subbie - When Does Personhood Begin?

[_Jersey Girl]

Silly subs. You’re having trouble with the English language, again.

1. Some folks can hold two seemingly opposing ideals within their mind at the same time, and navigate between them more successfully than others.

2. One can be ‘pro-life’ for the purposes of their own self while maintaining the belief that others should choose for themselves - notwithstanding that they might not accept the definitional conditions that you want to prescribe for them.

3. Conjecture about how another might respond is not the same as speaking for them.

In any event, at least Jersey Girl has the huevos to type out her position, regardless of how flawed you found it, as opposed to yourself simply remaining vague about your own while accusing her of oppressing you by keeping you from being able to impose your own choice upon her.

It's not easy for me to take the position I have, given the fact that I am a child advocate and have been so for decades. However, the topic isn't about my personally held beliefs about when life begins and it's not about judging someone else's position about when life begins or what constitutes personhood.

It is about one's constitutional rights. When I frame it as such, then what I see is that the door to choice needs to remain open so that all women can choose what they believe is right and best for them to do. And however they arrive at that decision is their business, not mine.

I seem to have these analogies popping into my mind lately. Let me make one here that perhaps illustrates what I am talking about. Either that or it's just a hallucination of little value. ;-)

When I go to the bank, I am putting in money, saving it, using it, and putting it in again. My accounts are never in the "red". There are folks who are going there to borrow money, which I never do. Some of them will successfully pay off their debt and some will get in over their heads. Also folks, who go there to steal money or bilk others out of their money with their scams.

I'm not going to vote to shut the banks down because I don't like the way some folks choose to use them.

It's their choice and my choice, and whatever the consequences may be or not be, or whatever the advantages may be or not be, those also belong to us as individuals.

But the banks need to remain open.

Same thing with pro choice/pro life. It's not easy to put my position in writing. But it's mine and I stand by it.

My other choice that I act on nearly every day of my life is how I respond to parents with children. I don't talk a lot about it publicly. When a situation presents itself to me, when a parent comes into my path (and parents have even come into my path on this board) I get right in the trenches with them and work with them in supportive ways until they are done needing it.

There's plenty of folks around here, for example, who claim to be pro life and who would never respond to those calls for help in any meaningful or practical way. The military wife on a Facebook group for moms, whose 2 year old was driving her to the brink of insanity, a former colleague who had a mental health crisis late at night and who is a single parent to a 3 year old. These are a couple of examples of folks who came into my path in the past few months. There are several more.

I can get in there and help them, and I do. In most cases I can offer a developmental explanation of why they at seeing what they do in their children and suggest ways to alleviate a stressful dynamic. And they work. I love watching a parent discover ways to make life with the child more interesting and fun, and helping a parent feel better equipped. Seeing their confidence rise and joy return is my pay check.

So in terms of both pro life and pro choice, I think I personally do a pretty good job of both talking the talk and walking the walk.

[_Res Ipsa]

Silly subs. You’re having trouble with the English language, again.

1. Some folks can hold two seemingly opposing ideals within their mind at the same time, and navigate between them more successfully than others.

2. One can be ‘pro-life’ for the purposes of their own self while maintaining the belief that others should choose for themselves - notwithstanding that they might not accept the definitional conditions that you want to prescribe for them.

3. Conjecture about how another might respond is not the same as speaking for them.

In any event, at least Jersey Girl has the huevos to type out her position, regardless of how flawed you found it, as opposed to yourself simply remaining vague about your own while accusing her of oppressing you by keeping you from being able to impose your own choice upon her.

It's not easy for me to take the position I have, given the fact that I am a child advocate and have been so for decades. However, the topic isn't about my personally held beliefs about when life begins and it's not about judging someone else's position about when life begins or what constitutes personhood.

It is about one's constitutional rights. When I frame it as such, then what I see is that the door to choice needs to remain open so that all women can choose what they believe is right and best for them to do. And however they arrive at that decision is their business, not mine.

I seem to have these analogies popping into my mind lately. Let me make one here that perhaps illustrates what I am talking about. Either that or it's just a hallucination of little value. ;-)

When I go to the bank, I am putting in money, saving it, using it, and putting it in again. My accounts are never in the "red". There are folks who are going there to borrow money, which I never do. Some of them will successfully pay off their debt and some will get in over their heads. Also folks, who go there to steal money or bilk others out of their money with their scams.

I'm not going to vote to shut the banks down because I don't like the way some folks choose to use them.

It's their choice and my choice, and whatever the consequences may be or not be, or whatever the advantages may be or not be, those also belong to us as individuals.

But the banks need to remain open.

Same thing with pro choice/pro life. It's not easy to put my position in writing. But it's mine and I stand by it.

My other choice that I act on nearly every day of my life is how I respond to parents with children. I don't talk a lot about it publicly. When a situation presents itself to me, when a parent comes into my path (and parents have even come into my path on this board) I get right in the trenches with them and work with them in supportive ways until they are done needing it.

There's plenty of folks around here, for example, who claim to be pro life and who would never respond to those calls for help in any meaningful or practical way. The military wife on a Facebook group for moms, whose 2 year old was driving her to the brink of insanity, a former colleague who had a mental health crisis late at night and who is a single parent to a 3 year old. These are a couple of examples of folks who came into my path in the past few months. There are several more.

I can get in there and help them, and I do. In most cases I can offer a developmental explanation of why they at seeing what they do in their children and suggest ways to alleviate a stressful dynamic. And they work. I love watching a parent discover ways to make life with the child more interesting and fun, and helping a parent feel better equipped. Seeing their confidence rise and joy return is my pay check.

So in terms of both pro life and pro choice, I think I personally do a pretty good job of both talking the talk and walking the walk.

I thought you expressed a coherent, well thought out position. You not only used labels, you explained to all of us what you meant. Quibbling over use of the labels seems silly to me.

Anyone who reads your posts on a regular basis can see that you are pro-life in the broadest and best sense of the term. The folks on either side of the abortion debate deploy "pro life" and "pro choice" as carefully constructed labels designed to maximize political mileage. Pro choice folks often criticize pro life folks for not really being "pro-life" in general. Given that criticism, I think your use of the term in its broad sense is just fine.

[Guest]

This thread has been interesting to me for the spectrum of posters who fall back on the debate being about life and when it begins while acting as if the concept of personhood is either irrelevant or esoteric and thus unnecessary.

Part of that is possibly the issue with having had the earliest part of the discussing with subbie who refuses to engage a subject with any intention of good faith.

But the other part of the problem is asking for a definition of personhood in order to then have someone provide their views on personhood is about the same as someone demanding someone first define life before someone can then have a discussion.

No one demanded that Chap or subbie first explain what is meant by life at the start of the thread, and everyone has sufficiently ignored the discussion of what it means for something to have life with a couple of notable exceptions.

As EA and Gad both pointed out, one can't have a discussion about the abortion debate and limit it to just "life" because we all murder the “F” out of living things constantly without conscious effort. I've pointed out that how a person defines what is a human being is complicated but necessary to have any kind of reasonable discussion about the subject. It's even more necessary to be able to support a claim that someone is being inconsistent in regards to how they would see a developing embryo treated in regards to having rights compared with a living, walking, breathing child. When Chap asks why no one is calling for the woman to be charged with murder who uses a form of birth control that prevents a fertilized ovum from embedding in a woman's uterine lining there is the implication that one must determine if said fertilized ovum is a human being with rights or not.

It's not about trivial labels. It's an absolutely fundamental bedrock concept needed to have a coherent conversation about the topic.

If a person decides that a woman's right to choose to abort a pregnancy should exist up to the moment before giving natural birth, that might seem like a fair way to treat the debate over choice. But that is outrageously radical when it comes to determining if the unborn child is a human being. I would outlaw that and see someone prosecuted who elected to murder an unborn child 39 weeks after conception without hesitation. Not because I think the woman's right to choose isn't important, but because there are very few differences between that unborn child and one that was born a couple of weeks prematurely that I doubt anyone would accept would be ok to murder in their crib because the parents had a change of heart about raising it.

On the other end of the time scale, if one sperm can fertilize one egg that begins the process of mytosis but ends up splitting in unconventional but not completely uncommon ways to form identical triplets, it would be illogical to claim that the initial fertilized egg was a person in any sense of that word that remains coherent when applied to the three separate individuals born out of it. The idea that a fertilized human egg is a person makes no sense and even less so from a Mormon perspective where the essence of an individual person is believed to pre-exist the biological organization of matter into cells organized in a way to support the development of higher level organs including a brain that develops so as to have higher order cognitive abilities. Apparently, without thinking about it too much subbie imagines reality to be one where God sends the spirits of three individuals into a single ovum before it splits into three which all embed and begin to develop into human children waiting to be born. Apparently subbie's God is an incoherent dick. I mean, the number of fertilized eggs that fail to actually embed at all is higher than the murder rate in Honduras so Elohim is a murderous fiend if a fertilized human egg is a human and stopping its development is killing a human being. There's a reason the LDS church doesn't have a position on when the spirit actually enters the body because its easier to let the mother who feels the fetus move imagine their child is quickened by receiving its spirit while consoling the unfortunate would be mother who suffered a miscarriage with the potential that she may yet get the chance to raise that child. Or if not, perhaps it was just so valiant in the pre-existence it just needed the beginnings of a body to be able to take part in the first resurrection and get a front-of-the-line pass to the celestial kingdom. Who knows? But for sure, human life begins at conception because....?

Personhood is a fundamental, essential expansion on the concept of life because how you define something as being a human being deserving of rights is the criteria being examined in regards to the unborn. Even if that is hard for some to grok for some reason.

[_subgenius]

Silly subs. You’re having trouble with the English language, again.

only inasmuch as you are.

1. Some folks can hold two seemingly opposing ideals within their mind at the same time, and navigate between them more successfully than others.

Yes, cognitive dissonance or ambivalence - you decide because i alreadynoted my view on the matter (but thanks for the dissection)....and, additionally, clearly my use of "passive-aggressive" recognizes as much.

2. One can be ‘pro-life’ for the purposes of their own self while maintaining the belief that others should choose for themselves - notwithstanding that they might not accept the definitional conditions that you want to prescribe for them.

Again, that was abundantly clear and yet does not influence or modify my original statement for "inability".

3. Conjecture about how another might respond is not the same as speaking for them.

Well, if you say so....but if in your mind and heart you were thinking "she can speak foe herself", why would you offer up an opinion or conclusion formed on the basis of incomplete information (a.k.a. conjecture)?

In any event, at least Jersey Girl has the huevos to type out her position,

Good for her and thank you for the unsolicited endorsement.

regardless of how flawed you found it,

Oh, was she offering it up for a validation? (in lieu of these huevos)...or are criticisms not allowed when people interject their opinion on matters?

as opposed to yourself simply remaining vague about your own

Apart from the irony here ya black pot, my "remaining vague" is clearly contradicted by my first post on this thread.

while accusing her of oppressing you by keeping you from being able to impose your own choice upon her.

Well, that is a horrible re-phrasing of what i typed...i simply noted the glaring contradiction in her assertion of how things "should be"...but then you have already explained how she surely can two seemingly opposing ideals within [her] mind at the same time...so that must be it.

[_subgenius]

This thread has been interesting to me for the spectrum of posters who fall back on the debate being about life and when it begins while acting as if the concept of personhood is either irrelevant or esoteric and thus unnecessary.

Part of that is possibly the issue with having had the earliest part of the discussing with subbie who refuses to engage a subject with any intention of good faith.

well, this is balderdash - it is you that has summarily ignored my very first post on this thread which was a direct response to your question...and since you have maintained a distanced ambiguiy from your own position.
So, check yourself.

But the other part of the problem is asking for a definition of personhood in order to then have someone provide their views on personhood is about the same as someone demanding someone first define life before someone can then have a discussion.

Aside fro your lame attempt to deflect here - it is not unreasonable to ask you to define the usage of broad meaning terms in your own question...and failing that, i still provided you a direct answer if that was the position you wanted to take.

No one demanded that Chap or subbie first explain what is meant by life at the start of the thread, and everyone has sufficiently ignored the discussion of what it means for something to have life with a couple of notable exceptions.

because it is your thread, brah.

As EA and Gad both pointed out, one can't have a discussion about the abortion debate and limit it to just "life" because we all murder the “F” out of living things constantly without conscious effort.

There positions were wrought with presuppositions for how others might define "life" - a lame pre-emptive strike as it were. Point being, the thread is not about life except inasmuch as you wanted to make "personhood" equal to it with regards to my statement.

I've pointed out that how a person defines what is a human being is complicated but necessary to have any kind of reasonable discussion about the subject.

Yet you feel it is not your responsibility?
see also the contradiction here within, where you wrote:But the other part of the problem is asking for a definition of personhood in order to then have someone provide their views on personhood is about the same as someone demanding someone first define life before someone can then have a discussion.

Personhood is a fundamental, essential expansion on the concept of life because how you define something as being a human being deserving of rights is the criteria being examined in regards to the unborn. Even if that is hard for some to grok for some reason.

and what did you say is "personhood" again?

[_honorentheos]

as opposed to yourself simply remaining vague about your own

Apart from the irony here ya black pot, my "remaining vague" is clearly contradicted by my first post on this thread.

Your first post was vague. You asked why liberals could not share a consistent belief in a right to life or not. It's been pointed out that "a right to life" in the broad way your phrased it in your first post is something you don't believe in because life is too broad of a subject for anyone to believe is universally a right all things have. You have dodged the need to refine that to define what constitutes human life.

And, as noted in the thread, you seem to think everyone else has the responsibility to flesh out your vague statements for you in order to understand your position all while demanding others provide narrower and narrower definitions.

Simple question, subbie - what traits are necessary for something to be recognized as a human being?

[_honorentheos]

and what did you say is "personhood" again?

What traits are necessary for something to be recognized as a human being.

[_honorentheos]

It's not like it hasn't been put to you very simply from the beginning. You're just either trying to avoid the topic or dumb. I think you know that it's not easy to do and maintain the idea a fertilized egg is a human being in every necessary sense of the term to be treated as such in a rational, consistent way. So you are acting like my use of the term personhood is the problem, a term understood to be necessary by anyone who has actually taken a serious interest in being logical and consistent on the topic. So, yeah, I think those people who have enabled you in acting like the term is the problem are raging ____, too.

[_honorentheos]

If one sperm can fertilize one egg that begins the process of mitosis but ends up splitting in unconventional but not completely uncommon ways to form identical triplets, it would be illogical to claim that the initial fertilized egg was a person in any sense of that word that remains coherent when applied to the three separate individuals born out of it. The idea that a fertilized human egg is a person makes no sense and even less so from a Mormon perspective where the essence of an individual person is believed to pre-exist the biological organization of matter into cells organized in a way to support the development of higher level organs including a brain that develops so as to have higher order cognitive abilities. Apparently, without thinking about it too much subbie imagines reality to be one where God sends the spirits of three individuals into a single ovum before it splits into three which all embed and begin to develop into human children waiting to be born. Apparently subbie's God is an incoherent dick. I mean, the number of fertilized eggs that fail to actually embed at all is higher than the murder rate in Honduras so Elohim is a murderous fiend if a fertilized human egg is a human and stopping its development is killing a human being. There's a reason the LDS church doesn't have a position on when the spirit actually enters the body because its easier to let the mother who feels the fetus move imagine their child is quickened by receiving its spirit while consoling the unfortunate would be mother who suffered a miscarriage with the potential that she may yet get the chance to raise that child. Or if not, perhaps it was just so valiant in the pre-existence it just needed the beginnings of a body to be able to take part in the first resurrection and get a front-of-the-line pass to the celestial kingdom. Who knows? But for sure, human life begins at conception because....?

So subbie, why doesn't the LDS church take a stand on the spirit entering the body at conception?

[_Chap]

I forgot that subgenius is a Mormon.

I just thought he was a somewhat, well, not hugely sharp but determinedly trollish kind of person.

But now things make some kind of sense.