Abortion is murder

MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
Abortion is murder

Saying that an abortion is the equivalent of murdering an actual person is very, very irrational. By the way, to Christians, the Bible actually says life begins at birth.

http://www.ffrf.org/nontracts/abortion.php

But seriously, a fetus is not a person, especially very early - as Sam Harris pointed out, a blastocyst actually has fewer cells than are present in the brain of a fly. Why are christians only concerned with life when it is either a fetus or brain dead? Maybe they only like people of similar intelligence to them.

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team


nedbrek
Theist
Posts: 195
Joined: 2006-12-08
User is offlineOffline
MattShizzle wrote:But

MattShizzle wrote:
But seriously, a fetus is not a person, especially very early - as Sam Harris pointed out, a blastocyst actually has fewer cells than are present in the brain of a fly.

Are you asserting there is a "miracle" at birth that converts "a bunch of cells" in to a person? Or you just saying an unborn human has no rights?

Thanks!


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
We have to choose some point

We have to choose some point for "personhood." Birth is probably better than any.


nedbrek
Theist
Posts: 195
Joined: 2006-12-08
User is offlineOffline
MattShizzle wrote:We have to

MattShizzle wrote:
We have to choose some point for "personhood." Birth is probably better than any.

My son was born 6 weeks early. So, he "became a person" before most others. So, your right to life is not a given, not even based on some logical formula. It is #define'd by the government. What is to stop the government from defining your life "unwanted" and having you killed?

Thanks!


nedbrek
Theist
Posts: 195
Joined: 2006-12-08
User is offlineOffline
MattShizzle wrote:We have to

MattShizzle wrote:
We have to choose some point for "personhood." Birth is probably better than any.

On my original point, are you saying that a creature of the human species starts at conception, but "personhood" (a human being having rights) starts at birth?

Thanks!


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
I'd say something close to

I'd say something close to that - ability to think, being capable of suffering, etc has to count for something.

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team


Ivan_Ivanov
Ivan_Ivanov's picture
Posts: 126
Joined: 2006-09-10
User is offlineOffline
MattShizzle wrote:I'd say

MattShizzle wrote:
I'd say something close to that - ability to think, being capable of suffering, etc has to count for something.

Sure, but human beeings have this ability before they are born.


hikikomori_girl
hikikomori_girl's picture
Posts: 14
Joined: 2006-12-09
User is offlineOffline
Legally, Personhood is

Legally, Personhood is defined as starting at birth. Technically speaking, it's more like four to six months after birth that an infant starts to show the first signs of developing Personhood.

Of course, wishful thinking makes us sometimes like to think that it is well before then.


hikikomori_girl
hikikomori_girl's picture
Posts: 14
Joined: 2006-12-09
User is offlineOffline
Know Thine Enemy: Fetal

Ivan_Ivanov
Ivan_Ivanov's picture
Posts: 126
Joined: 2006-09-10
User is offlineOffline
hikikomori_girl

hikikomori_girl wrote:
Legally, Personhood is defined as starting at birth. Technically speaking, it's more like four to six months after birth that an infant starts to show the first signs of developing Personhood.

But does the fact that the child is incapable of showing it's personhood mean that it is not a person?
I'd be careful saying things like this, because that comes dangerously close to the old joke about the scientist concluding that after cutting off a frog's 4'th leg, it becomes deaf.


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
We can scan bbrains, etc.

We can scan brains, etc.

I love the question "Is an acorn an oak tree?" by the way.


nedbrek
Theist
Posts: 195
Joined: 2006-12-08
User is offlineOffline
hikikomori_girl

hikikomori_girl wrote:
Legally, Personhood is defined as starting at birth. Technically speaking, it's more like four to six months after birth that an infant starts to show the first signs of developing Personhood.

Of course, wishful thinking makes us sometimes like to think that it is well before then.

Yes, the Constitution does not grant a right to life (besides the unspoken ninth). In fact, the Constitution states cases where life can be taken. The question becomes, "What is due process?"

The other question is, "Do you want to have to work for your right to life?" How many hoops must we jump through? Should we kill retarded people? Old people? The very sick?


Ivan_Ivanov
Ivan_Ivanov's picture
Posts: 126
Joined: 2006-09-10
User is offlineOffline
MattShizzle wrote:We can

MattShizzle wrote:
We can scan brains, etc.

Yes, and children have working brains before they are born.

Also what good are brain scans if 'personhood' and things associated with it aren't even clearly defined?


nedbrek
Theist
Posts: 195
Joined: 2006-12-08
User is offlineOffline
MattShizzle wrote:We can

MattShizzle wrote:
We can scan brains, etc.

I love the question "Is an acorn an oak tree?" by the way.

But is the acorn not the same species as an oak tree? Upon receving an acorn, would you throw it away, saying "I wanted an oak tree!"?


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
If I asked you to cut me

If I asked you to cut me some oak to use as lumber, and you brought me smashed up acorns I would naturally object.

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team


nedbrek
Theist
Posts: 195
Joined: 2006-12-08
User is offlineOffline
MattShizzle wrote:If I asked

MattShizzle wrote:
If I asked you to cut me some oak to use as lumber, and you brought me smashed up acorns I would naturally object.

If all I had was acorns, you'd just have to be patient, I'd get you the lumber, eventually Smiling


Tilberian
Moderator
Tilberian's picture
Posts: 1118
Joined: 2006-11-27
User is offlineOffline
[quote=nedbrek Are you

[quote=nedbrek
Are you asserting there is a "miracle" at birth that converts "a bunch of cells" in to a person? Or you just saying an unborn human has no rights?

Thanks!

Of course there's no requirement for a miracle. All life grows and changes and is reasonably fit into different categories as it does so. The reason this debate is so sticky is because the criteria determining the cutoff point is almost completely arbitrary.

My feeling is that as long as the fetus is completely dependant on the mother for life, it should be viewed as an extension of her body and subject to her ultimate control. At the point that the fetus could live outside of her body, it becomes a viable human life and is subject to the rights and protections that adhere to that status.

Lazy is a word we use when someone isn't doing what we want them to do.
- Dr. Joy Brown


Zhwazi
Zhwazi's picture
Posts: 459
Joined: 2006-10-06
User is offlineOffline
This is all irrelevant. I

This is all irrelevant. I don't have a "right" to live inside someone else off their energy and consumption against their will. Not more than I have a right to be in someone else's house without their consent. They can legitemately shoot me in self defense and kill me...a mother can legitemately have an abortion and kill the fetus. Even if we assume the fetus is a "person", the fetus has no more right to life than an intruder in your home.


nedbrek
Theist
Posts: 195
Joined: 2006-12-08
User is offlineOffline
Tilberian wrote: Of course

Tilberian wrote:

Of course there's no requirement for a miracle. All life grows and changes and is reasonably fit into different categories as it does so. The reason this debate is so sticky is because the criteria determining the cutoff point is almost completely arbitrary.

My feeling is that as long as the fetus is completely dependant on the mother for life, it should be viewed as an extension of her body and subject to her ultimate control. At the point that the fetus could live outside of her body, it becomes a viable human life and is subject to the rights and protections that adhere to that status.

A newborn is completely dependent on adults. Should we be allowed to abandon children (a common ancient practice)? Should we kill our elders when they become a burden? Come to think of it, I am completely dependent on grocery stores and restaurants... should the grocer be allowed to kill me?


nedbrek
Theist
Posts: 195
Joined: 2006-12-08
User is offlineOffline
Zhwazi wrote:...a mother can

Zhwazi wrote:
...a mother can legitemately have an abortion and kill the fetus. Even if we assume the fetus is a "person", the fetus has no more right to life than an intruder in your home.

An intruder is a grown person who makes a choice. The unborn have no choice in the matter...


Zhwazi
Zhwazi's picture
Posts: 459
Joined: 2006-10-06
User is offlineOffline
nedbrek wrote:An intruder is

nedbrek wrote:
An intruder is a grown person who makes a choice. The unborn have no choice in the matter...

How is this relevant?


qbg
Posts: 298
Joined: 2006-11-22
User is offlineOffline
nedbrek wrote:Zhwazi

nedbrek wrote:
Zhwazi wrote:
...a mother can legitemately have an abortion and kill the fetus. Even if we assume the fetus is a "person", the fetus has no more right to life than an intruder in your home.

An intruder is a grown person who makes a choice. The unborn have no choice in the matter...


Neither does a fly or a rodent...

"What right have you to condemn a murderer if you assume him necessary to "God's plan"? What logic can command the return of stolen property, or the branding of a thief, if the Almighty decreed it?"
-- The Economic Tendency of Freethought


nedbrek
Theist
Posts: 195
Joined: 2006-12-08
User is offlineOffline
Zhwazi wrote:nedbrek

Zhwazi wrote:
nedbrek wrote:
An intruder is a grown person who makes a choice. The unborn have no choice in the matter...

How is this relevant?

Because we take the intentions of the person involved into account when declaring a sentence?


nedbrek
Theist
Posts: 195
Joined: 2006-12-08
User is offlineOffline
qbg wrote:Neither does a fly

qbg wrote:
Neither does a fly or a rodent...

Those aren't people. We're allowed to kill animals...


Scythian
Posts: 10
Joined: 2006-10-09
User is offlineOffline
Abortion is murder

Quote:
qbg wrote:
Neither does a fly or a rodent...

Those aren't people. We're allowed to kill animals...

Are you suggesting people are not animals? Rather rash.

But seriously, I think abortion should be the choice of the mother, considering while the fetus is still inside the mothers body, it should be considered as her own property. I am not saying you are wrong, I just find it ridiculous that the religious right is trying to demonize abortion. If they were to make it a law that abortion was murder, they would very probably ban it all together.

I do not support abortion as a form of birth control, I view it as a last resort, and if it should be done, there should be a patient limit. I do support abortion in the fact that eventually aborted fetus's will be able to be used legally for embryonic stem cell research.

Why should we take advice on sex from the pope? If he knows anything about it, he shouldn't. ~George Bernard Shaw


Zhwazi
Zhwazi's picture
Posts: 459
Joined: 2006-10-06
User is offlineOffline
nedbrek wrote:Zhwazi

nedbrek wrote:
Zhwazi wrote:
nedbrek wrote:
An intruder is a grown person who makes a choice. The unborn have no choice in the matter...

How is this relevant?

Because we take the intentions of the person involved into account when declaring a sentence?


I don't care what the intentions are when I take defensive action. You could be trying save my soul for all I care, if you're hurting me to do it, I'm going to shoot at you. Intentions are irrelevant. The same applies to a fetus, if a fetus is a person.


Ivan_Ivanov
Ivan_Ivanov's picture
Posts: 126
Joined: 2006-09-10
User is offlineOffline
Zhwazi wrote:nedbrek

Zhwazi wrote:
nedbrek wrote:
An intruder is a grown person who makes a choice. The unborn have no choice in the matter...

How is this relevant?

Simple.
If choice is irrelevant, I could force you to come into my home (or somehow lure you), deem you an intruder and kill you.


Zhwazi
Zhwazi's picture
Posts: 459
Joined: 2006-10-06
User is offlineOffline
Ivan_Ivanov wrote:Zhwazi

Ivan_Ivanov wrote:
Zhwazi wrote:
nedbrek wrote:
An intruder is a grown person who makes a choice. The unborn have no choice in the matter...

How is this relevant?

Simple.
If choice is irrelevant, I could force you to come into my home (or somehow lure you), deem you an intruder and kill you.


Kidnapping and murder is very different from armed self-defense.


Ivan_Ivanov
Ivan_Ivanov's picture
Posts: 126
Joined: 2006-09-10
User is offlineOffline
Zhwazi wrote:Kidnapping and

Zhwazi wrote:
Kidnapping and murder is very different from armed self-defense.

But I don't see how abortion is self-defence.

I still hold to my analogy. Allow me to elaborate.
Kidnapping and murder would look more or less like so:
- I invite you to a tea party, knowing full well that there is a possiblity you will accept, and I will have to share my tea with you (and maybe some bisquits too)
- I accept my invitation, come to my house, and we drink some tea
- I deem you an intruder and a parasite
- I kill you.

Abortion looks like so:
- (let's say I'm a woman) I decide to have sex with a guy, knowing full well I might become pragnent and as a consequence I will have to share my body's resources with the fetus
- it just so hapens that I become pragnent.
- I deem the fetus a parasite and an intruder and I kill it.

The analogy is false on a few levels. For instance, if I suddenly decide to throw you out from my house, I can do so without killing you, which is not the case with a fetus.
Another thing is you have a choice when it comes to accepting my invitation, a fetus does not, which makes the whole situation more analogous to forcing you into my house and then killing you.

For the record, I'm not against abortion, I just think some arguments for it are rather bad, and I try to fight them when I have the chance.


Zhwazi
Zhwazi's picture
Posts: 459
Joined: 2006-10-06
User is offlineOffline
If I wasn't hurting you in

If I wasn't hurting you in your home and you invited me, then killing me would be murder on account of my respecting your ownership of the property when you killed me. Intruders do not respect your ownership of property when you kill them.

A fetus does hurt the mother, causes adverse effects, I'd say aborting a fetus would be self-defense. A fetus' inability to obey an order to leave while hurting the mother does not affect it's status as detrimental to the mother. Not more than my inability to leave your house for whatever reason makes me less harmful and disrespective of others' property rights as I pocket small valuable items and destroy larger items when it is to my entertainment to do so.

If you throw me out of the house when I was completely dependant upon you, you'd be killing me. If you have an abortion while a fetus is completely dependant upon you, you'd be killing it. In a sense. In another sense, it died of it's own natural lack of things it requires. You just ejected it.


Ivan_Ivanov
Ivan_Ivanov's picture
Posts: 126
Joined: 2006-09-10
User is offlineOffline
Zhwazi wrote:A fetus does

Zhwazi wrote:
A fetus does hurt the mother, causes adverse effects, I'd say aborting a fetus would be self-defense. A fetus' inability to obey an order to leave while hurting the mother does not affect it's status as detrimental to the mother.

The inability to leave is only a part of the problem I'm seeing here.
My point is that the only people responsible for the existance of the fetus are it's parents, hence my analogy.
I don't see how you can call a fetus an intruder and a parasite, any more then you can call a person you have kidnapped an intruder and a parasite.


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
You chose to kidnap them.

You chose to kidnap them. The woman obviously didn't choose to be pregnant or she wouldn't be having an abortion. And don't give me any ignorant bullshit about she chose to have sex. Abstinance is unacceptable to virtually anyone, and no form of birth control is 100% effective. Besides you are talking about a fucking cluster of cells. If you want to say because a fetus has the potential to become a person, then any act of not having sex with someone else is wrong (after all, that has the potential to become a person) - you could even extend this to resisting rape. And, as Sam Harris pointed out, with cloning technology, virtually any cell in the body has the potential to be cloned into a person - if abortion is equivalent to murder, scratching your nose is equivalent to Auschwitz!

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team


Ivan_Ivanov
Ivan_Ivanov's picture
Posts: 126
Joined: 2006-09-10
User is offlineOffline
MattShizzle wrote:You chose

MattShizzle wrote:
You chose to kidnap them. The woman obviously didn't choose to be pregnant or she wouldn't be having an abortion. And don't give me any ignorant bullshit about she chose to have sex.

But she did chose to have sex, obviously.

Quote:
Abstinance is unacceptable to virtually anyone, and no form of birth control is 100% effective.

So what?
Every action has it's cosequences. The fact that you are unable to completely prevent Y happening as a consequence of you doing X, doesn't make you any less responsible for Y happening.

Again, please note that I am not arguing against abortion, I'm arguing against poor arguments for abortion.
One that I don't like is completely relieving yourself of all moral responsibility, simply because it's convinient, like you just did above.
Another that I don't like even more is demonizing the fetus, calling it an intruder or a parasite, even tough you are responsible for it's existance in the first place.

Quote:
Besides you are talking about a fucking cluster of cells.
...

Congratulations!
You have finally stated a valid argument for abortion.

Note however, that a fetus isn't a cluster a of cells all the time.
At one point it's a cluster of cells, at another it looks kinda sorta human like, at yet another it's body is fully formed, it's heart beats, and it's brain is fully functioning.
Treating it like a shapeless blob through the whole pragnancy is clearly wrong.
Despite that I would never dream of taking away your right to have an abortion, I just want people to stop and think for a while about their actions, not just shrug off every potential problem.

Really if there is one thing I hate about abortion debates, it's how both sides try to make the issue entirely black and white.


Tilberian
Moderator
Tilberian's picture
Posts: 1118
Joined: 2006-11-27
User is offlineOffline
[quote=nedbrek A newborn is

[quote=nedbrek
A newborn is completely dependent on adults. Should we be allowed to abandon children (a common ancient practice)? Should we kill our elders when they become a burden? Come to think of it, I am completely dependent on grocery stores and restaurants... should the grocer be allowed to kill me?

You, a newborn, and a third trimester fetus are not dependant on others for your minute-by-minute existence. You will survive, on your own, for a period of time before succumbing to lack of water. This is an important distinction, because we can now consider you to be truly independent of any particular other entity. It is not required that you get your sustenance from one source and one source only - you can be helped by anyone. A first or second trimester fetus is so closely linked to the mother that IMO it is more appropriately categorized as a part of her body.

Lazy is a word we use when someone isn't doing what we want them to do.
- Dr. Joy Brown


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
I definitely agree with

I definitely agree with George Carlin and Howard Stern - I wish every man who tried to tell a woman she couldn't have an abortion would be bent over a dumpster and raped in the ass by a boat person infected with AIDS.

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team


Ivan_Ivanov
Ivan_Ivanov's picture
Posts: 126
Joined: 2006-09-10
User is offlineOffline
MattShizzle wrote:I

MattShizzle wrote:
I definitely agree with George Carlin and Howard Stern - I wish every man who tried to tell a woman she couldn't have an abortion would be bent over a dumpster and raped in the ass by a boat person infected with AIDS.

Ah, yes.
Nothing persuades me to someone's point of view like beeing ass raped and infected with AIDS.


nedbrek
Theist
Posts: 195
Joined: 2006-12-08
User is offlineOffline
Zhwazi wrote:A fetus does

Zhwazi wrote:
A fetus does hurt the mother, causes adverse effects, I'd say aborting a fetus would be self-defense.

Do you have medical point for this? I would argue, that once pregnant, the least adverse course is to continue to birth. Abortion is a dangerous procedure (CDC statistics not withstanding), and the mental after effects are not considered.


SilkyShrew
Rational VIP!
SilkyShrew's picture
Posts: 147
Joined: 2006-02-11
User is offlineOffline
MattShizzle wrote:Saying

MattShizzle wrote:
Saying that an abortion is the equivalent of murdering an actual person is very, very irrational.

Indeed, especially since murder is a legal term.

nedbrek wrote:
Are you asserting there is a "miracle" at birth that converts "a bunch of cells" in to a person? Or you just saying an unborn human has no rights?

I would think that calling it a "person" or not is simply a way to apply an arbitrary line and really doesn't relate in any way except that people want to call it a "person" in order to gain an emotive response to the issue.

nedbrek wrote:
My son was born 6 weeks early. So, he "became a person" before most others. So, your right to life is not a given, not even based on some logical formula. It is #define'd by the government. What is to stop the government from defining your life "unwanted" and having you killed?

We can use information on capacity for suffering in order to determine how humane particular actions are. We can also look at this from the perspective of the value of the different lives involved. When the woman is pregnant, can we determine which is more valuable, the woman or the blastocyst/fetus? Most people determine that the woman is more valuable. We can see this when we notice that even some of the most extreme anti-abortion laws allow for abotrion if the woman's health is in danger - even in the latest stages of pregnancy. Hence, the woman's life is legally valued above that of the fetus or blastocyst. This makes logical sense as well, as the woman is much more capeable of suffering than the fetus/blastocyst.

nedbrek wrote:
On my original point, are you saying that a creature of the human species starts at conception, but "personhood" (a human being having rights) starts at birth?

Technically, there's never a point that it isn't human. But then, technically, cancers are human, and even ailing body parts that we amputate ... Something being human is obviously not a good determination of what should be kept or discarded in the species.

Ivan_Ivanov wrote:
Sure, but human beeings have this ability before they are born.

Indeed, although the capacity in the fetus is not the same as that of the woman, and the overall value of each is likely to be different. As in, how many are affected if the woman is lost or suffers greatly as compared to if the fetus does?

Ivan_Ivanov wrote:
The other question is, "Do you want to have to work for your right to life?" How many hoops must we jump through? Should we kill retarded people? Old people? The very sick?

The difference between all of those examples and a fetus is that the fetus is connected to and biologically dependant on an individual that may not desire to or be able to choose to care for it. Individuals caring for the retarded, old people, or the very sick usually have a choice and are not physically attatched to them.

nedbrek wrote:
But is the acorn not the same species as an oak tree? Upon receving an acorn, would you throw it away, saying "I wanted an oak tree!"?

Indeed, it seems silly, doesn't it? The acorn is still genetically an oak. However, the acorn does not have the same value as the tree. To be honest, I think that's a poor analogy as well, as we use humans and oak trees in very different manners. However, the question of value is still available in the comparison.

Tiberian wrote:
Of course there's no requirement for a miracle. All life grows and changes and is reasonably fit into different categories as it does so. The reason this debate is so sticky is because the criteria determining the cutoff point is almost completely arbitrary.

It doesn't have to be completely arbitrary. We can use some steps in critical thinking to at least come to some conclusions in regards to the issue in order to address it with some practicality.

Quote:
My feeling is that as long as the fetus is completely dependant on the mother for life, it should be viewed as an extension of her body and subject to her ultimate control. At the point that the fetus could live outside of her body, it becomes a viable human life and is subject to the rights and protections that adhere to that status.

It would be wise to include the word "dependant" in there somewhere. There are scenarios that one could come up with in which we could question if the woman should deliver the fetus early due to it being able to live outside the womb even when she doesn't want to be pregnant anymore. Indeed, it is a part of medical practises to occasionally do this when a woman's life is in danger. However, it is rarely mentioned because people don't regard it within the context of this issue because the fetus is allowed to live. I do agree with your assessment, but this is really where the hazy area seems to lie, especially since there are cases where the woman's life is in danger and the fetus can't be saved in saving the woman. The majority of late term abortions occur in such situations, or in situations where the fetus is dead or is severely ill and won't be able to survive.

Zhwazi wrote:
This is all irrelevant. I don't have a "right" to live inside someone else off their energy and consumption against their will. Not more than I have a right to be in someone else's house without their consent. They can legitemately shoot me in self defense and kill me...a mother can legitemately have an abortion and kill the fetus. Even if we assume the fetus is a "person", the fetus has no more right to life than an intruder in your home.

I think this is a poor analogy. Most laws that have intruder laws account for perceived or definate threats. This does not apply to a fetus in a woman's belly.

nedbrek wrote:
A newborn is completely dependent on adults. Should we be allowed to abandon children (a common ancient practice)? Should we kill our elders when they become a burden? Come to think of it, I am completely dependent on grocery stores and restaurants... should the grocer be allowed to kill me?

The adults who care for a newborn are not connected to it, they can pass it around to other adults who can take care of it. Elders who are ill are also not connected to people in a physical manner in order to survive, indeed they can be cared for by multiple people who can make the choice to care for them. The same applies to the grocer ...

qbg wrote:
nedbrek wrote:
An intruder is a grown person who makes a choice. The unborn have no choice in the matter...

Neither does a fly or a rodent...

When you make a comparison like this, it is a good idea to explain why it applies, otherwise it sounds like a red herring. The reason why it is important to consider flies and rodents is due to what we understand of their neurological development. Flies and Rodents have a greater neurological capacity than blastocysts and most fetuses that are aborted. We readily kill flies and rodents when they are problematic, cause physical problems or are otherwise bothersome, whereas many who are willing to kill flies and rodents for these reasons won't allow for the blastocyst or fetus which has a lower development and survival capacity to be aborted based on similar, or even better reasons.

nedbrek wrote:
Those aren't people. We're allowed to kill animals...

And why is the difference in genetic code important here? Please explain.

Scythian wrote:
I do not support abortion as a form of birth control, I view it as a last resort, and if it should be done, there should be a patient limit. I do support abortion in the fact that eventually aborted fetus's will be able to be used legally for embryonic stem cell research.

No matter which way you look at it, abortion is, by definition, a form of birth control. It does not matter if the woman is going in for her first or her 15th. Although, it seems to me that a woman who is in for her 15th is really among the last of people whe have any business reproducing. Why should someone be able to limit the rights of an individual simply because you think they've had too many? Nobody should be able to draw such a line, and it is impractical to do so.

Zhwazi wrote:
I don't care what the intentions are when I take defensive action. You could be trying save my soul for all I care, if you're hurting me to do it, I'm going to shoot at you. Intentions are irrelevant. The same applies to a fetus, if a fetus is a person.

Intentions are relevant - even you bothered to mention in this statement "if you're hurting me," so it seems that it matters to even you. A mentally ill person walking into your house who happens to be confused and is obviously not a threat is not someone that you have the right to kill in most states, with good reason.

Ivan_Ivanov wrote:
But I don't see how abortion is self-defence.

Most abortions take place for reasons of self-defense in some sense or another. The defense is not the same as what you would take with an intruder in your house, but it is a form of defense in regards to some aspect of their lives, no matter if it is a defense of a financial situation, or defense against a medical condition.

Quote:
For the record, I'm not against abortion, I just think some arguments for it are rather bad, and I try to fight them when I have the chance.

I agree - I have a tendency to be the same way. I think some arguments are poor, and often find myself debating both sides of the issue due to people using poor argumentation or misinformation.

Zhwazi wrote:
If I wasn't hurting you in your home and you invited me, then killing me would be murder on account of my respecting your ownership of the property when you killed me. Intruders do not respect your ownership of property when you kill them.

They might, unless you're trying to change the definition of an intruder. Legally speaking, someone can be determined to be an intruder and still not be someone that you can legally kill. Although, considering that people fall on either side of the "if you should kill an intruder" debate, I think that makes this even more of a poor analogy.

Quote:
If you throw me out of the house when I was completely dependant upon you, you'd be killing me. If you have an abortion while a fetus is completely dependant upon you, you'd be killing it. In a sense. In another sense, it died of it's own natural lack of things it requires. You just ejected it.

Sort-of. You'd both be killing it, and it would be dying from inability to survive a circumstance. But it is no different from a spider killing a fly while the fly is dying from an inability to survive the circumstance. When we see it in that sense, then we can realize it doesn't matter if we're killing it or it is dying due to surviveability. It seems this argument is developed to detract from the concept of one killing another - there's no need for this. We can admit that if we get an abortion, that the fetus or blastocyst is being killed. Also, an abortion is not necesarily an "ejection," we have to use tools to remove the remnants the blastocyst/fetus in most cases - it isn't simply catapulted out of our bodies.

Ivan_Ivanov wrote:
I don't see how you can call a fetus an intruder and a parasite, any more then you can call a person you have kidnapped an intruder and a parasite.

It is neither an intruder or a kidnapped victim, either. I would say they are both inadequate descriptions. a blastocyst/fetus is something that develops based on the actions of the two who had sex, yes, but it isn't necesarily the case that the two could predict if the pregnancy would occur, or that they really "choose" to be pregnant. What they really made a choice about was having sex (most of the time), and then the development of the blastocyst or fetus is a consequence of that. It is a consequence, but it isn't a very consistent consequence or one that can necesarily be pre-determined.

Mattshizzle wrote:
Abstinance is unacceptable to virtually anyone, and no form of birth control is 100% effective.

I agree about the birth control, although, I disagree about the comment on abstinence. It isn't that abstinence is unacceptable, it is that even abstinence, due to natural human tendencies, is not 100% effecive, either. In fact, in many studes done on contraception, you find that of those who claim to have used abstinence still have a small percentage of pregnancies. That obviously calls for a wtf? moment, but knowing how people work helps us understand what happened. The reality is, they *were* using abstinence, until they could no longer control themselves, or until they did something that still transferred sperm, even if they weren't actively having intercourse. The other complaint against abstinence is in regards to sex education, and for the sake of not wanting to hijack this particular thread, I'm not going to jump into it except to say, it is simply impractical.

Ivan_Ivanov wrote:
But she did chose to have sex, obviously.

Not always.

Quote:
So what?
Every action has it's cosequences. The fact that you are unable to completely prevent Y happening as a consequence of you doing X, doesn't make you any less responsible for Y happening.

Indeed, although opting for an abortion can often be seen as an action in taking responsibility.

Quote:
Again, please note that I am not arguing against abortion, I'm arguing against poor arguments for abortion.
One that I don't like is completely relieving yourself of all moral responsibility, simply because it's convinient, like you just did above.

I tend to think that it varies from person to person if such is moral or not. Is it really a moral/immoral action in getting an abortion? This can easily venture into a debate on ethics and philosophical ideas on morality. Hence, I try to keep arguments in the realm of what is practical. One person can see an abortion as something that is a moral stance, while others see it as an immoral one ...

Quote:
Another that I don't like even more is demonizing the fetus, calling it an intruder or a parasite, even tough you are responsible for it's existance in the first place.

I tend to think that the parasite arguments "could" be used in a more practical fashion, but not in the manner that most use them. I think they would be valid if the person used them similar to the way I described the fly and rodent points earlier, then it would be more valid.

Ivan_Ivanov wrote:

Quote:
Besides you are talking about a fucking cluster of cells.
...

Congratulations!
You have finally stated a valid argument for abortion.

Note however, that a fetus isn't a cluster a of cells all the time.
At one point it's a cluster of cells, at another it looks kinda sorta human like, at yet another it's body is fully formed, it's heart beats, and it's brain is fully functioning.

Actually, it is always a cluster of cells. I'm a cluster of cells, you're a cluster of cells ... my cats are clusters of cells ... even any flies on the walls, or rodents that someone may encounter. It really has to do with what the cluster of cells is capeable of and does.

Quote:
Treating it like a shapeless blob through the whole pragnancy is clearly wrong.

Well, it is never really a "shapeless blob." There are particular developmental processes that it goes through that have definate shapes and stages.

Quote:
Really if there is one thing I hate about abortion debates, it's how both sides try to make the issue entirely black and white.

Likewise.

MattShizzle wrote:
I definitely agree with George Carlin and Howard Stern - I wish every man who tried to tell a woman she couldn't have an abortion would be bent over a dumpster and raped in the ass by a boat person infected with AIDS.

That's very sad. I wish that they would all be simply more educated about it. I wouldn't wish harm on them.

nedbrek wrote:
Do you have medical point for this? I would argue, that once pregnant, the least adverse course is to continue to birth. Abortion is a dangerous procedure (CDC statistics not withstanding), and the mental after effects are not considered.

Abortion generally has fewer adverse side-effects than a full term pregnancy. We can look directly to studies done on this to support that information. And on studies done on the mental side-effects on abortion, it is often the case that the individual who suffers such side-effects is doing so due to social circumstances, such as them being made to feel guilty due to others.


nedbrek
Theist
Posts: 195
Joined: 2006-12-08
User is offlineOffline
SilkyShrew wrote: We can use

SilkyShrew wrote:

We can use information on capacity for suffering in order to determine how humane particular actions are. We can also look at this from the perspective of the value of the different lives involved. When the woman is pregnant, can we determine which is more valuable, the woman or the blastocyst/fetus? Most people determine that the woman is more valuable. We can see this when we notice that even some of the most extreme anti-abortion laws allow for abotrion if the woman's health is in danger - even in the latest stages of pregnancy. Hence, the woman's life is legally valued above that of the fetus or blastocyst. This makes logical sense as well, as the woman is much more capeable of suffering than the fetus/blastocyst.

nedbrek wrote:
Those aren't people. We're allowed to kill animals...

And why is the difference in genetic code important here? Please explain.

The argument comes down to the value of human life. I assert than human life has infinite value, and begins at conception. Economic evidence supports that individuals place infinite value on their own lives, (although often less on other people). Any other definition places the defense of your own life on unstable ground.

Of course, infinity plays havoc with most math functions Smiling

Deciding between two human lives is a difficult problem. I wouldn't wish it on any one. There are cases that can go either way in a pregnancy. But to bring economic value into denies the infinite value of human life.

Animals (the product of non-human genes) have a given economic value. We have agreed upon conventions to limit animal suffering.

SilkyShrew wrote:

Abortion generally has fewer adverse side-effects than a full term pregnancy. We can look directly to studies done on this to support that information. And on studies done on the mental side-effects on abortion, it is often the case that the individual who suffers such side-effects is doing so due to social circumstances, such as them being made to feel guilty due to others.

You are dismissing the emotional feelings of millions of women in a few words. These women knew they had something new and alive in them. Something now dead. They feel this deep down. This is not social pressure.


Zhwazi
Zhwazi's picture
Posts: 459
Joined: 2006-10-06
User is offlineOffline
Ivan_Ivanov wrote:I don't

Ivan_Ivanov wrote:
I don't see how you can call a fetus an intruder and a parasite, any more then you can call a person you have kidnapped an intruder and a parasite.

If you decide you don't want a person you kidnapped in your house anymore, let them go. They probably don't want to be there.

If you decide you don't want a fetus you put in your body anymore, get it out. It's your body and you have absolute exclusive control over it.

SilkyShrew wrote:
I think this is a poor analogy. Most laws that have intruder laws account for perceived or definate threats. This does not apply to a fetus in a woman's belly.

Why not? If the fetus is harming it's mother, and the fetus doesn't own it's mother, the fetus is harmful.

Quote:
Intentions are relevant - even you bothered to mention in this statement "if you're hurting me," so it seems that it matters to even you.

"If you're hurting me" and "If you're intentionally hurting me" are two different things. I did not mention intention in that phrase because intention was not relevant.

Quote:
A mentally ill person walking into your house who happens to be confused and is obviously not a threat is not someone that you have the right to kill in most states, with good reason.

I don't care if they're mentally ill or not. If someone is walking into my house uninvited and without my permission, I'd at least point a gun at them and tell them to get out. After all, I can't tell why they're there, and it's not possible to ascertain their intentions quickly enough that if they had bad intentions they could not hurt you or your property before you could get away, it's safest for me to assume the worst intentions until I can know their true intentions.

Quote:
They might, unless you're trying to change the definition of an intruder. Legally speaking, someone can be determined to be an intruder and still not be someone that you can legally kill.

Legal doesn't necessarily mean right nor does illegal necessarily mean wrong. It's just a matter of what the government will throw you in a cage for doing.

Quote:
Although, considering that people fall on either side of the "if you should kill an intruder" debate, I think that makes this even more of a poor analogy.

Okay, so the analogy might not be the best, but I think the logic of it is understood.


SilkyShrew
Rational VIP!
SilkyShrew's picture
Posts: 147
Joined: 2006-02-11
User is offlineOffline
nedbrek wrote:The argument

nedbrek wrote:
The argument comes down to the value of human life. I assert than human life has infinite value, and begins at conception.

Just asserting something doesn't make your argument valid.

Quote:
Economic evidence supports that individuals place infinite value on their own lives, (although often less on other people). Any other definition places the defense of your own life on unstable ground.

What evidence do you have that a fetus places infinate value to their own lives? What about a fly or a rodent?

Quote:
Of course, infinity plays havoc with most math functions Smiling

Actually, I'm skeptical of your infinite value idea. I admit that I have limits to the value I place on my own life. I value the lives of my daughters, for example, above my own. I have valued the lives of others in my life over my own as well. So clearly I don't value my own life infinitely. I also find that others are the same way. So clearly this statement about people valuing their own lives infinitely is false.

Quote:
Deciding between two human lives is a difficult problem. I wouldn't wish it on any one. There are cases that can go either way in a pregnancy. But to bring economic value into denies the infinite value of human life.

There are different forms of value to things than economic value. I wouldn't say that using economy as a determinant alone in this issue is a wise idea.

Quote:
Animals (the product of non-human genes) have a given economic value. We have agreed upon conventions to limit animal suffering.

Have we? I'm not sure I agree with how you approach the suffering of other animals in the same way that I do, so I couldn't possibly confirm this.

Quote:
You are dismissing the emotional feelings of millions of women in a few words. These women knew they had something new and alive in them. Something now dead. They feel this deep down. This is not social pressure.

No, I'm looking at academic studies done on the issue and telling you what they say on the subject. What I stated applies to the great majority of women who have anxiety in relation to their experiences in regards to abortion. Teh majority of women, however, don't express any remorse at all in regards to the experience of abortion when they have had one. Those who do, however, often experience issues due to social pressures.

Zhwazi wrote:
Why not? If the fetus is harming it's mother, and the fetus doesn't own it's mother, the fetus is harmful.

It isn't always the case that the fetus is harming the woman - however, the woman should still have the right to eliminate the fetus.

Quote:
"If you're hurting me" and "If you're intentionally hurting me" are two different things. I did not mention intention in that phrase because intention was not relevant.

If you are using the analogy of someone intruding upon your house, intent does play a role, at least in a legal aspect.

Quote:
I don't care if they're mentally ill or not. If someone is walking into my house uninvited and without my permission, I'd at least point a gun at them and tell them to get out.

And in many states, you could be legally prosecuted if you shot them, especially if it was determined that they posed no threat to you, and that there was no reason for you to believe that they were threatening.

Quote:
After all, I can't tell why they're there, and it's not possible to ascertain their intentions quickly enough that if they had bad intentions they could not hurt you or your property before you could get away, it's safest for me to assume the worst intentions until I can know their true intentions.

Actually, you can make determinations in regards to intentions oftentimes.

Quote:
Legal doesn't necessarily mean right nor does illegal necessarily mean wrong. It's just a matter of what the government will throw you in a cage for doing.

It seemed to me that the original argument was on the basis of legal aspects.

Quote:
Okay, so the analogy might not be the best, but I think the logic of it is understood.

I think that when an analogy is bad, it is better to find a better way to articulate what you are trying to say.


Zhwazi
Zhwazi's picture
Posts: 459
Joined: 2006-10-06
User is offlineOffline
SilkyShrew wrote:It isn't

SilkyShrew wrote:
It isn't always the case that the fetus is harming the woman - however, the woman should still have the right to eliminate the fetus.

If she doesn't want the fetus there, and she believes she'd be better off without it, then in a sense it's harming her.

Quote:
If you are using the analogy of someone intruding upon your house, intent does play a role, at least in a legal aspect.

I consider legality irrelevant. If abortion is illegal none of this would matter as abortion would be illegal anyways.

Quote:
And in many states, you could be legally prosecuted if you shot them, especially if it was determined that they posed no threat to you, and that there was no reason for you to believe that they were threatening.

Those states are wrong.

Quote:
Actually, you can make determinations in regards to intentions oftentimes.

Well, this arguement really depends on conditions too specific to be worth going into.

Quote:
It seemed to me that the original argument was on the basis of legal aspects.

I consider legality irrelevant, I'm arguing ethics.

Quote:
I think that when an analogy is bad, it is better to find a better way to articulate what you are trying to say.

I agree. The analogy given happened to be the one that jumped to mind at the time.


SilkyShrew
Rational VIP!
SilkyShrew's picture
Posts: 147
Joined: 2006-02-11
User is offlineOffline
Zhwazi wrote:If she doesn't

Zhwazi wrote:
If she doesn't want the fetus there, and she believes she'd be better off without it, then in a sense it's harming her.

Not always, in fact many women who seek abortions don't see the fetus as necesarily harming them, they simply see it as something they can't deal with or don't want. The may see the action they are taking as being the most sensible or responsible action, while still not really seeing it as a threat. Afterall, they are taking an action to prevent it from being a threat. So, I don't think that it is a case that the fetus is necesarily causing harm to her. In some cases, yes, it is a harm, but certainly not all.

Quote:
I consider legality irrelevant. If abortion is illegal none of this would matter as abortion would be illegal anyways.

It would still matter, but we would be discussing it quite differently.

Quote:
Those states are wrong.

I don't think they are. If, for example, a child wanders into the wrong house, or a developmentally disabled person, I don't think it would be right for you to be able to kill them. That doesn't make sense for you to just be able to shoot someone just because they stepped into your house. That's why such provisions exist that define when someone should be prosecuted for killing someone in their home and when they shouldn't.

Quote:
Well, this arguement really depends on conditions too specific to be worth going into.

No, it is always worth going into such situations. I don't think we can just brush off such situations just so that you have the right to shoot anyone that walks into your house.

Quote:
I consider legality irrelevant, I'm arguing ethics.

Perhaps it was my mistake in regards to how I perceived what you were trying to express. Although, I still think that you are wrong even on an ethical basis.

Quote:
I think that when an analogy is bad, it is better to find a better way to articulate what you are trying to say.

I agree. The analogy given happened to be the one that jumped to mind at the time.

Perhaps have another go then.


Zhwazi
Zhwazi's picture
Posts: 459
Joined: 2006-10-06
User is offlineOffline
SilkyShrew wrote:Not always,

SilkyShrew wrote:
Not always, in fact many women who seek abortions don't see the fetus as necesarily harming them, they simply see it as something they can't deal with or don't want. The may see the action they are taking as being the most sensible or responsible action, while still not really seeing it as a threat. Afterall, they are taking an action to prevent it from being a threat. So, I don't think that it is a case that the fetus is necesarily causing harm to her. In some cases, yes, it is a harm, but certainly not all.

If the mother owns her body, she has the exclusive absolute irresponsible right to decide what she does with her body...as long as that fetus is a part of her body, she owns it. Because she owns her body, she can decide that any part of it should be removed, including infected tonsils, and fetuses. In order for the fetus to be a person, the fetus must be able to act like a person and subject to all the rules a person is subject to. If the fetus is a person, it is a person that does not respect the ownership of the mother to her own body if the mother wants the fetus gone and the fetus does not comply. "Harm" is a word I used for any detrimental effects, which are not relevant, desiring to not have a fetus and having one, while having a method of removing it, could be such a kind of harm.

Quote:
Perhaps it was my mistake in regards to how I perceived what you were trying to express. Although, I still think that you are wrong even on an ethical basis.

I believe we should carry on the discussion of home defense and use of force in another thread, I believe the discussion is hijacking this thread. Would you like to make another thread for this and continue the discussion there?

Quote:
Perhaps have another go then.

None come to mind at the moment, I'm afraid. I might just continue arguing without analogies.


nedbrek
Theist
Posts: 195
Joined: 2006-12-08
User is offlineOffline
SilkyShrew wrote:nedbrek

SilkyShrew wrote:
nedbrek wrote:
The argument comes down to the value of human life. I assert than human life has infinite value, and begins at conception.

Just asserting something doesn't make your argument valid.

Certainly, I'm sorry if it seemed that way. You are free to acknowledge or deny my assertion, and provide your own.

SilkyShrew wrote:

Actually, I'm skeptical of your infinite value idea. I admit that I have limits to the value I place on my own life. I value the lives of my daughters, for example, above my own. I have valued the lives of others in my life over my own as well. So clearly I don't value my own life infinitely. I also find that others are the same way. So clearly this statement about people valuing their own lives infinitely is false.

You are comparing values of infinity, a difficult science, at best.

SilkyShrew wrote:

There are different forms of value to things than economic value. I wouldn't say that using economy as a determinant alone in this issue is a wise idea.

I am unfamiliar with quantifiable forms of valuation besides economics. I would appreciate pointers to other systems.

SilkyShrew wrote:

Quote:
Animals (the product of non-human genes) have a given economic value. We have agreed upon conventions to limit animal suffering.

Have we? I'm not sure I agree with how you approach the suffering of other animals in the same way that I do, so I couldn't possibly confirm this.

Sorry, by "we" I meant "Western society". We do not allow people to torture or fail to provide for animals. If an animal must be slaughtered for food, or put down; we dictate it be done in the most quick and least painful manner.


nedbrek
Theist
Posts: 195
Joined: 2006-12-08
User is offlineOffline
Zhwazi wrote: If the mother

Zhwazi wrote:

If the mother owns her body, she has the exclusive absolute irresponsible right to decide what she does with her body...as long as that fetus is a part of her body, she owns it.

I object to the assertion that one human being can own another in modern society. I am not even certain "ownership" is the right term for our own bodies... I would prefer "responsibility" or "stewardship".


SilkyShrew
Rational VIP!
SilkyShrew's picture
Posts: 147
Joined: 2006-02-11
User is offlineOffline
Zhwazi wrote:SilkyShrew

Zhwazi wrote:
SilkyShrew wrote:
If the mother owns her body, she has the exclusive absolute irresponsible right to decide what she does with her body...as long as that fetus is a part of her body, she owns it. Because she owns her body, she can decide that any part of it should be removed, including infected tonsils, and fetuses.

I can agree with most of this statement, although I'm uncertain of your use of the word "irresponsible," but ok. I am pro-choice, I'm simply questioning some of the points that you have made in justifying your own stance.

Quote:
In order for the fetus to be a person, the fetus must be able to act like a person and subject to all the rules a person is subject to.

Since I base my stance on capcities for suffering and social values, then I generally don't bother with the question of if it is a "person" or not. I tend to think that the "person" argument is an extension of the "is it human?" argument, although a tad more vague.

Quote:
If the fetus is a person, it is a person that does not respect the ownership of the mother to her own body if the mother wants the fetus gone and the fetus does not comply.

Fetuses are incapeable of "respect." I think this is a bit of an absurd statement, really. It seems to imply an expectation that a fetus comply to ownership laws or ideals. I'm more inclined to think that the fetus should have nothing expected of it.

Quote:
"Harm" is a word I used for any detrimental effects, which are not relevant, desiring to not have a fetus and having one, while having a method of removing it, could be such a kind of harm.

I don't see a good reason to redefine the word in order to make a statement about this issue. Regardless of if the fetus is or is not causing harm, the woman should still own the choice of abortion if she is so inclined. There's no need of trying to build a case for harm being done or to alter the definition of what harm is in order to make such a case.

Quote:
I believe we should carry on the discussion of home defense and use of force in another thread, I believe the discussion is hijacking this thread. Would you like to make another thread for this and continue the discussion there?

I'm not really that interested in such a debate - I simply disagree with your stance as I'm aware of how such a stance could ultimately be maladaptive. If you'd like a discussion on the topic, you can start a thread, but I'm not gonna guarantee my participation because it is not of immediate interest.

Quote:

None come to mind at the moment, I'm afraid. I might just continue arguing without analogies.

ok


SilkyShrew
Rational VIP!
SilkyShrew's picture
Posts: 147
Joined: 2006-02-11
User is offlineOffline
nedbrek wrote:SilkyShrew

nedbrek wrote:
SilkyShrew wrote:
Just asserting something doesn't make your argument valid.

Certainly, I'm sorry if it seemed that way. You are free to acknowledge or deny my assertion, and provide your own.

I've presented ample information, there's no need for me to make a blind assertion to support my stance. I would much rather support my stance on the basis of things I can varify.

Quote:
You are comparing values of infinity, a difficult science, at best.

You claimed that people valued their own lives infinately, I gave reasons why this was not the case. There's a clear limit on the value most place on their own lives. Are you trying to redefine "infinity" in order to support your stance?

Quote:
I am unfamiliar with quantifiable forms of valuation besides economics. I would appreciate pointers to other systems.

Social values and neurological deveopments of the fetus ... I've mentioned this before.

Quote:
Sorry, by "we" I meant "Western society". We do not allow people to torture or fail to provide for animals. If an animal must be slaughtered for food, or put down; we dictate it be done in the most quick and least painful manner.

Actually, this is still very much in debate in the legal system and politics, people are continuously fighting for more lee-way while others fight for more restrictions, we've hardly reached an agreement.


Scythian
Posts: 10
Joined: 2006-10-09
User is offlineOffline
Abortion is murder

Indeed, my wording was a bit incorrect. I just don't think people should replace the common contraceptives with abortion. Also thanks for the comment, who is to say you should limit abortion?

Why should we take advice on sex from the pope? If he knows anything about it, he shouldn't. ~George Bernard Shaw


Zhwazi
Zhwazi's picture
Posts: 459
Joined: 2006-10-06
User is offlineOffline
nedbrek wrote:I object to

nedbrek wrote:
I object to the assertion that one human being can own another in modern society.

If the fetus is a person, the fetus has all the obligations that come with being a person, including respecting others' property rights. If it's not a person, then whether it is human or not is completely irrelevant.

Quote:
I am not even certain "ownership" is the right term for our own bodies... I would prefer "responsibility" or "stewardship".

Ah...because somebody else actually "owns" it and they just lend it to us to take care of...what's his name? God?

SilkyShrew wrote:
I can agree with most of this statement, although I'm uncertain of your use of the word "irresponsible," but ok.

Well if I let you borrow something, I'm giving you absolute control over it, but you're still responsible to me for it. If you let someone borrow it and tell them they don't have to bring it back in decent shape or at all, then you're giving it to them as property.

Quote:
Since I base my stance on capcities for suffering and social values, then I generally don't bother with the question of if it is a "person" or not. I tend to think that the "person" argument is an extension of the "is it human?" argument, although a tad more vague.

My idea of person doesn't necessarily mean human nor human necessarily mean person. If aliens came down on earth, I'd say they have all the rights any person has, despite not being human, they would be "people" in my eyes (provided they didn't attack us). I also contend that if someone tries to kill you, they are giving up all their rights to life, liberty, and property, which is why it's just to kill in self-defense. Basically my criteria for personhood are self-awareness and respect for ownership, since that gives you self-ownership, which is where the rights of life, liberty, and property come from.

Quote:
Fetuses are incapeable of "respect." I think this is a bit of an absurd statement, really. It seems to imply an expectation that a fetus comply to ownership laws or ideals. I'm more inclined to think that the fetus should have nothing expected of it.

I agree, which is why I think a fetus isn't a person. It is incapable of understanding or respecting property rights, and so it's in no place to be able to demand any rights, including the right to life, which people have.

Quote:
I don't see a good reason to redefine the word in order to make a statement about this issue. Regardless of if the fetus is or is not causing harm, the woman should still own the choice of abortion if she is so inclined. There's no need of trying to build a case for harm being done or to alter the definition of what harm is in order to make such a case.

Meh. It's the word that jumped to mind. Sorry if it's confusing.


SilkyShrew
Rational VIP!
SilkyShrew's picture
Posts: 147
Joined: 2006-02-11
User is offlineOffline
Zhwazi wrote: Well if I let

Zhwazi wrote:

Well if I let you borrow something, I'm giving you absolute control over it, but you're still responsible to me for it. If you let someone borrow it and tell them they don't have to bring it back in decent shape or at all, then you're giving it to them as property.

Ok, now I'm completely confused as to where you were going with that, are you implying that we're borrowing fetuses?