What is a person

[stan1980]

Well said! That is indeed a different question, and a different topic, as you originally asked not "How do you arrive at the conclusion of a 'Christian' or 'biblical' God?" But rather:

Yes, sorry, I thought you would have been able to read between the lines the first time around. I was obviously wrong to make this assumption.

Well, if we think about this critically there is no problem. In soccer there is a rule that says that a score is taken only if the ball passes within the boundary of the goal posts. It would then be illogical to tell a football player that he did not score a touch-down because he did not kick the ball through the goal posts. Why? Because football is outside the realm of soccer and is not bound to its rules.

Yes, 2 different sports do have 2 different sets of rules.

Likewise, the laws of causation are laws of the Universe. Meaning it is the nature of the Universe itself.

Yes

That which sits outside the Universe is thus not bound by those laws.

You know this how? And I ask the question again, how did you arrive at the massive leap that the biblical God made the universe. Certainly not by logic.

 

[FaithLikeARock]

How'd we get on the topic of origin?

 

[InigoMontoja]

How'd we get on the topic of origin?

I ate Stan's Red Herring sandwich.

 

[InigoMontoja]

Yes, sorry, I thought you would have been able to read between the lines the first time around. I was obviously wrong to make this assumption.

Yes. And you're a man for conceding that. I thought you meant just 'God' with minimal add ons, not any specific God.

You know this how?

Well said. I do not know for sure. It seemed logical, but then . . . It could be either way. I do not know. So one way or the other, some creative Agent is a much more logical answer than "the Universe created Itself", etcetera.

And I ask the question again, how did you arrive at the massive leap that the biblical God made the universe. Certainly not by logic.

It was not a massive leap but a long series of small steps the documenting of which would be extremely laborious.

 

[jayem]

To take a human beings life is so serious that you really need a serious justification. Punishment/self-defence. very good reasons for doing the great deed.

A big part of my problem with laws restricting abortion concerns who is going to decide what is a very good reason for doing the "great deed," as you say. You say that a fetus's location in the mother's body is a minor issue, but it's overwhelmingly important from a medical standpoint. Pregnancy is not a completely benign conditon. It can aggravate some pre-exisiting medical problems. Not to mention that pregnant women get cancer, and heart disease, and other serious illnesses which are complicated by pregnancy. I'd say that a threat to the mother's life or health would certainly be a "very good reason" to perform an abortion. And these decisions are hardly ever black and white. They are matters of medical judgement.

So who decides? Say an 8 week pregnant woman is diagnosed with an aggressive abdominal lymphoma. (I work in health care. This was a real case.) She needs radiation and chemotherapy--which is contradindicated in early pregnancy (and might actually cause a miscarriage.) Maybe she can put off treatment until the baby can be delivered. But forgoing early treatment might reduce her chances for remission. Is this really something the state should decide? Will she have to present medical testimony before a judge and get a court order before she can terminate her pregnancy in order to start cancer treatment? If we have highly restrictive abortion laws, how many hoops will a sick woman have to go through?

We don't live in a perfect world, and there isn't a perfect solution to every problem. I agree that terminating a healthy pregnancy is morally suspect. But giving the state police power over pregnancy, at least before viability, is simply a worse evil.

 

[cantata]

To take a human beings life is so serious that you really need a serious justification. Punishment/self-defence. very good reasons for doing the great deed.

It is self-defence. Giving birth is always painful and sometimes life-threatening.

 

[InigoMontoja]

It is self-defence. Giving birth is always painful and sometimes life-threatening.

Great joke! Watch out for those babies, they pop out of nowhere --literally!

 

[cantata]

Great joke! Watch out for those babies, they pop out of nowhere --literally!

They pop out of uteri, actually, I think. Apparently it's quite an uncomfortable process.

 

[karisma]

You misunderstand rights, great rights, priority rights. This is a bad stream of arguement for abortion.

I'd like to see some actual definitions of these things of which you speak.

The great right to life is inalienable.

So is the right to bodily integrity.

So a person can not be killed by state/private indivudual unless due process of the state.

And a person cannot be forced to donate their bodily fluids/organs to save other's lives.

To take a human beings life is so serious that you really need a serious justification. Punishment/self-defence. very good reasons for doing the great deed.

In your opinion. Others may not agree with you, especially on the "punishment" part.

this right trumps any bodiliy right of a pregnant woman. It fact the child has the bodily right too (whatever that is).

It may or may not have a right to life, but it can not use that right to violate the rights of the woman to her bodily integrity.

I'm going to highlight this for you because it's very important:

You want to talk about priorities: IT HAS BEEN PRIORITIZED. Our government values bodily integrity above that of life because they cannot force people to donate blood or organs to save other's lives. People die every day because of a lack of organs. Our government even values DEAD PEOPLE'S bodily integrity above that of living people's right to life because it is illegal to harvest a dead person's organs to save another's life. This makes it VERY CLEAR that bodily integrity has PRIORITY over another's life. This is so whether you THINK it SHOULD BE or NOT.

This also makes it very clear that forcing women to share their bodies against their will reduces their rights to even less than that of a corpse.

 

[WatersMoon110]

I did answer.

For the second time, you didn't bother to answer my post. I asked you a direct question, which you haven't answered.

I'm saying a person who is a person must be seen legally as a person.

Oh, that isn't vague. What makes you feel that an unborn human is a person? What stage of development do you feel that they should get this title? And why that stage?

So the reason the fetus is not a legal person is because it is not seen as a actual human being. This indeed is what the Roe decision said.

No, it isn't. Roe v. Wade simply stated that abortion is legal because abortion is a medical decision that should be kept between a woman (or couple) and her doctor.

Your still sneaking around the forest here.
You can't redefine people out of their humanity and rights by legalese. All you can say is they are not actual people.

You're. You are. Not "your" which means "something you own".

The only one trying to redefine anything is you, who is trying to claim that unborn humans should be legal people.

Abortion law is based on the presumption the kid in the womb is not a human being.

No it isn't. Abortion law is based on the right to privacy, specifically the privacy between a woman and her doctor.

If it was a human being or it was neutral then laws would be brought up to say they are people and so can't be killed by abortion.

Neutral?

The roe decision anticapated this and made the decision based entirely on the constitution having said the fetus can not be said to be a human being.
The flaw of the decision.

I though you claimed that the constitution said unborn humans were people? What happened to that?

You don't get to claim that you've answer my post until you've answered this (multi-part) question:
What makes you feel that an unborn human is a person? What stage of development do you feel that they should get this title? And why that stage?

 

[WatersMoon110]

It is self-defence. Giving birth is always painful and sometimes life-threatening.

I disagree. Even though there is a possibility of death for all pregnancies, very few abortions are done to save the life of the pregnant woman (which is the only time I feel that abortions are done in "self-defense").

Rather, I feel that the right of all people to control their own bodies, including their ability to deny use of their bodies to anyone, is why elective abortion is ethical. Making abortion illegal (without another option that allows for immediate removal of the unborn human from the pregnant woman's body) takes away the right of pregnant women to deny use of their body to unborn humans, and thus is unethical.

 

[stan1980]

It was not a massive leap but a long series of small steps the documenting of which would be extremely laborious.

Well I for one wouldn't mind hearing. In fact if you did manage to get there by logic, you could probably publish it and make a fortune, considering you'd be the first person on earth to successfully document why you believe in God using logic alone.

 

[stan1980]

I disagree. Even though there is a possibility of death for all pregnancies, very few abortions are done to save the life of the pregnant woman (which is the only time I feel that abortions are done in "self-defense").

Does it have to be life threatening for it to be called self-defence? If it were possible for men to get pregnant somehow, would I get an abortion? You're damn right I would! And it would be the expectation of pain that would be the number 1 reason for me getting rid of it, so I think it is reasonable that some women might get abortions for the same reasons. You could even argue self defence of my money or career as reasons for abortion.

 

[cantata]

I disagree. Even though there is a possibility of death for all pregnancies, very few abortions are done to save the life of the pregnant woman (which is the only time I feel that abortions are done in "self-defense").

I think that, if a woman were threatened with the sensations of giving birth by an attacker, she would have every right to use deadly force to prevent that from occurring.

 

[WatersMoon110]

Does it have to be life threatening for it to be called self-defence? If it were possible for men to get pregnant somehow, would I get an abortion? You're damn right I would! And it would be the expectation of pain that would be the number 1 reason for me getting rid of it, so I think it is reasonable that some women might get abortions for the same reasons. You could even argue self defence of my money or career as reasons for abortion.

I thought "self-defense" only covered killing committed to save one's life. Maybe I'm wrong?

I think that, if a woman were threatened with the sensations of giving birth by an attacker, she would have every right to use deadly force to prevent that from occurring.

Well, yes. But being tortured isn't exactly the same as giving birth, given that the unborn human can't control it's actions and isn't itself the cause of it being there.

I understand your point, but I disagree with the logic. I don't feel that "self-defense" applies to elective abortion, even though I feel that it should be legal. Can we agree to disagree?

 

[cantata]

I understand your point, but I disagree with the logic. I don't feel that "self-defense" applies to elective abortion, even though I feel that it should be legal. Can we agree to disagree?

Sure.

It was more a rhetorical device, really, to point out the magnitude of the effects of pregnancy and birth.

 

[RobertByers]

Cantata
Natural rights is said in your countries documents to be self evident. That means all men now and in the past recognize, however trepassing, basic universal legitamacy to some claims that trump any other human claims against.
To continued existence from human intervention to stop that existence is the greatest claim of all. A great right to life.
Settled and dominant and trumps any power or person who would take it from us except by very due process of organized governments as is.

All people and so kids in the wombe.
Its a great idea and is from God and general love of mankind and self interest.

 

[cantata]

Cantata
Natural rights is said in your countries documents to be self evident. That means all men now and in the past recognize, however trepassing, basic universal legitamacy to some claims that trump any other human claims against.
To continued existence from human intervention to stop that existence is the greatest claim of all. A great right to life.
Settled and dominant and trumps any power or person who would take it from us except by very due process of organized governments as is.

All people and so kids in the wombe.
Its a great idea and is from God and general love of mankind and self interest.

I don't care what "my countries [sic] documents" say. I am asking you a philosophical question, not a legal one. Whence do natural rights come, what are they like as entities, how do you know they're there, and what difference does it make to someone to have rights or not have them?

 

[RobertByers]

Cantata
My post to you answered everyrhing you repeated in question.
From God, regonized by man, and self evident from the great thinkers of individuals and the masses.
They ensure that all must be obediant to their legitamacy and otherwise any individual/society/politics has no reason to be obeyed if it tresspasses these great rights.
Yes you do have great natural rights and so do i and so do children in the bodies of pregnant women.

 

[LightHorseman]

Nope. Rights are 100% artificial construct.

Don't believe me? Try convincing a hungry tiger that you have an inalienable, natural "right" to life.