Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Napolitano and many others are ignorant of embryology.
By conception, they are referring to fertilization, when the sperm and the egg form a one-celled zygote.
What they fail to understand, among other facts, is that conception/fertilization is not a single, punctual event. It is a process that takes around twenty-four hours. Let me rephrase: fertilization is a dynamic process that takes twenty-four hours. What microsecond does the developing entity transition from "non-person" to "person"? What about the second before, or after?
Napolitano's flawed approach known as punctualism. It doesn't fit the embryological development model. The correct approach is known as "gradualism." Napolitano has a fine legal mind, but his opinion on embryological issues is amateurish.
Finally, the concept of "personhood") is a philosophical and legal concept. To summarize, the correct approach combines embryological fact and philosophical considerations: science and philosophy.
So, your definition would be completely subjective-- that is, it's completely up to the feelings of the mother with no way for an observer to corroborate it.
Does that mean a 21 y/o who was the product of an unwanted pregnancy and abandoned by his mother should be denied voting privileges having not achieved "personhood" as you've defined it?
I understand what you're saying, and actually agree with you, but that line of thinking clearly doesn't clarify the answer to the question.
That is why you leave the decision top have the child to that mother and family.
If a person is not touched while they are a child they die. If they are not socialized between the ages of 2 to 7 then they will never be socialized, and would be a burden on society.
It's important that the child be wanted.
What other criteria could possibly be more important in order to have a better society?
Status:
"I don't understand. But I don't care, so it works out."
(set 2 days ago)
35,607 posts, read 17,927,273 times
Reputation: 50631
Quote:
Originally Posted by CookieSkoon
My right leaning peers like to call me a leftycuck over this, but I do not consider a human being to be alive until born, AKA, externally expunged form the mother at a natural time to do so.
I consider them more akin to a parasite before then.
Well, parasites ARE alive. Do you think parasites are dead just because they get their nutrition from a host?
And so are fetuses. They are very, very much alive and they move around and make facial expressions.
Status:
"I don't understand. But I don't care, so it works out."
(set 2 days ago)
35,607 posts, read 17,927,273 times
Reputation: 50631
Quote:
Originally Posted by silibran
In all honesty, I think if the conceptus is alive, it is human.
But do not assume anything about my position on abortion from that.
I agree. An embryo is alive, and in my opinion, a human being.
The fact that it lives within a uterus instead of out, doesn't make any less an alive human being.
The reason we're NOT willing to say that, the obvious, is because we then have to decide whether it's ok to kill a living human being through abortion, and for many, it's just easier to say well no, that's not actually alive.
Back millennials ago, there was the saying "the quick and the dead". The alive and the dead. And "quick" was determined as when the mother could feel kicking. So at about 15 weeks gestation.
Which has no bearing on my view of abortion, either. I'm just willing to stare it in the face and say yes, it is a living human being. And yes, the mother has choice of whether to host the baby, up to, say 12 weeks gestation.
Status:
"I don't understand. But I don't care, so it works out."
(set 2 days ago)
35,607 posts, read 17,927,273 times
Reputation: 50631
Quote:
Originally Posted by townshend
Napolitano and many others are ignorant of embryology.
By conception, they are referring to fertilization, when the sperm and the egg form a one-celled zygote.
What they fail to understand, among other facts, is that conception/fertilization is not a single, punctual event. It is a process that takes around twenty-four hours. Let me rephrase: fertilization is a dynamic process that takes twenty-four hours. What microsecond does the developing entity transition from "non-person" to "person"? What about the second before, or after?
Napolitano's flawed approach known as punctualism. It doesn't fit the embryological development model. The correct approach is known as "gradualism." Napolitano has a fine legal mind, but his opinion on embryological issues is amateurish.
Finally, the concept of "personhood") is a philosophical and legal concept. To summarize, the correct approach combines embryological fact and philosophical considerations: science and philosophy.
The fact that we, on the outside of the mother's body can't usually pinpoint when the fertilization occurred doesn't change the fact that it does occur at the moment of fertilization.
If you are outside a house and a murder took place, you can't say well, there's really not a definite specific time the person died, since we don't know when that was.
There is a specific moment when fertilization occurs. After that, it's a human. Before that, it wasn't.
Just like before the murder, the person was alive. After the moment of murder, the person is dead. We don't have to know when precisely that occurred to know it's true.
Two problems to that: (1) the survival of that individual was highly dependent on the availability of technology. Eighty years ago, the fetus would not have survived, and (B) that sort of thing at that age is extremely rare. Most fetus would not have survived.
I should think we need some sort of universal definition.
Oh, get real. The entire topic that you presented is in the context of abortion. Spare us your histrionics that someone didn't pretend it wasn't.
Now, there is no clear line as to when a person is a person. That's not a satisfying answer but, hey, guess what? That's the way it goes. The problem is that people want simple answers and there are rarely simple answers. In regards to when a person is a person - and, I'll say it again, this is all about abortion no matter how much you want to insist that it isn't - isn't something we can 'discover'. Rather, it's something we have to collectively define as a society. It will be based partly on reason and partly on practicality. That's not satisfying. Too bad. Life and society isn't about making you or I feel good.
I suggest that if you really want to have a serious discussion - and I am by no means convinced that you do - that you drop the arbitrary "You can't mention X!" dictates. Since you're not the lord of what people can discuss, your demands are going to be ignored anyway, as well they should be.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
