Social Conservatives: Just a few questions

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
I've never tried to avoid saying that, Sadly you still haven't proven anything - any point that we choose to give rights to an unborn fetus which is not fully demonstrably human is also arbitrary. Which means at some point we arbitrarily infringe on the right sof the woman. My thoguht process here says: the woman given information can make up her mind long before any arbitrary point we might defensibly choose to bestow 'personhood' on an unborn child. Therefore choose such a point, with the understanding that this does place an 'unethical' burden on the mother to choose sooner, but that this is the best solution to an unresolvable conflict of rights.

It's not arbitrary to say that any human is also a person and, therefore, must be assigned rights as such. This simple statement is so obvious that it's painful, which is why I've read entire books by abortion advocates trying to logically refute it. However, you'll find that none have been able to do so successfully without also allowing for the complete legality of infanticide, which is currently viewed as one of the most heinous crimes in our society. So, can you refute it?

In short, humanity is sufficient for personhood, but not necessary (aliens could be given rights, too ). Feel free to try to disprove this statement.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Why, your desire to make a fetus a life is just as equally formulaic and arbitrary. You just don't want to know that life is utterly without meaning and that the thing that makes you sure there has to be meaning has nothing to do with some phony external code of ethics, natural or otherwise, but the fact that stripped of all your nonsense, you will discover that you are pure love. The Lover is the only Real Ethicist. The heart with which you love God is the same heart with which He loves you.

OK, so you think life is without meaning - that's fine. Do you then oppose laws forbidding killing of adults? After all, their life is completely without meaning, so why should we oppose wanton killing? Or are you opposed to all laws?

Oh my Beloved, wherever I look it appears to be Thou.

He who kills believes that he is separate. But the lover is one with the beloved. What you so desperately seek had always been there inside you. If you find it you will be the law.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
I've never tried to avoid saying that, Sadly you still haven't proven anything - any point that we choose to give rights to an unborn fetus which is not fully demonstrably human is also arbitrary. Which means at some point we arbitrarily infringe on the right sof the woman. My thoguht process here says: the woman given information can make up her mind long before any arbitrary point we might defensibly choose to bestow 'personhood' on an unborn child. Therefore choose such a point, with the understanding that this does place an 'unethical' burden on the mother to choose sooner, but that this is the best solution to an unresolvable conflict of rights.

It's not arbitrary to say that any human is also a person and, therefore, must be assigned rights as such. This simple statement is so obvious that it's painful, which is why I've read entire books by abortion advocates trying to logically refute it. However, you'll find that none have been able to do so successfully without also allowing for the complete legality of infanticide, which is currently viewed as one of the most heinous crimes in our society. So, can you refute it?

In short, humanity is sufficient for personhood, but not necessary (aliens could be given rights, too ). Feel free to try to disprove this statement.

In a perfect world, you would need to establish the exact point at which a fetus could 'suffer' in a meaningful way as a result of being aborted. I think it's obviously ridiculous to grant rights to 'potential' ahead of a living breathing, functioning person, so this would have to be the first moment that abortion would be unacceptable.

We can't know this exact moment as it stands right now, and even if we had better tools than we do, it still wouldn't be precise beyond identifying a period of a few days when this key transition would occur.

THerefore we apply the best tools we have available, analysis of fetal development, etc, and come to a 'best guess'. Then we push it back two more weeks to err on the side of caution, and voila, we have a workable decision model for protecting everyone's rights, rather than only the mother's or only the unborn child's.

This would be a much more palatable option for me than the current system of allowing 2nd trimester abortions despite significant evidence that some of these fetuses may well be capable of 'suffering'.

There is absolutely no way such a model could be used to justify infanticide, because we know with certainty that an infant is quite capable of suffering.

There is no way this could be used to justfy infanticide.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
In a perfect world, you would need to establish the exact point at which a fetus could 'suffer' in a meaningful way as a result of being aborted. I think it's obviously ridiculous to grant rights to 'potential' ahead of a living breathing, functioning person, so this would have to be the first moment that abortion would be unacceptable.

We can't know this exact moment as it stands right now, and even if we had better tools than we do, it still wouldn't be precise beyond identifying a period of a few days when this key transition would occur.

THerefore we apply the best tools we have available, analysis of fetal development, etc, and come to a 'best guess'. Then we push it back two more weeks to err on the side of caution, and voila, we have a workable decision model for protecting everyone's rights, rather than only the mother's or only the unborn child's.

This would be a much more palatable option for me than the current system of allowing 2nd trimester abortions despite significant evidence that some of these fetuses may well be capable of 'suffering'.

There is absolutely no way such a model could be used to justify infanticide, because we know with certainty that an infant is quite capable of suffering.

There is no way this could be used to justfy infanticide.

Even if I accept your model of 'suffering', how is suffering defined? If physical pain is the only indicator, then over 90% of current abortions would be illegal by your standard. If you added the 2 week buffer as you stated, it would be well over 95%. It has been established when a fetus' nervous system is fully developed and can feel pain - by the eighth week of gestation. Why is this a logical point for bestowing rights? Snakes do not feel pain at any point in their development, but are they any less alive? But my greatest problem is that even though you admit we can't know exactly when 'suffering' begins, you would still err on the side of allowing inflicting suffering - why? Why not err on the side of caution? What overriding impetus causes you to allow abortion despite all of the reasons against it?

"I think it's obviously ridiculous to grant rights to 'potential' ahead of a living breathing, functioning person, so this would have to be the first moment that abortion would be unacceptable. " Who decides who is and who is not 'functional'? Even among adults in society, there are certainly those at various levels of functionality. What about people on respirators? Are they less qualified than the rest of us living, breathing, functioning people to be granted the right to life? Besides, this is not an 'either-or' of rights - the right to life is the cardinal right that cannot be overriden by the rights of another, unless one infringes on their right to life.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
In a perfect world, you would need to establish the exact point at which a fetus could 'suffer' in a meaningful way as a result of being aborted. I think it's obviously ridiculous to grant rights to 'potential' ahead of a living breathing, functioning person, so this would have to be the first moment that abortion would be unacceptable.

We can't know this exact moment as it stands right now, and even if we had better tools than we do, it still wouldn't be precise beyond identifying a period of a few days when this key transition would occur.

THerefore we apply the best tools we have available, analysis of fetal development, etc, and come to a 'best guess'. Then we push it back two more weeks to err on the side of caution, and voila, we have a workable decision model for protecting everyone's rights, rather than only the mother's or only the unborn child's.

This would be a much more palatable option for me than the current system of allowing 2nd trimester abortions despite significant evidence that some of these fetuses may well be capable of 'suffering'.

There is absolutely no way such a model could be used to justify infanticide, because we know with certainty that an infant is quite capable of suffering.

There is no way this could be used to justfy infanticide.

Even if I accept your model of 'suffering', how is suffering defined? If physical pain is the only indicator, then over 90% of current abortions would be illegal by your standard. If you added the 2 week buffer as you stated, it would be well over 95%. It has been established when a fetus' nervous system is fully developed and can feel pain - by the eighth week of gestation. Why is this a logical point for bestowing rights? Snakes do not feel pain at any point in their development, but are they any less alive? But my greatest problem is that even though you admit we can't know exactly when 'suffering' begins, you would still err on the side of allowing inflicting suffering - why? Why not err on the side of caution? What overriding impetus causes you to allow abortion despite all of the reasons against it?

"I think it's obviously ridiculous to grant rights to 'potential' ahead of a living breathing, functioning person, so this would have to be the first moment that abortion would be unacceptable. " Who decides who is and who is not 'functional'? Even among adults in society, there are certainly those at various levels of functionality. What about people on respirators? Are they less qualified than the rest of us living, breathing, functioning people to be granted the right to life? Besides, this is not an 'either-or' of rights - the right to life is the cardinal right that cannot be overriden by the rights of another, unless one infringes on their right to life.

What?

I just said I would err on the side of caution, I'm not sure why you would misrepresent my position, when you clearly have useful arguments without needing to do so.

The argument against 'any and all' abortion comes down to one of two things. Either a religiously prescribed moral position, or a protection of rights. I discount the legitimacy of having religion forced upon me or anyone else entirely; only the 'rights' argument has any validity.

The question becomes: when are you allowing the rights of something which is really only 'potential' to trump the rights of someone who is already here?

I never said I would be upset if 90 or 95% of current abortions were illegal; it simply places the burden of choice on the woman with a tighter deadline to meet; many of those abortions would likely occur anyway, but within the allowable period. Of course development of a nervous system does not imply functioning ability to feel pain, but I won't take that argument any farther because it really doens't matter 'when' the cutoff is.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
What?

I just said I would err on the side of caution, I'm not sure why you would misrepresent my position, when you clearly have useful arguments without needing to do so.

The argument against 'any and all' abortion comes down to one of two things. Either a religiously prescribed moral position, or a protection of rights. I discount the legitimacy of having religion forced upon me or anyone else entirely; only the 'rights' argument has any validity.

The question becomes: when are you allowing the rights of something which is really only 'potential' to trump the rights of someone who is already here?

I'm not misrepresenting your argument, only saying that what you call erring on the side of caution is anything but. Your definition of erring on the side of caution was to declare some completley arbitrary deadline, which you admitted could never be set in stone due to the complexity of the situation.

You'll note that I haven't used anything but a rights argument. I fully understand that religion cannot be used in such arguments, as then the result of the logical progression cannot be extended outside the religion over which those axioms govern.

As I stated in this thread, there is no potentiality argument involved. Pasted the meat of it below for your convenience.

I don't recall making any arguments about potentiality. Quite the opposite, in fact, as my argument states that the embryo/fetus already is, rather than is becoming, a human. It develops as time progresses as do any of us. The impetus is on you to supply a point at which personhood may be denied to this entity - one that is logical rather than arbitrary. Only then can you declare that being a human is not sufficient for being a person.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
I'm not misrepresenting your argument, only saying that what you call erring on the side of caution is anything but. Your definition of erring on the side of caution was to declare some completley arbitrary deadline, which you admitted could never be set in stone due to the complexity of the situation.

You'll note that I haven't used anything but a rights argument. I fully understand that religion cannot be used in such arguments, as then the result of the logical progression cannot be extended outside the religion over which those axioms govern.

As I stated in this thread, there is no potentiality argument involved. Pasted the meat of it below for your convenience.

I don't recall making any arguments about potentiality. Quite the opposite, in fact, as my argument states that the embryo/fetus already is, rather than is becoming, a human. It develops as time progresses as do any of us. The impetus is on you to supply a point at which personhood may be denied to this entity - one that is logical rather than arbitrary. Only then can you declare that being a human is not sufficient for being a person.

Nice post btw, and I'm aware that you've stayed pretty well clear of the religious/moral side of the argument, which is quite refreshing.

I disagree WRT to potentiality:

An unborn fetus has no possibility of expressing itself, exercising free will, communicating, or taking any of the other actions which human beings do every day. It is simply not capable of doing this, both developmentally, and as a result of being inside another being. This, to me is potentiality; the fetus has the potential to become a human being, and in some of the above actions, it may be able to perform them before it is born (i'm not really sure what baby-kicking qualifies as, if it's an 'action' perse or some sort of reflexive muscle contraction; maybe someone else knows the answer if it has been studied).

As far as 'arbitrariness'. the flip side is to arbitrarily choose a value of 'zero' for the amount of time that a woman is afforded to exercise her right to control her own body. I don't want to bring up the tired example of 'children of rape' wlthough they are not particularly uncommon, but your argument necessarily condemns these women to carry their rapists child to term, regardless of the psychological consequences.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
I disagree WRT to potentiality:

An unborn fetus has no possibility of expressing itself, exercising free will, communicating, or taking any of the other actions which human beings do every day. It is simply not capable of doing this, both developmentally, and as a result of being inside another being. This, to me is potentiality; the fetus has the potential to become a human being, and in some of the above actions, it may be able to perform them before it is born (i'm not really sure what baby-kicking qualifies as, if it's an 'action' perse or some sort of reflexive muscle contraction; maybe someone else knows the answer if it has been studied).

As far as 'arbitrariness'. the flip side is to arbitrarily choose a value of 'zero' for the amount of time that a woman is afforded to exercise her right to control her own body. I don't want to bring up the tired example of 'children of rape' wlthough they are not particularly uncommon, but your argument necessarily condemns these women to carry their rapists child to term, regardless of the psychological consequences.

The ability to express itself, exercise free will, or communicate all develop with time in any person of any age. These things are subjective by their very nature and could be used to deny rights to humans at any stage of development (even adults) simply by sliding the scale. I submit that rights cannot be determined based on subjective criteria. As such, the qualities you listed can be neither necessary or sufficient for the distribution of rights. I believe I have already demonstrated in this thread (or the other, which I linked in my previous post) why a fetus is not a part of any woman's body.

As I mentioned, the fetus is not a potential human being: it is a human being. The only thing separating it from you or I is the amount of time it has had since conception to develop.

The allowance for abortions in case of rape is an appeal to emotion. Clearly, based on the reasons I have supplied, there can be no exception for cases of rape. Obviously this could be incredibly painful for the woman, but is the fetus any less human than any other fetus? The basis for rights is humanity, not cause of conception. As such, no logical distinction can be made to allow for this, regardless of how tragic it might be.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
I disagree WRT to potentiality:

An unborn fetus has no possibility of expressing itself, exercising free will, communicating, or taking any of the other actions which human beings do every day. It is simply not capable of doing this, both developmentally, and as a result of being inside another being. This, to me is potentiality; the fetus has the potential to become a human being, and in some of the above actions, it may be able to perform them before it is born (i'm not really sure what baby-kicking qualifies as, if it's an 'action' perse or some sort of reflexive muscle contraction; maybe someone else knows the answer if it has been studied).

As far as 'arbitrariness'. the flip side is to arbitrarily choose a value of 'zero' for the amount of time that a woman is afforded to exercise her right to control her own body. I don't want to bring up the tired example of 'children of rape' wlthough they are not particularly uncommon, but your argument necessarily condemns these women to carry their rapists child to term, regardless of the psychological consequences.

The ability to express itself, exercise free will, or communicate all develop with time in any person of any age. These things are subjective by their very nature and could be used to deny rights to humans at any stage of development (even adults) simply by sliding the scale. I submit that rights cannot be determined based on subjective criteria. As such, the qualities you listed can be neither necessary or sufficient for the distribution of rights. I believe I have already demonstrated in this thread (or the other, which I linked in my previous post) why a fetus is not a part of any woman's body.

As I mentioned, the fetus is not a potential human being: it is a human being. The only thing separating it from you or I is the amount of time it has had since conception to develop.

The allowance for abortions in case of rape is an appeal to emotion. Clearly, based on the reasons I have supplied, there can be no exception for cases of rape. Obviously this could be incredibly painful for the woman, but is the fetus any less human than any other fetus? The basis for rights is humanity, not cause of conception. As such, no logical distinction can be made to allow for this, regardless of how tragic it might be.

the only thing that separates the banana I just ate from becoming human is the time it takes to digest it.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
the only thing that separates the banana I just ate from becoming human is the time it takes to digest it.

So you want to ascribe rights to iron ore, since it may end up in a human's body at some point? The clear distinction is that, while one may be becoming, the other has already become.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
the only thing that separates the banana I just ate from becoming human is the time it takes to digest it.

So you want to ascribe rights to iron ore, since it may end up in a human's body at some point? The clear distinction is that, while one may be becoming, the other has already become.

I think, crudely put, that the point is that disctinction is notclear.

But I need to get off the interw3b and do some work - I'm not ignoring your post but I don't have time to reply right now!

 

[cquark]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
the only thing that separates the banana I just ate from becoming human is the time it takes to digest it.

So you want to ascribe rights to iron ore, since it may end up in a human's body at some point? The clear distinction is that, while one may be becoming, the other has already become.

You've got it. That's the distinction between gametes, embryos, and fetuses on one side and humans on the other. They're in the process of becoming; the other has already become.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: cquark
You've got it. That's the distinction between gametes, embryos, and fetuses on one side and humans on the other. They're in the process of becoming; the other has already become.

:roll:

OK chief, I'll ask you the exact same question someone else was unable to answer in this thread. At what exact moment during delivery (as soon as the fetus leaves the womb, half way through the birth canal, 3/4 through, outside with the umbilocal cord attached, after the cord is cut?) is the gamete/embryo/fetus human? Ah, that's right, it's human by definition since conception. The question is where does the logically relevant difference occur during the birthing process that all of a sudden magically makes a fetus worthy of being granted rights?

 

[imported_tss4]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: cquark
You've got it. That's the distinction between gametes, embryos, and fetuses on one side and humans on the other. They're in the process of becoming; the other has already become.

:roll:

OK chief, I'll ask you the exact same question someone else was unable to answer in this thread. At what exact moment during delivery (as soon as the fetus leaves the womb, half way through the birth canal, 3/4 through, outside with the umbilocal cord attached, after the cord is cut?) is the gamete/embryo/fetus human? Ah, that's right, it's human by definition since conception. The question is where does the logically relevant difference occur during the birthing process that all of a sudden magically makes a fetus worthy of being granted rights?

Your logic is flawed a bit here. you can say something is or is not something at periods of time without knowing the exact moement it changed. The butterfly is an example. I can look at a caterpillar and say "that's not a butterfly". I can look at a butterfly and say "there's a butterfly". But I could not tell you the exact moment that the caterpillar turned into the butterfly.

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
I've never tried to avoid saying that, Sadly you still haven't proven anything - any point that we choose to give rights to an unborn fetus which is not fully demonstrably human is also arbitrary. Which means at some point we arbitrarily infringe on the right sof the woman. My thoguht process here says: the woman given information can make up her mind long before any arbitrary point we might defensibly choose to bestow 'personhood' on an unborn child. Therefore choose such a point, with the understanding that this does place an 'unethical' burden on the mother to choose sooner, but that this is the best solution to an unresolvable conflict of rights.

It's not arbitrary to say that any human is also a person and, therefore, must be assigned rights as such. This simple statement is so obvious that it's painful, which is why I've read entire books by abortion advocates trying to logically refute it. However, you'll find that none have been able to do so successfully without also allowing for the complete legality of infanticide, which is currently viewed as one of the most heinous crimes in our society. So, can you refute it?

In short, humanity is sufficient for personhood, but not necessary (aliens could be given rights, too ). Feel free to try to disprove this statement.

In a perfect world, you would need to establish the exact point at which a fetus could 'suffer' in a meaningful way as a result of being aborted. I think it's obviously ridiculous to grant rights to 'potential' ahead of a living breathing, functioning person, so this would have to be the first moment that abortion would be unacceptable.

We can't know this exact moment as it stands right now, and even if we had better tools than we do, it still wouldn't be precise beyond identifying a period of a few days when this key transition would occur.

THerefore we apply the best tools we have available, analysis of fetal development, etc, and come to a 'best guess'. Then we push it back two more weeks to err on the side of caution, and voila, we have a workable decision model for protecting everyone's rights, rather than only the mother's or only the unborn child's.

This would be a much more palatable option for me than the current system of allowing 2nd trimester abortions despite significant evidence that some of these fetuses may well be capable of 'suffering'.

There is absolutely no way such a model could be used to justify infanticide, because we know with certainty that an infant is quite capable of suffering.

There is no way this could be used to justfy infanticide.

Why is it okay to allow battery hens, chimps, cats and dogs to suffer - but somehow problematic to allow a fetus to suffer? You must feel that the suffering of a fetus is more problematic or worrisome than an equivalent level of physical suffering experienced by other life forms. Why?

I'm wondering why you would shy away from infanticide. Is a 1 month old baby a human being? No memory, no personality, no language, no rational thought. That is not a human being, to my mind. I'm okay with abortion at any stage of pregnancy. I'm also probably be okay with infanticide, practiced within the first several months of life. I'd set an arbitrary point as to when an infant is granted full rights as a citizen - maybe 6 months old? Something like that.

Even if I thought a fetus was a thinking, feeling little person, I'd still have to support the woman's right to abort said parasitic growth within her womb. A human being simply doesn't have the right to take up real estate in another person's body. Too bad for the fetus, if the mother wants that thing out of her womb.

 

[imported_tss4]

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
I've never tried to avoid saying that, Sadly you still haven't proven anything - any point that we choose to give rights to an unborn fetus which is not fully demonstrably human is also arbitrary. Which means at some point we arbitrarily infringe on the right sof the woman. My thoguht process here says: the woman given information can make up her mind long before any arbitrary point we might defensibly choose to bestow 'personhood' on an unborn child. Therefore choose such a point, with the understanding that this does place an 'unethical' burden on the mother to choose sooner, but that this is the best solution to an unresolvable conflict of rights.

It's not arbitrary to say that any human is also a person and, therefore, must be assigned rights as such. This simple statement is so obvious that it's painful, which is why I've read entire books by abortion advocates trying to logically refute it. However, you'll find that none have been able to do so successfully without also allowing for the complete legality of infanticide, which is currently viewed as one of the most heinous crimes in our society. So, can you refute it?

In short, humanity is sufficient for personhood, but not necessary (aliens could be given rights, too ). Feel free to try to disprove this statement.

In a perfect world, you would need to establish the exact point at which a fetus could 'suffer' in a meaningful way as a result of being aborted. I think it's obviously ridiculous to grant rights to 'potential' ahead of a living breathing, functioning person, so this would have to be the first moment that abortion would be unacceptable.

We can't know this exact moment as it stands right now, and even if we had better tools than we do, it still wouldn't be precise beyond identifying a period of a few days when this key transition would occur.

THerefore we apply the best tools we have available, analysis of fetal development, etc, and come to a 'best guess'. Then we push it back two more weeks to err on the side of caution, and voila, we have a workable decision model for protecting everyone's rights, rather than only the mother's or only the unborn child's.

This would be a much more palatable option for me than the current system of allowing 2nd trimester abortions despite significant evidence that some of these fetuses may well be capable of 'suffering'.

There is absolutely no way such a model could be used to justify infanticide, because we know with certainty that an infant is quite capable of suffering.

There is no way this could be used to justfy infanticide.

Why is it okay to allow battery hens, chimps, cats and dogs to suffer - but somehow problematic to allow a fetus to suffer? You must feel that the suffering of a fetus is more problematic or worrisome than an equivalent level of physical suffering experienced by other life forms. Why?

I'm wondering why you would shy away from infanticide. Is a 1 month old baby a human being? No memory, no personality, no language, no rational thought. That is not a human being, to my mind. I'm okay with abortion at any stage of pregnancy. I'm also probably be okay with infanticide, practiced within the first several months of life. I'd set an arbitrary point as to when an infant is granted full rights as a citizen - maybe 6 months old? Something like that.

Even if I thought a fetus was a thinking, feeling little person, I'd still have to support the woman's right to abort said parasitic growth within her womb. A human being simply doesn't have the right to take up real estate in another person's body. Too bad for the fetus, if the mother wants that thing out of her womb.

Infanticide? How can you justify it? rational thought and personality are not precursors for the right to life under the law. Its illegal to run around snapping the necks of dogs and cats. I wouldn't say they have the rationality or personality of a person either. Yet we defend there right to life.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: aidanjm
Why is it okay to allow battery hens, chimps, cats and dogs to suffer - but somehow problematic to allow a fetus to suffer? You must feel that the suffering of a fetus is more problematic or worrisome than an equivalent level of physical suffering experienced by other life forms. Why?

I'm wondering why you would shy away from infanticide. Is a 1 month old baby a human being? No memory, no personality, no language, no rational thought. That is not a human being, to my mind. I'm okay with abortion at any stage of pregnancy. I'm also probably be okay with infanticide, practiced within the first several months of life. I'd set an arbitrary point as to when an infant is granted full rights as a citizen - maybe 6 months old? Something like that.

Wrong - infants begin to show personality within hours of birth. It's possible that with better research techniques we will actually discover that this begins before birth.

Even if I thought a fetus was a thinking, feeling little person, I'd still have to support the woman's right to abort said parasitic growth within her womb. A human being simply doesn't have the right to take up real estate in another person's body. Too bad for the fetus, if the mother wants that thing out of her womb.

I disagree, I think it's the woman's responsibility to make her decision with respect for the fact that at some point the 'parasitic growth' inside her will become a full-fledged human being. This means 'sooner rather than later' and possibly the need for some sort of 'deadline'.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

The ability to express itself, exercise free will, or communicate all develop with time in any person of any age. These things are subjective by their very nature and could be used to deny rights to humans at any stage of development (even adults) simply by sliding the scale. I submit that rights cannot be determined based on subjective criteria. As such, the qualities you listed can be neither necessary or sufficient for the distribution of rights. I believe I have already demonstrated in this thread (or the other, which I linked in my previous post) why a fetus is not a part of any woman's body.

Unfortunately, if this is the case, I would submit that the most rational time to allocate 'humanity' to a fetus is at the point when it becomes an independent being (I don't mean 'subjectively' like at age 21). By your argument, I can equally conclude that when the fetus leaves the mother, the mother loses control over it, and it becomes an independent being. Before that time, she is in control and should be able to evict her tenant any time she feels like it.

I don't buy this argument - but it is quite supportable based on the requirement of 'objective criteria'. Unfortunately, many things in life are subjective; this doesn't absolve us of the responsibility to make our best effort at them. The problem with using an objective criteria is that selection of that criteria is still subjective - you can pick any one you want, and the judgement of which is most correct is completely subjective. It's much more effective to consider all the available criteria, and try to synthesize a 'best response'. If you can show that a fetus substantially meets the requirements of sentient human life from the moment of conception, you might well convince me that even the 'morning after pill' is unethical.

As I mentioned, the fetus is not a potential human being: it is a human being. The only thing separating it from you or I is the amount of time it has had since conception to develop.

And it's current capacity to actually be a human being. It can't live outside the mother (or rather, outside of 'a' mother, mechanical or otherwise), nor can it do very much of anything else. It is a ball of potential.

The allowance for abortions in case of rape is an appeal to emotion. Clearly, based on the reasons I have supplied, there can be no exception for cases of rape. Obviously this could be incredibly painful for the woman, but is the fetus any less human than any other fetus? The basis for rights is humanity, not cause of conception. As such, no logical distinction can be made to allow for this, regardless of how tragic it might be.

You're quite right, there should be no exception for rape victims, because women should already have the choice to have an abortion, therefore no exception should be needed. If it makes you feel any better, I don't support 'double-murder' charges for killing a pregnant woman, though I would support a specific charge if the murder were motivated by a desire to prevent the child from being born.

The appeal to emotion is a demonstration that some women have very real reasons to want an abortion, and is meant to counter the claim that women have abortions 'on a whim' or 'as a method of birth control' when this is not universally the case. I don't support the idea of abortions only for rape victims, I think that would be retarded; if I were convinced that abortion was unilaterally 'wrong' I would not support any sort of exception.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
the only thing that separates the banana I just ate from becoming human is the time it takes to digest it.

So you want to ascribe rights to iron ore, since it may end up in a human's body at some point? The clear distinction is that, while one may be becoming, the other has already become.

Nothing has become anything except in your opinion and that is the point. Ascribing human life to a group of organic molecules is as arbitrary as ascribing humanity to a banana. The criteria are all irrational with emotion underpinning your attachment. If we were not Love at Core we would not have an emotional attachment to human life. But that Love should also extend to the woman and be tempered by the realization that all men and here all women are insane. Humanity did not evolve in such a way that only enlightened parents have kids.

Because you are too unconscious to pin down the source of your irrational attachment to fetal life, you want to punish other similarly unconscious people because they make a mistake and start gestating an unwanted kid. It is no coincidence that you and the aborting mother is are psychologically the same, You are both willing to murder, she the child and you the mother. But because you cannot forgive her you cannot see who you are and thus you cannot forgive yourself.