Mary_Gail_36
New member
Exactly.
- Status
F
flyingfish
Guest
I edited the above post to add more things, but mostly I put in how in some places laws allow you to shoot to protect your property (unless I’m mistaken about laws).
C
crazzeto
Guest
A child is a person at conception, through natural death, that’s where your logic takes a left turn off the track.
S
sanctareparata
Guest
Yes, it could. But NO ONE KNOWS. That’s the “problem”. You don’t know WHO it is you’re killing. Sure, it could be another Hitler. It could also be another Mother Theresa. Shouldn’t we err on the side of life?
What about a mother with her days old infant? What if she decides she’s afraid her baby will grow up a serial killer so she kills the child before he has a chance to grow up? That’s okay, right? Because the child COULD grow up to be a serial killer, no? And the child isn’t really a person yet, right?
You yourself have stated that you don’t even know if you’re a person while you’re sleeping. So if I was visiting you, and we got into a heated argument then went to bed for the night, I could suddenly up and decide that you were too hot-headed and gosh! What if you turned into another Hitler yourself!? And then I killed your body lying there in that bed, just to be safe. After all, if you’re not there when you’re sleeping, I would have killed no one, right?
PS - Yes, if the world were ending tomorrow, I’d still save the human at its earliest stage of development. I’d rather go out knowing I defended a human being over a chimp.
F
flyingfish
Guest
No, I brought up the “could be the next Hitler” in response to an argument that the embryo should be saved because it might become the next Einstein. I don’t think talking about what it may one day become is a good argument, I don’t like to talk about what might be but rather what is.
Throughout these discussions I refined my position to define personhood by whether the brain can generate a mind, even if it temporarily isn’t such as during sleep/fainting.
Mary_Gail_36
New member
Notice, though, the pro-life position is consistant, human life beigns at conception.
See, your criteria is entirely subjective.
It’s so subjective, you can modify it.
S
sanctareparata
Guest
But I’ve also shown you scientific proof that even the unborn have moments of “generating a mind”, consciousness, whatever you want to call it. But you seem to ignore that. Just because YOUR first memory was at 2 doesn’t mean you didn’t have thought before that. The memory part of your brain wasn’t developed enough to remember your thoughts at that point, but that doesn’t mean you didn’t have thoughts or consciousness.
You keep saying “My first memory was at 2”, almost as if you think memory equals thought. Maybe you’re saying “People aren’t persons until they can remember things.” ???
F
flyingfish
Guest
I don’t see how my having refined my views in the course of a discussion is an argument against the validity of my views. Yes, I clarified them, I have changed my views many times as a result of learning new information or issues being brought to light during a discussion. So what?Notice, though, the pro-life position is consistant, human life beigns at conception.
See, your criteria is entirely subjective.
It’s so subjective, you can modify it.
You seem to think it’s a weakness, I think it’s a strength. And while the pro-life position might be consistent, I could not subscribe to it because it equates embryos with adult human beings, and would forbid a woman an abortion even if it meant a high likelihood of death.
F
flyingfish
Guest
I don’t think you showed me this proof though. I didn’t ignore it, I read the articles linked to in this and other abortion threads. Nothing I have read has ever suggested that the fetus is self aware and thinking. Newborns don’t even pass the mirror test.
What evidence am I ignoring?
S
sanctareparata
Guest
The pro-life position views all humans as human persons. At humans at every stage of their existence.
The earliest stage of a human’s life is, of course, the zygote. Then the embryo. Then fetus. Infant. Toddler, child, adolescent, adult, elderly…all the way till death.
Each stage is a *different *stage in the normal, natural development of the *same *human person. The person never becomes someone else. It will always be Sancta who was the embryo. Sancta who was the infant. Sancta who was the teenager, and someday the elderly person.
Always ME. Interrupt MY life at any moment and Sancta ceases to be.
It is not the right of anyone to end another person’s life, even if that life is in its most rudimentary stage. Just as it is no one’s right to end the life of an old person who has ceased being able to care for himself. The pro-life position says “It is not my decision to say You will live because you have worth and You will die because you have none.”
God alone is the author of life. He gives. He takes.
S
sanctareparata
Guest
The *mirror *test again? Seriously. How would a *blind *child pass the mirror test, mind you?
F
flyingfish
Guest
Okay, but if it’s not blind and doesn’t pass it it suggests it’s not self aware. What evidence shows that the fetus has self awareness and is thinking?The *mirror *test again? Seriously. How would a *blind *child pass the mirror test, mind you?
S
sanctareparata
Guest
Have you read this? Another interesting thing to ponder.
We learn something new all the time. Yesterday infants didn’t feel pain. Today they do. Yesterday they didn’t think. Today they do. Science changes. The things we know about human life in the womb changes. We are more and more able to determine what really happens in the minds of the unborn and newly born.
That’s why we err on the side of life. We just don’t know.
We learn something new all the time. Yesterday infants didn’t feel pain. Today they do. Yesterday they didn’t think. Today they do. Science changes. The things we know about human life in the womb changes. We are more and more able to determine what really happens in the minds of the unborn and newly born.
That’s why we err on the side of life. We just don’t know.
F
flyingfish
Guest
I’m reading it now, unfortunately it doesn’t have references to studies. But here is what it says about self awareness:
The author of the article is clearly writing a pro-newborn-as-person piece, but as his earliest point of the mind he says 9 months instead of 2-3 years as commonly had been thought. Even this piece, which doesn’t cite specific studies and reads biased to me, still talks about 9 months for self awareness. Not birth, and not before birth.
And either way, whatever self awareness an infant has must be so primitive. Do you think it comprehends the world in any meaningful way? I don’t. That’s why I find it hard to equate it with an adult. It’s even more clear in the case of the embryo. The pro-life position seems to require that you view them as equals in terms of right to life.
Would you honestly flip a coin if you could only save a single cell or an adult human? Honestly?
S
sanctareparata
Guest
But don’t you see? Psychologists USED to say 2-3 years, as you say. But others now are recognizing it happens earlier. Who’s to say in another decade the text won’t read,
“Psychologists have been finding precursors of self-consciousness before the age of nine months, when self -awareness had been thought to begin. One authority writes that infants discover they have a mind and others have minds when they are newly born, some even show signs of a mind while still in the womb.”
That author - Chamberlain - has numerous articles you can read if you Google them. He talks explicitly about babies remembering birth. Some babies can even remember things they heard in the womb and reveal those “secrets” later - at 2 or 3, when they can communicate them.
F
flyingfish
Guest
I wouldn’t mind assuming that the unborn are conscious if they were not growing inside a woman. I’m fine assuming that newborns have minds even if evidence suggests they don’t. But if it comes to the point where a woman is denied an abortion because of this assumption, and it has real negative consequences in her life then I just can’t justify living on the basis of what if.
Birds for example seem to remember their migration route, and salmon the place they hatched. If a person actually said they remember being a fetus, and existing as a fetus it would mean something.
Mary_Gail_36
New member
I wouldn’t mind assuming that the unborn are conscious *if they were not growing inside a woman/*I]. I’m fine assuming that newborns have minds even if evidence suggests they don’t. But if it comes to the point where a woman is denied an abortion because of this assumption, and it has real negative consequences in her life then I just can’t justify living on the basis of what if.
Birds for example seem to remember their migration route, and salmon the place they hatched. If a person actually said they remember being a fetus, and existing as a fetus it would mean something.
But we are mammals…that’s where baby’s grow. All mammals are dependant on their moms.
You’ve changed or tweaked your point of view. Youv’e been arguing abortion is moral because the embryo/fetus is not conscious. Many, many times…now perhaps you can concede maybe it is conscious.
Now your argument is, “Well, it’s inside the woman.”
Subjective and ever-changing criteria.
F
flyingfish
Guest
My criteria for personhood didn’t change, I was just explaining why I wouldn’t want to assume consciousness.Now your argument is, “Well, it’s inside the woman.”
Subjective and ever-changing criteria.
Honestly, I don’t see why you are using the word “subjective” over and over. Your criteria are no more objective than mine, even if you are not changing them. Whether they are your opinion, or whether a group of people hold the opinion they are God’s rules, it nonetheless comes down to personal belief and what you accept. In that regard, all beliefs any human being holds are subjective.
S
sanctamaria17
Guest
Then I guess it’s OK for me to be killed if I ever got intoxicated and lost my way home…Or if I ended up in a car accident and got amnesia. Or heck, if I’m asleep. Or if I get Alzheimer’s. Or if I experienced trauma and, as a result, I have no memory. Maybe I forgot what I ate for breakfast two days ago. “Kill her, she has no memory, she’s not a person!” Huh?
So first you say, oh they don’t have minds. They’re not people.
Then, even if they do, they’re still inside a woman’s body.
There’s a lot of rationalization and justification going on here.
I am an intelligent, educated woman who prides herself on the ability to make her own choices and claim her body. However, I know, from science to plain common sense, that if I were to be pregnant, that means a baby, a human life (NOT a hair follicle or skin cell) is growing within me. To kill it is an abhorrent act. I’d rather face hostile stares and sexual slurs than have to look at myself and say, I terminated my own child. Even if I was raped (and I’ve come close), I’d rather kill the guy who did it than the innocent life that resulted.
And I would love my child no matter if it was a boy or a girl. Even though I could imagine myself getting along with a girl and having that mother-daughter bond, boys are special too and they’re fun. Even if I admitted I couldn’t raise him/her, I’d do everything in my power to find a loving family that could and I’d take extra care of myself.
I believe women should be paid equally for equal work and be hired on the basis of merits. I believe women should vote and be politically active. I believe women should be educated and control their own money. I believe women have the right to choose their spouse independent from family and be able to give full consent to marriage and I believe women have the right to choose to parent.
HOWEVER, her rights do NOT trump anyone else’s rights, regardless of residence. No one has the right to take the life of a human entity. I believe support and aid should be given to women in crisis, especially if her pregnancy was the result of an evil act (and I believe the perp should be punished to the fullest extent of the law) but I do not believe we should sacrifice our children on the altars of convenience.
Also, I can admit there are real gender differences between men and women. I’m not saying men are better at math (I beat most of my male friends at math and science) or that women are better at cleaning (you should see my room…my parents make fun of the fact that I can do the work of three boys when doing yard work or a housing project yet my room is always a disaster). I’m saying that women will always be more tied to children. There is a biological connection at play, as well as an extra call to sacrifice. It’s how our bodies were designed. Even feminists who fight this assumption have to admit it on some level, especially when advocating for things like paid maternity leave, workplace policies more friendly to nursing moms, etc. They’re admitting that on some level, women need to focus on their kids. It’s just how we’re made. It’s not bad. It’s just different. And thank God. I can get through painful menses easier when I know that it’s just my body preparing for a higher purpose, something that no born male could ever hope to accomplish.
So first you say, oh they don’t have minds. They’re not people.
Then, even if they do, they’re still inside a woman’s body.
There’s a lot of rationalization and justification going on here.
I am an intelligent, educated woman who prides herself on the ability to make her own choices and claim her body. However, I know, from science to plain common sense, that if I were to be pregnant, that means a baby, a human life (NOT a hair follicle or skin cell) is growing within me. To kill it is an abhorrent act. I’d rather face hostile stares and sexual slurs than have to look at myself and say, I terminated my own child. Even if I was raped (and I’ve come close), I’d rather kill the guy who did it than the innocent life that resulted.
And I would love my child no matter if it was a boy or a girl. Even though I could imagine myself getting along with a girl and having that mother-daughter bond, boys are special too and they’re fun. Even if I admitted I couldn’t raise him/her, I’d do everything in my power to find a loving family that could and I’d take extra care of myself.
I believe women should be paid equally for equal work and be hired on the basis of merits. I believe women should vote and be politically active. I believe women should be educated and control their own money. I believe women have the right to choose their spouse independent from family and be able to give full consent to marriage and I believe women have the right to choose to parent.
HOWEVER, her rights do NOT trump anyone else’s rights, regardless of residence. No one has the right to take the life of a human entity. I believe support and aid should be given to women in crisis, especially if her pregnancy was the result of an evil act (and I believe the perp should be punished to the fullest extent of the law) but I do not believe we should sacrifice our children on the altars of convenience.
Also, I can admit there are real gender differences between men and women. I’m not saying men are better at math (I beat most of my male friends at math and science) or that women are better at cleaning (you should see my room…my parents make fun of the fact that I can do the work of three boys when doing yard work or a housing project yet my room is always a disaster). I’m saying that women will always be more tied to children. There is a biological connection at play, as well as an extra call to sacrifice. It’s how our bodies were designed. Even feminists who fight this assumption have to admit it on some level, especially when advocating for things like paid maternity leave, workplace policies more friendly to nursing moms, etc. They’re admitting that on some level, women need to focus on their kids. It’s just how we’re made. It’s not bad. It’s just different. And thank God. I can get through painful menses easier when I know that it’s just my body preparing for a higher purpose, something that no born male could ever hope to accomplish.
F
flyingfish
Guest
This is not at all what I said, I don’t know if you’re deliberately misunderstanding or not. But sometimes I feel like no one bothers to read my posts before responding.
Personally I think should we have the technological sophistication to build artificial wombs, this tie would be largely broken since women would jump at the chance to have children without going through the hardships and risks of pregnancy. But that’s just an aside.
I am not saying that motherhood is bad, or that women should all have abortions or leave their babies to die of exposure. Ideally every pregnancy would be wanted and there would be no need for abortions save those situations where complications develop during a wanted pregnancy.
- Status