What should abortion laws be?

[JD_2B]

So, you cannot, from a physiological perspective, claim that a woman is killing a person, at any specific point prior to birth, because neither you nor anyone else can claim to know at what exact moment personhood begins. Our best bet, so far, has been with once it takes a breath, and legally speaking, that decision should stand.

Not what I said at all. I indeed can claim that a woman is killing a person during pregnancy. What I can not claim is the exact cut off point of when that would be. I think it is reasonable to believe that it occurs at some point during the pregnancy simply because it is NOT reasonable to believe that all of the qualifiers that would need to be in place for you to consider it a person occurr at a single moment in time. You have defined that moment in time taking the first breath. Since that isn't reasonable deductive logic should tell you it occurrs before that.

You have to prove that personhood exists at one point and not at another, for this to even be feasible. I have more than adequately covered this.

You support this in the first trimester...

You are not telling us that this was just a lie, are you?

Why are you dodging the question? You love stalling.

I'm not. I don't think there should be a legal issue invovled for abortion in the first trimester because I am reasonably confident at that point we aren't dealing with a sentient being.

OK so it is on you to prove that sentience and personhood begins at some point other than the first trimester, and that as such, life does not exist before then.

I think you need consider the subtle difference between determing WHEN something happens and IF it happens. An anology would be that we can't nail to the second either, when a plant seed germinates, regardless we still know it happened by what follows (a plant).

Not always. Not all germinated seeds result in a plant. Just because some result CAN happen, does not mean it does. Actually, overall, GENERALLY the result is not the anticipated one, even. Especially in pregnancy.

And yet it so damn hard for you to admit that the reality of th above is that you believe there should be no legal or moral objection to a woman taking a human/human being/person/flavor of the week before it takes its first breath.

I have fucking admitted this, a million fucking times. Stop acting like I have not. What is WRONG with you? I don't give a shit if someone has an "objection" to it. It is their decision to make for themselves, so they can make any objection to my decisions just as I can object to theirs. An objection doesn't mean squat.

Because if you don't care if it is a person/human/human being/what you consider life post birth, arguing all this crap about when sentience occurs, when consciousness occurs, when voluntary actions occur, when personhood occurs is irrelevant. There's no point in that discussion anymore. I understand you don't BELIEVE it's any of those things prior to taking it's first breathe, but you have stated it doesn't matter to you what the truth is. Your argument is simply that the woman has autonomy no matter and trumps everything, therefore taking another human life/human/person is okay. We could even give pre-born babies legal status as human beings/human/person etc. What you would really have us do is re-write the laws to saying that killing another innocent human being/person/human is illegal WITH THE EXCEPTION of before it takes its first breath Would you admit that?

What a bunch of EMOTIONAL HYPERBOLE. I never fucking said that it was a non human or that it is okay for a woman to kill a born infant. Fuck off, indefinitely!!!

This is about breathing being the first signs of life. Try to follow.

A heart beat can be considered as being before the first signs of life now? YOU try to follow. Your links are all about lung development. Not mental development. Not sentience. Not personhood. None of them link there studies about lung development to those concepts. That the first breath in of itself, is a first sign of life, that it is the threshold for your legal objection to killing a child given all of the other independent bilogical working of the human body at that point is really utter nonsense.

Christ. Even YOU don't believe that a heartbeat is the first sign of life. Why would you even bother to spew such rhetoric then???
You know damn well that I do not believe that LIFE has begun until the infant breathes, so why why why would you continue to play make believe and bring up MOOT points like this one?
One could JUST As easily say that the life processes begin at conception, but that is NOT ME. You keep forgetting- My argument, MY SOLE ARGUMENT is that life begins at fucking birth. Get it through your thick SKULL!!!

Bullshit!! You fucking QUESTIONED MY ABILITY TO PARENT MY CHILD BASED ON MY STANCE ON ABORTION, YOU LYING FUCKING ASSHOLE. What's next? Are you going to question the safety and well being of my 10 year old now too??? claim that I am trying to kill him, just because I fucking support abortion??? How many times are you going to backpedal on your own ignorant ass assertions and personal attacks, before YOU realize that YOUR stance has NOTHING at all to do with life or death and everything to do with power and control of women???????????
The ONLY other people that have said something to me that was demeaning towards my parenting skills are the ones I ended up getting injunctions against, because they were ABUSERS.
You sit here and act like you are reading a relevant medical journal article, after posting medical journal articles yourself (the music study, I believe?) and then turn them around as if only a doctor can read them, and try to shrug them off. THEN, because YOU failed to educate yourself with the information given to you, you ALSO try to discount the study based on the test group mammal used???? Are you on fucking CRACK??????? What is WRONG with you? You want to use ONE inconclusive study about movements to music, as the entire basis of your ridiculous claim that fetuses are people, and women who choose to end the pregnancy are criminals, but NOT criminals if they do it at a certain stage of the pregnancy, or under late term circumstances that YOU deem worthy.. and then you COMPLETELY ignore anything else of factual merit that comes your way. You are SUCH a poster boy for the pro life movement. SO TOTALLY IGNORANT, not to mention a CONTRADICTORY ASSHOLE in the way you present your fucking case. So again, I say- Fuck off. And yes I mean it. I am the only person in this whole dialogue that has even TRIED to keep an open mind, and I have fucking HAD IT.

You think whatever you want to think about us women and abortion. I will pray that God gives YOU a uterus, because if MEN HAD BABIES, things would be a LOT DIFFERENT. Paternity leave for 12 weeks, not just six.. Abortions galore... Same sex marriage would probably be ENCOURAGED, even. LOL!!!

But, in REALITY, Bernie, You got NO FUCKING CHOICE in the matter, and you NEVER REALLY WILL. Too fucking bad for you.. boo to the fucking hoo.

Just proving a point is all. Cut the bullshit indignation schtick. I never said anything about or have judged your parenting. I don't know enough about you to credibly do that.

Backpedaling little liar. You degraded me in a way that nobody deserves to be degraded, having known NOTHING about me besides this conversation, on this thread, on this tiny speck of web called USMB.

What you said to me..

Sure I can admit it. The issue here is perspective. Having the position you have you don't look at a lot from the babies perspective (even after it's born it seems). Thinking that a mother dieing and leaving her child behind and that someone will step in time before the child dies from simple lack of care is wishful thinking and an argument made simply because it's the most convenient one to make. You are still talking about who take responsibility. I am talking about the child's level of dependence. It is dependent on others to survive, period. It really doesn't care from whom or from how many people that care comes from. You like to saying woman should not have to suffer an unchosen pregnancy. Maybe you need to consider if the child would choose you as a mother.

You have gone through this whole thread making snide little comments like that, for lack of a better argument. Here alone, you try to say that the babies of a dead mother having someone to care for them (adoption, foster care, friends, relatives.. all of this happens ALL the time) is apparently "wishful thinking" and then you go ahead and turn ME into some kind of subhuman, all because I support the choices of people to abort, etc. You have a personal problem with me, and you need to get over it.

And I have had quite enough of your little code word "inconvenient". All that does is try to imply that abortion by choice are all decided by some minor inconvenience and are not even fully weighed out by the woman. Fuck you pig.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

You have to prove that personhood exists at one point and not at another, for this to even be feasible.

Says the woman says a sentient mind is created by the first breath...

OK so it is on you to prove that sentience and personhood begins at some point other than the first trimester, and that as such, life does not exist before then.

'


sentience =/= life

get a dictionary

My argument, MY SOLE ARGUMENT is that life begins at fucking birth. Get it through your thick SKULL!!!

So you recant your claims about sentience and the first breath?

BTW, life does begin at conception, by definition. What happened to you supposed knowing a lot about biology?

Backpedaling little liar

 

[Bern80]

You have to prove that personhood exists at one point and not at another, for this to even be feasible. I have more than adequately covered this.



OK so it is on you to prove that sentience and personhood begins at some point other than the first trimester, and that as such, life does not exist before then.

Actually no I don't have to prove that at all. We've agreed upon what my contention is, so for me to be right all I have to do is show you're wrong about when life begins. All I have to show is how ridiculous your contention is that all of the criteria by which you define life happens in the blink of any eye and the mere unconscious act of breathing somehow imbues a baby with personhood.

What a bunch of EMOTIONAL HYPERBOLE. I never fucking said that it was a non human or that it is okay for a woman to kill a born infant. Fuck off, indefinitely!!!

There's nothing emotional about it. It's simply the reality of your position. YOU made this about autonomy. YOU stated that autonomy renders whether or not it is a human life pre-brith irrelevent. YOU stated a woman should not have to have something in her body she doesn't want there, EVER. Now what logical difference should the babies location make? Why does the same level of a woman's personal autonomy no longer apply post birth? Because the baby took a gulp of air you aren't entitled to the same level of autonomy to be rid of it if you want to?

Backpedaling little liar. You degraded me in a way that nobody deserves to be degraded, having known NOTHING about me besides this conversation, on this thread, on this tiny speck of web called USMB.

What you said to me..

You have gone through this whole thread making snide little comments like that, for lack of a better argument. Here alone, you try to say that the babies of a dead mother having someone to care for them (adoption, foster care, friends, relatives.. all of this happens ALL the time) is apparently "wishful thinking" and then you go ahead and turn ME into some kind of subhuman, all because I support the choices of people to abort, etc. You have a personal problem with me, and you need to get over it.

No I didn't degrade you at all. I suggested that you look at something from another perspective as oppossed to just your own. I suggested you exert what is referred to as empathy. I suggest you think really objectively and hard about whether I have made this personal. When it get's personal trust me you'll know cause like I said, I kinda have a thing for the truth.

And I have had quite enough of your little code word "inconvenient". All that does is try to imply that abortion by choice are all decided by some minor inconvenience and are not even fully weighed out by the woman. Fuck you pig.

It isn't a code word. It would be the truth for any abortion occurring where a human life is taken and/or the mother's life isn't at stake. Unplanned, unwanted, bad timing, call it what you want. It's not what you wanted to have happen in that point in time. That is the definition of inconvenient. What I have a hard time getting is why you are so defensive about the use of the word. You have defended a woman's right to an abortion for ANY reason. Logically then you shouldn't really give a rats rear end if she takes a life because keeping it would be inconvenient because NOTHING trumps a woman's autonomy.

 

[JD_2B]

You have to prove that personhood exists at one point and not at another, for this to even be feasible. I have more than adequately covered this.



OK so it is on you to prove that sentience and personhood begins at some point other than the first trimester, and that as such, life does not exist before then.

Actually no I don't have to prove that at all. We've agreed upon what my contention is, so for me to be right all I have to do is show you're wrong about when life begins. All I have to show is how ridiculous your contention is that all of the criteria by which you define life happens in the blink of any eye and the mere unconscious act of breathing somehow imbues a baby with personhood.

Again, feel free to feel however you would like to about it, but fetuses having rights in certain cases and not others, is illogical, because you make exceptions. And yes, if you were prosecuting a case, YOU would have the burden of proof that the fetus was what you call murdered. I have case law on my side, but YOUR contention is unprecedented.
Also, I cannot understand why you would prosecute an 8 month pregnant woman for choosing to abort, and then turn around and defend a woman, because her life was somehow in danger. Get fucking real.

What a bunch of EMOTIONAL HYPERBOLE. I never fucking said that it was a non human or that it is okay for a woman to kill a born infant. Fuck off, indefinitely!!!

There's nothing emotional about it. It's simply the reality of your position. YOU made this about autonomy. YOU stated that autonomy renders whether or not it is a human life pre-brith irrelevent. YOU stated a woman should not have to have something in her body she doesn't want there, EVER. Now what logical difference should the babies location make? Why does the same level of a woman's personal autonomy no longer apply post birth? Because the baby took a gulp of air you aren't entitled to the same level of autonomy to be rid of it if you want to?

Location makes ALL the difference. It is inside of a living human being, a US Citizen, who happens to have rights. Once it is out, it is no longer an issue of location, and only a matter of whether it breathes or not.
This, too, is established in case law, something that your position lacks.
Furthermore, my position is fluid and consistent, while yours is spotty at best, allowing for abortion BY demand, if not ON demand. You are more than willing to allow a so called "person" to die, as a means to rescue another. It is THIS position that does not require any burden of proof to be allowed.. But the position that an 8 month pregnant woman should be charged with murder- the unprecedented position- is where YOU need to establish a preponderance of evidence, beyond a reasonable doubt.
Autonomy is a valid defense in all situations that arise when it comes to "consequential damage" to ones own innards, if that person can show that whatever they were doing was a common event in their life, for example. Your law would NEVER hold up, so you can throw that penny into another well..

Backpedaling little liar. You degraded me in a way that nobody deserves to be degraded, having known NOTHING about me besides this conversation, on this thread, on this tiny speck of web called USMB.

What you said to me..

You have gone through this whole thread making snide little comments like that, for lack of a better argument. Here alone, you try to say that the babies of a dead mother having someone to care for them (adoption, foster care, friends, relatives.. all of this happens ALL the time) is apparently "wishful thinking" and then you go ahead and turn ME into some kind of subhuman, all because I support the choices of people to abort, etc. You have a personal problem with me, and you need to get over it.

No I didn't degrade you at all. I suggested that you look at something from another perspective as oppossed to just your own. I suggested you exert what is referred to as empathy. I suggest you think really objectively and hard about whether I have made this personal. When it get's personal trust me you'll know cause like I said, I kinda have a thing for the truth.

Bull. You have a thing for using emotional rhetoric based on NO supporting data, and the only truth that you will EVER accept is the one that you have drawn up in your head, without any merit besides QUICKENING, and now you are simply trying to justify that conclusion, with STILL no evidence to back any of your assertions up, and above all, a claim that a "fetus person" is somehow equally as valuable as a woman, unless the woman's life is at stake, which suddenly makes the "fetus person" less deserving of those equal rights. I suggest YOU sit down and think about that before you come back here spewing all this nonsense and expecting anyone to empathize.

And I have had quite enough of your little code word "inconvenient". All that does is try to imply that abortion by choice are all decided by some minor inconvenience and are not even fully weighed out by the woman. Fuck you pig.

It isn't a code word. It would be the truth for any abortion occurring where a human life is taken and/or the mother's life isn't at stake. Unplanned, unwanted, bad timing, call it what you want. It's not what you wanted to have happen in that point in time. That is the definition of inconvenient. What I have a hard time getting is why you are so defensive about the use of the word. You have defended a woman's right to an abortion for ANY reason. Logically then you shouldn't really give a rats rear end if she takes a life because keeping it would be inconvenient because NOTHING trumps a woman's autonomy.

Clearly you do not even comprehend the meaning of the word autonomy. I suggest you buy a dictionary, and look it up. Then, explore the reasons why YOU want to issue rights to a fetus that you deem to be a person, and continue to remove those SAME EXACT rights to CONVENIENCE the mother from having to be put on life support herself.

Fucking illogical moron. I swear, my ten year old could be sitting at my keyboard right now, and you would still be getting slaughtered in this debate. Have some common sense, please. Seriously.

I am not going to entertain any more questions from you, until you answer the DRIVING question to your own illogical assertion that a perceived to be "Sentient" fetus (a person, let's imagine... having rights) has no rights when it comes to being aborted because the mother would probably die with it in her, and all the while it really is a person, having full and equal rights to any other born person. Fucking explain yourself, because you make NO sense, whatsoever. That is the most inane shit I have ever fucking heard of.

 

[Bern80]

Location makes ALL the difference. It is inside of a living human being, a US Citizen, who happens to have rights. Once it is out, it is no longer an issue of location, and only a matter of whether it breathes or not. This, too, is established in case law, something that your position lacks.
Furthermore, my position is fluid and consistent, while yours is spotty at best, allowing for abortion BY demand, if not ON demand. You are more than willing to allow a so called "person" to die, as a means to rescue another. It is THIS position that does not require any burden of proof to be allowed.. But the position that an 8 month pregnant woman should be charged with murder- the unprecedented position- is where YOU need to establish a preponderance of evidence, beyond a reasonable doubt.
Autonomy is a valid defense in all situations that arise when it comes to "consequential damage" to ones own innards, if that person can show that whatever they were doing was a common event in their life, for example. Your law would NEVER hold up, so you can throw that penny into another well..

Again I think it best to argue this topic on it's own merit. We have established personhood, legally, is irrelevant to you. Doing that I think will take a lot of the emotion out of the argument. Try to put your objective hat on here for a second and just look at the nuances of the argument itself. My postion is that person hood occurs sometime after the first trimester and before the baby takes it's first breath. Yours is that personhood begins at the first breath. Agreed so far? So you have defined a specific point in time it occurs. The best I am confident in is a span of time going from immediately before your specific point to the end of the first trimester. Still agreed? I'm pretty sure we've agreed on at least what our positions are at this point, but correct me if I'm wrong. Hell forget about the subject matter entirely for a second. If you're presented with a question and you are given two answers to pick from, only one of which is correct, you can find out the answer one of two ways. 1) you can try to derive the actual answer or 2) you can show that one of the options CAN'T be the right answer, which in turn shows the other answer to be the right one.

Do you see then why continuting to ask for evidence as if I actually need any is kind of silly? Sure I can look for evidence as to when person hood begins, which is pretty complex developmental process. Or I can just show that all that complex development doesn't come to head and create person hood at the specific point in time you defined.

The other part of the argument is what is person hood. Are we even using the right term there or we both just understand what we mean by that at this point. Is it a soul, a level of sentience, cognition, just breathing? The last one is why I think your position is faulty, isn't there a lot more to being a person than just respiration? Is it reasonable to think that the first breath, 'activates' for lack of a better term, a whole bunch of other things that make a person a person at that specific point in time that weren't there seconds before?

Bull. You have a thing for using emotional rhetoric based on NO supporting data, and the only truth that you will EVER accept is the one that you have drawn up in your head, without any merit besides QUICKENING, and now you are simply trying to justify that conclusion, with STILL no evidence to back any of your assertions up, and above all, a claim that a "fetus person" is somehow equally as valuable as a woman, unless the woman's life is at stake, which suddenly makes the "fetus person" less deserving of those equal rights. I suggest YOU sit down and think about that before you come back here spewing all this nonsense and expecting anyone to empathize.

Please be specific. I would really like to see what you consider emotional rhetoric. Suggesting a view from another perspective is NOT emotional rhetoric. Contrary to popular opinion, empathy is not an emotion. It is simply an attempt to understand another perspective.

Clearly you do not even comprehend the meaning of the word autonomy. I suggest you buy a dictionary, and look it up. Then, explore the reasons why YOU want to issue rights to a fetus that you deem to be a person, and continue to remove those SAME EXACT rights to CONVENIENCE the mother from having to be put on life support herself.

I guess autonomy was the best single word I could come with to describe the conditon or qualifier that you are saying can not be abridged that allows a woman to legally and morally be rid of something she doesn't want in her no matter what. If you have a better word for it I'm more than happy to use that.

I am not going to entertain any more questions from you, until you answer the DRIVING question to your own illogical assertion that a perceived to be "Sentient" fetus (a person, let's imagine... having rights) has no rights when it comes to being aborted because the mother would probably die with it in her, and all the while it really is a person, having full and equal rights to any other born person. Fucking explain yourself, because you make NO sense, whatsoever. That is the most inane shit I have ever fucking heard of.

This isn't some paradox, JD. The principle that applies to making a choice about who lives if the mother's life is at stake is the same principle under which I have an objection to late term abortions. It is about protecting human life to the best of our ability. Even in less than desirable circumstances. Like circumstaces where maybe it just wasn't the best timing or circumstances where you have to choose if your baby lives or you live. I simply have a hard time seeing how killing a person via late term abortion for any reason short sever medical circumstances would be the best decision for EVERYONE.

 

[JD_2B]

Location makes ALL the difference. It is inside of a living human being, a US Citizen, who happens to have rights. Once it is out, it is no longer an issue of location, and only a matter of whether it breathes or not. This, too, is established in case law, something that your position lacks.
Furthermore, my position is fluid and consistent, while yours is spotty at best, allowing for abortion BY demand, if not ON demand. You are more than willing to allow a so called "person" to die, as a means to rescue another. It is THIS position that does not require any burden of proof to be allowed.. But the position that an 8 month pregnant woman should be charged with murder- the unprecedented position- is where YOU need to establish a preponderance of evidence, beyond a reasonable doubt.
Autonomy is a valid defense in all situations that arise when it comes to "consequential damage" to ones own innards, if that person can show that whatever they were doing was a common event in their life, for example. Your law would NEVER hold up, so you can throw that penny into another well..

Again I think it best to argue this topic on it's own merit. We have established personhood, legally, is irrelevant to you.

I Really did not say that.. I said that sentience is not relevant to me. Personhood is a different matter altogether, but fetuses are not people.

Doing that I think will take a lot of the emotion out of the argument. Try to put your objective hat on here for a second and just look at the nuances of the argument itself. My postion is that person hood occurs sometime after the first trimester and before the baby takes it's first breath. Yours is that personhood begins at the first breath. Agreed so far? So you have defined a specific point in time it occurs. The best I am confident in is a span of time going from immediately before your specific point to the end of the first trimester. Still agreed? I'm pretty sure we've agreed on at least what our positions are at this point, but correct me if I'm wrong. Hell forget about the subject matter entirely for a second. If you're presented with a question and you are given two answers to pick from, only one of which is correct, you can find out the answer one of two ways. 1) you can try to derive the actual answer or 2) you can show that one of the options CAN'T be the right answer, which in turn shows the other answer to be the right one.

Objectively speaking, Neither option can apply to YOUR argument, ONLY, because in your case:

#1 does not apply- you did not derive your answer from anything scientific or evidential in merit
and #2 cannot apply, if #1 does not apply to you, for the reasons listed. First, you must find out the clear answer and have some kind of proof or objective reasoning for it, before finding it. Therefore, there is no way of establishing some kind of empirical right or wrong to the non existent answer, being that the evidence to support it, is non existent.

And in MY case- #1 DOES apply because the answer was a result of empirical studies, case law, and scientific research, and is a massive change, over time, from the original incorrect answer that I started out with, acquired the same way you got your current incorrect answer. In fact, my original answers were just as off base as yours- a mirror of what you believe. I later realized that it was a subjective POV, and did a LOT of research to come to find out the things I have shared with you on here. My answer came with truth, not with emotional rhetoric.

As such, #2 also applies, because being that my answer is spawned FROM truths and empirical evidences, etc, I can then compare and contrast it to the Holy Bible, the very word from which even the concept of "right and wrong" became manifest, in all of the history of the world, and the very same teachings of morality (right and wrong) that the world, or the vast majority, thereof, bases THEIR beliefs, or at least, considers themselves to do. Because the science and religion shake hands, I know that my beliefs can most certainly be "right".

Do you see then why continuting to ask for evidence as if I actually need any is kind of silly? Sure I can look for evidence as to when person hood begins, which is pretty complex developmental process. Or I can just show that all that complex development doesn't come to head and create person hood at the specific point in time you defined.

You need evidence, if you want to prosecute women as murderers at any stage in a pregnancy. Tough shit. Grin and bear it. You are in the wrong forum, if you want to argue philosophy. Even if you want to just argue the science of it all, you would not succeed in a science forum, because YOU feel that evidence is not required to reach some kind of conclusion as the one you have already come to acquire. THAT is not being objective. THAT is being SUBJECTIVE and it is entirely based on your personal subjective gut instincts, which, by the way, is based wholly on EMOTION.

The other part of the argument is what is person hood. Are we even using the right term there or we both just understand what we mean by that at this point. Is it a soul, a level of sentience, cognition, just breathing? The last one is why I think your position is faulty, isn't there a lot more to being a person than just respiration? Is it reasonable to think that the first breath, 'activates' for lack of a better term, a whole bunch of other things that make a person a person at that specific point in time that weren't there seconds before?

Coming from one who refuses to read medical studies.. and claims to not need evidence of any sort, to reach the conclusion that personhood begins before birth, I do not care how unreasonable you think my studies, caselaw, etc, is- I have a basis for my claims, and you have none for yours. All of this hysterical repeating of the same thing over and over that you keep doing, will not make it true. You have GOT to stop turning this shit around on me. I swear I think that you are just trolling the thread, at this point.

Bull. You have a thing for using emotional rhetoric based on NO supporting data, and the only truth that you will EVER accept is the one that you have drawn up in your head, without any merit besides QUICKENING, and now you are simply trying to justify that conclusion, with STILL no evidence to back any of your assertions up, and above all, a claim that a "fetus person" is somehow equally as valuable as a woman, unless the woman's life is at stake, which suddenly makes the "fetus person" less deserving of those equal rights. I suggest YOU sit down and think about that before you come back here spewing all this nonsense and expecting anyone to empathize.

Please be specific. I would really like to see what you consider emotional rhetoric. Suggesting a view from another perspective is NOT emotional rhetoric. Contrary to popular opinion, empathy is not an emotion. It is simply an attempt to understand another perspective.

Empathy is the ability to relate to another person's EMOTIONS..

One dictionary says that empathy is the “identification with and understanding of another’s situation, feelings, and motives.” It has also been described as the ability to put oneself in the other fellow’s place.

Empathy requires first of all that we comprehend the circumstances of someone else and second that we share the feelings that those circumstances provoke in him. Empathy involves our feeling another person’s pain in our heart.

The word “empathy” does not appear in the Bible, but the Scriptures do refer indirectly to this quality.
The apostle Peter counseled Christians to show ‘fellow feeling, brotherly affection and compassion.’ (1 Peter 3:8)

The Greek word rendered “fellow feeling” literally means “to suffer with another” or “to have compassion.” The apostle Paul recommended similar sentiments when he exhorted fellow Christians to “rejoice with people who rejoice; weep with people who weep.”

The Bible relates about Jesus: “On seeing the crowds he felt pity for them, because they were skinned and thrown about like sheep without a shepherd.” (Matthew 9:36)

What is empathy | Answerbag

Clearly you do not even comprehend the meaning of the word autonomy. I suggest you buy a dictionary, and look it up. Then, explore the reasons why YOU want to issue rights to a fetus that you deem to be a person, and continue to remove those SAME EXACT rights to CONVENIENCE the mother from having to be put on life support herself.

I guess autonomy was the best single word I could come with to describe the conditon or qualifier that you are saying can not be abridged that allows a woman to legally and morally be rid of something she doesn't want in her no matter what. If you have a better word for it I'm more than happy to use that.

That is NOT what you were saying about autonomy, however. You wrote (originally discussing the use of the word inconvenience as emotional rhetoric) "It isn't a code word. It would be the truth for any abortion occurring where a human life is taken and/or the mother's life isn't at stake. Unplanned, unwanted, bad timing, call it what you want. It's not what you wanted to have happen in that point in time. That is the definition of inconvenient. What I have a hard time getting is why you are so defensive about the use of the word. You have defended a woman's right to an abortion for ANY reason. Logically then you shouldn't really give a rats rear end if she takes a life because keeping it would be inconvenient because NOTHING trumps a woman's autonomy."

Hey guess what?? Abortion in the late months IS on demand. The fact that another human being orders it (a Doctor) makes no difference.. The woman MAINTAINS FULL autonomy, and the abortion is demanded or prescribed for that reason alone. It does not make a hill of beans difference if the doctor prescribed it for any REAL physical life endangerment, or any impeding endangerments to come. SHE HAS AUTONOMY. SHE CAN CHOOSE WHETHER TO SEEK OUT THE DOCTOR AND BEG THEM TO GIVE HER AN ABORTION BASED ON THE FACT THAT SHE DOES NOT WANT IT INSIDE OF HER. She has FULL autonomy, because she can threaten her own life, showing that the fetus is causing her a severe mental impairment. She can fake her way through the whole fucking thing, and there is not a DAMN thing you can do about it, because SHE IS THE KING OF HER DOMAIN- HER BODY- HER RIGHT- HER COMPLETE AND TOTAL AUTONOMY. Even if the abortion was not legal, like I said before, she CAN jump off a cliff, and do a belly flop. SHE HAS FULL AND 100% control over her VOLUNTARY MOVEMENTS, and because of that, she can control the inner, more involuntary things, as well. SHE IS AUTONOMOUS. She can move to another country for the summer, and ABORT IT THERE, ALSO. Making abortion illegal or convictable is NOT going to change HER MIND, if HER MIND, or her GUT INSTINCT tells her that SHE SHOULD NOT GO THROUGH WITH A DELIVERY.
PERIOD. Whatever implications YOU think should be involved for her making HER OWN BODILY DECISIONS are absolutely irrelevant to whether she MAKES that decision.
That is AUTONOMY. Get it?????!

You REALLY do not understand how libertarian I am. I believe that if someone wants to smoke fucking CRACK all day, then there should be no law against it. It is THEIR body. If a crime occurs when that person is having withdrawal symptoms, then they should be tried with THAT crime, NOT the "crime" of autonomous decision making, no matter how physically debilitating, or dangerous that decision might have been! Why not outlaw all fast food restaurants, also- as they contribute to obesity, and fat people die young?? why not outlaw the use of high fructose corn syrup too, as it adds to American's sweet tooth, and causes people to consume 30% more calories a day than we did 30 years ago? Why not? I will tell you why not.. Because AMERICA IS A FREE COUNTRY. We are individual, and our rights to life and happiness are INDIVIDUALLY DETERMINED THROUGH THE FORCE CALLED AUTONOMY. Do I make myself CRYSTAL CLEAR NOW???

I am not going to entertain any more questions from you, until you answer the DRIVING question to your own illogical assertion that a perceived to be "Sentient" fetus (a person, let's imagine... having rights) has no rights when it comes to being aborted because the mother would probably die with it in her, and all the while it really is a person, having full and equal rights to any other born person. Fucking explain yourself, because you make NO sense, whatsoever. That is the most inane shit I have ever fucking heard of.

This isn't some paradox, JD. The principle that applies to making a choice about who lives if the mother's life is at stake is the same principle under which I have an objection to late term abortions. It is about protecting human life to the best of our ability. Even in less than desirable circumstances. Like circumstaces where maybe it just wasn't the best timing or circumstances where you have to choose if your baby lives or you live. Whether it be choosing between who lives and who dies even when one WILL die it is still about makeing the best decision possible for ALL parties involved.

Bullshit. If this was about saving lives, rather than oppressing women, then, considering your "anti abortion in the late term" arguments, you would not be "pro abortion" for the mother's life during the later part of the pregnancy. You would be emphatically arguing for a C-section, and pushing for state supported life support for both the delivered fetus and the mother.. Allowing abortions in certain cases during late term pregnancy, but wanting women criminalized in others, is SIMPLY NOT a consistent or fluid viewpoint, and as such is completely subjective and illogical.

 

[Bern80]

I Really did not say that.. I said that sentience is not relevant to me. Personhood is a different matter altogether, but fetuses are not people.

Then you have two incompatible beliefs. If you care about personhood to the extent that killing a person is prosecutable then you can NOT be of the position that a woman can have an abortion for ANY reason and not be prosecuted because 'ANY' would include 'persons'.

Objectively speaking, Neither option can apply to YOUR argument, ONLY, because in your case:

#1 does not apply- you did not derive your answer from anything scientific or evidential in merit
and #2 cannot apply, if #1 does not apply to you, for the reasons listed. First, you must find out the clear answer and have some kind of proof or objective reasoning for it, before finding it. Therefore, there is no way of establishing some kind of empirical right or wrong to the non existent answer, being that the evidence to support it, is non existent.

Would you agree that one of us has the true answer?

And in MY case- #1 DOES apply because the answer was a result of empirical studies, case law, and scientific research, and is a massive change, over time, from the original incorrect answer that I started out with, acquired the same way you got your current incorrect answer. In fact, my original answers were just as off base as yours- a mirror of what you believe. I later realized that it was a subjective POV, and did a LOT of research to come to find out the things I have shared with you on here. My answer came with truth, not with emotional rhetoric.

As such, #2 also applies, because being that my answer is spawned FROM truths and empirical evidences, etc, I can then compare and contrast it to the Holy Bible, the very word from which even the concept of "right and wrong" became manifest, in all of the history of the world, and the very same teachings of morality (right and wrong) that the world, or the vast majority, thereof, bases THEIR beliefs, or at least, considers themselves to do. Because the science and religion shake hands, I know that my beliefs can most certainly be "right".

Well for starters case law you don't really get to count. Just becuase something is a law or has precedent doesn't make it right. There was an awful lot of case law justifying slavery as well.

Secondly I find it hilarious that you think the articles you posted are somehow evidence of when personhood begins. All of your articles dealt with the issue how lungs develop. YOU have not provided any science to back your position either which is that the first breath is when person hood begins. There studies were about how the biology works, the conditions that need to be in place for the lungs to function once out of the womb. What you would like to slide under the rug and hope you don't have to provide evidence for is the the decidedly UNscientific leap you would like us to make that the act of the first breathe is what makes someone a person.

You need evidence, if you want to prosecute women as murderers at any stage in a pregnancy. Tough shit. Grin and bear it. You are in the wrong forum, if you want to argue philosophy. Even if you want to just argue the science of it all, you would not succeed in a science forum, because YOU feel that evidence is not required to reach some kind of conclusion as the one you have already come to acquire. THAT is not being objective. THAT is being SUBJECTIVE and it is entirely based on your personal subjective gut instincts, which, by the way, is based wholly on EMOTION.

First off I'm not really one to bastardize other people's work as you have. Again NOTHING you posted had anything to do scientifically with when personhood begins. It was about ling development. And you just hoped that we would accept your arbitrary definition defining that action as when personhood begins. To know if personhood begins at the point in time you state it does you first have to define personhoold which you really haven't done. Here are ALL of the defintions of person according to the dictionary.

per·son audio (pûrsn) KEY

NOUN:

1. A living human. Often used in combination: chairperson; spokesperson; salesperson.
2. An individual of specified character: a person of importance.
3. The composite of characteristics that make up an individual personality; the self.
4. The living body of a human: searched the prisoner's person.
5. Physique and general appearance.
6. Law A human or organization with legal rights and duties.
7. Christianity Any of the three separate individualities of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, as distinguished from the essence of the Godhead that unites them.
8. Grammar
1. Any of three groups of pronoun forms with corresponding verb inflections that distinguish the speaker (first person), the individual addressed (second person), and the individual or thing spoken of (third person).
2. Any of the different forms or inflections expressing these distinctions.
9. A character or role, as in a play; a guise: "Well, in her person, I say I will not have you" (Shakespeare).

I think you can agree that at least two of those defintions can be attributed to an unborn child at some point. So the reality is really it isn't whether someone is a person or not that you're arguing. it's something else. What?

Coming from one who refuses to read medical studies.. and claims to not need evidence of any sort, to reach the conclusion that personhood begins before birth, I do not care how unreasonable you think my studies, caselaw, etc, is- I have a basis for my claims, and you have none for yours. All of this hysterical repeating of the same thing over and over that you keep doing, will not make it true. You have GOT to stop turning this shit around on me. I swear I think that you are just trolling the thread, at this point.

Why isn't scientific evidence that shows you are wrong that the first breath equals person hood just as good evidence? Time to put your money where your mouth is. Do you have the proverbial balls to seek out that which does not support your postion?

Hey guess what?? Abortion in the late months IS on demand. The fact that another human being orders it (a Doctor) makes no difference.. The woman MAINTAINS FULL autonomy, and the abortion is demanded or prescribed for that reason alone. It does not make a hill of beans difference if the doctor prescribed it for any REAL physical life endangerment, or any impeding endangerments to come. SHE HAS AUTONOMY. SHE CAN CHOOSE WHETHER TO SEEK OUT THE DOCTOR AND BEG THEM TO GIVE HER AN ABORTION BASED ON THE FACT THAT SHE DOES NOT WANT IT INSIDE OF HER. She has FULL autonomy, because she can threaten her own life, showing that the fetus is causing her a severe mental impairment. She can fake her way through the whole fucking thing, and there is not a DAMN thing you can do about it, because SHE IS THE KING OF HER DOMAIN- HER BODY- HER RIGHT- HER COMPLETE AND TOTAL AUTONOMY. Even if the abortion was not legal, like I said before, she CAN jump off a cliff, and do a belly flop. SHE HAS FULL AND 100% control over her VOLUNTARY MOVEMENTS, and because of that, she can control the inner, more involuntary things, as well. SHE IS AUTONOMOUS. She can move to another country for the summer, and ABORT IT THERE, ALSO. Making abortion illegal or convictable is NOT going to change HER MIND, if HER MIND, or her GUT INSTINCT tells her that SHE SHOULD NOT GO THROUGH WITH A DELIVERY.
PERIOD. Whatever implications YOU think should be involved for her making HER OWN BODILY DECISIONS are absolutely irrelevant to whether she MAKES that decision.
That is AUTONOMY. Get it?????!

Yeah I think I see what you mean. I understand legality doesn't change what she could choose to do. But that's true of deciding to kill anyone really.

You REALLY do not understand how libertarian I am. I believe that if someone wants to smoke fucking CRACK all day, then there should be no law against it. It is THEIR body. If a crime occurs when that person is having withdrawal symptoms, then they should be tried with THAT crime, NOT the "crime" of autonomous decision making, no matter how physically debilitating, or dangerous that decision might have been! Why not outlaw all fast food restaurants, also- as they contribute to obesity, and fat people die young?? why not outlaw the use of high fructose corn syrup too, as it adds to American's sweet tooth, and causes people to consume 30% more calories a day than we did 30 years ago? Why not? I will tell you why not.. Because AMERICA IS A FREE COUNTRY. We are individual, and our rights to life and happiness are INDIVIDUALLY DETERMINED THROUGH THE FORCE CALLED AUTONOMY. Do I make myself CRYSTAL CLEAR NOW???

What America is or isn't really shouldn't have any bearing on whether we are free or not then. No law can prevent one from exercising autonomy. By extension then you would not have a right to life and happiness if you are not autonomous, correct?

I believe in a lot of the same things you do. Right up to the point where the choices people make negatively effect another person's right to life and happiness. At which point you agreed the should be held criminally accountable not for the choice, but for what they did to another person. If that's true then it really is person hood you care about as far as the legality of abortion. Which it would seem would require you to hold woman legally accountable for depriving a person (again, if simply for arguments sake you accept that at some point a baby becomes a person before birth), of life and happiness., correct?

I am not going to entertain any more questions from you, until you answer the DRIVING question to your own illogical assertion that a perceived to be "Sentient" fetus (a person, let's imagine... having rights) has no rights when it comes to being aborted because the mother would probably die with it in her, and all the while it really is a person, having full and equal rights to any other born person. Fucking explain yourself, because you make NO sense, whatsoever. That is the most inane shit I have ever fucking heard of.

Bullshit. If this was about saving lives, rather than oppressing women, then, considering your "anti abortion in the late term" arguments, you would not be "pro abortion" for the mother's life during the later part of the pregnancy. You would be emphatically arguing for a C-section, and pushing for state supported life support for both the delivered fetus and the mother.. Allowing abortions in certain cases during late term pregnancy, but wanting women criminalized in others, is SIMPLY NOT a consistent or fluid viewpoint, and as such is completely subjective and illogical.

Not bullshit. My position has never changed. No legal late term abortions UNLESS the woman's life is at stake. No my argument does not force me to always condemn a mother to death. It quite simply means making the best decision for ALL persons involved. Sometimes even the best decision will be an extremely difficult one (i.e who lives). No one should be held criminally accountable for that. Making a decision when there could have been a better one made, especially one that give a person the chance to live is completely different.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

fetuses having rights in certain cases and not others, is illogical.

Location makes ALL the difference.

In the same post.....

You have a thing for using emotional rhetoric based on NO supporting data

Fucking illogical moron

Allowing abortions in certain cases during late term pregnancy, but wanting women criminalized in others, is SIMPLY NOT a consistent or fluid viewpoint, and as such is completely subjective and illogical.

Right.... like sending Charles Manson to prison and not a man who defends himself against a robber is inconsistent and illogical


BTW, fluid is kinda an antonym to consistent.

 

[JD_2B]

I Really did not say that.. I said that sentience is not relevant to me. Personhood is a different matter altogether, but fetuses are not people.

Then you have two incompatible beliefs. If you care about personhood to the extent that killing a person is prosecutable then you can NOT be of the position that a woman can have an abortion for ANY reason and not be prosecuted because 'ANY' would include 'persons'.

Hence the need that YOU have, to prove that the fetus is a person, and not merely a fetus. No proof = nothing incompatible. Fetuses are NOT people, and caselaw, science, and everything else supports this. Eureka! This means that YOUR stance that a fetus is a person, is entirely subjective, and incompatible with EVERY source.

Objectively speaking, Neither option can apply to YOUR argument, ONLY, because in your case:

#1 does not apply- you did not derive your answer from anything scientific or evidential in merit
and #2 cannot apply, if #1 does not apply to you, for the reasons listed. First, you must find out the clear answer and have some kind of proof or objective reasoning for it, before finding it. Therefore, there is no way of establishing some kind of empirical right or wrong to the non existent answer, being that the evidence to support it, is non existent.

Would you agree that one of us has the true answer?

Sure! I agree that BOTH of us have true answers.. The answers that are not backed by law, or science, are subjective.. Sooooo.. My answer that is backed by case law, science etc, is TRUE, and based on FACT, and your answer (that a fetus is a person) is subjective, and based on opinion.
Your stance is perfectly acceptable, as long as you do not try to portray it as fact based. True, sure- if it is true to you, it is true to you, and YOU are under no obligation to either have a late term abortion OR be tried and convicted for a late term miscarriage occurring under "suspicious circumstances". You have that CHOICE. Every choice a person makes in regards to their body is based on truth. This is autonomy, and I fully support your right to exercise it. Just don't try to impose YOUR subjective truth on ME, or any other person, without showing evidence that proves your case beyond a reasonable doubt.

Well for starters case law you don't really get to count. Just becuase something is a law or has precedent doesn't make it right. There was an awful lot of case law justifying slavery as well.

Since this is the law and justice system subforum, AND you wish to imprison women over abortions/ miscarriages/ and criminalize Tort cases of traffic accidents and other such things, I strongly suggest that you DECIDE whether the utilization of the justice system is what your ultimate goal is or is not.
PS- Abortion being illegal was another judicial wrong that we had going for a couple of hundred years, but we have made major headway on that, and I don't see it going anywhere any time soon. The justice system, in terms of slavery, segregation, lynchings, and yes, abortion- has righted itself, from it's previous wrongdoings. =)

Secondly I find it hilarious that you think the articles you posted are somehow evidence of when personhood begins. All of your articles dealt with the issue how lungs develop. YOU have not provided any science to back your position either which is that the first breath is when person hood begins. There studies were about how the biology works, the conditions that need to be in place for the lungs to function once out of the womb. What you would like to slide under the rug and hope you don't have to provide evidence for is the the decidedly UNscientific leap you would like us to make that the act of the first breathe is what makes someone a person.

My articles show far more conclusive evidence than anything you posted.. Whoops! I almost forgot... You didn't post JACK SHIT. That's right, because you said that you don't NEED evidence.. meaning that you dont CARE about evidence. All you care about are your FEELINGS. Wah wah wah.

First off I'm not really one to bastardize other people's work as you have. Again NOTHING you posted had anything to do scientifically with when personhood begins. It was about ling development. And you just hoped that we would accept your arbitrary definition defining that action as when personhood begins. To know if personhood begins at the point in time you state it does you first have to define personhoold which you really haven't done. Here are ALL of the defintions of person according to the dictionary.

Comparing a dictionary to scientific findings, especially when you have posted NOTHING of merit on your own, is ridiculous. I have ACTUAL proof on my side, and you have zilch. Suck on that!

I think you can agree that at least two of those defintions can be attributed to an unborn child at some point. So the reality is really it isn't whether someone is a person or not that you're arguing. it's something else. What?

I am arguing personhood. You are not. You are arguing quickening, and this entire discussion has gotten to be totally.....


BORING! <yawn>

Why isn't scientific evidence that shows you are wrong that the first breath equals person hood just as good evidence? Time to put your money where your mouth is. Do you have the proverbial balls to seek out that which does not support your postion?

Do YOU??? Mr. I-dont-need-evidence-my-feelings-count-wah-wah-wah?

You have posted NOTHING of evidence to your own position, remember?? Why should *I* have to do all of YOUR footwork? Besides, it would only lead to the conclusion that personhood begins at the first breath, anyways, as I have already SHOWN you, through PEER REVIEWED MEDICAL JOURNALS.

Yeah I think I see what you mean. I understand legality doesn't change what she could choose to do. But that's true of deciding to kill anyone really.

It goes beyond legality.. It is about having control over one's own body. Now, I realize that you do not grasp this concept, but when a woman is pregnant, she does, in fact, still have a WHOLE LIFE of her own to enjoy as she sees fit. NOTHING can change that. The fetus cannot simply be removed at 20 weeks, as a means of avoiding the dangers that are present, in cases where the MOTHER might PUT HER OWN LIFE IN DANGER, or the dangers that are present because someone else puts the woman's life in danger, or the H1 N1 virus, or any number of other deadly infections that a PERSON can catch. A fetus can ONLY be harmed in the belly if the woman is harmed FIRST. Its called a CHRONOLOGY of events. The WOMAN gets hurt, or infected, THEN the fetus gets hurt or infected. Even if it was by a stray bullet, while she was at the firing range.. the fetus is SUBJECTED to that "risk", just the same as she is, only MORE SO. SHE can get skin grafts, surgeries, etc.. which is not simply uncommon in fetuses, but it is nearly unheard of. Fetuses are SUBJECT to autonomy. Autonomy is not about any "other" "person", than the WOMAN, for these very BASIC, FUNDAMENTAL reasons. At some point, you are going to have to admit that, and stop using all of this emotional rhetoric to try to make autonomy of a pregnant woman, in cases where the fetus is expelled early, either by choice or by accident, some kind of unbelievable issue. It is a FACT OF LIFE, it is VERY REAL and in order to stop feeling so much anger and hate over something so inconsequential (except for the emotional loss that some women experience), you have to EMBRACE it as such.

What America is or isn't really shouldn't have any bearing on whether we are free or not then. No law can prevent one from exercising autonomy. By extension then you would not have a right to life and happiness if you are not autonomous, correct?

We are autonomous, and everyone in the world is autonomous.. The difference is that unlike countries that have not declared themselves as having individual freedoms, like China, where a single person (imagine this is you) has the right to dictate how other people use their own bodies, including forcing women to have abortions in certain cases, and forcing both men and women to have sterilization surgeries. Family Planning and the American pro choice movement HAS the world's attention. We do not feel that anyone should be forced through ANY kind of medical situation against their will, period. We do not want anyone to be forced to gestate fully and deliver, forced to have a surgical C-Section, or any other surgery, OR forced to abort. We believe that each woman is in charge of making these decisions, but WE understand that imposing criminal charges on people for having different ideas than their government has, is OPPRESSIVE and TYRANNIC. Everyone HAS autonomy.. And as long as they are NOT being coerced through oppressive tyrannic governments, which threaten the the restrictive, less than fully supporting autonomy, nature of a prison cell, only then will they be free to make their choices as they see fit. Until then, ALL prevention of autonomy is oppression and dictative governing and, LIKE our forefathers, I will stand up and fight it tooth and nail.

I believe in a lot of the same things you do. Right up to the point where the choices people make negatively effect another person's right to life and happiness. At which point you agreed the should be held criminally accountable not for the choice, but for what they did to another person. If that's true then it really is person hood you care about as far as the legality of abortion. Which it would seem would require you to hold woman legally accountable for depriving a person (again, if simply for arguments sake you accept that at some point a baby becomes a person before birth), of life and happiness., correct?

If it was a "person", which it is not, then I would be against the aborting of it. However, a non autonomous fetus, being inside of a REAL and FULLY autonomous woman, which I am sure I have fully explained now to you, at least a thousand times, then the non autonomous fetus is NOT a person. Anything human that is not a zygote, embryo, fetus, etc, (being clear so as you do not do that whole immature fucking play on words semantics game that you are SO famous for now) and has at least once breathed air, is a person, and should not necessarily be killed for someone else's convenience. It is absolutely illogical to argue that is is a person.

Furthermore, to elaborate on my use of the word "necessarily" so that you do not go on another semantic trip, trying to mischaracterize my position here:
It is occassionally, actually OFTEN times, okay to take a life, innocent or otherwise, and even justifiably kill them, even after birth. People can not be on life support forever. People do kill people who may not be posing an imminent threat to their lives, as in my state, and in Colorado, where there is a "make my day" law, saying that anyone who is an unwelcome trespasser inside of your home can be shot to death. People who are not involved are allowed to kill someone if they are in the process of raping someone else, or have a knife on display in an apparently deadly manner. This again goes hand in hand with someone protecting their property.. like a crab protects the insides of the shell that is its home, and a woman protects hers.

Bullshit. If this was about saving lives, rather than oppressing women, then, considering your "anti abortion in the late term" arguments, you would not be "pro abortion" for the mother's life during the later part of the pregnancy. You would be emphatically arguing for a C-section, and pushing for state supported life support for both the delivered fetus and the mother.. Allowing abortions in certain cases during late term pregnancy, but wanting women criminalized in others, is SIMPLY NOT a consistent or fluid viewpoint, and as such is completely subjective and illogical.

Not bullshit. My position has never changed. No legal late term abortions UNLESS the woman's life is at stake. No my argument does not force me to always condemn a mother to death. It quite simply means making the best decision for ALL persons involved. Sometimes even the best decision will be an extremely difficult one (i.e who lives). No one should be held criminally accountable for that. Making a decision when there could have been a better one made, especially one that give a person the chance to live is completely different.

In fucking consistent as hell. Read it a few times, and tell me why it is inconsistent that you can "kill" an "alive" "person" for one reason and not for another. Tell me why it is inconsistent to not simply do a C-Section, rather than just going ahead and "killing" one "person".. And no more of the hyperbole that wah wah wah it is a DIFFICULT DECISION, MADE FOR ALL THE RIGHT REASONS, PURELY SUBJECTIVE BULLSHIT, when you say that, because it AUTOMATICALLY implies that WOMEN in a position to feel like abortion might have to be an option for them, are NOT making a difficult decision, or that they can't POSSIBLY HAVE THE REASONING SKILLS TO KNOW THAT IT IS RIGHT OR WRONG.

EPIC Fail. That is the ONE thing you are consistent about..

 

[misterflew]

Hello to all;

Flew over the coo coo's nest recently, more of the same. Loons and mad hatter's abound. I think we should let a woman choose whether to have a flat somach or a rounded version. It's her choice.

Peace and Icy 7-11 drinks for all

Flewy

 

[&#9773;proletarian&#9773;]

Read it a few times, and tell me why it is inconsistent that you can "kill" an "alive" "person" for one reason and not for another.

So you won't be defending yourself when I rape you and stab you 137 times?

 

[JD_2B]

Read it a few times, and tell me why it is inconsistent that you can "kill" an "alive" "person" for one reason and not for another.

So you won't be defending yourself when I rape you and stab you 137 times?

Comparing ME, an autonomous person, to a fetus, as if they are an autonomous person, is ridiculous..

Oh whoopsie! My memory must be slipping... As a general rule-

Don't Feed The....

TROLL...

 

[&#9773;proletarian&#9773;]

Answer the question. Is a woman justified in killing someone who's trying to kill and raper her?


If so, then I want you to think really hard about hy it is inconsistent that you can "kill" an "alive" "person" for one reason and not for another'.

 

[JD_2B]

Yes. But that person is an actual person, and autonomous. A fetus is no such thing.

 

[Bern80]

Hence the need that YOU have, to prove that the fetus is a person, and not merely a fetus. No proof = nothing incompatible. Fetuses are NOT people, and caselaw, science, and everything else supports this. Eureka! This means that YOUR stance that a fetus is a person, is entirely subjective, and incompatible with EVERY source.

Sorry that just plain isn't true. Again NOTHING you posted has shit to do with personhood. 'I have more than you do' na na na boo bo0'. Grow the fuck up. The simple fact is if you went to the authors of those studies you posted and asked them if what they wrote meant personhood began with the first breath or had something to do with lung development you would be laughed out of the office. You can't really complain about me not providing evidence when you haven't really posted ANYTHING that supports yours either.

The fact is it is your defintions of personhood that is totally arbitrary. Autonomy equals personhood now? You really want to argue that a a child's autonomy - it's ability to make choices - measurably changed because it took a breath? Having personhood be based on whether one is a autonomous or not probably isn't the greatest idea. After all one can lose their autonomy at various points throughtout life in many ways. I think you would be hard pressed to show even that a new born is autonomous for some time after its birth.

 

[&#9773;proletarian&#9773;]

Tell me why it is inconsistent that you can "kill" an "alive" "person" for one reason and not for another.You''re the one who said no such position can be illogical, but it necessarily emotional rhetoric.

You should look in a mirror.

 

[JD_2B]

Hence the need that YOU have, to prove that the fetus is a person, and not merely a fetus. No proof = nothing incompatible. Fetuses are NOT people, and caselaw, science, and everything else supports this. Eureka! This means that YOUR stance that a fetus is a person, is entirely subjective, and incompatible with EVERY source.

Sorry that just plain isn't true. Again NOTHING you posted has shit to do with personhood. 'I have more than you do' na na na boo bo0'. Grow the fuck up. The simple fact is if you went to the authors of those studies you posted and asked them if what they wrote meant personhood began with the first breath or had something to do with lung development you would be laughed out of the office. You can't really complain about me not providing evidence when you haven't really posted ANYTHING that supports yours either.

You keep saying that, and YET.. I have, and you have not. It is easy for you to claim that my medical journal sources do not have any evidence for my position, just because you CHOOSE to not believe what they have to say, that is, the portions that you bothered to read, at all. And even THOSE you tried to discount, based on the type of mammal used in the studies.
Also, now that I have posted several studies that have backed my claims, and clearly HAVE shown evidence for my stance- all you are going to do as some kind of evil hate spree tactic, is to just discredit them by saying that there was NO evidence within them proving that personhood starts at breathing. How convenient for you to do this.. Putting me on the defensive without lending a shred of credibility to your own subjective opinions. Real Classy.

The fact is it is your defintions of personhood that is totally arbitrary. Autonomy equals personhood now?

As we have covered, ad nauseum before, to have personhood as a legal right, a GREAT DEAL of requirements must be met.

You really want to argue that a a child's autonomy - it's ability to make choices - measurably changed because it took a breath?

Oh Great.. Now you are depleting autonomy down to your own little arbitrary definition by implying that only humans that can make their own decisions are what I call people...
Hey newsflash, dickwad, I am not retarded. Your attempts to try and redirect my assertions into something else are THINLY VEILED AT BEST.
Why don't you stop acting like such a TOOL, here, please???

I never meant that "making choices" was the sole consideration in personhood, or autonomy, although taking a breath, or at least, being removed from a person's innards, is clearly the point in which personhood BEGINS. However, being separated from the uterus is not the sole consideration in personhood, or all miscarriages and stillbirths would be considered "people", having a birth certificate and everything. Clearly birth is not even considered to be enough to cause someone to have rights. Breathing at least ONE breath is, though. Legally, Scientifically, and Religiously. That is how it works, and whether you agree or not has absolutely NO bearing in regards to these facts. YOU having the emotion of a mountain and intellect of a peanut, does not make these facts any less true, Bern.

Having personhood be based on whether one is a autonomous or not probably isn't the greatest idea. After all one can lose their autonomy at various points throughtout life in many ways. I think you would be hard pressed to show even that a new born is autonomous for some time after its birth.

It IS autonomous. It can CHOOSE who and what it looks at.. it can suddenly scratch itself and other people (never ONCE seen a fetus with scratches on itself) which is why we put little mittens on newborns, and it can make noises and sounds, fart, smile, cry, etc. It can smell things, and cry because a place smells wrong, it can SEE things, and hear things, and be startled when it is surprised. It may be VIRTUALLY helpless in many ways, but unlike a fetus, if a newborn is starving, soiled, or alone and cold, it can cry and alert someone that it needs help, AND it can GET that help. It can be operated on, and it is very common for this to happen, it can be intubated for any long range life assistance aides, and guess what else? It can get SICK without being attached to and inside of the mother, or even in her arms.

Not all people have the full capacity to make their own decisions, but they are still considered people, and autonomous. Even when a person is PVS and on life support, they are still considered a person, who simply needs someone to keep the oxygen coming to them. In these types of cases, someone ELSE gets to make choices that can continue them "living" and "growing", and if that type of support is too negligable, or as you say "inconvenient" to the family's finances, or the state's funding, and even it is perceived that the person might be capable of surviving, if that life support continued, then they can and OFTEN DO pull the cord. This is because there is not adequate resources for the hope of survival to be adequate to continue on the course of using life support.

Did you know that some religions are opposed to blood transfusions, and refuse to get them, even for their little children???

NOBODY is responsible for keeping ANYONE alive, in a legal sense. There is always a healthy and acceptable alternative.. Any child can be adopted.. any fetus aborted. That is how it is, and even if you disagree, that is still how it will remain.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Hello to all;

Flew over the coo coo's nest recently, more of the same. Loons and mad hatter's abound. I think we should let a woman choose whether to have a flat somach or a rounded version. It's her choice.

Peace and Icy 7-11 drinks for all

Flewy

Does anyone know why this featherhead felt the need to clutter up the board with this spew of nothing?

 

[Bern80]

You keep saying that, and YET.. I have, and you have not. It is easy for you to claim that my medical journal sources do not have any evidence for my position, just because you CHOOSE to not believe what they have to say, that is, the portions that you bothered to read, at all. And even THOSE you tried to discount, based on the type of mammal used in the studies.
Also, now that I have posted several studies that have backed my claims, and clearly HAVE shown evidence for my stance- all you are going to do as some kind of evil hate spree tactic, is to just discredit them by saying that there was NO evidence within them proving that personhood starts at breathing. How convenient for you to do this.. Putting me on the defensive without lending a shred of credibility to your own subjective opinions. Real Classy.

Your position was that personhood starts with breathing. Where did ANY medical journal you posted broach the subject of personhood at all?

Oh Great.. Now you are depleting autonomy down to your own little arbitrary definition by implying that only humans that can make their own decisions are what I call people...
Hey newsflash, dickwad, I am not retarded. Your attempts to try and redirect my assertions into something else are THINLY VEILED AT BEST.
Why don't you stop acting like such a TOOL, here, please???

Main Entry: au·ton·o·my
Pronunciation: \-m&#275;\
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural au·ton·o·mies
Date: circa 1623

1 : the quality or state of being self-governing; especially : the right of self-government
2 : self-directing freedom and especially moral independence
3 : a self-governing state

I never meant that "making choices" was the sole consideration in personhood, or autonomy, although taking a breath, or at least, being removed from a person's innards, is clearly the point in which personhood BEGINS.

Okay I'll meet you part way. I would agree there is a level subjectivity to my opinion on when personhood begins. I would concede that because I'm not sure there is a scientific explanation as to when personhood begins. I still believe what I believe as to when it occurs. The way I see it you can argue person hood in maybe three contexts. Science first. Science is observation, nothing more. Can you honestly observe when personhood begins? Would a scientist really say that when he saw that first breath he also saw the biological function that is becoming a person? I don't think so. Personhood isn't as simple as taking a breath no matter how much you would like it to be.

Legally personhood doesn't occur until the child is born and takes a breath. But the law is the law. It isn't science. From a legal perspective, who has right and who doesn't really is quite arbitrary.

Religion is probably the hardest one because all one has to go on is what other people say god said.

It IS autonomous. It can CHOOSE who and what it looks at.. it can suddenly scratch itself and other people (never ONCE seen a fetus with scratches on itself) which is why we put little mittens on newborns, and it can make noises and sounds, fart, smile, cry, etc. It can smell things, and cry because a place smells wrong, it can SEE things, and hear things, and be startled when it is surprised. It may be VIRTUALLY helpless in many ways, but unlike a fetus, if a newborn is starving, soiled, or alone and cold, it can cry and alert someone that it needs help, AND it can GET that help. It can be operated on, and it is very common for this to happen, it can be intubated for any long range life assistance aides, and guess what else? It can get SICK without being attached to and inside of the mother, or even in her arms.

Have you considered that you haven't seen those things in a fetus because you have probably observed a lot more newborns than fetuses? How is it you know that they are concsciously choosing to do those things? You are familiar with the concept of instincts aren't you?

Not all people have the full capacity to make their own decisions, but they are still considered people, and autonomous.

I'm pretty sure it is you now that doesn't understand the term autonomy. Self-governance, that is what autonomy essentially is. The ability to consciously guide your own actions.I'm pretty sure someone in a coma isn't self governing. What I have noticed is that you tend to make words mean what you would like them to mean.

NOBODY is responsible for keeping ANYONE alive, in a legal sense. There is always a healthy and acceptable alternative.. Any child can be adopted.. any fetus aborted. That is how it is, and even if you disagree, that is still how it will remain.

Ya know another thing that smart objective people udnerstand is that using absolutes like, never, ever, no one, anyone is rarely a good idea. You do have a responsibility to not kill persons, right?

 

[&#9773;proletarian&#9773;]

As we have covered, ad nauseum before, to have personhood as a legal right, a GREAT DEAL of requirements must be met.

Wait... when did this become a matter of a 'right to personhood'?!

Did you know that some religions are opposed to blood transfusions, and refuse to get them, even for their little children???

Relevance?

NOBODY is responsible for keeping ANYONE alive, in a legal sense

ppst! Doctors and caregivers EMTs and paramedics, too

Wanna know a secret? Parents are legally required tp provide the care and resiources to keep their children not only alive, but in a state of wellbeing!

Now I really worry for your child's welfare, if you think you have no moral, ethical, or legal obligation to keep him/her alive.