|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
posted May 15, 2013 10:27 AM |
|
|
Quote:
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).
Why should the capacity for self-survival be the point at which the immature human organism is considered worthy of moral considerations? What is magic about "self-survival," that confers moral worthiness on a human organism?
It is strange to me to think that as technology advances and we are able to save premature babies at younger and younger ages that those babies somehow become worthy of moral considerations at younger and younger ages.
What is the exact process by which technology confers the status of "worthy of moral considerations" and "right to life?"
Exactly how much assistance can a human organism need to survive before the human organism is no longer worthy of moral considerations?
When an Alzheimer patient reaches the final stages of the disease and can no longer speak or feed herself, like my mother, is that human organism no longer worthy of moral consideration?
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted May 15, 2013 10:30 AM |
|
Edited by artu at 11:02, 15 May 2013.
|
Quote:
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.
You are starting to repeat yourself and deliberately being vague as usual. I already told you it is not a matter of high or low intelligence, this isn't about quantity, you either have a functioning brain or you don't, it's black and white. The current law in almost every developed society clearly shows that the distinction is neither imaginary nor only in my head. An organism that has no brain is not a person. You believe otherwise because of your faith in some metaphysical soul, fine, don't do it yourself (which is impossible by gender anyway). Other than that, no woman has to give a crap about what you think and they don't anyway.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 15, 2013 11:43 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
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).
Why should the capacity for self-survival be the point at which the immature human organism is considered worthy of moral considerations? What is magic about "self-survival," that confers moral worthiness on a human organism?
It is strange to me to think that as technology advances and we are able to save premature babies at younger and younger ages that those babies somehow become worthy of moral considerations at younger and younger ages.
What is the exact process by which technology confers the status of "worthy of moral considerations" and "right to life?"
Exactly how much assistance can a human organism need to survive before the human organism is no longer worthy of moral considerations?
When an Alzheimer patient reaches the final stages of the disease and can no longer speak or feed herself, like my mother, is that human organism no longer worthy of moral consideration?
Completely beside the point - after all, technology makes people LIVE LONGER as well.
However, the magic isn't "SELF-survival" (because they can't with 24 months) - the magic is "outside of the womb" (with a little help from whomever).
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted May 15, 2013 06:04 PM |
|
Edited by Elodin at 18:09, 15 May 2013.
|
Personhood and the human organism
Abortion supporters claim that unborn human organisms are not "persons." What they apparently mean is that the unborn have no value and have no rights and can therefore be killed without moral implications.
The key question in the debate is then, "What is a person?"
There is no agreed upon definition for what constitutes a "person." In Dred Scott vs Sanford (1857) the US Supreme Court said, "A black man has no rights which a white man is bound to respect." This ruling essentially said a black man can be killed, sold, or beaten at the whim of a white man. The black man was not considered a person under the law.
Fast forward to Nazi Germany. The Jews are not persons. Blacks are not persons. Political Dissidents not persons. They could thus be killed with no legal ramifications.
"Non-whites are not persons because only white people are persons" is circular reasoning. Neither early America nor Nazi Germany had justification for excluding black human organisms or Jewish human organisms from their definitions of persons. Both had definitions designed to exclude human organisms from "personhood" with a goal in mind.
And today we have the youngest members of our species declared, "not persons." Abortion supporters have a goal in mind in not including the unborn in the "person" definition. Justification for killing those human organisms.
Science does not tell us that anyone is a "person." Person is not a scientific designation and there is no universally agreed upon definition for person in philosophy or religion either. "Person" has only arbitrary definitions.
The absolute fact that science does tell us is that an embryo is a human organism.
I am the SAME organism today that I was when I came into being in the womb of my mother. I was a unique human organism then. I am a unique human organism now. My identity has not changed. My nature has not changed. My nature has always been human. I am a human organism. A unique human individual. A unique human person.
I started out as a single cell human organism. My body and my mental abilities have matured through the years. The fact is that there is an unbroken continuity from the beginning of my life until this present moment. The me that was in the womb of my mother is the me typing this post. I never "became" me. I started life as me. I'll end life as me. There was no point in time where I suddenly acquired "personhood." I am a person because human organisms have a personal nature.
A human organism does not "become" a person. A human organism IS a person by nature.
"The unborn is not a person because only born people are persons" is circular reasoning.
"Viable" describes an organism's ability to stay alive but tells us nothing about what is the nature of the organism that is able or not able to stay alive on its on. Further, the "viability" of any particular organism can shift and change like the wind. The human organism is prone to illness, injury, handicaps, ect which make it dependent on other human organisms. Are we to say that these human organisms who are dependent on others are "less of a person" than those without such impediments? I hope not.
All human organisms have the potential for reason and choice and we all exercise said potential to a greater or lesser degree. If personhood were based on either potential or degree of actualization of reason and choice we are once again left with some mature human organisms who are "more of a person" or "less of a person" than other human organisms.
Some might object that a human embryo has no potential for reason or choice but that is not the case. The potential is there is root form and that tiny human organism is "building itself" towards being able to exercise that potential. The human embryo is a rational human organism by nature.
If "person" has any meaning it is simply another word "human organism." Human being. Human.Defining person as anything else is simply an excuse to deny some human organisms their innate rights. The most fundamental of these rights being the right to life.
The only difference in an unborn human organism and an adult human organism is maturity. Like begets like. Humans beget humans. Young becomes old.
It is not ok to kill the youngest members of our species. Their nature is our nature. We are all human. If any of us are "persons" we are all, from the youngest to the oldest, from the sickest to the most well-fit. From conception to death.
Defining our young as "not persons" to excuse killing them is not moral.
____________
Revelation
|
|
Hobbit
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted May 15, 2013 07:10 PM |
|
|
Quote:
A unique human individual.
It's not true. You became individual when you could be born and still be alive - that is: when you gained at least 50% viability. Before that you could not be individual, because you could not live without your biological mother.
Again - transferring a fetus to another womb is impossible, therefore a fetus before third trimester is not a person. Its life depends only on what happens to its biological mother. Not its father nor adoptive parents nor anyone else but its mother. It cannot live without her. And if you're talking about morality, then let me say this: imposing her to bear it would be both inhuman and impossible.
Or maybe you want a miscarriage to be illegal?
____________
Horn of the
Abyss on AcidCave
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 15, 2013 07:15 PM |
|
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 15, 2013 11:52 PM |
|
|
Elodin:
Suppose I agree that a fetus is a person, and has natural rights (whatever those entail). Why should I support legal protection of its rights? You may ask why I support the legal protection of anyone's rights, and I'd tell you that I support them because it is beneficial to me to have everyone support a peaceful world (in terms of laws, a world in which aggression against certain kinds of people is penalized). If I say that no one's rights should be protected, then I am endorsing a world in which there are no legal penalties for me killing anyone - but also no legal penalties for anyone killing me. This is clearly disadvantageous to me, as any benefit I can gain from murdering others (which is nonexistent, but for other reasons) is outweighed by the possibility of being murdered with impunity. Therefore, I support the existence of laws against aggression, and because others face the same problem, they have reasons to support the same laws.
However, if other people were not and could not be a threat to me, I would have no reason to support laws protecting them, because the reason that such laws can exist is because I give up my ability to harm them in exchange for them doing the same for me. But if there is a category of people that is fundamentally incapable of choosing to harm me, I have no reason to constrain myself in my dealings with them. (Incidentally, this is also why animals don't have rights.)
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted May 16, 2013 12:07 AM |
|
Edited by Elodin at 00:22, 16 May 2013.
|
Dependence, Individuality, and Personhood
Supporters of "viability" as the start of human personhood confuse independence with individuality. While the human embryo is without a doubt dependent on his mother this does not imply that the embryo is not a distinct individual. The unique human DNA in fact establish that the small human organism is indeed an individual from a scientific viewpoint.
And, I'd like to pose some questions to those who demand that a human organism be "viable" before it can be considered a "person" worthy of moral consideration.
1) Why are only truly independent organisms worthy of moral consideration?
2) What is the degree of independence needed to be considered a person?
3) Can a living human organism be considered a person, lose enough independence to no longer be a person, and later regain enough independence to once again be a person?.
4) Who gets to decide how much independence is needed in order to be a person and what should be the basis of the decision?
The "pre-viable" fetus is a living human organism who is dependent on the mother in order to survive. That does not mean that that dependent human organism is not an individual. Indeed, as pointed out earlier the unique human DNA makes it unquestionable from a scientific point of view that the fetus is in fact unique, an individual.
Using "viability" as the point in determining human personhood is also flawed because the "line of viability" is a constantly changing line as medical science continues to advance and premature babies can be saved at earlier and earlier times. It makes no sense that technologies cause human organisms to become persons at earlier and earlier times in their maturation. It is also not beyond credibility to say that in the not so distant future there could be a machine that can function as an artificial womb.
A mature human organism with a severe spinal injury may be dependent on a respirator for survival. Is such a human organism not an individual/person? I recall a time when I was much younger and my great-aunt needed a respirator to be "viable." Did she cease to be an individual because of her dependence on a machine?
It seems to me that dependence on someone or something else for survival is irrelevant to the question of whether or not a human individual is present. "Viability" is too arbitrary to use to establish "personhood"/individuality.
A "pre-viable" human organism can't survive outside the womb merely because of its maturity at that particular point in time. The dependence on his mother is quite natural and quite temporary. That human organism in the womb is in a self-directed "building program." Building towards his "B day." His birth day. His independence day. Through in actuality it will be years after his birth before he is a truly independent organism. But make no mistake, as that young human organism matures he'll be "making a break" from his mother's womb. Years later he'll "make a break" from his parents home to start his own family and become truly independent. And so the human life cycle repeats itself.
Quote:
"Although human life is a continuous process, fertilization is a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new, genetically distinct human organism is thereby formed.”
O'Rahilly, Ronan and Müller, Fabiola. Human Embryology and Teratology, 2nd edition (New York: Wiley-Liss, 1996) 8.
Quote:
"every time a sperm cell and ovum unite, a new being is created which is alive and will continue to live unless its death is brought about by some specific condition."
E.L. Potter, M.D., and J.M. Craig, M.D. Pathology of the Fetus and the Infant (3rd Edition). Chicago: Year Book Medical Publishers, 1975
____________
Revelation
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted May 16, 2013 12:19 AM |
|
Edited by Elodin at 00:43, 16 May 2013.
|
Quote:
However, if other people were not and could not be a threat to me, I would have no reason to support laws protecting them, because the reason that such laws can exist is because I give up my ability to harm them in exchange for them doing the same for me. But if there is a category of people that is fundamentally incapable of choosing to harm me, I have no reason to constrain myself in my dealings with them. (Incidentally, this is also why animals don't have rights.)
I think your question is not for the abortion thread. Your question is in actuality, "Do all human organisms have rights."
In short, I do not believe in "Animal Farm" rights. I'd wager you are familiar with that Orwell's Amimal Farm tale. No human organism is "more equal" than any other human organism in regards to innate rights. If you with to debate that we should do so in a different thread.
I do not think that only people who are capable of harming you have rights or that you should only respect the rights of those "stronger" than you. Members of the human species have both rights and obligations
The right not to be aborted and the right to "ordinary" parental care
I believe my previous posts have established that an unborn human organism is an individual. As a human individual he has certain rights. The most fundamental of these being the right to life.
Yes, his mother has certain rights. His mother also has certain obligations. An obligation of every parent is to provide for the needs of their children. A mother provides for the needs of unborn child through the natural "support machinery." This is the type of "ordinary care" that every unborn child is entitled to. It is their right to receive this care from their mother.
When the unborn child leaves his mother's womb she still has an obligation to provide for the child. Her means of providing for that small human organism will change as the child matures and his needs change.
The right of the child to live and to have its needs met by his parents is not dependent on whether or not he is in the womb or out of the womb but on his identiy as a member of the human species.
The child's right to live does not begin when he is born. He is a living individual human organism from the moment of conception. He has a right not to be aborted.
____________
Revelation
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 16, 2013 12:44 AM |
|
|
Quote:
I think your question is not for the abortion thread. Your question is in actuality, "Do all human organisms have rights."
Yes, that is my question - or, more generally, it's, "Who has rights and why do they have them?" It's something that has applicability to animal rights (as people saw in the bestiality topic), abortion, and many other topics. If you think it's too general for this thread, I will not discuss it here. Perhaps I will create a separate thread about that subject (though not today), but if someone else wants to, they're welcome to.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted May 16, 2013 01:20 AM |
|
|
|
Elodin, your questions has been answered already with many angles. You, treating the answers like a wall, won't change anything. Now, I have one question for you, couple has unprotected sex, the very next morning woman drinks a herbal mix that terminates pregnancy, do you call this murder?
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted May 16, 2013 02:46 AM |
|
Edited by Elodin at 02:48, 16 May 2013.
|
Quote:
Elodin, your questions has been answered already with many angles. You, treating the answers like a wall, won't change anything. Now, I have one question for you, couple has unprotected sex, the very next morning woman drinks a herbal mix that terminates pregnancy, do you call this murder?
No, you and JJ are both avoiding questions. I am continuing to delve into the issues and sharpen and clarify my thinking on the various issues as I pursue truth to logical conclusions. Asking you questions, even when you dodge them, helps me to clarify and refine and organize my thoughts on the issues.
Now, to answer your question. Any effort to kill a human organism in the womb is immoral just as trying to kill a human organism outside the womb is immoral, if the human organism poses no threat to you. If the woman drank the tea without an intention of killing the human in her womb she did not commit murder. If her intention was to kill the human zygote she is a murderer.
Now, to address your previous comments on personhood and the brain.
Personhood and the Brain
Some abortion advocates claim a human organism in the womb is "not a person" until it has a functioning brain. Defining personhood based on brain development is problematic and results in a number of adult human organisms being, "less of a person" or "more of a person" than their peers.
Brain development is programmed by the DNA. It occurs as a continuous progression as part of the maturation of the human organism in the womb. But it does not end in the womb. The brain as well as other systems continue to mature with the maturing human organism outside the womb. So abortion advocates must also deny personhood to infants as well as the unborn to be consistant with their position.
It should be noted that at no time in the human organism's maturity does the brain suddenly become functional. It is never "turned on" like a light switch. Also of note is even befor a neurological system is observed the human organism is directing itself in building what it needs to survive outside the womb. Self direction is to me some form of "intelligence/consioucness," immature though it may be. And given time the young human organism WILL exhibit the rational nature inherent to it. Once again the question is only one of maturity of the human organism.
As I have pointed out previously developed and actualized mental capacities vary between adult human organisms. This means that measuring personhood on the basis of mental acuity results in having some mature human organisms who are "more of a person" than their peers and some who are "less of a person" than their peers.
Mental accuity appears to be a poor way of determining personhood. Of course immature human organisms will not exhibit mental maturity until they are mature. Saying "Human young are not people because they don't have mature mental functions" makes no sense at all. Human organism have young that need time to mature. Any system of measurement that places human young in a "not human" or "not a person" category makes no sense. Even the youngest of humans posses the full capacities of adults, but in root form.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted May 16, 2013 03:05 AM |
|
Edited by artu at 04:18, 16 May 2013.
|
I've been dodging nothing. Mental acuity is not what I'm referring to, existence of a brain/self is. For the third time, this is not a matter of quantity, it is a matter of quality of the organism. A distinction of quality may have its roots in quantitative accumulation (like water turning into vapor finally in 100 C) but it is still a qualitative change. You just don't want to understand the answer because, as usual, your mind is already made up.
Quote:
Now, to answer your question. Any effort to kill a human organism in the womb is immoral just as trying to kill a human organism outside the womb is immoral, if the human organism poses no threat to you. If the woman drank the tea without an intention of killing the human in her womb she did not commit murder. If her intention was to kill the human zygote she is a murderer.
This stance is extremist at the level of absurd and can not be reasoned with, so I won't try to. I'm just happy extremists like you are a minority and has no practical effect on the issue at all.
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted May 16, 2013 04:23 AM |
|
|
Quote:
I've been dodging nothing.....
Quote:
Now, to answer your question. Any effort to kill a human organism in the womb is immoral just as trying to kill a human organism outside the womb is immoral, if the human organism poses no threat to you. If the woman drank the tea without an intention of killing the human in her womb she did not commit murder. If her intention was to kill the human zygote she is a murderer.
This stance is extremist at the level of absurd and can not be reasoned with, so I won't try to. I'm just happy extremists like you are a minority and has no practical effect on the issue at all.
OK, you've not been answering my questions. Call it dodging or not, I really don't care. What you have done consistently in every thread is to throw out personal jabs at me and at religion even when religion has not been part of the discussion. Anyways, to address more of your comments.
The Brain, Sentience, Personhood and Young Human Organisms
You've not established a functioning brain as being a good measurement of your proposed personhood category of humans or why human young should be be excluded from personhood simply for being young [not yet matured.]
I don't see a human organism being immature as a moral reason to be allowed to kill the human organism. Whether that immaturity has to do with a developed nervous system, a developed respiratory system or any other system.
You seem to be linking current sentience with personhood in claiming the requirement for a functional brain in order for a human organism to be a "person."
If current sentience is the measure of personhood then a temporarily comatose human organism is not a person, a human organism who has been knocked unconscious is not a person, a sleeping human organism is not a person, ect. Those organisms are all in a temporary state of non-sentience. But so are the extremely young human organisms. Young human organisms have the same sentient nature as all other humans though not currently exercising it. As the young organism matures it WILL exhibit the sentient nature it currently possess in root form. Just as the mature human organisms I've mentioned will exhibit sentience when conditions change.
I've shown a person can be sentient, become not sentient and reattain sentience. Current sentience appears to be a poor way of measuring your hypothetical "personhood" category of human organisms and implies that humans who exercise greater sentience are "more of a person" and those who exercise less are "less of a person."
You've also not established exactly what consciousness/sentience is, how it occurs, that the brain alone is the seat of sentience, that only currently sentient human organisms should be considered persons, or that only currently sentient organisms are worthy of moral consideration.
As I said in a previous post the self-direction of the young human organism is an immature form of consciousness to me.
Human young are sentient by nature and will exhibit that sentience given time to mature. Excluding human young from "personhood" merely because they are immature is unfathonable to me.
____________
Revelation
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted May 16, 2013 04:54 AM |
|
Edited by artu at 04:56, 16 May 2013.
|
Quote:
You've not established a functioning brain as being a good measurement of your proposed personhood category of humans or why human young should be be excluded from personhood simply for being young [not yet matured.]
I did, since we cut up people who are brain dead and simply treat them as organ cans. Besides, having a brain to count as a person is quite a self-evident thing and you're the only person here that doesn't seem to be satisfied with it. You are the one dodging the answers and insisting on calling the situation things like "current sentience" when I explained to you it is not about the current state (as in a coma) but about the qualitative difference between having a brain or not because self is in the brain. You act like a wall and keep asking the same questions, what do you think will change when you ask them 50 times? You're not satisfied with the answers, fine, you are entitled to your opinion, everybody else seems to be okay with them. Guess we're all cool with murder except you.
About your other comments, I didn't bring in religion, I said you are an extremist on this subject and it's not a personal jab at all. If you think a woman, terminating her pregnancy right after having sex by drinking a herbal tea, should be called a murderer, if you think that is the equivalent of shooting or strangling somebody, you ARE an extremist. You can't expect to talk like an extremist and not to be called one.
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted May 16, 2013 06:16 AM |
|
Edited by Corribus at 06:43, 16 May 2013.
|
@Elodin
The National Institutes of Health has estimated that at least half of fertilized embryos spontaneously abort.
http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/001488.htm
Many of the causes of such spontaneous abortion are out of the mother's control, but many aren't. For instance, NIH further suggests that possible causes of spontaneous abortion (miscarriage) include obesity, smoking, drug and alcohol abuse, exposure to toxins, etc. Granted, many women who suffer miscarriage due to these factors probably do not intend to miscarry, but under your definition of life beginning at conception*, ALL of these miscarriages that could in some way be attributed to the actions, whether through neglect or intent, could, by law, be classified as homicides. Thus while miscarriage may not be considered murder, it should in many cases, under your definition of life, be considered negligent homicide, at least as many laws are currently written. Forgetting for a moment the logistical nightmare of prosecuting such homicides (and ignoring that in a majority of cases, spontaneous abortion happens without a prospective mother's notice - many miscarriages happen before a woman even knows she's pregnant, within days of conception) and the difficulty of obtaining evidence, do you feel such prosecutions would be fair and within the rights of courts to pursue?
As an example, I think we would all agree that if a woman gets drunk and runs over someone with her car while driving intoxicated, she should be prosecuted for manslaughter. Would you also agree, then, that a pregnant woman who miscarries after having a few glasses of wine should also be prosecuted for manslaughter, IF it could somehow be proven that the alcohol played a role in the miscarriage? And furthermore, would you still hold this view if the woman has only been pregnant for three days and had no knowledge of the pregnancy? What if she is fat and her obesity contributed to the miscarriage? What if she lives near a chemical factory? After all, it is technically a negligent homicide if through her action or negligence she kills another human being.
* Which is not a scientific definition, by the way, no matter how hard you argue to the contrary - scientists and doctors [to say nothing of lawyers] no more agree on when life begins than when it ends, and indeed it's not really a question that science or medicine CAN answer objectively, insofar as there is no rigorous, first-principles metric for the existance of "life". Then again, we've been down this road before, you and I, and I know I, as a scientist, have no hope of educating you on any scientific matter once you've got your mind made up.
EDIT: I'm also taking your approach and assuming "life" is equivalent to "personhood", as you call it. That's a whole separate issue, and one that is even less scientific than the argument over a definition of life.
____________
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
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 16, 2013 08:41 AM |
|
|
|
Corribus, I've been making that point since the beginning of this thread - so what makes you think Elodin will agree with it now?
|
|
Hobbit
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted May 16, 2013 10:07 AM |
|
Edited by Hobbit at 11:33, 16 May 2013.
|
Quote:
Supporters of "viability" as the start of human personhood confuse independence with individuality. While the human embryo is without a doubt dependent on his mother this does not imply that the embryo is not a distinct individual. The unique human DNA in fact establish that the small human organism is indeed an individual from a scientific viewpoint.
So I can call you an individual if I prove you have "an unique human DNA"? If so, this would cause something that Orwell was talking about in Ninety Eighty-Four - using some pretty abstract from social viewpoint attribute to prove being human OR inhuman. Or maybe you would like to prove it only when it comes to fetus? Well, they are as human as us, aren't they? 
It's funny how you made this discussion something that can be summed up as "Abortion vs. Immorality and Orwell". It's amazingly absurd.
Quote:
1) Why are only truly independent organisms worthy of moral consideration?
2) What is the degree of independence needed to be considered a person?
3) Can a living human organism be considered a person, lose enough independence to no longer be a person, and later regain enough independence to once again be a person?.
4) Who gets to decide how much independence is needed in order to be a person and what should be the basis of the decision?
1) Because they are dependending on their mother's life. And she has no choice but to live with it or miscarriage it. So whatever you say about morality, you won't change the fact that if the mother doesn't want her child, she would eventually kill it in more legal or illegal way.
Let me ask you a question: if she wants to kill her baby and we can't do anything about it, should we leave her alone with unsafe methods of miscarriaging or maybe we should legalize something that is definitely more safe and professional?
2) Fetal viability, as I said before.
3) Assuming that we can't get inside someone's organism as a born child nor adult nor anything, I'm afraid that's impossible.
4) Doctors.
Seriously, how obvious is that. It's like you forgot abortion is actually legal in many countries.
Quote:
Guess we're all cool with murder except you.
"Cool" is a bad word, artu. For me it's rather like with smoking cigarettes - I'm not really ok with that, but it's none of my business so why should it be forbidden?
____________
Horn of the
Abyss on AcidCave
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted May 16, 2013 11:37 AM |
|
|
Quote:
"Cool" is a bad word, artu.
Look at the context, isn't it beyond obvious that is sarcasm.
|
|
Salamandre
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
|
|
posted May 16, 2013 11:39 AM |
|
|
It is interesting that in almost all african countries abortion is illegal, yet the infantile death rate is 10x higher than everywhere else because not enough resources to support more population.
____________
Era II mods and utilities
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
