doesn't matter how much personality you think he has while he plays with that rubber mouse.

However much you want to cheer for abortion in order to hopefully impress leftist women at kabbalah meetings or whatever, an embryo - which we have already agreed is a living human organism, aka human being - IS a person, by definition.

Thank you, class, and you may leave your dunce cap on the stool in the corner.

 

[OldLady]

In this day and age, there is no reason for unwanted children. There is enough hell in this world. Birth control is better -- an ounce of prevention, as they say. But try being practical for once. Why would you force someone who is not willing or able to rear a child to have one and take on the life long commitment they already said they will not cannot do? What is wrong with that? Pushing adoption as a solution is not practical either--our adoption system is already full of kids who need parents.

Our abortion rate has been dropping steadily since 1980 and is now as low as when abortion was first made legal in 1973. That is good news and whatever we're doing right needs to continue, but banning abortion and making illegal again is not the answer. Better birth control and availability of family planning and public acceptance of careful contraception is the answer. Planned Parenthood is essential to this. Leave them alone.

Why do you insist on thinking that WE are forcing them to do anything? They forced THEMSELVES into that position by engaging in an act designed to produce the result they just said they don't want. I for one neither plan to feel guilty, nor to endorse infanticide, because some dumbass indulged in self-destructive behavior, got the obvious result, and is now whining to me because it's "unfair" that nature didn't reverse its rules for her "specialness".

Not sure I'm interested in your idea of "practical", which looks remarkably like the "practicality" shown by every evil dictator in human history: these people are inconvenient, so the "practical" thing to do is kill them. Pass.

Sex is not "self-destructive behavior." LOL It is one of the fundamental urges hardwired into our brains and people will NOT stop participating in it, no matter how much you scowl at them or wag your finger.

Of course you call it evil; what a shocker.

Poverty breeds all kinds of negative behaviors and poor outcomes that cost our government much more in the long run than a $600 termination of pregnancy. That is known, settled fact. If parents can't afford a child, why you are championing more of that, I am not sure.

 

[Cecilie1200]

With the recent ruling in Alabama regarding abortion, and the eventual path towards SCOTUS to settle the issue, the obvious thing to do is to define what exactly the unborn is, something Roe vs. Wade shied away from doing. After all, the reason blacks were mistreated under the Constitution was because they were not identified as equals, they were 3/5 a human being.

There are but two possibilities from my vantage point.

1. They are a parasite, defined as an organism living in, with, or on another organism in parasitism

2. Or they are a human being.

Which camp do you fall in?

A zygote is not a person.

Well, since you're so certain of this, you should have no trouble explaining the logic and evidence supporting your assertion.

Please proceed.

 

[OldLady]

In this day and age, there is no reason for unwanted children. There is enough hell in this world. Birth control is better -- an ounce of prevention, as they say. But try being practical for once. Why would you force someone who is not willing or able to rear a child to have one and take on the life long commitment they already said they will not cannot do? What is wrong with that? Pushing adoption as a solution is not practical either--our adoption system is already full of kids who need parents.

Our abortion rate has been dropping steadily since 1980 and is now as low as when abortion was first made legal in 1973. That is good news and whatever we're doing right needs to continue, but banning abortion and making illegal again is not the answer. Better birth control and availability of family planning and public acceptance of careful contraception is the answer. Planned Parenthood is essential to this. Leave them alone.

There is no such thing as an unwanted child. Didn’t read the rest of your post, because that first statement was wrong.

Explain that.

I meant exactly what I said. Just because a mother doesn't want her own baby doesn't mean that the baby is unwanted – it's only unwanted by her. There is ALWAYS someone who wants to adopt a baby or child. There are even people who specifically want to take in special needs children, or children who (for whatever reason) are not as 'in demand.'

In addition to that, even if every human in the entire world died, except for one baby, that baby would STILL be wanted / loved. I think you know what I mean, but I'm not going to get into that, because in abortion debates, it is completely unnecessary to go there, and since many proaborts are nonbelievers, I wouldn't expect them to accept or agree with that.

I guess I have looked at adoption from the "glass half empty" perspective because I used to work in Children's Services and the entire system, including adoption, was a wreck. Perhaps it goes much better among private adoption agencies. We had a lot of kids who were never adopted because they had problems of one sort or another. The regulations for being an adoptive parent--even including how big the windows are in the bedrooms--are exhaustive and expensive. I am sure the families you describe are out there, buttercup, but there aren't enough of them to handle the huge number of kids that would be showing up on the adoption agency's steps if abortion in this country were banned.

 

[otto105]

With the recent ruling in Alabama regarding abortion, and the eventual path towards SCOTUS to settle the issue, the obvious thing to do is to define what exactly the unborn is, something Roe vs. Wade shied away from doing. After all, the reason blacks were mistreated under the Constitution was because they were not identified as equals, they were 3/5 a human being.

There are but two possibilities from my vantage point.

1. They are a parasite, defined as an organism living in, with, or on another organism in parasitism

2. Or they are a human being.

Which camp do you fall in?

A zygote is not a person.

Well, since you're so certain of this, you should have no trouble explaining the logic and evidence supporting your assertion.

Please proceed.

 

[OldLady]

Look, I don't want anyone thinking I'm some sort of snob who doesn't like "poor" people. My Dad and his big family grew up poor--but they had a stable loving home and every one of them turned out great. It's not about the size of someone's bank account.

 

[rightwinger]

Look, I don't want anyone thinking I'm some sort of snob who doesn't like "poor" people. My Dad and his big family grew up poor--but they had a stable loving home and every one of them turned out great. It's not about the size of someone's bank account.

But a poor struggling family should be able to decide whether it wants to get larger