Abortion isn't okay no matter what

MayCaesar

@MichaelElpers

I am not sure what you mean by "the natural state": every state of being is natural by definition, as being a part of nature. I cannot tinker with your control system, but I can with mine - and what should be more under my control than my own body? If I cannot even decide who or what can or cannot feed on my body, then I am tyrannized far more than someone who is merely deprived of the control over the oxygen supply in one dome.

Imagine if a parasite (let us say a large black worm) 30 cm in length is squirming inside your body, feeding on it, and someone goes up to you with a gun and says, "Do anything to that worm - be punished". This is an absolute horror scenario, putting Hitchcock's imagination to shame. I would much rather live in the worst concentration camp in North Korea, than be subjected to that.

John_C_87

I am not sure what you mean by "the natural state": every state of being is natural by definition, as being a part of nature. I cannot tinker with your control system, but I can with mine - and what should be more under my control than my own body?

Women are not held Independent by legal counsel nor by their own defense of American United States Constitution. Honestly this argument about the body is a fallacy at this stage in the discovery of facts, you are not a woman, and the women has the authority to extract sperm from you in multiple ways. The United State of all women is if, or if not women can contribute to posterity of America, if yes, then they are to be held as created equal by their creator before American Constitutional Right. Discrimination based on sex is no longer a Constitutional Right for women it has been found to be against the law. Defending and correction of this is done simply by call all women with a filing title of grievance publicly Presadera.

All of the off topic political agenda is laid to rest 19th Amendment read as follows " The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex." The United State Constitutional Right however correctly written should read like this. " The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of Presadera. " The condition of the right of Presadera is to be described in Article II along with the addition of the word "she."

Then you are tyrannized by the laws of nature and you are arguing a basic principle of death and the preservation of the human body after death according to criminal law. The topic of abortion is quicksand pit in the way of Female United States Constitutional Right pointing the short cut sign to the pit is not a solution to moving past it.

So the women can revoke use of her body any time after introduction of sperm donated by a man and it becomes the man who is responsible for the murder. At this point it sounds as though you are only trying to keep women out of the United State Constitution to evade the full extent of law in America.

for those who choose to thanl you for reading...

just_sayin

@MayCaesar

I certainly do not think that human cell is a human being. That is something that one accepting your premises (as I read them) would believe, but not me. I do not accept the premise that difference in the DNA is what makes something a separate being having rights, but if I were to accept it, this conclusion would be inevitable.
I do not think it "dumb" to follow someone's argument to its logical conclusion. You see this conclusion as absurd - but it follows from your argument. If your argument leads to an absurd conclusion, then you would do well to rethink the argument.

What is primary and what is not seems a matter of perspective. I can take a perspective to say that the Universe is the primary and everything else is tertiary, therefore no one has any rights and only the laws of the Universe decide who can do what. The implication would be that no legal or moral system has any effect, only laws of mother nature in their raw form apply.
In the context of society I think it reasonable to see the primary unit as an autonomous sapient being who can make conscious decisions, because it is the interaction between these humans from which the concept of "rights" arises. I do not see how this concept can be extended to non-sapient beings, or to to-become-sapient beings, or to dead formerly-sapient beings... We are living now, we cannot talk about the rights of someone who will live later or lived in the past. Mother Teresa has no rights, she is a corpse. My son has no rights, he is yet to be born. I have rights, I am right here, thinking and speaking.
I am open to other interpretations of this, but I have not seen an interpretation yet that would magically add a fetus to it that would also not add a bunch of other things that those who see abortion as an act of murder do not extend their reasoning to.

I agree with your answer regarding cloning, but here you are making no reference whatsoever to the similarity of the DNA - yet you did before. So is the similarity of the DNA determinant of whether the being is the same, or not? You cannot have it both ways and pick the one that is most convenient to mention at the moment.

MayCaesar said So is the similarity of the DNA determinant of whether the being is the same, or not?

I'll use a programming illustration.  Say you create an object to send packages to someone.  The object represents the distinct entity you need to send the package to.  One attribute is state.  You can do queries to eliminate people who are not who you are looking for.  If someone lives in another state than the address you are looking for, you could dismiss that being. (like dismissing someone who doesn't have the same DNA as being the same being).  However, someone could have the same state and even the same address and not be the being you are looking for (have the same DNA), so you have to identify what's distinct - in this instance that's the name of the person who is suppose to get the package.

Since you study philosophy - I take a modified Aristotlean view of being and value.  He believed that value was not external to the thing itself, but that all value comes from within the thing itself.  Therefore a flower has the value of a flower, not because someone externally decides its value - but because of the properties it holds within itself.  A flower will always have the value of a flower as long as it is a living flower.  It will not have the value of cow or person.  Each human being has the value of a human being, even if they do not access all of the attributes that they have.  So a handicapped human being has the value of a human just as much as a human who can walk on their own.  

Your concept of value seems to depend on what someone else decides you are worth.  This seems very wrong to me.  You have the obvious cases throughout history where the personhood of someone else was denied so the oppressor could justify their oppression of their victim - such as how slaves where thought to be lesser than their masters or how Nazis claimed Jews were not true citizens and therefore took their guns, then their businesses, then their homes, and then their lives from them.  These personhood arguments are associated with the most evil actions history has to offer.  

Personhood arguments, as your comments demonstrate, are subjective.  I've heard personhood arguments based on location, size, sentience, dependency, age, affinity, etc.  A common one is sentience.  Someone will claim that since the child is not 'sentient' yet she has no value and can be killed.  Yet, if 'sentience' is really an objective determinate of value, then someone who is in a comma, or under anesthesia is not sentient and we would say that if someone intentionally killed them while in that state they committed murder.  So we don't treat sentience as the determining factor of value.  And think of how illogical this is.  Under that view people pop in and out of personhood all the time.  If is illogical to argue that someone is a specific person, and then they cease to be a person, and then they suddenly reappear as the same person they were before.  That is an illogical argument.  If the person is the same person they were before losing sentience as they were once they regained it - then it is only logical that whatever makes a person a person was present during their lack of sentience.  Therefore the claim that sentience is what determines someone's value is invalid.

I can walk you through examples for each and every one of the subjective factors people claim makes someone a person.  They all fail basic logic tests.   

Dee

@just_sayin


You study philosophy - I take a modified Aristotlean view of being and value.  He believed that value was not external to the thing itself, but that all value comes from within the thing itself.


Aristoltles views on a lot of things are skewed to say the least.

That makes no sense all , assessments of value come from thinking agents ,a flowers value cannot come from the flower itself  as its a purely subjective opinion which a flower is incapable of having.


Your concept of value seems to depend on what someone else decides you are worth.  

Do you value everyone equally or do you make value judgements based on various criteria?

Also you're a christian so will  you accept God's concept of what you are worth?


These personhood arguments are associated with the most evil actions history has to offer.  

Which would include religious assessments of such also.

Therefore the claim that sentience is what determines someone's value is invalid.

So would you place a higher value on  a fetus over a 2 year old chimp? If yes why?

What determines someones value in your opinion? Let's test your assertions with the challenge below.......

Patrick S.Tomlison challenged one of the central notions used by pro - lifers as  'Life begins at Conception' . In ten years, no one has EVER answered it honestly,” Tomlinson tweeted.

He goes on to explain a scenario whereby you are in a fertility clinic when the fire alarm goes off. Before you escape, you have the option to save either a five-year-old child who is pleading for help, or a container of 1000 viable human embryos.

“Do you A) save the child, or save the thousand embryos?“ he asks.

“There is no 'C.' 'C' means you all die.”

MichaelElpers

@MayCaesar

Your parasite scenario has many factors that set it apart from an abortion.
1. A parasite isnt human and has no current reason to have rights.
2. The person may have played 0 part in the parasite living in there body.

Lets say you punch someone in the face and it wasnt your intent that it cause major harm, however it does and now the person requires your blood to be saved.  You can certainly choose not to, but not doing so would cause you to be charged with manslaughter.

By natural, i mean what the object/organism is purposed towards.

Barnardot

@just_sayin ;They all fail basic logic tests. 

May be so but you can keep finding examples until the cows go home. And people do argue and the cows still havent gone home. But in the end what do descent civilized people do. They look to the law and what the law says.And it says 9 weeks period end of story. And do you think the law makers just suddenly came up with that from thin air in 2 seconds then they snapped there fingers?

Do you think that hundreds of lobby groups, experts from many different areas, open forum hearings may just make an informed decision? 

And do you think that one person who has a bias and gets information from extreme suss sources is going to make a better decision.

Having an abortion is never okay but it is a decision that has to be made one way or another by many caring responsible people. But trying to invent the wheel and trying to re define what constitutes a human being is an argument that society has had thoroughly over and over again. And society has made its decision.

John_C_87

Here is the grievance simplified After listening to many debates where as a group those in the debate have not all agree there is at least one circumstances when termination of a birth is acceptable. This means as fact that a American United States Constitutional Right that did not exist yet should have been left unwritten for almost 50 years.

There is simply no excuse, none. It appears by admission many people did not understand the United State Constitutional grievance when licensed practicing Doctors, Medical scientists, lawyers, judges, and voters as a whole could not place that reason in writing to have the right ratified as a American United States Constitutional Right. We have addressed the side of the grievance which declares that the issue is sexual discrimination and scientific only already over, and over again. All women are created equal without discrimination based on sex by one "Right" word Presadera. Female-specific amputation is not abortion is an imperfect state of the union with established justice.

Abortion is a criminal law and not a United States Constitutional Right. Female-specific amputation is a United States Constitutional Right but it cannot be applied to a female in American United States Constitutional Right because there are none in the Declaration of Independence or in the American United States Constitution. Women have already been declared by declaration of independence that they, women are in fact all created equal by their creator. How? It was done by assigning a title for filing grievance against them as Presadera. A one word Title to list all women connected to a United States Constitutional right as law and not connecting all women to a crime like sexual discrimination or perjury as a criminal law.

So, what might a United States Constitutional Right even look like once the writing has been completed? I have to say. The amount of corporation for the establishment of a Constitutional Right is surprisingly low after all this time and so many women have marched, demonstrated, and pointed at religion for the cause behind no Right.

Openminded

Argument Topic: If people actually want to argue the point on abortion, they need to ask: Is the fetus a human life, and is it's life more valuable than the convenience of the mother. All other points are mute.

@MichaelElpers ;

Is a fetus a human being? There are conflicting studies on this in the scientific community. Does human life begin at conception?  OR  Does life only begin when the heartbeat and brainwaves are detected? Defining person hood has been elusive since the beginning of time. Those that believe life begins at conception claim that person hood is attained from the moment of fertilization when a zygote is starting human development. Others believe life begins at some point after fertilization and a zygote, embryo or fetus has potential to become a human being only when certain developmental milestones are met. 

You ask: If a fetus is a human life, is its life more valuable than the convenience of the mother?  Iḿ going to assume that your unfortunate choice of the word ¨convenience¨ was an oversight. A woman seeking abortion for whatever her reasons - and they are numerous - should NEVER be judged to be an inconvenience. The decision to abort a zygote is a painstaking one. Here is where itś tricky as currently this age old argument has yet to be settled. If no determination has been met yet, is it then fair to deem that the (possible) human life of a fetus should hold more value than the proven, existing human life of the mother?  Are we devaluing the life of the mother by assuming that the developing-into-human-life fetus has more value? To me, this is nonsensical, and frankly fantastical, simplistic thinking and particularly offensive to most women.

MichaelElpers

@Openminded

First off, there is a difference between when human life begins and what people deem as personhood (or valuable human life).  No one disputes human life starts at conception, it is a biological fact.

"reasons - and they are numerous - should NEVER be judged to be an inconvenience. The decision to abort a zygote is a painstaking one. Here is where itś tricky as currently this age old argument has yet to be settled. If no determination has been met yet, is it then fair to deem that the (possible) human life of a fetus should hold more value than the proven, existing human life of the mother? Are we devaluing the life of the mother by assuming that the developing-into-human-life fetus has more value? To me, this is nonsensical, and frankly fantastical, simplistic thinking and particularly offensive to most women."

Why is the decision to abort a zygote a painstaking one if it has no present value?  This never makes any sense to me.  Do you feel trimming your finger nails is a painstaking choice?
The reasons may be numerous but the majority of them is because the want financial, career, avoid responsibility ect.  Which is a choice of convenience.

No i dont think we are devaluing the life of the mother by restricting their ability to kill their offspring.   Do you think removing my ability to murder or steal is devaluing my life?  What if I think my reasons are good?

Dee

ARGUEMENT TOPIC : PRO - LIFERS REFUSE TO ANSWER .......

Patrick S.Tomlison challenged one of the central notions used by pro - lifers as  'Life begins at Conception' . In ten years, no one has EVER answered it honestly,” Tomlinson tweeted.

He goes on to explain a scenario whereby you are in a fertility clinic when the fire alarm goes off. Before you escape, you have the option to save either a five-year-old child who is pleading for help, or a container of 1000 viable human embryos.

“Do you A) save the child, or  save the thousand embryos?“ he asks.

“There is no 'C.' 'C' means you all die.”

First off, there is a difference between when human life begins and what people deem as personhood (or valuable human life). No one disputes human life starts at conception, it is a biological fact.

And? Do you place the same value on  a fetus as a born human being?

"reasons - and they are numerous - should NEVER be judged to be an inconvenience

Why not? Carrying something you don't want to carry is an inconvenience.


. The decision to abort a zygote is a painstaking one. Here is where itś tricky as currently this age old argument has yet to be settled. If no determination has been met yet, is it then fair to deem that the (possible) human life of a fetus should hold more value than the proven, existing human life of the mother?

A fetus obviously does not hold the same value to a mother that decides to abort.


 Are we devaluing the life of the mother by assuming that the developing-into-human-life fetus has more value? To me, this is nonsensical, and frankly fantastical, simplistic thinking and particularly offensive to most women."

What's nonsensical is you constantly trying to twist simple concepts into various moral dilemmas of your own making.

Why is the decision to abort a zygote a painstaking one if it has no present value?

Why don't you ask women who abort why? Have you ever done so?

 This never makes any sense to me. Do you feel trimming your finger nails is a painstaking choice?

Read above.

The reasons may be numerous but the majority of them is because the want financial, career, avoid responsibility ect. Which is a choice of convenience.

Actually facing responsibility is realising you want an abortion not denial of such. A choice  of convenience can also be succuming to bullying , moralising peer pressure.

No i dont think we are devaluing the life of the mother by restricting their ability to kill their offspring

Yet that's exactly what you're doing ." Offspring" ...LOL ......your redefining of accepted terminology is  hilarious.


. Do you think removing my ability to murder or steal is devaluing my life?

Why who's doing that?

 What if I think my reasons are good?

It's a ridiculous analogy based on nothing but your moral outrage at women who have the " audacity" to demand rights to bodily autonomy.



@MichaelElpers

John_C_87

@MichaelElpers

Do you ever get tired of making the same anti united state constitutional right argument with Dee over and over? You are both on the same side arguing semantics the termination of immigration created form birth has no translation into United States Constitutional Right. It does. Female-specific amputation is a women’s United State Constitutional Right. When life begins does not matter, it is not part of the right.

Openminded

Argument Topic: First off, there is a difference between when human life begins and what people deem as personhood

@MichaelElpers

First off, there is a difference between when human life begins and what people deem as personhood (or valuable human life).  No one disputes human life starts at conception, it is a biological fact.  I see the difference and I stand corrected on my terminology error. Letś argue from the point of personhood. 

Personhood - the stage at which a zygote, embryo, or fetus are in developmental stages of human life and have potential to become a human being or person, but may not yet be a person until certain milestones have been met.

Openminded said "reasons - and they are numerous - should NEVER be judged to be an inconvenience. The decision to abort a zygote is a painstaking one. Here is where itś tricky as currently this age old argument has yet to be settled. If no determination has been met yet, is it then fair to deem that the (possible) personhood of a fetus should hold more value than the proven personhood of the mother? Are we devaluing the life of the mother by assuming that the developing-into-personhood fetus has more value? To me, this is nonsensical, and frankly fantastical, simplistic thinking and particularly offensive to most women." 

Why is the decision to abort a zygote a painstaking one if it has no present value?  This never makes any sense to me.  Do you feel trimming your finger nails is a painstaking choice? Not understanding the fingernail analogy?
The reasons may be numerous but the majority of them is because the want financial, career, avoid responsibility ect.  Which is a choice of convenience. Your ¨convenience¨ argument is weak. The decision to abort a potential, developing person is still a painstaking one for most women. But the decision is hers alone to make. She is the keeper and owner of her body. Period.  88% of abortions (see pro-life link) occur between 9 to 12 weeks. This is the stage where the fetus is still developing into ¨personhood¨. A stage where certain milestones need to be met before it has reached personhood. It is at around week 12 that the fetal cardiac activity begins. Other vital organs are beginning to form. The brain waves are detected around 8 weeks but the brainstem that controls vital functions like the heart and breathing is not complete until the end of the 2nd trimester (6 months). The cerebral cortex (responsible for thinking, and feeling) only starts working toward the end of pregnancy though I have read that some in the medical field believe a fetus can feel pain as early as the third month, still within the 9-12 weeks that the majority of abortions are performed.

https://prolifeaction.org/fact/abortionsstagepregnancy/

No i dont think we are devaluing the life of the mother by restricting their ability to kill their offspring.   Do you think removing my ability to murder or steal is devaluing my life?  What if I think my reasons are good?  If you murdered a viable, living person for evil reasons, then your life would in fact be devalued by imprisonment or the death penalty. You´re assuming that a fetus has reached person status while still in the confines of the developing personhood stage. Your extreme views on abortion, murder and women are troubling. It is extremely easy for many women to get pregnant even while on birth control as it is not 100% effective. Mistakes are made: a diaphragm with a slight pinhole in it allowing penetration, a birth control pill was missed, an immature child who explored sex too early. This is not to mention rape and incest. I do not even want to go there. I will seek comfort and justify your extreme views to be based on ignorance. An ignorance of womens´ sexuality, anatomy and human value. 

John_C_87

@Openminded
No one disputes human life starts at conception.

Yes, at least someone does dispute life starts a conception. Fact is according to science life stats at the creation of sperm for men and at the creation of an egg for women. Life begins in two places.  There is a current American Declaration of Independence made in American law between all men and all women. Openminded you are violating the United States Constitutional right of all men when stooping to the level of criminal law and pregnancy abortion arguing when life begins. Science knows for fact and is guided by leading questions away from truth. When does life begin is not the same question as asking when does birth begins. A birth begins at conception. This is a medical fact according to science, a doctor in the practice of medicine may say a labor. If under oath a doctor or scientist can be criminal charged with perjury as all scientific evidence points to that fact it is only people by 1st Amendment right who cannot see the testing results clearly.  If a doctor is witness to conception being the start of life would then need to answer the United States Constitutional state of the union. How does birth proceed without conception in strict  laboratory. conditions? How is life sustained in frozen egg and frozen sperm until used medically to treat forms of infertility. Please stop violating the United States Constitutional Right of the medical; professionals be it male as President, or be it female as Presadera. It is un fitting as a officer of American United States Constitutional Right.

John_C_87

@Dee
Why don't you ask women who abort why? Have you ever done so?
I told you Dee a women as a American is portected by the United State of Consitutional Right. The size of the united state and its connection to established justice describes their action as female-specific amputataion. Abortion is a public lie.

Why don't you ask women

 A male acting as President of the American Constitution does not need to ask all women for permission to hold them in a state of the union with established justice as a right. That makes no sence it is a right not a crime. “ He ” the man holding the right must be relieved of command by a women. She is held under the command as Presadera and there is no criminal charge made against her. Think of it as a process of internship where the mentor nor the intern interpret cost between each other.

MichaelElpers

@Openminded

Ill expand on my fingernail analogy.
On the one hand you claim the fetus doesnt deserve personhood and yet it is a painstaking decision for women.  Why is it painstaking?  If the fetus doesnt have value it should be no different than trimming your fingernails just a slightly mlre involved process. The fact you admit it is painstaking shows these women believe it indeed does have value.

Next ill need you to define when personhood begins because generally there are flaws in any argumentation other than conception.

Next you said it is the mothers decision period...so what about when the fetus have brain and heart activity.  Lets say 8 months?

"Your extreme views on abortion, murder and women are troubling. It is extremely easy for many women to get pregnant even while on birth control as it is not 100% effective. Mistakes are made: a diaphragm with a slight pinhole in it allowing penetration, a birth control pill was missed, an immature child who explored sex too early. This is not to mention rape and incest. I do not even want to go there. I will seek comfort and justify your extreme views to be based on ignorance. An ignorance of womens´ sexuality, anatomy and human value."

Saying my views are extreme isnt an argument.  People granting rights to slaves also had extreme views once in history do stick to the arguments. If used correctly birth control and condoms are 98 and 99 perent effective; use both and thats a .02% chance.  Secondly it is still your decision with a naturally occuring known risk involved. Decisions have consequences.  Dont want to be pregnant, there is abstinance, tubes tied, vasectomy.  You have the right to choose, just not a right to kill a person your responsible for creating.

John_C_87

@MichaelElpers
People granting rights to slaves also had extreme views once in history do stick to the arguments.
Saying my views are extreme isnt an argument.

The argument is unconsitutional it is about the semantics of criminal law and not United States Consitutional Right. People are still slaves and the power to make them as such was turned over to Congress. What is your point?
Semantics Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster

Thirteenth Amendment

Thirteenth Amendment Explained

Section 1

Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, EXCEPT as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Section 2

Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

U.S. Constitution - Thirteenth Amendment | Resources | Constitution Annotated | Congress.gov | Library of Congress

The only Constitutional Right given to slaves was a P.O.W. was described to be of multiple skin colors and nationalities only criminal law can create a slave. If a person in America violates the United States Constitutional Right of others as law those people cannot and will not be enslaved by congress. This means if a person is found guilty of discrimination as a crime in criminal law once found guilty in a court of law that person becomes a slave. If voters, Elected officers, or officers of justice are found guilty of United States Constitutional right violations of law, they will never be enslaved, they are impeached proven not to be President or Presadera and removed from all Political Office, Congress has created an immunity from becoming a slave the reason is there is no presumption of innocence in American United States Constitutional Right.  

Abortions issue is a women is not been declared Independent from English Law and the unconsitutinal accuation has followed all woman onto the United States of America and its Consitutional united states of right.

Dee

@MichaelElpers


AS PREDICTED MICHAEL FOLLOWS THE TREND OF PRO LIFERS BY REFUSING TO ANSWER THE QUESTION BELOW .

Patrick S.Tomlison challenged one of the central notions used by pro - lifers as  'Life begins at Conception' . In ten years, no one has EVER answered it honestly,” Tomlinson tweeted.

He goes on to explain a scenario whereby you are in a fertility clinic when the fire alarm goes off. Before you escape, you have the option to save either a five-year-old child who is pleading for help, or a container of 1000 viable human embryos.

“Do you A) save the child, or  save the thousand embryos?“ he asks.

“There is no 'C.' 'C' means you all die.”

Openminded

Argument Topic: AS PREDICTED MICHAEL FOLLOWS THE TREND OF PRO LIFERS BY REFUSING TO ANSWER THE QUESTION BELOW .

@Dee @MichaelElpers

I am very interested to hear from Michael Elpers also on this challenging question. EXCELLENT.

MichaelElpers

@Openminded @Dee

The argument leaves factors out that need answered, additionally even if I choose the 5 year old girl this doesnt prove the embryos are not persons.

When determining whether to take the toddler or the embryos I need to know what is likely to come of the embryos.  Are they to stay in frozen storage just to be tested on , or are they embryos that are actively in developmental process similar to that of developing in the womb?
If it is the latter I would save the embryos.  I wouldnt save embryos that are artificially being kept from ever seing the light of day.

Next ill pose some other scenarios that show this doesnt prove embryos arent persons.  Again choose which to save.

1. 2 100 year olds or 5 year old
2. 2 people with terminal illness or 5 year old.
3. 1 40 year old male or a 5 year old girl.
4. 2 patients in a coma or the 5 year old.

In all of these scenarios many would choose the 5 year old even though more or equal lives would be saved with the alternative.
We would also agree each human being in these scenarios are all persons.  Just because one may choose the 5 year old doesnt make the others not persons.

Lastly, one mroe scenario.

Save 5 women or 5 pregant women.

A majority of people would choose the pregnant women as they would deem more life to be saved.

Clear enough for you?

Dee

@MichaelElpers

The argument leaves factors out that need answered, additionally even if I choose the 5 year old girl this doesnt prove the embryos are not persons.

No it doesnt really  it's straightforward enough. Well it certainly does from where I'm sitting because if you believed your assertions for one minute you wouldn't hesitate at saving one person over a 1000 persons would you?

Tell me also how an embryo has " personhood" as that term is broadly understood?

When determining whether to take the toddler or the embryos I need to know what is likely to come of the embryos. Are they to stay in frozen storage just to be tested on , or are they embryos that are actively in developmental process similar to that of developing in the womb?

If it is the latter I would save the embryos.

Really? I would dearly love to test that scenario, you would be disowned by all and destroyed by media for such a decision.

 I wouldnt save embryos that are artificially being kept from ever seing the light of day.

OK 

Next ill pose some other scenarios that show this doesnt prove embryos arent persons. Again choose which to save.

1. 2 100 year olds or 5 year old

2. 2 people with terminal illness or 5 year old.

3. 1 40 year old male or a 5 year old girl.

4. 2 patients in a coma or the 5 year old.


How does this in any way prove embryos are persons?

I think you need to look up the terms person " and  personhood , then explain to me how a fetus fulfills the 5  qualities of personhood?

In all of these scenarios many would choose the 5 year old even though more or equal lives would be saved with the alternative.

We would also agree each human being in these scenarios are all persons. Just because one may choose the 5 year old doesnt make the others not persons.


Yes becuase we all know what a person is unless we pretend otherwise,  either way it's irrelevant. 

I place more value on one of my children to one of yours if it came to saving one are you any different?

Value judgements are reliant on various factors.

Lastly, one mroe scenario.

Save 5 women or 5 pregant women.

I'd personally toss a coin.

A majority of people would choose the pregnant women as they would deem more life to be saved.

I've never been swayed by majority views

Clear enough for you?

What's clear enough for me is the fact you use language in a very strange way in order to make emotional arguments , it seems that you totally misunderstand the terms person and personhood , clear enough for you?

MichaelElpers

@Dee

Why would i care if im disowned by media?  You yourself stated youre not swayed by majority opinion.  In that case maybe dont use it for argumentation.

You stated i didnt prove a fetus was a person.  Thats true because thats not what i was attempting to disprove.  I was responding to argumentation that you opened up that just because you may save a 5 year old over multiple fetuses proves they are not persons.
I proved this doesnt dismiss them as persons.

There are many philsophical theories and reasons on what defines a person/personhood.  Id argue an entity with natural inherent capability to give rise to human function that maintains it identity through developmental change.  A fetus meets this definition.

Im not sure how i used language in a strange way? Care to provide an example?

Dee

@MichaelElpers


hy would i care if im disowned by media? You yourself stated youre not swayed by majority opinion. In that case maybe dont use it for argumentation.

I don't nor ever have used majority opinion to sway me.

You stated i didnt prove a fetus was a person


Thats true because thats not what i was attempting to disprove. I was responding to argumentation that you opened up that just because you may save a 5 year old over multiple fetuses proves they are not persons.

It certainly does because in a real world situation you like everyone would save the 5 year old.

I proved this doesnt dismiss them as persons.

No , you actually didn't.

There are many philsophical theories and reasons on what defines a person/personhood

Really? Does each define personhood as  having five different qualities?

. Id argue an entity with natural inherent capability to give rise to human function that maintains it identity through developmental change. A fetus meets this definition.

That's still not a person as it fails to meet the criteria of such , either way so what if we granted a fetus was a person it's irrelevant. 

Im not sure how i used language in a strange way? Care to provide an example?

Yes,  tell me the how you define  the terms " person " and " personhood"?

just_sayin

Dee said:

@just_sayin


You study philosophy - I take a modified Aristotlean view of being and value.  He believed that value was not external to the thing itself, but that all value comes from within the thing itself.


Aristoltles views on a lot of things are skewed to say the least.

That makes no sense all , assessments of value come from thinking agents ,a flowers value cannot come from the flower itself  as its a purely subjective opinion which a flower is incapable of having.


Your concept of value seems to depend on what someone else decides you are worth.  

Do you value everyone equally or do you make value judgements based on various criteria?

Also you're a christian so will  you accept God's concept of what you are worth?


These personhood arguments are associated with the most evil actions history has to offer.  

Which would include religious assessments of such also.

Therefore the claim that sentience is what determines someone's value is invalid.

So would you place a higher value on  a fetus over a 2 year old chimp? If yes why?

What determines someones value in your opinion? Let's test your assertions with the challenge below.......

Patrick S.Tomlison challenged one of the central notions used by pro - lifers as  'Life begins at Conception' . In ten years, no one has EVER answered it honestly,” Tomlinson tweeted.

He goes on to explain a scenario whereby you are in a fertility clinic when the fire alarm goes off. Before you escape, you have the option to save either a five-year-old child who is pleading for help, or a container of 1000 viable human embryos.

“Do you A) save the child, or save the thousand embryos?“ he asks.

“There is no 'C.' 'C' means you all die.”

I don't know who Patrick S Tomilson is.  The question asked though has been around for some time and is pretty easy to respond to.  There is a psychological phenomenon underlying it that is covered in 100 level courses in ethics and human behavior.  Most people would indeed save the 5 year old child rather than save 1000 embryos.  However, that has more to do with the psychological phenomenon of proximity and human experience rather than 'they instinctively knew the 5 year old was more valuable.'  We feel more strongly towards that which we have a more personal connection with.  For example, my neighbors puppies ran out into the road and were killed this weekend.  My neighbor was in hysterics.  We live in a suburb of DC, and I doubt that she cried like that for the 200 plus homicides in DC this year.  Does that mean her 2 puppies are worth more than 200 people killed?  No.  She had a personal connection to the puppies which influenced her response.

Let's use another example.  Let's say a building is on fire and I can only save either my cat, Cheddar, or Dee.  Who do I save?  If I'm honest with myself, the outcome would most likely be that Cheddar would be sitting beside me purring, and Dee's family would be looking for his will.  Now before you think bad of me, know that a lot of people would do the same.  From the Wall Street Journal:

A recent paper by Richard Topolski at George Regents University and colleagues, published in the journal Anthrozoos, demonstrates this human involvement with pets to a startling extent. Participants in the study were told a hypothetical scenario in which a bus is hurtling out of control, bearing down on a dog and a human. Which do you save? With responses from more than 500 people, the answer was that it depended: What kind of human and what kind of dog?

Everyone would save a sibling, grandparent or close friend rather than a strange dog. But when people considered their own dog versus people less connected with them—a distant cousin or a hometown stranger—votes in favor of saving the dog came rolling in. And an astonishing 40 percent of respondents, including 46 percent of women, voted to save their dog over a foreign tourist. 

Now, is a cat more valuable than Dee?  I know its a loaded question, but since Dee is allegedly human,   the logical response is Dee is worth more.  However, the question posed, is not really about which is logically more valuable, but how emotions and connections impact decision making.  If it were really a question of value, Dee might be alive.  

The reverse scenario of the question posed is really the much more common one though.  A woman, who has been pregnant for a short time, is informed by her doctor that her child has died in the womb.  She sobs and is very upset.  Much more for a child she never saw and met than for other children she saw on tv or knew casually.  If the scenario real tells you who is more important, then her unborn child is more important than other people's kids.

In reality the question you put forth, is not measuring the value of a 5 year old child or 1000 embryos, but measuring the emotional attachment one has to the different beings.  The 5 year old is there and we can better identify with her.  We see her and recognize her humanness.  We can conceive of her response if we save her.  The 1000 embryos may not even look human.  They can't talk or respond to us.  So it makes sense you'd have less of an emotional connection to them.  That does not mean they are less valuable though.  That is a faulty assumption of the question.

If our engagement on this question were described as one would a deathmatch, what has happened is you took a punch at me, with what you thought was a 'gotcha' question.  I blocked your punch, and then ripped the arm you tried to punch me with off, and then beat you with it, until you passed out.  Please feel free to share this post with your friend.  

Dee

@just_sayin


 I don't know who Patrick S Tomilson is.  The question asked though has been around for some time and is pretty easy to respond to.  There is a psychological phenomenon underlying it that is covered in 100 level courses in ethics and human behavior.  Most people would indeed save the 5 year old child rather than save 1000 embryos. 

How do you know what most people would do? Michael Elpers a fellow Christian claims he would save the 1,000.

You have no way of knowing what most people would do.

 However, that has more to do with the psychological phenomenon of proximity and human experience rather than 'they instinctively knew the 5 year old was more valuable.' 

It has to do with value and how we place value according to various criteria., 


 We feel more strongly towards that which we have a more personal connection with.  For example, my neighbors puppies ran out into the road and were killed this weekend.  My neighbor was in hysterics.  We live in a suburb of DC, and I doubt that she cried like that for the 200 plus homicides in DC this year.  Does that mean her 2 puppies are worth more than 200 people killed? 

I don't know what it means to her nor do you

 No.  She had a personal connection to the puppies which influenced her response.

Of course,  what personal connection would you have with a 5 year old child you never met before?

Let's use another example.  Let's say a building is on fire and I can only save either my cat, Cheddar, or Dee.  Who do I save?

Well you're an American Christian who seems to hate a lot of people and most anyone who disagrees with you so I would guess the cat is safe and I'm toast , no worries I've never seen anything that comes close to American christians hate.

  If I'm honest with myself, the outcome would most likely be that Cheddar would be sitting beside me purring, and Dee's family would be looking for his will.  Now before you think bad of me, know that a lot of people would do the same.  From the Wall Street Journal:

Yet you said your neighbour would save people over puppies , I get it you hate me that's fine it's the way you were brought up it will eventually consume you.


Now, is a cat more valuable than Dee? I know its a loaded question, but since Dee is allegedly human, the logical response is Dee is worth more.

Let that hate out is  not good holding onto it.


 However, the question posed, is not really about which is logically more valuable, but how emotions and connections impact decision making. If it were really a question of value, Dee might be alive.  

I'm afraid it is about value and of course emotions effect evaluations of such.

The reverse scenario of the question posed is really the much more common one though. A woman, who has been pregnant for a short time, is informed by her doctor that her child has died in the womb. She sobs and is very upset. Much more for a child she never saw and met than for other children she saw on tv or knew casually. If the scenario real tells you who is more important, then her unborn child is more important than other people's kids.

Yes because no doubt she wants the child is she was planning on abortion I would safely say her response would be relief.

In reality the question you put forth, is not measuring the value of a 5 year old child or 1000 embryos, but measuring the emotional attachment one has to the different beings.

Value judgements are all based on subjective opinions which vary from person to person.

 The 5 year old is there and we can better identify with her. We see her and recognize her humanness. We can conceive of her response if we save her. The 1000 embryos may not even look human. They can't talk or respond to us. So it makes sense you'd have less of an emotional connection to them. That does not mean they are less valuable though. That is a faulty assumption of the question.

There's no faulty assumption at all you've never seen the 5 year old before , so you do in fact value a 1,000 lives one 1 because of an emotional response as in you can perceive the child in front of you right?


If our engagement on this question were described as one would a deathmatch, what has happened is you took a punch at me, with what you thought was a 'gotcha' question. I blocked your punch, and then ripped the arm you tried to punch me with off, and then beat you with it, until you passed out.

Actually I was hoping for  a conversation on the topic which unfortunately you're not remotely interested in as all debate seems to be an exercise in you stroking your ego.


 Please feel free to share this post with your friend. 

I have no friend B 

just_sayin

@Dee
I get it you hate me that's fine the reverse is not true as I would save you over a cat as that's the way I am.

I don't hate you.  Hate requires an immense amount of emotional energy and I just can't afford to waste that kind of energy on you.  Sorry, Dee, the best you can get from me is a 'meh'.  Maybe if I knew you better you would merit hating.  But right now, I am not willing to hate you.  

I'm glad you would save me.  The question is about emotional attachments Dee, so don't feel too rejected.  I am very close to my cat, and I just don't know much about you.

Actually I was hoping for  a conversation on the topic which unfortunately you're not remotely interested in as all debate seems to be an exercise in you stroking your ego.

That's awesome that you want a conversation.  Can you explain to me why it would OK to kill an unborn child who could survive outside of the womb?  The Democrat Party supports abortion up until birth, or afterwards if there is a botched abortion.  I've always thought, even for pro-baby killing persons that this was an extreme position.

Openminded

Argument Topic: Can you explain to me why it would OK to kill an unborn child who could survive outside of the womb? The Democrat Party supports abortion up until birth, or afterwards if there is a botched abortion.

@just_sayin
The democrat party only supports abortion up until birth if the baby has NO chance of survival AND/OR the motherś life is at risk. To say that democrats supports abortion AFTER birth is ridiculous and a right-wing extremist propaganda point. This type of propaganda pushing is what divides us. 65% of abortions are performed at 9 weeks. 88% of abortions are performed between 9-12 weeks. 1.3% of abortions are performed after 21 weeks. The fetus is still developing before 12 weeks and is not anywhere near personhood. It is not until the last trimester that the baby can feel any pain as the brain steam is not fully developed until then. So much misinformation posted. Please do your due diligence and research your argument. Sensationalizing, exaggerating and pushing false information further divides our country.

https://prolifeaction.org/fact/abortionsstagepregnancy/

https://www.statesman.com/story/news/politics/elections/2020/02/27/fact-check-do-democrats-support-abortion-up-until-and-after-birth/984338007/

Dee

@just_sayin

I don't hate you. Hate requires an immense amount of emotional energy and I just can't afford to waste that kind of energy on you.

To leave a fellow human in a burning building to burn to death is pretty hateful.

. Sorry, Dee, the best you can get from me is a 'meh'.

Why are you sorry? You're a complete stranger to me so I wouldn't expect much more especially since you're an American  "christian."

 Maybe if I knew you better you would merit hating. But right now, I am not willing to hate you.  

I'd say you have enough hate on your list to be getting on with.

I'm glad you would save me. The question is about emotional attachments Dee, so don't feel too rejected.

I don't feel to rejected to be fair ,  if an atheist and an American Christian were outside the burning building the American christian would ask " do you believe in the American  Protestant god  that carries a gun , hates the poor , sick and homeless and thinks Donald Trump a perfect christian?"  , "no" ..,..." sorry burn in Hell" 

 I am very close to my cat, and I just don't know much about you.

Hope it's a christian cat , the Atheist ones are problematic.

That's awesome that you want a conversation. Can you explain to me why it would OK to kill an unborn child who could survive outside of the womb?

Ask the woman doing it , who are the women doing It?


 The Democrat Party supports abortion up until birth, or afterwards if there is a botched abortion

I'm not American and couldn't give a flying f-ck about Americas ridiculous two party politics where one party is grossly immoral , greedy and corrupt  and the other is just the same.


According to Fact Check org you're lying.



. I've always thought, even for pro-baby killing persons that this was an extreme position.

So do I so does Fact Check org 

John_C_87

@just_sayin
Can you explain to me why it would OK to kill an unborn child who could survive outside of the womb

I could but then I would be committing a crime relating to a patient’s privacy. Can you tell me why no one here can literally understand right from crime?

just_sayin

Openminded said:

@just_sayin
The democrat party only supports abortion up until birth if the baby has NO chance of survival AND/OR the motherś life is at risk. To say that democrats supports abortion AFTER birth is ridiculous and a right-wing extremist propaganda point. This type of propaganda pushing is what divides us. 65% of abortions are performed at 9 weeks. 88% of abortions are performed between 9-12 weeks. 1.3% of abortions are performed after 21 weeks. The fetus is still developing before 12 weeks and is not anywhere near personhood. It is not until the last trimester that the baby can feel any pain as the brain steam is not fully developed until then. So much misinformation posted. Please do your due diligence and research your argument. Sensationalizing, exaggerating and pushing false information further divides our country.

https://prolifeaction.org/fact/abortionsstagepregnancy/

https://www.statesman.com/story/news/politics/elections/2020/02/27/fact-check-do-democrats-support-abortion-up-until-and-after-birth/984338007/

You are mistaken on your party's pro-baby killing position.  There are no limits placed on it.  Please see the DNC platform:

https://democrats.org/where-we-stand/party-platform/

There are only 5 mentions of abortion in it (open the PDF link and search for yourself).  There are no restrictions ever mentioned on abortion.

Your comments imply that since late term abortions after 21 weeks are a small percentage of abortions (1.3% according to Guttmacher Institute) that its OK to kill these babies.  That's 11.,210 baby killings a year where the child is likely to be able to live outside of the progenitor's womb.  

So to recap - you support your parties pro-racist support of Affirmative Action.  You support the pro-pedophile/anti-parent positions of the Democrat party.  You support a party that is OK with killing 11,210 babies a year that could survive outside the womb.  Is there any evil thing that you wouldn't vote for the Democrats for?

John_C_87

@just_sayin

You are both in the same political party it is the republican part. The political issue is you are snowballing the United States Constitutional Right as law with a criminal law issue.

Right as law. Crime as law. Why do you insist the scales of Justice in America only holds Innocence and guilt? Was it something your learned somewhere?

Ive got to take a break i'm not use to being the only one right it is a thankless and hard job.