Roe Vs Wade? God the greatest Abortionist.

[Immanuel Can]

Even if the umbilical tube is cut, if the potential baby never draws breath on it's own, it is essentially still-born

You dodged the question. I'll rephrase.

There's a baby. She's born, but she's still attached by the cord, and has not yet drawn breath at 10:55 p.m.

At 10:56, the doctor cuts the cord, slaps the little girl on the bum, and she sucks in air for the first time, and breathes.

You think that at 10:55, that's not a person. But at 10:56, it is?

No. The question is about when a fetus becomes a baby, not a person. Personhood is another subject irrelevant to the present question.

You are incorrect. The term "person" is used in philosophy to refer to "an entity with particular characteristics or qualities, and consequently capable of being a bearer of rights." The present question is whether or not a child has a right not to be murdered. So it's a question of the child's status as person.

That's the formal terminology ordinarily employed in philosophical discussion of the subject. Check it: you'll find out that Henry and I are both right about that.

Before the newborn breaths on its own, it is only potentially a baby. When it begins to breath on its own, it is a living breathing baby.

That means that at 10:55, the baby can be sliced into pieces without any question...even though it already is outside the mother's womb, even if the umbilical cord has been cut (or not), even though the child has her own heartbeat and brainwaves...she can be ground up into mush if you please, and that's legit.

That's what your view means, if I take you literally.

Still happy?

At 10:55, you can carve her into little pieces without a hesitation; but at 10:56, it's murder?

It takes an evil vile imagination to invent a hypothetical like that.

I agree...so why did you think of it? Why would you have such a vile imagination as to think it would be okay? But what is done in ordinary abortion procedures is actually far, far more barbaric than that...want me to tell you what it is? I warn you: it's absolutely stomach-turning...

But if you actually knew what an "abortion" entails, you'd already know that. Clearly, you haven't bothered to inform yourself of what the procedure actually is. I have.

So it's not my imagination. It's the reality of what you're advocating by implication.

Explain why. What is it about that umbilical cord cutting and that one puff of air in her lungs that turns the non-baby into a ... [baby] so quickly?

There must be some difference between what is a baby and what isn't.

Of course.

...the moment of fertilization of the egg (conception) you regard as an instant change.

You don't know that, because I haven't said what I think. But then, I have no ethical problem here, because I'm not considering advocating that others be allowed to kill anybody: you are. So it's up to you to prove you know it's okay.

So what gives you the assurance that the "one breath" rule makes a non-baby into a baby, and permits the killing of the former?

At 10:55, you can carve her into little pieces without a hesitation; but at 10:56, it's murder?

You actually repeat this slop with the addition of a moral judgement calling it, "murder." Shame on you!

Ha!

"Shame on me," you say...for just TALKING about EXACTLY WHAT YOU'RE ALLOWING!

I'm so amused! The shame goes to the killer, not to the person who calls out exactly what the killer is doing.

So, so funny. What irony! The butchery-advocate cries "shame" on the objector.

[henry quirk]

He's gonna run: just like veg and sculptor and atto.

[Immanuel Can]

He's gonna run: just like veg and sculptor and atto.

I just love it! What a classically mistaken way for him to argue. What irony. What self-condemnation.

"Shame on me"....for saying what he is advocating!

I think I can endure that "shame."

But, you see, the continuation of abortion depends on maintaining a basic level of public ignorance.

Why don't they inform every abortion applicant of what a child looks like in utero...maybe even show them a sonogram of their own child...and explain the whole procedure, so the consent of the "patient" can be completely free and informed?

They'd do that if they were removing a pancreas, or stinting an artery, or performing an appendectomy...why would they even hesitate in this "mere medical procedure"?

I'll tell you why: because if ANYBODY who has a soul left actually faced the facts of what abortion is, they would have no stomach to do it. So preserving ignorance is absolutely essential to the continuation of the abortuaries like "Planned Parenthood."

Besides; they have organ sales to keep up.

[attofishpi]

It's very, very simple.

I'm testing the limits of your conviction that such a child is not a person.

If you genuinely...truly...in your heart...believe that a child connected by an umbilical cord is not a person and has no rights, then there would be absolutely no reason why you would hesitate to do ANYTHING with that entity. Why would one have any qualms about grinding up a "bunch of cells" or a mere "foetus," if that's what the baby is, far less the kind of shock and horror you're evincing?

But your anger, your nausea at the very suggestion, so abundantly manifest, shows that you do not really believe what you said, at all!

So which is it? Is that child not a person, (in which case, you can cut her up, or put her in a meat grinder, or abort her, which is essentially the same action, physically), or does your gut tell you what I'm saying is true: that that IS a person, and to slice her up would be an appalling act, an act of murder?

Which way are you going to go?

Off to bed.

So you can't answer, because your answer is going to either concede that I'm right, or cast you as a moral monster, and you don't want either.

Are you really that stupid, when one says one is going to bed (3am in Oz), that means one needs to sleep, idiot. And any anger I have shown, is the revelation from you that you would think I find it acceptable to kill a child that has just been delivered by carving it up with a knife, again IDIOT.

...is a woman a murderer when she takes the morning after pill in the circumstance where pregnancy would have developed?

We'll address that. It will turn out to be irrelevant, of course, but we'll get it it, I promise you.

But first I need to see where you really stand. Show me that you know when a baby is a person and when she is not. It's on you: because you're the only one who's advocating killing anybody at all.

I'm the only person? - maybe you should have a look at stats regarding women that demand the right to terminate their pregnancy.

To me, and to be totally honest from what I know about God and it's way beyond sub-atomic control of matter, I don't truly think it matters, when a baby, is a baby - re person, I am with RC and its a moot point. ..yes I know that will give you plenty of ammo to twist more bloodied torture scenarios in your already twisted head.

Let me be clear about my personal opinion about abortion - I think by within 10 weeks is plenty of time for a woman to decide whether she proceeds to abort.

In South Australia - 22 weeks is the limit, personally I think that is a tad long, and I am no medical expert but I would think the child could have some actual suffering by way of pain certainly beyond the first trimester.

You have been controlling the conversation in this thread by removing things I or others have stated (as you always do, extremely unethical and cowardly) to manipulate the debate to fit your own agenda.

SO.

...is a woman a murderer when she takes the morning after pill in the circumstance where pregnancy would have developed?

[attofishpi]

He's gonna run: just like xxx xxx and atto.

Duh. You aint too bright are you - what part of going to bed don't you understand - and no I tend to walk to my bed.

[RCSaunders]

You dodged the question. I'll rephrase.

There's a baby. She's born, but she's still attached by the cord, and has not yet drawn breath at 10:55 p.m.

At 10:56, the doctor cuts the cord, slaps the little girl on the bum, and she sucks in air for the first time, and breathes.

You think that at 10:55, that's not a person. But at 10:56, it is?

No. The question is about when a fetus becomes a baby, not a person. Personhood is another subject irrelevant to the present question.

You are incorrect. The term "person" is used in philosophy ...

There's your problem. Philosophy is like religion to you. Nothing and no one dictates how words must be used. Who is the god of philosophy that says this is how you must use this word. Whenever someone attempts to promote a lie, they resort to semantics. It's not working, IC.

The question you asked was:

When is a baby a baby?

That's the only question I'm answering.

Before the newborn breaths on its own, it is only potentially a baby. When it begins to breath on its own, it is a living breathing baby.

That means that at 10:55, the baby can be sliced into pieces without any question...even though it already is outside the mother's womb, even if the umbilical cord has been cut (or not), even though the child has her own heartbeat and brainwaves...she can be ground up into mush if you please, and that's legit.

That's what your view means, if I take you literally.

Of course that is not what it means and unless you are an idiot, you know it. There is no time limit on how long after the umbilical tube is cut there must be before the breathing begins. If breathing never begins, it is not a living thing. Choices must be based on what is known, not on what is not known. When it is known breathing is not going to start there is no viable organism.

But what is done in ordinary abortion procedures is actually far, far more barbaric than that...want me to tell you what it is? I warn you: it's absolutely stomach-turning...

So is any surgical procedure. Your squeamish sentimentality is hardly an argument against anything. I've watched many such procedures from abortions to mastectomies. Not everything in life is nice and pretty, but there is something perverse about dwelling on those things and imagining they are the essentials of life.

Explain why. What is it about that umbilical cord cutting and that one puff of air in her lungs that turns the non-baby into a ... [baby] so quickly?

There must be some difference between what is a baby and what isn't.

Of course.

...the moment of fertilization of the egg (conception) you regard as an instant change.

You don't know that, because I haven't said what I think.

You deny that a human being begins at conception?

But then, I have no ethical problem here, because I'm not considering advocating that others be allowed to kill anybody: you are. So it's up to you to prove you know it's okay.

You're the one making accusations. It's up to you to prove a fetus is a, "somebody," before spreading your hateful characterization of the innocent as murderers.

[henry quirk]

Mannie,

if ANYBODY who has a soul left actually faced the facts of what abortion is, they would have no stomach to do it.

Imagine the level of self-deception needed to ignore conscience and reason, to fully embrace rationality, to not only sanction abortion but seek it out.

[henry quirk]

atto,

You say...

To me, and to be totally honest...I don't truly think it matters, when a baby, is a baby - re person

...but then you say...

I think by within 10 weeks is plenty of time for a woman to decide whether she proceeds to abort.

...and I'm confused. If it truly doesn't matter when meat becomes person, then why should mama-to-be only get 10 weeks to evict it?

[henry quirk]

He's gonna run: just like xxx xxx and atto.

Duh. *You aint too bright are you - what part of going to bed don't you understand - and no I tend to walk to my bed.

*nope...I'm kinda thick

[henry quirk]

enjoy a in its place

[Immanuel Can]

...any anger I have shown, is the revelation from you that you would think I find it acceptable to kill a child that has just been delivered by carving it up with a knife, again...

Why would you be angry at me for talking about what an abortion really entails,...

...instead of being angry at those who are actually doing it?

And why would you defend what you say you find so utterly disgusting?

Or maybe you never realized that abortion is even worse than slicing up a baby. (I promise you, the actually procedure is more ghastly by far than anything I have so far described.)

We'll address that. It will turn out to be irrelevant, of course, but we'll get it it, I promise you.

But first I need to see where you really stand. Show me that you know when a baby is a person and when she is not. It's on you: because you're the only one who's advocating killing anybody at all.

I'm the only person?

Of the two of us, here, I mean, in the conversation between you and me. I'm not advocating ever killing anyone. Are you?

I don't truly think it matters, when a baby, is a baby - re person,

If that's true, then you would be in favour of murder, period: because in philosophy, "person" refers to a bearer of rights...in this case, the right not to be killed. So if it's irrelevant when a person is a person, then anybody can be killed, for any reason, anytime.

But I'm pretty sure that's not what you mean, so you'll have to explain.

Let me be clear about my personal opinion about abortion - I think by within 10 weeks is plenty of time for a woman to decide whether she proceeds to abort.

And your evidence that 10 weeks is the appropriate time is...what?

[Immanuel Can]

No. The question is about when a fetus becomes a baby, not a person. Personhood is another subject irrelevant to the present question.

You are incorrect. The term "person" is used in philosophy ...

There's your problem. Philosophy is like religion to you.

No, "philosophy" is simply what we are doing here. "Personhood" is the term used for such situations in philosophy. Your contempt for philosophy's uses of language, expressed above, is actually not my problem. I'm using the right term.

However, if you want the term "baby" instead, I'll accept that.

Before the newborn breaths on its own, it is only potentially a baby. When it begins to breath on its own, it is a living breathing baby.

That means that at 10:55, the baby can be sliced into pieces without any question...even though it already is outside the mother's womb, even if the umbilical cord has been cut (or not), even though the child has her own heartbeat and brainwaves...she can be ground up into mush if you please, and that's legit.

That's what your view means, if I take you literally.

Of course that is not what it means...There is no time limit on how long after the umbilical tube is cut there must be before the breathing begins. If breathing never begins, it is not a living thing. Choices must be based on what is known, not on what is not known. When it is known breathing is not going to start there is no viable organism.

Actually, that's biologically false, of course. The baby is, in fact "breathing" in the womb, but is doing so through oxygen supplied by the mother. In fact, the baby has been respirating, circulating, having brain waves, moving, having moods, and so on, long before the first breath of outside air. She's already "viable," just not yet outside of the mother -- though it's possible she'll be born early and still prove "viable." And that, is "what is known."

So yes, let's go with that. And in that case, you're ruling out many abortions...certainly the third-trimester ones. Happy so far?

But what is done in ordinary abortion procedures is actually far, far more barbaric than that...want me to tell you what it is? I warn you: it's absolutely stomach-turning...

So is any surgical procedure. Your squeamish sentimentality is hardly an argument against anything.

I could say the same to you. Your preference for me not speaking about "slicing up a baby" when you are advocating the very thing is needlessly squeamish and more than a little hypocritical.

It's a very mild technical description of what you actually are saying it's okay for people to do.

And yes, all surgical procedures are a bit bloody and nasty. But if I go to my doctor, he makes sure I'm fully informed. He shows me x-rays or sonograms of my pancreas. He points out to me its features, and describes in detail to me what he is actually going to do. He talks frankly about all the potential benefits, but also at length about the potential detriments of my medical decision, and then he asks for my fully-informed consent.

Abortionists, in contrast, do not do this. The very LAST thing they will do is fully inform the victim-patient. Rather, they will not show a sonogram of the baby, annd will not even show her a picture of any baby, at the same stage, or explain what's entailed, or offer alternatives to the procedure, or share the details of their economic transactions in association with the murdered child; and they'll never, never speak about the horrid effects to follow, either the medical consequences or the lifetime of second-guessing that women who have had an abortion have told me happens when they finally realized what they had done.

So if abortion is just a "medical procedure," why all the secrecy and dishonesty? Where is "the right of a woman to informed consent" when it comes to this procedure?

Explain why. What is it about that umbilical cord cutting and that one puff of air in her lungs that turns the non-baby into a ... [baby] so quickly?

Did not answer. Why not?

You deny that a human being begins at conception?

Not relevant. Anything I think about this is, in this situation, not morally problematic.

I'm not advocating killing anybody or anything. Its only the abortionists who is.

But you, are you fine with people killing their...what's the word you wanted instead of "persons"? "Babies."

Yes?

[RCSaunders]

You are incorrect. The term "person" is used in philosophy ...

There's your problem. Philosophy is like religion to you.

No, "philosophy" is simply what we are doing here. "Personhood" is the term used for such situations in philosophy. Your contempt for philosophy's uses of language, expressed above, is actually not my problem. I'm using the right term.

However, if you want the term "baby" instead, I'll accept that.

The right term is the one the discussion was originally about, not one you introduced later.

That means that at 10:55, the baby can be sliced into pieces without any question...even though it already is outside the mother's womb, even if the umbilical cord has been cut (or not), even though the child has her own heartbeat and brainwaves...she can be ground up into mush if you please, and that's legit.

That's what your view means, if I take you literally.

Of course that is not what it means...There is no time limit on how long after the umbilical tube is cut there must be before the breathing begins. If breathing never begins, it is not a living thing. Choices must be based on what is known, not on what is not known. When it is known breathing is not going to start there is no viable organism.

Actually, that's biologically false, of course. The baby is, in fact "breathing" in the womb, but is doing so through oxygen supplied by the mother. In fact, the baby has been respirating, circulating, having brain waves, moving, having moods, and so on, long before the first breath of outside air. She's already "viable," just not yet outside of the mother -- though it's possible she'll be born early and still prove "viable." And that, is "what is known."

No, I said, very carefully, a baby is a baby, "when it breaths on its own and is not nourished through an umbilical tube."

So yes, let's go with that. And in that case, you're ruling out many abortions...certainly the third-trimester ones.

You really have a problem staying on subject. There was no question of abortion. The question was, "when is a babay a baby." The potential baby does not breath on its own at any, "trimester."

So if abortion is just a "medical procedure," why all the secrecy and dishonesty? Where is "the right of a woman to informed consent" when it comes to this procedure?

Most of the secrecy is to evade the religious radicals who threaten doctors and women, calling the murderers, and campaigning to have governments use force to persecute (which is what prosecution in that case would be) the innocent. Besides, no medical procedure is anyone else's business except those directly involved in it, which I know galls you, because you won't be able to interfere in other's business if you don't know it. If individual's privacy were truly protected, the whole issue of, "abortion," would vanish, because no one would know when anyone was having one. It was once that way, when what went on between a doctor and patient was considered no one else's business.

But you, are you fine with people killing their...what's the word you wanted instead of "persons"? "Babies."

Yes?

No one is killing breathing-on-their-own babies or advocating it, except for some eugenics and population control types, like Bill Gates and company, but there is a whole host of radical human haters accusing innocent people of murder and advocating using force to determine how they choose to live their lives.

[Immanuel Can]

There's your problem. Philosophy is like religion to you.

No, "philosophy" is simply what we are doing here. "Personhood" is the term used for such situations in philosophy. Your contempt for philosophy's uses of language, expressed above, is actually not my problem. I'm using the right term.

However, if you want the term "baby" instead, I'll accept that.

The right term is the one the discussion was originally about, not one you introduced later.

Actually, no...the right term is "person." But since you don't seem happy with the standard philosophical terminology, I've agreed to stipulate to "baby" for your convenience.

I said, very carefully, a baby is a baby, "when it breaths on its own and is not nourished through an umbilical tube."

Yes, you did. And I was questioning whether or not that made sense.

There was no question of abortion.

Ummm...read the top of the page.

The potential baby does not breath on its own at any, "trimester."

That is true. So you have to be fine with saying it's not a "baby," and that there would be no moral problem if one were to slice it into pieces, even when outside the mother's womb. That's the implication of that view.

So if abortion is just a "medical procedure," why all the secrecy and dishonesty? Where is "the right of a woman to informed consent" when it comes to this procedure?

Most of the secrecy is to evade the religious radicals

In the privacy of the abortion clinic? How many such "religious radicals" are floating about the waiting room? How many are in the room with the counsellor or doctor whose duty it is to inform the victim-patient? That's a pretty funny excuse, son. Yes, let's blame the people who don't want dead babies for the decision of the clinic to deceive the patient. Let's do that.

You know the truth: they don't want informed consent, they want uninformed consent. Informed consent would alert any potential mother to the fact that she was carrying a human being in her womb. They don't want her to know what she's doing. They just want her to do it.

But you, are you fine with people killing their...what's the word you wanted instead of "persons"? "Babies."

Yes?

No one is killing breathing-on-their-own babies or advocating it,

You are. The implication of your view is that an abortionist can kill a child even past the point of birth, actually. So long as she has never taken a breath of air on her own, she's fair game for being cut up.

Now, stop hiding from my question: what is it about that little puff of air that, according to you, turns a non-baby into a baby?

[uwot]

Now, stop hiding from my question: what is it about that little puff of air that, according to you, turns a non-baby into a baby?

It's how your god turns a bunch of matter into a baby, Mr Can:
And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
Genesis 2:7
By that reckoning, a baby isn't a baby until way after any abortionist would suggest, and as the title of the thread implies, your god aborts many more babies than humans do.