Why people are afraid of universal health care

[ZiprHead]

Correction: It is bilby who doesn’t believe an infant is a person until they basically are intelligible to him.

Umm...

Both are unrealistic hypotheticals. No responsible physician would say yes in either case. The 1st case is different than the 2nd because it is charitably assisted suicide of a person. In the 2nd, a fetus is not a person.

In your opinion... a 38 week old fetus is not a person so long as it's still inside a uterus? Is it a person if it's delivered prematurely at 38 weeks?

Yes to both.

Unless I'm reading this wrong, LD expressed that a two-week-before-natural-delivery fetus isn't a person while inside the womb, but the act of being delivered confers personhood upon it.

That's what the US constitution says. That's what the Old Testament of the Bible says.

 

[ZiprHead]

All that said, I'll take nature's most effective killing machine - the domestic cat - over a dog 90% of the time.

Derail. The biggest killers of humans is the mosquito.

 

[bilby]

With all due resiect, in respect with this issue, bilby is entirely fucked up

With all due respect, this translates as "bilby refuses to agree with my strongly held opinion".

Without any due respect at all baby humans are unquestionably and objectively more human than non-human species are. Similarly, kittens are more cats than colts are.

Whether something is "human" has no bearing on whether it is "a person".

If it did, my toenail clippings would be more of a person than an adult Orangutan or Dolphin.

The idea that only humans can be persons is absurd religious nonsense, and about as convincing as the old idea that only light-skinned humans can be persons.

Personhood is about modes of thought, not about species.

A newborn baby is human, but not a person (though most very rapidly become persons, once born); An adult orangutan is a person, bit not a human.

And personhood is a spectrum. An adult orangutan is more of a person than an adult dog, and less of a person than an adult human; But all are to some degree 'persons'. ie.,They have personalities.

 

[bilby]

Correction: It is bilby who doesn’t believe an infant is a person until they basically are intelligible to him.

Umm...

Both are unrealistic hypotheticals. No responsible physician would say yes in either case. The 1st case is different than the 2nd because it is charitably assisted suicide of a person. In the 2nd, a fetus is not a person.

In your opinion... a 38 week old fetus is not a person so long as it's still inside a uterus? Is it a person if it's delivered prematurely at 38 weeks?

Yes to both.

Unless I'm reading this wrong, LD expressed that a two-week-before-natural-delivery fetus isn't a person while inside the womb, but the act of being delivered confers personhood upon it.

That's what the US constitution says. That's what the Old Testament of the Bible says.

Both are, of course, stupidly wrong about this, being as they are a product of times when religion was prioritized over reason.

 

[bilby]

All that said, I'll take nature's most effective killing machine - the domestic cat - over a dog 90% of the time.

Derail. The biggest killers of humans is the mosquito.

So far. But humans have developed DDT, and nuclear weapons, so the game ain't over yet...

 

[laughing dog]

Only in the most trivial sense - that there exists a negligible number.

There's only a negligible number of people placed on death row and sentenced to death. And of those, only a miniscule number are innocent of the particular crime that landed them there.

Do you consider that negligible number to be acceptable collateral damage, small enough that nobody should worry about it?

There is important distinct difference between a person and a fetus. BTW, I oppose capital punishment.

At what point do you think a fetus becomes a person?

A fetus becomes a person when the fetus is delivered out of the womb.

Which then leads to the question are these current attempts to limit abortion access to deal with a negligible number of abortions worth the cost of actual health problems, traumas and death to actual people?

What health problems, traumas, and deaths would be caused by allowing later abortions when the pregnancy presents a risk to the mother's health?

I was referring to health, problems, trauma and death of women who are denied abortions because of these laws.

Laws that allow abortions when the health of the mother is at risk result in the deaths of women?

Apparently we are confused about what we are talking about. I am referring to current abortion laws that have arisen after the SCOTUS decision in Dobbs. What are you talking about?

This same "it kills women" thing keeps getting echoed over and over. But it's not relevant. Requiring that there be a medically justified reason based on a health risk to the mother or previously unknown health and wellbeing risk to the infant seems like it would address that concern adequately.

Who the fuck are you to judge what is in the best interests of a pregnant woman seeking an abortion in the last trimester?

Someone who values the lives of both the the mother and the child. Who the fuck are you to judge that a baby capable of staying alive outside the womb can be killed for convenience?

First, you clearly do not value the life of a pregnant woman who wants to have an abortion in the last trimester. Second, the "killed for convenience" is a load of crap. Finally, and most crucially, a fetus is not a baby.

 

[thebeave]

Denying that a woman would ever "kill for convenience" her 3rd trimester unborn baby seems disingenous to me. Women/girls have been known to give birth to a baby they don't want to raise (because it would be "inconvenient") and put it in a dumpster to die. Its rare (thank gawd), but I've heard stories about this since I was a kid. I recall a few years ago a pregnant teen girl gave birth to her baby during her prom, put it in a trash can and returned to the dance floor afterwards. IIRC, at least in California such behavior inspired a law allowing newborn babies to be dropped off anonomously at a local fire station or hospital, no questions asked. If some women/girls are capable of killing a newborn baby, don't you think they would have no problem aborting a baby/fetus in the third trimester, given the means and opportunity?

 

[laughing dog]

Denying that a woman would ever "kill for convenience" her 3rd trimester unborn baby seems disingenous to me. Women/girls have been known to give birth to a baby they don't want to raise (because it would be "inconvenient") and put it in a dumpster to die. Its rare (thank gawd), but I've heard stories about this since I was a kid. I recall a few years ago a pregnant teen girl gave birth to her baby during her prom, put it in a trash can and returned to the dance floor afterwards. IIRC, at least in California such behavior inspired a law allowing newborn babies to be dropped off anonomously at a local fire station or hospital, no questions asked. If some women/girls are capable of killing a newborn baby, don't you think they would have no problem aborting a baby/fetus in the third trimester, given the means and opportunity?

Since no one is denying that it is possible for a fetus to be terminated for non-medical reasons. Lumping those multiple reasons into a single category as "convenience" is sloppy thinking at a minimum.

I realize the issue of abortion is an emotional one. And that there really is no perfect answer. But it seems to me that the well-being of a human that is fully and human should be the guide to policy not the well-being of a fetus.

 

[Emily Lake]

Correction: It is bilby who doesn’t believe an infant is a person until they basically are intelligible to him.

Umm...

Both are unrealistic hypotheticals. No responsible physician would say yes in either case. The 1st case is different than the 2nd because it is charitably assisted suicide of a person. In the 2nd, a fetus is not a person.

In your opinion... a 38 week old fetus is not a person so long as it's still inside a uterus? Is it a person if it's delivered prematurely at 38 weeks?

Yes to both.

Unless I'm reading this wrong, LD expressed that a two-week-before-natural-delivery fetus isn't a person while inside the womb, but the act of being delivered confers personhood upon it.

That's what the US constitution says. That's what the Old Testament of the Bible says.

I'm pretty sure the US constitution is silent on when a baby becomes a human, but I'm open to correction if you'd care to provide the language to which you're referring.

 

[Emily Lake]

All that said, I'll take nature's most effective killing machine - the domestic cat - over a dog 90% of the time.

Derail. The biggest killers of humans is the mosquito.

Technicality. A mosquito isn't a predatory, thus not really a "killing machine".

I'll concede that mosquitos kill more humans than cats do... but I am not sold that mosquitos kill more animals overall than cats.

 

[Emily Lake]

The idea that only humans can be persons is absurd religious nonsense

Um... no. It's acknowledgement of species-hood.

If we ever meet extraterrestrial beings that have at least reached the evolutionary threshold of hunter-gatherer in an organized society that adapts the environment to their needs, I promise I will reconsider my view on this. Until then, I consider your view to be silly.

 

[Emily Lake]

Apparently we are confused about what we are talking about. I am referring to current abortion laws that have arisen after the SCOTUS decision in Dobbs. What are you talking about?

I'm talking about MY view of what a reasonable legal perspective on abortion should be... which is what was included in the post to which you responded.

 

[ZiprHead]

Correction: It is bilby who doesn’t believe an infant is a person until they basically are intelligible to him.

Umm...

Both are unrealistic hypotheticals. No responsible physician would say yes in either case. The 1st case is different than the 2nd because it is charitably assisted suicide of a person. In the 2nd, a fetus is not a person.

In your opinion... a 38 week old fetus is not a person so long as it's still inside a uterus? Is it a person if it's delivered prematurely at 38 weeks?

Yes to both.

Unless I'm reading this wrong, LD expressed that a two-week-before-natural-delivery fetus isn't a person while inside the womb, but the act of being delivered confers personhood upon it.

That's what the US constitution says. That's what the Old Testament of the Bible says.

I'm pretty sure the US constitution is silent on when a baby becomes a human, but I'm open to correction if you'd care to provide the language to which you're referring.

You didn't say human, you said person.

 

[Emily Lake]

Correction: It is bilby who doesn’t believe an infant is a person until they basically are intelligible to him.

Umm...

Both are unrealistic hypotheticals. No responsible physician would say yes in either case. The 1st case is different than the 2nd because it is charitably assisted suicide of a person. In the 2nd, a fetus is not a person.

In your opinion... a 38 week old fetus is not a person so long as it's still inside a uterus? Is it a person if it's delivered prematurely at 38 weeks?

Yes to both.

Unless I'm reading this wrong, LD expressed that a two-week-before-natural-delivery fetus isn't a person while inside the womb, but the act of being delivered confers personhood upon it.

That's what the US constitution says. That's what the Old Testament of the Bible says.

I'm pretty sure the US constitution is silent on when a baby becomes a human, but I'm open to correction if you'd care to provide the language to which you're referring.

You didn't say human, you said person.

What difference does that make? Pretty sure the constitution is silent on when a baby becomes a person too, so I'm standing by my prior comment.

 

[Toni]

Correction: It is bilby who doesn’t believe an infant is a person until they basically are intelligible to him.

Umm...

Both are unrealistic hypotheticals. No responsible physician would say yes in either case. The 1st case is different than the 2nd because it is charitably assisted suicide of a person. In the 2nd, a fetus is not a person.

In your opinion... a 38 week old fetus is not a person so long as it's still inside a uterus? Is it a person if it's delivered prematurely at 38 weeks?

Yes to both.

Unless I'm reading this wrong, LD expressed that a two-week-before-natural-delivery fetus isn't a person while inside the womb, but the act of being delivered confers personhood upon it.

That's what the US constitution says. That's what the Old Testament of the Bible says.

I'm pretty sure the US constitution is silent on when a baby becomes a human, but I'm open to correction if you'd care to provide the language to which you're referring.

You didn't say human, you said person.

What difference does that make? Pretty sure the constitution is silent on when a baby becomes a person too, so I'm standing by my prior comment.

Cancer cells removed from a human with Stage 3 lung cancer are human cells but they are not a person and never can be a person.
Human blood cells are human but cannot become a person.
Human remains are human but are no longer a person.
And so on.

 

[Elixir]

Since the only operative definition of personhood is a legal one, why not call it a person when it takes its first breath?

 

[Emily Lake]

Since the only operative definition of personhood is a legal one, why not call it a person when it takes its first breath?

Sure, then all you need to do is kill it before it can take that first breath, even if it would be perfectly capable of breathing if you didn't kill it.

 

[ZiprHead]

Correction: It is bilby who doesn’t believe an infant is a person until they basically are intelligible to him.

Umm...

Both are unrealistic hypotheticals. No responsible physician would say yes in either case. The 1st case is different than the 2nd because it is charitably assisted suicide of a person. In the 2nd, a fetus is not a person.

In your opinion... a 38 week old fetus is not a person so long as it's still inside a uterus? Is it a person if it's delivered prematurely at 38 weeks?

Yes to both.

Unless I'm reading this wrong, LD expressed that a two-week-before-natural-delivery fetus isn't a person while inside the womb, but the act of being delivered confers personhood upon it.

That's what the US constitution says. That's what the Old Testament of the Bible says.

I'm pretty sure the US constitution is silent on when a baby becomes a human, but I'm open to correction if you'd care to provide the language to which you're referring.

You didn't say human, you said person.

What difference does that make? Pretty sure the constitution is silent on when a baby becomes a person too, so I'm standing by my prior comment.

According to the constitution you have to be born to become a citizen. You are nothing to the constitution prior to birth.

 

[Elixir]

Since the only operative definition of personhood is a legal one, why not call it a person when it takes its first breath?

Sure, then all you need to do is kill it before it can take that first breath, even if it would be perfectly capable of breathing if you didn't kill it.

Yeah because it was such an ugly, hateful little fucker. Women usually don’t even want to know what its cry sounds like; probably just as awful as its personality. “Just kill it now, please!”

Happens all the time. Just read about one in Texas the other day.

Oh, wait. No, that was just another lady with friends and relatives, who died in a hospital parking lot.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You didn't say human, you said person.

What difference does that make? Pretty sure the constitution is silent on when a baby becomes a person too, so I'm standing by my prior comment.

Cancer cells removed from a human with Stage 3 lung cancer are human cells but they are not a person and never can be a person.
Human blood cells are human but cannot become a person.
Human remains are human but are no longer a person.
And so on.

Yup, this is a standard deception by the pro-life community that has clouded the waters sufficiently to cause confusion between "human" and "person".

"Human" refers to things of human origin. Even when you modify it with "living" you still have the problem because things like the cells in human blood are clearly alive. (And without the modifier--there are human artifacts on the moon.)

So far, "person" refers only to members of the species homo sapiens. However, it really should be interpreted more broadly--just because we don't know of any other types of person doesn't mean they don't exist somewhere. If an ET were to show up tomorrow are they a person or an animal??