Question for Pro-choicers

LadyT said:
A "person" doesn't have the right to host on your body if you don't approve. To say that a fetus is a person is ridiculous.
Click to expand...
"Person" and "human animal" are two different things. All human animals that have survived birth are, by nearly uncontested tradition and law, also persons. Unfortunately, so are some corporations. Fortunately, some technically living humans aren't -- e.g. Terri Schiavo.

Personhood is not biologically determined. It's not scientifically describable. It can't be measured or physically detected. It's a legally and ethically defined condition.
 
OrnotBitwise said:
Personhood is not biologically determined. It's not scientifically describable. It can't be measured or physically detected. It's a legally and ethically defined condition.
Click to expand...

I can agree to that. I definitely don't agree that fetuses are people though. In said scenario, a "person" is granted the right to host off another person against that person's will in order get sustanence (sp??) and live. Do we really want to go down that slippery slope?
 
LadyT said:
I can agree to that. I definitely don't agree that fetuses are people though. In said scenario, a "person" is granted the right to host off another person against that person's will in order get sustanence (sp??) and live. Do we really want to go down that slippery slope?
Click to expand...
I agree with you. It's irrational to extend personhood -- all of the legal protections and obligations -- to an unborn fetus in the early stages of development. I do think that setting an arbitrary line -- a legally defined point in gestation at which a fetus is assumed to be a baby or person -- is inevitable. Currently, states are free to do that after the second trimester of pregnancy.
 
The funny thing is that both Ornot and LadyT think they are the ultimate decision makers in this regard. You cannot argue with them. Their decisions are the only ones that count.

No one else is entitled to hold an opinion that human life is sacred and deserves protection from its earliest stages.

:(

Immie
 
OrnotBitwise said:
I agree with you. It's irrational to extend personhood -- all of the legal protections and obligations -- to an unborn fetus in the early stages of development. I do think that setting an arbitrary line -- a legally defined point in gestation at which a fetus is assumed to be a baby or person -- is inevitable. Currently, states are free to do that after the second trimester of pregnancy.
Click to expand...

I think it should be when the baby is born. Anything else has grave potential to infringe on the rights of the woman. Also, if you set an arbitrary line, it will undoubtedly be pushed back and back and back. I see the only tangible option for declaring personhood is at birth.
 
Immanuel said:
The funny thing is that both Ornot and LadyT think they are the ultimate decision makers in this regard. You cannot argue with them. Their decisions are the only ones that count.
Immie
Click to expand...

"Think"? No my friend, we "are" the decisions makers in this regard.......:pke:
(j/k)
 
Immanuel said:
The funny thing is that both Ornot and LadyT think they are the ultimate decision makers in this regard. You cannot argue with them. Their decisions are the only ones that count.

No one else is entitled to hold an opinion that human life is sacred and deserves protection from its earliest stages.

:(

Immie
Click to expand...
You're entitled to your opinion, naturally. That means you're entitled to be wrong. :p

Why not? You think I'm wrong, so . . . .

Look, all I'm saying -- here -- is that there are two entirely separate questions to consider: biological identity (species) and personhood. One can assert -- as you do, I believe -- that the two are inextricably tied together. One can assert that all members of the species Homo sapiens sapien, without regard to physical condition or development, must be considered legal persons. That is an assertion, however, not something either axiomatic or directly implied by any axiomatic statement(s). As an assertion, it must be defended: it isn't valid to expect others to simply accept it without question.
 
LadyT said:
"Think"? No my friend, we "are" the decisions makers in this regard.......:pke:
(j/k)
Click to expand...

I am sure you think so. :pke: returned. Even though you are oh so wrong. But that is okay. I was wrong in my vote for Bush. You can be wrong here. I'd say at least my error didn't cost any lives but then every time I turn on the TV I see and hear otherwise.

;)

Immie
 
Immanuel said:
I'm no Christ-facist nor am I a new con. I'd rather be considered a deep left socialist before either of those.

Immie
Click to expand...

I'm only kidding. I liked Ornot's new word. I'm trying to give it as much play as possible. That's a good one to pick up.
 
LadyT said:
I'm only kidding. I liked Ornot's new word. I'm trying to give it as much play as possible. That's a good one to pick up.
Click to expand...

Oh, believe me, I knew you were only kidding. If I didn't think you were kidding you would have gotten a 3-2-1. ;)

Immie
 
Immanuel said:
I am sure you think so. :pke: returned. Even though you are oh so wrong. But that is okay. I was wrong in my vote for Bush. You can be wrong here. I'd say at least my error didn't cost any lives but then every time I turn on the TV I see and hear otherwise.

;)

Immie
Click to expand...

If you could change your vote, who would you have voted for instead?

I'd still vote for Michael Peroutka.
 
Brent said:
If you could change your vote, who would you have voted for instead?

I'd still vote for Michael Peroutka.
Click to expand...


You. Hehe... did you see what I said about not wishing that job on my worst enemy? Hey Brent... want the job? ;)

Immie
 
Damocles said:
HeeHeee! Immie wishes he had voted for Badnarik like I did! LOL.
Click to expand...

It is all Care4all, LadyT and USCitizen's faults. They did a shitty job of waking me up. Oh and MBL too!

My feelings of guilt be on all y'all's heads. ;)

Immie
 
Last edited:
Immanuel said:
You. Hehe... did you see what I said about not wishing that job on my worst enemy? Hey Brent... want the job? ;)

Immie
Click to expand...

Sure. Il Duce, Brent.
icon_twisted.gif
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top