Political Crossfire Forums

[jsmcs73]

O.K. you guys. I'll try harder to keep my feelings in check, even though its my feelings that dictate my stances on many topics and issues.

I will continue to debate.

jimison seems to be very articulate and I agree with him.

[jimison1]

What would you call terminating a living being if not killing? No arguments from emotion here. Thems the facts. Sorry.

Arguing from legality isn't terribly compelling either, as the true nature of laws have not really been established (are they derived from natural laws, is positivism true, legal realism, who knows?). There's a lot of unpacking you'd have to do to make this argument work. The argument also commits a naturalistic fallacy. We all know what the legal arguments are, but that is not our concern. We, those who have moral reservations about abortion, are concerned with what should be.

If sex is consensual, the possible if not probable effects of sex are known, sex is engaged in anyway, and a pregnancy occurs, then how on Earth could that series of events be represented by analogy to a set of squatters who come uninvited or stay beyond their welcome?

More than an embryo? How's that? I merely used your criteria, and while yes, the individual in very deep sleep does retain memories, thoughts, and a history (trenchantly locked in his Hebbian Synapses), he doesn't have access to them while he's in deep sleep. He is not conscious. He is not self-aware. He has no active memories. In what way, in a demonstrable and material way, is he different from fetus? Other than the obvious, he's not in a womb, he's been born, etc.? Also, this argument that you have put forth is very circular. Not sure if that's a problem or not. You may just be putting forth a valid argument.

Time to write.

Cheerio.

Jimison

[Prole]

jimison1 wrote: What would you call terminating a living being if not killing? No arguments from emotion here. Thems the facts. Sorry.

Not at all; I have no dispute that an abortion does kill a preborn human. I do not accept, however, that the killing is somewhat or even at all immoral at all stages of development.

Jimison wrote: Arguing from legality isn't terribly compelling either, as the true nature of laws have not really been established (are they derived from natural laws, is positivism true, legal realism, who knows?).
As laws are establish through democratic channels, I would say that there are almost certainly quite a few different moral ideals behind the set of laws that we have. At the most basic levels, I would say that most countries adopt a code of rule utilitarianism, often with a (if not openly stated) religious element. But this is rather off topic.

As far as "consciousness" is concerned, even a sleeping person does have some level of awareness. Poke a sleeping person, and they will react. Watch their facial expression, and you can see clearly if the dreams they are experiencing are making them happy or not. A sleeping person does have thoughts, and feelings, and emotions; this is a lot more than can be said for a preborn human at the earliest stages of development.

[jimison1]

Prole,


�Simply because a woman has an abortion on non-medical grounds does not mean that she does not have an abortion to overall improve her own utility. Is the social stigma sometimes incurred by people who get pregnant not enough? Is the disruption that pregnancy poses to pregnant woman's life not enough? Perhaps not if an abortion kills a moral entity. But if no moral entity is violated (which is debatable), then I submit that any justification is both viable and acceptable.�

Sometimes v. each and every time. Pregnancy CAN result in social stigma, true enough. But abortion DOES result in the death of a fetus, each and EVERY time.

The problem is how do we go about determining what an moral entity is? The fact that it is debatable is grounds enough for me to advocate imposing a moratorium on the practice, at least until we are sure. But again, with a circular vacuous and hopelessly confused concept like personhood, I'm not sure that would ever be possible. My suggestion would be to throw out the concept entirely, as it clearly is only useful to those who want the rights, and not those who are worried about the morality.

�Ok. What if the kid just magically appeared at your doorstep. Again, I doubt that you personally would kill the kid. But do you think that everyone should be legally obligated to do the same?�

You mean not kill the kid? Yes, I think everyone should be obligated to not kill the kid. And again, pregnancy is never the product of magic, it is the product of sex. If a pregnancy could be shown to have originated by magic wand or hex, then yes, maybe you'd have good reason to put forth this argument. As the pregnancy wouldn't be the result of any action you did, but that of an evil wizard trying to make chattel of women. In such a case, the remedy would be easy: head off to the local white witch and have her reverse time to before the evil wizard knocked you up, prestidigatatively speaking (yes, I made up that word).

Best,

Jimison

[Prole]

Jimison wrote: The problem is how do we go about determining what an moral entity is? The fact that it is debatable is grounds enough for me to advocate imposing a moratorium on the practice, at least until we are sure. But again, with a circular vacuous and hopelessly confused concept like personhood, I'm not sure that would ever be possible.

I agree that such an agreement would almost certainly be impossible.

[quote="Jimison"
My suggestion would be to throw out the concept entirely, as it clearly is only useful to those who want the rights, and not those who are worried about the morality.[/quote]
If not by personhood, then how are we to determine what is moral, and what is not? I fear that any definition of who deserves rights and who does not would just be a rose by another name, so to speak, and that abandoning such defining words would do nothing other than change the words used, while keeping the exact same concept intact.

[Selfish_Meme]

jimison1 wrote: What would you call terminating a living being if not killing? No arguments from emotion here. Thems the facts. Sorry.
Killing is indeed what is entailed in abortion. It is yet to be decided if it is equivalent to killing a mature adult.

jimison1 wrote: Arguing from legality isn't terribly compelling either, as the true nature of laws have not really been established (are they derived from natural laws, is positivism true, legal realism, who knows?). There's a lot of unpacking you'd have to do to make this argument work. The argument also commits a naturalistic fallacy. We all know what the legal arguments are, but that is not our concern. We, those who have moral reservations about abortion, are concerned with what should be. Well since I was asked about morality I am answering but to try and make my legal analogy and a moral analogy the same won't work. You should have started a new thread about the morality of abortion.

jimison1 wrote: If sex is consensual, the possible if not probable effects of sex are known, sex is engaged in anyway, and a pregnancy occurs, then how on Earth could that series of events be represented by analogy to a set of squatters who come uninvited or stay beyond their welcome? Because the same sort of thing is being infringed upon, property rights. The newly formed life is infringing on the womans property, her body.

jimison1 wrote: More than an embryo? How's that? I merely used your criteria, and while yes, the individual in very deep sleep does retain memories, thoughts, and a history (trenchantly locked in his Hebbian Synapses), he doesn't have access to them while he's in deep sleep. He is not conscious. He is not self-aware. He has no active memories. In what way, in a demonstrable and material way, is he different from fetus? Other than the obvious, he's not in a womb, he's been born, etc.? Also, this argument that you have put forth is very circular. Not sure if that's a problem or not. You may just be putting forth a valid argument.
By your own admission he has things that no embryo or fetus has had, even if he isn't have access to them right then. There are many tests we can do to ascertain wether someone has the ability to think, regardless of whether they are doing it. You could also just wake them up. You can't do that to an embryo or early term fetus, In fact according to this an embryo or early term fetus is in a persistant vegetative stae, or brain dead.
http://www.changesurfer.com/BD/Papers/Calixto1.html

[jimison1]

I'm sure this will make you both, Prole and Selfish, very sad, but I have to write an essay.

Equivalent to killing an adult? I don't know what that means? Wouldn't killing a human being be sufficient cause for moral reservation? Is that the safest criteria?

Property rights? You cannot infringe if your existence is caused by the agent upon whose rights you're said to be infringing. The verb in its transitive form means �to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another.� This implies power to violate, to encroach, and as a weaker entity, such as a fetus, cannot violate or encroach upon anything or anyone, this term doesn't really apply here. What is happening is that woman wants to have sex, but doesn't want to accept the responsibility nature saddled her with. We then frame the killing of an innocent in terms of rights. If you're in favor of those rights, your euphemistically called pro-choice. That sounds like something we can all get behind. If you're opposed to abortion, you're, dysphemistically, anti-choice. Clever, but no banana. A fetus is distinct, not there by his/her choice or action, and yet is yoked with the burden of responsibility, in which he must necessarily have his life taken from him, for an state he didn't create.

Regarding the sleeping man, the point is that at T1 fetus doesn't have the criteria you mentioned. Neither does sleeping man. You can argue with me all day about whether he does or doesn't, but when I have more time, like tomorrow perhaps, I can link you to about 10 articles in neuroscience journals that say otherwise. Also, regardless of whether you can poke him, wake him up, etc., the fact remains that while is in deep sleep he doesn't fit your criteria.

That link is bunk. A fetus is not in a PVS, nor is he/she brain dead. In fact, the contrary is true. More tomorrow.

Prole,

I guess we're in agreement about something. That's my cue to exit stage left, and get on writing my essay (due tomorrow).

Best,

Jimison

[jimison1]

Before I go:

Taxonomy Checklist for Modern Humans

A fetus is taxonomically human iff it meets the following criterion:

Domain: Eukaryota: A superkingdom of organisms with eukaryotic cells - cells with true nuclei; a cell with a nuclear membrane and organelles. A fetus in fact has eukaryotic cells. Check!

Kingdom: Animalia: An animal: a multicellular organism of the kingdom Animalia, differing from plants in certain typical characteristics such as capacity for locomotion, nonphotosynthetic metabolism, pronounced response to stimuli, restricted growth, and fixed bodily structure. A human fetus has these characteristics.


Subkingdom: Bilateria: having bilateral symmetry. Check.

Superphylum: Deuterostomia: Deuterostomes are distinguished by their embryonic development; in deuterostomes, the first opening (the blastopore) becomes the anus, while in protostomes it becomes the mouth. An 8 week fetus has both an anus and a mouth. Check.

Phylum: Chordata: They are united by having, at some stage in their life, a notochord, a hollow dorsal nerve cord, pharyngeal slits, an endostyle, and a muscular tail extending past the anus. Some scientists argue, however, that the true qualifier should be pharyngeal pouches rather than slits. Check, check, check, check, and check.

Subphylum: Vertebrata: those with backbones or spinal columns. Check.

Infraphylum: Gnathostomata: is the group of vertebrates with jaws. Check.

Superclass: Tetrapoda: having four feet, legs or leglike appendages. Check.

Class: Mammalia: characterized by the presence of mammary glands, which in females produce milk for the nourishment of young; the presence of hair or fur; and which have endothermic or "warm-blooded" bodies. The brain regulates endothermic and circulatory systems, including a four-chambered heart. Check.

Subclass: Placentalia (or Eutheria): contains all mammals whose fetuses are nourished through placentas. Check, obviously.

Order: Primates: pentadactyly, a generalized dental pattern, and a primitive (unspecialized) body plan. Check.

Suborder: Haplorrhini: Their upper lip is not directly connected to their nose or gum, allowing a large range of facial expressions. Their brain to body ratio is significantly greater than the strepsirrhines, and their primary sense is vision. Most species are diurnal (the exceptions being the tarsiers and the night monkeys) and have color vision. Their hands and feet are more generally adapted, with specialization only for locomotion, such as the hooked hands common to gibbons and orangutans, or the human bipedal feet. Check.

Superfamily: Hominoidea (also known as Apes
Family: Hominidae: members of the biological family Hominidae (the great apes), which includes humans, chimpanzees, gorillas, and orangutans. Check.

Genus: Homo: modern humans and their close relatives. Check. A human mother doesn't give birth to a elephant or an australopithecine, cept in the tabloids.

Species: H. sapiens: bipedal primates biologically classified as members of the mammalian species Homo sapiens (Latin for "wise man" or "thinking man") under the great apes family, Hominidae. Humans have a highly developed brain capable of abstract reasoning, language, and introspection. This, combined with an erect body carriage that frees their upper limbs for manipulating objects, has allowed humans to make greater use of tools than any other species of animal. Check. N.B. Capable in this context obviously refers to having the capacity, inclination, or disposition (in terms of species specific behavioral reportoires).


My argument:

P1: A fetus is a human being (based upon human taxon described above). True

P2: A fetus, not having the ability to engage in behaviors lending themselves to moral/legal judgment, is innocent. True

C1: Therefore, a fetus is an innocent human being. True

P1a: An induced abortion is a description of any procedure designed to faciltate termination and expulsion of the fetus. True

P2a: A fetus is an innocent human being (derived from P1-2, and C1). True

C:2 Induced abortion is designed to facilitate termination of life and expulsion of an innocent human being. True

From this, combined with the laws of most civilized countries (and yes, I use civilized unabashedly), I observe something a contradiction: While we, members of a Western Culture, generally regard taking innocent human life to be immoral and most of us feel rightly illegal, we do not extend those sentiments to abortion. Why?

Best,

Jimison

[Selfish_Meme]

jimison1 wrote: I'm sure this will make you both, Prole and Selfish, very sad, but I have to write an essay.

Equivalent to killing an adult? I don't know what that means? Wouldn't killing a human being be sufficient cause for moral reservation? Is that the safest criteria?

Property rights? You cannot infringe if your existence is caused by the agent upon whose rights you're said to be infringing. The verb in its transitive form means �to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another.� This implies power to violate, to encroach, and as a weaker entity, such as a fetus, cannot violate or encroach upon anything or anyone, this term doesn't really apply here. What is happening is that woman wants to have sex, but doesn't want to accept the responsibility nature saddled her with. We then frame the killing of an innocent in terms of rights. If you're in favor of those rights, your euphemistically called pro-choice. That sounds like something we can all get behind. If you're opposed to abortion, you're, dysphemistically, anti-choice. Clever, but no banana. A fetus is distinct, not there by his/her choice or action, and yet is yoked with the burden of responsibility, in which he must necessarily have his life taken from him, for an state he didn't create.

Regarding the sleeping man, the point is that at T1 fetus doesn't have the criteria you mentioned. Neither does sleeping man. You can argue with me all day about whether he does or doesn't, but when I have more time, like tomorrow perhaps, I can link you to about 10 articles in neuroscience journals that say otherwise. Also, regardless of whether you can poke him, wake him up, etc., the fact remains that while is in deep sleep he doesn't fit your criteria.

That link is bunk. A fetus is not in a PVS, nor is he/she brain dead. In fact, the contrary is true. More tomorrow.

Prole,

I guess we're in agreement about something. That's my cue to exit stage left, and get on writing my essay (due tomorrow).

Best,

Jimison

OK.

Life is a process happening between fertilisation and death. (dictionary.com)
So a human life is a member of the species Homo Sapiens Spaiens undergoing that process between fertilisation and death.

A. An embryo/fetus is a human life.
B. Abortion is removing an embryo/fetus, killing it.
C. It is killing a human life.

However.
D. A human life is not a complete definition of you or me. It is one dimension of the complete definition but does not include a lot of aspects of us. e.g our memories being one of many things.
E. Our complete self definition includes much more than an embryo/fetus's.
F. Killing an embryo/fetus is not equivalent to killing me or you.

And.
G. Would you agree that you are more different from a fish than just your species and gross anatomy? e.g You can cogitate and retain memories for your entire life.
H. Apart from it's species does not an embryo more resmeble a fish in it's definition apart from gross anatomy?

[Selfish_Meme]

jimison1 wrote: My argument:

P1: A fetus is a human being (based upon human taxon described above). True
A. An embryo/fetus is a human life.
Not really the same statements, a human being can be non-living.

jimison1 wrote: P1a: An induced abortion is a description of any procedure designed to faciltate termination and expulsion of the fetus. True
B. Abortion is removing an embryo/fetus, killing it.
C. It is killing a human life.

jimison1 wrote: From this, combined with the laws of most civilized countries (and yes, I use civilized unabashedly), I observe something a contradiction: While we, members of a Western Culture, generally regard taking innocent human life to be immoral and most of us feel rightly illegal, we do not extend those sentiments to abortion. Why?

This is why.
D. A human life is not a complete definition of you or me. It is one dimension of the complete definition but does not include a lot of aspects of us. e.g our memories being one of many things.
E. Our complete self definition includes much more than an embryo/fetus's.
F. Killing an embryo/fetus is not equivalent to killing me or you.

And.
G. Would you agree that you are more different from a fish than just your species and gross anatomy? e.g You can cogitate and retain memories for your entire life.
H. Apart from it's species does not an embryo more resmeble a fish in it's definition apart from gross anatomy?

So killing an ambryo is not the equivalent of me killing you. There is more to you that would be extinguished than just your life. The main difference between an embryo and a fish is DNA and gross anatomy. It is not immoral to kill a fish or a plant as long as we have a good enough reason e.g to eat it. Do you feel immoral for living in a house made from trees and other once living things. Or eating dinner. Do you not kill animals that make your life inconvenient, ants and other pests.

[jsmcs73]

So answer this meme, is it immoral to say kill a retarded person because thier existence is inconvenient and they are not capable of the same level of concience that you and I are?

[Selfish_Meme]

jsmcs73 wrote: So answer this meme, is it immoral to say kill a retarded person because thier existence is inconvenient and they are not capable of the same level of concience that you and I are?

Yes it is immoral, because of these reasons.

A. The retarded person is not totally dependant upon you. (He or shecould be cared for by a carer). So you do have non-terminating choices if they are inconvenient.

B. The retarded person does have delta brainwave activity signifying conciousness (even when asleep, countering the sleeping man argument earlier):
Quote: The final brainwave state is delta. Here the brainwaves are of the greatest amplitude and slowest frequency. They typically center around a range of 1.5 to 4 cycles per second. They never go down to zero because that would mean that you were brain dead. But, deep dreamless sleep would take you down to the lowest frequency. Typically, 2 to 3 cycles a second.
http://brain.web-us.com/brainwavesfunction.htm

Quote: Brainwaves have been charted and studied for the stages of human development from conception to death. During fetal development, the earliest signs of Hz are detectable outside the scalp at around 23 weeks in utero. These occur as brief bursts every second -- 1 cps or 1 Hz. At about 28 weeks in utero, the right and left brain hemispheres are synchronized and have the same rhythm. At about 32 weeks in utero, sleep states are organized. It is interesting to note that organized sleep patterns represent an advance to a higher level of neuronal organization and functioning when they first appear.
http://www.changeyourmind.com/research/research.html

C Because the retarded person thinks and feels and remembers much like you do. It may even be immoral to kill higher primates, its certainly on my list of dont's.

If you read my original statement I was implying that the longer a human lived then the greater it's rights become until they are the full fledged rights of a person at birth. A retarded person has well and truly established a social contract with his carers. For them to now say they are tired of the inconvenience and want to kill him would be immoral.

[Nicholas]

Without putting myself in the position to argue abortion deeply between the morality and immorality of life before or after conception, I look at the ramifications between two possible scenarios.

If a women feels she cannot create and control an existing life after birth because she feels that her current position prevents her from doing so, I say that abortion is necessary - it's better to kill (if that's acceptable to say) a life that is unable to make a decision than having a human being who has no life because the women who has decided in the first place has conceded that she cannot serve the life to its morality and legitimates.

This is where I regard abortion acceptable in the hands of women who has to go through such circumstances.

If abortion was disallowed in the eyes of the ones aganist to abortion, then the woman who has given birth is put in the position of where an existence human being is now in the same rights as everybody else who is considered to be, therefore, the women's enemy and the state's.

[jimison1]

Human being: A human; any living or extinct member of the family Hominidae; having human form or attributes (Merriam Webster).

I didn't see any reference to memories. But how about someone with retrograde amnesia, are they not persons? And let us dispense with this sophist soft-shoe, you are using personhood, and the same objections I raised in earlier posts, which have not been addressed, apply. A rose by any other name...

I also find it interesting that you would ascribe to me an argument that isn't my own. You re-wrote the argument, leaving out key words, words do mean something, and then tried to demolish my argument with a platitude. Yes, of course a human being can be non-living. In what way is that relevant to what we're discussing? I'm not advocating that we not re-kill death human beings, I'm suggesting that we may not want to kill living human beings.

Regarding a complete definition, again, you're falling back to a variation of a personhood argument, and the same objections apply.

You're also discussing emergent properties of the human brain, which even a fetus, as it has a human brain, has the capacity to have. If we deny that a fetus has the capacity, or to be more rigid, deny they have these properties at the time of abortion, then we must also deny these properties to children under the age of 4 by extension of the same logic (if we're to be consistent in the application and moral foundations of our laws).

So now we're making arbitrary distinctions between different kinds of humans, granting rights to some, denying rights to others, and using the denial of rights as justification to kill them? Variations of that argument have been used before. Many times in fact throughout history. I don't think you'd like the intellectual company you're in.

No, I wouldn't agree that there is more factual difference between me and a fish than our anatomy. A fish is a fish because of his anatomy. Just as I am a human because of my human anatomy.

Regarding you murdering me and that being a more egregious crime than you killing a fetus or embryo, again, you're talking about emergent properties that are the product of my physiology, my very human physiology. So in killing me, you're basically bringing a halt to my physiology. The fact that there are more emergent properties associated with my physiology and that somehow makes my life more valuable, well, just seems, again, sort of arbitrary. Not to boast, as I don't put much stock in these sorts of measures, but I have an SBIQ score of 174. So how about this: everyone under that score has less value, by your standards, than me, and I can kill them if I determine their lives to be an inconvenience to me? That would be about 99.3% of the population.

Regarding the argument that goes, with apparently no embarrassment, from embryo is different from a fish because of DNA, to not immoral to kill a fish, to not immoral to kill a fetus/embryo, do I have that right? Killing a fetus, which is a human being, is not killing a fish. The act is in no way morally equivalent to killing a tree or a pest. It is far closer in moral equivalence to premeditated murder (therefore the reason it is becoming harder and harder to find doctors in the US willing to perform the procedure: you know, that whole Hippocratic Oath thing?).

But you have one thing right, abortion is about convenience, no doubt about that. The very human life of the fetus is ended, a life he didn't ask to have, played no part in creating, because the mother doesn't want to be inconvenienced by having to take responsibility for her actions.

Off to school Meme. Have a good day. Wish me luck on my essay reading. �Thinking without the Cartesian �I.� You'd be amazed at how many hundreds of years of philosophy you can undo by taking 100 or so credits in the physical sciences.

Best regards,

Jimison

[jimison1]

Prole,

Regarding tossing out moral/metaphysical personhood, I agree, some of us may be tempted just to replace 'person' with some other equally vacuous expression, but that doesn't mean that the current expression is beyond reproach. For me, the fact that we don't have a good explanation of what a person is (metaphysical), what a person should be (moral), is all the more reason to be having this discussion. An open, honest discussion of the limitations of this concept, which both demonstrable and discussible, and hopefully resolvable. What I'm actually arguing, and forgive me if that was unclear, that we base our judgments on who has moral standing and therefore legal rights on something more concrete. Something that isn't subject to dispute (at least, not by those that know): Living human. How is that? If you are a living taxonomical human being you have certain moral and legal rights (to be enumerated by the rule of recognition of one's country of origin)? Whether this is or isn't arbitrary, not capable of being logically defended (which, as we're discussing morality, it probably isn't logically defensible, 'ought from is,' but I'm not sure that's a real problem, it's just that logic isn't an appropriate tool for this endeavor), but the statement, at very least, lends itself to rational scrutiny, unlike the concept of personhood (or any of its variants: Das Ewig Jude, barbarians, hoi polloi, persona non grata, etc.). One doesn't make thorny moral considerations easier by clouding the discussion with unclear language and terms. Again, leading me to the tentative conclusion that those advocating abortion rights, who so tightly cling to these ancient and silly notions of personhood, are not concerned with doing what is moral, they're only concerned with having and protecting the rights. Ad hominem? Maybe, but a course in informal logic will make clear that not all informal fallacies are irrelevant to the discussion (example, ad hominem circumstantial is used in a court of law during voir dire to establish a base line of credibility with the witness).

Best regards,

Jimison

[Gus]

I think some of you in your arguments are falsely assuming that no man may ever rightly be killed.

[Gilbert1908]

Nicholas wrote: Without putting myself in the position to argue abortion deeply between the morality and immorality of life before or after conception, I look at the ramifications between two possible scenarios.

If a women feels she cannot create and control an existing life after birth because she feels that her current position prevents her from doing so, I say that abortion is necessary - it's better to kill (if that's acceptable to say) a life that is unable to make a decision than having a human being who has no life because the women who has decided in the first place has conceded that she cannot serve the life to its morality and legitimates.

This is where I regard abortion acceptable in the hands of women who has to go through such circumstances.

If abortion was disallowed in the eyes of the ones aganist to abortion, then the women who has given birth is put in the position of where an existence human being is now in the same rights as everybody else who is considered to be, therefore, the women's enemy and the state's.

By your definition infanticide is also acceptable.

[Prole]

I appreciate the desire, Jimison, for a concret definition of personhood. I do not see, however, how one being alive (which I believe was implied, though cannot remember if it was explicitly mentioned) and of the homo sapien species, should be that definition. Yes, it is concrete. But so what? Should an unfeeling, unthinking, emotionless entity's rights surpass those of the mother, who possesses all of those traits? I believe not.

I submit, therefore, that it is once a preborn human has indication of a functioning brain (the ability to experience and react to stimuli being the earliest indication point that I can conceive), they become a moral entity and should therefore be entitled to the right to life. This is based on a utilitarian perspective; before then, the only individual who has the direct ability to gain or lose utility is the mother, and I believe that the choice should be hers as to whether or not the decision to abort is right for her.

As far as you situation goes, Nicholas, I believe the circumstances you describe would only be possible if there were no way that a mother could relieve herself of responsibility of her born child. As adoption and other childcare agencies are readily available in most cases, this is rarely (if ever) a valid justification for abortion.

[Gilbert1908]

Prole wrote: I appreciate the desire, Jimison, for a concret definition of personhood. I do not see, however, how one being alive (which I believe was implied, though cannot remember if it was explicitly mentioned) and of the homo sapien species, should be that definition. Yes, it is concrete. But so what? Should an unfeeling, unthinking, emotionless entity's rights surpass those of the mother, who possesses all of those traits? I believe not.

I submit, therefore, that it is once a preborn human has indication of a functioning brain (the ability to experience and react to stimuli being the earliest indication point that I can conceive), they become a moral entity and should therefore be entitled to the right to life. This is based on a utilitarian perspective; before then, the only individual who has the direct ability to gain or lose utility is the mother, and I believe that the choice should be hers as to whether or not the decision to abort is right for her.

As far as you situation goes, Nicholas, I believe the circumstances you describe would only be possible if there were no way that a mother could relieve herself of responsibility of her born child. As adoption and other childcare agencies are readily available in most cases, this is rarely (if ever) a valid justification for abortion.

And when exactly does the fetus react to stimuli?

[Selfish_Meme]

jimison1 wrote: Human being: A human; any living or extinct member of the family Hominidae; having human form or attributes (Merriam Webster).
I didn't see any reference to memories. But how about someone with retrograde amnesia, are they not persons?
I said many attributes, one counter example does not invalidate. memories are but one aspect that is different between a fetus and an adult.

jimison1 wrote: And let us dispense with this sophist soft-shoe, you are using personhood, and the same objections I raised in earlier posts, which have not been addressed, apply. A rose by any other name... I can see one objection, and that is to actually define personhood. In my 'legal' case I didn't define personhood because it wasn't necessary for me too. And I have not claimed a definition of personhood for this 'moral' debate. So unless you actually can pin down where I tried to define a embryo/fetus as not a person.

jimison1 wrote: I also find it interesting that you would ascribe to me an argument that isn't my own. You re-wrote the argument, leaving out key words, words do mean something, and then tried to demolish my argument with a platitude. Yes, of course a human being can be non-living. In what way is that relevant to what we're discussing? I'm not advocating that we not re-kill death human beings, I'm suggesting that we may not want to kill living human beings.
That was not an attempt at demolishment, I was just pointing out where our arguments agree, and you used a slightly different term than me, so I pointed that out. Your use of the term 'human being' seems to imply more than 'human life'. but later you talk about destroying a human life. The terms are not exactly the same and you shouldn't use them that way.

You also use 'innocent' in a way that implies a moral superiority. For the embryo to be innocent there must be guilt elsewhere, by that you imply a crime has been commited. Prejudging the outcome of the debate.

jimison1 wrote: Regarding a complete definition, again, you're falling back to a variation of a personhood argument, and the same objections apply.
No I don't have a definition of personhood, but I can point out several major differences between you or me and a fetus.

jimison1 wrote: You're also discussing emergent properties of the human brain, which even a fetus, as it has a human brain, has the capacity to have. If we deny that a fetus has the capacity, or to be more rigid, deny they have these properties at the time of abortion, then we must also deny these properties to children under the age of 4 by extension of the same logic (if we're to be consistent in the application and moral foundations of our laws).
You yourself swing between arguments, earlier you were saying I couldn't use potential as an argument and now you use it?

jimison1 wrote: So now we're making arbitrary distinctions between different kinds of humans, granting rights to some, denying rights to others, and using the denial of rights as justification to kill them? Variations of that argument have been used before. Many times in fact throughout history. I don't think you'd like the intellectual company you're in. Your generalizing by ignoring my argument about there being very major differences between you or I and a fetus, as if you have already proved that there aren't which you havn't.

jimison1 wrote: No, I wouldn't agree that there is more factual difference between me and a fish than our anatomy. A fish is a fish because of his anatomy. Just as I am a human because of my human anatomy. This argument doesn't make sense, I wasn't arguing you were the same as a fish, I said ignoring the anatomy and DNA you were STILL very different from a fish.

jimison1 wrote: Regarding you murdering me and that being a more egregious crime than you killing a fetus or embryo, again, you're talking about emergent properties that are the product of my physiology, my very human physiology. So in killing me, you're basically bringing a halt to my physiology. The fact that there are more emergent properties associated with my physiology and that somehow makes my life more valuable, well, just seems, again, sort of arbitrary. Not to boast, as I don't put much stock in these sorts of measures, but I have an SBIQ score of 174. So how about this: everyone under that score has less value, by your standards, than me, and I can kill them if I determine their lives to be an inconvenience to me? That would be about 99.3% of the population. Now who is using sophistry. An illogical outcome that is not implied, less does not equate to different. A fetus has no intelligence or thoughts not less.

jimison1 wrote: Regarding the argument that goes, with apparently no embarrassment, from embryo is different from a fish because of DNA, to not immoral to kill a fish, to not immoral to kill a fetus/embryo, do I have that right? Killing a fetus, which is a human being, is not killing a fish. The act is in no way morally equivalent to killing a tree or a pest. It is far closer in moral equivalence to premeditated murder (therefore the reason it is becoming harder and harder to find doctors in the US willing to perform the procedure: you know, that whole Hippocratic Oath thing?).
That is your opinion not a fact.

jimison1 wrote: But you have one thing right, abortion is about convenience, no doubt about that. The very human life of the fetus is ended, a life he didn't ask to have, played no part in creating, because the mother doesn't want to be inconvenienced by having to take responsibility for her actions.
I think you should ask anyone who has had an abortion if they did not agonise over the decision and in the end thought they were taking the responsible course of action.


Luck on the essay reading. beware the existensialist.