Planned Parenthood Debates Personhood | Page 4 | TigerDroppings.com

Posted byMessage
junkfunky
LSU Fan
Member since Jan 2011
14241 posts

re: Planned Parenthood Debates Personhood


quote:

Do you believe it's okay for different people to set their own stage of human development as gaining the right to life?


Also, youtube has taught me there's a chance Rex isn't fully developed. OFF WITH HIS DOG HEAD!!!






Back to top
  Replies (0)
EZE Tiger Fan
Member since Jul 2004
24072 posts

re: Planned Parenthood Debates Personhood


quote:

Does a Republican woman kill herself if her fetus was stillborn?

Technically her body produced antibodies that combated the pregnancy and won.

Her body performed an abortion...


Holy shite you are a fricking stupid frick.

I'm pro-abortion and this shite is over the line, you fricking twit.

Your meme and your stupid reply don't help the cause, dumbfrick. STFU and allow the adults to speak on your behalf.






Back to top
  Replies (0)
LSUnKaty
LSU Fan
Katy, TX
Member since Dec 2008
3714 posts

re: Planned Parenthood Debates Personhood


You're an idiot





Back to top
McLemore
Member since Dec 2003
12696 posts

re: Planned Parenthood Debates Personhood


i will say this, socially conservative evangelical Christians, Catholics and the like want laws that reflect a belief in a transcendent God and respect for His providence that the majority of Americans have rejected (especially if you factor in the % that claim to accept it but don't really live it or understand it). if law follows culture (despite the ingenious devices we have to counterbalance that effect), then abortion will never be outlawed in our current polity.

segue: the rights attendant to personhood attach at conception, viability, birth, or some arbitrary point among those events. Pro-lifers say (or believe or claim to believe or don't really even think about it....) that the only rational point is when a new genetic being is created. otherwise, we're left with birth or arbitrariness because viability is difficult to determine and is subjective. they are comfortable with this stance due to an inherent belief in the sanctity of human life and God's choice to allow/cause life to happen. (putting aside potentially inherent contradictions between this and capital punishment, rape etc.).

I think without that belief, pro-lifers would be more comfortable allowing man alone (as in, gender-neutral lawmaker) determine when human life and the rights attendant thereto begin. the idiotic response to this is "a woman should decide." well fine, but the decision to allow an individual woman decide comes from lawmakers who represent theoretically the people. the "woman decides" argument is circular/begs the question.

On the other hand, you have the statist left that has co-opted the once-legitimate women's rights movement and raised abortion rights as the movement's condition sine qua non. Like many folks on the anti-abortion side, these folks refuse to even engage in rational discourse and shout about a woman's body. a fetus may be a lot of things, but only an idiot would say it is a woman's body or part thereof.

question: i haven't looked into states' laws on this in a while, but are there still states in which feticide at any gestational stage can be murder? if the pro-abortion stance is grounded in the position that there is no personhood until XYZ, i wonder if activists are concerned with laws that allow for murder charges against a person who causes the termination of early pregnancies. if my entire belief system relied on a tenet as fundamental as "life begins at...," then I'd want to fight laws that stood contrary to that tenet, right?

and around we go....



This post was edited on 11/15 at 12:01 pm


Back to top
McLemore
Member since Dec 2003
12696 posts

re: Planned Parenthood Debates Personhood


quote:

You're an idiot


truly. embarrassing.






Back to top
  Replies (0)
LSUnKaty
LSU Fan
Katy, TX
Member since Dec 2008
3714 posts

re: Planned Parenthood Debates Personhood


Thank you for injecting some sanity into this thread.

Put aside the religious argument.

All society is based on the premise that all men (by men I mean humankind - human people of any gender, race, sexual orientation, age, height, weight, etc) are created equal and entitled to equal and inalienable human rights, one of which is the right to life. One can start with the non-aggression principle which basically states that men are free to live as they please as long as they do not interfere with the equal human rights of others to do the same. I will assume that we can all agree on this view - the question then becomes when do these rights accrue.

Since our knowledge of the biological sciences is not perfect and at this time there is no objective or even teleological test of "person-hood", one could certainly argue, with no appeal to religious belief whatsoever, that to honor the non-aggression principle one must give any person at any stage of development the same equal rights.

We can not arbitrarily determine the point at which an embryo (or even a zygote) should attain human rights, this has to be done in a reasoned way based on facts and science. Until such time that it can be shown unequivocally at what exact moment life (or person-hood if you like) begins, we must protect and value life at every stage, from conception to natural death.







Back to top
ShoeBang
New Orleans Pelicans Fan
Member since May 2012
4617 posts

re: Planned Parenthood Debates Personhood


quote:

Until such time that it can be shown unequivocally at what exact moment life (or person-hood if you like) begins, we must protect and value life at every stage, from conception to natural death.


Thank you. This has been the best argument yet. Better than mine, & better than anyone else's of any stance.







Back to top
  Replies (0)
McLemore
Member since Dec 2003
12696 posts

re: Planned Parenthood Debates Personhood


quote:

one could certainly argue, with no appeal to religious belief whatsoever, that to honor the non-aggression principle one must give any person at any stage of development the same equal rights.


i agree completely. and just to clarify, i wasn't saying that the theological stance i summarized is necessary to an anti-abortion stance. just that as a whole our culture has [d]evolved to believe man is the arbiter of existence.






Back to top
  Replies (0)
taylork37
Ohio State Fan
The social pipeline
Member since Mar 2010
10482 posts

re: Planned Parenthood Debates Personhood


quote:

We can not arbitrarily determine the point at which an embryo (or even a zygote) should attain human rights, this has to be done in a reasoned way based on facts and science. Until such time that it can be shown unequivocally at what exact moment life (or person-hood if you like) begins, we must protect and value life at every stage, from conception to natural death.



So because we do not factually or scientifically know when life begins that we should treat/protect/value a newly fertilized egg the same way we treat/protect/value a more developed unborn child?

I just don't buy this.

Call me a terrible person, but I do not mentally value a newly fertilized egg nearly as much as I do a more fully developed unborn child.




This post was edited on 11/15 at 1:07 pm


Back to top
McLemore
Member since Dec 2003
12696 posts

re: Planned Parenthood Debates Personhood


quote:

Call me a terrible person, but I do not mentally value a newly fertilized egg nearly as much as I do a more fully developed unborn child.


no honest person does. not a perfect or even good analogy, but i also don't value KKK's right to speak as much as a I do a scholarly dissenter at the lectern.






Back to top
  Replies (0)
Aristotle
USA Fan
Ancient Greece
Member since Aug 2012
610 posts

re: Planned Parenthood Debates Personhood


The same line of thinking can go the opposite direction. Until we can unequivocally prove that it is life then it should be legal.





Back to top
wavebreaker
LSU Fan
New Orleans
Member since Nov 2012
467 posts

re: Planned Parenthood Debates Personhood


Partial birth abortion.



LINK


Real instruments but not real baby demonstration.

Anyone for that is as evil as Hitler.






Back to top
  Replies (0)
MrTide33
Alabama Fan
Southeastern Central North America
Member since Nov 2012
3154 posts

re: Planned Parenthood Debates Personhood


It could be. But saying you can't prove it's a life so lets take it for now is a pretty jacked up sounding argument. Sounds like "until we prove this people group is equally human lets allow it to be legal to kill them"





Back to top
  Replies (0)
McLemore
Member since Dec 2003
12696 posts

re: Planned Parenthood Debates Personhood


quote:

Until we can unequivocally prove that it is life then it should be legal.


what does that mean?






Back to top
gatorsimz
Florida Fan
cafe risque
Member since Feb 2009
5460 posts

re: Planned Parenthood Debates Personhood


People get so caught up in the timeline of the development of a human. Pro-abortion people are the worst with this because it makes themselves feel better about killing a human life. Life starts at conception, because without conception there's no life. It's as simple as that. Doesn't matter when the heart beats or when the brain starts developing, that's a bull shite argument. What do these people think, "oh I had an abortion before his brain was developed, its cool though he was never going to be a real baby". Cool you killed it off 2 weeks before its brain was fully develeoped, glad it makes you feel better.





Back to top
geauxturbo
LSU Fan
Baton Rouge
Member since Aug 2007
2307 posts

re: Planned Parenthood Debates Personhood


Let's stick with science. We had a question in Biology back in college on which were living organisms. The answer was like e)a,b, and d.

C) was a mule. Mules cannot reproduce or evolve over successive generations.

So, technically, you're not an organism and not "living" until puberty. Therefore, if your pre-teen is a pain in your arse and doesn't have hair on their genitals, you can kill him. Under the purely scientific definition of an organism. Edit: You can add the elderly as no long a viable organism after they can no longer reproduce.

In all seriousness, I agree with gatorismz.



This post was edited on 11/15 at 3:36 pm


Back to top
  Replies (0)
LSUnKaty
LSU Fan
Katy, TX
Member since Dec 2008
3714 posts

re: Planned Parenthood Debates Personhood


quote:

So because we do not factually or scientifically know when life begins that we should treat/protect/value a newly fertilized egg the same way we treat/protect/value a more developed unborn child?
What I'm saying is who will decide where the line is drawn and how.

An arbitrary determination based on some vague concept like "person-hood" does not do it for me.

You don't value a newly fertilized egg the same way you value a more developed unborn child. Others may. Still others may not value the more developed unborn child as much as the born child. So, in the absence of perfect knowledge where do you draw the line? Considering that ending a life after that line is murder while ending it before is not, reasonable people might decide to err on the side of extreme caution as to better protect every human life possible.






Back to top
  Replies (0)
llfshoals
Alabama Fan
Member since Nov 2010
1401 posts

re: Planned Parenthood Debates Personhood


quote:

quote:
At 5 weeks, the baby has fingers, toes, and full human form.


But no personhood.


And the Nazi's defined the jews as non-persons. And slaves were defined as non-persons by their owners.

Nice friends you've got there.

You could be defined as a non-person if the majority votes it so, and you march right into the ovens because you believe they can define what you are.






Back to top
  Replies (0)


Back to top