Planned Parenthood II

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
81

[quote]Bismark wrote:

Science hasn’t yet defined personhood. [/quote]

Interesting how “personhood” has, in a twisted sort of way, replaced “human soul” for the pro-abortion side. A thing the pro aborts can’t seem to prove, as stated above. Yet, apparently they have enough FAITH in its absence in these cases so as defend the murder of individual human lives (which we do know, scientifically).

But it’s a piss poor argument either way. Human life in the womb either has this “personhood.” .Or, it will, barring disease or trauma. You have killed the “person” either way,

82

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:
But this present question is not just one of technical legality. The legal death of a person is contingent upon medical/scientific definitions, and these, though increasingly nuanced, hinge on and agree with the language I’ve used. To take one of many examples, the text of the Uniform Determination of Death Act was shaped in conference with the American Medical Association. In other words, it is not only law that calls a person’s death the irreversible cessation of heart/brain activity – it is science. And here conservatives have an actual problem, because, as I’ve shown, it is logically impossible for something that has never exhibited X to undergo cessation of X, and therefore it is logically impossible for an early embryo to be a dead person, and therefore it is logically impossible for the abortion of an early embryo to result in the killing of a person, and therefore the pro-life argument breaks down.[/quote]

I underlined the portion of your post that I don’t follow. What I don’t follow specifically is why it makes sense to say life begins at the inverse of death? The difference to me is apparent, brain function has not yet commenced for the newly formed organism, due to the stage of development, but this is not irreversible. Brain function is in fact inevitable the vast majority of the time.[/quote]

It is not that life begins at the inverse of death. It’s that the overriding concern vis-a-vis abortion – at least, for those of us who don’t believe that the fact of a fetus’ existing inside its mother renders it incapable of having rights, even on the day before its delivery – is whether and when an abortion results in the death of a person (which is to say, whether and when abortion entails murder). The death of a person is – legally, medically – the cessation of heart/brain activity. If something is incapable of undergoing cessation of heart/brain activity, it is logically incapable of being a dead person (again, legally, medically). If something is incapable of being a dead person, it is logically incapable of being murdered, because a dead person is a necessary, though not sufficient, component of murder. Thus it is logically impossible for the abortion of an embryo without heart/brain activity to produce a dead person, and therefore to entail murder.

[quote]
In short, it makes sense to mark death at brain wave cessation as cells will no longer replicate/develop, but I do not think it makes sense to say life begins at the opposite end of the spectrum (when brain function begins) simply because it’s an easy answer to a complex situation.[/quote]

But we’re talking about murder, killing…dead people. As soon as you claim that it “makes sense to mark death [of a person] at brain wave cessation,” it’s all over, because something that has never had brain waves cannot cease to have them, and therefore this thing cannot under any circumstances be a dead person, and therefore this thing cannot be murdered. By logical necessity.

[quote]
Further, I don’t agree with the idea that development, in this case, is irrelevant. Left untouched a zygote not only has the potential, but will the vast majority of the time, become that 14 year old and God willing that old man, both of which are protected by the law.

Why do you think, or do you think, life should not be protected at conception? [/quote]

It isn’t irrelevant in an emotional sense, but this is a question of law, not emotion. A murder requires a dead person and another person who made the first one that way. The event hinges on what’s lying on the ground, not what could have been lying on the ground vis-a-vis potential and teleology. In other words, the “potential” objection has no bearing on what I’ve written above.

83

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

It isn’t irrelevant in an emotional sense, but this is a question of law, not emotion. [/quote]

I mean, the lynching of one’s African slaves was simply a matter of emotional ‘taste,’ too. It was perfectly protected under the law.

84

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

It isn’t irrelevant in an emotional sense, but this is a question of law, not emotion. [/quote]

I mean, the lynching of one’s African slaves was simply a matter of emotional ‘taste,’ too. It was perfectly protected under the law.
[/quote]

It would be interesting if the dogmatic pro-life side would be able to put forth an argument without devolving to references to slavery, genocide, or the holocaust. Abortion is an individual medical decision.

85

An individual human life is deliberately destroyed. Fact.

This human life is known to either have, or to develop “personhood” Fact. You would literally have to argue that human “persons” are not in fact replaced/propagated by the reproductive act. Absolutely absurd.

Stop talking about the brain dead as if there is even a remotely similar situation going on. It is an absurd and offensive argument.

86

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

It isn’t irrelevant in an emotional sense, but this is a question of law, not emotion. [/quote]

I mean, the lynching of one’s African slaves was simply a matter of emotional ‘taste,’ too. It was perfectly protected under the law.
[/quote]

It would be interesting if the dogmatic pro-life side would be able to put forth an argument without devolving to references to slavery, genocide, or the holocaust. Abortion is an individual medical decision.[/quote]

I’m sure that’s what the slaver told the abolitionist. “Don’t like it? Well, you don’t have to buy one!”

By, the way, we’re the only side that puts forward actual arguments.

“human embryo is brain dead person!”

87

We won this argument at the fact the embryo is an individual human life already working through its life cycle. In other words, killing sloth embryo would be/is killing sloth forum contributor. I am that individual in both cases. No switcheroos are done in the womb guys. No organismal sleight of hands. I’m that same individual life throughout my cycle.

88

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
What are the unborn, from the moment of conception Bismark?

[/quote]

A zygote of course.
[/quote]

You tell em Bismark, just like them Negros, a zygote is less than a real person. They’re just property. [/quote]

Scientifically, I’m correct. [/quote]
You sure are

A person with neither a heart not a functioning brain, the taproots of personhood? If a Zygote fails to become a blastocyst and implant on the uterus wall (perhaps via the so-called morning after pill), did a murder akin shooting an elementary school child occur? How does one murder a eukaryotic cell? [/quote]

Don’t be retarded Bismark, it’s unbecoming.

89

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

It isn’t irrelevant in an emotional sense, but this is a question of law, not emotion. [/quote]

I mean, the lynching of one’s African slaves was simply a matter of emotional ‘taste,’ too. It was perfectly protected under the law.
[/quote]

This is a false analogy. I am not attempting, and have not ever attempted, to argue that abortion is morally acceptable because it is legal. In fact, I claimed exactly the opposite above – that some legal abortions entail murder, and thus are morally unacceptable, and thus ought to be illegal. I even went so far as to claim that I’d accept the illegality of abortions I don’t think immoral in order to secure and en to ones I do.

Anyway, when I referred to law above, I was referring to the law as I’m arguing it ought to be, not the law as it is. The law ought to be concerned with what is. One can only be punished for exactly what one has done to exactly what one has done it to. The only question before us is this: does abortion entail murder? The actual abortion, performed as it was, on the actual fetus on which it was performed, on the actual day it was performed – does it entail an actual murder? It doesn’t matter what would have been entailed under circumstances that didn’t obtain – ever. The question hinges only upon what happened in fact, as all such questions do (and always will).

So, murder requires a dead person, which raises the relevant sub-question: does abortion result in a dead person? See my argument above for more on that. If you’d like to engage with it, I’ll be interested to hear your criticism.

91

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

So, murder requires a dead person, which raises the relevant sub-question: does abortion result in a dead person? [/quote]

If YOU were murdered in the womb, would your person be responding to me? You think it’s questionable that you’re the same individual organism? Really?

92

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

So, murder requires a dead person, which raises the relevant sub-question: does abortion result in a dead person? [/quote]

Did murdering ones own slave result in a dead “PERSON?” Guess not. So it wasn’t murder either.

94

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

So, murder requires a dead person, which raises the relevant sub-question: does abortion result in a dead person? [/quote]

If YOU were murdered in the womb, would your person be responding to me? You think it’s questionable that you’re the same individual organism? Really?
[/quote]

If the embryo that I was had been destroyed early, would it have been murder?

If so, it must have entailed the death of a person – this is made necessary by the definition of murder.

The death of a person requires the cessation of heart/brain activity – this is made necessary by the definition of death.

If the embryo that I was did not have, and had never had, heart/brain activity, the embryo that I was could not have undergone the cessation of such – this by logical necessity (a thing cannot cease to do what it is not doing). If the embryo could not have undergone the cessation of heart/brain activity, it could not have become a dead person, and thus murder could not have been entailed.

95

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

So, murder requires a dead person, which raises the relevant sub-question: does abortion result in a dead person? [/quote]

If YOU were murdered in the womb, would your person be responding to me? You think it’s questionable that you’re the same individual organism? Really?
[/quote]

If the embryo that I was had been destroyed early, would it have been murder?

If so, it must have entailed the death of a person – this is made necessary by the definition of murder.

The death of a person requires the cessation of heart/brain activity – this is made necessary by the definition of death.

If the embryo that I was did not have, and had never had, heart/brain activity, the embryo that I was could not have undergone the cessation of such – this by logical necessity (a thing cannot ease to do what it is not doing). If the embryo could not have undergone the cessation of heart/brain activity, it could not have become a dead person, and thus murder could not have been entailed.[/quote]
We can define away the personhood of any human life(we’re rather good at it as a species). Such as, of the African slave, too. But murdering that slave is still murdering that slave. Does anyone here want to argue they weren’t murdered?

In any event we know embryo sloth is naturally inclined (the whole reproduction thing) to developing a brain. Or we needn’t ever murder him in the womb in the first place. I mean, that is the point of abortion, to destroy the person we’d otherwise be responsible for. If not, we wouldn’t be having this argument as there would be no demand for abortion.

97

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

So, murder requires a dead person, which raises the relevant sub-question: does abortion result in a dead person? [/quote]

If YOU were murdered in the womb, would your person be responding to me? You think it’s questionable that you’re the same individual organism? Really?
[/quote]

If the embryo that I was had been destroyed early, would it have been murder?

If so, it must have entailed the death of a person [/quote]

Do you believe you’d still be sitting there typing responses to me?

98

The whole point of almost all abortion is the death of Brains and brain waves. The whole point is to cease being responsible for a “person.” If that weren’t the case, there would be virtually no demand for it.

" I need an abortion, I’m not ready to take care of someone."

“But you’re not being made to be responsible for anyone if I say no.”

“What do you mean? I’ll be responsible for another person!”

“Wrong, embryos don’t have brain waves! And we’ll argue as if we’ve forgotten that they are inclined to develop them [which is what we’re being asked to do here]. Therefore, I’m not making you responsible for another person. Good day.”

100

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:
But this present question is not just one of technical legality. The legal death of a person is contingent upon medical/scientific definitions, and these, though increasingly nuanced, hinge on and agree with the language I’ve used. To take one of many examples, the text of the Uniform Determination of Death Act was shaped in conference with the American Medical Association. In other words, it is not only law that calls a person’s death the irreversible cessation of heart/brain activity – it is science. And here conservatives have an actual problem, because, as I’ve shown, it is logically impossible for something that has never exhibited X to undergo cessation of X, and therefore it is logically impossible for an early embryo to be a dead person, and therefore it is logically impossible for the abortion of an early embryo to result in the killing of a person, and therefore the pro-life argument breaks down.[/quote]

I underlined the portion of your post that I don’t follow. What I don’t follow specifically is why it makes sense to say life begins at the inverse of death? The difference to me is apparent, brain function has not yet commenced for the newly formed organism, due to the stage of development, but this is not irreversible. Brain function is in fact inevitable the vast majority of the time.[/quote]

It is not that life begins at the inverse of death. It’s that the overriding concern vis-a-vis abortion – at least, for those of us who don’t believe that the fact of a fetus’ existing inside its mother renders it incapable of having rights, even on the day before its delivery – is whether and when an abortion results in the death of a person (which is to say, whether and when abortion entails murder). The death of a person is – legally, medically – the cessation of heart/brain activity. If something is incapable of undergoing cessation of heart/brain activity, it is logically incapable of being a dead person (again, legally, medically). If something is incapable of being a dead person, it is logically incapable of being murdered, because a dead person is a necessary, though not sufficient, component of murder. Thus it is logically impossible for the abortion of an embryo without heart/brain activity to produce a dead person, and therefore to entail murder. [/quote]

I believe, logically, we know a unique life is created at conception and it will, if left alone, develop brain activity the vast majority of the time. I also believe, logically, this means the purposeful ending of this organism, thus inhibiting the development of brain activity, should be considered murder under law. At the very least this life should be protected from being ended in an unnatural way, ie, abortion.

I understand what you are saying, but to me it isn’t logical to say a fetus isn’t capable of being a dead person simply because it doesn’t fit within the legal construct of “death”. Before an abortion it is alive and after an abortion it is dead, period.

[quote]

[quote]
In short, it makes sense to mark death at brain wave cessation as cells will no longer replicate/develop, but I do not think it makes sense to say life begins at the opposite end of the spectrum (when brain function begins) simply because it’s an easy answer to a complex situation.[/quote]

But we’re talking about murder, killing…dead people. As soon as you claim that it “makes sense to mark death [of a person] at brain wave cessation,” it’s all over, because something that has never had brain waves cannot cease to have them, and therefore this thing cannot under any circumstances be a dead person, and therefore this thing cannot be murdered. By logical necessity. [/quote]

Again, I disagree for the reasons stated above. I don’t believe the right to life should be predicated on legal jargon.

[quote]

[quote]
Further, I don’t agree with the idea that development, in this case, is irrelevant. Left untouched a zygote not only has the potential, but will the vast majority of the time, become that 14 year old and God willing that old man, both of which are protected by the law.

Why do you think, or do you think, life should not be protected at conception? [/quote]

It isn’t irrelevant in an emotional sense, but this is a question of law, not emotion. A murder requires a dead person and another person who made the first one that way. The event hinges on what’s lying on the ground, not what could have been lying on the ground vis-a-vis potential and teleology. In other words, the “potential” objection has no bearing on what I’ve written above.[/quote]

At conception a unique human life is created. After an abortion that unique life is dead. Legal jargon aside, that is clearly the end of a unique human life whether brain function has begun or not.