Roe Vs Wade? God the greatest Abortionist.

[RCSaunders]

The question was, "when is a baby a baby?" not, "when is a person a person?"

Personhood is an entirely different question. Try to stick to one issue, please.

In context: the questions are synonymous. They're the same damn issue.

What context? There is no difference between babies and persons? Do unemployment figures include babies, or just adult persons? If there's no difference, why? Why do companies have personnel departments, not. "babynel." departments? Of course the words, "baby," and, "person," are not "the same damn thing," in any legitimate context, only in the context of those who choose to obfuscate the difference to put over their agenda.

[Immanuel Can]

There is no difference between babies and persons? Do unemployment figures include babies, or just adult persons? If there's no difference, why?

Umm... Because babies don't have jobs? Is that too obvious to point out?

It's the same reason there are no statistics on baby cigarette smoking and baby airplane flying.

[henry quirk]

enjoy a in its place

[henry quirk]

RC,

There is no difference between babies and persons?

A human baby is a person.

[attofishpi]

RC,

There is no difference between babies and persons?

A human baby is a person.

So why don't you make it clear why regarding the fact that a baby is a person has any relevance? (to a thread that is dealing with abortion as a topic)

..and let's just make that clear - it means a person is a baby.

..and allow me to ensure you are clear - I can reside with that as a fact.

[henry quirk]

RC,

There is no difference between babies and persons?

A human baby is a person.

So why don't you make it clear why regarding the fact that a baby is a person has any relevance? (to a thread that is dealing with abortion as a topic)

..and let's just make that clear - it means a person is a baby.

..and allow me to ensure you are clear - I can reside with that as a fact.

even a casual review of my posts in this thread shows where my concerns on the subject of abortion lie

I open with...

a fetus is a person

And that's really at the root of it, yeah?

*Does a pregnant woman carry a human being/person or just 'life'/meat?

If what a pregnant woman carries is a person: abortion is murder.

If what she carries is just meat: then she can do as she likes to it.

it's a question I've repeated

as for relevance...

"I guess that you think that women's right must take precedent over the sanctity of life."

What is, "the sanctity of life?" There is no such thing. It's superstitious nonsense.

I agree. It's not about sanctity of life.

*It's about the the natural right of a person to his life.

A foetus is technically a parasite which the body expels after x amount of time.
Why aren't these 'pro-lifers' campaigning against the removal of cancerous tumours? Aren't they deserving of 'life' too?

no, a fetus is the natural, normal result of sexual congress

it's not a parasite

also, in context of this thread: at any stage, it's human

you may reject it as person, but you can't reject that it's, at least, human cells that, given time, definitely become nuthin' but a *person

*unless you take sculptor's position, in which case personhood is bestowed, never intrinsic (but, really, do you want to argue that persons are only persons when a society or gov sez they are?)

so: we have human cells that, if left unmolested, become a human being

the question: when do these human cells cross the threshold to bein' a being?

I didn't make it up, Henry. If you go to the link you'll see a fetus, just like any other, is actually growing inside an newborn's testicle sack. Of course it is just a parasite on it's host (and will never live on its own), as all fetuses are parasites. You don't have to like it, but a fetus is just not a baby, it is only, "sometimes," potentially a baby.

Facts are facts. .. I just don't want anyone determining what medical procedures anyone else must or must not have. Like: "you must have a covid shot," or, "you must not have an abortion." Neither is anyone else's (especially a government's) business. Intentionally confusing a fetus with a, "living breathing-on-its-own," baby is just a lie to justify interference in other's lives.

Very well said, and anyone who purports to believe in 'freedom' really has no choice but to agree, or show themselves up to be a hypocrite and a phony of the worst kind.

I'll try to keep this so simple even you can understand.

In my view: a person has a natural right to his life, liberty, and *property.

This means, for example, I ought not steal from you, or hurt or kill or put a leash on you.

In my view: the thing a pregnant woman carries, at least thru the last six months of the pregnancy, is a person.

If the thing she carries is a person, then -- like you -- he has a natural right to his life, liberty, and property.

And if he has a natural right to his life, liberty, and property, then it's wrong for the woman to end his life (it's not hers to dispose of).

Now, as I say, if what she carries is just human meat (not a person) then she can do with it as she likes.

Which brings us back to what I believe is the rock-bottom question: Does a pregnant woman carry a human being/person or just 'life'/meat?


Now, veg, let me address my changed tune: for a good chunk of my life I was a worthless garbage person much like yourself (atheistic, nihilistic, selfish). I lacked principle. A few years back, I had my road to Damascus moment. I became a deist, recognized natural law/rights, and discovered the difference between freedom and license. I found or recognized a moral reality. If this makes me hypocritical and phony, well, so be it.




*the first and best property of a person is himself

Well, mebbe, instead of bein satirical you can just answer the question...



Should I answer first, so you can see how it's done?

Oh, yes please do answer first, lest I be accused of butchering a child to death with a knife by the other Evangelist.

okeedoke...

The bulk of the first trimester is a gray area for me. On one hand, the biological machinery isn't firmly set in place till around week 12, so -- from a purely materialistic position -- personhood isn't possible before that. But, on the other, as a deist, I believe the soul affixes at conception. My natural-rights libertarianism straddles both positions (and is of no help pinning this down for me). Best I can do in this conversation is play to the material side, and if I'm gonna do that I gotta say personhood begins at the end of the first trimester (even though my gut tells me it's at conception).

Certainly, from week 12 on, all the biological machinery (organs, nervous system, brain, etc.) is substantially in place. Purely from a materialist's point of view, the things needed for 'personhood' are in place. Anyone should be uncomfortable asserting what a pregnant woman carries from week 12 on is not a person.

The question was, "when is a baby a baby?" not, "when is a person a person?"

Personhood is an entirely different question. Try to stick to one issue, please.

In context: the questions are synonymous. They're the same damn issue.

Meat or Person?

When & how does one transition to the other.

You've answered: viability.

I've responded: when Joe is in the iron lung; when Ollie is on dialysis, when Lou suffers a C-1 break, they've lost viability and -- by your reckoning -- personhood.

[attofishpi]

RC,

There is no difference between babies and persons?

A human baby is a person.

So why don't you make it clear why regarding the fact that a baby is a person has any relevance? (to a thread that is dealing with abortion as a topic)

..and let's just make that clear - it means a person is a baby.

..and allow me to ensure you are clear - I can reside with that as a fact.

even a casual review of my posts in this thread shows where my concerns on the subject of abortion lie

I open with...

a fetus is a person

And that's really at the root of it, yeah?

*Does a pregnant woman carry a human being/person or just 'life'/meat?

If what a pregnant woman carries is a person: abortion is murder.

If what she carries is just meat: then she can do as she likes to it.

it's a question I've repeated

as for relevance...

"I guess that you think that women's right must take precedent over the sanctity of life."

What is, "the sanctity of life?" There is no such thing. It's superstitious nonsense.

I agree. It's not about sanctity of life.

*It's about the the natural right of a person to his life.

A foetus is technically a parasite which the body expels after x amount of time.
Why aren't these 'pro-lifers' campaigning against the removal of cancerous tumours? Aren't they deserving of 'life' too?

no, a fetus is the natural, normal result of sexual congress

it's not a parasite

also, in context of this thread: at any stage, it's human

you may reject it as person, but you can't reject that it's, at least, human cells that, given time, definitely become nuthin' but a *person

*unless you take sculptor's position, in which case personhood is bestowed, never intrinsic (but, really, do you want to argue that persons are only persons when a society or gov sez they are?)

so: we have human cells that, if left unmolested, become a human being

the question: when do these human cells cross the threshold to bein' a being?

Very well said, and anyone who purports to believe in 'freedom' really has no choice but to agree, or show themselves up to be a hypocrite and a phony of the worst kind.

I'll try to keep this so simple even you can understand.

In my view: a person has a natural right to his life, liberty, and *property.

This means, for example, I ought not steal from you, or hurt or kill or put a leash on you.

In my view: the thing a pregnant woman carries, at least thru the last six months of the pregnancy, is a person.

If the thing she carries is a person, then -- like you -- he has a natural right to his life, liberty, and property.

And if he has a natural right to his life, liberty, and property, then it's wrong for the woman to end his life (it's not hers to dispose of).

Now, as I say, if what she carries is just human meat (not a person) then she can do with it as she likes.

Which brings us back to what I believe is the rock-bottom question: Does a pregnant woman carry a human being/person or just 'life'/meat?


Now, veg, let me address my changed tune: for a good chunk of my life I was a worthless garbage person much like yourself (atheistic, nihilistic, selfish). I lacked principle. A few years back, I had my road to Damascus moment. I became a deist, recognized natural law/rights, and discovered the difference between freedom and license. I found or recognized a moral reality. If this makes me hypocritical and phony, well, so be it.




*the first and best property of a person is himself

Oh, yes please do answer first, lest I be accused of butchering a child to death with a knife by the other Evangelist.

okeedoke...

The bulk of the first trimester is a gray area for me. On one hand, the biological machinery isn't firmly set in place till around week 12, so -- from a purely materialistic position -- personhood isn't possible before that. But, on the other, as a deist, I believe the soul affixes at conception. My natural-rights libertarianism straddles both positions (and is of no help pinning this down for me). Best I can do in this conversation is play to the material side, and if I'm gonna do that I gotta say personhood begins at the end of the first trimester (even though my gut tells me it's at conception).

Certainly, from week 12 on, all the biological machinery (organs, nervous system, brain, etc.) is substantially in place. Purely from a materialist's point of view, the things needed for 'personhood' are in place. Anyone should be uncomfortable asserting what a pregnant woman carries from week 12 on is not a person.

The question was, "when is a baby a baby?" not, "when is a person a person?"

Personhood is an entirely different question. Try to stick to one issue, please.

In context: the questions are synonymous. They're the same damn issue.

Meat or Person?

When & how does one transition to the other.

You've answered: viability.

I've responded: when Joe is in the iron lung; when Ollie is on dialysis, when Lou suffers a C-1 break, they've lost viability and -- by your reckoning -- personhood.

AND.

I shall make it clearer for you.

Why are you concerned whether one considers a baby a person or person a baby?

I'll point it out as clearly as I can, what relevance is their between consideration of either terminology when it comes to an abortion?

[Sculptor]

no, a fetus is the natural, normal result of sexual congress

it's not a parasite

also, in context of this thread: at any stage, it's human

you may reject it as person, but you can't reject that it's, at least, human cells that, given time, definitely become nuthin' but a *person

*unless you take sculptor's position, in which case personhood is bestowed, never intrinsic (but, really, do you want to argue that persons are only persons when a society or gov sez they are?)

so: we have human cells that, if left unmolested, become a human being

the question: when do these human cells cross the threshold to bein' a being?

As so often people of your ilk ignore the bleeding obvious.
There is a lot more to becoming a "person" than a group of cells being "unmolested". Typical of the perjorative you ignore the woman in this equation.
This group of cells might be the result of a mistake, violent rape, date rape, ignorance of the consequences of sex (prolifers often want to ban sex education too). But MOST of all a woman has to carry those cells for nine months of which the latter stage she is unable to work to support herself, and for years afterwards has a massive burden of care.
That is not what I would describe as "unmolested".
So unless you or society as a whole are willing to give her all the help she needs to raise that child and is supported throught her pregnancy, you are better off SingTFU.
Since I'm pretty sure you are dead set against people getting any state help your arguments are pretty fucking empty.

[henry quirk]

Why are you concerned whether one considers a baby a person or person a baby?

if baby is used as most folks do, to refer to what a pregnant woman carries, then the question of its personhood is what concerns us here, yeah?

but, okay, let's get technical...

embryo, fetus, neonate: person or meat?

[Sculptor]

Why are you concerned whether one considers a baby a person or person a baby?

if baby is used as most folks do, to refer to what a pregnant woman carries, then the question of its personhood is what concerns us here, yeah?

but, okay, let's get technical...

embryo, fetus, neonate: person or meat?

Well it aint a person, but then "meat" does not exhaustively describe it either.
Since you already have words to desribe these things, why not use them? You are just trying to confuse the issue by changing goalposts. That is a pretty poor argument technique.

[henry quirk]

no, a fetus is the natural, normal result of sexual congress

it's not a parasite

also, in context of this thread: at any stage, it's human

you may reject it as person, but you can't reject that it's, at least, human cells that, given time, definitely become nuthin' but a *person

*unless you take sculptor's position, in which case personhood is bestowed, never intrinsic (but, really, do you want to argue that persons are only persons when a society or gov sez they are?)

so: we have human cells that, if left unmolested, become a human being

the question: when do these human cells cross the threshold to bein' a being?

As so often people of your ilk ignore the bleeding obvious.
There is a lot more to becoming a "person" than a group of cells being "unmolested". Typical of the perjorative you ignore the woman in this equation.
This group of cells might be the result of a mistake, violent rape, date rape, ignorance of the consequences of sex (prolifers often want to ban sex education too). But MOST of all a woman has to carry those cells for nine months of which the latter stage she is unable to work to support herself, and for years afterwards has a massive burden of care.
That is not what I would describe as "unmolested".
So unless you or society as a whole are willing to give her all the help she needs to raise that child and is supported throught her pregnancy, you are better off SingTFU.
Since I'm pretty sure you are dead set against people getting any state help your arguments are pretty fucking empty.

I hear ya

the question remains: Does a pregnant woman carry a human being/person or just 'life'/meat?

or, if we're gonna be technical: embryo, fetus, neonate: person or meat?

see, I already know your position: personhood is assigned, it isn't inherent

you're happy to let The State decide

[attofishpi]

Why are you concerned whether one considers a baby a person or person a baby?

if baby is used as most folks do, to refer to what a pregnant woman carries, then the question of its personhood is what concerns us here, yeah?

but, okay, let's get technical...

embryo, fetus, neonate: person or meat?

Nah, but the the thing is you just wasted everyone's time over many pages of posts talking about something of total irrelevance - person\baby so what?

Now you insist that there is something technical - embryo, fetus, neonate: person or meat? btw. You forgot 'baby'

So.

embryo:- What is you stance regarding abortion of an embryo?

foetus:- What is you stance regarding abortion of a foetus?

neonate:- What is you stance regarding abortion of an neonate?

person:- What is you stance regarding abortion of a person?

meat:- What is you stance regarding abortion of a meat? (personally I tend to eat the stuff)

[henry quirk]

Why are you concerned whether one considers a baby a person or person a baby?

if baby is used as most folks do, to refer to what a pregnant woman carries, then the question of its personhood is what concerns us here, yeah?

but, okay, let's get technical...

embryo, fetus, neonate: person or meat?

Well it aint a person, but then "meat" does not exhaustively describe it either.
Since you already have words to desribe these things, why not use them? You are just trying to confuse the issue by changing goalposts. That is a pretty poor argument technique.

how did I did I move the goal posts?

my position has been the same from the start

I'm not the one nit-pickin' the language: RC and atto are doin' that

[Sculptor]

Why are you concerned whether one considers a baby a person or person a baby?

if baby is used as most folks do, to refer to what a pregnant woman carries, then the question of its personhood is what concerns us here, yeah?

but, okay, let's get technical...

embryo, fetus, neonate: person or meat?

Well it aint a person, but then "meat" does not exhaustively describe it either.
Since you already have words to desribe these things, why not use them? You are just trying to confuse the issue by changing goalposts. That is a pretty poor argument technique.

how did I did I move the goal posts?

my position has been the same from the start

I'm not the one nit-pickin' the language: RC and atto are doin' that

We are not talking about a person. That is moving the goalposts.

[henry quirk]

person\baby so what?



Now you insist that there is something technical - embryo, fetus, neonate: person or meat? btw. You forgot 'baby'



embryo:- What is you stance regarding abortion of an embryo?

foetus:- What is you stance regarding abortion of a foetus?

neonate:- What is you stance regarding abortion of an neonate?

person:- What is you stance regarding abortion of a person?

meat:- What is you stance regarding abortion of a meat? (personally I tend to eat the stuff)

again...

RC,

There is no difference between babies and persons?

A human baby is a person.

So why don't you make it clear why regarding the fact that a baby is a person has any relevance? (to a thread that is dealing with abortion as a topic)

..and let's just make that clear - it means a person is a baby.

..and allow me to ensure you are clear - I can reside with that as a fact.

even a casual review of my posts in this thread shows where my concerns on the subject of abortion lie

I open with...

a fetus is a person

And that's really at the root of it, yeah?

*Does a pregnant woman carry a human being/person or just 'life'/meat?

If what a pregnant woman carries is a person: abortion is murder.

If what she carries is just meat: then she can do as she likes to it.

it's a question I've repeated

as for relevance...

"I guess that you think that women's right must take precedent over the sanctity of life."

What is, "the sanctity of life?" There is no such thing. It's superstitious nonsense.

I agree. It's not about sanctity of life.

*It's about the the natural right of a person to his life.

A foetus is technically a parasite which the body expels after x amount of time.
Why aren't these 'pro-lifers' campaigning against the removal of cancerous tumours? Aren't they deserving of 'life' too?

no, a fetus is the natural, normal result of sexual congress

it's not a parasite

also, in context of this thread: at any stage, it's human

you may reject it as person, but you can't reject that it's, at least, human cells that, given time, definitely become nuthin' but a *person

*unless you take sculptor's position, in which case personhood is bestowed, never intrinsic (but, really, do you want to argue that persons are only persons when a society or gov sez they are?)

so: we have human cells that, if left unmolested, become a human being

the question: when do these human cells cross the threshold to bein' a being?

Very well said, and anyone who purports to believe in 'freedom' really has no choice but to agree, or show themselves up to be a hypocrite and a phony of the worst kind.

I'll try to keep this so simple even you can understand.

In my view: a person has a natural right to his life, liberty, and *property.

This means, for example, I ought not steal from you, or hurt or kill or put a leash on you.

In my view: the thing a pregnant woman carries, at least thru the last six months of the pregnancy, is a person.

If the thing she carries is a person, then -- like you -- he has a natural right to his life, liberty, and property.

And if he has a natural right to his life, liberty, and property, then it's wrong for the woman to end his life (it's not hers to dispose of).

Now, as I say, if what she carries is just human meat (not a person) then she can do with it as she likes.

Which brings us back to what I believe is the rock-bottom question: Does a pregnant woman carry a human being/person or just 'life'/meat?


Now, veg, let me address my changed tune: for a good chunk of my life I was a worthless garbage person much like yourself (atheistic, nihilistic, selfish). I lacked principle. A few years back, I had my road to Damascus moment. I became a deist, recognized natural law/rights, and discovered the difference between freedom and license. I found or recognized a moral reality. If this makes me hypocritical and phony, well, so be it.




*the first and best property of a person is himself

Oh, yes please do answer first, lest I be accused of butchering a child to death with a knife by the other Evangelist.

okeedoke...

The bulk of the first trimester is a gray area for me. On one hand, the biological machinery isn't firmly set in place till around week 12, so -- from a purely materialistic position -- personhood isn't possible before that. But, on the other, as a deist, I believe the soul affixes at conception. My natural-rights libertarianism straddles both positions (and is of no help pinning this down for me). Best I can do in this conversation is play to the material side, and if I'm gonna do that I gotta say personhood begins at the end of the first trimester (even though my gut tells me it's at conception).

Certainly, from week 12 on, all the biological machinery (organs, nervous system, brain, etc.) is substantially in place. Purely from a materialist's point of view, the things needed for 'personhood' are in place. Anyone should be uncomfortable asserting what a pregnant woman carries from week 12 on is not a person.

The question was, "when is a baby a baby?" not, "when is a person a person?"

Personhood is an entirely different question. Try to stick to one issue, please.

In context: the questions are synonymous. They're the same damn issue.

Meat or Person?

When & how does one transition to the other.

You've answered: viability.

I've responded: when Joe is in the iron lung; when Ollie is on dialysis, when Lou suffers a C-1 break, they've lost viability and -- by your reckoning -- personhood.