toldailytopic: What about abortion in cases of rape?

[Silent Hunter]

You could help me out a lot better by listing what other living human beings you're fine with being killed, because you don't see them as persons.

Been there . . . done that . . . yes, really . . . go back and look . . . I'm not responsible for what you've failed to read and comprehend.

Or by explaining how we're supposed to understand that this pitiful justification of yours can't apply to everyone else in the universe other than the unborn.

Its called an opinion Mary. Like you, I can have one without justifying it to anyone.

Once again . . . what part of, "No one can rationally argue that a living human outside of the womb is not a person", (from Post 386) did you NOT understand?

:bang:

 

[MaryContrary]

Been there . . . done that . . . yes, really . . . go back and look . . . I'm not responsible for what you've failed to read and comprehend.

Its called an opinion Mary. Like you, I can have one without justifying it to anyone.

Once again . . . what part of, "No one can rationally argue that a living human outside of the womb is not a person", (from Post 386) did you NOT understand?

:bang:

What I don't understand is how that answers the question. Because it doesn't answer the question.

What other living human beings are you comfortable approving of other people killing because they don't qualify, in your opinion, as persons?

See? I even updated the question to account for all the wiggling you've been doing. Better?

If you really want me to go ahead and chalk your answer down as your prior, "None, only unborn babies." then I have no problem with that. :idunno:

 

[Silent Hunter]

What I don't understand is how that answers the question. Because it doesn't answer the question.

Oh, but it does. That you cannot comprehend that it does is beyond my control.

What other living human beings are you comfortable approving of other people killing because they don't qualify, in your opinion, as persons?

I've answered this question several posts ago but you're too lazy to go back to look as I suggested and I've not the time nor inclination to subsidize your ineptitude. As my prior post clearly states . . . a living human outside of the womb is a person . . . all others are not persons.

See?

Seen.

I even updated the question to account for all the wiggling you've been doing. Better?

How has responding directly to your questions been "wiggling"?

If you really want me to go ahead and chalk your answer down as your prior, "None, only unborn babies." then I have no problem with that.

:doh: . . . FINALLY!

 

[surrender]

Oh, but it does. That you cannot comprehend that it does is beyond my control.

I've answered this question several posts ago but you're too lazy to go back to look as I suggested and I've not the time nor inclination to subsidize your ineptitude. As my prior post clearly states . . . a living human outside of the womb is a person . . . all others are not persons.

Seen.

How has responding directly to your questions been "wiggling"?

:doh: . . . FINALLY!

Wondering...the unborn baby, even at nine months, isn't a person?

 

[MaryContrary]

:doh: . . . FINALLY!

Okay, great. Unborn babies are not persons and can be killed with your approval. :idunno:

The point is and has always been, first, that this is murder you advocate. Simply covering your eyes and ears, refusing to acknowledge that, doesn't change reality.

Second, your definition is insanely arbitrary. There really is nothing at all preventing you from deciding any living human being is not a person, and so can be killed for any reason. You base your determination entirely on what you're comfortable with, by citing consensus and all manner of other equally arbitrary means.

Were you alive at the time I am convinced you'd have been quite comfortable with the attempted genocide of the Jews in Nazi Germany. Or the slavery and vicious oppression of Negroes here in the States. Or any other instance were any group of persons were denied even basic human rights, never mind life, based on nothing but the common consensus that they were not "persons".

 

[Memento Mori]

Wondering...the unborn baby, even at nine months, isn't a person?

I didn't realize that female genitalia had the kind of power to not only give birth but also to endow rights to an individual. Women are amazing!

 

[surrender]

Okay, great. Unborn babies are not persons and can be killed with your approval. :idunno:

The point is and has always been, first, that this is murder you advocate. Simply covering your eyes and ears, refusing to acknowledge that, doesn't change reality.

Second, your definition is insanely arbitrary. There really is nothing at all preventing you from deciding any living human being is not a person, and so can be killed for any reason. You base your determination entirely on what you're comfortable with, by citing consensus and all manner of other equally arbitrary means.

Were you alive at the time I am convinced you'd have been quite comfortable with the attempted genocide of the Jews in Nazi Germany. Or the slavery and vicious oppression of Negroes here in the States. Or any other instance were any group of persons were denied even basic human rights, never mind life, based on nothing but the common consensus that they were not "persons".

So, he is saying that unborn nine month old babies are not persons? So, what constitutes a person, then? When you happen to be breathing air on your own?

 

[surrender]

I didn't realize that female genitalia had the kind of power to not only give birth but also to endow rights to an individual. Women are amazing!

You don't take "rights" away from anyone? There is nothing you'd make illegal?

So...when is the unborn baby considered a person? After it happens to breathe air on its own?

 

[MaryContrary]

So, he is saying that unborn nine month old babies are not persons? So, what constitutes a person, then? When you happen to be breathing air on your own?

For me? Conception. At that point we're looking at an individual living human being, by an reasonable measure. Any other definition of person succeeds only in devaluing "person", typically in the interests of rationalizing depriving the rights associated with that.

 

[Silent Hunter]

Wondering...the unborn baby, even at nine months, isn't a person?

In my opinion and legally throughout most of the US . . . no.

 

[Silent Hunter]

Okay, great. Unborn babies are not persons and can be killed with your approval.

They are not persons and my approval isn't necessary . . . only that of the woman who is pregnant.

The point is and has always been, first, that this is murder you advocate.

I'm not an advocate of murder and only a person can be murdered . . . which the unborn is not.

Simply covering your eyes and ears, refusing to acknowledge that, doesn't change reality.

Na, na, na, na . . . can't hear you . . . :chuckle:.

Second, your definition is insanely arbitrary.

It is no less arbitrary than any other . . . even yours.

There really is nothing at all preventing you from deciding any living human being is not a person, and so can be killed for any reason.

Once again (for the fourth time I think) . . . what part of, "No one can rationally argue that a living human outside of the womb is not a person", (from Post 386) did you NOT understand?

You base your determination entirely on what you're comfortable with, by citing consensus and all manner of other equally arbitrary means.

As do you, Mary . . . as do you.

Were you alive at the time I am convinced you'd have been quite comfortable with the attempted genocide of the Jews in Nazi Germany. Or the slavery and vicious oppression of Negroes here in the States. Or any other instance were any group of persons were denied even basic human rights, never mind life, based on nothing but the common consensus that they were not "persons".

This is yet another of your patented strawmen, Mary.

 

[Silent Hunter]

So, he is saying that unborn nine month old babies are not persons? So, what constitutes a person, then? When you happen to be breathing air on your own?

Look it up.

Start here.

 

[alwight]

So...when is the unborn baby considered a person? After it happens to breathe air on its own?

For the purposes of this thread I'd suggest that if a raped woman hadn't already decided to have an earlier abortion, perhaps at the first opportunity, then we can all agree to give the foetus/baby in this case at least an honorary person status.

 

[MaryContrary]

For the purposes of this thread I'd suggest that if a raped woman hadn't already decided to have an earlier abortion, perhaps at the first opportunity, then we can all agree to give the foetus/baby in this case at least an honorary person status.

Okay, seriously? I can't possibly be reading this right.

Grant an honorary person status to a baby after it's born?

You guys are un-freakin' believable. I don't even know what part of that sentence to be more outraged over.

 

[surrender]

Look it up.

Start here.

I did. I didn't find anything that mentioned "air" or "oxygen." So what constitutes a "person" in your own words?

Or another way to put it: What do "persons" have that unborn nine month old babies do not have?

 

[surrender]

For the purposes of this thread I'd suggest that if a raped woman hadn't already decided to have an earlier abortion, perhaps at the first opportunity, then we can all agree to give the foetus/baby in this case at least an honorary person status.

But not everyone would "agree" to that. Not Silent Hunter, for example.

 

[Memento Mori]

Okay, seriously? I can't possibly be reading this right.

Grant an honorary person status to a baby after it's born?

You guys are un-freakin' believable. I don't even know what part of that sentence to be more outraged over.

I think he's saying if the little one isn't done away with within the first 24-48 hrs (or some yet to be determined time), it's a person.

 

[Layla]

Personhood has always been the issue. That none of us can reach a consensus on what that is and when it begins has been the bone of contention throughout this discussion. I say it begins at birth. Others set that time at conception. Still others (the Jews for instance) set that time at one year of age. Personally, were I a woman, I would not have an abortion beyond the first trimester . . . but that's me . . . each woman is different.

At birth? Why? That makes no sense. If you're going to use personhood as the basis for your stance, it should come when the qualities that define people as persons appears, no? With the nervous system, maybe? How does birth make ANY sense?

You even go on to say that YOU wouldn't abort after the first trimester... why is that, then? Perhaps because you don't actually believe it's not a person until birth?

In my opinion and legally throughout most of the US . . . no.

Er... what? I think you'll find that an unborn baby at nine months IS a person legally. You can't abort at that stage legally.

 

[alwight]

Okay, seriously? I can't possibly be reading this right.

Grant an honorary person status to a baby after it's born?

You guys are un-freakin' believable. I don't even know what part of that sentence to be more outraged over.

Well, you do seem to be missing my point somewhat Mary.
A very late term foetus would at least be on the verge of personhood anyway imo, not so a zygote though. If the woman has already waited nearly 9 months then why not simply assume it is a person so long as she has had the opportunity to abort earlier?

 

[Memento Mori]

Well, you do seem to be missing my point somewhat Mary.
A very late term foetus would at least be on the verge of personhood anyway imo, not so a zygote though. If the woman has already waited nearly 9 months then why not simply assume it is a person so long as she has had the opportunity to abort earlier?

9 months? Really, only right before birth would you allow "early" personhood?