GOP: Abortion

[faila]

note: The following is a different aproach to this topic, its is about american politics, so if you are not american you may not understand it.


Roe Vs. Wade that most publicized and well known supreme court decision ever said that no state could make a law against abortion, that it was in essence unconstitutional. Where did they get this from?
They said from the right to privacy, the14th amendment to the constitution which says nothing about a right to privacy.
Here and i quote from the constitution:
"All persons born or naturalized un the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the united states and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privelidges or immunities of citizens of the united states; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty or property without due process of law (faila: warrants) nor deny any person within it jurisdiction the equal protection of the law"

That is the first part of this amendment, and the part used by the supreme court decision, it was ratified in 1868.

Roe vs Wade happened in 1973 with 46 states have to change laws to fit the court decision.

There are two points from this:
1. there is nothing about privacy in that amendment (except for the part of a warrant), and in truth would an amendment on privacy allow abortion?
2. At the time of the passing of that ammendment abortion was illegal in many states, so obviously the amendment was not intended to give the right of abortion.

Therefore my conclusion is this:
The supreme court overstepped its bounds and gave a faulty decision, Abortion should be up to individual states, according to the tenth amendment (states rights).

Yes I did my research thoroughly and yes i have returned.

[Eriol]

A piece of information: since 1973 there have been approximately 39 million abortions in the US. (Information gleaned from a pro-choice site).

39 million.

Welcome back faila.

[Lúthien Séregon]

Welcome back faila! Sorry I haven't responded in a while, I've had a lot of tests and exams lately.

And that's my point. What changes is the classification of what is murder and what is not, not the FACT that murder is wrong.

But when the classification of murder varies, then what is the point of arguing whether or not murder is wrong? My original point was, abortion IS NOT murder.

This can be shown in your own case. If you were absolutely convinced that abortion is murder, would you think it is all right nonetheless? Would you say "Ok, it is murder, but it is right for a woman to do it"? I guess not, and no culture ever agreed with that.

And another thing, do you agree with the death penalty for criminals? Because that's clearly killing, but under the US law it's okay for the government to do it, if the criminal has broken certain laws in the US. When there are inconsistencies like this, it becomes clear that some cultures do disagree even on the point of whether or not it is right to kill certain people.

We're going to get nowhere with this argument if we sidetrack on what countries think of murder or what is truth: it's obvious that we're both going to argue about what we think of truth, when in fact, considering abortion, the argument is about whether or not the "killing" of a fetus is "murder". Reason is not something that can resolve this argument when the central argument is really almost solely based around whether or not a fetus is living.

[Eriol]

Originally posted by Lúthien Séregon
But when the classification of murder varies, then what is the point of arguing whether or not murder is wrong? My original point was, abortion IS NOT murder.

Well and good, but your secondary point was that morality is subjective. As you say, "what is the point of arguing whether or not murder is wrong?" -- right, there is no point in arguing that, because murder IS wrong. Objectively wrong. No amount of wishful thinking by any person or culture will change that.

And another thing, do you agree with the death penalty for criminals? Because that's clearly killing, but under the US law it's okay for the government to do it, if the criminal has broken certain laws in the US. When there are inconsistencies like this, it becomes clear that some cultures do disagree even on the point of whether or not it is right to kill certain people.

Ah, now you touch on a delicate spot. I don't agree with the death penalty. But you will have to deal with the definition of murder in dictionaries, Lúthien, which is probably something like "killing an innocent human being". I don't like this distinction between murder and killing, and if you opened a thread about it I'd explain why, but in the Abortion thread you must concede that if the fetus is a human being, he is certainly innocent. And therefore killing him is certainly murder -- IF he is a human being. Completely different from the case of the death penalty, because of the "innocence" subject.

We're going to get nowhere with this argument if we sidetrack on what countries think of murder or what is truth: it's obvious that we're both going to argue about what we think of truth, when in fact, considering abortion, the argument is about whether or not the "killing" of a fetus is "murder". Reason is not something that can resolve this argument when the central argument is really almost solely based around whether or not a fetus is living. [/B]

"What is truth" -- a side track? What is the point of arguing if we don't believe that we will reach truth by it? Don't you think that there is a chance that you will realize you are wrong, or a chance that I will realize I am wrong? If you don't admit that an argument can lead to truth, I can't understand what you are doing here...

:confused:

So now you address the question of whether or not the fetus is alive. Why do you think reason can't help us in that matter? Can't we detect the differences between dead and alive with our reason?

You are the one going into sidetracks, Lúthien. Reason can help us -- that is a given. Otherwise we might as well stop arguing.

(Though I hope we won't).

This sentence of yours:

the central argument is really almost solely based around whether or not a fetus is living.

leads one to think that if it was PROVEN that the fetus is living, then you'd agree that abortion is murder. That you already accept the human status of the fetus, IF he is alive. Is that perception of mine correct?

If it is, we can proceed to the proof...

:D

[Lúthien Séregon]

Going into a conversation about the nature of truth in itself is a side-track considering that in this debate, truth is dependant on point of view...and I think that a fetus is a non-human until old enough to live independant of the mother ( and that counts premature babies ).

leads one to think that if it was PROVEN that the fetus is living, then you'd agree that abortion is murder. That you already accept the human status of the fetus, IF he is alive. Is that perception of mine correct?

Almost solely based ;)

Back onto this "proof" of the "life of the fetus"...If you were to say that an embryo/fetus is human from conception ( and therefore has the same rights as the mother ), well then why isn't contraception being debated as murder or not? That's killing a would-be fetus ( or even an already-formed embryo in some caes ).

Also, let's think about a fetus having the same status as the mother...the mother is a human being with rights, feelings, emotions, and a place in society, correct? A fetus is a collection of cells that leeches off the mother, has no emotions, cannot think, has no place in society ( you can't exactly relate to a fetus ) and never has, has no experiences whatsoever, and can't do anything for itself ( it can't even breathe )...how on earth people can think of a fetus as having the same rights as the mother is beyond me. They're just not comparable.

[Eriol]

Originally posted by Lúthien Séregon
Going into a conversation about the nature of truth in itself is a side-track considering that in this debate, truth is dependant on point of view...and I think that a fetus is a non-human until old enough to live independant of the mother ( and that counts premature babies ).

Not truth is dependent on a point of view -- the perception of truth is dependent on it. Otherwise truth is not true. How can it be true if it changes with the observer?

Back onto this "proof" of the "life of the fetus"...If you were to say that an embryo/fetus is human from conception ( and therefore has the same rights as the mother ), well then why isn't contraception being debated as murder or not? That's killing a would-be fetus ( or even an already-formed embryo in some caes ).

That's the point of argument. Killing a "would-be human" (like an egg) is acceptable, killing a human is not. We do not propose outlawing menstruation.

As for contraception after conception, you got it right -- it's murder if the embryo is already human. How can one possible murder justify another possible murder? We have to examine whether the embryo is or not already human to decide on that. You can't justify abortion by offering contraception as an example if they are both murder.

Also, let's think about a fetus having the same status as the mother...the mother is a human being with rights, feelings, emotions, and a place in society, correct? A fetus is a collection of cells that leeches off the mother, has no emotions, cannot think, has no place in society ( you can't exactly relate to a fetus ) and never has, has no experiences whatsoever, and can't do anything for itself ( it can't even breathe )...how on earth people can think of a fetus as having the same rights as the mother is beyond me. They're just not comparable.

And you reached the same point Legolam had reached, even listing similar characteristics.

"A collection of cells" -- aren't we all?
"leeches off the mother" -- I know a lot of people in that category :D
"has no emotions" -- is emotions what make us human?
"cannot think" -- is thinking what makes us human?
"has no place in society" -- that is the precise definition of a criminal, you know.

And so on.

Let me skip a step in our discussion. Let's assume that one has to have all of those characteristics, simultaneously, to be human. What if he is missing one? A person can be asleep, or in a coma, or dependent on a machine, or autistic (i.e. with hardly any emotions, probably less than those of a fetus), or... etc. Is it more acceptable to kill them? You see, if you ascribe "humanness" to a series of characteristics, a person lacking one of them is lacking something is humanness. He is "less human". But in practice, and in your case too, I believe, people do not think of them as "less human". Why? Are they mistaken?

Is humanness an "all-or-nothing" deal?

That's the main question you must answer.

There are other important "side-tracks", as you call them, mostly the nature of potentiality and the origin of "rights". But let's take one thing at a time.

P.S. "Almost solely based"... that means that you would be "almost convinced" that abortion is murder, right?

Well, for me, to be "almost convinced" that something is murder is enough to avoid it.

[Lúthien Séregon]

As for contraception after conception, you got it right -- it's murder if the embryo is already human. How can one possible murder justify another possible murder? We have to examine whether the embryo is or not already human to decide on that. You can't justify abortion by offering contraception as an example if they are both murder. - Ah, but I don’t think contraception is murder at all, same with abortion. I was just wondering why no-one had put forward the argument about contraception if they are supposedly in the same category. Also, it's not as if "morning after" pills are about to be outlawed as well...

And you reached the same point Legolam had reached, even listing similar characteristics.
"A collection of cells" -- aren't we all? - Fully formed human cells
"leeches off the mother" -- I know a lot of people in that category - literally?
"has no emotions" -- is emotions what make us human? - It is a part of being human
"cannot think" -- is thinking what makes us human? - Ditto
"has no place in society"-- that is the precise definition of a criminal, you know. - Even a criminal has a place as an outlaw in a jail. But a fetus actually has no place existentially.

Let me skip a step in our discussion. Let's assume that one has to have all of those characteristics, simultaneously, to be human. What if he is missing one? - It's not that simple. Being human is not a case of a checklist, in which we can say, "oooh, one tick missing, okay, you're not human". Are you assuming that's what I'm saying?

A person can be asleep – For one thing, a person asleep is still functioning as a human, there is nothing less about a human asleep than one awake. To say that a person asleep is missing "intelligence as a human factor" is just nitpicking.

in a coma - Ditto. ( Also the person in the coma is not exactly infringing on someone else's health are they? )

dependent on a machine - Ditto.

autistic (i.e. with hardly any emotions, probably less than those of a fetus) – I have a few friends who are autistic, and I can say for certain that people with autism often have as many emotions and are even as intelligent as people without, from what I’ve seen. Also, you should read books by Temple Grandin or Donna Williams – Temple Grandin is autistic, yet she’s actually designed 1/3 of all cattle-handling facilities in the United States. Less emotions than a fetus, honestly :rolleyes:

Is it more acceptable to kill them? You see, if you ascribe "humanness" to a series of characteristics, a person lacking one of them is lacking something is humanness. – that’s why humanness can’t be ascribed in a series of characteristics, it’s common sense to recognize what is human and what is not. For the sake of this argument though, because otherwise we could come to no conclusion whatsoever because we'll continue on nitpicking at every word, there has to be some set “characteristics”, otherwise the same question of humanness will be constantly argued ( hence, the subjective truth ).

Is humanness an "all-or-nothing" deal? – no it isn’t. But a fetus isn’t even on the “scale of humanity” ( I’m not saying there is such a thing, but if there were to be characteristics of people listed, then let’s just think of them as a scale ).

P.S. "Almost solely based"... that means that you would be "almost convinced" that abortion is murder, right? – nope, but there are a few factors to consider. Namely, that a fetus isn’t considered to be human by the law anyway.

BTW, I'm using italics instead of quotes, because it's easier than having to type in the exact quotes in the box everytime.

[Eriol]

Originally posted by Lúthien Séregon
Ah, but I don’t think contraception is murder at all, same with abortion. I was just wondering why no-one had put forward the argument about contraception if they are supposedly in the same category. Also, it's not as if "morning after" pills are about to be outlawed as well...

Exactly. You don't think contraception after conception is murder, and you don't think abortion is murder -- I think both are. How can your pointing at one be of any help to the other in those circumstances? What if I said that"Morning after" pills should be just as outlawed as abortion? (I think that, by the way) It would not further the discussion one bit.

It's not that simple. Being human is not a case of a checklist, in which we can say, "oooh, one tick missing, okay, you're not human". Are you assuming that's what I'm saying?

It follows from what you said. If one must have all of the characteristics to be human, then one missing one of the characteristics is not human. You can explain it further if I misunderstood you.

A person can be asleep – For one thing, a person asleep is still functioning as a human, there is nothing less about a human asleep than one awake. To say that a person asleep is missing "intelligence as a human factor" is just nitpicking.

No, not nit-picking. It is just following your words. You have to have ALL of those characteristics, so if you lack one, you're not human, or you are a little bit less human.

autistic (i.e. with hardly any emotions, probably less than those of a fetus) – I have a few friends who are autistic, and I can say for certain that people with autism often have as many emotions and are even as intelligent as people without, from what I’ve seen. Also, you should read books by Temple Grandin or Donna Williams – Temple Grandin is autistic, yet she’s actually designed 1/3 of all cattle-handling facilities in the United States. Less emotions than a fetus, honestly :rolleyes:

Hehe. My knowledge about autism comes from the very book of Temple Grandin, as well as from one by Oliver Sacks. She says quite clearly how she had to learn about emotions, consciously learn about them, because she did not have any natural emotions at all, being a severe case. She says that she had to watch that funny curve in other people's faces which they called a smile, and deduce that it means a desirable state since people apparently enjoyed it.

No need for rolleyes there, my friend -- perhaps you should read her book again. "No emotions" is not an attack on autists, it's a simple description of their ailment. Who said anything about them being less intelligent? (Perhaps you should also read my post again, it seems).

Of course, there are mild cases of autism -- as well as severe cases. They all can be helped with proper care in childhood. But the fact remains -- an autist DOES NOT feel a lot of emotions, it is the very definition of autism. To a greater or lesser degree, perhaps; but all of them have trouble accessing their emotions.

Not only your objection to autism as an example was "nit-picking", it was also wrong -- according to Temple Grandin, which is quite obviously a clever woman and one of the most intriguing "success stories" I've ever heard.

Is it more acceptable to kill them? You see, if you ascribe "humanness" to a series of characteristics, a person lacking one of them is lacking something is humanness. – that’s why humanness can’t be ascribed in a series of characteristics, it’s common sense to recognize what is human and what is not. For the sake of this argument though, because otherwise we could come to no conclusion whatsoever because we'll continue on nitpicking at every word, there has to be some set “characteristics”, otherwise the same question of humanness will be constantly argued ( hence, the subjective truth ).

"Common sense". Tricky words. I agree that we have to agree on some definition. I'm using yours. It leads one to a conclusion that killing a sleeping person is less wrong than killing an awake person -- as well as infants, people in a coma, old people, etc. etc.

Sorry about it, but it's your definition, not mine -- and therefore it is your conclusion, not mine. My definition, with the according differences in conclusions, would be -- an human being is a material creature imbued with a soul by God. I could elaborate on it, if you want me to.

Is humanness an "all-or-nothing" deal? – no it isn’t. But a fetus isn’t even on the “scale of humanity” ( I’m not saying there is such a thing, but if there were to be characteristics of people listed, then let’s just think of them as a scale ).

It is NOT an all-or-nothing deal? Then there has to be a "scale of humanity". You contradict yourself in the same paragraph, Lúthien... take your time and think about it. Not being "all-or-nothing" means that some things are partially human. And that therefore it is not as bad to kill them as it is to kill full humans.

I know this sounds bad. But it follows from your definition. You can either change the definition; refute the reasoning; or agree with it, because changing logic itself is tricky.

I'll wait for your choice among those three options.

P.S.

Namely, that a fetus isn’t considered to be human by the law anyway.

Oh, Lúthien, I thought we had disposed of the legalistic argument... read back and you'll see it. Is a fetus human in Brazil and not human in Britain? Was a fetus human before 1973 in the U.S. and not human after that period?

Human law is completely irrelevant.

[HLGStrider]

BTW, I'm using italics instead of quotes, because it's easier than having to type in the exact quotes in the box everytime
I use copy and paste. . .that way I can be exact without too much trouble.

A baby needs someone to care for it. The only difference between it being physically attached and after birth is that there is an option on who. So if there wasn't an option on who, if no one could take the baby besides the mother or if the mother gave birth in the middle of the woods and then just walked away, would she be morally reasponsible?

A point on the breathing, emotions, thinking. . .

How do you know that a fetus does not have emotions or thinking? Are you in one's head? Abortion is allowed past the point where fetuses can sometime survive if born premature in most countries that allow abortion. It goes to reason then that, according to your logic, this baby born prematurely can be killed because it isn't human yet.

[faila]

it seems to me that if we dont know when life begins its safer to assume its at conception, so we dont accidentally murder.

[Lúthien Séregon]

What if I said that"Morning after" pills should be just as outlawed as abortion? (I think that, by the way) It would not further the discussion one bit.

It's just a bit strange how so many other circumstances that are almost the same as abortion are completely left out of the debate.

Sorry about it, but it's your definition, not mine -- and therefore it is your conclusion, not mine. My definition, with the according differences in conclusions, would be -- an human being is a material creature imbued with a soul by God. I could elaborate on it, if you want me to.

How do you know that a fetus does not have emotions or thinking? Are you in one's head?


Nope, that's not quite my conclusion. A sleeping human is still a human, as is an autistic human, a human in a coma, or a child in my view. I'll try looking at it backwards - what separates [i]all[i] of these from a fetus? Life experience perhaps. Or the fact that they've actually been formed into a human. A fetus hasn't.
Now even if there was such a thing as a God or a soul ( which is another debate altogether ), does a fetus actually have a soul? Do you remember actually having a soul as a fetus? No-one does. And also, do you think humans differ from animals in having a soul? A human fetus and an animal fetus are actually very similar, there's hardly any difference.

it seems to me that if we dont know when life begins its safer to assume its at conception, so we dont accidentally murder.

And risk the mother's dignity and wellbeing at the same time?

[Eriol]

Originally posted by Lúthien Séregon
It's just a bit strange how so many other circumstances that are almost the same as abortion are completely left out of the debate.

:confused:

do you think that the debate becomes better we mix those two concepts, abortion and contraception after conception? That's fine with me, but I always believed in "narrowing the scope of inquiry". However, if you think it is "almost the same as abortion", go ahead and mix them. As I said, both are murder to me (because of my definition of "humanness"). I don't see what advances can be brought to the debate from this addition, but if you really want to...


Nope, that's not quite my conclusion. A sleeping human is still a human, as is an autistic human, a human in a coma, or a child in my view. I'll try looking at it backwards - what separates all of these from a fetus? Life experience perhaps. Or the fact that they've actually been formed into a human. A fetus hasn't.

And so we ask again -- what is the thing that makes a sleeping human, an autistic human, or a comatose human, or a child, human? What is the quiddity, the essence? When I asked you this, you said it was consciousness, breathing, emotions, etc. etc. It seems you want to offer something else, for you are able to identify humans without consciousness, or experience, or emotions -- and still think of them as human. So it is not those characteristics that gives them their "humanness".

What is it, then?

Now even if there was such a thing as a God or a soul ( which is another debate altogether ), does a fetus actually have a soul? Do you remember actually having a soul as a fetus? No-one does. And also, do you think humans differ from animals in having a soul? A human fetus and an animal fetus are actually very similar, there's hardly any difference.

No kidding? ;) I offered a definition including a soul because your own definition was having problems, as the comatose/autistic/unconscious examples showed. If you don't believe there is such a thing as a soul, obviously my definition can't be the common definition for the discussion. So I will wait for another definition from you.

If you want to talk theology, we can discuss the soul -- do you want to? I thought the point here was defining "humanness". I think, for the sake of your position in the argument, that we should try to find a definition of "humanness" without invoking a soul, because if we ever do that, the abortion position becomes untenable.

Therefore, the definition involving a soul must be regarded as a "last resort" for both of us. If we can't find anything better, it's ok to use it -- and then abortion becomes clearly established as murder. But we don't have to go down that road now.

[Malbeth]

So it is not those characteristics that gives them their "humanness".

What is it, then?

You know Eriol, Luthien did give her new definition... the sleeping human, the autistic human, etc, all had "human experience". EDIT: Actually Luthien said life experience, but I think she meant human experience, or a dog would be human (and also a fetus, since he is "alive").END of EDIT

The problem of course with her new position is that until we know what "human" is we can't know what "human experience" is, and therefore we can't define a human as someone who has had "human experience".

As another definition, she offered the fact that they've actually been formed into a human.

Again, until you know what a human is, you can't say what being formed into a human is. You can't say your definition of "human" is "someone who has been formed into a human".

So, Luthien, try again :)

[Eriol]

Experience was among those characteristics she first listed... and someone (I think Elgee) pointed out that it meant that killing a child is better than killing an adult, and that killing an old person worse.

[Lúthien Séregon]

Actually Luthien said life experience, but I think she meant human experience, or a dog would be human (and also a fetus, since he is "alive")

No, I meant life experience ( and life experience isn't limited to human experience either, which explains the bit about the dog ). Now, since when does a fetus experience "life"? They don't at all.

And so we ask again -- what is the thing that makes a sleeping human, an autistic human, or a comatose human, or a child, human? What is the quiddity, the essence? When I asked you this, you said it was consciousness, breathing, emotions, etc. etc. It seems you want to offer something else, for you are able to identify humans without consciousness, or experience, or emotions -- and still think of them as human. So it is not those characteristics that gives them their "humanness".

Well, for one thing, your definition of all people with autism lacking emotions is wrong anyway, because I have friends who are autistic who have no problems accessing their emotions. I know that a lot of people with autism may have troubles accessing emotions, but to say they have no emotions whatsoever is a misunderstanding. A sleeping human still is actually alive ( no-one can deny that ), with thoughts and emotions ( even if they're not necessarily exercised ), and the same with the comatose human or the child. A fetus has nothing in common with all of these humans, it is literally a collection of cells with no characteristics of humanness whatsoever ( whether it be a soul or the characteristics evident in all people, or independence, or life experience, or anything ). A fetus is about as alive as a tonsil ( certainly has more in common with one than with a human :rolleyes: ) , until it's born. And when it's born, it's not a fetus ( hence, a fetus hasn't formed into a human at all ).

If you want to talk theology, we can discuss the soul -- do you want to? I thought the point here was defining "humanness". I think, for the sake of your position in the argument, that we should try to find a definition of "humanness" without invoking a soul, because if we ever do that, the abortion position becomes untenable.

The definition of the soul is, as I said, completely another matter altogether. So, it's best to leave the "soul" completely out of the debate altogether, I agree.

Therefore, the definition involving a soul must be regarded as a "last resort" for both of us. If we can't find anything better, it's ok to use it -- and then abortion becomes clearly established as murder. But we don't have to go down that road now.


So, if we can't come to any other conclusion, then we'll just automatically assume there's a God without a scrap of evidence or reasoning. There's more evidence that a fetus isn't alive than there is of a God.
:rolleyes:

[HLGStrider]

Ah. . .that last statement of yours. Sometimes I wish CS Lewis were still alive to argue that with you. . .Often and not just with you actually.

That isn't exactly true. I don't see that any of your 'evidence' is very good, and several top scientists in the past (such as Einstein) chose to believe in a god because they saw too much design in the universe to believe otherwise.

If we can't define humanity with anything but a soul then our choices are to either give up because we don't have anything to argue about or just say that humanity is nothing, a more intelligent animal.

Why should life experience make a difference?

There is very much similarity between a human embryo and a animal one, but there is also a lot of simularity between a man and an ape. . . if you only look at the physical side. Since we cannot see into the embryos mind you have to guess as to whether they are simular there.

[Eriol]

Originally posted by Lúthien Séregon

So, if we can't come to any other conclusion, then we'll just automatically assume there's a God without a scrap of evidence or reasoning. There's more evidence that a fetus isn't alive than there is of a God.
:rolleyes:

"there is more evidence that a fetus isn't alive"...

uh?

If we kill him, how can he be not alive?

What does "alive" mean to you, Lúthien?

:confused:

"A sleeping human is still alive, no one can deny that". Sure. But does it mean that your argument is that the fetus is not alive?

That is a new take, and so weird that I want to make sure I'm understanding you correctly. The fetus is not alive in your view?

As for emotions, experience, etc., we come back to the "all-or-nothing" question, which you have already answered in the negative. So: if it is NOT all-or-nothing, then one with MORE experience is more valuable than one with less. It is MORE wrong to kill an old man than an adult, and more wrong to kill an adult than a child.

Is that what you think?

[faila]

what is a human? what makes someone a human? Is it thought? Is it memory? Is it having the right number of chromosomes? Or is it something that cant really be explained exactly?

Its not thought because there are human incapable of though. Its not memory, new born babies have no memory capabilities yet they are humans. Other species have the same amount of chromosomes. In my opinion it is something else, something that cant be explained that makes one human. It something else. The best way to describe what a human is is a human, but what makes it that I dont know. I say this because what makes a fetus NOT a human? It cant be proved that its not a human until we can define and say what makes something a human.

[Malbeth]

No, I meant life experience ( and life experience isn't limited to human experience either, which explains the bit about the dog ). Now, since when does a fetus experience "life"? They don't at all.

But weren't we trying to decide what is a human? If life experience is what makes a human, a dog is a human... does that make any sense at all?
Regarding the fetus lack of "life experience"; what is it to experience "life"? Is it to be alive? Does a bacteria experience "life"? Of course it does, it is not dead you know...
If the fetus was not alive, i.e, going through biological reactions, then he would never become a baby and we wouldn't have any abortion problem...

[Flame of Anor]

Originally posted by faila
what is a human? what makes someone a human? Is it thought? Is it memory? Is it having the right number of chromosomes? Or is it something that cant really be explained exactly?

Its not thought because there are human incapable of though. Its not memory, new born babies have no memory capabilities yet they are humans. Other species have the same amount of chromosomes. In my opinion it is something else, something that cant be explained that makes one human. It something else. The best way to describe what a human is is a human, but what makes it that I dont know. I say this because what makes a fetus NOT a human? It cant be proved that its not a human until we can define and say what makes something a human. The most important thing that separates us from the animals is that we have the ability to perceive the difference between right and wrong. A dog cannot tell the difference and neither can a dolphin or an aardvark. You may tell your dog(or cat) that some action is wrong. Will it know the difference? No, it will fall back upon instinct. Humans don't function on instinct they function on will. The will to make the choice to obey or disobey your parents, or to speed down the road, or to enroll in college or not. All these choices face us every day. It is your will that allows you to make a conscious decision to accept the consequences of your actions. Every action either effects you positively or negetively, whether you like it or not. Other people's choices effect you as well. But that is their decision to make.

As for whether or not a "fetus" is a human or not. In my definition, how can it not be? It hase human DNA and will develop in the likeness of his/her parents.

What defines when it becomes a human? In my book, conception. Surely a cat will not give birth to a dog, and an elephant give birth to a squid. No, of course not. You all would agree with me when I say that creatures reproduce according to kind. We have seen that even in cross-breading that a horse and a donkey produces a mule which is sterile and unable to reproduce. It is unable to reproduce because that is not how nature (God) intended it to be done, reproduction after its own kind. A human reproduces to create a new and unique individual, a horse to a horse, an elephant to an elephant, and a humpback whale to a humpedback whale. There is no denying this fact.

[faila]

Originally posted by Flame of Anor
The most important thing that separates us from the animals is that we have the ability to perceive the difference between right and wrong. A dog cannot tell the difference and neither can a dolphin or an aardvark. You may tell your dog(or cat) that some action is wrong. Will it know the difference? No, it will fall back upon instinct. Humans don't function on instinct they function on will. The will to make the choice to obey or disobey your parents, or to speed down the road, or to enroll in college or not. All these choices face us every day. It is your will that allows you to make a conscious decision to accept the consequences of your actions. Every action either effects you positively or negetively, whether you like it or not. Other people's choices effect you as well. But that is their decision to make.

As for whether or not a "fetus" is a human or not. In my definition, how can it not be? It hase human DNA and will develop in the likeness of his/her parents.

What defines when it becomes a human? In my book, conception. Surely a cat will not give birth to a dog, and an elephant give birth to a squid. No, of course not. You all would agree with me when I say that creatures reproduce according to kind. We have seen that even in cross-breading that a horse and a donkey produces a mule which is sterile and unable to reproduce. It is unable to reproduce because that is not how nature (God) intended it to be done, reproduction after its own kind. A human reproduces to create a new and unique individual, a horse to a horse, an elephant to an elephant, and a humpback whale to a humpedback whale. There is no denying this fact. I agree with you except your contradicted yourself. A baby is human yet does not understand right or wrong. It is not this understanding that makes one human.

[Flame of Anor]

Originally posted by faila
I agree with you except your contradicted yourself. A baby is human yet does not understand right or wrong. It is not this understanding that makes one human. So, are you saying that the unborn child inside the womb is human then?

I apologize for the lack clarity in my statement. However, I back myself up by saying that the child has an inate ability to tell the difference between right and wrong. You tell the child no or punish it for doing something wrong and it learns what is good and bad. It associates the punishment with the action.

BTW, I did not say that humans understand the diffence between right and wrong. I said "we have the ability to perceive the difference." There is a difference between perceiving and understanding. Humans have the ability to consciously make the choice between them. Animals do not.

Also, I, too, am a Christian. Shouldn't we be arguing the same side?

[HLGStrider]

I think he was saying that he agreed that the child was human but didn't think it was the ability to discern right from wrong that made it so.

At least that's what I derived from all this. . .

Derived is a very good word. . .I should use it more often.

[faila]

Originally posted by HLGStrider
I think he was saying that he agreed that the child was human but didn't think it was the ability to discern right from wrong that made it so.

At least that's what I derived from all this. . .

Derived is a very good word. . .I should use it more often. Yes is essence you are correct.

Yes we should consildate our efforts, but we cant unless we all look at it from the same angle, and to do this we must first decide what is a human, what is the difference from a human and a non-human. But in essence it is a soul, which can not be described, or proved, but percieving between right and wrong is close, but a baby can not truly percive this any more than a dog can. And does anyone truly have free will?

So in conclusion we will never know when life begins... there is no way to prove what makes it life from non life, so do you want to accidentally commit murder or not? It is best to outlaw it.

(note: I believe that life begins at conception, it is different than the mother, not part of her because the DNA is that of another human, a different one, but can i prove life begins there? No)

[Lúthien Séregon]

there is no way to prove what makes it life from non life, so do you want to accidentally commit murder or not? It is best to outlaw it.

And force countless pregnant women to risk their lives in backyard abortions? If abortion was outlawed, that would happen whether you want to believe it or not, so for the woman's health it's best to have abortion available.

[Eriol]

Awwwww.... I saw a post by Lúthien, and I thought "great! Now I'll find out whether she really believes that the fetus is not alive". Poor me. I haven't found out yet.

:(

[Flame of Anor]

Originally posted by Lúthien Séregon
so for the woman's health it's best to have abortion available. for the woman's health? or do you mean for the woman's preferance or desire?

[Lúthien Séregon]

Awwwww.... I saw a post by Lúthien, and I thought "great! Now I'll find out whether she really believes that the fetus is not alive". Poor me. I haven't found out yet.

Well, I've already been saying that I don't think a fetus quite counts as a living human...

for the woman's health? or do you mean for the woman's preferance or desire?

Yes for the woman's health. Backyard abortions can be fatal. Abortion is a very tough emotional decision, you make it sound as though women who have abortions do so only for their own desire carelessly with no thought in it whatsoever. That's not true.

[Eriol]

Originally posted by Lúthien Séregon
Well, I've already been saying that I don't think a fetus quite counts as a living human...


Why don't people answer the questions I make? They answer questions that I never made...

:(

Yes, you have been saying that. However, most people here assumed that you don't think that the fetus is "quite as much as a living human", because you thought that he is not quite human. But in a recent post you said that he is not alive. There is a difference, isn't there? Or is everything that is human, alive?

Is the fetus not quite human, or not quite alive, or both?

[HLGStrider]

There are a lot of things that, because they are illegal, are more dangerous. Drugs, for example.

I think that what you describe could be avoided with education. Health education would have to include this and describe why one shouldn't do it.

Also, the amount would be less. A lot of people have qualms about breaking the law. There are a lot of laws that I think are silly and would like to break but don't because they are the law (my state has a law against riding without a bicycle helmet before a certain age, for instance. I never once fell on my head and hated helmets, but I didn't want to break the law even when I could get away with it).

[Lúthien Séregon]

I think that what you describe could be avoided with education. Health education would have to include this and describe why one shouldn't do it.

That probably wouldn't work, because you can't be educated against rape can you? And besides, some people can't help it anyway, like if a contraception fails to work. And if people had qualms about breaking the law, then there would never have been such a thing as backyard abortion in the first place.

Yes, you have been saying that. However, most people here assumed that you don't think that the fetus is "quite as much as a living human", because you thought that he is not quite human. But in a recent post you said that he is not alive. There is a difference, isn't there? Or is everything that is human, alive?

Is the fetus not quite human, or not quite alive, or both?

Both. I'm not saying that a fetus has no right purely because it is not human ( then animals would have no right ), you know. I just sometimes think it's strange that people could even think that this thing should have the same rights as a living woman, to the point where people don't care if the woman is mentally traumatised by being forced to give birth or even dies as a result of the birth.

[Eriol]

Originally posted by Lúthien Séregon
Both. I'm not saying that a fetus has no right purely because it is not human ( then animals would have no right ), you know. I just sometimes think it's strange that people could even think that this thing should have the same rights as a living woman, to the point where people don't care if the woman is mentally traumatised by being forced to give birth or even dies as a result of the birth.

Now Lúthien, I don't want to nag at you, but you are being biased... again.

:D

How do you know that the fetus is a thing, and not a human? This is the question we have been debating. If you assume that is is a thing, well then it can't be a human, of course. But you will never know unless you delve into it -- you are embracing a bias, not a conclusion.

If it is a conclusion, show us the reasoning behind it.

As for "not alive", the same argument applies. Show us that he is not alive. I encourage you to define "alive" before you begin. And then you will have a very hard task -- to explain how we can kill something that is not alive.

[HLGStrider]

Actually, I think, earlier Legolam admitted that it was alive and also admitted that it was human (because, she said, what else could it be). She just said it didn't have rights.

That probably wouldn't work, because you can't be educated against rape can you? And besides, some people can't help it anyway, like if a contraception fails to work. And if people had qualms about breaking the law, then there would never have been such a thing as backyard abortion in the first place.

I bet there are men out there who would comit rape if it wasn't illegal. Same with murder. Same with a lot of things. The fear of getting caught does work on some people. . .and yes, you can teach people that rape is wrong and that rape has consequences (jail time).

Interesting that you say they can't help it. . .I've helped it. Simply put, I'm a virgin. That works quite well to protect against non-working contraception. . .and when this does happen it will be time for adoption.

There would be a lot fewer abortions. A lot of people do have qualms against breaking the law. There would be no legal abortions and few illegal abortions. I bet there are illegal abortions preformed out there now by women for various reasons.

Do you believe in drug legalization because that can't be stopped? (I know people who do, and it is a rather different issue, but I'm just curious on your take on this).

[Legolam]

Wow. I love this thread. I've been away for days and you guys have excelled yourselves! :) Now for my tuppenceworth ...

I wanted to further the "when is a foetus a human" argument. Recently, a research lab (I forget where) injected a mouse embryo with human embryonic stem (ES) cells, producing an apparently healthy mouse. Whatever the ethics of this (I see arguments springing up in the cloning thread as I type!), it raises questions about what is a human.

This mouse undoubtably has human chromosomes in some of its cells. The human ES cells injected into the few-day old mouse embryo had the potential to become ANYTHING that was human - any cell from a normal human body. But the mouse was still a mouse. Moreover, almost every vertebrate on this earth develops in the same way. For example, human foetuses have gills for quite a while.

What does this say about being human? A foetus surely can't be human if it has gills?

As a wee side note, I had a long argument on this topic with my flatmate (who works with cloning) and my boyfriend (another medic) where I took the Devil's Advocate stance (ie argued against abortion) just for fun. I found it damn hard to counter their arguments. When I asked "when does a foetus become a human", one of them suggested when you can tell what sex the baby is. How's that for a definition?

[Ariana Undomiel]

I would just like to draw attention to an incredible story.

Blake Schultz was doomed to die before he was even born. Due to modern technology Blake's parents were made aware of the fact that their unborn child was going to be born with a devestating disorder known as spinal bifida. At that time Blake was considered only a fetus and termination via abortion was recommended by the doctor's both for the sake of the parents and the unborn child. However, Blake's parents were Christians and believed that abortion was not an option. Through the assistance of specialists the baby was saved. A doctor went through a risky operation of opening the mother's abdomin, removing the womb, opening the womb and operating on the child to save his life. Before the incision was sewed up the child reached through the opening and grasped the doctor's finger. That timeless and incredible moment was captured on film. I am searching for the full details of the article but here is a photograph of the child.

http://images.usatoday.com/life/health/photos/hand.jpg

- Ariana

[HLGStrider]

I thought that the so called gills of embroylogy had been proven to be skin folds. . .(I saw this in a science book that wasn't even talking about prolife issues, but this was a few years ago, and I have a short memory.).

The baby's sex is determined by genetics which occur when it is born. Us being able to tell doesn't make much of a difference in it, and it seems that it is the important part of the arguement.

It's hard to argue for things you don't believe.

Anyway, I don't think that having gills would make a child less human. Otherwise we'd have to say that any traits that are "animal like" or "not normal" would make even a born baby unhuman.

I'd say the cells did come from something that was human but lost their value when the left it. . .just as I don't think an amputated arm is human or that a heart is human even when it can be kept functional and transplanted into another one.

[Eriol]

Originally posted by Legolam

As a wee side note, I had a long argument on this topic with my flatmate (who works with cloning) and my boyfriend (another medic) where I took the Devil's Advocate stance (ie argued against abortion) just for fun. I found it damn hard to counter their arguments. When I asked "when does a foetus become a human", one of them suggested when you can tell what sex the baby is. How's that for a definition?

As an example of Elgee's observation, of how it is hard to argue when you don't believe, I often have the same symptoms that you showed, Legolam, but in an even more serious way -- I can't see the arguments of the people who support abortion. They are all not really arguments, but rather emotional assertions that skip the fundamental question, "is the fetus human?" Pro-abortion always avoid this question -- it is very rare for them to offer an argument that shows that the fetus is not human.

An example is your question, "Can a fetus be human if it has gills?" Now you have to admit this makes no sense. Is it the lack of gills that makes us human? (Skipping the point of what those skin folds are -- they are the precursors of gills, in fishes, but they are not actual gills in fetuses).

This is an emotional question aimed at avoiding the point, "what makes the fetus a human".

As for your friends' definition, if you can't check the sex it is not human? People without ultrasound technology only became human after they were born, then -- at 39 weeks of pregnancy they were not human. The invention of ultrasound technology made all fetuses from, say, 15 weeks on humans. (that period is a guess of mine).

And, by the way, the sex is established since conception, as you are aware. So if we had a technology that took a cell from the early fetus, before it is even known that the woman is pregnant, we would detect the sex; we would not be able to do so with an egg. You are also aware that we can do that, theoretically, without killing the fetus. Your friends' definition is actually very good, if we disregard (as we should) technological developments -- as soon as the sex is determined, we can say that the fetus is human, as a rule of thumb.

Their definition forbids abortion, very clearly.

[Lúthien Séregon]

As an example of Elgee's observation, of how it is hard to argue when you don't believe, I often have the same symptoms that you showed, Legolam, but in an even more serious way -- I can't see the arguments of the people who support abortion. They are all not really arguments, but rather emotional assertions that skip the fundamental question, "is the fetus human?" Pro-abortion always avoid this question -- it is very rare for them to offer an argument that shows that the fetus is not human.

Actually, I've been offering arguments as to how the fetus is not human for a while, so not all pro-choice people avoid the question: it's more a case of people ( either anti or pro ) ignoring the reasons that someone else gives. I can see how people can think abortion is wrong, but I disagree that fetuses have the rights in any way equal to those of humans, which is why I support the rights of the woman in being able to choose for herself.

[Eriol]

And your arguments, dear Lúthien, have been criticized in many different ways; they exclude from humanity old people, young people, sleeping people, dumb people, unconscious people, or comatose people (according to the definition of the moment). To give arguments that were refuted is not really the same as giving arguments that have not been refuted.

The similarity between the emotional argument, such as the gills argument, and your argument is that you do not review your position after your arguments come under criticism. I agree, your arguments have not been emotional; but neither have they been rational. They have just... been.

I am still waiting for a definition of "humanness" excluding the fetus and including all other people considered as human.

[BlackCaptain]

This would've made a great poll...

I say it's wrong. Just put the baby up for adoption. If you're afraid of what your parents will do to you, you should have thought about it before you made the worst decision of your life (premarital sex). You have to suffer the consequences when you do something bad. It take a real mature person to do that. Adoption is a simple way to avoid some of the hastle though.

And I'm sure not all abortions are when people aren't married. But even then, the baby could be put up for adoption

[Legolam]

Just want to reply to a few points:

Blake Schultz was doomed to die before he was even born Not exactly true - spina bifida is survivable, but the child is born with massive physical and mental disabilities.

And, by the way, the sex is established since conception Again, not exactly true. Sure, GENETIC sex is established at conception, but the amounts of hormones circulating in the mother's body determine the actual sex of the child. For example, if the mother has too much testosterone during pregnancy, an XX female foetus can still be born male. My friend's point was that there is a point in gestation where you can physically tell the sex of the foetus/baby.

Actually, I've been offering arguments as to how the fetus is not human for a while, so not all pro-choice people avoid the question Ditto

you should have thought about it before you made the worst decision of your life (premarital sex) That is entirely your opinion. Why exclude a choice (abortion, or premarital sex for that matter) from people who don't believe what you believe? That is what "pro-life" campaigners are proposing.

[Malbeth]

Why exclude a choice (abortion, or premarital sex for that matter) from people who don't believe what you believe? That is what "pro-life" campaigners are proposing.

I think this is the kind of emotional argument Eriol was referring to... this line of reasoning does not justify only abortion, but just about everything. Why prohibit people from murdering just because you believe murder is wrong? The nazis thought the Final Solution was a good one, and so on...

For instance, while I do think pre-marital sex is wrong, I do not think at all that it should be forbidden by law, and would think that anyone who thought that it should be forbidden by law to be profoundly wrong.

Why is that? Because to say that something is forbidden by law is to say that the State has the power to use physical violence against anyone who breaks the law, and this power should only be used when someone commits an act of violence or fraud against another person.

Now, the pro-choice argument consists, of course, that the fetus is not a person. So, it has to give a definition of "human being" that excludes the fetus from humanity. And here we see the specious nature of the pro-choice argument, and that is why it gives all sorts of different definitions of human beings;
From this thread, considering all the arguments against the humanity of the fetus, we have:

1: A human being is someone who breathes
2:A human being is someone capable of thought
3:A human being is someone who can survive outside the womb
4:A human being is someone who is not a parasite
5:A human being is someone who is not a bundle of cells growing inside the mother
6:A human being is someone who has had "life (human) experience"
7:A human being is someone who has emotions
8:A human being is someone who has been formed into a human
9: A human being is someone with a sex that can be detected by observation
Arguments 6 and 8 are the funniest; they try to say a human is someone who has had "human experience" or who has the form of a human. Of course, a human has the form of a human, and a human has human experience, but until we know what is a human we can't know what is the form of a human or what experiences a human has.
Arguments 1, 2, 7 and 9 have been shown to be not the essence of humanity, someone can be a human and lack one of these characteristics, or not be a human and have some of them.
Arguments 3, 4 and 5 are the viability argument, an argument that either says that what a human being is depends on the state of technology or it says that someone is not a human being until it gets to around 8 years old at least.

Now, suppose I was a racist, and said: "A human being is someone with light skin", and proceeded to kill or enslave blacks and asians. Would I be wrong? Would you try to stop my choice because of what you believe? I sincerely hope you would. I know I would try to stop anyone who thinks like that.

To me, it seems that the pro-choice argument does exactly the same thing, give a definition of a human with the express interest of denying humanity to the fetus so anyone can kill them. If storks brought babies no one would ever think of these definitions of human beings, would they?

[Lúthien Séregon]

Arguments 6 and 8 are the funniest; they try to say a human is someone who has had "human experience" or who has the form of a human. Of course, a human has the form of a human, and a human has human experience, but until we know what is a human we can't know what is the form of a human or what experiences a human has.

What I was saying is that a human most certainly has life experience, but a fetus doesn't ( it can't perceive anything ). As for the human form, well, a fetus is an unformed bundle of cells living as a parasite in the womb, most definitely not that of a human.

Arguments 1, 2, 7 and 9 have been shown to be not the essence of humanity, someone can be a human and lack one of these characteristics, or not be a human and have some of them.

But if something has one or more of these characteristics, it implies life. Seeing as a fetus has none of these, I'm not sure how it can be characterized as living, let alone a human...

Arguments 3, 4 and 5 are the viability argument, an argument that either says that what a human being is depends on the state of technology or it says that someone is not a human being until it gets to around 8 years old at least.

I don't know how those arguments even imply that someone is not a human being until they get to 8 years old...a baby is not a bundle cells inside the womb, it can survive outside the womb, and it is certainly not a parasite :confused:

[Eriol]

Do you see any babies surviving outside the womb without "leeching off" someone? 1-year old kids? 2-year old kids? The period of dependence stretches much more than the mere pregnancy. A baby is a parasite, according to the definition of parasite -- a being that lives off another being, and can't survive on its own. Harsh, but if you want to call the fetus a parasite, then a baby -- and a child of up to at least some 5 years old -- is a parasite too.

Look at it this way, Lúthien -- if a woman thinks it is ok to kill her fetus because he is a parasite, what is to stop her from killing her 5-year old kid for the same reason?

A fetus has not characteristics 1, 2, 7 and 9? 1 and 9 are clearly present from the very beginning; 7 is there at a very early age; only 2 is questionable. But then again the source of Malbeth's criticism is not just that the fetus has these characteristics -- it is also that some humans do not have them, and therefore they can't be used to define "humanness". A comatose person has no emotions, sometimes can't breath without mechanical help, quite likely has no thoughts (or at least we can't observe these thoughts -- the same problem that we have with the fetus).

As for 6, what is the thing that defines a human? Is it life experience or human experience? If it is life experience, then a dog is human. If it is human experience, how can you rule out a priori "fetus experience" as non-human experience? What is human experience, how can we define that without a prior definition of human?

[faila]

Originally posted by Lúthien Séregon
And force countless pregnant women to risk their lives in backyard abortions? If abortion was outlawed, that would happen whether you want to believe it or not, so for the woman's health it's best to have abortion available. Oh so they would be commiting murder and suicide at the same time......
No, If abortion was illegal people would be more careful about sex, they would wear condoms or pull out, most people who have unwanted babies dont even try to avoid it by rythm.....
Can you prove it would happen alot?
Obviuosly you cant.

This is just an ofshoot, but what about partial birth abortion? where the baby is partially out of the mother before it is aborted?
I believe that if people are for that they must also be fore killing any time before its independent.

[Malbeth]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arguments 1, 2, 7 and 9 have been shown to be not the essence of humanity, someone can be a human and lack one of these characteristics, or not be a human and have some of them.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



But if something has one or more of these characteristics, it implies life. Seeing as a fetus has none of these, I'm not sure how it can be characterized as living, let alone a human...

Well, first of all, as Eriol pointed out, a comatose patient has neither 1, 2 or 7, and a fetus has 9. Also, a bacteria has life and has none of these characteristics, so something can be alive and lack all of these.

Arguments 6 and 8: When we are trying to define what is a human we cannot talk of human experience (and if we're talking of life experience a bacteria is a human) or of a human form. The fetus has a form (even if not very pretty), and if the fetus is human then his form is a human form.

Arguments 3, 4 and 5: The parasite argument has been addressed by Eriol... some parents say that it is even worse taking care of a baby after it's born... this means that the baby is then a greater parasite, because she demands more resources from her parents. The surviving outside the mother argument makes humanity to be dependent on technology and on society's help...
Argument 5 (bundle of cells inside the mother) is the one I admit I can't refute if it is refined in this way: "A human being is an individual with a specific genetic code denoting its membership in the human species who does not live inside his mother". Defined this way, I cannot point to a instance of someone all of us consider human but would not be human according to this definition, or something that none of us consider to be human and would be human according to the definition.
I can only point out that it is very silly to make being outside the mother the deciding factor on whether someone is a human or not... as silly as saying "being Aryan is the deciding factor on whether someone is a human", and leading to very similar results (millions of "non-humans" killed).

[HLGStrider]

Personally, none of those arguements work for me either way because to me what defines a human being is a human being's soul. . .and as you cannot prove to me that such a thing doesn't exist and it would not make sense for it to come into the baby anytime after conception nothing you say is going to convince me that it is not human.

However, in trying to convince you, as I do not know how to prove a soul, I know this isn't going to work.

However, I would say that without a soul, I don't think it would be any more wrong to kill a human than a chimpanzee. They aren't all that different. . . So the soul is the entire reason fo rme.

[Malbeth]

I agree in part with what you said Elgee... in a sense, if a human does not have a soul it is indeed not very different to kill a human than to kill a chimp; however, we all agree that it is wrong to kill a human (I hope). We can talk about why do we think so, perhaps in a new thread (and if it's named "Why is it wrong to kill a human?" it will certainly attract attention).

However I do think that the fetus can be shown to be a human without bringing in the soul. I simply don't see what else could he be... the human definitions of the pro-choicers who try to exclude fetus from humanity all have inherent flaws, as I've been trying to show.

[HLGStrider]

It twould be an interesting thread.

Twould is like that on purpose.

[Tyaronumen]

Originally posted by HLGStrider
Personally, none of those arguements work for me either way because to me what defines a human being is a human being's soul. . .and as you cannot prove to me that such a thing doesn't exist and it would not make sense for it to come into the baby anytime after conception nothing you say is going to convince me that it is not human.

However, in trying to convince you, as I do not know how to prove a soul, I know this isn't going to work.

However, I would say that without a soul, I don't think it would be any more wrong to kill a human than a chimpanzee. They aren't all that different. . . So the soul is the entire reason fo rme.

Whereas I would say that, regardless of "soul", it is wrong to kill the chimpanzee _without need_, just as it is wrong to kill a human being _without need_.

To lack compassion for an animal that is clearly quite intelligent is pretty much against God's command to love. (Chimpanzees and gorillas HAVE learned sign language, DO form permanent relationships and bonds with humans, other animals such as cats, etc., and DO demonstrate reasoning abilities, emotions, and complex cognitive functions far beyond those that are typically assumed -- do a little research and you'll see just what I mean.)

I highly doubt that God will merely turn a blind eye toward those who practice unnecessary cruelty toward our animal brethren, regardless of how the Bible has been mis-interpreted through all of these years to justify this treatment. To be placed over all of the other animals does not in any means imply that we are to abuse, be cruel to, and otherwise mis-treat our wards.

And you can no more definitively prove that animals don't have a soul than you can definitively prove that you DO. It's all up to your interpretations of the Bible, which leads to the other thread where y'all were discussing the principles of 'cultural phenomena' vs. 'God's law' (ie. how do you know that it was not a cultural phenomenon that lead the author of that particular portion of the Bible to claim that only humans have souls, that animals are below man, etc.?)

And I will not dispute that humans have souls -- but how do you know that animals do not have souls of this very same nature...? Again -- could it not be a cultural phenomenon of the age that lead the writer to assert that animals were entirely inferior? Perhaps to justify the treatment by men of their wards...?

[Malbeth]

I agree that we should never kill chimps needlessly... but suppose you're trapped in a cave with a chimp and you happen to be armed; would it be ok to kill the chimp to eat it? I think it would... however, if you are in the same situation but trapped in a cave with another human, you should never kill him (and if he suddenly died of a heart attack, I have very great doubts as to whether you should eat him or not. I think you shouldn't).

I can't know whether animals have souls or not, but animal behaviour differs very greatly from human behaviour in important ways (the most important one is the "ethical sense" Eriol has been talking about in another thread). Since we're very similar genetically speaking, I think this difference is due to a supernatural cause.

[Rhiannon]

Evening, everyone- I've skimmed over some of this thread, but it's really long, so forgive me if I'm repeating stuff that's already been gone over, but; a few weeks ago I was playing dump-random-people-in-chatroom-and-see-what-happens, and Tal and I ended up discussing our views on abortion with another friend of mine. She defended abortion, not as a 'first option' (the conversation started because I said I didn't like Planned Parenthood because I felt they pushed abortion), but if 1) the mother was at risk or 2) if having a baby would 'ruin her life' (ie, she was sixteen and would have to drop out of school).
I disagreed, because I feel that even if the mother is not in a position to raise/care for the baby, there are hundreds of infertile couples out there who would love to- adoption should be considered first, before abortion. I do agree that if there is serious risk for the mother, abortion should be considered, but it's entirely the mother's choice, whether she attempts to carry the baby to term.

We also talked about when an abortion is 'all right'- I say never. I consider the fetus to be a human being from the moment of conception. She thought it abortion was all right in the first trimester, but as my sister pointed out later (and my mom, a nurse, confirmed it) the fetus can recognize it's mother's voice at 6 weeks. It is already aware at that point, so early in the pregnancy.

But, in spite of my (obviously strongly held) opinions about it, I am pro-choice. I believe in free will- I just believe that even if you can that doesn't mean you should. I object to organizations or people pushing abortion as 'the only option' or as the first thing you should consider. That to me is very wrong.

And (sorry if this has already been mentioned, but I just came across it, which is what started me on this train of thought) World magazine says that Norma McCorvey (the 'Roe' in Roe vs. Wade, the court case that made abortion legal in the US) is seeking to reverse the decision, because 'abortion is harmful to women'.

<edit> And it should be noted that the above are all my own opinions and I'm not speaking for Talieren, though we share a lot of the same views.

[faila]

Im confused by your post Rhianon, you say that it is a Human yet you say it should be allowed because of freewill. By that same logic it shoud be legal to murder any one.
Maybey I misunderstood, If I did explain further.

[Rhiannon]

I mean that I think free will means you can't be forced to do anything- there can be rules against it, yes, but they can't prevent it from happening. You have to decide not to do whatever the wrong thing is (ie murder).

[faila]

Originally posted by Rhiannon
I mean that I think free will means you can't be forced to do anything- there can be rules against it, yes, but they can't prevent it from happening. You have to decide not to do whatever the wrong thing is (ie murder). But you said you were pro choice..... but its a human........obviusly you have to decide not to do something but still, you make it seem as if you believe there should not be laws against it because of free will.

[Rhiannon]

I'm pro-choice in the sense that I think the mother has to decide for herself if it's worth it to her to carry the baby, even if it's dangerous etc. (sorry, I really shouldn't post late at night, I don't think I'm being coherent at the moment)

[HLGStrider]

I think what she might be saying is that she approves of illegalized abortion but not legalized. . .For whatever sense that makes. Maybe that there should not be clinics but that if a woman is willing to take the risk of having a dangerous home one she can do it and the risk is punishment enough. . .something like that.

I personally see the freewill part would come in before the baby was conceived (under all but one case [rape] the woman chose to do something that got her pregnant) and after it is born (adouption is then a choice).

I'd like to see a form of pre-birth adoption. I think many barren women would enjoy the experience of being pregant and would adoupt an unborn child. This would take some radical new medical procedures, but think of all the dreams it could help to bring true and babies it could save: if an unborn child could be transplanted into the womb of another woman.

I know we can do this with test tube babies (and I have heard of embreyo adoption programs), but that is a different procedure, I think. What I would be thinking of is something that would be possible later in term.

[Eriol]

I think this would not be the option chosen by many women, those who do not believe the fetus is a person. It would be more expensive and risky than a "simple abortion", and if the fetus is "tissue", why go through that much trouble?

It would be a great idea, Elgee, but I don't think this issue is "solvable" with technological advances... it's a metaphysical and philosophical (as well as psychological) issue.

:(

[HLGStrider]

It would be useful in the case that a woman is medically unable to carry a fetus to term. It would also be useful in the case that a woman does not want to be pregnant of nine months but still wants the baby to live.

[Lúthien Séregon]

It would be good as a choice, certainly. But in the end, it's the woman's right to choose what's best for her.

[Eriol]

This sentence of yours, Lúthien, summarize it all; if it is the woman's right to choose what is best for her, why can't she kill her old father? He's spending a lot with medicines. He's a weight in her life. Or why can't he kill her teenager kid? The kid is such a pain, and now that she's divorced and found a new guy, well, she wants to have kids with the new guy; the kid is just a reminder of the brute she left behind. She might as well kill him.

I'd like to see your answers to these questions, with logic -- don't call them ludicrous or outlandish, because they are not; they are the logical extension of the principle you just stated.

[Lúthien Séregon]

if it is the woman's right to choose what is best for her, why can't she kill her old father? He's spending a lot with medicines. He's a weight in her life. Or why can't he kill her teenager kid? The kid is such a pain, and now that she's divorced and found a new guy, well, she wants to have kids with the new guy; the kid is just a reminder of the brute she left behind. She might as well kill him.

Because a fetus isn't an old father or a teenage kid with their own rights, I keep saying that a fetus isn't human in the sense everyone else is.

A question of my own, not linked to this but still a part of the abortion debate: if people were to say that embryos conceived as a result of rape or something the woman had no control over should be kept until it is born because there are plenty of people out there willing to adopt it - I can now just as easily say that they are exploiting the woman's misfortune against her own will just because someone else would like a child, in other words, ignoring the woman's say over what happens to her body. Isn't it enough that she already had to go through getting pregnant when she didn't want to in the first place?

[Eriol]

Originally posted by Lúthien Séregon
Because a fetus isn't an old father or a teenage kid with their own rights, I keep saying that a fetus isn't human in the sense everyone else is.

Why not? I know, we will go back to those definitions of human beings :). Are you realy satisfied with them? Which one of them, by the way?

If you are satisfied with them, you should be able to prove it to me, right?

A question of my own, not linked to this but still a part of the abortion debate: if people were to say that embryos conceived as a result of rape or something the woman had no control over should be kept until it is born because there are plenty of people out there willing to adopt it - I can now just as easily say that they are exploiting the woman's misfortune against her own will just because someone else would like a child, in other words, ignoring the woman's say over what happens to her body. Isn't it enough that she already had to go through getting pregnant when she didn't want to in the first place?

Does that mean that you concede that all abortions are wrong except in cases of rape or risk to the mother? :D

(Facetious question, sorry)

We are not ignoring the woman's say over what happens to her body; we are considering that the woman has no say to what happens to another body, no matter what she has suffered. And this goes for men as well, by the way. This is the crux of the anti-abortion argument; and I think it is a pretty tough proposition to disprove. I would much rather defend it than defend that "the fetus is not a human being". In fact, I think that the "another body" proposition is so strong that even the presumption of another body should be enough to prevent abortion; in other words, even if we are not quite sure that the fetus is a human being, abortion should not be allowed on the grounds of possibly harming (or rather, killing) another person.

[Lúthien Séregon]

But how is the fetus someone else's body if it is an extension of the woman's? I mean, it has about the same level of consciousness - and for the first few weeks even looks like - a baked bean.:rolleyes:

[Eriol]

Originally posted by Lúthien Séregon
But how is the fetus someone else's body if it is an extension of the woman's? I mean, it has about the same level of consciousness - and for the first few weeks even looks like - a baked bean.:rolleyes:

And therefore you assume -- again -- that "consciousness = humanness". And so you may kill sleeping people and comatose people.

Not to mention that the reasoning behind your assumption is unexplained -- why is "consciousness = humanness"? If we build a computer which is conscious, would it be murder to turn it off? It would be better if you defined "consciousness".

[Lúthien Séregon]

Okay - it is in the same state ( as a baked bean ) of functioning, emotional capacity, intelligence, consciousness, experience, communication and physically all rolled into one. :D That's more like it.

[Eriol]

Along with sleeping and comatose people :D

[Lúthien Séregon]

Physical body, intelligence, experience, and emotional capacity are all present in sleeping people or comatose people. ;)

[Eriol]

Physical body -- both have it
Intelligence -- none show it -- a touching faith, this one of yours :d
Experience -- both have it (unless you define experience as "out-of-womb" experience, and you will have to show why the womb is an de-experiencer)
Emotional capacity -- only fetuses have it.

In your scoreboard, it is:


fetus 3 x 2 comatose and sleeping people.

[Lúthien Séregon]

Physical body -- both have it - A fetus's isn't quite a human's though. More like a baked bean, as I said :D or maybe just an unformed collection of cells, much like our tonsils.

Intelligence -- none show it -- Sleeping people still have the capacity to use it, even if they may not be using it when they're sleeping. Same with the comatose. And they still can use their intelligence anyway even if the brain is in a delta state...the very fact that the brainwaves are still energised means that they are in a state of activeness, even if very dim. For example, I've actually written poetry in my dreams ( I know that sounds strange, but some of my best poems result from writing verses when I sleep )

Experience -- both have it (unless you define experience as "out-of-womb" experience, and you will have to show why the womb is an de-experiencer) - Can you honestly remember experiencing anything at all? A fetus doesn't have it's senses developed yet, and it can't really experience anything when it's contained in an amnion.

Emotional capacity -- only fetuses have it. - WHAT?? Fetuses are incapable of emotion. :eek: And a sleeping person can feel fear, or anger, hence emotion. Weird.


In your scoreboard, it is:


fetus 3 x 2 comatose and sleeping people.


Um, how does this scoreboard work?

[Eriol]

"His body is not a human body" -- that's called "begging the question".

:D

Intelligence -- sleeping people have the capacity, is that it? Well, I can't see how this "capacity" can be denied to a fetus. If you give him time to be born, he will surely be intelligent.

As for actual intelligence, there is no evidence of it in a sleeping person; and you skipped by comatose, by the way ;). Some studies show that people build "retroactive dreams" when they wake up; as when a guy woke up with a book falling on his neck, and had the impression that he was dreaming that he was a convict in 18th century France; when the book hit him he thought he was being guillotined.

Unless you say that this guy was having a prophetic dream, you gotta admit that this dream was built "retroactively", complete with the feeling of depth in time. This is anecdotal, of course; but it is an anecdote I've seen in more than a few studies on dreams.

In fact, I agree with you that sleeping people have intelligence (and I again point out the problem of the comatose); the problem of intelligence as a criterion is the corollary that clever people have more right to life than dumb people; that, say, retarded people have less of a right to life.

Emotional capacity -- You have to check your facts on fetuses; and on comatose people. Fetuses have many emotions, and comatose people have none; not even what is shown in EEGs. Fetuses have adrenaline surges, heartbeat sudden increases, etc. etc. Not surprisingly, this is most noticeable during abortions -- so much for the argument that the fetus feels nothing (i.e., that it can't experience nothing).

The scoreboard works by adding characteristics seen in fetuses on the one hand, and those seen in sleeping/comatose people in others. Even if we grant intelligence to sleeping people, it is still 3x2 against the comatose; and 3x3 against the sleeping.

[Lúthien Séregon]

"His body is not a human body" -- that's called "begging the question".

What "his"? A fetus? More like "not a living body"...or "not a body"...

sleeping people have the capacity, is that it? Well, I can't see how this "capacity" can be denied to a fetus. If you give him time to be born, he will surely be intelligent. - but the fact is, the fetus itself has no more intelligence than the keyboard I'm typing on until it is eventually formed into a human.

As for actual intelligence, there is no evidence of it in a sleeping person; and you skipped by comatose, by the way. - I meant the same for the comatose person...they are still human all right, because they have that capacity for intelligence ( and not necessarily just intelligence, because then I'm leaving out people who aren't very smart ). They have the capacity for living. A fetus doesn't quite...it relies on the mother's system to propel food into it's own system, effectively working as a part of the mother's body. How can that be counted as someone else's individual body with the same rights as people?

In fact, I agree with you that sleeping people have intelligence (and I again point out the problem of the comatose); the problem of intelligence as a criterion is the corollary that clever people have more right to life than dumb people; that, say, retarded people have less of a right to life. - you're right there, which is why I think merely the capacity for living at all is as much a part of anything here.

Emotional capacity -- You have to check your facts on fetuses; and on comatose people. Fetuses have many emotions, and comatose people have none; not even what is shown in EEGs. Fetuses have adrenaline surges, heartbeat sudden increases, etc. etc. Not surprisingly, this is most noticeable during abortions -- so much for the argument that the fetus feels nothing (i.e., that it can't experience nothing). - They seem more to me to be primal instincts ( and could well be based on sudden changes in the mother's heart beat ) than actual emotions. And as for comatose people, you know I've heard that some people can comprehend what goes around them faintly, in a confused way, when they're in a comatose state...surely this means they can also feel emotion.


The scoreboard works by adding characteristics seen in fetuses on the one hand, and those seen in sleeping/comatose people in others. Even if we grant intelligence to sleeping people, it is still 3x2 against the comatose; and 3x3 against the sleeping.

Well, the scoreboard's been changed somewhat now...and no doubt it'll change again when you reply to my post. :D Maybe it'd be best to leave the scoreboard out, because the points involved themselves are debatable. :rolleyes:

[Eriol]

If they are debatable, let's debate them, by all means :)

What is a "body"? A fetus is a body; he is a living body (else we could not kill him :rolleyes: ). I don't understand this objection; or rather, I see it is rhetoric.

The comatose person also has as much intelligence as a tree; (which I find a better comparison than the keyboard, allowing for vital functions).

The comatose person has the capacity for intelligence; so does the fetus. They have the capacity for living; so does the fetus. They rely on another system to provide food; so does the fetus.

Comatose people are a thorn on the side of pro-choicers :D.

As for "primal instincts", here comatose people have none; and fetuses have them. You rely on anecdotes when considering comatose people, and dismiss the measurable physiological changes; I thought you were an empiricist :D. Comatose people do not show adrenaline surges; they do not show heartbeat increases. Stick to the evidence, my friend ;). It is a one-way street; when we see an adrenaline surge, we ALWAYS have an accompanying emotion; how can you see an exception in the fetus with no reason at all?

You can have emotions without adrenaline, but you can't have adrenaline without emotions.

[Lúthien Séregon]

If they are debatable, let's debate them, by all means - of course :)

What is a "body"? A fetus is a body; he is a living body (else we could not kill him :rolleyes. I don't understand this objection; or rather, I see it is rhetoric. - But I'm saying you can't "kill" a fetus, that was you saying it beforehand ( I wouldn't think abortion should be an option if it was really murder, but as it is, I think it isn't ).

The comatose person also has as much intelligence as a tree; (which I find a better comparison than the keyboard, allowing for vital functions). - but they still have a LOT more characteristics than a fetus has overall.

The comatose person has the capacity for intelligence; so does the fetus. They have the capacity for living; so does the fetus. They rely on another system to provide food; so does the fetus. - but a comatose person is already a person; a fetus isn't.

As for "primal instincts", here comatose people have none; and fetuses have them. You rely on anecdotes when considering comatose people, and dismiss the measurable physiological changes; I thought you were an empiricist . Comatose people do not show adrenaline surges; they do not show heartbeat increases. - Perhaps because there is no reason to feel emotion ( fear ) when they're on a hospital bed with their pulse being checked. They still have that capacity.

You can have emotions without adrenaline, but you can't have adrenaline without emotions. - How do you know that's possible for a fetus that doesn't quite have the same emotions as a person? They have a system that's not formed yet ( no senses, no real brain, or anything ).


EDIT: Woohoo! I'm over 300 posts! :D It's an achievement to me, okay? ;)

[Eriol]

Congratulations -- let's get you to 310 today :D

If it is not killing, what is it? What is life? That's what I mean when I say "rhetoric" -- the substitution of words to change the emotional content of the discourse. To kill is to kill, even if you call it "to terminate the pregnancy". To say that this is not killing, you have to show that the fetus is not alive; and therefore you have to define life.

"A comatose person is a person, a fetus isn't" -- you know the name of that, right? Begging...

:)

How can you have no senses when you feel emotions? The adrenaline - emotion link is absolute; if you have the first, you have the second. And you say this is not true because they don't have senses. I say the opposite -- they MUST have senses BECAUSE they have emotions.

If they had no senses, they would hardly notice an abortion.

Unless you say that their emotions are different because you have no access to them, and therefore you can't say they are "human" emotions.

[Lúthien Séregon]

A pity the stuff and bother section doesn't have a post count. :D Now that could really go forever.

If it is not killing, what is it? What is life? That's what I mean when I say "rhetoric" -- the substitution of words to change the emotional content of the discourse. To kill is to kill, even if you call it "to terminate the pregnancy". To say that this is not killing, you have to show that the fetus is not alive; and therefore you have to define life.

- the life of a fetus is hardly one that is any more living than all of the individual cells in the woman's body, it is alive in the same manner.

"A comatose person is a person, a fetus isn't" -- you know the name of that, right? Begging...

Well, I've already kind of explained it :D

How can you have no senses when you feel emotions? The adrenaline - emotion link is absolute; if you have the first, you have the second. And you say this is not true because they don't have senses. I say the opposite -- they MUST have senses BECAUSE they have emotions. If they had no senses, they would hardly notice an abortion.

- but they don't physically really have senses, or the ability for perception, so they're not only not human, they hardly seem like real emotions at all.


Sorry I'm not going into much detail right now, it's fairly late in Aussie land, and the end of a long week...and I pretty much used up all my concentration already replying to that other thread.

[Eriol]

Originally posted by Lúthien Séregon

- the life of a fetus is hardly one that is any more living than all of the individual cells in the woman's body, it is alive in the same manner.

Exactly. They are alive in the same manner; and therefore they can be killed. What is this "manner of living", anyway? Living is living, dead is dead.

"A comatose person is a person, a fetus isn't" -- you know the name of that, right? Begging...

Well, I've already kind of explained it :D

Did you? Where?

How can you have no senses when you feel emotions? The adrenaline - emotion link is absolute; if you have the first, you have the second. And you say this is not true because they don't have senses. I say the opposite -- they MUST have senses BECAUSE they have emotions. If they had no senses, they would hardly notice an abortion.

- but they don't physically really have senses, or the ability for perception, so they're not only not human, they hardly seem like real emotions at all.

What does it mean "they don't physically really have senses? What about that adrenaline? How could they react to the abortionist if they had not the ability for perception?

[HLGStrider]

Can you honestly remember experiencing anything at all?

As a fetus? No, but I can't honestly remember experiencing anything before I was two and a half, and people have often expressed amazement that I can remember something that occured this early.

Also, if a man is hit on the head and looses all memory, by this definition, he wouldn't be human.

[Lúthien Séregon]

Also, if a man is hit on the head and looses all memory, by this definition, he wouldn't be human.

What I meant is that a fetus honesly has no experience whatsoever - it's not a case of just not being able to remember.

Exactly. They are alive in the same manner; and therefore they can be killed. What is this "manner of living", anyway? Living is living, dead is dead.

Cells are living - but they are not living beings. Same with fetuses. That's what I meant. It's not illegal to kill a cell now is it ( because otherwise, scratching would be murder ).

What does it mean "they don't physically really have senses? What about that adrenaline? How could they react to the abortionist if they had not the ability for perception?

They don't have the physical senses that humans do ( eg. feeling, thinking, seeing, hearing, etc... ), therefore, they have nothing to perceive with. Therefore, the adrenaline is probably just an automatic reaction ( probably from the mother's own body - it is her blood passing through to the fetus, after all ).

[Eriol]

Originally posted by Lúthien Séregon
Cells are living - but they are not living beings. Same with fetuses. That's what I meant. It's not illegal to kill a cell now is it ( because otherwise, scratching would be murder ).

Scratching only gets dead cells :D; and we were not talking about "legality" -- you said that an abortion was not killing. It is, even if a fetus is a bunch of cells.

They don't have the physical senses that humans do ( eg. feeling, thinking, seeing, hearing, etc... ), therefore, they have nothing to perceive with. Therefore, the adrenaline is probably just an automatic reaction ( probably from the mother's own body - it is her blood passing through to the fetus, after all ).

They have nothing to perceive with; and yet, they do. Define perception Lúthien, otherwise concede the point. They react to the abortionist. The mother is sedated.

[Legolam]

They react to the abortionist. The mother is sedated. I would contest this, as the mother can still react even under cessation. For example, if a person loses a lot of blood in surgery, they will respond with adrenaline and a faster heart rate. This is all controlled in the brain stem and is nothing to do with consciousness. It is entirely possible that the "foetal reaction" to abortion is merely as a consequence of the mother's biological reactions, as Luthien pointed out.

[Eriol]

I like your wording -- "it is entirely possible". Of course this can be applied to any human reaction in any field. I was just reading an article about the link between oxytocin and the caring instinct. It is "entire possible" that love is a result of oxytocin; though there is the question of cause and effect to be explored.

My point is -- to assume that something which is "entirely possible" is absolute truth is flawed reasoning; especially since it forces us to ascribe all human reactions to biochemistry, and therefore demeans free will. This goes beyond medicine and into philosophy, of course (it always does...).