Political Crossfire Forums

[Captain Lovebird]

Harbinger wrote: The issue of abortion is entirely a matter of self defense. As long as an unborn baby has the consent of it's mother to use here body, it's fine. As soon as a baby looses the consent of it's mother, it becomes an involuntary assaulter/batterer and the mother has every right to use any means necessary to abort it, regardless of it's maturity or the certainty of it's death. And, there is absolutely no secular justification for the state to interfere with this in any way.

So, a woman in labour decides to "withdraw her consent" and abort the "intruder" within her. By your reasoning, she is entirely within her right to do so, and this should not be considered a crime.

However, if, an hour later, after having given birth she were to take her baby and "dash its brains out," for example, then she would be guilty of murder.

So it's not a matter of the baby as a person or non-person at all, instead its exclusively a matter of the baby's location.

[Selfish_Meme]

Captain Lovebird wrote: So, a woman in labour decides to "withdraw her consent" and abort the "intruder" within her. By your reasoning, she is entirely within her right to do so, and this should not be considered a crime.

However, if, an hour later, after having given birth she were to take her baby and "dash its brains out," for example, then she would be guilty of murder.

So it's not a matter of the baby as a person or non-person at all, instead its exclusively a matter of the baby's location.

No, it's a matter of the embryo's development, it does not have any of the fundamentals that make a thinking, rational, empathic, feeling, remembering being until after the 25th week. Therefore it is not criminal for her rights (she has all these attributes) to supersede its. This is not to say that it should be treated lightly or casually. Just a recognition that a (for brevities sake) person has a higher moral status than an entity that is not a person.

[Captain Lovebird]

Selfish_Meme wrote: Captain Lovebird wrote: So, a woman in labour decides to "withdraw her consent" and abort the "intruder" within her. By your reasoning, she is entirely within her right to do so, and this should not be considered a crime.

However, if, an hour later, after having given birth she were to take her baby and "dash its brains out," for example, then she would be guilty of murder.

So it's not a matter of the baby as a person or non-person at all, instead its exclusively a matter of the baby's location.

No, it's a matter of the embryo's development, it does not have any of the fundamentals that make a thinking, rational, empathic, feeling, remembering being until after the 25th week. Therefore it is not criminal for her rights (she has all these attributes) to supersede its. This is not to say that it should be treated lightly or casually. Just a recognition that a (for brevities sake) person has a higher moral status than an entity that is not a person.

This is not quite the argument the person I quoted was making. As for yours, I appreciate the point you are making. Your argument falls down when you try to establish criteria for a "person", a social construct itself, not a biological term.

Person= (??)

Thinking- Lots of animals think. How is this a criterion for a "person"?
Rational- A baby becomes "rational" in the 25th week? Really? How do you measure this phenomenon?
Emapthic- Who does the 25 week old baby begin to empathize with? And in what capacity?
Feeling- Yes, it has been shown much younger babies feel pain.
Remembering- Again, most animals can "remember" so why is helpful at all as a characteristic for defining a "person"?
Being- Ok, I agree it is a being.

Human- Oh wait.... you didn't ask about THIS one. Why not? When does biology define the life form as human, huh?

Isn't it wrong to kill innocent human beings?

But you want to insist on differentiating between "human" and "person."

As in, it may be human, but it's not a "person" until... what?

The distinction between describing a being as "human" and "person" is entirely subjective. Any point in development you choose to focus on to establish this distinction will also be subjective, and easily shown to be. There is no difference between a human and a person.

[straw man]

Selfish_Meme wrote: straw man wrote: Nice Geod wrote: Because it is a being with no consciousness. Therefore, it is no different - in terms of morality - than any inanimate object.

No. Even assuming a fetus doesn't currently have a consciousness, they are STILL morally very different.

Because a fetus is growing into a consciousness. It is in the process of building its consciousness. Unless you kill it, it will be a conscious sentient feeling person just like the rest of us. This future consciousness is what you are destroying when you kill a fetus even if it has not yet attained that level of development. That killing of the future consciousness is the grounds for the moral objection.

This is not the case with inanimate objects. Other inanimate objects are not developing into a consciousness. A doorknob will not one day become thinking and feeling if you don't destroy it. Bad comparison.
The same can be said of sperm or eggs.

A sperm or an egg is no more like a fetus in this regard than a doorknob. A sperm is not growing into a consciousness which will one day think and feel. Nor is an egg. Nor is a tin can. A fetus on the other hand WILL grow into a thinking feeling unique individual consciousness if not killed first. Therefore comparing it to any of these things that won't is dishonest. I'm not sure what a sperm or an egg has to do with that.

[straw man]

Nice Geod wrote: straw man wrote: Nice Geod wrote: Because it is a being with no consciousness. Therefore, it is no different - in terms of morality - than any inanimate object.

No. Even assuming a fetus doesn't currently have a consciousness, they are STILL morally very different.

Because a fetus is growing into a consciousness. It is in the process of building its consciousness. Unless you kill it, it will be a conscious sentient feeling person just like the rest of us. This future consciousness is what you are destroying when you kill a fetus even if it has not yet attained that level of development. That killing of the future consciousness is the grounds for the moral objection.

This is not the case with inanimate objects. Other inanimate objects are not developing into a consciousness. A doorknob will not one day become thinking and feeling if you don't destroy it. Bad comparison.

You can't destroy something that does not yet exist. You can steal potential, but in order for stealing to be wrong, you have to be stealing from a "mental being". That's why it's wrong to kill a man when he's sleeping or in a coma, you are stealing from someone.

The fetus has an opportunity to have a future full of life feeling thoughts and consciousness. It currently has that opportunity when it is aborted. Therefore the chance to live is what you are destroying. The baby otherwise had a chance to live at the time you destroyed it, THAT is what you destroyed along with the fetus.

[Harbinger]

AllAmericanMan wrote:
Harbinger wrote:
The issue of abortion is entirely a matter of self defense. As long as an unborn baby has the consent of it's mother to use her body, it's fine. As soon as a baby looses the consent of it's mother, it becomes an involuntary assaulter/batterer and the mother has every right to use any means necessary to abort it, regardless of it's maturity or the certainty of it's death. And, there is absolutely no secular justification for the state to interfere with this in any way.

Most pregnancies do not cause harm to the mother.

Harm is not a requirement in the definition of assault. If someone so much as grabs or touches you in any way without your consent, it's an assault and you have a right to use any means necessary to make them stop.

AllAmericanMan wrote:
The human being was created by the mother.

Irrelevant.

AllAmericanMan wrote:
How does [getting pregnant] make her a victim of anything but her own actions?

The fact that she is impregnated by a person she doesn't want to be impregnated with is the ONLY legal issue here. How or why she got pregnant is irrelevant at this point in time.

[Captain Lovebird]

Harbinger wrote:
Harm is not a requirement in the definition of assault. If someone so much as grabs or touches you in any way without your consent, it's an assault and you have a right to use any means necessary to make them stop.

Yeah, so next time someone is brushing against me on a crowded subway I will knock them to the ground and crush their skull.

Besides, it is both foolish and futile to try to project the notion of "consent" onto the relationship between a mother and her unborn child. Consent is not offerered, consent is not granted, indeed it is not even possible in this situation. If you don't like it, take it up with mother nature.

[straw man]

yeah really, but nevermind the fact that there IS consent anyway.

The mother consented to allow the fetus residence for nine months while it starts it's life. She gives that consent when she has sex.

Remember the fetus is an invited guest, the mother may then try to retract her invitation and kill it for being there but I take issue with this for the same reason as I took issue with the comments about how a fetus was a like a burgler "barging in". No there was very much consent issued so how then can assault be considered?

[Captain Lovebird]

straw man wrote: yeah really, but nevermind the fact that there IS consent anyway.

No there isn't. Not in a legal sense, not in an everyday, pedestrian sense either.

straw man wrote: The mother consented to allow the fetus residence for nine months while it starts it's life. She gives that consent when she has sex.

Really? Who does she give this "consent" to? And does she also give consent to a pretend fetus if she performs oral sex in a bathroom stall?

straw man wrote: Remember the fetus is an invited guest,

No it isn't. It is not a "guest" and there was no invitation.

straw man wrote: the mother may then try to retract her invitation

You can't retract what was never actually offered.

straw man wrote: and kill it for being

Really!? Even if I bought into this invitation/retraction analogy, how does this somehow empower one to morally kill a human being? This leap of logic is truly astounding.

straw man wrote: "... about how a fetus was a like a burgler "barging in". No there was very much consent issued so how then can assault be considered?"

Don't get taken in by the pro-choice crowd's use of dubious analogies. "Consent" of this kind is impossible. Therefore using the language of invasion is useless, and inaccurate.

[AllAmericanMan]

Harbinger wrote: AllAmericanMan wrote:
Harbinger wrote:
The issue of abortion is entirely a matter of self defense. As long as an unborn baby has the consent of it's mother to use her body, it's fine. As soon as a baby looses the consent of it's mother, it becomes an involuntary assaulter/batterer and the mother has every right to use any means necessary to abort it, regardless of it's maturity or the certainty of it's death. And, there is absolutely no secular justification for the state to interfere with this in any way.

Most pregnancies do not cause harm to the mother.

Harm is not a requirement in the definition of assault. If someone so much as grabs or touches you in any way without your consent, it's an assault and you have a right to use any means necessary to make them stop.

AllAmericanMan wrote:
The human being was created by the mother.

Irrelevant.

AllAmericanMan wrote:
How does [getting pregnant] make her a victim of anything but her own actions?

The fact that she is impregnated by a person she doesn't want to be impregnated with is the ONLY legal issue here. How or why she got pregnant is irrelevant at this point in time.

Irrelevant is all you can say to dismiss the fact that the mother did this to herself? The person y ou speak of didn't ask to be created, they just were, by the mother. What you are saying is that people should be able to kill their children because the mother doesn't want to be pregnant. Well, tough s**t. Life isn't fair, and people need to be held accountable for their actions. Killing innocent human beings because you dont want to be pregnant is completely unethical and goes against the basic principles of our justice system.

[Selfish_Meme]

Captain Lovebird wrote: Selfish_Meme wrote: No, it's a matter of the embryo's development, it does not have any of the fundamentals that make a thinking, rational, empathic, feeling, remembering being until after the 25th week. Therefore it is not criminal for her rights (she has all these attributes) to supersede its. This is not to say that it should be treated lightly or casually. Just a recognition that a (for brevities sake) person has a higher moral status than an entity that is not a person.

This is not quite the argument the person I quoted was making. As for yours, I appreciate the point you are making. Your argument falls down when you try to establish criteria for a "person", a social construct itself, not a biological term.

Person= (??)

Thinking- Lots of animals think. How is this a criterion for a "person"?
Rational- A baby becomes "rational" in the 25th week? Really? How do you measure this phenomenon?
Emapthic- Who does the 25 week old baby begin to empathize with? And in what capacity?
Feeling- Yes, it has been shown much younger babies feel pain.
Remembering- Again, most animals can "remember" so why is helpful at all as a characteristic for defining a "person"?
Being- Ok, I agree it is a being.

Human- Oh wait.... you didn't ask about THIS one. Why not? When does biology define the life form as human, huh?

Isn't it wrong to kill innocent human beings?

But you want to insist on differentiating between "human" and "person."

As in, it may be human, but it's not a "person" until... what?

The distinction between describing a being as "human" and "person" is entirely subjective. Any point in development you choose to focus on to establish this distinction will also be subjective, and easily shown to be. There is no difference between a human and a person.
I hate the term person, it is so misleading and misconstrued. Many of the terms in this abortion debate are not very good for describing the entities we are talking about. As soon as someone on either side says 'life' or 'person' I cringe inwardly knowing that misunderstanding and misrepresentation is inevitable.

Thinking/Cognition/Sapience - can you be a person without it? I don't think so, you can have a conversation with a person, implying the ability to communicate. Can you have a conversation with a fetus?

You misunderstood my sentance about rational and empathic, I said a fetus has 'none' of the mentioned attributes until the 25th week when it gains sentience or the ability to feel. I did not say it gained all of those attributes at the 25th week.

Feeling or sentience is not possible until the spinal cord links with the brain stem at 23 or so weeks. Show me a peer reviewed and medically accepted study that shows otherwise.

Remembering or memories are important, without memories that being would have no 'personality'. I would say it is an important aspect of a 'person'. If for example we had a living adult human with no memories and no way of retaining memories. You cannot 'teach' this person anything. That being would have its rights reduced legally by being declared mentally incompetent. Sure we would look after it with the minimum necessary care but it would not be a functioning person, and would not enjoy all the rights of a person.

I never said being, and my stance is consistent, an embryo/fetus is a living Human Being. Is it wrong to kill innocent Human Being's. It depends on your definition of Human Being. I define it as a member of the species Homo Sapiens Sapiens. You equate that with 'person'. But person does not necessarily mean Human being.

[Captain Lovebird]

Selfish_Meme wrote:
Thinking/Cognition/Sapience - can you be a person without it? I don't think so, you can have a conversation with a person, implying the ability to communicate. Can you have a conversation with a fetus?

Can you have a conversation with a newborn? So let's leave the capacity for language out of it- it doesn't tell us anything.

Selfish_Meme wrote:
You misunderstood my sentance about rational and empathic, I said a fetus has 'none' of the mentioned attributes until the 25th week when it gains sentience or the ability to feel. I did not say it gained all of those attributes at the 25th week.

Respectfully, I think you have misunderstood my motives for challenging your points about being rational and empathic. I was not challenging these figures directly, I was demonstrating how problematic it is to apply these criteria in any useful way for these purposes, because these criteria so easily breakdown at the slightest probing.

Selfish_Meme wrote:
Feeling or sentience is not possible until the spinal cord links with the brain stem at 23 or so weeks. Show me a peer reviewed and medically accepted study that shows otherwise.

I am not disputing this. I am disputing assigning some sort of human/non-human transition to this event. Show me apeer reviewed paper that says this is when a baby becomes "human". That's my point.

Selfish_Meme wrote:
Remembering or memories are important, without memories that being would have no 'personality'. I would say it is an important aspect of a 'person'.

You're case hinges upon establishing a defining aspect of a person. Is this it? I don't think so.

Selfish_Meme wrote:
If for example we had a living adult human with no memories and no way of retaining memories. You cannot 'teach' this person anything. That being would have its rights reduced legally by being declared mentally incompetent. Sure we would look after it with the minimum necessary care but it would not be a functioning person, and would not enjoy all the rights of a person.

So we can arbitrarily kill this person? You're points must directly support the core of your argument- the case for life and death.

Selfish_Meme wrote:
I never said being,

You did: "No, it's a matter of the embryo's development, it does not have any of the fundamentals that make a thinking, rational, empathic, feeling, remembering being until after the 25th week"

Selfish_Meme wrote:
and my stance is consistent, an embryo/fetus is a living Human Being.

OK

Selfish_Meme wrote:
Is it wrong to kill innocent Human Being's. It depends on your definition of Human Being. I define it as a member of the species Homo Sapiens Sapiens.

Ok, so when is the baby a member of this species?

Selfish_Meme wrote:
You equate that with 'person'.

No, I feel the same way as you about the use of the word "person".
I would avoid it altogether, but I find pro-choice people use it frequently.

Selfish_Meme wrote:
But person does not necessarily mean Human being.

Ok. So when is the baby a human being?

PS. I appreciate that you have been a polite debater.

[Gilbert1908]

Selfish_Meme wrote:
I never said being, and my stance is consistent, an embryo/fetus is a living Human Being. Is it wrong to kill innocent Human Being's. It depends on your definition of Human Being. I define it as a member of the species Homo Sapiens Sapiens. You equate that with 'person'. But person does not necessarily mean Human being.

How is a person NOT a human being?

[Selfish_Meme]

straw man wrote: A sperm or an egg is no more like a fetus in this regard than a doorknob. A sperm is not growing into a consciousness which will one day think and feel. Nor is an egg. Nor is a tin can. A fetus on the other hand WILL grow into a thinking feeling unique individual consciousness if not killed first. Therefore comparing it to any of these things that won't is dishonest. I'm not sure what a sperm or an egg has to do with that.
A sperm destined to meet an egg is on the same journey towards conciousness as the fetus produced from their union. The timeline argument makes many assumptions. If you are saying the future status of a being determines its rights then you may as well go give your 5 year old a bottle of whiskey and the keys to the car.

[Selfish_Meme]

Captain Lovebird wrote: Selfish_Meme wrote:
Thinking/Cognition/Sapience - can you be a person without it? I don't think so, you can have a conversation with a person, implying the ability to communicate. Can you have a conversation with a fetus?

Can you have a conversation with a newborn? So let's leave the capacity for language out of it- it doesn't tell us anything.

Selfish_Meme wrote:
You misunderstood my sentance about rational and empathic, I said a fetus has 'none' of the mentioned attributes until the 25th week when it gains sentience or the ability to feel. I did not say it gained all of those attributes at the 25th week.

Respectfully, I think you have misunderstood my motives for challenging your points about being rational and empathic. I was not challenging these figures directly, I was demonstrating how problematic it is to apply these criteria in any useful way for these purposes, because these criteria so easily breakdown at the slightest probing.

Selfish_Meme wrote:
Feeling or sentience is not possible until the spinal cord links with the brain stem at 23 or so weeks. Show me a peer reviewed and medically accepted study that shows otherwise.

I am not disputing this. I am disputing assigning some sort of human/non-human transition to this event. Show me apeer reviewed paper that says this is when a baby becomes "human". That's my point.

Selfish_Meme wrote:
Remembering or memories are important, without memories that being would have no 'personality'. I would say it is an important aspect of a 'person'.

You're case hinges upon establishing a defining aspect of a person. Is this it? I don't think so.

Selfish_Meme wrote:
If for example we had a living adult human with no memories and no way of retaining memories. You cannot 'teach' this person anything. That being would have its rights reduced legally by being declared mentally incompetent. Sure we would look after it with the minimum necessary care but it would not be a functioning person, and would not enjoy all the rights of a person.

So we can arbitrarily kill this person? You're points must directly support the core of your argument- the case for life and death.

Selfish_Meme wrote:
I never said being,

You did: "No, it's a matter of the embryo's development, it does not have any of the fundamentals that make a thinking, rational, empathic, feeling, remembering being until after the 25th week"

Selfish_Meme wrote:
and my stance is consistent, an embryo/fetus is a living Human Being.

OK

Selfish_Meme wrote:
Is it wrong to kill innocent Human Being's. It depends on your definition of Human Being. I define it as a member of the species Homo Sapiens Sapiens.

Ok, so when is the baby a member of this species?

Selfish_Meme wrote:
You equate that with 'person'.

No, I feel the same way as you about the use of the word "person".
I would avoid it altogether, but I find pro-choice people use it frequently.

Selfish_Meme wrote:
But person does not necessarily mean Human being.

Ok. So when is the baby a human being?

PS. I appreciate that you have been a polite debater.
I appreciate too having a debate that goes somewhere.

I made a real mistake by saying the word person, will you let me redefine my stance? I really wanted to point out the difference between a cognitive, sentient, empathic entity with memories and one without those attributes.

I fell into my own trap when I said 'person' even for brevities sake. To address your points.
1. I don't think I said a newborn was equal to an adult. I know some pro-choice people do say that. I am not one of them.
2. Nevertheless, the attributes I talk about are a significant difference between adult and fetus. Children do not have the same rights as adults, so we recognise their developmental state.
3. A human baby is a Human Being, a fetus is a human being, but biologically all that means is they are a member of Homo Sapiens Sapiens. If you mean legally, then it is at birth. If you mean in a religious way,then I can't help you.

[Selfish_Meme]

Gilbert1908 wrote: How is a person NOT a human being?
Right at this moment there is no person we are aware of that is not a human being. However that does not mean they don't exist, or will not exist in the future.

e.g An alien came to live in the U.S and asked for citizenship. Legally to gain citizenship the alien would need to be recognised as a person.

The definition for Person is much larger and looser than the definition of Human Being, so they cannot be completely logically equivalent.

[Gilbert1908]

Selfish_Meme wrote: Gilbert1908 wrote: How is a person NOT a human being?
Right at this moment there is no person we are aware of that is not a human being. However that does not mean they don't exist, or will not exist in the future.

e.g An alien came to live in the U.S and asked for citizenship. Legally to gain citizenship the alien would need to be recognised as a person.

The definition for Person is much larger and looser than the definition of Human Being, so they cannot be completely logically equivalent.

In fact the word person can mean many different things.

It is a legal term within the context of the USA constitution and originally excluded women and slaves, so in that case it means what ever the legislature defines it as.

It can mean MY person or body or what I have in my posession.

It can mean a human individual too, which is interesting because human individual is precisely the term embryologists use to describe the human embryo at conception.

The larger point however is that PERSON is NOT a term applied as a scientific term. Personhood is a PHILOSOPHICAL term applied by those who want to ascribe an arbitrary state of achievement within the natural continuum of human development in order to justify abortion.

It is not just coincidence that virtually all points of achievment of personhood are reached when a developing human can exist outside the womb, despite the fact that a healthy fetus is perfectly "viable" in its natural state from conception until birth.

Making the life or death measurment of human development the point at which they can live outside the womb (NOT on its own by the way) is a bit like disqualifying the leader of a race at the half way point because he has failed to FINISH.

[D.A.R.E.]

You are showing me a seed and telling me to stop logging.

[Gitana]

I think the best solution is for prolifers (at least those who wish to subvert all rights of the woman to autonomy over her own body, from the moment of fertilization) to do the following:

1. Focus on a method to gather and grow all fertilized eggs, thereby removing the imposition of someone else's will upon a woman. Fertilized egg carriers can report to local gathering centers to have the potential human harvested safely.
2. Compile a national waiting list of prolife women willing to surrogate these fertilized eggs in their own bodies. There should be millions of volunteers.
3. Compile a national adoption waiting list of prolifers willing to subsidize all medical costs involved and then adopt the surrogated child. There should be millions of volunteers.

That should about cover it. O, wait - we should also legislate that the male involved in creating a fertilized potential human being must be equally culpable and responsible.

Stray thought: Perhaps we should reclassify the Iraqis as embryos - that should afford them more protection and the right to life.

[Gilbert1908]

Gitana wrote: I think the best solution is for prolifers (at least those who wish to subvert all rights of the woman to autonomy over her own body, from the moment of fertilization) to do the following:

1. Focus on a method to gather and grow all fertilized eggs, thereby removing the imposition of someone else's will upon a woman. Fertilized egg carriers can report to local gathering centers to have the potential human harvested safely.

The concieved human life growing in the woman's womb is there 99% of the time out of her will not inspite of it.

Gitana wrote: 2. Compile a national waiting list of prolife women willing to surrogate these fertilized eggs in their own bodies. There should be millions of volunteers. If this were a medical possiblity you may have something here, but right now it not.

Gitana wrote: 3. Compile a national adoption waiting list of prolifers willing to subsidize all medical costs involved and then adopt the surrogated child. There should be millions of volunteers

Good idea here is one of the many already in place
http://catholic.adoption.com/


Gitana wrote: That should about cover it. O, wait - we should also legislate that the male involved in creating a fertilized potential human being must be equally culpable and responsible. In the decsion to abort, the decision to support or the decision to adopt or all three. Men are presently legally responsible for the financial responsibility I wish we could legislate the rest of their responsibilitie as well.

Gitana wrote: Stray thought: Perhaps we should reclassify the Iraqis as embryos - that should afford them more protection and the right to life.

No lets pull out all of our troops today and ABORT them.