Pro Choice

[Sirklawd]

[quote name='rizz_loves_jesus' post='1718686' date='Dec 4 2008, 12:06 PM']Personhood isn't subjective, it's objective. That's my point. I'm not trying to stir emotion, I'm saying that someone shouldn't be able to kill a human being simply because THEY THEMSELVES don't believe their victim is a person. Conception is the only logical time personhood can be established, because nothing is created at birth- the newborn baby is exactly the same baby it was 9 month in the womb.[/quote]

right here is the key to the whole arguement.

for those who like to confuse the definition of the word "person", lets get rid of it and replace it with the entirely more appropriate word "human".

It is wrong to kill humans.

Humans are created at conception.

Feel free to disagree with the first one. I will be happy to make you an example of your belief.

But you cant disagree with the 2nd. Even science knows this one to be true.

we all clear now?

Edited December 4, 2008 by Sirklawd

[dairygirl4u2c]

no we're not clear.

if you mean, that your argument is necessarily right, scientifically, then you're wrong that it's necessarily right.
it's only plausible, reasonable.
if you think you're probably right, i don't mind that argument.
if yiou think it's absolutely right, i think it's a reasonable psoition, i just disagree.

scientifically, it could be merely a cell. is a block or a snowball a transformer or a snowman? no, it's not. at what point doesa bunch of snowballs or blocks become a transformer or a snowman? it's gray. is a cell then a person scientifically, and without regard to the question of a soul? maybe, maybe not. the block and snowball might be anaologous or it might not be. it's a mystery.
i think someone arguing that is is or isn't a person scientifically though, has a valid and reasonable argument.
merely asking rhetorically when does it become life, isn't answering thequestion. it'd be like arguing "when does the snowman ebcome a snowman? therefore, a snowball is a snowman."

if it's a reasonabel argument,and given that i value personal liberty, i'd argue that a person who thinks it's not a person or doesnt' know has a reasonabel position to say taht they'd value personal choice in the matter above reasonably disputed human life. should the gov decide if it's reasonably disputed?arguably not. each person has just as much merit as anyone else, as per libertarian ideology, to say what they think,and as per subsidiarity, the person closest to the problem should address it. and, we didn't go around checking out other people's caves or homes back when we were a more rudimentary society, to see if they had an aborotion. its arguably teh natural law. we don't ban all sins, either necessarily.
personally, i'd put the burden of doubt in favor of life and ban it all. irregardless of my respect for their position, and irregardless that they ahve a valid argument.

i dont' think killing a baby three seconds before it comes out is valid or reasonable. at what point does it become valid? who knows. that's why i'd defer to no abortion as a matter of law. or at least make a point that's clearly reasonably disputed and draw the line there with all the gray area banned. or at LEAST when it'sobviously a person later in pregnancy.

but just because you can ask a question rhetorically, doesn't mean it's answered.

and just because you can point out DNA and a liine between the cell and person later one, doesn't eman the cell isn't any different than anotehr cell in any *necessarily* meaningful way.

Edited December 4, 2008 by dairygirl4u2c

[Socrates]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1718773' date='Dec 4 2008, 02:56 PM']scientifically, it could be merely a cell. is a block or a snowball a transformer or a snowman? no, it's not. at what point doesa bunch of snowballs or blocks become a transformer or a snowman? it's gray. is a cell then a person scientifically, and without regard to the question of a soul? maybe, maybe not. the block and snowball might be anaologous or it might not be. it's a mystery.
i think someone arguing that is is or isn't a person scientifically though, has a valid and reasonable argument.
merely asking rhetorically when does it become life, isn't answering thequestion. it'd be like arguing "when does the snowman ebcome a snowman? therefore, a snowball is a snowman."[/quote]
We've been over this "snowman" nonsense before, and it still is indeed a poor example, and reflects sloppy philosophy.

The difference is a human being is a living being, while a snowman is not.
A human being begins its life at conception - that's a scientific fact.
Its substance does not change - it remains the same human being, though it grows and develops (a process which does not end at birth, incidentally).
The snowman, on the other hand, in essence, remains just a ball of snow. It does not become an actual living being (unless we're talking Frosty the Snowman).

To argue that an unborn human being is something other than a human being at some point, at some point what it was before would have to cease to exist, and the human being then suddenly exist in its place. That, of course, is nonsense.

A human being is a human being from the beginning of its life (conception) until its death.

[Guest]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1718773' date='Dec 4 2008, 02:56 PM']no we're not clear.

if you mean, that your argument is necessarily right, scientifically, then you're wrong that it's necessarily right.
it's only plausible, reasonable.
if you think you're probably right, i don't mind that argument.
if yiou think it's absolutely right, i think it's a reasonable psoition, i just disagree.

scientifically, it could be merely a cell. is a block or a snowball a transformer or a snowman? no, it's not. at what point doesa bunch of snowballs or blocks become a transformer or a snowman? it's gray. is a cell then a person scientifically, and without regard to the question of a soul? maybe, maybe not. the block and snowball might be anaologous or it might not be. it's a mystery.
i think someone arguing that is is or isn't a person scientifically though, has a valid and reasonable argument.
merely asking rhetorically when does it become life, isn't answering thequestion. it'd be like arguing "when does the snowman ebcome a snowman? therefore, a snowball is a snowman."

if it's a reasonabel argument,and given that i value personal liberty, i'd argue that a person who thinks it's not a person or doesnt' know has a reasonabel position to say taht they'd value personal choice in the matter above reasonably disputed human life. should the gov decide if it's reasonably disputed?arguably not. each person has just as much merit as anyone else, as per libertarian ideology, to say what they think,and as per subsidiarity, the person closest to the problem should address it. and, we didn't go around checking out other people's caves or homes back when we were a more rudimentary society, to see if they had an aborotion. its arguably teh natural law. we don't ban all sins, either necessarily.
personally, i'd put the burden of doubt in favor of life and ban it all. irregardless of my respect for their position, and irregardless that they ahve a valid argument.

i dont' think killing a baby three seconds before it comes out is valid or reasonable. at what point does it become valid? who knows. that's why i'd defer to no abortion as a matter of law. or at least make a point that's clearly reasonably disputed and draw the line there with all the gray area banned. or at LEAST when it'sobviously a person later in pregnancy.

but just because you can ask a question rhetorically, doesn't mean it's answered.

and just because you can point out DNA and a liine between the cell and person later one, doesn't eman the cell isn't any different than anotehr cell in any *necessarily* meaningful way.[/quote]


say what ?

[Socrates]

[quote name='fidei defensor' post='1718055' date='Dec 3 2008, 08:39 PM']Red herring. There is no disagreement about whether a born child is a person. There is much disagreement about whether or not a fetus is a person, however. It stems from differences in belief about what gives personhood. If someone doesn't believe in souls, its quite easy to believe a baby isnt a person until after it's born.[/quote]
A human fetus is most definitely a human being (whether one believes in immortal souls or not).
Any definition of "person" which would exclude an unborn human being would involve declaring only some human beings to be persons. (And to be logically consistent, any reason for excluding unborn babies from personhood would exclude some human beings already born.)

[Snowflake3981]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1718773' date='Dec 4 2008, 01:56 PM']scientifically, it could be merely a cell. is a block or a snowball a transformer or a snowman? no, it's not. at what point doesa bunch of snowballs or blocks become a transformer or a snowman? it's gray. is a cell then a person scientifically, and without regard to the question of a soul? maybe, maybe not. the block and snowball might be anaologous or it might not be. it's a mystery.[/quote]

You seriously have to be kidding me you cannot compare the life of a being created by god to a snowman. I cannot believe we are having this debate on a Catholic forum. At what point does it become a soul? Or a human? Is there some sort of logical point, say when the cell count is over a million, or when the heart starts beating, or when it is birthed that a soul is created? There is only one logical point when they would become ALIVE and have a soul, and that is when their own cells start to grown an reproduce more cells, so that is..... hmm.... AT THE POINT OF CONCEPTION. Do you think God would wait to give true life to a baby (with its soul) until its born, or would wait until day 35, or any other "magical" time that pro-choice people decide (and I'm pretty sure with the FOCA there would be NO limitations on abortion timelines). Surely we've all heard of how babies about to be aborted shy away from the tube that is about to vacuum them to death. Or about those people who miraculously survived their abortions and were born with defects. Unborn babies can FEEL PAIN.

My cousin had recently had her baby 4 months premature. Many people choose to abort at that time, but her poor teeny tiny little baby was born. And is alive today, about a month and a half later. It breaks my heart to think that some mothers are desperately trying to kill those babies while my cousin is desperately praying that hers makes it through the night.

~Abby <-------Is praying for the unborn

Edited December 5, 2008 by Snowflake3981

[Fidei Defensor]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1719314' date='Dec 4 2008, 09:09 PM']A human being begins its life at conception - that's a scientific fact.[/quote]
Prove it.

[Fidei Defensor]

[quote name='Snowflake3981' post='1719329' date='Dec 4 2008, 09:27 PM']You seriously have to be kidding me you cannot compare the life of a being created by god to a snowman. I cannot believe we are having this debate on a Catholic forum. At what point does it become a soul? Or a human? Is there some sort of logical point, say when the cell count is over a million, or when the heart starts beating, or when it is birthed that a soul is created? There is only one logical point when they would become ALIVE and have a soul, and that is when their own cells start to grown an reproduce more cells, so that is..... hmm.... AT THE POINT OF CONCEPTION. Do you think God would wait to give true life to a baby (with its soul) until its born, or would wait until day 35, or any other "magical" time that pro-choice people decide (and I'm pretty sure with the FOCA there would be NO limitations on abortion timelines). Surely we've all heard of how babies about to be aborted shy away from the tube that is about to vacuum them to death. Or about those people who miraculously survived their abortions and were born with defects. Unborn babies can FEEL PAIN.

My cousin had recently had her baby 4 months premature. Many people choose to abort at that time, but her poor teeny tiny little baby was born. And is alive today, about a month and a half later. It breaks my heart to think that some mothers are desperately trying to kill those babies while my cousin is desperately praying that hers makes it through the night.

~Abby <-------Is praying for the unborn[/quote]
The reason why we are having this debate on a Catholic forum is because not everyone here is Catholic, and this forum has a debate table for that reason. We are allowed to debate things, and we're debating this. If what you believe is true, then it should be able to stand up against criticism and debate.

[Socrates]

[quote name='fidei defensor' post='1719334' date='Dec 4 2008, 11:34 PM']Prove it.[/quote]
How? Do you want me to conceive a child for you to observe?

But I suppose you know better than to believe that silly superstitious nonsense about human life beginning at conception; you must be a proponent of that enlightened and venerable scientific theory about the stork . . .

[Snowflake3981]

[quote name='fidei defensor' post='1719338' date='Dec 4 2008, 10:37 PM']The reason why we are having this debate on a Catholic forum is because not everyone here is Catholic, and this forum has a debate table for that reason. We are allowed to debate things, and we're debating this. If what you believe is true, then it should be able to stand up against criticism and debate.[/quote]


Very true, good point. This topic is very near and dear to my heart, and I tend to get a little emotional about it.



~Abby <--------Still praying for the unborn

[Fidei Defensor]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1719356' date='Dec 4 2008, 09:49 PM']How? Do you want me to conceive a child for you to observe?

But I suppose you know better than to believe that silly superstitious nonsense about human life beginning at conception; you must be a proponent of that enlightened and venerable scientific theory about the stork . . .[/quote]
No, if you are going to throw around hefty claims like "it's a scientific fact," I expect more evidence than "because I say so."

Edited December 5, 2008 by fidei defensor

[XIX]

[quote name='fidei defensor' post='1719334' date='Dec 4 2008, 11:34 PM']Prove it.[/quote]
[quote]Any definition of "person" which would exclude an unborn human being would involve declaring only some human beings to be persons. (And to be logically consistent, any reason for excluding unborn babies from personhood would exclude some human beings already born.)[/quote]

[XIX]

[quote name='fidei defensor' post='1718373' date='Dec 4 2008, 12:07 AM']You [i]really[/i] missed my point. It was a satire. It wasn't intended to be a real argument. The way I go around harping on people around here for their lack of logical arguments, you think I'd really make a real argument like that?[/quote]
I'm beyond confused right now. Would you mind at least clarifying what your point was?

[Fidei Defensor]

[quote name='XIX' post='1719412' date='Dec 4 2008, 10:25 PM']I'm beyond confused right now. Would you mind at least clarifying what your point was?[/quote]
My point was that you can be against something but for allowing it to exist. I hate organized religion but I'm not about to tell you that you can't practice it.

[Fidei Defensor]

[quote name='XIX' post='1719404' date='Dec 4 2008, 10:22 PM'][/quote]
That's not a scientific definition. If he's going to claim to have science on his side, I'd like to see it.