Abortion

[Willamena]

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.

If all lines are purely arbitrary, then I declare the offspring to be none other than the mother--her body, her life. Her decision.

 

[columbus]

there is no scientific or medical reason to draw that line at one point over another...except at the moment of conception.

I get annoyed by this quite commonly.
Placental mammals like primates begin, as individuals, at conception. We end, as far as anybody knows, at death. It's easily available science, Life Cycle of a Primate ".
But getting feticide rights people to see this is as difficult as getting a creationist to see geological science. It doesn't match their ideological worldviews so they just refuse to see elementary science.
Tom

 

[Polymath257]

I get annoyed by this quite commonly.
Placental mammals like primates begin, as individuals, at conception. We end, as far as anybody knows, at death. It's easily available science, Life Cycle of a Primate ".
But getting feticide rights people to see this is as difficult as getting a creationist to see geological science. It doesn't match their ideological worldviews so they just refuse to see elementary science.
Tom

Don't forget that sperm and egg cells are part of that life cycle. They are the haploid stage, in fact. That means they are 'fully human', are individuals (each with unique DNA). Are you against the wanton killing of haploids?

And, yes, I see your position as just as silly as this.

 

[viole]

Uganda? I was thinking more along the lines of Vegas, but OK....

Why? It's no different from getting an abortion if the pregnancy threatens the life of the mother; triage. If a rape victim cannot handle the idea of a pregnancy that resulted from rape, I'd call that right up there with 'life and health.' It's not as if the pregnancy was the result of her freely chosen actions.

Personally....I I ruled the world, a pregnant rape victim could chose to end the pregnancy, and the charge of murder would be added to the indictment against the rapist. If she chooses to have the baby, then the rapist would have to work for the state, probably breaking big rocks into little ones, until the child was of legal age to support it...and he would never, ever be allowed any contact with mother or child. But I don't rule the world.



So do I live in such a place. All that does is beg the question of whether such an attitude is morally right.



You really don't read the posts to which you respond, do you? If you actually did, you would know that I am NOT arguing from any religious, or 'ancient superstitious,' point of view.

I am so tired of people assuming what my position on this issue is, and attacking me as if they know what I 'really' think better than I do. Do, please, read my posts before you respond to them? Thanks.

Vegas? Ach, you are really obsessed with sexual conduct...

Charge of murder? So you do really think we are murderers, or potential murderers. Ok. I am thrilled you do not rule the world,even thought it would probably interesting to feel how people lived in the dark ages. I wonder what you think of the death penalty. But i probably better not know.

Anyway, we both know that aborting because of endangering the life of the mother, is vastly different from aborting a healthy embryo because of a rape. The child is totally innocent of the situation, and whilst in the first case it is a zero sum game (an innocent life for an innocent life), in the second it is not (one innocent dies).

And I am not saying you are arguing from a religious standpoint. Where did you read that? A bit egocentric, arent we? I am just saying that are usually religious people who disapprove our system. some atheists do that too, but they are a strict minority.

But i am thrilled that you also associate religion with ancient superstitions.

Ciao

- viole

 

[viole]

As I wrote, many societies have drawn that line at very different times in the life of a human. there is no scientific or medical reason to draw that line at one point over another...except at the moment of conception.

Science is not concerned with the concept of personhood. And I told you what a good objective heuristic is. Persons are those who have a brain. Admiitedly, it is difficult to say when an ambryo has a brain, but for sure it does not have when it is one day old. So, things like the day after pill are no issue really.

So that's what I go by. After all, if one goes with cultural and legal ideas, there is nothing stopping the culture around you to draw the line at 12, or 18, or 2, or any other arbitrary point that has nothing at all to do with the 'humanness' of the human involved.

...........and those lines get redrawn frequently.

True. But again, day one is no issue. For I offered a general and objctive definition of what a person needs to be considered such. So, two days are also ok. Same for three days.

In any case, the sup of the cases where that is ok is greater than one, and therefore, even if it is difficult to set the right point, we can be sure that the time of conception is way too soon. And abortion is not wrong per se.

Do NOT confuse legality with morality, or cultural ideas with science. Your opinion is not based upon anything but your preferences and what makes you feel good about yourself and your position.

Same for you. Since none of us is in the position to objectively show the other wrong (obviously, since morality is not objective),
I am not really sure what your point is.

I couldn't care less how active your sex life is. Go. Be happy. What I WANT to see is...like the gambler who enters the casino and bets a whole bunch--and eventually loses, a willingness to acknowledge the results of the gamble, and a willingness to be responsible about the outcome.

Again. Women here do not need to gamble. They do not need to do any of the things you require. To make them do that Is only your desire. It has no value whatsoever, or at least on more value than the opposite.

and being willing to end a human life that you created is NOT 'responsible." it is ending a human life. A real one. One that you are responsible for creating. One that you are responsible for, period.

I told you. We do not consider ambryos having the same ontology of fully formed human individuals. It is not legality, it is what most of us think.So, we have no issue whatsoever with that. Problem for you, but zero problem for us. I think you let your emotions taking control of your rationality.

If that possible result isn't something you want to take on, then....do what is required to make SURE you don't get pregnant. Hysterectomy. Oophorectomy. Vasectomy. Triple decker condoms. Whatever works.

Well, some of them are exceleent against STD. But again, day after pills are ubiquitous nowadays. Better safe than sorry.

Or...you could decide that a human life is a wee bit more important than your own need for a few minutes of physical pleasure, and put the whole thing off until you figured that, as inconvenient as it might be, you wouldn't kill the human if you started one.

Lol, i told you I do not care about the human adjective. What I care of is personhood. And a few cells is not a person, period.

Sometimes I think that our current society isn't worth the digital print to spell the word.

Being worth or not has nothing to do with it. And it would not be worth only to you mainly because of your opinions and moral desires, unless you can prove to me that you have the moral upper hand. Which you cannot. Obviosuly.


Ciao

- viole

 

[dianaiad]

If all lines are purely arbitrary, then I declare the offspring to be none other than the mother--her body, her life. Her decision.

and one could declare the same of any other killer; his/her body, his/her weapon, his/her decision.

However, all lines decided by cultural means ARE arbitrary, and change as the culture does. That doesn't make it moral or ethical. There have been many cultures whose practices are considered heinous by pretty much everybody nowadays. What makes us right and them wrong, or them right or us wrong?

That's why I had to take the only line that can be argued medically/scientifically.

That point at which a cell from the male (which represents half of his dna) and a cell from the mother (representing half of hers) combine to form a new, unique and DIFFERENT human; one that is not the same as either parent, though partaking of elements of both. That line is where all 'potentials' are realized, and the actuality shows up. That specific DNA map that stays pretty much put for the rest of the life of that human.

That's the point at which I believe the new human has one right: the right to attempt to survive without that survival being made impossible for specious and selfish reasons, or reasons that are strictly "oops, I changed my mind" or "it's not convenient right now," or "I didn't MEAN it!"

 

[dianaiad]

Vegas? Ach, you are really obsessed with sexual conduct...

Y'know, I've been to Las Vegas several times. I've even been in some of the casinos. I've NEVER seen sex being performed in the rooms with the slot machines and the poker tables. Or anywhere else, come to think of it. That could be because I don't go to the 'live sex' shows in the seedier (or any other) areas.

Or the Netherlandswhere prostitution is legal? I forget...it is the Netherlands, right? Whatever...I haven't been there, either.

Uh, what sort of notion do you have of the USA, anyway?

Wait. On second thought, I don't want to know. This conversation has been weird enough already.

Charge of murder? So you do really think we are murderers, or potential murderers.

You really do NOT read, do you? I think a RAPIST is a murderer, if he gets a woman pregnant and she has to abort because of it, and I do believe that the justice system should throw the book at him.

I DO believe that people who abort are killers. Do understand that 'killing' and 'murder' are not the same thing. Killing is the ending of a life. "Murder" is the UNLAWFUL ending of that life. It's a legal definition, like 'person,' or 'human being." Sometimes killing is justified...even unavoidable, but it's still killing. Sometimes killing is morally wrong even if it's not murder. I can't think of an example where murder is morally right even though the culture calls it 'murder,' but perhaps you can think of one. Do not confuse legal definitions and ideas with moral and ethical 'right' and 'wrong.' Any real intersection between the two ideas is, I'm beginning to think, entirely unintended and coincidental.

I'm getting more than a little tired of this.

Ok. I am thrilled you do not rule the world,even thought it would probably interesting to feel how people lived in the dark ages. I wonder what you think of the death penalty. But i probably better not know.

The death penalty. I'm too mean to approve of the death penalty. I think that murderers should spend the rest of their lives locked up in a concrete cage without access to human company.

Anyway, we both know that aborting because of endangering the life of the mother, is vastly different from aborting a healthy embryo because of a rape. The child is totally innocent of the situation, and whilst in the first case it is a zero sum game (an innocent life for an innocent life), in the second it is not (one innocent dies).

I agree. Which is why I wouldn't get one if I were raped. The question for me is moot now, but it didn't used to be. However....and this is where your charge of 'superstition' would come in, I suppose, my belief system allows abortion in the case of rape. I think it's because with a religion there is some possibility that the spirit of the aborted innocent has some other option; might not be utterly destroyed.

But I'm not arguing from a religious POV. I'm only considering the life we absolutely know about and can prove.

And I am not saying you are arguing from a religious standpoint. Where did you read that? A bit egocentric, arent we? I am just saying that are usually religious people who disapprove our system. some atheists do that too, but they are a strict minority.

But i am thrilled that you also associate religion with ancient superstitions.

Ciao

- viole

I'm not the one who doesn't like what is written in the post she is replying to, so makes up her own dialogue and goes with that.

And yes, you WERE accusing me of arguing from a religious standpoint. If you weren't, you wouldn't have brought it up at all. I haven't.

 

[viole]

Y'know, I've been to Las Vegas several times. I've even been in some of the casinos. I've NEVER seen sex being performed in the rooms with the slot machines and the poker tables. Or anywhere else, come to think of it. That could be because I don't go to the 'live sex' shows in the seedier (or any other) areas.

Or the Netherlandswhere prostitution is legal? I forget...it is the Netherlands, right? Whatever...I haven't been there, either.

Uh, what sort of notion do you have of the USA, anyway?

The USA? Cannot decide. I find it amazing that you still debate evolutions and the age of the earth while claiming scientific supremacy.

You really do NOT read, do you? I think a RAPIST is a murderer, if he gets a woman pregnant and she has to abort because of it, and I do believe that the justice system should throw the book at him.

Cmon, that is just ridiculous. I hate rapists, but they are not like murdereres at all.

I DO believe that people who abort are killers. Do understand that 'killing' and 'murder' are not the same thing. Killing is the ending of a life. "Murder" is the UNLAWFUL ending of that life. It's a legal definition, like 'person,' or 'human being." Sometimes killing is justified...even unavoidable, but it's still killing. Sometimes killing is morally wrong even if it's not murder. I can't think of an example where murder is morally right even though the culture calls it 'murder,' but perhaps you can think of one. Do not confuse legal definitions and ideas with moral and ethical 'right' and 'wrong.' Any real intersection between the two ideas is, I'm beginning to think, entirely unintended and coincidental.

I'm getting more than a little tired of this.

Oh, ok. I kill mosquitos sometimes too. So, it is not so bad.

The death penalty. I'm too mean to approve of the death penalty. I think that murderers should spend the rest of their lives locked up in a concrete cage without access to human company.

So, for you justice is more like punishement and revenge rather than correction and reintroduction into society?

I agree. Which is why I wouldn't get one if I were raped. The question for me is moot now, but it didn't used to be. However....and this is where your charge of 'superstition' would come in, I suppose, my belief system allows abortion in the case of rape. I think it's because with a religion there is some possibility that the spirit of the aborted innocent has some other option; might not be utterly destroyed.

But I'm not arguing from a religious POV. I'm only considering the life we absolutely know about and can prove.

I never said you did.

I'm not the one who doesn't like what is written in the post she is replying to, so makes up her own dialogue and goes with that.

And yes, you WERE accusing me of arguing from a religious standpoint. If you weren't, you wouldn't have brought it up at all. I haven't.

You are making things up. I never said that. You are also getting somewhat tiresome.
That religious people are the main critics is a fact. That did not entail that you were discussing this from a religious point of view. Wisely, i woukd add.

Ciao

- viole

 

[dianaiad]

Science is not concerned with the concept of personhood.

NEITHER AM I!!!!

"Personhood' is a strictly legal designation. It is arbitrary. For crying out loud, the modern legal system calls a corporation a 'person.'

Stop confusing the two concepts here! For one thing, it's begging the question. You are making the circular argument that fetuses aren't human lives because the legal system doesn't recognize them as human beings. You really don't pay attention, do you?

And I told you what a good objective heuristic is. Persons are those who have a brain. Admiitedly, it is difficult to say when an ambryo has a brain, but for sure it does not have when it is one day old. So, things like the day after pill are no issue really.

True. But again, day one is no issue. For I offered a general and objctive definition of what a person needs to be considered such. So, two days are also ok. Same for three days.

In any case, the sup of the cases where that is ok is greater than one, and therefore, even if it is difficult to set the right point, we can be sure that the time of conception is way too soon. And abortion is not wrong per se.

That is the question that is being begged here, isn't it?

Same for you. Since none of us is in the position to objectively show the other wrong (obviously, since morality is not objective),
I am not really sure what your point is.

My point is that whether or not the legal system (or those who gain from having the ability to kill their newly made human offspring at will) says it's wrong or not, legally, it is killing/ending a human life. There is no way around that. Any line one draws after conception is at least squishy, certainly movable and subject to change by legislation or the courts. One day the line is here....the next it's there...and right now folks on the left are attempting to draw the line a WHOLE lot further up the age of the human in question than most folks are comfortable with.

I think, really, that if everybody realized this truth; that this isn't a bunch of cells that mean nothing, but really IS a human life, that the decision to abort would be a little...perhaps a lot...harder. Perhaps people would be more careful about starting that new life. Perhaps.

I don't really care whether abortion is legal; making it illegal might stop a lot of 'em, but not enough. I want it to be utterly shameful, and when it MUST be done, a very private and real tragedy between the woman and her doctor.

In sum, I want abortion to become politically incorrect.



Again. Women here do not need to gamble. They do not need to do any of the things you require. To make them do that Is only your desire. It has no value whatsoever, or at least on more value than the opposite.



I told you. We do not consider ambryos having the same ontology of fully formed human individuals. It is not legality, it is what most of us think.So, we have no issue whatsoever with that. Problem for you, but zero problem for us. I think you let your emotions taking control of your rationality.



Well, some of them are exceleent against STD. But again, day after pills are ubiquitous nowadays. Better safe than sorry.



Lol, i told you I do not care about the human adjective. What I care of is personhood. And a few cells is not a person, period.



Being worth or not has nothing to do with it. And it would not be worth only to you mainly because of your opinions and moral desires, unless you can prove to me that you have the moral upper hand. Which you cannot. Obviosuly.


Ciao

- viole

 

[viole]

NEITHER AM I!!!!

"Personhood' is a strictly legal designation. It is arbitrary. For crying out loud, the modern legal system calls a corporation a 'person.'

Stop confusing the two concepts here! For one thing, it's begging the question. You are making the circular argument that fetuses aren't human lives because the legal system doesn't recognize them as human beings. You really don't pay attention, do you?



That is the question that is being begged here, isn't it?

No.you are begging the question. I did not say they are not human lifes. Thay are. But I do not care of a few cells that would still qualify as human life but are indistinguishable from an amoeba.

Is that really so difficult?

Ciao

- viole

 

[ImmortalFlame]

It's a bit off-topic, but that's actually untrue. There are a number of occasions when this has occurred and the Denver cardiologist Fred Schoonmaker reported that he'd seen it happen several times (no reference, I'm afraid).

I'd be interested in reading more about that, might have to go digging for it.