[Maxim Litvinov]

First, I don't believe a baby is a person. From a scientific perspective, most would agree it does not fulfil the requirements of personhood. This argument has been discussed many times on this forum, and even on this thread.

Second, I would love you to quote scripture to prove abortion is wrong in all circumstances.

Third, there is little difference between saying a position is sick and that the person that holds the position is. Both are unhelpful. Also unhelpful is suggesting I intended to mislead you by using the phrase 'more moral' over 'less immoral'. Both are appropriate phrases, and there was no intent to deceive, even if you think they could do so in the first place. 'More moral' does not automatically mean that something is moral in the first place.

Fourth, what I am saying is that any moral situation should take account of *all* the effects of a particular action. I don't believe that there is any objective criteria to say that abortion is automatically wrong, because there are practicalities which mean that an abortion may bring about a better result than no abortion.

Fifth, I think that it makes as much sense to keep infanticide illegal, as it does to make murder illegal. Of course, most societies account for different levels of killing. Killing in war, for example, is not illegal. Accidentally contributing to a death is often not illegal. Killing a chicken is not illegal, provided it is done humanely. Given this depth of legislation, the killing of a non-person I think should also be legal in some circumstances.

Sixth. Having said all of this, I do prefer that abortions don't occur. But I also acknowledge that abortions are circumstances that should be judged on their individual merits. I also point out that we haven't discussed the negative effects of making abortion ILlegal.

Seventh. You are right. Stopping an unwanted child from being born would be more a pragmatic step, rather than a purely dogmatic one.

[SpitfirE]

I voted nuber one.

[Comrade Ogilvy]

First, I don't believe a baby is a person. From a scientific perspective, most would agree it does not fulfil the requirements of personhood.

It has unique DNA, it responds to external stimulis, it eats and sleeps. It remembers to a small degree.

Why exactly isn't it a person again?

[tragicclown]

First, I don't believe a baby is a person. From a scientific perspective, most would agree it does not fulfil the requirements of personhood.

It has unique DNA, it responds to external stimulis, it eats and sleeps. It remembers to a small degree.

Why exactly isn't it a person again?

So does a goldfish...no one is responding to my arguements.

Someone hooks themselves up to your circulatory system for 9 month to save their life...is it fair to you?

[David]

First, I don't believe a baby is a person. From a scientific perspective, most would agree it does not fulfil the requirements of personhood.

I am not appealing to you from a scientific perspective. Besides, I believe the notion of personhood is philosophical, not scientific.

Second, I would love you to quote scripture to prove abortion is wrong in all circumstances.

First, I don't believe any quoting from Scripture will prove anything. Without magisterial authority, which you reject as a Protestant, one ends up with as many interpretations as there are interpreters. With that said though, I refer you to the Gospel passage of the meeting of Mary and Elizabeth. Does that not establish personhood for the unborn?

Third, there is little difference between saying a position is sick and that the person that holds the position is. Both are unhelpful.

I already said that I shall refrain from such in the future. Can we leave it at that?

Also unhelpful is suggesting I intended to mislead you by using the phrase 'more moral' over 'less immoral'.

I deny that I have even suggested such. I never assigned any motive to you whatsoever.

'More moral' does not automatically mean that something is moral in the first place.

Strictly speaking, no. But do you not admit that it gives that impression?

[T]here are practicalities which mean that an abortion may bring about a better result than no abortion.

With that thinking, you can justify almost anything.

Given this depth of legislation, the killing of a non-person I think should also be legal in some circumstances.

The baby Jesus is non-person according to your definition. What do you say of that?

I do prefer that abortions don't occur.

Did you not say you would rather an unwanted child be killed than exacerbate the "problem" of overpopulation?

[Comrade Ogilvy]

So does a goldfish...no one is responding to my arguements.

Someone hooks themselves up to your circulatory system for 9 month to save their life...is it fair to you?

You don't HAVE arguments.

A goldfish doesn't remember, a goldfish most certainly DOESN'T show any ability to process information like a baby at comparative development level in the womb, a goldfish doesn't active/inactive cycles in the "womb". And it most certainly doesn't have distinct human DNA.

The difference between a fetus in the womb and a child after birth are one is in the womb and one is out. And that's it.

And aren't you a socialist? What do you think your social programs are? It's one person latching onto the other and sucking the life from him.

[Vivisekt]

The difference between a fetus in the womb and a child after birth are one is in the womb and one is out. And that's it.

Not only is there a massive difference between the two, this is a weak argument at best. A child does not physically require its mother's body to survive - it can be cared for by anyone, where as a fetus is a living piece of it's mother, like her arm. Like i said on page one; the way i am currently inclined to see it, there are times when the situation warrants the termination of an unborn fetus which, at that point, makes the classificatory transition from symbyotic life to parasitic life. Parasitic in that it is fundamentally no different than a tape worm which can think, feel, and experience life... yet physically requires it's host to feed.

And the value of all life is completely relative to the point of observation, something that has been illustrated time and time again throught human history. Furthermore there is logically no inherent, universal, fundamental difference between any sort of killing in the first place. In all instances a person's life is being prematurely ended, and this is most often (but not always) against that person's will.

As members of society, we are collectively responsible for the deaths of millions anually - directly or indirectly, by participating in and supporting the sociopolitical system that kills them. Do you all honestly cry yourselves to sleep every night over all of these people? How is abortion any different? Death is an intimate part of human life, just as destruction is a fundamental ally of creation (something that can be observed no matter where in our universe we look)... and looking at the anti-abortion lobby, it is evident that some people still need to come to terms with that.

And aren't you a socialist? What do you think your social programs are? It's one person latching onto the other

This is, however, a valid point to raise against her argument. Socialist programs force an individual to support other individuals, and this is similar to the nature of prohibiting abortion.

[DTguitarist99]

I have already stated my position on abortion before, so I'm not going to bother writing it out again. Cut and paste:

"1. Individual human beings have rights
2. A fetus is an individual human being
3. Therefore a fetus has rights, including the right to life

Now in support of premise 2, a fetus is obviously human since it has 46 chromosomes. Now whether it is an individual is bit more complicated. I believe that your mind determines your individuality, so when a fetus develops a mind it becomes an individual. When exactly it does this is not known, but it would make sense to exercise caution until we do know. There is a point when we definitely know it has a mind, and a point where we know it doesn't. But it is the grey area in between that we must be careful of. I propose that we stop abortions during this grey area in order to avoid the possibility of killing an individual human being with rights.

So basically my belief is that abortion is okay for a short period of time after conception, because the fetus has not developed a mind yet. So if rape or incest occurs, the abortion must take place during this time period. After that, there is no excuse for violating its rights, not even rape or incest. In the case of the mother's life being threatened, the right of the mother to live trumps the fetus's, so abortion is okay then."

First, I don't believe a baby is a person. From a scientific perspective, most would agree it does not fulfil the requirements of personhood. This argument has been discussed many times on this forum, and even on this thread.

Like someone mentioned before, personhood is philisophical, not scientific. Science can determine whether something is human, but not something subjective like "personhood." Is it your view that only a "person" has rights, and not all humans? If so, who decides what a person is, since it is subjective?

Fifth, I think that it makes as much sense to keep infanticide illegal, as it does to make murder illegal. Of course, most societies account for different levels of killing. Killing in war, for example, is not illegal. Accidentally contributing to a death is often not illegal. Killing a chicken is not illegal, provided it is done humanely. Given this depth of legislation, the killing of a non-person I think should also be legal in some circumstances.

Let me get this right, babies are non-persons, so it should be legal to kill them under certain circumstances? Which circumstances may I ask? If the mother decides the baby is unwanted, is it okay for for her to drown it and throw it in the dumpster?

A foetus is a living organism. And so is a woman. And a woman who can't enjoy life because she has had a baby - for whatever reason - should have the chance to abort, especially considering that she is not even aborting a conscious being and especially in circumstances where the baby won't "enjoy life".

Who are you to decide that the baby will have an "unhappy life"? Should we go around killing babies in third world countries to prevent them from having an unhappy life?

Happiness or unhappiness is not predetermined. Some people can find happiness in the worst of conditions. Or if they have a bad childhood, they could grow up and have a good adulthood. Even the most unhappy lives include moments of happiness. You cannot justify abortion by saying the baby will have an unhappy life. Even if you were sure the fetus would'nt have single moment of happiness its entire life, that doesn't give you the right to take that life away. If it is true that the fetus has rights, then you may not violate those rights even if you think you are doing is good for it.

The "woman can't enjoy life" argument is irrelevant. Give it up for adoption and live life like you want to. You have to accept responsibility for your actions, and if you chose to have sex and get pregnant, then you have to accept responsibility for the fetus. That means having to go through 9 months of discomfort, and having to make the tough decision of whether to give the baby up for adoption or raise it yourself.

I think there is a degree of immorality in killing any conscious thing. So, to the extent that I believe a baby is conscious, I believe killing it is immoral. Then again, I believe it is immoral to force a woman to be pregnant against her will. So, as with most situations in life, the situation is more complex than it might appear to be on the surface and it is a matter of weighing up various issues.

The conciousness argument isn't very convincing. If someone goes unconcious for any reason, they aren't giving up their rights, and it is not okay to murder them.

By the same argument, you should just live with a melanoma that you contracted by being out in the sun too long. You should have known better. But, now it's grown their naturally, even though there are ways of getting rid of it, you should just let it stay there and forever distort your quality of life.

Not a good analogy. The melanoma is not a human being with rights. If going out into the sun causes a human being to start growing on your body, then you must accept responsibility for what you did. You have to allow that human being to grow until it can be separated from your body without dying.

[tragicclown]

[quote="BobSally]A goldfish doesn't remember, a goldfish most certainly DOESN'T show any ability to process information like a baby at comparative development level in the womb, a goldfish doesn't active/inactive cycles in the "womb". And it most certainly doesn't have distinct human DNA.

The difference between a fetus in the womb and a child after birth are one is in the womb and one is out. And that's it.

And aren't you a socialist? What do you think your social programs are? It's one person latching onto the other and sucking the life from him.[/quote]

a. Goldfish do remember for short periods of time, fetuses might as well though its harder to confirm. We know that fetuses don't have long term memories...or we would all remember being one. Goldfish certaintly do have active and inactive cycles. If you don't like the goldfish example then just replace it with a puppy instead.

b. Distinct human DNA isn't the equivolent of being a person. Hair that collects in a brush you use has human DNA, as does a corpse, but they certaintly aren't persons and they don't enjoy rights. An identical twin is a person with human DNA but that DNA is not distinct.

c. This isn't about socialism or capitalism, but capitalists are parasites because they do no work and they live off of the backs of other people's labor. I don't really want to get into the point though because its off topic.

[Gibberish]

Sometimes abortion can be the best option for the mother.

[Maxim Litvinov]

Philosophy and science are forever interconnected. Self-awareness and consciousness, both of which have rather scientific definitions, are also philosophical terms. Most standard scientific definitions (and philosophical definitions) of a 'person' include these.

Person is not the same as 'human being'. An alien, if conscious and self-aware, would automatically be a person. I realise this definition is foreign to some here, but it is also fairly standard - in scientific and philosophical circles.

All I am saying is - there are circumstances where an abortion is the best thing to do. The less of a 'person' that the baby is, and the more the mother is being put through as a result of her pregnancy, the more the abortion is justified.

One does not have as many interpretations as there are interpreters outside the Catholic church. That is a slander. What one does have are interpretations and debate based solely upon scripture and reason, and not having to take into account over ten centuries of accumulated baggage. One does not have to rely upon arguments against abortion based upon centuries-old notions of what happens inside a woman's body, for instance.

CR's best biblical authority, for those who aren't familiar, is that the foetus John the Baptist reported leapt for joy in his mother's womb on the news that Mary was pregnant with Jesus. If the story were true, and I suspect all that actually happened (at most) was the JtB at best kicked, then it certainly paves the way for JtB being a unique baby indeed. So, perhaps JtB was a person in the womb. I hardly take this passage as confirming that all babies are fully cogniscent in the womb, however.

With the thinking that abortion may always be justified under certain circumstances, you do deny an absolute rule in this regard. But that is only fair - to evaluate the morality of any one action it is far better to judge it on individual circumstances, and not tar everyone with the same wide brush.

I think baby Jesus was a very unique person. As is any person with the natures of a human and God united. I agree this peculiar person, if any baby was, would probably be an exception to the rule of 'persons'. Then again, I don't believe making all women stop abortions just in case their baby is divine is a wise or justifiable practice.

I prefer that abortions don't occur. If they do occur, in circumstances of over-population, then I recognise that one positive out of the ordeal is that the child has not led to over-population. It is simply one minor detail, amongst a wealth of others which should be considered on a case-by-case basis. This is what my argument is about - recognising that individual circumstances differ, without just condemning all women who ever aborted with no regard to their individual circumstances.

I don't think a woman is obliged to bear a child for 9 months and then give birth to it painfully just by virtue of the fact that she finds herself pregnant. When you put this into the perspective that the 'child' inside is a non-conscious, non-self-aware cluster of cells, you see that much of the 'morality' of each situation ought to come down to the mother's situation.

You have to accept responsibility for your actions when they intentional and their consequences are clear. But if you have a chance to change the consequences, you ought to also have the opportunity to do so.

A foetus is not a 'person' and should not have the same rights that you or I do, especially if this means a small bundle of unconscious flesh supercede the rights of a fully conscious mother.

[David]

A foetus is not a 'person' and should not have the same rights that you or I do, especially if this means a small bundle of unconscious flesh supercede the rights of a fully conscious mother.

No, it is not a person according to your definition. But I believe it has a soul, which is far more important than "personhood". Do you have a position on when an unborn child acquires a soul? Or do you claim ignorance in this matter?

[Maxim Litvinov]

I don't have a position on when an unborn child acquires a soul. Since an unborn child has a very good chance of being miscarried in the first months anyway, I would hope that it wouldn't 'get' a soul until very close to the time of birth. Then again, the whole doctrine of the 'soul' is a very conceptual one that has been worked through based on scant evidence, save the knowledge that some core substance of what it is to be 'us' is present in the afterlife.

In any case, I believe that an unborn child with a soul would go to heaven, and reject the doctrines of purgatory and limbo.

[David]

I would hope that it wouldn't 'get' a soul until very close to the time of birth.

But you're willing to let it be killed even though you don't know? That's like walking into room firing a machine gun and "hoping" no one is there.

In any case, I believe that an unborn child with a soul would go to heaven, and reject the doctrines of purgatory and limbo.

Limbo was never a doctrine. It was a theological conjecture that has fallen out of the favor within the Catholic Church. The Church's position is that it doesn't know, but commends them to God's mercy.

I've never met a Protestant that did believe in purgatory.

[DTguitarist99]

Philosophy and science are forever interconnected. Self-awareness and consciousness, both of which have rather scientific definitions, are also philosophical terms. Most standard scientific definitions (and philosophical definitions) of a 'person' include these.

I disagree. Philosophy deals with the world of ideas, science deals with the real world. The idea of "person" is just that, an idea. A "person" is not a species or any sort of class in the animal kingdom. This is opposed to "human;" which is scientifically different from a dog or a cat, due to its chromosomes and other features. Whether something is human or not can be scientifically determined. Your idea of "person" involves a level of consciousness, but consciousness cannot be scientifically measured. Therefore "person-ness" cannot be scientifically determined either.

[Maxim Litvinov]

Thanks for the info on limbo. The problem is you don't always meet people who speak what the church holds to.

To tell you the truth, I don't think the 'concept of the soul' should affect women thinking about abortion unduly. It will play a role, of course, in the decision of religious women.

But to say that a woman should take account of the fact that Christians believe - based on an interpretation of what makes sense according to various biblical verses - that there exists in people a soul, and that if you kill someone with a soul it is automatically wrong, and that there is at least some chance that a foetus has a soul... although we can't be sure of this, because it is mere conjecture on conjecture on conjecture.... Well, I am not convinced it is a particularly strong case to stop abortion.

In developing a cogent moral framework for deciding the 'correctness' of killing, the soul just gets in the way, to tell you the truth. Something based on a more experiential criteria -- like consciousness -- I think is much more universally justifiable.

Both philosophy and science deal with concepts and ideas, explored through the prism of human experience. And yes, in this respect, science has ways of measuring consciousness and self-awareness. In some respects, the differences between phyla, genus and species are just as wishy-washy as are the distinctions between different levels of consciousness. But there are, nevertheless, standard means of determining what they are.

[David]

It was a mistake on my part to try and reason with a Protestant from a scriptural standpoint. It all reduces into personal opinion. My bad, as they say.

[Maxim Litvinov]

Yes, I'm sorry.

You were taught what to believe, and the thought that this should ever be put under scrutiny through well-reasoned - even Biblical - argument is obviously anathema to you.

[David]

You were taught what to believe, and the thought that this should ever be put under scrutiny through well-reasoned - even Biblical - argument is obviously anathema to you.

We can start from the beginning. I contend that you are personally not capable of determining what books belong in scripture, let alone interpreting them. If you are interested, we can discuss this.

You're prepared to throw about two millennia of traditional interpretation of the Bible out the window. You're prepared to say that billions of Christians throughout history have ALL interpreted Scripture incorrectly in regards to, say, the morality of fornication, and that you know better than they. How reasonable is that?

[Maxim Litvinov]

Aw. Come on.

We both believe that even more billions of people throughout history have got the whole religion thing completely wrong. That a billion modern-day Muslims have got it wrong. So don't pretend that thinking a billion Catholics are a bit off the mark is somehow the 'height of arrogance'.


Just as in history, I do not have to 'personally interpret' everything, so too in religion I do not have to 'personally interpret' everything. Rather, if you are widely read, you use reason and consult scholarly texts, you should have a good idea of what to believe and why to believe it. The 39 Articles of Faith are a very good start.

What I do not want to do is believe SOLELY on the basis of a Catholic Church edict. Every time you want to use our God to *prove* something, I will want a reasoned analysis direct from scripture as to why God says such-and-such, because the statement 'that's what the Pope says' is not a convincing one for me.

Traditional interpretation has often been traditional MISinterpretation. And the Catholic Church, despite its great scholarship, also suffers because it is very hard to CORRECT previous misinterpretations, because 'tradition' and not God's teaching, is so coveted and glorified.