FWIW, WebMDcites March of Dimes as stating that “up to 50%” of pregnancies end in miscarriage. The 15-20% number you often see is the number of *diagnosed *pregnancies that end in miscarriage. Obviously, if we’re dealing with finding out stuff about undiagnosed pregnancy, estimation will be involved. And there are such things as molar pregnancy that can raise HCG without an embryo present. Another factor in the statistics would be the number of women using infertility treatments or getting pregnant later in life, which would increase the number of miscarriages across the population.
In any case, a shitload of fertilized eggs get flushed down toilets every year.
And just in case clarification is needed: The remaining existence of this organization depends on people who cannot or will not even understand that they have alternatives, much less consider taking action on any of them. People who accept unquestioningly that only through that particular organization can their souls find salvation. People who are willing to cohabit in that organization with child molesters they themselves protect, and that teach and practice misogyny, and so on down the list. People who thereby enable such evils to continue to exist. People such as yourself and Bricker. Enablers.
That’s why the question matters. Even if you refuse to answer it, even to yourself.
Well, apparently you can imagine that personhood commences before brain activity commences, despite the fact that personhood ends if brain activity ends. I find that to be an exceedingly silly thing to imagine.
Well, it’s a question of how late. If the fetus is developed enough to survive outside of the womb, I’m pretty sure it would be murder to abort it. (Haven’t women/girls been charged with murder/manslaughter for delivering babies and dumping them in the trash?) And prior to that point, I doubt there’s enough brain activity going on for it to qualify as a person.
Ignorance fought. I was trying to find some general term for “thing in the womb from moment of conception to delivery.”
I figure that the fact that I made the point here would serve well enough as evidence of my concession. Or you could just get it out of me after you join me in the afterlife. Shouting across the lake of fire and all that.
Because yours is made up, while mine is based in biology. Again, I ask you, if you don’t think with your brain, what do you think with? The brain is *the single organ *responsible for personhood.
I laughed.
I would like to again take this opportunity to point out to proponents of ID that if their god really *did *design us, he’s a fucking retard whom I wouldn’t trust to put together so much as a Lego set.
I never agreed that personhood ends if brain activity ends. I pointed out, in fact, that coma victims are permitted a chance to recover rather than harvested.
But that’s still simply you asserting that. Again looking to the coma victims who aren’t thinking – do they lose personhood during their coma and regain it upon returning to more measurable brain activity?
I’m reminded of the case of Carrie Coons, a woman from New York who was diagnosed as persistently vegetative, so much so that her family had petitioned the court for permission to remove the feeding tube. Evidently relying on the Shot From Guns Guide to Life, the courts agreed. But before the order could be carried out, she woke up and began talking.
Here’s a list of other purported cases with similar circumstances.
ETA:
Except when the doctors declare it an end?
So when is it actually an end, and not a suspension?
(This is cross-posted to avoid a continuing hijack)
I am saying that when a woman is pregnant, there are two patients’ interests which should be considered in any medical decision.
Uh huh. In the Pope’s defense, he himself did not personally comapre it to Nazi persection. Instead, in his superior wisdom, he compared it to “petty gossip”.
Is it “unmitigated evil”? I’ll go for unimitigated arrogance and boundless stupidity. It’s about like pissing on a person and then insisting it’s just rain.
To quote Wikipedia, “It is important to distinguish between brain death and states that may mimic brain death (e.g., barbiturate overdose, alcohol intoxication, sedative overdose, hypothermia, hypoglycemia, coma or chronic vegetative states).” People in comas have brain activity, just not very much of it.
The hardware is still there, even if it isn’t functioning. A zygote doesn’t have the hardware yet, let alone anything worthwhile stored on it.
We falsely diagnose comas when the person is not actually in one or when they have a chance of recovering. So what? Just because we haven’t yet reached a perfect level of understanding and diagnosis doesn’t make the reality any less valid. So, to some extent, our techology will determine our personhood. There may come a time where we can replicate an entire human brain in an artificial form, in which case it may be murder to destroy a corpse before it can be downloaded.
Your conception of personhood has the necessary condition of a soul: some element of humanity that is unique and perpetual from conception to death. But you cannot demonstrate it and you cannot prove it. You may make your own choices based on that belief, but I will thank you to keep your comforting fairytales out of *my *business.
When it has been destroyed past a reasonable point or expectation of recovery. I will leave that exact threshold to medical professionals.
And I’m asking you *at exactly what point *the balance tips. How much danger or suffering should I have to undergo in favor of a clump of cells?
In my view, the correct question is, “How much danger or suffering should I have to undergo in favor of another human being?”
And the answer is: since both lives are of equal weight, and since we do not generally countenance the murder of an innocent human being, even to save the life of another human being, some quanta of danger and suffering are approiate for you to “put up with.”
Beyond that, how shall I quantify this? Q. You’re required to put up with Q amount of suffering and danger.
Nah, the lives of two human beings are not of equal weight.
I’ll cheerfully agree that the human embryo is a human being: it’s a living creature, of the species homo sapiens.
Where you’re wrong is over its personhood. It may be biologically human, but no brain ==> no person.
In further answer to your cavil about people misdiagnosed as comatose, misdiagnoses happen. That’s not the issue here. But unless you’re saying that a person will still be a person if their brain is scooped out of their body and run through a blender, I think the point clearly stands that you cease to be a person when deprived of a functioning brain.
Ah, but you’re clearly okay with murdering a “person” to save another person when to say otherwise would make you look like a fucking monster. So clearly you *do *countenance the murder of an innocent human being to save the life of another human being.
And you’re sidestepping again, with this Q bullshit. I am asking you to put your balls on the line and tell me *exactly how much *danger, pain, and suffering a woman or child should have to endure because you give a single cell the same personhood as her.
But I’m betting you won’t clarify. Because everytime it becomes clear that sticking to your original stated beliefs would force you to consider how truly reprehensible your “morals” are, you backtrack.
Which is why I don’t care about the definition of personhood. If it applies, you’d be pretty sure it would be murder? Too many points of vagueness.
It’s worth pointing out that a purely elective late-term abortion is perfectly legal in Canada, yet Canadian society has not suffered any ill-effects as a result that I’m aware of. I’d frankly like anyone who is trying to debate the issue with battling dictionary definitions and other etherea to at least acknowledge real-word effects or lack thereof. A tubal ligation might or might not be displeasing to God, assuming God exists and interpretations of God are correct, and a fetus might or might not be a person, assuming “personhood” is a definable, testable concept, but poverty definitely does exist, as do interrupted educations, long-term medical complications… And if there are negative effects to liberal abortion laws that you can demonstrate without invoking God or dictionaries or anything else arbitrary, feel free to bring those to the group’s attention, too.
Vagueness because **Bricker **has a stick up his ass for absolutely correctness on points of law, and I didn’t want to give him an opportunity to point and finger-wave if I misspoke. My point was that I would assume you can’t legally abort a fetus that could live outside of the womb. (Otherwise you presumably also couldn’t prosecute a woman for delivering a baby and then trashing it, which has happened.)
You *do *realize I’m an atheist who likes keeping abortion legal, right? Or are you having too much fun getting all huffy at the conclusion you’ve jumped to regarding what I’m trying to express?
Quick correction here – Catholicism isn’t considered fundamentalism, nor does it teach against evolution. I don’t agree with Ají de Gallina at all, but your information here on the Church and science (at least when it comes to evolution and earth science) is incredibly inaccurate.
As for the cojoined twins angle – doesn’t this happen occassionally? You have a case where without separation, both will die, but only one really has a better chance of survival?