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.
"Needs to return a baby"? Wooo,now there is a good one. Ever hear of a little thing called personal responsibility. A womans right to choose is basically a womans right to sleep with a man she doesn't intend to marry. A man's right to have unprotected sex out of wedlock is a man's right to shoot himself in the foot, or elsewhere, and should be the right to an 18 year mortgage on his creation.
In fairness to unwed mothers, no doubt it would be a hard choice, to know that you are terminating a living being that is a part of your genetic makeup and could grow one day to feel, contribute, love, grow, aspire to the same happiness as the vessel that bore him/her.
We attach to much self import to ourselves. We are all just vessels of all of the above . It is just that some are more psychologically broken than others. The real downer though is the guys that post on here that are so callous of spirit toward this subject. Spirit of human dignity would be a start. You can still persist in only believing in yourself. These folks expressing their narcissic epitaph, sooo strongly so completely, so cold. You deserve no compassion yet I am sad for you.
No society in the known history of human kind is greater for the wonder tht is America. No society is sadder or more decadent than that which has murdered so many innocents.
I believe in BOTH capital punishment and abortion. I also favor euthanasia. When a "life" is unwanted, we have the right to end it. We claim that right in wartime, don't we?
It sure seems like it. We don't seem to get upset if pregnant women get killed during wartime.
It is not an opinion that human personhood begins at conception, it's pure logic and science.
Really. So, before what you call conception, a free-floating sperm and ovum do not constitute a 'person'. Yet if a sperm should become mired in the outer matrix of an ovum, a 'person' suddenly comes into existence...from out of the blue? That's your logic and science? Weren't you just insisting that location doesn't matter? Isn't logic supposed to be internally consistent?
Quote:
Originally Posted by JOJOG
"Person" is defined as: a human being, human individual or member of the human race. All of these apply to an unborn baby and one cannot deny that.
Sorry. Zygotes, blastocycts, and embryos are no more beings, individuals, or members of the human race than the polyps referred to earlier. They exhibit nothing more than the same routine cell division and differentiation that can be easily observed in a colonizing bread mold.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JOJOG
B/c an unborn baby is a member of the human race, he has the natural, inherent capacity to function as a person. The only thing he lacks is the current capacity to do so.
Whatever this natural, inherent capacity is, every cell in every human body must also have it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JOJOG
Personhood is not a matter of skill, size or degree of intelligence. We develop the ability to act as persons only b/c we already are personal beings to begin with.
There are no qualifications for personhood at all, then. It's all a matter of some sort of essence or other non-physical property?. Like a soul, for instance?
Quote:
Originally Posted by JOJOG
Neither an unborn baby or a newborn baby can yet speak, reason or perform personal acts, but this only means that he cannot yet function as a person, not that he lacks the essential being of a person.
Well, 'essential being' is a pretty thin disguise, don't you think? What test could determine the absence or presence of an 'essential being'? What is its source...from where does it originate? Or is its existence indeed entirely non-physical and supernatural, thus escaping the prying eyes of all your 'logic and science', being instead something that you simply 'believe in'?
"Needs to return a baby"? Wooo,now there is a good one. Ever hear of a little thing called personal responsibility. A womans right to choose is basically a womans right to sleep with a man she doesn't intend to marry. A man's right to have unprotected sex out of wedlock is a man's right to shoot himself in the foot, or elsewhere, and should be the right to an 18 year mortgage on his creation.
In fairness to unwed mothers, no doubt it would be a hard choice, to know that you are terminating a living being that is a part of your genetic makeup and could grow one day to feel, contribute, love, grow, aspire to the same happiness as the vessel that bore him/her.
We attach to much self import to ourselves. We are all just vessels of all of the above . It is just that some are more psychologically broken than others. The real downer though is the guys that post on here that are so callous of spirit toward this subject. Spirit of human dignity would be a start. You can still persist in only believing in yourself. These folks expressing their narcissic epitaph, sooo strongly so completely, so cold. You deserve no compassion yet I am sad for you.
No society in the known history of human kind is greater for the wonder tht is America. No society is sadder or more decadent than that which has murdered so many innocents.
youve got to be a male, ever hear of a thing called chlymidia???????? I carried that disease through my entire pregnancy with my son!!!!....taking "personal responsibility" goes both ways...I was on my second child in my marriage when this happened to me.... now, you say that sleeping with a man is a womans right to chose to sleep with him when she doesnt intend to "marry him"....well, if youre already married, and I was, then this kind of thing happens to you, you DELIVER A CHILD with a disease you contracted from you own husband, it leaves little to nothing to believe in anymore...thus conjuring ideas of abortion, as it DOES AFFECT THE UNBORN TO CARRY CHLYMIDIA IN THE WOMB AND THE UTERUS, the drugs used to fight this disease also affect the child....so if you think its all about deciding who you wanna sleep with and no intentions of marrying them, YOURE DAMN WRONG, at the point of pregnancy when you are told you are diseased its too late to to do anything, but your child is affected and so are you...this happened to me also... and so it is not a matter of "personal responsibility" when the other partner has acted unfaithful and caused the child to be ill before birth... THERE ARE MANY REASONS FOR NEEDING TO ABORT A CHILD, AND IF IT INDICATES DISEASE OR DISEASE TO THE MOTHER IT IS EVEN MORE INTENSIFIDE...BUT YEAH, BLAME THE MOTHER FOR NOT TAKING PERSONAL RESPONSIBLITY FOR THE MANS INFIDELITY!!!!!!!!!....no wonder men cant run the govt, they cant stop bossing women around !!!!
Really. So, before what you call conception, a free-floating sperm and ovum do not constitute a 'person'. Yet if a sperm should become mired in the outer matrix of an ovum, a 'person' suddenly comes into existence...from out of the blue? That's your logic and science? Weren't you just insisting that location doesn't matter? Isn't logic supposed to be internally consistent?
Sorry. Zygotes, blastocycts, and embryos are no more beings, individuals, or members of the human race than the polyps referred to earlier. They exhibit nothing more than the same routine cell division and differentiation that can be easily observed in a colonizing bread mold.
Whatever this natural, inherent capacity is, every cell in every human body must also have it.
There are no qualifications for personhood at all, then. It's all a matter of some sort of essence or other non-physical property?. Like a soul, for instance?
Well, 'essential being' is a pretty thin disguise, don't you think? What test could determine the absence or presence of an 'essential being'? What is its source...from where does it originate? Or is its existence indeed entirely non-physical and supernatural, thus escaping the prying eyes of all your 'logic and science', being instead something that you simply 'believe in'?
A baby comes from the intermingling of the proper elements, not simply from "out of the blue." Science and logic will tell you that there is a beginning and an end to human life. Prior to conception there is sperm and an egg, both are human cellular material, but neither will develop into a human being if left by themselves. Once they intermingle, suddenly a new, distinct, unified, self-integrating human being comes into existence. All the genetic material needed to drive the child's development is already there. All her fundamental human capacities are in place. A new human life comes into existence at conception.
The only qualifications for personhood is simply being a member of the human race. A human being is a person, a person is a human being. You cannot deny any human being the title of "person."
My point was: that newborns and preborns cannot speak, reason, or perform personal acts means only that he cannot yet function as a person, not that he lacks the essential (basic nature) being of a person.
A baby comes from the intermingling of the proper elements, not simply from "out of the blue."
I'm familiar with the complex and lengthy process that can ultimately result in the birth of a baby. It's your claim of instant personhood that makes no sense. That comes entirely out of the blue. It's a little like 'ensoulment' in that regard.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JOJOG
Science and logic will tell you that there is a beginning and an end to human life.
Science will tell you that life is a continuum, and that what we call birth and death are processes that can be observed within it. It is the binary thinking often fostered by religion that encourages such simplifying and corrupting assumptions as that there are discrete beginnings and ends to all things.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JOJOG
Prior to conception there is sperm and an egg, both are human cellular material, but neither will develop into a human being if left by themselves.
If left to themselves, they will tend toward the only purpose that either one of them can actually serve, and the only function that either one of them can actually carry out. Save for the magical insertion of new properties from outside the system that you postulate, 100% of any potential contained in a zygote two seconds after its formation was contained in either the sperm or the ovum that formed it two seconds prior to formation. You endorse here exactly what you would criticize 273 days later in charging that pro-choice people would condone 'killing a baby' two seconds before it was born, but not two seconds after.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JOJOG
Once they intermingle, suddenly a new, distinct, unified, self-integrating human being comes into existence.
Nothing of the sort occurs through any force but magic. Sperm themselves are at their creation new, distinct, unified, self-integrating, forms of human life.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JOJOG
All the genetic material needed to drive the child's development is already there.
And a recipe for chocolate cake is on page 453 of my cookbook. Still, I cannot offer you a slice. No cake exists. If I wish to undertake the responsibility inherent in being one day able to offer you a slice of cake, a long and complex process will have to be undergone first, and we shall simply have to hope that somehow it will all turn out alright.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JOJOG
All her fundamental human capacities are in place.
None of them are in place. A zygote contains none of even the precursors of any human capacity at all. It is competent (barely) at the cellular level only.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JOJOG
A new human life comes into existence at conception.
No. One step in a long and complex process is accomplished via a successful conception. That is the extent of it. There is nothing exceptional (and certainly nothing magical) about this particular step as opposed to any of the millions that must have come before and that may or may not come after.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JOJOG
The only qualifications for personhood is simply being a member of the human race. A human being is a person, a person is a human being. You cannot deny any human being the title of "person."
If I have the same freedom to invent purely rhetorical frameworks as you claim for yourself, I can quite easily deny the title of 'person' to whomsoever and whatsoever I shall choose.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JOJOG
My point was: that newborns and preborns cannot speak, reason, or perform personal acts means only that he cannot yet function as a person...
Meaning, I infer, that you deny that there are any testable, physical, or observational means for discovery of what you will call personhood. It is a status that you yourself will define and apply as you will, then denying (as you have repeatedly done) the capacity of anyone else to protest the credibility of either the defintiion or the application.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JOJOG
...not that he lacks the essential (basic nature) being of a person.
And again your attempts at an alternate rhetoric serve as an insufficient gloss or patina to conceal the mystical and magical underpinnings of such a claim.
Last edited by saganista; 02-05-2008 at 09:29 AM..
I'm familiar with the complex and lengthy process that can ultimately result in the birth of a baby. It's your claim of instant personhood that makes no sense. That comes entirely out of the blue. It's a little like 'ensoulment' in that regard.
Science will tell you that life is a continuum, and that what we call birth and death are processes that can be observed within it. It is the binary thinking often fostered by religion that encourages such simplifying and corrupting assumptions as that there are discrete beginnings and ends to all things.
If left to themselves, they will tend toward the only purpose that either one of them can actually serve, and the only function that either one of them can actually carry out. Save for the magical insertion of new properties from outside the system that you postulate, 100% of any potential contained in a zygote two seconds after its formation was contained in either the sperm or the ovum that formed it two seconds prior to formation. You endorse here exactly what you would criticize 273 days later in charging that pro-choice people would condone 'killing a baby' two seconds before it was born, but not two seconds after.
Nothing of the sort occurs through any force but magic. Sperm themselves are at their creation new, distinct, unified, self-integrating, forms of human life.
And a recipe for chocolate cake is on page 453 of my cookbook. Still, I cannot offer you a slice. No cake exists. If I wish to undertake the responsibility inherent in being one day able to offer you a slice of cake, a long and complex process will have to be undergone first, and we shall simply have to hope that somehow it will all turn out alright.
None of them are in place. A zygote contains none of even the precursors of any human capacity at all. It is competent (barely) at the cellular level only.
No. One step in a long and complex process is accomplished via a successful conception. That is the extent of it. There is nothing exceptional (and certainly nothing magical) about this particular step as opposed to any of the millions that must have come before and that may or may not come after.
If I have the same freedom to invent purely rhetorical frameworks as you claim for yourself, I can quite easily deny the title of 'person' to whomsoever and whatsoever I shall choose.
Meaning, I infer, that you deny that there are any testable, physical, or observational means for discovery of what you will call personhood. It is a status that you yourself will define and apply as you will, then denying (as you have repeatedly done) the capacity of anyone else to protest the credibility of either the defintiion or the application.
And again your attempts at an alternate rhetoric serve as an insufficient gloss or patina to conceal the mystical and magical underpinnings of such a claim.
Let me simplify things for you:
Dictionaries define "person" as: a human being or a member of the human race.
The Law of Biogensis states: if you want to know what type of being something is, you look at its parents, therefore two human parents can only create a human being.
If an unborn baby is a human being, she therefore is a person. This isn't religious dogma, it's factual and logical.
A child three seconds after birth is no different than a child three seconds prior to birth other than their environment. You are comparing apples and oranges when comparing babies before and after birth with egg and sperm prior to conception. There is no baby or person prior to conception. What is before conception is sperm and egg, after conception, it is a then a completely separate entity.
You have yet to give me one good reason as to why an unborn baby is not a person!
An abortion is the killing of an innocent being. End of story.
Don't want a baby? be responsible, keep your pants on.
I couldn't agree more. The only possible exception I could see is something like rape. But teenage and college girls going around getting pregnant and then just getting abortions because it's inconvenient or they don't want a kid? It's called being immature and a lack of responsibility. Sadly this is the behavior many pro choicers are promoting.
I couldn't agree more. The only possible exception I could see is something like rape. But teenage and college girls going around getting pregnant and then just getting abortions because it's inconvenient or they don't want a kid? It's called being immature and a lack of responsibility. Sadly this is the behavior many pro choicers are promoting.
So you don't consider the fetus to be a person? Because if you honestly consider a fetus to be a person or "innocent life", you have to oppose abortion in all cases with the possible exception of mother's health. Otherwise, being the child of rape is a capital offense or they aren't really people and can be killed.
Last edited by Frank_Carbonni; 02-05-2008 at 10:56 AM..
Reason: Typos and grammer errors.
I couldn't agree more. The only possible exception I could see is something like rape. But teenage and college girls going around getting pregnant and then just getting abortions because it's inconvenient or they don't want a kid? It's called being immature and a lack of responsibility. Sadly this is the behavior many pro choicers are promoting.
its interesting this issue stays imbedded towards mostly single women/teenagers....guess anti abortionists dont think married women ever wanna do something "irresponsible"...????... Monsignor ever tells you to get outta the front yard in shorts again, tell him to pack it....after all, hes sin free from molesting and raping the choir boys...a crime w/out pregancy, but nonetheless a crime of inconvenience....
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.
