Hard News: Medical Matters
588 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 14 15 16 17 18 … 24 Newer→ Last
-
Russell, is mark taslov a bandwidth-waster or what?
-
yeah, sorry about that. feel free to compress it.
-
I just don't feel that expressing my opinions about it any more directly or coherently are in my best interests at this particular juncture. What were you hoping for Grant?
-
I just don't feel that expressing my opinions about it any more directly or coherently are in my best interests at this particular juncture. What were you hoping for Grant?
OK. I just wondered if you might have some knowledge of the existence of forced abortions in China. I've heard some people speak about the issue, but I think it's generally kept pretty quiet. For obvious reasons.
Anyway. That was a bit of a side issue (perhaps Russell could do some research and post a blog on the issue). The point I was interested in discussing was the nature of the humanity and life of a baby at conception. I understand that most posters here accept the fact that at conception we have life and humanity, but they all reject the personhood of a baby at conception. For me the fact that a woman conceives a baby that is alive and human is enough for me to recognise personhood. I wonder on what basis other people deny that a baby at conception is a person..?
-
Hey Grant has that Physic turned up to let your blood yet? we told him to head to the big island off Cathay. Mind you he is travelling by camel train along the silk road, so it may take some months...
-
Islander - Cheers for that
-
Peter. I don't think he'd be able to get a camel through customs. Trust me, I've tried.
-
Leechs! Leechs! I haz leechs! Like the carnivorous worms we got into Ireland only much much better!A kind of mutant peripatus combined with hagfish! Waua! O Grant once they get your vile humours drained off you'll feel (whistles) *so* much better ! Even now, they iz humping their way to you!
-
Truly, Islander, your intellect precedes you! :)
-
Did anyone have a sensible response? Babies at conception are alive and human yet most here seem to deny them personhood. What then is the nature of that humanity and life if it is not enough to be recognised as belonging to a person?
Is the distinction between non-person and person an issue of one or more of the following:
Time.
Size.
Growth.
Recognisability.
A soul.
Convenience.
...?For me the fact that a woman conceives a living human child is enough for me to recognise personhood. On what basis do others deny that personhood.
Or perhaps you recognise babies at conception as people yet justify their termination on other grounds.
Sensible replies would be appreciated :)
-
ok grant, to be more clear. I'm not sure how much it still goes on here, just talked to a friend who's parent was in that department.
i find it atrocious. but I don't find it half as disturbing as the families who go through with the pregnancies and then ditch or kill the girl child.
I've been following your argument over at which point the baby constitutes human life, resplendent with the rights and privileges accorded in NZ: sometime in that brief time period between conception and birth.
Here, on the other hand, you'd be hard pressed to pin that abstracted moment down with anything less than a margin of error of about 70 years.
people will tell you a baby is just seed owned by the parents....
-
Thanks, Mark. I would hope that with only a little awareness and only a minor amount of international pressure the Chinese government would crack down on the departments that abduct women and force them to terminate.
I'd be interested to know what sort of justification you have for denying personhood for such a brief period of time. I understand it will be very difficult for you to be objective when discussing this issue, but I would still appreciate your input :)
-
sorry, I'm not sure understand the second paragraph, what justification I have for denying person hood? difficult for me to be objective?
-
You said:
sometime in that brief time period between conception and birth.
Which I took to mean you think a baby turns into a person sometime after conception. Is that what you think? If you do think that there is a time when a baby is not a person why do you believe that.
You can forget my comment on objectivity. It is irrelevant. Sorry :)
-
Ok I see what you mean, by classifying infanticide as worse than forced abortion, (which i will stress are both horrendous), and because I support a woman's right to do as she wishes with her body? I'm denying person hood to the aborted child? I don't think I am. but in this case I guess I kind of prioritize person hood.
-
ok, when i was talking about the time between conception and birth it was in reference to the various discussions you've been engaged in with others. and a common crux of the abortion debate centring on the when of the matter. I will stress, I don't know enough about the science of the issue to comment on when exactly personhood comes to pass. I don't think it's relevant to my outlook. i guess when the pregnancy test comes back positive. maybe when the scientists say personhood comes to pass.
I'm happy that the west had writers like dickens, woolf, etc to begin to enlighten us on the plight of women and children way back then. that's a start.
-
No. I just wanted to know about that period between conception and personhood. Why do you believe that just after conception a baby is not a person?
-
until the baby's existence is known
-
I don't know enough about the science of the issue to comment on when exactly personhood comes to pass. I don't think it's relevant to my outlook. i guess when the pregnancy test comes back positive. maybe when the scientists say personhood comes to pass.
This is directly at odds with the story you told before. If you believe a person to be present then why were you so supportive of a woman's right to choose to end that person's life?
-
like i said, i prioritize. same way nature does. If i were a woman, I'd like to still have the right to prioritize my own will above that of the fetus inside me. and nature gives women that right. you're arguing with nature Grant.
-
I don't argue that nobody has the capacity to take another person's life without justification. I only argue that it is wrong to take a life without justification.
So I agree with the fact that we can abort babies, but what I'm asking you here is, "Why?"
-
convenience, obligation, necessity.
-
Grant when you say something sensible that shows you understand biology then maybe you will deserve some sensible responses. But you have only shown how primitive is your understanding is, so we are replying appropriately. Over to you.
-
Peter. A baby at conception is alive. A baby at conception is human. I know you do not like that I use the word baby, but what you do not like does not change the facts.
Conception Fact 1: Life.
Conception Fact 2: Human.Forehand volley.
-
Mark - do you really believe that you are justified in taking lives because you find it convenient or you feel obliged to?
Let me clue you in - it is never necessary to commit murder.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.