The hypothetical baby in question is gender-less.
You failed biology, right?
The hypothetical baby in question is gender-less.
I agree, if a woman wants to keep her baby but is for whatever reason (finances, peer pressure, etc) unable to do so, programs like you describe would be a wonderful asset. In fact, in my state, these programs are already in place. However, by the same token, if a woman decides that she does not want to keep it, that is her call, not mine (or yours).
It certainly wasn't my focus. At any rate, Rusha and I have already addressed the issue of terminology.You failed biology, right?
No doubt, you have a lot more experience in that arena than I do. It would be awesome if there was a discount/cost free program for women who would like to participate but can't afford it. I don't think financial cost should ever be an obstacle for care.Then you also need to provide funds for counseling for her afterward. Unless you are lucky enough to have an abortion alternative center nearby where there are people who provide such counseling for free, the many women who need such help will cost one heck of a lot of cash.
No doubt, you have a lot more experience in that arena than I do. It would be awesome if there was a discount/cost free program for women who would like to participate but can't afford it. I don't think financial cost should ever be an obstacle for care.
It certainly wasn't my focus.
The baby's sex is determined at conception.
I typically think of it in the physical/biochemical sense. Thanks for the clarification.Genetically yes, physically and biochemically no.
My argument is about choice, not whether such choices when made were good or bad, it's about the right to choose intelligently based on the specific circumstances. I don't support compulsory diktats on people who are often very capable of deciding for themselves, based on their specific facts, not someone else's dogma.The problem seems to be that pro-choice people think that a woman in a crisis pregnancy WANTS to have an abortion.
That is rarely the case.
All too often women who have abortions are desperate. Their friends and family have made it very clear that they have no intention of supporting any other decision. Often they have nowhere to go, no one to turn to. They feel alone and frightened.
What you are supporting is not empowerment for women. If you truly wanted to empower women you would lobby for federal funds to help women keep their baby. You would reach out to these women in love and compassion. That is what they need...not another idiot protecting their so-called "rights"...
Unless you do think that something magically special happens at conception that wasn't there before.
Your evidence of said "person" is...There's a person there who wasn't there before.
You are simply being provocative without a cause, maybe I should report you to the Mods Stripe? :think:You have an arbitrary and unjustifiable moment sometime later during the baby's growth where you will recognize him as a person. The reason for your undefined and malleable standard is an attempt to justify your disregard for their lives.
2. In point of fact, there is an actual human being from the moment of conception, not a potential human being.
The argument that I gave for two is that human parents are univocal agents (they produce something which is the same in species as themselves). They produce the fetus which results at the moment of conception. Therefore, what results at the moment of conception is the same in species as the parents (ie, a human being or rational animal (rational, let us note, in first actuality, not in second actuality).
A person, according to the definition of Boethius, is a subsistent individual of a rational nature. If you grant my previous arguments, it's apparent that the fetus is a person from the moment of conception.
Being human is a sufficient condition for personhood. Necessarily, if x is a human being, then x is a person. It's not a necessary condition, however, since personhood extends wider than human beings (there are angelic persons and Divine Persons).
i can make one, murder is wrong no matter what situation
Personhood is conferred. It's a standard that can be agreed to. We don't produce evidence for definitional claims. We define a circle as the set of points equidistant from a common origin, we don't then ask for evidence for the claim that a particular shape is a circle. We just look at it and the answer is immediately obvious.Your evidence of said "person" is...
Nope. You invent a standard for who is and who is not a person in an attempt to justify your desire that those who do not qualify be killed.You are simply being provocative without a cause.
:loser:maybe I should report you to the Mods Stripe? :think:
What about murdering someone in cold blood when you know that he is going to kill a load of people in the street tomorrow (assuming of course that there is nothing else you can do about it).
There's a person there who wasn't there before.
You have an arbitrary and unjustifiable moment sometime later during the baby's growth where you will recognize him as a person. The reason for your undefined and malleable standard is an attempt to justify your disregard for their lives.
--Horton the ElephantA person's a person, no matter how small...
I suppose that might be true if you could scientically prove the existance of a soul.
:yawn:Personhood is conferred. It's a standard that can be agreed to. We don't produce evidence for definitional claims. We define a circle as the set of points equidistant from a common origin, we don't then ask for evidence for the claim that a particular shape is a circle. We just look at it and the answer is immediately obvious.
I can draw a circle using the rules that define it, no opinion is required, a circle can be demonstrated to be a circle, there is no need for any subjectivity.The only reason to ask for a trait — evidence — of personhood is so that you can use the lack of that trait to call people non-persons; with the ultimate aim of killing them.
Nevertheless you have no right to impose your beliefs on those who think otherwise.Examples in the past of traits that have been used as evidence for diminished or lack of personhood are skin color, religion, nationality and physical deformity. The pro-abort adds to those traits, detectable heartbeat, size, location and the fact that they haven't used their lungs to breathe yet.
You are very entitled to believe what you will Stripe, even the utter nonsense you usually dispense.Pro-aborts are modern-day fascists.
I'm not interested in killing anyone, I aim for what is a balanced responsible choice for the best outcome, based on the specific evidence of each case, not a third party's un-evidenced uncaring dogma. lain:Nope. You invent a standard for who is and who is not a person in an attempt to justify your desire that those who do not qualify be killed.
Facts.
:loser: