[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
Would the pro-abortionists kindly identify when the metaphysical shift to personhood takes place? [/quote]
I’m very eager to hear this.
[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
Great post until the last part. The fetus IS a full-fledged human, just in an earlier stage of development. I guess I keep having to repeat this, but if the fetus is provided with food, water, shelter and oxygen, it will develop into a later stage, just as everyone in this discussion will. We will grow to be senior citizens if provided with the same.
[/quote]
So, a kind of teleological argument?
[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
Would the pro-abortionists kindly identify when the metaphysical shift to personhood takes place?
I’m very eager to hear this. [/quote]
You never will. And this is the “skating” that Push was mentioning. We already know that abortionists have de-humanized the fetus. We just haven’t seen their philosophical or biological warrant for doing so and they’ve never identified philosophical consistent criteria for determining when the fetus becomes “a person.” Where is it?
[quote]Christine wrote:
pat wrote:
Christine wrote:
Good question. I just can’t bring myself to the righteous indignation that so many of the pro-lifers exhibit. Maybe I could if there wasn’t so much suffering in the world. Currently, I am just unable to equate the suffering of a fetus to that of a child or person.
The more I read the pro-life posts in this thread, the firmer my conclusion that abortion should remain legal becomes.
Why, you like being wrong? Is this the only suitable argument you can come up with? Rather than stating that a fetus is not a human because…
There is no righteous indignation as you suggest. It is merly a simple argument. The unborn child is or is not a person. That’s it…All the evidence that I can muster is that the unborn child is a person…If you have good evidence to the contrary then bring it…Accusations of righteous indignation do not lend weight to your argument.
Plenty of reason why I don’t equate a the rights of a fetus to that of the born have already been gone through.
Your insistence that yours is the only moral conclusion to be had is what I consider to be righteous indignation.
[/quote]
It isn’t my question, it is the only question that matters. Is the fetus a human being or not? Can you not answer that question? Why is it so hard?
[quote]pat wrote:
Christine wrote:
pat wrote:
Christine wrote:
Good question. I just can’t bring myself to the righteous indignation that so many of the pro-lifers exhibit. Maybe I could if there wasn’t so much suffering in the world. Currently, I am just unable to equate the suffering of a fetus to that of a child or person.
The more I read the pro-life posts in this thread, the firmer my conclusion that abortion should remain legal becomes.
Why, you like being wrong? Is this the only suitable argument you can come up with? Rather than stating that a fetus is not a human because…
There is no righteous indignation as you suggest. It is merly a simple argument. The unborn child is or is not a person. That’s it…All the evidence that I can muster is that the unborn child is a person…If you have good evidence to the contrary then bring it…Accusations of righteous indignation do not lend weight to your argument.
Plenty of reason why I don’t equate a the rights of a fetus to that of the born have already been gone through.
Your insistence that yours is the only moral conclusion to be had is what I consider to be righteous indignation.
It isn’t my question, it is the only question that matters. Is the fetus a human being or not? Can you not answer that question? Why is it so hard?[/quote]
You think it is the only question that matters. It is, in my opinion, not.
But no, I do not think a fetus qualifies as a person.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
EmilyQ wrote:
…the early fetus is not a person…
What is an “early fetus” and why is it not a person?[/quote]
For me that constitutes the first trimester. Sentience, as I may have mentioned previously, is the essential factor for me.
[quote]I agree with Christine that this only serves to reinforce the despair that leaves me helplessly supporting legal abortion.
You never do so “helplessly”. A smart woman like you does it with full knowledge and intent.[/quote]
Yes. I am fully aware. Helplessly, as in, helpless to change things for the better and so choosing the lesser of two evils.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
EmilyQ wrote:
pushharder wrote:
EmilyQ wrote:
…the early fetus is not a person…
What is an “early fetus” and why is it not a person?
For me that constitutes the first trimester. Sentience, as I may have mentioned previously, is the essential factor for me…
When does ‘it’ get to take ‘its’ sentience exam?
[/quote]
If and when it’s born.
Did you answer my earlier question about what it is you do, exactly, to keep the unborn and the currently living free from harm? Any concrete, proactive efforts to protect the lives of unborn babies?
[quote]EmilyQ wrote:
pushharder wrote:
EmilyQ wrote:
pushharder wrote:
EmilyQ wrote:
…the early fetus is not a person…
What is an “early fetus” and why is it not a person?
For me that constitutes the first trimester. Sentience, as I may have mentioned previously, is the essential factor for me…
When does ‘it’ get to take ‘its’ sentience exam?
If and when it’s born.
[/quote]
I agree with Em.
If you really want to push the issue, I’ll go with if it can survive outside of the womb without any extraordinary measures being taken.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Christine wrote:
EmilyQ wrote:
pushharder wrote:
EmilyQ wrote:
pushharder wrote:
EmilyQ wrote:
…the early fetus is not a person…
What is an “early fetus” and why is it not a person?
For me that constitutes the first trimester. Sentience, as I may have mentioned previously, is the essential factor for me…
When does ‘it’ get to take ‘its’ sentience exam?
If and when it’s born.
I agree with Em.
If you really want to push the issue, I’ll go with if it can survive outside of the womb without any extraordinary measures being taken.
Go back a few pages to my post that had the pic of the guy in the coma. He is undergoing extraordinary measures to maintain his survival. He cannot survive outside of the ICU womb. Should he be ‘eliminated’?[/quote]
I’d have to know more about his personal circumstance to make an informed decision as to that.
While I personally see shades of grey, you want me to draw a line and say that one side is right and one side is wrong. So this is where I will choose the line then.
I second Emily’s request. I would like to hear what the most vocal opponents of abortion in this thread are personally doing to rectify the situation in their own communities.
And about the pictures: there is a reason the American Cancer Society features in its ads photos of attractive cancer survivors, rather than photos of bloody malignant tumors freshly removed from a patient’s body.
They know that even if one is predisposed to believe that ending cancer is a good idea, turning that person’s stomach is no way to win them over to the cause.
Instead, show us pictures of all the adorable babies that you personally have adopted, or at least the ones who are alive and thriving today because you personally intervened and convinced their pregnant mothers not to have the abortion they had wanted.
EDIT: I hope it’s not too much to expect people to realize that I am NOT actually comparing a fetus to a tumor.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
EmilyQ wrote:
If and when it’s born.
Did you answer my earlier question about what it is you do, exactly, to keep the unborn and the currently living free from harm? Any concrete, proactive efforts to protect the lives of unborn babies?
You just contradicted yourself, Em. Earlier you drew the line at “early fetus”. Now you have shoved the line forward several months to the moment of birth. You are going to have to choose a time and stick with it in order to be perceived as intellectually honest.
[/quote]
Let me clarify, then: abortion in first trimester, tests of any sort post-birth.
As for your coma guy, if that were me, I’d want to be eliminated. Happily, I have someone like Christine in my life. (My husband will be more than happy to pull the plug. lol)
You (all of you pro-let-babies-be-born-into-horrific-circumstances-ists) seem to think you’re going to trip us up. But you’re not. I simply don’t believe as you do. There’s no intellectual dishonesty at work here. I’ve been very clear and very honest. Also, very consistent.
You? Not so much. You care about fetuses because they deserve a future, but you don’t seem to feel a moment’s concern for what that future might be.
[quote]EmilyQ wrote:
Skate around it? Avoid at all costs? WTF? Is this a joke? We’ve tromped right up to it again and again. The answer is NO, the early fetus is not a person.
The picture you posted, Pat? Was not a person. TROMP TROMP TROMP.
I agree with Christine that this only serves to reinforce the despair that leaves me helplessly supporting legal abortion.[/quote]
Ha! I know you only said that to rile me up, you damn well it was too a human. It even had arms, legs and a head. To allege otherwise is simply dishonest because you’re just damn determined to win cone hell or high water. I am more interested in the truth.
[quote]Christine wrote:
You think it is the only question that matters. It is, in my opinion, not.
But no, I do not think a fetus qualifies as a person.
[/quote]
Good now we are getting some where…What other questions matter?
If it is not a person, what is it?
[quote]Christine wrote:
EmilyQ wrote:
pushharder wrote:
EmilyQ wrote:
pushharder wrote:
EmilyQ wrote:
…the early fetus is not a person…
What is an “early fetus” and why is it not a person?
For me that constitutes the first trimester. Sentience, as I may have mentioned previously, is the essential factor for me…
When does ‘it’ get to take ‘its’ sentience exam?
If and when it’s born.
I agree with Em.
If you really want to push the issue, I’ll go with if it can survive outside of the womb without any extraordinary measures being taken.[/quote]
My daughter’s best friend was born at 21 weeks. She needed many extraordinary measures to keep her alive, but here she is alive and well.
[quote]EmilyQ wrote:
pushharder wrote:
EmilyQ wrote:
If and when it’s born.
Did you answer my earlier question about what it is you do, exactly, to keep the unborn and the currently living free from harm? Any concrete, proactive efforts to protect the lives of unborn babies?
You just contradicted yourself, Em. Earlier you drew the line at “early fetus”. Now you have shoved the line forward several months to the moment of birth. You are going to have to choose a time and stick with it in order to be perceived as intellectually honest.
Let me clarify, then: abortion in first trimester, tests of any sort post-birth.
As for your coma guy, if that were me, I’d want to be eliminated. Happily, I have someone like Christine in my life. (My husband will be more than happy to pull the plug. lol)
You (all of you pro-let-babies-be-born-into-horrific-circumstances-ists) seem to think you’re going to trip us up. But you’re not. I simply don’t believe as you do. There’s no intellectual dishonesty at work here. I’ve been very clear and very honest. Also, very consistent.
You? Not so much. You care about fetuses because they deserve a future, but you don’t seem to feel a moment’s concern for what that future might be. [/quote]
No you are not being honest are debating semantics that are irrelevant. A bum is a human life that is a burden on society, taxes the infrastructure, and is in a horrible life state, but I can’t go put him out of his/her misery even if they would be better off dead.
A quadriplegic is a quite useless person, a burden on society and living in a terrible condition, but I cannot put him/her out of it’s misery. I could go on an on, but it doesn’t matter their life state, they are humans and I cannot kill them.
When does human life begin, 2nd trimester? Fine, what are the criteria to determine that it has now graduated into humanness. What is the difference between the start of the second trimester and the very end of the first?