|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Mon Apr 18, 2005 6:23 pm
I've noticed lately that the pro-life users on Gaia in the ED use the term potential when describing the fetus.
So I saw them use the words to differentiate potential and actual... now I'm going to try and re-write this argument, I hope someone in this guild reads this.
First, Potential is something that could happen and develop. Actual is something that is happening.
So how should we describe the embryo/fetus/baby?
Well, we could say it has the potential in it could become a person.
-or-
We could say it is an actual developing person.
What do you think?
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Apr 18, 2005 8:05 pm
Quoting myself (Because I'm just that cool. xd )Quote: A fertalized egg has its own [human] DNA, killing it is killing a seperate human entity.
1. DNA is what makes you different from every one else. That seems pretty universally known. The fetus is attached to the mother, yes. It is still something different, else it would have the mothers DNA.
2. An entity is relevant because it shows that there is a difference between, say, removing a tooth and having an abortion.
3. Sperm has the potential to become a potential baby. A fetus is human (Personhood is debated, but hasn't been applied in this debate.) and is alive. Basic biology proves that fact. So it is a potential baby, not a potential human or a potential life as it is already both of those.
Also sperm itself has no potential to become anything, it's not until you intervene and merge it with an egg that is has any potential. A sperm left to its own devices will remain sperm. A fertalized egg left to its own divices will either miscarry or become a baby.
Every living thing needs certain living conditions in order to continue life. Otherwise they would die. When put in these conditions they will carry on living, when taken out of these conditions they would die. This doesn't change the fact that left to their own devices, within those conditions they would continue living.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Apr 19, 2005 8:49 am
What is a person? Are you a potential person or an actual person? Just a thought. What makes you a person? It can't go by person though anyway, toxic made me realize that long ago. A fetus is definitely an actual life. Like toxic says, Quote: Every living thing needs certain living conditions in order to continue life. Otherwise they would die. When put in these conditions they will carry on living, when taken out of these conditions they would die. This doesn't change the fact that left to their own devices, within those conditions they would continue living. If someone left you with no food or water and no means to reach it, you'd die. Your living conditions wouldn't sustain human life. You're not potentially alive, and you aren't potentially a person because of it. You have the potential to reach age 80 given the right conditions, but whether you're 80 or 8 months short of being born, you're a human life who is constantly growing, changing. Fetuses have the potential to reach a certain age given a set of conditions. If personhood is a matter of age, then yes. A fetus is a potential person, if the starting point is birth. There's no starting point that's agreed on though. Personhood is something that we haven't the means to measure objectively, is it? What is a person?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Apr 19, 2005 9:09 am
So I suppose we already agree on this that it's an actual person and not a potential person.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Apr 19, 2005 10:35 am
Not yet....I mean....it's an actual life. LIke I said....we need to know what qualifies as a person to determine whether or not a fetus is a person. Everyone has different opinions about that. What is a person? Is it an age? If it is, and it starts at birth, than a fetus cannot be an actual person but a potential person.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Apr 19, 2005 10:44 am
Exactly. It's definately a life, and a human, however personhood can be debated until everyone is blue in the face. That's why I tend try to keep it out of a debate, as there's no set definition.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Apr 19, 2005 11:01 am
[ Message temporarily off-line ]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Apr 19, 2005 11:26 am
A note on the 'person' definition which I remember from awhile ago. Most of the choicers seem to differenciate between a 'human' and a 'human being'. rolleyes
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Apr 19, 2005 12:54 pm
The Constitution defines a person by:
Jus Solis-> by the soil.
-or-
Jus Sanguines -> by the blood.
By the soil would infer the baby had to be born, by the blood infers it's by the parents' blood and is therefore a citizen to be protected.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Apr 19, 2005 1:19 pm
toxic_lollipop A note on the 'person' definition which I remember from awhile ago. Most of the choicers seem to differenciate between a 'human' and a 'human being'. rolleyes I checked out human being, but its definition was a person. I figured, well, now we know what a person is, so let's figure out personhood, which should satisfy them. But does that definition apply before birth? That applies to when you're born in American to parents of other nationalities, I believe, a question of citizenship.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Apr 19, 2005 8:14 pm
There is no doubt that a fetus is both alive and human. Choicers can state that a fetus is not a person because personhood is political - and unborn humans aren't the first to be denied it. For example, in the days of legal slavery, a black slave was actually considered to be three-fourths of a person.
Yes. It's just that ridiculous. Obviously, where abortion is legal, unborn people aren't people - or so says the law.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Apr 20, 2005 7:25 pm
Unborn people are not people, because they have not yet been born. I find that pro-choicers also argue that the unborn interfere with the life of another.
But when you throw at them the "choice to have sex." They claim it would be unfair to rape victims... but rape pregnancies are very rare, and logically (not actual numbers) 3% should not ensure 97% to take advantage of something meant for 3%.
However...
I'm coming to the idea that there will never be a solution or agreement on abortion because all the research done on the subject, just like all the research done on homosexuality, is biased. I cannot find one article, about abortion, or homosexuality, that is unbiased with unbiased researchers.
Which is to say the issue has grown so controversial that there is actually a lot to be lost and gained in the event there is a settlement. Funny...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
