If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Salon)   Anti-abortion activists: "We wouldn't murder you if you wouldn't murder babies"   (salon.com) divider line 416
    More: Dumbass, George Tiller, tillers, gun violence, police escort, carrying a gun  
•       •       •

2916 clicks; posted to Politics » on 19 Aug 2013 at 3:12 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



416 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-08-20 01:46:36 PM  

GF named my left testicle thundercles: to clarify, your position is that 0.1 seconds before the cord is severed, it is not a human being. but 0.1 seconds after the cord is severed, it is a human being. therefore the difference between a piece of biomass meant for the garbage disposal and a human being is 0.2 seconds?


The problem with your post is that no matter where a person determines that a clump of cells becomes human life, someone else will be able to come along and ask "so your position is that 0.1 seconds before _______, it is not a human being. but 0.1 seconds after _______, it is a human being. therefore the difference between a piece of biomass meant for the garbage disposal and a human being is 0.2 seconds?"
 
2013-08-20 01:57:05 PM  

GF named my left testicle thundercles: Jorn the Younger: Wrong. There is an incredibly clear point at which a person becomes a person. A person becomes a person when they exist as an independent life form- specifically, when the umbilical chord is severed. Until that point, the developing not yet a baby does not exist as an individual life form and therefor receives no individual rights.

to clarify, your position is that 0.1 seconds before the cord is severed, it is not a human being. but 0.1 seconds after the cord is severed, it is a human being. therefore the difference between a piece of biomass meant for the garbage disposal and a human being is 0.2 seconds?

that strikes me as pretty hard to accept and i think most people would agree that "humanhood" is more of a continuum than a boolean.

what about when the cord is 50% severed?
75%?
90%?
at what percentage does the baby transform from garbage disposal trash to human?

and the other side is equally ridiculous with the idea of full humanhood at conception.

I think that each side is going to have to get rid of their ideas that are really just manufactured to float their position, in favor of something more... sane.


I didn't use the word humanhood, I used the word person.  I was not arguing that while unborn the developing life form does not count as human (excluding pregnancies implanted by aliens, or lizardfolk or what have you).  I did not say that immediately prior to the severing of the chord the fetus is garbage disposal trash, I said they do not count as an individual, and so do not receive individual rights.

If you disagree, please explain why you think individual rights should be granted to something that is not an individual or independent life form.

also, woulndt this mean that someone could abort a baby that was already completely outside the body of the mother? after they have been born?

Not here in the US, where late term abortions are forbidden except in cases where the life of the mother is endangered, and it would be pretty difficult to argue that this is the case birth.  I suppose the becoming an individual could also occur when the placenta detaches from the mother, even if the chord is still intact.
 
2013-08-20 02:18:51 PM  
Are conjoined twins considered individuals?
What if you could separate them such that Alice would live and Bob would die.  Does Alice have the right to choose to perform the separation?
What about a situation where you could pick which one lived and which one died.  If they both chose to be the one who lived, what do?

/ My vote: no separation in either case.
 
2013-08-20 02:34:12 PM  

Jorn the Younger: Not here in the US, where late term abortions are forbidden except in cases where the life of the mother is endangered, and it would be pretty difficult to argue that this is the case birth. I suppose the becoming an individual could also occur when the placenta detaches from the mother, even if the chord is still intact.


right, if someone killed a baby after it had been born, it would be a straight up murder. thats kinda what i was asking.
 
2013-08-20 04:28:51 PM  

serial_crusher: Are conjoined twins considered individuals?
What if you could separate them such that Alice would live and Bob would die.  Does Alice have the right to choose to perform the separation?
What about a situation where you could pick which one lived and which one died.  If they both chose to be the one who lived, what do?

/ My vote: no separation in either case.


Conjoined twins are not the same as a woman with a fetus or embryo or zygote in her uterus.
And as long as your vote extends only to your own personal OEM uterus, nobody has a problem with your opinions.
 
2013-08-20 05:04:34 PM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: serial_crusher: Are conjoined twins considered individuals?
What if you could separate them such that Alice would live and Bob would die.  Does Alice have the right to choose to perform the separation?
What about a situation where you could pick which one lived and which one died.  If they both chose to be the one who lived, what do?

/ My vote: no separation in either case.

Conjoined twins are not the same as a woman with a fetus or embryo or zygote in her uterus.
And as long as your vote extends only to your own personal OEM uterus, nobody has a problem with your opinions.


Also, conjoined twins are legally two people. They can marry separate people, vote for different politicians etc. A fetus is basically a parasite and doesn't have separate rights.
 
2013-08-20 05:41:37 PM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: serial_crusher: Are conjoined twins considered individuals?
What if you could separate them such that Alice would live and Bob would die.  Does Alice have the right to choose to perform the separation?
What about a situation where you could pick which one lived and which one died.  If they both chose to be the one who lived, what do?

/ My vote: no separation in either case.

Conjoined twins are not the same as a woman with a fetus or embryo or zygote in her uterus.
And as long as your vote extends only to your own personal OEM uterus, nobody has a problem with your opinions.


So, what specifically makes them different?
 
2013-08-20 06:24:40 PM  

serial_crusher: demaL-demaL-yeH: serial_crusher: Are conjoined twins considered individuals?
What if you could separate them such that Alice would live and Bob would die.  Does Alice have the right to choose to perform the separation?
What about a situation where you could pick which one lived and which one died.  If they both chose to be the one who lived, what do?

/ My vote: no separation in either case.

Conjoined twins are not the same as a woman with a fetus or embryo or zygote in her uterus.
And as long as your vote extends only to your own personal OEM uterus, nobody has a problem with your opinions.

So, what specifically makes them different?


Asked and answered. Repeatedly.
Your hypothetical twins: Air-breathers. Persons.
You: Presumed to be an airbreather (even if only via the mouth), and therefore, a person.
Your hypothetical internal fetus: None of anybody's business but yours. Not a person.
 
2013-08-20 06:26:28 PM  

serial_crusher: So, what specifically makes them different?


Assume personhood begins at first breath.
Good: You're now in line with pretty much every human society and system of law ever.
 
2013-08-20 09:58:54 PM  
Gosh, just look at all these magnificent trees.

huntingny.com
 
2013-08-20 10:26:47 PM  

serial_crusher: So, what specifically makes them different?


The confounding issue with the "conjoined twins" question doesn't have to do with personhood at all, it has to do with our inability to say which twin (if either) can legitimately claim prior ownership over any shared body parts (for obvious reasons). This issue does not present itself in the case of a woman and a fetus.

The conjoined twins thing may be an interesting question for other reasons, but it doesn't add anything to this particular discussion.
 
2013-08-21 12:01:09 AM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: serial_crusher: demaL-demaL-yeH: serial_crusher: Are conjoined twins considered individuals?
What if you could separate them such that Alice would live and Bob would die.  Does Alice have the right to choose to perform the separation?
What about a situation where you could pick which one lived and which one died.  If they both chose to be the one who lived, what do?

/ My vote: no separation in either case.

Conjoined twins are not the same as a woman with a fetus or embryo or zygote in her uterus.
And as long as your vote extends only to your own personal OEM uterus, nobody has a problem with your opinions.

So, what specifically makes them different?

Asked and answered. Repeatedly.
Your hypothetical twins: Air-breathers. Persons.
You: Presumed to be an airbreather (even if only via the mouth), and therefore, a person.
Your hypothetical internal fetus: None of anybody's business but yours. Not a person.


Well, depending on particular situation, it might be the case that only one of them is the air breather. i.e. 2 heads, 1 set of lungs, 1 windpipe. Not sure how probable that is.
 
2013-08-21 12:04:10 AM  

Biological Ali: serial_crusher: So, what specifically makes them different?

The confounding issue with the "conjoined twins" question doesn't have to do with personhood at all, it has to do with our inability to say which twin (if either) can legitimately claim prior ownership over any shared body parts (for obvious reasons). This issue does not present itself in the case of a woman and a fetus.

The conjoined twins thing may be an interesting question for other reasons, but it doesn't add anything to this particular discussion.


True, the claim of prior ownership is clear.
But, if "not dependent on others" and "air breather" are the defining qualities of a person, conjoined twins absolutely are relevant to the discussion, since some of them are not people according to that definition.
 
2013-08-21 12:13:20 AM  

serial_crusher: rue, the claim of prior ownership is clear.
But, if "not dependent on others" and "air breather" are the defining qualities of a person, conjoined twins absolutely are relevant to the discussion, since some of them are not people according to that definition.


Aaaaaaaand farkied: Deliberately obtuse.
 
2013-08-21 12:17:16 AM  
Mark Gietzen is a convicted wife-beater and a boil on the ass of Wichita, Kansas.
 
2013-08-21 02:36:58 AM  

serial_crusher: Are conjoined twins considered individuals?
What if you could separate them such that Alice would live and Bob would die.  Does Alice have the right to choose to perform the separation?
What about a situation where you could pick which one lived and which one died.  If they both chose to be the one who lived, what do?

/ My vote: no separation in either case.


While this is entirely tangential, as it's not at all the same situation as a pregnant woman, you're ignoring a major factor regarding the separation of conjoined twins: What if both of them would die if they weren't separated.  Would you let them both die rather than save one?

serial_crusher: Well, depending on particular situation, it might be the case that only one of them is the air breather. i.e. 2 heads, 1 set of lungs, 1 windpipe. Not sure how probable that is.


Well if we're going to indulge in "what if" flights of fancy in your struggle to generate a scenario in which your position seems valid, lets look at the imaginary details a little more. What you're describing here sounds less like conjoined twins and more like a person with an extra head growing out of their shoulder.  Even Zaphod Beeblebrox has two windpipes, though both connect to a single set of lungs.

And to turn it around, what if it's one head, one brain, one set of lungs, four legs.  Would you argue that the two extra legs should not be removed?
 
Displayed 16 of 416 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report