When Does Life Begin?

I can't help it if you see if as contradictory. It isn't either/or and your wanting it to be so doesn't make it such. Go back and read my answer the last time you asked that question. It was perfectly clear.

We can keep going around in circles or not -- I choose not.

0 Replies

Bartikus wrote:

Diest TKO wrote:
Bartikus wrote:
Diest TKO wrote:
what you've described is what I believe is the mother giving those right's to the unborn. I believe the point in which the unborn is choosen to come to term is the beginning of personhood, because it is at that point that the woman begins investing in the unborn's identity. It is also (for most) the point in which the woman begin's investing in her own identity as a "mother." I thin these choices are very profound, and it's one of the reason's I think choice must be protected.

So by her choice to carry to term (her choice alone to make) she becomes a mother and then and only then, the unborn is given the rights of personhood? That sound right TKO?

That's the social theory that I believe make the most sense.

T
K
O

o i c

Diest TKO wrote:
Bartikus wrote:
So a woman getting an abortion cannot be regarded as a mother....but a mere host?

"mere host?" Who is trivializing motherhood exactly?

Why would this definition only apply to women choosing to abort?

I don't know....you tell us Diest!?

When does a woman become a mother Deist? The same time she decides to carry it full term right? According to your social theory right?

A woman does'nt become a mother of a child at conception according to this theory right?

What is she if not a mother? It's your social theory that trivializes motherhood.

"Host"

"Why would this definition only apply to women choosing to abort?"

According to your social theory she is not a mother of an unborn child until she decides to keep it....

Till then...what would you call her? What would you call the life within her?

0 Replies

Bartikus wrote:

Bartikus wrote:
Diest TKO wrote:
Bartikus wrote:
Diest TKO wrote:
what you've described is what I believe is the mother giving those right's to the unborn. I believe the point in which the unborn is choosen to come to term is the beginning of personhood, because it is at that point that the woman begins investing in the unborn's identity. It is also (for most) the point in which the woman begin's investing in her own identity as a "mother." I thin these choices are very profound, and it's one of the reason's I think choice must be protected.

So by her choice to carry to term (her choice alone to make) she becomes a mother and then and only then, the unborn is given the rights of personhood? That sound right TKO?

That's the social theory that I believe make the most sense.

T
K
O

o i c

Diest TKO wrote:
Bartikus wrote:
So a woman getting an abortion cannot be regarded as a mother....but a mere host?

"mere host?" Who is trivializing motherhood exactly?

Why would this definition only apply to women choosing to abort?

I don't know....you tell us Diest!?

When does a woman become a mother Deist? The same time she decides to carry it full term right? According to your social theory right?

A woman does'nt become a mother of a child at conception according to this theory right?

If you read my posts, you wouldn't ask answered questions.

My theory is that a pregnant woman begins investing in the identity of mother when she choses to keep the unborn.

She becomes a mother after birth, regaurdless of when the identity begins.

T
K
O

0 Replies

Diest TKO wrote:

Bartikus wrote:
Bartikus wrote:
Diest TKO wrote:
Bartikus wrote:
Diest TKO wrote:
what you've described is what I believe is the mother giving those right's to the unborn. I believe the point in which the unborn is choosen to come to term is the beginning of personhood, because it is at that point that the woman begins investing in the unborn's identity. It is also (for most) the point in which the woman begin's investing in her own identity as a "mother." I thin these choices are very profound, and it's one of the reason's I think choice must be protected.

So by her choice to carry to term (her choice alone to make) she becomes a mother and then and only then, the unborn is given the rights of personhood? That sound right TKO?

That's the social theory that I believe make the most sense.

T
K
O

o i c

Diest TKO wrote:
Bartikus wrote:
So a woman getting an abortion cannot be regarded as a mother....but a mere host?

"mere host?" Who is trivializing motherhood exactly?

Why would this definition only apply to women choosing to abort?

I don't know....you tell us Diest!?

When does a woman become a mother Deist? The same time she decides to carry it full term right? According to your social theory right?

A woman does'nt become a mother of a child at conception according to this theory right?

If you read my posts, you wouldn't ask answered questions.

My theory is that a pregnant woman begins investing in the identity of mother when she choses to keep the unborn.

She becomes a mother after birth, regaurdless of when the identity begins.

T
K
O

So what would a pregnant woman be if she never invests in the identity of a mother? Something less than a mother?

Diest TKO wrote:

"mere host?" Who is trivializing motherhood exactly?
Why would this definition only apply to women choosing to abort?

0 Replies

Bartikus wrote:

What is she if not a mother? It's your social theory that trivializes motherhood.

"Host"

Q: What is she if not a mother?
A: A pregnant woman.

Bartikus wrote:

"Why would this definition only apply to women choosing to abort?"

According to your social theory she is not a mother of an unborn child until she decides to keep it....

According to my social theory the identity of mother can begin before someone is actually a mother; before someone has given birth. I believe the most women begin identifying as mothers when they choose to keep a child. This is to say that they begin to view the unborn as a part of their own future and personally invest in it.

Bartikus wrote:

Till then...what would you call her? What would you call the life within her?

A: A pregnant woman and whatever you wish to call your unborn.

T
K
O

0 Replies

Diest TKO wrote:

Bartikus wrote:

What is she if not a mother? It's your social theory that trivializes motherhood.

"Host"

Q: What is she if not a mother?
A: A pregnant woman.

Bartikus wrote:

"Why would this definition only apply to women choosing to abort?"

According to your social theory she is not a mother of an unborn child until she decides to keep it....

According to my social theory the identity of mother can begin before someone is actually a mother; before someone has given birth. I believe the most women begin identifying as mothers when they choose to keep a child. This is to say that they begin to view the unborn as a part of their own future and personally invest in it.

Bartikus wrote:

Till then...what would you call her? What would you call the life within her?

A: A pregnant woman and whatever you wish to call your unborn.

T
K
O

What is she pregnant with? And the mother who is pregnant with what? Are they different? Both are pregnant women...only one can be a mother right?

0 Replies

Bartikus wrote:

So what would a pregnant woman be if she never invests in the identity of a mother? Something less than a mother?

Which senario are you refering to?

A) a woman who aborts.
B) a woman who abandons after birth.
C) a woman who is forced to give birth against her will.
D) a woman who gives birth and keeps the child but never really thought about what she was about to take on.

The answers are.

A) a woman
B) a woman
C) a victim
D) a woman

Unless you want to argue that women with children are of a greater value than those that are without, "women" will suffice as a term. As for C, it's currently what you are fighting for.

T
K
O

0 Replies

Bartikus wrote:

Diest TKO wrote:
Bartikus wrote:

What is she if not a mother? It's your social theory that trivializes motherhood.

"Host"

Q: What is she if not a mother?
A: A pregnant woman.

Bartikus wrote:

"Why would this definition only apply to women choosing to abort?"

According to your social theory she is not a mother of an unborn child until she decides to keep it....

According to my social theory the identity of mother can begin before someone is actually a mother; before someone has given birth. I believe the most women begin identifying as mothers when they choose to keep a child. This is to say that they begin to view the unborn as a part of their own future and personally invest in it.

Bartikus wrote:

Till then...what would you call her? What would you call the life within her?

A: A pregnant woman and whatever you wish to call your unborn.

T
K
O

What is she pregnant with? And the mother who is pregnant with what? Are they different? Both are pregnant women...only one can be a mother right?

She is pregnant with a human life. Being pregnant, doesn't make you a mother, giving birth does.

Your questions bore me, and worse are repeatitive.

Your current line of questioning, suggests strongly that if you have any more questions about this, you'd be better to read my older posts. I see no more need to repeat myself on this topic.

If you continue to ask answered questions, I'll skip over them to new questions.

T
K
O

0 Replies

Diest TKO wrote:

Bartikus wrote:
So what would a pregnant woman be if she never invests in the identity of a mother? Something less than a mother?

Which senario are you refering to?

A) a woman who aborts.
B) a woman who abandons after birth.
C) a woman who is forced to give birth against her will.
D) a woman who gives birth and keeps the child but never really thought about what she was about to take on.

The answers are.

A) a woman
B) a woman
C) a victim
D) a woman

Unless you want to argue that women with children are of a greater value than those that are without, "women" will suffice as a term. As for C, it's currently what you are fighting for.

T
K
O

All mothers are women..again, what makes a woman a mother?

How does abolishing abortion force a woman to give birth against her will when:

A.) She can avoid it beforehand.

B.) Making it illegal will do little to decrease the occurences as has been claimed? By even you...

0 Replies

Deist

If the woman wasn't forced against her will to commit the act that got her pregnant in the first place, why is she a victim if she has the baby?

Again, some responsibility has to go back to both the woman and the man. Using abortion as birth control is abhorrent.

0 Replies

Intrepid wrote:

Deist

If the woman wasn't forced against her will to commit the act that got her pregnant in the first place, why is she a victim if she has the baby?

Again, some responsibility has to go back to both the woman and the man. Using abortion as birth control is abhorrent.

Good question Intrepid...good luck getting a straight answer.

0 Replies

Diest TKO wrote:

Bartikus wrote:
So what would a pregnant woman be if she never invests in the identity of a mother? Something less than a mother?

Which senario are you refering to?

A) a woman who aborts.
B) a woman who abandons after birth.
C) a woman who is forced to give birth against her will.
D) a woman who gives birth and keeps the child but never really thought about what she was about to take on.

The answers are.

A) a woman
B) a woman
C) a victim
D) a woman

Unless you want to argue that women with children are of a greater value than those that are without, "women" will suffice as a term. As for C, it's currently what you are fighting for.

T
K
O

We all alive here and now get at least one mother. Why not them?

0 Replies

Bartikus wrote:

All mothers are women..again, what makes a woman a mother?

All mothers are women, but not all women are mothers. The relationship is not commuicative.

Repeat questions should seek answers in previous posts.

Bartikus wrote:

How does abolishing abortion force a woman to give birth against her will when:

A.) She can avoid it beforehand.

Maybe.

Regaurdless, there's no compelling reason I've heard that a woman should be forced to complete a preganacy.

Bartikus wrote:

B.) Making it illegal will do little to decrease the occurences as has been claimed? By even you...

Yeah, people will still get abortions, but still there will be others who won't find access.

T
K
O

0 Replies

Diest TKO wrote:

Bartikus wrote:
All mothers are women..again, what makes a woman a mother?

All mothers are women, but not all women are mothers. The relationship is not commuicative.

Repeat questions should seek answers in previous posts.

Bartikus wrote:
How does abolishing abortion force a woman to give birth against her will when:

A.) She can avoid it beforehand.

Maybe.

Regaurdless, there's no compelling reason I've heard that a woman should be forced to complete a preganacy.

Bartikus wrote:
B.) Making it illegal will do little to decrease the occurences as has been claimed? By even you...

Yeah, people will still get abortions, but still there will be others who won't find access.

T
K
O

Very little will have trouble finding access according to you.

Maybe some women (mothers to be) will be glad it was illegal!

Maybe you know one?

If the choice be to intentionally kill the unborn to spare the woman(victim) of being pregnant or take it out keeping it alive for a woman who wants to be it's mother.

I'd favor the later.

How bout you?

She need not carry it full term.

When did the woman become a victim again? When she chose right?

0 Replies

Intrepid wrote:

Deist

If the woman wasn't forced against her will to commit the act that got her pregnant in the first place, why is she a victim if she has the baby?

Again, some responsibility has to go back to both the woman and the man. Using abortion as birth control is abhorrent.

There is a distinction Intrepid.

A young man can and is often held responsible by law for the act that got her pregnant whether he wanted a child or not.

Not so with the woman....! She is responsible for the act only if she chooses to be. No law to make her so ...like with a man. Otherwise, she would be a victim!?

Biased BS.

Making abortion illegal is the only way to send the same message to both men and women and hold them to the same standard.

Were for equality right?

riiiiiiiigght! Rolling Eyes

If the guy is required by law to pay 18 years for a child he did not want.
He's no victim. He should have known better.

If the unborn is torn to bits because the woman does'nt want responsibility.(even if the man wants it)(too bad) It's no victim either. Heck, It's not even a person.

If the woman cannot abort the child by choice.... she did'nt need to know better like the man and whether the unborn are human or what does'nt matter. Without abortion...she is a victim don't you see.

The others involved......too bad! The queen has spoken.

I'm sorry Deist ........the victims are who again?

Diest said:

Regaurdless, there's no compelling reason I've heard that a woman should be forced to complete a preganacy.

What compelling reason is there to force a man to pay 18 years for a child he did not want and came about due to HER choice?

Your answer cuts both ways. Surprised

pro choicer.

0 Replies

I don't believe that Deist ever voiced support for our current child support laws.

0 Replies

fungotheclown wrote:

I don't believe that Deist ever voiced support for our current child support laws.

Really...you don't believe? EVER? Mr. 120 something posts and joined just last month? What's that mean? lol

How is that significant? Laughing

Has he voiced opposition? You know what... save it.

If that's the best response you can muster.....that's sad.

He should have no problem answering this then right?

"What compelling reason is there to force a man to pay 18 years for a child he did not want and came about due to HER choice?"

let's see fungo. be patient.

i'll give you a hint. It's simply a matter of choice that neither are denied. 1 can be legally held responsible for that 1 choice....the other cannot.

Why?

If someone stands in opposition for the law that compels the man to be responsible......it's kinda hard for them to say that pro lifers don't care about the mother or the child now is'nt it?.

booyah.

Be honest fungo. Do you care?

Forget equating a woman to the unborn......can we treat men and women as equals under the law?

0 Replies

Bartikus, I believe in quality, rather than quantity, of posts, a philosophy you clearly don't believe in. My point is that you were accusing him of taking a stance he has not taken, and in doing so, brought in information that is not pertinent to the debate. If I'm not mistaken, Deist is arguing pro-choice from a moralistic, rather than legal perspective.

I think what's sad is that rather than addressing the issue at hand, time and again you resort to personal attacks and irrelevant information. You post in opposition to topics you have little or flawed knowledge and understanding of, you let preconceived notions cloud your judgment, and you exhibit deplorable reasoning skills.

I've seen you respond to several posts as if you have come under personal attack. You want to be respected in this forum? Let me give you a few tips.

1) Take a basic logic class.
2) Honestly investigate both sides of an issue before coming to a decision
3) Keep an open mind
4) Make sure you understand an idea before you attack
5) Pick a standard means of evaluation, and stick to it, regardless of how distasteful you find the results.
6) Grow up some.

0 Replies

fungo, Spot on!

0 Replies

I have often wondered what percentage of the world's population is due to unplanned and unwanted pregnancies?

Gentlemen, inquiring minds need to know. Laughing

0 Replies

When Does Life Begin?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know