At the expense of sounding like a broken record in this post, I am really wondering how many of you have children. As far as the people who think aborting a 20 week fetus and even killing a baby one day before birth.
I can only guess that the people saying 20 plus week abortions are ok, have no children or have never had a pregnant spouse.
20 week fetus: 20 Weeks Pregnant: Symptoms, Belly Pictures & More | BabyCenter
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
tedro wrote:
Or a reincarnated cro-magnon?
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]
So the right to life is then based on the incidental ability to breed with human beings?
The point is that if you want to claim a fetus does not have a right to life because it is not a person, then you must first lay the philosophical groundwork as to why a person has a right to life.
All that has been suggested to this point are arbitrary traits that incidentally do not extend a right to life to other humans that are intuitively given a right to life, such as infants and the comatose.
DNA and species have also been thrown in, but it is also intuitive that it is not acceptable to kill a chimpanzee, a dolphin, or even a dog, so there must be something wrong with this argument. Again, it’s arbitrary. Chimpanzees and dolphins would both meet all the criterion of self-awareness, communication, and sentience that get thrown around. So then, does this mean a chimps life is as valuable as a humans? Of course not, but it clearly is not moral to refrain from giving it a right to life on the happenchance of its DNA. This DNA argument is not valid.
It is a bit ironic that the pro-lifers are the ones accused of bringing emotion into the topic. These pro-abortion arguments that have been put forth in this thread all seem to give a laymen’s interpretation of a person in order to make it seem acceptable to kill off a being that is indefensible and incapable of foreseeing its own demise. There is yet to be a logical explanation for this based on sound philosophical principles, but merely arbitrary arguments used to free the guilt from killing a human being while succumbing to the political correctness of choice and privacy.
[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]
I think you explained your beliefs perfectly the first time.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
pushharder wrote:
If you’ve got a plan for what to do with an extra million babies a year in the US, I’d love to hear it. [/quote]
I’m sure there’s not enough willing parents for all the unwanted children in the world, but in the US? My intuition is that there is a married couple that would want every single aborted child in this country.
My experience is when you don’t want children you are much more likely to rationalize excuses to believe it’s justifiable. When I was young and feared knocking someone up I was all for abortion. Now I have the means to care for children and it has changed my perspective. I no longer have fear clouding my judgement and I know all children have the right to their lives.
[quote]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? [/quote]
Fine. You want pure reason you got it. At what point does a human life begin? Is there any point beyond that beginning that it’s ok to kill it.
That is the only question that is important. The rest is bullshit.
[quote]malonetd wrote:
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.
How is one person’s feelings relevant?
Seriously, some of the anti-abortion saviors on here really let emotion cloud their judgment.[/quote]
The only relevant question is when life begins. But a story of the center piece of the abortion movement changing 180 degrees may cause some people to rethink their postions. Why after decades did she suddenly switch? What changed her mind?
If do not want to deal with that question then just deal with the when life begins question. Science, reason, and even the law support the prolife stance except in the case of abortion. Why is killing a pregnant woman a double murder? Why would a person who assaults a pregnant woman and kills the baby within charged with murder?
[quote]skor wrote:
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?
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]
You are a clump of cells…
You defined no clear line you went from a clump of cells to a day before birth…That isn’t a clear line that’s very broad and slippery line?
How do you know the fetus has no neurological activity unitl 20 weeks? Is it because some machine tells you so. What if a new more sensitive machine comes out and is able to decern neurological activity much sooner? You would have to argue that the means by which we currently detect neurological activity is infallible.
Further, brains or neurological activity is only one property a person has. People are made of much more than that. You could conceivably keep a brain alive in a jar with machines, but it is no person, yet it has human neurological activity. The brain is an organ, people have lots of organs.
Additionally, a fetus can feel pain as early as 8 weeks. Do you know what pain is? A neurological response. A baby react to being stuck at 8 weeks, so if neurological activity is your measure, then 8 weeks is your time, not 20.
[quote]pat wrote:
The only relevant question is when life begins. But a story of the center piece of the abortion movement changing 180 degrees may cause some people to rethink their postions. Why after decades did she suddenly switch? What changed her mind?
[/quote]
Dr. Bernard Nathanson, founder of NARAL, also had an interesting switch.
[quote]pat wrote:
skor wrote:
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?
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.
You are a clump of cells…
You defined no clear line you went from a clump of cells to a day before birth…That isn’t a clear line that’s very broad and slippery line?
How do you know the fetus has no neurological activity unitl 20 weeks? Is it because some machine tells you so. What if a new more sensitive machine comes out and is able to decern neurological activity much sooner?
You would have to argue that the means by which we currently detect neurological activity is infallible.
Further, brains or neurological activity is only one property a person has. People are made of much more than that. You could conceivably keep a brain alive in a jar with machines, but it is no person, yet it has human neurological activity. The brain is an organ, people have lots of organs.
Additionally, a fetus can feel pain as early as 8 weeks. Do you know what pain is? A neurological response. A baby react to being stuck at 8 weeks, so if neurological activity is your measure, then 8 weeks is your time, not 20.[/quote]
Why would brain/neurological activity matter?
Can someone honestly answer this without giving me a “oh you’re so terrible” bullshit spiel?
So the pregnancy is 4 months in. The mother has decided she can’t have the baby anymore for whatever reason.
Yet she can’t do it because the baby might feel pain. The damn thing isn’t even conscious, why would it matter if it felt a bit of pain before being fucking eliminated?
My point is that instead of trying to get on your soap box and being all “omg look at me im so moral”, you just let people decide their personal matters in their own fashion?
So let’s say abortion is banned. Now what?
Does a black market for backstreet abortions open up? I don’t know about you, but I’d much rather keep it in the public eye, and leave it to medical professionals instead of that guy in Vermont with the stump hand.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Makavali wrote:
So let’s say abortion is banned. Now what?
Does a black market for backstreet abortions open up? I don’t know about you, but I’d much rather keep it in the public eye, and leave it to medical professionals instead of that guy in Vermont with the stump hand.
Same thing with rape. I think we should pull it out of the dingy back alleys, empty stair wells and dark rooms and allow it to be openly practiced…with government oversight and regulation of course.[/quote]
We do that already. It’s called “marriage.”
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Makavali wrote:
So let’s say abortion is banned. Now what?
Does a black market for backstreet abortions open up? I don’t know about you, but I’d much rather keep it in the public eye, and leave it to medical professionals instead of that guy in Vermont with the stump hand.
Same thing with rape. I think we should pull it out of the dingy back alleys, empty stair wells and dark rooms and allow it to be openly practiced…with government oversight and regulation of course.[/quote]
I’m not sure where you are going with that one but at least Lefty from Vermont might be able to get a job now that no one wants back alley abortions.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
pushharder wrote:
Makavali wrote:
So let’s say abortion is banned. Now what?
Does a black market for backstreet abortions open up? I don’t know about you, but I’d much rather keep it in the public eye, and leave it to medical professionals instead of that guy in Vermont with the stump hand.
Same thing with rape. I think we should pull it out of the dingy back alleys, empty stair wells and dark rooms and allow it to be openly practiced…with government oversight and regulation of course.
We do that already. It’s called “marriage.”[/quote]
Nope. This assumes Marriage gives the father ANY shred of right to the babies right to life. It doesn’t.
It was a joke, Rock.
Push sarcastically implied that legalizing rape would be the moral equivalent of legalizing abortion, and I sarcastically said that the government has already legalized rape: we know it as “marriage.”
It wasn’t a very funny joke to begin with, even less so now that I had to explain it.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
It was a joke, Rock.
Push sarcastically implied that legalizing rape would be the moral equivalent of legalizing abortion, and I sarcastically said that the government has already legalized rape: we know it as “marriage.”
It wasn’t a very funny joke to begin with, even less so now that I had to explain it.[/quote]
I got it too!
But I didn’t LOL.
Sorry.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
We do that already. It’s called “marriage.”[/quote]
Snap!