So before you tell some woman that she is about to kill her child, condemning that child to life with unfit parents, that will most likely go badly and end rather worse, perhaps you should take your own advice and think about the child and not your beliefs. And that story is not the exception, its the rule. Parents who are not ready do not magically become mother and father of the year at the sight of a baby.
Another solution would be to improve the systems which facilitate the removal of children from unfit parents (so that the system is less like "hellfire"), or which allow reluctant parents to give their child up for adoption early on. How do you feel about those?
I understand that you were apparently in a terrible situation, but your being aborted was not the only way for you to be removed from that situation.
Another solution would be to improve the systems which facilitate the removal of children from unfit parents (so that the system is less like "hellfire"), or which allow reluctant parents to give their child up for adoption early on. How do you feel about those?
I understand that you were apparently in a terrible situation, but your being aborted was not the only way for you to be removed from that situation.
True, but the assumption that not aborting the child automatically give the child a good life is based purely on fantasy. Most likely stemming from people own fear of death or their selfish need to live. And improving how the state does anything is also a dream. Look at how many children are waiting to be adopted now, and then constantly adding more. And how many parents do not want to adopt "someone else's problem" then run out and tell people not have abortions creating more of the problems they just turned away from.
A parent can give up a child for abortion at birth if they want, but some parents (like mine) think or are told they can do it. So they happy couple of 17 year olds knee deep in drugs and alcohol apparently thought raising a child was easy. Although my mother quite smoke and drinking the moment she learned she was pregnant (thankfully) her boyfriend appereantly lacked the self-control.
Its just that most of the people I see in anti-choice rallies vanish like Houdini after the child is born, where is the caring then? How many of anti-choice people have adopted children? Actually doing something to help the people they CLAIM to care so much about?
Its just that most of the people I see in anti-choice rallies vanish like Houdini after the child is born, where is the caring then? How many of anti-choice people have adopted children? Actually doing something to help the people they CLAIM to care so much about?
As far as adoption in America, the demand exceeds the supply.
Exactly. Just as I can't say that it is not good for a fetus to enter this world, you can't say say it is good for it to do so. The only person who has enough of a stake in the whole thing is the mother. So let her do what she feels is best.
This is assuming that the child should not, pre-birth, be a person to be taken into account, correct?
It doesn't matter what you were talking about. I was making an analogy.
A poor analogy.
No such thing as what?
A "Grand universal balance" or what have you.
Morality is all about values and consequences. Everything has consequences. Sometimes we don't care about certain consequences (we have no values concerning it). If someone doesn't value human lives, and therefore doesn't care about consequences that affect human lives, that is a totally different matter.
Some only care about consequences that are very large in scale. Most of us believe that to be very impractical (because it is), and hold value in much "smaller" things.
If someone burned down your house, would you say "oh, well, it doesn't affect the universe"?
No, because that one instance did affect me.
However, by that token, then the only abortions you can care about are the noes that personally affect you.
--
Suppose we were to create a system in which for every abortion, a house was burned to the ground. You think there is some great universal scale, so this shouldn't be too far of a stretch for you.
Now then, this Great Universal Scale dictates that every killed fetus needs one burned-down house to keep things even.
This is assuming that the child should not, pre-birth, be a person to be taken into account, correct?
Well if, like GMontag was saying, doesn't have brain function at the level we consider necessary for a person to not be considered a corpse on the other end of the spectrum, it doesn't really factor in. In such a situation, the mother speaks for both her and the child.
Its just that most of the people I see in anti-choice rallies vanish like Houdini after the child is born, where is the caring then? How many of anti-choice people have adopted children? Actually doing something to help the people they CLAIM to care so much about?
In the US, potential adoptive parents do frequently prefer to adopt babies, as opposed to older kids, who are regrettably tagged as "damaged goods." (I do not have a citation for this other than personal experience.) Ergo, detaching kids from unfit parents at an early age would facilitate adoptions.
Not that adoption will solve every possible problem, but it at least deals with many "unfit parent" concerns (at least those that don't put the fetus at risk of physical harm.)
The demand exceeding supply is only true of "normal" healthy children. When I was in the group home I met teen-agers who had abandoned all hope of being adopted. 17 year olds who would become adults (and therefore no longer state property) after a few months. Had to decide what they would do after entering the world.
Crack babies, children with learning disabilities etc are not as welcome as we would like to think. Everyone wants a normal child, I was only in the group home for 7 months, my "selling point" was my intelligence. But some of the children around me the people there had already stopped trying to peddle those kids cause they knew nobody would want them.
But if you are normal you will only be on the shelf a short time, if not you are like a broken toy.
Well if, like GMontag was saying, doesn't have brain function at the level we consider necessary for a person to not be considered a corpse on the other end of the spectrum, it doesn't really factor in. In such a situation, the mother speaks for both her and the child.
So your response is, "Yes, in order for my argument to work, we're assuming that, in a general sense, a human life that is growing into having a functional nervous system, but does not have one yet, is actually as dead as a corpse." Is that the case? Correct me if I'm wrongly putting words in your mouth.
Medical science cannot empirically determine the meaning of a word, even if that word is a medical one.
No, but it can provide medical (rather than moral or religious) boundaries for such terms, which are the only things that should be used in determining LAW. No one can convince you that something isn't disgusting or wrong, that's your own personal choice. But the law only protects human beings, and if medically something isn't a human in any other facet why would it magically get these particular time-travelling rights?
If she is not ready to take responsibility for a child, she shouldn't have sex. And if she does anyway, there are always adoption agencies.
Adoption is complicated and can cause massive psychological damage. Beyond that, your morality or my morality or the Pope's morality or Bush's morality has no (by which I mean SHOULD have no, of course in reality we see it ends up having one) effect on law. The only way to make an arguement that abortion should be legally wrong (aka, illegal) is if you could state that the act itself is illegal, which would basically mean ending that developing human's life is somehow murder. I use this analogy constantly, but I do because I like it.
If I own a handgun, I need a liscense to legally own it in the United States. The same is not true if I own a block of metal. Why? All the matter (which is actually MORE than the developing thing that is aborted) of the finished product, just requiring a variety of processes to form it (exactly like the developing life) is there. Isn't that enough, under your definition? If you argue time travelling rights, that something that will EVENTUALLY become X must be treated exactly like X is insanity. Masturbation would be genocide. A building would need thousands of hand gun lisceses to be built and everyone would need a driver's liscense to operate an elevator.
A finished product is different, is treated differently, and has different rights because it has gone through those formative processes. A bowl filled with cake ingredients is not a cake. A woman with a few cells inside her that show genetic traits of a human being (like, as people have made analogies to in this thread, a donated organ) is not a child. The cut-off point is, in fact, already determined in American law. When you are unconcious and incapable of making decisions on your own behalf medical and legal proxies can be appointed (either through a living will or other paths) to make these decisions for you. Your rights to those processes is removed at that loss of conciousness. The same should be true of the fetus/zygote/whatever. Until it has reached a sufficient stage of development to have a formed (or formed potential for) conciousness (why I'm against late-term abortion) the being inside the woman is not yet human and does not have the same protections.
Do I think there are better paths than abortion in most cases? Absolutely. Do I think the act (except in late-term cases) is illegal? No. Given that it's perfectly legal, do I think I can assert my beliefs on the morality of an act onto another individual's decision? Hell no.
Doesn't that tell you something? Like maybe it's bad to kill people before they're born?...
The incredibly overused and completely false assertion of proof after the fact. "Oh, people tend to enjoy life and want to live as a biological imperative, so we should never end life ever." Again, masturbation would be mass genocide of the thousands, nay millions, of potential generations that could pour forth from one's spilt seed. I'm pretty sure you'd have some angry teenagers if you tried to make such an assertion.
So your response is, "Yes, in order for my argument to work, we're assuming that, in a general sense, a human life that is growing into having a functional nervous system, but does not have one yet, is actually as dead as a corpse." Is that the case? Correct me if I'm wrongly putting words in your mouth.
Legally it is, except according to the bass-ackwards law they passed after the Scott Peterson trial. Unless you believe in future rights, of course, which are an equal load of bull to try and make a legal defense of an anti-abortion position.
No, but it can provide medical (rather than moral or religious) boundaries for such terms, which are the only things that should be used in determining LAW. No one can convince you that something isn't disgusting or wrong, that's your own personal choice. But the law only protects human beings, and if medically something isn't a human in any other facet why would it magically get these particular time-travelling rights?
As has been mentioned several times in this thread, there's no question that based on current medical nomenclature, abortion is legal. The debate is over whether abortion is generally immoral or not and, if it is, that the medical nomenclature is insufficient.
My fiancee has been doing a lengthy term project regarding infanticide, which has also interested me. If anything, it demonstrates that even today, medical professionals are not automatically the "experts" on medical morality. They're humans without perfect, "empirically-defined" ethics, just like you or me.
My point is, appeals to the law of the land don't accomplish anything itt.
I'd say that since, by established medical definitions and Roe v. Wade, abortion is legal, we shouldn't legislate against it just becuase half of the population believes it to be "immoral." There are many things that people find immortal. However, you cannot ban everything that people find immoral.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Winner of the SCG Invitational, Somerset, NJ, Jul 26-28, 2013
Top 8 of SCG Invitational, Las Vegas, NV, Dec 13-15, 2013
Top 8 of SCG Invitational, Somerset, NJ, Aug 28-30, 2015
Winner of SCG Worcester Team Sealed Open with Gerard Fabiano and Curtis Sheu, September 28, 2013
So your response is, "Yes, in order for my argument to work, we're assuming that, in a general sense, a human life that is growing into having a functional nervous system, but does not have one yet, is actually as dead as a corpse." Is that the case? Correct me if I'm wrongly putting words in your mouth.
Inasmuch as they have the right to self-determination (read: none) yes.
What do you mean by "self-determination"? Does a fully-functional amoeba have "self-determination"?
Making the killing of amoeba's illegal has never happened, will never happen, and will never be asked for. We're talking about human beings here, and humans differ substantially from most other animals, especially amoebas.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Winner of the SCG Invitational, Somerset, NJ, Jul 26-28, 2013
Top 8 of SCG Invitational, Las Vegas, NV, Dec 13-15, 2013
Top 8 of SCG Invitational, Somerset, NJ, Aug 28-30, 2015
Winner of SCG Worcester Team Sealed Open with Gerard Fabiano and Curtis Sheu, September 28, 2013
But you're denying all those potential children their life. Don't be so selfish. After all, they'll all value their lives just like you said. If going out and impregnating a woman results in a human being who will almost always appreciate their life, what possible moral reason is there not to go out and spread your seed as wide as possible?
What reason? I don't want to. Not impregnating every woman I see is not giving life, which is perfectly fine. Abortion is taking away life that already existed, which is not OK.
Potential children do not exist, and therefore you cannot kill them. Abortions kill children that do in fact exist. That's the difference.
Let me put it this way- if a woman was going to have a baby at (arbitrary age) 25 after she was in a good position to care for it, but accidentally got pregnant at 22 (for the sake of argument we'll say the condom broke). As a result she now has trouble finishing school, finding a good job, maybe finding a supportive spouse. The theoretical child she was going to have at 25 will now not be born, because she does not have the means to support the child she has now, much less another. The net result is nothing but unhappiness- there's still one child either way, but in the case that she was allowed to undo the breaking condom by having an abortion, both her and the child will be in much more comfortable situations.
There's one very important thing that I don't beleive you are gathering from my position. The difference between your analogy and my suggestions is that a "theoretical baby" that doesn't exist obviously deserves no rights, but (IMO) a baby that already exists in the womb does deserves some basic rights (namely the right to life). And again, you (and I) are in no position to decide whether someone else's life is worth living.
Unhappiness does not justify murder. Hell, misery does not justify murder. The only person who is in a position to decide whether or not a life is worth living is the person who holds said life.
Exactly. Just as I can't say that it is not good for a fetus to enter this world, you can't say say it is good for it to do so. The only person who has enough of a stake in the whole thing is the mother. So let her do what she feels is best.
Wrong. The only person who can decide whether or not a child's life is worth living is the child. The mother does not deserve the right to decide the fate of another person's life. Period.
Quote from Einsteinmonkey »
Not true that everyone is happy to be alive and would rather endure life than not exist in the first place.
In all of your wonderful analogies, you miss one crucial detail. An abortion consists of the mother killing another person. The child whose life is being taken deserves the right to decide for itself whether or not they are in such excrutiating pain and misery that they should die.
@ Stax:
....
I knew I would regret getting into this discussion.
In the previous thread, we discussed this topic ad nauseum, or however, it's spelled. Let me just try to tell you why I think your analogy does not work, which I myself have done quite a few number times....
Your analogy uses comparisons to the relevant discussion in such a manner that would obviously "prove" your position. No, a block of steel is not a gun, the same way that a sperm cell is not a human being. All of the materials in a gun mixed into a bowl is not a gun, the same way that a sperm cell and an egg cell sitting next to each other, but not combined, are not a human being. But when you take the sperm cell and have it penetrate the egg cell, mix their respective haploids, generate an entirely new set of DNA, and "fertilize" the egg, the fertilized egg is now indeed a human.
Think of fertilization as a special way to combine the components of a human (or a gun) in order to create a human (or gun).
And also, to say that the egg is not alive is scientifically and biologically incorrect. The discussion is about whether or not the zygote is a human, not alive.
A finished product is different, is treated differently, and has different rights because it has gone through those formative processes. A bowl filled with cake ingredients is not a cake. A woman with a few cells inside her that show genetic traits of a human being (like, as people have made analogies to in this thread, a donated organ) is not a child.
Why? What is your definition of a human being?
Yes, a finished product is and should be treated differently than the beginning stages of the product. I however beleive that the right to life is a right that should be awarded to every human being, regardless of age (before and after birth).
The cut-off point is, in fact, already determined in American law. When you are unconcious and incapable of making decisions on your own behalf medical and legal proxies can be appointed (either through a living will or other paths) to make these decisions for you. Your rights to those processes is removed at that loss of conciousness. The same should be true of the fetus/zygote/whatever.
Now this is quite interesting. If you read a previous post of mine, I was talking about cremation and consent in one's will. Perhaps what should be discussed is what exactly should the default decision be, seeing as how the child cannot make a conscious decision?
Until it has reached a sufficient stage of development to have a formed (or formed potential for) conciousness (why I'm against late-term abortion) the being inside the woman is not yet human and does not have the same protections.
So you define humanity through conciousness?
The incredibly overused and completely false assertion of proof after the fact. "Oh, people tend to enjoy life and want to live as a biological imperative, so we should never end life ever."
Did I say that? No, I did not. But I did say that no one deserves the right to decide whether someone else's life is worth living.
Again, masturbation would be mass genocide of the thousands, nay millions, of potential generations that could pour forth from one's spilt seed.
Cute. Maybe you should read the definition of genocide, because genocide infers killing people. Masturbation is not killing any people. And don't feed me that potential baby crap. Potential babies do not exist, and therefore cannot be killed, as I have said before.
Making the killing of amoeba's illegal has never happened, will never happen, and will never be asked for. We're talking about human beings here, and humans differ substantially from most other animals, especially amoebas.
You misunderstand. I'm trying to figure out what he means by self-determination. If self-determination is a biological thing (and not a mystical thing), then I'm wondering what lower mechanics constitute it. And if self-determination is something that only humans have, then I am especially curious as to what exactly constitutes it.
The "person" debate is merely this: At what point does this cellular organization start to matter? At what point in this cellular organization's growth do we care about the maintenance of its life? What functionality must it have before it has worth? These are the questions you come to when you eliminate all the semantic bridges.
I think the claim that "a human cellular organization matters at the point in which it has a nervous system that reacts to stimuli" is a bit arbitrary. Why does it matter at that point? Worth is always imputed, and in the abortion debate we assume that the mother considers it of low worth, so what value does it have to society after it gains this functionality that it didn't have before?
What do you mean by "self-determination"? Does a fully-functional amoeba have "self-determination"?
No, but I likely crush thousands of such beings under my heel throughout a day without batting an eyelash. Obviously the situation is different and there will likely be slightly more emotional attachment (because while laws and rights don't predict the future, emotions do) the fundamental base shouldn't be.
Granting full protections to something that might eventually become the actual being granted those rights cheapens them for everyone and makes the statement granting them pointless.
The purpose of the hypothetical is to examine the concepts of right to life and autonomy in situations where exerting the right of one entity over another is at the risk of that other's life or autonomy. It is a thought experiment - after initial reactions are taken refinements can be made to make the hypothetical fit the situation better.
How about trying to answer the question instead of pointing out the obvious?
Yes, and there we go. We made the situation one that will better fit the situation didn't we? There is no point to discussing and mulling over an irrelevant situation.
The purpose of the hypothetical is to examine the concepts of right to life and autonomy in situations where exerting the right of one entity over another is at the risk of that other's life or autonomy. It is a thought experiment - after initial reactions are taken refinements can be made to make the hypothetical fit the situation better.
How about trying to answer the question instead of pointing out the obvious?
The kidnapper in the above example is being compelled: a third party gives the kidnapper an ultimatum 'kidnap the first person or be killed yourself'.
The kidnapped person is made aware of the kidnapper's predicament.
Can the kidnapped person justify killing the kidnapper?
Here we have to know the kidnapped persons priorities; does the kidnapped person value his/her life over that of his/her kidnappers. Here its the kidnapped persons perogative; if she values her own life over that of kidnapper she will kill him, if not, she will let him do what he will and the kidnapped person may escape the situation without harming the kidnapper.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Quote from Cochese »
Do threads in this forum ever not get hijacked by the magical invisible hand of the market guys?
Granting full protections to something that might eventually become the actual being granted those rights cheapens them for everyone and makes the statement granting them pointless.
I'm quite certain that the pro-life claim is that the "something" is the actual being, but immature. For instance, an infant might not have a functional reproductive system, but we know it, as a general representative of the species, will eventually have one, so we credit it with being a person. I likewise credit a human cellular organization that is growing (but does not yet have) a functional heart or a functional nervous system.
I'm quite certain that the pro-life claim is that the "something" is the actual being, but immature. For instance, an infant might not have a functional reproductive system, but we know it, as a general representative of the species, will eventually have one, so we credit it with being a person. I likewise credit a human cellular organization that is growing (but does not yet have) a functional heart or a functional nervous system.
But there are certain differences that exist between small children and adults and organizations of human cells and adults.
(Also, this assumes adulthood is "the place to be," apparently.)
Yes, and there we go. We made the situation one that will better fit the situation didn't we? There is no point to discussing and mulling over an irrelevant situation.
The situation is not at all irrelevant. By considering the hypothetical in stages we come to a greater understanding of where and why our opinions change. Without the second qulaifier the hypothetical encompasses a number of possibilities - including the refined version that follows.
By avoiding the question you don't make any progress in considering your own or others opinion - and you certainly don't help my own thought process (the only reason I enterred this argument is to reassess my own views).
Here we have to know the kidnapped persons priorities; does the kidnapped person value his/her life over that of his/her kidnappers. Here its the kidnapped persons perogative; if she values her own life over that of kidnapper she will kill him, if not, she will let him do what he will and the kidnapped person may escape the situation without harming the kidnapper.
The question doesn't need the kidnapped person's priorities at all. The whole idea for such an experiment is to determine a standard of what you thinkis right on a general level. Is the kidnapped's right to autonomy greater than the kidnapper's right to life?
If you can answer the question then you'll be on your way to determining whether abortion can be justified.
--------------
The reason I came up with the hypothetical in the first place is to try and determine my own idea's about abortion. I found that I couldn't reconcile the following premises;
- That killing a person is wrong in most circumstances
- That abortion could be justified
As I couldn't really determine whether a fetus should be considered a person or not, or if so when they become a person, I decided to assume that they were. This meant that my first two premises came into conflict.
If a person (for instance a slave or kidnapee) can justify killing a person in defence of their right to autonomy then under what other circumstances might it be justified?
So far under this model I have decided that where a woman is the victim of rape (ie that all her choices for becoming pregnant were taken from her) then it could be morally right to assert her right to autonomy over the right to life of the fetus.
I am still muling over abortion in other repsects. Maybe people could address their views on the hypothetical, again without tearing it down until after a view is expressed.
If there ever will be a completely satisfactory answer to that question, I look forward to it.
Likewise. But that is the question -- rather than a question of "person/non-person/human/non-human/life/non-life," a semantic circus that accomplishes nothing.
Likewise. But that is the question -- rather than a question of "person/non-person/human/non-human/life/non-life," a semantic circus that accomplishes nothing.
Yes, but even that question invites it's own kind of circus, albeit a more refined one.
I suppose it's a Cirque de Soleil to a Barnum & Bailey's, if you will.
I understand that you were apparently in a terrible situation, but your being aborted was not the only way for you to be removed from that situation.
True, but the assumption that not aborting the child automatically give the child a good life is based purely on fantasy. Most likely stemming from people own fear of death or their selfish need to live. And improving how the state does anything is also a dream. Look at how many children are waiting to be adopted now, and then constantly adding more. And how many parents do not want to adopt "someone else's problem" then run out and tell people not have abortions creating more of the problems they just turned away from.
A parent can give up a child for abortion at birth if they want, but some parents (like mine) think or are told they can do it. So they happy couple of 17 year olds knee deep in drugs and alcohol apparently thought raising a child was easy. Although my mother quite smoke and drinking the moment she learned she was pregnant (thankfully) her boyfriend appereantly lacked the self-control.
Its just that most of the people I see in anti-choice rallies vanish like Houdini after the child is born, where is the caring then? How many of anti-choice people have adopted children? Actually doing something to help the people they CLAIM to care so much about?
Control is the ultimate expression of power.
As far as adoption in America, the demand exceeds the supply.
This is assuming that the child should not, pre-birth, be a person to be taken into account, correct?
A poor analogy.
A "Grand universal balance" or what have you.
No, because that one instance did affect me.
However, by that token, then the only abortions you can care about are the noes that personally affect you.
--
Suppose we were to create a system in which for every abortion, a house was burned to the ground. You think there is some great universal scale, so this shouldn't be too far of a stretch for you.
Now then, this Great Universal Scale dictates that every killed fetus needs one burned-down house to keep things even.
Are you with me so far?
Well if, like GMontag was saying, doesn't have brain function at the level we consider necessary for a person to not be considered a corpse on the other end of the spectrum, it doesn't really factor in. In such a situation, the mother speaks for both her and the child.
Not that adoption will solve every possible problem, but it at least deals with many "unfit parent" concerns (at least those that don't put the fetus at risk of physical harm.)
Crack babies, children with learning disabilities etc are not as welcome as we would like to think. Everyone wants a normal child, I was only in the group home for 7 months, my "selling point" was my intelligence. But some of the children around me the people there had already stopped trying to peddle those kids cause they knew nobody would want them.
But if you are normal you will only be on the shelf a short time, if not you are like a broken toy.
Control is the ultimate expression of power.
So your response is, "Yes, in order for my argument to work, we're assuming that, in a general sense, a human life that is growing into having a functional nervous system, but does not have one yet, is actually as dead as a corpse." Is that the case? Correct me if I'm wrongly putting words in your mouth.
No, but it can provide medical (rather than moral or religious) boundaries for such terms, which are the only things that should be used in determining LAW. No one can convince you that something isn't disgusting or wrong, that's your own personal choice. But the law only protects human beings, and if medically something isn't a human in any other facet why would it magically get these particular time-travelling rights?
Adoption is complicated and can cause massive psychological damage. Beyond that, your morality or my morality or the Pope's morality or Bush's morality has no (by which I mean SHOULD have no, of course in reality we see it ends up having one) effect on law. The only way to make an arguement that abortion should be legally wrong (aka, illegal) is if you could state that the act itself is illegal, which would basically mean ending that developing human's life is somehow murder. I use this analogy constantly, but I do because I like it.
If I own a handgun, I need a liscense to legally own it in the United States. The same is not true if I own a block of metal. Why? All the matter (which is actually MORE than the developing thing that is aborted) of the finished product, just requiring a variety of processes to form it (exactly like the developing life) is there. Isn't that enough, under your definition? If you argue time travelling rights, that something that will EVENTUALLY become X must be treated exactly like X is insanity. Masturbation would be genocide. A building would need thousands of hand gun lisceses to be built and everyone would need a driver's liscense to operate an elevator.
A finished product is different, is treated differently, and has different rights because it has gone through those formative processes. A bowl filled with cake ingredients is not a cake. A woman with a few cells inside her that show genetic traits of a human being (like, as people have made analogies to in this thread, a donated organ) is not a child. The cut-off point is, in fact, already determined in American law. When you are unconcious and incapable of making decisions on your own behalf medical and legal proxies can be appointed (either through a living will or other paths) to make these decisions for you. Your rights to those processes is removed at that loss of conciousness. The same should be true of the fetus/zygote/whatever. Until it has reached a sufficient stage of development to have a formed (or formed potential for) conciousness (why I'm against late-term abortion) the being inside the woman is not yet human and does not have the same protections.
Do I think there are better paths than abortion in most cases? Absolutely. Do I think the act (except in late-term cases) is illegal? No. Given that it's perfectly legal, do I think I can assert my beliefs on the morality of an act onto another individual's decision? Hell no.
The incredibly overused and completely false assertion of proof after the fact. "Oh, people tend to enjoy life and want to live as a biological imperative, so we should never end life ever." Again, masturbation would be mass genocide of the thousands, nay millions, of potential generations that could pour forth from one's spilt seed. I'm pretty sure you'd have some angry teenagers if you tried to make such an assertion.
Legally it is, except according to the bass-ackwards law they passed after the Scott Peterson trial. Unless you believe in future rights, of course, which are an equal load of bull to try and make a legal defense of an anti-abortion position.
As has been mentioned several times in this thread, there's no question that based on current medical nomenclature, abortion is legal. The debate is over whether abortion is generally immoral or not and, if it is, that the medical nomenclature is insufficient.
My fiancee has been doing a lengthy term project regarding infanticide, which has also interested me. If anything, it demonstrates that even today, medical professionals are not automatically the "experts" on medical morality. They're humans without perfect, "empirically-defined" ethics, just like you or me.
My point is, appeals to the law of the land don't accomplish anything itt.
Top 8 of SCG Invitational, Las Vegas, NV, Dec 13-15, 2013
Top 8 of SCG Invitational, Somerset, NJ, Aug 28-30, 2015
Winner of SCG Worcester Team Sealed Open with Gerard Fabiano and Curtis Sheu, September 28, 2013
twitter
Inasmuch as they have the right to self-determination (read: none) yes.
What do you mean by "self-determination"? Does a fully-functional amoeba have "self-determination"?
Making the killing of amoeba's illegal has never happened, will never happen, and will never be asked for. We're talking about human beings here, and humans differ substantially from most other animals, especially amoebas.
Top 8 of SCG Invitational, Las Vegas, NV, Dec 13-15, 2013
Top 8 of SCG Invitational, Somerset, NJ, Aug 28-30, 2015
Winner of SCG Worcester Team Sealed Open with Gerard Fabiano and Curtis Sheu, September 28, 2013
twitter
Potential children do not exist, and therefore you cannot kill them. Abortions kill children that do in fact exist. That's the difference.
There's one very important thing that I don't beleive you are gathering from my position. The difference between your analogy and my suggestions is that a "theoretical baby" that doesn't exist obviously deserves no rights, but (IMO) a baby that already exists in the womb does deserves some basic rights (namely the right to life). And again, you (and I) are in no position to decide whether someone else's life is worth living.
Unhappiness does not justify murder. Hell, misery does not justify murder. The only person who is in a position to decide whether or not a life is worth living is the person who holds said life.
Wrong. The only person who can decide whether or not a child's life is worth living is the child. The mother does not deserve the right to decide the fate of another person's life. Period.
In all of your wonderful analogies, you miss one crucial detail. An abortion consists of the mother killing another person. The child whose life is being taken deserves the right to decide for itself whether or not they are in such excrutiating pain and misery that they should die.
@ Stax:
....
I knew I would regret getting into this discussion.
In the previous thread, we discussed this topic ad nauseum, or however, it's spelled. Let me just try to tell you why I think your analogy does not work, which I myself have done quite a few number times....
Your analogy uses comparisons to the relevant discussion in such a manner that would obviously "prove" your position. No, a block of steel is not a gun, the same way that a sperm cell is not a human being. All of the materials in a gun mixed into a bowl is not a gun, the same way that a sperm cell and an egg cell sitting next to each other, but not combined, are not a human being. But when you take the sperm cell and have it penetrate the egg cell, mix their respective haploids, generate an entirely new set of DNA, and "fertilize" the egg, the fertilized egg is now indeed a human.
Think of fertilization as a special way to combine the components of a human (or a gun) in order to create a human (or gun).
And also, to say that the egg is not alive is scientifically and biologically incorrect. The discussion is about whether or not the zygote is a human, not alive.
Why? What is your definition of a human being?
Yes, a finished product is and should be treated differently than the beginning stages of the product. I however beleive that the right to life is a right that should be awarded to every human being, regardless of age (before and after birth).
Now this is quite interesting. If you read a previous post of mine, I was talking about cremation and consent in one's will. Perhaps what should be discussed is what exactly should the default decision be, seeing as how the child cannot make a conscious decision?
So you define humanity through conciousness?
Did I say that? No, I did not. But I did say that no one deserves the right to decide whether someone else's life is worth living.
Cute. Maybe you should read the definition of genocide, because genocide infers killing people. Masturbation is not killing any people. And don't feed me that potential baby crap. Potential babies do not exist, and therefore cannot be killed, as I have said before.
Thanks to the [Æther] shop for the sig!
You misunderstand. I'm trying to figure out what he means by self-determination. If self-determination is a biological thing (and not a mystical thing), then I'm wondering what lower mechanics constitute it. And if self-determination is something that only humans have, then I am especially curious as to what exactly constitutes it.
The "person" debate is merely this: At what point does this cellular organization start to matter? At what point in this cellular organization's growth do we care about the maintenance of its life? What functionality must it have before it has worth? These are the questions you come to when you eliminate all the semantic bridges.
I think the claim that "a human cellular organization matters at the point in which it has a nervous system that reacts to stimuli" is a bit arbitrary. Why does it matter at that point? Worth is always imputed, and in the abortion debate we assume that the mother considers it of low worth, so what value does it have to society after it gains this functionality that it didn't have before?
No, but I likely crush thousands of such beings under my heel throughout a day without batting an eyelash. Obviously the situation is different and there will likely be slightly more emotional attachment (because while laws and rights don't predict the future, emotions do) the fundamental base shouldn't be.
Granting full protections to something that might eventually become the actual being granted those rights cheapens them for everyone and makes the statement granting them pointless.
Yes, and there we go. We made the situation one that will better fit the situation didn't we? There is no point to discussing and mulling over an irrelevant situation.
The purpose of the hypothetical is to examine the concepts of right to life and autonomy in situations where exerting the right of one entity over another is at the risk of that other's life or autonomy. It is a thought experiment - after initial reactions are taken refinements can be made to make the hypothetical fit the situation better.
How about trying to answer the question instead of pointing out the obvious?
Here we have to know the kidnapped persons priorities; does the kidnapped person value his/her life over that of his/her kidnappers. Here its the kidnapped persons perogative; if she values her own life over that of kidnapper she will kill him, if not, she will let him do what he will and the kidnapped person may escape the situation without harming the kidnapper.
I'm quite certain that the pro-life claim is that the "something" is the actual being, but immature. For instance, an infant might not have a functional reproductive system, but we know it, as a general representative of the species, will eventually have one, so we credit it with being a person. I likewise credit a human cellular organization that is growing (but does not yet have) a functional heart or a functional nervous system.
But there are certain differences that exist between small children and adults and organizations of human cells and adults.
(Also, this assumes adulthood is "the place to be," apparently.)
Indeed there are, and the question to ask is, "At what point in the maturation of a person does that person become valuable?"
EDIT: A little aside... by "human cellular organization," I mean that which can be a zygote, a fetus, an infant, a teenager, an adult, etc.
The situation is not at all irrelevant. By considering the hypothetical in stages we come to a greater understanding of where and why our opinions change. Without the second qulaifier the hypothetical encompasses a number of possibilities - including the refined version that follows.
By avoiding the question you don't make any progress in considering your own or others opinion - and you certainly don't help my own thought process (the only reason I enterred this argument is to reassess my own views).
The question doesn't need the kidnapped person's priorities at all. The whole idea for such an experiment is to determine a standard of what you thinkis right on a general level. Is the kidnapped's right to autonomy greater than the kidnapper's right to life?
If you can answer the question then you'll be on your way to determining whether abortion can be justified.
--------------
The reason I came up with the hypothetical in the first place is to try and determine my own idea's about abortion. I found that I couldn't reconcile the following premises;
- That killing a person is wrong in most circumstances
- That abortion could be justified
As I couldn't really determine whether a fetus should be considered a person or not, or if so when they become a person, I decided to assume that they were. This meant that my first two premises came into conflict.
If a person (for instance a slave or kidnapee) can justify killing a person in defence of their right to autonomy then under what other circumstances might it be justified?
So far under this model I have decided that where a woman is the victim of rape (ie that all her choices for becoming pregnant were taken from her) then it could be morally right to assert her right to autonomy over the right to life of the fetus.
I am still muling over abortion in other repsects. Maybe people could address their views on the hypothetical, again without tearing it down until after a view is expressed.
Here's the original post: #100
(warning, major cliche ahead.)
And therein lies the rub.
If there ever will be a completely satisfactory answer to that question, I look forward to it.
Touche.
Likewise. But that is the question -- rather than a question of "person/non-person/human/non-human/life/non-life," a semantic circus that accomplishes nothing.
Yes, but even that question invites it's own kind of circus, albeit a more refined one.
I suppose it's a Cirque de Soleil to a Barnum & Bailey's, if you will.