Fetus Found in Gift Box

[FA_Q2]

I can’t understand the issue here. A seven month old fetus has measurable brain activity, can (most of the time) survive outside the womb with little to no assistance, actively responds to stimuli, and IS human. It is not, as JD would like to believe, like a tumor or mole. The law here is warped anyway but if it is a month after the allowed abortion time then yes, murder it should be or at least manslaughter. I find it funny that there is so much emphasis on “first breath” even though that has NOTHING to do with how we define ourselves as human. If I were to ask what is your defining feature you would most likely come back with I feel or I think or something along those lines. You would not say I breathe so that makes me a person.

 

[JD_2B]

I can’t understand the issue here. A seven month old fetus has measurable brain activity, can (most of the time) survive outside the womb with little to no assistance, actively responds to stimuli, and IS human. It is not, as JD would like to believe, like a tumor or mole. The law here is warped anyway but if it is a month after the allowed abortion time then yes, murder it should be or at least manslaughter. I find it funny that there is so much emphasis on “first breath” even though that has NOTHING to do with how we define ourselves as human. If I were to ask what is your defining feature you would most likely come back with I feel or I think or something along those lines. You would not say I breathe so that makes me a person.

Sentience does not make something a person. If it did, then dogs would also be people. Robots who understood language and responded to questions, would also be people.
Sentience is beside the point.

I AM sentient. You know that, and I know that. I know that whatever resides in my body STILL has all the threats and difficulties that my body has- but it does not think for me, and cannot think for itself, and definitely can not negotiate with me, a place to grow inside of my body for nine months. I know that I have a life, and people that I communicate with, people that I can see and touch, who I can do favors for, who can return those favors to me.
A fetus cannot do any of those things.

If it resides IN my body, that does not make MY BODY some knd of a SAFE HAVEN for it, that should be under strict control by me, to follow some crazy idea by someone else that the fetus is a full fledged human being who is somehow entitled to all the same rights that I am entitled to.

It cannot worship..
It cannot be my friend...
It cannot come and go as it pleases, or as I please even...

The ONLY thing that is 100% true, that we KNOW, is that if it is removed from the uterus, and stays in the amniotic sac, and does not breathe air, that THEN and ONLY then can it go BACK INSIDE.

Once it breathes, it becomes an INDIVIDUAL. A person. A separate entity from myself. It no longer REQUIRES my body to breathe in MY air, my heart to deliver that air to it's circulatory system.. It has it's own air to deliver, which creates a fully functional heart.

NOBODY knows when the equipment it has actually functions in a means of sentience or understanding. We only ONLY know that it's nervous system exists, and is partially functioning, in that it gives reaction-type responses to pain and other forms of touch.
Like the ovaries and the testicles, HAVING the equipment, and having it be partially functioning, is NOT an absolute proof or evidence that it is fully functional.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

I AM sentient.

Intelligent is another matter entirely...

I know that whatever resides in my body...cannot think for itself

All evidence to the contrary. To say 'residence inside anther organism -> !sentient' is illogical and just plain stupid.

The fetus doesn't need your body even before its first breath- ever heard of premature births? If it were dependent on your body for oxygen, that would mean it were still incapable of breathing on its own. Obviously, the child is capable of breathing before it actually does so. Do you ever think?

BTW, dogs make friends, monkeys and other primates help eachother, and most macroscopic animals are known to communicate.

Remind me what makes you different from the dogs or the fetus in this story, again... obviously, it's not intelligence.

 

[JD_2B]

I AM sentient.

Intelligent is another matter entirely...

Well, we could always just flame each other, like a couple of elementary kids, instead of debating. That's certainly one way to do it. =)

I know that whatever resides in my body...cannot think for itself

All evidence to the contrary. To say 'residence inside anther organism -> !sentient' is illogical and just plain stupid.[/quote]

How so? It IS an organism, for sure- and as long as it IS inside of MY body, then it is DEPENDENT, physiologically, upon the good health and welfare of MY BODY and MY DECISIONS, in order to reach viability. And, After that, it is STILL dependent upon MY BODY. See, some fetuses can be born right on time, or late, and still not come out of the ordeal alive. They are called STILLBIRTHS. Not because they DIED, but because they never MADE IT to a state of breathing- AKA independence from the uterus.
Prove to me that a fetus

quote]The fetus doesn't need your body even before its first breath- ever heard of premature births? If it were dependent on your body for oxygen, that would mean it were still incapable of breathing on its own. Obviously, the child is capable of breathing before it actually does so. Do you ever think?[/quote]

Wow I guess all those stillbirthed fetuses should have had their mommies and daddies press criminal charges on their obstetrician, then- I mean- as long as we are saying that a fetus becomes entirely independent and capable of living on it's own at a certain point in particular, then those pesky obstetricians should all know exactly what time that is.
I happen to know a lot more about this than you obviously do. My own son was a few days late, and he almost died as a result of not being able to breathe. I say died because he could breathe with one lung- which caused his life to begin. This is why we celebrate his birthday on THAT day- the day he began breathing. The day of his BIRTH. Had my son been born even a week before my due date, he may not have breathed at all. Those are cold, hard facts, bother man.
"viable" just means that it has all of its equipment at the point of growth that it SHOULD all be able to work right. It does not GUARANTEE that it does, or that it will. It also does not guarantee that it will survive outside of the uterus, either. All that "life support" that it needs (breathing tubes, etc) are all simply sociological demands, and are NOT some kind of requirement for anyone to have. That is simply a MORE expensive way of giving the fetus (now baby) the same life support it would have in the uterus. Also, you may not know this, but that life support- that NICU life support, is often removed. That, my friend, is another DOSE of REALITY that so many of you need to take. Also, many of these preemies end up as wards of the state, and when the nurses OR doctors get to the point of deciding that it will not survive, they often can get away with pulling the plug themselves. Face it- who is going to adopt some crack-whore's little HIV positive, crack baby shaking, and needing $10,000 dollars per day in life supporting medical treatment, which only increases it's chances of living from zilch to about 5%.
You might think that the nursing staff is all on top of this shit- all working hard to save EVERY life that comes through their maternity ward- and they ARE. But even THEY know where their resources, and physical and emotional energy is best used- and they push most of their own resources into those who are not prone to dying, in spite of sucking up all of their time and funding.
Same goes with fucking abortion. If someone doesn't want to waste ten grand on the labor and delivery, plus 3 or 4 grand on the prenatal care, and doesn't want to gain weight (often times obese people are told that they should not get pregnant, for fear that they will develop diabetes as a result of the weight gain- and being slim seems to be a very important quality in our society, as well- so think about that the next time you pick on a fat female) also doesnt want the stretch marks (who wants stretch marks, lol) and doesn't want any number of other hazards associated with pregnancy, including having rotten teeth caused by morning sickness (my morning sickness cost me an additional 4500 dollars, right off the bat, and apparently having fillings makes you more prone to cavities, so as you can see there is a whole world of dental needs for women who get morning sickness out there) or women who already have acid reflux and do not want to aggravate it, or erode their esophagus any further..
I could list a million reasons that various women might choose to abort.
Again- you do not have to make those kinds of choices, yourself. We are not your sexual gatekeepers. You get to make your own choices.

BTW, dogs make friends, monkeys and other primates help eachother, and most macroscopic animals are known to communicate.

Remind me what makes you different from the dogs or the fetus in this story, again... obviously, it's not intelligence.

You are the only one here without a lick of intelligence. It is generally the party that resorts to put downs like these, that is being whipped in the debate.
Was it not you who said that communication and sentience makes one a person? Well, either way, I am glad you can now see that sentience is not an issue here, when it comes to personhood.

 

[dilloduck]

I AM sentient.

Intelligent is another matter entirely...

Well, we could always just flame each other, like a couple of elementary kids, instead of debating. That's certainly one way to do it. =)

I know that whatever resides in my body...cannot think for itself

All evidence to the contrary. To say 'residence inside anther organism -> !sentient' is illogical and just plain stupid.

How so? It IS an organism, for sure- and as long as it IS inside of MY body, then it is DEPENDENT, physiologically, upon the good health and welfare of MY BODY and MY DECISIONS, in order to reach viability. And, After that, it is STILL dependent upon MY BODY. See, some fetuses can be born right on time, or late, and still not come out of the ordeal alive. They are called STILLBIRTHS. Not because they DIED, but because they never MADE IT to a state of breathing- AKA independence from the uterus.
Prove to me that a fetus

quote]The fetus doesn't need your body even before its first breath- ever heard of premature births? If it were dependent on your body for oxygen, that would mean it were still incapable of breathing on its own. Obviously, the child is capable of breathing before it actually does so. Do you ever think?[/quote]

Wow I guess all those stillbirthed fetuses should have had their mommies and daddies press criminal charges on their obstetrician, then- I mean- as long as we are saying that a fetus becomes entirely independent and capable of living on it's own at a certain point in particular, then those pesky obstetricians should all know exactly what time that is.
I happen to know a lot more about this than you obviously do. My own son was a few days late, and he almost died as a result of not being able to breathe. I say died because he could breathe with one lung- which caused his life to begin. This is why we celebrate his birthday on THAT day- the day he began breathing. The day of his BIRTH. Had my son been born even a week before my due date, he may not have breathed at all. Those are cold, hard facts, bother man.
"viable" just means that it has all of its equipment at the point of growth that it SHOULD all be able to work right. It does not GUARANTEE that it does, or that it will. It also does not guarantee that it will survive outside of the uterus, either. All that "life support" that it needs (breathing tubes, etc) are all simply sociological demands, and are NOT some kind of requirement for anyone to have. That is simply a MORE expensive way of giving the fetus (now baby) the same life support it would have in the uterus. Also, you may not know this, but that life support- that NICU life support, is often removed. That, my friend, is another DOSE of REALITY that so many of you need to take. Also, many of these preemies end up as wards of the state, and when the nurses OR doctors get to the point of deciding that it will not survive, they often can get away with pulling the plug themselves. Face it- who is going to adopt some crack-whore's little HIV positive, crack baby shaking, and needing $10,000 dollars per day in life supporting medical treatment, which only increases it's chances of living from zilch to about 5%.
You might think that the nursing staff is all on top of this shit- all working hard to save EVERY life that comes through their maternity ward- and they ARE. But even THEY know where their resources, and physical and emotional energy is best used- and they push most of their own resources into those who are not prone to dying, in spite of sucking up all of their time and funding.
Same goes with fucking abortion. If someone doesn't want to waste ten grand on the labor and delivery, plus 3 or 4 grand on the prenatal care, and doesn't want to gain weight (often times obese people are told that they should not get pregnant, for fear that they will develop diabetes as a result of the weight gain- and being slim seems to be a very important quality in our society, as well- so think about that the next time you pick on a fat female) also doesnt want the stretch marks (who wants stretch marks, lol) and doesn't want any number of other hazards associated with pregnancy, including having rotten teeth caused by morning sickness (my morning sickness cost me an additional 4500 dollars, right off the bat, and apparently having fillings makes you more prone to cavities, so as you can see there is a whole world of dental needs for women who get morning sickness out there) or women who already have acid reflux and do not want to aggravate it, or erode their esophagus any further..
I could list a million reasons that various women might choose to abort.
Again- you do not have to make those kinds of choices, yourself. We are not your sexual gatekeepers. You get to make your own choices.

BTW, dogs make friends, monkeys and other primates help eachother, and most macroscopic animals are known to communicate.

Remind me what makes you different from the dogs or the fetus in this story, again... obviously, it's not intelligence.

You are the only one here without a lick of intelligence. It is generally the party that resorts to put downs like these, that is being whipped in the debate.
Was it not you who said that communication and sentience makes one a person? Well, either way, I am glad you can now see that sentience is not an issue here, when it comes to personhood.[/QUOTE]

Are you still open to the "flaming each other" option ?

 

[☭proletarian☭]

he could breathe with one lung- which caused his life to begin..

You're fucking moron. By definition, his life began approximately nine and a half months earlier, when it demonstrated the ability to metabolize homeostasis, growth, response to external stimuli...

Do get a dictionary and stop lying.

All that "life support" that it needs (breathing tubes, etc) are all simply sociological demands, and are NOT some kind of requirement for anyone to have.

I see English words, but when you string them together, they don't say anything.... You just said he needed it to live.

We're still waiting for you to demonstrate what fundamental aspect of the child's nature changes upon the first breath; so far, you've merely demonstrated a total lack of understanding regarding basic biology and argued that a car victim is no longer a person if the paramedics are artificially stimulating his/her breathing.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I thought the this established that it's still murder?

Nope, because SHE took the pill. He didn't force it down her throat, and it's not illegal for a woman to induce her own miscarriage, as far as I know. It's only homicide if the baby was born alive and allowed to die, or if someone other than the mother caused the miscarriage.

So if a man kills an unborn child, it's murder. If a female does the exact same thing, the law discriminates based upon sex?

Does anyone else see a problem here?

If a woman were to kill an unborn child in someone else's womb, she'd get charged the same as a man doing it. Yeah, I have a problem with the law saying it's okay to kill the child in your own womb, but I doubt it's the same problem you have. I don't see it as the job of the legal system to try to apply human "fairness" to the universe, and that includes the natural biological differences between male and female.

 

[AllieBaba]

All JD's demonstrated thus far is that she finds pregnancy repugnant and babies worthless.

I'm waiting for more substance. I don't think it will be forthcoming, because there's no way to defend abortion using her platform.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I can’t understand the issue here. A seven month old fetus has measurable brain activity, can (most of the time) survive outside the womb with little to no assistance, actively responds to stimuli, and IS human. It is not, as JD would like to believe, like a tumor or mole. The law here is warped anyway but if it is a month after the allowed abortion time then yes, murder it should be or at least manslaughter. I find it funny that there is so much emphasis on “first breath” even though that has NOTHING to do with how we define ourselves as human. If I were to ask what is your defining feature you would most likely come back with I feel or I think or something along those lines. You would not say I breathe so that makes me a person.

Sentience does not make something a person. If it did, then dogs would also be people. Robots who understood language and responded to questions, would also be people.
Sentience is beside the point.

Robots are not sentient. They have no self-awareness, nor do they truly think. They merely regurgitate set answers programmed into them, and the fact that the programming is now very advanced and complex does not change that fact.

I think the missing component in your equation is "humanity". A dog, however intelligent and aware, is not human and never will be. A fetus is human from the get-go and always will be.

I AM sentient. You know that, and I know that. I know that whatever resides in my body STILL has all the threats and difficulties that my body has- but it does not think for me, and cannot think for itself, and definitely can not negotiate with me, a place to grow inside of my body for nine months. I know that I have a life, and people that I communicate with, people that I can see and touch, who I can do favors for, who can return those favors to me.
A fetus cannot do any of those things.

Sorry, but insofar as I even recognize the made-up concept of "personhood", it does not depend on level of intelligence. Believe me, that is not a slippery slope you want to go down. A fetus is a living organism, separate and distinct, by basic, biological measurements. Likewise, he is a human organism by basic, biological measurements. All of this is measurable, finite, and undeniable.

If it resides IN my body, that does not make MY BODY some knd of a SAFE HAVEN for it, that should be under strict control by me, to follow some crazy idea by someone else that the fetus is a full fledged human being who is somehow entitled to all the same rights that I am entitled to.

The fact that you are hostile to your own offspring which you yourself created doesn't make that the way things SHOULD be. Frankly, if there's anywhere that SHOULD be a safe haven for a young, helpless being, THAT ought to be it. It is obscene that in our society, a child's deadliest enemy is often his own mother.

It cannot worship..

Neither can the atheists running around this board.

It cannot be my friend...

Why would he want to, when you're trying to kill him? Not a conducive foundation to friendship.

It cannot come and go as it pleases, or as I please even....

So now mobility is a requirement? Lots of handicapped people are going to be distressed to hear that.

The ONLY thing that is 100% true, that we KNOW, is that if it is removed from the uterus, and stays in the amniotic sac, and does not breathe air, that THEN and ONLY then can it go BACK INSIDE...

What the hell are you talking about, "go back inside"?

Once it breathes, it becomes an INDIVIDUAL. A person. A separate entity from myself. It no longer REQUIRES my body to breathe in MY air, my heart to deliver that air to it's circulatory system.. It has it's own air to deliver, which creates a fully functional heart.

And when did THIS arbitrary standard become scientific fact?

NOBODY knows when the equipment it has actually functions in a means of sentience or understanding. We only ONLY know that it's nervous system exists, and is partially functioning, in that it gives reaction-type responses to pain and other forms of touch.

Wrong. And incredibly unscientific. "We only know that it's nervous system functions, but we don't know what that means." You might want to brush up on your info about neurology and embryology, because you're way behind on what medical science knows about the function of the nervous system and the brain.

ike the ovaries and the testicles, HAVING the equipment, and having it be partially functioning, is NOT an absolute proof or evidence that it is fully functional.

Not the point, anyway. Like I said, you do NOT want to go down the road of having your life and "personhood" measured by someone else's belief about your intellectual functioning.

 

[Cecilie1200]

All JD's demonstrated thus far is that she finds pregnancy repugnant and babies worthless.

I'm waiting for more substance. I don't think it will be forthcoming, because there's no way to defend abortion using her platform.

She's also demonstrated that she wasn't paying any attention in high school biology class, AND that the slavish devotion leftists claim to "science" disappears like snow under a summer sun in favor of belief and emotion as soon as it becomes inconvenient.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

All JD's demonstrated thus far is that she finds pregnancy repugnant and babies worthless.

I'm waiting for more substance. I don't think it will be forthcoming, because there's no way to defend abortion using her platform.

She's also demonstrated that she wasn't paying any attention in high school biology class, AND that the slavish devotion leftists claim to "science" disappears like snow under a summer sun in favor of belief and emotion as soon as it becomes inconvenient.

I thought I was the leftist here?

We don't want her...

 

[☭proletarian☭]

Nope, because SHE took the pill. He didn't force it down her throat, and it's not illegal for a woman to induce her own miscarriage, as far as I know. It's only homicide if the baby was born alive and allowed to die, or if someone other than the mother caused the miscarriage.

So if a man kills an unborn child, it's murder. If a female does the exact same thing, the law discriminates based upon sex?

Does anyone else see a problem here?

If a woman were to kill an unborn child in someone else's womb, she'd get charged the same as a man doing it. Yeah, I have a problem with the law saying it's okay to kill the child in your own womb, but I doubt it's the same problem you have. I don't see it as the job of the legal system to try to apply human "fairness" to the universe, and that includes the natural biological differences between male and female.

So you view killing a child a day before its born as a crime against the mother? Are you a Jew?

 

[Father Time]

So if a man kills an unborn child, it's murder. If a female does the exact same thing, the law discriminates based upon sex?

Does anyone else see a problem here?

If a woman were to kill an unborn child in someone else's womb, she'd get charged the same as a man doing it. Yeah, I have a problem with the law saying it's okay to kill the child in your own womb, but I doubt it's the same problem you have. I don't see it as the job of the legal system to try to apply human "fairness" to the universe, and that includes the natural biological differences between male and female.

So you view killing a child a day before its born as a crime against the mother? Are you a Jew?

This cannot end well.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

It''s a valid question.
Exodus 21:22 has generally been translated/interpreted as referring to either a premature birth or a miscarriage (with 'further harm' referring to harm to the women herself, as Genesis 2:7 has been oft held to place the beginning of life as a person at the first breath)
Of course,the Jews used to kill their firstborn son as a sacrifice to god, as did other tribes in the region. Exodus 13, Genesis 22:1-114, Judges 11:29, Exodus 22:29 and others are reference to this tradition.

Some liberal theologians reject this interpretation. 5 They point out that this passage appears to have been derived from two earlier Pagan laws, whose intent is quite clear:

• Code of Hammurabi (209, 210) which reads: "If a seignior struck a[nother] seignior's daughter and has caused her to have a miscarriage [literally, caused her to drop that of her womb], he shall pay ten shekels of silver for her fetus. If that woman had died, they shall put his daughter to death."
• Hittite Laws, (1.17): "If anyone causes a free woman to miscarry [literally, drives out the embryo]-if (it is) the 10th month, he shall give 10 shekels of silver, if (it is) the 5th month, he shall give 5 shekels of silver..." The phrase "drives out the embryo" appears to relate to a miscarriage rather than to a premature birth.

Abortion: Passages in the Hebrew Scriptures -- Old Testament

further,

Leviticus 27:6 And if it be from a month old even unto five years old, then thy estimation shall be of the male five shekels of silver and for the female three shekels. A child was only given a value after the age of one month; boys were worth five shekels; girls three; below that age, (and presumably before birth) they were assigned no monetary value.

Leviticus 27:6 And if it be from a month old even unto five years old, then thy estimation shall be of the male five shekels of silver and for the female three shekels. A child was only given a value after the age of one month; boys were worth five shekels; girls three; below that age, (and presumably before birth) they were assigned no monetary value.

(same source)


further reading:
God's Not Pro-Life

 

[Cecilie1200]

So if a man kills an unborn child, it's murder. If a female does the exact same thing, the law discriminates based upon sex?

Does anyone else see a problem here?

If a woman were to kill an unborn child in someone else's womb, she'd get charged the same as a man doing it. Yeah, I have a problem with the law saying it's okay to kill the child in your own womb, but I doubt it's the same problem you have. I don't see it as the job of the legal system to try to apply human "fairness" to the universe, and that includes the natural biological differences between male and female.

So you view killing a child a day before its born as a crime against the mother? Are you a Jew?

We're not talking about my opinion of the act here. We're talking about the law. My personal opinion is that anyone who hurts a child should be strung up by their genitals, but that's not the way the law is written.

 

[Cecilie1200]

If a woman were to kill an unborn child in someone else's womb, she'd get charged the same as a man doing it. Yeah, I have a problem with the law saying it's okay to kill the child in your own womb, but I doubt it's the same problem you have. I don't see it as the job of the legal system to try to apply human "fairness" to the universe, and that includes the natural biological differences between male and female.

So you view killing a child a day before its born as a crime against the mother? Are you a Jew?

This cannot end well.

Fortunately for Prole, I just woke up from a very restful nap.

 

[JD_2B]

I can’t understand the issue here. A seven month old fetus has measurable brain activity, can (most of the time) survive outside the womb with little to no assistance, actively responds to stimuli, and IS human. It is not, as JD would like to believe, like a tumor or mole. The law here is warped anyway but if it is a month after the allowed abortion time then yes, murder it should be or at least manslaughter. I find it funny that there is so much emphasis on “first breath” even though that has NOTHING to do with how we define ourselves as human. If I were to ask what is your defining feature you would most likely come back with I feel or I think or something along those lines. You would not say I breathe so that makes me a person.

Sentience does not make something a person. If it did, then dogs would also be people. Robots who understood language and responded to questions, would also be people.
Sentience is beside the point.

Robots are not sentient. They have no self-awareness, nor do they truly think. They merely regurgitate set answers programmed into them, and the fact that the programming is now very advanced and complex does not change that fact.

True, but as long as we are discussing "programming", and some are discussing a higher being as the great creator and planner of all things.. Then we are also programmed to have a psychological reaction that is maternal or paternal to anything with a human-like face. This is why people want to have and hold little baby chimps- their facial qualities spur a preprogrammed response in us to care for them, because they look very human-like. In fact, to go on about the psychology of sentience- if you met two people in a room, and one was dressed kinda raggedy and was unattractive to you, or was disfigured in the face, you would be FAR less likely to share your time with that person, than the likelihood of you spending your time (or money) on someone who had a more human looking face. This is all preprogrammed psychology, and why we care more for certain people than others, on a primative level. It is SHALLOWNESS that makes people think that a fetus is or should be treated like an individual self contained person- nothing DEEP about it. That is actually proven in clinical peer reviewed psychological studies. So as far as sentience goes- there is far more science involved with your perception of what is a person and what is not. I personally am not opposed to someone thinking a fetus is a person. If you WANT that fetus inside of you, you will think it is a person. I have done that, too. BUT if you do not want to be pregnant, you will not think of it as an individual or a potential life. Maybe if you don't want to be a parent, but don't mind being pregnant, you will think it is a person, because the issue you are having is not with the problem of being pregnant, but of becoming a potential parent- but all of that is subjective, and certainly not based on any given timeline. It is entirely based on autonomy. I am not a cold hearted bitch for saying these things, either. This is reality, guys. I have wanted a pregnancy and not wanted a different pregnancy. No big deal. I don't regret my abortion!! I am very glad it was available, actually. I sure as hell would not want to have two kids, when I can barely afford the one. =) I have also never been on welfare, and am very proud of that. I would like ONE anti abortion person here to invite me to have a child, that I cannot afford, and welcome me to apply for welfare. Just one. Otherwise, clearly you do not care enough about the well being of the children once they are born, or maybe you just do not have a good enough grasp on how expensive children can be. Either way, it is my perogative to want to have less children, and give them more, rather than have more children and give them less. You are welcome to do whatever you want to do though..

I think the missing component in your equation is "humanity". A dog, however intelligent and aware, is not human and never will be. A fetus is human from the get-go and always will be.

So, If some freak show chick fucks a dog on a stage, and gets preggers with the dog, you are aware that her offspring would be human still, right??
Your argument makes no rational sense. If it is not okay to you to kill anything that is human, then it is irrational to use birth control or condoms, and men should never masturbate. It wastes (destroys) eggs and sperm- which are entirely human- and are the very building blocks of what makes life in the first place.

Sorry, but insofar as I even recognize the made-up concept of "personhood", it does not depend on level of intelligence. Believe me, that is not a slippery slope you want to go down. A fetus is a living organism, separate and distinct, by basic, biological measurements. Likewise, he is a human organism by basic, biological measurements. All of this is measurable, finite, and undeniable.

It is only measurable that they are a certain size, look a certain way, and develop certain parts that as far as we know, function to a certain extent. It is NOT absolutely possible to know how much those body parts function during the time that it is inside of another body. We only know that males can create sperm, and females have eggs. We know that those eggs cannot be used yet.
An organism has to have the ability to reproduce to be considered a living thing. Because a fetus is still INSIDE of the body, there is absolutely NO WAY it could reproduce. I know that you pro lifers like to ignore certain aspects of what makes something alive, but reproduction is definitely one of those things.
A child that is born, that is a day old can reproduce with another day old child (without having sex, anyways) by in vitro fertilization- using a surrogate.
This cannot be done with fetuses. Therefore, they are not people.

The fact that you are hostile to your own offspring which you yourself created doesn't make that the way things SHOULD be. Frankly, if there's anywhere that SHOULD be a safe haven for a young, helpless being, THAT ought to be it. It is obscene that in our society, a child's deadliest enemy is often his own mother.

Excuse me? I had ONE abortion, not two, stupid bitch. I am not hostile at all towards my kid. He is the most adored, loved child on the planet. Don't sit there and act like SAYING that kids can be a pain in the ass somehow makes someone a fucking DEMON MOM. That is preposterous. You really need a reality check, lady.

It cannot worship..

Neither can the atheists running around this board.

But yes they CAN. They just choose not to.

It cannot be my friend...

Why would he want to, when you're trying to kill him? Not a conducive foundation to friendship.

Let's discuss full term pregnancies here- reality check time again. How can some fetus be a mother's friend or cuddlebug? Describe how this is possible in your little fantasy world, wont you please?

So now mobility is a requirement? Lots of handicapped people are going to be distressed to hear that.

I said it cannot come and go as it pleases. Handicapped people CAN do that. Even if they need a lot of help in doing so, they CAN come and go. Handicapped PEOPLE are MUCH more independent and different than non people that you want to throw rights at, called fetuses.

What the hell are you talking about, "go back inside"?

When you give birth, and the baby breathes, can it go back into the uterus and still stay alive?
I didnt think so. It needs AIR to live. Cant get that air, even if the placenta has not been delivered, and the umbilical cord is attached, once the baby has had air in it's lungs. It would surely drown if you tried to put it back into the uterus. This is reality. PEOPLE live by breathing air. Fetuses live by having blood pumped into them that has the mother's air in it. If the mother's circulation gets cut off a little, by the way she sleeps, even, the fetus could die from a lack of air, even if the mother is unaffected.

And when did THIS arbitrary standard become scientific fact?

The moment every single person on the planet breathes, it CAN NOT go back into the uterus and still survive. Sorry. No dice there. Nothing arbitrary. It is just standard fact being thrown at you.. Welcome to planet Earth.

NOBODY knows when the equipment it has actually functions in a means of sentience or understanding. We only ONLY know that it's nervous system exists, and is partially functioning, in that it gives reaction-type responses to pain and other forms of touch.

Wrong. And incredibly unscientific. "We only know that it's nervous system functions, but we don't know what that means." You might want to brush up on your info about neurology and embryology, because you're way behind on what medical science knows about the function of the nervous system and the brain.

Oh yeah? You seem to be the one making unscientific claims, based on your own emotionally charged, irrational fear that a fetus might not be a person. Show me ONE study that proves that an embryo or fetus is aware of itself. Show me ONE study that shows that when a fetus sucks its thumb or jerks around, it is MORE than just a neurological reaction response, caused by having a CNS. There is a MAJOR difference between being sentient, and being able to react to a stimuli, etc. I bet you thought that Teri Shiavo was sentient, too- even though the majority of her brain was liquified. Good grief. Yeah the woman could react to a pain stimuli.. that did not make her sentient. She was PVS.
Same goes with fetuses. The good news is that once they come out, they can be (and usually are) sentient, assuming the birth goes right, and they get that air, etc..

ike the ovaries and the testicles, HAVING the equipment, and having it be partially functioning, is NOT an absolute proof or evidence that it is fully functional.

Not the point, anyway. Like I said, you do NOT want to go down the road of having your life and "personhood" measured by someone else's belief about your intellectual functioning.

Then what are YOU doing???? You seem pretty quick to try to discredit my opinions about personhood based on your own beliefs (which are not objectively based on the fact) that a fetus has brain function.

Personhood is pretty subjective, and you are free to think that your zygote is an individual who can vote and can think on its own, etc, for all I care. I do not believe that. I never will. I base my beliefs on the psychological and sociological studies I have seen, the neurologists I have known, and their expert opinions on how the brain develops, and yes- on what the bible has to say about premature birth, and miscarriages, etc.

Call me crazy, but I think that anyone who works this hard at fighting for the rights of a multi celled organism (or a single celled one- wow) based on the POTENTIAL that they will survive the pregnancy, is absolutely outrageous- and the fact that the same person who fights that hard for such an organism, does so with a complete disregard to the actual person (whom there is absolutely no doubt surrounding HER personhood) who IS the fetus's Cocoon of space- and DOES NOT see that the cocoon can break, bend, or fail in any way- is absolutely fucking NUTS. It is the lowest form of misogyny to disregard the wishes of a woman, and to try to make her body into some kind of baby oven. All that does is discredit her status as a human being. We are women, and we have every right that any other person has, including the right to privacy, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Making a woman do something with her body that is against her will is much akin to forcing men to donate ALL of their unused sperm to babymaking, even if they don't want kids.
I think it is just retarded and oppressive, and I will not put up with it.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Sentience does not make something a person. If it did, then dogs would also be people. Robots who understood language and responded to questions, would also be people.
Sentience is beside the point.

Robots are not sentient. They have no self-awareness, nor do they truly think. They merely regurgitate set answers programmed into them, and the fact that the programming is now very advanced and complex does not change that fact.

True, but as long as we are discussing "programming", and some are discussing a higher being as the great creator and planner of all things.. Then we are also programmed to have a psychological reaction that is maternal or paternal to anything with a human-like face. This is why people want to have and hold little baby chimps- their facial qualities spur a preprogrammed response in us to care for them, because they look very human-like. In fact, to go on about the psychology of sentience- if you met two people in a room, and one was dressed kinda raggedy and was unattractive to you, or was disfigured in the face, you would be FAR less likely to share your time with that person, than the likelihood of you spending your time (or money) on someone who had a more human looking face. This is all preprogrammed psychology, and why we care more for certain people than others, on a primative level.

All of this is completely irrelevant. Living creatures are sentient. They think and are self-aware. Robots are not alive, they do not think, and they are not self-aware. Period.

It is SHALLOWNESS that makes people think that a fetus is or should be treated like an individual self contained person- nothing DEEP about it.

No, dear. It is a basic awareness of science and biology, untainted by a fuzzy, emotional desire to remake reality to suit personal preferences. A fetus IS an individual, self-contained human organism. That's just the biological fact. Does he require a specific environment to survive? Certainly, but so do all other living organisms. Requiring the specific environment for which nature designed you and being unable to survive in an environment for which you were not designed does not make you less alive or less individual.

That is actually proven in clinical peer reviewed psychological studies.

I don't give a rat's ass what a psychological study has shown about how people "feel" about fetuses and babies. The only person in this conversation who is thinking that feelings and personal opinions are relevant to this is you. I'm all about the medical science on this subject.

So as far as sentience goes- there is far more science involved with your perception of what is a person and what is not. I personally am not opposed to someone thinking a fetus is a person.

Glad to hear you're in favor of allowing people to believe in facts.

If you WANT that fetus inside of you, you will think it is a person. I have done that, too. BUT if you do not want to be pregnant, you will not think of it as an individual or a potential life.

Again, this is not a matter of personal opinion. The facts are what they are, whether you want them to be that way or not. A fetus is what he is, and your feelings about the situation are irrelevant to those facts.

Maybe if you don't want to be a parent, but don't mind being pregnant, you will think it is a person, because the issue you are having is not with the problem of being pregnant, but of becoming a potential parent- but all of that is subjective, and certainly not based on any given timeline.

None of this is subjective. Do you stop being alive simply because I decide that I "feel" you are not? Of course not. Likewise, a fetus's life does not stop existing because you "believe" it doesn't exist.

It is entirely based on autonomy. I am not a cold hearted bitch for saying these things, either.

No, you're just an illogical, unscientific thinker.

This is reality, guys.

No, it is never reality to think that facts change according to how you feel about them.

I have wanted a pregnancy and not wanted a different pregnancy. No big deal.

And for some odd reason, you think the one fetus became fundamentally different from the other based on your opinion. I can't decide if you're just very childish, or incredibly conceited, to think that your personal feelings have that much power in the world. Do you also think it's possible to kill someone just by wishing they're dead?

I don't regret my abortion!! I am very glad it was available, actually. I sure as hell would not want to have two kids, when I can barely afford the one. =)

Okay, NOW I'm torn between thinking you're coldhearted or ignorant. No, actually I always thought you were ignorant on this subject.

I have also never been on welfare, and am very proud of that.

Are you looking for me to congratulate you on killing a child rather than taking welfare? Because I'm afraid I sort of miss the logic there.

I would like ONE anti abortion person here to invite me to have a child, that I cannot afford, and welcome me to apply for welfare. Just one.

So you honestly think that because you think money is more important than human life, we agree with you? Are you really unaware that pro-life people contribute huge amounts of money, time, and other donations around the country to try to help women give birth to their children rather than killing them?

Otherwise, clearly you do not care enough about the well being of the children once they are born, or maybe you just do not have a good enough grasp on how expensive children can be.

Or maybe you are just making wild, unfounded assumptions and accusations because you don't have any sort of grasp at all of who pro-lifers are or what they do. Which isn't surprising, because you've already demonstrated that you know next to nothing about the realities of reproduction and abortion.

Either way, it is my perogative to want to have less children, and give them more, rather than have more children and give them less. You are welcome to do whatever you want to do though.

It is your prerogative to choose not to have children, but you're supposed to do that by not getting pregnant in the first place, not by killing them.

So, If some freak show chick fucks a dog on a stage, and gets preggers with the dog, you are aware that her offspring would be human still, right??

Okay, Gregor Mendel, is there any chance that you could stick to analogies that are actually in the realm of possibility? I realize from your previous posts that you apparently skipped biology class in high school, but even you should know that humans and dogs can't interbreed.

Your argument makes no rational sense.

Seriously? You just tried to argue that humans and dogs can interbreed, and YOU are saying someone ELSE makes no rational sense? Really?

If it is not okay to you to kill anything that is human, then it is irrational to use birth control or condoms, and men should never masturbate. It wastes (destroys) eggs and sperm- which are entirely human- and are the very building blocks of what makes life in the first place.

Hey, Biology Girl. Go look up the words "cell", "tissue", "organ", and "organism". Ponder the differences between them. Contemplate how stupid you sound as an adult, not knowing something so basic that it is taught in junior high. Come back when you don't sound like an uneducated imbecile. I'm just embarrassed for you at this point.

I'm not even bothering to answer the rest of this. I could get a more educated, logical, coherent debate with my 14-year-old. This just makes me sad, and fearful for our nation's future.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

First, psychology is the study of the psyche, not the condition of instinctual responses.

Learn what the fuck you're talking about; anything with 'ology' in the name refers to the study of something.

It is SHALLOWNESS that makes people think that a fetus is or should be treated like an individual self contained person- nothing DEEP about it.

:facepalm:

That is actually proven in clinical peer reviewed psychological studies. So as far as sentience goes- there is far more science involved with your perception of what is a person and what is not.

Science can study the emergence of sentience. How we define 'person' is a matter not of science, but of philosophy. There is a distinction between the two.

So, If some freak show chick fucks a dog on a stage, and gets preggers with the dog, you are aware that her offspring would be human still, right??

Remember earlier, when we were talking about you having no fucking clue about basic biology? This is what we're talking about.

Your argument makes no rational sense

See the above.

. If it is not okay to you to kill anything that is human, then it is irrational to use birth control or condoms, and men should never masturbate. It wastes (destroys) eggs and sperm- which are entirely human- and are the very building blocks of what makes life in the first place.

Did you just say an egg or a sperm is a human? Back to your dearth of any comprehension of biology...

An organism has to have the ability to reproduce to be considered a living thing. Because a fetus is still INSIDE of the body, there is absolutely NO WAY it could reproduce. I know that you pro lifers like to ignore certain aspects of what makes something alive, but reproduction is definitely one of those things.

wow... so you're saying a child's not alive until puberty? Once again, we come bvack to you knowing abso-fucking-lutely nothing about biology. You're dumber than Kent Hovind.

A child that is born, that is a day old can reproduce with another day old child (without having sex, anyways) by in vitro fertilization- using a surrogate.

Again, back to basic biology, and now also human physiological- especially sexual0- development.

This cannot be done with fetuses. Therefore, they are not people.

Nor can it be done with a woman who's had a hysterectomy (which I sincerely hope you have). Your stupidity is astounding.

Excuse me? I had ONE abortion, not two, stupid bitch. I am not hostile at all towards my kid. He is the most adored, loved child on the planet.

I'm highly skeptical of that.

I said it cannot come and go as it pleases. Handicapped people CAN do that.

Tell that to them when they're calling LifeAlert.

It needs AIR to live

Wrong. Once again we come back to your total lack of knowledge about- well, about anything, it seems. We can breathe liquid, fyi. Feel free to try Google sometime.

Oh yeah? You seem to be the one making unscientific claims,

Says the moron who just talked about a human-dog hybrid being fully genetically human Did you mistake a WEorth1000 entry for an actual photo?

Call me crazy

I have been, especially since the part about a dog getting you pregnant

 

[☭proletarian☭]

Living creatures are sentient..

Not all of them, to the best of our knowledge, at least. I had to call you on that one.

This just makes me sad, and fearful for our nation's future.

That I concur with