Home - List All Discussions

is abortion murder?

by: michael

i dont think it is. murder is a legal term to which the predmediated/intentional killing of a PERSON has been acted out. if the woman does not believe that the prenate is a person then this would negate the charge.

however, i also feel the need to say i am "pro-life" but i dont see abortion as any sort of murder.

reply from: ForLife

Abortion is the pre-mediated intentional killing of an unborn child; thus, it is a murder. Some game with semantics is not going to change that fact.

Person: 1) a human being 2) the human body 3) personality; self

1) It is a human being because of it's DNA 2) The unborn child has a human body 3) The unborn child is a unique creation possessing his or her own personality.

If the definition of person was somehow written to exclude the unborn child, the definition would be lacking.

A woman's belief as to what something is or is not does not create the reality. If she thinks a dog is a cat, does that make it a cat?

reply from: AshMarie88

Abortion is the pre-mediated intentional killing of an unborn child; thus, it is a murder. Some game with semantics is not going to change that fact.

Person: 1) a human being 2) the human body 3) personality; self

1) It is a human being because of it's DNA 2) The unborn child has a human body 3) The unborn child is a unique creation possessing his or her own personality.

If the definition of person was somehow written to exclude the unborn child, the definition would be lacking.

A woman's belief as to what something is or is not does not create the reality. If she thinks a dog is a cat, does that make it a cat?

Amen!

reply from: michael

Abortion is the pre-mediated intentional killing of an unborn child; thus, it is a murder. Some game with semantics is not going to change that fact.

Person: 1) a human being 2) the human body 3) personality; self

1) It is a human being because of it's DNA 2) The unborn child has a human body 3) The unborn child is a unique creation possessing his or her own personality.

If the definition of person was somehow written to exclude the unborn child, the definition would be lacking.

A woman's belief as to what something is or is not does not create the reality. If she thinks a dog is a cat, does that make it a cat?

actually, law is all about the definition of terms. murder, by definition is not the intentional killing of a child/human being but rather a "person". Must i seek out quotations? During Roe vs Wade, philosophers were brought in to distinguish what a person was but was left undetermined and abortion was permitted based upon premises of privacy.

it is not toying with semantics but a philosophical inquisition. If being a PERSON is merely having human DNA then what of down syndrome? are they not missing chromosomes? If DNA defines a person, per se, then why not distribute personhood to any human cell?

"The unborn child has a human body" a human body is a tool to personhood? at what stage of the pregnancy? define the properties of a human body and why is a human body any more intristically worth more than that of a chimp body?

"The unborn child is a unique creation possessing his or her own personality. " the cerberal cortex to which has the personality, brain functions, etc is not until 5-6 month. And frankly, a dog has personality-so what? and there are twins to who are not unique to each other until further environmental factors in life. generally any being is unique, this doesnt deserve personhood or else we be giving it to all beings.

you must make a better argument. what is it about humans that we value.

reply from: michael

"A woman's belief as to what something is or is not does not create the reality. If she thinks a dog is a cat, does that make it a cat?"

yes, objectively it could be the killing of a person. however, she is not to be held responsible nor commiting murder, for such entails the INTENTIONAL killing of a PERSON. the woman must know that such a being is considered a person before her killing is considered murder. she must intend on killing a person! if she and socity do not consider a prenate a person then it is not murder, however, objectively wrong it may be. if she does not know that killing a prenate is killing a person then she is not concious to her acts of killing a person. if she is not concious to the value of her act then she is not responsible nor is she commiting murder.

again: abortion may be the the killing of a person in an objective sense but it is not the intended killing of a person and thus not murder.

reply from: ForLife

Abortion is the pre-mediated intentional killing of an unborn child; thus, it is a murder. Some game with semantics is not going to change that fact.

Person: 1) a human being 2) the human body 3) personality; self

1) It is a human being because of it's DNA 2) The unborn child has a human body 3) The unborn child is a unique creation possessing his or her own personality.

If the definition of person was somehow written to exclude the unborn child, the definition would be lacking.

A woman's belief as to what something is or is not does not create the reality. If she thinks a dog is a cat, does that make it a cat?

actually, law is all about the definition of terms. murder, by definition is not the intentional killing of a child/human being but rather a "person". Must i seek out quotations? During Roe vs Wade, philosophers were brought in to distinguish what a person was but was left undetermined and abortion was permitted based upon premises of privacy.

it is not toying with semantics but a philosophical inquisition. If being a PERSON is merely having human DNA then what of down syndrome? are they not missing chromosomes? If DNA defines a person, per se, then why not distribute personhood to any human cell?

"The unborn child has a human body" a human body is a tool to personhood? at what stage of the pregnancy? define the properties of a human body and why is a human body any more intristically worth more than that of a chimp body?

"The unborn child is a unique creation possessing his or her own personality. " the cerberal cortex to which has the personality, brain functions, etc is not until 5-6 month. And frankly, a dog has personality-so what? and there are twins to who are not unique to each other until further environmental factors in life. generally any being is unique, this doesnt deserve personhood or else we be giving it to all beings.

you must make a better argument. what is it about humans that we value.

What is it about humans that we value? Man is made in the image of God, we are His offspring. We have a conscience and can make moral choices. Our potential is unlimited. We can acquire umlimited knowledge and apply technology to rule, control and bring abundant life to the entire universe. Our future is to live and (as co-inheritors with Christ) rule forever. No animal has such potential.

reply from: michael

What is it about humans that we value? Man is made in the image of God, we are His offspring. We have a conscience and can make moral choices. Our potential is unlimited. We can acquire umlimited knowledge and apply technology to rule, control and bring abundant life to the entire universe. Our future is to live and (as co-inheritors with Christ) rule forever. No animal has such potential.

No offense , dude but a theistic responce to federal law or even to the secular minded will get you no where. First, no federal law can respect religion in this case, (united states law) lastly before anyone can accept we are gods children, one must prove god exists to the people. And that has yet to be done. i would sway from this argument if you wish to be effective.

As an experienced debater in this subject, i can say that your latter half of premises to personhood and getting far closer in terms of appealing to the secular minded. If i was an abortionist, i would argue that the prenate up until 5-6 months due to the ceberal cortex has no present requirements to moral/personality, etc and thus is not a person.

prepare for that argument or one similiar.

reply from: ForLife

No offense , dude but a theistic responce to federal law or even to the secular minded will get you no where. First, no federal law can respect religion in this case, (united states law) lastly before anyone can accept we are gods children, one must prove god exists to the people. And that has yet to be done. i would sway from this argument if you wish to be effective.

As an experienced debater in this subject, i can say that your latter half of premises to personhood and getting far closer in terms of appealing to the secular minded. If i was an abortionist, i would argue that the prenate up until 5-6 months due to the ceberal cortex has no present requirements to moral/personality, etc and thus is not a person.

prepare for that argument or one similiar.

Your argument is similiar to Peter Singer's. The New Yorker called Peter the greatest thinker of our time. Peter works in an ethics department in a major university. Mr. Singer argues we are not even as developed as a fish until 28 days after birth. Therefore, there is nothing morally wrong with killing a young child up to that date. Hey, it's no worse than killing a fish! We do that all the time.

A human spends over a quarter of his life growing to maturity. Our reproductive system may not be fully functional until we are a teenager. We get adult teeth after our baby teeth. As a youth, we think like a child, rather than as an adult. It appears you agree that children, even without adult qualities (reproductive, analytical thinking skills, adult teeth or bodies) still qualify as a worthwhile "person".

Your definition of person is someone who has some cognitive abilities. You will recognize these abilities as far back as 5-6 months into the womb, at which time you believe a human's cerebral cortex is functioning.

Each person has a unique DNA blueprint. (The blueprint was engineered by God.) Execution of the blueprint begins at conception. Processes are being executed rapidly to build the human as ordered by the blueprint. If God has set in motion the creation of a new unique human being, I would not want to be the one throwing a monkey wrench into the machinery of life. I see you are not concerned for such matters.

No, I can not argue that a preborn child thinks well before 6 months in the womb. That is your basis for killing the child.

reply from: Hereforareason

If you want to play with terms, murder is the unlawfull premeditated killing of a human being.

Is abortion Killing Michael?

reply from: ForLife

It is obvious abortion is the pre-planned killing of a living human being.

Michael wants to ask some questions about whether missing chromosomes potentially makes a downs syndrome child a non-person since part of the DNA code is missing. And since a cell has a complete DNA blueprint, why isn't a lone cell a person?

I believe at fertilization the complete package comes together for a new human being. Once the entirety of a new individual comes together at conception, I believe it is inappropriate to end that person's life. I believe a person starts at conception, not when some deep thinker believes the child has reached a certain developmental stage. I understand Michael believes personhood begins when the child's brain is developed enough to engage in cognitive reasoning. I believe the new person should be welcomed into the human family at conception; for indeed, he or she has begun and will continue on the same course that we have all taken, and continue to take until our four score years are completed.

reply from: poppa

what do you think the abortion procedure is ? the act of killing the child in its developement

it does not just dissapear or fall out it is ripped apart by a doctor and we call ourselves a civilized country

reply from: Tam

What about a charge of manslaughter, then?

reply from: Skippy

Precisely. And since abortion is not against the law (and no, your god's laws don't count), it's not murder.

reply from: Tam

Precisely. And since abortion is not against the law (and no, your god's laws don't count), it's not murder.

<sic> ?!?! You are too much! Is there anything to which you will not stoop? Unbelievable that you are making fun of a misspelling. Ooh, didn't want anyone to think YOU misspelled it, eh? Had to put that <sic> in there just so no one would think YOU misspelled "unlawful"--what a joke! Everyone knows who wrote "unlawful," because you were quoting the post and the author's name appeared above your quote--as well you know. So your use of <sic> was nothing but sneering derision, and I find your attitude appalling (and have from the start). Want me to take a red pen to your posts, Skippy? If not, then shut up with your <sic> little comments. Go back to grammar school (pun intended)--that's where your little antics will be appreciated.

reply from: yoda

Exactly right, Hereforareason.

I'm a little puzzled as to why anyone would ask (or answer) such a question and then not avail themselves of the many free online dictionaries. Why go to all this trouble instead of simply going to the (free) dictionary?

Main Entry: 1mur·der Function: noun 1 : the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=murder&x=18&y=18 [/a]

However, I would point out that in the verb form, this word has a much broader meaning, and one which could be easily applied to abortion:

Main Entry: 2murder Function: verb2 : to slaughter wantonly : SLAY 3 a : to put an end to b : TEASE ,TORMENT c : MUTILATE>, MANGLE

So the obvious answer to the question is "No, it is not murder (noun), but it is a murderous action."

reply from: michael

Your argument is similiar to Peter Singer's. The New Yorker called Peter the greatest thinker of our time. Peter works in an ethics department in a major university. Mr. Singer argues we are not even as developed as a fish until 28 days after birth. Therefore, there is nothing morally wrong with killing a young child up to that date. Hey, it's no worse than killing a fish! We do that all the time.
A human spends over a quarter of his life growing to maturity. Our reproductive system may not be fully functional until we are a teenager. We get adult teeth after our baby teeth. As a youth, we think like a child, rather than as an adult. It appears you agree that children, even without adult qualities (reproductive, analytical thinking skills, adult teeth or bodies) still qualify as a worthwhile "person".
Your definition of person is someone who has some cognitive abilities. You will recognize these abilities as far back as 5-6 months into the womb, at which time you believe a human's cerebral cortex is functioning.
Each person has a unique DNA blueprint. (The blueprint was engineered by God.) Execution of the blueprint begins at conception. Processes are being executed rapidly to build the human as ordered by the blueprint. If God has set in motion the creation of a new unique human being, I would not want to be the one throwing a monkey wrench into the machinery of life. I see you are not concerned for such matters.
No, I can not argue that a preborn child thinks well before 6 months in the womb. That is your basis for killing the child.

Forlife,

I feel it is neccessary to state the it is not "my" argument". i advocate against abortion but i am trying to familiarize you with the contemporary abortionist debate tactics in hopes that you can reform your arguments.

You are correct about the "reproductive organ" reference and that we do not stop developing but yet i feel it is an imperative to remind you that reproductive organs, teeth, etc is not what is argued for the qualifications of personhood. teeth and reproductive organs are not valued so there presence is not neccessary for personhood.

the abortionists will argue that this being is not a person until it has a present and functioning ceeberal cortex. Again with the "god" reference, i shouldnt have to tell you just how impotent it is to the secular minded and american law.

reply from: michael

actually no....murder is the premediated killing of a person. not a human being.

reply from: Tam

actually no....murder is the premediated killing of a person. not a human being.

The only thing that differentiates abortion from any other premeditated killing of a human being is that it is lawful. So--you are right, but so is Amber. It is not an either/or situation. You are saying different things, but you are both right.

First of all, the premeditated bit is not necessary--in first degree murder, it is present, but in second degree murder, it is not. According to an online legal dictionary (dictionary.law.com), death of an unborn child can be murder provided there was premeditation, malice, and no legal authority (thus, abortion is not murder under the law). The only person with legal authority to kill the unborn child is his/her mother. So, legally, there are no circumstances under which killing an unborn child would be murder if the killing is done by his/her mother.

So Amber says murder is the unlawful killing of a human being. Since abortion is the lawful killing of a human being, abortion is not murder. You say murder is the killing of a person, not a human being. The only reason unborn children are not persons in the legal sense is one misguided and unconstitutional decision! So the only reason abortion is not murder is that unborn human beings aren't persons. Since that's legally true but in every other way makes no sense, it is only a matter of time before this situation is rectified.

Manslaughter, both voluntary and involuntary, lacks the element of malice aforethought. It is: "the unlawful killing of another person without premeditation or so-called "malice aforethought" (an evil intent prior to the killing). It is distinguished from murder (which brings greater penalties) by lack of any prior intention to kill anyone or create a deadly situation."

Second degree murder is "non-premeditated killing, resulting from an assault in which death of the victim was a distinct possibility. Second degree murder is different from first degree murder, which is a premeditated, intentional killing or results from a vicious crime such as arson, rape or armed robbery. Exact distinctions on degree vary by state."

See the difference? In manslaughter, there was NEITHER an intent to kill NOR even an intent to create a deadly situation. In second-degree murder, there is NOT an intent to kill, but there IS an intent to create a deadly situation by committing violent assault, rape, arson, armed robbery, etc. All of this, of course, implies a person as the victim. So abortion cannot be classified as first- or second-degree murder, or as manslaughter, until the unborn child is legally considered a person.

It should be noted that the only reason unborn children are not persons legally is that the SC needed some legal way to permit abortion. That was the straw at which they grasped to make the whole charade legal. But there is never a good reason backing that up. Why a living human being should not be considered a "person" is beyond me.

How come I looked through several online law dictionaries and couldn't find definitions of person other than the above or of human being at all? Finally, I found this one at www.duhaime.org:

That seems more like what the real legal usage of the term "person" is. If you are a person, you have a legal existence. If you are not a person, you have no legal right to exist. And being a non-person can happen to you if you're too young or if you're incapacitated in some way. Don't you feel secure now? If you become incapacitated, you can lose your right to exist in this country. What a crock!

reply from: michael

I do not feel Amber is right. Murder is a legal term. If the subject is not a person nor thought of such by the mother than it cannot be murder. The inquisition of personhood is not a new one. It once did not include minorities or women but after much protest these considerations they were granted. The debate is actually the philosophical query into "what is personhood" and once this is figured out, science can tell us when that is. To claim that Amber is right because she is arguing for "human being=person" is granting the definition of personhood. It’s a biased assessment. It is the notion that a person= a human being which is being challenged by the abortionists.

The protection to the fetus by those other than the mother is quite ridiculous. How can the mother’s decision be the assessment of personhood? So odd. Nevertheless, I am quite certain the literal definition to second-degree murder is “person” rather than human being. It could be challenged on that basis. Furthermore, it is controversial to call abortion the killing of a human being but rather it is called a fetus. You will get no argument from me, as a pro-life advocate that the prenate is not human but those are not the words the law uses. Terminology is paramount in law.

Quoting the dictionary to find the definition of a person is a fallacy called appeal to authority. As mentioned, a person is a definition that is owned by philosophy and can only be decided by such. The united states/Canadian law does not the term adhere to the dictionary definition.

The legal definition of person has some legislation around it. a minor may not have all the personhood rights as an adult for certain reasons but they still are protected under the right to life, liberty and justice. These are the rights to which is being discussed. Its quite tedious.

reply from: yoda

I've often dealt with proaborts and their "homemade" definitions of the word person. It's really quite disingenous when you analyze it, they make up an exclusionary definition of that word and then loudly proclaim that their madeup definition justifies killing babies. How very transparent.

reply from: yoda

"Science"? What has science to do with the meaning of a word which has both legal and vernacular definitions? "Person" is not a scientific term, so science cannot help us there.

You seem to forget the very complex nature of the word and it's various uses. In the oldest, most common vernacular usage, every human being IS a person. In the more recent, more specialized legal usage, only born humans are persons. It's worth remembering that the legal usage is only a device used by the SCOTUS to exclude unborn humans from being protected by a particular section of our constitution, it is NOT a general reference to the word as used by our society.

"Controversial"? There's nothing controversial about the truth, except with those who need to avoid it for the sake of their argument. Science does not provide proaborts with any basis for denying the species classification of unborn humans, so they make it up. A developmental term such as "fetus" does not tell us anything about the species of the subject, since it is a term that can apply to any animal. Personally, I prefer the term "baby", since it is the most common term for an unborn human.

What makes you think this is a legal discussion? We are not arguing that Roe is not the law of the land, we know it is. We will not be hindered in our moral discussion of abortion by limiting ourselves to the use of the legal application of the word "person". Vernacular terminology is perfectly appropriate for our moral discussions.

No, it isn't a fallacy to use the dictionary whenever the meaning of words is under discussion. That's patently ridiculous. That's like saying that referring to the periodic table when discussing the atomic weight of an element is "a fallacy called appeal to authority". Authority is appropriate in such circumstances.

Now you are confusing me. First you say the definition of "person" is a matter of law, and now you say it's "owned by philosophy"? To use one's personal philosoply as a rationale for justifying the killing of an innocent human being is to promote selfishness to a spiritual level. But then, that's what proaborts do.

reply from: michael

I've often dealt with proaborts and their "homemade" definitions of the word person. It's really quite disingenous when you analyze it, they make up an exclusionary definition of that word and then loudly proclaim that their madeup definition justifies killing babies. How very transparent.

homemade? you mean original? they are just being philosophers, dude.

reply from: yoda

"Philosophers"? Hardly. They are trying to use these custom made exclusionary definitions to justify the killing of unborn humans, dude. They make them up for the specific purpose of excluding the unborn, and that's not "philosophy", that's hedonism at it's bloody worst.

reply from: Lake

Actually, the argument is based on philosophy.

"What are the qualities that set human beings apart from all other creatures in this world?" This question has been around in one form or another for longer than the concept of science has existed. One of the answers has always been the human mind; our capacity for thought, our intellect, our creativity, our ability to reason etc. Science has shown that the brain, the cerebral cortex in particular, is what gives us the capacity for all of these things. If something has never had the ability to think etc as a human does (a cerebral cortex is required) and it never will, then it can not be considered a human being. Of course this concept will only work as an argument for the pro-choice side if one disregards potential. Most on the pro-choice/proabort side don't have a problem with that. I myself have no problem disregarding potential because I had to watch as an unwanted "unborn human" completely destroyed and eventually killed a person I still consider to be one of the most important people in my life.

reply from: yoda

Welcome to the forum, Lake.

Yes, that particular argument is philosophical. HOWEVER, and this is a BIG however, when philosophical arguments are used as the basis for justifying life and death decisions concerning healthy, innocent human beings, something is terribly wrong.

The tactic of the proaborts is to take that philosophical discussion and try to blur the line between philosophy and physical identity. When they make categorical statements like "an unborn human is not (fill in the blank) because I consider a the concept of that word to be (fill in the blank)", then they are being disingenous at best, and intentionally dishonest at worst.

When one makes an exclusionary statement that includes the words "is not a ", then one is moving out of the realm of philosophy and into the science of semantics. And in the science of semantics, in order to show that a particular word does not apply to a particular concept, it is necessary to show that no reputable dictionary lists that concept as a definition of that word. Anything less than that is mere horse manure.

The proaborts, however, would have you believe that they can simply conjure up a philosophical concept for a word out of thin air in order to "prove" their exclusionary claims against unborn humans. Never mind that their made-up definitions are not offical ones, never mind that no definition can be used to invalidate those found in reputable dictionaries, never mind that their arbitrary definitions provide no moral or logical basis for the justification of abortion........ no, you are just supposed to accept their proclamation, their fiat, as the final word on why it's okay to kill innocent little babies.

Well, pardon me if I cram that argument into the toilet where it belongs!

Indeed, if we are going to discuss what a human being, or a person, or a child really is, let's start at the logical place: In valid listings of how we use those words in our society! And guess what? That's called a dictionary! Why look there, you may ask? Because words of the vernacular have no other meaning than those we give them by our use of those words! Yes, that's right, we ourselves determine what common words mean, by how we use them. And dictionaries record and report our usage, in a much more accurate manner than the average poster spouting off their biased opinions on an opinion forum such as this.

So what is a human being? Well for reasons of length, I'll paraphrase here: It is any member of the species Homo sapiens. So does that mean we determine what a human being is by it's species only, and not by whether it can think, create, reason, etc? YES! A thousand times YES! Read any valid dictionary or encyclopedia, it will tell you EXACTLY THAT!

And what is a person? Again, consult one of those awful, restrictive, oppressive reference works called "dictionaries" and you will most often find this: "THE BODY OF A HUMAN BEING"....... as the oldest, most common usage for that word.

"Potential"? That's totally IMMATERIAL! Unborn humans ARE human beings, PERIOD! And that makes them "people", PERIOD!

I'm terribly sorry for the loss of your loved one, but please don't try to translate that into a reason to justify word games meant to make abortion acceptable. NO state in this country has ever restricted a physican's ability to effect an early delivery to save the life of a mother, and no mainstream ProLifer that I know of has ever proposed such a thing. So that issue is really a red herring argument.

reply from: Tam

YES! That's wonderful--right on target and well-said to boot. Go Word Defender!

I am tired of accepting it when some people say that other people aren't really people because [ whatever they need to put in this blank to justify whatever thing they want to do ]. It's not good enough. All human beings are people. And each person is unique and irreplaceable. You hear so much about not only the challenges faced by, and/or posed by, an unborn child, but also about how s/he is only a "potential" person. What we need to remember is how much potential s/he has! We each have our own challenges and our own potential. Someday, maybe even little persons facing the challenge of being ectopic will be able to live normal lives. There are no human beings unworthy of the term "person"--and I am sick and tired of the dehumanization that accompanies others' attempts to kill people with such potential, because of challenges faced or posed by them.

reply from: motherofthree

I am not a philosopher, nor a debator. I am simply a mother. I have some college, and am reasonably intelligent. I have a 12 yr old son, a 4 yr old daughter and a child who is 23 weeks along in my womb. I personally believe that abortion is MURDER!! I have lost several children due to miscarriages, as I have high risk issues. My first child was born at 34 weeks, he was conceived due to a rape that occurred when I was 17 yrs old. I kept my child because it never even occurred to me that some people might consider this innocent little PERSON to not have a right to be born. It wasn't my son's fault that I was raped, he had no choice in how he was created. However, I did not choose to MURDER my child as that is fundamentally wrong. I could have chosen to give him up for adoption as there are tons of families seeking to adopt newborn people. After he was born I lost a set of identical twin boys at the gestational age of 20 weeks. I gave birth to them normally even tho they had both died in the womb. They were two perfectly formed little people, beautiful in every way. Then my ex husband and I lost 5 more children, finally successfully having our daughter who is was born at 28 weeks gestation. She was only 2 lbs at birth. She was perfectly formed in every way. She cried and smiled and reacted to pain when they tried to prick her heels for blood tests. She got to the point that she anticipated pain whenever someone would touch her tiny feet and she would pull away. A lot of people argue that infants do not feel pain until I think, 32 weeks gestation, tho I may be wrong on that age. I know my daughter felt pain. Her face would scrunch up and she would cry, as well as try to pull away from whatever was causing her the pain. She is now a healthy and active young lady. This new little person inside me is a wonderful and worthy human being who deserves to live. She is 23 weeks along now, and on her ultrasounds she sucks her thumbs and yawns and is very very active. I've noticed, like with my other children, she reacts to different kinds of music in different ways, sometimes becoming more active and other times seeming to be soothed. When I rub on my belly she will push her head against my hand thru my skin, almost like she's seeking comfort from me. I believe that these are all signs of her having some instict and human drive to socially interact with me. She is perfectly formed in every way, her name is NAOMI. She is a PERSON, a human being, a child and someone who deserves the right to be born...just like everyone else on this planet. She is loved!! I don't care what all the Pro-ChildMurder activists say...they are wrong. All the semantics and philisophical panderings they have will never change the fact that its WRONG!!! Just plain WRONG to kill children, born or unborn!!

reply from: yoda

Exactly, Tam. It's the same tired old story that's been played out throughout history....... first dehumanize/demonize them, and then kill them.

reply from: Skippy

*shrug*

What you personally believe doesn't matter much. For the purposes of the criminal justice system, abortion isn't murder because it's not against the law.

The word 'murder' can be used in a context that has nothing to do with the law, of course. For example, when I say to my personal trainer, "That workout you just put me through was murder, you sadistic poopy-head," I obviously am not referring to the unlawful taking of a life.

However, the legal meaning is what first springs to most people's minds when you say 'murder', and that particular understanding of the word just doesn't apply to abortion.

reply from: yoda

Welcome to the forum, motherofthree.

I must say that your post was highly emotional, and beautiful! And I agree with you, totally.

We've had some posters lately trying to put emotions down, as if our feelings were somehow unreliable and unworthy of discussion. You post is a beautiful example of why they are so very wrong.

reply from: yoda

Maybe not as a noun, but it does in the verb form: Abortion murders unborn children!

Main Entry: 2murder Function: verb2 : to slaughter wantonly : SLAY 3 a : to put an end to b : TEASE ,TORMENT c : MUTILATE>, MANGLE
http:\\www.m-w.com

reply from: motherofthree

*shrug*

What you personally believe doesn't matter much. For the purposes of the criminal justice system, abortion isn't murder because it's not against the law.

The word 'murder' can be used in a context that has nothing to do with the law, of course. For example, when I say to my personal trainer, "That workout you just put me through was murder, you sadistic poopy-head," I obviously am not referring to the unlawful taking of a life.

However, the legal meaning is what first springs to most people's minds when you say 'murder', and that particular understanding of the word just doesn't apply to abortion.

I'm not denying that it isn't illegal to have an abortion and that the "LAW" denies that it is murder, nor that the "Law" denies that unborn children are "persons." What I am simply saying is that the "LAW" is WRONG!! It used to be legal in this country to own slaves, and to beat your wife. Those actions are no longer legal and are considered wrong by every "law"-abiding citizen in this country. I am saying that I personally believe that abortion IS MURDER, and that the "LAW" should be changed to reflect that belief. The laws regarding slavery changed, as people became educated and understood that it was fundamentally wrong to own other humans. Of course, the "Law" didn't used to recognize people of races other than caucasion to be "human" for the longest time, they considered them to be another species even, an animals. I have the right under the "LAWS" of this country to form and hold my own beliefs and opinions. Are you saying that you would deny me that legal right to believe that abortion is Murder? Just like those people in the past believed the black people were HUMAN and didn't deserve to be owned as slaves? They believed that it was wrong to own slaves, and they fought for their rights and the rights of black americans, and changed the LAW. I believe that with time, those that understand that all children are human and deserve the right to life will fight for their beliefs in the legal system and eventually change these LAWS to more accurately reflect what is right.

reply from: Tam

Well said! Welcome to the forum!

reply from: michael

Yodaveter….

Science can help us with the dynamics of personhood. As I mentioned, philosophy deals with the question as to what is a person? What trait do we have that separates us from the mammals? Once this trait is identified, it is a scientific question as to WHEN this trait is present. I cant put it any simpler form than that, sorry.

yodaveter…. “You seem to forget the very complex nature of the word and it's various uses. In the oldest, most common vernacular usage, every human being IS a person. In the more recent, more specialized legal usage, only born humans are persons”

I do hope this is not an attempt to state that whichever is older is better. If not, I don’t see a point in this.

yodaveter ….”It's worth remembering that the legal usage is only a device used by the SCOTUS to exclude unborn humans from being protected by a particular section of our constitution, it is NOT a general reference to the word as used by our society.”

Or it just could be an intellectual stance made by philosophers? and even if it is not used by the general masses…so what? Is this an attempt to appeal to the masses? The general society is not equipped to the dynamics of personhood.

Yodaveter ….“Controversial"? There's nothing controversial about the truth, except with those who need to avoid it for the sake of their argument. Science does not provide proaborts with any basis for denying the species classification of unborn humans, so they make it up. A developmental term such as "fetus" does not tell us anything about the species of the subject, since it is a term that can apply to any animal. Personally, I prefer the term "baby", since it is the most common term for an unborn human.”

Well yes it is controversial. One could argue as to what makes a human being? It is not as axiomatic as you seem to think.

Yodaveter …“What makes you think this is a legal discussion?”

Murder is a legal term.

Yodaveter ……”We are not arguing that Roe is not the law of the land, we know it is. We will not be hindered in our moral discussion of abortion by limiting ourselves to the use of the legal application of the word "person". Vernacular terminology is perfectly appropriate for our moral discussions. “

This is not about morals, per se. I tailored this thread and it is a thread directed at the legal inquisition of murder and the philosophical query of personhood.

Yodaveter …No, it isn't a fallacy to use the dictionary whenever the meaning of words is under discussion. That's patently ridiculous. That's like saying that referring to the periodic table when discussing the atomic weight of an element is "a fallacy called appeal to authority". Authority is appropriate in such circumstances.

When the word is philosophical in nature and has been for MANY years, it is appeal to authority to seek out the dictionary. It’s a tad bit more comprehensive.

”Now you are confusing me. First you say the definition of "person" is a matter of law, and now you say it's "owned by philosophy"? To use one's personal philosophy as a rationale for justifying the killing of an innocent human being is to promote selfishness to a spiritual level. But then, that's what proaborts do.”

It’s a legal term but defined by philosophers. And nice ad homonym at the ending of the argument.

reply from: michael

YES! That's wonderful--right on target and well-said to boot. Go Word Defender!

I am tired of accepting it when some people say that other people aren't really people because [ whatever they need to put in this blank to justify whatever thing they want to do ]. It's not good enough. All human beings are people. q]

this is quite cognitively lazy. as of right now, the only argument i have heard which makes prenates worthy of personhood is

1. spirit
2. DNA

its is no wonder why we prolifers are not given the time of day in academics

reply from: michael

Maybe not as a noun, but it does in the verb form: Abortion murders unborn children!

Main Entry: 2murder Function: verb2 : to slaughter wantonly : SLAY 3 a : to put an end to b : TEASE ,TORMENT c : MUTILATE>, MANGLE
http:\\www.m-w.com

heh. and i get charged with toying semantics. the debate here is whether abortion is legally murder or if prenates are persons. this debate is not about words to which are even used as informal slang to everyday stressors. fallacy of equivocation.

reply from: michael

this is exactly what i argue against. it cannot be murder unless the person knows and fathoms that what they are killing is a legal person. since it is not regonized that such a being is a person then murder is an unsuitable term. the qualifications for murder are not present.

all to which you can claim is that it is OBJECTIVELY the killing of a person but not the INTENTIONAL killing of a person, that is, the person knows that what they are doing will kill a person rather than a non-person.

reply from: Tam

excellent point, Mandi.

reply from: Tam

this is quite cognitively lazy. as of right now, the only argument i have heard which makes prenates worthy of personhood is

1. spirit
2. DNA

its is no wonder why we prolifers are not given the time of day in academics

"We prolifers"? Are ya sure?

As for my "cognitive laziness" (your opinion), let me elaborate: I accept the traditional usage of "person" to mean "a human being." I do not accept philosophical/legal contortionism intended to dehumanize some people for the purposes of making it socially and legally acceptable to kill them. That they're human beings is enough for me. No, I don't think three-year-olds should be given driver's licenses. Licenses to operate heavy machinery are not the same as having the right to exist. Unless you are a "person" in our society, you do not have the legal right to exist. I believe that every human being has the right to exist, therefore I reject any attempt to subvert the meaning of the word "person" to exclude individual human beings or entire categories thereof. There is but one goal to such subversion: to enable the elimination of those non-person human beings. Surely you well know that just because some country makes some law doesn't change reality. When black people were considered non-persons by our legal system, did that MAKE them non-persons? No, it did not. If our legal system considered black persons to be gorillas, would that make them gorillas? If our legal system considered black persons to be non-mammals, would they cease to be mammals? If our legal system considered black persons to be disposable, ownable commodities with no rights whatsoever, does that make it TRUE? No, it does not. That black persons were TREATED as property rather than persons did not MAKE them commodities rather than persons. That unborn children are TREATED as property rather than persons does not make them property, either. Different times, different fools making different foolish rules, same appalling cold-hearted so-called reasoning. Just as calling a person with Down syndrome a non-person because his/her DNA is different (not fundamentally different in the sense of being a different species, but different in that due to the medical condition, the number of his/her chromosomes is abnormal) would make no sense.

I take it you consider yourself pro-life but do not consider an unborn child to be a person? What do you consider him or her? A "potential" person? How does the worth of his/her life compare to the worth of the life of a child outside the womb?

reply from: michael

Tam: "We prolifers"? Are ya sure?”

Positive. My case, however, is secular and a bit more philosophically inclined. I made a case for it in another thread.

Tam: for my "cognitive laziness" (your opinion), let me elaborate: I accept the traditional usage of "person" to mean "a human being." I do not accept philosophical/legal contortionism intended to dehumanize some people for the purposes of making it socially and legally acceptable to kill them.

This is called a straw man. Did it ever occur to you those abortionists who advocate that a prenate does not have personhood have merely come to that stance via honest intellectual questioning? I see no “dehumanizing” but rather they believe they have found the trait to which makes personhood. To seek out what trait we value among humans over animals is the antithesis to “dehumanizing”, but rather what makes us so special.

Tam: “I believe that every human being has the right to exist”

Again, Why? To sway from secular ridicule, I suggest you keep temporal in your response.

Tam: “When black people were considered non-persons by our legal system, did that MAKE them non-persons? No, it did not. If our legal system considered black persons to be gorillas, would that make them gorillas? If our legal system considered black persons to be non-mammals, would they cease to be mammals? If our legal system considered black persons to be disposable, ownable commodities with no rights whatsoever, does that make it TRUE? No, it does not. That black persons were TREATED as property rather than persons did not MAKE them commodities rather than persons. That unborn children are TREATED as property rather than persons does not make them property, either. Different times, different fools making different foolish rules, same appalling cold-hearted so-called reasoning. Just as calling a person with Down syndrome a non-person because his/her DNA is different (not fundamentally different in the sense of being a different species, but different in that due to the medical condition, the number of his/her chromosomes is abnormal) would make no sense.”

I am not arguing that prenates are not objectively persons and I do believe the law is wrong in not including them within the protection of persons, however, for different premises than you. What I also argue that the qualifications for murder require that the perp must know that the victim is a person. The law must also grant such a victim with the person status.

In abortion, the woman does not recognize the person status even if it is objective and thus intent is not present which eliminates the charge of murder. Understand? As for your DNA reference, it makes perfect sense. One cannot claim that a person is a human being via DNA but yet have other beings to which do not have the same standards. J

Tam: “ I take it you consider yourself pro-life but do not consider an unborn child to be a person? What do you consider him or her? A "potential" person? How does the worth of his/her life compare to the worth of the life of a child outside the womb”

You would be correct that I am a pro-lifer but I hold this stand for different premises than you. I wrote an article about it within this forum and you are encouraged to read it. My goal here is not to argue for abortion but to introduce you guys into the opposition and hopefully improve some of your arguments to challenge the opposition. Arguing for souls, DNA, etc is redundant and a new angle must be approached to deal with the pundits of our mutual stance.

reply from: scopia1982

Micheal, you oppose any legal or judical bans on abortion from what I have read from you previous posts. I cant speak for others on this forum, only myself. IMO you cannot be prolife and oppose laws banning or restrciting abortion. Life has alot of gray areas, but abortion is a black and white issue, either you think its wrong and should be banned or you support it and think it should be legal. The argument that "I am personally opposed to it, but dont think its the governments right to legislate what a woman does with her body....." doesnt make a person prolife IMO. They are just as much of a proabort, as a rabid feminazi marching for abortion rights in Washington. Either you think it should be banned or it should not be banned, There is no middle ground with being prolife or a proabort, you are one or the other simple as that. In my book you are not prolife, but a proabort since you oppose any legislation that would ban abortion.

reply from: michael

Can you quote me as to where i said or even implied that i oppose abortion bans? Hell, i made a case that personhood which includes the prenate. So, please, if you could be so kind to find me a quote or quit straw manning me.

reply from: yoda

I don't know what your position is, but it isn't Prolife.

You observe that some people (who just happen to support abortion) formulate personal, private concepts and definitions of the word "person" that "just happen" to exclude unborn humans, and call that "honest intellectual questioning"? You see no conflict of interest there? You see no deliberate fabrication for the specific purpose of justifying abortion? Were you born yesterday?

I don't discuss "souls" in the abortion debate, because that is beyond factual evidence. But human DNA is quite relevant to our species classification, and it's presence in a living organism (other than reproductive cells) is indicative of it's status as a human being.

reply from: michael

I don't know what your position is, but it isn't Prolife.

You observe that some people (who just happen to support abortion) formulate personal, private concepts and definitions of the word "person" that "just happen" to exclude unborn humans, and call that "honest intellectual questioning"? You see no conflict of interest there? You see no deliberate fabrication for the specific purpose of justifying abortion? Were you born yesterday?

I don't discuss "souls" in the abortion debate, because that is beyond factual evidence. But human DNA is quite relevant to our species classification, and it's presence in a living organism (other than reproductive cells) is indicative of it's status as a human being.

my position is clear. i think abortion is wrong because the prenate has personhood. i gave an argument to such in the other thread produced by me. i AM against abortion but for different reasons than you. this doesnt make me any less "prolife" than you, sir.

Again, you and i differ to the motivations by intellectual/philosophical abortionists. you make it seem like they believe it is human and worth as much as any of us but yet deviously plot against "unborn humans". Gimme a break! i could turn this around and just as easily claim It is YOU who is dehumanizing the prochoice but positing some sort of twisted evil morality.

Again, there are conditions to which "persons" lack full human dna, such as down syndrome....are they not human? i am challenging you to think deeper not advocating the prochoice. However, it seems there ought to be active posters who should. this forum doesnt seem to have much opposition and just a bunch of prolifers patting each other on the back.

reply from: yoda

No, it doesn't. But when you seem to be sincerely arguing the proabort line of bs, that's something I can't reconcile with a Prolife position. If you can, then that's your business.

First, in NO way have I indicated that I think any proaborts consider unborn humans to be "human and worth as much as any of us"...... I haven't debated any proabort like that. Anyone who thinks that unborn humans are "worth as much as the rest of us" are generally Prolife.

And second, do you actually believe that these "proabort philosophers" just happen, by some very, very strange coincidence....... to come up with philosophical definitions that just happen to exclude unborn humans, and they just happen to use these exclusionary philosophical concepts to make the claim that their concepts actually change the physical identity of unborn humans so as to justify abortion???? Give me a break! How gullible can you possibly be?

You need to do a little more research. Down's has EXTRA DNA, not "less than full" DNA...... And it's ALL human DNA, as are they "all human"...... no oddity, malformation, or "mutation" has ever been considered to be a new species, we/they are all still considered "Homo sapiens sapiens".

I'll agree with you that the opposition here is quite pathetic, but then how many good proabort debaters are there in the world? And finally, if you are going to play the devil's advocate here, please don't do it in the first person, and with such conviction, if you want to be considered Prolife.

reply from: scopia1982

To answer the question to the orginal question, is abortion murder ? The answer is yes!! Abortion is killing a human being with human dna. Murder is legal term for killing a human being with human dna. But when it comes down to it when it pertains to a human unborn or born, there is no difference for "killing" or "murder".

reply from: Tam

Ok, this is ridiculous. First of all, yoda does not imply that all pro-choicers "believe it is human and worth as much as any of us but yet deviously plot against" unborn children. That is simply false.

-- Many pro-choicers deny the humanity of the unborn child. This does not in any way alter reality. The reality of the situation is that the unborn child is a human being, and no amount of denial changes that.

-- Some pro-choicers acknowledge the humanity of the unborn child, and yet still do not believe the unborn child is "worth" as much as anyone born.

-- I guess it's conceivable that someone might "deviously plot" against an unborn child--but that's not what is happening most of the time. Most of the time, they're not considering the child at all.

I am not trying to speak for yoda, but I am pretty sure I'm hitting the nail on the head anyway. You are putting some pretty bizarre words in his mouth--words I've never seen him write. I think you should either prove that what you said is true, clarify what you meant if you didn't say quite what you meant, or take it back.

I doubt anyone would challenge the idea that a Down syndrome person is human. You are trying to make it seem as though his/her DNA would not be human DNA. That is not the case--it IS human DNA, it just has a condition of abnormality. A DNA test would correctly recognize the DNA of a Down syndrome person as human DNA--human DNA with Down syndrome. Do you deny this?

In your opinion, it "cannot be the fact that the infant is a biological human being" that requires society to grant him/her personhood. Why not? Because s/he was a human being as a fetus, too. Not a good reason--because being human is enough. In fact, I read your entire lengthy argument about why an unborn child is a person--and the argument boils down to: because all human beings are persons. Hello? That is my argument as well. And yet when I said

you said

You think I'm lazy for coming to the same conclusion as you? How's that, exactly? Are you upset that I didn't "show my work"? As a matter of fact, I did--in another thread. Why don't you read http://www.prolifeamerica.com/fusetalk/forum/messageview.cfm?catid=7&threadid=691 and then tell me whether I've showed my work enough for you. Here's where I made essentially the same argument you are making. I was writing about the idea that an individual's just claim to life is his/her nature as a rational being. It was being presented as Ayn Rand's position (although it was being used to justify abortion, obviously unintentionally also justifying infanticide, because the capacity to reason hadn't been fully developed in the fetus). I personally take it even farther in that I believe even non-rational living beings have a just claim to life. But this is my version of the argument you were making in your "personhood" thread:

reply from: yoda

Thanks, Tam.. it seems I missed a couple of points in my reply to michael, so I'll go back and address those. Good catch.

reply from: Tam

Actually, you and I were apparently writing our responses simultaneously--I hadn't read yours when I posted mine, but there it was, ahead of mine. I also was responding to some stuff michael said in another thread, that's where that bit about personhood came from.

reply from: yoda

IMHO, that is a load of horse manure, and I'll tell you why. Philosopy does not deal with changing our language, and that is what you are suggesting. Philosophers may deal with "what makes us different from the animals" all day long, but nothing they can say alters in the least the fact that our language is defined by how we use words, NOT how philosophers view our words.

And the word "person" does not depend for it's meaning and/or application upon the opinions of any or all the philosophers in the world, including YOU. It APPLIES to any and ALL human beings, in every sense except the legal, regardless of your opinion.

And lastly, your proabort philosopher friends are NOT telling us how we are "different from the mammals", they are telling us how we are "different from our OWN unborn babies"....... quite a difference in concept, wouldn't you say? Or do you see that as "just another coincidence"????

Hey, you get your wish! It sure isn't!! It's an "attempt" to demonstrate that the common usage of person is WELL ESTABLISHED IN OUR HISTORY as a word that applies to ALL HUMAN BEINGS, and cannot be casually dismissed, even by a whole philosophy department!

That sir, sounds like a rather snobish claim that general society cannot figure out how they want to use their words..... as if people in general are too stupid to know how they are using them. Words BELONG to the people who use them, not snobbish philosphers.

One could argue about anything, if one doesn't mind appearing stupid. The term "human being" is well defined, well understood, and well known to apply to ALL members of the species Homo sapiens sapiens. Beyond that you are treading on very shaky ground.

And you haven't noticed that this discussion hasn't been limited to that subject?

Thread drift is a fact of life, get used to it.

ALL WORDS can be "philosophical in nature", as you put it, if philosophers choose to discuss them, but that doesn't change their definition in society one iota, does it???? When you or anyone attempts to make a specious claim that an unborn child "is not" a person, that takes it OUT OF THE REALM OF PHILOSOPHY and puts in into the realm of word usage, whether you like it or not.......... you cannot drag your philosophical concepts out and substitute them for the facts about what words mean to us as a society.......... you have no such authority.

And by the way, if you are trying to irritate me by mispelling my screen name constantly, find a new tactic. That one's pitiful.

reply from: yoda

So, society's usage means nothing at all to you, does it? Only YOUR expertise in the art of philosphy is worthy to determine the meaing of words like "personhood"?

Wow! Just WOW! Does the term megalomania ring a bell?

reply from: yoda

Sir, you can post new threads, and choose the title of the threads. But that's all you can do to "restrict" the discussions in them. You do not get to act as monitor in the discussions that follow. IOW, we discuss whatever we want to.

reply from: yoda

All I can say is..... carry on!

reply from: michael

You observe that some people (who just happen to support abortion) formulate personal, private concepts and definitions of the word "person" that "just happen" to exclude unborn humans, and call that "honest intellectual questioning"?

This quote gave me the impression that you feel pro-aborts hold the belief that there is no intrinsic difference between say me and say me. Anyhow, yes I do believe this. There are contemporary proabortionists, who like me, were once agnostic and have pondered into the query of personhood but have concluded that the fetus is not a person. They came to this through intellectual query. They examined what it was that society or they valued as a person. If I am not mistaken, you seem to be advocating that somewhere down the line, abortionists merely made this person argument as you proclaim, “exclude the unborn”. While, I suspect this is what is called a “Circumstantial Ad Homonym” it doesn’t dismiss the argument given. However, first, lets look into the fallacy:

1. Person A makes claim X.
2. Person B asserts that A makes claim X because it is in A's interest to claim X.
3. Therefore claim X is false

Or to put it in pertinent terms in this case:

ProAbortionst A claims the fetus is not a person
Prolifer B asserts this claim is only to exclude the unborn and this is an interest.
Therefore the claim is wrong.
Even in the light that it was proven to be of interest, it still doesn’t dismiss the argument.

As for the Down syndrome shenanigans, I made a mistake on the chromosomes. However, if you are going to claim that a human being is one with a human being DNA then one must distinguish what that is. What is it to have human DNA? What constitutes human DNA? Once you can tell me that, we will ponder into the down syndrome. And there are plenty of good proabort debaters in the world. I suggest you get out more and visit forums such as internet infidels.

reply from: michael

The semantics of humanity and personhood seem to get confused. Usually when a proabort advocator addresses the term “humanness” they are referring to what is accurately described as personhood. And while there is a reality as to whether the fetus is a person or not, it is not objectively known and I doubt anyone can KNOW reality.
I do not give personhood rights to one who is merely a human being. One can be brain dead and I would deny them the right to exist merely because they lack and will always lack the function to which we value.

Again, so when I say you are cognitively lazy for saying “all human beings are people” –I am calling you lazy for merely concluding all human beings are persons without valid premises.

reply from: yoda

The "argument" is specious and hollow anyway, and the obvious conflict of interest was just an observation, not an offered proof. But I think it's plain to anyone (except you) that when a proabortionist says anything about the nature of an unborn human that tends to justify abortion, the argument should be viewed as self-serving and unduly biased. That's just human nature.

There is no mystery about that. Not being a scientist, I cannot tell you how they identify human DNA, but with a little research you can probably look that up. Your expectation that I will do that for you is what I would call "cognitive laziness".

No thanks, all I've found on proabort forums (like Prochoice views on Delphi) is a collection of bitter, profane radicals who delight in making very nasty personal attacks on any Prolifers who wander in. If there are any who have skills, let them come here or to ProLife views on Delphi and display them.

Most notable to me is your complete failure to address the central theme of my objection to your position. While you are making your claims about how philosophers define words for us, I am telling you that we ourselves define our words by how we use them, and dictionaries report how we do that. No, pointy headed professors in ivory towers do not tell us how to use words, or what they mean. Professional dictionary editors do that every day, by getting out in the real world and listening to people.

That's something that seems to be missing in your whole approach to this subject: you seem to want to talk, but not listen.

reply from: yoda

I've never read such a large pile of horse manure in my life. There is no confusion about what a person is, but it is to the advantage of proaborts everywhere to pretend that there is. Only under the cloak of confusion can they hope to blur the line between individual opinions and actual word meanings. WE KNOW what we mean when we say "person", and therefore WE KNOW what a person is, and what personhood is. But that will no do for those who want desperately to find some lame, feble excuse to justify killing unborn humans because "they don't fit my personal, private, made-up, exclusionary defintion that I trumped up to ease my conscience when I advocate killing babies".

And to whom YOU give "personhood rights" has WHAT to do with the meaing of the word??? Who appointed you the grantor of such rights anyway?

reply from: michael

Yoda,

What you mean to say is you KNOW what you BELIEVE to be a person. You cannot know what personhood is because of its questionable nature. If you are interested, I can provide a link.
http://www.larouchepub.com/lar/2003/3002believe_know.html

it gets a bit philosophical. But eh. J

As for me giving personhood, I can only make a philosophical claim. This is my definition of personhood and I share it among others. I as a member of society have as much say as the rest of the citizens in society interprets as to constitutes a person. So, who am I to attempt to define a person? A citizen.

If you are going to claim that human DNA is what makes a person then it is up to you to explain to me what constitutes human DNA. Lets not switch the burden of proof.

As for the philosopher dictionary jargon, there are definitions to which cannot be found within the dictionary. What is love? What is justice? What is good? What is reality? Or what is a person? These are inquisitions that resorting to a dictionary would be rudimentary at best. I am curious as to why you are so militant against the philosophical inquisitions into it.

reply from: yoda

NO. I know what qualified PROFESSIONALS say a person is... and I KNOW that they determine that by listening to US use that term. I'm astounded that you stubbornly continue to refuse to acknowledge that neither you nor any pointy headed intellectual has ANY authority to establish word meanings, i.e. "what things are". You have NO such authority!

So in YOUR world, each citizen establishes their own private definition of words? My, that must be confusing when you try to talk to someone who doesn't share your private definitions! Are you too high and mighty to use the common tongue like the rest of us? Is it "too common" for you?

HORSEPUCKY!! You know as well as any of us that geneticists can distinguish between human and animal DNA, that's nothing but a RED HERRING argument! Furthermore, let there be no doubt I do not claim that DNA is what gives us our classification, it's just ONE WAY TO DETERMINE our species classification.... OUR PARENT'S species classification does that! If your parents were human, guess what? YOU will be too! Of course, from your statements I think that you may consider yourself to be "superhuman", but that's another discussion.

Hey, GUESS WHAT??? "Human", "Human Being", "Person", "Child", and "Baby" can ALL be FOUND in most ANY DICTONARY!! So come off this silly crap and come back down to earth.... you know quite well that there is NO MYSTERY about how those words are used in the vernacular.

But just to humor your idiotic line of argument, here are some linked definitions: (Oh, by the way, just click on the links with your little mouse pointer thingy....)

Information Please: http://www.infoplease.com/ hu'man be'ing 1. any individual of the genus Homo, esp. a member of the species

MSN Encarta Dictionary http://dictionary.msn.com/ hu·man be·ing (plural hu·man be·ings) noun 1. member of the human species: a member of the species to which men and women belong. Latin name Homo sapiens

per·son (plural peo·ple per·sons (formal)) noun 1. human being: an individual human being 2. human’s body: a human being’s body, often including the clothing
http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_1861725217/person.html

per•son Pronunciation: (pûr'sun),-n. 2. a human being as distinguished from an animal or a thing. 6. the body of a living human being, sometimes including the clothes being worn: He had no money on his person. http://www.infoplease.com/ipd/A0584644.html

Main Entry: per·son 1 : HUMAN: 4 a archaic : bodily appearance b : the body of a human being; http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=person&x=16&y=16

Person: Pronunciation puhr sEn Definition 1. a human being. Definition 2. the body of a human being. Example the clothes on his person. http://www.wordsmyth.net/live/home.php?script=search&matchent=person&matchtype=exact

Definition person noun [C] plural people or FORMAL OR LAW persons
1 a man, woman or child:
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=59039&dict=CALD

Merriam-Webster Dictionary: Main Entry: child 1 : an unborn or recently born person http://www.m-w.com

MSN Encarta Dictionary: child [ (plural chil·dren noun 5. unborn baby
http://dictionary.msn.com/

Information Please: child -n., 8. a human fetus. http://www.infoplease.com/

American Heritage Dictionary: Child: 2. a. An unborn infant; a fetus. IDIOMS: with child Pregnant. http://www.bartleby.com/61/

Wordsmyth: The educational dictionary: Phrases: with child http://www.wordsmyth.net

Webster's Revised Unabriged Dictionary: Child: To be with child, to be pregnant. -- the immediate progeny of human parents http://humanities.uchicago.edu/forms_unrest/webster.form.html

MSN-Encarta Online: ( http://dictionary.msn.com/find/entry.asp?search=baby ) ba·by noun (plural ba·bies) 2. unborn child: a child that is still in the womb

Dictionary.com ( http://www.dictionary.com/cgi-bin/dict.pl?term=baby ) ba·by (bb) n. pl. ba·bies 2. An unborn child; a fetus.

iNFOPLEASE.com ( http://www.infoplease.com/ipd/A0330371.html ) ba•by pronunciation: (bA'bE), -n. 5. a human fetus.

So what do you think? Are you going to continue this silly charade, or come out of the closet and admit that you are a prodeath, proabort, pro-baby killer imposter?

reply from: Skippy

If you hang around long enough, michael, and perhaps read through the archives, you will find that your fellow Hatfields on this site aren't a particularly intellectually curious bunch. Just a heads up, lest you waste too much time and energy on a hopeless cause.

reply from: michael

yoda,

you pulled my statement out of context. I never stated that these words cannot be found in the dictionary, per se, but that they are completely rudimentary definitions.

i believe i stated that in the last sentence of the quote:

"As for the philosopher dictionary jargon, there are definitions to which cannot be found within the dictionary. What is love? What is justice? What is good? What is reality? Or what is a person? These are inquisitions that resorting to a dictionary would be rudimentary at best"

Have you ever took a philosophy class? if so, then i am confident there would be no question as to whwther such questions as "what is a person? what is love, justice, good, etc" all seemingly blatant definitions would be unearthed to you as quite deep.

you think you can accuratlely described what is good by looking in a dictionary? you would be laughed out of philosophy class. seriously. I never claime di was more of an authority than anyone as to what personhood is but i do claim i have a deeper and more accurate definition.

i see no red herring argument. Again., if one is to claim human dna is part of personhood then it must be distinguished as to what human dna is. call me ignorant if you will but this explanation is in neccessity if you wish to advocate its significance simply because i cannot coincide or disagree until i know what it is you mean.

i am sensing that you are getting emotional. would you like to quit this debate?

reply from: yoda

Oh I saw that all right, but it seemed so inconsequential that I ignored it. You want to know why?

It's real simple, and I'll spell it out to you slowly. When one of your "proabort philosophical buddies" makes a statement like "An unborn baby is not a person".... that has NOTHING AT ALL to do with the complexity of the "concept of person"..... that has NOTHING AT ALL to do with how many "different types of persons" there are, that has NOTHING AT ALL to do with needing a degree to discuss the philosophy behind the difference between us and the animal kingdom..... none of that. So what does it have to do with? Oh, that's easy....

Your proabort buddies are making a sweeping, all inclusive, absolute statement that NO ONE in our society uses the word "person" to refer to unborn human beings! It is a statement that the word "person" is totally inappropriate to describe unborn babies because NO ONE DOES IT! Because if anyone does use it that way, and if any dictionary allows that usage, then they are WRONG, aren't they? Like in the statement "A person is a person, no matter how small"..... do you imagine that no one ever refers to an unborn baby as a "very small person"? Do you imagine that the words "unborn child" and "unborn baby" can refer to a human being that is NOT a person? How wierd is that?

No, you can put your "deeper and more accurate philosophical definitions" where they belong.... somewhere in your resume. You cannot eliminate unborn humans from the application of words like person, child, & baby because millions of people use those words that way... and THEY are they authority on what those words mean, not a million pointy headed intellectuals rubbing their beards and staring up at the ceiling......

Get real man, your arguments are nonsense. All you can do is fill up this forum with nonsensical debate about philosophy that has no bearing on the silly attempts of proaborts to dehumanize unborn babies by trying to get people to change how they use common words.... you're not going to succeed in convincing people that they are using common words incorrectly by all the intellectualizing you can muster.

Not a chance, man. You keep bringing on the nebulous, vague, esoteric nonsense about what certain things "mean to you", and I'll keep bringing you back down to earth, back down to the real world where proaborts try to draw a line between born and unborn so they can convince us it's okay to kill unborn babies. I'll keep pointing out how false your arguments are, how off-target your "logic" is, and how incredibly naive you must think we are to buy any of that stuff......

I could do this for days without rest, man...... I love this stuff!

reply from: yoda

Don't dump him on us, oh high and mighty one.... he's one of yours....

reply from: ForLife

Don't dump him on us, oh high and mighty one.... he's one of yours....

I've read Michael's comment that he is pro-life. I've also read his comment that we are not persons until 5-6 six months after conception. That is when the cerebral cortex is fuctioning at a level high enough to qualify us for personhood.

I just had a living son born a couple days ago. If my wife would have aborted him six months ago he would be dead now. It would have been murder to kill him anytime after he came into being through conception.

No, he didn't have to have conscious thought yet those first few weeks. He was due proper respect and care.

reply from: yoda

Remember, that's in HIS opinion........ only. There is NO scientific, medical, or academic basis for that claim... it's based on nothing but thin air, and the desire to justify abortion by semantic slight of hand.

Who knows? No one can say what goes on in an unborn baby's mind or when it occurs, because we don't have any instruments to measure feelings, or identify thoughts. But why does it matter? WHATEVER our stage of development, we are "as we should be" at that age.

And like you say, we're due proper respect and care, no matter how small.

reply from: michael

My reply to Yoda....

Yoda said ……“Your proabort buddies are making a sweeping, all inclusive, absolute statement that NO ONE in our society uses the word "person" to refer to unborn human beings! It is a statement that the word "person" is totally inappropriate to describe unborn babies because NO ONE DOES IT! “

Fallacy called Appeal to the Masses. Just because “no one does it” does not devalue the definition or inquisition. It could just as easily mean they are cognitively lazy. However, if the inquisition into personhood is not something, which is practiced then perhaps you ought to write a letter to my University, for the quote presented to you is a course outline. Read it carefully.

PHIL 1F94
“Problems
Central problems of philosophy as living questions for reflection, dialogue and debate, including: What is a person? Is everything permissible? Can my life have meaning?”
http://www.brocku.ca/webcal/undergrad/PHIL.html

Yoda said…"..... do you imagine that no one ever refers to an unborn baby as a "very small person"? Do you imagine that the words "unborn child" and "unborn baby" can refer to a human being that is NOT a person? How weird is that? “

Fallacy of equivocation. The word person is not the same as “unborn child or baby” . the latter are adjective nouns and possess no philosophical value that I am aware of. You seem to be quite ignorant to the query of personhood and it seems as though you value humans merely because they are humans. I have a link to present to you but before I do, I apologize if I asked this before but what is it about humans we value? Anyways, here is the link:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_when1.htm Additionally, I have also provided a link to which advocates that great apes be given personhood. This would argue humans do not sorely own that personhood but based upon traits of beings to which we value. There are other organizations called “great ape standing and personhood” you might want to look into. But hey, I thought no one spoke of personhood in such a manner?
http://www.nabr.org/animallaw/Personhood/

reply from: michael

Don't dump him on us, oh high and mighty one.... he's one of yours....

if i believe the fetus has the rights of personhood and i stand against abortion (i do) but merely think your arguments are impotent, how then am i proabort?

Do tell me. And then i want you to answer what it is that we value in humans? Please dont give me circular logic.

reply from: michael

Don't dump him on us, oh high and mighty one.... he's one of yours....

I've read Michael's comment that he is pro-life. I've also read his comment that we are not persons until 5-6 six months after conception. That is when the cerebral cortex is fuctioning at a level high enough to qualify us for personhood.

I just had a living son born a couple days ago. If my wife would have aborted him six months ago he would be dead now. It would have been murder to kill him anytime after he came into being through conception.

No, he didn't have to have conscious thought yet those first few weeks. He was due proper respect and care.

i believe there was a misunderstanding. if you would take the time to read my argument given for personhood in another thread, you will see i am prolife. the cerberal cortex argument was explaining the proabort debate in terms of personhood.

reply from: yoda

How very, very strange. It's as if I was speaking to someone who doesn't understand English. Or is intentionally pretending not to. I suppose that confusion and distraction are one debate tactic, and they seem to be the only one that you are employing. Nothing you say responds in any way to my points.

Most people with even a minimum of education know that when you ask the question "what is a (fill in the blank with any vernacular term)", you are asking how our society defines that term by usage. That's why most people with even minimum education look in the dictionary to see what that "something" IS. But not michael. No, michael rambles on and on about this and that philospohical process, about propaganda techniques (which you seem not to understand), and about how ordinary people aren't qualified to know what they mean when they use those words. Yours is the saddest, most impotent arguments I've even seen in the abortion debate.

That's the best you can come up with? Pitiful, just pitiful....

For everyone who understands English, "Person" is most often defined (in the vernacular) as "the body of a human being", which of course includes unborn humans, a.k.a. "unborn babies".

And the saddest thing about all the smoke and nonsense you are putting out, michael, is that what labels we put on unborn babies does not matter one whit to a moral person. They know instinctively that our unborn babies are "our kind", and therefore a part of our society. Their conscience tells them that to electively kill such a child is a horrible, nasty thing to do. They need none of your snobbish appeal to superiority to know right from wrong, they feel the pain of the child deep inside them. You need to come to grips with the fact that what you are advocating is baby killing, pure and simple.

reply from: yoda

Claiming to be Prolife is not the same as acting in a Prolife manner. Attacking the humanity of unborn humans is not acting in a Prolife manner. If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and looks like a duck, it's probably a duck.

Personally, I value humans because they are, IMO, every bit as "valuable" as I am. They are my "moral equal". So I would not do to any other human what I would not want done to me. But then, I value all life, in all forms. It's called "respect". It's also called the Golden Rule. Is that too "circular" for you?

reply from: michael

How very, very strange. It's as if I was speaking to someone who doesn't understand English. Or is intentionally pretending not to. I suppose that confusion and distraction are one debate tactic, and they seem to be the only one that you are employing. Nothing you say responds in any way to my points.

Most people with even a minimum of education know that when you ask the question "what is a (fill in the blank with any vernacular term)", you are asking how our society defines that term by usage. That's why most people with even minimum education look in the dictionary to see what that "something" IS. But not michael. No, michael rambles on and on about this and that philospohical process, about propaganda techniques (which you seem not to understand), and about how ordinary people aren't qualified to know what they mean when they use those words. Yours is the saddest, most impotent arguments I've even seen in the abortion debate.

That's the best you can come up with? Pitiful, just pitiful....

For everyone who understands English, "Person" is most often defined (in the vernacular) as "the body of a human being", which of course includes unborn humans, a.k.a. "unborn babies".

And the saddest thing about all the smoke and nonsense you are putting out, michael, is that what labels we put on unborn babies does not matter one whit to a moral person. They know instinctively that our unborn babies are "our kind", and therefore a part of our society. Their conscience tells them that to electively kill such a child is a horrible, nasty thing to do. They need none of your snobbish appeal to superiority to know right from wrong, they feel the pain of the child deep inside them. You need to come to grips with the fact that what you are advocating is baby killing, pure and simple.

a lovely way to ignore all of my quotes..

reply from: michael

Claiming to be Prolife is not the same as acting in a Prolife manner. Attacking the humanity of unborn humans is not acting in a Prolife manner. If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and looks like a duck, it's probably a duck.

Personally, I value humans because they are, IMO, every bit as "valuable" as I am. They are my "moral equal". So I would not do to any other human what I would not want done to me. But then, I value all life, in all forms. It's called "respect". It's also called the Golden Rule. Is that too "circular" for you?

actually it is circular. its called begging the question.

For instance:

Person A: What is it that we value in humans?
Person B: I value humans because they are just as valuable as me!

This doesnt tell me anything, it horribly fallacious. click here for a further detailed description:
http://www.fallacyfiles.org/begquest.html

So, now i ask, What is it that makes humans so valueable? If you claim humans are valueable because they are humans, you will again be begging the question.

As for me being "proabort, "...i do not act nor quack like a duck. i bluntly tell those who are willing to listen that i am prolife but the arguments given within this forum are just sad and thus i am trying to clean them up.

reply from: yoda

Let me explain my view on "value" to you michael. "Value" is whatever worth one places on things. There is no absolute logic, science, or proof to it, it's strictly a matter of opinion. Therefore all values are at their core nothing more than opinion. Therefore there is no logic to value, it is an emotionally derived quality. You can compare the value of similar items (like comparing your own worth to that of other humans), but aside from that logic plays no part in assigning value. There is no point of origin for value other than how you feel about things.

How do you feel about abortion, michael? How do you feel about unborn babies? Do you give them lip service, and say you're prolife, but spend all your effort and time listing reasons why it's okay to kill them?

"Clean our arguments up"? If that weren't so sad it would be funny, michael. We (and I think I can speak for the other Prolifers here) neither need nor want your "help" in formulaing our positions on abortion. If I'm wrong about that, I'm sure those who do want your "help" will speak up now. A wolf in sheep's clothing is still a wolf, michael.

reply from: yoda

Yes, I thought I'd return the favor since you totally ignore everything I say. But all in all I think I was quite charitable, I didn't tell you what I really thought of your "position".........

reply from: michael

first of all, there is a difference between an argument and an opinion. i suggest you learn them. second of all, there is logic to value, however, this depends on your definition of "logic" due to the controversy between philosophers. One could make a logical argument to the specific triat(s) to which we value that is found within humans, that is, the argument could be logically sound. according to the value theory, the question breaches into the field of aesthetics.
And i quote: "But values also play a role in the philosophical study of logic and logical systems, and in the theory of choices, decisions and judgements."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Value_theory#Philosophy

Perhaps i will rephrase my question to reform from your apparent dodging. What is it that is valued among humans to which we issue legal protection to such as punishment for murder and not that of animals? What trait do humans seem to value within themselves that permits us to to have higher rights than that of a cat?

please quit your dogding and just answer the question, if you can.

reply from: michael

Yes, I thought I'd return the favor since you totally ignore everything I say. But all in all I think I was quite charitable, I didn't tell you what I really thought of your "position".........

"I thought I'd return the favor since you totally ignore everything I say. "

Read link.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_wrongs_make_a_right

I also feel i addressed your arguments. if i claimed they are fallacies and explain why...i dont need to address them any further.

reply from: galen

imo
Michael it seems that you need to come down to earth a bit. Most people on this planet do not speak in philosphical lingo... though many of us have taken the same classes you have and more...Have you noticed that many of the people on this board do not come into these threads with you? In our group using this avatar, most of us have simply chosen to ignore you and your arguments because they are soooooooo far above anyones head that they cannot possiby be used in everyday life.
I applaud the way you seem to feel about educating the rest of the world's population, but it has been my experience that both sides of this argument are being fought , not by Phd's , but by people who have everyday jobs, kids, and whatnot.

yoda, I see a lot of this type of thinking in the people I teach. Usually when they become enamoured of a subject they tend to spout it to anyone who will listen, Michael makes ( IMO) several good points, and I do feel as if he thinks he is giving a good pro-life argument, he just hasn't practised enough yet to get his point accross to the masses.

A person is what society defines it as... the term is often fluid. What makes a person today may or may not make them one tomarrow; ie, slavery, genocide, etc. But everyone and everything on this planet deserves the same "respect and care" that we deem necessary for ourselves. If we all practiced this paricular rule then we would not be in the mess we are today.

It goes back to the question, is killing ever right? Is one killing ever more justified than another?
Abortion it seems falls under both of those questions.

As far as the law is concerned... Laws are created by society based on the moral standards of the times.... they are written and re written. Just as slavery was once a right of the people so too it became a criminal offense. Just as we had and did not have and then had again capitol punishment. Maybe soon the RvW arguement will be rehashed, and possibly overturned. That is what is good about our system of government... laws can be overturned, re written etc. Just because society tolerates something now... does not mean that society will tolerate it forever.
So michael IMHO you would do well to continue your freshman and sophmore studies... just remember that if you want to make a noise you must get the majority of the people in the room to hear you... otherwise they think the show is over and will file out of the hall.

Mary

reply from: michael

Galen,

It is refreshing to hear someone who is not so polemic. I am actually trying to use much more praticial language within this debate and while I know that not everyone can understand me, I am not capable of dumbing down an issue to which is massively complex.

I am struggling to get the majority to hear me and due to whatever reasons I am facing several obstacles. However research indicates that majorities that “Minorities that exhibit consistency and commitment are most likely to be successful in exerting influence on a majority. Maass and Clark (1984), in a review of the minority influence literature, concluded that a consistent behavioral style causes the majority to attribute certainty and confidence to the minority, especially when subjected to a great deal of social pressure from the majority.”

http://www.academy.umd.edu/publications/leadership_groups/cini_groupnewcomers.htm

reply from: galen

Ok michael.... there you go again.... If you stop and listen to yourself through the eyes of a 14 yo, 18yo, or a person with a 2 year degree.....you are so far out in the ether with your language, that you make as much sense as the guru that instructed the Beatles. Fancy language is great.... if you are in a lecture hall speaking to people with the education level of yourself or greater. BUT to everyone I have had read this thread today 3 people out of 15 have understood you.... the rest stopped somewhere halfway through.... they do not respect your style.Typing has no charisma, and that is what makes a truely great speaker.... thier presence... I feel you are blanding out those you wish to charm.
Once again... your "higher learning status will not win converts". If you were in a courtroom more than likely the judge would not even consider you for more than a few minutes.

Once again go back and review your own research, even the articles you use to prove your point do not contain the vocabulary level that you insist on using. It does not support your cause. I feel that you missed my point by a mile.

As for the article itself, well more recent studies have been done and if you reread this study on group dynamics...you will find that your "newer and more educated style" does not a debater make... in fact you are more likely to be thrown out of the group than included in it.
So once again... please speak on the level of the people you are trying to communicate with... then they will not walk out of the lecture hall.

that is ... if you really want them to hear you, and you are not just looking for a place to show off in.

This all goes for the aguement about abortion and murder. If you cannot get across a clear and consise point, for a matter that is as controversial than this, you will lose the war. no matter how great-hearted you may be If the point is lost in the fuzz surrounding it... no one will get to hear it, and it can do no good.

Might I suggest you go back to a prof. or two and maybe take a public speaking course, they may be able to more clearly define for you what I mean.

reply from: michael

I have a theory that attaining intellectual support will throw the masses within the direction of the prolife. If i can appeal to the members of society to which educate the masses then ultimately, i can regain their support.

History has shown us that the general public is stupid. One has to look no further than such quotations by Bernays and Lippman, who were employed by Woodrow Wilson under the establishment of the Creel Commision to tailor public support for WW1 and even began the Red Scare.

The difference, however, was that Bernays and Lippman lied to the public, while i suggest merely an intellectual movement with both science and philosophy approaches to prolife. The logic is simple, win the intellectual support, those who spawn from universities with prolife influences will in all probability be successful in their ventures and fill the elitist positions of society. This includes everything from media, politics and Education.

I will do my best to make my arguments lucid but not to an extent to which they loose their intellectual/philosophical value. My true audience is educators.

As for my education, i am only a first year student with an interest in philosophy.

reply from: Sookie

"actually no....murder is the premediated killing of a person. not a human being."

By your reasoning, there has existed a person who was not also a human being. I'd really love to know more about them. Got a name? Some evidence of this person who wasn't human?

"Since abortion is the lawful killing of a human being, abortion is not murder."

It's simply justifiable murder. As noted feminist Naomi Wolf wrote.

"Individuals are "persons" in law unless they are minors or under some kind of other incapacity such as a court finding of mental incapacity."

Minors aren't people. Right? I think the law sees minors as property, doesn't it? Alzheimer's patients = not people? If they're not people, what pray tell are they? Hmm?

"The debate is actually the philosophical query into "what is personhood" and once this is figured out, science can tell us when that is."

Science can't tell us when a person is a person with any more validity than I can decide or Britney Spears or Ziggy Marley or Stephen Hawking or Granda Schwartz. Science has no ability to determine when personhood begins because personhood is arbitrarily decided by semantics. Science would have to set down artbitrary guidelines for personhood then arbitrarily state at what point it happens and everyone would have to accept that opinion. Science at this moment can decide that personhood begins at conception, at one week's gestation, before conception, 8 weeks after, if the entity can breathe or think or do math or bake a cake.

"I myself have no problem disregarding potential because I had to watch as an unwanted "unborn human" completely destroyed and eventually killed a person I still consider to be one of the most important people in my life."

Let us be frank here. You blame a fetus for the death of a person you cared for. For this fetus to have "killed" this person, it must have lived inside her, yes? (Otherwise I think we're getting into a Stephen King story.) And how pray tell did that fetus get inside her? Was she raped? Or did she have consensual sex?

If it were rape, would her death then not be the fault oh I don't know -- of the rapist? You know, the thinking person with the cerebral cortex who decided to violate her? That person.

If it were consensual sex, could this woman not have been responsible -- it is HER body is it not? And if a fetus is part of her body, doesn't that mean she killed HERSELF? :/ Was she not aware of birth control methods? Had Planned Parenthood failed in its saintly work of giving out free BC and awareness literature?

The only way a woman is NOT at least partly responsible for becoming pregnant is if she's raped. And then that responsibility lands on the rapist -- not the innocent product of the rape. But then, we kill babies and let murderers live in this country.

reply from: galen

Believe me... at your level, opinion is where you should hang you hat michael, it would behoove you to practise you philisophical debate skills in another arena, and one that is less emotional.
You cannot add pure logic to an emotional issue and hope that the outcome will be logic.
In truth, this is a subject debated by humans, who are emotional beings, and instinct tells us to protect the innocent, so for those of us who believe that an innocent life is being lost,we become emotional.
You should have seen this earlier in your own thread, as you brought up an emotional memory as a way of prooving a point.
We are not Vulcans, and can never hope to be them... learn your logical arguments in the classroom and represent them in a few years. I am sure they will be much more clear and consise.
BTW I never in my 15 years of higher education, had a prof. who spoke higher than his/ her audience. Nor do i now speak to fellows in such a manner.

Mary

reply from: michael

Well, there are many organizations to which advocate for personhood rights to the great apes. They advocate that what we value as a person is not only found within humans but that of great apes. My logic is simple, a person is a being to which has the traits we value enough to protect its life and entitle such being to jutice and liberty. One could imagine if a martian came down to earth, our laws would protect them too. just because contemporary society only gives personhood status to born humans doesnt mean they are the only ones to which deserve it. nevertheless, there is a triat within humans that we value and protect. humans are not valueable because they are humans. that begs the question. there is an intrinstic trait within humans that we value among others and this is why we distibuite personhood. if this specific triat lacks , as theorized by pro in reference to the fetus then personhood is not given.

As for your reference to "justifable murder", i do believe the term you seek is justifiable homicide. however, even that would be faulty because both by the LEGAL definitions i am aware of use the terms "persons" rather than human being.

When i speak of persons, i speak within the rights of justice, life and liberty rather than the legislation around minors and coporate personhood.

The query as to what a person means is not a scientific question but rather a philosophical question. Once we have down the values to which give then science can tell us when these values are present within a being. Again, Philosohy deals with the "what"and science deals with the "when".

Philoshopy: Personhood is X
Science: X beings at stage C in entity's life

When the entity reaches stage C, it possesses X and therefore a person.

get it?

reply from: michael

abortion CAN be an emotional issue
Humans CAN be emotional

but both CAN also be logical. For instance, this may be anecdotal but i am able to surpress much of my emotion in discussing abortion. I CAN take the logic into emotional issue and i do this by what is called an abreaction through intellectualization. Just because we can be emotional beings does not posit we must succumb to it.

Additionally, the difference between the people attending the professor lecture and the dynamics of ths debate are blatant. The professor lectures students who are intellectually prepared for his/her class, those willingly participating in the class must be up to date on the lingo, etc. if an individual thinks i am speaking too high than i am not intending to speak to them .

reply from: galen

I referr you to the thread that you started on personhood.

reply from: michael

Galen, what did you mean by "on your level"

reply from: galen

But a good speaker must never be a snob...
It is not enough to cop out and say " i'm not speaking to/ for you" in a public forum. This IS a public forum.
Once the words fly from you hands they are now food for the masses. And the masses will critic, debate, and call us on our BS.
Who ever told you that you could speak specifically to one person in a crowd, and not have the others hear and interperate what you have said.
Especially if you feel you want to educate.... well anyone... higher or lower.
Once again... you raised a good topic... but this is not a board for philosophy, it is a board for the debate on abortion.
If you feel it is wrong, that's ok.
If you feel it is only wrong sometimes, well that is your opinion; however be ready to defend your position to the masses.... this is a PUBLIC forum.

As far as logic is concerned, well take a few more classes, and use real people not Vulcans as your guide.
You might find out how truely emotional your arguments, and where they come from, really are, they are written all over your posts.

Mary

reply from: galen

A first year philosophy student.

reply from: ForLife

You have worthy goals.

Yes, I just read your post that you were only repeating pro-choice arguments that need to be countered.

Your comment that "the general public is stupid" I take to mean that people are gullible and take what educators and the media profess as the truth.

Philosophy: 1) theory or analysis of the principles underlying conduct, thought, knowledge, and the nature of the universe. 2) the general principles of a field of knowledge 3) a particular system of ethics

The word philosophy shows up just once in the KJV of the Bible in Clossians 2:8 "Beware lest anyone cheat you through philosophy and empty deceit, according to the tradition of men, according to the basic principles of the world, and not according to the Messiah."

Some philosophers and judges get so absorbed in their deep thoughts that they reason it is a right for women eight or nine months into their pregnancy to kill their child.

Proverbs 3:5-6 says: "Trust in the Lord with all your heart, and lean not on your own understanding; in all your ways acknowledge Him, and He shall direct your paths."

The Bible says the problem with man is that he thinks he can chart his own course.

Jeremiah 10:23 "O Lord, I know the way of man is not in himself; it is not in man who walks to direct his own steps."

Proverbs 14:12 "There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way of death."

I know you think philosophy is the way to go, and is a high and honorable calling.

My advice: the Bible says the way to get wisdom and understanding is to turn to it's wisdom. The Lord promises to lead us in a right path. By setting off on a man-made path of philosophy, you will fail to reach ultimate happiness and abundant life.

reply from: michael

Galen,

Yes this is a public forum and everyone can reply to my posts but that doesn’t mean they have the qualifications too. I can aim my arguments at the philosophically inclined and while this is not a philosophical forum, can I not make a philosophical argument? I am willing to risk that others may ignore me but to alter my argument to anything less would be artistic suicide.

You seem to understand me just fine. J

Forlife,

. I do not deny that educators and the media have massive power within the masses and I am willing to use it. However, whether they speak truth or not is another matter. Frankly, one of the few absolute truths is that we are ignorant to many of them. (truths)

As for your biblical quote about cautioning against philosophers, I feel the quote is an inherent defense mechanism of the Christian belief to sway any conflicting thought. The bible as far as I am concerned seems to want its pupils to become sheep. I am an atheist and a pundit of religion. ? For the bible to have any effect on my positions a few things must be proven

1. there is a god
2. god wrote the bible

reply from: yoda

Since you ignore all my questions, comments, and points, it hardly seem obligatory to respond to any of yours. However, since I believe myself to be a "bigger person" than you, I will do so anyway.

The reasons why we value our species over animals species has absoultely zero, zilch, nada to do with why it is wrong to kill innocent babies. Human babies are NOT animals, no matter what you and your philosophy class buds think.

The real issue is human equality. In innocence, all humans ought to be equals, IMO. Therefore no human has the right to take the life of another innocent human.

But that's way too plain and simple for a sophisticated mind like yours, right?

reply from: yoda

You only did even that for a select few of them michael, but I don't blame you....... you're way out of your league here.

reply from: yoda

Indeed. And aren't we the fortunate ones to be the recipients of their "wisdom"?

reply from: yoda

THANKS for the laugh, michael............ we "dummies" as soooo grateful for your efforts........

reply from: yoda

So in your view, we're all members of the general public and therefore "stupid", and you're brilliant. Yeah, that comes across in your attitude.

Why, with your brilliance your ought to be teaching the teachers!

reply from: yoda

Perhaps that's because your really don't care very much about the issue, michael. Those of us who do care deeply aren't moved by your coldness.

reply from: yoda

Heaven forbid that you should risk your artistic integrity!

So do I, michael, so do I.

reply from: Tam

Ok, I'm not picking on your spelling, but I cannot resist pointing out that in this usage, the word "homonym" is a homonym for the actual (latin) word you mean, hominem. I had never before seen "homonym" used as one. Cute!

Hey, by the way, are you ever going to respond to my last post to you in this thread??

reply from: galen

tam,
makes you wonder about how much RW latin this guy has under his belt...
That brings up another post he had about religion...

Michael you obviously did not read what I said.... many religious leaders were leaders not just because of thier spirituality, but because of the way they brought into society new and great ideas. And they did not have to "dumb down" the issues.

This issue of abortion is not massivly complex. It is in fact very simple.
What value does our society put on human life and where does the line get drawn as to what is human life? All the rest of the arguments stem from these very questions. They seem very simple to me, and I have not yet had to use "lofty thinking" in order to come to my personal conclusions.
People who have to talk above others to make a point have more buisness dealing in quarks and string theory, than a down to earth morality issue.

Where did you get the idea from that this issue requires a greater mind to get accross a simple value system?

If you feel you must use the media and a higher educational system in order to get this simple idea accross to the masses, I fear that you have a very skewed view about how a democratic society, such as ours really works.

Maybe a few sociology classes and political science classes and a few american history classes Hmmmm?

Mary

reply from: Tam

Did you miss the whole thing I just quoted for you? What the ... ? Ok, michael, here it is again.

Do you really need me to break that down for you into "premise 1" and "premise 2" etc etc? Or are you able to grasp the argument? It is the SAME argument you were making. Only now I'm curious about why you'd "deny the right to exist" to someone whose capacity to reason was disabled.

reply from: Tam

Yoda! I think I've figured out the problem. It all depends on what the meaning of "is" is!

I am CHOKING with laughter reading this thread, btw. This is too much!!

reply from: Tam

A good bit about the word "value" and what it means to people. (Feminists: Please pardon the sexist language; dear Ayn apparently didn't know any better.)

-- Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged

reply from: michael

Since you ignore all my questions, comments, and points, it hardly seem obligatory to respond to any of yours. However, since I believe myself to be a "bigger person" than you, I will do so anyway.

The reasons why we value our species over animals species has absoultely zero, zilch, nada to do with why it is wrong to kill innocent babies. Human babies are NOT animals, no matter what you and your philosophy class buds think.

The real issue is human equality. In innocence, all humans ought to be equals, IMO. Therefore no human has the right to take the life of another innocent human.

But that's way too plain and simple for a sophisticated mind like yours, right?

Your question and comments as fas as i can recall were addrssed by tstaing how they were fallacious. any further comment is redundant but restate them and i will address it. furthermore, humans are mammals and that is a scientific fact. if not, what makes us so different?

reply from: yoda

You think maybe slick Willie is "slumming" here on this forum????

reply from: yoda

To put it bluntly, WHO CARES?

We are not debating the abortion of any mammals other than humans, michael. FOCUS, FOCUS, FOCUS....

reply from: ForLife

The proud person must humble himself. One must become a servant.

Mankind's potential is unlimited; literally. Today he can unleash the power in an atom bomb; maybe tomorrow he can unravel the fabric of space and time, or merely destroy a solar system in one fell swoop. Have you noticed all the conflicts going on, and people destroying stuff and each other? Do you really believe there is any chance man can avoid MAD (mutually assured destruction)?

The Messiah came so that we may have life, and have it more abundantly. A person must humble themself to the Messiah's leadership. The only other option is MAD.

reply from: michael

To put it bluntly, WHO CARES?

We are not debating the abortion of any mammals other than humans, michael. FOCUS, FOCUS, FOCUS....

well, you brought it up. and i quote you: "Human babies are NOT animals"

Now, stop your incessant dodging. what makes humans different from mammals to which we kill and eat on a daily basis?

reply from: ForLife

Now, stop your incessant dodging. what makes humans different from mammals to which we kill and eat on a daily basis?

God says we are his offspring. We are patterned after God. We have unlimited potential and abilities. We will create life across the universe and rule over the entirety of creation forever. No animal has such potential. The family of God makes life and animals such as mammals.

Psalm 82:6 "I said, 'You are gods, and all of you are children of the Most High.'"

We are special from the time of conception because of our potential. It doesn't matter that we have not yet realized the full potential. God calls Adam His son, and says it is illegal to kill anyone made in His image.

reply from: michael

Now, stop your incessant dodging. what makes humans different from mammals to which we kill and eat on a daily basis?

God says we are his offspring. We are patterned after God. We have unlimited potential and abilities. We will create life across the universe and rule over the entirety of creation forever. No animal has such potential. The family of God makes life and animals such as mammals.

Psalm 82:6 "I said, 'You are gods, and all of you are children of the Most High.'"

We are special from the time of conception because of our potential. It doesn't matter that we have not yet realized the full potential. God calls Adam His son, and says it is illegal to kill anyone made in His image.

Secular please. otherwise i will ask you to prove god and that he wrote the bible.

reply from: ForLife

I think you want us to say it's our more highly developed mind. Then, based on a materialistic view; you will argue that a fetus under 6 months of age has a mind that is less developed than a cat. Thus you may argue, there should be no legal protections for the developing child during those early months. The trait that we humans seem to value within ourselves (if defined as a functioning mind) is not yet there for the very young. Gosh, you might say, the cat should have more protections than a very young developing child. The cat is more alert and aware.

I know what a human fetus is and what it is developing into. Because this youngest of offspring is in our family, and has such tremendous potential, this youngest of persons needs our protection.

Don't argue potential for sperm or egg. They are not persons until the egg and sperm unite to create a unique individual.

reply from: michael

bingo!

inherent nature and that is something that i argue for. fact of the matter is, the infant possesses no qualities to which we value other than its inherent capabilities. the same inherent capabilities are found within the fetus. however, what differs me from the proborts is that they feel inherent nature is not enough and value function/presence.

this is how the prolife ought to argue. not spirits, emotion, figure similiarites, pain sensory, etc

reply from: ChristianLott

Why is it every pro abort who comes here picks the clown face?

Could it be they view themselves as nothng more than clowns? After all, this one views himself and other people as nothng more than animals.

To put it bluntly - you can't ever take a clown seriously, so stop trying.

He knows he's a joker and his views are arbitrary just as he claims everyone elses are.

There is a lot of evil stuff going around on this planet. Too much to waste time listening to a clown face claim that there isn't.

The root of all evil is the slaughter of innocent babies. Child sacrifice, selfishness and the power to murder protected by man's laws.

Divided we fall. There is no USA. I suppose next he will tell us he'd like to eat babies.

Moloch is here guising himself under the falsely used name of Saint Michael.

reply from: michael

i am prolif but am trying to clean up the arguments and critical thinking within this board. laack of opposition has left you guys uses defenses that are quite impotent and outdated. As for "moloch?" emmm? who? Check my IP

reply from: ForLife

I'm going to argue that our potential includes being a member of the God family in addition to the inherent human qualities we possess. The Christian heritage is not impotent and outdated, although some atheists treat it as such. Our founding fathers said a self-evident truth is that we are endowed by our Creator with the right to life. Some evolutionists think we are not much different than the animals and should be treated on a near equal footing. I don't think many realize our unlimited potential to acquire technology, reason and solve; and to love and care for one another and creation.

I personally would not argue pain as a reason for not killing a fetus. Whether a fetus feels pain or not when being killed is a moot point. If the unborn child does not feel pain when being killled, that does not lessen the atrocity.

Neither am I going to argue against abortion on the basis that it may cause breast cancer, etc. The atrocity of killing a young child is the focus. Arguments about pain, potential cancer, etc.; all pale in comparison to the actual deliberate killing of a human.

Moloch or Molech: an Ammonite god to whom ancient people sacrificed their children by fire.

Although an atheist, I thought you claimed to be well versed in the Bible.

reply from: yoda

How do you find your way home at night?

Are you going to advocate that human babies be killed and eaten as a food source?

If not, why should I or anyone comment on our omnivorious diet?

FOCUS, FOCUS, FOCUS!! (on abortion, michale..... that's the subject)

reply from: yoda

But that has nothing to do with abortion. The fact that we view animals as a food source does not relate in any way to the elective killing of unborn humans.

Abortion is generally not, as far as I know, a food gathering activity (at least for most abortionists, there was one in Kansas who did eat the fetuses until he was busted).

reply from: yoda

And you took it upon yourself to come here and "update" us? Without asking us?

Moderator's note: No need to personally attack here.

reply from: michael

The proud person must humble himself. One must become a servant.

Mankind's potential is unlimited; literally. Today he can unleash the power in an atom bomb; maybe tomorrow he can unravel the fabric of space and time, or merely destroy a solar system in one fell swoop. Have you noticed all the conflicts going on, and people destroying stuff and each other? Do you really believe there is any chance man can avoid MAD (mutually assured destruction)?

The Messiah came so that we may have life, and have it more abundantly. A person must humble themself to the Messiah's leadership. The only other option is MAD.

I dislike when you state "man" because this posits the whole species rather than imperial and hegemonic eltists who drive for war. As for MAD, as far as i am aware, the Russians once did offer to expel nukes and Regan refused to. Man is capable and some are willing but there are those who seek otherwise

reply from: michael

How do you find your way home at night?

Are you going to advocate that human babies be killed and eaten as a food source?

If not, why should I or anyone comment on our omnivorious diet?

FOCUS, FOCUS, FOCUS!! (on abortion, michale..... that's the subject)

What? I advocate no such thing. I am asking what it is we value within an infant that we do not find in an adult dog or ape? answer that question. you dodge left right and center. it would be comical if it werent so sad.

reply from: michael

Is there not rules against this kind of behavior?

reply from: Skippy

None that are enforced.

reply from: Tam

michael, why are you ignoring my posts?

reply from: ForLife

The proud person must humble himself. One must become a servant.

Mankind's potential is unlimited; literally. Today he can unleash the power in an atom bomb; maybe tomorrow he can unravel the fabric of space and time, or merely destroy a solar system in one fell swoop. Have you noticed all the conflicts going on, and people destroying stuff and each other? Do you really believe there is any chance man can avoid MAD (mutually assured destruction)?

The Messiah came so that we may have life, and have it more abundantly. A person must humble themself to the Messiah's leadership. The only other option is MAD.

I dislike when you state "man" because this posits the whole species rather than imperial and hegemonic eltists who drive for war. As for MAD, as far as i am aware, the Russians once did offer to expel nukes and Regan refused to. Man is capable and some are willing but there are those who seek otherwise

I say man because we are all at fault. I don't believe it is a few elitists causing all the problems. All of our natures and tendencies are similar. It is not someone else "out there" causing all the problems. You say some men are capable and willing when it comes to not destroying each other. I believe you are deluding yourself about the true mind of man. The condition evident at the corporate level is true at the individual level for each and every one of us; we often tend to be at war with our neighbor, even when we don't admit it.

reply from: michael

i dont have time to reply to everyone....if you havent noticed, my views are not too popular. what post do you wish for me to address?

reply from: michael

its not about food. it about killing. If you find the specific traits that we value within ourselves over other species than you may find personhood. we kill many animals for food. we kill them because we dont view them as persons. why? what seperates us? what trait makes us so superior to deserve protection? simply assuming we protect humans because were humans is begging the question.

Allow me to give you a hint, there is nothing biologically that makes humans any better than the rest of the species other than our cognitive capabilities. ( putting which specific cognitive ababilities aside for now) many abortionists will argue that since the prenate has none of these features until the 5-6 month, it is therefore not a being to which obligates our protection.

thats one of the valid abortionist arguments in a nutshell.

reply from: yoda

You question is totally immaterial and irrelevant to this forum.

This forum is dedicated to the subject of abortion, not attitudes towards animals.

reply from: yoda

No it isn't. Your arguments are about diversion from the subject of abortion.

Killing other living things for food is a necessity for all animals, including us. Human fetuses aren't widely considered food, are they?

Therefore the elective killing of unborn humans is not a necessity, it is a selfish act. It is done for selfish reasons. It is morally no different from killing born children.

Abortion steals an entire future lifetime from every living unborn baby. A lifetime that could be filled with growing up, learning about the world, raising a family, and bouncing grandbabies on your knees.

Abortion wipes all that out in a single moment. And you would split hairs about what an unborn baby can do at what age? A six month old baby can't talk or walk, usually......... does that make it less worthy of life?

None of your crap makes any sense, michael, except as excuses for killing babies.

reply from: Tam

No one has time for everything. But let's recall that YOU are the one who called ME lazy. Why? Because I hadn't explained the premises behind my personhood argument. When I pointed out a fuller version of that argument, that I had posted on this site a few months ago, you ignored it. When I then pointed it out again to you and noted that you'd ignored or missed it the first time, you still ignored it. So rather than assuming you were ignoring it because you don't have a good answer (a good answer might start with an apology for the "cognitively lazy" insult, then move on to dealing with the argument in question), I thought I'd just ask you why you are ignoring my posts. I expected you to ignore the post where I point out that you'd be able to get away with being such a patronizing cad if you were actually as good at debating as you think you are--but if you insult me and then ignore two separate responses to that insult, I think I have a right to ask why. And for you now to question which post I wish for you to address only digs the hole deeper by making it seem that you either 1) are really not paying attention AT ALL to what is being said to you (there is ample evidence of this) or 2) ignore posts that challenge or question you in substantive ways (there is also evidence of this). As for why your views are not too popular--your views are not very well-presented or very well thought out, despite your fantastic notions to the contrary. That is why they are unpopular. You present your half-baked ideas as though you were some kind of great thinker who is better than the other posters on this board. Your posts reek of condescension and snobbery. Believe me, no matter how "pro-life" you claim to be, that's no guarantee of popularity, even on a pro-life forum. You are clearly not here to make friends--and that's fine--but don't use your bad attitude as an excuse for not responding to my posts to you. You are unpopular because you are acting like a cad. That's not my fault. If you don't have time to back up your accusations, you shouldn't make them in the first place--otherwise, it makes you seem underhanded. I am trying very hard to continue to give you the benefit of the doubt. It would be much easier if you would make an honest effort to respond to the actual questions asked of you and the actual points made to you. For someone who is so quick to throw around the word "lazy," you are not exactly setting a great example. I am among those who remain extremely skeptical about your true intentions here.

reply from: Tam

Ok, that is definitely untrue. There are those who do not kill any living things for food (not even plants). However, as you rightly point out, this is not a debate about food.

The rest of what you said, though, is quite good. As usual.

reply from: michael

No it isn't. Your arguments are about diversion from the subject of abortion.

Killing other living things for food is a necessity for all animals, including us. Human fetuses aren't widely considered food, are they?

Therefore the elective killing of unborn humans is not a necessity, it is a selfish act. It is done for selfish reasons. It is morally no different from killing born children.

Abortion steals an entire future lifetime from every living unborn baby. A lifetime that could be filled with growing up, learning about the world, raising a family, and bouncing grandbabies on your knees.

Abortion wipes all that out in a single moment. And you would split hairs about what an unborn baby can do at what age? A six month old baby can't talk or walk, usually......... does that make it less worthy of life?

None of your crap makes any sense, michael, except as excuses for killing babies.

your hung up on this food example and you dont seem to be letting go. what we do with other species we intend to kill (food) is not of importance in this issue but rather why we feel it is ethically fine for us to kill them. there is a reason as to why humans are protected under laws of murder and perps of such crimes are punished up to life impriosnment or even death as a ramification , while those who kill a dog are looking at rarely any longer than a year imprisonment.

the difference lays blatantly within the difference of the species. yes? if you can admit that society values the life of a human over a dog then can you tell me why? what do humans place themselves higher than dogs? what is so special about us?

reply from: yoda

Well, none of them live in my neighborhood, I can assure you.

reply from: yoda

Another of your brilliant diversions, michael.

And as usual, it has absolutely nothing to do with abortion.

reply from: michael

Another of your brilliant diversions, michael.

And as usual, it has absolutely nothing to do with abortion.

i feel different and i gave my premises above. to the abortionists i am familiar with, abortiing a being before 5-6 months is no different than killing an adult chipmunk to service a person due to the lack of cognitive ability/function.

reply from: ForLife

In Acts 17:28-29 Paul says we are God's offspring; that makes us special.

You have said that if I keep on referencing God, you will require that I prove His existence. That is not possible based on what God is doing:

2 Thessalonians 2:11-12 "...God will send them strong delusion, that they should believe the lie, that they all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteous."

Revelation 22:11 "He who is unjust, let him be unjust still; and he who is filthy, let him be filthy still; he who is righteous, let him be righteous still; he who is holy, let him be holy still."

Matthew 13:10-15 "And the disciples came and said to Him, 'Why do You speak to them in parables?' He answered and said to them, 'Because it has been given to you to know the secret hidden truths of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been given. For whoever has, to him more will be given, and he will have abundance; but whoever does not have, even what he has will be taken away from him. Therefore I speak to them in parables, because seeing they do not see, and hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand. And in them the prophecy of Isaiah is fulfilled, which says:

Hearing you will hear and shall not understand, and seeing you will see and not perceive; for the hearts of this people have grown dull. Their ears are hard of hearing, and their eyes they have closed, lest they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears, lest they should understand with their hearts and turn, so that I would heal them.'"

If you have a previous background with the Bible; even the little knowledge you do have will be taken away from you unless you decide to change your course.

Jude 12:13 says the following is reserved for the unrighteous; the blackness of darkness forever. Of course, you already know death is the absence of life.

reply from: michael

No one has time for everything. But let's recall that YOU are the one who called ME lazy. Why? Because I hadn't explained the premises behind my personhood argument. When I pointed out a fuller version of that argument, that I had posted on this site a few months ago, you ignored it. When I then pointed it out again to you and noted that you'd ignored or missed it the first time, you still ignored it. So rather than assuming you were ignoring it because you don't have a good answer (a good answer might start with an apology for the "cognitively lazy" insult, then move on to dealing with the argument in question), I thought I'd just ask you why you are ignoring my posts. I expected you to ignore the post where I point out that you'd be able to get away with being such a patronizing cad if you were actually as good at debating as you think you are--but if you insult me and then ignore two separate responses to that insult, I think I have a right to ask why. And for you now to question which post I wish for you to address only digs the hole deeper by making it seem that you either 1) are really not paying attention AT ALL to what is being said to you (there is ample evidence of this) or 2) ignore posts that challenge or question you in substantive ways (there is also evidence of this). As for why your views are not too popular--your views are not very well-presented or very well thought out, despite your fantastic notions to the contrary. That is why they are unpopular. You present your half-baked ideas as though you were some kind of great thinker who is better than the other posters on this board. Your posts reek of condescension and snobbery. Believe me, no matter how "pro-life" you claim to be, that's no guarantee of popularity, even on a pro-life forum. You are clearly not here to make friends--and that's fine--but don't use your bad attitude as an excuse for not responding to my posts to you. You are unpopular because you are acting like a cad. That's not my fault. If you don't have time to back up your accusations, you shouldn't make them in the first place--otherwise, it makes you seem underhanded. I am trying very hard to continue to give you the benefit of the doubt. It would be much easier if you would make an honest effort to respond to the actual questions asked of you and the actual points made to you. For someone who is so quick to throw around the word "lazy," you are not exactly setting a great example. I am among those who remain extremely skeptical about your true intentions here.

i have no idea what argument youre talking about. i have participated in many arguments within this board. restate your premises and conclusions at which point i will address them.

reply from: michael

In Acts 17:28-29 Paul says we are God's offspring; that makes us special.

You have said that if I keep on referencing God, you will require that I prove His existence. That is not possible based on what God is doing:

2 Thessalonians 2:11-12 "...God will send them strong delusion, that they should believe the lie, that they all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteous."

Revelation 22:11 "He who is unjust, let him be unjust still; and he who is filthy, let him be filthy still; he who is righteous, let him be righteous still; he who is holy, let him be holy still."

Matthew 13:10-15 "And the disciples came and said to Him, 'Why do You speak to them in parables?' He answered and said to them, 'Because it has been given to you to know the secret hidden truths of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been given. For whoever has, to him more will be given, and he will have abundance; but whoever does not have, even what he has will be taken away from him. Therefore I speak to them in parables, because seeing they do not see, and hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand. And in them the prophecy of Isaiah is fulfilled, which says:

Hearing you will hear and shall not understand, and seeing you will see and not perceive; for the hearts of this people have grown dull. Their ears are hard of hearing, and their eyes they have closed, lest they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears, lest they should understand with their hearts and turn, so that I would heal them.'"

If you have a previous background with the Bible; even the little knowledge you do have will be taken away from you unless you decide to change your course.

Jude 12:13 says the following is reserved for the unrighteous; the blackness of darkness forever. Of course, you already know death is the absence of life.

fine. but to make this valid please prove the existence of God and that such a God wrote the bible.

reply from: Choicer

Another of your brilliant diversions, michael.

And as usual, it has absolutely nothing to do with abortion.

its obvious he cant answer your question michael. if he could he would be there, dictionary and all
i can try! i cant say i wont fail but ill make a stab at it.

i suppose humans place themselves higher than dogs because they can sympathize with humans better. we value humans better as for many people, humans are our closest friends and families.
humans also in our eyes put more into society than a dog does.
Oh and a dog or a sheep or any sort of anima doesnt speak our language so we cant hear it when it cries in pain or hear it when its afraid. Except for a dogs whimpers but thats ok because the person hurting the dog doesnt feel it.

i myself think the killer of a dog or any pet animal should get the same as if he killed a human. they all have their personalities and uses and mean something to someone so they should all be avenged properly if that life is taken from them.

reply from: terry

Keep it civil, and watch the personal attacks.

Thank you.

reply from: Tam

Are you actually claiming that your reason for not responding is that you were not even aware of the argument to which I refer? If so, you have some nerve calling anyone else cognitively lazy.

Just out of curiousity, is there anyone else who doesn't know what I'm talking about? I'm talking, michael, about the argument that all human beings are persons. Really, was there anyone else who didn't know what I'm talking about? Not that everyone has an obligation to follow the argument. But since you started 1) the thread and 2) this particular exchange with me, I don't think it's unreasonable of me to expect you to have some kind of clue. Or, well, apparently it was. From now on, I won't expect you to have any clue what the heck we're arguing about. Would that be better?

michael, at the top of the thread are those little numbers--those are page numbers. you can actually go back and read stuff that was written earlier in this thread by clicking on those little numbers. I am too busy right now to do this for you. The same paragraph now exists in three separate places on this forum--two of which, and a link to the third, fuller version--are in this very thread.

reply from: yoda

And you think that deserves serious consideration? You compare human babies to rodents and expect us to be interested in your line of reasoning?

A newborn human can't do any more than a fetus can, michael, so according to you it deserves no more consideration than a chipmunk, right? The fact that it IS a little human being in the process of development makes no difference, right?

How can you spout such garbage? We can handle that kind of trash from you and ALL OTHER proaborts, michael, don't for one minute think that we need you to "prepare us" for it. We know you ARE the real thing, a genuine died in the wool proabort.

reply from: yoda

It's so kind of you to help your fellow proabort out with his little distractions.......

reply from: yoda

He knows too, Tam, he just isn't willing to admit he has no answer.

reply from: Choicer

It's so kind of you to help your fellow proabort out with his little distractions.......

Its only a distraction if you cant answer it. fact is it isnt a distraction. i can see how its linked to the debate. perhaps youre just confused
you can always tell when prolifers are on the run. you can taste the fear. its funny its actually happening with one whos on your side. the insults come out, question dodging, you remind me of a group of lemurs attacking things. Though perhaps lemurs dont foam at the mouth so often..

Why cant no one admit that they dont have all the answers anymore?

reply from: Tam

No it isn't. Your arguments are about diversion from the subject of abortion.

Killing other living things for food is a necessity for all animals, including us. Human fetuses aren't widely considered food, are they?

Therefore the elective killing of unborn humans is not a necessity, it is a selfish act. It is done for selfish reasons. It is morally no different from killing born children.

Abortion steals an entire future lifetime from every living unborn baby. A lifetime that could be filled with growing up, learning about the world, raising a family, and bouncing grandbabies on your knees.

Abortion wipes all that out in a single moment. And you would split hairs about what an unborn baby can do at what age? A six month old baby can't talk or walk, usually......... does that make it less worthy of life?

None of your crap makes any sense, michael, except as excuses for killing babies.

your hung up on this food example and you dont seem to be letting go. what we do with other species we intend to kill (food) is not of importance in this issue but rather why we feel it is ethically fine for us to kill them. there is a reason as to why humans are protected under laws of murder and perps of such crimes are punished up to life impriosnment or even death as a ramification , while those who kill a dog are looking at rarely any longer than a year imprisonment.

the difference lays blatantly within the difference of the species. yes? if you can admit that society values the life of a human over a dog then can you tell me why? what do humans place themselves higher than dogs? what is so special about us?

michael, whether or not it is ethically "fine" to kill a dog is not relevant to whether it is ethical to kill an unborn human child. whether or not it is ok to torture and kill human beings is an important issue, and whether or not it's ok to torture and kill animals is another important issue, but those two issues are not related quite the way you think.

If our society considers killing animals to be ok, that doesn't mean that it IS ok--just as what our society "thinks" about abortion does not change reality, it merely creates a societal norm. Some of us believe that it is NOT ok to kill animals OR humans. Some people believe it's ok to kill humans but not animals, some believe it's ok to kill animals but not humans, some believe it's ok to kill animals and some humans, etc, etc.

In other words--it is not necessary to value a human over a dog to oppose abortion. I don't value humans more than dogs, and I oppose abortion as well as any other killing of humans or dogs. But for someone who does value humans more than dogs, it would be consistent to oppose killing humans but not dogs. Because it can be consistent for someone to oppose abortion and either oppose or support the killing of dogs, the issue of killing dogs isn't terribly relevant to the abortion issue. So refusing to get sidetracked into a conversation about dogs is not the same as dodging a question. Get it?

reply from: yoda

Keep it up. You're the only cheerleader he has....... quite a "coincidence", eh?

reply from: yoda

Sure he does. "Sidetracking the debate" is the main strategy of the proaborts.

reply from: michael

Choicer,

Hey! glad to see different opinions.

reply from: michael

Keep it up. You're the only cheerleader he has....... quite a "coincidence", eh?

perhaps because i am in a prolife forum arguing that poraborts do have a valid argument, i may not agree with it but it is quite valid. this acknowledgement from me is obviously something that bothers you and the rest of the crowd. In fact, it bothers you so much that you deny me the position of prolife , when in fact, i advocate against it all the time but merely in different and more cogent manners than you.

And btw, popularity is of no tell to a valid argument. I could have zero "cheerleaders" against and opposition of 989898989898989898 people and can still be right.

reply from: michael

No it isn't. Your arguments are about diversion from the subject of abortion.

Killing other living things for food is a necessity for all animals, including us. Human fetuses aren't widely considered food, are they?

Therefore the elective killing of unborn humans is not a necessity, it is a selfish act. It is done for selfish reasons. It is morally no different from killing born children.

Abortion steals an entire future lifetime from every living unborn baby. A lifetime that could be filled with growing up, learning about the world, raising a family, and bouncing grandbabies on your knees.

Abortion wipes all that out in a single moment. And you would split hairs about what an unborn baby can do at what age? A six month old baby can't talk or walk, usually......... does that make it less worthy of life?

None of your crap makes any sense, michael, except as excuses for killing babies.

your hung up on this food example and you dont seem to be letting go. what we do with other species we intend to kill (food) is not of importance in this issue but rather why we feel it is ethically fine for us to kill them. there is a reason as to why humans are protected under laws of murder and perps of such crimes are punished up to life impriosnment or even death as a ramification , while those who kill a dog are looking at rarely any longer than a year imprisonment.

the difference lays blatantly within the difference of the species. yes? if you can admit that society values the life of a human over a dog then can you tell me why? what do humans place themselves higher than dogs? what is so special about us?

michael, whether or not it is ethically "fine" to kill a dog is not relevant to whether it is ethical to kill an unborn human child. whether or not it is ok to torture and kill human beings is an important issue, and whether or not it's ok to torture and kill animals is another important issue, but those two issues are not related quite the way you think.

If our society considers killing animals to be ok, that doesn't mean that it IS ok--just as what our society "thinks" about abortion does not change reality, it merely creates a societal norm. Some of us believe that it is NOT ok to kill animals OR humans. Some people believe it's ok to kill humans but not animals, some believe it's ok to kill animals but not humans, some believe it's ok to kill animals and some humans, etc, etc.

In other words--it is not necessary to value a human over a dog to oppose abortion. I don't value humans more than dogs, and I oppose abortion as well as any other killing of humans or dogs. But for someone who does value humans more than dogs, it would be consistent to oppose killing humans but not dogs. Because it can be consistent for someone to oppose abortion and either oppose or support the killing of dogs, the issue of killing dogs isn't terribly relevant to the abortion issue. So refusing to get sidetracked into a conversation about dogs is not the same as dodging a question. Get it?

okay tam, i see you but i got to go to work.....i will reply either tonite or tomorrow. life of a student is not a relaxed one.

reply from: yoda

As a member of the "crowd", I am astonished at your arrogance in thinking that you are equipped to lecture us. I consider the prodeath arguments that you advocate for to be bogus, irrevelant hogwash. And your promotion of them is evidence of your true feelings about abortion, IMO.

reply from: galen

What seperates us from the animals is the ability to reason in a higher capacity than a chimpanzee. If you do your research even a prenate of 20 weeks can do simple basic reasoning... even respond to parents and physicians allbeit, at a primative rate. Go back to your Anthropology class and your Philosophy class, and ask your professors if your arguments are valid. This particular brand of spouting has gotten no one anywhere Michael and IMHO it is time for you to stop acting like a third grader with the "i know you are but what am I " comments.

Mary

PS my 11 year old argues a better case than you do.

reply from: yoda

What michael refuses to recognize, Mary, is that we are not advocating here for the killing of animals OR human babies........

reply from: Choicer

Keep it up. You're the only cheerleader he has....... quite a "coincidence", eh?

Now youre off topic.

The fact that youre wrong doesnt matter to you does it? just so long as you can answer back. didnt your parents warn you against that?

How is answering a question and giving an opinion cheerleading someone? it is a stupid thing to say Yodavater. Im sure you ask a lot of questions and get a lot of answers. Does that mean the people who answer you are cheerleading you? I doubt anyone but your fellow prolifers do that in the reality world.
im sure you answer a lot of questions, except the ones you cant answer, which you dodge expertly. Ill willingly cheerlead your dodge games if you like. but im pretty sure you answering a question and giving your opinion is not cheerleading.

or does that only work when youre saying it? ill remember next time when you do what ive done that youre actually admiring the person youre replying to.

youre a silly man and you cant stand being wrong, so you come back like a school girl with silly retorts. perhaps you should give up with the debate

reply from: michael

ahhhh...yes, but not at a fetus stage , yes? see now you just admitted that our cognitive abilities is what seperates us from an adult chimp, however, a fetus is vastly inferior in this field and up to 5-6 month it doesnt even have a cerberal cortex. so, then, if it has no cerberal cortex, no higher intellectual standing than a chiimp, it it cannot be seperated from the rest of the mammals. it is not possess the "reason in a higher capacity" or a ceberal cortex. then what seperates it? you must reform your argument.

i dbt you 11 year old can argue a better case than me....you jus dont seem to get it.

the problem with this forum is that everyone argues in means of dichotomy rather than seeking the truth. its group A vs B.......i just want to discuss not take such strict sides.

reply from: michael

well not according to me, but abortionists. and the key is cerberal cortex. fetus has none until 5-6 month, and thus has no valueable functioning...

reply from: michael

Tam said...

michael, whether or not it is ethically "fine" to kill a dog is not relevant to whether it is ethical to kill an unborn human child. whether or not it is ok to torture and kill human beings is an important issue, and whether or not it's ok to torture and kill animals is another important issue, but those two issues are not related quite the way you think.

If our society considers killing animals to be ok, that doesn't mean that it IS ok--just as what our society "thinks" about abortion does not change reality, it merely creates a societal norm. Some of us believe that it is NOT ok to kill animals OR humans. Some people believe it's ok to kill humans but not animals, some believe it's ok to kill animals but not humans, some believe it's ok to kill animals and some humans, etc, etc.

In other words--it is not necessary to value a human over a dog to oppose abortion. I don't value humans more than dogs, and I oppose abortion as well as any other killing of humans or dogs. But for someone who does value humans more than dogs, it would be consistent to oppose killing humans but not dogs. Because it can be consistent for someone to oppose abortion and either oppose or support the killing of dogs, the issue of killing dogs isn't terribly relevant to the abortion issue. So refusing to get sidetracked into a conversation about dogs is not the same as dodging a question. Get it?

It would be pertinent analogy because the argument is personhood not species. if you do not advocate the killing of any being than the argument doesnt apply to you but it still does apply to those who eat the felsh of other mammals, etc. it is pertinent to them because i can make the analogy that the fetus is worth just as much as the animals they eat if not less do to the lack of traits we value in persons.

it is relevant. it equates the fetus to non-person entities to which we permit the death of to serve actual persons.

reply from: Tam

You will not be able to convince someone who doesn't value animals, that a human fetus is worth less than or the same as an animal. The animal doesn't have that potential, the animal will never become a human being; the unborn child is a human being from fertilization. So to someone who values human beings above animals, which includes almost everyone, it will be irrelevant that a dog may have a more developed brain than a child early in development. When I was 13, we got a german shepherd. My dad kept joking about how he'd read somewhere that german shepherds have "the IQ of a thirteen-year-old." I never heard the end of it. But nobody suggested that we kill my younger siblings because the dog was supposedly smarter than they. It is irrelevant to the right to life that the body and mind of the child are still developing in utero--just as it is irrelevant that the body and mind of the child are still developing throughout his/her lifetime! That one stage of development isn't inferior or superior to another. Furthermore, to someone for whom all human beings are persons, there is no argument about personhood that can render a human being a non-person. Am I misunderstanding your argument about personhood? Does it not conclude that all human beings are persons? For precisely the reason I stated in my own such argument, for the reason I am stating now? That humanity is about the capacity to reason, and that although that capacity develops, that doesn't mean that a person with a greater capacity for reason, or a more developed one, is superior to a person whose capacity for reason is developing.

reply from: yoda

Only to you and other proaborts, michael. To us Prolifers it is about being an innocent "human being", which is of course the vernacular label for our species.

But to a proabort who wants a word/label that is"elastic", so they can bend it to exclude unborn human beings, "personhood" is much preferrable. With a word/label like that, you can twist it around any way you like, citing your "philosophical views" to justify your modifications of it's definition. What more convenient way to exclude unborn humans?

NO, the "argument" is NOT about personhood, michael. I'm sure you'd love for it to be, but it just isn't.

reply from: yoda

Ah, but that would spoil his game, Tam. He must have the "flexibility" to exclude some classes of humans from his "personhood" concept or he has no way to justify killing them.

reply from: Tam

Ah, but that would spoil his game, Tam. He must have the "flexibility" to exclude some classes of humans from his "personhood" concept or he has no way to justify killing them.

The problem is that on the one hand he wants to say "here is my valid argument that the unborn are persons and shouldn't be killed" and on the other hand "abortion isn't murder because the woman doesn't recognize the unborn child as a person" and "prochoicers have a valid argument that the unborn child is not a person, you just don't agree with it."

The only way to make their arguments SEEM valid, michael, is by redefining personhood so that it meets the criteria of their arguments! Circular, michael. Furthermore, you can't say, "it's a valid argument but my argument proving its opposite is also valid". This is not some huge universal paradox. Their arguments are not valid.

reply from: yoda

Which is precisely the game of the proaborts. Devalue the unborn baby by excluding it from their definitions.

That's the siren song of all proaborts: "Oh, it's okay to kill them now, because we've decided not to include them in our exclusive little group that we define as having "personhood"......"

reply from: michael

huh?

listen, within this forum i will advocate for two things:

1. personhood is possessed by prenates (but this is my belief)
2. The abortionists have a valid argument towards personhood.

Just because i acknowledge the validity of their argument doesnt mean i think it is the right choice or the right definition of personhood. All i state is that it IS cogent and valid.

I have noticed the majority of responces just seem to be misconceptions of my argument.

reply from: michael

Only to you and other proaborts, michael. To us Prolifers it is about being an innocent "human being", which is of course the vernacular label for our species.

But to a proabort who wants a word/label that is"elastic", so they can bend it to exclude unborn human beings, "personhood" is much preferrable. With a word/label like that, you can twist it around any way you like, citing your "philosophical views" to justify your modifications of it's definition. What more convenient way to exclude unborn humans?

NO, the "argument" is NOT about personhood, michael. I'm sure you'd love for it to be, but it just isn't.

if you say so. ;/

reply from: Tam

Okaaay....so your point is
1) you believe unborn children are persons, but that is just your belief
2) the proaborts have a valid argument that unborn children are not persons
3) you acknowledge that their argument is valid but you don't think it's the right choice of argument

?? WTF dude. You are making no sense at all now. A valid argument should reveal something TRUE. If what it reveals is FALSE then one of the premises must be WRONG. So let's see this so-called "valid, cogent" argument that the unborn child is not really a person. Because I'd like to have the chance to rip it apart, frankly. Because if it goes like this:

Premise 1: A person is what I say a person is.
Premise 2: A person must posess attribute X.
Premise 3: Attribute X is not discerned in an unborn child until arbitrary point Y.
Conclusion: All unborn children are non-persons until arbitrary point Y.

then I'm not terribly impressed. Anyone can make an argument like that. Want to see?

Premise 1: A book is what I say a book is.
Premise 2: A book must have a cover.
Premise 3: Any group of bound pages not yet covered, or from which the cover has been removed, is not a book.
Conclusion: If you tear the cover off your book, it ceases to be a book.

All that's missing is the stereotypical mom response: Because I Said So!

That's all this amounts to. Proaborts: "An unborn child isn't a child because I say so!"

Yeah! That's fun! I'll play!

I live rent-free because I say so! I have no bills because I say so! I am immune from pregnancy until I choose to have a child because I say so! I can fly because I say so! George Bush is a big pink petunia because I say so! Up is down because I say so! War is peace because I say so!

Wow! The heady, breathless feeling of Ultimate Power. How's it feel, michael?

reply from: michael

Okaaay....so your point is
1) you believe unborn children are persons, but that is just your belief
2) the proaborts have a valid argument that unborn children are not persons
3) you acknowledge that their argument is valid but you don't think it's the right choice of argument

?? WTF dude. You are making no sense at all now. A valid argument should reveal something TRUE. If what it reveals is FALSE then one of the premises must be WRONG. So let's see this so-called "valid, cogent" argument that the unborn child is not really a person. Because I'd like to have the chance to rip it apart, frankly. Because if it goes like this:

Premise 1: A person is what I say a person is.
Premise 2: A person must posess attribute X.
Premise 3: Attribute X is not discerned in an unborn child until arbitrary point Y.
Conclusion: All unborn children are non-persons until arbitrary point Y.

then I'm not terribly impressed. Anyone can make an argument like that. Want to see?

Premise 1: A book is what I say a book is.
Premise 2: A book must have a cover.
Premise 3: Any group of bound pages not yet covered, or from which the cover has been removed, is not a book.
Conclusion: If you tear the cover off your book, it ceases to be a book.

All that's missing is the stereotypical mom response: Because I Said So!

That's all this amounts to. Proaborts: "An unborn child isn't a child because I say so!"

Yeah! That's fun! I'll play!

I live rent-free because I say so! I have no bills because I say so! I am immune from pregnancy until I choose to have a child because I say so! I can fly because I say so! George Bush is a big pink petunia because I say so! Up is down because I say so! War is peace because I say so!

Wow! The heady, breathless feeling of Ultimate Power. How's it feel, michael?

ummm... no. proaborts do not say a prenate is a person because they say so, per se. Thats appeal to authority, they do however give premises to such and use reason. As for your confusion with my belief vs the pro abort valid argument, i suggets you take a look at the following link:
http://instruct.westvalley.edu/lafave/logic_selftest.html

read it thoroughly. you need to.

reply from: yoda

So, when are you going to present one of "their" valid arguments?

reply from: galen

Back to a few days ago michael...

You REALLY need to get a biology lesson...
YES a FETUS does have cerebral cortex functions..... it is in any neonatology textbook.

Yes my 11 yo has better arguments than you... he happens to be a very high funtioning individual and his logic nd reasoning skills outweigh several of his professors...

BTW the 11 yo was born at 22 weeks... and I know of what I spoke in this argument.

Please go back to school, you make no clear arguments, your research is outdated and you are filling this board with messages that are full of false information.

When and If you become better versed in the biology of higher primates I will continue this argument with you, but to be on a better standing i suggest you go get your MD Phd, and not a 1st year philosophy course and a few core classes.

Mary

reply from: Tam

Okaaay....so your point is
1) you believe unborn children are persons, but that is just your belief
2) the proaborts have a valid argument that unborn children are not persons
3) you acknowledge that their argument is valid but you don't think it's the right choice of argument

?? WTF dude. You are making no sense at all now. A valid argument should reveal something TRUE. If what it reveals is FALSE then one of the premises must be WRONG. So let's see this so-called "valid, cogent" argument that the unborn child is not really a person. Because I'd like to have the chance to rip it apart, frankly. Because if it goes like this:

Premise 1: A person is what I say a person is.
Premise 2: A person must posess attribute X.
Premise 3: Attribute X is not discerned in an unborn child until arbitrary point Y.
Conclusion: All unborn children are non-persons until arbitrary point Y.

then I'm not terribly impressed. Anyone can make an argument like that. Want to see?

Premise 1: A book is what I say a book is.
Premise 2: A book must have a cover.
Premise 3: Any group of bound pages not yet covered, or from which the cover has been removed, is not a book.
Conclusion: If you tear the cover off your book, it ceases to be a book.

All that's missing is the stereotypical mom response: Because I Said So!

That's all this amounts to. Proaborts: "An unborn child isn't a child because I say so!"

Yeah! That's fun! I'll play!

I live rent-free because I say so! I have no bills because I say so! I am immune from pregnancy until I choose to have a child because I say so! I can fly because I say so! George Bush is a big pink petunia because I say so! Up is down because I say so! War is peace because I say so!

Wow! The heady, breathless feeling of Ultimate Power. How's it feel, michael?

ummm... no. proaborts do not say a prenate is a person because they say so, per se. Thats appeal to authority, they do however give premises to such and use reason. As for your confusion with my belief vs the pro abort valid argument, i suggets you take a look at the following link:
http://instruct.westvalley.edu/lafave/logic_selftest.html

read it thoroughly. you need to.

I'm still waiting to see the so-called valid arguments of which you speak. I see your point in referring me to a page about logic. LOL Good one. But let's look at a little quote from that page, shall we?

I had been ASSUMING that when you were talking about the so-called "valid" arguments that proaborts are using to justify killing unborn children, you were contradicting yourself. Silly me--apparently you really MEANT that these arguments are valid yet FALSE, and yet somehow neglected to mention that when I pointed out just that. If what you really meant was "their argument is valid but not sound" why can't you just say so? Is that what you mean?

So now you're saying what, exactly? That I don't get that? Did you miss it when I said that if a VALID argument produces a FALSE conclusion that at least one of the PREMISES of the argument must be FALSE as well.

Enough fooling around. Pony up this proabort argument that YOU think is valid. Then tell us which of the premises YOU think is wrong--I presume you must think at least one of the premises is wrong, since you claim that the conclusion is wrong. Let's see your cards.

P.S. I suggest you take a look at the following link:

http://www.albion.com/netiquette/corerules.html

Read it thoroughly. You need to.

reply from: yoda

The suspense of waiting for that "valid proabort argument" is killing me, Tam.........

reply from: galen

Love that site tam

Mary

reply from: Tam

I know. And he makes it seem as though the fact that it's a valid argument (supposedly) means something important. Hey, here's a valid argument:

White people are always better than black people.
Michael Moore is white.
Therefore, Michael Moore is better than all black people.

Hey, it's a valid argument! What it isn't is a SOUND argument. Why? Because one of the premises, and the conclusion, are false. So calling something a valid argument is meaningless outside the realm of pure logic. In real debates, we try to deal with SOUND arguments, which are by definition valid arguments in which the premises (and, because they're valid, the conclusion) are true.

So, please, let's see the valid proabort argument that the unborn aren't people. I'll bet it starts with "ignore that pesky dictionary--I'll tell you what a person and a human being really are!"

reply from: yoda

I think you hit the nail....... on the head......

I've gotten so much flak from the proaborts about my use of the dictionary over the years, it's become an easy way to identify them.........

It's kinda like I was trying to build a house and they told me not to look at the blueprints....... and to rely on their opinions instead........ yeah, right......

reply from: michael

So now you're saying what, exactly? That I don't get that? Did you miss it when I said that if a VALID argument produces a FALSE conclusion that at least one of the PREMISES of the argument must be FALSE as well.

Enough fooling around. Pony up this proabort argument that YOU think is valid. Then tell us which of the premises YOU think is wrong--I presume you must think at least one of the premises is wrong, since you claim that the conclusion is wrong. Let's see your cards.

P.S. I suggest you take a look at the following link:

http://www.albion.com/netiquette/corerules.html

Read it thoroughly. You need to.

i never said i agree with the conclusion or premises of the abortion argument. i find personhood in another trait but this does not mean that the abortion argument argument is objectively false but merely i believe it to be false.

additionally, i do believe the abortion argument is valid and you seemingly thought this meant i coincided with the conclusion.

again, abort philosophers will theorize the following:
P1. Personhood is X because of Z
P2. A prenate lacks X
C. therefore the prenate is not a person.

"Z" is there reasoning why personhood is X. Assuming "Z" is not fallacious, it is proper reasoning and the argument is valid.

What i disagree with is the first premise and i refute that, however, my refute doesnt negate the validity of the argument
i

reply from: yoda

Why would you "assume" that Z is not fallacious?

Why would you take the word of proaborts about something as basic as being a "person" when nothing they have to say can negate the truth about how we use that word as a society?

Why do you honor so flimsy a proposition? Do you seek a rationalization to agree with proabort dogma?

reply from: michael

Why would you "assume" that Z is not fallacious?

Why would you take the word of proaborts about something as basic as being a "person" when nothing they have to say can negate the truth about how we use that word as a society?

Why do you honor so flimsy a proposition? Do you seek a rationalization to agree with proabort dogma?

reply from: michael

Why would you "assume" that Z is not fallacious?

Why would you take the word of proaborts about something as basic as being a "person" when nothing they have to say can negate the truth about how we use that word as a society?

Why do you honor so flimsy a proposition? Do you seek a rationalization to agree with proabort dogma?

reply from: michael

Why would you "assume" that Z is not fallacious?

Why would you take the word of proaborts about something as basic as being a "person" when nothing they have to say can negate the truth about how we use that word as a society?

Why do you honor so flimsy a proposition? Do you seek a rationalization to agree with proabort dogma?

The assumption was for arguments sake, of course, whether or not the argument was actually fallacious would be up for questioning. I do not take their "word" i consider their reasoning and the fact that much of society denotes "person" as merely a human being means absolutely nothing. It is appeal to the masses.

i found a good link about personhood.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personhood

reply from: Tam

You are saying what? Their argument is valid and objectively true, but you believe it to be false? Is that what you're saying, michael?

WHAT argument? Can we see it, please? What do we have to do to get you to produce this valid, objectively true, cogent argument of which you have spoken constantly?

What is Z? YOU'RE the one assuming it's not fallacious! Let's see THE ACTUAL ARGUMENT, please.

I don't care if the argument is logically valid--I only care about SOUND arguments. That implies validity and truth at the same time. Now. Do you, or don't you, have some "valid, cogent, objectively true" proabort personhood argument? If you do, COUGH IT UP, dude! Stop stalling!

reply from: galen

I find it very interesting that michael will use a scource, that by their own admission can be edited.... and may not have a mistake caught for several days......

example from the bottom of the page that he used as a refrence.

This page was last modified 10:15, 16 September 2005. All text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License (see Copyrights for details).
About Wikipedia
( I find it interesting that the modification occured the same day as this post )

Hmmmmm
Maybe the use of more established publications would bolster my respect for this obviously " cognetively Lazy" "person"

Mary

reply from: yoda

Let's review, michael. 1. "For argument's sake" means absolutely nothing. The validity of the origional assumption is what is in question here, that's the only real disagreement, and you seem to take for granted that it's something that we should accept "for argument's sake". WRONG! That's what this whole debate is about........ the basis for fabricating a definition of "person" out of whole cloth is WHAT WE'RE DISPUTING!

2. What society denotes as the meaning of the word person means EVERYTHING to any honest academician. THAT is what determines the meaning of EVERY term of the vernacular, not YOU or your POINTY HEADED friends...... but SOCIETY AS A WHOLE determines the meaning of the common words we use. You CANNOT order society to follow your lead and redefine words as you and your pointy headed friends decide they mean, michael....... we don't give a red rat's behind what you guys think........ GOT IT?????

reply from: yoda

You got it, Mary......... michael thinks that he and his pointy headed friends have some mysterious authority to tell us what our words mean....... as if they own them....... sad, sad, sad.........

reply from: michael

Let's review, michael. 1. "For argument's sake" means absolutely nothing. The validity of the origional assumption is what is in question here, that's the only real disagreement, and you seem to take for granted that it's something that we should accept "for argument's sake". WRONG! That's what this whole debate is about........ the basis for fabricating a definition of "person" out of whole cloth is WHAT WE'RE DISPUTING!

2. What society denotes as the meaning of the word person means EVERYTHING to any honest academician. THAT is what determines the meaning of EVERY term of the vernacular, not YOU or your POINTY HEADED friends...... but SOCIETY AS A WHOLE determines the meaning of the common words we use. You CANNOT order society to follow your lead and redefine words as you and your pointy headed friends decide they mean, michael....... we don't give a red rat's behind what you guys think........ GOT IT?????

it was for arguments sake to make my point. listen, words we use are of subject to our culture. they are not set in concrete and it is not uncommon for law oreintated terms to be altered. agreed? and who do you feel alters such words? the public or the intellectuals?

do a google search on personhood and philosophy. btw, typing in caps is lame.

reply from: michael

Do you know what a genetic fallacy is?

reply from: cali1981

Will you answer Tam already?

Do you, or don't you, have some "valid, cogent, objectively true" proabort personhood argument?

If you do, COUGH IT UP! You have spoken about it constantly but have not yet shown it to us! Let's go!

reply from: michael

"You are saying what? Their argument is valid and objectively true, but you believe it to be false? Is that what you're saying, michael? "

This is getting frusterating. I cannot claim my argument nor certain abortion arguments are objectively true/false. I can claim what i believe to be false. There is a difference between objective truth/falsehood and belief of truth/falsehood. I believe the abortion argument is false but i do not claim it is objectively false. get it?

"WHAT argument? Can we see it, please? What do we have to do to get you to produce this valid, objectively true, cogent argument of which you have spoken constantly?"

Google up the debate between Roth and Carrier, which is found on internet infidels. I found Carrier's argument to be quite cogent and valid.

I don't care if the argument is logically valid--I only care about SOUND arguments. That implies validity and truth at the same time. Now. Do you, or don't you, have some "valid, cogent, objectively true" proabort personhood argument? If you do, COUGH IT UP, dude! Stop stalling!

you want a philosophical argument for personhood to be objectively true? errr...... neither side has that. Anyways, i encourage you to look up the debate.

reply from: michael

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/debates/secularist/abortion/index.shtml

a critique on the debate:

http://www.redrag.net/2004/04/12/abortion-again/

reply from: yoda

I know who changes the application of words, the GENERAL PUBLIC does that. "Intellectuals" do nothing more than anyone else in our society to affect word usages. You really ought to take a reality break and disabuse yourself of this "intellectuals are soooo superior" attitude....... your attitude is sickening.

Not reading someone's post, as if your eyesight was failing, is lame also. The caps are for that.

reply from: yoda

Quite right. But every dictionary has one. Come down, come down from your ivory tower and smell the crabgrass, michael........ the altitude is making you sick.

reply from: galen

Yes, "sigh", I know what genetic fallacy is....."Yawn"

Do you really understand what it is??

Go to any online medical site and do your research on embryology... I am not the one making things up.
Several of the latest medical and embyology periodicals have articles on cognetive function. It starts much earlier than we thought.

Do you really think that REDRAG would impress someone?? Its a blog mag michael !

"throws up hands".

I'm done with this... I've told you where you could find the real proof to support your arguments.I do still think you started out well but you are incredibly hard-headed in your ability to take either criticism or direction. If you want anyone to take you seriously you really need to go a scource that has not been refuted, instead of some "underground" internet site. You need to learn to talk to people... especially if you want to be funded later in life, its those that you call stupid who will pay the money that will cut your check in the long run.

Mary

reply from: michael

did you read the argument within it rather than disposing it because of the source? that would be the same of a proabortist dismissing what you say because of an argument you stated on prolifeamerica.

Read the actual debate. you asked for the argument and i provided it to you. Tell me how you are not perfoming the genetic fallacy. please. id love to hear it.

reply from: galen

yes i read the argument and the information is from 2004 and is even now outdated.. read into articles found in the spring and winter of this year... go to Lancet, JAMA, and several of the embryology periodicals... there have been great advances based on what we know of 20wkers and such who have survived their premature birth and their response to the caretakers around them. Even some of the nursing jounals have the articles...

Why is it so hard for you to use a scource that has had to be judged by its peers than to use a misquote from an online mag??

It seems that you do not want to do the research to back up your claims and that makes you just as dangerous as any of the Proaborts you feel you have nothing in common with...
I referr you to the debate about 2 fertilized eggs...

Mary

reply from: galen

I also referr you to the article series quoted in a debate started by Yoda on fetal pain. While many of us in the medical community do not agree with the conclusions of this particular study... the journal articles sighted by the group in JAMA who did the actual write up, did conclude several things about awarness and cognetive function....

Mary

reply from: michael

link to study? btw, you didnt address how you were not commiting the fallacy.

reply from: galen

by not relying on unsubstanciated claims....

sorry my prev. answer did not seem to post.

MAry

reply from: michael

lame. attack the premises of the argument given on redrag or you will be performing the genetic fallacy. now, please show me these studies, please. As for the pain reference, you do know that it is denied as mere reflexes. but ahh well..i look forward to these studies.

reply from: galen

The studies were for YOU to read... to help you make the argument you felt was necessary...
Sorry but I am not going to waste board space for something so easily accesable... as you notice I never post actual addresses only give the user a way to find out for themselves where to look for certain info. I do not do the work for you.

I will try to repost my previous answer on genetic fallacy back to you w/ in the day... but i do have a more important job to do right now and I am on a time constraint... so please be patient, I do admit it was a short answer previous.... but i am rushed.

Mary

reply from: galen

Fallacy: Genetic Fallacy

Description of Genetic Fallacy
A Genetic Fallacy is a line of "reasoning" in which a perceived defect in the origin of a claim or thing is taken to be evidence that discredits the claim or thing itself. It is also a line of reasoning in which the origin of a claim or thing is taken to be evidence for the claim or thing. This sort of "reasoning" has the following form:
The origin of a claim or thing is presented.
The claim is true(or false) or the thing is supported (or discredited).
It is clear that sort of "reasoning" is fallacious. For example: "Bill claims that 1+1=2. However, my parents brought me up to believe that 1+1=254, so Bill must be wrong."
It should be noted that there are some cases in which the origin of a claim is relevant to the truth or falsity of the claim. For example, a claim that comes from a reliable expert is likely to be true (provided it is in her area of expertise).
Examples of Genetic Fallacy
"The current Chancellor of Germany was in the Hitler Youth at age 3. With that sort of background, his so called 'reform' plan must be a facist program."
"I was brought up to believe in God, and my parents told me God exists, so He must."
"Sure, the media claims that Senator Bedfellow was taking kickbacks. But we all know about the media's credibility, don't we."

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

I decided to use one of you internet sites michael...

Just so everyone out there knows what you are speaking of.

I am not commiting the fallacy because I do not rely on other peoples opinions to make up my mind on any subject( wich BTW is what I stated YOU should stop doing )because I am the type of researcher who did hands on work during my training, and continues to rely on verified examples for furthur research. I also do not form opinion based on media events, my reliogoius preference, or my familial beliefs... these are to subjective. An you know what the clencher is?? I still have the same beliefs about abortion as I did when I started, the science just continues to proove me right. IE .. I "knew" from observation that my premature son born 11 years ago, had a thought process and displayed cognetive function higher than the textbooks said was possible. He later prooved to us that he was a very smart kid... but later on in spring 2005 what we had told the doctors was verified by several studies that had started around 1999.

now I know that my son's IQ is well over 127....does that mean that maybe he started to have cerebral cortex function early on in the womb? maybe.
How do we test this.... that is a question still under study. But I know he was born earlier than you 5-6month cut off...and there are many other children like him... are you willing to allow someone to commit your fallacy... just to enable them to preform an abortion with a clear conscience? By villifying them and saying they make a good point?
The point is , that we know NOTHING compared to what we have to learn about human growth and development... and we have no buisness mucking around with other peoples lives when we do not know.. Even the supreme court has not found a doctor that can tell us the exact instant when life begins... down to a nano second. So who are we to stop what we do not understand on such a large scale?

I do believe that termination of a pregnancy can be medically necessary in some instances. I do not believe that it is a useful form of birth control.

I believe that all life is a wonderous gift from nature God the Universe... what ever you want to callit, and if we do not understand it thouroghly then its best if we leave it alone to develop as nature intended it.

Mary

reply from: galen

Just an add on ... Mr Carrier in your original debate does not have a medical degree......nor any type of health care experience and I daresay he has done no first hand research on the subject with which he verifies his claim.
He is also relying on misquoted facts..... HMMM who is commiting the fallacy now?

Also "quickening" is an out of date term used by the people in ancient times to describe the point at which the soul entered the body of the child in the womb. the event was noted by the mother because it was the first time that she felt the child move and could " proove " the pregnancy to the father.

Interesting note: Queen Mary from England had a very long "false" pregnancy wich came under suspect when her reports of quickening could not be verified by her Ladies, even several months after the "momentous Occurance"

Mary

reply from: galen

here you go for starters... gee this is fun...* wonders when the bus will leave*

Statement by Professor Robert White:
Dr. White gave testimony before the House Constitution Subcommittee of Congress. He stated that the fetus at 20 weeks gestation "is fully capable of experiencing pain...Without question, all of this is a dreadfully painful experience for any infant subjected to such a surgical procedure."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1984 Statement by a Group of Physicians:
In a speech by then President Ronald Reagan to National Religious Broadcasters in 1984-JAN, he said "When the lives of the unborn are snuffed out, they often feel pain, pain that is long and agonizing." 7
This belief was denied by some experts. However a group of "professors, including pain specialists and two past presidents of the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology" wrote a letter to President Reagan supporting his statement. They wrote:
"We state categorically that no finding of modern fetology invalidates the remarkable conclusion drawn after a lifetime of research by the late Professor Arnold Gesell of Yale University. In The Embryology of Behavior: The Beginnings of the Human Mind (1945, Harper Bros.), Dr. Gesell wrote, 'and so by the close of the first trimester the fetus is a sentient, moving being. We need not speculate as to the nature of his psychic attributes, but we may assert that the organization of his psychosomatic self is well under way.' "
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­--------------------------------------------------------------

THE NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE, Volume 317, Number 21: Pages 1321-1329,
19 November 1987.
--------------------------------------------------------------------


Dr. K.S. Anand, a pediatrician at the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, said: "There is circumstantial evidence to suggest that pain occurs in the fetus." For example, he said, tiny premature babies, as young as 23 or 24 weeks, cry when their heels are stuck for blood tests and quickly become conditioned to cry whenever anyone comes near their feet.
"In the first trimester there is very likely no pain perception," Anand said. "By the second trimester, all bets are off and I would argue that in the absence of absolute proof we should give the fetus the benefit of the doubt if we are going to call ourselves compassionate and humane physicians."
Despite his view, Anand did not recommend trying to anesthetize fetuses during abortions. "It is premature at this point to say we should do this or not do it," he said. "As a scientist I'm not sure we have the best methods."
Anand said he did not oppose abortion, but, at hearings called by legislators seeking to ban late-term abortions, had testified that fetuses feel pain.
Dr. Eleanor Drey, one of Rosen's co-authors, said that as an obstetrician who sometimes performs abortions, she would find it troubling to be compelled to bring up the subject of fetal pain with her patients.
"I would be forced to drag them through potentially a lot of misinformation," she said. "Our systematic review has shown it's extremely unlikely that pain exists at a point when abortions are done. I'm going to have to talk about something I know will cause the patient distress, something that by our best assessment of the scientific data is not relevant."
But Rosen acknowledged that it is impossible to say with 100 percent certainty that there is never pain before 29 weeks.
Brownback said the new report did not raise questions about whether a fetus feels pain, only about when.
"The child in the womb does experience pain," he said. "We knew there was a debate about at what age the child experiences pain." He said he would consider changing the fetal age specified in his legislation. But, he said, "We're clearly going to stick with the bill."
Taking on one of the most highly charged questions in the American debate about abortion, a team of doctors has concluded that fetuses probably cannot feel pain in the first six months of gestation and therefore do not need anesthesia during abortions.
Their report, published Tuesday in The Journal of the American Medical Association, is based on a review of several hundred scientific papers, and it says that nerve connections in the brain are unlikely to have developed enough for the fetus to feel pain before 29 weeks.
The finding poses a direct challenge to proposed federal and state laws that would compel doctors to tell women having abortions at 20 weeks or later that their fetuses can feel pain and to offer them anesthesia specifically for the fetus.
About 1.3 million abortions a year are performed in the United States, 1.4 percent of them at 21 weeks or later.
Bills requiring that women be warned about fetal pain have been introduced in the House and Senate and in 19 states, and recently passed in Georgia, Arkansas and Minnesota.
The bills are supported by many anti-abortion groups. But advocates for abortion rights say the real purpose of the measures is to discourage women from seeking abortions.
There are medical experts on opposing sides of the issue as well, and the only thing they agree on is that it is virtually impossible to tell for sure what a fetus can feel.
"This is an unknowable question," said Dr. David Grimes, a former head of abortion surveillance at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention who now delivers babies and performs abortions in Chapel Hill, North Carolina. "All we can do in medicine is to infer."
Nonetheless, he continued, the new article makes a compelling case for lack of pain perception in fetuses before 29 weeks.
The federal legislation was introduced by Senator Sam Brownback, Republican of Kansas.
His bill, offered in 2004 and again this year as the "Unborn Child Pain Awareness Act," says there is "substantial evidence" of "substantial pain to an unborn child" during abortions performed after 20 weeks.
The bill includes a script doctors must read to women, offering to deliver anesthesia directly to the fetus and stating, "The Congress of the United States has determined that at this stage of development, an unborn child has the physical structures necessary to experience pain."
Brownback said he hoped Congress would act on the bill next year. "It is one of the top priorities of the pro-life movement to address this issue," he said.
But Dr. Mark Rosen, an author of the journal article and chief of obstetric anesthesia at the University of California, San Francisco, said such measures were misguided.
"From the available biological evidence, it seems very unlikely that a fetus experiences what we think of as pain before 29 weeks of gestation," Rosen said in a telephone interview. Giving anesthesia to the fetus could be difficult and would needlessly expose the pregnant woman to additional risks, he said, adding, "Policy decisions should be based on evidence, scientific evidence, not our emotional beliefs." The federal legislation is based in part on observations that 20-week-old fetuses pull away if they are poked or prodded, in much that the same way the older children and adults react to pain.
But Rosen said that response in the fetus did not mean it felt pain, but was instead more likely to be a reflex, like the leg jerk that occurs in adults when doctors tap them on the knee with a rubber hammer.
Another reason for the legislation is that when fetuses require surgery while still in the womb, doctors make sure they are deeply anesthetized. If they need pain control, the thinking goes, then so do fetuses being aborted.
But that reasoning reflects a misunderstanding, said Rosen, who administers anesthesia during fetal surgery. High doses of the drugs are used, he said, to prevent the uterus from contracting, keep the fetus still and stabilize blood pressure and heart rate and other vital functions in the fetus - not because doctors are worried about pain in the fetus.
After studying the medical literature, Rosen and his co-authors - who included a neuroanatomist, an obstetrician, a pediatrician and a former lawyer who is now a medical student - concluded that critical wiring in the brain, between the cerebral cortex and a lower region, the thalamus, was not complete until about 29 weeks. Without that connection, they said, a fetus cannot feel pain.
Not all physicians agree.
Dr. K.S. Anand, a pediatrician at the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, said: "There is circumstantial evidence to suggest that pain occurs in the fetus." For example, he said, tiny premature babies, as young as 23 or 24 weeks, cry when their heels are stuck for blood tests and quickly become conditioned to cry whenever anyone comes near their feet.
"In the first trimester there is very likely no pain perception," Anand said. "By the second trimester, all bets are off and I would argue that in the absence of absolute proof we should give the fetus the benefit of the doubt if we are going to call ourselves compassionate and humane physicians."
Despite his view, Anand did not recommend trying to anesthetize fetuses during abortions. "It is premature at this point to say we should do this or not do it," he said. "As a scientist I'm not sure we have the best methods."
Anand said he did not oppose abortion, but, at hearings called by legislators seeking to ban late-term abortions, had testified that fetuses feel pain.
Dr. Eleanor Drey, one of Rosen's co-authors, said that as an obstetrician who sometimes performs abortions, she would find it troubling to be compelled to bring up the subject of fetal pain with her patients.
"I would be forced to drag them through potentially a lot of misinformation," she said. "Our systematic review has shown it's extremely unlikely that pain exists at a point when abortions are done. I'm going to have to talk about something I know will cause the patient distress, something that by our best assessment of the scientific data is not relevant."
But Rosen acknowledged that it is impossible to say with 100 percent certainty that there is never pain before 29 weeks.
Brownback said the new report did not raise questions about whether a fetus feels pain, only about when.
"The child in the womb does experience pain," he said. "We knew there was a debate about at what age the child experiences pain." He said he would consider changing the fetal age specified in his legislation. But, he said, "We're clearly going to stick with the bill."
Taking on one of the most highly charged questions in the American debate about abortion, a team of doctors has concluded that fetuses probably cannot feel pain in the first six months of gestation and therefore do not need anesthesia during abortions.
Their report, published Tuesday in The Journal of the American Medical Association, is based on a review of several hundred scientific papers, and it says that nerve connections in the brain are unlikely to have developed enough for the fetus to feel pain before 29 weeks.
The finding poses a direct challenge to proposed federal and state laws that would compel doctors to tell women having abortions at 20 weeks or later that their fetuses can feel pain and to offer them anesthesia specifically for the fetus.
About 1.3 million abortions a year are performed in the United States, 1.4 percent of them at 21 weeks or later.
Bills requiring that women be warned about fetal pain have been introduced in the House and Senate and in 19 states, and recently passed in Georgia, Arkansas and Minnesota.
The bills are supported by many anti-abortion groups. But advocates for abortion rights say the real purpose of the measures is to discourage women from seeking abortions.
There are medical experts on opposing sides of the issue as well, and the only thing they agree on is that it is virtually impossible to tell for sure what a fetus can feel.
"This is an unknowable question," said Dr. David Grimes, a former head of abortion surveillance at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention who now delivers babies and performs abortions in Chapel Hill, North Carolina. "All we can do in medicine is to infer."
Nonetheless, he continued, the new article makes a compelling case for lack of pain perception in fetuses before 29 weeks.
The federal legislation was introduced by Senator Sam Brownback, Republican of Kansas.
His bill, offered in 2004 and again this year as the "Unborn Child Pain Awareness Act," says there is "substantial evidence" of "substantial pain to an unborn child" during abortions performed after 20 weeks.
The bill includes a script doctors must read to women, offering to deliver anesthesia directly to the fetus and stating, "The Congress of the United States has determined that at this stage of development, an unborn child has the physical structures necessary to experience pain."
Brownback said he hoped Congress would act on the bill next year. "It is one of the top priorities of the pro-life movement to address this issue," he said.
But Dr. Mark Rosen, an author of the journal article and chief of obstetric anesthesia at the University of California, San Francisco, said such measures were misguided.
"From the available biological evidence, it seems very unlikely that a fetus experiences what we think of as pain before 29 weeks of gestation," Rosen said in a telephone interview. Giving anesthesia to the fetus could be difficult and would needlessly expose the pregnant woman to additional risks, he said, adding, "Policy decisions should be based on evidence, scientific evidence, not our emotional beliefs." The federal legislation is based in part on observations that 20-week-old fetuses pull away if they are poked or prodded, in much that the same way the older children and adults react to pain.
But Rosen said that response in the fetus did not mean it felt pain, but was instead more likely to be a reflex, like the leg jerk that occurs in adults when doctors tap them on the knee with a rubber hammer.
Another reason for the legislation is that when fetuses require surgery while still in the womb, doctors make sure they are deeply anesthetized. If they need pain control, the thinking goes, then so do fetuses being aborted.
But that reasoning reflects a misunderstanding, said Rosen, who administers anesthesia during fetal surgery. High doses of the drugs are used, he said, to prevent the uterus from contracting, keep the fetus still and stabilize blood pressure and heart rate and other vital functions in the fetus - not because doctors are worried about pain in the fetus.
After studying the medical literature, Rosen and his co-authors - who included a neuroanatomist, an obstetrician, a pediatrician and a former lawyer who is now a medical student - concluded that critical wiring in the brain, between the cerebral cortex and a lower region, the thalamus, was not complete until about 29 weeks. Without that connection, they said, a fetus cannot feel pain.
Not all physicians agree.
Dr. K.S. Anand, a pediatrician at the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, said: "There is circumstantial evidence to suggest that pain occurs in the fetus." For example, he said, tiny premature babies, as young as 23 or 24 weeks, cry when their heels are stuck for blood tests and quickly become conditioned to cry whenever anyone comes near their feet.
"In the first trimester there is very likely no pain perception," Anand said. "By the second trimester, all bets are off and I would argue that in the absence of absolute proof we should give the fetus the benefit of the doubt if we are going to call ourselves compassionate and humane physicians."
Despite his view, Anand did not recommend trying to anesthetize fetuses during abortions. "It is premature at this point to say we should do this or not do it," he said. "As a scientist I'm not sure we have the best methods."
Anand said he did not oppose abortion, but, at hearings called by legislators seeking to ban late-term abortions, had testified that fetuses feel pain.
Dr. Eleanor Drey, one of Rosen's co-authors, said that as an obstetrician who sometimes performs abortions, she would find it troubling to be compelled to bring up the subject of fetal pain with her patients.
"I would be forced to drag them through potentially a lot of misinformation," she said. "Our systematic review has shown it's extremely unlikely that pain exists at a point when abortions are done. I'm going to have to talk about something I know will cause the patient distress, something that by our best assessment of the scientific data is not relevant."
But Rosen acknowledged that it is impossible to say with 100 percent certainty that there is never pain before 29 weeks.
Brownback said the new report did not raise questions about whether a fetus feels pain, only about when.
"The child in the womb does experience pain," he said. "We knew there was a debate about at what age the child experiences pain." He said he would consider changing the fetal age specified in his legislation. But, he said, "We're clearly going to stick with the bill."

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

FPRIVATE "TYPE=PICT;ALT=Embryology"
Development of the infant's CNS proceeds unevenly over the course of fetal development to beyond birth into early childhood (@ 2 years of age) and even into adulthood. Humans obtain all their body tissues from 3 different germ cell layers: the endoderm, the mesoderm, and the ectoderm. The ectoderm differentiates into 2 types of tissues with the Surface ectoderm becoming epidermis, hair, nails, skin, and mammary gland; while the Neuroectoderm becomes the nervous system.
The nervous system develops from the neural plate, a thickened area of neuroectoderm on the dorsal surface of the embryonic disc. By 3-4 weeks post-conception (21-28 days) a groove appears in the neural plate and the outer edges begin to invaginate or fold inward on itself. As folding continues, the edges fuse together forming the neural tube. Dorsal closure of the neural tube gives rise to the central nervous system, cranial nerves, and spinal cord. The lumen of the neural tube develops into the ventricular system of the brain and the central canal for the spinal cord. Interruption in the normal sequence of events in neural tube development during this time frame may result in a myelomeningocele, an occipital encephalocele, or anencephaly. (See next page for stages)





As the gestation continues, the neural tube develops dilatations and bulges resulting in the emergence of the forebrain, the midbrain, and the hindbrain. It is the forebrain that will ultimately evolve into the neonate's face, thalamus, hypothalamus, cerebral hemispheres, and basal ganglia. As before, interruption in the normal sequence of events in development at this time may lead to anomalies/defects. These anomalies or defects may be severe in nature, as with the case of holoprosencephaly, or may be less severe in nature, such as a cleft lip or palate.
Just below the forebrain, the neural tube's ventral portion, referred to as the basal plate, develops into the motor component of the CNS; the remaining portion of the neural tube becomes the sensory component of the CNS. Sensory pathways develop early in gestation and continue on with their development even after birth.
The cutaneous or tactile sensory pathway is the first to develop at about 2 months post-conception followed by the vestibular and olfactory (smell) pathways.
The gustatory or taste pathway appears at approximately 11 weeks post-conception and finally, the auditory and visual pathways appear.
Auditory pathways have primitive functionality at about 24 weeks post-conception but full functionality is not achieved until about the 27th week of gestation.
Visual pathways are the very last to appear and achieve functional status only during the last trimester of pregnancy. Even then, color vision is limited. Development of the visual cortex is thought to be completed only after myelination of the optic nerve at 3 months of age.
The motor component of the CNS follows along much the same time continuum. Muscle contractions first appear around 8 weeks' gestation and are soon followed by lateral flexion movements. By the 13th-14th weeks of gestation, breathing and swallowing motions appear. Grasp appears at the 17th week and is fully developed by 27 weeks' gestation. By midgestation, a full range of newborn movements can be noted.
The neural crests, specialized neuroectoderm cells appearing along the fold in the neural plate, will ultimately develop into the autonomic, cranial, and spinal ganglia of the peripheral nervous system. Vascularization for the developing CNS proceeds in an outward fashion, spreading from the area around the ventricular system outward to the cerebral cortex as brain development continues into the last trimester.
Development of the mature structures and functions of the brain is influenced by two significant changes in the cells of the neural tube: first, is the differentiation of the cells that will become white and gray matter, and second is the determination of the sensory and motor components of the CNS. Primitive cells originating in the area around the ventricles and central canal migrate either to the mantel zone and become the gray matter or they migrate to the marginal zone and become the white matter.

Gray matter is composed of closely packed interconnected nuclei of nerve cell bodies and some non-myelinated nerve fibers. It’s the closely packed nerve cell bodies that give it its characteristic grayish color. Gray matter is found primarily in the outer layers of the cerebrum and in some deeper areas of the brain. It also makes up the inner core of the spinal cord.
White matter is composed of nerve fibers (axons) bundled together like stands of cable. Its name comes from the waxy appearance of the whitish, fatty myelin sheath that surrounds and bundles the fibers together and facilitates the transmission of nerve impulses from the body or outside world to the gray matter and from one part of the body to the other.
While these cells may not be well differentiated, the primary division of the central nervous system appears to be in place by the 5th-6th weeks of embryonic life.
The first half of the fetus' gestation (the first 20 weeks) is characterized by neuroblast proliferation while the second half of gestation is characterized by "brain growth spurt." During this latter time, structural growth is marked by glial cell formation (interstitial or supportive tissue of the nervous system), nerve fiber myelination, and arborization (branching) of the dendrites.

1. Neuronal Proliferation
A neuron consists of 3 parts: the dendrite that brings the message to the cell; the soma or cell body that receives and transmits the message; and the axon that transfers the message to the next neuron. Neuronal proliferation occurs initially at 2 months gestation, peaking at about 26 weeks'. Nearly all neurons are present by 18-20 weeks' gestation but their function is primitive because of the lack of myelination and arborization of the dendrites. Prenatal exposure to toxins or inherited diseases at this time can significantly alter the final number of neurons. On the other hand, prenatal exposure to chemical and environmental substances can reduce the final number of neurons. Glial cell proliferation, the supporting tissue of the CNS, occurs at about 5 months gestation.
The dendrites form the interneuronal synaptic connections or electric circuitry of the brain. Initially, dendrites appear as thickened processes with only a few spines or branches extending out from them. However, as the gestation progresses these spines or branches increase in number and length and become the site for synaptic connections, ultimately linking one neuron with up to 1000 other neurons. The critical growth time for this branching is the last trimester of a pregnancy and is very dependent on the fetus' ability to maintain metabolic homeostasis (adequate blood oxygen, normal pH) and adequate nutrition (vitamins, glucose, fatty acids, amino acids). An insufficient intake by the mother and fetus of glycoproteins and glycolipids may hinder dendrite arborization and/or synaptic connections.
2. Neuronal Migration
Neuronal migration refers to the movement of nerve cells from their sites of origin in the ventricular and subventricular zones to their final destination in the CNS. While migration can occur as early as 2 months' gestation, the peak time for migration is 3-5 months' gestation. However by the 6th month of gestation, neuronal migration to its permanent place in the cerebral cortex has been completed. Neuronal migration is important for the appropriate development of the cerebral cortex, basal ganglia, hypothalamus, thalamus, brainstem, cerebellum, and spinal cord. Failure to complete normal neuronal migration may result in abnormalities in cortical development and neurologic functioning. It may also precipitate other abnormal neurologic development that we may see manifested in the neonatal period as seizures.
3. Neuronal Organization
Neuronal organization is the basis for brain function. It involves the alignment and layering of the cerebral cortex; arborization of axons and dendrites; establishment of synaptic connections; cell differentiation and death; and finally, proliferation and differentiation of the glial cells. Glial cell proliferation and differentiation is extremely important as it provides the supporting tissue for the CNS. Although the glial cells resemble the neuron structurally, they are not able to transmit nerve impulses.
· Astrocyte, the star-shaped glial cells, are plentiful and account for nearly half of the neural support tissue. They have multiple projections that cling to the neuron, bracing them and anchoring them to their nutrient supply—the blood capillaries. The astrocytes form a living barrier between capillaries and neurons and play a role in making exchanges between the two, protecting them from harmful substances that might be in the blood. Astrocytes also help control the chemical environment in the brain by picking up excess ions and recapturing released neurotransmitters.
· Another type of glial cell, Oligodendrocyte, wrap their flat extesions tighly around the nerve fibers, producing fatty insulation coverings called myelin sheath, the “insultion” of the CNS.
Ultimately, proliferation and differentiation of these cells will establish the complex electric circuitry of the brain and serve as precursors to myelination.
4. Myelination
Myelination begins during midgestation, at about 24-25 weeks post-conception, reaches its peak growth speed at birth to one year of age, then continues at a slower pace over the next two decades. The myelin sheath is a series of cell membranes (fatty in nature) that surrounds the axon, insulates the circuitry, and enhances cellular communication. This "insulation" prevents leakage of current and enables rapid, efficient transmission of nerve impulses. Since the neonate's CNS is not fully myelinated, nerve cell transmission is likely to be slower, something worthy of note when caring for the neonate having multiple procedures performed. As a consequence of this incomplete myelination, infant's responses, especially to pain, may be significantly delayed or diminished. This altered response on the part of the infant should not be interrupted by the nurse as tolerance for a procedure. Rather, other parameters, such as changes in vital signs, level of activity, etc. should be evaluated to determine the infant's response. As in the case in neuronal proliferation, the myelinization process is very dependent on the fetus/infant maintaining metabolic homeostasis (adequate blood oxygen, normal pH) and adequate nutrition (vitamins, glucose, fatty acids, amino acids). A diet low in lipids may alter the development of myelin and subsequent functionality of the CNS.
Adequate fetal and infant nutrition are paramount in preventing damage to the fetus' developing CNS. The specific type of damage to the developing CNS will depend on the timing of the nutritional deprivation. Early deprivation is more likely to result in decreased brain cell number and overall decreased brain size. Later nutritional deprivation is more likely to affect myelination, arborization of the dendrites, and synaptic connections.

reply from: galen

So when does a "person" begin michael??

So if it is a "person" scientificly speaking, is it murder to kill it?

Leaving god out of it ... just for you.... If we get rid of our genetic diversity by killing our offspring we will be in the same predicament as the other species we endanger on our planet. Without some measure of genetic diversity in ourselves we are sure to put our entire species at risk.

So for no other reason except our continued existance don't you think it might be wise not to go around killing our offspring?

MAry

*yeah* the bus showed up!

reply from: yoda

I think that michael knows that we will all reject his ill concieved arguments. His only hope is to generate enough controversy that he sidetracks us from the discussion of abortion and onto the refutation of his outlandish statements. That's the only way he can "win".

reply from: michael

thats bull. You do not make a refute and fail to to support your premise. thats poor structure.

reply from: michael

this does not justify your responce to redrag. Show me why Redrag ought to be discredited not announce your own creditials.

reply from: michael

wait a second....didnt you discredit my source because it was 2004 and claimed that they were some sort of new information? this is from the 80's. And can you show me the part that says the cerberal cortex is connected before 5 months or whichever Carriers claim was? because all i am seeing is 20 weeks and up. if so, i will provide conflicting evidence. btw, a link could have done just as well. you wont fret me with verbose writings.

reply from: galen

hey michael want to continue this?

Mary


2017 ~ LifeDiscussions.org ~ Discussions on Life, Abortion, and the Surrounding Politics