|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Mon May 28, 2007 7:48 pm
No. He's saying, a fetus is a person. An infant is a person. A toddler is a person. A teenager is a person. An adult is a person. A senior citizen is a person.
All of these humans at all different stages of life are people, not potential people, but people. And neither of you can win this argument because philosophical personhood is subjective, and legal personhood can change depending on who's in power, which is why slavery used to be legal, why the holocaust was legal, why humans who are clearly people were stripped of personhood and killed, because legally, personhood is subjective to who is in power and who is writing the laws. Otherwise, a chicken could be a person. A mouse could be a person. But philosophically, there's no way to say who is a person and who isn't.
So while it's true that a fetus is a potential legal person, legality doesn't matter much, as history has taught us, in terms of the value of a human being. It only tells us what we're allowed to do to that human.
YOU are the one saying a fetus isn't a person, because I assume that's your belief, and that's fine. But don't confuse legal personhood with philosophical personhood, because otherwise, you're saying humans have no intrinsic value, they're only worth what the government says they're worth and once I step into another country, I'm worth less since I'm a woman and that country doesn't have the same status for women that this country does.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon May 28, 2007 11:00 pm
ThePeerOrlando2 divineseraph Again, no. I am saying that a fetus is a fetus, which under normal circumstances will be a born person. I am not saying that BECAUSE it will be a person it is a person. I'm saying that even in it's fetal state, it is a person, though in a younger point of development. Yes, WILL be born a person, as in POTENTIALLY will be born a person. Zin: You do realize that cancerous cells can attach to other cells, giving movement, asexually divide and reproduce new cancer cells, and consume tissue, right? It is a person- person and human is the same thing (the only difference is it's not born yet). Person-A human being as including body and mind; an individual. By the time it's an embryo is when the body starts to form and by the rime it's a fetus you can tell it has a body (it's body and mind is devolping but still as one). It's an individual, a new/different human. It's not a potential person, it is one. The only potential fetuses have is to be born (it can still died before the mom gives birth). Law can't make a person, it has to do with science and biology. The law can say whatever it wants but it doesn't mean it's right. I mean come on, it once said Slaves were not a person but that was a lie seeing that they 1. were human 2. have a body 3. have a mind 4. they are an individual, they just weren't treated as one (they probly made that law so they won't feel guilty treating people like that but now that law is gone).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue May 29, 2007 1:12 am
lymelady YOU are the one saying a fetus isn't a person, because I assume that's your belief, and that's fine. But don't confuse legal personhood with philosophical personhood, because otherwise, you're saying humans have no intrinsic value, they're only worth what the government says they're worth and once I step into another country, I'm worth less since I'm a woman and that country doesn't have the same status for women that this country does. No, it's actually not my belief. surprised I was discussing legal personhood, as I thought he was. As far as personal philosophy is concerned, questions are irrelevant as it's all subjective and thus unprovable.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue May 29, 2007 1:15 am
sachiko_sohma ThePeerOrlando2 divineseraph Again, no. I am saying that a fetus is a fetus, which under normal circumstances will be a born person. I am not saying that BECAUSE it will be a person it is a person. I'm saying that even in it's fetal state, it is a person, though in a younger point of development. Yes, WILL be born a person, as in POTENTIALLY will be born a person. Zin: You do realize that cancerous cells can attach to other cells, giving movement, asexually divide and reproduce new cancer cells, and consume tissue, right? It is a person- person and human is the same thing (the only difference is it's not born yet). Person-A human being as including body and mind; an individual. By the time it's an embryo is when the body starts to form and by the rime it's a fetus you can tell it has a body (it's body and mind is devolping but still as one). It's an individual, a new/different human. It's not a potential person, it is one. The only potential fetuses have is to be born (it can still died before the mom gives birth). Law can't make a person, it has to do with science and biology. The law can say whatever it wants but it doesn't mean it's right. I mean come on, it once said Slaves were not a person but that was a lie seeing that they 1. were human 2. have a body 3. have a mind 4. they are an individual, they just weren't treated as one (they probly made that law so they won't feel guilty treating people like that but now that law is gone). Three strikes, you're out. 1) Person and human are not the same. Human refers to anything that is genetically human; hands, toes, eyes, fingernails, individual cells, hairs, etc. Human BEING refers to a person. Person hood, as pertains to my and seraph's argument, is a legal argument (unless he was discussing philisophically in which case this is all rather irrelevant). 2) Argument from potential. 3) "Forced pregnancy would make women slaves" is just as invalid as "Slavery was once legal so abortion is wrong" as an argument.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue May 29, 2007 4:06 am
But cancerous cells are one's own bodily tissue going insane, basically. Again, my over-simple example- your hand decideds that it wants to grow and consume your body's nutrients at a faster rate than it should. That's all it is. This is caused by a mutation of genes, yes, but it is still your hand, and thus still not an organism.
And as for slavery, the argument is not that slavery was bad and thus abortion is bad. It's that slavery was a ******** on the concept of personhood, and abortion is as well. It's not targeting slavery and abortion as the focus, but the concept of personhood behind them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue May 29, 2007 10:45 am
ThePeerOrlando2 sachiko_sohma ThePeerOrlando2 divineseraph Again, no. I am saying that a fetus is a fetus, which under normal circumstances will be a born person. I am not saying that BECAUSE it will be a person it is a person. I'm saying that even in it's fetal state, it is a person, though in a younger point of development. Yes, WILL be born a person, as in POTENTIALLY will be born a person. Zin: You do realize that cancerous cells can attach to other cells, giving movement, asexually divide and reproduce new cancer cells, and consume tissue, right? It is a person- person and human is the same thing (the only difference is it's not born yet). Person-A human being as including body and mind; an individual. By the time it's an embryo is when the body starts to form and by the rime it's a fetus you can tell it has a body (it's body and mind is devolping but still as one). It's an individual, a new/different human. It's not a potential person, it is one. The only potential fetuses have is to be born (it can still died before the mom gives birth). Law can't make a person, it has to do with science and biology. The law can say whatever it wants but it doesn't mean it's right. I mean come on, it once said Slaves were not a person but that was a lie seeing that they 1. were human 2. have a body 3. have a mind 4. they are an individual, they just weren't treated as one (they probly made that law so they won't feel guilty treating people like that but now that law is gone). Three strikes, you're out. 1) Person and human are not the same. Human refers to anything that is genetically human; hands, toes, eyes, fingernails, individual cells, hairs, etc. Human BEING refers to a person. Person hood, as pertains to my and seraph's argument, is a legal argument (unless he was discussing philisophically in which case this is all rather irrelevant). 2) Argument from potential. 3) "Forced pregnancy would make women slaves" is just as invalid as "Slavery was once legal so abortion is wrong" as an argument. 1. fetus do have individual cells,hairs,eyes,ect...exspecially the in the later term (people arn't born with out eyes,ect... sweatdrop ). Last time I checked, if the fetuses is mom is human then the fetus too is genetically human (is not a cat wink ). The only time it's nothing more then cells is the first fews days before it starts becoming a embryo then 8 weeks later until it's born it's a fetus (just devolps slowly). There is no legal issue about being human, if your parents are human then your are too. 2. I never said anything about woman or forcing them to be pregnant. I was talking about slaving and how back then they weren't seen as human and about the law. (what's with the three strikes thing? Did I say something bad? I'm sorry)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue May 29, 2007 9:29 pm
ThePeerOrlando2 Zin: You do realize that cancerous cells can attach to other cells, giving movement, asexually divide and reproduce new cancer cells, and consume tissue, right? Yes. They cannot, however, leave the "host" organism and become a seperate organism. They only divide asexually, like normal cells, and live off the surrounding blood supply. They never develop a blood supply and functional organs for themselves. I see what you're saying about arguing from potential, but when someone claims that the right to bodily domain should supercede the right to life, they're sort of doing the opposite: a fetus is only present ("violating" bodily domain) for a limited amount of time. Aborting it would kill it permanently.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jun 04, 2007 4:37 am
La Veuve Zin ThePeerOrlando2 Zin: You do realize that cancerous cells can attach to other cells, giving movement, asexually divide and reproduce new cancer cells, and consume tissue, right? Yes. They cannot, however, leave the "host" organism and become a seperate organism. They only divide asexually, like normal cells, and live off the surrounding blood supply. They never develop a blood supply and functional organs for themselves. I see what you're saying about arguing from potential, but when someone claims that the right to bodily domain should supercede the right to life, they're sort of doing the opposite: a fetus is only present ("violating" bodily domain) for a limited amount of time. Aborting it would kill it permanently. The thing is, though, that bodily domain DOES supercede the right to life. Many pro-choicers believe that once a foetus becomes viable, it should be removed and thus bodily domain would come back. Without bodily domain, people needing organ transplants would be free to take them from anyone who was a match, whether they agreed or not. After all, it's only violating their bodily domain for a little bit, they'll be fine in a month or two (although of course it's not possible to just transplant a heart and have the donor be just handy, but something like a kidney).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jun 04, 2007 12:30 pm
Seeing the Kraken La Veuve Zin ThePeerOrlando2 Zin: You do realize that cancerous cells can attach to other cells, giving movement, asexually divide and reproduce new cancer cells, and consume tissue, right? Yes. They cannot, however, leave the "host" organism and become a seperate organism. They only divide asexually, like normal cells, and live off the surrounding blood supply. They never develop a blood supply and functional organs for themselves. I see what you're saying about arguing from potential, but when someone claims that the right to bodily domain should supercede the right to life, they're sort of doing the opposite: a fetus is only present ("violating" bodily domain) for a limited amount of time. Aborting it would kill it permanently. The thing is, though, that bodily domain DOES supercede the right to life. Many pro-choicers believe that once a foetus becomes viable, it should be removed and thus bodily domain would come back. Without bodily domain, people needing organ transplants would be free to take them from anyone who was a match, whether they agreed or not. After all, it's only violating their bodily domain for a little bit, they'll be fine in a month or two (although of course it's not possible to just transplant a heart and have the donor be just handy, but something like a kidney). 1- Who says that bodily domain overrides the right to life? 2-We are not saying to remove bodily domain in all cases. We are saying to remove it in this one special case. In the same way, there is a bit of flexibility in killing someone for self defense, as opposed to simply hating them. The law recognizes a difference in condition and context, and therefore the end result of murder is not judged the same way. 3- Pregnancy is not an annonymous organ donation or blood transfusion or anything. Having sex gives risk to create a pregnancy. So find a way in which you consenually risk giving up organs and you may have part of an argument.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jun 04, 2007 2:16 pm
divineseraph Seeing the Kraken La Veuve Zin ThePeerOrlando2 Zin: You do realize that cancerous cells can attach to other cells, giving movement, asexually divide and reproduce new cancer cells, and consume tissue, right? Yes. They cannot, however, leave the "host" organism and become a seperate organism. They only divide asexually, like normal cells, and live off the surrounding blood supply. They never develop a blood supply and functional organs for themselves. I see what you're saying about arguing from potential, but when someone claims that the right to bodily domain should supercede the right to life, they're sort of doing the opposite: a fetus is only present ("violating" bodily domain) for a limited amount of time. Aborting it would kill it permanently. The thing is, though, that bodily domain DOES supercede the right to life. Many pro-choicers believe that once a foetus becomes viable, it should be removed and thus bodily domain would come back. Without bodily domain, people needing organ transplants would be free to take them from anyone who was a match, whether they agreed or not. After all, it's only violating their bodily domain for a little bit, they'll be fine in a month or two (although of course it's not possible to just transplant a heart and have the donor be just handy, but something like a kidney). 1- Who says that bodily domain overrides the right to life? 2-We are not saying to remove bodily domain in all cases. We are saying to remove it in this one special case. In the same way, there is a bit of flexibility in killing someone for self defense, as opposed to simply hating them. The law recognizes a difference in condition and context, and therefore the end result of murder is not judged the same way. 3- Pregnancy is not an annonymous organ donation or blood transfusion or anything. Having sex gives risk to create a pregnancy. So find a way in which you consenually risk giving up organs and you may have part of an argument. 1. McFall vs Shimp. I believe it was McFall who needed a bone marrow transplant and his cousin Shimp was a match. Tried to get a court order and the judge ordained that bodily domain is more important than right to life. 2. I'm pretty sure that what goes through most peoples' minds when they are pregnant and want to abort is not "I hate you foetus die damn you die!" Although I did read a radfem blog where she grew to hate the foetus inside her simply because of all the threats and insults she was receiving on her blog for saying she'd abort it. I can see why, too. 3. Even if I severely injure someone to the point that they'd need, say, a kidney transplant, intentionally knowing that they might need a kidney transplant and I'm a match, I'm not forced to give them the kidney.It's a theoretical situation, but it sort of gets my point across. Consenting risk is not consenting act. I consent to the risk that I may get raped, but I don't have to let it happen. I consent that pregnancy may occur, but similarly I don't have to let it happen.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jun 04, 2007 3:35 pm
Seeing the Kraken La Veuve Zin ThePeerOrlando2 Zin: You do realize that cancerous cells can attach to other cells, giving movement, asexually divide and reproduce new cancer cells, and consume tissue, right? Yes. They cannot, however, leave the "host" organism and become a seperate organism. They only divide asexually, like normal cells, and live off the surrounding blood supply. They never develop a blood supply and functional organs for themselves. I see what you're saying about arguing from potential, but when someone claims that the right to bodily domain should supercede the right to life, they're sort of doing the opposite: a fetus is only present ("violating" bodily domain) for a limited amount of time. Aborting it would kill it permanently. The thing is, though, that bodily domain DOES supercede the right to life. Many pro-choicers believe that once a foetus becomes viable, it should be removed and thus bodily domain would come back. Without bodily domain, people needing organ transplants would be free to take them from anyone who was a match, whether they agreed or not. After all, it's only violating their bodily domain for a little bit, they'll be fine in a month or two (although of course it's not possible to just transplant a heart and have the donor be just handy, but something like a kidney). By if they kill/remove the fetus, aren't they doing the very thing they are supposed to be against? They are forcing something (death) on someone and not giving them a right for bodily domain (They have no choice when it comes to life and abortion).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jun 04, 2007 3:49 pm
Seeing the Kraken divineseraph Seeing the Kraken La Veuve Zin ThePeerOrlando2 Zin: You do realize that cancerous cells can attach to other cells, giving movement, asexually divide and reproduce new cancer cells, and consume tissue, right? Yes. They cannot, however, leave the "host" organism and become a seperate organism. They only divide asexually, like normal cells, and live off the surrounding blood supply. They never develop a blood supply and functional organs for themselves. I see what you're saying about arguing from potential, but when someone claims that the right to bodily domain should supercede the right to life, they're sort of doing the opposite: a fetus is only present ("violating" bodily domain) for a limited amount of time. Aborting it would kill it permanently. The thing is, though, that bodily domain DOES supercede the right to life. Many pro-choicers believe that once a foetus becomes viable, it should be removed and thus bodily domain would come back. Without bodily domain, people needing organ transplants would be free to take them from anyone who was a match, whether they agreed or not. After all, it's only violating their bodily domain for a little bit, they'll be fine in a month or two (although of course it's not possible to just transplant a heart and have the donor be just handy, but something like a kidney). 1- Who says that bodily domain overrides the right to life? 2-We are not saying to remove bodily domain in all cases. We are saying to remove it in this one special case. In the same way, there is a bit of flexibility in killing someone for self defense, as opposed to simply hating them. The law recognizes a difference in condition and context, and therefore the end result of murder is not judged the same way. 3- Pregnancy is not an annonymous organ donation or blood transfusion or anything. Having sex gives risk to create a pregnancy. So find a way in which you consenually risk giving up organs and you may have part of an argument. 1. McFall vs Shimp. I believe it was McFall who needed a bone marrow transplant and his cousin Shimp was a match. Tried to get a court order and the judge ordained that bodily domain is more important than right to life. 2. I'm pretty sure that what goes through most peoples' minds when they are pregnant and want to abort is not "I hate you foetus die damn you die!" Although I did read a radfem blog where she grew to hate the foetus inside her simply because of all the threats and insults she was receiving on her blog for saying she'd abort it. I can see why, too. 3. Even if I severely injure someone to the point that they'd need, say, a kidney transplant, intentionally knowing that they might need a kidney transplant and I'm a match, I'm not forced to give them the kidney.It's a theoretical situation, but it sort of gets my point across. Consenting risk is not consenting act. I consent to the risk that I may get raped, but I don't have to let it happen. I consent that pregnancy may occur, but similarly I don't have to let it happen. First of all, nobody consents to rape (if they consent did then it wouldn't be rape). and second of all, I hate all that Mcfall Vs. Shimp stuff. It's very different from abortion (in abortion you plan to rid of a life and had them kill where in bone marrow transplant, you may not want or plan for them to die even if you refuse to donate marrow. One is planned for someone to die and and the other is not really planned but is in need of a transplant in order to live (there is also a possiblity that they can find another match). See that argument doesn't really seem to work to me. Besides without life, you won't have a body to worry about, which means life if very important if not more so (you can't fight for rights and bodily domain if your dead).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jun 04, 2007 5:59 pm
Seeing the Kraken divineseraph Seeing the Kraken La Veuve Zin ThePeerOrlando2 Zin: You do realize that cancerous cells can attach to other cells, giving movement, asexually divide and reproduce new cancer cells, and consume tissue, right? Yes. They cannot, however, leave the "host" organism and become a seperate organism. They only divide asexually, like normal cells, and live off the surrounding blood supply. They never develop a blood supply and functional organs for themselves. I see what you're saying about arguing from potential, but when someone claims that the right to bodily domain should supercede the right to life, they're sort of doing the opposite: a fetus is only present ("violating" bodily domain) for a limited amount of time. Aborting it would kill it permanently. The thing is, though, that bodily domain DOES supercede the right to life. Many pro-choicers believe that once a foetus becomes viable, it should be removed and thus bodily domain would come back. Without bodily domain, people needing organ transplants would be free to take them from anyone who was a match, whether they agreed or not. After all, it's only violating their bodily domain for a little bit, they'll be fine in a month or two (although of course it's not possible to just transplant a heart and have the donor be just handy, but something like a kidney). 1- Who says that bodily domain overrides the right to life? 2-We are not saying to remove bodily domain in all cases. We are saying to remove it in this one special case. In the same way, there is a bit of flexibility in killing someone for self defense, as opposed to simply hating them. The law recognizes a difference in condition and context, and therefore the end result of murder is not judged the same way. 3- Pregnancy is not an annonymous organ donation or blood transfusion or anything. Having sex gives risk to create a pregnancy. So find a way in which you consenually risk giving up organs and you may have part of an argument. 1. McFall vs Shimp. I believe it was McFall who needed a bone marrow transplant and his cousin Shimp was a match. Tried to get a court order and the judge ordained that bodily domain is more important than right to life. 2. I'm pretty sure that what goes through most peoples' minds when they are pregnant and want to abort is not "I hate you foetus die damn you die!" Although I did read a radfem blog where she grew to hate the foetus inside her simply because of all the threats and insults she was receiving on her blog for saying she'd abort it. I can see why, too. 3. Even if I severely injure someone to the point that they'd need, say, a kidney transplant, intentionally knowing that they might need a kidney transplant and I'm a match, I'm not forced to give them the kidney.It's a theoretical situation, but it sort of gets my point across. Consenting risk is not consenting act. I consent to the risk that I may get raped, but I don't have to let it happen. I consent that pregnancy may occur, but similarly I don't have to let it happen. 1- Ah, the law. The same institution which at one time sanctioned slavery, dehumanized women and blacks and in some places continues to dehumanize people based on ethnicity and allow genocide. I'm glad you brought up this divine, flawless system of mandate which has never been wrong in the history of humanity. 2- the point of that was not "women hate feti"- it was, "rules can change based on the conditions and context". In the same way that there is a difference between murder out of contempt and murder for self defense, there is a difference between forced organ donation and continuation of pregnancy. 3-so, firing a bullet into someone is no longer consenting to murder. Since it was the bullet which entered the flesh, the bullet should be tossed in jail. I did not consent to the risk, I only took an actions which had a risk. Since the two cannot be compared, I can not be charged for murder.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jun 07, 2007 8:41 pm
Seeing the Kraken Many pro-choicers believe that once a foetus becomes viable, it should be removed and thus bodily domain would come back. I've never heard of anyone advocating that in place of post-viability abortion. Seeing the Kraken Without bodily domain, people needing organ transplants would be free to take them from anyone who was a match, whether they agreed or not. After all, it's only violating their bodily domain for a little bit, they'll be fine in a month or two (although of course it's not possible to just transplant a heart and have the donor be just handy, but something like a kidney). Kidneys grow back? eek Well hell, why do people need transplants in the first place, if they can just remove a kidney and stay on dialysis until they grow another one? Blood and marrow donation may be comparable to pregnancy, but not organs.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jun 08, 2007 3:29 pm
La Veuve Zin Seeing the Kraken Many pro-choicers believe that once a foetus becomes viable, it should be removed and thus bodily domain would come back. I've never heard of anyone advocating that in place of post-viability abortion. You mean, other than me? Or maybe you missed all of my posts where I said I agreed with a woman having labor induced or getting a C-Section after viability but I didn't agree with non-life saving abortions after viability? Or maybe I'm not "anyone"? *wink*
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
