Roe Vs Wade? God the greatest Abortionist.

[henry quirk]

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

At what point does the thing a pregnant woman carries become a person?

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

[attofishpi]

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

At what point does the thing a pregnant woman carries become a person?

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.

[Immanuel Can]

Not sure why you and IC ...are inferring just because I stated what a person is (satirically btw) - THAT THEREFORE I WOULD BE QUITE HAPPY TO SLICE OPEN A CHILD THAT STILL HAPPENS TO BE CONNECTED TO AN UMBILICAL CORD!!!

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?

[attofishpi]

Not sure why you and IC ...are inferring just because I stated what a person is (satirically btw) - THAT THEREFORE I WOULD BE QUITE HAPPY TO SLICE OPEN A CHILD THAT STILL HAPPENS TO BE CONNECTED TO AN UMBILICAL CORD!!!

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.

But by the same token, and so we can continue your attempt at pretending you have forgotten what I stated about late term abortions, is a woman a murderer when she takes the morning after pill in the circumstance where pregnancy would have developed?

[henry quirk]

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

At what point does the thing a pregnant woman carries become a person?

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.

[Immanuel Can]

Not sure why you and IC ...are inferring just because I stated what a person is (satirically btw) - THAT THEREFORE I WOULD BE QUITE HAPPY TO SLICE OPEN A CHILD THAT STILL HAPPENS TO BE CONNECTED TO AN UMBILICAL CORD!!!

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.

...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.

[RCSaunders]

Fire away. When is a baby a baby?

When it breaths on its own and is not nourished through an umbilical tube.

So: when a person cannot breathe on his own, when he must be fed thru a tube, he gives up personhood, yeah?

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.

[RCSaunders]

Fire away. When is a baby a baby?

When it breaths on its own and is not nourished through an umbilical tube.

So a baby who's out of the womb, hasn't drawn breath and has the umbilical cord attached...not a person.

You too? As I told Henry, the question is not about personhood. Quit switching subjects. Even if the umbilical tube is cut, if the potential baby never draws breath on it's own, it is essentially still-born and never a baby. You cannot murder what cannot live. If you call that murder, so is destroying the placenta.

[Nick_A]

Hi Henry

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 Commandment says thou shalt not kill, or more precisely, murder in the heart. What is its purpose? Is it because some deity gets insulted or for another reason? Perhaps it is for our benefit. We know how difficult it is to receive from above and the quality of essential attentive prayer is necessary to so.

Abortion creates guilt I as a Man cannot experience but she inwardly feels she murders from her heart and such remorse creates blocks making opening to the above impossible.

Of course callous feminists do their best to assure everything is fine but this young woman having an abortion feels it isn't. She has killed in her heart a growing extension of herself. No amount of modern psychobabbel allows her to just forget what she knows in the deeper part of her essence. She needs to be forgiven but it isn't that easy to sincerely open oneself to receive forgiveness. It would have been better if she just had kept her legs together to begin with but how could she know what it means to respect life; there was no one to learn from.

[henry quirk]

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.

[henry quirk]

Hi Henry

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 Commandment says thou shalt not kill, or more precisely, murder in the heart. What is its purpose? Is it because some deity gets insulted or for another reason? Perhaps it is for our benefit. We know how difficult it is to receive from above and the quality of essential attentive prayer is necessary to so.

Abortion creates guilt I as a Man cannot experience but she inwardly feels she murders from her heart and such remorse creates blocks making opening to the above impossible.

Of course callous feminists do their best to assure everything is fine but this young woman having an abortion feels it isn't. She has killed in her heart a growing extension of herself. No amount of modern psychobabbel allows her to just forget what she knows in the deeper part of her essence. She needs to be forgiven but it isn't that easy to sincerely open oneself to receive forgiveness. It would have been better if she just had kept her legs together to begin with but how could she know what it means to respect life; there was no one to learn from.

[henry quirk]

You have to wonder at the motive of the creator of this thread, since he's more than capable of coming up with stunningly good arguments at times (although not so much recently). Perhaps he's going senile...

I think the key words here is "philosophy forum". When you create a thread which has zero philosophy, but is just a big poop on the forum that is why people get angry.

[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?

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

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

[RCSaunders]

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.

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.

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. There is something insidiously evil about imagining anyone considering, "cutting a potential baby into little pieces," not once, but twice. It is irrelevant to the question. An attempt to use sentiment to obscure the real issue.

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. Even in your absurd view, the moment of fertilization of the egg (conception) you regard as an instant change. Do you think the transition from potential to actuality is some gradual thing? What would you call the different stages?

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!

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

Nothing, "turns," anything into something else. There is obviously a difference between a mass of protoplasm that must be sustained by another organism and cannot breath on its own and one that can ingest food and digest it and breaths on its own. The name for the mass of protoplasm in the first state is, "fetus." The name for the mass of protoplasm in the second state is, "baby."

[henry quirk]

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.