(Prolifer)ations 7-9-08
by Colleen W.
In situations where ignorance and confusion are the main obstacles that have to be overcome, a prudential publication of information (as OSV has done) is the best path to a speedy solution. May that hold true now.
I find Suzanne’s post extremely interesting, especially since yesterday I saw a very offensive ad calling for “Young Asian Female Egg Donors” on Facebook. (Is it just me, or is that racist?) How are personal images of stillborn babies offensive and egg donor ads (an unethical, dangerous, degrading practice) not offensive?
Jul.09, 2008 4:32 pm |
Blogs |
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
What a beautiful sonogram picture!
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
Colleen wrote:Suzanne at Big Blue Wave has a post on the fact that Facebook deems images of stillborn babies to be offensive. Not sure how that’s offensive, Facebook.
Suzanne at Big Blue Wave wrote: Who in the world would be offended by people sharing their grief, their stories and their pictures to other willing participants?
I’ve heard of other people who’ve been affected by this policy, too. I think these are people who are threatened by the notion that the unborn child is human, possibly because they’ve had their own abortion experience.
I realize that facebook is free to set their own policies. That doesn’t mean that I don’t consider this policy dumb and offensive to grieving parents.
I’ve never thought about this before but I find it interesting that Facebook will not show a picture of a baby who is stillborn. Do they have a policy against showing any deceased persons?
“I find Suzanne’s post extremely interesting, especially since yesterday I saw a very offensive ad calling for “Young Asian Female Egg Donors” on Facebook. (Is it just me, or is that racist?)”
Jill, I don’t like egg donations or IVF either, but I don’t see anything racist about an ad for “young asian egg donor.” People who do this IVF thing often want a baby of the same race as the parents.
So offensive? maybe. Racist? No.
Perhaps they think the photos might upset other parents who have had a stillborn infant?
If the request for egg donors is for research, then the scientists might be trying to study an Asian gene group or a disease that disproportionately affects Asians.
If the request for egg donors is for reproductive purposes, then it is no more racist than a woman seeking out a sperm donor of a particular race.
Jill – Facebook flags pictures of any dead person as offensive. Why should a baby be different, unless you think its different from any other person?
I don’t find pictures of dead people offensive. A stillborn baby looks like it is sleeping.
People feeling threatened because they may have had their own abortion experience. Interesting.
Facebook has the right to remove explicit content as they see fit. I’m pretty sure all dead bodies would fall under the explicit category since it would be hell to pick and choose what was too gory or not too gory to allow. Then you get into the weird area of why this person is posting a photo of a dead body in the first place.
WOW, that picture is really worth a thousand words. I see why the pro-aborts pressured GE into removing their 3-D ultra-sound advertising. ‘By golly, there really a baby in there’!
The truth will set you free.
lovethemboth, what do you think they are before they’re born? Spider monkeys? Of course their babies. You shouldn’t need a sonogram to tell you that.
WOW, that picture is really worth a thousand words. I see why the pro-aborts pressured GE into removing their 3-D ultra-sound advertising. ‘By golly, there really a baby in there’!
The truth will set you free.
Posted by: lovethemboth at July 9, 2008 8:51 PM
Did I miss a story? What are you referring to?
And why do you have pro-choice marked die for the sonogram baby? Do you really think it is our goal to kill every single unborn baby?
Not every single one. 4,000 a day.
No, Jess, just that that baby can die by another’s hand and you seem to be ok with that.
It’s not so much that you kill them yourself, at least for me, it’s the fact that there are these babies being killed by the thousands everyday, and it doesn’t bother you. Like, if I poisoned my daughter’s mashed potatoes tonight, you might get a little upset about that, but if I had paid someone to kill and dismember my son this last December, that’d have been cool with you. The fact you have a line drawn there and there is a distinction between those two events for you disturbs me.
Oh, and then you get irate over chickens serving their purpose in the food chain…that’s kinda just the straw that breaks the camel’s back. Or that’s too cruel a saying too?
xalisae, I would be upset if a woman had an abortion because she felt she had no choice. I would be upset if a woman felt she was too poor, too weak, too stupid or too alone to have a baby. Abortion won’t solve those problems, they might even exacerbate them. If a woman really does want an abortion, just for the fact that she doesn’t want to be pregnant, then it is her body. There are certain ways a pregnant woman can hold their bodies as to cute off blood supply to the baby. They could kill their baby just by the way they move. To me, it is the woman’s body first and foremost, and she has a right to do with it as she pleases. After saying that, you might find it hard to believe that I think pregnant women considering abortion should be informed of all of their options, given the option of a free ultra sound, be told about their baby and their babies stage of development at the time they are considering aborting. No woman should have an abortion unless they absolutly feel 100% sure that is what they want.
If that were the case I feel the numbers of abortions would drop dramatically.
Sadly, I don’t know if that will ever happen.
The last thing I’m going to say, women, question everything and follow your instincts. They tell you it is just a blob of tissue? Question it. You don’t know if you really want an abortion? Don’t have it.
And about the chickens, I don’t eat them and I’m doing fine. I don’t know if it would be the same with you though. It is not the eating animals part as much as it is the way they are treated during life. And it doesn’t just hurt them, many humans have been hurt by consuming animals that are kept in such awful conditions. In a lot of chicken farm factories the chickens are kept in cages so tightly packed and rarely, if ever, cleaned that they end up standing so long in their urine they get burned by the ammonia. Don’t you think at least you deserve better then ammonia burned chicken?
Will you do me one favor? Just try not eating meat for three days. Now most likely you will go right back to eating meat but at least it will be a little adventure and give you a story to tell. I only went vegan for a few days but I’ll tell you what, those three days were definitely an experience : )
P.S. I’m not telling you that you have to try this, only suggesting it. I don’t know what your life is like. Maybe you live on an island inhabited only by chickens (and you and your kids of course) and that is your only food source. If so I really don’t want you to starve on my account : (
And about the chickens, I don’t eat them and I’m doing fine. I don’t know if it would be the same with you though. It is not the eating animals part as much as it is the way they are treated during life. And it doesn’t just hurt them, many humans have been hurt by consuming animals that are kept in such awful conditions. In a lot of chicken farm factories the chickens are kept in cages so tightly packed and rarely, if ever, cleaned that they end up standing so long in their urine they get burned by the ammonia. Don’t you think at least you deserve better then ammonia burned chicken?
Will you do me one favor? Just try not eating meat for three days. Now most likely you will go right back to eating meat but at least it will be a little adventure and give you a story to tell. I only went vegan for a few days but I’ll tell you what, those three days were definitely an experience : )
P.S. I’m not telling you that you have to try this, only suggesting it. I don’t know what your life is like. Maybe you live on an island inhabited only by chickens (and you and your kids of course) and that is your only food source. If so I really don’t want you to starve on my account : (
Well, I understand that it’s a woman’s body first, otherwise a baby couldn’t exist. It’s just that the baby DOES exist. That’s why I’m so big on the contraception thing. No baby, no problem. As a mother, I just cannot describe to you how mortifying to me that there was EVER a time in either of my children’s lives that the law or society in general or ANYONE would’ve been able to just sit idly by as they were killed, for ANY reason, my body or not.
And, I’m a firm believer in science, and can’t study enough about biology to sate my intellectual pallet, and biologically, we are just designed to supplement our diets with meat from other animals. However, I had a boss at my favorite job I ever had that was a vegetarian, and she did alright, and I’m willing to try it myself, at least for three days…but getting my 5 year old to do it is a totally different story, as she seems to be primarily carnivorous. It was really cute though, for mother’s day, her class did this thing where they fill in the blanks about their moms, and she said that my favorite thing to eat was vegetables. ;) And about the chickens…we raise our own, and I don’t really have any special fondness for them, but my brother does, and they are dearly loved by him and very well taken care of until their sacrifice for our family. And he eats them, too. Not all food animals are treated badly, not all people who eat meat are careless about animals.
Jess said No woman should have an abortion unless they absolutly feel 100% sure that is what they want.
If a woman can’t legally kill her toddler, then why is she allowed to legally kill her child at an earlier age?
Both are human beings.
What’s the reasoning?
Because it is part of her body. A toddler is not part of it’s mother’s body, it is an autonomous person.
JKeller,
So because it is part of “her body,” this gives her the justification to directly and willfully kill an innocent human person as a means to an end? What other situations in life are there where we are justified in directly and willfully killing an innocent human person as a means to an end?
JKeller @ 9:46 AM
Really? As you are making a statement that can be empirically verified – prove your claim scientifically.
Show me the evidence you base your claim on. Solid embyology texts that indicate that a child is part of her body, and not a separate entity.
For instance, does it possess the same DNA?
How about the blood stream – does her heart pump the blood that flows through the fetus?
You’ll also have to explain why conjoined twins aren’t considered one person.
Otherwise your claim is completely unsubstantiated and without merit.
Then I would get to rightly claim you’re completely ignorant of these matters.
Chris:10:07: Excellent comments.
JKeller:9:46: AM:Because it is part of her body. A toddler is not part of it’s mother’s body, it is an autonomous person.
As we know, the baby grows in a fluid filled sac inside the mother’s uterine cavity and both will be completely and naturally expelled when the baby is born after a defined gestational period of nine months.
If a baby with all of its complexity was truly part of a woman’s body, wouldn’t it be connected permanently to the woman?
What other situations in life are there where we are justified in directly and willfully killing an innocent human person as a means to an end?
Bobby, “person” by no means necessarily applies – many people don’t think it does, and society attributes personhood at birth. “Innocent”? Well, being unwanted is not the same as being “blamed” or being said to be “guilty” in this case.
But anyway, if there were other situations concerning things inside the body of a person, then you bet justification would be seen by plenty.
JKeller: Because it is part of her body. A toddler is not part of it’s mother’s body, it is an autonomous person.
That’s right. Wrangling about terminology aside, while the unborn are “separate” organisms, they’re aren’t autonomous like the toddler is.
And that’s a lot of the point of viability – then at least it can be said that the unborn could be autonomous.
That should have no impact on whether or not a person lives or dies. I don’t care what sort of mental faculties a person has or does not have, what they can or cannot do, what they need or do not need from others to continue living…I don’t care. These are people…you can’t just go around killing people.
I see – all those dependent upon others can be killed.
What law is that?
Xalisae: These are people…
That’s part of the argument – that that isn’t so. Personhood has not been attributed, and at the least there are questions about when personality, awareness, perception, etc., are present.
…..
Chris: I see – all those dependent upon others can be killed. What law is that?
Your’s apparently. Nobody said that.
Chris,
Since you so NICELY pointed out how stupid and idiotic you think I am, I think I’ll pass on the opportunity to share my woefully inadequate knowledge with you. I wouldn’t want to bore your superior intellect by making you read words that are shorter than five syllables.
It would be much more worth your while if you could just continue on wallowing in your own self righteousness, and thinking of new ways to be an asshole to people that disagree with you.
Have a wonderful day.
The fetus is not “part of” the pregnant woman’s body. Her right to kill it comes from the fact that it is located inside her body, not because it is part of it.
SoMG
While I still cringe every time I read that you fully understand and acknowledge that these unborn are human beings and persons but can be killed anyway, I do think it’s important for your side to see how totally cold and hard it sounds when you say them.
But I do wonder why you find it necessary to repeat them over and over. It’s like you are either taking pride in sounding like such a monster, or you’re afraid you might let a little bit of humanity slip through and then your game would be up.
Me thinks thou dost protest too much.
The shock value wears thin after exposure. Rather than evoking horror, you end up evoking pity. Not for the unborn that you kill, but for you, their killer.
JKeller,
Because it is part of her body. A toddler is not part of it’s mother’s body, it is an autonomous person.
Posted by: JKeller at July 10, 2008 9:46 AM
While Chris’ tone may have come off as condescending, and even tho I HATE to admit it,
SoMG’s is the only take on abortion that is honest.
It is NOT a part of the women’s body. It is a separate body that resides IN another persons body.
According to SoMG, this is the reason that it is acceptable to kill the unborn. He acknowledges that it is a person (which prolifers do), He acknowledges that it is full human being (which prolifers do), he acknowledges that killing it is homocide (which prolifers do).
What he says is the truth of abortion. All of the arguments that the rest of you give, are flawed. Which is why we can argue with you. It is SoMG, and only SoMG that states the postition honestly.
The rest of you are deluding yourselves.
It is part of the women. She has the right. It’s not a person. It’s not a human…
All straw men. All used to divert you from the truth.
You can fault SoMG for a lot of things (and I do mean a lot), but he has got this right.
If you are horrified by his take, then you get an inkling of how we feel, because we KNOW that this is the only accurate description of what abortion is.
You should be horrified. It’s what you promote.
So you either side with SoMG, (It’s a person, a human and killing it is homocide) or you side with us (It’s a person, a human and it’s homicide…and it’s wrong) Anything else is fighting windmills.
mk, You are comparing SoMG’s take on abortion to that of other pro-choicers (not SoMG’s to Chris’s), right? I was a bit confused at first.
It is part of the women. She has the right. It’s not a person. It’s not a human…
All straw men. All used to divert you from the truth.
Not so, MK. Granted that “part of the woman” is arguable, but we are talking about something growing from the woman’s uterus.
And she really does have the right, and it’s really not a person. Sure, you can disagree and wish things were different, but it’s the fact that they’re not that has you dissatisfied in the first place.
When does it become “a human”? That may be different from merely being “human.” Does a human have humanity; humane attributes? Is it sentient, etc? These are not “straw men” arguments, they are real ones that do apply, with people having feelings on both sides of them.
Doug,
A. Not so, MK. Granted that “part of the woman” is arguable, but we are talking about something growing from the woman’s uterus.
It did NOT, NOT, NOT grow from the uterus. It grows IN the uterus.
B. And she really does have the right, and it’s really not a person..
She may have the legal right, but she does NOT,NOT,NOT have the moral right.
C. You say it is not a person. I say it is. The matter has NOT, NOT, NOT been decided. While it has not yet, and I stress yet, been defined as a person by law, neither has it explicitly been defined as a non person. We all know that Roe V Wade was not constitutionally sound and it removed any and all recourse for the other side to fight it. It was taken out of our hands and decided FOR us. Personhood has NOT, NOT, NOT been decided. It is the LACK of a definition, not the definition that has put us in this boat.
D. When does it become “a human”?
Unlike your arguments about it is a person, isn’t a person, is A human, isn’t A human…the facts say that it IS a human being. Science says that it is a HUMAN BEING. Sheesh, even SoMG acknowledges that.
That it is a human is not debatable except by the totally obstinate. Even then, it doesn’t change the facts. And the facts are that it is human.
While I think SoMG is one of the scariest, most heartless human beings I’ve ever come across (sorry SoMG), I admire his ability to see the truth, speak the truth, and stick to the facts.
As horrifying as they are.
Sorry Doug, personhood, where it’s at, consciousness, awareness, sentience…none of that really matters. The bottom line is, as SoMG points out, that abortion is homicide. The only argument is whether or not it is justifiable.
MK: It did NOT, NOT, NOT grow from the uterus. It grows IN the uterus.
Well, the blastocyst implants in the wall of the uterus. That’s why I said it was arguable.
…..
She may have the legal right, but she does NOT,NOT,NOT have the moral right.
You’re comparing a thing which is true for all of us – her legal right – with a subjective thing which a given person may or may not agree with – your “NOT.” It is no more true for you to insist on “not” than it is for someone else to insist that it is.
Similarly, you mention SoMG’s opinion about personhood, and there too it’s the subjective versus the objective.
…..
You say it is not a person. I say it is. The matter has NOT, NOT, NOT been decided. While it has not yet, and I stress yet, been defined as a person by law, neither has it explicitly been defined as a non person. We all know that Roe V Wade was not constitutionally sound and it removed any and all recourse for the other side to fight it. It was taken out of our hands and decided FOR us. Personhood has NOT, NOT, NOT been decided. It is the LACK of a definition, not the definition that has put us in this boat.
Abortion was legal when the Constitution was written. It became illegal not due to the Constitution, but due to doctors wanting to shut midwives out of the picture as far as performing abortions, etc. That the Court said the Texas law in ‘Roe’ was unconstitutional should not be a surprise – there’s plenty of stuff in the Constitution by mention and by implication about “freedom” and “liberty” etc., and the principle is that the gov’t has to have a good enough reason to take those away or abridge them, and with respect to pregnant women to viability, it does not, so said the Court. You or I are free to agree of disagree with a given decision, of course, but the Constitution is mainly about limiting the gov’t as far as its effects on the people.
Personhood has long been decided. It’s at birth. Not that it “has” to be that way, but it certainly is that way – it’s been decided in societies around the world for all of recorded time that way, i.e. not before birth.
……
“When does it become “a human”?”
Unlike your arguments about it is a person, isn’t a person, is A human, isn’t A human…the facts say that it IS a human being. Science says that it is a HUMAN BEING. Sheesh, even SoMG acknowledges that.
That it is a human is not debatable except by the totally obstinate. Even then, it doesn’t change the facts. And the facts are that it is human.
There are different things mixed up in there. “Is human” is not in doubt – certainly, human DNA is there. As far as a “human being” in the sense that only goes as far as being a “human organism,” etc., then agreed that “human being” also applies. Yet being “a human” may well entail more than that, and thus my question about having “humanity” and “humane attributes” and personality, etc. In the eyes of an observer, “a human” may require more than just being an organism, for example.
…..
While I think SoMG is one of the scariest, most heartless human beings I’ve ever come across (sorry SoMG), I admire his ability to see the truth, speak the truth, and stick to the facts.
As horrifying as they are.
You are confusing opinion with fact, there.
……
Sorry Doug, personhood, where it’s at, consciousness, awareness, sentience…none of that really matters. The bottom line is, as SoMG points out, that abortion is homicide. The only argument is whether or not it is justifiable.
Personhood matters a good bit; even the Roe decision noted that. Much of your argument consists of saying, either directly or in effect, that abortion is not justified “because the unborn are people,” so I’d say personhood figures prominently.
Doug, FYI, I answered a question of yours on the “pregnant man” thread.
Doug,
All of the is your opinion.
I have given mine.
They differ.
So be it.
JKeller said:
You were obviously responding to my post @ 6:01 AM, but when I call you on it, you attack me and not my argument:
The unborn aren’t “part” of the woman’s body. Do the research.
Doug and SoMG concede this.
I don’t argue with Doug because his logic is circular when it comes to human beings as non-person entities, and he can’t rationally defend his basis for attribution of rights.
Case in point – if the fetus wasn’t truly autonomous, then the woman wouldn’t be pregnant. Fetus means offspring. It’s not her arm, or her tooth. The unborn is a fully integrated human being who is solely dependent upon her mother. We don’t kill people who are dependent upon others, such as newborns. Yet Doug grants the unborn autonomy for the purposes of killing, but not identity or recognition.
Doug builds his argument solely on positive law while ignoring natural law. His moral basis and reasoning is completely subjective. He grants rights by judicial fiat. And if abortion is given by fiat, it can be removed by fiat. The only reason why I bring him into this discussion is as an object lesson on how not to argue your case.
MK is right – SoMG is at least intellectually honest when it comes to acknowledging the full humanity of the unborn. But SoMG fails to provide solid reasoning based on location, and likewise rejects natural law, the uterus being the only suitable location for a newly conceived human being and the prima facie consent of the mother to acknowledge that pregnancy is sexually transmitted. Procreation is a selective activity, but we don’t allow parents to kill their toddlers once they have them. Remove the time constraint so the toddler goes back into the womb and SoMG says – okay to kill. Age and location become discriminating factors, but are illegal in all other areas of our law. Notice also there is no other place for a baby to grow – it’s in it’s natural environment.
So Doug believes in a state that can declare human beings as non-persons for the purposes of eliminating them. This is historically cruel, and leads to atrocities. Morality is totally his opinion.
And SoMG, while acknowledging the humanity of the born, makes them the property of the mother on the basis of their natural location. He too grants the woman sovereign rights within her “body” bounds to kill human beings. Such thinking is perverted, and is cruel both to the babies and the women who abort.
Both, having survived birth, now enjoy a “right to life” that they aren’t willing to grant to other posterity who are still in the womb.
Yes – I strongly challenged you. This is a life or death issue. Additionally, it destroys lives and families. It is about as ugly as things can get. Go look at electively ripped apart babies. What’s being done to them is completely inhumane.
If you want to refute me, you better come to the table with a serious argument, based on facts, because I’ve done my homework.
As for hitting me with an ad-hominem – if you’re that sensitive when you’re refuted, you may want to reconsider the issue you chose to argue.
Chris,
You are my hero…:)
Doug,
Actally, the time that abortion was legal vs the time that it was illegal is pretty evenly split.
1776 to 1860 legal
1860 to 1967 illegal
1973 to 2008 legal/illegal depending on where and with certain restrictions/still changing.
So please stop perpetuating the myth that abortion was ALWAYS legal.
Not to mention 2500 years of the hippocratic oath. So legal or not, physicians believed that it was immoral and against everything that being a doctor stood for.
You make it sound like 1973 was the first time anyone ever morally objected to abortion on demand!
http://www.prochoice.org/about_abortion/history_abortion.html
MK,
You have much fortitude, my friend for volleying with Doug. I admire that very much. I choose to watch Doug from the sidelines. :)
Chris,
Thank you!!
MK: All of the is your opinion. I have given mine. They differ. So be it.
Except when I give my opinion, I identify it as my opinion.
Chris: I don’t argue with Doug because his logic is circular when it comes to human beings as non-person entities, and he can’t rationally defend his basis for attribution of rights.
No, you don’t argue with me because you are faced with the fact that what you claim as objective is not so.
It is a very simple and linear deal as to the attribution of personhood. It happens at birth. Not that is “has” to be that way. But it is that way in our society, and so has it been for all societies on earth for all of recorded time – no personhood being attributed prior to birth.
……
Case in point – if the fetus wasn’t truly autonomous, then the woman wouldn’t be pregnant. Fetus means offspring. It’s not her arm, or her tooth. The unborn is a fully integrated human being who is solely dependent upon her mother. We don’t kill people who are dependent upon others, such as newborns. Yet Doug grants the unborn autonomy for the purposes of killing, but not identity or recognition.
No, the “autonomy” of the unborn is really up for argument, due to the meaning of the word. It much more applies to the unborn in a biological sense than otherwise, but the biology of the deal is not what the debate is really about. The unborn have not “sprung off” and it is that “sole dependence” you mention, combined with the unborn being inside of the body of a person that makes the situation so much different than what is true for newborns.
……
Doug builds his argument solely on positive law while ignoring natural law. His moral basis and reasoning is completely subjective. He grants rights by judicial fiat. And if abortion is given by fiat, it can be removed by fiat.
Yes, by fiat, and that is also how rights are attributed, be it for better or worse in your opinion, or in mine. There is no “natural law” you can point to, beyond your own subjective opinion.
…..
So Doug believes in a state that can declare human beings as non-persons for the purposes of eliminating them. This is historically cruel, and leads to atrocities. Morality is totally his opinion.
Morality is entirely opinion, be it of an individual entity, a group, etc. You may think it “cruel,” but it is not the state “declaring them non-persons,” it is that the state does not attribute personhood in the first place.
MK: Actally, the time that abortion was legal vs the time that it was illegal is pretty evenly split.
Yeah, MK, and I never said differently.
……
1776 to 1860 legal, 1860 to 1967 illegal, 1973 to 2008 legal/illegal depending on where and with certain restrictions/still changing. So please stop perpetuating the myth that abortion was ALWAYS legal.
Again, I didn’t say that.
……
Not to mention 2500 years of the hippocratic oath. So legal or not, physicians believed that it was immoral and against everything that being a doctor stood for. You make it sound like 1973 was the first time anyone ever morally objected to abortion on demand!
No, never said that or implied it or made it sound like that.
Doug,
No, never said that or implied it or made it sound like that.
Really???? Well then why would you say this:
Personhood has long been decided. It’s at birth. Not that it “has” to be that way, but it certainly is that way – it’s been decided in societies around the world for all of recorded time that way, i.e. not before birth.
Sounds to me like you have some legal definition of what personhood is not, and since we are talking about abortion and the right to kill a person, I’ve got to assume that you are using that argument to say that at some point the question of personhood as it relates to abortion has come up.
Where Doug, where is it written that “personhood” has been decided since the beginning of time.
You can’t even get a definition of personhood off of the web. Spell check doesn’t recognize it. So, how is it possible, that this personhood, especially as it pertains to abortion has been around since recorded time???
I think not.
The term personhood when used to describe the unborn is a NEW concept. At no time that I know of, at least since hippocrates, were the unborn not protected. At no time that I know of, was abortion condoned by the medical profession. They were done sure, but so was all sorts of stuff. But at least as far back as 2500 years ago, abortion was considered immoral…and was done in secret. Now why would doctors take an oath NOT to perform them, if the unborn were not considered persons?
Doug,
no personhood being attributed prior to birth.
Please show me where, prior to abortion, personhood has ever been an issue. Show me where in the year 845, or 632, 124…it is written or even understood that the born are attributed personhood. Please.
Show me the paper that says: “HEAR YE HEAR YE…from this point on everyone that makes it to birth is a legal person!”
It doesn’t exist, because the issue never came up.
It didn’t come up as far as I know until slavery, and then not again until the abortion issue.
It would never even have occurred to most people to wonder whether the child growing in a womans womb was a person.
I haven’t been attributed queenship. I assume that means I am not a queen. By not declaring me a Queen, you are in fact declaring that I am NOT a queen. By not attributing personhood, you are in fact stating that the unborn are NOT persons. Which means you have taken their personhood away. Unless you can show me somewhere that proves that they were not considered persons at some other point in history.
You say they were never persons. I say they were always persons. Then someone, somewhere declared that they weren’t. But the unspoken truth is that up until that time, the question was not asked.
I think most sane people believe that ALL human beings are persons.
Midgets have not been specifically given personhood either. Does that mean that we can declare them non-persons and use the argument that they were never declared persons to begin with????
And lastly Doug, you’re arguments are most certainly circular. Everyone knows it.
It doesn’t matter what the law says. It doesn’t matter what has happened throughout history. Once that egg is fertilized, A human being is created. Yes, I said “A” human being. That is not subjective. That is objective. What is subjective, is personhood. You, not I, nor Chris, are the one that argues from a subjective point of view. You are the one hung up on personhood, or “A” human being, or sentience.
Chris and I are perfectly content with the objective view. It is life. Human life. That’s all we need to know.
People who insist on sentience and personhood are simply looking for a way to rationalize abortion.
It doesn’t matter. It is life. Human Life. Period. Objectively speaking, of course.
MK: Actally, the time that abortion was legal vs the time that it was illegal is pretty evenly split.
Really Doug.
Well then could you please explain to me why it was illegal??? After all, according to you, personhood was NEVER attributed to the unborn. So why was it illegal???
MK: Not to mention 2500 years of the hippocratic oath. So legal or not, physicians believed that it was immoral and against everything that being a doctor stood for. You make it sound like 1973 was the first time anyone ever morally objected to abortion on demand!
Doug,
“No, never said that or implied it or made it sound like that.”
Really???? Well then why would you say this: “Personhood has long been decided. It’s at birth. Not that it “has” to be that way, but it certainly is that way – it’s been decided in societies around the world for all of recorded time that way, i.e. not before birth.”
Sounds to me like you have some legal definition of what personhood is not, and since we are talking about abortion and the right to kill a person, I’ve got to assume that you are using that argument to say that at some point the question of personhood as it relates to abortion has come up.
I would say it because it’s true. Personhood is defined by laws, yes – the attribution of right to life, for example, and then laws against murder. None of that means that I said anything like what you mentioned. A given society can have a position, and plenty of people might disagree with it.
……
Where Doug, where is it written that “personhood” has been decided since the beginning of time. You can’t even get a definition of personhood off of the web. Spell check doesn’t recognize it. So, how is it possible, that this personhood, especially as it pertains to abortion has been around since recorded time??? I think not.
There are records of laws going back thousands of years. There are nearly endless examples of it being illegal and held to be “murder” to kill a born person. The unborn were not treated the same way, and especially not when the pregnancy is unwanted.
……
The term personhood when used to describe the unborn is a NEW concept. At no time that I know of, at least since hippocrates, were the unborn not protected. At no time that I know of, was abortion condoned by the medical profession. They were done sure, but so was all sorts of stuff. But at least as far back as 2500 years ago, abortion was considered immoral…and was done in secret. Now why would doctors take an oath NOT to perform them, if the unborn were not considered persons?
Well, as far as attributing right-to-life, it’s not “new” at all. Doctors don’t have to condone abortion for the unborn to not be granted personhood. The same as abortion being illegal didn’t mean personhood was attributed to the unborn in the US, prior to 1973.
English common law, going way back, and certainly being after Hippocrates, held that abortion to a point in gestation was okay. The unborn were not treated as were the born; they weren’t attributed personhood.
MK: Please show me where, prior to abortion, personhood has ever been an issue. Show me where in the year 845, or 632, 124…it is written or even understood that the born are attributed personhood. Please.
MK, we’re talking about whether right to life or not was attributed. It was for the born, while the killing of the unborn was treated differently.
Basically, personhood is being accorded the rights that society deems to be present for legal persons, and right to life is certainly one of them.
MK: Midgets have not been specifically given personhood either. Does that mean that we can declare them non-persons and use the argument that they were never declared persons to begin with????
No, they were attributed right to life at birth.
MK: And lastly Doug, you’re arguments are most certainly circular. Everyone knows it.
Nope, and below, you are the one going in circles.
…..
It doesn’t matter what the law says. It doesn’t matter what has happened throughout history. Once that egg is fertilized, A human being is created. Yes, I said “A” human being. That is not subjective. That is objective. What is subjective, is personhood. You, not I, nor Chris, are the one that argues from a subjective point of view. You are the one hung up on personhood, or “A” human being, or sentience.
“Human being” is not the issue. Granted, we are talking about human beings. That’s not the argument. You and Chris most certainly argue from a subjective point of view – that we should attribute right to life to the unborn. You have your “shoulds” and “should nots” like everybody else.
…..
Chris and I are perfectly content with the objective view. It is life. Human life. That’s all we need to know.
No, in no way are you content with that. I will grant you that it’s human life. Okay, satisfied? Of course you’re not. You want right-to-life to be attributed to it, and that’s where we get to the argument.
…..
People who insist on sentience and personhood are simply looking for a way to rationalize abortion.
You’re the one insisting on personhood – you are saying that right to life should be attributed. For many of us, sentience does matter, not as a “rationalization,” but as a thing to be weighed against the desire of the pregnant woman.
……
It doesn’t matter. It is life. Human Life. Period. Objectively speaking, of course.
Yeah, but again, that’s not the argument.
…..
MK: Actually, the time that abortion was legal vs the time that it was illegal is pretty evenly split.
Really Doug.
Yeah… and you’re the one who said it.
…..
Well then could you please explain to me why it was illegal??? After all, according to you, personhood was NEVER attributed to the unborn. So why was it illegal???
It became illegal because there was sufficient opinion for those laws. Much of it came from doctors who felt that midwives were encroaching on what was the docs’ “rightful” area. Had nothing to do with attributing personhood.