You keep saying that, and YET.. I have, and you have not. It is easy for you to claim that my medical journal sources do not have any evidence for my position, just because you CHOOSE to not believe what they have to say, that is, the portions that you bothered to read, at all. And even THOSE you tried to discount, based on the type of mammal used in the studies.
Also, now that I have posted several studies that have backed my claims, and clearly HAVE shown evidence for my stance- all you are going to do as some kind of evil hate spree tactic, is to just discredit them by saying that there was NO evidence within them proving that personhood starts at breathing. How convenient for you to do this.. Putting me on the defensive without lending a shred of credibility to your own subjective opinions. Real Classy.
Your position was that personhood starts with breathing. Where did ANY medical journal you posted broach the subject of personhood at all?
There is not a study in existence that even discusses personhood or when it begins. Nice Try.
Oh Great.. Now you are depleting autonomy down to your own little arbitrary definition by implying that only humans that can make their own decisions are what I call people...
Hey newsflash, dickwad, I am not retarded. Your attempts to try and redirect my assertions into something else are THINLY VEILED AT BEST.
Why don't you stop acting like such a TOOL, here, please???
Main Entry: au·ton·o·my
Pronunciation: \-mē\
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural au·ton·o·mies
Date: circa 1623
1 : the quality or state of being self-governing; especially : the right of self-government
2 : self-directing freedom and especially moral independence
3 : a self-governing state
Exactly my point. Show me ONE fetus that is even AS self governing as the woman it is in, which would prove to ME that it is fully capable of the same actions outside of the womb, as it is during whatever week of gestation it is in, inside of the womb, no more, no less. I have already found a peer reviewed study which negates this notion, because the premature baby shows more activity and response than a fetus which would be at the exact same age of growth and maturity as the baby, if you counted the baby's gestation into the age.
Thus, my position is that fetuses are NEVER people, because, as the study proved, (unintentionally, it seems) a baby born 5 weeks early shows MORE response than a fetus that was conceived on the same DAY.
I agree that this is a subjective opinion in part, but it is totally erroneous to claim that my method of coming to that opinion was through anything but objectivity.
Okay I'll meet you part way. I would agree there is a level subjectivity to my opinion on when personhood begins. I would concede that because I'm not sure there is a scientific explanation as to when personhood begins. I still believe what I believe as to when it occurs.
Thank you..
Also, I might just add in here, your opinion about personhood, is at any given time, between gestational weeks 13 and 40, which you cannot yourself pinpoint, and this is in spite of the fact that a preborn fetus has less response than a baby who is conceived on that exact date has. Just reiterating, so that you can SEE and understand what you believe, and so that you can also understand why I think that you are using emotion rather than logic to come to such a conclusion.
The way I see it you can argue person hood in maybe three contexts. Science first. Science is observation, nothing more. Can you honestly observe when personhood begins? Would a scientist really say that when he saw that first breath he also saw the biological function that is becoming a person? I don't think so. Personhood isn't as simple as taking a breath no matter how much you would like it to be.
That is YOUR opinion, and erroneous for a multitude of reasons, the first being that taking a breath IS the witnessing of a fetus becoming alive, and a person- the very process which people find wonderous and amazing. Hence, the token phrase "the miracle of childbirth". See, nothing about religion exists in the bible, which does not at some point get proven by science. This breathing issue is just one of those things. Maybe I am like Galileo, or Columbus, for believing in the Bible, and allowing it to guide me in the scientific path to find out if one more thing is true.. People used to call them crazy and illogical as well.. but those men are now considered Pioneers of science, and Legends amongst explorers. Popular belief does not make anything true.. Anything that is believed by the masses can easily be proven wrong by science or exploration (which amounts to scientifically accurate observations).
For every law of physics, there is (apparently, according to the scriptures, which, like it or not, were and continue to be the world's first 100% scientifically accurate text) yet another law of physics which is the complete opposite. I am going off track here, but I just read "Angels and Demons" last week, and i gotta tell ya, some of the concepts referring to particle physics were absolutely genius. I checked it out, and the book is not off the mark at all- its amazing! A must read!! I can't stop raving about it! You should pick up a copy. I think you would like it a lot! =)
Legally personhood doesn't occur until the child is born and takes a breath. But the law is the law. It isn't science. From a legal perspective, who has right and who doesn't really is quite arbitrary.
I disagree.. Doctors and nurses often disconnect infants and old people, and invalids, etc, from life support, and they have no authorization to do this, which is entirely illegal. They usually get away with it, though, because the person has little hope of living, and either no family, or a really badly dysfunctional one. I do believe that anyone who is family and signs off, or is a medical professional, etc, and has a judge's order to do so, has the right to remove someone from life support, no matter what kind of life support it is, or what the prognosis looks like. OK- I agree that it can seem to be arbitrary (inconsistent with the right to die, etc) at times, though, but I have seen some cases in which the legal language did not make sense to me before I was a paralegal, and it turns out that it was just an issue of wrong jurisdiction, or the person filing their case in hopes of supporting the wrong argument.. And although some people thought that it was a judgment that was improperly made, I saw the reasoning and rationale behind them, and only wished that the person who filed had better legal representation.
Religion is probably the hardest one because all one has to go on is what other people say god said.
LOL I can relate to that also. It is certainly not a fax from heaven.
I am an agnostic, but I do believe that many of the core values of the bible are excellent ways to live one's life, and I can see that the bible has yet to be disproven, and has
only actually been proven as an accurate scientific reference. Even with arguments for evolution, the bible is consistent with it, because if everything came from water, well- the genesis account of creation shows that water came first. The six days of creation are just "God" days, so who knows how long an actual day was, even. It wasn't until God's (third? Fourth?) day of creation that there could be differentiation between day and night. I think that the Genesis account of creation is not at all literal..
Have you considered that you haven't seen those things in a fetus because you have probably observed a lot more newborns than fetuses? How is it you know that they are concsciously choosing to do those things? You are familiar with the concept of instincts aren't you?
The studies, the peer reviewed ones, show much of what I have already said to be true.
Oh and PS- If you want to use some weird claim that my personal opinions are based also on my personal observations of fetuses and infants, consider these three very excellent points:
1- I had a fetus in my body for over 9 months, for 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. I am sure that I have spent AS MUCH time observing a fetus's reactions and so called instincts (no he did not have instincts, LMAO!!!) if not MORE Time, than a person with a doctorate's degree in obstetrics, who also has spent two years in residency at an obstetrics research facility.
Considering that my
fetus was inside of my body for 24 hours X 7 days X 33 weeks (from
week 8 to week 41), I have 5544 hours of experience. That actually equates to more than two full years for a full time researcher, and that is ONLY if they spent every second of every working hour (2080 a year, full time) observing fetuses, which I seriously doubt actually happens.
and
2- You don't even have this kind of experience, so to claim that personal observation of a fetus is the sole way for either of us to have some opinion on personhood is illogical from the word Go. So, again, nice try.
and
3- It could just as easily be surmised by any layman that a blastocyst (fertilized egg) has "instincts", because it "knows where to go", but this, too, would be erroneous, because there are actually chemicals and hormones that draw it into the uterus, rather than the blastocyst having a mobilization mechanism, much less the ability to have instincts. Since we are not discussing blastocysts, though, it could just as easily be surmised that if a fetus is at a maturity point that you refer to as "viable", and it has "instincts", that it should, then, turn itself upside down, in birthing position, rather than remain breech. In other words, fetuses obviously do not have instincts.. =)
Not all people have the full capacity to make their own decisions, but they are still considered people, and autonomous.
I'm pretty sure it is you now that doesn't understand the term autonomy. Self-governance, that is what autonomy essentially is. The ability to consciously guide your own actions.I'm pretty sure someone in a coma isn't self governing. What I have noticed is that you tend to make words mean what you would like them to mean.
Nope, it is self governance that is autonomy. A person who is, for all intensive purposes, dead, incapable of feeding themselves, or drinking water, etc, and hooked up to machines to simply put off the inevitable "D" word, and has not made up a living will or anything of the sort, then it is pretty silly to consider them alive or having any entitlement to continue being hooked up to those machines. The same applies to fetuses. If the "machine" stops working (the woman's body/ uterus/ etc) then a fetus person (if such a thing exists, which I believe is only in your mind) should make like a tree and LEAVE. As you can see, the fetus is incapable of this,even considering this as an option, and so, it will not do it. Just because technology and/or a biological support system EXISTS does not mean that anyone is entitled to it's being used, do you understand? A person in a coma CAN self govern, at least as far as our laws lend credence. He can have a living will that says "keep me on life support until I wake up or die naturally.. Use the trust fund money to pay for this, if needed.". THAT is self governance. Some people do not DO this. I personally think that if a person is in a coma, and is rescued by life support, then whether they do or do not have a will to testify their wishes, if they cannot pay by their own personal means or their family's means, then they should not be taking up space in a hospital bed for longer than two or three weeks on the taxpayer's dime.. THAT is when a person loses autonomy, when they need to RELY on someone else's biological support system or technical life support resources to remain clinically alive. And don't flip that one on me, too, you fucking semantics whore. I do not mean that nobody should get food stamps, welfare, section 8, or medicaid services, like oxygen tanks, etc. The point was that they could still get those things through other means, they have the capacity of mind to choose whether the path to get those things will be easy or extremely hard, and are totally autonomous in
their decision to use federal funding that we Americans provide out of the kindness of our hearts.
Without that funding, they would surely lose autonomy far more quickly than with, and we do, overall, like using medical advances, as long as we can still laugh and giggle sometimes, as a result. So don't fucking switcharoo my words again, just because you feel like playing "Look at me! I'm a Semantics Whore" again!!! That really irritates the shit out of me.
[/quote]
NOBODY is responsible for keeping ANYONE alive, in a legal sense. There is always a healthy and acceptable alternative.. Any child can be adopted.. any fetus aborted. That is how it is, and even if you disagree, that is still how it will remain.
Ya know another thing that smart objective people udnerstand is that using absolutes like, never, ever, no one, anyone is rarely a good idea. You do have a responsibility to not kill persons, right?[/quote]
Give me ONE example of a person who is bound to keep someone alive....
NOBODY is. Call me a fucking idiot all you want, but this is EMPIRICALLY TRUE. Nobody who is hooked up to wires, or is encased with a biological system, for life support, is entitled to that system. You cannot deny this or anything else I give you clear and long winded examples towards.
Speaking of which, Why have you done NOTHING here but to constantly claim that my shit is untrue, without giving even a single shred of evidence or example for your own? Also, why do you constantly ignore half of what I say, 100% of the time?
Someone said via PM that it seems that I am talking to myself. With all of my heart and soul, I hope that this is not true...
EMTs and paramedics, too
ages 153-165 - Informa Healthcare
