Question on abortion ethics

[LordMagnusKain]

Originally posted by: tss4

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
Agreed 100% LMK.

If you want to find out who is really in the right on this issue, go to an abortion rally where both sides are present. The people against abortion will just have pictures and stand quietly. Those for abortion will have megaphones and signs with slogans. If you can't win an argument by being in the right, I guess yelling louder is your only chance. Still, the best way to win an argument is by being right in the first place. <img src="i/expressions/beer.gif" border="0">

I've seen plenty of anti-abortioninst threatnening doctors. Don't tell me the right doesn't get nasty too. I don't condone it when either side acts that way.

---------------------------------------------------------
quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So its not really a distinct life.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

it is by definition a life, a life in need of support, no doubt, but a life none the less.
-----------------------------------------------------

How do you get this? At what point did it become life? What is the definition you are relying on. It would be nice though if people were more responsible. This would be much less of an issue.

I?ve heard of Jews that helped kill Nazis that worked in death camps, to.

i think a little un-Christian upset feelings about someone murdering children wholesale, with a few fringe nuts actually killing anyone, should recognized as an intense level of control of the spirit's truth over the flesh?s 'logic'.

And he didn?t say all, he just said in his experience, which I don?t question at all.

No, biologically speaking it is NOT a human, any mass of cells carrying human DNA is just that, a mass of cells carrying human DNA, you cannot really use DNA as a determination of anything but if it is human tissue, and human tissue is a lump of cells.

a genetically unique lump of living human cells that will most likely become a living breathing 8 year old child if you don?t end that life.

I know in Germany you've got 1st trimester only, but here in the states we still allow a child to be murdered while only hit's head is still in the woman. This is totally unacceptable infanticide.

 

[Turgon]

In my experience with abortion supporters the most common defense of abortion is that it's not life because it can't exist without the mother. Can a 1 year old exist without its mother? Of course not. Does this make it acceptable to kill a 1 year old? Of course not.

 

[LordMagnusKain]

Originally posted by: Turgon
In my experience with abortion supporters the most common defense of abortion is that it's not life because it can't exist without the mother. Can a 1 year old exist without its mother? Of course not. Does this make it acceptable to kill a 1 year old? Of course not.

Actually, according to ?a case for infanticide? that does, indeed, mean it?s OK to kill a 1 month old*not a person*, and we?ve simply yet to evolve to the point socially that we accept that.

 

[PatboyX]

are there any sites that have a number of reliably studies on how many people believe that abortion = murder?
id be interested to know what amount of the american population believes it. especially compared to different countries. etc etc

 

[cquark]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: biostud666
Bah it's a totally irrational discussion, either you feel abortion is murder or not. No logical reasoning is probably going to change it.

Depends on how rational you are.

No, reason is insufficient, because logic can only derive conclusions from a set of axioms. If two participants in a discussion differ on their set of axioms, their conclusions will differ, even if both participants in a discussion are perfectly logical.

The essential axiomatic difference I generally perceive in abortion debates exists in the definition of a person, with the pro-choice side defining a person as an intelligent, sentient entity that one can communicate with, a definition which would admit alien life or AIs if we encounter them and possibly may accept our fairly smart cousins the chimpanzees for some people, but which definitely doesn't accept fetuses, and with the pro-life side definition a person either by an inperceivable quality like the soul or a biological quality like similarity of DNA.

 

[LordMagnusKain]

Originally posted by: cquark

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: biostud666
Bah it's a totally irrational discussion, either you feel abortion is murder or not. No logical reasoning is probably going to change it.

Depends on how rational you are.

No, reason is insufficient, because logic can only derive conclusions from a set of axioms. If two participants in a discussion differ on their set of axioms, their conclusions will differ, even if both participants in a discussion are perfectly logical.

The essential axiomatic difference I generally perceive in abortion debates exists in the definition of a person, with the pro-choice side defining a person as an intelligent, sentient entity that one can communicate with, a definition which would admit alien life or AIs if we encounter them and possibly may accept our fairly smart cousins the chimpanzees for some people, but which definitely doesn't accept fetuses, and with the pro-life side definition a person either by an inperceivable quality like the soul or a biological quality like similarity of DNA.

no, we don't care about what a 'person' is, so much as what a 'human life' is.

 

[cquark]

Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain

Originally posted by: cquark

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: biostud666
Bah it's a totally irrational discussion, either you feel abortion is murder or not. No logical reasoning is probably going to change it.

Depends on how rational you are.

No, reason is insufficient, because logic can only derive conclusions from a set of axioms. If two participants in a discussion differ on their set of axioms, their conclusions will differ, even if both participants in a discussion are perfectly logical.

The essential axiomatic difference I generally perceive in abortion debates exists in the definition of a person, with the pro-choice side defining a person as an intelligent, sentient entity that one can communicate with, a definition which would admit alien life or AIs if we encounter them and possibly may accept our fairly smart cousins the chimpanzees for some people, but which definitely doesn't accept fetuses, and with the pro-life side definition a person either by an inperceivable quality like the soul or a biological quality like similarity of DNA.

no, we don't care about what a 'person' is, so much as what a 'human life' is.

A person is the term used by law (and philosophy). What you're doing is defining a person as a human life using one of those two means I mentioned above.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: PatboyX
are there any sites that have a number of reliably studies on how many people believe that abortion = murder?
id be interested to know what amount of the american population believes it. especially compared to different countries. etc etc

I doubt you can find a non-biased poll on the subject. You need a subscription to view the relevant Gallup polls online.

[

Originally posted by: cquark
No, reason is insufficient, because logic can only derive conclusions from a set of axioms. If two participants in a discussion differ on their set of axioms, their conclusions will differ, even if both participants in a discussion are perfectly logical.

The essential axiomatic difference I generally perceive in abortion debates exists in the definition of a person, with the pro-choice side defining a person as an intelligent, sentient entity that one can communicate with, a definition which would admit alien life or AIs if we encounter them and possibly may accept our fairly smart cousins the chimpanzees for some people, but which definitely doesn't accept fetuses, and with the pro-life side definition a person either by an inperceivable quality like the soul or a biological quality like similarity of DNA.

Then by your own definition, a fetus IS a person. It has been shown that fetuses respond to stimulus and meet all of the other criteria for intelligent life, before being born. I never mentioned a soul anywhere in the discussion, as this would fall into the religious category, which I've intentionally avoided. As I've stated, the USSC says the only reason a fetus is not a person is because it has not yet been born. It meets all the other requirements.

 

[cquark]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

The essential axiomatic difference I generally perceive in abortion debates exists in the definition of a person, with the pro-choice side defining a person as an intelligent, sentient entity that one can communicate with, a definition which would admit alien life or AIs if we encounter them and possibly may accept our fairly smart cousins the chimpanzees for some people, but which definitely doesn't accept fetuses, and with the pro-life side definition a person either by an inperceivable quality like the soul or a biological quality like similarity of DNA.

Then by your own definition, a fetus IS a person. It has been shown that fetuses respond to stimulus and meet all of the other criteria for intelligent life, before being born. I never mentioned a soul anywhere in the discussion, as this would fall into the religious category, which I've intentionally avoided. As I've stated, the USSC says the only reason a fetus is not a person is because it has not yet been born. It meets all the other requirements.

By your argument, an E.Coli bacterium is a person as they respond to stimuli. I realize that intelligence is not a completely well defined term, but I thought it obvious that I was referring to something more than what simple animals and even bacteria have. Passing the Turing Test is a minimum requirement. After all, some software can already pass it.

 

[0roo0roo]

Originally posted by: PatboyX

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
<blockquote>quote:
<hr><i>Originally posted by: <b>LordMagnusKain</b></i>
<blockquote>quote:
<hr> You could take that a step further and say that birth control pills are a form of murder because they are preventing "you" from being born.<hr></blockquote> except a With a unique human DNA structure, that will become a baby, that is alive, hasn?t been created with a condom stops a sperm.

But yes, the Catholics do take it that step further, and are against birth control, your point?<hr></blockquote>

What's black and white and red all over?

A pregnat Nun. <img src="i/expressions/face-icon-small-smile.gif" border="0"> Condom's don't always work, they have a rather high failure rate in my experience, hehe.

My wife is Catholic and comes from a family with 10 children. All of them pratice birth control, LOL, and they are all good Catholics and go to church almost every Sunday. I don't think any of them would ever get an abortion or allow their children to if they had a say in it. I still think abortion should be the a choice provided though.

about the last bit...i dont want to start an argument and i dont want it to be personal. but your example has brought up an interesting issue.
this is sort of the trouble i have understanding churches and certain religious groups.
the church doesnt approve of BC. but the people who are a part of it are using it. so (in the catholic church, if i remember correctly. i know the catholic church does change very frequently and does attempt to be more "modern" than most others...so correct me if the stance has changed) the church doesnt really recognize them as being "real" catholics. because they have sort of pick and choose rules.
now this is common. my sister is catholic and certainly uses BC. but how does one reconcile that difference? how does one (individual or group) know "well, this is just not practical" or "this is not societally acceptable so we wouldnt do it even though commanded to" (mormons come to mind with that one)
obviously, this has very little to do with your family in particular but i do admit to being confused and frustrated by this.

0roo: god also ordered the jews to kill babies at some point not long after the 10 commandments were handed down. however, i believe the christian view is that jesus came to the earth to "over-haul" gods original laws and hand down new ones.

http://ffrf.org/nontracts/?t=abortion.txt

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: cquark

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

The essential axiomatic difference I generally perceive in abortion debates exists in the definition of a person, with the pro-choice side defining a person as an intelligent, sentient entity that one can communicate with, a definition which would admit alien life or AIs if we encounter them and possibly may accept our fairly smart cousins the chimpanzees for some people, but which definitely doesn't accept fetuses, and with the pro-life side definition a person either by an inperceivable quality like the soul or a biological quality like similarity of DNA.

Then by your own definition, a fetus IS a person. It has been shown that fetuses respond to stimulus and meet all of the other criteria for intelligent life, before being born. I never mentioned a soul anywhere in the discussion, as this would fall into the religious category, which I've intentionally avoided. As I've stated, the USSC says the only reason a fetus is not a person is because it has not yet been born. It meets all the other requirements.

By your argument, an E.Coli bacterium is a person as they respond to stimuli. I realize that intelligence is not a completely well defined term, but I thought it obvious that I was referring to something more than what simple animals and even bacteria have. Passing the Turing Test is a minimum requirement. After all, some software can already pass it.

Wow, you reached a new high with this one. You took one phrase out of context rather than a whole sentence - congrats! I said responds to stimulus and all other criteria for intelligent life. There are actually criteria that scientists agree on to determine whether life is intelligent (developed exactly for characterizing aliens, actually, so I thought you might have read it after reading your reference, which is why I neglected to list them all individually). By your new modified definition, infants would not be considered persons, either.

 

[cquark]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: cquark

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

The essential axiomatic difference I generally perceive in abortion debates exists in the definition of a person, with the pro-choice side defining a person as an intelligent, sentient entity that one can communicate with, a definition which would admit alien life or AIs if we encounter them and possibly may accept our fairly smart cousins the chimpanzees for some people, but which definitely doesn't accept fetuses, and with the pro-life side definition a person either by an inperceivable quality like the soul or a biological quality like similarity of DNA.

Then by your own definition, a fetus IS a person. It has been shown that fetuses respond to stimulus and meet all of the other criteria for intelligent life, before being born. I never mentioned a soul anywhere in the discussion, as this would fall into the religious category, which I've intentionally avoided. As I've stated, the USSC says the only reason a fetus is not a person is because it has not yet been born. It meets all the other requirements.

By your argument, an E.Coli bacterium is a person as they respond to stimuli. I realize that intelligence is not a completely well defined term, but I thought it obvious that I was referring to something more than what simple animals and even bacteria have. Passing the Turing Test is a minimum requirement. After all, some software can already pass it.

Wow, you reached a new high with this one. You took one phrase out of context rather than a whole sentence - congrats! I said responds to stimulus and all other criteria for intelligent life.

I'm sorry that I can't read minds, but I used all the criteria that you specified; you didn't list or give a reference to any other criteria. If you wanted to include other criteria, you needed to list them or give me a reference to them.

There are actually criteria that scientists agree on to determine whether life is intelligent (developed exactly for characterizing aliens, actually, so I thought you might have read it after reading your reference, which is why I neglected to list them all individually).

What reference?

By your new modified definition, infants would not be considered persons, either.

Correct, they're not. Modern law considering infants persons at birth for purposes of life and death is such a very modern and extremely cautious treatment that it baffles me that people can consider abortion irresponsible in the general case.