2 questions for Pro-Choicers

[jochoa]

I do not call the beginning stages of a building (foundational work) the building, but rather it is becoming a potential building.

I think I finally understand your point; is it: the stages are not the person, rather the stages are of the person?

Also, at which week do you say there is a person?
Week 1-3
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

Week 4
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

Week 5
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

Week 6
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

Week 7
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

Week 8
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

Week 9
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[CaptainPrudeman]

So, do you agree with Catholic Supreme Court Justice in Roe V Wade?

In Favor:

One of the ‘Justices’ of the Supreme Court, during the Roe v Wade, was a Catholic , named, “William Joseph Brennan, Jr.” , who “… voted to legalize abortion.” -

Then no. What in the world makes you think that Supreme Court justices have any moral authority in Catholicism? They can be wrong morally too. In this case, they were, just like all those cases where Catholic politicians support it today.

Those terms are for functioning ‘persons’. A zygote is not so.

That’s simply not true. A zygote undergoes all the various things a living being does and is human in biology, with the genetic capacity to further grow into an adult human. There’s no “potential” human there any more than that of a child or teenager.

Otherwise those terms would be interchangeable and they are not.

They are not because you have defined them to be not so. Many, including me, define them to be interchangeable.

A fertilized egg (by sperm) is no more a “person”, than is an “embryo”.

And yet you have no more evidence to support this than “Nuh uh no it’s not.”

 

[FiveLinden]

‘Human’ is a scientific term. It means of or produced by a member of the species Homo sapiens and/or closely related species.

"Person’ is a socially-defined concept. We members of society get to define what a person is.

‘Human’ is generally an adjective: ‘human being’; ‘human tissue’; ‘human artefact’; ‘human corpse’,. As a noun it overlaps in meaning with ‘person’.

‘Person’ generally means someone recognises by society as a member of society. This recognition varies from society to society.

Pro-lifers generally recognise any group of living human cells with the possibility, or previous possibility, of developing or continuing as a human child or adult as a person. Therefore they seek to provide the protections accorded people to zygotes and to human bodies that have no higher brain function.

Pro-choicers generally see personhood as applying to born human beings or those with the potential to be born and continue developing. Some believe severe abnormality, especially that leading to inevitable death means that a fetus can be considered not a person, in that they will never be a functioning part of society. But in some cases they recognise these beings as people but agree it is moral to kill them as the lesser of two evils.

Shouting ‘HUMAN!’ and 'NOT A PERSON!" at each other, or even doing so politely does not advance the argument.

The question is, can we find ways of accomodating these two views in a democratic society without using the power of the state to enforce our views.

In my view we can: we can agree that choice is maximised when people do not become pregnant when they do not want to be and that people who do want to be pregnant deserve the support of the whole of society before and after conception and birth.

And we can discuss and advocate our philosophical positions and persuade people to our points of view without using the state to control others.

And yes, I know that if there we a large group of people who considered those with red hair not to be persons we would have a problem. But there isn’t, and we don’t. We do have a problem in living together in a democracy.

 

[goout]

…
What is unique to a particular branch of Christianity is the obsession with making abortion illegal.

That’s a political talking point not an honest observation. It’s used often to cast the defense of the unborn as a radical and legalistic exercise in political power. Above all, it’s false and tired.

I know a lot of folks involved in the pro life movement. Some of them are loud and passionate, some are quiet. The “telos” of the movement (what you are calling obsession) is to protect small human beings so that they can live and flourish as any human being should do. And the prolifers I know are doing all the associated works of mercy, like adopting children, providing resources for at risk families, contributing to food pantries and dry goods pantries.

The caricature of pro lifers as obsessed with prohibitions is wildly false.

 

[goout]

‘Human’ is a scientific term. It means of or produced by a member of the species Homo sapiens and/or closely related species.

"Person’ is a socially-defined concept. We members of society get to define what a person is.

‘Human’ is generally an adjective: ‘human being’; ‘human tissue’; ‘human artefact’; ‘human corpse’,. As a noun it overlaps in meaning with ‘person’.

‘Person’ generally means someone recognises by society as a member of society. This recognition varies from society to society.

Pro-lifers generally recognise any group of living human cells with the possibility, or previous possibility, of developing or continuing as a human child or adult as a person. Therefore they seek to provide the protections accorded people to zygotes and to human bodies that have no higher brain function.

Pro-choicers generally see personhood as applying to born human beings or those with the potential to be born and continue developing. Some believe severe abnormality, especially that leading to inevitable death means that a fetus can be considered not a person, in that they will never be a functioning part of society. But in some cases they recognise these beings as people but agree it is moral to kill them as the lesser of two evils.

Shouting ‘HUMAN!’ and 'NOT A PERSON!" at each other, or even doing so politely does not advance the argument.

The question is, can we find ways of accomodating these two views in a democratic society without using the power of the state to enforce our views.

In my view we can: we can agree that choice is maximised when people do not become pregnant when they do not want to be and that people who do want to be pregnant deserve the support of the whole of society before and after conception and birth.

And we can discuss and advocate our philosophical positions and persuade people to our points of view without using the state to control others.

And yes, I know that if there we a large group of people who considered those with red hair not to be persons we would have a problem. But there isn’t, and we don’t. We do have a problem in living together in a democracy.

This prolifer doesn’t wade into the personhood argument. I respect the science and the trajectory of human life at all it’s stages.
I try to respect human life even when doubts and uncertainties exist. It’s giving the sanctity of human life the benefit of my doubts rather than subjecting human life to my skepticism.

It’s the reason I won’t shoot into the woods if there’s a possibility I’m shooting at a human being instead of a deer.

 

[FiveLinden]

This prolifer doesn’t wade into the personhood argument.

A pity, because that is why pro-lifers and pro-choices have difficulty finding common ground. And that is one reason why the pro-life cause has moved from utter dominance through the democratic world in the 1960s to a minority opinion.

 

[goout]

goout:

This prolifer doesn’t wade into the personhood argument.

A pity, because that is why pro-lifers and pro-choices have difficulty finding common ground. And that is one reason why the pro-life cause has moved from utter dominance through the democratic world in the 1960s to a minority opinion.

We can’t find common ground…because the personhood argument.

I’ll agree with that. I think it’s foolish and unproductive to debate whether a human being is a person.

 

[Freddy]

This prolifer doesn’t wade into the personhood argument. I respect the science and the trajectory of human life at all it’s stages.
I try to respect human life even when doubts and uncertainties exist. It’s giving the sanctity of human life the benefit of my doubts rather than subjecting human life to my skepticism.

It’s the reason I won’t shoot into the woods if there’s a possibility I’m shooting at a human being instead of a deer.

If you have doubts then your position is the only one you could take. Actually, it’s the only one you should take.

But there is no doubt on the other side of the argument that a few cells is not a person. Human? Yes. Person? No. I am absolutely certain about it.

That’s the position from which I argue.

 

[Elf01]

But there is no doubt on the other side of the argument that a few cells is not a person. Human? Yes. Person? No. I am absolutely certain about it.

Define person.

 

[FiveLinden]

I think it’s foolish and unproductive to debate whether a human being is a person

I started another thread in which I listed ten indicators that even pro-life people do not recognise the unborn as persons in the same way they recognise the born.

Assuming you are Catholic, and accept that baptism is necessary for salvation, why would Jesus institute a sacrament that could be given only to the born, given that original sin is present from conception? I don’t think the ‘can’t reach them with water’ argument applies because Jesus and the Church as his agent could have instituted such a sacrament to recognise the personhood of the unborn.

This is what I mean by society deciding who is a person (and I might add, to what extent).

If people have original sin, and people should be baptised to overcome it, and the unborn are people, why are they not baptised?

I’m not asking this as a ‘gotcha’. I’m asking it to encourage you to consider joining the debate about personhood.

 

[FiveLinden]

Define person.

A person is a being accepted by society as a person. It is not a scientific definition. It is like ‘justice’, ‘fairness’, ‘freedom’ and other socially-defined abstractions. We decide.

New Zealand's Whanganui River is a legal person. How will it use its voice?

 

[Elf01]

A person is a being accepted by society as a person. It is not a scientific definition. It is like ‘justice’, ‘fairness’, ‘freedom’ and other socially-defined abstractions. We decide.

And that’s a good basis to decide on life or death?

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

But there is no doubt on the other side of the argument that a few cells is not a person. Human? Yes. Person? No. I am absolutely certain about it.

Define person.

There are multiple characteristics that sum up ‘a person’. But from a scientific point of view, a relatively mature cerebral cortex would be required. That enables basic conscious experience.

Edit: Notwithstanding that some people might grant a river with ‘personhood’. If I used emoticons there’d be one here showing me scratching my head in a bemused fashion.

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

But from a scientific point of view, a relatively mature cerebral cortex would be required. That enables basic conscious experience.

Then it would make more sense to just say it doesn’t have consciousness instead of whether or not it is a person.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

But from a scientific point of view, a relatively mature cerebral cortex would be required. That enables basic conscious experience.

Then it would make more sense to just say it doesn’t have consciousness instead of whether or not it is a person.

Lack of consciousness doesn’t mean lack of personhood.

 

[SantaFe]

Is this Bradski? I hope so, welcome back and sorry we don’t have much more time on here, I have enjoyed your wit and empathetic, compassionate tone which is able to disarm the same as it annhiliates.

 

[Freddy]

Is this Bradski? I hope so, welcome back and sorry we don’t have much more time on here, I have enjoyed your wit and empathetic, compassionate tone which is able to disarm the same as it annhiliates.

I’ll pass on your message if I see him. I’m sure he’ll be a little embarressed at your comments.

Edit: Did you have another forum name when 'ol Bradski used to post here?

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

What would the difference be?

 

[Freddy]

The difference between someone being unconscious and something not having the ability to experience consciousness.

I think that you knew that already…

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

The capacity to have consciouness would just make it a potential person.