Patience Wearing Thin

[Cure of Ars]

I need help on responding to this. The problem is that it is such a idiotic comment that I am having a hard time not being a smart @$$.

[quote]
Your ill use of logic astounds me, Cure.

Babies, children, are born, they have entered into the world and breathe air, just as you and I do. They do not exist as the entities, babies, children, before the moment of birth, the moment of separation from the womb, the moment of separation from the necessity of depending upon another human body for every aspect of existence. When they exist in and of themselves without the shelter of the womb they exist as babies, children.

Also, your language is inflammatory, calculated to incite hatred and disgust.
[/quote]

[url="http://prochoicetalk.com/message-board-forum/viewtopic.php?t=851"]http://prochoicetalk.com/message-board-for...topic.php?t=851[/url]

So answers that are not condescending and sarcastic would be appreciated. I think basically I need to take a time out and do some praying.

[Theoketos]

Holy cow this is hot enviroment.


I will see what I can do!

[Fides_et_Ratio]

[quote]the moment of separation from the necessity of depending upon another human body for every aspect of existence[/quote]
So if mom leaves baby alone for a week, baby will still exist? This guy must know some miraculous babies!

[daugher-of-Mary]

I don't know if it would help any, but have you thought of posting the new ultrasound pictures...baby "walking in the womb", etc. I read in NCRegister that those pictures are the reason Brittish courts are debating moving legal abortions from 24 weeks to 12 weeks. At least a small step in the right direction.

[Theoketos]

It is an interesting thing to see the other point of view.

[Sojourner]

Personally, I think it's interesting that in our legal system, the nature of a baby in the womb is dependent on the will of the mother.

It's OK to abort that child if the mother wants to abort it, but as long as the mother wants the child it is considered a child. So, if a pregnant woman who wants to keep her child is attacked and the baby is killed, the attacker can be charged with feticide (it's not the equivalent of murder, but is still a "crime against a person" rather than "crime against property"). This is true with regard to federal law; I'm not sure about laws in individual states. In Indiana, that's how the law reads.

In other words, the personhood of the child is determined by the will of the mother. How is that in any way logical?

[phatcatholic]

the key to answer this person lies in using some more of that "astounding logic"

[quote]Babies, children, are born, they have entered into the world and breathe air, just as you and I do. [/quote]
agreed

[quote]They do not exist as the entities, babies, children, before the moment of birth, the moment of separation from the womb, the moment of separation from the necessity of depending upon another human body for every aspect of existence. [/quote]
fides has already hinted at where this person's logic begins to fail. this person assumes that, once the baby is born he is no longer dependent upon the mother and is therefore human. this is illogical on many counts. this person defines "human-ness" based on rather or not a person depends on someone else, her claim being that if someone can live w/o depending on another person then he is human. but, even infants and toddlers who are quite removed from the womb still depend on the mother for their most basic needs. w/o the mother they will sure die. also, what of severly mentally-handicapped individuals, even those who are as old as you and i? are they not human, are they not persons b/c they depend on others? would her logic likewise extend to the elderly who, as they get older, must rely more and more on others--especially those w/ alzheimer's?

to many people, their logic seems sound b/c they never take it beyond the first step and to its necessary conclusions. once you can show her how flawed her logic is, then she will understand your point-of-view

[quote]When they exist in and of themselves without the shelter of the womb they exist as babies, children. [/quote]
how much of the baby must exist outside the womb for it to be considered a person? what if the head was outside, but the rest of the body remained inside? would this be a child? also, how could a being only be human outside of the womb when only seconds beforehand that same being was inside the womb? every function and essence of that being is the same:

--same in age (differing only be seconds!)
--same in physical development
--same in size and shape

we are dealing w/ the same being here. the only difference is location. how could crossing the threshold from outside to inside possibly make someone finally a person, when that someone is essentially the same rather he is inside or outside?

don't add this, but i really think many people will go to great lengths--including adopting severly flawed logic--just to hold on to their precious "choice." UGH! give me a break.....

anyway, ask her to define works like:
--personhood
--human being
--entity
--child

when does a person become a person? what makes up a person?

--is your opponent a christian? to christians, a person is formed when the spiritual is united to the physical, when a human cell takes on a soul, at the moment of conception. have her define when a person becomes a person.

when does a human become a human? what makes a human truly human?

--i doubt this person has really sat down and thought out the definitions to these questions. so, asking him/her to define them once and for all may help.

[quote]Also, your language is inflammatory, calculated to incite hatred and disgust.[/quote]
if this is indeed the case, then you must remind yourself to always respond w/ charity. also, it is wise to take a step back and let it sit if you find yourself getting frustrated.

i hope this helps.......pax christi,
phatcatholic

[Cure of Ars]

Ok here is my response. I wanted to wait for your comments before I post this;

[quote][quote]

Your ill use of logic astounds me, Cure.

Babies, children, are born, they have entered into the world and breathe air, just as you and I do. They do not exist as the entities, babies, children, before the moment of birth, the moment of separation from the womb, the moment of separation from the necessity of depending upon another human body for every aspect of existence. When they exist in and of themselves without the shelter of the womb they exist as babies, children.

Also, your language is inflammatory, calculated to incite hatred and disgust.[/quote]


The important question is when does a human become a person?

Your answer to the personhood question, tell me if I’m wrong, depends on three aspects.

1. The human fetus is not a person because it is a part of the mother.
2. The human fetus is not a person because it is not outside the mother.
3. The human fetus is not a person because it is not able to do things that make it so that it is totally dependent on the mother.



Your first answer is wrong because a fetus is connected to the mother but it is not a part of the Mother. If the fetus’s body belonged to the mother’s body then a mother would have four eyes, four legs, four arms, and if the fetus was a male the mother would have a penis, but this is absurd. The fetus is connected to the mother but it is a distinct being. It has it’s own distinct DNA that does not belong to the mother. The fetus is connected to its mother but the Fetus’s body is not its mother’s body.

Your second answer is wrong because location does not substantially change who the fetus is. Is a half born baby a half person? If the baby is removed by C-section, (which causes the baby to be a person) and then placed back into the womb, would the baby then turn back into a non-person? During intercourse does a man become less a person (because of his location), but after sex becomes a full person again? This idea is all very silly.

Your third answer is confusing personhood with functionality. It confuses the doer with the doing. Humans have dignity because of who they are, not what they can do. If I loose the ability to breath, by my own power, and need the aid of a machine to breath, does this make me any less of a person? When I go to sleep, do I become less of a person? If I get hit by a car and go into a coma, do I become less of a person? Another problem with defining personhood with functionalism is that there is not a logical argument that would exclude infanticide. Premature babies that are not able to breath on their own, could logically be killed using the definition of functionality. It degrades people to see them as what they can do and not by who they are.

So what is the right answer?

Abortion, to rationalize its behavior had to make a new category of humans, non-person humans as apposed to human persons. But in truth all humans are persons.

There first must be a person that was able to grow into doing personal acts, not the other way around. Acts do not make persons, persons make acts. All human beings from the moment of conception are persons. Humans are made in the image of God from the moment of conception and because of this it is a great evil to destroy human life.

You are right in part, that my language is calculated to cause hate. We should hate evil things. But I do not try to have people hate people. My language is calculated to cause disgust because the truth of abortion is disgusting. Look at pictures of the fact of what happens after an abortion. It is all a very disgusting thing. We both have good motives but it is not possible for us both to be doing good. God bless[/quote]

Tell me what you think, good enough?

Edited July 25, 2004 by Cure of Ars

[Colleen]

I think it's awesome! There was just one thing. Did you mean to say this:

[quote]You are right in part, that my language is calculated to cause hate. We should hate evil things. [i]But I do try to have people hate people. [/i][/quote]

Otherwise, I think it's an excellent response.

[Cure of Ars]

[quote name='Colleen' date='Jul 25 2004, 04:58 PM'] I think it's awesome! There was just one thing. Did you mean to say this:



Otherwise, I think it's an excellent response.   [/quote]
I hope that was not a Freudain slip. I don't want people to hate other people. Thanks, your probably saved me some explaining. Thanks much

Edited July 25, 2004 by Cure of Ars

[Colleen]

[quote name='Cure of Ars' date='Jul 25 2004, 05:03 PM'] I hope that was not a Freudain slip. I don't want people to hate other people. Thanks, your probably saved me some explaining. Thanks much [/quote]
You're welcome. Glad I could help.

[cmotherofpirl]

You might also put it this way.
Is a baby born at 30 weeks more human or less human than a baby born at 40 weeks?

What part of the trip thru the birth canal magically turns a baby into a human?

[Cure of Ars]

Thank you everyone for the input.

[phatcatholic]

her third premise should read "independent of " not "dependent on"

--3. The human fetus is not a person because it is not able to do things that make it so that it is totally independent of the mother.

to ur opponent, it is not a person b/c it is unable to be independent

[curtins]

CURE!!!! REINFORCEMENTS HAVE ARIVED!!!! IN THE FORM OF CURTINS!!!!!