toldailytopic: What about abortion in cases of rape?

[alwight]

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

I don't think SH wants to do any more than what he thinks is for the best for an actual living person in each case, as I do. The raped woman was the person who was the victim and if the rapist's zygote is aborted asap then there is imo no risk to any other possible living person further down the line.

 

[alwight]

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

"Only"? No I don't think I quite said that, but I'd agree that a late term foetus at least could certainly be considered a person, if not before, but that's the grey area of course which isn't really part of this particular topic perhaps.

 

[surrender]

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?



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.

Yeah...I'm not following SH very well.

 

[surrender]

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?

So, if she didn't have the opportunity to abort earlier, then she has the authority to say it's a "non-person" at nine months?

 

[Layla]

So, if she didn't have the opportunity to abort earlier, then she has the authority to say it's a "non-person" at nine months?

Yeah, I'm not following this argument very well either...

 

[surrender]

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

Good question, MM. What is the earliest, alwight, that one is considered a "person" and why?

 

[surrender]

I don't think SH wants to do any more than what he thinks is for the best for an actual living person in each case, as I do. The raped woman was the person who was the victim and if the rapist's zygote is aborted asap then there is imo no risk to any other possible living person further down the line.

SH is fine with approving abortion at 11 months, just so long as the "thing" is still inside the mother. Correct me if I'm wrong, SH.

 

[Sherman]

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 tried reading it too. Yeah it made my blood boil too.

 

[surrender]

"Only"? No I don't think I quite said that, but I'd agree that a late term foetus at least could certainly be considered a person, if not before, but that's the grey area of course which isn't really part of this particular topic perhaps.

At what stage of development is it considered a person?

 

[Layla]

SH is fine with approving abortion at 11 months, just so long as the "thing" is still inside the mother. Correct me if I'm wrong, SH.

Has that... ever happened? If babies can be 2 months overdue I srsly need to reconsider my plan to have lots of them...

 

[surrender]

Has that... ever happened? If babies can be 2 months overdue I srsly need to reconsider my plan to have lots of them...

LOL! I was two weeks late with both my boys, but I don't know about two months! I think I'd kill myself...but save the babies, first, of course!

 

[Silent Hunter]

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?

They haven't been born . . . :duh:.

 

[surrender]

They haven't been born . . . :duh:.

You'll have to be more specific. What do born "persons" have that unborn "things" don't have?

 

[Silent Hunter]

At birth? Why?

Because that is WHEN, in my opinion, "personhood" begins.

That makes no sense.

It makes as much sense as any other time proposed.

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?

Because we hardly ever speak of the unborn as persons. In fact we use a whole other vernacular.

You even go on to say that YOU wouldn't abort after the first trimester... why is that, then?

Personal preference.

Perhaps because you don't actually believe it's not a person until birth?

Don't tell me what I think like you're some sort of christian or something.

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.

Fine. That really isn't an issue for me . . . though it may be for someone else.

 

[surrender]

I don't think SH wants to do any more than what he thinks is for the best for an actual living person in each case, as I do. The raped woman was the person who was the victim and if the rapist's zygote is aborted asap then there is imo no risk to any other possible living person further down the line.

By the way, what's the difference between a "living" person and an unborn "life form"? How is the "life form" not living?

 

[surrender]

Because that is WHEN, in my opinion, "personhood" begins.

Why? In your own words, what constitutes personhood?

 

[Layla]

Because that is WHEN, in my opinion, "personhood" begins.

How do you define a person. Don't link me, just tell me. What is the definition, in your opinion?

It makes as much sense as any other time proposed.

It doesn't, though the point you choose depends on how you define "person".

Because we hardly ever speak of the unborn as persons. In fact we use a whole other vernacular.

We hardly ever speak of babies or toddlers as persons either... what does that have to do with anything?

Personal preference.

Based on what?

Don't tell me what I think like you're some sort of christian or something.

I didn't tell you anything, I asked a question.

Fine. That really isn't an issue for me . . . though it may be for someone else.

Ok, but you're the one who mentioned it, which is why I corrected you.

 

[Silent Hunter]

SH is fine with approving abortion at 11 months, just so long as the "thing" is still inside the mother. Correct me if I'm wrong, SH.

Pitiful strawman . . . just pitiful . . . but no . . . it isn't a person.

You have your criteria . . . I have mine.

 

[Silent Hunter]

You'll have to be more specific. What do born "persons" have that unborn "things" don't have?

I'm not going to play your game of moving the goal posts. A fetus becomes a person when it is born . . . period.

 

[Layla]

I'm not going to play your game of moving the goal posts. A fetus becomes a person when it is born . . . period.

Why?