Abortion.
-
Maybe I'm misinterpreting, but how does this follow? Just because the father cannot force the woman to have an abortion, the woman can't have one if she wants? Since when is it the father's right to dictate the use of his wife's body in matters such as this? The woman does have a right to choose, it's her body. The father doesn't, it's not his.
-Domenic Denicola- [CPUA 0x1337] MadHamster Creations "I was born human. But this was an accident of fate - a condition merely of time and place. I believe it's something we have the power to change..."
Domenic [CPUA 0x1337] wrote: The woman does have a right to choose, it's her body. The father doesn't, it's not his. The fact is that it is his sperm. And becuase it is his sperm, he must legally support the child with child support. I would agree with you if the courts didn't persue men for child support, but the fact is they do!
-
Hmm... I guess I seem to be the only pro-lifer here, bummer. That is, pro life for the actual human woman with the full rights as such (I guess the majority would call this pro-choice). I am actually fairly well informed on this matter, as I just researched it for debate class. I guess it comes down to my believe that before a certain point (which is probably about the third trimester), the fetus is not human, and should not be given the rights of such. In my debate, I equated the fetus to a squirrel that could not survive outside of a plastic bag, because although it has brain waves and heartbeat, it is still very undeveloped, and cannot survive outside of the human mother before 5 months (initially I picked a blob of tissue, but then I realized a blob of tissue doesn't have a heartbeat or brainwaves. Hence the squirrel.). The thing about rights are that they only apply to humans functioning within society, and fetus does not function within society, and is not human before this aforementioned certain point. I don't care when life begins; I care when there is a human functioning within society. Of course, this doesn't mean I believe killing a baby 10 days before it is born is right, simply because at that point it IS a baby, not a fetus. The concept of murder does not apply to a pre-certain point fetus. The concept of murder only applies, say, when so called "pro-life" terrorists bomb abortion clinics. Whether the fetus is removed for medical reasons, or simply convenience, does not matter. What matters is that the rights of the free individual human woman to make a choice dictating the use of her body and any non-human parasites living inside of it are not infringed upon. As evil as it is for someone to dictate the use of her body by raping her, it is as evil for someone to dictate the use of her body by forcing her to remain pregnant.
-Domenic Denicola- [CPUA 0x1337] MadHamster Creations "I was born human. But this was an accident of fate - a condition merely of time and place. I believe it's something we have the power to change..."
hmmmm Domenic [CPUA 0x1337] wrote: I guess it comes down to my believe that before a certain point (which is probably about the third trimester), the fetus is not human, and should not be given the rights of such. In my debate, I equated the fetus to a squirrel that could not survive outside of a plastic bag, because although it has brain waves and heartbeat, it is still very undeveloped, and cannot survive outside of the human mother before 5 months A child can not survive without older supervision from 4 years down, does that make infanticide acceptable. Or babies born with conditions requiring constant medication ? Regardz Colin J Davies
Sonork ID 100.9197:Colin
More about me :-)
-
hmmmm Domenic [CPUA 0x1337] wrote: I guess it comes down to my believe that before a certain point (which is probably about the third trimester), the fetus is not human, and should not be given the rights of such. In my debate, I equated the fetus to a squirrel that could not survive outside of a plastic bag, because although it has brain waves and heartbeat, it is still very undeveloped, and cannot survive outside of the human mother before 5 months A child can not survive without older supervision from 4 years down, does that make infanticide acceptable. Or babies born with conditions requiring constant medication ? Regardz Colin J Davies
Sonork ID 100.9197:Colin
More about me :-)
Well, given that my dad went to bed, I can stay up a little longer :) ****Colin Davies wrote: hmmmm Now what could that mean. Is that a "hmmm... Where should I start my attack on this pitiful excuse for an argument?", or a "hmmm... I wonder where he got this point of view.", or a "hmmm... now I have to really think!" :) ****Colin Davies wrote: A child can not survive without older supervision from 4 years down, does that make infanticide acceptable. Or babies born with conditions requiring constant medication ? No of course infanticide is not acceptable, but now I've got to think of how to refute that. It seems that there's a clear difference between a living breathing human child in society, which is a functioning sentient being, and a pre-certain point fetus. The fact that it cannot survive on its own is different from the fact that it cannot function on its own, I guess, I don't know if I can really support that line of reasoning well though... Requiring constant medication is simply like requiring food: both need parents to administer it on a regular basis. Actually, that could bridge over into the infanticide argument. A parent is needed to supply a child with food, a place to live, education, etc., and perhaps constant medication. But there's a difference between being dependent upon a parent to continue living healthily, and dependent upon the environment of the womb to live period. Children are dependents, but fetuses are so much more so to the extent that they are parasites, and before this certain point, parasites with no legal rights.
-Domenic Denicola- [CPUA 0x1337] MadHamster Creations "I was born human. But this was an accident of fate - a condition merely of time and place. I believe it's something we have the power to change..."
-
Well, given that my dad went to bed, I can stay up a little longer :) ****Colin Davies wrote: hmmmm Now what could that mean. Is that a "hmmm... Where should I start my attack on this pitiful excuse for an argument?", or a "hmmm... I wonder where he got this point of view.", or a "hmmm... now I have to really think!" :) ****Colin Davies wrote: A child can not survive without older supervision from 4 years down, does that make infanticide acceptable. Or babies born with conditions requiring constant medication ? No of course infanticide is not acceptable, but now I've got to think of how to refute that. It seems that there's a clear difference between a living breathing human child in society, which is a functioning sentient being, and a pre-certain point fetus. The fact that it cannot survive on its own is different from the fact that it cannot function on its own, I guess, I don't know if I can really support that line of reasoning well though... Requiring constant medication is simply like requiring food: both need parents to administer it on a regular basis. Actually, that could bridge over into the infanticide argument. A parent is needed to supply a child with food, a place to live, education, etc., and perhaps constant medication. But there's a difference between being dependent upon a parent to continue living healthily, and dependent upon the environment of the womb to live period. Children are dependents, but fetuses are so much more so to the extent that they are parasites, and before this certain point, parasites with no legal rights.
-Domenic Denicola- [CPUA 0x1337] MadHamster Creations "I was born human. But this was an accident of fate - a condition merely of time and place. I believe it's something we have the power to change..."
Domenic [CPUA 0x1337] wrote: Now what could that mean. Is that a "hmmm... hmmmm is an indication of engine grinding noise, or having to think. The only point of trying to make in my post Domenic is there is no way to draw the line as to when life begins and ends. And sometimes even if life exists. A lot of both pro and anti abortion literature refers to nonsensical misinterpreted scientific information as well. Here in NZ our neonatal units regulary manage to save babies at 21 weeks age. Apparently in the USA babies can be aborted by error at the same age. The word fetus is used to give non emotional attachment, whilst baby for emotional attachment. Your usage of the word parasite is derogatory to humanity. Regardz Colin J Davies
Sonork ID 100.9197:Colin
More about me :-)
-
Michael A. Barnhart wrote: There are exceptions but very few that justify taking a life for personal convenience and that I feel is what most cases are about. Lack of responsibility. I agree. I have a question though. If you were a criminal and punched a pregnant woman in the stomach, and killed the fetus, would you get charged with murder? If you would, then isn't abortion murder also? I remember reading a story in the news where a drunk driver crashed into a pregnant women who later lost the fetus, and he was charged with murder. I think those rulings prove that a fetus is a life in the US courts. So how can a woman decide if it is a life, or isn't a life? It isn't a choise, it is a fact!!
Martin Marvinski wrote: If you were a criminal and punched a pregnant woman in the stomach, and killed the fetus, would you get charged with murder? If you would, then isn't abortion murder also? Let me nitpick. You are not a criminal until found guilty. Having already commited one crime does not influence this question. I do not know what the general policy in each state is. In high school in MO this question did come up and yes it would be prosecuted as murder. I agree with you completely. It is taking a life and you have to treat it as such. To be conscious that you are ignorant of the facts is a great step towards Knowledge. Benjamin Disraeli
-
Hmm... I guess I seem to be the only pro-lifer here, bummer. That is, pro life for the actual human woman with the full rights as such (I guess the majority would call this pro-choice). I am actually fairly well informed on this matter, as I just researched it for debate class. I guess it comes down to my believe that before a certain point (which is probably about the third trimester), the fetus is not human, and should not be given the rights of such. In my debate, I equated the fetus to a squirrel that could not survive outside of a plastic bag, because although it has brain waves and heartbeat, it is still very undeveloped, and cannot survive outside of the human mother before 5 months (initially I picked a blob of tissue, but then I realized a blob of tissue doesn't have a heartbeat or brainwaves. Hence the squirrel.). The thing about rights are that they only apply to humans functioning within society, and fetus does not function within society, and is not human before this aforementioned certain point. I don't care when life begins; I care when there is a human functioning within society. Of course, this doesn't mean I believe killing a baby 10 days before it is born is right, simply because at that point it IS a baby, not a fetus. The concept of murder does not apply to a pre-certain point fetus. The concept of murder only applies, say, when so called "pro-life" terrorists bomb abortion clinics. Whether the fetus is removed for medical reasons, or simply convenience, does not matter. What matters is that the rights of the free individual human woman to make a choice dictating the use of her body and any non-human parasites living inside of it are not infringed upon. As evil as it is for someone to dictate the use of her body by raping her, it is as evil for someone to dictate the use of her body by forcing her to remain pregnant.
-Domenic Denicola- [CPUA 0x1337] MadHamster Creations "I was born human. But this was an accident of fate - a condition merely of time and place. I believe it's something we have the power to change..."
Domenic [CPUA 0x1337] wrote: The thing about rights are that they only apply to humans functioning within society, and fetus does not function within society, and is not human before this aforementioned certain point. I don't care when life begins; I care when there is a human functioning within society. Of course, this doesn't mean I believe killing a baby 10 days before it is born is right, simply because at that point it IS a baby, not a fetus. But who are you to make any such assertion for me? The only non-arbitrary definition of when a human life begins is at the moment of fetilization of the egg. At that point you have a genetically distinct entity with a fully human genetic makeup. After that, any definitions made as to that entity's humanity are purely arbitrary. Obviously, we have the right, as a civilization based upon laws, to make arbitrary decisions such as that. We do it all the time. But what you have to keep in mind, Domenic, is that if the state has the power to arbitrarily decide that a fetus at 3 months gestation is not a human being it also has the power to arbitrarilty decide that you and I are not human beings. I am not saying that is a justification for outlawing abortion altogether, I am simply saying that we must be very cautious when allowing such power to the state. You must always be cognizant of the 'law of unintended consequences' espcially when dealing with political power. Abortion is an issue vital to our culture which goes far beyond the mantra of "A woman's right to choose". "There's a slew of slip 'twixt cup and lip"
-
I used to be pro-choise, but now I find myself in the pro-life camp. What are your opinions on this matter? It seems that as I get older, I get more conservative. :confused:
BTW, I also think the "viability" argument is stupid. If the fetus is not viable than why does it need to be aborted? "There's a slew of slip 'twixt cup and lip"
-
hmmmm Domenic [CPUA 0x1337] wrote: I guess it comes down to my believe that before a certain point (which is probably about the third trimester), the fetus is not human, and should not be given the rights of such. In my debate, I equated the fetus to a squirrel that could not survive outside of a plastic bag, because although it has brain waves and heartbeat, it is still very undeveloped, and cannot survive outside of the human mother before 5 months A child can not survive without older supervision from 4 years down, does that make infanticide acceptable. Or babies born with conditions requiring constant medication ? Regardz Colin J Davies
Sonork ID 100.9197:Colin
More about me :-)
****Colin Davies wrote: does that make infanticide acceptable. Read it again - he was very careful to make definitions which have already answered that question. ____________________ David Wulff hu·mour Pronunciation Key (hymr) n. & v. Chiefly British Dave's Code Project Screensaver and Wallpaper page.
-
Domenic [CPUA 0x1337] wrote: Now what could that mean. Is that a "hmmm... hmmmm is an indication of engine grinding noise, or having to think. The only point of trying to make in my post Domenic is there is no way to draw the line as to when life begins and ends. And sometimes even if life exists. A lot of both pro and anti abortion literature refers to nonsensical misinterpreted scientific information as well. Here in NZ our neonatal units regulary manage to save babies at 21 weeks age. Apparently in the USA babies can be aborted by error at the same age. The word fetus is used to give non emotional attachment, whilst baby for emotional attachment. Your usage of the word parasite is derogatory to humanity. Regardz Colin J Davies
Sonork ID 100.9197:Colin
More about me :-)
****Colin Davies wrote: hmmmm is an indication of engine grinding noise, or having to think. I disagree, hummmmmmm is the noise of an engine grinding... Maybe I need to get mine looked over.... hummmmmmm... ;P ****Colin Davies wrote: The word fetus is used to give non emotional attachment, whilst baby for emotional attachment. A fetus and a baby are still two different things. It would be as well to simply do ayway with the whole idea and start counting your age from conception, then there would be no confusion. ____________________ David Wulff hu·mour Pronunciation Key (hymr) n. & v. Chiefly British Dave's Code Project Screensaver and Wallpaper page.
-
I used to be pro-choise, but now I find myself in the pro-life camp. What are your opinions on this matter? It seems that as I get older, I get more conservative. :confused:
My opinion is simple - I do not have one. Or to be more specific, I do not have a "uiversal" opinion on abortion. Each individual case should be reviewed seperately by trained professionals and two things should be taken into consideration for every desicion: 1. The physical state of the human fetus at the would-be time of abortion, and when it makes the transition into a functioning human child. 2. The physical and emotional state of the bearing mother at the would-be time of abortion and when it makes the transition into a functioning human child. Most pro-life opinionated people believe that [1] alone is a valid and justifiable reason for abortion, but [2] cannot be overlooked - of special importance is the emotional state of the mother. Is it right to take a child to full-term and give them all chances of a good life with caring foster parents if the mother is destroyed as a member of society? I'm all for "a life is a life, regardless" but that 'regardless' does not apply when one would have a negative affect on another. It's basically the old "I have a right to do anything I want so long as it does not hurt others" - something Americans of all people should be very familiar with. ____________________ David Wulff hu·mour Pronunciation Key (hymr) n. & v. Chiefly British Dave's Code Project Screensaver and Wallpaper page.
-
Domenic [CPUA 0x1337] wrote: The thing about rights are that they only apply to humans functioning within society, and fetus does not function within society, and is not human before this aforementioned certain point. I don't care when life begins; I care when there is a human functioning within society. Of course, this doesn't mean I believe killing a baby 10 days before it is born is right, simply because at that point it IS a baby, not a fetus. But who are you to make any such assertion for me? The only non-arbitrary definition of when a human life begins is at the moment of fetilization of the egg. At that point you have a genetically distinct entity with a fully human genetic makeup. After that, any definitions made as to that entity's humanity are purely arbitrary. Obviously, we have the right, as a civilization based upon laws, to make arbitrary decisions such as that. We do it all the time. But what you have to keep in mind, Domenic, is that if the state has the power to arbitrarily decide that a fetus at 3 months gestation is not a human being it also has the power to arbitrarilty decide that you and I are not human beings. I am not saying that is a justification for outlawing abortion altogether, I am simply saying that we must be very cautious when allowing such power to the state. You must always be cognizant of the 'law of unintended consequences' espcially when dealing with political power. Abortion is an issue vital to our culture which goes far beyond the mantra of "A woman's right to choose". "There's a slew of slip 'twixt cup and lip"
Stan Shannon wrote: But who are you to make any such assertion for me? The only non-arbitrary definition of when a human life begins is at the moment of fetilization of the egg. At that point you have a genetically distinct entity with a fully human genetic makeup. After that, any definitions made as to that entity's humanity are purely arbitrary. First of all, I think we can safely agree human life does not begin before forty days, when brain waves start to flow. Of course, this does not guarantee it human status, merely that of an animal with neurons, but we don't really have the technology to determine when a human level of brain function begins. If you want to argue that a potential human still deserves protection, that's a whole 'nother story to talk about, but I don't think that's what you're driving at. Second of all, the point I was trying to make is that rights are given to individuals within society. The fetus does not have the rights of a human being, and it will not until it is a baby, i.e. an independent human, or a human that could function as such (Colin is saying that this can happen at 21 weeks, my statistics say 5 months, but he sounds pretty sure of himself and therefore I guess we can trust him). That is why I keep stressing this certain point, that is, the point where a fetus has the capacity to function as an individual human, and therefore should be given rights. My timeframe for this certain point has been pushed back quite a bit by Colin's remark, but my essential stance remains the same. Stan Shannon wrote: Obviously, we have the right, as a civilization based upon laws, to make arbitrary decisions such as that. We do it all the time. But what you have to keep in mind, Domenic, is that if the state has the power to arbitrarily decide that a fetus at 3 months gestation is not a human being it also has the power to arbitrarilty decide that you and I are not human beings. That is an exceedingly good point. Where could this lead? Although it is extremely implausable IMHO, this could lead to the "subhumanization" of infants, or children, or mentally damaged people, or anything that the majority/Supreme Court/Congress/whatever governing body has the power to do so, decides is not "human" enough. I can see where you are going, however, I again come from the point that not only is a fetus subhuman, it is also less developed mentally/physically than any of these other categories, and, most importantly,
-
Domenic [CPUA 0x1337] wrote: Now what could that mean. Is that a "hmmm... hmmmm is an indication of engine grinding noise, or having to think. The only point of trying to make in my post Domenic is there is no way to draw the line as to when life begins and ends. And sometimes even if life exists. A lot of both pro and anti abortion literature refers to nonsensical misinterpreted scientific information as well. Here in NZ our neonatal units regulary manage to save babies at 21 weeks age. Apparently in the USA babies can be aborted by error at the same age. The word fetus is used to give non emotional attachment, whilst baby for emotional attachment. Your usage of the word parasite is derogatory to humanity. Regardz Colin J Davies
Sonork ID 100.9197:Colin
More about me :-)
****Colin Davies wrote: The only point of trying to make in my post Domenic is there is no way to draw the line as to when life begins and ends. And sometimes even if life exists. Yes, but my point is that when life begins does not matter, it's when the life of an individual human (or a fetus with the capacity to function as such) with the rights guaranteed to a human, begins. I typed out my thoughts on this matter below, I would refer you to that. ****Colin Davies wrote: Here in NZ our neonatal units regulary manage to save babies at 21 weeks age. Apparently in the USA babies can be aborted by error at the same age. If/since that is the case, I think we can definitely pin this certain point where fetuses have the capacity to function as a human being with rights back to 21 weeks. My previous statistics said 5 months, but you sound pretty confident that fully human babies are deliverable at 21 weeks, so I'll take your word for it. In that case, killing a fetus after 21 months is the killing of a human that could at that time function within society, and should have the right to life, and is therefore murder. ****Colin Davies wrote: The word fetus is used to give non emotional attachment, whilst baby for emotional attachment. No, I disagree. A fetus is an unborn baby. A baby is a born fetus. Clearly cut. When an abortion is done, it is always done upon what can be literally termed a fetus, but since some fetuses (for some reason I want to say fetii, is that normal? :~ ) have the potential at that very moment to become babies, then they should not be aborted. Again, this turning point from a fetus with no rights to a fetus with the potential to at this very moment become a baby with rights happens, according to you, at 21 weeks. ****Colin Davies wrote: Your usage of the word parasite is derogatory to humanity. Again, no. If it cannot survive on its on, it is a parasite, and has the legal rights of any other parasite. The only point that seems debateable here would be that it is a parasite that could become a non-parasite within <21 weeks, but in my mind the potential future state of an entity should have no bearing upon its legal rights at the moment. I'd just like to toss this out there, as a reflection upon the "potential
-
Domenic [CPUA 0x1337] wrote: The woman does have a right to choose, it's her body. The father doesn't, it's not his. The fact is that it is his sperm. And becuase it is his sperm, he must legally support the child with child support. I would agree with you if the courts didn't persue men for child support, but the fact is they do!
Good point, I guess. I still think my argument stands, you simply point out a very glaring inconsistency in our never-perfect legal system that impairs us sensible peole to have arguments logically.
-Domenic Denicola- [CPUA 0x1337] MadHamster Creations "I was born human. But this was an accident of fate - a condition merely of time and place. I believe it's something we have the power to change..."
-
Good point, I guess. I still think my argument stands, you simply point out a very glaring inconsistency in our never-perfect legal system that impairs us sensible peole to have arguments logically.
-Domenic Denicola- [CPUA 0x1337] MadHamster Creations "I was born human. But this was an accident of fate - a condition merely of time and place. I believe it's something we have the power to change..."
Domenic [CPUA 0x1337] wrote: you simply point out a very glaring inconsistency in our never-perfect legal system Problem is this is a moral issue not a legal one. Just because you can legally do something or not does not make it right or wrong. To be conscious that you are ignorant of the facts is a great step towards Knowledge. Benjamin Disraeli
-
Stan Shannon wrote: But who are you to make any such assertion for me? The only non-arbitrary definition of when a human life begins is at the moment of fetilization of the egg. At that point you have a genetically distinct entity with a fully human genetic makeup. After that, any definitions made as to that entity's humanity are purely arbitrary. First of all, I think we can safely agree human life does not begin before forty days, when brain waves start to flow. Of course, this does not guarantee it human status, merely that of an animal with neurons, but we don't really have the technology to determine when a human level of brain function begins. If you want to argue that a potential human still deserves protection, that's a whole 'nother story to talk about, but I don't think that's what you're driving at. Second of all, the point I was trying to make is that rights are given to individuals within society. The fetus does not have the rights of a human being, and it will not until it is a baby, i.e. an independent human, or a human that could function as such (Colin is saying that this can happen at 21 weeks, my statistics say 5 months, but he sounds pretty sure of himself and therefore I guess we can trust him). That is why I keep stressing this certain point, that is, the point where a fetus has the capacity to function as an individual human, and therefore should be given rights. My timeframe for this certain point has been pushed back quite a bit by Colin's remark, but my essential stance remains the same. Stan Shannon wrote: Obviously, we have the right, as a civilization based upon laws, to make arbitrary decisions such as that. We do it all the time. But what you have to keep in mind, Domenic, is that if the state has the power to arbitrarily decide that a fetus at 3 months gestation is not a human being it also has the power to arbitrarilty decide that you and I are not human beings. That is an exceedingly good point. Where could this lead? Although it is extremely implausable IMHO, this could lead to the "subhumanization" of infants, or children, or mentally damaged people, or anything that the majority/Supreme Court/Congress/whatever governing body has the power to do so, decides is not "human" enough. I can see where you are going, however, I again come from the point that not only is a fetus subhuman, it is also less developed mentally/physically than any of these other categories, and, most importantly,
Domenic [CPUA 0x1337] wrote: First of all, I think we can safely agree human life does not begin before forty days Absolutly disagree with you here. You assume that life does not begin before you can measure something. Domenic [CPUA 0x1337] wrote: Second of all, the point I was trying to make is that rights are given to individuals within society. Your bio shows you live in the USA. Have you read the Declaration of Independance. That document states some rights are unalienable. But I am also assuming you have some religious beliefs in this statement or since you have no creator you have no rights and you statement is correct. However since I do believe that I have a creator I do have those rights. To be conscious that you are ignorant of the facts is a great step towards Knowledge. Benjamin Disraeli
-
Stan Shannon wrote: But who are you to make any such assertion for me? The only non-arbitrary definition of when a human life begins is at the moment of fetilization of the egg. At that point you have a genetically distinct entity with a fully human genetic makeup. After that, any definitions made as to that entity's humanity are purely arbitrary. First of all, I think we can safely agree human life does not begin before forty days, when brain waves start to flow. Of course, this does not guarantee it human status, merely that of an animal with neurons, but we don't really have the technology to determine when a human level of brain function begins. If you want to argue that a potential human still deserves protection, that's a whole 'nother story to talk about, but I don't think that's what you're driving at. Second of all, the point I was trying to make is that rights are given to individuals within society. The fetus does not have the rights of a human being, and it will not until it is a baby, i.e. an independent human, or a human that could function as such (Colin is saying that this can happen at 21 weeks, my statistics say 5 months, but he sounds pretty sure of himself and therefore I guess we can trust him). That is why I keep stressing this certain point, that is, the point where a fetus has the capacity to function as an individual human, and therefore should be given rights. My timeframe for this certain point has been pushed back quite a bit by Colin's remark, but my essential stance remains the same. Stan Shannon wrote: Obviously, we have the right, as a civilization based upon laws, to make arbitrary decisions such as that. We do it all the time. But what you have to keep in mind, Domenic, is that if the state has the power to arbitrarily decide that a fetus at 3 months gestation is not a human being it also has the power to arbitrarilty decide that you and I are not human beings. That is an exceedingly good point. Where could this lead? Although it is extremely implausable IMHO, this could lead to the "subhumanization" of infants, or children, or mentally damaged people, or anything that the majority/Supreme Court/Congress/whatever governing body has the power to do so, decides is not "human" enough. I can see where you are going, however, I again come from the point that not only is a fetus subhuman, it is also less developed mentally/physically than any of these other categories, and, most importantly,
Domenic [CPUA 0x1337] wrote: First of all, I think we can safely agree human life does not begin before forty days, when brain waves start to flow. Of course, this does not guarantee it human status, merely that of an animal with neurons, but we don't really have the technology to determine when a human level of brain function begins. If you want to argue that a potential human still deserves protection, that's a whole 'nother story to talk about, but I don't think that's what you're driving at. I would certainly agree that as far as arbitrary definitions go, brain waves are as good as any other. As I said before, I am not anti-abortion. However, I do find fault with the logic of most arguments in support of abortion. For example, you could find brain waves in the fetus of a mouse, but the mouse is not human. In addition, I'm certain that brain waves do not begin in each fetus at exactly the same moment. 40 days is an arbitrary value, not absolute. It would be more appropriate to say that human life does not begin until the brain is able to construct an intelligent sentence. (Mice cannot do that.) I am not saying that yours is an invalid definition to predicate a law upon, I am just asking you to appreciate that it is arbitrary. The only truly non-arbitrary definition of the beginning of life, human or otherwise, is the moment of conception. Before conception you were simply a set of complex mathematical probabilities. At conception you became a genetic reality. You were at that moment, a genetically distinct entity. You were not a parasite, you were not a squirrel in a bag, you were a human embryo in precisely the environment nature intended in order for you to be viable, just as you are at this very moment. In a purely genetic sense, you were you from that moment forward. There is an unbroken continuum from that moment to the current moment. Your brain began working when it did for exactly the same genetic reasons that you are now going through the painful process of puberty. The magic that started it all began at conception. Again, however, I do not present this as an argument which justifies making abortion illegal. To me, it is simply a logical starting point to begin a discussion. I am a programmer, I like to have my logic worked out before I arrive at a final design. In the final analysis we must all realize that what abortion represents is an attempt to define humanity in such a way so as to be able to legally eradicate individuals
-
Domenic [CPUA 0x1337] wrote: First of all, I think we can safely agree human life does not begin before forty days Absolutly disagree with you here. You assume that life does not begin before you can measure something. Domenic [CPUA 0x1337] wrote: Second of all, the point I was trying to make is that rights are given to individuals within society. Your bio shows you live in the USA. Have you read the Declaration of Independance. That document states some rights are unalienable. But I am also assuming you have some religious beliefs in this statement or since you have no creator you have no rights and you statement is correct. However since I do believe that I have a creator I do have those rights. To be conscious that you are ignorant of the facts is a great step towards Knowledge. Benjamin Disraeli
Michael A. Barnhart wrote: Absolutly disagree with you here. You assume that life does not begin before you can measure something. I guess we disagree on a common axiom, and no progress can really be made in this area if so. I think that if something does not have brain waves, it cannot be human. But you don't seem to think so, oh well, I can't change that. Michael A. Barnhart wrote: Your bio shows you live in the USA. Have you read the Declaration of Independance. That document states some rights are unalienable. But I am also assuming you have some religious beliefs in this statement or since you have no creator you have no rights and you statement is correct. However since I do believe that I have a creator I do have those rights. What? What does this have to do with anything? I have rights, a fetus doesn't. Where does "you have no rights and you statement is correct" come from? I wasn't talking about myself, except in the situation of being a child, which is seperate from the fetus debate, if that's what you're talking about. If that is what you are talking about, I may/may not believe I have these rights, even if it has _nothing _to do with my religious background. The fact still stands that I legally do not have the right to quite a few things, among them many of the rights guaranteed by the first amendment, and at least one of the definitive "unalienable rights", that being Liberty (I must be my parent's, or the state's, property until I turn 18). Yes, of course I have read the DoI. Some rights may have been declared unalienable, that is, unalienable for rich white males over 18. Over time this has been extended by civil rights movements to include non-whites, non-males, and the non-rich, but it has not been extended to non-over 18. That's a fact, the idealism behind the document does not pertain to our everyday life.
-Domenic Denicola- [CPUA 0x1337] MadHamster Creations "I was born human. But this was an accident of fate - a condition merely of time and place. I believe it's something we have the power to change..."__
-
Domenic [CPUA 0x1337] wrote: First of all, I think we can safely agree human life does not begin before forty days, when brain waves start to flow. Of course, this does not guarantee it human status, merely that of an animal with neurons, but we don't really have the technology to determine when a human level of brain function begins. If you want to argue that a potential human still deserves protection, that's a whole 'nother story to talk about, but I don't think that's what you're driving at. I would certainly agree that as far as arbitrary definitions go, brain waves are as good as any other. As I said before, I am not anti-abortion. However, I do find fault with the logic of most arguments in support of abortion. For example, you could find brain waves in the fetus of a mouse, but the mouse is not human. In addition, I'm certain that brain waves do not begin in each fetus at exactly the same moment. 40 days is an arbitrary value, not absolute. It would be more appropriate to say that human life does not begin until the brain is able to construct an intelligent sentence. (Mice cannot do that.) I am not saying that yours is an invalid definition to predicate a law upon, I am just asking you to appreciate that it is arbitrary. The only truly non-arbitrary definition of the beginning of life, human or otherwise, is the moment of conception. Before conception you were simply a set of complex mathematical probabilities. At conception you became a genetic reality. You were at that moment, a genetically distinct entity. You were not a parasite, you were not a squirrel in a bag, you were a human embryo in precisely the environment nature intended in order for you to be viable, just as you are at this very moment. In a purely genetic sense, you were you from that moment forward. There is an unbroken continuum from that moment to the current moment. Your brain began working when it did for exactly the same genetic reasons that you are now going through the painful process of puberty. The magic that started it all began at conception. Again, however, I do not present this as an argument which justifies making abortion illegal. To me, it is simply a logical starting point to begin a discussion. I am a programmer, I like to have my logic worked out before I arrive at a final design. In the final analysis we must all realize that what abortion represents is an attempt to define humanity in such a way so as to be able to legally eradicate individuals
Stan Shannon wrote: I would certainly agree that as far as arbitrary definitions go, brain waves are as good as any other. I was not postulating this should be the definitive point, I was simply trying to find a common idea that we can agree on: something cannot be human without having brain waves. It is not necessairily human, and in fact I don't believe it is, but this would be established as an absolute minimum. Stan Shannon wrote: The only truly non-arbitrary definition of the beginning of life, human or otherwise, is the moment of conception. Before conception you were simply a set of complex mathematical probabilities. At conception you became a genetic reality. You were at that moment, a genetically distinct entity. You were not a parasite, you were not a squirrel in a bag, you were a human embryo in precisely the environment nature intended in order for you to be viable, just as you are at this very moment. In a purely genetic sense, you were you from that moment forward. Yes, this is the point you are a genetic entity. However, I think that just because that is a non-arbitrary definition, that does not mean it is a better one than my arbitrary one (i.e. can it survive on its own), especially since it restricts the rights of the fully human woman if this definition is used. Can you explain your reasoning on why a fetus is not a parasite? It is a non-human entity surviving off of the nutrients of a human entity. Simply because it has genetic potential, does not mean it is not a parasite, it simply means its a parasite that some time in the next few months may become a human. The squirrel in a bag was an analogy to point out that just because it had a heartbeat and brainwaves, did not mean it was human. I picked it because: a) It had brainwaves b) It had a heartbeat c) It was unable to survive on its own d) It was clearly not human, and should not be given the rights of such I suppose it is lacking of total analogical (is that a word?) completeness in that it does not have the genetic potential to become a human, but that seems not to matter, even if it is a non-arbitrary measurement. Stan Shannon wrote: In the final analysis we must all realize that what abortion represents is an attempt to define humanity in such a way so as to be able to legally eradicate individuals who are an inconvenience. Yes, exactly. If we are right in our definition, no harm is done, and con
-
Stan Shannon wrote: I would certainly agree that as far as arbitrary definitions go, brain waves are as good as any other. I was not postulating this should be the definitive point, I was simply trying to find a common idea that we can agree on: something cannot be human without having brain waves. It is not necessairily human, and in fact I don't believe it is, but this would be established as an absolute minimum. Stan Shannon wrote: The only truly non-arbitrary definition of the beginning of life, human or otherwise, is the moment of conception. Before conception you were simply a set of complex mathematical probabilities. At conception you became a genetic reality. You were at that moment, a genetically distinct entity. You were not a parasite, you were not a squirrel in a bag, you were a human embryo in precisely the environment nature intended in order for you to be viable, just as you are at this very moment. In a purely genetic sense, you were you from that moment forward. Yes, this is the point you are a genetic entity. However, I think that just because that is a non-arbitrary definition, that does not mean it is a better one than my arbitrary one (i.e. can it survive on its own), especially since it restricts the rights of the fully human woman if this definition is used. Can you explain your reasoning on why a fetus is not a parasite? It is a non-human entity surviving off of the nutrients of a human entity. Simply because it has genetic potential, does not mean it is not a parasite, it simply means its a parasite that some time in the next few months may become a human. The squirrel in a bag was an analogy to point out that just because it had a heartbeat and brainwaves, did not mean it was human. I picked it because: a) It had brainwaves b) It had a heartbeat c) It was unable to survive on its own d) It was clearly not human, and should not be given the rights of such I suppose it is lacking of total analogical (is that a word?) completeness in that it does not have the genetic potential to become a human, but that seems not to matter, even if it is a non-arbitrary measurement. Stan Shannon wrote: In the final analysis we must all realize that what abortion represents is an attempt to define humanity in such a way so as to be able to legally eradicate individuals who are an inconvenience. Yes, exactly. If we are right in our definition, no harm is done, and con
Domenic [CPUA 0x1337] wrote: Can you explain your reasoning on why a fetus is not a parasite? It is a non-human entity surviving off of the nutrients of a human entity. Simply because it has genetic potential, does not mean it is not a parasite, it simply means its a parasite that some time in the next few months may become a human. Simply that, to my mind, the term is unnecessarily and purposefully derogatory and dehumanizing. We humans have a nasty habit of justifying our destructive tendencies towards one another with such terminology and where it can be avoided I think it should be. Every organism maintains some kind of parasitic relationship with some kind of host in a purely technical sense of the word. Even if you consider the entity in question to be technically a parasite based upon some arbitrary definition of "human", it is still certainly a human empbryo. It is not pre-human or sub-human or non-human. Rather, it occupies a point on a continuum towards humanhood. If allowed to gestate it will finally achieve our arbitrary definition. I see no reason to refer to it as anything other than precisely what it is - a human embryo. At the very least we should show that much respect for the process. The only reason one might choose not to do that is because you need a semantic device to strengthen an argument which cannot otherwise stand on its own accord. In other words, you are trying to compel by means of semantic imagery rather than on logic and reason. If there is a sound, logical reason for the termination of the gestation of a human embryo than that should be sufficient on its own merit. "There's a slew of slip 'twixt cup and lip"
-
I do not consider myself to be anti-abortion, but I *am* anti-"Roe vs Wade". I think it was a gross abuse of the power of the court to simply decide in a non-democratic way that a fetus is not a human being. Obviously, pregnancy represents a medical condition, and there may be any number of valid medical reasons for the termination of a pregnancy. Like a lot of people, however, I do not consider birth control to be a legitimate reason. Also, we now have an environment where no expense may be spared to save a premature fetus in one room of a hospital, while in the next room an equally well developed fetus and equally deserving of life, can be destroyed and washed away as so much sewage. You have to be pretty morally bankrupt not to apprecicate the hyprocricy of that. "There's a slew of slip 'twixt cup and lip"
Stan Shannon wrote: I do not consider myself to be anti-abortion Why is it that the ONLY group of people that the liberal "politically correct" crowd won't call by the name that said group wants to be called by is the PRO LIFE group? Is it because it is hard to argue with someone who says "I am Pro Life"? How do you combat that "How despicable, I can't believe you would be PRO LIFE!" Doesn't have the same ring to it as "anti-abortion" does it? I can't call a black person black but you can call me an "anti-abortionist", sad. -Jack To an optimist the glass is half full. To a pessimist the glass is half empty. To a programmer the glass is twice as big as it needs to be.