|
|
Salamandre
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
|
posted May 14, 2013 05:25 PM |
|
|
But then, how to limit over population, as we know that contraceptives are not 100% safe? It is a fact that earth can't feed unlimited numbers of humans, and a solution will have to be proposed later or sooner. Charge sex with death penalty?
____________
Era II mods and utilities
|
|
Drakon-Deus
Undefeatable Hero
Qapla'
|
|
posted May 14, 2013 06:21 PM |
|
|
It's entirely up to the mother if she wants the baby or not. I don't think it should be illegal. But I wish women wouldn't need to resort to abortion.
____________
Horses don't die on a dog's wish.
|
|
Zenofex
Responsible
Legendary Hero
Kreegan-atheist
|
|
posted May 14, 2013 08:21 PM |
|
Edited by Corribus at 22:17, 14 May 2013.
|
|
MOD EDIT: Really, you post that after I just got done defending you a mere few days ago?
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted May 14, 2013 09:43 PM |
|
Edited by Elodin at 21:45, 14 May 2013.
|
Quote:
@Elodin
Quote:
She replied: “We believe that any decision that’s made should be left up to the woman, her family, and the physician.”
I'm not necessarily defending their position, but I hope you realize this isn't exactly the same as actually saying they believe said baby should be, in your words, brutally murdered. She is advocating that these kinds of decisions not be made a priori by government legislators.
You may disagree with that position, certainly, but you should at least be disagreeing with what she is actually saying. Otherwise, it is only strawman fallacy.
I said, "Planned Parenthood favors allowing this if it is what the mother wants," and also, "And it defends infanticide of born babies." And it did defend such actions on video in testimony before the Florida legislature. However, now PP is tap dancing because they got a LOT of heat from lawmakers and the public over their defense of infanticide.
They said if Doctor tried to kill Baby in the womb but Baby survived neither Mommy nor Doctor should be under any obligation to render Baby aid. They should be allowed to simply let Baby lie there and die of his injuries from the attempted abortion of lay there and die from exposure/starvation. Quite an evil stance in my opinion. But I'll grant their stance is consistent. If it is moral to kill a baby in the womb then it moral to kill a baby moments after it has been born. Like the secular pro life site I linked to said, there ain't no birth canal fairy that magically grants the baby baby personhood upon exit of the birth canal.
Quote:
But then, how to limit over population, as we know that contraceptives are not 100% safe? It is a fact that earth can't feed unlimited numbers of humans, and a solution will have to be proposed later or sooner. Charge sex with death penalty?
Infanticide is not the answer to overpopulation and is nowhere near to being moral and this thread is not about addressing issues about an alleged overpopulation of the earth.
Quote:
Don't ignore my question you pathological hypocrite! I asked you how many children have you adopted!
I'm consistent in my statements, beliefs and actions. Sadly you seem to have only insults to offer the discussion.
My wife and I raised our four daughters. Four children were enough to keep us busy, thanks.  My bathroom time was already rather limited with five females in the house. Even with two bathrooms. 
A portion of my charitable giving is to homes for unwed mothers and orphanages however. There are plenty of folks who'd love to adopt the baby Mommy is planning to murder.
Sorry, I can't single handedly save the world.
Oh, and try to have something other than insults to contribute to discussions.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted May 14, 2013 10:23 PM |
|
Edited by artu at 22:24, 14 May 2013.
|
Quote:
We don't kill the brain dead. We let them die a natural death instead of taking heroic measures to keep the body alive.
Call it what you want, we press a button and they cease to exist. If it's about semantics, both fetus and the brain dead needs external support to live and can't survive on their own.
Quote:
Immediately exercisable capacity for mental functions appears to be a poor way to measure the moral worth of a human organism. Such a system of measuring moral worth means the moral value of the human organism changes with time, circumstance, happenstance, and developed mental potential. It means a mature human organism who is drunk, taking medication, sleeping, in a coma, or otherwise not functioning at 100% of mental capacity is less worthy of life than one who is functioning "at 100%" by that measure. And presumably human organisms of higher "intelligence" are more worthy of life than those with lesser intelligence.
It's not about being more intelligent or more responsive etc etc. A fetus without a brain is not a self yet, it's the equivalent of a cactus, biologically the only thing that makes him qualified as a separate human is distinctive DNA, that's all. And that's not enough to ban abortion which is a necessary procedure in many cases. "It will eventually become a human" is not a valid argument, same can be said about a sperm cell, it will eventually fuse with an egg an turn into human. The self is in the brain, we can have a heart or kidney transplant (different DNA), we can lose legs, arms, eyes... Yet,we are still ourselves. What makes us unique and irreplaceable is our brain.
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted May 14, 2013 10:28 PM |
|
Edited by Corribus at 22:28, 14 May 2013.
|
@artu
Quote:
"It will eventually become a human" is not a valid argument, same can be said about a sperm cell, it will eventually fuse with an egg an turn into human.
To be fair, the probability of this happening is actually very very (very) low. A very low percentage of sperm cells go on to be living, breathing humans. A very high percentage of fetuses go on to be living, breathing humans.
Not that I disagree with your ultimate position, but your argument here is very poor.
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted May 14, 2013 10:32 PM |
|
|
|
I know it's not a perfect example but what I try to emphasize is "eventually it will have a brain" is not a valid argument. Laws don't work that way and why should they?
|
|
Salamandre
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
|
|
posted May 14, 2013 10:47 PM |
|
|
Quote:
MOD EDIT: Really, you post that after I just got done defending you a mere few days ago?
I think it is very hard to continue argue with someone saying:
a) It is sad that France does not respect religious freedom but I am against a mosque in NY
b) I am ok with killing innocents kids when hunting terrorists but don't touch a kid in the womb then sterilize the mother if she asks for abortion.
c) I am against health care and I disagree to give my money this way but I love everyone and religion is about giving all you have to others, it is sad the atheists can't understand this.
d) Life is precious, don't kill the baby but give him to a loving family. Of course not mine, I got enough babies and not enough bathrooms for.
...without resorting to the only evidence: hypocrisy. I will be accused of lying again, so I think one "insult" is worth the other...
____________
Era II mods and utilities
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 14, 2013 10:48 PM |
|
|
All completely irrelevant. You can debate morals of this until the next millenium - the positions won't change; and they are irrelevant for the case at hand.
That's because the main fact is, that the fetus cannot exist without and outside the pregnant (at this point of human history; it might change in the future). Which basically means that as long as that is the case the pregnant OWNS the fetus. No one can do anything for the fetus, no one can make it survive or save it, should something befall it OR the pregnant. No one, except the future mother.
That makes a fetus completely and exclusively dependent in every respect - at that point it simply has no voice because no one can speak for it EXCEPT the future mother.
So that makes it rather unique, and all comparisons with old people or braindead or whoever else are INVALID, because ANYONE can take care of those (which automatically makes abortion a completely different case, if someone else can).
This is the only relevant difference between a child/baby and a fetus. It is also completely irrelevant that the fetus has the potential to develop "in the future" to a fully grown human - it has also the potential to die at any time. All this potential is at that point completely depeendent on the future mother.
I don't think there are more relevant points - the rest is just smoke and mirrors.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted May 14, 2013 10:55 PM |
|
|
@JJ
Do you think abortion should be legal at 9th month of pregnancy? If a mother wants to get rid of it at all costs, she'll find a way, sure. But there are many many things that are considered illegal and impossible to prevent, so that is not to hit the jackpot in my opinion.
|
|
Hobbit
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted May 14, 2013 10:59 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Sadly you seem to have only insults to offer the discussion.
Said Saint Elodin.
Quote:
There are plenty of folks who'd love to adopt the baby Mommy is planning to murder.
As a male, you'd never be pregnant. I'm also a male, but I'm pretty sure bearing not wanted babies isn't that easy as you think it is.
About "plenty of folks" - I'm not sure how it is in USA, but in Poland orphanages are still full of born children. And they usually exit their orphanage as adults. Maybe that's just my country, but anyway - adopting children also isn't that easy as you think it is. You can't impose your happy life without abortion and adoption on other people. It's just impossible.
____________
Horn of the
Abyss on AcidCave
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted May 14, 2013 11:08 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
We don't kill the brain dead. We let them die a natural death instead of taking heroic measures to keep the body alive.
Call it what you want, we press a button and they cease to exist. If it's about semantics, both fetus and the brain dead needs external support to live and can't survive on their own.
The need of the fetus for support is fleeting and natural at that stage of the human organism. Infants need support, the elderly need support, the sick need support, those in accidents need support, those injured through crime or war need support, ect. That does make them any less human.
Quote:
Quote:
Immediately exercisable capacity for mental functions appears to be a poor way to measure the moral worth of a human organism. Such a system of measuring moral worth means the moral value of the human organism changes with time, circumstance, happenstance, and developed mental potential. It means a mature human organism who is drunk, taking medication, sleeping, in a coma, or otherwise not functioning at 100% of mental capacity is less worthy of life than one who is functioning "at 100%" by that measure. And presumably human organisms of higher "intelligence" are more worthy of life than those with lesser intelligence.
It's not about being more intelligent or more responsive etc etc. A fetus without a brain is not a self yet, it's the equivalent of a cactus, biologically the only thing that makes him qualified as a separate human is distinctive DNA, that's all.
Comparing human offspring to a cactus is idiotic. Also, "self" and "person" are philosophical terms. You are entitled to your religion, but science says the embryo is a human organism. It does not "become" human later on, it is human from the moment of conception. It does not begin to live later on, it is alive from the start. It does become an organism later on, it is a human organism from the start.
Quote:
And that's not enough to ban abortion which is a necessary procedure in many cases.
Nah, abortion is almost never medically necessary.
Quote:
"It will eventually become a human" is not a valid argument,
Indeed, it is not. It is an unscientific argument. You accuse young earth creationists of throwing our science and only appealing to science when it is in their interests in doing so. Yet you do the same.
Embryology says the embryo is a human organism. But feel free to reject science and cling to your irratinoal religious position.
Quote:
same can be said about a sperm cell, it will eventually fuse with an egg an turn into human.
No it can't. A sperm never ever ever becomes a human organism. Never.
A human organism results from the combination of an egg and a sperm and very very very few sperm ever combine with an egg. A sperm is a specialized human cell used in the human reproduction process. A sperm is NOT a human organism and will never become one.
An organism is either a human organism from the very first moment of its existence or it will never be human. A bovine embryo is an immature cow. It will mature into an adult cow. A monkey embryo is an immature monkey. It will not mature into an adult human. It will mature into an adult monkey. A human embryo is an immature human organism. It will mature into an adult human, not an adult monkey, an adult fish, an adult kangaroo or an adult ostrich.
____________
Revelation
|
|
gnomes2169
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Duke of the Glade
|
|
posted May 14, 2013 11:10 PM |
|
|
Quote:
@artu
Quote:
"It will eventually become a human" is not a valid argument, same can be said about a sperm cell, it will eventually fuse with an egg an turn into human.
To be fair, the probability of this happening is actually very very (very) low. A very low percentage of sperm cells go on to be living, breathing humans. A very high percentage of fetuses go on to be living, breathing humans.
Not that I disagree with your ultimate position, but your argument here is very poor.
True, but I think that Artu was trying to say that if you are judging the potential to become human as being human, and the presence of a brain is not necessary, then human sperm (who have a very low potential to develop into a mature human, admittedly, but still have potential) are also considered human beings. Same with egg cells. So then, under this broad definition, male masturbation is rather large-scale murder of potential human beings and the female menstrual cycle is a mark of the death of another potential human being... A strawman argument (not even Elodin, our most extreme conservative, argues that), I admit, but that would be the most extreme conclusion of labeling a mindless collection of human DNA a "Human being".
Though, that probably isn't the full argument... The full argument is that once the mind has developed (aka, once there IS a mind), then it is human, as the brain is what gives us humans the unique, functioning sense of self that we have. This sense of self is what makes a human, human! If there is no mind, there is no human being, just a collection of organs, bones and tissues that look vaguely human and cannot survive on their own. So, "A potential human with a mind is a human," is what I guess Artu's full argument can boil down to. Elodin's is, "A potential human is a human, period". And this is where the disagreement comes in. Personally, I fall more in line with Artu here. *Shrug*
Oh, and a single sperm under the right conditions has a 100% chance of fertilizing an egg. The same chance that a fetus, under the right conditions, will develop into a human. The fetus just has less restrictive conditions than the sperm.
____________
Yeah in the 18th century, two inventions suggested a method of measurement. One won and the other stayed in America.
-Ghost destroying Fred
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted May 15, 2013 12:13 AM |
|
Edited by artu at 00:15, 15 May 2013.
|
Well, as a native speaker of English, gnomes summed the distinction between our positions quite well. And since abortion is legal in almost all developed countries, I guess it's safe to say the distinction between a human organism and a human individual is not some vague philosophy. The alternative would be saying murder is legal everywhere in the civilized world and ironically it's the underdeveloped theocracies that supports human rights. Just to clear some details though:
Quote:
Comparing human offspring to a cactus is idiotic. Also, "self" and "person" are philosophical terms. You are entitled to your religion, but science says the embryo is a human organism. It does not "become" human later on, it is human from the moment of conception. It does not begin to live later on, it is alive from the start. It does become an organism later on, it is a human organism from the start.
Nobody said it's not alive, a cactus is also alive and it was a metaphor. And philosophy is not religion just like atheism and other things aren't. Your toolbox of concepts is inadequate, so you try to contemplate everything in religious terms or create your own conceptually equivalent symmetry for the other side but it doesn't work that way. It's like you think of yourself in a white room and then imagine the other side in a black room, it's a whole house not a black room.
Quote:
No it can't. A sperm never ever ever becomes a human organism. Never.
I said it will eventually fuse with an egg. The emphasize was on "eventually."
Quote:
An organism is either a human organism from the very first moment of its existence or it will never be human.
An organism is a human organism from the very first moment but a human organism isn't a human individual from the very first moment. And one more time, science has no objection to this, it's not exactly science's job to define abstract values like rights or terms like individual but according to science, the self is in the brain. And no, self is not necessarily a philosophical term.
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted May 15, 2013 01:50 AM |
|
Edited by Elodin at 01:52, 15 May 2013.
|
Quote:
And philosophy is not religion just like atheism and other things aren't. Your toolbox of concepts is inadequate, so you try to contemplate everything in religious terms or create your own conceptually equivalent symmetry for the other side but it doesn't work that way. It's like you think of yourself in a white room and then imagine the other side in a black room, it's a whole house not a black room.
Religion and philosophy are interrelated and interwoven. Both involve a set of morals and principles through which you interpret the world around you.
I've not been the one arguing abortion from a religious/philosophical standpoint. I've been presenting SCIENCE and you've been trying, unsuccessfully, to differentiate between humanity and personhood with some vague philosophical meanderings.
I reject your meanderings. A human is a human is a human. What organism is a member of the human species is clearly established by science.
Abortionists haave been defeated on previous claims about the fetus not being human and now the abortionists have to fall back on philosophical meanderings, as I predicted earlier in the thread. IE they must cling to their "religion" (philosophy, if you prefer) in the face of science that opposes their beliefs.
The debate over whether an embryo/fetus is over from the standpoint of science and even "pro-choice" groups no longer argue that point. That have conceded that that is a fact. They now argue that not all humans are people.
You claim the fetus is not a "person," whatever that means. I'll define a person as a member of the human species. There, all human organisms are people. Your philosophical meanderings on some imaginary state of "personhood" have no priority over mine so we are at a standstill.
So we must fall back on science, which establishes that an embryo is a human organism but which can say nothing about some supposed "pershonhood" distinction. There is no science that measures the philosophical "personhood" that supposedly is magically granted by a personhood fairy that lives in every woman's birth canal.
Hitler had a philosophical definition of personhood too. And it excluded blacks, Jews, and many other human organisms. Saying not all human organisms are persons is a dangerous thing and something I reject completely. Let's just stick to what is and is not a human organism, that is pretty cut and dried in light of modern science.
Quote:
Quote:
An organism is either a human organism from the very first moment of its existence or it will never be human.
An organism is a human organism from the very first moment but a human organism isn't a human individual from the very first moment. And one more time, science has no objection to this, it's not exactly science's job to define abstract values like rights or terms like individual but according to science, the self is in the brain. And no, self is not necessarily a philosophical term.
You are wrong that a human organism in the womb is not a human individual. The human organism in the womb has unique human DNA. It is a unique immature human individual who will mature into a mature human individual barring some tragedy like Mommy deciding to kill Baby.
But by all means, continue to have faith in your imaginary "Birth Canal Mamma/Fairy" that lives in every woman's birth canal and grants personhood upon exit if that pleases you. But don't think society should make its laws based on your imaginary friend.
____________
Revelation
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted May 15, 2013 02:16 AM |
|
Edited by artu at 02:27, 15 May 2013.
|
Quote:
But by all means, continue to have faith in your imaginary "Birth Canal Mamma/Fairy" that lives in every woman's birth canal and grants personhood upon exit if that pleases you. But don't think society should make its laws based on your imaginary friend.
The difference is I don't suggest it's ok to abort a brain developed baby just about to get out of the womb and then the next minute it's murder. My criteria is having a brain and that is a process that has nothing to do with your Birth Canal Fairy. Your definition of a human individual having unique DNA is not enough, what's a man with a heart transplant then, two men (DNA) in one body? You need a brain to count as a person and there is nothing unscientific or discriminative about that. And may I remind you that as of now, the law is on my side so it's kind of shooting at your own foot to get sarcastic about that.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 15, 2013 08:28 AM |
|
|
Quote:
@JJ
Do you think abortion should be legal at 9th month of pregnancy? If a mother wants to get rid of it at all costs, she'll find a way, sure. But there are many many things that are considered illegal and impossible to prevent, so that is not to hit the jackpot in my opinion.
Why would you ask me that? Currently such a baby can exist without the mother, so at that point it's what Elodin calls a baby. If she doesn't want it AT THAT POINT - which, imo, would happen extremely rarely, if at all -, there was no need for an abortion.
I have no idea about the statistics WHY there are late abortions at all - say, after 20 weeks -, but I would guess that they are overwhelmingly based on either a mix of having no knowledge and denial (lack in education/parental morals) or fear because of young age.
If the educational background is halfway decent, pregnancies are detected early enough, and all pregnancy cases I know have been clear-cut in both directions, from the start (meaning that it was always immediately clear what it should be).
Let me also add, that the point isn't the fact that you cannot prevent it - the point is that this "spark of life" is completely and fully dependent on the fate and goodwill of ONE other person, which gives that person - in my opinion - special rights. PROPERTY rights, if you want to.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted May 15, 2013 09:21 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Why would you ask me that?
To clarify something. There is a period in pregnancy where the baby now has a brain but is still dependent on the mother yet. Since you say that all the other stuff is irrelevant, your "property" rights should apply the right of abortion at that stage too. Why would anyone wait you would ask, but life is weird and some people are ignorant and they do.
I am okay with abortion being illegal at that stage unless there's some life threatening medical condition. I don't think it will rise a legal necessity to treat all miscarriages and so on to be treated as murder cases neither. That is, again, to overtheorize laws' necessity for consistency. As of now, although late-stage abortion is illegal miscarriages aren't investigated at all.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 15, 2013 09:38 AM |
|
|
Well, today, a fetus is considered able to survive after the 24. week of pregnancy. It cannot breathe by itself, but can be helped artificially with it, which means that an abortion after week 24 wouldn't make sense to me (and I'm completely okay with it being illegal).
Of course, this opens up a couple of borderline questions and decisions (what about abortions in the last possible instant?), but that's the rule where lines have to be drawn. No matter how old a fetus is, the decision to abort weighs always on the mother, and the later it gets, the more heavily it weighs.
That's what makes unwanted pregnancies in morally oppressive surroundings so dangerous because there is a much higher level of denial with the pregnant (not to mention a basic gap in fundamental knowledge oftentimes) which leads to decisions being delayed to a point when things weigh much heavier.
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted May 15, 2013 10:16 AM |
|
|
Quote:
The difference is I don't suggest it's ok to abort a brain developed baby just about to get out of the womb and then the next minute it's murder. My criteria is having a brain and that is a process that has nothing to do with your Birth Canal Fairy. Your definition of a human individual having unique DNA is not enough, what's a man with a heart transplant then, two men (DNA) in one body? You need a brain to count as a person and there is nothing unscientific or discriminative about that. And may I remind you that as of now, the law is on my side so it's kind of shooting at your own foot to get sarcastic about that.
Ah, well, at least now we have established that birth whether "natural" or by C-section is not something that confers your some special status on a human organism.
All human organisms have human DNA and nothing that is not human has human DNA. We are talking about abortion. The organism in the womb that resulted from a human sperm and human egg combining in human reproduction. Human reproduction...reproduce human. Human offspring.
The unique human DNA means that human organism is a unique individual. He is not his mother or father. He is "his own human organism."
No, a person getting a heart transplant does not become two organisms. That is a stupid comparison. If a pig liver is transplanted into a human that does not make the human organism part pig. In those cases the human organism is trying to use parts of organisms to survive.
When a human organism loses its legs or arms or fingers or toes or donates a kidney to another human organism the human organism suffering the loss does not become less human.
Likewise, the one human organism having greater immediately exercisable mental capacity does not make the organism more human than other human organisms nor does a lesser immediately exercisable mental capacity make one human organism less human than another human organism.
Having immediately exercisable mental function as a measurement of moral worth (your imaginary personhood status) for human organisms is unacceptable to me. A human organism who exercises less mental acuity than me is not worthy of less moral consideration than am I and a human organism that exercises more mental acuity than I is not worthy of more moral consideration that I.
I reject your imaginary personhood, sub-personhood, super-personhood, super-duper-pershood catagories of moral worth of human organisms.
The moral value of the human organism does not change with time, circumstance, happenstance, and developed mental potential as your imaginary personhood status (which you base on immediately exercisable mental function)implies. And human organisms of higher "intelligence" are more worthy of life than those with lesser intelligence. For that matter there is not even a universally accepted definition or way of measuring intelligence.
Again, you are making up an imaginary "special" human organism category that is wothy of moral consideration and saying all other human organisms are not worthy of moral consideration. "Ooooooooo, these human organisms over here are special human organisms and worthy of moral considerations. Those human organisms over there are not special. Its ok to kill those human organisms because they are not special like us."
Poppycock. Monstrous. That is why progressivism always leads down the road to eugenics.
The human embryo is an immature human organism. It is a unique human individual building itself according to a self-directed time-table. There is not a difference in nature between the immature and adult human organism. There is only a difference in maturity. Young human organisms are maturing, not changing their nature. All qualities of the adult human organism are possessed by the embryo in root form and that young human organism is in a self-directed "building program" (maturation.) The human organism is not becoming something alien to itself. It is maturing into adulthood.
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
