I know there are laws I’m some places that day a bystander has to render aid as long as it doesnt risk your own life. I’m not a lawyer and I don’t know all the details (and I guess it varies depending on local statute), but it wouldn’t apply in either of these cases anyway.
Hauling that fatass off a bridge would certainly risk your life, as does pregnancy.
Show me a scientific paper that proves that 46 chromosomes of distinct DNA defines personhood. The definition of personhood is something that is outside the realms of science in in the realms of philosophy. You have drawn this bright line in a place that you like it. And since I believe that it is our minds and spirits that make us human I have chosen to use the existence of these things as a defining point. My theoretical ovaist has his own personal belief.
You can keep saying “Yes it is!”
I or he can keep saying “No it isn’t!”
but neither is any more of a convincing argument.
Don’t be an idiot, half a brain is still a brain unless you can dig half a hole for me. By the same token I could say that according to you a person with downs syndrome is 47/46ths human. But I won’t because that would be an idiotic reading of your position.
A more salient question would be whether stem cell lines are persons. They have 46 chromosomes, and can be made into cell lines that live contentedly on their own in a petri dish. But again I assume you wouldn’t call the many stem cells you have running around your body babies. But suppose I took the DNA out of the stem cell, put it in an egg with no genetic material, such that if the result it was implanted into a woman she could bring it to term. Is that then a baby?
If so it starts to look like the ovaist has a point.
You do see that pregnancy is a one-of-a-kind thingy, doncha?
At most your loaning them.
So, you want the paper or not? It seems that even if I presented it, you’d say, correctly, “personhood ain’t science” and disregard it.
46 chromosomes of distinct DNA or such a configuration that renders it a member of Homo sapiensare a necessary but not sufficient component of personhood.
“minds and spirits”…is that science?
“I have chosen” means that you’ll force your beliefs, gotcha, facts be damned. Maybe you think that a permanent high concentration of melanin renders you unhuman.
Or being born on a Tuesday?
I don’t care, at least not here in the SDMB, if ti convincing or not.
It’s true and that’s the only thing that matters.
Any scientifi paper on the whole brain=human thingy? Or is it another of your unprovalbe personal beliefs?
Now THAT’S a good motherfuckin’ question.
A stem cell line in a Petri dish? No.
Your second scenario? Yes.
Rules, laws, etc are created by society, not by one person insisting that their way is the One Right Way. Unless and until society decides that abortion should be illegal, you have no business telling anyone what to do.
Abortion doesn’t “kill someone” in the eyes of the majority. Simply because you believe a fetus is a “someone” doesn’t give you the right to force a woman to continue a pregnancy she doesn’t want.
Not sexism - reality. Men do not have to risk their lives, their health, their futures due to a pregnancy. They can choose to do so, and so far, so can women, but no man has the moral right to force a woman to continue a pregnancy any more than he has to force her to terminate it.
You are going to sidestep the religious here?
How long of a “pause” did you require Carn?
Couple years? Or the couple of seconds your attempted condescension actually warranted? ( Hint - Going that route requires addressing it at somebody who actually cares about your opinion on the matter. Given you addressed your reprove solely at me landed you squarely in blow off territory ).
Carny? It means someone who picks a handle three syllables too long.
You all good now?
Oh… You meant reflect further on Aji’s post here Carny?
Hmmm …Now that I’ve reflected further, you’re right. There’s more here than initially meets the brain.
Aji insists Key Lime is needed for Peruvian Ceviche. But ceviche is understood to be seafood dressed with anything acidic enough to begin the denaturing of the proteins.
So what Aji’s hinting at with this allegory is that all his arguments and definitions on abortion are arbitrary constructs relevant only by his assertion of their veritas.
Damn Carny, you’re spot on! And here I thought you were just being an ass-bite. Thanks Brah!
You seem to have a very, very tenous grasp of how society works. Rules, laws, etc. normally start with one person thinking it’s the One Right Way and then he/she does whatever they can to make it through.
The second part seems like a recipe for societal immobility. Imagine that 50 years ago someone said “until abortion is legal you have no business telling anyone it should”?
That fact alone, i.e., that I personally believe it: sure, no. It does give me the right to petition for the rules I like.
Gallupshow 48% pro-life 45% pro-choice.
It’s a fair assumption that 100% of “pro-life” think it’s a person and that a non-zero% of “pro-choice” too, therefore: the majority think it’s a person. Boo-fuckin’ya
Does this clearcut feeling extend to every other thing?
Non-soldiers cannot judge soldiers? They don’t risk their live like soldiers do.
Women cannot judge men in spousal abuse cases because they don’t know how it feels to be a man?
Non-drinkers cannot judge drunk-drivers?
Sidestep? Never.
Not bring it into a discussion where it’s not going to convince my opponents and only give them the chance of stupid silly phrases? Sure.
The pro-life case, in this thread at least, must stand beyond any specific religious belief.
You seem to have a very, very tenuous grasp of the English language. Rules and laws might start as an idea/belief from one person, but until it’s accepted by the majority, it’s still just an idea/belief and not something that can be used to force others to toe their line. No problem with twits like you running around talking about turning women into walking uteri, but to insist you are right and everyone not agreeing with you is a murderer or whatever is not your right.
You aren’t petitioning here.
You conveniently ignored all the other stats there, including the one that says that 52% think abortion should remain legal under certain circumstances and 26% under all circumstances. Only 20% want it straight out illegal. And no, it isn’t a fair assumption that 100% of those who call themselves “pro-life” think a fetus is a person.
Are you purposely being stupid?
Where else would you get the silly idea that a clump of cells is the same thing as a human?
No, I really don’t. Explain how it’s different, please, because I don’t see it.
Thays what I said: I ain’t gotta loan out my uterus to no one.
Yes, thanks.
I responded to “Rules, laws, etc are created by society, not by one person insisting that their way is the One Right Way.” That is wrong. They (rules), more often than not start with one person.
Of course
Of course I didn’t. You also didn’t comment on the price of bacon in Antanarivo.
You said “Abortion doesn’t “kill someone” in the eyes of the majority” and I responded to that.
How is it stupid to compare “men have no say in abortion simply for thei being men and not bearing the risks of pregnancy” with “non-soldiers should not tell soldiers what to do if they don’t bear the risks of fighting”?
Do post-histerectomy women get a say? Post menopause? Tube-tied ones?
[/QUOTE]
The fun world of facts.
How is a fetus not a parasite? Isn’t a parasite a living thing that needs another living thing to survive.
If someone breaks into your house and refuses to leave, you can kill them them. And that’s just your house, not your body.
I was talking to an anti-abortion protestor today, and he said “God knows every thought I had since birth until now.” I asked him to repeat it, and he did. I repeated what he said and asked him if that was right, and he said “Yes,” obvious to the other protestors who realized where I was going with this and were waving their arms and practically choking. Then I said “So, you just admitted that your thoughts, a part of your life, began at birth…”
But you don’t really believe it can stand beyond nonspecific religious belief, do you? How many skeptics/atheists/humanists are anti-choice?
Google “athetist anti-abortion.” Amazingly, some anti-abortion groups want nothing to do with any athetist, even those on their side.
If fetuses are parasites, then you have to re-write every single biology book. There isn’t one single scientific line ever defining embryos/fetuses as parasites.
Facts, that can be bitches.
Not in my country and I’m sure not it all the US and, certainly, not in the majority of countries. Just to be clear, for a gigantic majority of the people on our planet it is illegal to kill a person simply for the fact that he is in your house and refuses to leave.
Assuming that conversation actually happened, then my answer is: SO-FUCKIN’-WHAT?
I’m sure there is one person in any pro-choice rally that’ll say “I’m happy those nigger bitches are abortin’ their nigger kids”.
I do. I’m sorry to disappoint you.
Anti-choice? Anti-choice what?
Slavery? Murder? Spousal abuse? I’m sure many.
If you misspelled pro-choice then I have two answers.
a) It’s non-zero and that’s enough the destroy the “only religious people are pro-life”
b) I don’t really care how many since I don’t belong to the numbers-make-things-moral party.
Just a couple of atheist/nonthiest/secular/humanist pro-lifers.
Link
Link
Link
Link
Link
Link
Link
Facts, they’re bitches.
Exactly HOW is that different from a fetus?
Ah, yes? When someone makes a valid point say SO-FUCKIN’-WHAT? and then attack their side. Cite, please, for that “one person” who uses such language?
They’ve got to be different species. Noone ever in the history of biology/medicine has defined embryos/fetuses as parasites. Not one time as a scientific definition.
If you want to showcase your scientific ignorance, then, fine by me.
My point is that I don’t have to vouch for every thing that (real or invented) people who hold my same general beliefs say. If that (real or invented) person said it, then he either made a slip of the tongue or is simply wrong. Anyway, it has zero impact on my position.
And should all the people who used in vitro fertilization be compelled to carry those “seperate DNA cells” to term? Davis v. Davis ruled NO
You know Aji de Gallina, simply saying something is a fact, and repeating that “facts can be bitches” doesn’t actually mean you’ve stated any facts. You haven’t.
And I would really like an explanation of how having an abortion is different than refusing to donate organs. Please, enlighten me.
It turns my stomach to have to agree with our correspondent, but, yeah, a fetus isn’t a parasite, largely by definition (so, this is merely arguing the dictionary) but also because parasitism is generally harmful, whereas pregnancy is necessary for the survival of the species.
In moral terms, it is obviously much like parasitism. There is an unwanted intruder, an infection, a freeloader, sucking down your blood and returning nothing. I absolutely support the right of anyone to apply the necessary medical cure to rid themselves of this intolerable personal invasion.
It is very much like parasitism in non-technical terms. But, since we get to use technical terms (it is not a “baby!”) we really ought to use such terms properly ourselves.
Most emphatically, I reject our correspondent’s reasoning in nearly every other respect.