Apologies this will appear twice - this anti spam thing is starting to get annoying ...
As long as you include, in your re-linking, my compiled responses, no problem. And no more claims about my "ignoring" your garbage, eh? Enough is enough, even from your kind.
But in your responses, much like your responses here, you do ignore stuff so its hardly garbage.
In all your responses you begin by stating to the effect "no one, nowhere at no time" grants some sort of status of personhood to under 3 month old fetuses and what not.
In all my responses I provide the same reference to show how that statement is incorrect.
In all your further responses, you totally neglect to address this information. This thread is perhaps slightly different in that you momentarily fall back to a specific cross section of the USA population ... but then in the same post haphazardly expand it again to "no one, nowhere at no time" scenario
If you want to join an actual discussion, you need an example of a people, a culture, (if you want relevance, a modern Western one, the only type actually involved here) that considers and treats a three month embryo as a person in situations other than willful abortion.
First of all, if you want to isolate discussion to contemporary western paradigms, you can't use catch-phrases like "real world categories" or venture into any other sort of "no one, nowhere at no time" statements and the like. In fact it would probably pay for you to openly declare at the start that you are exclusively talking about particular contemporary mainstream western communities so it becomes painfully obvious when you exceed your parameters.
If however you want to suggest that only mainstream western communities are valid in an ethical understanding of a proposition (and are therefore "real world categories" et al) then I am afraid you are in the wrong century of academic discussion
So before we proceed any further, I think we have to get a conclusive statement from you - are you talking exclusively about contemporary western mainstream communities or do you wish to proceed with something more along the lines of this (which faces numerous problems on all fronts) :
Iceaura :
There are no graves in the cemeteries for early miscarriages, no funerals for ectopic pregnancies, no procedures or routines anywhere under any circumstances that treat an early embryo as a child in any way, except one; no one - not the most rabid and rigid of the "prolifers", not you, not l g, no one - has ever in history treated a three month embryo as a child in any circumstance, except - -
and also
Iceaura :
Mention away. Meanwhile, the flagrant and fundamental dishonesty of your arguments and assertions on this subject is something you should correct in the future - you have never in your life shown or advocated general behavior consistent with the belief that a three month embryo is a human being, in any circumstance other than voluntary abortion instigated by the pregnant woman. Neither has anyone else, in all of human history AFAIK. Such a belief cannot be the basis of any argument you make honestly on this forum.
Not a born baby being assigned its birthday,
what on earth are you talking about?
birthdays correlating to one's actual birth are universal, regardless which way you want to slice and dice the human population
not a superstition regarding twin births of live babies,
Its not a superstition - in a majority of twins being conceived its a case of "first in last out". whether the birthing results in still borns or whatever doesn't change the order of things either (learn something new every day, huh?). Why else did you think the first born was declared the youngest?
not a woman talking to their future child in the womb,
not invocations of grief at the loss of a developing embryo and all the dreams that died with it,
So i take it you want to scrub "behaviours" from your posts on the previous page?
Why is pregnancy loss a concern?
Some pregnancy losses do not cause any problems, while others may be very serious and life threatening for the mother, if untreated. However, the most difficult part for most families is the emotional stress of the loss itself.
The loss of a baby at any time in pregnancy can be emotionally and physically difficult for the mother and other members of the family. For some families, the timing of the loss in the pregnancy may make the experience more or less difficult. For example, an early loss, before the mother even knew she was pregnant may not be as stressful as a loss later in pregnancy, after feeling fetal movement or seeing the fetus on ultrasound examination. However, parents may have strong feelings and sadness whenever a loss occurs.
(Please don't try and equate this with someone grieving for the loss of their teddy bear unless you want to further embarrass yourself)
Iceaura :- " ....no graves, no population statistics, no acknowledgement in medical records, no religious rituals, no concomitant or
appropriate behavior of any kind, indicate otherwise."
:shrug:
but rather something that addresses the issue at hand.
Oh, you mean like funeral services for children in the womb?
Western links if you want to run with your eurocentric circa 19th century mode of thinking
http://www.uk-sands.org/support/when/funerals.html
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/misc/hb_fun.pdf
Hence the indirect approach re invalid claims of moral high ground - the "personhood" of embryos, killing innocent babies, assertions that "life begins at conception", etc. Claims which are made and acted on in no other circumstances than abortion.
:roflmao:
Kind of like saying "If we exclude death from artillery, gunshots, nuclear blasts, or drowning or otherwise suffering fatally as a consequence of one's vehicle being assaulted in the before-mentioned manner and/or finally a lack of adequate supplies for things such as food, shelter and medicine on the battlefield, we can safely conclude that practically no soldiers died during WW2"
The problem is that the central issue - the discomfort arising in authoritarian religious types when confronted by the free will of a sexual woman - is hard to handle from the "prolife" pov without revealing oneself to be on dubious and objectionable moral grounds, and ethically completely without foundation.
Actually the problem is the various mind tricks people play on each other (and even themselves) to pretend that a child in the womb isn't a person. Your attempt to talk about an absence of any ritual, behaviour, or systematic method of dealing with children in the womb is clear evidence of this.