Were you a person?

[Yahchristian]

So what are your definitions for the words "daughter" and "person"?

Daughter- female offspring, in this case of human parents.
Person - born, human, alive.

Right BEFORE your umbilical chord was cut…

1) Were you your parents offspring?
2) Were you a person?
3) Were you born, human, alive?
4) Were you a human being?
5) Were you a child?

I say Yes to all five questions.

 

[BMS]

Right BEFORE your umbilical chord was cut…

1) Were you your parents offspring?
2) Were you a person?
3) Were you born, human, alive?
4) Were you a human being?
5) Were you a child?

I say Yes to all five questions.

Yes to all.

 

[Temujin]

Right BEFORE your umbilical chord was cut…

1) Were you your parents offspring?
2) Were you a person?
3) Were you born, human, alive?
4) Were you a human being?
5) Were you a child?

I say Yes to all five questions.

So would I. The cut off point is the first breath, which is normally before the umbilical cord is cut. Indeed, I personally would be prepared to answer yes to question 2 at the point that you are capable of surviving delivery, even if you remain in the womb for several more weeks.

 

[BMS]

So would I. The cut off point is the first breath, which is normally before the umbilical cord is cut. Indeed, I personally would be prepared to answer yes to question 2 at the point that you are capable of surviving delivery, even if you remain in the womb for several more weeks.

Your cut off point, not ours

 

[Theo1689]

So would I. The cut off point is the first breath,

Why?
That seems incredibly self-serving.
Merriam-Webster defines "breathe" as "taking in oxygen and giving out carbon dioxide through natural processes." And the baby has been doing that (thorugh his/her mitochondria) arguably through their entire gestational period.

 

[Tiburon]

Right BEFORE your umbilical chord was cut…

1) Were you your parents offspring?
2) Were you a person?
3) Were you born, human, alive?
4) Were you a human being?
5) Were you a child?

I say Yes to all five questions.

1) Were you your parents offspring?
No I hadn't sprung off.

2) Were you a person?
Depends upon your definition of person but I would say no.

3) Were you born, human, alive?
Human, yes. Alive, yes. Born, yes.

4) Were you a human being?
Yes

5) Were you a child?
Yes.

 

[Temujin]

Why?
That seems incredibly self-serving.
Merriam-Webster defines "breathe" as "taking in oxygen and giving out carbon dioxide through natural processes." And the baby has been doing that (thorugh his/her mitochondria) arguably through their entire gestational period.

It's the legal definition, and has been so for centuries. I think it's because the breath is something that the child does itself, rather than cutting the cord, which is done by others, and can be delayed. Personally, I would accept that any foetus sufficiently developed to survive birth, should be treated as a person, but it's not for me to decide.

 

[Temujin]

1) Were you your parents offspring?
No I hadn't sprung off.

2) Were you a person?
Depends upon your definition of person but I would say no.

3) Were you born, human, alive?
Human, yes. Alive, yes. Born, yes.

4) Were you a human being?
Yes

5) Were you a child?
Yes.

For me , human, born , alive equals a person. Human, alive and capable of being born and surviving should also count as a person.

 

[BMS]

So Temujin, you say its for others to decide whilst giving your opinion, so how does that work with the red states changes, does it mean you disagree but you accept its up to them?

 

[docphin5]

So Temujin, you say its for others to decide whilst giving your opinion, so how does that work with the red states changes, does it mean you disagree but you accept its up to them?

There are some people who actually think it is good to kill unwanted, innocent, humans if the society no longer wants them (and the law allows it, kind of like slavery once was “legal”) but the idea is so repugnant to common sense that they deflect the responsibility from themselves to do so upon others. The lie they present is that since it is allowed by law then it must be morally acceptable (just as slavery was once legally and morally acceptable). And they justify their position with the lie in order to assuage their own conscience.

I saw it in the Judaism forum as well when a Jewish apologist agreed to condemn homosexuals to death only if someone else ordered it, in this case, the Jewish Sanhedrin. It is shifting the moral responsibility to others for an action that defies what common sense would repudiate.

Common sense would repudiate a mother/father killing their healthy, innocent, unborn child, especially if it could feel pain and hear its mothers voice. Obviously, the callousness, barbarity, and moral depravity of doing so (whether it be legal or not) is worse the further along in development the unborn human life grows in proportion to neural development.

When enough people believe the many lies we tell ourselves to justify moral deficiencies (legalized abortion is just one of them) then the veneer of civilization becomes very thin, cultures descend into barbarity and Evil wins…at least for a season.

 

[Temujin]

There are some people who actually think it is good to kill unwanted, innocent, humans if the society no longer wants them (and the law allows it, kind of like slavery once was “legal”) but the idea is so repugnant to common sense that they deflect the responsibility from themselves to do so upon others. The lie they present is that since it is allowed by law then it must be morally acceptable (just as slavery was once legally and morally acceptable). And they justify their position with the lie in order to assuage their own conscience.

I saw it in the Judaism forum as well when a Jewish apologist agreed to condemn homosexuals to death only if someone else ordered it, in this case, the Jewish Sanhedrin. It is shifting the moral responsibility to others for an action that defies what common sense would repudiate.

Common sense would repudiate a mother/father killing their healthy, innocent, unborn child, especially if it could feel pain and hear its mothers voice. Obviously, the callousness, barbarity, and moral depravity of doing so (whether it be legal or not) is worse the further along in development the unborn human life grows in proportion to neural development.

When enough people believe the many lies we tell ourselves to justify moral deficiencies (legalized abortion is just one of them) then the veneer of civilization becomes very thin, cultures descend into barbarity and Evil wins…at least for a season.

I don't have time at the moment, but I think that you have it the wrong way round. Cheap, accessible, quick and legal abortion facilities, in conjunction wit other maternity care services, are a mark of a civilised society. It's the barbarians who value women so little that they treat them as brood mares.

I'll get back with a more full answer later.

 

[BMS]

I don't have time at the moment, but I think that you have it the wrong way round. Cheap, accessible, quick and legal abortion facilities, in conjunction wit other maternity care services, are a mark of a civilised society. It's the barbarians who value women so little that they treat them as brood mares.

I'll get back with a more full answer later.

You will need to, pro-choice abortion is a mark of an uncivilised society where the mother is state supported in killing her offspring by choice.

 

[BMS]

Temujin, can a man be an adult baby?

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1692935221853704277

 

[Temujin]

There are some people who actually think it is good to kill unwanted, innocent, humans if the society no longer wants them (and the law allows it, kind of like slavery once was “legal”) but the idea is so repugnant to common sense that they deflect the responsibility from themselves to do so upon others. The lie they present is that since it is allowed by law then it must be morally acceptable (just as slavery was once legally and morally acceptable). And they justify their position with the lie in order to assuage their own conscience.

I could be disingenuous here and say that though what you say is true, it doesn't apply to abortion since the aborted foetus is not an unwanted, innocent human., At least not in the sense that you mean. It's no more human than an amputated toe. Unlike the toe, it has the potential to become a human being in the sense that you mean, a person, with rights and legal protection. But the fact is that obviously you believe that the unborn has, or should have these rights now, as an advance on that potential. All I can say to that is that others take a different view. Historically, authorities have always taken a different view. Every society I know of takes and always has taken a different view. If you want to persuade, you will need to start with this crucial issue. What makes a person with rights, as opposed to an unborn foetus without rights? Why should they be equated, in your view, rather than treated differently in the views of so many others? Just accusing those who disagree with you of terrible crimes and moral failings, doesn't cut the mustard. You need to ground your assumptions in reality not in your own atypical viewpoint.

I saw it in the Judaism forum as well when a Jewish apologist agreed to condemn homosexuals to death only if someone else ordered it, in this case, the Jewish Sanhedrin. It is shifting the moral responsibility to others for an action that defies what common sense would repudiate.

. Again, I think that your point is misplaced. I agree totally that the hypocrisy you describe is shameful, but it doesn't apply here. I personally have had a small part to play in enabling some young women to access abortions. I am not ashamed. In fact these are amongst the moments of my life of which I feel most proud. And before you condemn, try to consider that there are circumstances in which a person can feel proud of enabling a woman to choose to have an abortion.

Common sense would repudiate a mother/father killing their healthy, innocent, unborn child, especially if it could feel pain and hear its mothers voice. Obviously, the callousness, barbarity, and moral depravity of doing so (whether it be legal or not) is worse the further along in development the unborn human life grows in proportion to neural development.

. No. Common sense has nothing to do with this. We are talking about people who find themselves in a difficult situation from which there is no easy, common sense exit. Abortion can be, and frequently is the least worst option available to someone who finds themselves pregnant unwillingly. I would agree that the earlier abortion can take place, if it must, the better. That's why obstacles erected to delay and obfuscate are counter productive. The woman concerned, and her partner need clear, unambiguous and disinterested advice from clinicians, so that they can take the decision and make their choice. Whatever that choice is, then there should be support for them to enact it.

When enough people believe the many lies we tell ourselves to justify moral deficiencies (legalized abortion is just one of them) then the veneer of civilization becomes very thin, cultures descend into barbarity and Evil wins…at least for a season.

As I have said, access to abortion is a mark of a civilised society. Abortion and neonatal infanticide have always been part of the human condition. Roman brothels are identified as such by the foetal and neonatal remains found in their wells. Desperate women will always seek abortions. In my view, the rights and needs of desperate women far outweigh the rights of the unborn child, for the simple reason that she is a person, and it is not. The truly civilised position is to minimise as far as possible the circumstances which drive some women to seek abortions in the first place.

 

[BMS]

Sorry but all of us human beings develop from fertilized conception where we already have the DNA.

It's no more human than an amputated toe. Unlike the toe, it has the potential to become a human being

Is simply denial of reality.

and its no good then listening to someone who refers to common sense or anything else.

 

[Tiburon]

There are some people who actually think it is good to kill unwanted, innocent, humans if the society no longer wants them (and the law allows it, kind of like slavery once was “legal”) but the idea is so repugnant to common sense that they deflect the responsibility from themselves to do so upon others. The lie they present is that since it is allowed by law then it must be morally acceptable (just as slavery was once legally and morally acceptable). And they justify their position with the lie in order to assuage their own conscience.

I saw it in the Judaism forum as well when a Jewish apologist agreed to condemn homosexuals to death only if someone else ordered it, in this case, the Jewish Sanhedrin. It is shifting the moral responsibility to others for an action that defies what common sense would repudiate.

Common sense would repudiate a mother/father killing their healthy, innocent, unborn child, especially if it could feel pain and hear its mothers voice. Obviously, the callousness, barbarity, and moral depravity of doing so (whether it be legal or not) is worse the further along in development the unborn human life grows in proportion to neural development.

When enough people believe the many lies we tell ourselves to justify moral deficiencies (legalized abortion is just one of them) then the veneer of civilization becomes very thin, cultures descend into barbarity and Evil wins…at least for a season.

If the idea is so repugnant to common sense, then it would never have come about. Common sense is nonsense.
People claim Common sense when it agrees with their ideas.

 

[docphin5]

If the idea is so repugnant to common sense, then it would never have come about. Common sense is nonsense.
People claim Common sense when it agrees with their ideas.

Your argument is undone by the simple fact that slavery was both promoted by humans and made legal by the courts of law when common sense said that it is wrong as it would eventually do. I doubt that you would be defending slavery today AFTER common sense has overcome mans greed and hunger for power over slaves. That is what drove slavery, ie. lust for money and power over others.

Abortion is driven by the same base human impulses today and someday reason, aka, common sense will win over but obviously not soon enough for the millions of innocent, unborn babies.

I am not saying the solution is to ban abortions. That is no solution. The solution is to value marriage and life again because it is in a committed marriage that the unborn life is welcomed and potentially thrives. The free sex movement of the 60s at least in America started the devaluation of marriage and life and other problems. Therefore, the problem of unwanted pregnancies is multifactorial and complex which requires good medicine over a long time, not easy fixes.

 

[docphin5]

I could be disingenuous here and say that though what you say is true, it doesn't apply to abortion since the aborted foetus is not an unwanted, innocent human., At least not in the sense that you mean. It's no more human than an amputated toe. Unlike the toe, it has the potential to become a human being in the sense that you mean, a person, with rights and legal protection. But the fact is that obviously you believe that the unborn has, or should have these rights now, as an advance on that potential. All I can say to that is that others take a different view. Historically, authorities have always taken a different view. Every society I know of takes and always has taken a different view.

If you want to persuade, you will need to start with this crucial issue. What makes a person with rights, as opposed to an unborn foetus without rights? Why should they be equated, in your view, rather than treated differently in the views of so many others?

It is not about ”rights” but instead about responsibility. Responsibility to the unborn human gestating in the mother’s womb. An unborn child who feels pain and senses the mother and father who produced it. What is the responsibility of the parents to their unborn child?

Just accusing those who disagree with you of terrible crimes and moral failings, doesn't cut the mustard. You need to ground your assumptions in reality not in your own atypical viewpoint.

Right, and I know reason and evidence are on my side even if I am a minority. Moreover, I am not judging any individual as long as I can change someone’s mind. We are all capable of moral failings and irrational thought and we need to help each other come to their senses whenever possible.

The unborn human feels pain and senses its mother and father between 12 and sixteen weeks. So when is a parent responsible for the unborn child if not when it feels pain and senses its mother? Drawing an arbitrary line at birth because the law allows it is not based on science but on the whims of man.

. Again, I think that your point is misplaced. I agree totally that the hypocrisy you describe is shameful, but it doesn't apply here. I personally have had a small part to play in enabling some young women to access abortions. I am not ashamed. In fact these are amongst the moments of my life of which I feel most proud. And before you condemn, try to consider that there are circumstances in which a person can feel proud of enabling a woman to choose to have an abortion.

I get why an individual woman would choose a termination of a healthy, gestating baby. But waiting to solve the problem at that point is too late. It is a quick fix to a bad situation that unfortunately costs the unborn its life but arguably preventable with interventions, education, and values promoted earlier in the chain of events. We allow quick fixes and sacrifice our humanity in the bargain.

. No. Common sense has nothing to do with this. We are talking about people who find themselves in a difficult situation from which there is no easy, common sense exit. Abortion can be, and frequently is the least worst option available to someone who finds themselves pregnant unwillingly. I would agree that the earlier abortion can take place, if it must, the better. That's why obstacles erected to delay and obfuscate are counter productive. The woman concerned, and her partner need clear, unambiguous and disinterested advice from clinicians, so that they can take the decision and make their choice. Whatever that choice is, then there should be support for them to enact it.

As I have said, access to abortion is a mark of a civilised society. Abortion and neonatal infanticide have always been part of the human condition. Roman brothels are identified as such by the foetal and neonatal remains found in their wells. Desperate women will always seek abortions. In my view, the rights and needs of desperate women far outweigh the rights of the unborn child, for the simple reason that she is a person, and it is not. The truly civilised position is to minimise as far as possible the circumstances which drive some women to seek abortions in the first place.

The Roman empire ended up being one of the most brutal empires on earth. One-third of their population were slaves. Gladiators fighting to the death for entertainment. Etc. So using them as as justification for killing babies makes no sense unless might makes right to you.

 

[Tiburon]

Your argument is undone by the simple fact that slavery was both promoted by humans and made legal by the courts of law when common sense said that it is wrong as it would eventually do. I doubt that you would be defending slavery today AFTER common sense has overcome mans greed and hunger for power over slaves. That is what drove slavery, ie. lust for money and power over others.

Abortion is driven by the same base human impulses today and someday reason, aka, common sense will win over but obviously not soon enough for the millions of innocent, unborn babies.

I am not saying the solution is to ban abortions. That is no solution. The solution is to value marriage and life again because it is in a committed marriage that the unborn life is welcomed and potentially thrives. The free sex movement of the 60s at least in America started the devaluation of marriage and life and other problems. Therefore, the problem of unwanted pregnancies is multifactorial and complex which requires good medicine over a long time, not easy fixes.

You argue against yourself. If "common sense" said that slavery was wrong it never would have arisen in the first place. "Common sense" isn't a real thing.

 

[Temujin]

It is not about ”rights” but instead about responsibility. Responsibility to the unborn human gestating in the mother’s womb. An unborn child who feels pain and senses the mother and father who produced it. What is the responsibility of the parents to their unborn child?

Firstly, let's get the facts straight:

Fetal Pain

Facts are important, especially when it comes to policies and discussions that impact patients. Here are the scientific facts concerning gestational development and capacity for pain.

www.acog.org

"The science conclusively establishes that a human fetus does not have the capacity to experience pain until after at least 24–25 weeks. Every major medical organization that has examined this issue and peer-reviewed studies on the matter have consistently reached the conclusion that abortion before this point does not result in the perception of pain in a fetus".

I don't know why you think otherwise, but if you are basing your objection to abortion on the sensation of pain, then you are looking at 20 weeks plus, the same as me

Right, and I know reason and evidence are on my side even if I am a minority. Moreover, I am not judging any individual as long as I can change someone’s mind. We are all capable of moral failings and irrational thought and we need to help each other come to their senses whenever possible.

I agree totally with the sentiment, though obviously I disagree on the substance.

The unborn human feels pain and senses its mother and father between 12 and sixteen weeks. So when is a parent responsible for the unborn child if not when it feels pain and senses its mother? Drawing an arbitrary line at birth because the law allows it is not based on science but on the whims of man.

Firstly, your dates are wrong. See above. Secondly, drawing an arbitrary line is all we can do in this issue, or else accept the only arbitrary line drawn by nature, which is birth. Even the arbitrary line of conception is not available to us because it is undetectable. Besides neither conception no birth are satisfactory in any way in terms of social responsibility or practicality. Thirdly, science, or at least biology, is not on the business of allowing or disallowing. Science allows the Holocaust, nuclear weapons, amputation and euthanasia. It's societies that decide how science should be used, based on what is scientifically possible and understood. This, if society determines, as you do that the appropriate time to stop abortions is just before the foetus feels pain, then science tells us that point is between 20 and 24 weeks . If society prefers to go with a detectable foetal heartbeat, six weeks is the limit. The decision is not made by science, it is informed by science.

I get why an individual woman would choose a termination of a healthy, gestating baby. But waiting to solve the problem at that point is too late. It is a quick fix to a bad situation that unfortunately costs the unborn its life but arguably preventable with interventions, education, and values promoted earlier in the chain of events. We allow quick fixes and sacrifice our humanity in the bargain.

Sometimes the problem doesn't manifest until it is "too late". Individual circumstances are always unique, and one should not judge unless one has the facts. I don't doubt that many women who seek abortions are feckless and irresponsible, but they aren't all like that.

The Roman empire ended up being one of the most brutal empires on earth. One-third of their population were slaves. Gladiators fighting to the death for entertainment. Etc. So using them as as justification for killing babies makes no sense unless might makes right to you.

You misunderstand me. I used a Roman example merely to indicate the universal phenomenon of abortion and neonatal infanticide. You won't stop it by banning it. You can reduce it significantly by reducing the causes. You can reduce significantly its danger to women and the moral impact on the foetus by making it easy to get in early pregnancy, by setting clear guidelines on what is and is not permitted, clear pathways to follow and adequate facilities for all.