V
Victoria33
Guest
You just said the fetus was a separate person, slaves were individuals, that’s different. Wow.
- Status
V
Vonsalza
Guest
Slaves are/were individuals.
And no, I did not say a fetus was a separate person. It is a part of its mother’s body.
Last edited:
V
Victoria33
Guest
Supreme Court ruled in favor of slavery, I don’t see why one would use phrases like “it’s the law of the land” but now, something for convenience sake doesn’t count. So, one just holding out their own opinion is just that. No backup. This is just a run around. According to you, if the baby is out of the womb but still attached by the umbilical cord, then it is still part of the woman, hence, these are grounds for infanticide. Weak argument.
V
Vonsalza
Guest
If the laws of the land don’t matter, I invite the pro-life lobby to stop trying to change them to reflect their views.
I’ve never supported that claim, Victoria33. I personally think that the baby is born when it exits its mothers womb.
Please do me the courtesy of not putting words in my mouth. I show you the same courtesy.
V
VanitasVanitatum
Guest
If the context is integral to the argument than it probably is the basis and not whatever thing you are bringing up.
V
Vonsalza
Guest
I was just answering your question. You brought it up…
V
VanitasVanitatum
Guest
So you agree with what I have said?
Last edited:
V
Vonsalza
Guest
I agree we kill animals, but we also have animal cruelty laws, likely out of consideration for the sentience and agency that our beloved pets clearly demonstrate.
Again, a fetus has no agency. Only its mother does.
Was that what you were referring to?
Again, a fetus has no agency. Only its mother does.
Was that what you were referring to?
Last edited:
V
VanitasVanitatum
Guest
I was talking about being in the womb as being your justification and not agency. Is that correct or not?
Last edited:
V
Vonsalza
Guest
One in the same. The child in the womb has no more agency than the woman’s liver.
It is thus indubitably part of her and under her dominion.
It is thus indubitably part of her and under her dominion.
blackforest
Well-known member
This argument has been long ago and successfully debunked.
Responding to the False Argument: "If You Ban Abortion, Women Will be Investigated for Miscarriage" - LifeNews.com
Increasingly, I have encountered an argument in favor of abortion that goes something like this: If an embryo or fetus has a right to life, that means every death of an embryo or fetus has to be investigated as a possible murder. Parents grieving their miscarriages will have their grief...
www.lifenews.com
Not as long as I’m breastfeeding. Regardless, newborn humans remain extremely dependent.
Progression is a process. You’re not advocating for an unfolding process, but a moment of - poof! - instant “personhood.”
Those statements don’t flow together logically.
In other words, we’ll never agree therefore you should get your way on the issue? Or . . . we’ll never agree about that whole killing thing, so let’s keep killing and stamping the word “choice” on it . . . .
Good luck getting an answer to that one. I keep pointing out the same thing to no avail.
Last edited:
V
VanitasVanitatum
Guest
That’s not scientifically sound.
V
Vonsalza
Guest
Oh you don’t have to prove it to me. I’m well aware of society’s treatment of the unborn as non-persons when it comes to miscarriages.
I’m just saying they have to be treated as people if the pro-life side wants to be logically consistent.
As a breastfeeding mother, a child may get its sustenance from you, but it’s not dependent on you. Obviously your child won’t starve to death if you vanished the next day. Dad would just have to go buy some formula.
And personhood is still a process.
Pre-birth, if you die there’s a great chance that no one is going to look into your death.
Once born, your death will raise eyebrows. But you still don’t get to participate in governance and a host of other things that come with age.
When you get too old and enfeebled, a court will allow your kids to take your license and control your assets.
This indubitably demonstrates that the development of personhood is a process.
It’s logical because I advocate the null value - freedom of choice. I’m not forcing a mother to keep it. I’m not forcing her to abort it. She makes her choice alone. She will not be subject to the tyranny of another’s opinion like yours or mine.
Because it’s not. It’s inside her body and it lacks agency. It’s part of her just like anything else inside her body.
Last edited:
V
Vonsalza
Guest
It’s genetically different, sure. But it’s intertwined with her biology. It has no will of it’s own.Vonsalza:
That’s not scientifically sound.
You don’t get to speak for it. Neither do I.
She does.
And if she doesn’t want to undergo the trials of pregnancy, no one has the right to force her.
blackforest
Well-known member
I don’t think you’d be saying any of this if you had read, carefully considered, and at least tried to rebut the article.
You were speaking of biological dependence. Breastfeeding is a biological process. Going out to CVS to buy manufactured formula, as welcome of a resource as it is for women who can’t breastfeed, is not a biological process.
In most cases, it actually won’t. Please read the link.
I’m sorry that you view basic human rights as tyrannical. Those of us who espouse them see it differently.
First of all, the correct pronoun is not “it” but he, she, or the more inclusive s/he. The sex is established by the time a first-trimester abortion occurs.
Second, the actual science says otherwise. A human being in the embryonic or fetal phase of development is a whole, separate organism. When I was pregnant with my son, I didn’t have a penis; my son did. While living inside of me.
Again, using this human being’s powerlessness to justify killing him/her involves the same might-makes-right bigotry used to justify racism, sexism, homophobia, and pretty much any other kind of prejudice.
At any rate, it’s late and time for this “clump of cells” to get some beauty sleep . . .
Last edited:
V
Vonsalza
Guest
I propose the position for sake of logical consistency and you disagree.
I agree the position is untenable and you still balk.
Sure. The fact remains that the child is no longer biologically dependent on you for life after its birth. If you chose not to breastfeed, ceased to exist, whatever - the child will still live - as the adoption industry existentially proves.
It’s common sense. At that point, the child is no longer part of the mother.
Ok, in the civilized world where I live, the death of babies raises eyebrows.
I urge you to resist taking nonsensical redoubts like “in most cases, people don’t actually care if a baby dies” for sake of defending ideas you’re emotionally attached to. For someone actually on the fence, you’ll do nothing to convince them.
I value liberty.
I’m reasonably certain you don’t want me tell you what to do with your uterus and it’s contents right? Right???
Shame on me, I’m demanding the same for all women. Not just the ones I agree with.
If we don’t have an established sex, “it” works just fine. He/she requires additional information we don’t have.
It’s a separate genetic human, I agree completely. But it is inside you. It is harvesting you for its survival.
That makes it part of you. You might have a decent fall-back if the fetus can display some sort of agency here. But it can’t.
As such, there’s absolutely no reason for a fetus to have power over a woman. None.
And I’m happy to explain to you why abortion is different.
It doesn’t involve an individual that is biologically part of its mother - a “person” who’s personhood is superceded by another’s.
Oh now, you haven’t been just a “clump of cells” since the first trimester of your gestation. Your personhood is much, much more progressed.
P
pnewton
Guest
Again, something you believe others to not. We believe life is the default. You are not alone, but I do wonder if it was your life, or that of others that say this, how willing they would be willing to die for their liberty. It is easy to say someone else should die for your liberty than to do so yourself.
Last edited:
V
Vonsalza
Guest
I understand and respect your view.Vonsalza:
Again, something you believe others to not. We believe life is the default. You are not alone, but I do wonder if it was your life, or that of others that say this, how willing they would be willing to die for their liberty. It is easy to say someone else should die for your liberty than to do so yourself.
I’m just unwilling for me or my wife to be subjected to it against our wills.
Life is a beautiful thing and I hope women choose it. But that fact doesn’t mean that they shouldn’t have the choice.
Pregnancy, regardless of outcome, is a massive and life-changing experience. No one should be forced into it against their will. While the personhood of the fetus might be in question for some, we could probably agree that the personhood of the mother is not.
E
Ender
Guest
And there it is. Personhood is whatever the law allows; it is not determined by characteristics of the “person” at all. So slaves really weren’t “persons” because the law did not recognize them as such. Nor would any of us continue as “persons” if the law was changed to designate us otherwise. Thus there is no such thing as a natural right; there are only legal rights, which also means that what the law decrees - whatever it is - is right and acceptable.
A fetus could be a “person” in Mississippi, would become a non-person if the mother visited New York, and become a person again when she returned home. Accepting the fiction that “personhood” exists only as defined by law removes all restraints on government and leaves us protected by…nothing at all. The elderly and infirm would merely be the first to experience what today is being played out only with the unborn.
Last edited:
E
errereer
Guest
Don’t worry, I’m sure when President Pence is running for re-election in 2028, we’ll finally be getting around to killing Roe v Wade.
- Status