JThunder, you’re 4 pages late, this has already clogged up too much of my thread. The term you are using, “personhood” person" isl completely subjective and only exist in the phylosophical world.
You say the definition of a person starts at conception, E-Sabboth says it starts at 40, I say it starts at the exact moment that each of your parents were conceived. Why would any precedent or cite or reference provide a definition of “what is human” and when do we acheive “personhood?” Better yet, what documtation do you have that assures YOU of your personhood, your citizenship, or your humanity? (do any of them refer to you by your birthdate?)
Besides, I happen to agree with you. Appeals to personhood are entirely subjective. However, this is only a problem for the pro-choicers who insist on invoking personhood in this debate.
Not true. I have made absolutely NO claims regarding when personhood begins.
Again, let me remind you: It is the pro-choicers who insist that it specifically begins at the moment of birth. If they are going to make that claim, then they had better be prepared to justify it.
Pro-lifers such as beagledave, Bob Cos and I do NOT appeal to personhood, simply because it is a colossal red herring. Appeals to personhood are a convenient way to declare that the unborn can be justifiably killed, without actually defending the assertion that birth imparts personhood.
Once again, the burden of proof rests on those who DO insist on using a specific definition of personhood (i.e. several pro-choicers in this thread). So far, they have yet to provide any justification for that entirely arbitrary declaration.
As far as I know it doesn’t happen that way. In MY experience I actually had to be RAPED for my dr to prescribe the “Morning After Pill” They DON’T just hand them out willy nilly
How could you get an abortion if you didn’t know you were pregnant? Was MY question and… I didn’t quite catch an answer from your oratory there kiddo.
IMHO I don’t think that before implantation there IS a life. In MY belief, life doesn’t start till AFTER the heart starts beating and there is a cognative awareness (even if only at a subconcious level) I’ve never had an abortion because I couldn’t bring myself to that level after 15 years of infertility. I got pregnant with my 3.5 year old and didn’t know about him till I was 3 months pregnant. I was single and the father had left me.Even IF I had wanted an abortion I couldn’t have (morally) done it. This is MY morality for MYSELF and I am in no way telling a woman what she can do with HER body and HER baby.
Oh, JThunder, dear JThunder, you have made no claims, you say. Except that you claim I do not agree with Aristotle. And you claim that clearly, the choice is arbitrary, of when personhood begins.
Now, I could get into the christian paradigm of infant baptism and infant mortality, but I hardly think that’s productive.
So, we sit here with an arbitrary definition of personhood, where a sperm is not one… else every time Onan spills his seed, a thousand babies die, and every time a woman has her period, one poor sweet child is slain… thus to protect the poor children, we need roving impregnation squads to knock up every woman past menarche… and where a forty year old is clearly a person. Probably.
Yes, I’d say that’s pretty much where we stand. You know, it is rather amusing to watch you sit and pick and choose among arguments, to stand on your teetering throne of morality, and insist you know the truth… but you will not share it, will you, oh wise one?
You have issued a challenge, but you will not defend it, you will not substantiate it. Your words are empty puffs of smoke without force behind them, content in their own superiority.
Come! Be scientific! Declare your hypothesis, so it might be tested! Or, my good and kind one…
I said that I made no claims regarding when personhood begins. I respectfully challenge you to look back through my posts and prove me wrong.
Regarding Aristotle, I disagreed with his claim that infants are not human beings, and that we owe them nothing. Obviously, this is NOT the same as making any claim that personhood begins at conception, or at any other specific point.
And finally, I did not claim that the choice of when personhood begins is arbitrary. What I said is that the pro-choice claim that birth=personhood is arbitrary, i.e. it was selected as a matter of convenience, rather than being based on any fundamental principles or data.
Indeed, especially since I have made absolute no statements regarding infant baptism this thread.
What is there for me to substantiate? You folks are the ones making the claim here, namely, that personhood begins at birth. I am challenging you to defend that claim in a logically consistent manner. Common sense dictates that the burden of proof rests on the person who is making the claim, rather than his or her critics. Your attempt to fo ist this burden onto the pro-lifers is intellectually dishonest, at best.
In fact, I have gone a step further on your behalf. I demonstrated that the criteria proposed by Blalron and catsix (citizenship, the ability to appreciate life, etc) would actually disqualify newborns and a great number of fully born humans. This, even though the burden of proof still rests on the pro-choicers who insist that personhood begins at birth.
Unfortunately, that’s how these discussions typically go.
Pro-choicers: “The unborn isn’t a person! It has no right to life.” Pro-lifers: “Really? Please define personhood, and demonstrate that it specifically begins at birth.” Pro-choicers: “What? Okay, wise guy, prove us wrong! If you can’t, then we win. Hah! Defend your claim, dammit!” Pro-lifers: “Wait a minute. What claim? You’re the ones who made the claim here. We’re asking you to defend it.” Pro-choicers: “DEFEND YOUR CLAIM, YOU COWARDS!”
:rolleyes: As I said, intellectual dishonesty.
Boy. Can anyone else smell the irony, here? :rolleyes:
I said that I made no claims regarding when personhood begins. I respectfully challenge you to look back through my posts and prove me wrong.
Regarding Aristotle, I disagreed with his claim that infants are not human beings, and that we owe them nothing. Obviously, this is NOT the same as making any claim that personhood begins at conception, or at any other specific point.
And finally, I did not claim that the choice of when personhood begins is arbitrary. What I said is that the pro-choice claim that birth=personhood is arbitrary, i.e. it was selected as a matter of convenience, rather than being based on any fundamental principles or data.
Indeed, especially since I have made absolute no statements regarding infant baptism this thread.
What is there for me to substantiate? You folks are the ones making the claim here, namely, that personhood begins at birth. I am challenging you to defend that claim in a logically consistent manner. Common sense dictates that the burden of proof rests on the person who is making the claim, rather than his or her critics. Your attempt to fo ist this burden onto the pro-lifers is intellectually dishonest, at best.
In fact, I have gone a step further on your behalf. I demonstrated that the criteria proposed by Blalron and catsix (citizenship, the ability to appreciate life, etc) would actually disqualify newborns and a great number of fully born humans. This, even though the burden of proof still rests on the pro-choicers who insist that personhood begins at birth.
Unfortunately, that’s how these discussions typically go.
Pro-choicers: “The unborn isn’t a person! It has no right to life.” Pro-lifers: “Really? Please define personhood, and demonstrate that it specifically begins at birth.” Pro-choicers: “What? Okay, wise guy, prove us wrong! If you can’t, then we win. Hah! Defend your claim, dammit!” Pro-lifers: “Wait a minute. What claim? You’re the ones who made the claim here. We’re asking you to defend it.” Pro-choicers: “DEFEND YOUR CLAIM, YOU COWARDS!”
:rolleyes: As I said, intellectual dishonesty.
Boy. Can anyone else smell the irony, here? :rolleyes:
I said that I made no claims regarding when personhood begins. I respectfully challenge you to look back through my posts and prove me wrong.
Regarding Aristotle, I disagreed with his claim that infants are not human beings, and that we owe them nothing. Obviously, this is NOT the same as making any claim that personhood begins at conception, or at any other specific point.
And finally, I did not claim that the choice of when personhood begins is arbitrary. What I said is that the pro-choice claim that birth=personhood is arbitrary, i.e. it was selected as a matter of convenience, rather than being based on any fundamental principles or data.
Indeed, especially since I have made absolute no statements regarding infant baptism this thread.
What is there for me to substantiate? You folks are the ones making the claim here, namely, that personhood begins at birth. I am challenging you to defend that claim in a logically consistent manner. Common sense dictates that the burden of proof rests on the person who is making the claim, rather than his or her critics. Your attempt to fo ist this burden onto the pro-lifers is intellectually dishonest, at best.
In fact, I have gone a step further on your behalf. I demonstrated that the criteria proposed by Blalron and catsix (citizenship, the ability to appreciate life, etc) would actually disqualify newborns and a great number of fully born humans. This, even though the burden of proof still rests on the pro-choicers who insist that personhood begins at birth.
Unfortunately, that’s how these discussions typically go.
Pro-choicers: “The unborn isn’t a person! It has no right to life.” Pro-lifers: “Really? Please define personhood, and demonstrate that it specifically begins at birth.” Pro-choicers: “What? Okay, wise guy, prove us wrong! If you can’t, then we win. Hah! Defend your claim, dammit!” Pro-lifers: “Wait a minute. What claim? You’re the ones who made the claim here. We’re asking you to defend it.” Pro-choicers: “DEFEND YOUR CLAIM, YOU COWARDS!”
:rolleyes: As I said, intellectual dishonesty.
Boy. Can anyone else smell the irony, here? :rolleyes:
I said that I made no claims regarding when personhood begins. I respectfully challenge you to look back through my posts and prove me wrong.
Regarding Aristotle, I disagreed with his claim that infants are not human beings, and that we owe them nothing. Obviously, this is NOT the same as making any claim that personhood begins at conception, or at any other specific point.
And finally, I did not claim that the choice of when personhood begins is arbitrary. What I said is that the pro-choice claim that birth=personhood is arbitrary, i.e. it was selected as a matter of convenience, rather than being based on any fundamental principles or data.
Indeed, especially since I have made absolute no statements regarding infant baptism this thread.
What is there for me to substantiate? You folks are the ones making the claim here, namely, that personhood begins at birth. I am challenging you to defend that claim in a logically consistent manner. Common sense dictates that the burden of proof rests on the person who is making the claim, rather than his or her critics. Your attempt to fo ist this burden onto the pro-lifers is intellectually dishonest, at best.
In fact, I have gone a step further on your behalf. I demonstrated that the criteria proposed by Blalron and catsix (citizenship, the ability to appreciate life, etc) would actually disqualify newborns and a great number of fully born humans. This, even though the burden of proof still rests on the pro-choicers who insist that personhood begins at birth.
Unfortunately, that’s how these discussions typically go.
Pro-choicers: “The unborn isn’t a person! It has no right to life.” Pro-lifers: “Really? Please define personhood, and demonstrate that it specifically begins at birth.” Pro-choicers: “What? Okay, wise guy, prove us wrong! If you can’t, then we win. Hah! Defend your claim, dammit!” Pro-lifers: “Wait a minute. What claim? You’re the ones who made the claim here. We’re asking you to defend it.” Pro-choicers: “DEFEND YOUR CLAIM, YOU COWARDS!”
:rolleyes: As I said, intellectual dishonesty.
Boy. Can anyone else smell the irony, here? :rolleyes:
pencilpusher, I had a neighbor in NH that would get them all the time when she was 16. After each and every act of unprotected sex she would go to the local Planned Parenthood clinic and receive a morning after pill. She never had to prove or even say she was raped. All she had to do was request it and it was given, no questions asked.
Yes, sweet lad, you make no claims, thus cleverly setting the pro-choice masses up to grovel at your feet.
So make a claim. When does personhood begin, four seconds, four months, four years, or forty? I’m indifferent.
Goodness sakes, I’ll even give you a stance: The right of a person to have control over his or her body is inviolate, provide it harms none others. So, sure. Suicide, prostitution, drugs, what have you, go for it, as long as it remains a victimless crime.
As far as an embryo is concerned, as long as it is purely parasitic, human or not, ensouled or not, if it can not survive when removed from the body, that’s the embryo’s problem.
The point I’m trying to make, such as it is, is that, surprisingly, you’re coming at this, not from a Judeo-Christian perspective, but a purely Christian perspective.
There are other points of view out there. I have given you classic greece and hard libertarian. Anyone care to chime in and pick some others? I admit, it is a bit hard to define the right to life or right to abort in terms that have nothing to do with abortion.
Of course, there’s always the Rosie Greer’s Head analogy.
Let’s say you wake up tomorrow with Rosie Greer’s Head sewn to your shoulder. He’s rude, he eats too much, he’s trying to take over your body, and you look like a freak. Do you owe it to him to sacrifice your entire life and lifestyle to supporting him?
The pro-choicers are the ones who set themselves up. They made a claim. It’s up to them to defend it.
I see. So because the pro-choicers can’t defend their claim, you now insist that I make one. Sorry kid, but that’s not how the game is played.
At no point did I claim that personhood is the defining issue here, so I am under no obligation to declare when personhood begins. That issue is simply irrelevant to my stance on the matter, so I am not going to fall into your pathetic little trap.
Oh, here’s another one. Robert Anson Heinlein, possibly slightly misquoted, had a character once pontificate: I believe that children should be raised in a barrel until age 18. At that point, they can either be let out of the barrel or you can drive in the bung.
That’s a good delimiter, the age of majority. At that point, the human is recognized as being a citizen with full rights. Can we agree that ending his life after that, provided he has full competency, is murder?
It almost sounds like you’ve never been in this kind of debate before, at least here. The pro life posters that I’ve seen here all have the creation of a new human life as “the defining issue” (hence the term “pro life” ).
More info about that definition (as compared to “personhood” concepts) here
Basically, beagledave. But I’m not going to look at that cite, because, you see, I don’t care about creation of a new human life. I’m willing to accept that potential for a new human life is being aborted. And, apparently, this is considered tolerable in our society.
So, I’m just waiting to see what JThunder has against it. Is there a problem with the potential for a new human life being aborted?
We’re back to the same stupid problem: The terms personhood, alive, dead, and human, are all purely arbitrary definitions that we create. It seems that all cultures set up a system for a child to become adult, for a boy to become a man, for a girl to become a woman. We have legal definitions that restrict the rights of someone under the age of 16, 18, 19, and 21 that were all arrived at arbitrarily.
The fact is, outside of the abortion or euthanasia debate, there is no reason to define those terms. I don’t care what Aristotle or the Bible say, I’m declaring that you are not a person until you cease to be a parasatoid.
If the government can set forth laws that say a mother decides all aspects of a child’s life up to the age of 12, 16, or 18, why can it not arbitrarily define some point where the mother decides the child’s life? Frankly, if she does not have the right to decide the child’s life, she does not have the right even become pregnant.
I don’t claim to speak for JThunder or Bob or any other pro life poster, but I’m pretty sure that they don’t think of a zygote/embryo/fetus as “potential human life”, but “human life”. (Of course a z/e/f has potential, much like a human at other stages of development (baby, toddler, teenager etc) has potential.
The link I provided outlines the basic genetics/embryology behind that stance. Again, talking about “personhood” as a point of demarcation is generally not a concept that is recognized by pro life folks. (And again, the link I provided explains why) emacknight
Well, no. And again, the cite I provided above provides citations from several standard genetics/embryology sources that establish a non-arbitrary meaning for “human life”. There are plenty of other cites floating around as well…there was testimony before a Senate sub-committee a few years back that covered this ground as well. (see here…yes the web site is pro life, but the Senate web site does not archive back that far)
(I do agree that “personhood” is an entirely arbitrary distinction, based in cultural beliefs).
I didn’t say a “potential human life.” I said “potential for human life.” That is, a unexpressed lifespan, wherein the embryo could become Adolf Hitler or Walt Disney.
So. There is one verifiable point in society wherein a person is endowed with all adult rights and responsibilites. That is the age of majority.
Before that, the rights of the human life are restricted.
There is another point in human life, and that is before it is born but after conception. According to society, at that point, the right to life is not absolute.
).