41% of Births end in Abortion...100%

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
301

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

My personhood has been previously established beyond a shadow of a doubt. Being asleep does not invalidate that personhood.
[/quote]

When does one acquire personhood?

Do you have any empirical guides that show that self awareness equals human life? A dog has self awareness and is not actually a person.

There is actually no way to determine that even a born baby has ‘self awareness’, it’s mostly responding to stimuli like hunger or exhaustion. So if it were found that a born baby was not self aware, would it be permissible to kill them?[/quote]

Asked and answered pat.

Are you selfaware? Do you see yourself as equal to [having] human life? If you answer “yes”, ask the same question to a zygote.

A new born may not be self aware as we are since the mental constructs that make us a person aren’t made/learned yet, that’s true. To kill a baby that’s been brought to full term is an awful waste of investment, don’t you think?

But you’d have to make these assinine comparisons in order to maintain the illusion that a clump of cells should have the same rights a fully grown woman has. That a clump of cells superceeds the rights of a fully grown woman, even.

We could discuss the philosophical nature of being a human. I think that’s much more interesting that yet another abortion thread.

Don’t you?
[/quote]

You are a clump of cells, just a bigger clump. Assigning brain function as the end all be all to human existence is the asinine stance. A zygote an autonomous living being has the same unique DNA structure as it will have through out it’s life, if you destroy that zygote it cannot be replace. Do you deny any of this? Anything you kill will not have consciousness. Further, consciousness is not really well understood anyway. There is no way to tell if something has it, or does not. Communication is not consciousness it’s one indication that it may be there.

Second of all, being an empiricist where is the scientific proof that brain function equal humanness? Is this your view or is there a shared hard line stance that at point ‘X’ of gestation, the ‘thing’ is now human?

We’re talking about life or death here, it cannot be arbitrary.

Sure we can discuss what ‘humanness’ is, but you willingly jumped into to this debate accusing us (prolife) folks of hating women and that’s why we’re against abortion.

302

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:
Right; you have your opinion on the matter and you want women to follow suit. That’s my point all along Chris.

It’s not your place to even want to be in a position that you can claim moral dominance in these matters.

As long as you see women as lesser beings because they don’t adhere to your views on how women should behave, you invalidate anything you say on this issue.

[/quote]

Simple question, not looking for a dodge here, when does human life begin?[/quote]

With a level of brainfunction that indicates awareness of being.
[/quote]

So, you aren’t a human life while asleep?[/quote]

My personhood has been previously established beyond a shadow of a doubt. Being asleep does not invalidate that personhood.
[/quote]

So… once a person, always a person?

303

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:
Right; you have your opinion on the matter and you want women to follow suit. That’s my point all along Chris.

It’s not your place to even want to be in a position that you can claim moral dominance in these matters.

As long as you see women as lesser beings because they don’t adhere to your views on how women should behave, you invalidate anything you say on this issue.

[/quote]

You obviously have not the first clue when it comes to the complicated issue of Catholics and women you protestant heretic, its not easy to infantilize grown men to a degree that keeps a madonna/whore dichotomy going and yet keep them somewhat productive and functional.

So, I would prefer it if you did not tinker with this artistic piece of mindfuckery, you can really only make it worse. [/quote]

Excuse me?! I’m neither protestant nor a heretic, thank you very much. As for the other stuff you wrote, nods head in agreement
[/quote]

You are Dutch, you are practically the anti-Christ.

You insolence towards his royal majesty Phillipp the Second has not been forgotten.

304

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:
Right; you have your opinion on the matter and you want women to follow suit. That’s my point all along Chris.

It’s not your place to even want to be in a position that you can claim moral dominance in these matters.

As long as you see women as lesser beings because they don’t adhere to your views on how women should behave, you invalidate anything you say on this issue.

[/quote]

You obviously have not the first clue when it comes to the complicated issue of Catholics and women you protestant heretic, its not easy to infantilize grown men to a degree that keeps a madonna/whore dichotomy going and yet keep them somewhat productive and functional.

So, I would prefer it if you did not tinker with this artistic piece of mindfuckery, you can really only make it worse. [/quote]

Yeah it’s real complicated. Is abortion the taking of a human life or not? If it is, then it is morally wrong and should be a practice that is stopped. If it is not, then it’s a-ok to do with frequency and vigor.
[/quote]

Fantastic, now you only need nature to be as digital as your morals and everything falls right into place.

305

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

So, you aren’t a human life while asleep?[/quote]

My personhood has been previously established beyond a shadow of a doubt. Being asleep does not invalidate that personhood.
[/quote]

So… once a person, always a person?[/quote]

As long as your brain isn’t substituted for fluids, sure.

306

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

So, you aren’t a human life while asleep?[/quote]

My personhood has been previously established beyond a shadow of a doubt. Being asleep does not invalidate that personhood.
[/quote]

So… once a person, always a person?[/quote]

As long as your brain isn’t substituted for fluids, sure.
[/quote]

So, how long after death does that take?

307

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

So, you aren’t a human life while asleep?[/quote]

My personhood has been previously established beyond a shadow of a doubt. Being asleep does not invalidate that personhood.
[/quote]

So… once a person, always a person?[/quote]

As long as your brain isn’t substituted for fluids, sure.
[/quote]

So, how long after death does that take?[/quote]

What?

308

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:
Right; you have your opinion on the matter and you want women to follow suit. That’s my point all along Chris.

It’s not your place to even want to be in a position that you can claim moral dominance in these matters.

As long as you see women as lesser beings because they don’t adhere to your views on how women should behave, you invalidate anything you say on this issue.

[/quote]

You obviously have not the first clue when it comes to the complicated issue of Catholics and women you protestant heretic, its not easy to infantilize grown men to a degree that keeps a madonna/whore dichotomy going and yet keep them somewhat productive and functional.

So, I would prefer it if you did not tinker with this artistic piece of mindfuckery, you can really only make it worse. [/quote]

Aww, is someone throwing a temper tantrum? Can’t make the taking of human lives jive with your so-called non aggression principle? Poor thing.[/quote]

Your insolence against his divinely ordained majesty George the Third is also not forgotten.

Also, I can only violate the rights of what I consider to be a person.

Since the mother most definitely is one and it is debatable whether the embryo is , I think we shall err on the side of prudence.

309

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

So, you aren’t a human life while asleep?[/quote]

My personhood has been previously established beyond a shadow of a doubt. Being asleep does not invalidate that personhood.
[/quote]

So… once a person, always a person?[/quote]

As long as your brain isn’t substituted for fluids, sure.
[/quote]

So, how long after death does that take?[/quote]

What?
[/quote]

How long after death do you lose being human?

310

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

How long after death do you lose being human?[/quote]

Pretty quickly i’d wager.

311

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

How long after death do you lose being human?[/quote]

Pretty quickly i’d wager.[/quote]

Why does death take person-hood and a coma not?

312

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

How long after death do you lose being human?[/quote]

Pretty quickly i’d wager.[/quote]

Why does death take person-hood and a coma not?[/quote]

There are irreversable comas and if that ever happened to me i’d want them to pull the plug.

But a coma is not unlike sleep, so ‘previously established personhood’ and all that.

313

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

How long after death do you lose being human?[/quote]

Pretty quickly i’d wager.[/quote]

Why does death take person-hood and a coma not?[/quote]

There are irreversable comas and if that ever happened to me i’d want them to pull the plug.

But a coma is not unlike sleep, so ‘previously established personhood’ and all that.
[/quote]

You didn’t give me a reason previously established personhood doesn’t apply to the dead.

What if there is invention of technology that make death reversible. Is a cadaver then a person?

314

[quote]orion wrote:

Also, I can only violate the rights of what I consider to be a person.

Since the mother most definitely is one and it is debatable whether the embryo is , I think we shall err on the side of prudence.
[/quote]

Oh give me a break. You don’t care if it’s a human life, period. Why be so cowardly in your position?

315

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

Also, I can only violate the rights of what I consider to be a person.

Since the mother most definitely is one and it is debatable whether the embryo is , I think we shall err on the side of prudence.
[/quote]

Oh give me a break. You don’t care if it’s a human life, period. Why be so cowardly in your position? [/quote]

Yep.

316

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

How long after death do you lose being human?[/quote]

Pretty quickly i’d wager.[/quote]

Why does death take person-hood and a coma not?[/quote]

There are irreversable comas and if that ever happened to me i’d want them to pull the plug.

But a coma is not unlike sleep, so ‘previously established personhood’ and all that.
[/quote]

You didn’t give me a reason previously established personhood doesn’t apply to the dead.

What if there is invention of technology that make death reversible. Is a cadaver then a person?[/quote]

These ‘what if?’ scenarios are boring D.

“With a level of brainfunction that indicates awareness of being.” means that the dead do not apply.

317

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

My personhood has been previously established beyond a shadow of a doubt. Being asleep does not invalidate that personhood.
[/quote]

When does one acquire personhood?

Do you have any empirical guides that show that self awareness equals human life? A dog has self awareness and is not actually a person.

There is actually no way to determine that even a born baby has ‘self awareness’, it’s mostly responding to stimuli like hunger or exhaustion. So if it were found that a born baby was not self aware, would it be permissible to kill them?[/quote]

Asked and answered pat.

Are you selfaware? Do you see yourself as equal to [having] human life? If you answer “yes”, ask the same question to a zygote.

A new born may not be self aware as we are since the mental constructs that make us a person aren’t made/learned yet, that’s true. To kill a baby that’s been brought to full term is an awful waste of investment, don’t you think?

But you’d have to make these assinine comparisons in order to maintain the illusion that a clump of cells should have the same rights a fully grown woman has. That a clump of cells superceeds the rights of a fully grown woman, even.

We could discuss the philosophical nature of being a human. I think that’s much more interesting that yet another abortion thread.

Don’t you?
[/quote]

You are a clump of cells, just a bigger clump. Assigning brain function as the end all be all to human existence is the asinine stance. A zygote an autonomous living being has the same unique DNA structure as it will have through out it’s life, if you destroy that zygote it cannot be replace. Do you deny any of this? Anything you kill will not have consciousness. Further, consciousness is not really well understood anyway. There is no way to tell if something has it, or does not. Communication is not consciousness it’s one indication that it may be there.

Second of all, being an empiricist where is the scientific proof that brain function equal humanness? Is this your view or is there a shared hard line stance that at point ‘X’ of gestation, the ‘thing’ is now human?

We’re talking about life or death here, it cannot be arbitrary.

Sure we can discuss what ‘humanness’ is, but you willingly jumped into to this debate accusing us (prolife) folks of hating women and that’s why we’re against abortion.[/quote]

A zygote is autonomous? Since when?

318

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

How long after death do you lose being human?[/quote]

Pretty quickly i’d wager.[/quote]

Why does death take person-hood and a coma not?[/quote]

There are irreversable comas and if that ever happened to me i’d want them to pull the plug.

But a coma is not unlike sleep, so ‘previously established personhood’ and all that.
[/quote]

You didn’t give me a reason previously established personhood doesn’t apply to the dead.

What if there is invention of technology that make death reversible. Is a cadaver then a person?[/quote]

These ‘what if?’ scenarios are boring D.

“With a level of brainfunction that indicates awareness of being.” means that the dead do not apply.[/quote]

But they have previously established person hood.

I’m only pointing out how convoluted your definition is. You are doing mental contortions to define human life in such a way as to support your previous belief that women should be allowed to kill human embryos.

So far your definition is “With a level of brainfunction that indicates awareness of being, but not when it applies to being asleep or in a coma because they are previously established, unless maybe its a currently irreversible coma and technology hasn’t gotten that good yet, and the previous personhood thing doesn’t apply to the dead because I say so.”

That about sum it up?

319

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

Also, I can only violate the rights of what I consider to be a person.

Since the mother most definitely is one and it is debatable whether the embryo is , I think we shall err on the side of prudence.
[/quote]

Oh give me a break. You don’t care if it’s a human life, period. Why be so cowardly in your position? [/quote]

Yep.[/quote]

Don’t know if anyone remembers, but a while back when we were in a different thread about the exact same topic, only this time we were discussing the ethics of abortion with respect to property rights. For some reason, when it came to his religion, Orion was fundamentalist, idealistic, black-and-white,unwavering.Now that we come into another angle that isn’t nearly so malleable as Property Rights (PBUT), he’s all like, practical, and stuff.

320

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

How long after death do you lose being human?[/quote]

Pretty quickly i’d wager.[/quote]

Why does death take person-hood and a coma not?[/quote]

There are irreversable comas and if that ever happened to me i’d want them to pull the plug.

But a coma is not unlike sleep, so ‘previously established personhood’ and all that.
[/quote]

You didn’t give me a reason previously established personhood doesn’t apply to the dead.

What if there is invention of technology that make death reversible. Is a cadaver then a person?[/quote]

These ‘what if?’ scenarios are boring D.

“With a level of brainfunction that indicates awareness of being.” means that the dead do not apply.[/quote]

But they have previously established person hood.

I’m only pointing out how convoluted your definition is. You are doing mental contortions to define human life in such a way as to support your previous belief that women should be allowed to kill human embryos.

So far your definition is “With a level of brainfunction that indicates awareness of being, but not when it applies to being asleep or in a coma because they are previously established, unless maybe its a currently irreversible coma and technology hasn’t gotten that good yet, and the previous personhood thing doesn’t apply to the dead because I say so.”

That about sum it up?[/quote]

Like I said before, there is no criteria that disqualifies a human inside the womb from personhood that doesn’t also disqualify many other humans.