toldailytopic: Objectively, when does a person become a person? At conception? Or at

[Real Sorceror]

So you're for abortion of a new born within the first few months then? Its just a bunch of cells right?

Please see this post on the previous page: >> Post #41

Guys, I really don't appreciate these attacks. It's really unnecessary. Can we just have a discussion for once?

we should be thinking in terms of a human life and it is too easy to argue about what a person is

Thank you. Human life. We can argue about sentience and souls all day, but human life is factual and valuable.

Do mentally handicapped people deserve right's as a person?

In most cases I would say yes. I'm not a doctor, and "mentally handicapped" covers a wide range of capabilities.

Those are the type of beliefs that bring about genocide.

How so?

 

[Stripe]

Guys, I really don't appreciate these attacks. It's really unnecessary. Can we just have a discussion for once?

Quit saying stupid things. :idunno:

 

[tetelestai]

toldailytopic: Objectively, when does a person become a person? At conception? Or at some other point after conception?

At Birth

 

[Town Heretic]

The question is either a moral one, personal and I'd answer from conception, or it becomes an objective question and I answer the same way following two differing approaches.

First, I am inarguably fully in possession of my rights as a citizen. No other citizen can arbitrarily take any right from me without violating the law. The state is similarly restricted. Now trace my life back to conception. At what point along that line of being can the state presume to remove my right? As I have not in any form or fashion violated the social compact that guarantees my right and no objective argument can be applied for the state against it my life and right to it must remain inviolate.

Looking forward from the point of conception I'd argue in that in the absence of an objective standard for determining the assignment of right that is not arbitrary in nature, we must protect every point along that life in being from conception--the only point of agreement in law being that at some inarguable point that right vests.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

At Birth

So... prior to birth, the living human in the womb shouldn't be offered the same rights as other persons who are outside the womb?

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Guys, I really don't appreciate these attacks. It's really unnecessary. Can we just have a discussion for once?

I will not agree to NOT stigmatize evil and wicked comments. It's thought's like yours that give rise to horrible genocide and other human atrocities.

Your idea's on this subject should be mocked, rebuked, and shunned. Seriously, the stuff you are saying on this thread is pure evil.

 

[tetelestai]

So... prior to birth, the living human in the womb shouldn't be offered the same rights as other persons who are outside the womb?

No, I believe abortion is a sin, and that a fetus should be protected.

In the OT, taking a potential life was punishable by death.

However, I do not believe a fetus has a soul. I do not believe life begins until birth.

The angels rejoiced at Christ's birth, not His conception.

Here is what Job said:

(Job 3:11) “Why did I not perish at birth,
and die as I came from the womb?

Job understood that life began at birth.

 

[Granite]

No, I believe abortion is a sin, and that a fetus should be protected.

In the OT, taking a potential life was punishable by death.

However, I do not believe a fetus has a soul. I do not believe life begins until birth.

The angels rejoiced at Christ's birth, not His conception.

Here is what Job said:

(Job 3:11) “Why did I not perish at birth,
and die as I came from the womb?

Job understood that life began at birth.

Can't believe I'm the one doing this...

Counterargument: John the Baptist rejoiced in Elizabeth's womb upon hearing the news of Mary's pregnancy. From a Christian's perspective that argues in no uncertain terms for an unborn child's sentience.

 

[Real Sorceror]

I will not agree to NOT stigmatize evil and wicked comments. It's thought's like yours that give rise to horrible genocide and other human atrocities.

Your idea's on this subject should be mocked, rebuked, and shunned. Seriously, the stuff you are saying on this thread is pure evil.

What the heck are you talking about? What would bring you to these conclusions?

I've repeatedly said I'm against abortion and infanticide.
Being a person or not doesn't change a baby's status. They are still our future and our species. It doesn't make me think less of them. :idunno:

 

[Nathon Detroit]

I said...
"Those are the type of beliefs that bring about genocide."

And you responded...

How so?

Easy. As soon as people start thinking... well this or that type of human doesn't deserve right's as a person it becomes easy to perform all sorts of atrocities on them. After all... if they are not person's, then the right's we give to persons do not apply to this or that human.

When these non-persons become a burden we can get rid of them. :idunno:

That's why slavery was legal in this country, that's why Jews were exterminated in Nazi Germany, and that's why millions of babies are murdered every year RIGHT NOW in this country. Black's were not considered full "persons", Jews were not considered persons, and infants in the womb are not considered persons.

People like you give arbitrary personhood to those you deem worthy, and those on the wrong side of your beliefs feel the brunt of your world-view.

 

[tetelestai]

Can't believe I'm the one doing this...

Counterargument: John the Baptist rejoiced in Elizabeth's womb upon hearing the news of Mary's pregnancy. From a Christian's perspective that argues in no uncertain terms for an unborn child's sentience.

Babies frequently kick and/or move in the womb when the mother gets excited.

(Luke 1:44) As soon as the sound of your greeting reached my ears, the baby in my womb leaped for joy.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Being a person or not doesn't change a baby's status. They are still our future and our species. It doesn't make me think less of them. :idunno:

Clearly you don't understand the argument then.

Personhood, is what we use to determine who, and who does not, get fundamental rights as a person.

For instance... at one time black people were considered just 3/5ths of a person, therefore people could legally keep blacks as slaves. They were not full persons, therefore they could not receive full protection as persons under the law.

It wasn't until blacks were deemed full persons that laws were put into place to protect them as persons.

Personhood is the very foundation of how laws are applied to people.

 

[Real Sorceror]

Easy. As soon as people start thinking... well this or that type of human doesn't deserve right's as a person it becomes easy to perform all sorts of atrocities on them. After all... if they are not person's, then the right's we give to persons do not apply to this or that human.

When these non-persons become a burden we can get rid of them. :idunno:

That's why slavery was legal in this country, that's why Jews were exterminated in Nazi Germany, and that's why millions of babies are murdered every year RIGHT NOW in this country. Black's were not considered full "persons", Jews were not considered persons, and infants in the womb are not considered persons.

Knight, that's a huge jump in logic. Nazis and slavers didn't even view their victims as fellow human. For all they cared they were a different species.

What I'm saying in no way implies that infants are inferior, nor does it devalue them as human beings. Nor does it encourage people to kill them. I'm simply stating that birth or conception are not good ways to codify personhood.

People like you give arbitrary personhood to those you deem worthy, and those on the wrong side of your beliefs feel the brunt of your world-view.

This isn't arbitrary at all. Personhood goes hand in hand with sentience. You agree that zygotes aren't sentient, right?

 

[Tambora]

Do mentally handicapped people deserve right's as a person?

Yes.

 

[Lon]

"A person's a person, no matter how small" -Dr. Suess

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Knight, that's a huge jump in logic. Nazis and slavers didn't even view their victims as fellow human. For all they cared they were a different species.

What I'm saying in no way implies that infants are inferior, nor does it devalue them as human beings. Nor does it encourage people to kill them. I'm simply stating that birth or conception are not good ways to codify personhood.

I am asking you to reconsider your position.

 

[Jordan Fontenot]

I don't think it really even matters when a person becomes a person. If you can in anyway justify ending the development of human life then odds are you're doing it wrong.

 

[Psalmist]

toldailytopic: Objectively, when does a person become a person? At conception? Or at some other point after conception?​

The moment of conception.
​

 

[Cruciform]

Objectively, when does a person become a person? At conception? Or at some other point after conception?

See a protracted discussion of this very question here.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

 

[Real Sorceror]

I am asking you to reconsider your position.

Since you seem to feel so strongly about this I will give it some thought.

Right now though I'm a little taken aback by the reaction, honestly.