John, as I’ve told you in the past, I believe that the development of higher brain functions is the viability point at which abortion should no longer be an option with the exception of the health of the mother or deformity of the fetus.
And on preview, Giraffe, could you please fix the coding of my last link?
I don’t know that he did, but I do know that he was fiercely opposed to the Sandinistas. He’s hardly the only one who opposed the 9-year old girl’s abortion, though, and given that he was the Archbishop of Managua he can’t be dismissed as an inconsequential loon anyways. The case is mentioned on the HLI website, with the author deploring how the “pro-abortionists” ignored the doctors who said the girl was perfectly healthy (aside from two STDs) and the pregnancy posed no risk whatsoever, etc, etc. I find reading that website rather surreal.
Be that as it may, you have asserted that that is the scientific defintion of a person. You havn’t backed that claim up yet. Some children never feel pain and brain developement in some infants is retarded, does that mean they are not a person even after they are born?
I’ve asserted that one cannot acheive “personhood” without self awareness. How can anyone attain a sense of self, “personhood,” without awareness? You might just as well declare a flu virus a person. It has human DNA, it’s alive, it exists in the human body and would die without the support of the host. Do you want to declare it a person, too? That’ll go nicely with your assertion that a dead human isn’t less of a person than a developing fetus. You still haven’t explained that one.
Yes, but you’re saying an embryo isn’t a person because it isn’t self-aware. That makes no sense since self awareness doesn’t come about until long after birth.
From the standpoint of the Catholic Church, a person is a “person” at the moment of conception. Neither of us agrees with that, but I think we can both understand it. All **Bricker **is doing is pointing out that you need to be careful about how you come to moral conclusions. You may have arrived at the right answer, from your moral perspective, but you haven’t defended it in a logically consistent way.
There are many ways to approach the definition of personhood, and as soon as you insist that your defintion is the correct one, you are going to lose. There is no correct definition (religious or scientific). There are only alternatives that we can choose from.
Two STDS? And she was NINE? Jesus wept.
I hope this girl is able to remain anonymous. I doubt it, though.
Where on their website can I find that article? I didn’t see anything about VD in the articles linked.
My heart breaks at this kind of shit.
It comes as news to me that someone can have two STDs and yet be in a perfect state of physical health. It’s impossible to tell what the actual facts of the case are. Both this account and the pro-choice accounts that I saw are hopelessly politicized.
I found this one. The girl is Nicaraguan. The article is from 2003. I’m not sure which sickens me more; the fact that the OB/Gyn’s insist they can keep both the child and the baby she’s carrying healthy, or that she has to go through this in the first place.
And weren’t the parents (including Mom) the ones lobbying to get her the abortion in the first place? So yeah, they were really looking forward to the baby.
Assholes. They don’t give a shit about human lives. It’s all about fucking control.
Lest this question sink into oblivion unanswered, were I the jury, I’d find the relatively unfettered actions of the Church in support of this law more compelling than the possibly politically-considered formulation of policy for distribution in the U.S. In this case, the ultimate measure of a man (or a Church) might actually be where he stands in moments of comfort and convenience.
I was traveling and got to the SDMB only sporadically. So I stay out for a week and this happens.
Bricker: what **eleanorigby ** said.
Well, this issue bites me in two ways.
But, I have to deal with this first:
Not true, Catholicism is the official state religion of El Salvador, that was one of the first things I learned in school there, I also learned that even though that is so, officially and in practice other cults and religions are allowed. It is also true that the power the church had was diminishing over the laws and government, but El Salvador currently defies what is happening in other countries in Latin America, were the people are demanding more liberal reforms, just as it is one of the few remaining coalition members of the willing in Iraq, I see El Salvador as the ultimate follower of the dreams of conservatives, particularly of the USA. (The recent dollarization is part of the package.)
Right now, the efforts are geared to dismantle the universal health care system and turn it into a mirror of what we have in the USA, with the poor people suffering the most, and that takes us back to the abortion issue.
I said this issue bites me in two ways:
First, I’m a Salvadoran-American, and I’m becoming even more of a former catholic when I see crap like this becoming law. The stupid thing is that for some organization that supposedly has the eternal truth on their side, their position on abortion has changed:
For centuries, the Roman Catholic Church held that a fetus didn’t become a person until “ensoulment” or quickening – it is important to notice that for a male that was supposed to be 40 days after conception and 80 days for a female. (and yes, the church got that dogma from Aristotle) http://www.vanderbilt.edu/sfl/quickening.htm The church did not adopt its strict “life begins at conception” dogma until 1869, so much for having a direct line to god, imagine all the unborn that were affected by such slow communications! (and you can also see here that dislike for women had a long non Catholic history)
Besides what others have pointed before, the fact will remain that the rich in El Salvador will get their abortions elsewhere. Even if accused, the economic power such “good” catholics have will mean that they will remain untouchable as it has always been, this current law is unjust and irrational.
The second way this bites is this:
I would be dead if my mother had not aborted her ectopic pregnancy, if her abortion had been done today in El Salvador, not only I but likely her would be dead as my presence in the womb was not noticed until the operation was made.
As I see in the report, it is not only a mind that hates women that is at work here, but I think that what we have here are beings that hate that women and doctors are aborting day in and day out and are showing to their frightened simple minds that people having abortions have more power than god and overtake their designs. :dubious:
Since I don’t think that is the case, I’m more willing to say god willed us to have this power to terminate life when necessary, specially when other lives are on the line, and that god also gave us the chance to err on the side of the doctors and women that think it will be unhealthy or deadly to go further with a pregnancy under those conditions.
While I share much the same sentiment, in fairness I had suggested that the actions of the Latin American branch of the RCC reflected on the attitudes of the US branch, and Bricker was quite correct to point out that there is more, ah, doctrinal latitude betweenst the groups than I was suggesting. And, to that extent, a statement by US Catholics is more to the point than actions of Latin American Catholics. I do still believe that to some extent the RCC hierarchy muzzles itself in Western countries so as to not ruffle feathers too much, but on the other hand much of the clergy is indigenous and shares the more liberal attitudes of their parishioners. But I for one would not volunteer to live in a world where the resurgent conservative wing of the RCC was in charge.
I thought I explained it in the post. I considered my dead father (whom I never met) a person, just as I considered my unborn child a person at 2 months. When the law says things like “dead persons” or makes laws giving them rights, is it somehow a misnomer to you? That “person” should only be attributed to currently functioning individuals? The dictionary has many entries for “person” ranging from spritual to legal, yet none has a hard scientific reference. i have provided a long list of what I have heard people try to argue “personhood” begins. You are the first to claim scientific fact. You were called on it and we are still provided with nothing more than your opinion. That is fine. It doesn’t make you correct, tho.
Once more: I claimed you cannot have “personhood” without awareness.
Your father used to be a person. He isn’t any more. Are you seriously claiming he still is? If so, then arguing with you is completely futile; you’re in a completely different reality from me.
Oh, and apparently you didn’t read your own cite very well:
It isn’t deceased rights, it’s a fucking health hazard, you loon.
Name calling now? How quant. Next time read the entire cite instead of skimming and cherry picking a select quote off of the very top. A child may wish ti have sex with an adult, but that doesn’t mean a crime is not committed against it if it happens, so I don’t know why you bolded that. Crimes can be committed against dead people even though they are not aware of it happening. A person’s body cannot be harvested against his/her wishes even though he is not aware. Surely you know that it is a seperate offense to the child if a mother is harmed during pregnancy.
Yet you can only repeat yourself as evidence? Where is the cite? I want a link with an authorative definition.
How is your claim more valid than mine if you have nothing to back it up? I have stated that if you provided something, then I would concede. What i think of as personhood could be called something else. Quit stamping your foot and insisting you are right. Put up or admit misrepresenting your opinion.
BTW 6% of preterm babies are born before 28 weeks. Are they not persons?
That’s not so. I have explained the difference. You may not agree that it makes a difference; you do not share the same belief in the idea that the embryo is deserving of social and legal protection.
And once again, you insist that THIS is the definition, despite repeated demands that you provide proof. I don’t accept this definition. It’s arbitrary. Why should your arbitrary definition be accepted over my arbitrary definition?
Except that the US Conference of Catholic Bishops, which may by church law establish norms for the Roman Catholic Community of the United States, is no more bound by the actions of the Latin American bishops than they are of the Patriarch of Antioch.
Fine. I have spoken to Mrs. Bricker, and she endorses every argument I have advanced here in this thread. So if you believe my argument is rebuttable because it’s not being made by someone that could be personally affected by the issue, my wife – who was strongly Catholic and strongly pro-life well before I even met her – also advances this argument. Mmmmkay?
Excellent example of garbage argument, Guinastasia.