[Watchful_Eye]

To answer this question in a liberal way:
As long the "baby" (respectively the fetus) is not able to feel anything, there is no pleasure destroyed if you kill it. (-> Utilitarism)

I have to admit though that I still have to leave open the question, when a fetus exactly begins to feel something.

[ninurta]

To answer this question in a liberal way:
As long the "baby" (respectively the fetus) is not able to feel anything, there is no pleasure destroyed if you kill it. (-> Utilitarism)

I have to admit though that I still have to leave open the question, when a fetus exactly begins to feel something.

So you can kill someone if they have that nervous condition that doesn't allow them to feel pain? Right....

[Gork]

So you can kill someone if they have that nervous condition that doesn't allow them to feel pain? Right....

Pain is also in the form of fear. I have told my friends and family to not keep me on life-support. I've made my peace with God and am ready to go when it's time. You think that would be murder, apparently.

[Zerogouki]

In my opinion the foetus is simply not alive until viability and people are not really human until we have brain activity.

Well, your "opinion" conflicts with scientific fact. It is both alive and human from conception onward. If you want to argue personhood, that's another matter entirely.

I have to disagree with being against farming, well only because it provides food for more people to survive off of than would it be for not having farming. Unless there is a reason you are against it. Otherwise I agree.

Sorry, I should have clarified: I'm against the farming of animals. It's slavery. I have no problem farming plants, and you can get complete and balanced nutrition from an all-plant-based diet.

didn't minimum wage cause buisnesses to hire less people because they had to pay more?

Maybe, but it had nothing to do with inflation.

And is why it is unethical to me, you, and others.

Hey, don't jump to conclusions. I'm pro-choice for the first 18 weeks or so.

As long the "baby" (respectively the fetus) is not able to feel anything, there is no pleasure destroyed if you kill it. (-> Utilitarism)

So if I kill someone in their sleep using chloroform, that's ethically permissible? I think your moral code might need some tweaking.

[Gork]

If you want to argue personhood, that's another matter entirely.

I want to argue personhood. Pro-live vs. Pro-choice is a struggle between legal and philosophical. Humans can sometimes not be people, as in the case of vegetables. Some religions claim you're not a person until you're 12 years old. Brain activity has been shown to not start in earnest until a few months after birth, but this is because the brain is still developing.

If a human has a massive stroke and their brain is replaced by blood, they will never come back, are they a person?

Is a child born without a brain a person?

How do you define person? For that matter, how do you define animal? L:ife is defined as adaptable, capable of reproducing, and growing. The last two examples aren't capable of the first two. So from a scientific standpoint it could be argued they aren't even alive.

Apply that to a fetus. It is only capable of those things insofar as its mother carries it to term. It is an extension of her body. If we remove the value judgment from the term it would be accurate to call a fetus a parasite or temporary tumor. But because it will be capable of those things in the future, does that make it a person now?

[Zerogouki]

Brain activity has been shown to not start in earnest until a few months after birth

This has no basis in reality. Crying, for example, requires a functioning brain. It doesn't function well, but it's still functioning.

[Gork]

I actually know quite a bit about how the brain works. If you're a neurologist you can correct me, but save that, you won't tell me anything I'm not aware of. A functioning brain is required for someone to breathe, it's just a different part of the brain. Life functions and involuntary reactions like crying brought on by pain or fear (you don't have to cognate whether something hurts, it just does, and you cry as a result) are calculated in the midbrain, hindbrain, hippocampus, etc. These are the primitive parts of the brain, not much different than that of an insect, just larger. The earnest brain function, cognition and decision-making, requires a kind of visual and mental vocabulary. A baby doesn't know it wants a bottle, and can't recognize it when it sees it, until it's seen it a couple times. The baby opening it's mouth when you brush its cheek is reflexive instinct, and crying when you're hungry is involuntary. Earnest brain functions require synaptic connections, and those require two brain cells to constantly try to communicate, causing synapses to branch out to make a connection. A brain without synapses is foggy, slow, and incapable of true thought, and while synapses form throughout your life, you're not born with very many.

My point in all this is: if a person were born unable to form new synapses, they could grow into an adult and all they would do is search for food and poop. Even the search for food would be slow because they can't learn new things. So, that would be a human, but would it be a person? That was the question. Stop trying to make it seem like you're smarter than me, and get on with the debate.

[Zerogouki]

You said "Brain activity has been shown..."

Now you're saying "Earnest brain function..."

Make up your mind.

[ninurta]

[]So you can kill someone if they have that nervous condition that doesn't allow them to feel pain? Right.... []Pain is also in the form of fear.

Indeed. But why should anyone be able to choose whether a child should live or die?

I have told my friends and family to not keep me on life-support. I've made my peace with God and am ready to go when it's time. You think that would be murder, apparently.

That is not murder. If you want to die, that is up to you, I don't want to be kept on life-support either. When I go I go. I have no desire to be a vegetable nor be kept alive in such a scenario.

I am for suicide as long as you make the person think it through and make sure they have the support they need to possibly talk them out of it. I am not for the state forcing anyone to die or stay alive. except in the case of the death penalty, where they deprived someone of life.

Does that contradict my pro-life stance when it comes to abortion? No, because I am leaving whether that child/person lives or dies up to the child/person.

[Gork]

You said "Brain activity has been shown..."

Now you're saying "Earnest brain function..."

Make up your mind.

Nicely done, but a red herring nonetheless. You're nit-picking and ignoring the point, which is a debate on personhood. If you're too ignorant to have this debate, just say so, but stop pretending to be engaging me in intellectual discourse, because that this is not.

[TheGoatman1]

The connection is the loss of live. If you are against the death penalty and for abortion on demand, then you are saying that the serial killers right to live is more important than that of an unborn baby/fetus.

This isn't a valid argument. The main point of contention is when a fetus is considered a human, which is something that will never be agreed upon. So someone could be pro-choice and anti-death penalty and not be a hypocrite, because they consider putting a murderer to death the state sanctioned and initiated ending of a human life, whereas they would consider abortion to be a medical procedure that ends the development of what at some point will be a life, but is not yet.

It is interesting that the people bellowing loudest about not wanting government intrusion in their lives are the ones who advocate the loudest for the government to intrude on other's lives.

Here is something a friend of mine wrote about her experience:

As I read through the feminist struggles outlined in a book by Ruth Rosen (assigned reading for my Leadership class) I couldn’t believe how rapidly my views on women in leadership had changed. My brief encounters with Women’s Studies hitherto had led me to believe that women in “the movement” were taking control of their own lives – and that’s partially true. But in reading about the altruistic women who stepped up to fight for women’s reproductive rights, I encountered a personal revelation that allowed me to see the whole truth.

Several months after my son was born, I was surprised to learn that I was pregnant again. After the initial shock of an unexpected pregnancy wore off, I began to rejoice in the prospect of bringing another life into the world. Five months into the pregnancy, I learned that the baby had a terminal genetic disorder that was also posing fatal risks to my own health. It seemed there was no other choice but to terminate the pregnancy.

As a woman who has been faced with the decision to have an abortion, I appreciate the social crusaders of the women’s movement who acted not-so-much for their own gratification, but rather for the opportunity to open doors for future generations. Much like the title of Rosen’s book, these women’s worlds were split open by challenging the social norms that forced earlier generations of women into lives of subservience. The leaders of the women’s movement faced many adversaries and risked spending their lives outcast from society. For them, this was not the easy road to take, but they did it anyway. Brick by brick they painfully and selflessly paved a path that my sisters and I now proudly stroll.

Abortion is still one of the most controversial subjects in social politics, and understandably so – who really wants to kill a baby? As a mother myself, I can understand why many people are opposed to abortion. I agree there are many alternatives and it should be avoided when possible, but I differ from many in that I believe it is a choice I cannot make for another woman. It’s a private and intimate issue that should have never been taken on as a political game-piece. Unfortunately, legislation on abortion in many states is based on the opinions of a privileged few. Politicians (typically male), who’ve likely never experienced the fear and hopelessness of an unwanted pregnancy, get to decide what’s best for everyone. In times like this, when it seems like we have to move mountains before women’s issues are taken seriously, it helps me to think of the progress that has been made by my predecessors.

In the 1950s, abortion was illegal in every state. As a result, the conditions in which many women had abortions were formidable. Women had to search through underground networks in order to find somebody to perform the abortion. In a lot of cases, the abortionists were not medically qualified. Their instruments were too often unsterile, causing infection, and most of the time anesthesia was a luxury these women could not afford. Consequently, in 1973, approximately 5000 deaths were directly linked to illegal abortion. As a last resort, some attempted to self-abort with methods involving turpentine, soaps, detergents, and potassium. The extreme measures that women would resort to speak to the levels of desperation they felt when faced with such a life-altering decision. I strongly admire the women who decided to ignore the condemnation they would surely face and stand up for the rights of those without a voice.
Powerful women like Patricia McGinnis, Heather Booth, and Cynthia Gorney helped make the distressing experience of searching for an abortionist easier for women by giving them access to resources, helping them find a way to have the procedure done safely and humanely. It would have certainly been easier for these three courageous women to simply ignore the struggles of others and focus on their own agendas. It’s comforting to know that Patricia, Heather, and Cynthia, along with many others, have made tremendous strides in fighting for women’s liberation, but current legislation still needs a tremendous amount of reform before a woman is truly free to make the personal choice of whether or not to abort.

In the most recent state elections, Amendment 48 to the Colorado Constitution was proposed to define a “person” to include an egg/sperm from the moment of conception or fertilization. Although this seems like a minor technicality, the passing of this amendment would have had dire consequences for many women like me. For example, a woman could potentially face investigation and/or criminal charges in the event of a miscarriage. In my situation, I can’t imagine having to add to my grief, the fact that I could face criminal charges for terminating a doomed pregnancy. The decision would have been taken out of the hands of medical professionals and controlled by lawmakers and politicians in the interest of serving their personal agendas. Had the women of previous years not taken steps to fight for my reproductive rights, who know where I might be? I could be dead, and my son without a mother; I could be in prison for murder, and my son without a mother. Or at the very least my personal health issue might have been turned into a public display of right vs. left.

Today, women are still blamed, judged, and criticized by their communities for even considering abortion. In places where abortion is illegal, a woman must travel to another state, which can be costly and extremely inconvenient. On her way into the abortion clinic, protestors harass the woman, calling her names, yelling obscenities, and throwing things at her. A woman who came from out of state must return home without any counseling or medical resources. Because of this, many girls forego their post-abortion checkups and risk infection. Unfortunately, many women are even afraid to tell their doctor about a past abortion for fear of disparagement.

Organizations such as the National Right to Life Committee are attempting to un-do the work of so many by organizing and rallying to ban abortion under any and all circumstances. The Catholic church still bans birth-control and the Republican party is publically against abortion under any circumstances.

A generation of women today could easily pass legislation which would allow for further resources for women who’ve had an abortion such as readily available post and pre-procedure counseling, and youth sex education programs that warn of the dangers of abortion and how to prevent an unwanted pregnancy altogether. I personally feel that abortion should be state sponsored if the woman is a victim of crime such as rape, incest, or domestic violence. These are just a few of the ways that the younger generation can further the progress that has already been made.

As a hopeful future leader myself, I aspire to spread an understanding throughout the younger generation that the battle for women’s liberation is far from over, despite the common misconception that women have already achieved total equality. I’ve learned that it is my duty to pick up where those before me have left off and tell the world that some progress is just not enough. Too many women (and men alike) look back and think of how far we’ve come without realizing how much further we have yet to go. As I sit here writing, I’m thinking about the thousands of little girls being born right now. I owe it to them, and to my predecessors to become a true leader and keep the movement going.

[The Clockwork Rat]

@ TheGoatman1

That's a good read, and puts the discussion into a more personal perspective. Unfortunately, many people, especially those like DDM and the right-wing autocrats, don't seem to be able to extrapolate individual experiences beyond that one person.

This story is a personal story, and so are all those of all the others who consider abortion. Very few people would consider abortion as flippantly as some people are making out, as if it was simply another form of contraception.

[Gork]

Very few people would consider abortion as flippantly as some people are making out, as if it was simply another form of contraception.

If that were true, don't you think Glenn Beck would stop crying? What OTHER reason could a woman whose husband left here and she got laid off from her job have for not being able to have a child? Any good Christian woman would raise the baby and beg on the street, right? That's what Jesus would want. Hell, it's what the baby would want, right? Then it can grow up with a learned preference for violence and drugs, live in misery and perhaps hurt others, and die in violent crime, drug/alcohol abuse or suicide.

Incidentally, all the chances of those things happening are dramatically higher when you just dip below the poverty line. When it come to barely keeping a place to live or being homeless/transient, You're basically making a 3 to 1 bet that you're a good enough parent that the world you live in will have no effect on your child.

I'm anti-abortion, but under a variety of difficult circumstances, circumstances Glenn Beck and DDM have never been in, I can understand why a woman would consider it, and can imagine that some people who are alive today wish they never were. Of course, I grew up poor and went to grad school, and I teach at-risk kids. That doesn't mean I want there to be twice as many at-risk kids like DDM does.

[TheGoatman1]

@ The clockworkRat

I was very proud of her for posting that blog for all to see. She was essentially saying "I was faced with one of the hardest decisions in my life, and I made the choice I felt was right, and I am not ashamed.". Who out there thinks they can make that choice for someone else? Just look at the language that is used in "discourse" about this subject: People who are pro-choice are constantly referred to as "pro-abortion", which is just asanine.No one is "pro-abortion". "pro-life" is also a strange designation. I am "pro-life" in that I believe in protecting life, but I disagree with "pro-lifers" idea of when life begins. Or look at DDM's posts throughout this thread. Instead of saying "liberals think abortion is a constitutional right" (has he made a single post out of 1500+ that doesn't have the word liberal in it?) he goes in for the "crushing baby skulls" method to conjure up unpleasant images to support his particular viewpoint. A common tactic among "pro-life" advocates.

i was recently facing my own situation where my girlfriend ended up pregnant (accidentally, we were using protection), and we broke up for different reasons shortly afterwards. She miscarried, so it didn't become an issue, but it might have been had she not. She did not want to subject another child to the same situation her 6 year old is facing now (a father and mother who aren't together). I would have liked her to have the child, however, I told her that it wasn't my decision, and that I would support her whichever she chose, and would do everything I could to make "keeping the child" a viable option.

People in this thread have expressed pity for the guy who doesn't want an abortion, and I think that's valid, but those same people have said "she shouldn't have gotten pregnant" (one person said "she shouldn't have had unprotected sex", as if that is the only way one gets pregnant), by that same logic, the man is equally to blame, as he should have first made sure that his relationship with the mother was stable. If it was unprotected sex, the man is equally to blame for that as well, as he knew the risks, especially if the relationship wasn't guaranteed to be lasting. I understand where they are coming from, but I don't want women to be forced to have babies they can't take care of, or don't want. Sure the guy SAYS he is going to support it, but ask a lot of single mothers out there if they have heard that before, and how well it turned out.

[Zerogouki]

Nicely done, but a red herring nonetheless. You're nit-picking and ignoring the point, which is a debate on personhood.

First you said brain function, then you said "brain function in earnest", and now you're saying "personhood".

John Kerry would be impressed by your flip-flopping.

(in case you're wondering, my objective in this thread is not to express my own opinion of the circumstances under which abortion should be illegal, nor my opinion of the definition of personhood. My objective is to clean up the logical fallacies and factual errors coming from ALL sides of this debate)

The main point of contention is when a fetus is considered a human, which is something that will never be agreed upon.

No. Everyone agrees that a fetus is a human from the very start. The main point of contention is when a fetus is considered a PERSON.

[Gork]

(in case you're wondering, my objective in this thread is not to express my own opinion of the circumstances under which abortion should be illegal, nor my opinion of the definition of personhood. My objective is to clean up the logical fallacies and factual errors coming from ALL sides of this debate)

There's a difference between a fallacy and misspeaking. I misspoke. I was aware that brain function began very early in fetal life, but many living things have brains and we don't consider them persons. So brain function isn't the defining moment when a fetus becomes a person. Since you have already stated that you don't intend to contribute intellectually to this debate, but would rather find people who are contributing and use their words to create straw men that you can then burn triumphantly, you';re not, in fact, doing anything productive here.

Since no one has challenged me with a definition of personhood, I'll assume everyone will shut up about abortion now, right? I mean, since you can't think of a way to object to killing a fetus, because you can't show that a fetus is a person, I guess we're all pro-choice. This thread is dead anyway, and Zero is still in here crossing my T's that everyone else knew were already crossed.

[ccdan]

Code: Select allEveryone agrees that a fetus is a human from the very start.

not really... while everyone agrees that a fetus is of human nature, many don't agree that a fetus is a human "being"
for me at least, it's just a piece of disposable organic matter

The main point of contention is when a fetus is considered a PERSON.

a fetus is never considered a person

[Infidelis]

Person...not a person...I couldn't care less. If it's inside a woman and they don't want it in there, remove it. Same as a parasite, bacteria or virus. A man or woman should be able to remove anything it wants from it's body. If the result of removing the being is death to the parasitic being, so be it.

I imagine my opinion is outside the norm, though.

My question is this, though. Why is it that conservatives so willing to block rights, privileges and services from illegal immigrants on the grounds that supporting them is expensive and because their status of a non-citizen, but are so willing to create rights to an embryo or fetus? They too do not have the documentation to be a citizen and given many women abort due to an inability to financially care for their self and fetus during pregnancy and a family once it's a child, they become an eventual financial burden to the State.

[Zerogouki]

There's a difference between a fallacy and misspeaking. I misspoke. I was aware that brain function began very early in fetal life, but many living things have brains and we don't consider them persons. So brain function isn't the defining moment when a fetus becomes a person.

Who are "we"? I refuse to eat vertebrate meat and I even feel a bit uneasy when I eat calamari (molluscs are deuterostomes, so their neural architectures are related to ours, although only very distantly).

not really... while everyone agrees that a fetus is of human nature, many don't agree that a fetus is a human "being"

You said "a human". Now you're saying "human being", a phrase that I have already called into question earlier in this thread.

a fetus is never considered a person

Except by the 150 million Americans who oppose abortion, and their like-minded friends around the world.

Why is it that conservatives so willing to block rights, privileges and services from illegal immigrants on the grounds that supporting them is expensive and because their status of a non-citizen

Because they're here illegally. Next retarded question?

[Infidelis]

And the second half of the question? Financial burden...?

And how is it that you can be so indignant when responding with such a stupid answer? Seriously, it's like a bad joke. The reason an illegal immigrant is illegal is because they're not considered a citizen. A fetus isn't a citizen until they're born. A fetus needs a birth certificate and an immigrant needs their green card.