Real Sorcerer denies personhood based on what people are thinking. Which, to me, is a lot worse than denying it based on skin colour. At least you can see what colour a person is.
toldailytopic: Objectively, when does a person become a person? At conception? Or at
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
Real Sorcerer denies personhood based on what people are thinking. Which, to me, is a lot worse than denying it based on skin colour. At least you can see what colour a person is.
Cruciform
New member
So, then, is an individual in a deep coma---with no sense of awareness or conscious thoughts---somehow "no longer a person"? How about the severely mentally handicapped---are they somehow "less human" or "lesser persons" due to their extremely diminished capacity for thought?
Gaudium de veritate,
Cruciform
+T+
ThePresbyteers
New member
I'm on a different page when I reconize that Adam wasn't a sinner. He wasn't born from a sinful woman. People here waste there time talking about Adam's free will when they don't understand it.
Real Sorceror
New member
I don't shirk away from truth just because it's ugly or might have bad connotations. Personally I still think you guys are jumping to the worst possible conclusions.
It's possible. I think more research should be done on the topic. Some people recover from these conditions, while others don't for various reasons. I can say for certain about when personhood is first gained and when it is lost (aka death), but I'm less sure whether it can be lost or regained during the course of your life. So for now I'm going to say it's possible.
Terry Scheivo was no loner a person. Everything that made Terry a person (her soul) went on to be with God (assuming she was Christian) when her brain died.
The severely mentally handicapped are still persons because they still have their soul.
Cruciform
New member
Wow. So then you would contend that the severely mentally handicapped are somehow "less human" or "lesser persons" due to their extremely diminished capacity for rational thought?
Gaudium de veritate,
Cruciform
+T+
That verse doesn't say a thing about before conception. You're reading something that isn't there.
Does a zygote have the wherewithal to knowingly terminate its mother?
Use the brain that was formed when you were in your mother's womb.
You don't know the truth.
You can't obey if you have no free will. The puppet can only do as the puppet master makes it.
I do as God wants because I want to, not because I'm a boy on a string.
I've never believed humans are basically good. I've also never been a Calvinist.
It is a choice. They have chosen, this day, whom they will serve. And free will gives them the power to choose to change. Puppets only change if the puppet master makes them.
You're an idiot.
What did you do today regarding abortion? Did you stand outside an abortion mill to persuade women, and men, to reconsider and change their minds to do the right thing, make the right choice: to not murder?
Then why don't you?
Like the cross? Yeah, I've always proposed that God arranged that, and even got into a discussion on it once at church, because someone disagreed with me that God sometimes arranges sin.
Got that right.
Too bad neither you nor John knew/know the truth regarding this issue. Well, John knows now.
Real Sorceror
New member
You can never be less human. Your mental health doesn't change your genetics or species. As for the second part, I don't know how I'd categorize that. Qualifying as a person is not as important to me as it seems to be to you. But then it seems like you all directly associate being a person with being human or having a soul.Wow. So then you would contend that the severely mentally handicapped are somehow "less human" or "lesser persons" due to their extremely diminished capacity for rational thought?
Gaudium de veritate,
Cruciform
+T+
Cruciform
New member
Yes, I see personhood as an ontological status possessed by all living human beings*, so that would include the embryo.
Gaudium de veritate,
Cruciform
+T+
_______________
*Each of these three words is important with respect to the unborn individual.
The idea of declaring a zygote a human is that zygote then has all the rights of every other human. The main reason for this is that the zygote will then have the right to life and will effectively end abortion.
The question I asked, that you obviously did not use your brain to think through, regards the issue of ectopic pregnancies. When a zygote emplants in the fallopian tube and begins to develop it does not take much time to put the mothers life at risk. If the zygote is a human and has a right to live, does that right to life out way the mothers right to life in case where letting the pregnancy continue will kill both the mother and the fetus? Who decides whether the mother or fetus or both or neither will live?
Silent Hunter
Well-known member
:thumb:
Sounds like the mother, given her life is at risk. But this is in keeping with the law's exception for self defense and doesn't factor into the larger issue.
I think it does. The constitutional amendments are worded very simply. In 2010, the Colorado personhood amendment was worded thusly:
| Section 32. Person defined. As used in sections 3*, 6**, and 25*** of Article II of the state constitution, the term "person" shall apply to every human being from the beginning of the biological development of that human being. *Section 3. Inalienable rights. All persons have certain natural, essential and inalienable rights, among which may be reckoned the right of enjoying and defending their lives and liberties; of acquiring, possessing and protecting property; and of seeking and obtaining their safety and happiness. ** Section 6. Equality of justice. Courts of justice shall be open to every person, and a speedy remedy afforded for every injury to person, property or character; and right and justice should be administered without sale, denial or delay. *** Section 25. Due process of law. No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property, without due process of law. |
As an attorney I am sure that you are familiar with the law of unintended consequences. There is no clear cut case law that aborting an ectopic pregnancy is a case of self defense. I think that would be an incredibly hard case to prove since a person has to go in to a hospital by put under general anesthesia and let a doctor remove the developing embryo. I do not think that that would reasonably fit into how self-defense is normally interpreted. In any case, it would have to go through the courts and the mother would either die waiting for trial or face murder charges, along with the doctor and operating room staff, after the procedure is completed.
Far fetched? Maybe. But prosecuting attorneys may feel compelled to file such charges since the zygote is a person and entitled to full protection under the constitutional amendment.
Last edited:
Silent Hunter
Well-known member
It seems that enough others have had concerns similar to mine so that the wording for 2012 is somewhat different:
Article II of the constitution of the state of Colorado is amended BY THE ADDITION OF A NEW SECTION to read: Section 32. The right to life. (1) Purpose. IN ORDER TO AFFIRM BASIC HUMAN DIGNITY, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE RIGHT TO LIFE IN THIS CONSTITUTION APPLIES EQUALLY TO ALL INNOCENT PERSONS. (2) Effect. THE INTENTIONAL KILLING OF ANY INNOCENT PERSON IS PROHIBITED. (a) ONLY BIRTH CONTROL THAT KILLS A PERSON SHALL BE AFFECTED BY THIS SECTION. (b) ONLY IN VITRO FERTILIZATION AND ASSISTED REPRODUCTION THAT KILLS A PERSON SHALL BE AFFECTED BY THIS SECTION. (c) MEDICAL TREATMENT FOR LIFE THREATENING PHYSICAL CONDITIONS INTENDED TO PRESERVE LIFE SHALL NOT BE AFFECTED BY THIS SECTION. (d) SPONTANEOUS MISCARRIAGES SHALL NOT BE AFFECTED BY THIS SECTION. (e) NO INNOCENT CHILD CREATED THROUGH RAPE OR INCEST SHALL BE KILLED FOR THE CRIME OF HIS OR HER FATHER. (3) Definitions. AS USED IN THIS SECTION, (a) “PERSON” APPLIES TO EVERY HUMAN BEING REGARDLESS OF THE METHOD OF CREATION. (b) A “HUMAN BEING” IS A MEMBER OF THE SPECIES HOMO SAPIENS AT ANY STAGE OF DEVELOPMENT. (c) “SPONTANEOUS MISCARRIAGE” IS THE UNINTENTIONAL TERMINATION OF A PREGNANCY. (d) “CHILD” INCLUDES A HUMAN BEING PRIOR TO AND DURING BIRTH. (e)“MEDICAL TREATMENT FOR LIFE THREATENING PHYSICAL CONDITIONS INTENDED TO PRESERVE LIFE” INCLUDES BUT IS NOT LIMITED TO TREATMENT FOR CANCER, ECTOPIC AND MOLAR PREGNANCY, TWIN-TO-TWIN TRANSFUSION SYNDROME, AND PLACENTA PREVIA. (4) Self-executing, and severability provision. ALL PROVISIONS OF THIS SECTION ARE SELF-EXECUTING AND ARE SEVERABLE. |
Silent Hunter
Well-known member
Answered your own question . . .
Deciding that someone will not live is not the same as killing them. In such cases the best approach would be to try saving both, and if medical science is allowed to evolve in that direction it may, one day, be possible to do exactly that. Then we can remove the child and put it in an artificial womb. And, sadly, until then the child will die if ti is removed and both the mother and the child will die if it is not. But going in and killing the child is wrong.
Your logic makes my head hurt.
Deciding that the fetus must be removed, resulting in its death, is not the same as killing the fetus. Then you conclude that killing the child/fetus is wrong.
If someone is in a car wreck but hasn't yet died and is unconscious, possibly in a coma, and they are not hooked up to machines to save their life, similar to when such amenities were unavailable, letting them die is not the same as shooting them in the head while their heart is still beating.