"Therefore, Abortion Must Remain Legal"

[Alate_One]

People like yourself. How do you determine personhood and why do you condone the killing of people even after they qualify under your regime?

I don't. But you'll keep saying it forever no matter what.

 

[Angel4Truth]

That's Stephen Hawking.

Youre right - i get them mixed up since they = the same thing in my mind

 

[Stripe]

I don't. But you'll keep saying it forever no matter what.

Personhood is simply a non-issue for you.

 

[Alate_One]

Personhood is simply a non-issue for you.

You're just going to keep misrepresenting my position forever, no matter what, not exactly Christian behavior.

 

[Stripe]

You're just going to keep misrepresenting my position forever, no matter what, not exactly Christian behavior.

Nope.

You'd allow a mother the "right" to terminate even after you confess personhood for the child.

Which is why you're now so reluctant to define your personhood.

 

[Angel4Truth]

You're just going to keep misrepresenting my position forever, no matter what, not exactly Christian behavior.

Is killing babies christian behavior in your mind?

 

[Alate_One]

Is killing babies christian behavior in your mind?

No. But I don't consider a zygote or a blastocyst a baby. For a Christian, I wouldn't recommend terminating any established pregnancy, save in very dire circumstances (incest, rape life of the mother etc).

 

[Angel4Truth]

No. But I don't consider a zygote or a blastocyst a baby. For a Christian, I wouldn't recommend terminating any established pregnancy, save in very dire circumstances (incest, rape life of the mother etc).

Then why are you ok with it for anyone else? Did God not create their children in your mind?

 

[Stripe]

No. But I don't consider a zygote or a blastocyst a baby. For a Christian, I wouldn't recommend terminating any established pregnancy, save in very dire circumstances (incest, rape life of the mother etc).

Hence the confession that personhood means nothing to you.

Why do you call me a liar?

 

[Angel4Truth]

Im lost here, its an established pregnancy baby that a christian should continue, but merely a zygote or blastocyst that its ok to destroy for everyone else...

That must mean that God created people, but evolution created the ungodly...

 

[Stripe]

Im lost here

That's the aim of the evolutionist.

its an established pregnancy baby that a christian should continue, but merely a zygote or blastocyst that its ok to destroy for everyone else...

Evolutionists make a distinction between a baby before implantation and a baby after implantation in order to justify the use of chemicals and devices that might kill the child before he implants.

Conception is when a woman becomes pregnant with a child. It is here that personhood is conferred. Evolutionists will avoid any firm delineation of what constitutes a person. But they will condone the termination of life even after they confess personhood.

Personhood means nothing to Alate.

 

[Angel4Truth]

Personhood means nothing to Alate.

Well thankfully for alates mother, she must have considered her worth having.

 

[Alate_One]

Then why are you ok with it for anyone else? Did God not create their children in your mind?

I don't believe in forcing moral standards on other people in many cases. I also don't consider implantation to be personhood. However, it would still be terminating a pregnancy which isn't a good thing for a Christian. Not murder up until about 8 weeks, but not a good idea nonetheless.

FYI at implantation you're dealing with a blastocyst. It won't be a "baby" until it's actually got a semi-recognizable body in my book.

Well thankfully for alates mother, she must have considered her worth having.

I think this is a red herring idea people bring up. But in my case she thought she had some kind of weird disease till she was about 4 months along so . . .

Hence the confession that personhood means nothing to you.


Why do you call me a liar?

I would define personhood as I have said before - at the formation of a nervous system/heartbeat at least. I think 8-9 weeks is a good cutoff for the general public, due to when I think actual personhood probably begins. That's what makes you a liar.

 

[Stripe]

It won't be a "baby" until it's actually got a semi-recognizable body in my book.

Alate: I can't recognise it, let's kill it!

Personhood defined by any physical trait, in this case recognisability, is done always to justify killing those who lie on the wrong side of the line. In the past it has been nationality, income level, religion and skin colour. Today it is "recognisability".

I think this is a red herring idea people bring up.

Not really. You were lucky enough to survive pregnancy and now you deny others the intrinsic right to life through the same stage.

I would define personhood as I have said before - at the formation of a nervous system/heartbeat at least. I think 8-9 weeks is a good cutoff for the general public, due to when I think actual personhood probably begins. That's what makes you a liar.

Your arbitrary standard makes me a liar? :AMR:

Needless to say, you endorse a mother's "right" to terminate her child even after "8 or 9 weeks".

 

[gcthomas]

Alate: I can't recognise it, let's kill it!

Personhood defined by any physical trait, in this case recognisability, is done always to justify killing those who lie on the wrong side of the line. In the past it has been nationality, income level, religion and skin colour. Today it is "recognisability".

Not really. You were lucky enough to survive pregnancy and now you deny others the intrinsic right to life through the same stage.

Your arbitrary standard makes me a liar? :AMR:

Needless to say, you endorse a mother's "right" to terminate her child even after "8 or 9 weeks".

You are arguing from adverse consequences. Just because you don't like the outcome is not a good reason to deny an argument that has its own merits. It is a logical fallacy.

As you know, Alate didn't say 'can't recognise it', she said it is not recognisable as a human body plan. It is easy to attack a straw man (hey, another logical fallacy!), but harder to take on the actual argument. You say that a day one foetus is the obvious point to pick to award full human rights, but haven't yet tried to give a justification, other than it just obvious.

Good Christian theologians and saints over the ages have picked different dates. Most commonly the 'quickening', or 'ensoulment' whenever that has been determined. But the point is that there is a differing opinion, even amongst Christians . Why don't you try giving a good reason other than the just so one you keep repeating?

 

[Stripe]

You are arguing from adverse consequences. Just because you don't like the outcome is not a good reason to deny an argument that has its own merits. It is a logical fallacy.

Who's arguing? :idunno:

I'm not saying her ideas do not exist, I'm trying to accurately portray them.

As you know, Alate didn't say 'can't recognise it', she said it is not recognisable as a human body plan.

Who cares?

She has deemed "recognisability" as the standard by which personhood is determined.

It is easy to attack a straw man (hey, another logical fallacy!), but harder to take on the actual argument.

What argument? Nobody is arguing anything. She determines personhood by the recognisability of the human form.

You say that a day one foetus is the obvious point to pick to award full human rights, but haven't yet tried to give a justification, other than it just obvious.

Nope. I give good reasons for this standard.

Good Christian theologians and saints over the ages have picked different dates.

That's nice.

But the point is that there is a differing opinion, even amongst Christians.

That people disagree is of no consequence.

Why don't you try giving a good reason other than the just so one you keep repeating?

Which "just so" one?

At conception we have the creation of a new human being. It is at this point that the two parts from mother and father unite to generate a unique person. A single celled baby that needs only time, a conducive environment and nourishment in order to grow through the numerous stages of human development. He has his own gender, his own DNA and all the body parts that he will ever grow are wrapped into the most exceptional single cell that can possibly exist.

This is all based upon scientific fact.

Denying this baby personhood based on size, recognisability or location is akin to denying personhood due to class, income, gender, nationality, religion or skin colour.

If you disagree with that you need to do one of two things. Either you need to argue that personhood is not a significant term or you need to show how personhood is added at some point after conception.

It seems clear that we all confess at least some humans to have personhood. That you deny personhood to some puts you in the position of needing to define exactly how and why personhood is added post-conception.

We know why a)you don't try to do this and b)when forced to leave it as vague and malleable as possible. The reason is because every standard you might set is completely arbitrary. There is no scientific or rational support for your standard over any other standard. And we know that after you set such a standard you will find reasons that trump personhood and condone the supposed right for mother's to terminate babies even after you confess personhood.

GC - you've shown little aptitude for rational debate either here or in the science threads you engage in. Might I strongly encourage you to think carefully through this matter. When do you consider personhood to be established and why should we accept your standard over any other? Do you have science on your side? Do you have theology? Or is it simply a standard you made up in order to justify the choices mothers make to terminate the lives of their own babies? Are you prepared to fight for the imposition of your standard? Or even if you won someone over to your way of thinking would you still turn a blind eye to those killed after you confess personhood?

 

[alwight]

This is all based upon scientific fact.

Denying this baby personhood based on size, recognisability or location is akin to denying personhood due to class, income, gender, nationality, religion or skin colour.

If you disagree with that you need to do one of two things. Either you need to argue that personhood is not a significant term or you need to show how personhood is added at some point after conception.

You need to argue the actual arguments for a change Stripe rather than selecting your own to tilt at.
A major element here is the (lack of a) Central Nervous System, conveniently ignored by you here.

It seems clear that we all confess at least some humans to have personhood. That you deny personhood to some puts you in the position of needing to define exactly how and why personhood is added post-conception.

We know why a)you don't try to do this and b)when forced to leave it as vague and malleable as possible. The reason is because every standard you might set is completely arbitrary. There is no scientific or rational support for your standard over any other standard. And we know that after you set such a standard you will find reasons that trump personhood and condone the supposed right for mother's to terminate babies even after you confess personhood.

:blabla:

GC - you've shown little aptitude for rational debate either here or in the science threads you engage in. Might I strongly encourage you to think carefully through this matter. When do you consider personhood to be established and why should we accept your standard over any other? Do you have science on your side? Do you have theology? Or is it simply a standard you made up in order to justify the choices mothers make to terminate the lives of their own babies? Are you prepared to fight for the imposition of your standard? Or even if you won someone over to your way of thinking would you still turn a blind eye to those killed after you confess personhood?

:mock: Stripe (being a pompous twit.)

 

[Alate_One]

Alate: I can't recognise it, let's kill it!

You keep saying that, and it's not true.

Stripe: Single cells are worth more than born people.

Personhood defined by any physical trait, in this case recognisability, is done always to justify killing those who lie on the wrong side of the line. In the past it has been nationality, income level, religion and skin colour. Today it is "recognisability".

actually it is the presence of a nervous system - which happens to coincide with a relatively recognizable human form.

As I've said before it's been the pro life movement running around with fetal models and pictures to convince people the unborn are human beings. You're avoiding images of zygotes and blastocysts because you know an average rational person will look at them and wonder why they should have a rights over that of a born person.

As I've said before, you demean actual babies by lumping single cells and clumps of undifferentiated cells in with them.

Not really. You were lucky enough to survive pregnancy and now you deny others the intrinsic right to life through the same stage.

I don't believe in an intrinsic right to life until there is at least a central nervous system. That'd be you giving rights to single cells.

Your arbitrary standard makes me a liar? :AMR:

You said I didn't respect my own standard. I'm not seeing that.

Needless to say, you endorse a mother's "right" to terminate her child even after "8 or 9 weeks".

I did? When?

 

[Stripe]

actually it is the presence of a nervous system

The nervous system is present from day 1.

As I've said before it's been the pro life movement running around with fetal models and pictures to convince people the unborn are human beings.

That's because it is those that represent who abortion kills.

You're avoiding images of zygotes and blastocysts because you know an average rational person will look at them and wonder why they should have a rights over that of a born person.

I haven't posted pictures of either. :idunno:

Kind of a lame argument you're weaving.

Again.

As I've said before, you demean actual babies by lumping single cells and clumps of undifferentiated cells in with them.

And you have a prejudice against people based upon appearance.

I don't believe in an intrinsic right to life until there is at least a central nervous system.

Liar. You do not condemn a mother who chooses abortion even after the baby is recognisable to you.

I did? When?

A mother is raped and finds out she's pregnant 9 weeks later then terminates. Murder or not? Are you willing to support a law that would send her to prison?

 

[Lighthouse]

No, you seem to be the one here who wants to compel others by law, otherwise without your prohibitive legal intervention we can each decide for ourselves where our opinions lie regarding whether a person may exist or not and then act accordingly.

Yeah, because personhood is dependent upon opinion.

However, the physical evidence seems reasonably convincing to me at least that a body without a functioning central nervous system has no actual way to function as a person.

Inability to function is irrelevant.

If you don't agree with that then it would be for you to show that a "person" has some other way of functioning or just existing other than by neural activity, and indeed that it would actually be harmed by an abortion anyway.

You can hide behind your poppycock all you want, we can still see you for what you are.