Silent Hunter
Well-known member
I gave an answer. Either accept what you got or don't . . . it isn't my problem either way.
toldailytopic: What about abortion in cases of rape?
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
alwight
New member
Pro choice would normally give her the opportunity to have an early abortion which imo would not involve a possible person.
Each case must surely be decided on its own merits imo not by dogma. The more person-like it is, the less likely I'd be in favour. An abortion at 9 months of a healthy foetus would perhaps be rather too hard to justify for me.
Sorry, SH, but I don't think you accept what YOU got. That's why you can't give a definition in your own words.
I very much appreciate this reply. But what I have a hard time grasping is exactly what stage a "non-person" becomes a "person" for folks that take a position such as yours. I have yet to hear someone in your position explain when and how a "non-person" becomes a "person" in utero. I understand SH's view; don't agree with it, but I understand it. According to SH, the "life form"' becomes a person after it is born. So, technically, if you can shove that baby back inside of you, even if it's weeks late, it's not technically a "person" until it takes it's first breath.
There are incognito "neg reppers"?
alwight
New member
Yup. Not for you obviously.
(blush)...eh hum...sorry.
alwight
New member
I know you'd like SH to define "person" but that's just a red herring imo, it's only an individual opinion after all.
I however start with a clear conclusion and conscience that imo a zygote is simply not capable of actually being a "person" since it has no nervous system. Potential person yes, but currently not one.
Somewhere between zygote and birth a person arguably begins imo. :idunno: Can't say for sure.
Well, there you go. According to your definition of a “person” it must have a nervous system. I can appreciate your opinion. I just want SH to give his, but I can only guess that what he’s saying is that one becomes a “person” after his/her first breath. For some reason, he won’t affirm or deny this.
Okay, so…for your view, a person must be able to feel pain in order to be a person?
alwight
New member
I don't think there's some "magic moment" when "person-hood" is suddenly bestowed, it simply begins during gestation and develops probably long after birth by experience of life, and by the making of neural connections, let's face it babies aren't too bright.
So, guys.
There's no particular point at which "personhood" happens...it's just definitely not at conception. Or any other point at which it might deny someone justification for an abortion. Anything but that, right?
Is that not exactly the point you folks don't want to admit we stand at here? That personhood begins where abortion ends?
You clearly are determining whether living human beings are persons or not entirely on the issue of abortion, rather than the other way around. It's painfully obvious to everyone here and it's why you work so hard to avoid answering the central question clearly. Because to do so you have to admit this.
:nono:
There's no particular point at which "personhood" happens...it's just definitely not at conception. Or any other point at which it might deny someone justification for an abortion. Anything but that, right?
Is that not exactly the point you folks don't want to admit we stand at here? That personhood begins where abortion ends?
You clearly are determining whether living human beings are persons or not entirely on the issue of abortion, rather than the other way around. It's painfully obvious to everyone here and it's why you work so hard to avoid answering the central question clearly. Because to do so you have to admit this.
:nono:
Personhood develops long after birth by experience of life and babies aren’t too bright? That sounds like you’re saying that personhood develops sometime between infancy and toddlerhood. Is that correct?I don't think there's some "magic moment" when "person-hood" is suddenly bestowed, it simply begins during gestation and develops probably long after birth by experience of life, and by the making of neural connections, let's face it babies aren't too bright.
WizardofOz
New member
I've been down this road with SH before, that is exactly what he believes :e4e:
Sounds about right.
Ah, thank you for the clarification. Well then, my grandpa who's on life support (i.e. oxygen) in order to live is simply a "non-person" (I mean, he can't breathe on his own!), and we can terminate his life and be free from guilt as an accessory to murder when we take his oxygen away (without his approval). Glad we cleared this all up.
Oh...wait a minute, does SH want to change his definition of "person"? Maybe the definition of "person" shouldn't be just about whether a "life form" (is that what Grandpa is?) can breathe on his own or not?
WizardofOz
New member
Defining which humans are worthy of legal protection by designating them a "person" or granting them "personhood" are ambiguous, subjective and trivial word games. This only bogs the debate down, regressing to largely meaningless semantics.
Even at conception, what we are dealing with is human, alive and has unique DNA. It is an entire human body in the earliest stages of development.
Why wouldn't they be granted legal protection? Oh, that's right, they are
Even at conception, what we are dealing with is human, alive and has unique DNA. It is an entire human body in the earliest stages of development.
Why wouldn't they be granted legal protection? Oh, that's right, they are
Layla
New member
You didn't give an answer.
That describes the many different definitions different groups and people use. Which do you use?
You didn't give an answer.
let's face it babies aren't too bright.
I don't know about that. They seem a whole lot smarter than you.