| FORUM | ARCHIVE |                    | TOTAL QUIZ RESULT |


  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Abortion = Child Sacrifices
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login


Welcome stranger, click here to read about some of the great benefits of registering for a free account with us and joining us in our global online community.


Abortion = Child Sacrifices

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1234 8>
Author
gcle2003 View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
PM Honorary Member

Joined: 06 Dec 2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 13262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03 Mar 2011 at 13:59
Originally posted by Zagros Zagros wrote:

A human faetus is a human being, what else is it? On what is your denial based?
The denial is based on the belief that a human fetus, while human, is not a being - i.e. it is not alive, and therefore cannot be killed. Exatly the same argument aplies to contraception in general.
 
Thta belief is of course a subjective one as is the opposite belief that the fets is alive - and the usual belief in human cultures that the fetus comes to life within the womb, so abortion before that point is not killing, and abortion after that point is.
 
Basically you choose the definition you want and align your personal behaviour to your personal beliefs.
 
Which is OK until you reach the point of forcing your beliefs on other people.
Quote
 
The only logic in your statement is that if by it you are making a value judgement.  And how can sticking forcepts up a womans vagina for cutting up the faetus and removing it in pieces from her womb be natural in any way?
No more than having one's bladder removed, or an appendix taken out. To claim something should not be done because it is not 'natural' would stop us doing pretty well everything we do, from drinking alcohol to making spaghetti.
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.

Back to Top
Sponsored Links


Back to Top
Zagros View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
Kaveh ye Ahangar

Joined: 11 Aug 2004
Location: MidX,Engelistan
Status: Offline
Points: 12491
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Zagros Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03 Mar 2011 at 14:27
Quote The denial is based on the belief that a human fetus, while human, is not a being


Self delusion.  Of course it's a being - it exists and is alive.  This is not a belief just an observable fact.  such a belief is no different from religious dogma on the issue, since it is using a baseless belief to justify the act.

Preventative contraception is different completely to abortion.

Quote No more than having one's bladder removed, or an appendix taken out. To claim something should not be done because it is not 'natural' would stop us doing pretty well everything we do, from drinking alcohol to making spaghetti.


Of course but the minor difference is that a faetus is patently not an organ it's a human life form; being a faetus is a stage of the human lifecycle - again, an observable as well as a biological fact.  But if people want to distance themselves with self delusion then that's fine, I just find such detachment to be a bit worrying.  Killing a human faetus is killing a human being by ending its life at the faetal stage.

Abortion as contraception makes me sick, but I am not against it, since it's none of my business and only because of that, like I said I just find the self delusion around it on both sides to be a little wacky.
"There was glory in pissing, Corabb decided as he watched the stream curve out and make that familiar but unique sound as it hit the ground." So true.
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03 Mar 2011 at 15:16
Originally posted by Zagros Zagros wrote:

Quote The denial is based on the belief that a human fetus, while human, is not a being


Self delusion.  Of course it's a being - it exists and is alive.  This is not a belief just an observable fact.  such a belief is no different from religious dogma on the issue, since it is using a baseless belief to justify the act.


Absolutely. Agreed.
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
PM Honorary Member

Joined: 06 Dec 2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 13262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03 Mar 2011 at 16:31
Originally posted by Zagros Zagros wrote:

Quote The denial is based on the belief that a human fetus, while human, is not a being


Self delusion.  Of course it's a being - it exists and is alive.  This is not a belief just an observable fact.  such a belief is no different from religious dogma on the issue, since it is using a baseless belief to justify the act.
Your belief is just as baseless, empirically, as the opposite one or the most commonly accepted one that the fetus develops into a live being while in the womb.
 
You can't just say 'it exists and is alive' and expect to win an argument any more than if you say 'it exists and is not alive.'
 
Anyway I answered your question. I wasn't joining in the argument, because I think it's a pointless one. My own position like yours that, as a male, it's none of my business, and I certanly have no right to make anyone else subject to my morality, whatever it is.
 
That really is the key issue here, not whether abortion is right or wrong. Legislation should never be based on morality anyway. Everyone has a perfect right to make up their own mind on something which (whatever you say) is certainly not an observed fact, and either accept having an abortion or refuse having one. I agree that what anyone does is nobody's business but their own.
Quote
Preventative contraception is different completely to abortion.
It differs of course, but a whole stack of Roman Catholics would disagree with you that one is a sin and the other not. In fact I fail to see any logic in claiming abortion is equivalent to murder and contraception isn't.
Quote
Quote No more than having one's bladder removed, or an appendix taken out. To claim something should not be done because it is not 'natural' would stop us doing pretty well everything we do, from drinking alcohol to making spaghetti.


Of course but the minor difference is that a faetus is patently not an organ it's a human life form; being a faetus is a stage of the human lifecycle - again, an observable as well as a biological fact.  But if people want to distance themselves with self delusion then that's fine, I just find such detachment to be a bit worrying.  Killing a human faetus is killing a human being by ending its life at the faetal stage.
You keep repeating your view as if it was undeniable, when it quite obviously is easily deniable. A life that hasn't started can't be ended. Deliberately letting an ovum die is killing a human being at the pre-conception stage. Life starts at when the soul enters the body: when that occurs is anybody's guess.
Quote
Abortion as contraception makes me sick, but I am not against it, since it's none of my business and only because of that, like I said I just find the self delusion around it on both sides to be a little wacky.
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.

Back to Top
Cezar View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain


Joined: 09 Nov 2005
Location: Romania
Status: Offline
Points: 1352
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Cezar Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03 Mar 2011 at 16:35
Originally posted by Zagros Zagros wrote:


Self delusion.  Of course it's a being - it exists and is alive.  This is not a belief just an observable fact.  such a belief is no different from religious dogma on the issue, since it is using a baseless belief to justify the act.
You probably consider your liver a being since it exists and is alive.
A fetus cannot live outside the mother's body.
I too consider that abortion is a problem, in my country especially, but this topic is not just about it, pinguin actually equals abortion with a human(child) sacrifice.
Until the child is, there is no child. The child is when the mother gives birth.
A murderer that kills a pregnant women is not condemned for a double homicide.
Back to Top
Zagros View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
Kaveh ye Ahangar

Joined: 11 Aug 2004
Location: MidX,Engelistan
Status: Offline
Points: 12491
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Zagros Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03 Mar 2011 at 17:48
Quote Your belief is just as baseless, empirically, as the opposite one or the most commonly accepted one that the fetus develops into a live being while in the womb.


I am referring to the faetus at the point of abortion, where it has developed into a being - in most cases.

Quote You keep repeating your view as if it was undeniable, when it quite obviously is easily deniable. A life that hasn't started can't be ended. Deliberately letting an ovum die is killing a human being at the pre-conception stage. Life starts at when the soul enters the body: when that occurs is anybody's guess.


Actually I was consolidating my thoughts as much as anything else.

Quote You probably consider your liver a being since it exists and is alive.

I distinguished between an organ and a faetus.  Or didn't you read the whole four paragraphs I wrote?  The mother is a vessel for the faetus - the faetus is not a part of the mother as her organsa are.

Quote A fetus cannot live outside the mother's body.


Neither can parasites such as bacteria or viruses and most fish can't live outside of water.

Quote I too consider that abortion is a problem, in my country especially, but this topic is not just about it, pinguin actually equals abortion with a human(child) sacrifice.


Clearly it's not a sacrifice, unless you attach a religious ritual to it.

Quote Until the child is, there is no child. The child is when the mother gives birth.


You said a faetus is not human.  Children are not a factor here for me, because the notion of abortion being child sacrifice is clearly ludicrous.

Quote A murderer that kills a pregnant women is not condemned for a double homicide.

That doesn't mean a human faetus is not human - it very much is a human; it's just not a person, which is why i alluded to a value judgement in my previous post, which would be based on that fact.



Edited by Zagros - 03 Mar 2011 at 17:50
"There was glory in pissing, Corabb decided as he watched the stream curve out and make that familiar but unique sound as it hit the ground." So true.
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03 Mar 2011 at 18:35
Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

...
 You can't just say 'it exists and is alive' and expect to win an argument any more than if you say 'it exists and is not alive.'
 
Anyway I answered your question. I wasn't joining in the argument, because I think it's a pointless one. My own position like yours that, as a male, it's none of my business, and I certanly have no right to make anyone else subject to my morality, whatever it is.

I realize now how hard was to convince Romans that killing people in the arena was wrong.

Some societies simply lack the sensibility to know what is wrong. Sad
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03 Mar 2011 at 18:37
Originally posted by Zagros Zagros wrote:


That doesn't mean a human faetus is not human - it very much is a human; it's just not a person, which is why i alluded to a value judgement in my previous post, which would be based on that fact.


I wonder if a patient in comma, who is not conscient, it is a person anymore. Should them be unplugged? Oh dear, don't talk morality here.
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
PM Honorary Member

Joined: 06 Dec 2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 13262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03 Mar 2011 at 18:55
As Cezar pointed out though, the original title of the thread is clearly absurd, so if you don't discuss the morality of it, there's nothing else to say.
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.

Back to Top
Zagros View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
Kaveh ye Ahangar

Joined: 11 Aug 2004
Location: MidX,Engelistan
Status: Offline
Points: 12491
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Zagros Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03 Mar 2011 at 20:01
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

Originally posted by Zagros Zagros wrote:


That doesn't mean a human faetus is not human - it very much is a human; it's just not a person, which is why i alluded to a value judgement in my previous post, which would be based on that fact.


I wonder if a patient in comma, who is not conscient, it is a person anymore. Should them be unplugged? Oh dear, don't talk morality here.


It is a person because it has been a person, in the legal sense.
"There was glory in pissing, Corabb decided as he watched the stream curve out and make that familiar but unique sound as it hit the ground." So true.
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04 Mar 2011 at 00:14
Humans beings are humans since conception to the death. As simple as that. The rest are excuses that try to deshumanize people.
Back to Top
Cezar View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain


Joined: 09 Nov 2005
Location: Romania
Status: Offline
Points: 1352
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Cezar Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04 Mar 2011 at 08:17
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

Humans beings are humans since conception to the death. As simple as that. The rest are excuses that try to deshumanize people.
Clear and simple, yes. Or rather simplistic. You opened this thread so it's up to you to change it, but then...
Where does that thing call logic leads us if this concept of yours (and not just yours) is accepted as absolute. Let's see.
Since conception a human is a human being. Then maybe he/she (you know, it's quite hard to say what gender a zygote is) should be allowed to run for president (oops! with what the US came up lately in this area then maybe a zygote really should do that).
Zygote->blastomeres->morulla->blastocysts--jam in(now you're reaaaally pregnant baby!)-->pre-embryo->embryo->fetus--waait for about 5 months then get out of there!->infant->child->teenager->adult->bag of bones or ashes.
AFAIK, abortion is not allowed after the 4-th month of pregnancy unless very unusual circumstances occur. That is because doctors and authorities do have moral concerns.
According to you, a women who had been the victim of a rape and conception occured during the incident, is not entitled to have an abortion. So, the heck with this person already traumatized feelings, it's "deshumanizing" to allow her to choose not to give birth to an unwanted child. How about a teenage girl who used a pill that she got from a friend and did not worked? Or a condom that was punctured? Oh, I know, sex outside marriage is a sin! But what about a married couple that cannot attend to a(nother) child? There can always be a flaw in the AC method used so what should they do?
Abortion is a delicate subject and there are too many facts to take into consideration. An inflexible stance like the one you seem to adopt is probably not the best solution for such a problem.
Back to Top
Zagros View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
Kaveh ye Ahangar

Joined: 11 Aug 2004
Location: MidX,Engelistan
Status: Offline
Points: 12491
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Zagros Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04 Mar 2011 at 10:57
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

Humans beings are humans since conception to the death. As simple as that. The rest are excuses that try to deshumanize people.


Actually I humanised your example of someone who's in a coma.
"There was glory in pissing, Corabb decided as he watched the stream curve out and make that familiar but unique sound as it hit the ground." So true.
Back to Top
Cezar View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain


Joined: 09 Nov 2005
Location: Romania
Status: Offline
Points: 1352
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Cezar Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04 Mar 2011 at 12:28
Originally posted by Zagros Zagros wrote:

Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

Humans beings are humans since conception to the death. As simple as that. The rest are excuses that try to deshumanize people.


Actually I humanised your example of someone who's in a coma.
Bull, pacients in coma are not consiedered dead the soame goes for example for pacients under anesthesy. A person is considered dead if he/she has no brain activity. What our current knowledge has singled out is that in order to be a person (human being) one needs a functional brain. That's why pacients with mental disorders are considered human beings (well, there are some morons who don't think so).
 
Back to the subject with a personal issue. My wife was pregnant (3 weeks), and went for a check out. Eco shows a problem - a kidney stone. The litlle rock is about 8 mm but complications can arise. Doctors suggests two choices: kep the baby and probably go through a post natal painful surgery since the stone is certainly going to grow or abortion and lithotripsy right away. Gues what we did?
Back to Top
Zagros View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
Kaveh ye Ahangar

Joined: 11 Aug 2004
Location: MidX,Engelistan
Status: Offline
Points: 12491
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Zagros Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04 Mar 2011 at 12:48
Quote What our current knowledge has singled out is that in order to be a person (human being) one needs a functional brain.


So the argument now moves from whether the creature is a human being (homosapiens sapiens) to whether it is a person: value judgement based on existence of personality instead of disputing a fundamental biological fact - glad I was of assistance. 
"There was glory in pissing, Corabb decided as he watched the stream curve out and make that familiar but unique sound as it hit the ground." So true.
Back to Top
Cezar View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain


Joined: 09 Nov 2005
Location: Romania
Status: Offline
Points: 1352
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Cezar Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04 Mar 2011 at 13:31
We are not disputing whether a fetus is alive or not. You think a human being alive but with no brain activity is still a person? Then all those who benefited from organs of such people are murder accomplices, aren't they?
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
PM Honorary Member

Joined: 06 Dec 2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 13262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04 Mar 2011 at 14:12
Originally posted by Zagros Zagros wrote:

Quote What our current knowledge has singled out is that in order to be a person (human being) one needs a functional brain.


So the argument now moves from whether the creature is a human being (homosapiens sapiens) to whether it is a person: value judgement based on existence of personality instead of disputing a fundamental biological fact - glad I was of assistance. 
 
The whole argument is about whether a fetus is a person  (a 'being') not about whether it is human. A human leg is human, but that does mean you can't amputate it when necessary. In that decision it's muc moe important that it's an infected leg.
 
(Actually, yes, there are some people who would say you can't amputate it because it's human, but I'm assuming you aren't a somewhat extreme Christian Scientist.)
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.

Back to Top
Zagros View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
Kaveh ye Ahangar

Joined: 11 Aug 2004
Location: MidX,Engelistan
Status: Offline
Points: 12491
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Zagros Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04 Mar 2011 at 14:26
Either you are not understanding me or are just putting up pointless straw men and keep putting words into my mouth.

1. First you say a human faetus is not a human being.
2. Then you say a human being and a person are the same thing.  Implicitly denying that a faetus is a human being.
3. Now you're saying that a human being and a person are not the same thing. Implicitly accepting that a faetus is a human being but not a person.  This has been my argument all along, and now you are rather ridiculously pretending that it was yours and not mine despite the fact that I have made it explicit in reaction to 1 and 2.

My argument all along has been that a human faetus is a human being but NOT strictly speaking a person.

Quote We are not disputing whether a fetus is alive or not. You think a human being alive but with no brain activity is still a person?


Case in point.  We both know a faetus is alive. But you don't seem to quite grasp the fact that a faetus is not an organ, it is a human being but it is not a person.  Simple.
"There was glory in pissing, Corabb decided as he watched the stream curve out and make that familiar but unique sound as it hit the ground." So true.
Back to Top
Seko- View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 01 Sep 2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 11725
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Seko- Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04 Mar 2011 at 14:32
now I'm curious about the difference between a Human Being and a Person. Could someone share this info for my faltering mind. 
Back to Top
Zagros View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
Kaveh ye Ahangar

Joined: 11 Aug 2004
Location: MidX,Engelistan
Status: Offline
Points: 12491
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Zagros Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04 Mar 2011 at 14:58
Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

Originally posted by Zagros Zagros wrote:

Quote What our current knowledge has singled out is that in order to be a person (human being) one needs a functional brain.


So the argument now moves from whether the creature is a human being (homosapiens sapiens) to whether it is a person: value judgement based on existence of personality instead of disputing a fundamental biological fact - glad I was of assistance. 
 
The whole argument is about whether a fetus is a person  (a 'being') not about whether it is human. A human leg is human, but that does mean you can't amputate it when necessary. In that decision it's muc moe important that it's an infected leg.
 
(Actually, yes, there are some people who would say you can't amputate it because it's human, but I'm assuming you aren't a somewhat extreme Christian Scientist.)


If the faetus was a leg or an organ then you would have a point.

A faetus is not a leg. A leg is not a human being.  A faetus is a human being; a separate human life form. A faetus is not a person though. Key distinction and upon which the value judgement is made by law.

As our good friend pointed out earlier the murder of a pregnant  woman is not recognised as double murder by law whereas the murder of a mother and her newborn is because they are both persons.

To equate a human faetus with an organ or an appendage, is plainly silly, since it is clearly neither.

So there are two arguments:

1. The human faetus can be killed because it is not a human being.  Plainly a stupid argument since it clearly is homosapiens sapiens.
2. The faetus can be killed because it is not a person.  Logical argument.  The value judgment is made here that the life of a human faetus is not sufficiently important to deem its killing murder but the life of a baby by recognition of its existence outside of the womb is.

I really don't see why that is such a hard concept to grasp.

The silly moral argument is that the baby resides in the mother's womb so the mother therefore has a right to kill it.   In fact, the mother has a right to kill it because it has no legal recognition.  Simple as that. No appendage and organ analogies necessary.

Quote now I'm curious about the difference between a Human Being and a Person. Could someone share this info for my faltering mind. 


A person is a human being but a human being is not necessarily a person. A person being a legal entity with rights.

Quote Doctors suggests two choices: kep the baby and probably go through a post natal painful surgery since the stone is certainly going to grow or abortion and lithotripsy right away. Gues what we did?


That's not a baby; not even a faetus since a human faetus only takes form after 9-10 weeks.
"There was glory in pissing, Corabb decided as he watched the stream curve out and make that familiar but unique sound as it hit the ground." So true.
Back to Top
Seko- View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 01 Sep 2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 11725
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Seko- Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04 Mar 2011 at 15:09
thanks for the update Zagrosian. Seems that what you are highlighting for us is that in legal terminology (which jurisdiction by-the-way) the faetus has no rights until it becomes a person. Is this what you also mean? So somewhere along the timescale a human being becomes a person but not all human beings are persons. Thus a faetus is a human being but not yet a person. Therefore, the faetus is not bound with legal rights. 
Back to Top
Zagros View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
Kaveh ye Ahangar

Joined: 11 Aug 2004
Location: MidX,Engelistan
Status: Offline
Points: 12491
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Zagros Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04 Mar 2011 at 15:12
Exactly!  And i alluded to it in my very first post when i told him his assertion made no sense unless it was making a "value judgement", ergo that he was equating human being with a legal person.  But alas.
"There was glory in pissing, Corabb decided as he watched the stream curve out and make that familiar but unique sound as it hit the ground." So true.
Back to Top
Seko- View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 01 Sep 2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 11725
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Seko- Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04 Mar 2011 at 15:21
Embarrassed
Back to Top
drgonzaga View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Plus Ultra

Joined: 01 Oct 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 6262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote drgonzaga Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04 Mar 2011 at 15:21
Oh no! Nitpicking among the lawyers...how about "viability beyond the womb"? Regardless, if you review existing state statutes in certain jurisdictions you could be charged with homicide--
 
not that I am endorsing this site but it does give a rapid summation of laws and the states:
 
Honi soit qui mal y pense
Back to Top
Seko- View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 01 Sep 2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 11725
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Seko- Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04 Mar 2011 at 15:24
that's a useful list doc. Thnx
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
PM Honorary Member

Joined: 06 Dec 2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 13262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04 Mar 2011 at 17:27
Originally posted by Zagros Zagros wrote:

Either you are not understanding me or are just putting up pointless straw men and keep putting words into my mouth.

1. First you say a human faetus is not a human being.
I said a human is human but a fetus is not a being. You have to split the concept of human from the concept of a being.
Quote
2. Then you say a human being and a person are the same thing.  Implicitly denying that a faetus is a human being.
See above. I thought Imade that plain. I said a being is a person. I don't think that 'person' or 'personality' only applies to human beings. A person may or may not be a human being. A human being  - any being - is a person.
Quote
3. Now you're saying that a human being and a person are not the same thing. Implicitly accepting that a faetus is a human being but not a person.  This has been my argument all along, and now you are rather ridiculously pretending that it was yours and not mine despite the fact that I have made it explicit in reaction to 1 and 2.
See above. I never said a fetus was a human being. I said it was human, but not a being. So it can't be a human being.
Feel free to disagree but at least get my argument straight.
My argument all along has been that a human faetus is a human being but NOT strictly speaking a person.
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.

Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04 Mar 2011 at 17:57
Originally posted by drgonzaga drgonzaga wrote:

Oh no! Nitpicking among the lawyers...how about "viability beyond the womb"?


Childish infantile excuse. Typical of Protestant countries. Anyways, just a personal oppinion.
Back to Top
Zagros View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
Kaveh ye Ahangar

Joined: 11 Aug 2004
Location: MidX,Engelistan
Status: Offline
Points: 12491
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Zagros Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04 Mar 2011 at 19:34
Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

Originally posted by Zagros Zagros wrote:

Either you are not understanding me or are just putting up pointless straw men and keep putting words into my mouth.

1. First you say a human faetus is not a human being.
I said a human is human but a fetus is not a being. You have to split the concept of human from the concept of a being.
Quote
2. Then you say a human being and a person are the same thing.  Implicitly denying that a faetus is a human being.
See above. I thought Imade that plain. I said a being is a person. I don't think that 'person' or 'personality' only applies to human beings. A person may or may not be a human being. A human being  - any being - is a person.
Quote
3. Now you're saying that a human being and a person are not the same thing. Implicitly accepting that a faetus is a human being but not a person.  This has been my argument all along, and now you are rather ridiculously pretending that it was yours and not mine despite the fact that I have made it explicit in reaction to 1 and 2.
See above. I never said a fetus was a human being. I said it was human, but not a being. So it can't be a human being.
Feel free to disagree but at least get my argument straight.
My argument all along has been that a human faetus is a human being but NOT strictly speaking a person.


Misunderstanding G - the post you're responding to was for Cezar, the subsequent post was an answer to you.

But anyway, why is a faetus not a being? It makes voluntary movements and feels pain and pleasure within the womb after all.  It's not an inanimate piece of redundant organic human material such as an appendix as you implied it is.  However, if by being you mean a person as arduously defined above then I agree.




Edited by Zagros - 04 Mar 2011 at 19:42
"There was glory in pissing, Corabb decided as he watched the stream curve out and make that familiar but unique sound as it hit the ground." So true.
Back to Top
Zagros View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
Kaveh ye Ahangar

Joined: 11 Aug 2004
Location: MidX,Engelistan
Status: Offline
Points: 12491
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Zagros Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04 Mar 2011 at 19:45
Originally posted by drgonzaga drgonzaga wrote:

Oh no! Nitpicking among the lawyers...how about "viability beyond the womb"? 
 


Yes, this criterion should be one of very few to warrant an abortion, others being rape or incest. Abortion as contraception for any superficial means is inhuman.
"There was glory in pissing, Corabb decided as he watched the stream curve out and make that familiar but unique sound as it hit the ground." So true.
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
PM Honorary Member

Joined: 06 Dec 2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 13262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04 Mar 2011 at 21:01
Originally posted by Zagros Zagros wrote:

Misunderstanding G - the post you're responding to was for Cezar, the subsequent post was an answer to you.
Sorry
Quote
But anyway, why is a faetus not a being? It makes voluntary movements and feels pain and pleasure within the womb after all.  It's not an inanimate piece of redundant organic human material such as an appendix as you implied it is.  However, if by being you mean a person as arduously defined above then I agree.
 
I think I already said there is a case for arguing that a fetus becomes a person sometime during pregnancy. The key lies in that word 'voluntary'. And a handful of cells cannot be said to feel pain or pleasure: it doesn't even have a nervous system.
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.

Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1234 8>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.10
Copyright ©2001-2017 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.094 seconds.