Abortion

[columbus]

So, it all bolis down to what we consider humanhood.

Humanhood?
What is that?

Sounds like a new word invented to plaster over the irrational belief that some humans are dispensable, but not the ones you decide have value.
Tom

 

[viole]

You are a bunch of duplicating cells.
Nevertheless, I oppose any other human being feeling entitled to choose your death.

Tom

Well, I also have a nervous system. And a fully formed brain. If ai were brain dead, no matter what happens to the rest, I would have no problem if you terminate me.

Ciao

- viole

 

[viole]

Humanhood?
What is that?

Sounds like a new word invented to plaster over the irrational belief that some humans are dispensable, but not the ones you decide have value.
Tom

Ok, personhood, then.

I deny that a one hour old embryo is a person.

Ciao

- viole

 

[dianaiad]

Men and woman need to take responsability just because of a strong opinion of yours?

That's not what I wrote. It is my strong opinion that men and women need to take responsibility. Are you going to argue that they are NOT responsible for their freely taken choices?

Well, i am the opinion that a bunch or a couple of duplicating cells is not a human being. Not in the slightest.

I never claimed that such was a 'human being." that's a legal designation, not a medical or scientific one. Are you going to claim that a 'couple of duplicating cells,' if they are human cells growing into a fetus, are NOT at least one human life?

Because I don't know a single scientist or doctor who would agree with you on that one.

And what makes your opinion more acceptable, or authoritative, than mine? I mean, I can claim that a newborn baby isn't a human being, either, with exactly as much support as your opinion. After all, a huge percentage of human cultures have drawn the line of 'human being' considerably later than birth. Shoot, the Romans didn't figure that a man became a 'human being' until he was 21. Until then, his father could kill him for any reason at all.

But my claim is that it is a human life. Are you going to argue that it isn't? Why? Is there some possibility that a conceptus resulting from the joining of a human sperm and a human egg is going to grow up to be a platypus?

So, it all bolis down to what we consider humanhood. And your opinion is as good as mine.

Ciao

- viole

Ah. you are talking about laws, not science. Don't do that. Laws can, and do, change according to the shifting opinions of the culture. I am talking about human life...whatever the society around it classifies it as. Again, there have been many, many cultures that didn't assign 'personhood,' or 'human being' status to children until they were, eight days, or ten days, or two or three years, or puberty (that was a pretty popular line) or some arbitrary age considerably beyond that.

If you lived in one of those cultures, would you be this blase' about a parent killing his or her...oh...eight year old?

Newly born infant?

Two year old?

Teenager?

Why not? Their opinions would certainly have been as good as yours, right?

Well, mine is certainly as good as yours, and equally certainly based more solidly in science than in politically correct cultural more's.

I'm certainly not arguing for the designation 'human being' to be given to the unborn, though if that would do the trick, I wouldn't be opposed. the only 'right' I would like to see the unborn human have is the right to try to survive without that survival being made impossible. Not to give it the right to have his/her life considered above the life of the mother, but at least to be acknowledged that s/he IS human, and that killing it is ending a human life.

Not 'a bunch of cells.' Not something to be tossed aside without thought.

 

[viole]

That's not what I wrote. It is my strong opinion that men and women need to take responsibility. Are you going to argue that they are NOT responsible for their freely taken choices?



I never claimed that such was a 'human being." that's a legal designation, not a medical or scientific one. Are you going to claim that a 'couple of duplicating cells,' if they are human cells growing into a fetus, are NOT at least one human life?

Because I don't know a single scientist or doctor who would agree with you on that one.

And what makes your opinion more acceptable, or authoritative, than mine? I mean, I can claim that a newborn baby isn't a human being, either, with exactly as much support as your opinion. After all, a huge percentage of human cultures have drawn the line of 'human being' considerably later than birth. Shoot, the Romans didn't figure that a man became a 'human being' until he was 21. Until then, his father could kill him for any reason at all.

But my claim is that it is a human life. Are you going to argue that it isn't? Why? Is there some possibility that a conceptus resulting from the joining of a human sperm and a human egg is going to grow up to be a platypus?



Ah. you are talking about laws, not science. Don't do that. Laws can, and do, change according to the shifting opinions of the culture. I am talking about human life...whatever the society around it classifies it as. Again, there have been many, many cultures that didn't assign 'personhood,' or 'human being' status to children until they were, eight days, or ten days, or two or three years, or puberty (that was a pretty popular line) or some arbitrary age considerably beyond that.

If you lived in one of those cultures, would you be this blase' about a parent killing his or her...oh...eight year old?

Newly born infant?

Two year old?

Teenager?

Why not? Their opinions would certainly have been as good as yours, right?

Well, mine is certainly as good as yours, and equally certainly based more solidly in science than in politically correct cultural more's.

I'm certainly not arguing for the designation 'human being' to be given to the unborn, though if that would do the trick, I wouldn't be opposed. the only 'right' I would like to see the unborn human have is the right to try to survive without that survival being made impossible. Not to give it the right to have his/her life considered above the life of the mother, but at least to be acknowledged that s/he IS human, and that killing it is ending a human life.

Not 'a bunch of cells.' Not something to be tossed aside without thought.

Point taken, that is why i changed humanhood with personhood ina previous post.

So, for me a one hour or one day old embryo is not a person. And that is why I do not feel particularly emotional in case of deployment of things like the day after pill.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Brickjectivity]

Did Ms. Rowe reference the Catholic Church somewhere?
I don't remember it.
Tom

Its got everything to do with the question, but you have a good point.

 

[columbus]

Ok, personhood, then.

I live in the USA.
Black people weren't considered persons for most of our history. I'm rather difficult about the subject, distinguishing human beings from persons. I don't believe in that sort of distinction.

I deny that a one hour old embryo is a person.

Yeah, and black people aren't persons either.
Well, I am not on that page with you.
Tom

 

[viole]

I live in the USA.
Black people weren't considered persons for most of our history. I'm rather difficult about the subject, distinguishing human beings from persons. I don't believe in that sort of distinction.


Yeah, and black people aren't persons either.
Well, I am not on that page with you.
Tom

I don’t think that human stupidity (e. The KKK, or the nazis) deserves enough importance to scare us and to prevent us discussing these issues rationally. So, i think it is self evident that comparing this with racism is ridicolus.

Well, I have no problems to make that distinction. For I do not consider a one hour old embryo, without nervous system and without any organ at all, a person.

I think the difference is that I think persons are mainly brains. Or the functioning of them. They are not characterized by their DNA or other organs. I could even attribute personhood to artificial brains, if they show signs of feeling stuff.

Therefore, no brain, no person. For instance, what would you do with a human being born without a brain, or with just what is necessary to control heart and such, but still capable of being kept alive for 100 years?

So, i have no emotional feelings towards terminating one day old human embryos, whlle I might have issues in terminating suffiiently advanced artificial brains.

Ciao

- viole

 

[columbus]

Well, I have no problems to make that distinction. For I do not consider a one hour old embryo, without nervous system and without any organ at all, a person.

Neither did the 18th century European slavers. Black people weren't persons.
I don't consider your opinion, based on age, any more objective or moral.

You have your reasons for explaining away the personhood of human beings you prefer to ignore, and so did they. I don't see any big difference. You have the power to eliminate the personhood of people you find inconvenient and so did your euro-Christian ancestors.
Have at it.
Tom

 

[viole]

Neither did the 18th century European slavers. Black people weren't persons.
I don't consider your opinion, based on age, any more objective or moral.

Well, obviosuly. Given that there is not such a thing as moral objectivity.

However, you seem to indicate that places like Sweden today have the same moral stature as the KKK or the nazis (infamous for denying personhood to jews).

Is that so?

Ciao

- viole

 

[dianaiad]

I disagree. The fact that the fetus doens't have certain qualities *yet* is exactly why it is OK to kill it without other moral issues.

Why?

Is it OK to kill the winner of a race because he hasn't crossed the finish line 'yet?"

Is it OK to kill a two year old because she can't pass the California bar exam 'yet?"

Is it OK to shoot all the athletes during the Olympic opening ceremonies because none of them have won medals 'yet?"

............................and with foeti, we aren't even talking about people who might or might not achieve the goal; we are talking about human lives who WILL, unless they die first, absolutely achieve the quality you want to kill them in order to prevent them from getting.

No, that analogy is wrong. The relevant thing for determining whether someone is a legal person is not whether they have claimed an inheritance. It *is* whether they have the capacity for consciousness. If that heir never had the capacity to think, emote, etc, then there is no moral issue.

If I were arguing legal personhood, your argument might have some weight, but I'm not. Legal personhood is an arbitrary assignment by the culture surrounding one. It has no moral authority on its own. If it did, it would have been moral for people to call slaves 2/3 of a person.

Legal personhood MAY (not always, but 'may') be based upon the moral values of the culture, but don't get the two mixed up.

Well, I disagree that this is the only time. Yes, an unplanned pregnancy is often a tragedy. But remember that the woman in whom that fetus is growing is a full person with rights over her body. In particular, she has the right to require the fetus to be removed from her body (or else she is simply a slave to that fetus). She may NOT have the right to say the fetus should be killed if it can live after that removal, but it seems to me she has the right to insist that nobody else be using her body without her permission.

My response to that one is different...that is, I think that whenever a woman has consensual sex, she is giving permission for that fetus to grow in her body if doing so isn't going to kill her or permanently harm her, because she knew that pregnancy is not only a possible result of sex, it's what sex is FOR....ultimately, the continuation of the species. Everything that makes sex fun is to make sure that people engage in it....which ensures procreation. Everything about sex that bonds people together is about continuing the species. It's the whole point of the exercise, no matter what other benefits sex might have.

I think that she has every right in the world to attempt to prevent pregnancy if she can, but ultimately both she and the man MUST know that the creation of a human life IS a possibility. They must, IMO, weigh their wish not to become pregnant against the possibility of actually killing/ending a human life, and make their choices accordingly. IF, again IMO, they know already that they WILL choose abortion should they become pregnant, then they shouldn't have sex. Because, again IMO, they are putting a few moments of whoopie above the life of another human. I find that to be irresponsible selfishness at its highest level, frankly.

And I can no longer claim that it is almost impossible to become pregnant if the couple use all possible birth control methods. Sometimes...well, I have this adorable niece who was born nine months after her father...who'd had a vasectomy, (which healed) and her mother, who was on birth control (she really believed in the 'suspenders and belt' method, but who had a cold) had a little fun one Christmas.

Those two, however, agree with me on this issue. They did everything they could...but voila'...an amazing little girl showed up anyway. It happens. These decisions need to be made BEFORE engaging in sex.

I might not agree with the argument here (of course, I don't) but I can't dismiss it as specious, circular and sophistry.

But not a *fully* human life: there is no consciousness, for example. What they may or may not have achieved is irrelevant.

No, this is a 'true' dichotomy. it's either human or it's not. It's either alive or it's not. It will either become a human adult, or it will die first. To argue that it is somehow not human because it hasn't reached a specific milestone in its development is....no. There is no scientific or medical support for that. Or, as I mentioned earlier...what, there's a chance that if you let it grow, you'll give birth to an Aardvaak?

 

[viole]

Why?

Is it OK to kill the winner of a race because he hasn't crossed the finish line 'yet?"

Is it OK to kill a two year old because she can't pass the California bar exam 'yet?"

Is it OK to shoot all the athletes during the Olympic opening ceremonies because none of them have won medals 'yet?"

............................and with foeti, we aren't even talking about people who might or might not achieve the goal; we are talking about human lives who WILL, unless they die first, absolutely achieve the quality you want to kill them in order to prevent them from getting.



If I were arguing legal personhood, your argument might have some weight, but I'm not. Legal personhood is an arbitrary assignment by the culture surrounding one. It has no moral authority on its own. If it did, it would have been moral for people to call slaves 2/3 of a person.

Legal personhood MAY (not always, but 'may') be based upon the moral values of the culture, but don't get the two mixed up.



My response to that one is different...that is, I think that whenever a woman has consensual sex, she is giving permission for that fetus to grow in her body if doing so isn't going to kill her or permanently harm her, because she knew that pregnancy is not only a possible result of sex, it's what sex is FOR....ultimately, the continuation of the species. Everything that makes sex fun is to make sure that people engage in it....which ensures procreation. Everything about sex that bonds people together is about continuing the species. It's the whole point of the exercise, no matter what other benefits sex might have.

I think that she has every right in the world to attempt to prevent pregnancy if she can, but ultimately both she and the man MUST know that the creation of a human life IS a possibility. They must, IMO, weigh their wish not to become pregnant against the possibility of actually killing/ending a human life, and make their choices accordingly. IF, again IMO, they know already that they WILL choose abortion should they become pregnant, then they shouldn't have sex. Because, again IMO, they are putting a few moments of whoopie above the life of another human. I find that to be irresponsible selfishness at its highest level, frankly.

And I can no longer claim that it is almost impossible to become pregnant if the couple use all possible birth control methods. Sometimes...well, I have this adorable niece who was born nine months after her father...who'd had a vasectomy, (which healed) and her mother, who was on birth control (she really believed in the 'suspenders and belt' method, but who had a cold) had a little fun one Christmas.

Those two, however, agree with me on this issue. They did everything they could...but voila'...an amazing little girl showed up anyway. It happens. These decisions need to be made BEFORE engaging in sex.

I might not agree with the argument here (of course, I don't) but I can't dismiss it as specious, circular and sophistry.



No, this is a 'true' dichotomy. it's either human or it's not. It's either alive or it's not. It will either become a human adult, or it will die first. To argue that it is somehow not human because it hasn't reached a specific milestone in its development is....no. There is no scientific or medical support for that. Or, as I mentioned earlier...what, there's a chance that if you let it grow, you'll give birth to an Aardvaak?

What you think of abortion in case the embryo is the result of a rape?

Ciao

- viole

 

[columbus]

However, you seem to indicate that places like Sweden today have the same moral stature as the KKK or the nazis (infamous for denying personhood to jews).

Where, exactly, did I "indicate" this?

Please post a quote #, or quote me. Because I think you're doing the same thing that homophobic bigots do, vaguely referring to your own interpretation of things that weren't actually said.
Tom

 

[viole]

Where, exactly, did I "indicate" this?

Please post a quote #, or quote me. Because I think you're doing the same thing that homophobic bigots do, vaguely referring to your own interpretation of things that weren't actually said.
Tom

You didnt. But it is a necessary conclusion.

Consensus on termination of pregnancies in today’s Sweden is quite general. And the reasons are mainly that we do not assign personhood to embryo up to a certain age. Young embryos are not morally and ontologically equivalent to human individuals. Obviously, given that their termination is allowed. And recently, even the editing of their genetic material, even in case of healthy embryos.

So, what is different? What makes us better than those slavists or nazis?

Ciao

- viole

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Do you recognize that the pregnant person usually chose the procreation?
And that people making choices is generally the reason that people are expected to take responsibility for the outcome of the choices that they make?
Tom

"Of course she consented to sex. She invited me up to her apartment. What did she think would happen?"

 

[dianaiad]

Point taken, that is why i changed humanhood with personhood ina previous post.

So, for me a one hour or one day old embryo is not a person. And that is why I do not feel particularly emotional in case of deployment of things like the day after pill.

Ciao

- viole

Well, you would join all those cultures who didn't feel particularly emotional about putting a day old baby girl out on the trash heap, either. That's not intended to be insulting, btw...but a very strongly stated point. This is a specifically cultural and legal definition, not a scientific or medical one. Me? I can't justify the ending of human life because a bunch of other people took a vote. Either it's human, or it isn't. Either it's alive, or it's not...and if, left alone to grow, it WILL end up to be a human adult (if it doesn't die first), then I have no right to end it in order to prevent that, any more than I would have the right to kill the snotty teenager down the street in order to prevent him from getting to voting age.

I mean, really...where DOES one draw that line, anyway? What possible reasoning can be used at one stage...that can't be used at another, far later, one?

What I would LIKE to see happen is one of two things:

People figure out that sex produces babies and begin to deal responsibly with that...and don't engage in sex until they are ready to deal with, y'know, HAVING A BABY.

Science figures out a birth control method (conception prevention) that WORKS consistently and reliably.

Or both. Either one would be great.

One other thing: I think that the rate of abortion would go WAAAAY down if people actually acknowledged that an abortion is indeed the ending of a human life. That serious. That life changing/ending.

I personally wouldn't get one unless the choice was 'end the life of the fetus or we both die," ...but then I'm nearly seventy and the issue isn't going to arise. My name is not Sarah and I don't have an Abraham to help me out, anyway. However, I wasn't ALWAYS 'nearly seventy,' and I did have five kids.

In other words, I lived my beliefs in this area.

 

[dianaiad]

What you think of abortion in case the embryo is the result of a rape?

Ciao

- viole

I addressed that in an earlier post. I would not get one. I believe the quote was 'the pregnancy would be the only good thing about the experience,' However, I also would not fault a woman who thought other wise, and certainly my religion doesn't fault the victims of rape for choosing to abort.

However...and remember this one...religions have a little more 'give' here than a position based only upon when a human becomes an individual human (at conception.) Religions mostly teach that the body isn't all in all...that there might be an alternative for the spirit of an aborted baby.

Might.

Anyway, wiggle room.

Not for me, personally, but for someone else, the victim of rape? I'm certainly not going to judge her. That's a whole 'nuther topic, and my arguments are about those who willingly engage in consensual sex.

 

[Polymath257]

Why?

Is it OK to kill the winner of a race because he hasn't crossed the finish line 'yet?"

Is it OK to kill a two year old because she can't pass the California bar exam 'yet?"

Is it OK to shoot all the athletes during the Olympic opening ceremonies because none of them have won medals 'yet?"

............................and with foeti, we aren't even talking about people who might or might not achieve the goal; we are talking about human lives who WILL, unless they die first, absolutely achieve the quality you want to kill them in order to prevent them from getting.

it is NOT ok to kill any of them because they are *fully*human--including the ability to be conscious. You are making a false analogy. The point is that fetuses are NOT fully human.

If I were arguing legal personhood, your argument might have some weight, but I'm not. Legal personhood is an arbitrary assignment by the culture surrounding one. It has no moral authority on its own. If it did, it would have been moral for people to call slaves 2/3 of a person.

Legal personhood MAY (not always, but 'may') be based upon the moral values of the culture, but don't get the two mixed up.

My response to that one is different...that is, I think that whenever a woman has consensual sex, she is giving permission for that fetus to grow in her body if doing so isn't going to kill her or permanently harm her, because she knew that pregnancy is not only a possible result of sex, it's what sex is FOR....ultimately, the continuation of the species. Everything that makes sex fun is to make sure that people engage in it....which ensures procreation. Everything about sex that bonds people together is about continuing the species. It's the whole point of the exercise, no matter what other benefits sex might have.

No, I strongly disagree here. Simply having sex is NOT permission for someone to invade her body. ONE of the things sex does is procreation. But it has many other values. And she certainly doesn't give up the right to rescind permission whenever she wants.

I think that she has every right in the world to attempt to prevent pregnancy if she can, but ultimately both she and the man MUST know that the creation of a human life IS a possibility. They must, IMO, weigh their wish not to become pregnant against the possibility of actually killing/ending a human life, and make their choices accordingly. IF, again IMO, they know already that they WILL choose abortion should they become pregnant, then they shouldn't have sex. Because, again IMO, they are putting a few moments of whoopie above the life of another human. I find that to be irresponsible selfishness at its highest level, frankly.

And I can no longer claim that it is almost impossible to become pregnant if the couple use all possible birth control methods. Sometimes...well, I have this adorable niece who was born nine months after her father...who'd had a vasectomy, (which healed) and her mother, who was on birth control (she really believed in the 'suspenders and belt' method, but who had a cold) had a little fun one Christmas.

Those two, however, agree with me on this issue. They did everything they could...but voila'...an amazing little girl showed up anyway. It happens. These decisions need to be made BEFORE engaging in sex.

I might not agree with the argument here (of course, I don't) but I can't dismiss it as specious, circular and sophistry.

No, this is a 'true' dichotomy. it's either human or it's not. It's either alive or it's not. It will either become a human adult, or it will die first. To argue that it is somehow not human because it hasn't reached a specific milestone in its development is....no. There is no scientific or medical support for that. Or, as I mentioned earlier...what, there's a chance that if you let it grow, you'll give birth to an Aardvaak?

A fetus is *genetically* human. But so is every cell in your body. it is NOT fully human: it has not reached consciousness. The question of when moral agency or responsibility is invoked is not a scientific question. Science can inform it, but cannot answer it. That is because it is a matter of *our* values: do we enslave women who happen to get pregnant or do we not? Do we regard a clump of developing cells to be more worthy than a full gown woman or not?

For me, someone who *is* fully human is of more value than someone who is not.

 

[dianaiad]

it is NOT ok to kill any of them because they are *fully*human--including the ability to be conscious. You are making a false analogy. The point is that fetuses are NOT fully human.

Yes they are. They aren't 'fully' anything ELSE, are they?

They are not 'human beings' because that is a legal and cultural issue, not a scientific or medical one.

Consider; if the only think that would prevent that fetus from becoming a human adult is to kill it....than why isn't it already 'fully human?"

I mean, really; a new born infant lacks a whole bunch of things a human adult has...but I'm fairly sure that you would call it 'fully human.'

What makes the line you draw any more logical than a line between, say....prepubescent and postpubescent?

Between legal drinking age and the day before?

Between the ability to crawl and the ability to walk?

ALL of those lines are purely arbitrary....and so is any line drawn during the development of a fetus. It's all legalisms and cultural opinion.

And it's begging the question, isn't it?

You will have to support your contention that fetuses are not fully human...with something other than cultural opinion. Give us some scientific or medical line to draw--that couldn't be drawn at any other point in the development of a human life.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

No. I do not define a foetus with no EEG activity in the brain to be a living organism. A heartbeat isn't a sure-fire indicator of life.

It's a sign there is living tissue, not a "person". Sentience is a whole 'nutha ball game.

If you oppose elective abortions, do you support solid methods of prevention? Methods like comprehensive sex ed, starting at an early age? Solid funding for organizations like Planned Parenthood, with their efforts to prevent abortions?
Or do you help facilitate crisis pregnancy with nonsense like "purity rings" and "abstinence only" sex ed?

Indeed. While I'm pro-choice, both sides can fix the "problem" by preventing them in the first place with good sex ed and pregnancy prevention.

The point is, that if...left to develop on its own, a human WOULD BE a human adult eventually, then it is specious to argue that it's permissible to kill him/her BECAUSE it doesn't have certain qualities YET.

Yeah, but some hospitals are against abortions even if the fetus is DEAD, so there is literally no potential and they STILL won't do it.

But when an abortion is required; when it is done, one IS ending a human life that might well have reached human adulthood...unless it is killed first

Given that infant mortality was such that the bible didn't even bother putting a price on a life until at least one month of age post-birth, can it really be said that they all have the potential to be adults?

I think Roman Catholic religion presumes that Catholics will die out if they are allowed any relief from reproduction, so it has little to do with any spiritual properties in the unborn. There is all kinds of evidence of this, such as the prohibition against birth control.

Which is weird because God can make children of Abraham out of rocks.

Do you recognize that the pregnant person usually chose the procreation?

Do you know that many pregnant people only chose sex, not procreation?

And that people making choices is generally the reason that people are expected to take responsibility for the outcome of the choices that they make?

So, no antibiotics for the people who got sick after not washing their hands? They should just suck it up?

Happy Birthday and the fact the heart is beating only means the heart is beating. It doesn't make you "alive."

It WILL BE that human adult...if it isn't killed first.

I would've had another aunt and uncle, but they died mere hours after birth. So, no, it is not an assured thing.

I really do believe that if abortion is contemplated, then it should be done so in the full knowledge that it is a fully human life that one is thinking about ending...just as completely as if one is aiming a gun at someone in front of one.

Unless the shooter is aiming for someone's uterus, it's not the same thing, because one isn't a sentient being (and can't be biologically) and one is.

am of the firm opinion that human life begins when the sperm interacts with the egg and blocks all other genetic 'input.'

Life yes. Personhood no.

The bacteria your immune system kills off is killing off life. Life includes all life. Better not eat anything, not even a carrot. It was alive before you ate it, after all.

That means that men and women need to take responsibility for their own procreations BEFORE they start a new life.

But until men can get pregnant, cis men, anyway, they get off scot-free no matter what.

It's never THEIR lives in danger even in the best and safest pregnancies.

Who here thinks I should be forced, as a woman, to carry this inside me?

Spoiler: It's a Life

It's a sand dollar.