If life does not begin at conception why does Planned Parenthood hand out so many condoms?

[estesbob]

Leaving out the issue of ensoulment, personhood is important because it defines when a fetus is entitled to the full benefits of human rights.

Says who?

Yes, Catholics will find it makes much sense. But most Americans make a distinction to human life and a human person. A person on life support who has been declared brain-dead is still alive, but most Americans would say he or she is no longer a person. Moving to the opposite end of life, most Americans would say embyros are human life, but not human persons.

And the difference is?

 

[estesbob]

What does personhood have to do with what I said?

The real question is just what is personhood? It is most certainly not a biological term. There is actually no agreement on what it is. And yet people claim that this word can be used to justify killing our children. If the unborn child could hear I’m sure they were cringe in fear any time they heard their mother talk about “personhood” or “fetus”.

 

[fix]

Leaving out the issue of ensoulment, personhood is important because it defines when a fetus is entitled to the full benefits of human rights.

When is a person a nonperson?

Yes, Catholics will find it makes much sense. But most Americans make a distinction to human life and a human person.

Again, this seems muddled. When is a human not a person?

A person on life support who has been declared brain-dead is still alive, but most Americans would say he or she is no longer a person.

Brain death is being revisited, again, but that is another matter. If one is actually dead, then a machine moving blood around does not mean their are alive. If one is dead what has this to do with what we are talking about?

Moving to the opposite end of life, most Americans would say embyros are human life, but not human persons.

How do such people know when they are “real” persons and whenever they claim such why is that not arbitrary?

 

[mapleoak]

No, you misunderstand me. I don’t believe the fetus is property I believe it is a separate being from its mother. What I believe is that the womb is property and that the child has no legal claim to that womb because it is the property of another.

More of this short memory stuff. See post #206. Since a child does not have to capacity to make a legal claim, the point is moot. And a woman’s body is not her property, rather it is hers to use. And a baby has a right to her body while in the womb. Further, right to life supercedes all rights to property - even in a legal sense. Check the law.

So a woman decides she does not wish to carry a child at 10 weeks, at that point, the fetus will not survive outside her body, not with current medical technology.

A baby doesn’t survive outside her body period on its own, even when brought to term. Sorry. You are being irrantional again.

So, in that case, because she can decide what her uterus is used for,

No she can’t, it has one and only dedicated purpose

she has the right to an eviction of the fetus,

It is also peculiar how pro-abortionists have to make up rhetoric like “eviction” so as to cover up the more horrid sounding “murder”

because the fetus cannot survive anyway,

A baby cannot survice period on its own, even when brought to term. Dejavu!

whatever technique will be the least painful and dangerous for the woman should be used.

What happened to forced c-sections?

This is why I do not support abortion in the 3rd trimester,

My oh my! What business does it suddenly become of yours?

because at this point in time, the fetus can live outside the mother’s uterus so the property claim argument is not valid, since the fetus can be delivered (barring medical reasons why it can’t) via C-section and no conflict of rights occur.

Seems every pro-abortionist has a different idea on when people can be killed, what the criteria is, how old, throw in a few spices like personhood. Others condone infanticide, euthanasia, genocide, and toddler killing on the same philosophies.

Now right now, I put viability with modern science at 6 months, as I already stated, as science improves, and it becomes a norm for 5 month gestation fetuses to survive, I would move that up earlier.

And that makes a person become a person at five months rather than six months. :hypno:

Remember, if its not based on truth, its wrong!

Also, if an artificial womb were to become widely available, I would support changing abortion to become a procedure where the aim is to extract the live fetus and place it in a mechanical womb, anonymously by the woman and adopted out or placed in care of the state at gestational maturity.

Why? The availability of an artificial womb would make it a person?

 

[a_cermak]

More of this short memory stuff. See post #206. Since a child does not have to capacity to make a legal claim, the point is moot. And a woman’s body is not her property, rather it is hers to use. And a baby has a right to her body while in the womb. Further, right to life supercedes all rights to property - even in a legal sense. Check the law.

Why does a baby have a right to her body while in the womb? I do not see a right there. It is the woman’s body. And yes, she has a right to decide what happens to it. She can’t be forced to have a tonsillectomy she doesn’t want and she can choose to get every inch of it tattooed if she wishes.

A baby doesn’t survive outside her body period on its own, even when brought to term. Sorry. You are being irrantional again

By survive on its own, I am implying, it has kidneys that work (or is on mechanical means to achieve the same function), lungs that work (or mechanical), a brain that manages the autonomic systems… I’m not including things such as respirators, feedings, etc. because those can be done by anyone and without impact to the woman.

No she can’t, it has one and only dedicated purpose

Again, I reject Natural Law and anyway would reject the idea that because the uterus is designed to carry a fetus, it should carry a fetus.

It is also peculiar how pro-abortionists have to make up rhetoric like “eviction” so as to cover up the more horrid sounding "murder"A baby cannot survice period on its own, even when brought to term. Dejavu!
What happened to forced c-sections?

Not sure what you meant by forced c-section? An abortion, under most state laws (which is the usual area of government involved) is not murder. Even the Torah did not consider abortion murder, it was a different kind of killing.

My oh my! What business does it suddenly become of yours?
Seems every pro-abortionist has a different idea on when people can be killed, what the criteria is, how old, throw in a few spices like personhood. Others condone infanticide, euthanasia, genocide, and toddler killing on the same philosophies.

And that would be because different pro-choice people come at the position from different strands of philosophy and argument.

And that makes a person become a person at five months rather than six months. :hypno:

No, it makes it so the conflict of rights becomes irrelevant. If a fetus can normally survive outside the womb (not including normal care which can be rendered by anyone without inconvenience to the woman and/or mechanical means), then why kill it unnecessarily? There is no conflict here, she no longer wants to be pregnant, so she makes an appointment and has a C-Section, she goes on with her life just the same.

Why? The availability of an artificial womb would make it a person?

No, it would be the same argument as above, the woman could go about her life and the fetus could go about with its life and no rights conflict exists.

 

[Dale_M]

What does personhood have to do with what I said?

You said: “people have the unalienable right to life”. So the question is: when does human life become a person?

 

[estesbob]

You said: “people have the unalienable right to life”. So the question is: when does human life become a person?

No. The question is when does life begin. The labels we hang on various stages of development should have actually nothing whatsoever to do with the humans right to life.

You know this isn’t the first time that semantic games have been used to dehumanize human beings. African-Americans were considered only 3/5 the worth of a white man when the Constitution was ratified. Jews were considered subhuman in Nazi Germany. as were Native Americans in the 19th centurry. As with the unborn these labels were used to kill those who were considered to be less than human. It is absolutely amazing that in today’s day and age, in a society that is supposed to be so enlightened, so civilized that we sacrifice 1.2 million children a year on the altar of choice. You can use all the euphemisms you want, person, product of conception, fetus, embryo, whatever other words you want to use up to justify killing. I will guarantee you someday you will realize the horror you are supporting . You should be thankful that God is a lot more forgiving than I would tend to be.

 

[Dale_M]

And the difference is?

The difference between a person and an empty body is the difference in the entitled rights.

 

[Dale_M]

Again, this seems muddled. When is a human not a person?

At the earliest stages of development and after brain-death.

How do such people know when they are “real” persons and whenever they claim such why is that not arbitrary?

This question makes no sense. If someone is able to think about the topic, they are obviously persons.

But Bob and you are right, the topic of personhood needs clarification. It needs discussion.

 

[mapleoak]

Why does a baby have a right to her body while in the womb?

Because it was created there with a natural dependency on her womb. And her womb was created for the specific purpose of providing for that living human being.

I do not see a right there.

But it is there whether you see it or not. Also the baby has a right to life. Once again (and again) the right to life supercedes any right to property, even in a legal sense, check the law.

It is the woman’s body. And yes, she has a right to decide what happens to it. She can’t be forced to have a tonsillectomy she doesn’t want and she can choose to get every inch of it tattooed if she wishes.

The woman does not own her body, but that is still besides the point. The baby has the right to not have its life taken from it. You do not have the right to take anyone elses life, not even your own.

By survive on its own, I am implying, it has kidneys that work (or is on mechanical means to achieve the same function), lungs that work (or mechanical), a brain that manages the autonomic systems… I’m not including things such as respirators, feedings, etc. because those can be done by anyone and without impact to the woman.

Fine tweaking your criteria some more? Nevertheless all the things you mentioned impact somebody. Babies don’t take care of themselves.

Again, I reject Natural Law and anyway would reject the idea that because the uterus is designed to carry a fetus, it should carry a fetus.

But Natural Law is not dependent on whether you adhere to it or not. It is still the valid. Truth holds firm and unchanging, falsehood doesn’t.

Not sure what you meant by forced c-section? An abortion, under most state laws (which is the usual area of government involved) is not murder.

It is murder, and civil law cannot change that fact. Remember that if you reject natural law, you are subject to blindly following civil law, since you can have no absolute basis for what is moral. Otherwise it is the law of anything goes. Not only irrational, but even strict utilitarians would also disagree with you here.

Even the Torah did not consider abortion murder, it was a different kind of killing.

Who do you believe here is concerned with what the Torah says?

And that would be because different pro-choice people come at the position from different strands of philosophy and argument.

Further giving credence to the fact that there can only be one truth. Not multiple truths which are at odds with each other. Truth is not self contradicting.

No, it makes it so the conflict of rights becomes irrelevant. If a fetus can normally survive outside the womb (not including normal care which can be rendered by anyone without inconvenience to the woman and/or mechanical means), then why kill it unnecessarily?

Why would you say unneccessary. Maybe some find it fun and therefore reason enough not to call a person a person. What if I set up my own moral code which allows me to say you are not a person unless I say so? What is the absolute that you are now basing you criteria of ‘normally being able to survie outside the womb’ on?

 

[Dale_M]

Seems every pro-abortionist has a different idea on when people can be killed, what the criteria is, how old, throw in a few spices like personhood. Others condone infanticide, euthanasia, genocide, and toddler killing on the same philosophies.

So why not deal with her objections, rather than some grab bag of other “pro-abortionists” who aren’t even posting in this thread?

 

[estesbob]

The difference between a person and an empty body is the difference in the entitled rights.

And you base that on what? Have you considered the horror you are supporting if your personal opinion on when a human being is entitled to the right to life is wrong? Aren’t you playing God?

On one side we have those who parse words, play games with labels and tell us there “intellect” tells them there is nothing wrong with killing these children. On the other side we have those who realize that what we are seeing is the greatest slaughter in the history of mankind. I don’t know how your" intellect" gets around that- my most certainly can’t

 

[estesbob]

So why not deal with her objections, rather than some grab bag of other “pro-abortionists” who aren’t even posting in this thread?

He is making the obvious point that since everybody has a different definition of what a person is it becomes an all purpose label used to justify killing the child at any stage of development until it’s fully exits the womb.

 

[mapleoak]

You said: “people have the unalienable right to life”. So the question is: when does human life become a person?

One cannot reject science (a human being is a human being from conception) on theological grounds by saying nonsense such as it is not a person, and then turn around and reject that by claiming personhood is a theological or religious argument.

:yawn:

 

[Dale_M]

No. The question is when does life begin. The labels we hang on various stages of development should have actually nothing whatsoever to do with the humans right to life.

Okay, we disagree.

You know this isn’t the first time that semantic games have been used to dehumanize human beings. African-Americans were considered only 3/5 the worth of a white man when the Constitution was ratified. Jews were considered subhuman in Nazi Germany. as were Native Americans in the 19th centurry.

Come on, you know Godwin arguments are not respectable. The examples you mention refer to attacks on people - human beings with mental processes. For the time being, we can use that as a working definition of a person. It is very rough, and no doubt needs modification, but in order to move the discussion past Godwin, why not give it a try.

 

[Dale_M]

Dale_M:

You said: “people have the unalienable right to life”. So the question is: when does human life become a person?

mapleoak:

One cannot reject science (a human being is a human being from conception) on theological grounds by saying nonsense such as it is not a person, and then turn around and reject that by claiming personhood is a theological or religious argument.

:yawn:

I’m not sure why you yawn. Setting a definition of a person is an important topic, which moves outside the narrow range of theology or religion.

 

[mapleoak]

So why not deal with her objections, rather than some grab bag of other “pro-abortionists” who aren’t even posting in this thread?

Read the very post you are referring to, and ask again in all seriousness whether I am dealing with her objections. In addition to dealing with her objects I made the comment you are objecting to. Why don’t you post a real argument attempting to justify why it is licit to kill someone else, and we will show you the holes in it by refuting it for you. Instead of this kind of nowhere argument specifically designed to draw attention away from the fact that abortion is murder of innocent human life.

 

[Dale_M]

He is making the obvious point that since everybody has a different definition of what a person is it becomes an all purpose label used to justify killing the child at any stage of development until it’s fully exits the womb.

And this is why it needs to be discussed and perhaps even put into law. I believe that any laws restricting abortion on the basis of weeks of development will be based, in some part, on the idea of personhood.

 

[mapleoak]

I’m not sure why you yawn. Setting a definition of a person is an important topic, which moves outside the narrow range of theology or religion.

Because you can’t have it two ways. If you reject the personhood of a human being, then whether or not it has a soul or not makes no difference. Science is therefore very clear to people that a new, unique, individual human being exists from the moment of conception. You cannot then go on to say that “oh, but it doesn’t have rights because it is not yet a person”. You either reject or accept the philisophical or theological positions of personhood. All of which is besides the point and none of which justifies the taking of innocent human life through murder. It is all a diversion. That is why I must keep reminding you of that fact and mentioning the word murder and killing over and over again. You will find such tactics don’t work here.
Abortion is murder. Abortion takes innocent life. Abortion kills people who are helpless to defend themselves. Abortion is sadistic. Abortionists are serial killers. Name your philosophical system which glorifies all of this.

 

[Dale_M]

Because you can’t have it two ways. If you reject the personhood of a human being, then whether or not it has a soul or not makes no difference.

Yes, the concept of personhood is not dependent on the idea of a soul.

Science is therefore very clear to people that a new, unique, individual human being exists from the moment of conception.

Human life, but not a person because it is not capable of thought during the early stages of life.

That is why I must keep reminding you of that fact and mentioning the word murder and killing over and over again. You will find such tactics don’t work here.

I am quite aware that CAF is a conservative place. And I am familiar with the teachings of the Church. I know I am speaking into the wind, and that it is probably pointless.

I have lost my faith that the Church is guided by the Holy Spirit. Although I am not ready to walk away from 30 years of my life, I probably will eventually. And my postings here at CAF have been declining. I don’t doubt that eventually I will not visit here any more. I mention this all because when I had faith, I embraced the position that personhood begins at conception. But it is a position based on faith.