I’m not huffy. You’re just arguing your case badly. Again. It’s not my fault I can use you as example of the uselessness of the “personhood” debate.
So you’re arguing that if you deliver a viable baby and trash it, that’s legal? Cite?
Well, first I’d have to ask for a cite from you that I ever argued that.
Well, I’m trying to figure out exactly what it is I’m saying that you’re objecting to. Because nothing you’re whining about bears any resemblance to what I’ve said. So are you just arguing into the aether and quoting me coincidentally?
Whining? Well, if you say so… I stand by my objection to what you have written, namely you’re indulging the pro-life agenda by arguing it on their terms.
What terms? They say that personhood is defined by a soul, which is imbued at the point of conception. I say that personhood is a function of brain activity, which presumably coincides with viability.
But “personhood” is just as arbitrary a concept as “soul”, something that I probably shouldn’t need to point out.
No it’s not. Otherwise, what’s the difference between killing an embryo and killing an adult? They’re both human, and they’re both alive. What’s the difference between killing a baby and killing a dolphin? The dolphin is smarter than the baby.
I’m not sidestepping. I’m pointing out that there are no units of danger, pain, or suffering, so I cannot answer the question.
But you can’t prove this claim, because it relies on the definition of personhood.
Isn’t it? It hardly ancient history that nonwhites and women had to argue that they were “persons” under the law. That doesn’t exactly indicate a hard objective fact.
The criterion that should be used is the very nonsubjective one called “location”. The first is inside someone’s body, that someone not wanting it to remain. The latter is not. This is an issue not subject to trying to come up with definitions.
I don’t see how dolphins or their IQs are relevant, but I’m prepared to adopt the following policies, and none of them are purely arbitrary, i.e. I can describe real-life situations that prompt my decisions for each one:
-
Women should have the right to terminate their pregnancies. Societies where women lack this right are worse in many ways. The benefit of a ban escapes me.
-
Babies, once born and no longer physically and parasitically attached to someone else, automatically get certain rights and a state interest in their continued welfare. Societies where can be casually killed are worse than ones where this is forbidden.
-
Women should have the right to “safe-haven” their newborns by turning them over to certain authorities, no questions asked. I recognize that some women are too young or too poor or in situations too precarious to care for their babies and this is preferable to finding them abandoned and dead.
That should summarize things well enough. If I were an American, I’d have to recognize the need to compromise on at least some of the above, because of the undue influence of religion on that society.
It’s arbitrary, but it’s necessary for us to use many arbitrary definitions to live together in civil society. We need to know who counts as a person before we can have laws against murder, just like we need to set a speed limit before we can start handing out tickets.
I completely agree that there is no overarching, external definition of “person.” We get together as a society and come to a rough consensus.
There’s also a need to revisit as knowledge and technology advance. If we can routinely save infants born at 22 weeks gestation, how does that affect our definition of person, and our abortion laws?
ETA: so the question is, Bryan Ekers, is it OK to do a procedure that kills a fetus at 41 weeks gestation, a “baby” that could unquestionably survive outside the mother? Not to save the mother’s life - say because it is less traumatic to the mother’s body to dismember the fetus and extract it than to go through traditional labor? Most people would say that the personhood of the fetus is great enough, and the burden on the mother small enough at that point, that it should not be allowed.
There’s very little that’s arbitrary about being inside the body of another person, though.
Anyway, let’s say a 22-week fetus is indeed a person, but there is some significant problem with its continuing gestation that poses a medical risk to the mother and the safest solution for her is not to induce labour or seek a C-section but to terminate the pregnancy. My concern is that the personhood issue muddies what should be a straightforward medical decision. I find it hard to be concerned about the chance of a 22+ fetus being aborted for other reasons (including ones that might seem capricious) because even in Canada where such actions are legal, it’s extremely rare and has little or no negative effect on society.
I don’t have a problem with it, again with the rarity, but also because I’m confident that very few doctors will perform the procedure as described for the reasons described. I’m willing to let the decision fall to the woman and her doctors with no state involvement. Frankly, I’d be concerned that this extreme and highly unlikely hypothetical could be used to write bad laws.
Tell me more about this definition of personhood where someone continues to be a person in this world after their brains are scraped out of their cranium and pureed in a Cuisinart.
And you can’t disprove it, or prove your own premise. It’s your belief. Not everyone shares that belief, so tell me again why your worldview should prevail? Pro-choice people advocate for CHOICE. Unlike your “side” which insists on hurting women (and possibly their unwanted offspring), choice allows a woman to well, choose her destiny. How is forcing the woman to have a child not putting that child above the woman? They are NOT equal in the Church’s eyes (at least while the woman is pregnant); the product of the pregnancy (be it EP, hydatiform mole, normally developing zygote etc) takes precedence. I wonder if the Church is putting money into developing artificial wombs. But that’s another thread.
And I second the position that a brain dead person is not a person. I base this on my 24 years as an acute and critical care RN. Brain dead persons do not look like they’re asleep or unconscious. They look dead, despite their chests rising in time with the ventilator cycling; they are harvested for their organs, if possible. Brain dead persons withdrawn from life support without it being called “murder” IF that withdrawal is done by the appropriate personnel and protocols have been observed. I have taken many people off life support (with the assistance of respiratory therapy and of course, a doctor’s order). I see no difference between “TLSing” (terminating life support) a brain dead person and abortion. Both are proper medical procedures, each appropriate to its own situation. In the case of EP or HM, there is no infant, fetus, or zygote to split hairs about. And yet, here we are.
And given with whom I’m discussing this, I will say here that brain death is not determined by how the patient looks. If you want to know how brain death is established, google it. Frankly, I’m tired of feeding the Bricker propensity for endless picayune bickering. I don’t know what world you live in, Bricker, but it seems a nonsensical place. I’m sure you’re happy in it. It’s turtles all the way down!
My worldview should prevail in matters of church policy, because the church has every right to set its own belief and polocy.
And itsn’t this thread complaining about the Pope’s rules? Isn’t it called “Fuck the Motherfucking Pope” for that reason?
This thread isn’t about any new laws, is it? No. It’s about your side whining when Catholics use - gasp - Catholic doctrine to decide Catholic issues.
Yes. Except if the choice is to have Catholic beliefs and act accordingly. That’s not a permissible choice, is it? “Excommunication? What? How dare they???”
Actually, I would have assumed sexually molesting children has been against “the Pope’s rules” for quite some time. The problem was that this rule was not only not being enforced, but violators were being enabled by getting moved to fresh hunting grounds when things got difficult for them.
I don’t know if I’m being counted as being on a particular “side”, but I’m on record as being skeptical and have set a timeframe for when I’d consider starting to believe the RCC was getting serious about the problem. Frankly, statements by RCC officials about how they’re being persecuted aren’t helping their cause.
OK, but if you’re trying to justify RCCC policy (and this thread is, at heart, an argument that its policies are morally abhorrent and cannot be justified), or trying to defend its intellectual and moral consistency, or claiming that certain things relating to the RCCC or its doctrines are true in the face of real-world evidence to the contrary (which are places this thread has also spent much time) - in these areas, there’s no reason why your worldview should prevail.
But thanks for playing.
It’s not that you can’t choose “to have Catholic beliefs and act accordingly.” It’s just that none of us have to find that to be a moral decision, and all of us are free to tell you we feel that way, and why.
It’s as if you’re confusing freedom of religion with a right not to be criticized for the way you exercise it.
I’m not exactly sure that it’s “a list” if there is only one “silly thing”. Shall we have a poll?