Which one of these is the one where they can only abort if the child is dead/lethal to the mother and the like?

At 11/2/10 02:52 AM, aviewaskewed wrote: I'd also like to ask pro-lifers about the concept of "personhood". Etc Etc

Personhood is an interesting and tricky concept. I've struggled with this question too, more so whenever the "Would I want to live as a vegetable" topic comes up (which is in a remote way, related to abortion). I define personhood as the ability to enjoy life and perhaps, but not always, give something meaningful to other's lives. Both are tricky to use as the only determinants of personhood, because both can be defined differently from person to person.

I think it can be generally said that if one has optimal physical and mental health (meaning free of any disease or condition that prohibits one from living life to the fullest degree desired) we would say they have "personhood". Now lets say that person is crippled? They can't walk. Can they still enjoy life to the fullest degree possible? No. Can they still enjoy life and bring joy to others? Yes. We'd say they have "personhood" as well.

What about people with varying degrees of mental retardation. NOW its hard to determine. In your example you bring up a girl who is blind, deaf, and retarded. She's also confined to a wheelchair. Can she enjoy life to the fullest degree? Can she even enjoy life at all? I have no idea. We have no idea how she perceives life, or even if she does. If she was removed from the world would anything be lost? Would anything be gained? Probably not. For other people though, can they find joy in her or inspiration. I doubt it, but who knows. Helen Keller was deaf and blind, yet she found joy in life and was able to inspire people. Granted she wasn't retarded (for all we knew) but still, if she could do it, why not others?

At 11/2/10 03:04 PM, The-General-Public wrote:
The answer is that we need to ditch the idea that there is such a thing as some platonic ideal as personhood. Instead we need to think rationally about the kind of society we want to live in, and how to eliminate suffering the best we can.

This probably sums it up the best way possible. Society needs to decide the world we want to live in. But even this raises questions about what suffering is? Is a mentally handicapped person suffering simply because they'll never have the brain capacities above an eight year old? Or will they have the best life possible, even if they're essentially eight years old? These are damn hard questions.

Perhaps answering this question first can help the abortion debate and determining, socially that is, when a fetus is a life. Or we'll use the abortion debate to solve this question. Personally...since the fetus can't survive without the mother's help until a certain point, I don't consider that a life. If it can't sustain itself without support from another orgasm or technology, it is not a life. And if you throw personhood into this mix, I still don't consider it a life. It may have brainwave activity at a certain point, but what the hell is it thinking about? How dark it is in the womb? The various sounds of the mother's body? Aborting a child is not killing a life, but killing the potential for life and personhood.

These questions are so hard to answer that society may never come to an answer about what is morally right. Because of this, the law shouldn't even meddle with the idea. Just leave the choice to the people who have to make the choice. The pro-lifers will always choose pro-life and the pro-choicers will do just as their name implies; make a choice. Some will go for life, some will go for abortion. Simple as that. If the law must meddle, like I said in my previous post, a time limit ONLY. A time limit to where the scientific community can say that around this point a fetus is able to maintain life outside of the womb with only the natural care of a mother. Not a machine, just the same care as it would get if it were born 2000 years ago.

I am pro-choice, I guess.

Though it would be better if they could get the kid adopted if they cant raise them, I guess.

At 11/2/10 03:44 PM, Aesopian wrote: Which one of these is the one where they can only abort if the child is dead/lethal to the mother and the like?

Pro-life.

Is it a distinctly American thing to label your view either pro-life or pro-choice? Surely this is an oversimplification.

E.g I do think that both for its psychologically damaging effect on a woman, the amount of couples out there that want to adopt, and a certain value of respecting the life of one's child, it is (probably) an immoral or, at the least, an impractical thing to do. HOWEVER, any fool can recognise that ultimately who am I to tell people what's right and what's wrong in this debate? Early into the pregnancy, the developing fetus has a lower level of consciousness than an adult cow... do people still support the death of millions of cows every day? YES. By that moral standard, it seems insane to tell women what they can and can't do with early developed fetus's inside of them. As well as that, if the process wasn't legal then women would likely use back-alley methods that would be dangerous and detrimental to society.

The point - Don't oversimplify an incredibly complicated topic.

At 11/2/10 09:16 AM, Kid wrote:
One thing I always wonder is how Pro-lifers feel about miscarriages?

I don't know about most Pro-Lifers, but I personally feel like people should create and burn down straw men against all those that have differing opinions. YEAH!

At 11/2/10 03:04 PM, The-General-Public wrote:

At 11/2/10 02:52 AM, aviewaskewed wrote:

I'd also like to ask pro-lifers about the concept of "personhood". For example, I remember in high school there was a girl there that was blind, deaf, retarded, and confined to a wheelchair. She had no concept of the world around her and no ability to react with it. Is this girl still a person with a life, or merely a human being who exists? I'd like some other people to chime in too actually as this was always a difficult question for me to come to grips with.

The answer is that we need to ditch the idea that there is such a thing as some platonic ideal as personhood.

Well, ironically I completely agree, but not for the same reasons. You see, 'personhood' wasn't really an issue until pro-choice people wanted to justify abortion with the idea that the unborn weren't really human until some variable point in time. Pro-lifers have always had the same idea of 'personhood' - they are a 'person' at conception. The reasons are varied, but that's how we define it.

As for your point of view, Aviewaskewed, consider you were in that girl's position. Would you really care that you didn't experience the world around you like everyone else? I sure wouldn't - hell, if I were feed decently enough I'd think it was awesome, since I never knew the concepts of sight, sound and control of the world around me, to begin with, so why would I even care?

At 11/2/10 07:49 PM, dirtshake wrote:
Perhaps answering this question first can help the abortion debate and determining, socially that is, when a fetus is a life. Or we'll use the abortion debate to solve this question. Personally...since the fetus can't survive without the mother's help until a certain point, I don't consider that a life. If it can't sustain itself without support from another orgasm or technology, it is not a life.

Oh really? So you've just unintentionally ruled out... well, anyone from the age of two and under, using that definition of personhood (people can't survive on their own without any sense of object permanence, unless the things they need are immediately in front of them when they need them). Awesome, so it's alright to leave children alone to die (or outright end their lives, in the case of an abortion) if they can't take care of themselves outside the care of their parents.

If you're alright with that, it's cool and all, but I suspect you should rethink your position on 'personhood', a little bit. That one is a bit... disturbing.

I love it when Pro-Choice peeps get all excited over the concepts of 'Personhood' - that's when their position really starts to shine!

At 11/4/10 10:44 PM, Gario wrote: Well, ironically I completely agree, but not for the same reasons. You see, 'personhood' wasn't really an issue until pro-choice people wanted to justify abortion with the idea that the unborn weren't really human until some variable point in time. Pro-lifers have always had the same idea of 'personhood' - they are a 'person' at conception. The reasons are varied, but that's how we define it.

Even though it's scientifically incorrect and flat out wrong to say life begins when the sperm fertilizes the egg?

As for your point of view, Aviewaskewed, consider you were in that girl's position. Would you really care that you didn't experience the world around you like everyone else? I sure wouldn't - hell, if I were feed decently enough I'd think it was awesome, since I never knew the concepts of sight, sound and control of the world around me, to begin with, so why would I even care?

But my point is without this external stimuli and with very clearly diminished mental function, how can you even "think" of anything? How are you doing anything more then the most basic functions the brain executes for carrying out life and if that is so, how can you really be said to be "living" and not merely "existing"? That's what I'd like the actual answer to.

At 11/4/10 04:58 PM, Nitr0gen wrote: The point - Don't oversimplify an incredibly complicated topic.

The point is that you made a simple question of political opinion into an overly complicated question of moral philosophy.

At 11/5/10 05:48 AM, RightWingGamer wrote:

At 11/2/10 09:16 AM, Kid wrote:

At 11/2/10 12:31 AM, RightWingGamer wrote: When a HUMAN impregnates a HUMAN, the result of said impregnation is always a HUMAN.

One thing I always wonder is how Pro-lifers feel about miscarriages?

A freak of nature. Tragic, but so are most natural disasters.

1 out of 4 pregnancies ends in miscarriages. Thousands, if not millions could be avoided if the woman were more careful with her body earlier in the pregnancy and refrained from drinking, smoking, exerting herself, eating poorly, or subjecting herself to stress. Shouldn't these miscarriages be prevented if possible?

At 11/5/10 07:18 AM, The-General-Public wrote: Shouldn't these miscarriages be prevented if possible?

Yes, we should prosecute women who have miscarriages.

To be honest, uh I used to be liberal straight across the board and now I'm not.

I think I'm still clinging to pro-choice just to spite the social conservatives.

I've given it some thought and I've come to conclusion that it's not as important as both sides make it out to be and given the level of vitriol I tend to not get involved in debates.

Although really both sides should realize that people with an opposing view living amongst them is not all that shocking (and it seems like most of them do).

At 10/28/10 01:09 AM, HibiscusKazeneko wrote: Sex was originally intended as a vehicle for reproduction, not a recreational activity. These whores need to learn the hard way that

Originally intended? Sex was not made by anyone, no one designed sex.

In short, I oppose abortion on the grounds that it encourages women and girls to have sex with every man they meet without consequences.

So do you oppose birth control or vasectomies or getting your tubes tied?

At 11/5/10 12:37 AM, aviewaskewed wrote:

At 11/4/10 10:44 PM, Gario wrote: Well, ironically I completely agree, but not for the same reasons. You see, 'personhood' wasn't really an issue until pro-choice people wanted to justify abortion with the idea that the unborn weren't really human until some variable point in time. Pro-lifers have always had the same idea of 'personhood' - they are a 'person' at conception. The reasons are varied, but that's how we define it.

Even though it's scientifically incorrect and flat out wrong to say life begins when the sperm fertilizes the egg?

Ooo, both scientifically incorrect and flat out wrong? I'd be alright if it were simply scientifically incorrect, but being flat out wrong, at the same time... I guess I'm in trouble when someone uses redundancies, eh?

Give me the article/link that scientifically proves that it's incorrect (or hell, even an explanation would be great) and I'll comment properly on that. Once you say something is 'scientifically wrong' you need to provide objective evidence to support your argument - otherwise it means as much to me as 'Jesus is the Lord! Believe it!!' does to Poxpower.

Same thing goes for being 'flat out wrong'.

As for your point of view, Aviewaskewed, consider you were in that girl's position. Would you really care that you didn't experience the world around you like everyone else? I sure wouldn't - hell, if I were feed decently enough I'd think it was awesome, since I never knew the concepts of sight, sound and control of the world around me, to begin with, so why would I even care?

But my point is without this external stimuli and with very clearly diminished mental function, how can you even "think" of anything? How are you doing anything more then the most basic functions the brain executes for carrying out life and if that is so, how can you really be said to be "living" and not merely "existing"? That's what I'd like the actual answer to.

Chemicals in the brain. Electrodes sending messages that translate whatever stimuli input you have into familiar sensation we call 'the senses'. The same way everyone else does, I'd guess - if a person doesn't do that then this whole 'person' argument is a moot point, because the subject in question is actually dead (brain death = death, or at least most if not all ethical philosophers think so)...

I don't think you're talking about how people literally think - you're wondering (without actually stating it) what counts as thought, and I already answered that, in a sense. If you never had some sensation, other sensations become more significant. The girl couldn't see or hear or take care of herself, but you know what? That actually doesn't make her upset in the least, in fact; if care was taken to maintain the other senses (taste, smell and touch) that person could have a very fulfilling life... in her own mind. In my humble opinion, the ability to experience these other things and enjoy them count as 'thought', but the question you're asking is a bit ambiguous and subjective so there's no avoiding the fact that we'll probably agree to disagree with this one.

As for the whole 'living' vs 'existing' question, I can say something is living because... well, I can - there's no reason for me not to. I never had to think about it since it never really made a difference to me before, nor would it influence my behavior in any way. The question that I have is why do you care about this? Give me a reason to make the distinction.

At 11/6/10 01:59 AM, Gario wrote: Ooo, both scientifically incorrect and flat out wrong? I'd be alright if it were simply scientifically incorrect, but being flat out wrong, at the same time... I guess I'm in trouble when someone uses redundancies, eh?

Good point. I apologize, that was some unnecessary hyperbole I hit you with there.

Give me the article/link that scientifically proves that it's incorrect (or hell, even an explanation would be great) and I'll comment properly on that. Once you say something is 'scientifically wrong' you need to provide objective evidence to support your argument - otherwise it means as much to me as 'Jesus is the Lord! Believe it!!' does to Poxpower.

Here's one.

Same thing goes for being 'flat out wrong'.

Now who's talking in redundancies? :p

Chemicals in the brain. Electrodes sending messages that translate whatever stimuli input you have into familiar sensation we call 'the senses'.

But there are processes (like "intellect") whereby we interpret this information. Let's also remember that this individual isn't just lacking intellectually, but has two sense denied.

The same way everyone else does, I'd guess - if a person doesn't do that then this whole 'person' argument is a moot point, because the subject in question is actually dead (brain death = death, or at least most if not all ethical philosophers think so)...

But again we seem to not be having the same discussion/argument. Look, I'm not exactly arguing science here, at least not hardcore pure science. I'm arguing science to a degree, but largely philosophy and what not. I'm saying what kind of a "life" are you having if you're ignorant to the world around you and isolated and basically a burden on others? I'm thinking I actually asked the wrong question initially, what I'm really asking is can we simply define "living" as a biological process and nothing more, or is that simply "life" and "living" is something more? Let's try kicking that question around a little if you would? I really am interested in your opinions :)

I don't think you're talking about how people literally think - you're wondering (without actually stating it) what counts as thought, and I already answered that, in a sense. If you never had some sensation, other sensations become more significant. The girl couldn't see or hear or take care of herself, but you know what? That actually doesn't make her upset in the least, in fact; if care was taken to maintain the other senses (taste, smell and touch) that person could have a very fulfilling life... in her own mind. In my humble opinion, the ability to experience these other things and enjoy them count as 'thought', but the question you're asking is a bit ambiguous and subjective so there's no avoiding the fact that we'll probably agree to disagree with this one.

I think so, because again, having actually spent time around this person (since again, this is a living person, not a hypothetical construct) it seemed pretty clear to this observer that there was very little intelligent brain activity going on to conceptualize things like "enjoyment".

As for the whole 'living' vs 'existing' question, I can say something is living because... well, I can - there's no reason for me not to. I never had to think about it since it never really made a difference to me before, nor would it influence my behavior in any way. The question that I have is why do you care about this? Give me a reason to make the distinction.

I wonder about it because in a case like this, there is a tremendous amount of time, money, and resource on the part of many people to care for this person for the entirety of their life. If people don't wish to take on such a burden, I'm not sure it's really right for the rest of us to tell them they have to because of what our morality may tell us.

At 11/6/10 02:57 AM, aviewaskewed wrote:
Here's one.

There we go. I'm just looking through it real quick... Didn't know some of the stuff, actually (Chimeras were pretty neat). I'll look at each of the arguments really quick and see if I agree with them or not (and why, if I don't).

'Conception is a process, not a distinct point in time'
True, to a point, but the entire argument assumes that the process can't be considered the point in time it's 'considered human' simply because... it's a process. That's a cut-and-dry example of the 'Continuum fallacy', which has been shown to be a poor way to form an argument. Using the same argument, I could actually show that the baby in the 2nd and 3rd trimester is still a part of that same process that began oh so long ago and deny that s/he is 'human' (and I have in fact heard that argument before, although not here).

The article does admit that this doesn't really prove anything, though, so I guess they're off the hook.

'Twins, chimeras and clones'
Hmm... interesting, but that seems like a series of poor arguments, to me. Twins - if one life becomes two, yay for them. There was never anything wrong with a different point in time to call whether or not something was a 'life', and to assume that was the case is to create a false dichotomy. Chimeras - I'm going to be honest, this was just an attempt to make the pro-lifers look rather stupid by creating a straw-man out of their position and burning it. Does the mother have any control over what embryo consumes what? Probably not, so why is there a focus on that, as if it creates a moral problem? The two 'humans' become a single 'human', I'd guess, and that'd be the end of it. Clones - like article said, it isn't even an issue yet, so of course there isn't really a position on it, yet. Ask me about that when it becomes an issue in twenty or so years, but in the meantime I obviously shouldn't be expected to have an answer to that (although I'd suspect the answer would be something along the lines of 'point of fusion' or something, but I can't say). I have no answer, but frankly the issue is non-existent so I don't need one, either.

'Potentiality'
I find the argument on the article to actually be an equivocation of the term 'potential', and it's actually pro-lifer's fault, not the pro-choice position. The term they really should use is that from conception it is inevitable for the embryo to become a human being as long as the mother doesn't make the choice to end the process. That gets rid of the 'sperm/egg protection' problem (it creates the problem of whether or not the person will be born, but I hope you see the inevitable problem of that argument). Because we're not even talking about 'potential' anymore, his second point doesn't apply.

'Member of the human species'
Isn't that the argument in the first place? I think arguing the conclusion is called 'begging the question', isn't it? I thought the whole question was 'is it human at the point of conception'? He moves onto the real question (Should the fact that it's human allow it to have moral rights?), so I'll focus on that instead. He claims that psychological abilities are what allow the person to have rights, and for as far as that goes he may be right. However, he is assuming that if one fact is true then the other must be false, and continues to use this as 'proof', when in fact both points could be true. That last point that 'it seems a lot like bigotry or prejudice' is actually 100% subjective information where he doesn't actually provide anything more than a comparison. I find taking away rights because of someone's stance is very different than giving something rights based on their species, so frankly I think the comparison was terrible, to boot. As long as we don't commit the 'exclusive disjunct' problem like the argument above, it's not bad to consider race as a qualifier of rights.

'Unique genetic combination'
I've never heard that argument before, and I can see why it'd be weak. I give that one to him.

'Failure of an embryo to implant'
I'm seeing a pattern in his argument style, actually - it's a very large attempt at 'Reductio ad absurdum', except it's forgotten that you must deduce the conclusion without any induction at all for it to work, or else you create a slippery slope. Perfect example - Zygotes are considered 'life'. True. Zygotes don't always become embryos. True. People should care that this life has ended. Probably not - an inference on his part. People should hold funerals during menstration. Um, no, they shouldn't. People should feel bad that they existed. No, wait, why? Etc. ad nausum. That whole section is just a bunch of assumptions that are in reality quite baseless.

'Conclusion'
Because he used a bunch of stuff that didn't really lead to his conclusion, my conclusion is that this guy needs to really work on his argument skills. It was very superficial with no substance behind it. Looking at the blog page, though, I'm going to assume that there is a heavy, heavy bias toward his position on that page and that he's just writing that to preach to his choir.

Thank you for the article though, Aviewaskewed, I appreciate the effort.

Same thing goes for being 'flat out wrong'.

Now who's talking in redundancies? :p

*rimshot*

As for the whole 'living' vs 'existing' question, I can say something is living because... well, I can - there's no reason for me not to. I never had to think about it since it never really made a difference to me before, nor would it influence my behavior in any way. The question that I have is why do you care about this? Give me a reason to make the distinction.

I wonder about it because in a case like this, there is a tremendous amount of time, money, and resource on the part of many people to care for this person for the entirety of their life. If people don't wish to take on such a burden, I'm not sure it's really right for the rest of us to tell them they have to because of what our morality may tell us.

That's the ticket. So if the person can't take care of themselves then we should be left with the option to let them die, correct? Y'know, in some cases I might be inclined to agree with you on this. I don't see why we need to make the distinction between 'living' and 'existing', though - I can make this decision without creating euphemisms for it. In fact, the only reason people create these sort of euphemisms is if they are not comfortable using the word in question. So why does it make you uncomfortable to consider the person 'living' (rather than 'existing') when making these decisions? That's the point I'm trying to make, here - all these terms ('are they human/people', 'living vs existing', 'having an abortion vs making a choice', etc.) are nothing more than analgesics designed to make the person feel better about their decisions. The question behind this should be obvious - why do people feel bad enough to need to create euphemisms that mask what they mean?

A fetus is no more a person than an acorn is a tree. That being said, a fetus cannot have "rights" protecting it from abortion. At that point in time, the fetus is no more than, say, an organ, in the woman's body, so it belongs to the woman, thus she should be able to decide what she wants to do with it. Also, it's better to have an abortion and regret it than giving birth and regretting having a kid.

At 11/6/10 05:32 PM, Lithium-I wrote: A fetus is no more a person than an acorn is a tree.

Great, a statement that feels it needs nothing more to justify itself than a faulty comparison. Very nice argument, indeed.

:That being said, a fetus cannot have "rights" protecting it from abortion.

From this point, let's just assume the previous premise is correct and draw a conclusion that has nothing to do with it - I guess there is some mysterious force restricting anything other than 'people' from having rights, eh? That's also a fairly large assumption, wouldn't you say?

:At that point in time, the fetus is no more than, say, an organ, in the woman's body, so it belongs to the woman, thus she should be able to decide what she wants to do with it.

Because the fetus has no rights, or isn't a person, or whatever, at some undefined point in time, it is now an organ that is a part of a woman's body (you know, because all things that are in a woman's body are organs). Because of this the woman should have the right to keep it or get rid of it.

Y'know, it's a funny argument, all flaws aside - people think they're in the clear when they define the fetus as an organ. While I guess a woman has the right to get rid of her own organs, if the choice was made for reasons outside of saving her own life (kidney infection, for example) it would be considered self-mutilation. Not that this even applies to this argument (because the fetus actually, by definition, is not an organ), but it's just what comes to mind.

:Also, it's better to have an abortion and regret it than giving birth and regretting having a kid.

Better for whom? Begging the question a little bit, admittedly, but is it better for the mother or the fetus?

At 11/6/10 07:27 PM, Gario wrote:

- I guess there is some mysterious force restricting anything other than 'people' from having rights, eh? That's also a fairly large assumption, wouldn't you say?

It's a larger assumption to say there is some mysterious force giving anything rights at all.

Y'know, it's a funny argument, all flaws aside - people think they're in the clear when they define the fetus as an organ. While I guess a woman has the right to get rid of her own organs, if the choice was made for reasons outside of saving her own life (kidney infection, for example) it would be considered self-mutilation.

Still would be her choice to make. self-mutilation, and even suicide are not against the law.

Better for whom? Begging the question a little bit, admittedly, but is it better for the mother or the fetus?

seeing as fetuses don't have preferences, it's a faulty question.

At 11/6/10 07:27 PM, Gario wrote:

Great, a statement that feels it needs nothing more to justify itself than a faulty comparison. Very nice argument, indeed.

It is concluded that the fetus is or anyway that we had better say it is, a person from the moment of conception. But this conclusion does not follow. Similar things might be said about the development of an acorn into an oak trees, and it does not follow that acorns are oak trees, or that we had better say they are. A newly fertilized ovum, a newly implanted clump of cells, is no more a person than an acorn is an oak tree."

From this point, let's just assume the previous premise is correct and draw a conclusion that has nothing to do with it - I guess there is some mysterious force restricting anything other than 'people' from having rights, eh? That's also a fairly large assumption, wouldn't you say?

Is terminating a fetus, which can neither feel emotions nor be conscious of its own "existence," really be considered equivalent to killing a "person?" An embryo is not a person because it satisfies only one criterion, namely consciousness (and this only after it becomes susceptible to pain). Other sets of criteria conclude that an embryo lacks personhood (and a right to life) because it lacks self-consciousness, rationality, and autonomy.

Because the fetus has no rights, or isn't a person, or whatever, at some undefined point in time, it is now an organ that is a part of a woman's body (you know, because all things that are in a woman's body are organs). Because of this the woman should have the right to keep it or get rid of it.

For one thing, never did I once say a fetus was an organ. Never. I said it was no more than an organ, meaning that, it's a part of woman's body, and it has to stay there in order to be sustained.

Abortion may be immoral, but it is still a woman's right. There are many things that are seen as immoral by some people, but which must, nevertheless, be upheld as a right. As is argued above, the fetus has no absolute right to the woman's body, and therefore the woman has a right to "unplug" (abort). This is the case no matter how "wrong" we might believe the act of "unplugging" and killing the fetus to be.

At 11/6/10 08:38 PM, The-General-Public wrote:

It's a larger assumption to say there is some mysterious force giving anything rights at all.

Until the Government comes to throw you in prison without warrant or trial.

Then you start to whine and bitch like George Carlin about how your "Rights" were violated.

At 11/6/10 08:45 PM, Lithium-I wrote:

It is concluded that the fetus is or anyway that we had better say it is, a person from the moment of conception. But this conclusion does not follow. Similar things might be said about the development of an acorn into an oak trees, and it does not follow that acorns are oak trees, or that we had better say they are.

An infant isn't an adult, but both are still human.

It's called a life cycle, smart one.

Is terminating a fetus, which can neither feel emotions nor be conscious of its own "existence," really be considered equivalent to killing a "person?"

Depends...

Is killing a pregnant woman grounds for Double homicide? Last I checked... Yes.
Would tearing out the life support system of another family's relative in a psychotic rage amount of homicide? Why... yes it would.

So your own examples are contradicted by laws pro-choice people, ironically, support.

Congrats on consistency.

:An embryo is not a person because it satisfies only one criterion, namely consciousness (and this only after it becomes susceptible to pain).

See above.

Also, you do realize that people are born with genetic disorders that render them incapable of feeling pain, right?

I guess they aren't people either.

No more than someone on life support is person because they lack a consciousness.

But wait... if someone is on a life support system, then that would be as if they were a fetus. So... would that mean the machine "owns" them?

Hurray for more contradictory examples!

For one thing, never did I once say a fetus was an organ. Never. I said it was no more than an organ, meaning that, it's a part of woman's body, and it has to stay there in order to be sustained.

Except for that whole separate genetic identity thing.

And the fact that there are abortion survivors...

Yeah screw them.

Abortion may be immoral, but it is still a woman's right.

An imaginary one based on no scientific grounds whatsoever.

It's merely an arbitrary standard made up by people like you.

After all, what more is Roe v. Wade than a repeat of the Dread Scott decision? Only rather than claiming individuals could only be "human" if they were white; moving the bar to say you could only be "human" if you aren't a fetus... despite it being made up of living cells... that everyone was at one point... as part of the human development life cycle...

PS: You're still an idiot.

At 11/6/10 09:40 PM, Memorize wrote: PS: You're still an idiot.

What? I'm sorry, after reading this I forgot everything you had said before. Sad. might have been a good argument...

An infant isn't an adult, but both are still human.

It's called a life cycle, smart one.

Alas, an infant left the womb, equivalent to a small tree leaving the seed. At that point, you can call the seed a tree.

Depends...

Is killing a pregnant woman grounds for Double homicide? Last I checked... Yes.

Only if the fetus is in the third trimester, because by then they could survive outside of the womb. . By the time a women is in the third trimester she has no doubt decided she wants to keep the pregnancy - third trimester abortions almost never happen.

Would tearing out the life support system of another family's relative in a psychotic rage amount of homicide? Why... yes it would.

Most "personhood" lists diverge over precisely which features confer a right to life, but tend to propose that they are developed psychological features not found in embryos.

So your own examples are contradicted by laws pro-choice people, ironically, support.

Congrats on consistency.

Nope, I'm consistent.

Also, you do realize that people are born with genetic disorders that render them incapable of feeling pain, right?

I guess they aren't people either.

They, as like I said, have developed psychological features not found in embryos.

No more than someone on life support is person because they lack a consciousness.

But wait... if someone is on a life support system, then that would be as if they were a fetus. So... would that mean the machine "owns" them?

Hurray for more contradictory examples!

But the people on life support have gained personhood before, gaining inalienable rights such as life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. These rights are given at birth.

Except for that whole separate genetic identity thing.

And the fact that there are abortion survivors...

Yeah screw them.

They would exclusive have to had been third trimester abortions, which, again, almost never happen.

An imaginary one based on no scientific grounds whatsoever.

It's merely an arbitrary standard made up by people like you.

Who says rights have to be based on scientific grounds? You can't prove scientifically the right to free speech and such.

At 11/6/10 10:08 PM, Lithium-I wrote:

Alas, an infant left the womb, equivalent to a small tree leaving the seed. At that point, you can call the seed a tree.

I'm not saying the seed is a tree.

But to sit there and say that the seed that eventually became the tree aren't the same individual, is just plain dumb.

All the tree is, is a later development of that individual's life cycle.

Depends..

Is killing a pregnant woman grounds for Double homicide? Last I checked... Yes.

Only if the fetus is in the third trimester, because by then they could survive outside of the womb. . By the time a women is in the third trimester she has no doubt decided she wants to keep the pregnancy - third trimester abortions almost never happen.

Oh, but wait... that's not what the law says... is it?

Because if you do kill a pregnant woman, regardless of what stage of the pregnancy, the law states it to be double homicide... which is supported by pro-choice groups with this statement:

"But the woman would have had the child, therefore it is a person!"

lulz

Most "personhood" lists diverge over precisely which features confer a right to life, but tend to propose that they are developed psychological features not found in embryos.

Which isn't what you said earlier.

You said that the fetus would have to have consciousness and be aware of itself in order to be considered a person.

Well guess what, here we have an example of where consciousness and awareness aren't present, yet the law still states: They are a person!

Wahoo!

Nope, I'm consistent.

No, because you still defended a brain-dead individual on life support with no self-awareness as a person.

They, as like I said, have developed psychological features not found in embryos.

Oh, so now pain isn't a criteria?

Then why did you even bother bringing it up on the first place?

Oh right... now you're just backtracking.

But the people on life support have gained personhood before, gaining inalienable rights such as life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. These rights are given at birth.

Under that logic, a dead individual with no living cells whatsoever would be considered more a person than a LIVING fetus simply based on the fact that they ONCE UPON A TIME were born.

On top of that, you've now resorted to the typical pro-choice argument above (on double homicide) where science and logic (according to you anyway) are completely thrown out the window.

What does an individual who USED to have consciousness have anything to do with that individual CURRENTLY not having any Consciousness or awareness?

I was under the assumption that, according to you (again), that you had to HAVE specific cognitive functions (key word being functions that have to... you know, function) in order to be a person.

They would exclusive have to had been third trimester abortions, which, again, almost never happen.

Really? Then how about this scenario!

Woman goes to have an abortion. The abortion procedure fails and ends up delivering a newborn infant, which the physician then promptly throws away to die in a garbage bin out in the back.

The Physician is then charged with homicide!

Which no pro-choice group opposes!

Now, what was the developmental difference of the fetus before the procedure (when it was legal to kill it) and after (when it was murder)?

Oh, right... there was absolutely no difference in development.

Now you could say that the doctor should be able to do that, but you already said that birth, in and of itself, automatically guaranteed rights.

So... how would premature births work then?

Btw... Oh, lookie here!

23 weeks pregnant by the way. Within the 2nd trimester and legal... despite the fact that healthy infants have been born earlier and lived.

Who says rights have to be based on scientific grounds? You can't prove scientifically the right to free speech and such.

Except that you already said you believed in the right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. So you can't play that card.

I'm not saying the seed is a tree.

But to sit there and say that the seed that eventually became the tree aren't the same individual, is just plain dumb.

All the tree is, is a later development of that individual's life cycle.

Is every single sperm cell in my jizz a person? How about the eggs in women, are they people too? Should we ban masturbation and menstruation because they kill things that could become people?

Oh, but wait... that's not what the law says... is it?

Because if you do kill a pregnant woman, regardless of what stage of the pregnancy, the law states it to be double homicide... which is supported by pro-choice groups with this statement:

"But the woman would have had the child, therefore it is a person!"

Actually that's only the law in 25 states. It's a state's decision. Half the country says that's not the law.
http://www.nrlc.org/Unborn_Victims/State homicidelaws092302.html

Which isn't what you said earlier.

You said that the fetus would have to have consciousness and be aware of itself in order to be considered a person.

It's an extension to what I said. And besides, if a fetus was a person according to law, then all miscarriages would need a federal investigation, and abortionists would be charged with murder. Therefore, there is a fundamental inconsistency in this position.

No, because you still defended a brain-dead individual on life support with no self-awareness as a person.

They, as like I said, have developed psychological features not found in embryos.

Oh, so now pain isn't a criteria?

Then why did you even bother bringing it up on the first place?

Oh right... now you're just backtracking.

When didn't I say pain wasn't a criteria? I said most criteria have to be met, not all, and the fetus never shows more than one. You are given rights at birth. Birth. They can't be taken away after.

Under that logic, a dead individual with no living cells whatsoever would be considered more a person than a LIVING fetus simply based on the fact that they ONCE UPON A TIME were born.

On top of that, you've now resorted to the typical pro-choice argument above (on double homicide) where science and logic (according to you anyway) are completely thrown out the window.

What does an individual who USED to have consciousness have anything to do with that individual CURRENTLY not having any Consciousness or awareness?

I was under the assumption that, according to you (again), that you had to HAVE specific cognitive functions (key word being functions that have to... you know, function) in order to be a person.

They would exclusive have to had been third trimester abortions, which, again, almost never happen.

Really? Then how about this scenario!

Woman goes to have an abortion. The abortion procedure fails and ends up delivering a newborn infant, which the physician then promptly throws away to die in a garbage bin out in the back.

The Physician is then charged with homicide!

Which no pro-choice group opposes!

Now, what was the developmental difference of the fetus before the procedure (when it was legal to kill it) and after (when it was murder)?

Oh, right... there was absolutely no difference in development.

Now you could say that the doctor should be able to do that, but you already said that birth, in and of itself, automatically guaranteed rights.

So... how would premature births work then?

Btw... Oh, lookie here!

23 weeks pregnant by the way. Within the 2nd trimester and legal... despite the fact that healthy infants have been born earlier and lived.

The link doesn't work. So I can't lookie there. Either way.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/co mmons/5/57/Prenatal_development_table.sv g

So 2/3rds into the second trimester you have a 50% chance of surviving outside of the womb. That's close enough to the third trimester.

Except that you already said you believed in the right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. So you can't play that card.

Whut.

At 11/4/10 10:44 PM, Gario wrote: Oh really? So you've just unintentionally ruled out... well, anyone from the age of two and under, using that definition of personhood (people can't survive on their own without any sense of object permanence, unless the things they need are immediately in front of them when they need them). Awesome, so it's alright to leave children alone to die (or outright end their lives, in the case of an abortion) if they can't take care of themselves outside the care of their parents.

If you're alright with that, it's cool and all, but I suspect you should rethink your position on 'personhood', a little bit. That one is a bit... disturbing.

I didn't mean to rule out babies and toddlers. I don't support leaving children to die. That's just absurd, though you have showed how complicating the issue of personhood is. What I was trying to say, and unsuccessfully I suppose, was that a fetus doesn't have the characteristics of personhood up until a certain point, or even until it is born. Perhaps using the "survive on its own" argument wasn't the best choice because you make a valid and great point about babies, since they would most certainly die if left alone (something I don't want just to be clear). I was trying to make the point that the fetus can't survive without a biological connection to the mother whereas babies can't survive without the physical care of another human being.

Perhaps another characteristic of personhood can be the ability to learn. Babies have this capability, but do fetus'? I say no.

Again its a vastly complicated issue, which is why I'm pro-choice. Let people work through their emotions and decide for themselves.

This is all so rediculous using any religious arguments.

You know what they used to do when a woman had a child pre-marriage? They murdered her before she had the chance to have one, this was the original abortion, sanctioned by the church and widely accepted.

marriage itself was a contraceptive, no children until you were married and you have to support each and every one.

There was a REASON for such barbaric behavior however, although the foolish peasants did it for the reason that the church sanctioned it, and to let off a little steam, the church allowed and encouraged it to limit the population of their region and make sure everyone can eat and live comfortably.

Now in this day and age the reason is still there, the act is not nearly as barbaric, and the same sentiment the villagers had for murdering is used to try and save something that is not alive.

CHOICE, the one thing that organized religion hates the most.

At 11/7/10 12:07 AM, Lithium-I wrote:

Is every single sperm cell in my jizz a person? How about the eggs in women, are they people too? Should we ban masturbation and menstruation because they kill things that could become people?

It's your DNA, smart one. Not another individual.

Let me help you out with this: We are all, from the moment of conception, a combination of DNA from both parents.

Is your jizz genetically separate from you?

This is just another of one of those idiot pro-choicer arguments which, once again, have no scientific backing whatsoever!

What a shocker!

Actually that's only the law in 25 states. It's a state's decision.

No shit.

So why do you people support a "state' decision on one hand, but not the other?

Pick up the pace, son.

Though you've once again, neglected to condemn those pro-abortion groups who NEVER criticize those laws.

L to the O to the L!

It's an extension to what I said.

Yeah! Just like "pain", but we saw where that argument went!

And besides, if a fetus was a person according to law, then all miscarriages would need a federal investigation, and abortionists would be charged with murder. Therefore, there is a fundamental inconsistency in this position.

Not really.

Abortionists being charged with murder would be funny as all hell.

But I fail to see where miscarriages would amount to federal investigations or even criminal charges.

Considering miscarriages wouldn't amount to an intent and the privacy would be between patient and doctor.

When didn't I say pain wasn't a criteria? I said most criteria have to be met,

And what let's you define "most"?

I could say a fetus should be a person when it begins development of its own heart and later begins pumping its own blood through its own genetically independent body.

But you wouldn't accept that because that starts WAY before the end of the 1st trimester (effectively making around 80% of abortions illegitimate).

And could you stay consistent at all?

First it's blood. Then when provided an example of how that won't work... it's cognitive functions... then when provided another example of how that doesn't make any sense... it's "well they USED to be aware"... and when that didn't work, it's suddenly "most have to be met"?

W...T...F?!

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/co mmons/5/57/Prenatal_development_table.sv g

So 2/3rds into the second trimester you have a 50% chance of surviving outside of the womb. That's close enough to the third trimester.

Congrats on skipping over an entire section of my reply because you couldn't back up your bullshit.

Even still: You're willing to kill a fetus during the 2nd trimester (of which people are alive today) based on what MIGHT happen?

Do you know how many dying patients would love to have even a 50-50 chance of survival?

After all, YOU'RE the one defending these abortions. You're the one defending Roe v. Wade. How can you support the woman going for an abortion, but then condemn the physician for killing it and throwing the newborn into the garbage when the procedure fails?

Whut.

You're still a moron.

So answer one of the questions you refused to answer up top:

According to you: Is a dead individual with no living cells considered more of a person than a LIVING fetus?

I'm all for killing dead people.

At 11/7/10 04:24 PM, Memorize wrote:

And besides, if a fetus was a person according to law, then all miscarriages would need a federal investigation, and abortionists would be charged with murder. Therefore, there is a fundamental inconsistency in this position.

Not really.

Actually yes. The family, medical examiner or even family doctor has the right to rquest an autopsy. If a fetus is classed as a person, all terminations whether be done by humans or nature would probably have to go an investigation before a death certifcate was issued. But even after that, you and the docs (sometimes even without your consent), can request an investigation.

At 11/7/10 05:11 PM, The-universe wrote:

Actually yes.

Only in your delusional fantasy.