|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Summations Only | Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 2964 days) Posts: 706 From: Joliet, il, USA Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: When does human life begin? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 424 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined:
|
At the time of Jesus, human life began on the eighth day (counting the day of birth as day one) after birth. That was when the baby was finally given a name and accepted into the tribe (and also circumcised).
Later in history a human life began once the child breathed on its own and cried. Today human life is considered to begin at the third trimester. The issue is not one of science but simply one of opinion.Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped! |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 424 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Jbr writes: The fact of the matter is that statistics show that 100% of the human population (EVER) all had a mother. (Even Jesus) Pregnancy is the "natural" risk two take, when they get in any situation that allows the sperm to get close to the egg. The "natural" result is that a person will eventually emerge from this pregnancy. Our society places great value over "persons" (normally), and tries to the best of its ability to pass laws that protect persons. Natural risk is pretty much irrelevant. If you want to make the issue one of personhood. Personhood involves several things, one is being an individual. As long as the thing under discussion is simply a growth attached to the mother, it is not a person. There is no ere on the side of safety except when considering the mother.Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 424 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
If you and your child were confronted by an armed violent criminal who told you one of must die from his or her hands, You would have to make the choice. And if I had to make the choice I'd choose to let the armed violent criminal die.Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 424 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
jbr writes: jar writes: I'm guessing you didn't feel the need to back read and see why it became "relevant." But it does become relevant when someone tries to imply that all pregnancy is so risky that termination of another persons life is an acceptable practice just based on that risk alone. Natural risk is pretty much irrelevant. But no one stated or asserted that so it is irrelevant. Certainly there is a natural risk involved in a pregnancy but it is just one of the factors that would be considered in each individual case. It is up to the potential mother, her doctor and her family to try to evaluate the extent of the risk and in the end, up to the woman to decide if the risk is one she is willing to take.
jbr writes: jar writes: See now... the problem with drawing such simplistic lines in the sand, such is this, and saying "anything on that side doesn't qualify as a person," is that there is always a situation that completely eradicates the line. For example, have you considered how many conjoined twins in the world just cringed when they read your comment that implies that one of them is nothing more than an expendable growth? Personhood involves several things, one is being an individual. As long as the thing under discussion is simply a growth attached to the mother, it is not a person. And no, there is no situation that eradicates the line without intentional misrepresentation. I did not say "simply a growth attached to the other" rather I said "simply a growth attached to the mother". The word "Mother" is not synonymous with the word "other".Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 424 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
The question is whether what you feel should have any bearing on the issues of when life begins or whether or not someone other than you has an abortion?
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 424 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
jbr writes: That's just a dumb argument of semantics. Obviously that in the same way a conjoined twin might require staying connected to his sibling in order to survive, an unborn person will require remaining connected to his mother to survive. This destroys the notion that because a person requires that connection to live, that they are not a person with the right to live. If there is anything dumb it would have to be your interpretation of what I said. Did I say "Personhood involves several things, one is being an individual. As long as the thing under discussion is simply a growth attached to the mother, it is not a person."? Read that carefully. Did I say "As long as the thing under discussion is simply a growth attached to the mother, it is not a person."? Read that carefully. In case you missed it I'll underline it for you. "As long as the thing under discussion is simply a growth attached to the mother, it is not a person. You might consider it an issue of semantics; but the reality is it was an attempt to misrepresent what I actually wrote.Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 424 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Is a conjoined twin still just a growth attached to the Mother?
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 424 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
So as long as the growth is inside the mother and attached with an umbilical cord it is not person.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 424 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Sorry but to asserted the existence of some soul has nothing to do with the topic and bring up a soul is just him trying to create another attractive rabbit hole in the hope that people don't notice he already conceded that as long as there is just a growth attached to the mother there is no person.
Edited by jar, : fix wording Edited by jar, : spallin appalinAnyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 424 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Weird.
How is not creating a life the same as eliminating a life?Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 424 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Well of course you are wrong and the scientific and legal consensus is that human life begins around the third trimester. Even at that point there may not be human life.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 424 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined:
|
Read other papers.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 424 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined:
|
Well welcome to the world! In the real world we have to make these kinds of judgements. We live in a society of laws and laws are clumsy things. In the absence of a clearly defined natural boundary of person-hood, we have to make a judgement and create a (somewhat arbitrary) legal cut-off point. It's not a perfect solution but then, we don't live in a perfect world. Just to make it more interesting, there are no real boundaries that would apply across the board, which is why a decision such as abortion really needs to be made on an individual by individual basis by those individuals directly involved; the mother, the mother's doctor and then the mothers family.Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 424 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined:
|
What about the 9 month fetus who is about to be born? No idea; sorry but still insufficient information to say. No I imagine you can make up stuff like that example all day, but the answer is still the same; I don't have enough information to make such a decision or really have any standing to even speculate. The question is one that must be answered on each individual case and answered by those closest to the issue and that have as much data as is available, namely the woman, her doctor and perhaps her family.Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 424 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Sorry but that is simply word salad and pea palming.
Do you see the phrase "...will become through formation..." in what you posted? If something "will become" something else then it is not yet that thing.Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024