Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Nope.. That is a sociological expectation, not an obligation, and not a legal requirement. Parents can legally give up their parental rights through adoption.
Hellooooo in there. We have an entire governmental department DEVOTED to makeing sure that parents are responsible for their children. Ever hear of child neglect laws? Yes you indeed are legally required to do what is in the best interest of your child.
There is not a study in existence that even discusses personhood or when it begins. Nice Try
MY POINT EXACLTEY. You went on a paragraph long rant about how ALL the evidence was on your side as to when you defined personhood (which is a made up term in the first place). Now you are admitting that science doesn't even mention the concept. So we are both in agreement now that science really can't be used as evidence for your defintion of personhood, right?
I understand what you are trying to get at with that particular study. But I think you are a little quick to conclude that has something to do with personhood. There are at least a couple other logical explanations. The premature baby for example; it should make sense that it responds more than the same baby still in the womb, not because it became more autonomous, but because it is being bombarded with more stimuli than it would be if it were still in the womb.
I argue your position on autonomy in general because again it isn't as simple as just taking a breath. There would have to be something that triggers in that instant a greater level of autonomy where once something that was once non self governing now is. I think what is observable is that autonomy is gradual. Sure a birthed child has more autonomy than it did in the womb. But a toddler has more autonomy than an infant. A 5 year old more so than a toddler and so on. Which makes saying that it is this threshold of autonomy at this point in time that counts as personhood, rather arbitrary.
Did you or did you just not admit a few mere paragraphs ago that science would never say they observed personhood as being the point where a child took its first breath? How is it then that you can continue to state this as fact? A child isn't alive before it takes a breath? Add alive to the list of words you pull definition for out of your ass.
And your take on religion is probably a bit off as well. After all if everything in the bible can be proven )i.e adam and eve were made out of whatever god made them out of) then we ought to be able to prove God him/her/it self. This is entirely my opinion by I think a creator would think that would defeat the purpose of having people believe in him. You can not 'know' that the bible, Jesus, God, etc. are true and also have faith that they are true. Faith in something is a belief in the absence of evidence. I don't think God wants us to 'know' he exists or that there's life after death. I think he wants us to have faith in those things.
There isn't any semantics in the contradiction you just made. You said a person in a coma is autonomous because he can write a will telling people what he wants if he should wind up in a coma. Mere sentences later you said the same person is not autonomous because, having a will or not, they are dependent on others to carry out those wishes. You're talking dependence again. Even a newborn is dependent on an awful of outside help to keep it alive. Yet you don't recognize that the argument you made justifying abortion could very well certainly justify killing a child well after it is born. FOR GOD'S SAKE LOOK at the argument you made. No is responsible for keeping anyone alive. YOUR WORDS.
You are floundering JD. You are desperately trying to reconcile two irreconcilable positions. That one should be able to have an abortion whenever she wants and that killing an innocent person should remain a legal offense. In your mad scramble to do this you define words outside of their accepted meaning to try and reconcile those two beliefs. Person, alive, human, human being, consciousness, autonomy, and the grand daddy of made up concepts personhood Science doesn't define that. Even the law doesn't define that. Stating the child has legal rights at x point in time is not the same as saying we recognize a measurable change in consciousness, autonomy or whatever word you want to try and use. That leaves you with the religious qualifiers for your made up definition of personhood. And the irony is that you cling to that for your justification for abortion but completely ignore what God would want prior to that point.
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.
The point/question is when does not having a responsibility to keep someone alive cross the line to killing an innocent person.
Give me ONE example of a person who is bound to keep someone alive....
NOBODY is. Call me a fucking idiot all you want, but this is EMPIRICALLY TRUE. Nobody who is hooked up to wires, or is encased with a biological system, for life support, is entitled to that system. You cannot deny this or anything else I give you clear and long winded examples towards.
Then why is it not empircally true that you can kill someone for whatever reason you choose? Why does the law require gaurdians not neglect minors?
And legally, I CAN, without the help of DCF. I can go to a private adoption agency, if I was ever in a position where I could not care for my child. I could go to a "safe place", too, and abandon a baby there, if I choose. LEGALLY. DCF is not always involved in these cases, where the parents are concerned. Again, it takes a person willing to take responsibility, to fulfill their responsibility, and it takes an equally brave person to give up the rights to ever having that responsibility again. LEGALLY...
A fetus is physiologically dependent on the woman. The born infant and coma patient are sociologically dependent, because without the brilliant technology medical science has, and the kindness and love of a wide variety of people taking care of them, they would simply not survive. Being pregnant and keeping it does not take love or responsibility. Lots of crack babies come into this world, by heroin injecting mothers who sleep with 100 different men a week. These same women (and any women for that matter) could die at any time, therefore ceasing THEMSELVES the capability of any physiological capacity to continue gestatING the fetus or embryo whatever you wish to apply it to.
Those are two very different concepts of dependence. Sociological and physiological needs are completely different.
No one is physiologically responsible for keeping anyone alive. I am sick and fucking tired of having to repeat every fucking thing and sentence I say, just because you want to play the fucking semantics game with me. Fucking knock that shit off. Why the fuck ELSE do you think I would feel the need to write a fucking NOVEL on each and every fucking post?? Jesus fucking Joney. Give me a fucking break. You can't be THAT pea-brained.
As long as this is a discussion about the wording of the constitution towards some right to life for a person
Bombarded with stimuli that it could NEVER GET in the womb
There are many 5 year olds that cannot say their alphabet, read, etc, when at the same time, there are little tiny infants that can actually read and understand the meaning of written words.
If you want to argue for rights, you have to argue for personhood. And I have to argue against it. That is just how these things go..
My beliefs are only manifested in the presence of evidence..
I do not believe in life after death.
No one is physiologically responsible for keeping anyone alive
And legally, I CAN, without the help of DCF. I can go to a private adoption agency, if I was ever in a position where I could not care for my child. I could go to a "safe place", too, and abandon a baby there, if I choose. LEGALLY. DCF is not always involved in these cases, where the parents are concerned. Again, it takes a person willing to take responsibility, to fulfill their responsibility, and it takes an equally brave person to give up the rights to ever having that responsibility again. LEGALLY...
That is not what you argued. You wanna talk about annoying and cowardly, that would be watching you trying to make excuses and pretend you didn't say exactly what you said. You are the one playing semantics. Under YOUR argument, no one has the responsibility to keep anyone alive. NO responsibility means NO responsibility. IF that's true why go through the aggravation of the adoption process. Why not just lock it in a room till it stops making any sound. You can't twist it. You can't accuse me of semantics. That is what you're arguing your right is. In that case the law indeed does disagree with you
A fetus is physiologically dependent on the woman. The born infant and coma patient are sociologically dependent, because without the brilliant technology medical science has, and the kindness and love of a wide variety of people taking care of them, they would simply not survive. Being pregnant and keeping it does not take love or responsibility. Lots of crack babies come into this world, by heroin injecting mothers who sleep with 100 different men a week. These same women (and any women for that matter) could die at any time, therefore ceasing THEMSELVES the capability of any physiological capacity to continue gestatING the fetus or embryo whatever you wish to apply it to.
Those are two very different concepts of dependence. Sociological and physiological needs are completely different.
You are the one playing semantics again dear. You are the one that can't directly respond to the reality of your argument. Dependence is dependence. You continue to only look at things through your own selfish perspective. It doesn't matter if it acknowledges it or feels it or asks for it or who does it. From the time it is conceived to well after it is born, if not cared for, the child will die. Stop dancing around this inconvenient truth. You can say what you want about who is responsible for what, warped as that opinion is, you certainly can not claim that anyone else in society is somehow more socially obligated to your child than you are. Why put your child up for foster care or adoption, as YOU stated, they have no responsibility to the infant either.
No one is physiologically responsible for keeping anyone alive. I am sick and fucking tired of having to repeat every fucking thing and sentence I say, just because you want to play the fucking semantics game with me. Fucking knock that shit off. Why the fuck ELSE do you think I would feel the need to write a fucking NOVEL on each and every fucking post?? Jesus fucking Joney. Give me a fucking break. You can't be THAT pea-brained.
Then how is it you can go to jail for child neglect?
For someone who claims to be libertarian you have some rather liberal characterisitcs in spades. Mainly an overwhelming desire to be held accountable for as little as you can get away with.
You have passed what I call the point of no return in this debate. I told I was interested in the truth, whatever it may be. You observabley are not. You couldn't afford to admit you are wrong even if it were proven. People who invest as much time as you do insulting and degrading people probably aren't going to man up and say, 'you know what, maybe you're right', Someone could grab you by the back the head and point your eyes to the clear sky and you would spend your last breath before you ever would admit it was the color the blue. It's at that point it just becomes fun to watch people dig deeper holes with the excuses they make. The dictionary is wrong. That's up there honey. Thanks for the laugh.
That has NO bearing on this conversation, because CHILD NEGLECT CAN BE AVOIDED LEGALLY, you dumb fucking bitch.
You refuse to use any sources whatsoever to improve your "gut instinct" that fetuses are people.
GROW A FUCKING BRAIN.
☭proletarian☭;1887563 said:Sorry, JD, but you failed again.
So long as you are the legal guardian, you are legally responsible for that child's well being. Your claim that nobody is ever held responsible has been proven false.
Which you suddenly decided three posts ago? Why do you change your claims so oft,unless they keep getting proven false- like you claim about fetal blood supply that Cecile and later I proved false?As long as this is a discussion about the wording of the constitution towards some right to life for a person
You don't get exposed to the stimuli in America you would in a specific coffee shop in Paris. You're not making any point.Bombarded with stimuli that it could NEVER GET in the womb
Interesting how you reject every concept of personhood yet never define it yourself. Not surprising,though, since you've said repeatedly that personhood is not important to you, since you want to kill the child anyway.
And some, like you, never master reading comprehension. What's your point?
False. You've yet to define 'personhood' or establish that it is a necessary condition for rights. You've also yet to show how your undefined term ('personhood') is established by the moving of the diaphragm when an organism is in an atmospheric environment.
The bible is not evidence.
You have to. You already said that whatever the bible says is true. (I wonder what it says about a woman's place.)I do not believe in life after death.
No one is physiologically responsible for keeping anyone alive
You might want to open your biology book to the chapter on pregnancy, since you obviously don't know what it is (not surprising since you get your science ed from the bible).
☭proletarian☭;1887747 said:So, too, can abortion....That has NO bearing on this conversation, because CHILD NEGLECT CAN BE AVOIDED LEGALLY, you dumb fucking bitch.
Stating that you clearly want to have zero liability for anything you do (including lynching people, as you implied in another thread), is not a ad hominum attack. Crying 'ad hom' when one has not been committed is known as crying. It indicates a total lack of maturity or intellectual capacity on your part.
You refuse to provide any sources supporting your claim (provenly false) that the Autonomic Nervous System magically pops into existence with the first breath or your laughable claim (again debunked several times) that every single medical journal and medical textbook on Earth is wrong and the mother's blood actually goesinto the fetus. You've also yet to show thatyouknow what cells, tissues, and organisms are or that you understand why you can't have puppies with the family dog, You've also failed to demonstratethat the concious mind magically pops into existence with the first breath or present a shred of evidence supporting your claim that a living thing is not alive until it, despite being alive, comes to life when it receives life with that same first breath.You refuse to use any sources whatsoever to improve your "gut instinct" that fetuses are people.
And still, a fetus is none of the above. Independence is not achieved if one is required to be confined to a biological support system.
Autonomy does not distinguish between biological dependence, nurturing dependence or any other type of dependence. If one can not self govern, one is dependent on SOMETHING. The point that is trying to be made here is that your justification for abortion due to autonomy or lack of it can't work either because it would also force you to support killing after birth as well. Newborn's are not autonomous. They can not self govern. There is little to no difference in their level of dependence on the outside world before birth or for a good time after. You said quite clearly so you can't argue someone is putting words in your mouth, that no one is responsible for keeping anyone from dieing. If that is the case then you MUST support no legal action be taken if a legal gaurdian neglects there born child. Because the fact is an infant is dependent on someone. If it's needs are not met, it will die.
The dictionary is not a peer reviewed medical journal, last time I checked.
So the book we all look to to find out what words mean got it wrong? Man I thought you'd at least deny making up definitions of stuff, but you're actually making excuses for it.
I thought she said the baby taking its first breath, gives the baby person-hood....the breath of life....and all, including protections, that comes with such, under the law....I presume she meant?
You have, in no way, changed my opinions on personhood or when life begins other than the first breath...
This is about breathing being the first signs of life. Try to follow...
a person who has already breathed, and hence, is already alive...
Breathing is the BEGINNING.
The judicial system bases the definition as akin to the scientific, medical belief that breathing causes life to begin, as well as the religious belief of Christianity, among other religions as well.
http://www.usmessageboard.com/law-a...00-fetus-found-in-gift-box-2.html#post1815568I do not believe that abortion is killing anything Ever.
http://www.usmessageboard.com/law-a...t-should-abortion-laws-be-41.html#post1887750is [the bible]the worlds first 100% accurate science book
Until the baby is BORN, which is when it takes its first breath after delivery....only then a certificate of live birth is given...if the baby to be does NOT take its first breath, under the law it is considered stillborn-delivered dead...I believe? And under the law, she would be correct in her assumptions on person-hood.
No, but it is the worlds first 100% accurate science book, and it can and has been proven THROUGH evidence.
The bible does not say there is life after death. It says there is no knowledge after death. It says we go back to the dust
So, too, can pregnancy. Indicating otherwise shows a complete lack of understanding on YOUR part. =)
So long as you are the legal guardian, you are legally responsible for that child's well being. Your claim that nobody is ever held responsible has been proven false.
Legal gurdians can change, and often do. Nobody is physically responsible or unavoidably legally responsible for another human being, and this is fact. You hate that I am right, but this is still fact, and crossing your fingers does not change this.
Self governing is not something fetuses do. Hate it all you want.
Self governing is not something fetuses do. Hate it all you want.
I agree. What does that have to do with the dictionary being wrong? My point is you would be hard pressed to show a measurable difference in the dependence of a child immediately before taking a breath and immediately after. One's level of dependence is a factor of one's ability to self govern.
☭proletarian☭;1887795 said:Why lie about what you've said? I'm just going to post your own words and prove you a lying ****.
We've done this before.
Plants on Earth before the sun existedNo, but it is the worlds first 100% accurate science book, and it can and has been proven THROUGH evidence.
You're so retarded it's actually amusing
Fail. The life after the first death is for those who avoid the second death by accepting salvationThe bible does not say there is life after death. It says there is no knowledge after death. It says we go back to the dust
Not a single Christian has read the bible
