No, no - he said you're HEARTLESS and deny PERSONHOOD.
I think he's saying he likes your shoes? Not quite certain.
"Therefore, Abortion Must Remain Legal"
- Thread starter WizardofOz
- Start date
No, no - he said you're HEARTLESS and deny PERSONHOOD.
I think he's saying he likes your shoes? Not quite certain.
gcthomas
New member
Well, done. It was meant to show my rejection of the notion of personhood for a 10 week old foetus.
Heartless? Only if the foetus is an organism capable of suffering, and there is no evidence to suggest that it is. No evidence, just a straightforward belief of yours that I find unconvincing.
No, you use the baby's fragility as an excuse to justify killing him.
Last edited:
gcthomas
New member
No. If you could read you'd know that I was arguing from the foetus's lack of any ability to suffer, experience pain or feel loss. Fragility is nothing to do with it, as you'd realise if your first priority wasn't legalistic misrepresentations and rhetoric.
If they feel no pain, why do they try to get away from the vacuum tube and how would you know if they feel pain or not?
Link?
For mine you can go to dictionary.com and look up the words.
per·son·al·i·ty [pur-suh-nal-i-tee] noun, plural per·son·al·i·ties.
1. the visible aspect of one's character as it impresses others: He has a pleasing personality.
2. a person as an embodiment of a collection of qualities: He is a curious personality.
3. Psychology.
a. the sum total of the physical, mental, emotional, and social characteristics of an individual.
b. the organized pattern of behavioral characteristics of the individual.
4. the quality of being a person; existence as a self-conscious human being; personal identity.
5. the essential character of a person.
per·son [pur-suh
1. a human being, whether man, woman, or child: The table seats four persons.
2. a human being as distinguished from an animal or a thing.
3. Sociology . an individual human being, especially with reference to his or her social relationships and behavioral patterns as conditioned by the culture.
4. Philosophy . a self-conscious or rational being.
5. the actual self or individual personality of a human being: You ought not to generalize, but to consider the person you are dealing with.
I thought this particular argument was about whether or not they are persons before they have a CNS, not after it's stopped functioning.
But here's a [couple of] question
If the former, of course not; especially not legally. But if the latter I would be in jail, go to trial and if things went as they should I would wind up in prison, possibly be executed depending where this took place.
So, if they are not a person why am I guilty of murder?
I didn't say anything about to whom the placenta belongs; I simply stated it's not a body part of the mother. It's also not a body part of the baby.
And if there is no human DNA there is certainly no human person.
I've already done so. It's not my fault you are unwilling to accept personhood in the stages prior to a CNS.
Did I say it could not?
Seriously? Now I'm starting to question the function of your CNS, mostly the cerebral cortex.
gcthomas
New member
You would not be guilty of murder.
In the US as in the UK, the legal definition death is based on brain death. If the patient was brain dead then you could NOT be prosecuted for murder, since death had already happened.
From wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death#Legal
The possession of brain activities, or capability to resume brain activity, is a necessary condition to legal personhood in the United States. "It appears that once brain death has been determined ... no criminal or civil liability will result from disconnecting the life-support devices." (Dority v. Superior Court of San Bernardino County, 193 Cal.Rptr. 288, 291 (1983))
alwight
New member
Sure but I don’t intend to get into an argument over definitions, I at least think I know what we are talking about.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/personality
Nevertheless it is pretty obvious to me at least that since a previously living person will cease to exist in this natural physical realm if the CNS stops functioning then the CNS is where I think it is reasonable to believe that the actual person once existed. Loss of other attributes never seems to have quite that effect. I suspect that you perhaps want to ignore such evidence linking any personality or person to something tangible and material when regarding zygotes say, but you haven’t produced a shred of physical evidence for your beliefs, only your assertions.
Strange question, I don’t want to randomly kill anyone btw, but you can’t legally murder anyone who has already been pronounced dead. If otoh they are on life support but as yet not pronounced dead then that might be something best decided in a courtroom considering all the evidence and facts. If say it were a close relative of mine and my honest intent was only to quicken their passing and stop suffering, then even if I was misguided I don’t think any reasonable person would want me convicted of murder.
Hopefully I’ve already covered this above.
The thing is LH that imo anti abortionists simply don’t want to consider each and every case on the specific circumstances of each, nor indeed if there is a strong likelihood that any given abortion would not actually terminate a “person”. I believe that the lives of extant persons should always be properly considered too and balanced against all the perceived facts and circumstances.
You I suspect want a simple line drawn from conception regardless of physical fact, circumstances and evidence because it is your belief and dogma that you want to impose on those who disagree with you. Certainly you have no physical evidence to point to in a zygote where a “person” could reside before the existence of a CNS, so why should I believe you or indeed should a woman with perhaps an unwanted pregnancy?
Nor in my mouse-mat, though I suspect plenty of my DNA.
Your bald assertions don’t convince me LH. Why would you think that you can simply impose these beliefs on others?
You talked about it being unique, but clearly that isn’t so, persons develop individually even from the same DNA, there is nothing particularly special in the DNA itself, but imo only when a sufficiently developed foetus based on it exists is when a unique individual personality/person also will exist.
Was there a point here?:sherlock:
Hogwash!
Until the point in which that family has decided to "pull the plug" the person is considered to still be alive, just as in the case of a pregnancy the child is considered a living person if the mother wants to "keep it," whether for her own or to give up for adoption.
Disconnecting the machines is not the same as putting a bullet in the head.
Go ahead and ask a barrister if you'd be charged with murder...
From the looks of it the initial definition given is stating one has a personality simply by being a person. Thus it is on you to now define "person" in order to support your argument that personhood is not extant when neither is the CNS.
When the CNS stops functioning everything stops functioning. In fact, in order to be kept alive those other functions must be restarted by an outside force and then kept going by machines. Before such devices when someone's CNS stopped they just died and were dead, for the rest of their lives [a little levity].
You'd likely be convicted of something, and usually in such cases the charges are decided by the prosecution, which, in such cases, is usually the State.
And if you were not a POA relative in this case, or even close enough to be part of the decision to pull the plug, then those who were may well have a grudge to bear against you to at least some degree if not wanting you charged with murder. And if you were such a person then why would you go through such if you had an easier recourse, as in telling the doctors to turn off the machines?
I consider it every time I am faced with it; in each and every case the point is to terminate a living person, and in each and every case there are better ways to deal with the situation, that don't require the termination of an innocent life.
Regardless of physical fact?
Here's an idea, look up quotes from those who perform abortions; I don't mean those who used to and quit because they realized it was a person, but those who still perform them. There are quite a few who have stated they know full well they are killing a person.
While the presence of a person necessitates the presence of DNA the reverse is not the case, and the fact that I had to spell out for you that I know this is quite telling regarding your ability to reason.
Replace my name with yours, look in the mirror and repeat...
So far you have nothing but bald assertions, and you are attempting to impose your beliefs.
I talked about it being unique from the mother's DNA. Do you seriously not get that?
No matter how many persons with that DNA exist it is brand new, never before extant DNA that is not the same as the mother's.
In other words, I am not my mother's severed body part.
Pat yourself on the head and see.
gcthomas
New member
How can the method of 'killing' determine whether the 'killing' was murder if the intention is there to kill? That's bonkers. If the person is brain dead, then disconnecting the machine is just an emotional barrier. Death occurs before the machine is turned off in this case, as defined in US law.
It is to the patient.
Why stick to the obvious personhood is being a person, self referential definition, and read onto the substantive ones?
"(Personality: ) the complex of characteristics that distinguishes an individual or a nation or group; especially : the totality of an individual's behavioral and emotional characteristics".
A foetus doesn't have much of that!
I believe you are using the DNA point simply because it is a distinguishing feature, not because you really believe that DNA differences are a fundamental feature of personhood.
Human parthenogenesis is a real process. Human embryos have been made from a cell from the mother. If this was implanted and established, would you reject it as a 'person' because it had the same DNA as the mother?
Last edited:
alwight
New member
:liberals: No, I’m the pro-choice one here, therefore by default, I only need to satisfy myself about “personhood” and don't seek to compel others as you seem to.
You can of course try to convince me otherwise but you don’t get to impose your views on me or indeed a recently pregnant woman by use of bald assertions.
No perhaps I can’t define a “person” to your satisfaction, or be clear on exactly when “personhood” begins, however I only need to conclude for myself, from the evidence, when a person clearly does not exist, just as you can too.
If, as it seems, you want your views to be enforced generally by secular laws then it is plainly up to you to find better evidence and a more convincing argument than my one and the lack of a functioning CNS, not me.
Well, my albeit lay understanding is that the autonomic system (ANS) is one of the functions of the peripheral nervous system (PNS) which in turn is connected to the CNS. However I think it’s true to say that just without the “person” element of the CNS being present it will more often than not simply “stand alone” so to speak, requiring no actual conscious input from the “person”. Typically however it will be shut down or become damaged along with the CNS imo.
Perhaps but not decided on by the prosecution obviously, but if they aimed too high then they would risk acquittal altogether, so they need be realistic and un-dogmatic about it and perhaps go for a lesser charge.
Then I can’t imagine why I would be getting involved at all :idunno:, do you think that I might simply enjoy killing people or indeed the unborn for some obscure reason?
Unless I am somewhat mistaken you simply conclude that any abortion is murder and want that view imposed on others within secular law without exception perhaps? Imo the very rational impossibility of a “person” existing while there is a clear lack of any apparent physical means, is never considered within your thinking and dogma. You don’t want to make sometimes tough human choices, so you don’t, and then you don’t think that others should be allowed to choose either.
All know is what I personally might choose. Sometimes I too might well support an abortion where a “person” is likely to be present, depending on the particular circumstances. However any doctors who routinely have more interest in personal profit yes of course probably do exist, I would agree, but is also not really the point here.
Should I consider myself insulted or told off?
Not sure what you had to spell out for me exactly, but afaic even a unique DNA remains “un-personed” until the required biological parts have become assembled sufficiently.
So a functioning or otherwise CNS is not good enough evidence for you, while it remains pretty good and convincing evidence afaic.
However even if neither of us actually does have any evidence then what gives you the right to make others comply with your beliefs?
What exactly then makes “brand new” DNA any more “a” "person" or special over any other similar DNA, when many or none “persons” may be the result?
Are you actually thinking "soul" or maybe the supernatural, but would rather not say that kind of thing to a non-believer?
A unique original DNA is clearly not what then defines a “person” imo, but a unique functioning CNS rather seems to.
But it gets that far on its own because it is its own organism. An organism we just happen to call "human."
You act as if that matters. If you want to change your argument to that of Mighty_Duck, then feel free to do so.
And here you return to your stupid argument.
As soon as any of those skin cells are turned into a human, even at the one cell stage, then we should protect them.
Honestly, this is such a stupid argument that I hope by adding a few lines for you to respond to, I can get you to repeat it.
And we don't care if we cut down a tree even after it is grown. If we did, then acorns would be protected.
Thanks for supporting my point.
And slavery is still taking place in private. They are both wrong and they should both be illegal regardless of what can be gotten away with.
And the majority of the voting population in the south didn't think blacks were human during slavery. Congratulations on your powerful argument.
So what word would you like to use based on my immediate next response?
Of course it isn't murder to prevent fertilization.
You didn't even come close to answering the question. Try again, but this time I'll break up the paragraph so the delicate state of your reading comprehension may not be offended.
| Is it your position that a zygote is a human, |
| but we can kill it anyway because it has no value? |
| If not, when does an organism that becomes a human achieve such? |
| Is a person different from a human? |
gcthomas
New member
These questions have been answered before my several people, but I'll answer my thoughts here for you.
It is not A human (noun). It is a human (adjective) zygote (ie of and from a human)
It does not have the same value as a human being. Not zero value.
But low enough that destroying it will have emotional but not moral costs.
Best estimate is around the 18-22 week mark.
A person has the attributes and capabilities required for personhood. It is possible for a human not to have those, eg it is in a permanent, unconscious vegetative state.
| Is it your position that a zygote is a human, |
It is not A human (noun). It is a human (adjective) zygote (ie of and from a human)
| but we can kill it anyway because it has no value? |
It does not have the same value as a human being. Not zero value.
But low enough that destroying it will have emotional but not moral costs.
| If not, when does an organism that becomes a human achieve such? |
Best estimate is around the 18-22 week mark.
| Is a person different from a human? |
A person has the attributes and capabilities required for personhood. It is possible for a human not to have those, eg it is in a permanent, unconscious vegetative state.
Evidence? Or is that a silly question here?
I'd say - 26 week, but I can see why you'd say that.
The law is more complicated than you assume.
- Do you know that for certain?
- Why should that matter?
Personality isn't the question here, personhood is.
Individuality is the fundamental feature of personhood, and DNA is the initial indicator of an individual, as distinct from the mother in whose womb they reside. In fact, at that point it is the only indicator of individuality.
Not anymore than I would reject a twin as a person because they have the same DNA code as another person.
Too ignorant to understand how this is relevant in matters of life and death... no surprise there.
What's the point? You reject any notion that you might be incorrect as to when one becomes a person. So much so that you actually refuse to take a stand on when that point is actually reached, rather relying on the cop out of "nuance."
Not at all the issue; but I assume this is simply just more of your usual runaround as you have refused to actually just show what defines one as a person from a source outside your own opinion.
That's not the point of this discussion. Wiz asked for you and your ilk to provide an argument as to why it should remain legal.
So, it is up to you to show why a functioning CNS is what defines one as a person and separates them from before they had a functioning CNS and were thus, according to you, not yet a person.
In your opinion? What kind of an argument is that?
What do you think would lead them to lose on the charge of homicide?
Are you seriously too stupid to understand a hypothetical?
Is there a physical, living cell that if allowed to follow its programming with all the necessities will live and develop, eventually, into what you would consider to be a person?
You seemed to have missed the point; they all agree that it is a person, at every stage wherein an abortion might be performed. PP even put out a brochure wherein they admitted so much in print.
In other words all you have is your opinion and no facts to back it up.
:doh:
If the existence of the living zygote prior to an extant CNS is good enough for me then why would an extant CNS not be? Or did you just word this ambiguously?
The fact that it is distinct from anyone else makes it a separate entity, regardless of its DNA, actually. It is simply that DNA unique from the mother's is a way to show this.
And even if its DNA code were the same as the mother's as gcthomas has suggested is possible it is still a distinct, separate entity.
While I believe the spirit is present at that point I don't see the point of arguing that with someone who doesn't believe a spirit exists.
How so? You have yet to support this argument.
Just like a human infant. Thanks for playing.
You don't understand why there is emotional cost. Hint: it's because of morals. Thanks for playing.
Biology fail. Thanks for playing.
That's why it's easy for you to decide which humans to kill, and it has nothing to do with innocents. Thanks for playing.
I can't stop you from believing what you do, but it is good to know which people will follow the next Hitler.
You are correct so far. Perhaps you should watch out for that gcthomas guy?
Thank you for the correction. I did mean relative value. You are wrong that it isn't what I want to hear. Seeing as what I wanted to hear was the exposition of your worldview.
What you've done is exposed your worldview as one that does not set God as the one that holds the right to such an evaluation.
Your prediction is wrong. I was fishing for the coherence, or lack thereof, of your worldview. That I have.
Of course it is blind nature that bestows the human attribute. Otherwise it is capricious humans that do it. And what capricious humans grant, they have proven to remove as well.
I'll sum up your view in a moment.
And thus, you reject universal human rights, and reduce them to human rights granted by the government (or the strongest person at the moment, whichever the case may be).
You and gcthomas will get along swimmingly.