Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Paranoia will destroy ya.
Post up the positions of opposing embryologists who define a human at a later stage.
Not philosophers, geneticists or bioethicists. But scientists.
Put up the opposing views.
This has nothing to do with the arbitrary use of "person" as posters here are throwing around different terms as if they all mean the same thing.
Yes, as I said, gloss over it with a glib reply.
Are you one of those who would accuse women who terminate their pregnancies of murder?
Then explain how YOUR law would be administered!
Geneticists are not scientists? Bioethicists couldn't be scientists?
Do you have any idea about that which you are speaking?
i believe human beings should be treated equal regardless of their age disability or any other factor that makes them different . I dont believe the rights of the fetus are above the rights of the mother carrying the fetus both are human beings that should be treated with equal respect . Both human lives should be saved if that is at all possible , if it has to be a choice between one life or the other life it would be necessary to end the pregnancy because if the mother dies the child will also die and 2 lives will be lost not just 1 . The uterus separates 2 different human beings its the border between them but serves the needs of just one of those human beings its function is to host new life.As am I.
I wonder how many pro-life people are for the death penalty?
Or believe there are certain conditions wherein a woman can be permitted to abort?
When people argue adult women aren't entitled to choose for themselves and their reproductive future, insisting that all fetus' should be brought to term regardless of the woman's choice to otherwise opt not to allow that, they're arguing for the rights of the fetus only. And at the same time forewarning the female fetus that once they're born their choices will be subject to other peoples politics just like their mama's was.
That's an odd bit of life choice. We'll fight for you to be born against a woman's will but when you're a full grown woman we'll argue you have no right to exercise your free will because the fetus is more important than you are.
Fascism and sexism are immoral.
I'll take such a response as you don't have works from embryologists refuting my source.
Well of course that is at the heart of the abortion debate and if agreed upon there would be no debate i hope as people who are pro-choice become educated about fetal development they will realize that the unborn are not really blobs of tissue that are not alive after all .
I'll take such a response as you don't have works from embryologists refuting my source.
There you go again, conflating life and personhood. It is simply not true that mere life proves personhood. Not even if it is human in some sense. Personhood requires a mind, which requires an advanced brain.
But, to address your confused and haphazard request:
David Malcolm Potts, MB, BChir, PhD, FRCOG, FREng[1] is a human reproductive scientist and Professor of Public Health at the School of Public Health at the University of California, Berkeley.
He contends that it is scientifically impossible to determine when life begins, but concedes that "I would rather destroy a five-week embryo than a 15-week embryo, and I accept there is some stage in pregnancy that you have to say no."
What does he mean by "life." Is he applying viability? Which would be a philosophical construct.
So he is implying that it is scientifically impossible to determine when life begins?
I wonder he views if protozoa are life.
Brain dead people are routinely used for organ harvesting purposes and that's perfectly ethical. If someone is in denial about their death they will often keep the machines going that maintain the body life . . . this doesn't do any ethical good, but it is, of course, harmless.Hi,
On having an advanced brain to be a person, then a person who is brain dead, would no longer be a person.
Consider, this father's reaction to his brain dead son, and then please tell us what you think afterwards, about brain life and personhood.
Wrong link:
Correct link: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-jail-for-swat-standoff-that-saved-sons-life/
LOVE,
Don Marquis has the best argument for why abortion is immoral. He says that if you believe it is wrong to kill a normal adult human being then you should also believe it is wrong to abort a human fetus. It goes like this:
First premises:
This moral principle is also true in cases of abortion:
- One reason it is wrong to kill a normal adult human being (NAHB) because killing them harms them.
- Killing a NAHB harms them because it deprives them of a valuable, human future (VHF).
- Therefore, killing a NAHB is wrong because it deprives them of a VHF. (Among other reasons).
It's about a successful a philosophical argument as I've seen (I hold a degree in philosophy, I've seen a few arguments). Some people try to challenge it in the following ways but I think all of these are unsuccessful:
- Killing a fetus deprives it of a VHF.
- Therefore killing a fetus is wrong for the same reason that killing a NAHB is wrong.
- Therefore abortion is immoral.
What does he mean by "life." Is he applying viability? Which would be a philosophical construct.
So he is implying that it is scientifically impossible to determine when life begins?
I wonder he views if protozoa are life.
Brain dead people are routinely used for organ harvesting purposes and that's perfectly ethical. If someone is in denial about their death they will often keep the machines going that maintain the body life . . . this doesn't do any ethical good, but it is, of course, harmless.
Wonder as much as you wish. Here is an equally renowned scientist who would disagree with your 'foetus is a human being' line.
In other words, he is voicing an OPINION, just as you and Dr Irving are expressing OPINIONS. And those opinions differ, as is frequently the case when people step outside the realm of scientific fact and merely project their personal preferences.
Brain dead people are routinely used for organ harvesting purposes and that's perfectly ethical. If someone is in denial about their death they will often keep the machines going that maintain the body life . . . this doesn't do any ethical good, but it is, of course, harmless.
Hi,
Interesting point. It seems that the word personhood and abortion are anathema to each other.
Historically, Abortions were illegal but done under various mechanisms, then abortions were legalized, and the number of illegal ones dropped.
It would seem legalizing abortions is a mercy to many women, who will be hurt by either action.
Legalizing it, takes the social, political, religious pressures away.
What is not taken away is the agony of losing your child.
No matter what the mother is going to be hurt.
I don't see how granting personhood to a fetus necessarily has to remove the choice if women to abort or not, and if it is removed then the Government should be responsible in all ways then, medically, educationally, housing wise, economically, for that child until that child is an adult, but staying with the mother should always be an option, if the mother can take care of that child properly, with that governmental total responsibility for the child in all other ways.
LOVE,
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?