If Abortion Becomes Illegal

[dairygirl4u2c]

who knows, whether it's premature ending of human persons. human life yes, human persons no. that's the main underlying premise.

since no one knows,,, and reasonable people can disagree (in my opinion) for some arbotion if that's the case,,, we should respect their position, cause their position has merit to it.
if it were irrefutably the case that it's a person... we wouldn't and shouldn't repsect their position.

i mean, i think a catholic could say... it's a human life,,, but still think the punishment be less.

to me there's always a question of what to do with the uncertainty. to me, we outlaw it, too much risk. i can see how the choice argument works though... and i acknowledge the uncertainty and their arguments points,,, so i say, let the punishment illustrate that uncertainty.

i mean... i guess i coudl see one, acnknowledging there's uncertainty, but still thinking we should punish jsut the same. i just don't see how. i think it's a fundamental difference of opinion after all arguments are made, as per people who acknowledge the uncertainy but insist we punish.

[geetarplayer]

It is wrong to deliberately kill an innocent person, especially brutally as in the case of abortion. Abortion should be punishable by jail time or community service as previously stated, depending on the case.

dairygirl, I am curious as to your qualifications for determining whether a living human is a person or not. Who are the human nonpersons, and when do they get to become persons?

[CatherineM]

I'm actually old enough to remember things from before Roe v. Wade. Women rarely got prosecuted. This was partially because the only time they became known to the authorities was when they had a bad result, and ended up in the hospital. The cops were more interested in catching the abortionists. Ones that were done in hospitals, weren't looked at at all. My mother was scheduled for one, in a catholic hospital with a catholic doctor, with me because they thought she'd die carrying me. When she felt me start kicking, she couldn't go through with it. I'm obviously still alive, and so is she, although missing a bunch of original parts.

I suspect that if they made abortions illegal again, that very little enforcement would go on. Cops wouldn't bother with it. Abortionists would set up in border areas in Canada and Mexico, and people would volunteer to escort girls across to get them.

[Vincent Vega]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1617744' date='Aug 4 2008, 11:19 PM']who knows, whether it's premature ending of human persons. human life yes, human persons no. that's the main underlying premise.

since no one knows,,, and reasonable people can disagree (in my opinion) for some arbotion if that's the case,,, we should respect their position, cause their position has merit to it.
if it were irrefutably the case that it's a person... we wouldn't and shouldn't repsect their position.

i mean, i think a catholic could say... it's a human life,,, but still think the punishment be less.

to me there's always a question of what to do with the uncertainty. to me, we outlaw it, too much risk. i can see how the choice argument works though... and i acknowledge the uncertainty and their arguments points,,, so i say, let the punishment illustrate that uncertainty.

i mean... i guess i coudl see one, acnknowledging there's uncertainty, but still thinking we should punish jsut the same. i just don't see how. i think it's a fundamental difference of opinion after all arguments are made, as per people who acknowledge the uncertainy but insist we punish.[/quote]
Well...look at it this way -
It's got to be a human person. Human people only beget human people. Humans never beget dogs or trees, etc. Humans are only begotten from human people. Humans are never spawned from dogs, et al. This in mind, it only follows that a foetus must be a human person, as humans neither beget, nor develop from not-humans. Look at a caterpillar. Yes, it's in a different form now then once it undergoes metamorphosis and becomes a butterfly, but it is still the same creature and species and so forth. The only difference is the look of it. Was that clear? It seemed a lot like verbal diarrhea. lol.

[dairygirl4u2c]

the main points as per personhood. i hope i'm not missing anything, cause there's a ton of stuff in my essays etc. i'll bump onea those threads.

you have a snowball. you have a block. a snow ball isn't a snowman, and a block isn't a transformer. a cell isn't necessarily a person. at what point doesn't it become one? who know? when is a snow man a snow man etc?
on the other hand... it could be that the cell is as you guys say... one and the same at all points, just differnt forms.
isn't it possible that it's just a cell, in the sense of a block?

take an egg. i don't think i killed a chicken when i eat an egg, or kill an acorn tree when i smash an acorn. (aside from the literal fact that i didn't kill a large chicken etc)
on the other hand... when, an analogy i heard not long ago... when i see a seed sprouting,, i tend to think it's a plant.
basically.. my inituion,, like most peoples,, doesn't count for much. common sense isn't too common, cause it's too volatile.
so looking at it purely logically... and htere's more philoshiopcal arguemsn etc... it's an open question. in my mind.

[HisChildForever]

[quote]later term abortions should have higher penalties up to capital murder.[/quote]

Why? Do you consider the baby to be "more human" at 7 months (in the womb) rather than at 2 months (in the womb)?

When sperm and egg collide, the life of a human being begins. That's my argument, at least. I believe that the soul is created when this occurs. Just because the baby looks more like a person at 7 months and not 2 months doesn't make the baby any less a person.

[dairygirl4u2c]

i mean, the block and cell arguments are the answer to the 1 and 7 month distinction. there's no resting on the mere fact that it looks human, only.
i think what you're doing... is what a lot of people do,, like if you look at that thread i bumped. they ask the question rhetorically,,, when does it become a life,,, and they think that by asking the question, they've answered it, that it must be continuous.
that's not the case though, it could be like the block analogy. i'm not saying it can't be continuous, i'm saying it's uncertain.

people point out that we might question whether someone on a ventilator is a person,,,, at certain points, when machines are attached maybe they're not. but when it's clearer,,, simply pointing out violations when it's clear the facts, doesn't prove the answers to the situation with abortion early on.

[dairygirl4u2c]

these are all things i put in that thread that i bumped. if you notice, everyone who commented after me, basically just rgued things i already addressed.
so i remained to the position that it's uncertain. personhood.

the essay is a little dense, you'll have that with philo essays. and a little chopper at times, you'll ahve that too. i have to balance effective communication with time managmeent.

[Deb]

For the sake of those who do not believe that the spark of life is not created at conception, a baby has a heartbeat at 18 days. Killing it is murder.

When abortion becomes illegal, those who have abortions should be charged as an accomplice to premeditated murder.

[dairygirl4u2c]

also... some important points.
what is the difference between a cell and the early cell as per an organism? i genunitely don't know. other than the idea that the early one is unique and separate, its own entity. it must be stem cells, that have hormones or something that direct it. but stem cells are not uncommon in a human either. basically,,, it seems like you could probably call it an organism by scientific definitions, but you could also call it a cell. there's no organisms that grow into greater ones, other than in the formation process, so there's no direct analogies.
and when its all said and done... if you formalistically, which is all it'd be, call it an organism... it's still a human organism at its unicellular state,,, not a human person at a significant state.
all you guys insisting its a person, are overlooking the common sense idea that, hey,,,, its a cell.
so at least before the heartbeat it's more debatable.
even at the heart beat though... it's a human organism at the the state of a heart,,,, it's basically a heart and a little exra stuff. a heart isn't a person, that's common sense.
now... wiht that said... the definitions are so random, and there's so many variables, that it could be truly and fully be considered a human person. common sense isn't so common. it's uncertain.

[dairygirl4u2c]

i can see people thinking the not certain, not person folks are conflating the person arguments with soul etc.

that's not the case. the reason i said we could call it person but at an insignificant stage,, is because i recoginze that formalistically you can call it an organism. if an organism, you culd conceivably call it a person. aside from the soul stuff... it's not necessarily a significant stage,,, because a cell is not signifcant like a full person, and a heart is not significant like a full person, in terms of murder, purely in the physical sense.


like i said in my convoluted essay in the first page, the purely biologically wihtout the sol stuff, looking at it with faith,,, you wouldn't think God would cause half the persons that are significant to die,,, you wouldn't think he'd allow a perosn that's significant to split into two persons. it harms their dignity.
the soul stuff only makes that case stronger, cause if there's a soul, their dignity means all the much more.

so really... you can call it a person by a formalistic reasoning,, but the leap of logic involved in putting women in jail for fifty years as if it's the same thing... is that,,, a heart isn't necessarily a person and a cell isn't either, not necessarily significant.
the people who say it's all the same, are relying on arbitrary distictions. you're going to treat someone the same as who killed a person full formed,,, as someone who killed a being that can only be classified by argibtrary disctionctions?
you're going to treat killing a cell the same as killing a fully formed person, as if they are necessarily the same?

[dairygirl4u2c]

a cell, a heart,,, isn't necessarily significant,,, yet people who want to put them away for murder, are treating them as if they are, necessarily.

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1618240' date='Aug 5 2008, 01:04 PM']a cell, a heart,,, isn't necessarily significant,,, yet people who want to put them away for murder, are treating them as if they are, necessarily.[/quote]

A person is a soul if they have but a heart or a cell.

[dairygirl4u2c]

as per the soul stuff... even the catholic church doesn't necessarily agree with you that there's always a soul. it's an open question that even catholics debate, the soul point.

as i said in these threads... it dosn't seem like God would kill off half the cells that die post conception and preimplantation as he does, if they had soulds in them.
it doesn't seem like he'd caused cells that split into twins etc,,, as he does,, if there was a soul in the first. were there two souls in it, were there one?
anyways, the soul point... even the CC doesn't necessarily agree with you.


step back and think. is a cell significant like a person? is a heart significant like a person? maybe, maybe not. should we treat them the same, simply cause we can call it an organism or if it makes you happy a person by a formalistic definition?
really, step back and think. if the truth is that it's ambiguous, then that's the truth. swallow the truth pill. maybe in one's own little world a cell is a significant person, maybe a heart is signifantly a person,,,, but on the planet earth, a cell or a heart, is not a person.

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1618245' date='Aug 5 2008, 01:15 PM']as per the soul stuff... even the catholic church doesn't necessarily agree with you that there's always a soul. it's an open question that even catholics debate, the soul point.[/quote]

Source?