Abortion
For those still unclear on the concept:
For those still unclear on the concept:
18 comments
1 | Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton Sat, Nov 5, 2011 4:24:46pm |
OK, when does personhood begin?
2 | Kragar Sat, Nov 5, 2011 4:53:36pm |
3 | Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton Sat, Nov 5, 2011 4:54:24pm |
4 | Decatur Deb Sat, Nov 5, 2011 4:54:42pm |
re: #1 Sergey Romanov
OK, when does personhood begin?
When Delaware signs the incorporation papers and your check clears.
5 | Kragar Sat, Nov 5, 2011 4:58:25pm |
re: #3 Sergey Romanov
Elaborate?
Fetal development occurs in stages. Brain activity and the development of the Fetus doesn't occur until weeks after conception. Picking an arbitrary cellular function as the definition as to when "personhood" begins is nonsense. Why not say person begins at ejaculation, and the woman is responsible for not fertilizing the egg? Its ludicrous.
6 | Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton Sat, Nov 5, 2011 4:59:43pm |
re: #5 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)
Fetal development occurs in stages. Brain activity and the development of the Fetus doesn't occur until weeks after conception. Picking an arbitrary cellular function as the definition as to when "personhood" begins is nonsense. Why not say person begins at ejaculation, and the woman is responsible for not fertilizing the egg? Its ludicrous.
Wait, that doesn't eally address the question. You said that the whole concept of personhood is ridiculous - does that mean there are no persons?
7 | Kragar Sat, Nov 5, 2011 5:01:33pm |
re: #6 Sergey Romanov
Wait, that doesn't eally address the question. You said that the whole concept of personhood is ridiculous - does that mean there are no persons?
Personhood in regards to the topic of abortion is total and complete bullshit.
Now provide an example of personhood not relating to abortion.
8 | Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton Sat, Nov 5, 2011 5:02:52pm |
re: #7 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)
Personhood in regards to the topic of abortion is total and complete bullshit.
OK, that at least is comprehensible.
Now provide an example of personhood not relating to abortion.
You're a person. Your pet, if you have one, is not.
9 | Kragar Sat, Nov 5, 2011 5:04:54pm |
re: #8 Sergey Romanov
OK, that at least is comprehensible.
You're a person. Your pet, if you have one, is not.
That is arguing sentience.
10 | Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton Sat, Nov 5, 2011 5:06:30pm |
re: #9 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)
That is arguing sentience.
Maybe. But it doesn't make it ridiculous.
11 | Kragar Sat, Nov 5, 2011 5:10:27pm |
re: #10 Sergey Romanov
Maybe. But it doesn't make it ridiculous.
The question of sentience is valid. The question of making all abortions illegal, even in cases where the fetus is nonviable, would harm the mother, or was conceived by rape or incest against the direct consent of the mother, and making birth control illegal based on the potential sentience is not a valid arguement.
12 | Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton Sat, Nov 5, 2011 5:15:12pm |
re: #11 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)
Well, I never argued with that so I don't know why you bring that up.
Not to leave the question hanging, here's my perspective. It's not so much important to establish when personhood begins as it is to show when it cannot yet be. Since there is no objective evidence of a mind-indepedent soul, if one chooses evidence-based approach then personhood cannot begin earlier than the mind can begin to exist, and mind can't begin to exist until the cerebral cortex fully forms. I.e. at least until that moment I think there should be no limits for abortion. After that - risk to mother and similar considerations.
13 | Kragar Sat, Nov 5, 2011 5:17:59pm |
re: #12 Sergey Romanov
Well, I never argued with that so I don't know why you bring that up.
Not to leave the question hanging, here's my perspective. It's not so much important to establish when personhood begins as it is to show when it cannot yet be. Since there is no objective evidence of a mind-indepedent soul, if one chooses evidence-based approach then personhood cannot begin earlier than the mind can begin to exist, and mind can't begin to exist until the cerebral cortex fully forms. I.e. at least until that moment I think there should be no limits for abortion. After that - risk to mother and similar considerations.
I know you didn't make that argument, but the people pushing these Personhood amendments are. They're trying to remove the ability for women to make up their own minds on the decision. They should be focusing their effort on providing alternatives, rather than punishing women.
14 | dragonfire1981 Sat, Nov 5, 2011 5:25:47pm |
A baby, upon birth, IS a person.
Is it a person before that happens?
When dealing with this issue, you run into the same problem you find when asking people whether or not they agree with the aims of OWS. It all depends on who is providing the information. The point of life at which personhood is attained varies widely.
15 | sffilk Sat, Nov 5, 2011 7:04:20pm |
According to Jewish law, life begins at birth. Not before.
16 | Jaerik Sat, Nov 5, 2011 11:51:14pm |
Can someone explain to me why the conservative, traditionalists among us are so dead-set on changing the conservative, traditional definition of a person?
17 | Holidays are Family Fun Time Sun, Nov 6, 2011 8:29:15am |
One must first decide if Personhood is a legal, theological, philosophical or biological term.
Define it before you legislate it.
Just my .02.
18 | Holidays are Family Fun Time Sun, Nov 6, 2011 8:29:40am |
re: #16 Jaerik
Can someone explain to me why the conservative, traditionalists among us are so dead-set on changing the conservative, traditional definition of a person?
because they fear there are too many brown babies being born and not enough white babies.