Disconnect: Is it ever acceptable to rob children of their lives?
… [T]he vast majority of Americans do not consider children to be vermin. They value children highly and are devastated when children are slaughtered. They just don’t make the connection between the visible child in the playground and the invisible child in the womb….
[Abortion providers] make no connection whatsoever between the child-killing that they devote their lives to and the lives of the baby in the stroller or the second-grader on the playground, any more than a Nazi would make a connection between the Jewish grandmother he’s shoving into a mass grave and his own grandmother.
So we need to take this real value that they place on the children that they can see and work with it.
… [I]t’s so heinous to kill children… because those children had their whole lives ahead of them. They were robbed of Little League games and trips to the zoo; they were robbed of getting their driver’s license and going to the prom. They were deprived of falling in love and getting married and having children of their own….
So, isn’t it terrible to rob somebody of every single life experience? Of a single moment of being snuggled over her mother’s heart? Of a single moment of warm sun shining on his face? Of the jingling of car keys and the mushy sweetness of that first bite of banana? The child killed in the womb gets denied even the few life experiences those precious schoolchildren had before their lives were horribly cut short.
We need to start with the profound sense people have that killing children is wrong, make them articulate it, and then ask them, at what point is it no longer wrong? At what point are you not depriving somebody of the rest of their life?
Just ask. And let them stew on it.
~ Christina Dunigan, Real Choice, December 19
[HT: ProLifeBlogs]
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.
So how long would be a suitable period of time for me to ‘stew on it’ before I answer the questions?
Until you figure out that killing innocent human beings is wrong.
Excellent Christina!!
Can we kill them now? How about now? Is it ok now? Why? Why not?
Reality, we already know exactly where you stand. When they “become” human you don’t think it is ok to kill them. Before that it is open season.
eyeroll
So true.
Well said, Christina!
She articulated it so well. The disconnect is what is so frustrating. The connection is severed when the preferences of a stronger person are at stake – much like any human rights abuses. So easily severed really, which is why I sometimes wonder (perhaps unfairly I admit) about their love at all …
“When they “become” human you don’t think it is ok to kill them. Before that it is open season” – as usual you misrepresent what I have said. Fetuses are part of the human species. They just aren’t ‘persons’. I do wish you could get things right.
Then enlighten us Reality. What is the standard by which we determine personhood? And more importantly, how was this standard set? Who was (or is) it that has drawn the line of personhood so as to exclude unwanted unborn babies? And how did this decision-maker obtain this authority? Is personhood determined by societal consensus? If so, you better not have a peep of complaint should society one day decide that you are no longer a person.
person
Definition of person
noun (plural people or persons)
1a human being regarded as an individual
per·son
noun \?p?r-s?n\
Definition of PERSON
1: human, individual
An individual is a person or a specific object. Individuality is the state or quality of being an individual; a person separate from other persons and possessing his or her own needs or goals.
Biology – a. a single organism capable of independant existence
Great post..
Little boy and little girl fetuses are members of our human species and yet they’re not human persons…
Because the big humans who find the little humans to be a problem for them say so? How conveeeeeenient.
We’ve seen this justification before, and it always means mass oppression and mass murder.
Reality officially gets the award for Least Credible Person of the Day. He bangs on for days about how his definition of personhood excludes the unborn and then defines personhood in a way that necessarily–and by his own admission–includes the unborn. Unironically, no less.
*slow clap*
Looks like you win the award for Person Least Able To Comprehend of the Day Alice.
*rapid clap*
ZOMFG! A dictionary!!! I guess you win.
I hope you’re proud of yourself for using the exact same technique that opponents of gay marriage did in the 1990s and early 2000s.
Also, thanks for admitting (albeit tacitly), that personhood is indeed wholly a product of societal consensus: “a human being regarded as an individual.”
By Reality’s definition then the 3 month old currently googling at me, the 2 1/2 year old sitting on the couch, and probably even the 4 year old stealing my chips are all non persons since none of them are capable of independant life (given ideal situations the 4 year old *might* be able to live for a short time independantly.). Furthermore a conjoined twin, even if they are in their 50’s aren’t persons by that definition, nor are those in daily need of advanced medical augmentation to survive.
The definition of ‘person’ is much more simple: person, noun, member of the human species. (Theoretically we could add ‘member of any species shown to obtain, retain, or have sentient self awareness and a concept of right and wrong in the course of the species development. That addition would cover angels, demons, aliens, etc)
Reality, YOUR OWN DEFINITION that you just posted said human, individual. COMMA. Did you catch the comma? A human being is a person. And my sons WERE individuals even when in my womb. WHY is that so hard for you to accept? They had their own penises and scrotums. I have NEVER had a penis, ever! My sons are different blood types than me too! They had their own needs separate from mine. They were individuals!
You can admit fetuses are human. But you refuse to accept that they are persons. And yet you probably wouldn’t see the correlation drawn between people with your warped mindset and the white slave owners who also admitted blacks were human….but not persons! And the nazis who admitted Jews were humans…but not persons!!! The blacks and the Jews were denied RIGHTS, basic human rights like the right to LIVE by people with YOUR MINDSET.
Good grief Reality! Open up your eyes already!
“Biology – a. a single organism capable of independant existence” – my guess is that this puts things nearer the Peter Singer position.
“Also, thanks for admitting (albeit tacitly), that personhood is indeed wholly a product of societal consensus: “a human being regarded as an individual.”- hey, I said a day or so back that there is a subjective element to this, as is well demonstrated on this forum. This particular definition was provided by Lrning on another thread. I don’t think Lrning is pro-choice.
“The definition of ‘person’ is much more simple: person, noun, member of the human species” – well I suppose you can make up your own definition but when I check the recognised and accepted definitions they seem to include a little more than yours.
Did you not bother to read the info re ‘individual’ SydneyM?
“A human being is a person” – apparently it isn’t quite always so.
“But you refuse to accept that they are persons” – hey, I’m using the sciencey stuff y’all like to sprout.
Having a penis or a blood type does not define a ‘person’. Animals have penises and blood too.
My eyes are open, it is you who demonstrates myopia.
“Reality is the state of things as they actually exist, rather than as they may appear or might be imagined…..
Reality is often contrasted with what is imaginary, delusional, (only) in the mind, dreams, what is abstract, what is false, or what is fictional.”
Nice try Reality, but this definition came from Merriam-Webster:
per·son
noun \?p?r-s?n\
Definition of PERSON
1: human, individual
And so does this one:
Definition of INDIVIDUAL
1obsolete : inseparable
2a : of, relating to, or distinctively associated with an individual <an individual effort>
b : being an individual or existing as an indivisible whole
c : intended for one person <an individual serving>
3: existing as a distinct entity : separate
Yep, the definition of individual fits the zygote as well.
“An individual is a person or a specific object. Individuality is the state or quality of being an individual; a person separate from other persons and possessing his or her own needs or goals.”
Definitions at 20 paces?
How about the science you’re all so fond of then:
“Biology – a. a single organism capable of independant existence” – not a zygote then. And a zygote certainly isn’t a person either is it.
So, like ninek does, are you going to claim that a ‘person’ exists from the moment of conception, from when an egg is fertilized by a sperm?
Source?
Biology online:
Individual
Definition
noun, plural: individuals
(1) Any distinct person, object, or concept within a collection.
(2) A single, separate organism (animal or plant) distinguished from others of a same kind.
Yes, a zygote then.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/individual
Given how many objects are defined as ‘individual’, is a slice of pizza a ‘person’?
It must be if you are going to equate a ‘person’ with an ‘individual’.
A human being may be an individual but an individual is not always a human being.
So no, a zygote is not a person.
From the same website:
per·son
[pur-suh?n] Show IPA
noun
1.
a human being, whether man, woman, or child: The table seats four persons.
2.
a human being as distinguished from an animal or a thing.
3.
Sociology . an individual human being, especially with reference to his or her social relationships and behavioral patterns as conditioned by the culture.
4.
Philosophy . a self-conscious or rational being.
5.
the actual self or individual personality of a human being: You ought not to generalize, but to consider the person you are dealing with.
That’s lovely Hans. It still doesn’t demonstrate that a ‘person’ exists from the point of conception though.
Oh and Lrning, you can throw as much info about ‘individual’ as you like around. You could write a thesis on it. But it is not going to do what you would like it to do. “Individual’ does not equate to ‘person’.
“Person” = human being to the great majority of us, Reality. The minority viewpoint includes one A. Hitler and the very worst of the slaveholders and racists.
Not very good company you’re keeping.
“Person” = human being to the great majority of us, Reality.” – don’t misunderstand me, I generally agree.
It’s just that human being doesn’t necessarily mean ‘person’. And that’s a significant difference.
“The minority viewpoint includes one A. Hitler and the very worst of the slaveholders and racists.” – uhu, yawn.
“Not very good company you’re keeping” – I’m here right now so which of your compadres here are you disparaging? :-)
But person is synonymous with a member of the human species. Unless you think a zygote, embryo or fetus are not members of their species, where do you differ?
“But person is synonymous with a member of the human species.” – on a presumptive, general usage basis perhaps Hans. And most members of the human species are indeed ‘persons’, all of us on this forum for example. But isn’t it true that we consider a ‘person’ to have a personality? To have character traits? Self-consciousness? These attributes simply do not exist at conception. To any degree. There is not a ‘person’ at conception.
“But isn’t it true that we consider a ‘person’ to have a personality? To have character traits? Self-consciousness?”
My kids had personalities in utero. Some I could enumerate here and others I would be safe to say I was simply unaware of due to a lack of windows in the womb. The unique DNA for their traits, character and otherwise, are set at conception and obvious well before “becoming a person” by being born. I don’t think I was self-aware until I was 29.
No, it’s directly synonymous with human. As in “dead person, people, human”, it doesn’t require having a great “personality” at the moment. We’ve all met animals with great “personalities”. But they weren’t people.
It’s a pity we see eye to eye on Petula Clark, but not on something as basic as life and death. ;)
…So any person with a mental impairment (no self-awareness) is considered a non-person? someone under anesthesia? Sleeping?
My children were indeed different personalities before they were born – and they continued their traits after birth.
Since Reality is posing his theory – when do these things magically appear? and for self-reliance, many would argue that teenagers may not have that down either.
Every human has traits, and we can not de-classify humans based on their funtionality, size, location or degree of dependence.
An organism doesn’t change species due to a change in function – they are still a member of that species, but are functioning at a different level – due to injury, illness, age or any other such thing. For example – my house cat is elderly, and is in the process of dying. Even though she is ill, and we know what will happen, she does not stop being a cat. And it’s the same with humans.
Either we value everyone, or we don’t. If you are human, in any state of functionality, size, age, location or dependence, you are still human and worth protecting. Welcome to the family!
I would have thought that the tragedy in Newtown would have hit that home – everyone has value and should be allowed to live a life without violence, including the first violence we perpetrate on our children: abortion.
As a society, we are more loving, more inventive and more generous than that. Love big, and protect all the humans – including the unborn.
“The unique DNA for their traits, character and otherwise, are set at conception” – that simply is not true. The science says otherwise.
“I don’t think I was self-aware until I was 29” – ha! I thought that only applied to males. But you did have self-consciousness.
“No, it’s directly synonymous with human” – no, you are merely putting your subjective perspective on it.
“it doesn’t require having a great “personality” at the moment” – I didn’t say it did now did I.
“when do these things magically appear?” – certainly not at conception. I have already provided information regarding this, including that there is a subjective aspect to it even though the strictest application would be Peter Singer’s position.
“An organism doesn’t change species due to a change in function” – no, but that’s irrelevant here.
“Even though she is ill, and we know what will happen, she does not stop being a cat. And it’s the same with humans” – we are talking about the beginning, not the end.
Babies in the womb have self-consciousness Reality. If you pull their leg off they know it hurts them. They are aware of their own comfort and wants. Because they can’t sit up and say to you” Hello, I’m a 29 week old fetus in the womb of my 30 year old mother” doesn’t mean they aren’t self-conscious (although I’m not sure how self-consciousness confers personhood. I’m not self-conscious when I’m under anesthesia as someone already pointed out).
How can you say traits are not set at conception? That IS argued by science! I took a fascinating genetics class when I was in college where we discussed this very thing!!
Oh, Reality, still chasing that most ironically named commenter award even after having already won it several times over.
Hry folks,
this IS a bit weird! It is very easy to tell Reality that he is absolutely right. But then again we are not claiming PEOPLE RIGHTS…. but HUMAN RIGHTS. why won’t you give and honor these rights in beings you yourself said are: human?
“Babies in the womb have self-consciousness Reality.” – no they do not.
“If you pull their leg off they know it hurts them.” – did you do the old ‘electrodes on the frog’s leg’ in school? This is innate reactive response.
“They are aware of their own comfort and wants” – no they are not. These are simply intrinsic response mechanisms.
“I’m not self-conscious when I’m under anesthesia as someone already pointed out” – prior to undergoing anesthesia you had achieved self-consciousness through development. After anesthesia it was still there. Just the same as you can walk before and after anesthesia but not during it. Fertilized eggs have not reached that stage of development.
I think we are at cross purposes. DNA dictates characteristics and traits such as hair and eye color. My meaning was character and individual traits in regards to personality, behavior etc. Sorry if I was unclear on this point, but we were talking about ‘personhood’.
Oh, JDC, still trying to think up something relevant to say.
Is there still a claim that personality, character - ‘personhood’ – exists from the moment of conception; which is the point we were originally discussing? As ninek claimed?
I think we are at cross purposes. DNA dictates characteristics and traits such as hair and eye color. My meaning was character and individual traits in regards to personality, behavior etc. Sorry if I was unclear on this point, but we were talking about ‘personhood’.
Why do only cognitive traits matter? Have you ever known someone who was severely handicapped in that regard? Do you realize that sometimes, grown-up, live human beings don’t really have much in the way of “personality, behavior etc.” due to genetics (there’s that word again!), diseases, or injuries? Do they lose their “personhood”? Did they never have it to begin with, despite being born already? Do newborns have “personhood”? They don’t have much in the way of cognitive development, either.
Your purpose is transparent. And sickening.
You define “personhood” as being requisite of cognitive function. However, human beings shouldn’t have to justify having their basic human rights recognized to those who would discriminate and deny them. “Personhood” begins when you are a person. Being a person begins when your life as a human being begins. Your life as a human being begins the same place it does for every other sexually-reproducing mammal-at amphimixis, but can be protected by law starting at implantation (and/or when your parent[s] are first aware of your existence).
Have some more wine, Conman.
“You think the only people who are people, are the people who look and think like you.”
Pocahontas is dissapoint.
“Personhood” begins when you are a person. Being a person begins when your life as a human being begins” – simply not true - unless you’re saying that ‘life as a human being’ starts some time after conception takes place?
The whole point of what I have been trying to get across is that ninek’s claim that she was a ‘person’ from the moment of conception, when that sperm penetrated that egg, is patently absurd. The science does not support it.
– simply not true - unless you’re saying that ‘life as a human being’ starts some time after conception takes place?
“simply not true”
why not?
“unless you’re saying that ‘life as a human being’ starts some time after conception takes place?”
I’m saying no such thing. Every sexually-reproducing organism’s life begins AT amphimixis-conception-and science certainly DOES support that. And that goes for human beings, too. “Human being” is synonymous with “person”. This concept of “living human organism non-persons” is not only unscientific, but unjust.
“Human being” is synonymous with “person” – it may be a trusim but not quite.
Hint. Examine further amphimixis-conception and the short period of time following. Discover the potential changes and outcomes. Then tell me that a ‘person’ exists from the moment of conception.
it may be a trusim but not quite.
Yes, but how much truthiness does it contain? That’s the real question. 9_9
Examine further amphimixis-conception and the short period of time following. Discover the potential changes and outcomes. Then tell me that a ‘person’ exists from the moment of conception.
I’m aware. Barring some EXTREME genetic abnormality (which would in all likelihood end the pregnancy on its own, anyway), AT LEAST one person exists from the moment of conception. However, you’ll notice that I explicitly stated legislation couldn’t/wouldn’t be able to be implemented until after implantation anyway for many reasons in addition to the ones you’re attempting to conjure here (with a possible exception of IVF cases), so any point you’re attempting to make is rendered moot before you can even do so. I’m nothing if not reasonable. ;)
“AT LEAST one person exists from the moment of conception.” – that’s not quite accurate.
“so any point you’re attempting to make is rendered moot before you can even do so” – not really. Given that so much can change very significantly in the short period following the actual conception, it is not possible to claim that a ‘person’ exists at that point.
“I’m nothing if not reasonable.” – in this instance that would appear to be so, thank you. I have simply been trying to get the point across that ninek’s claim that she was a ‘person’ from the moment of conception cannot be proven. You are the first to actually attempt to engage on the specific pertinence.
that’s not quite accurate.
Specifics? Because I do believe I provided for the rare, rare, RARE instances of Gestational trophoblastic disease in my original comment.
not really. Given that so much can change very significantly in the short period following the actual conception, it is not possible to claim that a ‘person’ exists at that point.
Once again, other that GTD and twinning (which still entails AT LEAST one person being created), please tell me what would cause you to say that. It’s quite “possible” to say that a person exists at conception, since that’s the friggin’ vehicle for how we as a species create new people.
in this instance that would appear to be so, thank you. I have simply been trying to get the point across that ninek’s claim that she was a ‘person’ from the moment of conception cannot be proven. You are the first to actually attempt to engage on the specific pertinence.
And thank you for your recognition. I’ve never adopted a position out-of-hand, even those that have been presented to me with no alternative since childhood. The skeptic in me demands investigation, proof, and critical thinking. Unfortunately for you, that’s also the reason I’m Pro-Life and find it hard to accept the psychological realm as any sort of tangible reason to legitimize abortion. Coming from the background I do, I try not to take anything within the realm of the mind at face value, since I know how very damaged and sick any given mind can be. Hard science is our compass in the storm. It is a light in the dark.
Oh, so clever. So because the zygote may twin, its not a new human being? We don’t know what triggers the twinning process. It may very well be programmed from the start.
I think ninek would know whether she has an identical twin, so how is it that she can’t know she was a person at conception?
actually, a lot of people have twins but never knew them. Sometimes they’re absorbed early on by their mother’s body, or even their twin’s body. Doesn’t mean that there wasn’t AT LEAST ONE PERSON present from the point of conception. I think passing laws to protect at least one person is reasonable.
“So because the zygote may twin, its not a new human being?” – stop it Hans. I didn’t say it wasn’t a member of the human species. I said it isn’t a person.
ninek and some others appear to think that they were the person that they are from the moment of conception and that is patently absurd.
There are more possibilities than just twinning which can take place.
The science tells us that what exists at conception simply doesn’t possess that which is required to be cogniscant, self-aware or capable of thought.
There are epigenetic influences which determine the person well past the point of conception.
There are more possibilities than just twinning which can take place.
Besides twinning and GTD, what would those possibilities be, so that we can allow for those possibilities in our legislation?
The science tells us that what exists at conception simply doesn’t possess that which is required to be cogniscant, self-aware or capable of thought.
And once again, in light of what I mentioned earlier regarding MY position in the Pro-Life camp, WHY should being “cognisant, self-aware, or capable of thought” be the requisites for a human being’s life to be protected by law? Why is merely being a living human being NOT ENOUGH?
There are epigenetic influences which determine the person well past the point of conception.
There are also physical occurrences later in life-even in seniors and adults!-which can change the entire being of any given person. I could be involved in a car accident on the way to my in-law’s tonight that would change my cognition, appearance, personality, etc…So since my traits aren’t necessarily static my entire life, I’m STILL only a potential person, eh?
Regardless of any genetic/physical/epigenetic influences upon any given organism, the organism itself is present from conception, and any trait development or alteration after that point is merely a CHANGE in an already existent being. In our case, human beings. Which are people. The fact that people can change for almost any reason at almost any time at almost any point in their lifespan is not a reason to legalize the killing of said people at some particular point in that lifespan.
BOOM.
GOES THE DYNAMITE!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W45DRy7M1no
Where are these non-person human beings, Reality? I’ve read of them in science fiction, horror, Nazism, and the slave trade. But this is not a generally held concept.
Oh, you have a problem with “concepts” too?
“GOES THE DYNAMITE!”
LOL, Hans, good reference. :)
I’ll take that as a ’tish, boom’
Tetragametic
merry christmas xalisae, and others
I’ll say this again, “Reality”,
AT. LEAST. ONE. HUMAN. BEING.
We already discussed twinning, identical twins being the flip-side of this coin. If two organisms can be made of cells from one original organism, one organism can be made of cells from two original organisms. I still fail to see how these occurrences would impede legal efforts to protect AT LEAST ONE ORGANISM within their mother. Please, explain to me, “Reality”, how things like twinning and chimerism create a legal excuse to kill a living human being while they gestate inside their mother?