lfnetwork.com mark read register faq members calendar

Thread: Abortion (newer thread)
Thread Tools Display Modes
Post a new thread. Add a reply to this thread. Indicate all threads in this forum as read. Subscribe to this forum. RSS feed: this forum RSS feed: all forums
Old 02-25-2006, 05:54 PM   #1
the_raven_03
Junior Member
 
the_raven_03's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 372
Abortion (newer thread)

Looks like we could have the makings of having the Supreme Court make a decision on Roe v. Wade if this ends up going to the Supreme Court.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/...kota-ban_x.htm


No amount of Firelfy will ever be enough.
-Absath, Ctrl+Alt+Delete

I find more Firefly infinitely superior to no more Firefly
-Tycho, Penny Arcade
the_raven_03 is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 02-25-2006, 07:17 PM   #2
TK-8252
Get Cloned.
 
TK-8252's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 5,850
Great job South Dakota. I see you guys are really moving forward in the world eh?
TK-8252 is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 02-25-2006, 09:00 PM   #3
Darth Andrew
Veteran
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Indiana, U.S.A
Posts: 943
They are.

This will never hold up. I bet within a week or less, it will be challenged.
Darth Andrew is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 02-25-2006, 10:22 PM   #4
edlib
Close to the Edge
 
edlib's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Boston, MA., USA
Posts: 9,556
Current Game: DiRT 3; Forza 4
Hot Topic Starter 10 year veteran! Forum Veteran 
This is merely an attempt to get the issue before the Supreme Court A.S.A.P. and see which way the court leans these days.
Personally, I feel it's still too early in the game for the right-wing to make an all-out stab at Roe V. Wade, but I guess certain conservative factions just really can't wait any longer. A strategic error, if you ask me... one that may backfire spectacularly.

I heard this very thing predicted would happen when we were going through the Roberts/ Alito confirmations... that this would be the next step someone would take after they got in. No surprises, although I personally thought they wait a bit longer.


Native XWA.Netter (Nutter?)
edlib is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 02-26-2006, 12:03 AM   #5
Samuel Dravis
 
Samuel Dravis's Avatar
 
Status: Moderator
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 4,973
Like edlib says, it was a predictable move, but I don't think it will be overturned. Alito may go either way, but I'm thinking he might just vote against this one.


"Words are deeds." - Wittgenstein
Samuel Dravis is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 02-28-2006, 06:23 AM   #6
lord ignarn
Junior Member
 
lord ignarn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: My fortress in Ziost
Posts: 258
And what if a woman doesn´t like her baby? What will happen to the baby? I think that it´s better to abort than giving the baby a bad life, with not-loving parents. This is needed in rapes and other abusive situations, like incest and so on. The right to abort should be granted, legislated but allways granted.


"Revenge is never a straight line. It's a forest. And like a forest it's easy to lose your way to get lost When engaged in combat, the vanquishing of thine enemy can be the warrior's only concern. This is the first and cardinal rule of combat. Suppress all human emotion and compassion. Kill whoever stands in thy way, even if that be Lord God, or Buddha himself..."

Hattori Hanzo.
lord ignarn is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 02-28-2006, 03:12 PM   #7
rccar328
Forumite
 
rccar328's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Right where I should be.
Posts: 567
Or, instead of killing the child, they could *gasp* give it up for adoption!!!!

Instead of having the baby live with parents who don't love it, give it to parents who do want it and will love it, and stop murdering unborn children!

What I don't get is how so many liberals can be pro-abortion, yet anti-death penalty. It's okay for a mother to kill her unborn child who has done nothing wrong, but it's not okay for the state to execute someone who brutally murdered four people? Let's have some consistency. If the death penalty is wrong, so is abortion, and vice versa (this is a vice not solely limited to the Left - conservatives who are pro-death penalty and anti-abortion suffer from it as well).

Personally, I hope they take the case to court, and I hope the Supreme Court upholds the law...though I don't know whether a decision overturning Roe will stand up before the outcry of the pro-abortion crowd.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TK-8252
Great job South Dakota. I see you guys are really moving forward in the world eh?
If moving forward means allowing & endorsing the killing off of the most innocent in society, then I'm willing to run backward at a full sprint. So many around here talk about how backward and old-fashioned Christianity is...but at least we're not out there advocating for a holocaust.


Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty.
~John F. Kennedy

True Conservatism

rccar328 is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 02-28-2006, 03:42 PM   #8
edlib
Close to the Edge
 
edlib's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Boston, MA., USA
Posts: 9,556
Current Game: DiRT 3; Forza 4
Hot Topic Starter 10 year veteran! Forum Veteran 
I'm not pro-abortion, I'm actually anti-abortion, personally... BUT I'm pro-comprehensive-sex-education, pro-making-contraceptives-available-for-anyone-who-wishes-to-use-them-without-moral-jugements, but anti-forcing-my-personal-beliefs-down-everybody-else's-throats.

Just because I feel something is wrong doesn't mean everybody else is going to feel the same way. Is it my job to try to use the government to keep someone who doesn't share the same moral code as myself from committing what I may think is a sin?

Making abortion illegal won't make it go away... just a lot more dangerous. Abortions have existed as long as civilization has... perhaps longer. Ban them and the exact same amount will still happen... just in secret and with a lot more women dying.

What we need to do is make sure each and every child in this country knows exactly how to prevent all unwanted pregnancies BEFORE they are of age that the issue might arise. With education, and the realization that many, many unmarried people who aren't ready to have children yet are still always going to have sex anyway so we have to make contraceptives available to them, you can keep abortions legal and yet kill almost all demand for them.


Native XWA.Netter (Nutter?)
edlib is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 02-28-2006, 04:28 PM   #9
toms
v0.9
 
toms's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: uk swamp
Posts: 3,490
I don't know much about US law... but isn't it based on precedent?

Which would surely mean that they would have to present some NEW evidence to get a previous decision overturned? Wouldn't it?
Even the supreme court couldn't just go "we've changed our minds" and change it on a whim... even if the makeup of the court has changed such that they might want to.

Though i suppose there are numerous things since the original decision they could try to portray as new evidence.

[edit]
Interesting WIkipedia link on RvsW which contained a lot of stuff i didn't know (roe=jane doe, "roe" has since become anti-abortion, the decision is based on privacy laws and the decision that said that the state couldn't prevent the use of brith control between married couples, the winning atourney was unemployed, it was her first case, etc..)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_v._Wade

If they did overturn RvsW would birth control be their next target?



Playing: Link to the Past, Astroboy, Kario Kart, Mario World (Micro) KOTOR 2: Sith Lords (Xbox) Morrowind (PC)

Last edited by toms; 03-05-2006 at 02:25 PM.
toms is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 02-28-2006, 05:36 PM   #10
TK-8252
Get Cloned.
 
TK-8252's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 5,850
Quote:
Originally Posted by rccar328
Or, instead of killing the child, they could *gasp* give it up for adoption!!!!
A fetus is not a child... it is a fetus.

And I find it ironic that conservatives want people to give up babies for adoption rather than abort the fetus, and yet they seek to ban same-sex couples from adopting. All while there is a crisis of children in desperate need of homes.

Quote:
Originally Posted by rccar328
Instead of having the baby live with parents who don't love it, give it to parents who do want it and will love it, and stop murdering unborn children!
The problem is there's not enough parents out there to adopt. And abortion isn't murder; it's not killing a human. If you say killing a glob of cells is murder then cleaning your bathroom makes you a genocidal maniac. And you better damn be a vegetarian and a card-carrying PETA member, because killing living creatures sure would be murder by your standards.

Quote:
Originally Posted by rccar328
What I don't get is how so many liberals can be pro-abortion, yet anti-death penalty. It's okay for a mother to kill her unborn child who has done nothing wrong, but it's not okay for the state to execute someone who brutally murdered four people? Let's have some consistency. If the death penalty is wrong, so is abortion, and vice versa (this is a vice not solely limited to the Left - conservatives who are pro-death penalty and anti-abortion suffer from it as well).
Include libertarians in that stereotype as well, because it's not just liberals.

The difference is that a fetus is not a legitimate human. It's like that spider you're about to kill on your wall. Sure it's done nothing wrong; it's just found its way into your house, but it's unwanted and is a burden. Sure you could try capturing it and putting it outside, but that can be difficult and not really worth the hassle.

And the problem with the death penalty is that it gives the government too much power. The power to end a living breathing person's life in something other than self-defense. Let's face it: as long as there is a death penalty, innocent people will be executed. The justice system is part of the government and therefore prone to failure.

Quote:
Originally Posted by rccar328
If moving forward means allowing & endorsing the killing off of the most innocent in society, then I'm willing to run backward at a full sprint.
A fetus is not in society. And that spider you just killed was innocent. What did it ever do to you??

Quote:
Originally Posted by rccar328
So many around here talk about how backward and old-fashioned Christianity is...but at least we're not out there advocating for a holocaust.
Well, I just cleaned my bathroom, so call me Hitler.
TK-8252 is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 02-28-2006, 07:23 PM   #11
Joeİ
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Still playing guild wars
Posts: 306
8252 made some interesting points there...
One thing. if you leave your bathroom just sitting for 9 months you are not going to find a room full of little ankle bitters when you come back
Thats right! the bunches of cells grow into PEOPLE all of us have been there before, and you know, maybe our parents would have been able to get a better job, a new car, that house that they wanted so bad. These are things that new kiddos tend to get in the way of. But nope. Instead I introduce you to US. Their greatest creation
I think thats the main idea, as someone said before people have been using different types of birth control for thousands of years. The big deal now days is that you can snuff out that "life" without even thinking.

Life is important. Take a good long look at france. They are "moving forward in the world". By that I mean they are the birth control gurus. And their population numbers are suffering because of that. I would not care to move forward if we end up the way they are ~_~

if anyone has any arguments for me I will be around. I am waiting for parts to fix my compy and won't be able to answer back very fast.
Joeİ is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 02-28-2006, 07:51 PM   #12
TK-8252
Get Cloned.
 
TK-8252's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 5,850
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joeİ
Thats right! the bunches of cells grow into PEOPLE all of us have been there before,
Going by that argument, any time that a sperm is wasted, it's killing off what could have grown up to be a person like me and you. We were both there too, after all... just a lowly sperm...
TK-8252 is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-01-2006, 07:06 PM   #13
rccar328
Forumite
 
rccar328's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Right where I should be.
Posts: 567
A sperm won't develop into a human unless it's fertilized an egg. Once that's occurred, it's a life.

And if it's okay for a mother to kill her fetus, then why stop there? Why not allow partial birth abortion? Or even allow a mother to kill her child free of prosecution as long as she does it before the child is 1? After all, some women may decide to have their babies, and then find out it's more than the bargained for...

Basically, the point is that the baby and the fetus are the same "glob of cells," no matter when it's terminated...so why have any laws against a mother killing her child at all? Same thing for the father, for that matter - after all, half of the genetic material in that fetus came from him.

And toms, a large part of US law is based on precedent. The question at hand is whether the US Constitution guarantees the right to abortion...and if it does, I must've gotten an edited copy, 'cause I missed that part.

And the Supreme Court can reverse its decisions - in Plessy v. Fergusen (1896), for example, the Court said that segregation was legal, adopting the "separate but equal" doctrine. Later, that was overturned in Brown v. Board of Education (1954) and Bolling v. Sharpe (1954). There are other cases, but Plessy is the most notable.


Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty.
~John F. Kennedy

True Conservatism

rccar328 is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-01-2006, 07:49 PM   #14
TK-8252
Get Cloned.
 
TK-8252's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 5,850
Quote:
Originally Posted by rccar328
A sperm won't develop into a human unless it's fertilized an egg. Once that's occurred, it's a life.
Yes but if that sperm been given the chance, it would have grown up to be a person like you and me. Just like if that fetus been given the chance, it would have grown up to be a person like you and me.

Quote:
Originally Posted by rccar328
And if it's okay for a mother to kill her fetus, then why stop there? Why not allow partial birth abortion?
Well, you already know the arguments on this I think. Partial-birth abortion involves a fetus that essentially is a baby. It therefore is not ethical to destroy. An early fetus, however, is not anything like a baby. Just because it will grow up to be one doesn't give it equal status as one.

Quote:
Originally Posted by rccar328
Basically, the point is that the baby and the fetus are the same "glob of cells," no matter when it's terminated...
Not the same. New cells grow along the way that make the fetus into a baby. Cells that create a functioning brain, organs, skin, nervous system and everything else.
TK-8252 is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-03-2006, 07:08 PM   #15
rccar328
Forumite
 
rccar328's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Right where I should be.
Posts: 567
Quote:
Originally Posted by TK-8252
Well, you already know the arguments on this I think. Partial-birth abortion involves a fetus that essentially is a baby. It therefore is not ethical to destroy. An early fetus, however, is not anything like a baby. Just because it will grow up to be one doesn't give it equal status as one.
Why not, exactly?


Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty.
~John F. Kennedy

True Conservatism

rccar328 is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-03-2006, 07:12 PM   #16
TK-8252
Get Cloned.
 
TK-8252's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 5,850
Quote:
Originally Posted by rccar328
Why not, exactly?
Apples and oranges.

Sure, they're both fruit. But are they really the same?
TK-8252 is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-04-2006, 07:18 PM   #17
rccar328
Forumite
 
rccar328's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Right where I should be.
Posts: 567
Quote:
Originally Posted by TK-8252
Apples and oranges.

Sure, they're both fruit. But are they really the same?
okay...that explains absolutely nothing.

You believe they're different. I believe that the fetus should be just as protected as the baby because the fetus is a baby at an earlier stage of life (just like a child is basically an adult at an earlier stage of development). I'm asking you to explain to me in some coherent terms why you believe they're different, and why you believe one should be protected while the other can be given the same status as one would give a tumor, and thrown away.

I've heard the arguments before...I've just never heard them explained logically.


Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty.
~John F. Kennedy

True Conservatism

rccar328 is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-04-2006, 07:26 PM   #18
TK-8252
Get Cloned.
 
TK-8252's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 5,850
A fetus has no awareness, no consciousness, no feeling, no independence, no thought, and no ability to survive outside the womb.

A baby has awareness, has consciousness, has feeling, has independence, has thought, and has the ability to survive outside the womb. All the things that define a human being.

So... they're apples and oranges. Both are fruit, but not the same.
TK-8252 is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-05-2006, 03:13 AM   #19
Lady Jedi
Natural Wonder
 
Lady Jedi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: On a mountain
Posts: 786
Current Game: This is no GAME!!
10 year veteran! LFN Staff Member 
TK-8252's point of view here absolutely boggles me. A fetus has a heartbeat. That's got to count for something.

I think that my first statement makes pretty clear my view on abortion, but I'll say it here: It's wrong.. A fetus is a human being, merely in it's earliest stages of life. Just because a joey can't live outside of its mother for its first months doesn't mean it isn't a kangaroo; it's simply not ready for the world yet.

I hate how people see abortion as an good option. If a woman can't support a child, she could at least give 9 months of her time and give the baby up for adoption. There are tons of people just wanting to give children a good home. All of the mother's medical bills would be paid, and a child would survive. Yeah, there may be issues later in life about birth parents, etc. But at least there would be life.

As for South Dakota, here is a nice article I just read. The second page had some quotes about how women feel after an abortion. Take it as you will....
Quote:
The two clinics that permit late-term abortions let their patients hold the fetus in a blanket.
This quote just about made me choke. I can't imagine carrying a child inside of me, making the decision to kill the child, and then to top it off, hold its lifeless self in my arms. It's absolutely sad and unfathomable.
Lady Jedi is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-05-2006, 03:17 AM   #20
Commander Obi-Wan
Gold Standard
 
Commander Obi-Wan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 5,363
Current Game: BioShock 2
Forum Veteran 
Quote:
Originally Posted by TK-8252
Great job South Dakota. I see you guys are really moving forward in the world eh?
I think thats progress....abortion is technically murder. It's the females problem for having sex irresponsibly. So the conquence is raising a baby.


Commander Obi-Wan is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-05-2006, 03:53 AM   #21
ET Warrior
PhD in horribleness
 
ET Warrior's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Evil League of Evil
Posts: 9,405
LFN Staff Member Forum Veteran 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Commander Obi-Wan
abortion is technically murder.
Just like menstruation and premature ejaculation. Also, people who get artificially inseminated typically have several batches of sperm+eggs (I believe the term is zygote...but I could be mistaken), the ones that are unused are disposed of, or kept frozen, never to be raised into humans. Is that barbaric? Is it murder?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Commander Obi-Wan
]It's the females problem for having sex irresponsibly. So the conquence is raising a baby.
And of course the baby will likely suffer and lead a life of misery, possibly getting pregnant at a young age themselves because their mother raised them the same way she was raised, and we're in a never-ending cycle. Hooray.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lady Jedi
There are tons of people just wanting to give children a good home
And there are TONS of children in foster care being bounced around with no family, eventually aging out of the foster care system and living the rest of their lives on welfare/on the streets. If so many families want kids so badly why don't they go adopt one of THOSE kids?



ET Warrior is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-05-2006, 04:01 AM   #22
Samuel Dravis
 
Samuel Dravis's Avatar
 
Status: Moderator
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 4,973
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lady Jedi
TK-8252's point of view here absolutely boggles me.
He disagrees with you only on one thing - what defines humanity. A lot of people have defined it in a way to suit their wants in the past. To the southern slaveowners of the U.S., blacks were less than human. To some unnamed fascists in germany circa 1940, Jews were less than human. It's not unsurprising for people to try it again; it is convenient to be able to do so, for many reasons. For the groups mentioned above, it may have been cultural pride, maintaining the status quo, or something else. It doesn't matter.

I think what perhaps makes this issue so harsh is that, once on a side, it's very difficult to switch positions. I think it's probably well-neigh impossible, actually. The reason I think this is because, if you happen to be on the pro-life side, you're still going to find it very, very hard to conciously decide to redefine what a living human being is, however much your other views change. For the pro-choice side, I think it might be because if you ever tried to change your view, you would be responsible. You would have advocated and encouraged the murder of a group of innocents, something that can be classed as genocide. I don't know if I would ever be able to admit that, even to myself, if I was in their position. Certes, it would be a significant barrier.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ET Warrior
And of course the baby will likely suffer and lead a life of misery, possibly getting pregnant at a young age themselves because their mother raised them the same way she was raised, and we're in a never-ending cycle. Hooray.
Are you denying personal responsibility? People are not bad, irresponsible, hateful, or anything else just because of the way they were raised. I know some that were raised under bad conditions, in fact, but they do not act the same as their parents because they choose not to. If you think people are not in control of what they do, I'd like to inform you that you are wrong.

Quote:
And there are TONS of children in foster care being bounced around with no family, eventually aging out of the foster care system and living the rest of their lives on welfare/on the streets. If so many families want kids so badly why don't they go adopt one of THOSE kids?
Just because those kids have not been cared for properly does not mean all of them are, or even a majority of them are. It's better to let them have a chance and find out what will really happen than to say you know better than them; that you, in your eternal wisdom, know they will never overcome their circumstances. That you, in your ultimate knowledge, know that they will never be useful to society. And when you, in you infinite audacity, decide they will never experience happiness, you justify your words - because you steal from them their only chance to prove you wrong.


"Words are deeds." - Wittgenstein

Last edited by Samuel Dravis; 03-05-2006 at 04:48 AM.
Samuel Dravis is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-05-2006, 05:02 AM   #23
TK-8252
Get Cloned.
 
TK-8252's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 5,850
Quote:
Originally Posted by Samuel Dravis
It's not unsurprising for people to try it again; it is convenient to be able to do so, for many reasons.
No one is trying to redefine what a human is except the so-called "pro-lifers" (who, for the most part, approve of the death penalty and starting wars instead of doing things like stopping the spread of AIDS). Scientists agree - a fetus is not a baby, nor is it a human. It is a fetus.
TK-8252 is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-05-2006, 10:57 AM   #24
Samuel Dravis
 
Samuel Dravis's Avatar
 
Status: Moderator
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 4,973
# An animal in the later stage of development before birth. In humans, the fetal stage is the from the end of the third month until birth.
http://www.ornl.gov/sci/techresource.../glossary.html

# an unborn baby from the eighth week after fertilization until birth.
http://www.childrenshospital.org/cfa...picDisplay.cfm

# Refers to the unborn baby after 10 weeks of gestation until birth.
www.babynameguide.com/advertise.html

# The developing offspring from 7 to 8 weeks after conception until birth.
www.stjude.org/glossary

# The baby in utero, after 8 weeks of pregnancy until delivery. (Before then, it's considered an embryo.) The word fetus means "young one." (Derivative: fetal)
pregnancytoday.com/reference/library/glossary.htm

# The developing baby from the ninth week of pregnancy until the moment of the birth.
http://www.infertilitycentral.com/fe...lossary,3.html

# in humans, the unborn young from the end of the eighth week of pregnancy to the moment of birth
www.b-coming.com/html/glossary.html

# an unborn vertebrate especially after its basic structure is formed
sln.fi.edu/biosci/glossary.html

# The developing young in the uterus before birth.
www.peteducation.com/dict_alpha_listing.cfm

# An unborn child from the eighth week after conception until the moment of birth. From conception to eight weeks it is called an embryo.
www.iowahealth.org/19791.cfm

# term used to describe a developing baby from the nineth week of development to birth.
www.medgen.ubc.ca/wrobinson/mosaic/glossary.htm

# In mammals, a stage of development in which all organs have formed.
embryology.med.unsw.edu.au/Notes/Index/F.htm

# The product of conception from the time of implantation until delivery. If the delivered or expelled fetus is viable, it is designated an infant [45 CFR 46.203(c)]. The term "fetus" generally refers to later phases of development; the term "embryo" is usually used for earlier phases of development. (See also: Embryo.)
http://www.clemson.edu/research/orcS...cIRB_DefsF.htm

# A term used to refer to a baby during the period of gestation between eight weeks and term.
www.conceptfert.com.au/glossf.htm

# a human embryo in the mother's uterus
http://www.surgery.usc.edu/divisions.../glossary.html

# A fetus is an unborn human or animal.
http://www.ccohs.ca/products/Supplem...finitions.html

# The term used to refer to an unborn child from 8 weeks after fertilization to birth.
www.ahrq.gov/data/hcup/factbk2/glossary.htm

# The unborn young of an animal while still in the uterus or egg. In humans, the offspring from the third month of pregnancy until birth. b
www.mise.org/mise/index.jsp

# The name given to an unborn baby after the eighth week.
preconception.com/resources/glossary.htm

# The unborn child from around eight weeks after conception (when all major organs are formed and it begins to resemble a human being) to the time of birth.
www.fertilityuk.org/nfps02.html

# Unborn baby from 9 weeks after it is formed until it is born
www.umdnj.edu/hsweb/research_glossary/f.htm

# In medicine, this term is applied to the young of mammals when fully developed in the womb. In human beings, this stage is reached after about 3 months of pregnancy. Prior to this, the developing mammal is at the embryo stage.
www.link.med.ed.ac.uk/hew/tox/glossall.html

# an unborn baby from about 7 weeks gestation until birth (prior to 7 weeks the baby is called an embryo).
www.abcbirth.com/lGlossary.html

# an unborn baby
www.hearingcenteronline.com/diction_def.shtml

# The term for the baby from the beginning of the 9 th week of pregnancy to the time of birth.
www.clearplan.com/GlossaryofConceptionTerms.cfm

# an unborn or unhatched vertebrate in the later stages of development showing the main recognizable features of the mature animal
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

# A fetus (alternatively foetus or fœtus) is an unborn human offspring from the end of the 8th week of pregnancy (when the major structures have formed) until birth. Prior to this time, the offspring is an embryo. Fetus literally means 'young one'.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fetus


I think you left out the species descriptor. That's like pretending that, since you call it a more general name, it changes what it is. Do you really think that a pupae of a butterfly is not the same species as the butterfly which the pupae eventually turns into? That's a strange practice, and I'm pretty sure they didn't teach it in science class.


"Words are deeds." - Wittgenstein

Last edited by Samuel Dravis; 03-05-2006 at 06:35 PM.
Samuel Dravis is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-05-2006, 02:34 PM   #25
toms
v0.9
 
toms's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: uk swamp
Posts: 3,490
Abortion = great.
Abortion debates = never ending, because people have such entrenched positions that they will never change.

The basic principle is that the state doesn't have the right to interfere with what is going on inside your body... relax that principle and you open yourself up to a whole heap of trouble...



Playing: Link to the Past, Astroboy, Kario Kart, Mario World (Micro) KOTOR 2: Sith Lords (Xbox) Morrowind (PC)
toms is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-05-2006, 03:31 PM   #26
Lady Jedi
Natural Wonder
 
Lady Jedi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: On a mountain
Posts: 786
Current Game: This is no GAME!!
10 year veteran! LFN Staff Member 
Quote:
Just like menstruation and premature ejaculation.
Except that neither of those instances include another living being; simply things that if they had come together at the right time could have been a child. So, no. Menstruation is not the same as abortion. It's merely the cleansing of a body's preparation for the possibility of a child; it is not the killing of a child. Premature ejaculation: well, again there is simply the possibility of a child. However it is not the disposal of another being, merely the disposal of the possibility of a child. Sperm aren't children, and menstration blood isn't life.
Quote:
And of course the baby will likely suffer and lead a life of misery, possibly getting pregnant at a young age themselves because their mother raised them the same way she was raised, and we're in a never-ending cycle. Hooray.
You have no way of knowing that that is how the child's life will turn out. That's just ignorance at work. My mom's birth father was a crazy idiot drunkard that beat her and her siblings on a regular basis. Guess what? She's one of the most loving people I have ever seen. Her mother was pregnant with her at age 17. My mom didn't get pregnant until she was in her twenties. A baby should at least get the chance to live, rather than having their life snuffed out before ever even getting a chance to see their mother's face. Rather than having every chance at living taken away because their life might not turn out perfect.
Quote:
Are you denying personal responsibility? People are not bad, irresponsible, hateful, or anything else just because of the way they were raised. I know some that were raised under bad conditions, in fact, but they do not act the same as their parents because they choose not to. If you think people are not in control of what they do, I'd like to inform you that you are wrong.
Exactly! I've been in awful scenarios, and seen and heard some really terrible stuff, but that hasn't made me take that as the way to be. I just take those things as examples of what not to do. So a child born to a young mother, or a mother who had to put it up for adoption, doesn't mean that the baby will grow up and do the same thing. A child's choice is not the same as the choice of the parent unless they choose to make it so.
Quote:
He disagrees with you only on one thing - what defines humanity.
And what he defines as humanity - or rather what isn't humanity - is how he is justifying abortion. I simply don't see how someone can say that a fetus or embryo is not human. It has a heartbeat, a soul; it has life. How can that possibly be defined as just 'a lump of cells'?
Lady Jedi is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-05-2006, 03:52 PM   #27
ET Warrior
PhD in horribleness
 
ET Warrior's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Evil League of Evil
Posts: 9,405
LFN Staff Member Forum Veteran 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lady Jedi
I simply don't see how someone can say that a fetus or embryo is not human. It has a heartbeat, a soul; it has life. How can that possibly be defined as just 'a lump of cells'?
Because there is no concious self in an embryo.

And just as sperm cells and eggs will turn into people given the proper circumstances, so too will an embryo turn into a human given the proper conditions.

The fact is, every menstruation cycle that a woman goes through where she doesn't at least TRY to get pregnant, she is denying what could become a human being a chance at life. Is that wrong? Any one of those eggs could have been the next Einstein! They could have grown up to cure world hunger! Just because they only have half of the genetic material as we do can we deny those cells their right to life?

You betcha we can, because those cells have absolutely no sense of awareness, no idea of self, no conciousness at all. There is no sense of loss to the cell, it isn't aware that it's dying.



ET Warrior is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-05-2006, 11:58 PM   #28
Samuel Dravis
 
Samuel Dravis's Avatar
 
Status: Moderator
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 4,973
Quote:
Making abortion illegal won't make it go away... just a lot more dangerous. Abortions have existed as long as civilization has... perhaps longer. Ban them and the exact same amount will still happen... just in secret and with a lot more women dying.
I have some statistics on death rates for people who obtained illegal abortions. Here you go:

Code:
Year	Abortion-related Deaths[1]

1940  	1470
1950 	263
1965 	201
Why are there less deaths in 1950 on onwards? Because of antibiotics. Inflating the abortion related deaths as a serious cause to consider continuing their legality is nonsense. Even the doctors said they lied about the statistics:

"We spoke of 5,000-10,000 deaths a year.... I confess that I knew the figures were totally false."

Dr. Bernard Nathanson, (co-founder NARAL), testimony before the Supreme Court in 1972


Also, the year before abortions were legalized:

Code:
				Abortion-Related Deaths[2]
Year	Legal Abortions |	Legal	Illegal
			|
1972	?		|	24	41
1973 	615,831 	|	25 	21
1974 	763,476 	|	26 	7
So there was no significant benefit, health-wise, that came from legalizing abortions. Of course you're endorsing this because you care about the mother's safety. There's so much danger involved - we must think of only her, solely of her, not the 763,476 babies who died in 1974. As well, the doctors that do give abortions are not exactly the type you might want anyway:

"It's true that abortion providers are perceived as not very good doctors -- that they have no alternative so they do abortions, that they cannot earn a living any other way."

~ Dr. Richard Hausknecht, abortion doctor, in "Who Will Do Abortions Here?", New York Times Magazine, January 18, 1998

"Most physicians regard abortion as a stigmatized operation done by people who are otherwise incompetent and can't do anything else."

~ Dr. Warren Hern, abortion doctor, American Medical News, September 5, 1994


Quote:
Just because I feel something is wrong doesn't mean everybody else is going to feel the same way. Is it my job to try to use the government to keep someone who doesn't share the same moral code as myself from committing what I may think is a sin?
So anything is acceptable according to you, as long as you don't do it yourself. You'd let people murder others, even though you think it's a sin. The only thing that matters is what they believe is the truth. If they thought they were doing good by killing innocents, well, good for them! We should encourage that behavior, yes?

No, I think you're wrong. Moral relativism is absolutely useless making objective value judgements, and it shows in your apathy. If it's wrong for you, why is it not wrong for other people under the same physical circumstances? Opinion? Then you accept that, if someone believes something is morally right, then it is right, regardless of any other consideration. For instance, would you stand by and do nothing if a robber violently mugged a woman right next to you, provided the robber thought he was doing the right thing - the right thing for himself? Keep in mind that the woman cannot defend herself, because that would be projecting her own subjective sense of right and wrong on the robber and that's just not acceptable behavior according to relativism.

If you answered yes, then any opinion of yours is irrelevant because you would be unable to render judgment on anything. If you did interfere in any way, however, you are not practicing what you preach, and you're just pretending to be morally relative; perhaps to feel or come across as more tolerant. You can't pick both, however; they're mutually exclusive.

Quote:
And the problem with the death penalty is that it gives the government too much power. The power to end a living breathing person's life in something other than self-defense. Let's face it: as long as there is a death penalty, innocent people will be executed. The justice system is part of the government and therefore prone to failure.
For what it's worth, I agree that the death penalty should not be around. It's interesting, though, how you say that the power to kill a living person is too much power for the state, yet it's somehow acceptable to give it to the arbitrary use of a single person, the mother?

Quote:
Not the same. New cells grow along the way that make the fetus into a baby. Cells that create a functioning brain, organs, skin, nervous system and everything else.
Last I heard, embroyonic stem cells are able to change into any type of cell. So they're the same cells. Is it human life?

"A moment after conception the genetic blueprint is complete. We have our blood type, our fingerprints, the sex is determined at the moment of conception. We know it is life. What kind of life is it? According to the laws of biogenesis, all life comes from preexisting life. Each species reproduces after its own kind. So human beings can only reproduce other human beings."

~ Kathy Ireland, appearing on Bill Maher's television show Politically Incorrect, 2/28/2000


In other words, all humans are human, whether embryonic, fetal, infantile, young, mature, old, or dying. Would you say all humans have a right to life, simply because they are human? I'm guessing if you oppose the death penalty for hardened murderers you probably do. Now, I wonder... should the law protect basic human rights? Interestingly enough, the founding fathers thought so, and put in the Constitution the words "...the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." What other use is the law, if it is not used to protect the lives of those who live under the state's dominion?

If you agree those statements are correct, you probably have a pro-life viewpoint already. If you agree and don't have said viewpoint, you should question what you believe.

Quote:
A fetus has no awareness, no consciousness, no feeling, no independence, no thought, and no ability to survive outside the womb.

A baby has awareness, has consciousness, has feeling, has independence, has thought, and has the ability to survive outside the womb. All the things that define a human being.
I gather it is ok to murder someone you've just knocked out then, because he has no awareness, no conciousness, no feeling, no independence, no thought, no ability to survive unless you let him. Yeah. Why are those cases not treated the same?

Quote:
I think thats progress....abortion is technically murder. It's the females problem for having sex irresponsibly. So the conquence is raising a baby.
It's both parties' problem.

Quote:
The basic principle is that the state doesn't have the right to interfere with what is going on inside your body... relax that principle and you open yourself up to a whole heap of trouble...
Abortion is legal now because of the right to privacy, not because of some made-up restriction on interference with citizen's bodies (drug laws anyone?). This right to privacy is not specifically set forth in the Constitution, while the right to life is. Why is privacy treated as if it is more important, especially when the right to life is the very first right mentioned in that document, supreme over the others that follow, supreme because all the rest of the rights mean nothing unless that one is protected?

Quote:
You betcha we can, because those cells have absolutely no sense of awareness, no idea of self, no conciousness at all. There is no sense of loss to the cell, it isn't aware that it's dying.
You sound like a Dr. Joseph Fletcher, who argues in his book Humanhood: "Humans without some minimum of intelligence or mental capacity are not persons, no matter how many of these organs are active, no matter how spontaneous their living processes are." If you agree with that, than you also agree with a nice list that includes infanticide, murder of people who are not intelligent enough or meet any other requirement that your arbitrarily decide, and unrequested euthanasia of, say, people with advanced Alzheimer's. Any eugenicist would love to have you on board, I'd say.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ET Warrior
Because there is no concious self in an embryo.
Like I said above, someone you knocked out is not concious, has no concious self. Does that mean they lose their personhood just because they are in a temporary state of unconciousness? Is a person in a coma no longer a person just because they cannot interact, cannot think at the moment?

Quote:
Originally Posted by toms
Abortion = great.
Why?


Works Cited:

[1] Cates, W. Jr. Rochat, R.W., Grimes, D.A., and Tyler, C.W. Jr. 1978. "Legalized abortion: Effect on national trends of maternal and abortion-related mortality (1940 through 1976). Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol., 132: 211-214.

[2] Tietze, C. 1983. Induced Abortion: A World View. The Population Council, New York.

[3] The Alan Guttmacher Institute (www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html)


"Words are deeds." - Wittgenstein

Last edited by Samuel Dravis; 03-06-2006 at 04:03 AM.
Samuel Dravis is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-06-2006, 12:14 AM   #29
ET Warrior
PhD in horribleness
 
ET Warrior's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Evil League of Evil
Posts: 9,405
LFN Staff Member Forum Veteran 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Samuel Dravis
Like I said above, someone you knocked out is not concious, has no concious self. Does that mean they lose their personhood just because they are in a temporary state of unconciousness?
Way to take that completely out of context and make a foolish statement. An unconcious man still has a concious self, because they still have the cognitive capacity for concious thought. An embryo doesn't have a brain atall, there is no capability for recognition of self, or concious thought.



ET Warrior is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-06-2006, 12:19 AM   #30
Samuel Dravis
 
Samuel Dravis's Avatar
 
Status: Moderator
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 4,973
Quote:
Originally Posted by ET Warrior
Way to take that completely out of context and make a foolish statement. An unconcious man still has a concious self, because they still have the cognitive capacity for concious thought. An embryo doesn't have a brain atall, there is no capability for recognition of self, or concious thought.
You wake up the unconcious man, he is able to think. You let the baby grow, it is able to think. How are those so different? The man cannot think, the baby cannot think; that's the definition of unconciousness. They are equal in their ability to interact and understand the world. I consider killing an unconcious man murder, and that murder is all the more heinous because there is no possibility of defense.


"Words are deeds." - Wittgenstein

Last edited by Samuel Dravis; 03-06-2006 at 12:30 AM.
Samuel Dravis is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-06-2006, 12:44 AM   #31
Tinny
 
Tinny's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 1,188
I agree, especially by the 2nd and 3rd trimester I don't see how anyone can justify it (assuming there aren't any lethal health hazards to the mother). Considering some babies have survived abortions and have come out ok, I especially hate partial birth abortions. I'm not doing this just out of political bias, I hate capital punishment too. That's another matter though, just my 2 cents.


Redeemed!

An old school mod for jedi academy.

Last edited by Tinny; 03-06-2006 at 01:13 AM.
Tinny is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-06-2006, 01:53 AM   #32
edlib
Close to the Edge
 
edlib's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Boston, MA., USA
Posts: 9,556
Current Game: DiRT 3; Forza 4
Hot Topic Starter 10 year veteran! Forum Veteran 
Well,.. I just spent the better part of an hour typing out a post, only to have the browser crash just as I hit the "Post" button.
I thought I copied all the text just in case, but it seems to have disappeared as well. Guess I should have pasted it to Notepad or something before I posted...

This wasn't the first time that has happened. I really should know better by now.

It's really too late to try to do it all again tonight.

Maybe in the morning, if I can remember all that I wrote and have enough time before work.


Native XWA.Netter (Nutter?)
edlib is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-06-2006, 03:59 AM   #33
TK-8252
Get Cloned.
 
TK-8252's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 5,850
Samuel, your argument is a textbook example of a straw man.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Samuel Dravis
You wake up the unconcious man, he is able to think. You let the baby grow, it is able to think. How are those so different?
Well, it takes about a second for a man to wake up. It takes oh, only about a few MONTHS for a fetus to turn into a baby. The wording of your post seems to imply that you are unable to distinguish between a baby and a fetus.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fetus
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baby

Quote:
Originally Posted by Samuel Dravis
The man cannot think
No... he can think just fine.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Samuel Dravis
the baby cannot think
A baby can think as well. A fetus, however, cannot. Thinking without a brain is pretty damn hard.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Samuel Dravis
They are equal in their ability to interact and understand the world.
That would be incorrect. The man may have been unconcious because he got wasted at a party, or hit his head at a construction site. I have never seen a fetus at a party drinking, or working at a construction site.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Samuel Dravis
It's interesting, though, how you say that the power to kill a living person is too much power for the state, yet it's somehow acceptable to give it to the arbitrary use of a single person, the mother?
Who said that's acceptable? Who ever said that?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Samuel Dravis
Would you say all humans have a right to life, simply because they are human?
Nope... for example, the second that a human points a gun at a police officer, that human has lost their right to life. And I wouldn't say that a fetus has the right to life until it's capable of showing its humanity outside the womb, with or without support.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Samuel Dravis
What other use is the law, if not used to protect the lives of those who live under the state's dominion?
A fetus does not live under the state's dominion.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Samuel Dravis
This right to privacy is not specifically set forth in the constitution, while the right to life is. Why is privacy treated as if it is more important, especially when the right to life is the very first right mentioned in that document, supreme over the others that follow, supreme because all the rest of the rights mean nothing without it?
The idea of a "right to life" was originally thought up by John Locke, and it meant that the king's henchmen couldn't drag you into the street and behead you. They did that a lot back then...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Samuel Dravis
You sound like this guy, a Dr. Fletcher: "Humans without some minimum of intelligence or mental capacity are not persons, no matter how many of these organs are active, no matter how spontaneous their living processes are." If you agree with that, than you also agree with a nice list that includes infanticide, murder of people who are not as intelligent as your arbitrarily decide, and unrequested euthanasia of, say, people with advanced Alzheimer's.
Nice straw man you set up there...
TK-8252 is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-06-2006, 04:25 AM   #34
Samuel Dravis
 
Samuel Dravis's Avatar
 
Status: Moderator
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 4,973
Quote:
Originally Posted by TK-8252
The wording of your post seems to imply that you are unable to distinguish between a baby and a fetus.
Yes, I meant fetus instead of baby in that sentence, but you probably inferred that anyway. I find it interesting how you make a point about semantics though; as if it were an argument. For myself, I also found it interesting how you distinguished between 'fetus' and 'human' as if they were somehow seperate species (even RvW didn't do that). Point?

Quote:
A baby can think as well. A fetus, however, cannot. Thinking without a brain is pretty damn hard.
Quote:
Well, it takes about a second for a man to wake up. It takes oh, only about a few MONTHS for a fetus to turn into a baby.
If the man is in a coma for 9 months, shows signs of mental improvement during that time, then wakes up, is he not mentally equivalent to the fetus during that period? Or is he not human because of he does not have much activity going on during the first few months? Please describe to me the scientific way you decide when someone is not human based on their lack of brain activity.

Quote:
No... he can think just fine.
He's obviously not doing much thinking, being unconcious and all. He's doing the exact same amount as our fetus; namely, none.
Quote:
That would be incorrect. The man may have been unconcious because he got wasted at a party, or hit his head at a construction site. I have never seen a fetus at a party drinking, or working at a construction site.
At the time when the man is unconcious, they are equal in their ability to react to the world.

Quote:
Who said that's acceptable? Who ever said that?
I believe the Supreme Court said it in Roe vs. Wade. Just because you do not choose to see the fetus as a living human, with all the rights that entails, does not make it other than it is. I am under no obligation to take your word that a fetus is not human as any kind of authority. Likewise, you don't have to listen to my arguments, but you'd better have some way of proving that you know exactly when a fetus becomes a baby, since you're the one that the burden of proof rests on. If you don't, then you are just avoiding thinking about the problem and giving me kneejerk responses to preserve your ideas, whether they are correct or not.

Quote:
Nope... for example, the second that a human points a gun at a police officer, that human has lost their right to life.
So innocence is the deciding factor in giving a human the right to life. A fetus cannot possibly do anything with malice and therefore cannot be other than innocent. So a fetus has a right to life, provided it's human. Now, how do you know it isn't? See below.

Quote:
And I wouldn't say that a fetus has the right to life until it's capable of showing its humanity outside the womb, with or without support.
Showing its 'humanity' - what do you mean by that? What sort of arbitrary limitations on human-ness are you deciding on here? Can you describe every requirement to me and show that there is no possibility of you being wrong? Because if you ever are, of course, you've just justified the murder of an innocent human being. Does that fall under 'acceptable risk'? You've stated you don't think it's an acceptable risk for the state to have the ability to execute anyone, even if their guilt is clearly proven, even with the protections of a jury. How does that add up here, with the fetus having no guilt whatsoever and you unable to determine the exact moment with confidence that a living human being obtains the natural rights that you and I now enjoy?

Also, would you support legislation that submits all abortions to significant peer review (similar to a jury) to minimize such risks? Why or why not, especially if your aim is, as you've stated, not to hurt babies? I can tell you right now that with my position on this issue, I can state categorically that not a single innocent human person will ever have the possibility of dying via abortion. Can you say the same about yours?

Quote:
A fetus does not live under the state's dominion.
Everyone and everything on the soil of a soverign land is under the dominion of the government, by their choice, or in our case, their parent's choice. There are no exceptions.

Quote:
The idea of a "right to life" was originally thought up by John Locke, and it meant that the king's henchmen couldn't drag you into the street and behead you. They did that a lot back then...
Thanks for the history lesson. I hope you don't think that murder is acceptable because no one has a right to life though.

Quote:
Nice straw man you set up there...
He specifically said that the fetus was not human "Because there is no concious self in an embryo." The quote was directly related: "Humans without some minimum of intelligence or mental capacity are not persons, no matter how many of these organs are active, no matter how spontaneous their living processes are." ET did not say he cared if the cells were living, if the organs were functioning. The only thing he said that defined personal human life was conciousness. Define persons like that and you can decide that every single one of those options I listed is a viable option. If you think that's a straw man, you need to read the wiki article again.


"Words are deeds." - Wittgenstein

Last edited by Samuel Dravis; 03-06-2006 at 10:31 AM.
Samuel Dravis is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-06-2006, 04:41 AM   #35
CapNColostomy
Custom User Title
 
CapNColostomy's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Across your face.
Posts: 2,497
Quote:
Originally Posted by TK-8252
That would be incorrect. The man may have been unconcious because he got wasted at a party, or hit his head at a construction site. I have never seen a fetus at a party drinking, or working at a construction site.
You're just not looking in the right places.


CapNColostomy is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-06-2006, 01:06 PM   #36
ET Warrior
PhD in horribleness
 
ET Warrior's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Evil League of Evil
Posts: 9,405
LFN Staff Member Forum Veteran 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Samuel Dravis
If the man is in a coma for 9 months, shows signs of mental improvement during that time, then wakes up, is he not mentally equivalent to the fetus during that period?
No he isn't equivalent, because despite being in a coma, or being unconcious, a fully grown human always has brain activity. Once a fully grown human stops having any brain activity, they are declared brain-dead, and at that point I believe they should be allowed to die naturally. An unconcious man is still doing thinking, just not concious thinking. Why do you think we dream when we're asleep? Our brain can run just fine without us in direct control.

So yes, a person in the same cognitive capabilities of a fetus should be let to die, but that is another discussion for another time.

We are discussing the termination of a lifeform that has no brain. Nothing there that is capable of any cognitive functions. Yes, it will EVENTUALLY get there, and at that point I believe it is immoral to terminate it. But before that point all you are doing is getting rid of cells whose purpose was to eventually create a human being. Just like a womans menstruation cycle does every month.

Quote:
"Humans without some minimum of intelligence or mental capacity are not persons, no matter how many of these organs are active, no matter how spontaneous their living processes are."
Sure, assuming you set the minimum value of mental capacity to zero, meaning a completely non-functioning brain. All that we are as people is defined by the memories and functions that occur in our brain. It doesn't matter if my heart keeps on beating, without a brain to run this body I would no longer exist.

I'm ignoring the straw-man arguments from now on, because I feel that my position has been adequately displayed, and I'm not going to defend it if it's taken out of context.



ET Warrior is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-06-2006, 02:14 PM   #37
Tinny
 
Tinny's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 1,188
I assume we all can agree that atleast by the third trimester when babies do have cognitive abilities we can say that abortion is wrong if it does not pose a lethal threat to its mother? The hard part I think is drawing the line to where people can agree that the unborn baby has sufficient cognitive abilities.


Redeemed!

An old school mod for jedi academy.
Tinny is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-06-2006, 02:14 PM   #38
Samuel Dravis
 
Samuel Dravis's Avatar
 
Status: Moderator
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 4,973
Quote:
Originally Posted by ET Warrior
No he isn't equivalent, because despite being in a coma, or being unconcious, a fully grown human always has brain activity. Once a fully grown human stops having any brain activity, they are declared brain-dead, and at that point I believe they should be allowed to die naturally. An unconcious man is still doing thinking, just not concious thinking. Why do you think we dream when we're asleep? Our brain can run just fine without us in direct control.
Brain activity can be stopped completely, that is, people can have a 'flat' EEG. These same people have lived through that. Having no thought in their brain does not constitute non-personhood, as clearly their concious self survives it, and you define personhood as the concious self. So now we understand each other: no measurable brain activity does not necessarily mean no person, just that you are unable to determine if they do have one at the time.

Quote:
So yes, a person in the same cognitive capabilities of a fetus should be let to die, but that is another discussion for another time.
What happens when you know, barring rather unlikely circumstances, that the person will recover? Is it still ethical to kill them?

Quote:
We are discussing the termination of a lifeform that has no brain. Nothing there that is capable of any cognitive functions. Yes, it will EVENTUALLY get there, and at that point I believe it is immoral to terminate it. But before that point all you are doing is getting rid of cells whose purpose was to eventually create a human being. Just like a womans menstruation cycle does every month.
Again, where do you decide that it has cognitive functions? A fetus does not just pop into having the ability to think; there is a natural progression of neurological activity that begins at conception and ends its growth only after a person is a fully mature adult, at which point it starts to decline. When it does decline, does that person become 'less' of a person to you?

Can you give me a concrete time, specifically, when any given fetus becomes a person?

Quote:
All that we are as people is defined by the memories and functions that occur in our brain. It doesn't matter if my heart keeps on beating, without a brain to run this body I would no longer exist.
All of the necessary pieces are there. All of the cells are there, and alive, in the fetus. Unless you believe that there's some soul happily flying around somewhere, just waiting for a random time that a fetus needs a personality after it's grown up enough enough, there's no way you can state anyone is a 'person', because you just said that a healthy life is not a requirement for personhood. In fact, you said only the mind, the personality (the activity of the physical brain is irrelevent because of the point made above; that people are still people even if they have no brain activity at the moment) is important. So, if the personality is disconnected from the body in the way you apparently think, what is it then? How do you quantify when the body has a person in it and when it does not, especially when said personhood is intangible (given that it apparently exists for you outside of physical reality)?

Also, if you don't mind, I'd rather you not take this any further into the supernatural if you can help it; those arguments, by definition, can go nowhere.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tinny
I assume we all can agree that atleast by the third trimester when babies do have cognitive abilities we can say that abortion is wrong if it does not pose a lethal threat to its mother?
Every option should be taken to save both, and I mean every option. By that late time I don't think anyone disagrees with me when I say that they are both people and no one wants either to die.

Quote:
I'm ignoring the straw-man arguments from now on, because I feel that my position has been adequately displayed, and I'm not going to defend it if it's taken out of context.
Taking something to its logical conclusion is not taking it out of context, nor does quoting someone else that says precisely what you said make my arguments strawmen. If you feel the argument you are making is not the one you're trying to get across, you might try rethinking what you're saying. As always, you're free to attack my arguments in the same way if you think you're up to it; I don't mind.


"Words are deeds." - Wittgenstein

Last edited by Samuel Dravis; 03-06-2006 at 04:02 PM.
Samuel Dravis is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-06-2006, 03:59 PM   #39
Lady Jedi
Natural Wonder
 
Lady Jedi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: On a mountain
Posts: 786
Current Game: This is no GAME!!
10 year veteran! LFN Staff Member 
Clicky.
The South Dakota governor has signed the bill to ban abortion. Now it's down to the Supreme Court.
Lady Jedi is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-06-2006, 05:36 PM   #40
TK-8252
Get Cloned.
 
TK-8252's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 5,850
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tinny
I assume we all can agree that atleast by the third trimester when babies do have cognitive abilities we can say that abortion is wrong if it does not pose a lethal threat to its mother? The hard part I think is drawing the line to where people can agree that the unborn baby has sufficient cognitive abilities.
Of course. I don't think anyone here approves of late-term abortion, or partial-birth abortion. The only circumstance where it would be acceptable is if the mother's life is in danger, or the baby will be born defective and will die shortly after birth anyway.
TK-8252 is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Post a new thread. Add a reply to this thread. Indicate all threads in this forum as read. Subscribe to this forum. RSS feed: this forum RSS feed: all forums
Go Back   LucasForums > Network > JediKnight Series > Community > Senate Chambers > Abortion (newer thread)

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:52 PM.

LFNetwork, LLC ©2002-2011 - All rights reserved.
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.