Abortion??? anyone??

[r0beph]

And if you put a human in the vacuum of space, nothing you do is going to save them either, nothing. If you take a fish out of the water and put him on the dock, nothing you do is going to save it either. If you pull a corn seedling out of the ground, nothing you can do is going to save it either. The womb is that persons natural environment during that stage of it's development, so of course removing it from it's natural environment is going to kill it, but does that give you the right TO kill it? The fact is that even at 3 months, the child can feel pain, it has a heartbeat, and it has measurable brain activity, or in simpler terms, it's SENTIENT, and destroying that life for convenience is what is generally called MURDER.

Unborn children are far from sentient and your liberal use of its definition doesn't change that. They have the ability to "feel" pain as you say, but to them pain is no different than sight, than smell, it is all the same. It's like hearing a language you've never heard or learned, it makes as much sense as another unrelated language you've never heard or learned. We're not born with the ability to process sound, sight, feeling, these structures of the brain appear within the first year of postpartum life. But this does not denote sentience, it has the ability to become sentient, but is without a doubt not yet. Science flies in this attempted definition, we understand the brain and its function on thought and information processing a lot more than those trying to apply a spiritual morality to the abortion issue realize. Before birth, and even before a couple months postpartum, the child has zero memory, none. This is because none of the stimuli make sense, pain will show no difference in the child between it and being tickled, brain wise. We do have autonomic built in functions, such a muscle retraction (the jerk when you touch a hot plate you didn't realize was hot) thats unrelated to the actual processing of pain and is a genetic protection scheme, so it is not a valid "test" to see if the fetus can feel. go study up a bit on the subject of memory and its relation to stimuli and what makes us, us.

Putting a person in a vacuum is, by far, removed from the point I'm making. Of course we're reliant on atmosphere, this is a given, however atmosphere is not the property of someone else, as the body of a woman is hers. She has this right to separate child from her body, if the child cannot survive on its own, then sorry, its not biologically viable. No woman should be forced to use her body in a manner she doesn't want to. Regardless of your religious ideals, keep you bible out of her uterus.

 

[palerider]

Unborn children are far from sentient and your liberal use of its definition doesn't change that.

I understand. I get it. You would rather play at being the philosopher than take on the actual facts as they apply to abortion. When the facts are considered, you lose every time. That being the case, why do you believe that you would have any more success by attempting to philosophise a rational justification for killing a human being out of convenience. Even philosophers must operate in the realm of truth if they are to be effective.

At the root of it, personhood is the issue isn't it? No one on the pro choice side of the argument can make a rational argument that unborns aren't living human beings so eventually, you drag out personhood (or some equivilent) (sentience) in an attempt to make a pseudo credible argument justifying killing another human being for reasons that seldom amount to more than convenience.

It is possible via philosophical reasoning rationally answer the question of what is a person because we are persons and everyone around us are persons. It is possible to critically examinethe persons we see every day and determine whether a suggested definition of person adequately describes us.

If you look critically at some of the definitions of person that are advanced by the pro choice side of the argument, it is obviousthat most can be set aside right away without any real discussion because they simply do not mesh with our own experience of what being a person is or they are simply not applicable to the question of what it is to be a person.

First, we don't "get to be" persons because we become autonomous, or independent, or even viable. These characteristics can be dismissed out of hand as not being essential characteristics of personhood because we all know someone or of someone who lacks some or all of these characteristics to some degree or another. In fact, we all lack them to some degree or another. You may have to be viable to stay alive, for example but viability doesn't tell us anything at all about what it is that is staying alive and if you are going to argue philosopically, it is imperative that any prerequisite you care to demand must speak to the subject of the discussion.

Nearly all of the most popular definitions of personhood suggested by the pro choice side of the argument break down in principle, it must be clear to any critical thinker that it follows that they will also break down in practice. Failure to admit this disqualifies one as a critical thinker and identifies one as a hand wringing emotionalist. If we try to draw a line and say "beyond this point we are persons" we find rather quickly that there is no bright line in which we can say after this line we have characteristics X, Y, and Z but before this line we didn't. Unless of course, you want to limit yourself to some very arbitrary and superfical physical characteristics at which time, you enter the realm of the biological sciences and you want to argue philosophy to avoid the superior scientific argument do you not?

In attempting to set a time in which we "aquire" personhood, the pro choice side immediately enters the realm of logical fallacy. You must "beg the question". You must first assume that this aquisition of personhood happens at a time far enough along in the pregnancy so that abortion becomes a rational action and then try to construct an argument that proves whichever time you have arbitrarily set. This is a terribly flawed form of reasoning in either the scientific or philosophical arenas. The failure of the application of this rational tells us that we must first try and find the definition of personhood and then determine whether it is a thing that we aquire or not.

You suggest brain and or thinking. OK, lets go there. The potenital for reason and rational thought is a matter of kind. We either have it or we don't. Realization of reason and rational thought is always a matter of degree and we all realize it to different degrees and none of us reach the absolute limit of our potential. Agreed?

Working within that framework then, the work of being a "person" is not an issue of degree but of kind. Do you understand the difference between degree and kind? The sort of person you are is a matter of degree while what you are is a matter of kind. It is quite possible for you to be a better or worse person than someone else. You can be more or less ethical, or honest, but you simply can not be more of a person than someone else. To suggest so is nonsense.

The demand for some sort of actualization that the pro choice side argues for is based on the acknowledgement that the potenital for reason and rational thought is already there in each individual regardless of age. The pro choice side attempts to treat this as irrelavent, but if one is attempting to make a rational argument, then it simply must be acknowledged that we are all the same kind of entity as the unborn and that the adult is no more and no less than a grown up unborn. The pro choice side may argue that they are only asking that we all agree on some "reasonable" minimum qualification for personhood, but once again, in principle this demand breaks down.

The first sign of breakdown in principle is obvious on its face. The problem of having to name the degree of potential that must be achieved in order to be a person. Look about you among the various pro choicers. There simply is no agreement even among those on your side. The passion with which you hold your conviction is not a substitute for a rational explanation of why you may choose one point and another pro choicer may choose another. It also fails as reasonable substitute for a rational argument that higher and higher standards for personhood be met, even among post natals.

Then there are those who attempt to avoid the inevetable arguments by engaging the question of realizing potential as a sort of ticket to personhood. That is to say that they argue that we must reach a certain level in order to be considered a person, but once we are there, injury or illness that might bring us below that level will not "un-person" us. In this manner, they attempt to restrict the debate to those who are yet to be born. Again, to a critical thinker, this line of reasoning fails in that it attempts to change degree into kind but doesn't allow kind to be changed back to degree.

This line of thinking ignores what is required to be a person and focuses instead on what is required to "get to be" a person. This is a dead end because even if you conceed that more is required to get to be a person than is required to remain a person then we are necessarily brought back to what is to be required to remain a person after one has achieved personhood. Such arguments would fail to oppose infantacide in a great many cases and would fail to oppose killing of older individuals in just as many cases.

The logic in introducing degree into the definition of person rather than kind is simply flawed. Our rights are founded on the kind of being that we are, not the degree to which we achieve our potential. The extent to which we are different from each other in degree is not the source of our rights. It is nothing more than evidence of differences in our ability to exercise our rights and we all know that there is no requirement to exercise a right in order to have it none the less.

If the philosophical concept of what is a person refers to anything at all, it refers to something that doesn't need to be proven over and over. The essence of the person is something that is inbred. It is not something that we aquire somewhere along the line. Things that are aquired can be lost and may or may not be regained again. The fact that you are a person and can not lose that personhood no matter what may befall you is evidence that it is not an aquisition that you can lose. It is simply what you are.

It simply isn't rational to argue that non persons change into persons. To make such an argument is to argue that we undergo a radical and essential change in our natures during the span of our lives.

The problem with that thinking is that if the change is inevetable from the time we are concieved if given time then the change is not a change in our essential nature. If we initiate the change from within ourselves then it must be in our nature from the beginning and any changes in characteristics like independence, or where we live, or the amount of physical development we have achieved or how much mental capacity we have later in our lives is nothing more than a manifestation of what we were at the beginning of our life.

 

[Federal Farmer]

Unborn children are far from sentient and your liberal use of its definition doesn't change that.

Well, let's test that hypothesis, shall we?

They have the ability to "feel" pain as you say, but to them pain is no different than sight, than smell, it is all the same. It's like hearing a language you've never heard or learned, it makes as much sense as another unrelated language you've never heard or learned. We're not born with the ability to process sound, sight, feeling, these structures of the brain appear within the first year of postpartum life. But this does not denote sentience, it has the ability to become sentient, but is without a doubt not yet. Science flies in this attempted definition, we understand the brain and its function on thought and information processing a lot more than those trying to apply a spiritual morality to the abortion issue realize. Before birth, and even before a couple months postpartum, the child has zero memory, none. This is because none of the stimuli make sense, pain will show no difference in the child between it and being tickled, brain wise. We do have autonomic built in functions, such a muscle retraction (the jerk when you touch a hot plate you didn't realize was hot) thats unrelated to the actual processing of pain and is a genetic protection scheme, so it is not a valid "test" to see if the fetus can feel. go study up a bit on the subject of memory and its relation to stimuli and what makes us, us.

Perhaps it is you who should "study up a bit", because according to my copy of Taber's Cyclopedic Medical Dictionary, Sentience means "capable of perceiving sensation. SYN: sensitive.", and therefore has nothing to do with higher brain functions, and utterly contradicts your claim that "Science flies in this attempted definition". The fact that the child can feel ANYTHING, and moves away from "negative sensation" is all the proof of sentience that is needed.

Putting a person in a vacuum is, by far, removed from the point I'm making. Of course we're reliant on atmosphere, this is a given, however atmosphere is not the property of someone else, as the body of a woman is hers.

But it is PRECISELY the point. If you remove ANY organism from it's natural environment, it WILL die. The womb is the natural environment of the child at that stage of it's development just as a pond of water is the natural environment of a tadpole before it develops into a fully developed frog, so again, your "point" simply fails to pass the "smell test".

She has this right to separate child from her body, if the child cannot survive on its own, then sorry, its not biologically viable.
No woman should be forced to use her body in a manner she doesn't want to.

It has nothing with what she "wants" to do, the fact of the matter is that this is precisely what her body is designed to DO. ALL females are "nurseries" for bringing forth the young of whatever species that the female happens to be, and her "personal choice" has no bearing in that. The fact of the matter is that with human females, she has surrendered any "choice" in the matter the moment she VOLUNTARILY engaged in coitus, because it is by that very action that she has VOLUNTEERED to become the nursery for that child.

Regardless of your religious ideals, keep you bible out of her uterus.

I wondered how long it was going to take for someone to throw that Red Herring out there. My "religious" beliefs have nothing to do with this, and neither does the Bible, especially since abortion isn't mentioned in the Bible, and I have not mentioned either religion, or the Bible.

The fact of the matter is that abortion is a disgusting attempt to abrogate responsibilities for her own actions at the cost of another persons life, and is no different than someone killing someone else to prevent them from being able to testify against them in order to avoid prison.

 

[palerider]

It has nothing with what she "wants" to do, the fact of the matter is that this is precisely what her body is designed to DO. ALL females are "nurseries" for bringing forth the young of whatever species that the female happens to be, and her "personal choice" has no bearing in that. The fact of the matter is that with human females, she has surrendered any "choice" in the matter the moment she VOLUNTARILY engaged in coitus, because it is by that very action that she has VOLUNTEERED to become the nursery for that child.

Before he brings out that old saw about having a "right" to separate a dependent entity from one's body, perhaps he should review the laws with regard to conjoined twins. Doctors may not separate twins in which one will die due to shared organs and such unless the one who is sharing organs is going to die unless one is separated. In short, in cases where they share organs, the only valid reason to separate them is for the self defense of the one upon whom the other is dependent.

And pro choicers find that the must inject religion into the argument. If you argue religion, then your argument is as invalid as their own.

 

[Dawkinsrocks]

Potential people are radically different from actual people.

Nobody in their right mind would describe a few cells as a person.

Not that many pro-lifers are in their right mind as evidenced by how many of them love the killing of actual people in war and execution.

 

[Libsmasher]

At the root of it, personhood is the issue isn't it? No one on the pro choice side of the argument can make a rational argument that unborns aren't living human beings so eventually, you drag out personhood (or some equivilent) (sentience) in an attempt to make a pseudo credible argument justifying killing another human being for reasons that seldom amount to more than convenience.

This hits the target on the bullseye.

Once the pro-abortionists finesse the issue with this "personhood" construct, it will eventually be used elsewhere. How much "personhood" (in their reckoning) does a downs syndrome child have? Does a severly retarded person have "personhood"? How about the extremely elderly - any "personhood" there? After that, who else will have their "personhood" (and themselves) cancelled?

 

[dahermit]

And pro choicers find that the must inject religion into the argument. If you argue religion, then your argument is as invalid as their own.

First, let me say that I have been monitoring your posts on this issue for several months and you make an excellent argument that the Constitution establishes human rights at conception. Nevertheless, the constitution says and means what the supreme court says it means; they are the only ones that are the recognized entity with that authority. Therefore, if you persist in your debate that the constitution means other than what the court established in Roe V. Wade, there must be some other reason why this particular issue evokes so much passion with you.

I have observed in your posts and those of many others who are not in agreement with Roe V. Wade, refer to the fetus as being "innocent", and references to the willingness of a woman to have the sex that resulted in the conception of a child. This begs the questions: What is the fetus "innocent" of? Sin, perhaps?

Why is the mother less innocent than an unborn fetus? Is it because she had dirty, filthy sex for the purpose of personal pleasure instead of for the purpose of conceiving a child?

Sex of any kind, for any reason, no matter how perverted, is not a "sin" outside the context of religion. Therefore, anti-abortionists frequently inject religion into this argument also, but they are just more subtle about it.

 

[Dawkinsrocks]

And a feotus is not a baby or a child but you keep rolling out this ludicrously emotive language to prop up your ridiculous and hypocritical views.

I don't see many pro-ligers campaigning to stop the US killing innocent actual people in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Oops forgot. They aren't American and only American lives count.

 

[Libsmasher]

First, let me say that I have been monitoring your posts on this issue for several months and you make an excellent argument that the Constitution establishes human rights at conception. Nevertheless, the constitution says and means what the supreme court says it means; they are the only ones that are the recognized entity with that authority. Therefore, if you persist in your debate that the constitution means other than what the court established in Roe V. Wade, there must be some other reason why this particular issue evokes so much passion with you.

Do you grasp that the Sacred Supreme Court can be and has been wrong? Was Plessy v. Feguson what "the constitution says and means"? So once the USSC makes a BIG, COLOSSAL, KING-SIZED ERROR, particularly one so ill-reasoned that it's logic has even been criticized by liberals, everyone should just fall in line and suck it up like well-programmed robots?

 

[Dawkinsrocks]

Actually Libs

You may not be aware but the strongest argument for abortion is you.

 

[dahermit]

Do you grasp that the Sacred Supreme Court can be and has been wrong? Was Plessy v. Feguson what "the constitution says and means"? So once the USSC makes a BIG, COLOSSAL, KING-SIZED ERROR, particularly one so ill-reasoned that it's logic has even been criticized by liberals, everyone should just fall in line and suck it up like well-programmed robots?

Do you grasp that the Constitution means what the Supreme Court says it means? By that definition, no they cannot be wrong. We have no choice in the matter. Unless that is, you want to hold your breath until they see that you are not going to stand for it. Asleep during Government class?

 

[r0beph]

Actually Libs

You may not be aware but the strongest argument for abortion is you.

Let's not resort to this...he does it, but don't you too.

It has nothing with what she "wants" to do, the fact of the matter is that this is precisely what her body is designed to DO. ALL females are "nurseries" for bringing forth the young of whatever species that the female happens to be, and her "personal choice" has no bearing in that. The fact of the matter is that with human females, she has surrendered any "choice" in the matter the moment she VOLUNTARILY engaged in coitus, because it is by that very action that she has VOLUNTEERED to become the nursery for that child.

It has everything to do with what SHE wants. Also to justify my "philosophy" with our American way, let me quote the Declaration of Independance...

that all men are created equal, and endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights - among which are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness,

All men are indeed equals, and men in this generic term includes women. A woman feels she does not wish to have a child, so she opts for termination. The argument then arises that this child does not have the choice of pursuing happiness. But alas, the child cannot pursue happiness, since as a fetus it has NO CONCEPT of happiness, it has no concept of anything and thus, her right to this supersedes that of the intangible, and what is suggest as nonexistent, consciousness. Your arguments revolve around the right of a non conscious life form in lieu of the right of a conscious and able minded individual. Let's take for example a comatose victim, is it right to pull the plug? If so, why, if not, why not? It is the termination of a "human" life as you call the fetus, it differs only in age, but not in what it is as a person.

Volunteering is never a forced choice, and by your very words the use of her internal organs to support a fetus is purely voluntary, she has the right to cease the voluntary use thereof.

 

[palerider]

Potential people are radically different from actual people.

Nobody in their right mind would describe a few cells as a person.

Not that many pro-lifers are in their right mind as evidenced by how many of them love the killing of actual people in war and execution.

I can provide plenty of credible science that says explicitly that unborns at any stage of development are living human beings. My bet is that you can't bring out squat, beyond your own uneducated opinion to argue that the offspring of two human beings is ever anything other than a living human being.

That you are intellectually unable to wrap your mind around the facts does nothing at all to alter the facts. Your denial of hard science is a product of your own intellectual limitations and has no bearing at all upon what is.

 

[Dawkinsrocks]

Hmm, you sound level headed.

So let me get this straight, when the sperm meets the egg a human being instantly springs into existence

A couple of cells, with no brain is a human being?

Is that what you think?

 

[palerider]

First, let me say that I have been monitoring your posts on this issue for several months and you make an excellent argument that the Constitution establishes human rights at conception. Nevertheless, the constitution says and means what the supreme court says it means; they are the only ones that are the recognized entity with that authority. Therefore, if you persist in your debate that the constitution means other than what the court established in Roe V. Wade, there must be some other reason why this particular issue evokes so much passion with you.

It is very clear that you have never read the roe case. I agree with you that it is up to the supreme court to determine what the constitution says. There are certain things, however, that are not up to the supreme court.

Take a look sometime at the majority decision from roe v wade. There is no decision there that gives a woman the right to kill another human being. Here is how the unborn child is spoken of in roe v wade:

Such an action, however, would appear to be one to vindicate the parents' interest and is thus consistent with the view that the fetus, at most, represents only the potentiality of life.[/I]



"Though the State cannot override that right, it has legitimate interests in protecting both the pregnant woman's health and the potentiality of human life, each of which interests grows and reaches a "compelling" point at various stages of the woman's approach to term." Pp. 147-164.

For the stage subsequent to viability the State, in promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life, may, if it chooses, regulate, and even proscribe, abortion except where necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother. Pp. 163-164; 164-165.

In assessing the State's interest, recognition may be given to the less rigid claim that as long as at least potential life is involved, the State may assert interests beyond the protection of the pregnant woman alone.

The Court's decisions recognizing a right of privacy also acknowledge that some state regulation in areas protected by that right is appropriate. As noted above, a State may properly assert important interests in safeguarding health, in maintaining medical standards, and in protecting potential life.

Those striking down state laws have generally scrutinized the State's interests in protecting health and potential life, and have concluded that neither interest justified broad limitations on the reasons for which a physician and his pregnant patient might decide that she should have an abortion in the early stages of pregnancy

As we have intimated above, it is reasonable and appropriate for a State to decide that at some point in time another interest, that of health of the mother or that of potential human life, becomes significantly involved.

We repeat, however, that the State does have an important and legitimate interest in preserving and protecting the health of the pregnant woman, whether she be a resident of the State or a nonresident who seeks medical consultation and treatment there, and that it has still another important and legitimate interest in protecting the potentiality of human life.

With respect to the State's important and legitimate interest in potential life, the "compelling" point is at viability.

The fact is that whenever the child was mentioned by the court, it was called a potential human life. In order to justify their decision, they had to assume that it was not a human being because they knew perfectly well that to admit that the child was alive and human was to admit that it was a living human being and in the eyes of the law, all living human beings are persons and all persons in this country are entitled to the protection of the 14th amendment.

If you went to court and sued to be allowed to raise chickens on your property and the court decided that yes, indeed, you have a right to raise chickens on your property and said as much in thier decision, do you believe that gives you the right to raise ducks? You have a right to do what the court says you can do, but no particular right at all to do something that the court has not even addressed.

The court said that a woman has the right to end a "potential human life". If the court says that a woman has the right to end a "potential human life" I would have to agree. It isn't "potential human lives" however, that women are terminating when they have abortions. They are killing living human beings. If you want to justify the decision, you are going to have to show, in some real way, that unborns are only "potential human lives".

I have observed in your posts and those of many others who are not in agreement with Roe V. Wade, refer to the fetus as being "innocent", and references to the willingness of a woman to have the sex that resulted in the conception of a child. This begs the questions: What is the fetus "innocent" of? Sin, perhaps?

When I say innocent, I mean that the child has done nothnig for which its life should be forfiet. As opposed to a knife wielding junkie who says he is going to kill you. I have never argued that a woman shouldn't have the right to terminate a pregnancy in self defense if said pregnancy is an imminent threat to her life.

Why is the mother less innocent than an unborn fetus? Is it because she had dirty, filthy sex for the purpose of personal pleasure instead of for the purpose of conceiving a child?

Maybe you have a reading comprehension problem. Do feel free to bring any post from me that even suggests such a line of thinking.

Sex of any kind, for any reason, no matter how perverted, is not a "sin" outside the context of religion. Therefore, anti-abortionists frequently inject religion into this argument also, but they are just more subtle about it.

I don't argue sin. I argue human rights and the law. I can see why you would want to get away from the superior arguments of human rights and the law into a theological discussion where no one's argument is any more powerful than the other but, alas, such is not the case.