Political Crossfire Forums

[Selfish_Meme]

Gilbert1908 wrote: So then you do not distinguish an actual distinct individual human life from that which is subordinate in complexity and being? And again we are discussing abortion so a single celled creature is not relevant.
A cell from my arm is as complex as a newly conceived cell. A clump of cells from my arm is as complex as a clump of cells of a new embryo. and so on... There is no subordinate.

Gilbert1908 wrote: so then a new born is not a person since it can not reason nor does it posess compassion. So when exactly does a person aquire the abilty to reason and express compassion?
An infant can't be licensed to drive a car can it? Why not? An infant is not as 'personable' ;) as an adult. When exactly do we aquire the ability to reason and show compassion, I'm no expert but I would guess around two or three. Do not mistake this for a desire to kill babies. There are other reasons for not wanting to kill babies and fetuses besides them not being reasoning and compassionate.

Gilbert1908 wrote: You keep reverting back to a fetus as a "cell" at 8-12 weeks when 70% of all abortions are done(none are done prior to 8 weeks) the fetus is far more than a single cell. It is a false comparison.
The majority of Pro-Life people want to ban abortion completely, in Australia they are trying to ban RU486 because it is abortive, not weeks or months later but days later. They think it is more than a cell. So I must include the single cell for consideration.

Gilbert1908 wrote: I would hardly hold up China as a moral beacon in this discussion. Nor does the existence of such activity justify it being done.
I don't think so either, I was just pointing out that your scenario has already happened.

Gilbert1908 wrote: It is little solace that only 40 million abortions my be done rather than 42 million. I would like to find a way to have far fewer.
Me too, I think there are a lot of ways we could reduce the number of abortions. Only 7% of Pro-Life people think that way though. 70% or more just want to ban abortions.

Gilbert1908 wrote: I agree and my point to you was that since "personhood" has no meaning in science it is hard to make it a standard by which a life is ended.

You have established a philosophy which determines a medical conclusion without any medical evidence.
There is no medical conclusion, it is a philosophical conclusion, I have medical evidence about the stages of a fetuses development, from that I can formulate a logically consistent position.

Basically we are skating around the same issue, where is the point at which abortion becomes wrong. For some conception is that point, for others very early on, others later.

It is Ok for us to have two different opinions on when that point occurs.

[Gilbert1908]

Selfish_Meme wrote: Gilbert1908 wrote: So then you do not distinguish an actual distinct individual human life from that which is subordinate in complexity and being? And again we are discussing abortion so a single celled creature is not relevant.

A cell from my arm is as complex as a newly conceived cell. A clump of cells from my arm is as complex as a clump of cells of a new embryo. and so on... There is no subordinate.

Really? So a 3 month old arm hair is the equivalent of a 3 month old human life?

Selfish_Meme wrote: Gilbert1908 wrote: so then a new born is not a person since it can not reason nor does it posess compassion. So when exactly does a person aquire the abilty to reason and express compassion?
An infant can't be licensed to drive a car can it? Why not? An infant is not as 'personable' ;) as an adult. When exactly do we aquire the ability to reason and show compassion, I'm no expert but I would guess around two or three. Do not mistake this for a desire to kill babies. There are other reasons for not wanting to kill babies and fetuses besides them not being reasoning and compassionate.

I am not advocating a fetus drive a car, I am simply advocating it be permitted to stay alive. You provided the standard of reason and compassion for life not I. If you would like to amend your previous position I welcome it.

n Selfish_Meme wrote: Gilbert1908 wrote: You keep reverting back to a fetus as a "cell" at 8-12 weeks when 70% of all abortions are done(none are done prior to 8 weeks) the fetus is far more than a single cell. It is a false comparison.
The majority of Pro-Life people want to ban abortion completely, in Australia they are trying to ban RU486 because it is abortive, not weeks or months later but days later. They think it is more than a cell. So I must include the single cell for consideration.

Why? this thread is about induced abortion?

Selfish_Meme wrote: Gilbert1908 wrote: I would hardly hold up China as a moral beacon in this discussion. Nor does the existence of such activity justify it being done.
I don't think so either, I was just pointing out that your scenario has already happened.
Clearly I agree it is happening. so what do you think?

Selfish_Meme wrote: Gilbert1908 wrote: It is little solace that only 40 million abortions my be done rather than 42 million. I would like to find a way to have far fewer.
Me too, I think there are a lot of ways we could reduce the number of abortions. Only 7% of Pro-Life people think that way though. 70% or more just want to ban abortions.

Where does the 70% come from? I can tell you that most pro life people(I am one) are pragmatic realists who know that the elimination of ALL abortions would be nice, but not realistic. Any Pro life person would trade a significant reduction in abortions in a heartbeat.

Selfish_Meme wrote: Gilbert1908 wrote: I agree and my point to you was that since "personhood" has no meaning in science it is hard to make it a standard by which a life is ended.

You have established a philosophy which determines a medical conclusion without any medical evidence.
There is no medical conclusion, it is a philosophical conclusion, I have medical evidence about the stages of a fetuses development, from that I can formulate a logically consistent position.

Basically we are skating around the same issue, where is the point at which abortion becomes wrong. For some conception is that point, for others very early on, others later.

It is Ok for us to have two different opinions on when that point occurs.

But one of us is right and one of us is wrong.

[Selfish_Meme]

Gilbert1908 wrote: Really? So a 3 month old arm hair is the equivalent of a 3 month old human life?
This is the crux of the matter, what distinguishes this bit of human cellular tissue from that one. The fetus is not aware or feeling. It might be more complex from a biological standpoint than a hair, but then so is any other living thing , like an ant. However what makes it more special than the hair? Really the only difference is its potential.

Gilbert1908 wrote: I am not advocating a fetus drive a car, I am simply advocating it be permitted to stay alive. You provided the standard of reason and compassion for life not I. If you would like to amend your previous position I welcome it.
Nope I am quite happy with it right now.

Gilbert1908 wrote: Why? this thread is about induced abortion?
RU486 does induce abortion, its taken as a morning after pill, but instead of preventing pregnancy it aborts early pregnancies.

Gilbert1908 wrote: Clearly I agree it is happening. so what do you think?
I think they are damaging the gene pool. Normal abortions happen for other reasons, economic, emotional or medical. They do not usually target a particular sex or genetic trait. Also they have to be later term than normal to determine sex I would think, I may be wrong. If you read what I was saying earlier you would know I think acknowledged pregnancy is an important factor in the right to abort.

Gilbert1908 wrote: Where does the 70% come from? I can tell you that most pro life people(I am one) are pragmatic realists who know that the elimination of ALL abortions would be nice, but not realistic. Any Pro life person would trade a significant reduction in abortions in a heartbeat.
I can look up the statistic I posted in another thread if you want me too. A Pro-life organisation was canvassed on their interests in the abortion debate. Thats what they were.

Gilbert1908 wrote: But one of us is right and one of us is wrong.
Not necessarily right or wrong, your beliefs may lead you to an answer I don't find palatable. I may disagree with your beliefs but I respect the fact that you have them and are entitled to your opinion.

If you were to look at this from a biological only viewpoint, there is no real difference between man and any other animal on the planet. Our DNA is 99.9% the same as a chimpanzees. What makes us special is our own determination that we are special. The fetus being special is another extension of that idea that we are inherently special. There is no biological basis for this, it is all philosophical. What stops me killing my neighbour? Is it biology? No, its philosophy.

[Gilbert1908]

Selfish_Meme wrote: Gilbert1908 wrote: Really? So a 3 month old arm hair is the equivalent of a 3 month old human life?
This is the crux of the matter, what distinguishes this bit of human cellular tissue from that one. The fetus is not aware or feeling. It might be more complex from a biological standpoint than a hair, but then so is any other living thing , like an ant. However what makes it more special than the hair? Really the only difference is its potential.

This is indeed the heart of the issue. The danger of placing NO greater value on human life than on any other being is obvious however. Humanity such as it is has shown how well it can eliminate what it does not value and your thinking leads to that selected elimination whether you believe it or not. Jews did not have value in Germany they were expendible. The Siberian population was less important than others so 10s of millions were expendible. Where ever a group of individuals becomes less important than a principle of some "greater good" of the government or society people die in great numbers.

Selfish_Meme wrote: Gilbert1908 wrote: I am not advocating a fetus drive a car, I am simply advocating it be permitted to stay alive. You provided the standard of reason and compassion for life not I. If you would like to amend your previous position I welcome it.
Nope I am quite happy with it right now.

So then we should be free to terminate new borns up unitil what age??

Selfish_Meme wrote: Gilbert1908 wrote: Why? this thread is about induced abortion?
RU486 does induce abortion, its taken as a morning after pill, but instead of preventing pregnancy it aborts early pregnancies.
I think that the morning after pill DOES add a very different element to the argument which I am not addressing. I am only addressing the common surgical procedure, which I made clear previously. The one cell claim is irrelevant in this context.


Selfish_Meme wrote: Gilbert1908 wrote: But one of us is right and one of us is wrong.
Not necessarily right or wrong, your beliefs may lead you to an answer I don't find palatable. I may disagree with your beliefs but I respect the fact that you have them and are entitled to your opinion.

If you were to look at this from a biological only viewpoint, there is no real difference between man and any other animal on the planet. Our DNA is 99.9% the same as a chimpanzees. What makes us special is our own determination that we are special. The fetus being special is another extension of that idea that we are inherently special. There is no biological basis for this, it is all philosophical. What stops me killing my neighbour? Is it biology? No, its philosophy.

I appreciate your demeanor and your intelligence. I do not advocate criminalizing abortion, calling it murder etc.. I simply want people to be challenged about what they THINK and perhaps reconsider even some part of thier postion. So many people believe simply that abortion is a RIGHT without actually thinking about what abortion actually does not only to the fetus but also to the mother. I know and work with many staunch pro choice folks and some have had abortions each of them in thier own way years later still get emotional about the choice they made. This is not to suggest that they doubt that it was a correct decision or that they regret it, this is a visceral emotion.

Once more I appreciate the studied and reasonable nature of your position and hope I have at least I made you consider aspects of mine as valid as you have for me.

[HomoUniversalis]

Quote: This is indeed the heart of the issue. The danger of placing NO greater value on human life than on any other being is obvious however. Humanity such as it is has shown how well it can eliminate what it does not value and your thinking leads to that selected elimination whether you believe it or not. Jews did not have value in Germany they were expendible. The Siberian population was less important than others so 10s of millions were expendible. Where ever a group of individuals becomes less important than a principle of some "greater good" of the government or society people die in great numbers.

Your reasoning here is flawed. If there is placed no value on human life, there is no degree either. There is no reason why the life of a 'pure' german should be better than that of a jewish german, or why siberians would be less 'good'. They are merely human beings. Genocide requires value to be placed upon the lives of one's own. If all the germans had believed that all life was useless, stupid, and without value, they would not have killed the jews.

Selfish_Meme, I'm not sure what you call reason, but the ability to use logic comes later. I'd look it up for you, but I'm away from my books right now, and developmental psychology will never be my forte :P. Anyway, the theory of mind (the concept that other people think the same as you do) only comes at an age of 4. So I would presume that active compassion, not being selfish, comes at a later age. In fact, children of age 8 are known to be quite selfish and self-centered.

Quote: I know and work with many staunch pro choice folks and some have had abortions each of them in thier own way years later still get emotional about the choice they made. This is not to suggest that they doubt that it was a correct decision or that they regret it, this is a visceral emotion.

Myself pro-choice, I recognise such emotional harm, and am for informing people who might abort about it, but I am for giving those people the choice on whether or not they want to abort. I supply them with the freedom and responsibility to make the choice they deem right, not force them to live by my ideals.

Mr U

[ieatfood]

HomoUniversalis wrote: I supply them with the freedom and responsibility to make the choice they deem right, not force them to live by my ideals.

Mr U



That's Bullsh*t.

If you were anti-death penalty, would you be ok with the government carrying out the death penalty anyways so as long as you weren't forcing them to live by your ideals?

If you were anti animal testing or animal torture, would you be ok with others killing, torturing, or testing on animals just so you wouldn't have to force others to live by your ideals? BS I SAY!!!

You're only spouting that garbage because you don't feel that abortion is immoral. If you did, you would never take that position. It is a somewhat dishonest position to take since it is quite self-serving.

Personally, I am pro-choice. But I must say, most pro-choicers come off as arrogant ignorant bastards who think they know it all but in reality, know little. THey don't understand their own position, never mind the position of the pro-lifers. And their own position is much closer to pro-life than they think.

For example, why is it ok to kill a cow and not a newborn baby? After all, a newborn baby does not seem to have any more reasoning skills than a full-grown cow or pig. A cow or pig feels pain just like a newborn. (Actually it has been shown that newborns cant really remember anything so any pain they feel will not be remembered where in a cow it will. If you had been tortured as a 1 year old, you would not know it today.)

The reason why infanticide is immoral is because of the potential of the infant to grow into a human being. All people place moral value in this potential. Pro-lifers extend the value of potential to the human embryo. Pro-choicers do not. But that difference is fairly subtle. The concept of placing value in the potential of something is common to all human morality. Intellectually, there is a lot more similarity than difference between pro-choice and pro-life.

[Gilbert1908]

HomoUniversalis wrote: Gilbert1908 wrote: This is indeed the heart of the issue. The danger of placing NO greater value on human life than on any other being is obvious however. Humanity such as it is has shown how well it can eliminate what it does not value and your thinking leads to that selected elimination whether you believe it or not. Jews did not have value in Germany they were expendible. The Siberian population was less important than others so 10s of millions were expendible. Where ever a group of individuals becomes less important than a principle of some "greater good" of the government or society people die in great numbers.

Your reasoning here is flawed. If there is placed no value on human life, there is no degree either. There is no reason why the life of a 'pure' german should be better than that of a jewish german, or why siberians would be less 'good'. They are merely human beings. Genocide requires value to be placed upon the lives of one's own. If all the germans had believed that all life was useless, stupid, and without value, they would not have killed the jews.

That was my point. If we place value on human life based upon arbitrary standards that have no basis in fact ("personhood") then there will be a repeat of the mass deaths we have seen in societies where the priority is the state or another group over the individual life. All human life has equal value, if it does that includes the unborn. A fetus magically gains such value the day of the start of the 3rd trimester.



HomoUniversalis wrote: Gilbert1908 wrote: I know and work with many staunch pro choice folks and some have had abortions each of them in thier own way years later still get emotional about the choice they made. This is not to suggest that they doubt that it was a correct decision or that they regret it, this is a visceral emotion.

Myself pro-choice, I recognise such emotional harm, and am for informing people who might abort about it, but I am for giving those people the choice on whether or not they want to abort. I supply them with the freedom and responsibility to make the choice they deem right, not force them to live by my ideals.

Mr U

Again you prefer the bark of the tree for the forest. I am sure you are not referring to me, as someone seeking to foist his ideals on others? If so please find any posts, among the thousands on this site, where I have advocated ANYTHING of the sort.

In this very thread within the very paragraph you used here is a simple and honest explaination of my precise position. You chose not to offer the complete paragraph so let me add it here to correct you puzzling omission
of the COMPLETE statement.
Quote: I appreciate your demeanor and your intelligence. I do not advocate criminalizing abortion, calling it murder etc.. I simply want people to be challenged about what they THINK and perhaps reconsider even some part of thier postion. So many people believe simply that abortion is a RIGHT without actually thinking about what abortion actually does not only to the fetus but also to the mother. I know and work with many staunch pro choice folks and some have had abortions each of them in thier own way years later still get emotional about the choice they made. This is not to suggest that they doubt that it was a correct decision or that they regret it, this is a visceral emotion.

It seems a bit dishonest when in a response some one leaves out the very sentences which would negate the validity of their response and/or accusation as this one obviously does. What is the motivation then in your case?

[xsuite]

crazy

[Prole]

Regarding your statistics about "pro-life" individuals, Selfish Meme, I do not think they are fully representative of all "pro-life" individuals. Activists rarely share the same views as those whose support they garner (or receive, in any case), and with abortion it is no exception. Many, and I'd guess most, people don't have a much knowledge concerning the epistimological subject embryology, nor have most addressed the philosophical question of what grants someone a right to life and if that right surpasses the mother's right to bodily autonomy, and if so under what circumstances.

Abortion is complicated issue, and reflective about a far greater number of subjects than itself alone. For better or worse, and to my own disappointment, the majority of those both supporting and opposing its legality have realized quite cynically that they will garner much more support by microfocussing on one or two key points in an effort to gain passionate support rather than providing the huge amount of information that is required to truly make an objective decision regarding whether abortion is moral or should be legal. This is hardly unique to abortion; on the contrary, it has become the norm for every single voter issue. It is still, however, deplorable.

I realize that I am digressing, and am not trying to imply that you do not know of the complexity of the abortion issue, or that you are unaware of the tactics of politicians and lobbyists. However, it is easy to lose sight of the fact that the aforementioned parties quite oftenly intentionally dumb down issues. I do not know if they are to blame for this trend, or if it is due to apathetic voters, though I would say that both play a part. Neither, however, I find acceptable. People are certainly entitled to their ignorance, and others are certainly entitled to cater to their ignorance. This is still not a good trend, nor do I believe that anyone benefits from it.

gilbert wrote: That was my point. If we place value on human life based upon arbitrary standards that have no basis in fact ("personhood")...

Referring to a biological definition for what grants someone moral status is arbitrary as well, and I have yet to see any non-religious justification for such a position. As such, it seems deeply illogical to me, and certainly unworthy of enshrining in law.

Furthermore, consciousness most certainly does have basis in fact. It is a fact that preborn humans do not develop it until, at the earliest, the beginning of the third trimester. Whether consciousness is what matters is ultimately a matter of opinion. Crucially, though, an opinion regarding this matter can be grounded in secular perspective, and viable solely on provable grounds, which it does not seem to me that a biology based definition for "personhood" can be.

gilbert wrote: ...then there will be a repeat of the mass deaths we have seen in societies where the priority is the state or another group over the individual life...

I would like ONE historical example of a society where genocide occurred and moral status was granted based on consciousness (and thus abortion was allowed, until a point). Just one. There are plenty of examples where killing was allowed of biological humans based on different criterion, but never upon consciousness that I know of. Lumping together all genocides which have nothing to do with consciousness whatsoever and trying to argue that they mimic the conditions of genocides and comparing them to those who have referred to biology as classification of humanity is frankly a false dichotimization.

In fact, historically speaking, in post-industrial society the vast majority of genocides has taken place in societies where abortion by choice was illegal. I do not know if the same holds true for pre-industrial societies, but from a sociological perspective I would argue that pre-industrial society is far too different from our own to merit a worthwhile comparison. That is of course mostly conjecture (as is most sociology, for that matter), but I strongly believe that it holds true.

gilbert wrote: ...All human life has equal value, if it does that includes the unborn. A fetus magically gains such value the day of the start of the 3rd trimester.
No, there is nothing magical about the beginning of the third trimester; it simply happens to coincide with the earliest point that a preborn human can feasibly be expected to have consciousness. It's not sorcery; it's embryology.

[Gilbert1908]

Prole wrote: Regarding your statistics about "pro-life" individuals, Selfish Meme, I do not think they are fully representative of all "pro-life" individuals. Activists rarely share the same views as those whose support they garner (or receive, in any case), and with abortion it is no exception. Many, and I'd guess most, people don't have a much knowledge concerning the epistimological subject embryology, nor have most addressed the philosophical question of what grants someone a right to life and if that right surpasses the mother's right to bodily autonomy, and if so under what circumstances.

Abortion is complicated issue, and reflective about a far greater number of subjects than itself alone. For better or worse, and to my own disappointment, the majority of those both supporting and opposing its legality have realized quite cynically that they will garner much more support by microfocussing on one or two key points in an effort to gain passionate support rather than providing the huge amount of information that is required to truly make an objective decision regarding whether abortion is moral or should be legal. This is hardly unique to abortion; on the contrary, it has become the norm for every single voter issue. It is still, however, deplorable.

I realize that I am digressing, and am not trying to imply that you do not know of the complexity of the abortion issue, or that you are unaware of the tactics of politicians and lobbyists. However, it is easy to lose sight of the fact that the aforementioned parties quite oftenly intentionally dumb down issues. I do not know if they are to blame for this trend, or if it is due to apathetic voters, though I would say that both play a part. Neither, however, I find acceptable. People are certainly entitled to their ignorance, and others are certainly entitled to cater to their ignorance. This is still not a good trend, nor do I believe that anyone benefits from it.

gilbert wrote: That was my point. If we place value on human life based upon arbitrary standards that have no basis in fact ("personhood")...

Referring to a biological definition for what grants someone moral status is arbitrary as well, and I have yet to see any non-religious justification for such a position. As such, it seems deeply illogical to me, and certainly unworthy of enshrining in law.

Furthermore, consciousness most certainly does have basis in fact. It is a fact that preborn humans do not develop it until, at the earliest, the beginning of the third trimester. Whether consciousness is what matters is ultimately a matter of opinion. Crucially, though, an opinion regarding this matter can be grounded in secular perspective, and viable solely on provable grounds, which it does not seem to me that a biology based definition for "personhood" can be.

gilbert wrote: ...then there will be a repeat of the mass deaths we have seen in societies where the priority is the state or another group over the individual life...

I would like ONE historical example of a society where genocide occurred and moral status was granted based on consciousness (and thus abortion was allowed, until a point). Just one. There are plenty of examples where killing was allowed of biological humans based on different criterion, but never upon consciousness that I know of. Lumping together all genocides which have nothing to do with consciousness whatsoever and trying to argue that they mimic the conditions of genocides and comparing them to those who have referred to biology as classification of humanity is frankly a false dichotimization.

In fact, historically speaking, in post-industrial society the vast majority of genocides has taken place in societies where abortion by choice was illegal. I do not know if the same holds true for pre-industrial societies, but from a sociological perspective I would argue that pre-industrial society is far too different from our own to merit a worthwhile comparison. That is of course mostly conjecture (as is most sociology, for that matter), but I strongly believe that it holds true.

gilbert wrote: ...All human life has equal value, if it does that includes the unborn. A fetus magically gains such value the day of the start of the 3rd trimester.
No, there is nothing magical about the beginning of the third trimester; it simply happens to coincide with the earliest point that a preborn human can feasibly be expected to have consciousness. It's not sorcery; it's embryology.


Embryology says human life begins at conception and does not address personhood.

There is no biological meaning to personhood that is my point.

At what point in human development does conciousness occur and how is it measured?

We live today in a society where human lives are terminated based upon the arbitrary point at which greater value is given. That arbitrary point is somehow defined as 'viability". The only reason a healthy fetus would not be viable is if it is interfered with by an outside force, otherwise it is perfectly viable.

[Prole]

gilbert wrote: Embryology says human life begins at conception and does not address personhood.

There is no biological meaning to personhood that is my point.
I am not denying, gilbert, that a preborn human is biologically a human being well before birth, nor am I claiming that it is ever not biologically a human being from conception. But to put it bluntly, there is no secular basis for why we should put any value on a biological human's life above that of a monkey, or an ant, or a blade of grass based on the fact that someone is biologically human alone.

My question is, and if asked it many times in many forms: so what? What difference does being biologically human alone make? For what rational reason should I or anyone care about a preborn human simply because of its species?

Furthermore, you are wrong in saying that embryology does not address personhood. No, it alone cannot give us a factual truth about the morality of abortion; there are no moral truths, or at least none that we can truly know. But embryology is an important, if not crucial, piece of epistomological knowledge when deciding how to govern personal and societal practices regarding abortion.

gilbert wrote: At what point in human development does conciousness occur and how is it measured?

We live today in a society where human lives are terminated based upon the arbitrary point at which greater value is given. That arbitrary point is somehow defined as 'viability". The only reason a healthy fetus would not be viable is if it is interfered with by an outside force, otherwise it is perfectly viable.
Consciousness occurs around the beginning of the third trimester, around 26 weeks at the earliest. It is measured by the fetus being sensate, or able to sense stimuli, to any degree; the nervous system is not sufficiently developed for the fetus to have realized consciousness prior to the third trimester.

I do agree that "viability" is a pretty arbitrary point, though.

[Gilbert1908]

Prole wrote: gilbert wrote: Embryology says human life begins at conception and does not address personhood.

There is no biological meaning to personhood that is my point.
I am not denying, gilbert, that a preborn human is biologically a human being well before birth, nor am I claiming that it is ever not biologically a human being from conception. But to put it bluntly, there is no secular basis for why we should put any value on a biological human's life above that of a monkey, or an ant, or a blade of grass based on the fact that someone is biologically human alone.

One does not get life imprisonment for killing a steer. There are no laws regulating the education of dogs. Civil rights legislation does not include fish. The severity of punishment for child abuse is far greater than the punishment for beating your elk.

There is an enormous secular basis which places greater value on human life than all others.

Prole wrote: My question is, and if asked it many times in many forms: so what? What difference does being biologically human alone make? For what rational reason should I or anyone care about a preborn human simply because of its species?

Furthermore, you are wrong in saying that embryology does not address personhood. No, it alone cannot give us a factual truth about the morality of abortion; there are no moral truths, or at least none that we can truly know. But embryology is an important, if not crucial, piece of epistomological knowledge when deciding how to govern personal and societal practices regarding abortion.

I am unaware of such a scientific designation by embryology. If you find in the several embryology textbooks I have on my shelf here I would appreciate it. As far as I know generally the medically personhood is not a condition.

Prole wrote: gilbert wrote: At what point in human development does conciousness occur and how is it measured?

We live today in a society where human lives are terminated based upon the arbitrary point at which greater value is given. That arbitrary point is somehow defined as 'viability". The only reason a healthy fetus would not be viable is if it is interfered with by an outside force, otherwise it is perfectly viable.
Consciousness occurs around the beginning of the third trimester, around 26 weeks at the earliest. It is measured by the fetus being sensate, or able to sense stimuli, to any degree; the nervous system is not sufficiently developed for the fetus to have realized consciousness prior to the third trimester. And this condition must be permanent and fully developed in order for any human being to posess personhood? It can not be suspended or temporarily non functioning?

Prole wrote: I do agree that "viability" is a pretty arbitrary point, though.

I always appreciate your acknowledgement of such things and your measured and intelligent approach to this subject. I try my best to do the same.

[HomoUniversalis]

Quote: It seems a bit dishonest when in a response some one leaves out the very sentences which would negate the validity of their response and/or accusation as this one obviously does. What is the motivation then in your case?

I was not as much antagonising you, as I was elaborating on my point on the issue. I was not trying to insinuate that you were opposite, rather then making an 'a propos' statement, that is "concerning your reply, this is what I think".

ieatfood wrote: That's Bullsh*t.

Please.

Quote: If you were anti-death penalty, would you be ok with the government carrying out the death penalty anyways so as long as you weren't forcing them to live by your ideals?

Death penalty is an active intervention in human life. I am against it. Banishment should be the highest penalty.

Quote: If you were anti animal testing or animal torture, would you be ok with others killing, torturing, or testing on animals just so you wouldn't have to force others to live by your ideals?

I am not anti-animal testing or animal torture. I am for people taking their own responsibility how they act towards other animals.

Quote: BS I SAY!!!

Yadayadayada, I say.

Quote: You're only spouting that garbage because you don't feel that abortion is immoral. If you did, you would never take that position. It is a somewhat dishonest position to take since it is quite self-serving.

I'm overall libertarian, not just on this issue. My own morality does not come into play. I venerate human life and its potentials more than anyone I know, or have ever met. Do not project your flawed notions on other people on me, I beg of you. I give other people the responsibility of figuring out their own morality, and acting by it, by their own responsibility.

Quote: Personally, I am pro-choice. But I must say, most pro-choicers come off as arrogant ignorant bastards who think they know it all but in reality, know little.

That is your prerogative. You are the one coming off as arrogant and ignorant here, might I add, but that is all relative, which is exactly what I am talking about here. Moral relativism, nihilism, ubermenschlichkeit.

Quote: THey don't understand their own position, never mind the position of the pro-lifers. And their own position is much closer to pro-life than they think.

Please. You are as bad in generalising as you are in keeping up the image of you being noteworthy or interesting. You are neither.

Quote: For example, why is it ok to kill a cow and not a newborn baby?

Why is either ok or not ok? Because I, or someone else states so? If there is authority or some other argument involved in ethics, it should be easy to persuade another that abortion is wrong, or good. Yet, you can only pose relativist statements.

Quote: After all, a newborn baby does not seem to have any more reasoning skills than a full-grown cow or pig.

You demonstrate an uncanny ability to vilify developmental psychology.

Quote: A cow or pig feels pain just like a newborn. (Actually it has been shown that newborns cant really remember anything so any pain they feel will not be remembered where in a cow it will.. If you had been tortured as a 1 year old, you would not know it today.)

Trauma carries over. A child sexually abused in those years will remember it. Severe trauma is carried over.

Quote: The reason why infanticide is immoral is because of the potential of the infant to grow into a human being. All people place moral value in this potential.

I don't.

Quote: Pro-lifers extend the value of potential to the human embryo. Pro-choicers do not.

Please.

Quote: But that difference is fairly subtle. The concept of placing value in the potential of something is common to all human morality. Intellectually, there is a lot more similarity than difference between pro-choice and pro-life.

Irrelevant. It is a moot point. The subject is the difference.

Mr U

[Selfish_Meme]

Gilbert1908 wrote: Prole wrote: gilbert wrote: Embryology says human life begins at conception and does not address personhood.

There is no biological meaning to personhood that is my point.
I am not denying, gilbert, that a preborn human is biologically a human being well before birth, nor am I claiming that it is ever not biologically a human being from conception. But to put it bluntly, there is no secular basis for why we should put any value on a biological human's life above that of a monkey, or an ant, or a blade of grass based on the fact that someone is biologically human alone.

One does not get life imprisonment for killing a steer. There are no laws regulating the education of dogs. Civil rights legislation does not include fish. The severity of punishment for child abuse is far greater than the punishment for beating your elk.

There is an enormous secular basis which places greater value on human life than all others.
I agree with most of your posts but this one is not correct. The examples you give are for different treatment of 'persons'. eg none of those apply to a braindead human.


Prole wrote: I am unaware of such a scientific designation by embryology. If you find in the several embryology textbooks I have on my shelf here I would appreciate it. As far as I know generally the medically personhood is not a condition.
You are correct embryology does not have anything to do with 'personhood'.

Prole wrote: And this condition must be permanent and fully developed in order for any human being to posess personhood? It can not be suspended or temporarily non functioning?
Again I think you are right, conciousness was not the best word. Consciousness also implies being 'aware' and I'm not sure a fetus meets that definition until very late in the pregnancy. What the fetus attains in the third trimester is 'sentience' the ability to sense and feel. Awareness implies some higher processing of senses which the fetus probably doesn't do till later.

Here is something to think about, the reason we can abort a fetus is because a fetus is not a 'person'. However the reason we don't want to allow abortions after the third trimester is actually due to different reasons. There are several reasons, sentience is one, social contract (ie the mother has been Ok with the pregnancy for quite a long time) is another. The last one is the hardest one to define, it is also the one that is closest to the pro-life position, and finally it is the one that makes the whole position the most untenable. Ironic, huh, that reason is that our inbuilt ooh aaah its a baby response is tripped. Obviously a late term fetus looks very much like the child to be born. It trips many of our instinctual responses. Unfortunately there is little rational basis for legislating for that.

I appreciate the reasonable tone you are taking Gilbert and I'm sorry you are being double teamed...lol.

[Gilbert1908]

Selfish_Meme wrote: Gilbert1908 wrote: Prole wrote: gilbert wrote: Embryology says human life begins at conception and does not address personhood.

There is no biological meaning to personhood that is my point.

I am not denying, gilbert, that a preborn human is biologically a human being well before birth, nor am I claiming that it is ever not biologically a human being from conception. But to put it bluntly, there is no secular basis for why we should put any value on a biological human's life above that of a monkey, or an ant, or a blade of grass based on the fact that someone is biologically human alone.

One does not get life imprisonment for killing a steer. There are no laws regulating the education of dogs. Civil rights legislation does not include fish. The severity of punishment for child abuse is far greater than the punishment for beating your elk.

There is an enormous secular basis which places greater value on human life than all others.
I agree with most of your posts but this one is not correct. The examples you give are for different treatment of 'persons'. eg none of those apply to a braindead human.

You are shifting the argument to different question. I addressed your claim that there was no secular basis which places greater value on human lif that all others. Now you are moving to "personhood". Before we do you will acknowledge that the law is replete with examples which set human life above that of animals, I'm sure.


Selfish_Meme wrote: Gilbert1908 wrote: And this condition must be permanent and fully developed in order for any human being to posess personhood? It can not be suspended or temporarily non functioning?

Again I think you are right, conciousness was not the best word. Consciousness also implies being 'aware' and I'm not sure a fetus meets that definition until very late in the pregnancy. What the fetus attains in the third trimester is 'sentience' the ability to sense and feel. Awareness implies some higher processing of senses which the fetus probably doesn't do till later.

Sentient-responsive to or conscious of sense impressions

I offer this Merriam Webster definition, not to imply that your statement above is not logical, but to illustrate the level of nuiance necessary to hold your position AT ALL. One must be comfortable with a definition of personhood that has no mearsurement or medical support, and a definition on which most of its proponents don't even agree.

This inability to KNOW and willingness to guess that the termination of a human life is somehow still acceptable, is central to the reason behind my position.

Selfish_Meme wrote: Here is something to think about, the reason we can abort a fetus is because a fetus is not a 'person'. However the reason we don't want to allow abortions after the third trimester is actually due to different reasons. There are several reasons, sentience is one, social contract (ie the mother has been Ok with the pregnancy for quite a long time) is another. The last one is the hardest one to define, it is also the one that is closest to the pro-life position, and finally it is the one that makes the whole position the most untenable. Ironic, huh, that reason is that our inbuilt ooh aaah its a baby response is tripped. Obviously a late term fetus looks very much like the child to be born. It trips many of our instinctual responses. Unfortunately there is little rational basis for legislating for that.

Actually in the RVW decision neither sentience nor a social contract with the mother is ever mentioned. What is mentioned is the responsibility of the state to protect the unborn child's "poetntial" life over the right of privacy of the mother base upon "viability".


Selfish_Meme wrote: I appreciate the reasonable tone you are taking Gilbert and I'm sorry you are being double teamed...lol.

Prole like you is intelligent and direct, it is a pleasure to share these thoughts with as many of you as there are so well spoken and measured.

Again I DO NOT believe it makes sense to criminalize abortion, I want people to move off of the defensive position of CHOICE and actually debate what is being chosen and why.

[Prole]

Gilbert1908 wrote: Selfish_Meme wrote: Gilbert1908 wrote: Prole wrote: gilbert wrote: Embryology says human life begins at conception and does not address personhood.

There is no biological meaning to personhood that is my point.

I am not denying, gilbert, that a preborn human is biologically a human being well before birth, nor am I claiming that it is ever not biologically a human being from conception. But to put it bluntly, there is no secular basis for why we should put any value on a biological human's life above that of a monkey, or an ant, or a blade of grass based on the fact that someone is biologically human alone.

One does not get life imprisonment for killing a steer. There are no laws regulating the education of dogs. Civil rights legislation does not include fish. The severity of punishment for child abuse is far greater than the punishment for beating your elk.

There is an enormous secular basis which places greater value on human life than all others.
I agree with most of your posts but this one is not correct. The examples you give are for different treatment of 'persons'. eg none of those apply to a braindead human.

You are shifting the argument to different question. I addressed your claim that there was no secular basis which places greater value on human lif that all others. Now you are moving to "personhood". Before we do you will acknowledge that the law is replete with examples which set human life above that of animals, I'm sure.

We do set human life above others, but that is because of consciousness, not just biology.

If biology alone was enough to merit an individual protection, then surely killing anyone in a coma would be illegal; after all, they are most certainly scientifically human.

Even a medically deceased person (ie, the heart has stopped) still remains biologically alive for some time afterwords; I'd guess a few hours, but regardless, the death of every cell in the body is not instantaneous. Do you think that a corpse deserves rights?

gilbert wrote: Again I DO NOT believe it makes sense to criminalize abortion, I want people to move off of the defensive position of CHOICE and actually debate what is being chosen and why.
Until the third trimester, the choice is to remove an unfeeling, potentially unwanted, potentially dangerous entity. I don't think any further justification is needed, only justification for why someone should not do so.

The question, for abortion and all matters, is always "Why should someone do something that they want to do?" The answer is obvious; they want to do it. The real question for compelling someone to not engage in an action is, "Why shouldn't someone do something that they want to do?"

I have yet to see any secular justification for this regarding abortion. Whether you want to see ethical standards, or personal morals, or both, changed in any way, those opposing abortion are going to have to come up a valid justification for this. Simply, "It is biologically human," is not enough for many people, because that entire premise hinges on religious belief (as far as I can tell), and is thus simply a matter of faith, a matter of personal belief. Others should not be required to people's personal beliefs on an ethical level, nor is there any real reason for them to feel compelled to adopt those same beliefs on a moral level.

[ieatfood]

HomoUniversalis wrote: Quote: It seems a bit dishonest when in a response some one leaves out the very sentences which would negate the validity of their response and/or accusation as this one obviously does. What is the motivation then in your case?

I was not as much antagonising you, as I was elaborating on my point on the issue. I was not trying to insinuate that you were opposite, rather then making an 'a propos' statement, that is "concerning your reply, this is what I think".

ieatfood wrote: That's Bullsh*t.

Please.

Quote: If you were anti-death penalty, would you be ok with the government carrying out the death penalty anyways so as long as you weren't forcing them to live by your ideals?

Death penalty is an active intervention in human life. I am against it. Banishment should be the highest penalty.

Quote: If you were anti animal testing or animal torture, would you be ok with others killing, torturing, or testing on animals just so you wouldn't have to force others to live by your ideals?

I am not anti-animal testing or animal torture. I am for people taking their own responsibility how they act towards other animals.

Quote: BS I SAY!!!

Yadayadayada, I say.

Quote: You're only spouting that garbage because you don't feel that abortion is immoral. If you did, you would never take that position. It is a somewhat dishonest position to take since it is quite self-serving.

I'm overall libertarian, not just on this issue. My own morality does not come into play. I venerate human life and its potentials more than anyone I know, or have ever met. Do not project your flawed notions on other people on me, I beg of you. I give other people the responsibility of figuring out their own morality, and acting by it, by their own responsibility.

Quote: Personally, I am pro-choice. But I must say, most pro-choicers come off as arrogant ignorant bastards who think they know it all but in reality, know little.

That is your prerogative. You are the one coming off as arrogant and ignorant here, might I add, but that is all relative, which is exactly what I am talking about here. Moral relativism, nihilism, ubermenschlichkeit.

Quote: THey don't understand their own position, never mind the position of the pro-lifers. And their own position is much closer to pro-life than they think.

Please. You are as bad in generalising as you are in keeping up the image of you being noteworthy or interesting. You are neither.

Quote: For example, why is it ok to kill a cow and not a newborn baby?

Why is either ok or not ok? Because I, or someone else states so? If there is authority or some other argument involved in ethics, it should be easy to persuade another that abortion is wrong, or good. Yet, you can only pose relativist statements.

Quote: After all, a newborn baby does not seem to have any more reasoning skills than a full-grown cow or pig.

You demonstrate an uncanny ability to vilify developmental psychology.

Quote: A cow or pig feels pain just like a newborn. (Actually it has been shown that newborns cant really remember anything so any pain they feel will not be remembered where in a cow it will.. If you had been tortured as a 1 year old, you would not know it today.)

Trauma carries over. A child sexually abused in those years will remember it. Severe trauma is carried over.

Quote: The reason why infanticide is immoral is because of the potential of the infant to grow into a human being. All people place moral value in this potential.

I don't.

Quote: Pro-lifers extend the value of potential to the human embryo. Pro-choicers do not.

Please.

Quote: But that difference is fairly subtle. The concept of placing value in the potential of something is common to all human morality. Intellectually, there is a lot more similarity than difference between pro-choice and pro-life.

Irrelevant. It is a moot point. The subject is the difference.

Mr U

you answer my arguments with nonsense
You claim that pro-lifers shouldn't force their moral opinion on you.
You claim that you don't want to force your moral opinions on others. But when it comes to the death penalty, you seem to want to do exactly that. You support banning the death penalty because you personally feel it is immoral. You also support banning genocide because you personally feel that genocide is immoral. There you go, forcing your personal morals on others. Just as you said the pro-lifers shouldn't do. What hypocrisy.


By your responses, I see that you have missed the point by a mile.
I am only saying that no human being can claim that they are tolerant of others doing things that they themselves deem to be immoral. If you find an act to be grossly immoral, i guarantee that you would not tolerate others continuing to perform that act. Why would you expect pro-lifers to tolerate an act that they deem immoral?

As for my cow vs infant analogy, you seem to miss the point. So let's make it easier. Let's compare a chimpanzee and 1 minute old infant. Are you denying that you feel it is moral to experiment life-saving drugs on chimps but not an infant? Undoubtedly you will not deny that. So why is that? Is it because the infant has higher reasoning capacity than a chimp? Clearly not. So I ask you, why do you feel uncomfortable with experimentation on infants?

[Gilbert1908]

Prole wrote: Gilbert1908 wrote:

You are shifting the argument to different question. I addressed your claim that there was no secular basis which places greater value on human lif that all others. Now you are moving to "personhood". Before we do you will acknowledge that the law is replete with examples which set human life above that of animals, I'm sure.

We do set human life above others, but that is because of consciousness, not just biology.

If biology alone was enough to merit an individual protection, then surely killing anyone in a coma would be illegal; after all, they are most certainly scientifically human.

Even a medically deceased person (ie, the heart has stopped) still remains biologically alive for some time afterwords; I'd guess a few hours, but regardless, the death of every cell in the body is not instantaneous. Do you think that a corpse deserves rights?

Those for whom ALL MEDICAL options have been exhausted and now face what a physician has determined as certain death ARE NOT killed. They have their pain managed , all extraordinary (unnatural) medical efforts cease and then die in accordance with the condition that has placed them in that situation. Abortion is the opposite, all extraordinary(unnatural) medical effort is made to terminate the human life that if permitted its natural process, assuming a normal healthy state, would no doubt continue to live a full life.

First extraordinary measures are taken every day to save and keep people alive who have severe brain injuries, their odds for living and achieving "conciousness" is far less than a healthy fetus, yet every effort is made to save them. A fetus has a specific date which nearly every person on earth knows when it will be born into the world. Even you will claim that its "personhood" arrives at around 22 weeks or so give or take a couple of weeks. Yet that life can be tossed, while another life which has a 5% chance of maintaining existence is spared no expense to be saved.



Prole wrote: Gilbert1908 wrote: Again I DO NOT believe it makes sense to criminalize abortion, I want people to move off of the defensive position of CHOICE and actually debate what is being chosen and why.
Until the third trimester, the choice is to remove an unfeeling, potentially unwanted, potentially dangerous entity. I don't think any further justification is needed, only justification for why someone should not do so.

The question, for abortion and all matters, is always "Why should someone do something that they want to do?" The answer is obvious; they want to do it. The real question for compelling someone to not engage in an action is, "Why shouldn't someone do something that they want to do?"

I have yet to see any secular justification for this regarding abortion. Whether you want to see ethical standards, or personal morals, or both, changed in any way, those opposing abortion are going to have to come up a valid justification for this. Simply, "It is biologically human," is not enough for many people, because that entire premise hinges on religious belief (as far as I can tell), and is thus simply a matter of faith, a matter of personal belief. Others should not be required to people's personal beliefs on an ethical level, nor is there any real reason for them to feel compelled to adopt those same beliefs on a moral level.

You can not claim to seek secular or legal answers and then pose a question of individual moral determination. The question in the legal issue on abortion is when does the privacy of the woman become outweighed by the responsibility of the state to protect the "potential life" of the child. There are many laws which remove "choice" from the individual because that choice is harmful to themselves or other in society.

"In view of all this, we do not agree that, by adopting one theory of life, Texas may override the rights of the pregnant woman that are at stake. We repeat, however, that the State does have an important and legitimate interest in preserving and protecting the health of the pregnant woman, whether she be a resident of the State or a nonresident who seeks medical consultation and treatment there, and that it has still another important and legitimate interest in protecting the potentiality of human life. These interests are separate and distinct. Each grows in substantiality as the woman approaches term and, at a point during pregnancy, each becomes "compelling." " Excerpt from Blackmun's RVW decision

Here Blackmun is clear that the state's interests CAN and in fact DO over ride the individual's interests "to do what they want". He and the other justices decided, and I think incorrectly, that point came at "viability". So the secular arguement is not WHETEHER the state CAN supercede in the interests of the "potential" life over those of the mother, but WHEN ?

[HomoUniversalis]

Quote: But when it comes to the death penalty, you seem to want to do exactly that.

Not at all. I support city-states, in which such penalties can be made law, if the inhabitants so wish. If I disagree with the rules, I move to a different city-state.

I'm against the Death penalty, yes, and would prefer to live in a region where the death penalty does not exist. However, I would not force every city state to adopt such a method of conduct. For all I care, pro-lifers could all get together and create a state where there is abortion as well. However, with a limited amount of possibilities to do so, I support creating as much freedom as possible. In the US, this would mean allowing local governments to decide whether they want to use the Death penalty or not. For example, because it is clearly a moral question. Abortion, however, is not a moral question, as it is not the responsibility of another what that person chooses to do with her body.

Quote: Are you denying that you feel it is moral to experiment life-saving drugs on chimps but not an infant?

I believe in the moral judgement of researchers.

Quote: So I ask you, why do you feel uncomfortable with experimentation on infants?

I don't. That is, with the consent of the parents.

Mr U

[ieatfood]

HomoUniversalis wrote: Quote: But when it comes to the death penalty, you seem to want to do exactly that.

Not at all. I support city-states, in which such penalties can be made law, if the inhabitants so wish. If I disagree with the rules, I move to a different city-state.

I'm against the Death penalty, yes, and would prefer to live in a region where the death penalty does not exist. However, I would not force every city state to adopt such a method of conduct. For all I care, pro-lifers could all get together and create a state where there is abortion as well. However, with a limited amount of possibilities to do so, I support creating as much freedom as possible. In the US, this would mean allowing local governments to decide whether they want to use the Death penalty or not. For example, because it is clearly a moral question. Abortion, however, is not a moral question, as it is not the responsibility of another what that person chooses to do with her body.

what about genocide?
HomoUniversalis wrote:
Quote: Are you denying that you feel it is moral to experiment life-saving drugs on chimps but not an infant?

I believe in the moral judgement of researchers.

are you a lawyer? what a squirrelly answer. I'm asking about your moral views on the subject. Not the moral views of researchers.
HomoUniversalis wrote:
Quote: So I ask you, why do you feel uncomfortable with experimentation on infants?

I don't. That is, with the consent of the parents.

Mr U
Wow. OK then.