Abortion

[ringworm]

I got into a heated debate recently


A stat was presented to me

14,000 abortions are preformed daily (regardless of the accuracy)

what kind of life would presented to these kids if they weren't aborted?

as much as i hate to imagine the process, what would the world be like if abortion were illegal?

since most republicans seem to base their campaign strategy on this issue, why isn't education as much of the solution to combat teen pregnancy as outlawing the procedure itself? are they really ready to tackle what would happen if 15 year olds were forced to give birth and accept responsibility of a child, when they were themselves still children?

[Shell]

idk maybe other 15 year olds would see that there are consequences to having sex, and they are not fun

[boredoms]

God wills it.

[Iskandar]

what would the world be like if abortion were illegal?When abortion was illegal, it was practiced in unsafe and horrific ways. Often both the mother and child died from primitive abortion methods. If unwanted pregnancies weren't aborted, the parents were often forced to marry.

Remembering what it was like before safe and legal abortion helps us understand why it's needed, even if we don't like it.

[ringworm]

so why in 2008, is it being used as a campaign platform once again?

[boredoms]

because there are still people that think outlawing it works.

[Iskandar]

so why in 2008, is it being used as a campaign platform once again?It will always be an issue as long as there are conservative Christians with traditional morals to offend.

[Aaron]

Haven't you seen Dirty Dancing?!

[Iskandar]

Or read The Cider House Rules.

[pppoe]

Some of these kids would end up in garbage bins.

[Aaron]

On a serious note, I think people don't really try and empathise when they state their position 9/10, especially in the media as they try take "strong stances"... they just make assumptions and don't take into account the trauma on individuals.

[SkaRobotArmy]

the thing i hate most about this debate is those who are against brand themselves as PRO-life. I am PRO-life too, i am all about life and consider myself fairly set against death and dying. These people are ANTI-abortion, this however makes them sound evil.

we are much better off with it. i would be interested to see the statistic of abortions for actual mistakes vs. abortions for rape. either way though, everyone benefits from this. conservatives don't want to pay taxes? abortion is a great tool in reducing financial drain on social welfare programs.

[Iscariot]

abortion in cases where the pregnancy does not endanger the life of the mother are a way to circumvent responsibility and some women are disgusting enough to use it as another form of birth control

it should be illegal but unfortunately that won't cease the demand of sub-humans looking for an easy way out so it would simply result in back alley abortion clinics which present a tremendous danger to the person receiving the operation

imo the key is in screening candidates for abortion to ensure that it's actually a necessary procedure and not just something they're getting done because they feel like it

taking a life whether you agree with it being an actual life or not should never be a luxury

[SkaRobotArmy]

well if i dont think its a life to begin, its not considered a luxury is it?

however, you are speaking only on behalf of people who messed up and forgot their domer, what about victims of rape? should it be legalized for them? how would you appoint a judge to say if its legitimate or not? could it be considered necessary if the baby was discovered to have severe defects?

a flower is an unborn fruit, you cannot eat the flower.
a fetus is an unborn person, the person hasn't awareness yet.

and even if it DOES, i am fairly certain that in many cases, they are better off going that way than being thrust into a life it was never meant to have.

[siva_chair]

As a male I don't know if I will ever be able to put myself in the proper shoes to be able to say much on this issue.

While I don't like the fact that society has created a "need" for abortion, it is an unfortunate reality we have to face. I think the issue really comes down to a personal and individual moral issue, and I am uncertain as to what role the government needs to play in that.

While the idea of abortion leaves a bad feeling in my stomach, I cannot bring myself to judge a woman for having one because I simply have no idea what it's like to have to face that kind of situation.

As to the whole unborn fetus being aware thing: I think that is pretty silly to conclude much either way as no real empirical measure exists to detect awareness or consciousness and both things tend to be pretty ambiguous in their definitions in these sort of arguements.

[Pop music sucks]

If they weren't aborted, they more than likely wouldn't have had the opportunities that planned kids would have received.

[Iskandar]

While I don't like the fact that society has created a "need" for abortionThere was always a need for it because there have always been unwanted pregnancies and attempts to end them.

[RunAmokRampant]

Eh it's entirely up to the woman in question to decide, it's her body regardless of what situation it is, whether it be due to health, rape, or convenience as long as the feotus is not in its third trimester.

[siva_chair]

There was always a need for it because there have always been unwanted pregnancies and attempts to end them.

Yeah I know. Basically it is unfortunate that the idea of unwanted pregnancies exists.

[Iskandar]

Sometimes ending the pregnancy is the best choice.

[mph4ever]

this debate just came up in my life since my mate has gone and got his ex up the spout in a one night fling. he wants her to get rid of it, she wants to keep it. he doesn't want his kid running around and wants termination now. she says he has no right to tell her what to do and that she doesn't want him involved since that is his attitude, he says he was involved the moment she got up the spout.


they are both seeing someone else hahahaha, no wonder i have had a few drinks lately

solve that with your abortion debate

[Iskandar]

It's her decision because she's the one carrying the child.

[RunAmokRampant]

^agreed.

Her body, ultimately her decision.

[mph4ever]

^agreed.

Her body, ultimately her decision.

so even with two consenting people, who live in the same town, will see each other regularly. i don't know about that

see, i never bring body into it, pro choice for me is about the person, not the body.

think of it differently, if he wants the baby and she doesn't, could he ask her to carry it for him? is keeping it as bad as getting rid of it depending on which parent you think about and their want for the child?

[siva_chair]

Sometimes ending the pregnancy is the best choice.

I didn't say it wasn't.

I just said that it is unfortunate that such a thing as unwanted pregnancies even exist or that situations where ending the pregnancy is the best choice actually exists.

[SkaRobotArmy]

think of it differently, if he wants the baby and she doesn't, could he ask her to carry it for him? is keeping it as bad as getting rid of it depending on which parent you think about and their want for the child?

that complicates things, you're right. who gets to decide? though i think that is a much rarer case.

[RunAmokRampant]

yeah well if the man had any empathy for her position he should let her decide. She's the one that has to go through all the physical and mental pains of pregnancy. Not that men don't have some hardships to deal with but compared to women a lot less.

[siva_chair]

think of it differently, if he wants the baby and she doesn't, could he ask her to carry it for him? is keeping it as bad as getting rid of it depending on which parent you think about and their want for the child?

I know a couple that this situation happened to. The guy wanted the kid and wanted to take care of it but the woman didn't want to have anything to do with it. Kinda sad situation really.

But in hindsight he probably isn't fit to be a father anyway (nor she a mother, though she since has had a child with another man) so....

[Hababi]

When abortion was illegal, it was practiced in unsafe and horrific ways. Often both the mother and child died from primitive abortion methods. If unwanted pregnancies weren't aborted, the parents were often forced to marry.

Maybe in the 1800s but by the 20th century, most illegal abortions were performed in sanitary conditions. The backlot butcher idea is basically a glorified myth.

And it was better when people married once they were knocked up.

[RunAmokRampant]

Yeah but its still a dodgy practice and the poor women are generally victimised and have to pay a lot for equally dodgy doctors.

[Der Übermensch]

20 years after Abortion was made legal with RvW, there was an unexpected downturn in the crime rate.

In Romania, when they banned abortion (and it had been a very permissive place for it before) there was a upsurge in crime about 20 years after that ban.

Now, I'm not saying abortion should be used because it is crime control, but I will say that it is used often on those who often would be born into less than ideal circumstances.
Sure, it is a popular method of birth control with middle-class housewives who already have 2 kids, and that is sickening tbh, but it is also widely used by those in lower socio-economic standing who feel their circumstances would be harmful for a child's overall development.

[DBoons Ghost]

Some of these kids would end up in garbage bins.

They still do buddy. Poverty rules.

[DBoons Ghost]

And it was better when people married once they were knocked up.

Until they started getting divorced.. back when women were kept as housewives and once daddy leaves they rely on the state to give them what they need to survive.. welfare which was designed for that very reason.

So should we do the math and figure out what's cheaper? Welfare for the life of a woman and her children or a one time fee of 400 bucks or whatever it is these days?

There is a price tag assigned to all of this thanks to the glory of capitalism.

[pppoe]

They still do buddy. Poverty rules.

It would happen more often if abortion were banned.

[DBoons Ghost]

It would happen more often if abortion were banned.


Yes it would.

Back in the days before abortion they called it infanticide. There used to be massive boneyards in the sewers when Rome ruled the world. They had a kid they didn't want and tossed it in the sewer. I think abortion is much more humane.

I respect the woman's right to choose but I am all for abortion in mass quantities. Like, if you're not married and not 18, you should be forced to have an abortion.

[pppoe]

Forcing people to abort their children would be terrible. What we need to do is better educate them on why they need to wait until they've got enough time and money to raise their dudes.

[TBrown87]

Abortion should only be allowed for people with a good reason such as victims of rape or those with health issues. It should be illegal for people who get knocked up at a party and don't want to deal with the consequences. It's their dumb fault they got pregnant.

[DBoons Ghost]

Abortion should only be allowed for people with a good reason such as victims of rape or those with health issues. It should be illegal for people who get knocked up at a party and don't want to deal with the consequences. It's their dumb fault they got pregnant.


No, that is retarded. It's their dumb fault they got pregnant? Who's dumb fault is it to raise a child that will probably end up dead anyway due to bad teenage parents? The state takes the kid and then what? Or the kid's grandparents bear the burden? Or do we as taxpayers?

You can't split hairs with the "it's ok for rape victims but not ok for drunken kids" because that is a pretty bad way to argue it.

You don't have to carry a child so what right do you have to say anything?

[pppoe]

So you would rather that child be born and raised by parents who can barely handle their own ****. Yeah, that makes sense.

[DBoons Ghost]

Forcing people to abort their children would be terrible. What we need to do is better educate them on why they need to wait until they've got enough time and money to raise their dudes.


Yeah that might work. Look how well it's worked so far.

[Special Brew]

abortion is an abomination in any situation where the life of someone else isnt in jeopardy

[pppoe]

Better educate. :(

[ringworm]

i guess what makes me more aggravated, and why i created this thread was the polarizing it creates and how candidates are chosen by this one stance alone

nothing gets me more flared up than to hear someone negate one person, and glorify another but also being totally ignorant about the 99 other stances a candidate carries

with all the US has to tackle in the upcoming years, is this one issue really even relevant?


and to boot, he didnt even know mccain wasnt exactly a pro lifer :lol:

he said, ok, so i just wont vote at all

thats how feverously he feels about abortion :/

[DBoons Ghost]

abortion is an abomination in any situation where the life of someone else isnt in jeopardy


And the alternatives are a miserable life in foster care, or better yet a life of abuse and misery until the child is finally killed at the hands of careless parents who aren't old enough to drink yet they are ok to raise a child.

I don't get it.

[TBrown87]

No, that is retarded. It's their dumb fault they got pregnant? Who's dumb fault is it to raise a child that will probably end up dead anyway due to bad teenage parents? The state takes the kid and then what? Or the kid's grandparents bear the burden? Or do we as taxpayers?

You can't split hairs with the "it's ok for rape victims but not ok for drunken kids" because that is a pretty bad way to argue it.

You don't have to carry a child so what right do you have to say anything?

You make a good point. But it doesn't mean these people should be allowed to just get rid of their kids. And some of the best mothers I've known had accidental pregnancies while in their teens.

[Mr. Ron]

Guys stop being pussies abortion is a good thing

[DBoons Ghost]

You make a good point. But it doesn't mean these people should be allowed to just get rid of their kids. And some of the best mothers I've known had accidental pregnancies while in their teens.


Listen to you! "But it doesn't mean these people should be allowed to just get rid of their kids." They aren't "getting rid of their kids". That's when they have them and abandon them to the fates of foster care and orphanages..

What they are doing is having a couple of cells removed.. like a hernia or kidney stones..

I do agree that some of the best parents are those who were thrust into it. Yes some of them might even be teenagers. However, that isn't always the case. Majority states otherwise.

I'm being totally over the top by stating what I did, that anyone not 18 should have their pregnancy aborted.

In all honesty, there is nothing wrong with leaving things exactly as they are. Woman's right to choose and that's it. Abortion should remain legal in all the states and insurance should pay for it too. Less dead babies in trash cans. Which happens often enough to not want it to happen at all.

You guys gotta open your eyes to the alternatives.

[free_thinkers_are_dangerous]

I don't like the idea of abortion, but I think we're lucky that technology has given us a chance for a "do-over" when birth control fails. Until a foetus has consciousness, there really isn't a difference in terms of human life between not having sex in the first place and having an abortion early in gestation.

Imo once the baby could survive on its own abortion should be out of the question. I'm not sure what the latest time an abortion is legal or when a baby can survive, but there shouldn't be an overlap. If a mom decides at 30+ weeks that she wants an abortion, she should have a C-section and put it up for adoption or whatnot.

[Mr. Ron]

it isn't a human until it gets brainwaves.

[Iscariot]

well if i dont think its a life to begin, its not considered a luxury is it?

it doesn't matter IMO if you think it's a life or not, it's still as you say an unborn person

a baby in the womb shares the same human rights as it's mother and when the mother violates those rights and kills that baby unnecessarily she should be punished to the maximum extent of the law

however, you are speaking only on behalf of people who messed up and forgot their domer, what about victims of rape? should it be legalized for them? how would you appoint a judge to say if its legitimate or not? could it be considered necessary if the baby was discovered to have severe defects?

we have adoption agencies for a reason

and even if it DOES, i am fairly certain that in many cases, they are better off going that way than being thrust into a life it was never meant to have.

it isn't for you to decide who's better off dead and who's better off alive

that's my biggest issue with abortion is that it's a demonstration of medical practice stepping so far outside the circle of ethics that it comfortably dictates life and death without repercussions

[Futue te Ipsum]

I don't like the idea of abortion, but I think we're lucky that technology has given us a chance for a "do-over" when birth control fails. Until a foetus has consciousness, there really isn't a difference in terms of human life between not having sex in the first place and having an abortion early in gestation.

Imo once the baby could survive on its own abortion should be out of the question. I'm not sure what the latest time an abortion is legal or when a baby can survive, but there shouldn't be an overlap. If a mom decides at 30+ weeks that she wants an abortion, she should have a C-section and put it up for adoption or whatnot.Another thing people forget is that abortion can be used to give people a chance to "do over" when the processes of spontaneous abortion fails to terminate diseased embryos (more fertilised embryos are spontaneously aborted within the first 2 weeks than actually survive that point. It makes sense really, as in terms of resources a child is incredibly expensive, so your body will look for cues to this via feedback mechanisms, etc.).
Obviously in the case of high risk to the parent, or the case of the child being deformed there's a very strong case for abortion, but then you also need to remember that this is a minority of cases. When we talk about abortion as it stands in the US right now, you really need to be talking about being able to abort for reasons other than health. It's a really difficult situation.

[TBrown87]

Listen to you! "But it doesn't mean these people should be allowed to just get rid of their kids." They aren't "getting rid of their kids". That's when they have them and abandon them to the fates of foster care and orphanages..

What they are doing is having a couple of cells removed.. like a hernia or kidney stones..

I do agree that some of the best parents are those who were thrust into it. Yes some of them might even be teenagers. However, that isn't always the case. Majority states otherwise.

I'm being totally over the top by stating what I did, that anyone not 18 should have their pregnancy aborted.

In all honesty, there is nothing wrong with leaving things exactly as they are. Woman's right to choose and that's it. Abortion should remain legal in all the states and insurance should pay for it too. Less dead babies in trash cans. Which happens often enough to not want it to happen at all.

You guys gotta open your eyes to the alternatives.

So, basically all we disagree on is whether a fetus has rights, making this discussion futile, much like every other discussion here.

[Futue te Ipsum]

why does everything have to serve a practical purpose?

[DBoons Ghost]

So, basically we disagree on whether a fetus has rights, making this discussion futile, much like every other discussion here.


Pretty much.

But you know, the laws of mankind agree with me more then you. The laws of mankind are the rules we live by.

I at the very least can understand the other side of the story and respect the difference. Can you?

If a woman believed she was killing her baby, and chose to carry full term, I would respect her right to choose. If a woman decided to abort, I would respect her right to choose.

[TBrown87]

That's the whole difference between our arguments. I believe the fetuses right to existence is more important than the mothers right to choose. You believe the opposite. I respect that but don't agree with it and I know for a fact we're not going to convince each other otherwise which is why this discussion is futile.

[Iscariot]

pro-choice people always blow my mind they say no matter what the woman chooses they respect and support the decision but when the woman is choosing between life and death what kind of person are you if you support their right to kill an unborn child

[DBoons Ghost]

That's the whole difference between our arguments. I believe the fetuses right to existence is more important than the mothers right to choose. You believe the opposite. I respect that but don't agree with it and I know for a fact we're not going to convince each other otherwise which is why this discussion is futile.


But if that was the case then the fetus can defend itself in a court of law? It has the ability to think clearly and is conscious of the efforts to kill it?

More to the point, it can fend for itself at the moment of birth too right?

Where does the fetus draw it's rights from? Does a d0cument exist granting a cell rights? Or, for the sake of not pissing you off, the fetus?

Is there such a d0cument?

[TBrown87]

The same could be said of the mentally retarded. Should their guardians have the right to kill them?

[DBoons Ghost]

pro-choice people always blow my mind they say no matter what the woman chooses they respect and support the decision but when the woman is choosing between life and death what kind of person are you if you support their right to kill an unborn child

Well, if I could choose for them I'd choose abortion 100% of the time.

But I respect her right to choose as well. Just to clarify.

Also, a child is between the ages of 1 and 5 in most cases. Maybe you could choose another term? Unborn infant?

[DBoons Ghost]

The same could be said of the mentally retarded. Should their guardians have the right to kill them?


Well, that brings about an entire different discussion.

However, if they realized at conception the child was going to be born a retard, they could abort it.

See how easy?

It saves everyone from ever having to make a decision like that.

[Already_Taken]

Abortion is the 2nd most common surgery in the united states, behind circumcision.

[pppoe]

Proof?

[Already_Taken]

look on google it's not hard idiot.

[pppoe]

no, that's okay. i'll let you link me to your source.

i can't believe i didn't see that earlier.

[TBrown87]

gtfo

ha! I've always wanted to say that.

Anyway, it all comes down to whether this fetus has rights or not. The fetus can't defend itself in court but why should that mean that its denied the right to live? Why should a human being, albeit a partially formed human being, not have the rights we give to household pets? And the fetuses can sense pain after a certain point in their developement which is why I find late term abortion to be downright immoral.

[DBoons Ghost]

Abortion is the 2nd most common surgery in the united states, behind circumcision.


What if instead it was the second highest demographic murdered?

Like, abortion is now illegal. Now you can find an infant in dumpsters all over every state in every city.

I suppose that would be better.

Or as crowded as orphanages are, even better to fill them up more? Or all those lovely foster homes across the country. Those are the place to be. It's good living!

[Already_Taken]

i can't even remember when i was a baby, much less when i was in the womb. any pain that happened then is inconsequential at this point.

Dboon, i just wrote that to think about, not really to pick a side. :p

[DBoons Ghost]

gtfo

ha! I've always wanted to say that.

Anyway, it all comes down to whether this fetus has rights or not. The fetus can't defend itself in court but why should that mean that its denied the right to live? Why should a human being, albeit a partially formed human being, not have the rights we give to household pets? And the fetuses can sense pain after a certain point in their developement which is why I find late term abortion to be downright immoral.


Please point me to the law or paper that grants a collection of living cells rights.

Because then we'd have plants up in arms and entire farms asking for right to life as well.

Late term abortion is illegal btw. Third trimester.

[DBoons Ghost]

i can't even remember when i was a baby, much less when i was in the womb. any pain that happened then is inconsequential at this point.

Dboon, i just wrote that to think about, not really to pick a side. :p


Ahh devil's advocate! My kinda man.

Good job.

I thought about it for a second at least.

[TBrown87]

This is getting ridiculous. I'll answer this point and leave. I don't know how I even got dragged into this.


Plants aren't going to become living, thinking, productive humans. Fetuses have a measure of awareness at a certain point. And plants are tastier than humans. So they automatically have fewer rights.

[Already_Taken]

fetuses are no longer fetuses once they develop a measure of awareness.

[DBoons Ghost]

This is getting ridiculous. I'll answer this point and leave. I don't know how I even got dragged into this.


Plants aren't going to become living, thinking, productive humans. Fetuses have a measure of awareness at a certain point. And plants are tastier than humans. So they automatically have fewer rights.


Hahaha.. It's getting absurd but there is no venom or persecution in my text.

I respect your stance and it's a good thing there are people like you who care.

Caring won't feed or guide these children though. Money won't either. I dunno man I couldn't imagine my daughter in the care of strangers and I had 2 older bros who were adopted and.. I guess my bias is what it is.

[Light Fantastic]

fetuses are no longer fetuses once they develop a measure of awareness.

you mean after they are born

[TBrown87]

Hahaha.. It's getting absurd but there is no venom or persecution in my text.

I respect your stance and it's a good thing there are people like you who care.

Caring won't feed or guide these children though. Money won't either. I dunno man I couldn't imagine my daughter in the care of strangers and I had 2 older bros who were adopted and.. I guess my bias is what it is.

Well thanks for that.:thumb:

[Dimmu Burger]

Like, abortion is now illegal. Now you can find an infant in dumpsters all over every state in every city.

I agree that would should keep it legal for this reason, even though I believe its wrong. It sucks that this is reality though.

[VomitStainedCretin]

Abortion should be banned because women shouldn't have rights if Jesus didn't want them to and because an illegal abortion is a thing of beauty, particularly when botched and resulting in fatal infection.

[Mr. Ron]

I'm trying to remmeber that argument perpetual burn used a while ago....something about fetuses not having rights until they are literally out of the woman's body. I forgot his justification for it.

[Illmatic]

I am completely against abortion.

there are too many ****ing people on earth already but hey lets add even more people because that can't be a bad thing on a planet with finite resources that we share with countless other life forms.

because hey then we can always just drive every other species into extinction and then drain resources from planets and other objects in space. after all humans come first, we always have and always will.

[Light Fantastic]

I'm trying to remmeber that argument perpetual burn used a while ago....something about fetuses not having rights until they are literally out of the woman's body. I forgot his justification for it.

presidential candidate analogy?

[VomitStainedCretin]

I am completely against abortion.

there are too many ****ing people on earth already but hey lets add even more people because that can't be a bad thing on a planet with finite resources that we share with countless other life forms.

because hey then we can always just drive every other species into extinction and then drain resources from planets and other objects in space. after all humans come first, we always have and always will.Don't forget, children who know their mothers regretted having them generally have more fulfilling lives than purposely conceived ones.

[RunAmokRampant]

I am completely against abortion.

there are too many ****ing people on earth already but hey lets add even more people because that can't be a bad thing on a planet with finite resources that we share with countless other life forms.

because hey then we can always just drive every other species into extinction and then drain resources from planets and other objects in space. after all humans come first, we always have and always will.

but. . . that's the whole point of being human.

[1338 h4x0r]

**** movie but I can't help but quote it here

"I'd like to share a revelation I've had during my time here. It came to me when I tried to classify your species. I realized that you're not actually mammals. Every mammal on this planet instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with their surrounding environment, but you humans do not. You move to another area, and you multiply, and you multiply, until every natural resource is consumed. The only way you can survive is to spread to another area. There is another organism on this planet that follows the same pattern. Do you know what it is? A virus. Human beings are a disease, a cancer of this planet. You are a plague, and we are the cure."

[Mr. Ron]

I like that movie. :(

[Iskandar]

I didn't mind it. The sequels looked stupid though.

[Dimmu Burger]

I loved the first one and enjoyed the other two as well. Great quote by the way! So true!

[Iscariot]

what movie is that from i've heard that before

[1338 h4x0r]

I like that movie. :(

My condolences. See below

btw, I want to start dressing like an agent, it would suit me well

I didn't mind it. The sequels looked stupid though.

First one was alright

It had Keanu Reeves in it, which puts a definite upper bound on how good any movie can be. Fortunately, his wooden acting didn't destroy The Devil's Advocate

[Mr. Ron]

My condolences. See below

btw, I want to start dressing like an agent, it would suit me well



First one was alright

It had Keanu Reeves in it, which puts a definite upper bound on how good any movie can be. Fortunately, his wooden acting didn't destroy The Devil's Advocate

"You mean...you're going to pay me...to surf???????"

[ringworm]

one of the best movie quotes of all time

but the 2nd & 3rd were a colossal disappointment to me

[Dimmu Burger]

what movie is that from i've heard that before

The Matrix

[SkaRobotArmy]

Plants aren't going to become living, thinking, productive humans. Fetuses have a measure of awareness at a certain point. And plants are tastier than humans. So they automatically have fewer rights.

how do you know that?!

it doesn't matter IMO if you think it's a life or not, it's still as you say an unborn person

a baby in the womb shares the same human rights as it's mother and when the mother violates those rights and kills that baby unnecessarily she should be punished to the maximum extent of the law

but in many cases, its not just unessecary, its not just a roll of the dice saying 'hey ya? lets kill it, see what its like?' there are very good reasons for this. and yes it does matter, because if its not a life, it hasn't got rights.

we have adoption agencies for a reason
read everything DBoon wrote, these are very often a worse case for the child than the perhaps few quick seconds of pain it may/may not experience during abortion.


it isn't for you to decide who's better off dead and who's better off alive

that's my biggest issue with abortion is that it's a demonstration of medical practice stepping so far outside the circle of ethics that it comfortably dictates life and death without repercussions

you're right, its a good thing im not deciding then isnt it? it should be up to the mother/parents. there are other ethics and morals to be considered aside from to live or not to live...

using that logic, any life SAVING medical practice is also outside the circle of so called 'ethics' by dictating life and death. your father has a heart attack? you probably shouldn't be saving him then... he was meant to die, who are you to decide?


if you all are against abortion because its a life, how do you feel about euthanasia? if one of your grandparents was critically ill or vegetablised, would you want to see them struggle on in that state indefinately? is it better to end the immense amount of suffering?

[Iscariot]

people should live and die of natural causes

i haven't been to the doctor in years because most often medicine has more complications than just riding something out

and i find it incredibly hard to believe that being put up for adoption is worse than dying

what are you retarded

[SkaRobotArmy]

i sort of agree with you on that. i think finding a cure for cancer has some serious implications and may not really be the best thing we could do. however in most, prolonging life as long as the quality of remains largely unaffected is by no means a bad thing.

look into it, many people adopt simply to make the extra money, kids can be physically, verbally, sexually abused. its not a pretty scene and while its not always like that, its certainly not that rare.

how many people commit suicide as a choice between a life of perceived misery or death? plenty. the point is, a life of misery is an all too common path for many of these cases and its better that they never exist in the first place.

[Hababi]

The Matrix

I should've recognized it as overblown, ostentatious talky dialog that's typical of the Wokowski's. Yeah the first one was still pretty good but the third one sucked royally.

[free_thinkers_are_dangerous]

people should live and die of natural causes

why?
i haven't been to the doctor in years because most often medicine has more complications than just riding something out

then stop going to a crappy doctor. all treatments are analyzed to see if the benefits outweigh the cost and complication rate.

[DBoons Ghost]

I love Jared (Iscariot) but in this instance he does not argue well. It's a terribly sore subject and the passion levels are high enough that any emotion must be forgiven with regard to this discussion. I would hope people would do much of the same for each other in the same regard.

A lot of people assume that basic human care shouldn't have a price tag and they think outside of our reality in regards to providing love and security and food to a growing child but in most cases it just doesn't happen that way and if someone refuses to have a debate in the reality that is now, there is no point in retort. There is no point in debate. I mean, money makes the world go around and there just isn't room for movement there.. Only the strong survive, and all that jazz.

We humans are animals are we not? In any other species of being a weaker hatchling or infant is killed by the strongest in the pack so as not to slow down the strongest of that pack. Are we inuhmane or irrational for not embracing the same instinct or should rational intelligent civlized manners of thinking take precedence?

It's a tough one. Abortion in my humble opinion should fall into that same scrutiny but people dogged by religion and the laws of God can never state any case further then "thou shall not kill" and it's impossible to argue that.

[Already_Taken]

if you've ever seen the movie idiocracy, well that's probably what's gonna happen if we don't embrace abortion. that's right, embrace

[1338 h4x0r]

Garbage collect humans.

[butt assault]

abortion brings down crime it said so in freakonomics

[DBoons Ghost]

abortion brings down crime it said so in freakonomics


That book was certainly lol.

[Illmatic]

I should've recognized it as overblown, ostentatious talky dialog that's typical of the Wokowski's

said the guy who complains about elitism.

[Dimmu Burger]

abortion brings down crime it said so in freakonomics

facts are facts.

said the guy who complains about elitism.

Oh snap!

[Mr. Ron]

I think my favorite argument I hear from pro-lifers is "well that lump of cells CAN BECOME a human!"

lol

[free_thinkers_are_dangerous]

The problem with that argument is that you can say that about any guy and girl walking down the street.

Next time I'm on a date with a girl and she says she's tired I'm going to say "you know, it's murder for you not to have sex with me".

[Hababi]

I think my favorite argument I hear from pro-lifers is "well that lump of cells CAN BECOME a human!"

lol

not a matter of can become. Is human.

[gregulus]

not a matter of can become. Is human.

Why?

[Hababi]

Why?

Because human is a term for homo sapien, and the child in the womb is inescapably a distinct homo sapien life.

[Already_Taken]

unless u abort it, then it's just a lump of cells

[gregulus]

Because human is a term for homo sapien, and the child in the womb is inescapably a distinct homo sapien life.
It's in the process of being a homo sapien. It's a humanoid, but I wouldn't call in intrinsically human.

[Hababi]

It's in the process of being a homo sapien. It's a humanoid, but I wouldn't call in intrinsically human.

'intrinsically human'/humanoid really is a semantic argument.

[Iskandar]

not a matter of can become. Is human.No it's not. It's a lump of cells, dammit.

Unless you think an embryo is human in which case I'm sorry for you.

[gregulus]

'intrinsically human'/humanoid really is a semantic argument.
No it's not. All humans are humanoid but not all humanoids are human.

[Hababi]

No it's not. It's a lump of cells, dammit.

Unless you think an embryo is human in which case I'm sorry for you.

All human beings are, at their core, lumps of cells.


No it's not. All humans are humanoid but not all humanoids are human.


Defining human arbitrarily along whatever lines you chose=semantic argument.

[Iskandar]

All human beings are, at their core, lumps of cells.
The definition of human is a little more complicated that than.

Call a spade a spade, dammit. An embryo is not a human.

[Hababi]

The definition of human is a little more complicated that than.

So is the existence of a child in the womb.

[gregulus]

All human beings are, at their core, lumps of cells.
But not all lumps of cells, even cells containing Homo sapien DNA are human.



Defining human arbitrarily along whatever lines you chose=semantic argument.
How would you define human?

[spitfirejunky]

The same could be said of the mentally retarded. Should their guardians have the right to kill them?

The mentally retarded are very often sentient. If it was someone whose brain was completely liquified, then yes.

[Iskandar]

So is the existence of a child in the womb.Why, I was taught in science class that fertilization produces a zygote, which then becomes an an embryo, then after about ten weeks it's defined as a fetus.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_prenatal_development

[Hababi]

How would you define human?

Very simple: a distinct entity whose genetic identity is homo sapien.

[spitfirejunky]

I don't see how any of this is material. A zygote is indisputably human. Whether or not it has rights is another question.

[Hababi]

A zygote is indisputably human. Whether or not it has rights is another question.

:thumb::cool:

[Iskandar]

It doesn't.

[Already_Taken]

Very simple: a distinct entity whose genetic identity is homo sapien.
you're an idiot

[Hababi]

you're an idiot

gtfo

[Iskandar]

I love the idea of men telling women what to do with their bodies.

[Already_Taken]

i love the idea that this guy thinks from the time the sperm and the egg meet, a human with a brain and feelings and arms and toes is instantly created. so old fashioned. science is pretty cool you should learn about it.

[Hababi]

I love the idea of men telling women what to do with their bodies.

so how about women eg Sarah Palin

[Mr. Ron]

not a matter of can become. Is human.

I'm sorry steve but a lump of cells with no mind isn't a human.

[Hababi]

I'm sorry steve but a lump of cells with no mind isn't a human.

once again you're making a semantic argument.

[Iskandar]

so how about women eg Sarah PalinWomen who are anti-abortion are also anti-feminist.

[McP3000]

The concept and argument over abortion is entirely over semantics

Women who are anti-abortion are also anti-feminist.
Thats the most ignorant blanket statement ive ever seen you post

[Mr. Ron]

once again you're making a semantic argument.

No I'm not. Its very simple and clear.

In the very early stages its nothing but a fat lump. Its not human.

[Iskandar]

Thats the most ignorant blanket statement ive ever seen you postAbortion is one of the most important of women's rights: the right to control their own wombs, the essence of their womanhood. Women who oppose this act contrary to their own interests.

[McP3000]

People could easily as argue that it has the same amount of chromosomes and dna as to a human, and inevitably humans are all just lumps of cells with those two features.

Abortion is one of the most important of women's rights: the right to control their own wombs, the essence of their womanhood. Women who oppose this act contrary to their own interests.
While i agree its an important women's right, i disagree that you cannot be a feminist without being pro-choice. Many women firmly believe it is not their choice or body that they are taking into account when they have an abortion. It is someone elses.

[gregulus]

Very simple: a distinct entity whose genetic identity is homo sapien.

Even a single epithelial cell from a culture?

once again you're making a semantic argument.
You defined human yourself, Steve. You can't make the same argument and dismiss a counter argument as semantic when it differs from yours.

[Iskandar]

While i agree its an important women's right, i disagree that you cannot be a feminist without being pro-choice. Many women firmly believe it is not their choice or body that they are taking into account when they have an abortion. It is someone elses.Whose? It can hardly be the fetus' choice.

I still think being an anti-abortion feminist is a huge contradiction.

[gregulus]

I don't see how any of this is material. A zygote is indisputably human. Whether or not it has rights is another question.

I don't see how it is "indisputable," but I certainly don't think that the the question of whether a zygote is human is the most important question pertaining to abortion. I would say the rights of the zygote and the mother are of larger importance.

[sweboy]

Very simple: a distinct entity whose genetic identity is homo sapien.

For example cancer tumors.

EVERY YEAR, MILLIONS OF CANCER TUMORS ARE KILLED IN THE USA!!! THIS HOLOCAUST MUST END, HUMAN LIFE MUST BE VALUED!! PRO-LIFE FOREVER!!!!!!!!

[McP3000]

Whose? It can hardly be the fetus' choice.

I still think being an anti-abortion feminist is a huge contradiction.
I didnt say it was the fetus' choice. I was saying that the women feel its not their right to make the decision because its not necessarily their life.
And yes, there is an underlying contradiction...but then again if feminists had to appeal to the entire catalogue of stereotypical feminism then that would undermine the entire idea of feminism striving for freedom towards greater women's rights.
I don't see how it is "indisputable," but I certainly don't think that the the question of whether a zygote is human is the most important question pertaining to abortion. I would say the rights of the zygote and the mother are of larger importance.
Agreed. I hate how people argue over the fact of whether a zygote is legally a human or not, because ultimately that will have very little affect on the decision of abortion. Technically a newly born child is recognized as a human, but cannot survive without a mother or womanly figure to nuture it, similar to a zygote.
For example cancer tumors.

EVERY YEAR, MILLIONS OF CANCER TUMORS ARE KILLED IN THE USA!!! THIS HOLOCAUST MUST END, HUMAN LIFE MUST BE VALUED!! PRO-LIFE FOREVER!!!!!!!!
strawman to the nth degree

[Der Übermensch]

I still think being an anti-abortion feminist is a huge contradiction.
That is definitely not true. I don't see Abortion as being a woman's right to chose, but being about when a fetus is considered human. If an ardent feminist believes that a fetus is alive from the moment of conception, she certainly isn't going to advocate what she sees as murder...

[Iskandar]

That is definitely not true. I don't see Abortion as being a woman's right to chose, but being about when a fetus is considered human. If an ardent feminist believes that a fetus is alive from the moment of conception, she certainly isn't going to advocate what she sees as murder...Then she can choose not to have an abortion. That's why it's called pro-choice, and the choice is a woman's right.

I didnt say it was the fetus' choice. I was saying that the women feel its not their right to make the decision because its not necessarily their life.
And yes, there is an underlying contradiction...but then again if feminists had to appeal to the entire catalogue of stereotypical feminism then that would undermine the entire idea of feminism striving for freedom towards greater women's rights.
Good argument.

[spitfirejunky]

I don't see how it is "indisputable," but I certainly don't think that the the question of whether a zygote is human is the most important question pertaining to abortion. I would say the rights of the zygote and the mother are of larger importance.

The term zygote directly refers to a stage in human development. Biologically, a zygote is no less a human than a baby or an adult.

[gregulus]

The term zygote directly refers to a stage in human development. Biologically, a zygote is no less a human than a baby or an adult.

Fair enough. In the context of this thread, however, I took the term "human," especially as Steve was using it, to mean "deserving of the rights of a fully developed, viable person." I still disagree with Steve's definition of "human" as well. Something with a human genome does not make it human. Any type of cell from a human body will have a complete human genome. Different cells express different genes, but the entire genome is still present. Taking a couple of cells and starting a culture with it, then proceeding to plate the cells and select for a single colony does not make the colony that you selected for human, even though it is a group of cells that contain a human genome.

[spitfirejunky]

Fair enough. In the context of this thread, however, I took the term "human," especially as Steve was using it, to mean "deserving of the rights of a fully developed, viable person." I still disagree with Steve's definition of "human" as well. Something with a human genome does not make it human. Any type of cell from a human body will have a complete human genome. Different cells express different genes, but the entire genome is still present. Taking a couple of cells and starting a culture with it, then proceeding to plate the cells and select for a single colony does not make the colony that you selected for human, even though it is a group of cells that contain a human genome.

Agreed 100%, and this was the basis of my initial rebuttal.

[metacognition]

strawman to the nth degree

It is not really a strawman when he is pointing out how absurd it is to selectively decide what cells are okay to destroy.

[Der Übermensch]

Then she can choose not to have an abortion. That's why it's called pro-choice, and the choice is a woman's right.
I would think you are intelligent enough to understand that it has nothing to do with choice. The debate about Abortion shouldn't be about a "woman's right to choose." That is ludicrous.
Abortion is about at what point a fetus is to be considered a living human being. The point at which this happens, it is no longer abortion, but is instead murder. Simple as that.
I don't believe a Fetus to be living until the third trimester (pretty much the point at which it can generally have a good rate of survival if prematurely birthed), so I have nothing wrong with abortion up to that point.
If it could be proven conclusively that a fetus was a fully functioning human who was thinking and feeling pain from the moment of conception (obviously this is beyond a slim chance) I would certainly be for banning abortion, because a "woman's right to choose" does not include the right to murder another human.
THAT is what debate about abortion should be. The fact that a woman has the right to do what she wants with her own body shouldn't even need to be debated... the issue is whether the fetus is part of her, or it's own entity, and that has nothing to do with Feminism.

[Futue te Ipsum]

The term zygote directly refers to a stage in human development.Directly? It could be used for any species that requires egg fertilization.
Biologically, a zygote is no less a human than a baby or an adult.Which definition of human are you using?

[spitfirejunky]

Directly? It could be used for any species that requires egg fertilization.

Directly, not specifically.

Which definition of human are you using?

Homo sapiens sapiens, which is the only definition I'm concerned with here because it seems that people are hellbent on disqualifying zygotes from being considered humans merely because they haven't expressed all their traits yet. This argument holds absolutely no water in anything. That's not to say I'm not OK with denying it rights.

[Light Fantastic]

This argument holds absolutely no water in anything.um

ok i mean thats just your arbitrary opinion, and isnt really in line with broadly accepted definitions so it holds no water either

but ok

[okay]

in thinking and in reading this thread, ive come up with a couple of things:
firstly - the cost of abortion (about 400 USD?) vs. the cost of feeding another human for its whole life in a world already bloated and pressed for resources to feed everyone.
secondly - the whole debate over killing a conscious thing. i see it as: when a baby is still in the stomach, it is not ready to come out, not done yet. if it were done, it wouldn't be there, and why would we need to be equipped with consciousness and everything while still in the womb?
as far as i know, even after the birth for a bit, the brain is still mush, not formed, and i would even just guess that, seeing babies drooling all over themselves like vegetables kept alive by machines in the hospital, sooooooo, i wouldnt think they would have the faculties in the womb to say 'hey, stop that!' or even be aware of the idea of 'hey, stop that!'. personally, i dont remeber my birth, and never have, so further, i would guess that i did not have much of a consciousness before birth.

thirdly - it is the woman's choice, its her body, and she has to suffer the process, so i think all of us guys should stfu about what we want.

my garbled and confusedly typed ¢2

[Der Übermensch]

secondly - the whole debate over killing a conscious thing. i see it as: when a baby is still in the stomach, it is not ready to come out, not done yet. if it were done, it wouldn't be there, and why would we need to be equipped with consciousness and everything while still in the womb?
In China an abortion can be performed up until the baby crowns. As long as it doesn't take its first breath, it can still be killed.
Surly you don't actually mean a abortion can be performed up until the 8th/9th month. That baby would easily survive if removed and placed in incubation...

[Iskandar]

I would think you are intelligent enough to understand that it has nothing to do with choice.I'm not intelligent.
I don't believe a Fetus to be living until the third trimester (pretty much the point at which it can generally have a good rate of survival if prematurely birthed), so I have nothing wrong with abortion up to that point.I concur. Most people would agree late-term abortions are horrendous.
If it could be proven conclusively that a fetus was a fully functioning human who was thinking and feeling pain from the moment of conception (obviously this is beyond a slim chance) I would certainly be for banning abortion, because a "woman's right to choose" does not include the right to murder another human.A fetus is clearly not a human at birth, so I don't so why you would even entertain this argument.

[Futue te Ipsum]

Directly, not specifically.Directly still counts. 'less you've decided to redefine it.
Homo sapiens sapiens, which is the only definition I'm concerned with here because it seems that people are hellbent on disqualifying zygotes from being considered humans merely because they haven't expressed all their traits yet. This argument holds absolutely no water in anything. That's not to say I'm not OK with denying it rights.what's the definition of homo sapiens?
If you break the word up into its component parts then there is no way it could be applied to one cell.

[spitfirejunky]

um

ok i mean thats just your arbitrary opinion, and isnt really in line with broadly accepted definitions so it holds no water either

but ok

The broadly accepted definition that infants, toddlers and adolescents aren't human? There's more to being human than having not yet expressed traits.

[spitfirejunky]

Directly still counts. 'less you've decided to redefine it.

Directly is not the same as specifically but I'm gonna let this go 'cause you know what I mean.

what's the definition of homo sapiens?
If you break the word up into its component parts then there is no way it could be applied to one cell.

Nor a fetus, infant, etc. The zygote is a developmental stage, not just a clump of cells. We don't suddenly speciate because we haven't developed yet.

[sweboy]

The key to this whole discussion is that "human" rights are bullshit - we shouldn't decide rights for biological systems based on artificial taxonomic concepts, but based on actual biological characteristics. Arguing over the definition of "human" is useless, we should instead realize that there's nothing inherently wrong about killing biological systems with human DNA and instead argue about what biological characteristics we think should be present in an organism to grant it "right to life".

[Light Fantastic]

The broadly accepted definition that infants, toddlers and adolescents aren't human? There's more to being human than having not yet expressed traits.and now you are equating zygotes with toddlers

[gregulus]

and now you are equating zygotes with toddlers

No he's not. He's saying that a zygote is a human in a developmental stage.


This debate is pointless, though, as whether or not a zygote is a human being is irrelevant.

[siva_chair]

I'm not intelligent.

I want to shake your hand, sir.

That is a statement you don't often see people make here in PNWI.

[spitfirejunky]

and now you are equating zygotes with toddlers

That an individual as a zygote is a member of the same species as the same individual as a toddler, yes.

[Iscariot]

i love how many people in this thread like to claim an embryo isn't human without specifically defining with relevant sources what exactly is a human

i would think that the offspring of a human being even in the fetal stages is a human but hey that's just common sense speaking let's all jump on the bandwagon and say a zygote isn't human and use the word science a bunch without actually backing up these brash claims

[Iskandar]

I want to shake your hand, sir.

That is a statement you don't often see people make here in PNWI.I am brighter than most people my age, or so I've been told for most of my life, but my feeble mind pales in comparison to great intellects like Stephen Hawking.

[siva_chair]

I am brighter than most people my age, or so I've been told for most of my life, but my feeble mind pales in comparison to great intellects like Stephen Hawking.

And I am sure even his pales in comparison to other individuals in different fields.

[Light Fantastic]

i would think that the offspring of a human being even in the fetal stages is a human but hey that's just common sense speaking let's all jump on the bandwagon and say a zygote isn't human and use the word science a bunch without actually backing up these brash claims
That an individual as a zygote is a member of the same species as the same individual as a toddler, yes.
but human =/= a human

i can scrape some cells off the inside of my cheek, they are as human as a zygote is

yet you dont want to give them rights

well you personally (spitfirejunky) dont want to give zygotes rights, but others do based on equating them with living breathing human beings. i wouldnt even argue this as a point for abortion because personally i dont care if its human or not thats pretty irrelevant to me, i just dont think its a good idea to compare the two

[spitfirejunky]

but human =/= a human

i can scrape some cells off the inside of my cheek, they are as human as a zygote is

yet you dont want to give them rights

well you personally (spitfirejunky) dont want to give zygotes rights, but others do based on equating them with living breathing human beings. i wouldnt even argue this as a point for abortion because personally i dont care if its human or not thats pretty irrelevant to me, i just dont think its a good idea to compare the two

Well yeah. You just explained the initial point with the latter one. We don't need to demonstrate that a zygote isn't a human in order to allow abortion. Being human (as you use the term) is independent of being a human, so that comparison between cheek cells and zygotes is moot.

[Smokey D]

i would think that the offspring of a human being even in the fetal stages is a human but hey that's just common sense speaking let's all jump on the bandwagon and say a zygote isn't human and use the word science a bunch without actually backing up these brash claims

Well it is human biologically but that doesn't entitle it to the same rights, necessarily, as a human in being ie someone who is fully aware and sentient. The key issue is not so much what is human but what makes a human deserving of rights.

[Iscariot]

Well it is human biologically but that doesn't entitle it to the same rights, necessarily, as a human in being ie someone who is fully aware and sentient. The key issue is not so much what is human but what makes a human deserving of rights.

and what specifically makes a human deserving of rights?

i can think of many humans who i would personally consider undeserving of even the most basic rights but that would not be a universally acceptable criteria

so how do you determine that a zygote does not deserve the same rights as those who bear it

[Smokey D]

and what specifically makes a human deserving of rights?


I dunno. That's one of those fundamental metaphysical (metaethical) questions you have to grapple with. I don't know if I or anyone can provide a answer.



i can think of many humans who i would personally consider undeserving of even the most basic rights but that would not be a universally acceptable criteria

Well yeah probably. That's what I'm saying.


so how do you determine that a zygote does not deserve the same rights as those who bear it

I don't really see how that follows but I'll go with it.

You could say a zygote lacks awareness or capability of independent thought or sentience and that those things are necessary to give rise to rights.

[siva_chair]

How does one empirically measure awareness or consciousness, exactly?

[Iscariot]

You could say a zygote lacks awareness or capability of independent thought or sentience and that those things are necessary to give rise to rights.

yet we accept that a child incapable of understanding or embracing their rights is blanketed by the rights of their parents

so how does a zygote differ from a child who's rights are encompassed by their parents' individual rights

[Smokey D]

I dunno. But you can say without much objection say that a tree stump doesn't have consciousness.

All our knowledge of consciousness suggests that you need a neural network of some complexity to give rise to consciousness let alone sentience and awareness. If that is the case, and there is no reason to believe that it's not (let's not get into another one of those 'matter is conscious' arguments), then a zygote or early stage foetus which lacks neural complexity probably isn't aware. In most cases it's not really alive either. Not more than a colony of bacteria is, at any rate.

yet we accept that a child incapable of understanding or embracing their rights is blanketed by the rights of their parents

No we don't. I don't know if we would say a baby derives its rights from its parent.

If I was being entirely principled and following the logic I've set out, I would say that babies might not be entitled to the same sort of rights as adults. But I'm not entirely sure I agree with that. Awareness and sentience might be part of a right to life but they aren't necessarily the whole thing.

so how does a zygote differ from a child who's rights are encompassed by their parents' individual rightsp.

Well if a parent is the source of the rights of the zygote then the parent can give up those rights and clear the way to abort the zygote.

[siva_chair]

I dunno. But you can say without much objection say that a tree stump doesn't have consciousness.

All our knowledge of consciousness suggests that you need a neural network of some complexity to give rise to consciousness let alone sentience and awareness. If that is the case, and there is no reason to believe that it's not (let's not get into another one of those 'matter is conscious' arguments), then a zygote or early stage foetus which lacks neural complexity probably isn't aware. In most cases it's not really alive either. Not more than a colony of bacteria is, at any rate.

Well all we know is that neural networks give us the facility to demonstrate consciousness, not that it is neccessarily the cause or source of awareness/consciousness.

One argument likens consciousness to a radio reciever in that a radio reciever isn't the radiowaves, it just makes them perceptable to people.

Anyway, just pointing out that there is no empirical way of measuring consciousness/awareness.

[Smokey D]

Well all we know is that neural networks give us the facility to demonstrate consciousness, not that it is neccessarily the cause or source of awareness/consciousness.


But we have no reason to think that a thing with no neural network or similar device is conscious. Why would we assume it?



One argument likens consciousness to a radio reciever in that a radio reciever isn't the radiowaves, it just makes them perceptable to people.

Well protecting something that cannot perceive consciousness is pretty pointless.

Anyway, just pointing out that there is no empirical way of measuring consciousness/awareness.

Well yeah and there's no way of knowing I'm not a brain in a vat. But acting like I am isn't going to help me get anything done is it.

[Iscariot]

No we don't. I don't know if we would say a baby derives its rights from its parent.

congress would argue that

If I was being entirely principled and following the logic I've set out, I would say that babies might not be entitled to the same sort of rights as adults. But I'm not entirely sure I agree with that. Awareness and sentience might be part of a right to life but they aren't necessarily the whole thing.

stating that something lacking an adult sense of awareness does not qualify for equal rights is the same as saying that someone who is mentally handicapped does not have equal rights

they cannot possess a complete awareness of their rights but regardless of that fact they still possess them

human rights are not restricted by your understanding of them


Well if a parent is the source of the rights of the zygote then the parent can give up those rights and clear the way to abort the zygote.

and yet logically that would be a violation of the zygotes individual rights as a developing human being

if all men are created equal then what makes a partially developed human incapable of possessing the same rights as their more advanced counterparts

[Light Fantastic]

but people who are mentally handicapped dont have equal rights what are you talking about

[Smokey D]

congress would argue that


Does it? I haven't heard that.

But even if it's true, Congress can be wrong.

stating that something lacking an adult sense of awareness does not qualify for equal rights is the same as saying that someone who is mentally handicapped does have equal rights

Yes this is true.



they cannot possess a complete awareness of their rights but regardless of that fact they still possess them

Only because give them rights. It doesn't mean they deserve rights. A person incapable of understanding his rights only has them through a postivist/mechanistic application of the law.

and yet logically that would be a violation of the zygotes individual rights as a developing human being

No. A developing human being doesn't have rights unless you think that rights emerge from human biology/DNA rather than consciousness. This is a perfectly valid position to hold, but it's inconsistent with the idea that in order to have rights you must be self-aware.


if all men are created equal then what makes a partially developed human incapable of possessing the same rights as their more advanced counterparts

Because a partially developed human by definition is not equal to a fully developed human and is consequently not a human.

human rights are restricted by your understanding of them

[siva_chair]

But we have no reason to think that a thing with no neural network or similar device is conscious. Why would we assume it?

For the same reason we shouldn't automatically assume that it is not, i.e. our ignorance and incapabilities of knowing this for certain.

This is why this issue of consciousness is really not justifiable either way.

Well protecting something that cannot perceive consciousness is pretty pointless.

Perhaps, but it is still important to point out that we cannot empirically measure consciousness so saying "how conscious" something is is pretty pointless.

Well yeah and there's no way of knowing I'm not a brain in a vat. But acting like I am isn't going to help me get anything done is it.

Neither is just pretending you aren't if you are trying to find the truth in the issue. But anyway, that wasn't the point. Point was that the measure of awareness/consciousness isn't really justifiable for either side and so it is kind of pointless to argue it from a scientific position.

[sweboy]

and what specifically makes a human deserving of rights?


Self-awareness for starters, something which is not present in humans until several months after birth.

No we don't. I don't know if we would say a baby derives its rights from its parent.

If I was being entirely principled and following the logic I've set out, I would say that babies might not be entitled to the same sort of rights as adults. But I'm not entirely sure I agree with that. Awareness and sentience might be part of a right to life but they aren't necessarily the whole thing.



No matter how much you choose to disagree with the logical conclusions, you're not going to come up with critera for giving the right to life to newborn humans that also don't apply to full-grown chimpanzees.

[Futue te Ipsum]

Nor a fetus, infant, etc. The zygote is a developmental stage, not just a clump of cells. We don't suddenly speciate because we haven't developed yet.you're right, it's not just a clump of cells. It's not even a clump of cells.

Why this even matters I don't know. The question falls to where we actually get our morality from and why it is what it is. Ask yourself why murder is wrong, for example. Is morality an epiphenomenon of the human mind, or an innate survival mechanism at the group level?
Why is it wrong for a woman to terminate her investment into a child? Because it's a life? That doesn't work in nature, why should it work with humans?

When something is and isn't human is an academic question. You can say a fertilized cell is a distinct human being if you want, and perhaps you're right, but what does that matter? It says nothing of whether it deserves the same rights as an adult. In terms of the very system our morality is based upon it doesn't, as the investment put into the formation of a zygote is at best negligable.

[Smokey D]

For the same reason we shouldn't automatically assume that it is not, i.e. our ignorance and incapabilities of knowing this for certain.


I cannot accept that we should believe in things we lack evidence for.


Perhaps, but it is still important to point out that we cannot empirically measure consciousness so saying "how conscious" something is is pretty pointless.

No it's not. A person is more conscious than a rock.

Neither is just pretending you aren't if you are trying to find the truth in the issue. But anyway, that wasn't the point. Point was that the measure of awareness/consciousness isn't really justifiable for either side and so it is kind of pointless to argue it from a scientific position.

No, we can tell when something is conscious. We give value to things which give indications of their consciousness. We don't give value things that don't. I don't care if a rock really is conscious (which it's not). The fact that it doesn't show it makes it morally irrelevant.

No matter how much you choose to disagree with the logical conclusions, you're not going to come up with critera for giving the right to life to newborn humans that also don't apply to full-grown chimpanzees.

Not if you say a human has rights solely by virtue of being human.

But personally I agree. If you can protect a baby you should protect a chimp and possibly some other high functioning mammals.

[siva_chair]

I cannot accept that we should believe in things we lack evidence for.

No one said you should believe in it. But you shouldn't explicitely say it does not exist. Only truely logical stance would be to be essentially agnostic in the issue. Inferring the truth or falseness of a statement out of ignorance is based in faith.

No it's not. A person is more conscious than a rock.

A person is more capable of displaying what we call consciousness than a rock, yes.

No, we can tell when something is conscious. We give value to things which give indications of their consciousness. We don't give value things that don't. I don't care if a rock really is conscious (which it's not). The fact that it doesn't show it makes it morally irrelevant.

It may be morally irrelevant to the issue but you cannot use science to say "oh this zygote is not conscious" because there is in fact no way to empirically test or measure that statement.

[Smokey D]

No one said you should believe in it. But you shouldn't explicitely say it does not exist. Only truely logical stance would be to be essentially agnostic in the issue. Inferring the truth or falseness of a statement out of ignorance is based in faith.


I have no reason to even begin considering it without a iota of evidence. of

A person is more capable of displaying what we call consciousness than a rock, yes.

Well that's all we have to go on so it's all we should care about.

It may be morally irrelevant to the issue but you cannot use science to say "oh this zygote is not conscious" because there is in fact no way to empirically test or measure that statement.

Until a zygote gives me indication of awareness I should treat it as unaware.

[siva_chair]

I have no reason to even begin considering it without a iota of evidence. of

How exactly does that equate to "this zygote is not conscious?"

It doesn't. I even said that considering it is a moot point.


Well that's all we have to go on so it's all we should care about.

Perhaps, but that isn't a conclusion based on anything empirical. It is based on convenience and utility, perhaps.

Until a zygote gives me indication of awareness I should treat it as unaware.

Perhaps, but it is also pretty important to define what you mean by "aware."

[SkaRobotArmy]

http://onlyweird.com/wp-content/images/ugly/ugly-baby.jpg

babies are totally not people, have you ever SEEN one!?! they look nothing LIKE real people, they are like ALIENS or something. PLUS, they are totally stupid, ever tried to teach something to a baby? May as well teach it to a rock...

[DBoons Ghost]

Always back to the "when life starts" arguement.

As if that even matters.

[Der Übermensch]

A fetus is clearly not a human at birth, so I don't so why you would even entertain this argument.

A fetus is clearly not a human at birth? So what point does it become human... when it turns a year old?

But seriously, as I said and you evidently missed, the chance of it being proven a fetus is human is very very very very very very very slim, but it doesn't mean people can't believe it to be so, and that belief had nothing to do with Feminism, but would preclude a feminist from supporting abortion rights.

[spitfirejunky]

you're right, it's not just a clump of cells. It's not even a clump of cells.

Why this even matters I don't know. The question falls to where we actually get our morality from and why it is what it is. Ask yourself why murder is wrong, for example. Is morality an epiphenomenon of the human mind, or an innate survival mechanism at the group level?
Why is it wrong for a woman to terminate her investment into a child? Because it's a life? That doesn't work in nature, why should it work with humans?

When something is and isn't human is an academic question. You can say a fertilized cell is a distinct human being if you want, and perhaps you're right, but what does that matter? It says nothing of whether it deserves the same rights as an adult. In terms of the very system our morality is based upon it doesn't, as the investment put into the formation of a zygote is at best negligable.

I will refer you to my response to gergulus and Light Fantastic and my initial posts. The objective of all of this was to show exactly the conclusion you just made. Often in abortion debates everyone scatters to prove if X is human or not human without properly evaluating why an individual should be given rights in the first place.

[Futue te Ipsum]

I will refer you to my response to gergulus and Light Fantastic and my initial posts. The objective of all of this was to show exactly the conclusion you just made. Often in abortion debates everyone scatters to prove if X is human or not human without properly evaluating why an individual should be given rights in the first place.haha, yeah, I just read one post. I don't read threads :p
I was just getting arsey about in terms of something meeting the definition of "human", a zygote barely qualifies. As you point out, though, it *doesn't* matter. It falling under the definition doesn't automatically mean it deserves to be treated the same as a fully grown human, and it's only by extrapolation that people come to that conclusion.

[Iskandar]

A fetus is clearly not a human at birth? So what point does it become human... when it turns a year old? Whoa, I don't remember typing "at birth." It must have a been a mistake, or I wouldn't have called it a fetus...

But seriously, as I said and you evidently missed, the chance of it being proven a fetus is human is very very very very very very very slim, but it doesn't mean people can't believe it to be so, and that belief had nothing to do with Feminism, but would preclude a feminist from supporting abortion rights.No, I got that, and I rejected it because I think it's obvious that a fetus isn't human. Call me arrogant.

[Yogert]

obviously humans grow and develop throughout their whole life right and that there is something fundamentally different between a cell and the development of the host of that cell

if there is a constant change of growth in the whole development then at what point is it called human if it isn't human to begin with

[free_thinkers_are_dangerous]

if there is a constant change of growth in the whole development then at what point is it called human if it isn't human to begin with

I would draw the line at the point the foetus could survive outside of its mother. These days it's around the 24-week mark I believe, although babies born that early still have very high incidences of complications and/or permanent negative effects.

[Yogert]

ahh but if the cell is not human to begin with then what is it and how is it not just a stage in the development of the being? A 1 year old is different then a 12 year old and a 12 year old is different than an 18 year old but would you say they are not human? Or that an 18 year old is more human than a 12 year old and a 12 year old is more human than 1?

[ace76543]

I would draw the line at the point the foetus could survive outside of its mother. These days it's around the 24-week mark I believe, although babies born that early still have very high incidences of complications and/or permanent negative effects.

isn't abortion only legal in the first trimester?

[Der Übermensch]

No, I got that, and I rejected it because I think it's obvious that a fetus isn't human. Call me arrogant.

Of course it is obvious to many people... Myself included, but it isn't something that can be conclusively proven to those who take a more metaphysical view towards what qualifies as life.
To say that Feminists must only stick to purely secular outlooks on life is absurd at the least... and arrogant if you so wish to self-label.

[Smokey D]

How exactly does that equate to "this zygote is not conscious?"

It doesn't. I even said that considering it is a moot point.

Because there is not even the tiniest mote suggesting a clump of 2 cells or 100 cells or even 1000 cells is capable of concsciouness or awareness.

Perhaps, but that isn't a conclusion based on anything empirical. It is based on convenience and utility, perhaps.

It's based on scientific method.

Perhaps, but it is also pretty important to define what you mean by "aware."

No it's not. We all know what aware means.

[free_thinkers_are_dangerous]

isn't abortion only legal in the first trimester?

Depends where. In Canada there's a sort of no-man's land legal vaccuum that essentially makes it impossible to legislate abortions, and third-term abortions are legal. Because no physicians actually perform them, there aren't really any cases to mobilize people towards making them illegal, but a doctor could theoretically perform an abortion on a baby in the middle of a woman's contractions at birth.

[ace76543]

whoa

[free_thinkers_are_dangerous]

yeah. it's pretty disgusting, but i think that until a doctor actually performs one it's too much of a legal mindf*ck for anybody to crack open that can of worms.

[siva_chair]

Because there is not even the tiniest mote suggesting a clump of 2 cells or 100 cells or even 1000 cells is capable of concsciouness or awareness.

Absence of evidence isn't evidence of the absence. Argument from Ignorance.

It's based on scientific method.

No it isn't.

"To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning."

No it's not. We all know what aware means.

Awareness is a relative concept.

What level of awareness does something need to possess before rights start applying to it and how does one measure that level of awareness?

[McP3000]

yeah. it's pretty disgusting, but i think that until a doctor actually performs one it's too much of a legal mindf*ck for anybody to crack open that can of worms.
yeah, if a doctor actually does it he will catch so much ****, not to mention that it will be all over the news like stink on ****

[sweboy]

Awareness is a relative concept.

What level of awareness does something need to possess before rights start applying to it and how does one measure that level of awareness?

Well, self-awareness is pretty crucial and for many animals that can be tested using a mirror test.

[Meatplow]

what about a handicapped vegetable who has no awareness of the world around them

[Smokey D]

Absence of evidence isn't evidence of the absence. Argument from Ignorance.

No. Absence of evidence doesn't entail evidence of absence, but it is perfectly acceptable and in fact correct to induct such an absence if there is nothing to suggest something's existence.

Strictly speaking, all empirical evidence can be negated by invocation of the argument from ignorance idea. I don't know 100% that the sun is the centre of the solar system, that the sky is blue, that I'm not brain in a vat etc. All of these could be illusions perpetrated on my senses. At some point however we have to make assumptions in order to get anything done.

We have abundant evidence of what consciousness and sentience (which are defined in human terms with specific reference to the features things we call conscious and sentient exhibit) entails. Accordingly we can make judgments as to what is conscious. This is quite different to 'we don't have evidence of God therefore God doesn't exist' because we have no evidence that objectively points to God either way.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duhem-Quine_thesis

No it isn't.

"To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning."

Not believing in things you don't observe is fundamental to science.

Awareness is a relative concept.

Sort of. A person is probably more aware than a jellyfish but a rock is catergorically not aware.

What level of awareness does something need to possess before rights start applying to it and how does one measure that level of awareness?

I dunno. I guess self awareness.

Measuring self awareness is difficult. I don't deny that. But it's not the same as saying that we should treat rocks like they are aware or something.

[SkaRobotArmy]

'What level of awareness does something need to possess before rights start applying to it and how does one measure that level of awareness? '

It just needs to be white and male. Awareness if irrelevant.

[free_thinkers_are_dangerous]

'What level of awareness does something need to possess before rights start applying to it and how does one measure that level of awareness? '

It just needs to be white and male. Awareness if irrelevant.

I can't tell if this post is retarded or just failed humour. Please elaborate.

[Futue te Ipsum]

What it is is pretty obvious.

[Futue te Ipsum]

yeah. it's pretty disgusting, but i think that until a doctor actually performs one it's too much of a legal mindf*ck for anybody to crack open that can of worms.In Britain there are around 100+ 3rd trimester abortions done every year.

It is perfectly legal if the foetus is seriously deformed, or if there is a high risk of permanent injury to the mother. I imagine the same is the case across the pond, as generally our abortion laws are stricter in Britain.

[SkaRobotArmy]

I can't tell if this post is retarded or just failed humour. Please elaborate.

to be eligible for rights, not having awareness. keep up.

[siva_chair]

Well, self-awareness is pretty crucial and for many animals that can be tested using a mirror test.

That still isn't a complete empirical measure of consciousness or awareness as there are many things that appear to be aware and demonstrate characteristics of awareness but still fail the mirror test.

No. Absence of evidence doesn't entail evidence of absence, but it is perfectly acceptable and in fact correct to induct such an absence if there is nothing to suggest something's existence.

Strictly speaking, all empirical evidence can be negated by invocation of the argument from ignorance idea. I don't know 100% that the sun is the centre of the solar system, that the sky is blue, that I'm not brain in a vat etc. All of these could be illusions perpetrated on my senses. At some point however we have to make assumptions in order to get anything done.

We have abundant evidence of what consciousness and sentience (which are defined in human terms with specific reference to the features things we call conscious and sentient exhibit) entails. Accordingly we can make judgments as to what is conscious. This is quite different to 'we don't have evidence of God therefore God doesn't exist' because we have no evidence that objectively points to God either way.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duhem-Quine_thesis

I don't see how this really addresses the fact that there is no empirical measure of consciousness. I never said we should treat things like rocks as conscious. That is different than saying that "rocks are not aware/conscious" is an unfalsifiable statement, and thus not a statement based on the scientific method. The only thing science can honestly say on the issue is that we have not observed anything that tells us rocks are aware or conscious.

Not believing in things you don't observe is fundamental to science.

Saying "I don't believe rocks are aware" is different than saying "Rocks are not aware."

Sort of. A person is probably more aware than a jellyfish but a rock is catergorically not aware.

No, a rock categorically doesn't demonstrate measurable awareness.

Also, it is very possible that something like a jellyfish is "aware" of many things that human beings aren't. Much like how a dog is probably more "aware" of specific scents than humans. Thus, awareness is a relative concept and probably shouldn't be used as some sort of objective benchmark in determining whether or not something is deserving of certain rights.

We couldn't measure many frequencies of lightwaves for a long time due to the fact that we didn't have the neccessary special instruments to empirically measure them. This doesn't mean they didn't exist until we could measure them. The same could be said for rocks in the fact that it is possible that a rock is "aware" to some degree that we are incapable of measuring.

I dunno. I guess self awareness.

Measuring self awareness is difficult. I don't deny that. But it's not the same as saying that we should treat rocks like they are aware or something.

Oh for ****'s sake I never said we should treat rocks as if they are aware. This stupid assumption come's up every time and it is absolutely silly. There is a clear distinction between saying we cannot know whether rocks are aware and saying "rocks are actually aware."

[VomitStainedCretin]

what about a handicapped vegetable who has no awareness of the world around themIf they have no awareness of the world around them, then they're unlikely to have any self-awareness.

Perhaps Locke's Theory of Identity could be useful in this debate - according to him a human being is a thing define by its external appearance and organismic continuity as a human being. Thus when, in Kafka's The Metamorphosis, Gregor Samsa turns into a giant insect, he is no longer human. However, because he has continuity of self-consciousness before and after the transformation and an awareness through memory of his human past, he is still the same person.

To apply to the case of the foetus, yes it is identifiably a human being but, without sentience, it cannot be said to be a person. If murder is defined as the killing of a human being, then abortion is murder. If murder is the killing of a person, abortion does not qualify.

Equally, if a vegetable lacks self awareness and/or awareness through memory of their past self, they are not a person or, at the very least, not the person they once were.

[peeted]

Lockes account of identity is quite problematic though

"Consiousness unites existence and actions (which are) very remote in time into the same person, as well as it does the existence and actions of the imedietley preceding moment: so that whatever has the conssiousness of present and past actions is the same person to whom they both belong"

This faces a problem unless you reject the inference (p=q)&(q=R)-> (p=r) (which no rational person would do, in my opinion atleast). Imagine someones whole life, first as a teenager at life stage A, then in the middle of their life (stage B) then at the end of their life (stage C), the person at stage B is identical to the person at stage A because s/he is consious of the actions etc performed at stage A, and the person at stage C is identical to the person at stage B because s/he remembers the actions peformed at stage B. So we have A=B and B=C, however the person at stage C may not remember/be consious of the actions of the person at stage A which by lockes criteria would make them not identical which leads to a contradiction.

[peeted]

Not believing in things you don't observe is fundamental to science.


Most theoretical physicists believe in things they dont and cant observe.

[Danish]

When abortion was illegal, it was practiced in unsafe and horrific ways. Often both the mother and child died from primitive abortion methods. If unwanted pregnancies weren't aborted, the parents were often forced to marry.

Remembering what it was like before safe and legal abortion helps us understand why it's needed, even if we don't like it.

In fact, botched illegal abortion was the number one cause of death for women of reproductive age until it was legalized.

Also, I totally agree with people who are sick of seeing this as an election issue. Even for so-called "evangelical Christians" there should be far more pressing moral-social issues such as poverty, the lack of accessible healthcare, and uber-aggressive foreign policy.

[VomitStainedCretin]

This faces a problem unless you reject the inference (p=q)&(q=R)-> (p=r) (which no rational person would do, in my opinion atleast). Imagine someones whole life, first as a teenager at life stage A, then in the middle of their life (stage B) then at the end of their life (stage C), the person at stage B is identical to the person at stage A because s/he is consious of the actions etc performed at stage A, and the person at stage C is identical to the person at stage B because s/he remembers the actions peformed at stage B. So we have A=B and B=C, however the person at stage C may not remember/be consious of the actions of the person at stage A which by lockes criteria would make them not identical which leads to a contradiction.Yeah, I can't remember who came up with it but I've heard the example illustrated with a soldier who remembers his childhood and the general who remembers being a soldier but not his childhood. Parfit suggested as a possible solution that its not a case of whether we remember our distant past but rather whether we can remember a recent past, at the time of which we remembered our distant past, thus preserving a degree of continuity and connectivity in the memory of our consciousness. Thus we may not remember Monday on Wednesday but we remember Tuesday, when we still remembered Monday. We may forget Tuesday on Thursday but still remember Wednesday etc. Thus someone in a Memento-esque situation could be said to have at least a connectivity of consciousness.

[RG560M]

I'm all for abortion.