Issues other than abortion

  • Thread starter Thread starter YourNameHere
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
VanitasVanitatum said:
40.png
Vonsalza:
And personhood is never “complete”. It’s a progression. A continuum
Click to expand...
What does personhood mean?
Click to expand...
Entitled to the rights and privileges due a person.
 
Vonsalza said:
Sure 🙂
On a light note, if you were to casually poll women, outside of some combative abortion discussion, “Did you pregnancy change your body?” The replies you’d get would be incredulous stares and reply questions like “Is the pope Catholic?”.

On a heavier note, women dramatically increase their chances of fallen breasts, incontinence, vaginal prolapse and other lady-part maladies as a result of having kids.

Even heavier, some still die. Even here in the US.

As such, I’d argue pretty comfortably that pregnancy involves bodily sacrifice on the part of the mother 🙂
Click to expand...
Yes, this is an undebatable subject. Women sacrifice much to have a baby. They deserve a lot of respect and admiration for it. Obviously in today’s age, pregnancies have become much more effective and safe. But let’s not deny that for the vast majority of humanity’s 200,000 some odd years of existence, they might as well been a praying mantis, as either the mother or baby had high odds of dying every time birth was attempted.

This is another reason why I am so unconvinced by the intelligent design argument, but that is a whole 'nother discussion.
 
Last edited:
And what is this magical “personhood” that makes a human being deserving of life, anyway? Are people that go into a coma or otherwise become brain damaged…do they lose their personhood at that point and can then be killed? What about dementia? Surely they no longer have their personhood, right?
 
VanitasVanitatum said:
40.png
Vonsalza:
Because it’s overshadowed by the personhood of the woman carrying it.
Click to expand...
Why is it overshadowed?
Click to expand...
Because the woman is indubitably a person. The fetus is not.

The woman is progressed further along the continuum. She probably votes, owns or rents property, pays taxes, functions in society.

And she came first.

The fetus is important. Just not as much as the woman.
 
laylow said:
Should people (especially family members) be forced to give up their kidney or other non-vital organs, should another person be dependent on it to survive?
Click to expand...
If the person put the person in a position to need a kidney and was the only possible donor and giving up their kidney wouldn’t kill them then yes.

A more realistic analogy (becoming a favorite): if we were not talking about pregnancy but about conjoined twins who share a vital organ.

If they are separated now one twin will live and the other will die.
If the separation is done in 9 months both twins have a good chance to live

Should the twin who will survive be forced to give up their bodily autonomy for 9 months so that their twin can live?
 
Gingersnaps4 said:
It’s laughable to see all of the anti-science “logic” that pro-choice people use to justify murder. Throwing around terms like personhood which can never be scientifically proven. But if you are a Christian and are familiar with scripture, then you know that God sees us as persons having humanity in the womb. Scripture wouldn’t say. That He knows us before we are born if we weren’t human beings with souls at that point.
Click to expand...
It’s amazing how Conservatives justify letting children all over the world die everyday, so they can live in their privileged world of nice houses, multiple cars, and abundant food. That is the same as murder to me. And I am not even convinced that most abortions are murder to begin with.
 
Last edited:
Gingersnaps4 said:
And what is this magical “personhood” that makes a human being deserving of life, anyway? Are people that go into a coma or otherwise become brain damaged…do they lose their personhood at that point and can then be killed? What about dementia? Surely they no longer have their personhood, right?
Click to expand...
Tragically, when the money runs out that’s pretty much what happens to them.

Judge takes away their drivers license, give control of their assets to someone else “for their benefit”.

When you’re all spent out and no longer have money for cutting edge treatment, you get put in a medicaid/medicare nursing home until you die and your old bed is cleaned and given to another to do the same thing.
 
VanitasVanitatum said:
40.png
Vonsalza:
The woman is progressed further along the continuum. She probably votes, owns or rents property, pays taxes, functions in society.
Click to expand...
So she can kill children who don’t have these rights?
Click to expand...
No, part of personhood is that your life is protected by law upon your birth. Birth is the chosen time because prior to that the personhood is overshadowed by the agency of the mother.

It’s her body.
Look, I know you’re looking for the edge where the logic breaks down.

It’s not there. It’s a consistent position.
 
Last edited:
That’s not logic, that’s more emotional.
 
Last edited:
laylow said:
40.png
Gingersnaps4:
It’s laughable to see all of the anti-science “logic” that pro-choice people use to justify murder. Throwing around terms like personhood which can never be scientifically proven. But if you are a Christian and are familiar with scripture, then you know that God sees us as persons having humanity in the womb. Scripture wouldn’t say. That He knows us before we are born if we weren’t human beings with souls at that point.
Click to expand...
It’s amazing how Conservatives justify letting children all over the world die everyday, so they can live in their privileged world of nice houses, multiple cars, and abundant food. That is the same as murder to me. And I am not even convinced that most abortions are murder to begin with.
Click to expand...
I bet I wouldn’t be able to find one person identifying as conservative who would justify letting children all over the world die every day, etc.
 
Last edited:
Elf01 said:
If the person put the person in a position to need a kidney and was the only possible donor and giving up their kidney wouldn’t kill them then yes.
Click to expand...
Legally? There are people who die on donor lists all of the time. Are you proposing legally forcing someone to give theirs up if one can’t be found?
Elf01 said:
If they are separated now one twin will live and the other will die.
If the separation is done in 9 months both twins have a good chance to live

Should the twin who will survive be forced to give up their bodily autonomy for 9 months so that their twin can live?
Click to expand...
By law, no, nothing should be forced. It would be a family decision.
 
Sbee0 said:
I bet I wouldn’t be able to find one person identifying as conservative who would justify letting children all over the world die every day, etc.
Click to expand...
Yet they are unwilling to give up their wealth to save kids they know are dying daily.
 
There are probably a few, but even then it depends on if pro-lifers believe in that.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top