[quote]tedro wrote:
Or a reincarnated cro-magnon? [/quote]
A Cro-Magnon was a modern human, therefore the same species as you and Skor.
So it would be less permissible to kill one, in other words, than perhaps it would be to kill a chimpanzee or dolphin.
[quote]skor wrote:Ethical views on abortion that are neither pro-life or pro-choice
Personhood is attained at about 22 weeks gestation:[/quote]
Bullshit.
Let me define personhood for you:
A sentient being (human) who is able to act independently and function as a member of society.
A person has history. A person has physical and mental attributes.
Until it pops out, the fetus is completely and entirely dependent on the mother.
Not only that, but the mother is it’s only means of contact with the outside world.
It cannot survive without the mother. Sure, with science and all that bullshit it could (not always) however this does not justify that.
Something that cannot contribute to society is not a person. Something that has never interacted with other humans does not contain personhood. There is no relationship outside of the mother. Until this fetus comes out of the womb and into the “real world” riddled with risks and consequences, it does not belong to it.
Just like i do not exist until i am conscious (i think therefore i am) a fetus is not a true person/doesnt contain personhood until it interacts directly with said world.
So personhood is when the baby pops out of the mother. Then it is part of this world. Then it has a history of interaction and communication. We are social animals after all. Killing a fetus is like killing a vegetable. Sure it’s a live, but nobody is home.
The mother is put through alot to maintain the fetus. Through food and hormonal imbalances as well as tremendous pains and physical immobility.
All this for the fetus. I would think the mother would have more say as opposed to some arm chair warriors (push harder and co) trying to force their beliefs on others.
Add to that the financial difficulties, i agree with alot that Vwhateverhisname says.
That’s how it is. Personally, i like to mind my own fucking business. I am a firm believer of the government staying out of homes and personal lives.
If some woman across the country wants to abort her fetus at whatever term for whatever fucking reason, then that is her problem and not mine, at all.
edit: I’d like to add that one of the biggest vices the western world has (from what ive seen so far) is the fact that everyone thinks they can mind other people’s business.
Take care of yourselves and your own families. Stop being so fucking nosy. Why does it matter if something like this happens to someone else? Your safety is not compromised in anyway at all.
[quote]blazindave wrote:
i agree with alot that Vwhateverhisname says.
[/quote]
Thanks, I guess. 
[quote]blazindave wrote:
Something that cannot contribute to society is not a person. Something that has never interacted with other humans does not contain personhood. There is no relationship outside of the mother. Until this fetus comes out of the womb and into the “real world” riddled with risks and consequences, it does not belong to it.
Just like i do not exist until i am conscious (i think therefore i am)… [/quote]
While I am pro-choice as well, there are some flaws in your reasoning here. I think I understand what you are trying to say, you just worded it poorly.
The idea of contributing to society is debatable in itself. Whatever we define as contributing, I’m sure we all can think of people who don’t contribute according to our individual definitions. Is it ok to “abort” these people?
Also, regarding consciousness, children don’t gain self-awareness until around age 2 if I remember correctly. Do children under two not exist?
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
For anyone who’s interested, a few facts about abortion in the United States.
"The average woman who seeks an abortion is 24 years old, unwed, earns a yearly income of about $25,000, and
already is a mother. She is just as likely as not to have had a previous abortion.
"She has religious beliefs and is a Christian, more likely to be Protestant than Catholic. The typical abortion is performed around the 8th week, well within the first
trimester. She could be of any race. And, if she is a minor, her parents not only condoned her decision to have an
abortion, they may have demanded it.
There may be a variety of specific reasons behind her decision to have an abortion, but they are subsumed within one salient fact: the pregnancy was unwanted and
unplanned.
Half of all pregnancies are unplanned, and most unplanned pregnancies end in abortion. A modest 10% reduction in unplanned pregnancies would eliminate the need for 130,000 abortions each year. By way of comparison, this would eliminate as many abortions in three days as would banning late-term abortions over a full year. [Emphasis mine]
[/quote]
Jesus Varq, how could you say that?
Don’t you know that all women who get abortions are black ghetto mamas who use it as contraceptive instead of using condoms, are on the eighth abortion not counting the ones they stuffed in garbage bags, and are already bleeding the US government dry with their welfare checks?
[quote]blazindave wrote:
skor wrote:http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_argu.htm
Personhood is attained at about 22 weeks gestation:
Bullshit.
Let me define personhood for you:
A sentient being (human) who is able to act independently and function as a member of society.
A person has history. A person has physical and mental attributes.
[/quote]
A newborn has none of the above.
And after a baby pops out, he is completely and entirely depended and the mother/other humans beings and often science and other bullshit (premature babies, for example).
[quote]
Something that cannot contribute to society is not a person. Something that has never interacted with other humans does not contain personhood. There is no relationship outside of the mother. Until this fetus comes out of the womb and into the “real world” riddled with risks and consequences, it does not belong to it.
Just like i do not exist until i am conscious (i think therefore i am) a fetus is not a true person/doesnt contain personhood until it interacts directly with said world.
So personhood is when the baby pops out of the mother. Then it is part of this world. Then it has a history of interaction and communication. We are social animals after all. Killing a fetus is like killing a vegetable. Sure it’s a live, but nobody is home.
The mother is put through alot to maintain the fetus. Through food and hormonal imbalances as well as tremendous pains and physical immobility.
All this for the fetus. I would think the mother would have more say as opposed to some arm chair warriors (push harder and co) trying to force their beliefs on others.
Add to that the financial difficulties, i agree with alot that Vwhateverhisname says.
That’s how it is. Personally, i like to mind my own fucking business. I am a firm believer of the government staying out of homes and personal lives.
If some woman across the country wants to abort her fetus at whatever term for whatever fucking reason, then that is her problem and not mine, at all.
edit: I’d like to add that one of the biggest vices the western world has (from what ive seen so far) is the fact that everyone thinks they can mind other people’s business.
Take care of yourselves and your own families. Stop being so fucking nosy. Why does it matter if something like this happens to someone else? Your safety is not compromised in anyway at all. [/quote]
Most of your arguments can be equally applied to both fetus and a newborn baby.
I’m all for abortion and mother’s rights, but I’m not comfortable stating that it’s ok to abort a baby 1 day before delivery (when it can be saved even if mother dies), but it’s not ok to kill a new born baby. At the same time I’m completely ok with earlier term abortions. Timing inbetween is a gray area. In a different abortion thread, I got a pm from a member here who was born at 21 weeks and survived (apparently it’s the youngest you can); he also claimed that the youngest a fetus can survive outside of mothers body is 28 weeks, so I don’t know what to make out of it. I’d feel a bit uneasy about abortion at the point where what is being aborted can survive outside of mother with the help of modern medicine. And yes, that would mean that this arbitrary vague separation point between ok/not-so-ok/definitely-no-ok to abort could shift with development of medical technology (which could also shift our definition of death).
Pat,
If you read the article, you’ll see that today a stopped heart != death. We can restart that. It seems like nobody have come back as a person from being brain-dead.
tedro,
I’ll leave it to animal ethicist to justify killing animals for food and will grill some chicken for myself.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
malonetd wrote:
…While I am pro-choice as well, there are some flaws in your reasoning here…
Serious flaws. The post is completely indefensible and the logic is virtually nonexistent.[/quote]
I don’t usually enter into Internet abortion “debates”, but let me just state that even the most ardent abortionists would be uncomfortable with the contents of blazindave’s post.
[quote]malonetd wrote:
blazindave wrote:
Something that cannot contribute to society is not a person. Something that has never interacted with other humans does not contain personhood. There is no relationship outside of the mother. Until this fetus comes out of the womb and into the “real world” riddled with risks and consequences, it does not belong to it.
Just like i do not exist until i am conscious (i think therefore i am)…
While I am pro-choice as well, there are some flaws in your reasoning here. I think I understand what you are trying to say, you just worded it poorly.
The idea of contributing to society is debatable in itself. Whatever we define as contributing, I’m sure we all can think of people who don’t contribute according to our individual definitions. Is it ok to “abort” these people?
Also, regarding consciousness, children don’t gain self-awareness until around age 2 if I remember correctly. Do children under two not exist?[/quote]
Yes, i suck at explaining things. I cannot word things well. So some things come across as how i don’t mean them to, but i do not know how to explain them.
I’ll try again.
While children must gain self awareness at that age, their personhood still exists at birth because they are able to independently interact with the world around them. If i leave a newborn in a forest somewhere and you pass by and hear it’s cry, that “interaction” produces a history that a non existant being cannot create. Since the fetus is somewhat out of sight and out of mind (except for the mother, but she is more present), it does not have any person qualities.
That’s what i meant by contribute. When i get home ill open up my ethics book theres a fantastic description of personhood there.
As for the killing the baby one day before birth, my point was merely that people should be left to their own devices as long as it doesnt affect you or society as a whole.
Now a serious question (since you made me think of it), why would killing a baby one day before birth be immoral?
[quote]skor wrote:
Pat,
If you read the article, you’ll see that today a stopped heart != death. We can restart that. It seems like nobody have come back as a person from being brain-dead.
[/quote]
What if you shoot it 30 times or squash it like a tomato.
[quote]blazindave wrote:
malonetd wrote:
blazindave wrote:
Something that cannot contribute to society is not a person. Something that has never interacted with other humans does not contain personhood. There is no relationship outside of the mother. Until this fetus comes out of the womb and into the “real world” riddled with risks and consequences, it does not belong to it.
Just like i do not exist until i am conscious (i think therefore i am)…
While I am pro-choice as well, there are some flaws in your reasoning here. I think I understand what you are trying to say, you just worded it poorly.
The idea of contributing to society is debatable in itself. Whatever we define as contributing, I’m sure we all can think of people who don’t contribute according to our individual definitions. Is it ok to “abort” these people?
Also, regarding consciousness, children don’t gain self-awareness until around age 2 if I remember correctly. Do children under two not exist?
Yes, i suck at explaining things. I cannot word things well. So some things come across as how i don’t mean them to, but i do not know how to explain them.
I’ll try again.
While children must gain self awareness at that age, their personhood still exists at birth because they are able to independently interact with the world around them. If i leave a newborn in a forest somewhere and you pass by and hear it’s cry, that “interaction” produces a history that a non existant being cannot create. Since the fetus is somewhat out of sight and out of mind (except for the mother, but she is more present), it does not have any person qualities.
That’s what i meant by contribute. When i get home ill open up my ethics book theres a fantastic description of personhood there.
As for the killing the baby one day before birth, my point was merely that people should be left to their own devices as long as it doesnt affect you or society as a whole.
Now a serious question (since you made me think of it), why would killing a baby one day before birth be immoral?
[/quote]
That is ridiculous suffering affects us all…It was early on in the thread, but the center piece of pro-choice advocates is Roe v. Wade. I have met Jane Roe, Norma Mcorvey. You will never meet a bigger anti-abortionist. She lived the life and has seen more abortions than most people on earth. She is absolutely, beyond the shadow of a doubt 100% against it. She says it’s murder, because she has seen it and it ripped her soul apart. Look her up. If she of all people can recognize abortion as murder, anyone can. We can theorize, she lived it.
[quote]pat wrote:
That is ridiculous suffering affects us all…It was early on in the thread, but the center piece of pro-choice advocates is Roe v. Wade. I have met Jane Roe, Norma Mcorvey. You will never meet a bigger anti-abortionist. She lived the life and has seen more abortions than most people on earth. She is absolutely, beyond the shadow of a doubt 100% against it. She says it’s murder, because she has seen it and it ripped her soul apart. Look her up. If she of all people can recognize abortion as murder, anyone can. We can theorize, she lived it.[/quote]
I don’t understand your point here. What do her feelings have to do with it? PETA has millions of members and supporters that feel strongly about animal rights. I don’t spend extra time worrying about those feelings while I eat my steak. Why would I spend any more time caring about Roe’s feelings?
[quote]pushharder wrote:
malonetd wrote:
pat wrote:
That is ridiculous suffering affects us all…It was early on in the thread, but the center piece of pro-choice advocates is Roe v. Wade. I have met Jane Roe, Norma Mcorvey. You will never meet a bigger anti-abortionist. She lived the life and has seen more abortions than most people on earth. She is absolutely, beyond the shadow of a doubt 100% against it. She says it’s murder, because she has seen it and it ripped her soul apart. Look her up. If she of all people can recognize abortion as murder, anyone can. We can theorize, she lived it.
I don’t understand your point here. What do her feelings have to do with it? PETA has millions of members and supporters that feel strongly about animal rights. I don’t spend extra time worrying about those feelings while I eat my steak. Why would I spend any more time caring about Roe’s feelings?
Because it’s relevant. In a way that is completely non-analogous to your PETA comparison. [/quote]
How is one person’s feelings relevant?
Seriously, some of the anti-abortion saviors on here really let emotion cloud their judgment.
[quote]blazindave wrote:
[…]While children must gain self awareness at that age, their personhood still exists at birth because they are able to independently interact with the world around them. If i leave a newborn in a forest somewhere and you pass by and hear it’s cry, that “interaction” produces a history that a non existant being cannot create. Since the fetus is somewhat out of sight and out of mind (except for the mother, but she is more present), it does not have any person qualities.
That’s what i meant by contribute. When i get home ill open up my ethics book theres a fantastic description of personhood there.
As for the killing the baby one day before birth, my point was merely that people should be left to their own devices as long as it doesnt affect you or society as a whole.
Now a serious question (since you made me think of it), why would killing a baby one day before birth be immoral?
[/quote]
Well, if you have a woman who is close to term, a fetus is already viable in a sense that it doesn’t need mothers body to survive. And if you find this woman dead in the forest immediately after sudden death, you can cut out a baby and it will be alright. Woman die during labor and babies survive. This shows, at least to me, that it’s not the moment babies head comes out of vagina that we shouldn’t kill it anymore. This point comes earlier.
To me, boundary points are very clear:
Aborting a clump of cells after conception is not a problem and nothing to cry about.
Aborting a baby a day before delivery is not qualitatively different from killing a newborn, unless it’s crucial for saving mothers health/life.
Two principles/questions try guide my thinking about the time inbetween.
Can a fetus survive outside of the womb and develop normally without significant impairments?
Is a fetus in it’s current state “live” or “dead” based on a legal definition of “dead” for a grown person.
Based on these
I have no problems with abortion up-to week 20 - not of those fetuses are viable and they have no brain activity;
I’m against abortion (unless mothers health is in danger) past weeks 27 as almost all of those fetuses are viable and have brain activity.
the time inbetween is a grey area.
[quote]skor wrote:
the time inbetween is a grey area.[/quote]
And to people on both sides of the debate who can keep a clear head, free of emotion, this grey area is what causes the most debate.
For an interesting argument on this subject, one should look at Robert P. George’s position. Mr. George is a Princeton Professor, and is a very sharp mind. He is so bright, in fact, that he was able to completely reverse the famous deconstructionist Dr. Stanley Fish’s opinion on abortion in public debate.
After an exchange of papers prior to the debate and during the panel discussion, Dr. Fish got up in front of the audience of approximately 200 people and said �??Professor George is right, and he is right to correct me.�??
I don’t care what your position is on the matter, you would do well to review George’s articles on the subject. I would suggest reading more than one simply because he sometimes writes articles for a very specific aspect of the debate or of his position, or to rebut opponents, leaving the whole picture still partially covered.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
I may disagree with your timetables but I commend you for having the intellectual prowess and honesty for spelling all this out and not just sticking your head in the sand like Malone does on this issue.
At least you have spent some time thinking about this not just screaming “RIGHT TO CHOOSE AND PRIVACY TRUMPS ALL OTHER CONCERNS” then sticking your fingers in your ears and chanting, “Na na na na na na na…”
Malone, I love ya, man. (No homo)[/quote]
I really don’t know where you get these ideas on my stance. I’ve never said anything about privacy. I could give a shit about privacy. In fact, I really don’t give a shit about abortion, which, by default makes me pro-choice. I guess if not having a strong opinion is not caring, then I’m guilty as charged.
My issue is that people – on both sides – can’t keep their emotions out of it. They can’t decide what constitutes a human life, when a fetus becomes viable, and all that jazz.
Like I’ve said before, overturn Roe v. Wade. It should be up to the states anyway. That way if you want an abortion, you still can get one. Just drive to a blue state.
Completely unrelated: If you really love me, fly me to Montana so I can see it. Seriously, I never even thought twice about the state until you posted some pics. Looks beautiful out there.
[quote]Aragorn wrote:
For an interesting argument on this subject, one should look at Robert P. George’s position. Mr. George is a Princeton Professor, and is a very sharp mind. He is so bright, in fact, that he was able to completely reverse the famous deconstructionist Dr. Stanley Fish’s opinion on abortion in public debate.
After an exchange of papers prior to the debate and during the panel discussion, Dr. Fish got up in front of the audience of approximately 200 people and said �??Professor George is right, and he is right to correct me.�??
I don’t care what your position is on the matter, you would do well to review George’s articles on the subject. I would suggest reading more than one simply because he sometimes writes articles for a very specific aspect of the debate or of his position, or to rebut opponents, leaving the whole picture still partially covered. [/quote]
Links?
I can’t find an entire article, only excerpts.