Planned Parenthood Director Resigns After Watching Abortion Ultrasound

[Adam-12]

That doesn't enter into this topic. We are not debating the murder of a "person". What we are debating is when does something becomes a person.

Some people are convinced that when you abort, you're murdering a human being. They see no difference between killing a newborn and killing a first-trimester fetus. Arguing about "personhood" is meaningless to them, just like it would be meaningless to you if someone argued why black people could be killed because they're not really "people." So the question is, what do you tell someone who is convinced that abortion is murder? How do you explain to him which murders are OK?

As to your point once a person exists you cannot murder them without ramifications.

If you buy into this "personhood" stuff, then your argument carries weight. The problem I see with your argument is that newborns are no more "persons" than a fetus. Some severely retarded babies never become "persons." So why can't we kill them too? How does your "personhood" argument shed any light on this question?

Which goes back to when does something become a person (human), conception or birth.

For some people that's not open to debate. It was once legitimately open for debate whether black people were really persons. It was even once decided that Jews were not persons. Anyone can point to anyone and say, "That's not a person." So why is someone compelled to accept such an argument at all? Why would you complain about the killing of severely retarded children? How do you make out that they're persons while the fetus of a genius-to-be is not? It becomes pretty obvious that your argument boils down to special pleading.

It's an individual view point, some think at this point, others think at that point. But, is it our right to force what we believe on others? Is it my right to tell everyone that they are wrong and I am right?

OK, suppose I think Jews are subhuman and should be rounded up and slaughtered. Is it your right to tell me I'm wrong? If you catch yourself hollering, "But fetuses are different!" then you've just admitted to special pleading.

[Tootie]

Some people are convinced that when you abort, you're murdering a human being. They see no difference between killing a newborn and killing a first-trimester fetus. Arguing about "personhood" is meaningless to them, just like it would be meaningless to you if someone argued why black people could be killed because they're not really "people." So the question is, what do you tell someone who is convinced that abortion is murder? How do you explain to him which murders are OK?



If you buy into this "personhood" stuff, then your argument carries weight. The problem I see with your argument is that newborns are no more "persons" than a fetus. Some severely retarded babies never become "persons." So why can't we kill them too? How does your "personhood" argument shed any light on this question?



For some people that's not open to debate. It was once legitimately open for debate whether black people were really persons. It was even once decided that Jews were not persons. Anyone can point to anyone and say, "That's not a person." So why is someone compelled to accept such an argument at all? Why would you complain about the killing of severely retarded children? How do you make out that they're persons while the fetus of a genius-to-be is not? It becomes pretty obvious that your argument boils down to special pleading.



OK, suppose I think Jews are subhuman and should be rounded up and slaughtered. Is it your right to tell me I'm wrong? If you catch yourself hollering, "But fetuses are different!" then you've just admitted to special pleading.

"Which goes back to when does something become a person (human), conception or birth."

All of your arguments don't enter into this picture. We all at least agree that once someone is born they are a person and in being such cannot be murdered without ramifications. It doesn't matter whom you dislike, hate, are prejudiced towards, once they are born they are a person no matter their race or creed.

[Adam-12]

"Which goes back to when does something become a person (human), conception or birth."

You keep saying that, but you're just begging the question. You yourself can't possibly argue with a straight face why the day after its birth, killing it is murder, and the day before, it isn't. If you're like most pro-choicers, you'd rather not talk about such late-term abortions because you don't really know what to make of it. But if you honestly believed that "it's not a person until delivery," you should have no problem aborting ten minutes before the mother goes into labor.

All of your arguments don't enter into this picture.

You keep trying to frame the debate. But it doesn't work, because the folks who believe it's murder also think this blabber about "personhood" is pure mumbo-jumbo. I'd say it looks like mumbo-jumbo, if cutting the umbilical cord magically turns a "thing" into a "human," even if it's born in a vegetative state, doomed to spend the rest of its life in a coma.

We all at least agree that once someone is born they are a person...

I don't. The baby born with nothing but a brain stem is not, and never will become a person. A normal baby isn't a person, and won't be one for many months at least. I'm not saying that just to contradict you; I'm saying it because it's a fact. And since I don't believe in "immortal souls," you can't try the Catholic argument and explain that when the doctor cuts the cord, a magic soul-thing gets puffed into them.

It doesn't matter whom you dislike, hate, are prejudiced towards, once they are born they are a person no matter their race or creed.

Nope: as I said, some are born vegetables. They aren't and never will be people. I think it should still be illegal to kill them, but not because of any "personhood" mumbo-jumbo.

[Exbiker]

For an interesting perspective pick up the book written in the 70`s by Renowned surgeon at Philadelphia Children`s Hospital and also former Surgeon General C. Everett Coop. "Whatever Happened to the Human Race?" When you see what`s going on now in the country it all seems to be coming to fruition.

[Tootie]

You keep saying that, but you're just begging the question.

No I'm not, kunsunoke is, he's the one that kept asking that.

You yourself can't possibly argue with a straight face why the day after its birth, killing it is murder, and the day before, it isn't. If you're like most pro-choicers, you'd rather not talk about such late-term abortions because you don't really know what to make of it. But if you honestly believed that "it's not a person until delivery," you should have no problem aborting ten minutes before the mother goes into labor.

Actually I said once it can survive on it's own (3rd trimester) it becomes an individual and no I don't agree with late term abortions unless the mothers life is in jeopardy, which is very rare. What I do believe is in 1st trimester (at the latest 8 weeks) abortions, which will just give you more ammo to argue with me.

You keep trying to frame the debate. But it doesn't work, because the folks who believe it's murder also think this blabber about "personhood" is pure mumbo-jumbo. I'd say it looks like mumbo-jumbo, if cutting the umbilical cord magically turns a "thing" into a "human," even if it's born in a vegetative state, doomed to spend the rest of its life in a coma.

Actually the debate I was in was what the constitution declares a citizen, but hey go for it.

I don't. The baby born with nothing but a brain stem is not, and never will become a person. A normal baby isn't a person, and won't be one for many months at least. I'm not saying that just to contradict you; I'm saying it because it's a fact. And since I don't believe in "immortal souls," you can't try the Catholic argument and explain that when the doctor cuts the cord, a magic soul-thing gets puffed into them.

So you're saying just because someone is born that it doesn't make them person? Just because you don't believe that doesn't mean that's true. It's your opinion/viewpoint not mine.

Nope: as I said, some are born vegetables. They aren't and never will be people. I think it should still be illegal to kill them, but not because of any "personhood" mumbo-jumbo.

So you need a perfectly working brain to be a person? WOW

[adymond]

Actually I said once it can survive on it's own (3rd trimester) it becomes an individual and no I don't agree with late term abortions unless the mothers life is in jeopardy, which is very rare. What I do believe is in 1st trimester (at the latest 8 weeks) abortions, which will just give you more ammo to argue with me.

I'm trying to keep this civil and hopefully we can honestly converse without things getting nasty (not that you are getting there, but what I am going to ask and suggest isn't the easiest thing to swallow).

What makes that point different? At 8 weeks vs. 7 weeks? There has been research recently that suggests the cells that end up as parts of our brain associated with higher cognitive ability are present in a fetus as early as the first or second week (looking for some of the articles I read, but can't find the specific ones I want, here's an interesting one that show how little we actually know about early development link).

If your view is that a fetus becomes a person at the time of viability outside of the womb you should be supportive of abortion up until at least 22 weeks if not 25-28 weeks. What I mean by that is that to be consistent that's what your views would be. That you don't seem to support this suggests to me that there is something more to your thought process. I don't presume to know what it is, but there may be more to the issue for you that you think abortions should stop after the first trimester. As technology advances and the point of viability gets earlier and earlier what does that do to your view of abortion? 20 years ago a 25 weeker would have ZERO chance of survival. Now it's not unheard of for a 25 weeker to survive and live a relatively normal life.

[Adam-12]

So you're saying just because someone is born that it doesn't make them person? ... So you need a perfectly working brain to be a person? WOW

Why isn't a fetus a person? Because it's on life support? So why isn't anyone else on life support not a person? I can't figure out what "person" means to you. To me, if it means anything different from a living specimen of Homo sapiens (which would include fetuses), then it must refer to human consciousness. So if any specimen of Homo sapiens is to be called "not a person," it would certainly include any specimen that lacks sentience.

Just because you don't believe that doesn't mean that's true. It's your opinion/viewpoint not mine.

And yet if I kill my week-old hydrocephalic, comatose infant, you'd support others pushing their beliefs on me by imprisoning me. Why should you get away with pushing your beliefs on me like that, while these "pro lifers" out there aren't allowed to do the same? What makes your opinions so special?





Given your remark about viability, Tootie, I'd think Walter Block's "evictionism" would appeal to you. Have you thought about it any? He argues that your womb is your personal, private property, and you can evict anyone from it. But the fetus is not your property, any more than a week old baby or someone in a vegetative state. So you can evict it, but may not use undue force to do so. Specifically, if it's possible for the fetus to live after being evicted, then you have no right to kill it. If you refuse to care for it yourself, you have to let someone else who wants to. The logic there is pretty compelling.

[Corn Flake]

That doesn't enter into this topic. We are not debating the murder of a "person".
<snip>
1. The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice.

^^^^^ This is exactly what pro-lifers are debating, the murder of a human being.

Nope, wrong. You can not take a piece of a clause and not use whom it is stated for.

You can't have any person without first reading "All persons born or naturalized in the United States". That statement includes only those 2 specific groups. So it doesn't matter when human life begins, the only thing that matters is if that person has been born yet.

So by that reasoning, it is okay to shoot illegal aliens or Japanese tourists since they were not born here and are not naturalized.

[kunsunoke]

(SNIP)

If you think abortion is wrong, don't get one!
Just give everyone else the right to chose for themselves.

Not everyone gets the right to choose during the abortion.

What does that suggest about abortion supporters and their commitment to liberty?

As for the topic of the video, medical procedures are not always cute. I have seen the insides of people, sometimes it's gross. Some people can't look at blood, others could watch an autopsy while eating a snickers. everyone is different. If this person does not like looking at the procedure, don't watch it.

Josef Mengele used to consider his medical experiments to be "procedures" as well.

[Philbert]

Whats makes no sense. That I am not willing to take out the most important part of the clause, All persons born or naturalized? Do you understand that you cannot take one part of a clause and not first read whom it is directed at. I don't care what it says in the middle of a sentence, it does not equate to all people. You first have to qualify by being one of the excepted to be included. "Any" is not included without first being born or naturalized.

Birth or naturalization inside the US is required for citizenship. It is not required for personhood. It is the latter claim that does not make sense. The 14th amendment does not define what a person is, only what a citizen is.