|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Cleft lip and palate a good reason? (Abortion)
|
Frisbeetarian
Apprentice
# 6808
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Laura:
Sharkshooter: I think your pro-death penalty stance "is" (not "seems to be") at odds with your general stance on all other sorts of killing. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
I just looooove wild hypocrisies such as these.
Sharkie - are you saying that sex is for the sole purpose of bearing children?
--------------------
Quid pro quo, Clarice.
Posts: 39 | From: On the roof | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
sharkshooter
Not your average shark
# 1589
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Frisbeetarian:
quote:
Originally posted by Laura:
Sharkshooter: I think your pro-death penalty stance "is" (not "seems to be") at odds with your general stance on all other sorts of killing.
I just looooove wild hypocrisies such as these.
You are both wrong, here. The death penalty is punishment for a crime - abortion and other forms of killing are not. If either of you wish to continue that debate, I suggest a different thread is in order.
quote:
Originally posted by Frisbeetarian:
Sharkie - are you saying that sex is for the sole purpose of bearing children?
No. That is just one possible result - which you must be willing to accept. If you are not prepared to raise a child with someone else, do not have sex with them.
--------------------
Let the words of my mouth, and the meditation of my heart, be acceptable in thy sight, O LORD, my strength, and my redeemer. [Psalm 19:14]
Posts: 7772 | From: Canada; Washington DC; Phoenix; it's complicated | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Papio
Ship's baboon
# 4201
|
Posted
I still think that Sharkshooter has got it pretty much right on must things re: abortion - it is sooo annoying when people speak of having a baby as a "punishment". Condoms are not the only form of contraception - if you definately don't want a kid then don't have unprotected, hetrosexual sex.
Oh, and I'm against the death penalty by the way. I agree it is a bit inconcistant, perhaps, to think one is unacceptable but not the other. It seems to me that anti-death penalty people who think that abortion is fine and dandy are guilty of an equally great inconsistancy...
Posts: 12176 | From: a zoo in England. | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Laura
General nuisance
# 10
|
Posted
I knew I would be misunderstood when I posted that to sharkshooter. I don't say, and didn't mean to say that no-one could ethically support the death penalty and oppose abortion. They are, indeed, fundamentally different. What I meant was that sharkshooter's stated position about how he regarded all killing as wrong, because it interfered with God's will, certainly appeared inconsistent with his stated opinion on the death penalty. If we are to let God decide (as sharkshooter suggests) whether a mother whose child threatens her health die (rather than have an abortion), or live, or both of them die, then we are hardly authorized to interfere with whether a guy who's imprisoned for murder lives or dies. From that point of view.
Now, as it happens, I'm in favor of limited legal access to abortion, and I think that there are crimes for which, in principle, death is the only suitable punishment. Because I feel, however, that no government is capable of administering a death penalty program fairly, I'm, as a policy matter, opposed to capital punishment.
So, to reiterate, I think you can ethically hold different views on abortion and the death penalty.
--------------------
Love is the only sane and satisfactory answer to the problem of human existence. - Erich Fromm
Posts: 16883 | From: East Coast, USA | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Laura
General nuisance
# 10
|
Posted
And to clarify: the reason that abortion is different is that the fetus is reliant for its survival to viability by complete reliance, and in fact, entire bodily takeover, of a grown human, into whose body it has not of its own volition been implanted. Furthermore, there is long-standing debate about when a human being attains "personhood" for the purposes of legal rights and protections. The debate turns on what is fundamentally a religious conviction about when the fetus becomes a "person" with human rights. But there's no way to consider the "rights" of the fetus without considering the effect on the person who is its carrier.
The convicted murderer facing the death penalty is unquestionably a legal person, and in most cases, an independent actor. His life is at risk because of actions on his own part that placed it at risk. Furthermore, he has (assuming he's guilty) taken the life of another, or even many others in some cases. His rights do not conflict with any other person's rights.
--------------------
Love is the only sane and satisfactory answer to the problem of human existence. - Erich Fromm
Posts: 16883 | From: East Coast, USA | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
sharkshooter
Not your average shark
# 1589
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Laura:
So, to reiterate, I think you can ethically hold different views on abortion and the death penalty.
We agree on this.
--------------------
Let the words of my mouth, and the meditation of my heart, be acceptable in thy sight, O LORD, my strength, and my redeemer. [Psalm 19:14]
Posts: 7772 | From: Canada; Washington DC; Phoenix; it's complicated | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Frisbeetarian
Apprentice
# 6808
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
quote:
Originally posted by Frisbeetarian:
quote:
Originally posted by Laura:
Sharkshooter: I think your pro-death penalty stance "is" (not "seems to be") at odds with your general stance on all other sorts of killing.
I just looooove wild hypocrisies such as these.
You are both wrong, here. The death penalty is punishment for a crime - abortion and other forms of killing are not. If either of you wish to continue that debate, I suggest a different thread is in order.
quote:
Originally posted by Frisbeetarian:
Sharkie - are you saying that sex is for the sole purpose of bearing children?
No. That is just one possible result - which you must be willing to accept. If you are not prepared to raise a child with someone else, do not have sex with them.
Why must anyone be willing to accept that?
--------------------
Quid pro quo, Clarice.
Posts: 39 | From: On the roof | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
sharkshooter
Not your average shark
# 1589
|
Posted
That is like asking:
"Why must I accept the consequences of killing someone if I shoot a gun in a shopping mall?"
Because it might happen. And, furthermore, you (the general you, not you in particular) know it might happen. If not, you are way too young to be having sex.
--------------------
Let the words of my mouth, and the meditation of my heart, be acceptable in thy sight, O LORD, my strength, and my redeemer. [Psalm 19:14]
Posts: 7772 | From: Canada; Washington DC; Phoenix; it's complicated | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Frisbeetarian
Apprentice
# 6808
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
That is like asking:
"Why must I accept the consequences of killing someone if I shoot a gun in a shopping mall?"
Because it might happen. And, furthermore, you (the general you, not you in particular) know it might happen. If not, you are way too young to be having sex.
The analogy you give is too simplistic to compare with the what-is-the-beginning-of-life argument, which is the basis of all abortion argumentation.
Young in what sense?
Posts: 39 | From: On the roof | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
An Uncertain Ratio
Shipmate
# 5293
|
Posted
I'm not sure what Frisbeetarian's line of argument is here. Is it that sex, for some reason, does not require someone to take full responsibility for their actions? Is it that it is ok to have sex and not accept the various possibilities that will result?
It doesn't make any sense to claim sex as an area of behaviour, often with negative consequences, or unwanted ones, that does not need its consequences facing.
The logical conclusion of Frisbeetarian's (implied) argument is also a bit awkward, it seems to me. If you don't need to accept the consequences as being tough to face, I mean, without it being a difficult decision, what possible problems can there be with abortion anyway? If it does not need to be thought carefully about then the foetus is of precisely zero value.
Surely this isn't true? Surely an abortion can't be a decision like making a cup of tea? However we view a foetus, doesn't there need to be more to it than that? Full human or not, doesn't its status as created human "thing" (for the want of a precise term), brought into being by deliberate and knowing action, give us some pause for thought?
How can you deliberately create something and then accept that it has zero value and destroy it for no other reason than that you don't see that you need to give serious thought to your actions and their consequences?
I do accept several arguments for abortion but I find it hard to think that some people don't see that at least it is a decision that needs serious thought. Or that the act of sex doesn't either.
I may have misrepresented Frisbeetarian's view here. But it is a view I have heard before and I can't help finding it slightly disturbing. I wonder what it says about our values and direction.
I'm also unsure about Frisbeetarian's implications on the purpose of sex. Perhaps they could elaborate?
--------------------
Forty two??
Posts: 177 | From: South East England | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
sharkshooter
Not your average shark
# 1589
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Frisbeetarian:
Young in what sense?
As in, too young to understand, accept and live with the consequences.
--------------------
Let the words of my mouth, and the meditation of my heart, be acceptable in thy sight, O LORD, my strength, and my redeemer. [Psalm 19:14]
Posts: 7772 | From: Canada; Washington DC; Phoenix; it's complicated | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Frisbeetarian
Apprentice
# 6808
|
Posted
When alternatives to having to bear an unwanted child exist, those alternatives should be explored. Someone who really does not want to have a child should not be forced to take responsibility of it. This does not, however, mean they are not taking responsibility of the situation. The alternatives may include abortion or emergency contraception. If the latter would only be made over-the-counter, less abortions would be necessary. It may be true that EC prevents already fertilized eggs from implanting, but keep in mind that up to 80% of fertilized eggs end up in a wad of cotten at some point during a menstrual cycle anyway.
--------------------
Quid pro quo, Clarice.
Posts: 39 | From: On the roof | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kyralessa
Shipmate
# 4568
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Frisbeetarian:
...The alternatives may include abortion or emergency contraception. If the latter would only be made over-the-counter, less abortions would be necessary. It may be true that EC prevents already fertilized eggs from implanting, but keep in mind that up to 80% of fertilized eggs end up in a wad of cotten at some point during a menstrual cycle anyway.
Did you really not see the fallacy in that line of reasoning before you posted it?
[Hint: Well, since we all gotta die sometime anyway...]
[ 29. June 2004, 04:27: Message edited by: Kyralessa ]
--------------------
In Orthodoxy, a child is considered an icon of the parents' love for each other.
I'm just glad all my other icons don't cry, crap, and spit up this much.
Posts: 1597 | From: St. Louis, MO | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Twilight
Puddleglum's sister
# 2832
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kyralessa:
quote:
Originally posted by Frisbeetarian:
...The alternatives may include abortion or emergency contraception. If the latter would only be made over-the-counter, less abortions would be necessary. It may be true that EC prevents already fertilized eggs from implanting, but keep in mind that up to 80% of fertilized eggs end up in a wad of cotten at some point during a menstrual cycle anyway.
Did you really not see the fallacy in that line of reasoning before you posted it?
[Hint: Well, since we all gotta die sometime anyway...]
And are you really asking us to think of these unimplanted eggs as deaths? Should we expect the "mothers" to go through all the stages of mourning? At a rate of 80% the tears would never stop. This seems to be the ultimate goal of the extreme anti-abortion stance - that we should all refer to the embryo as a child and doctors who perform abortions as baby killers until we've convinced ourselves that the zygote is the very same as a two year old child.
"We all gotta go sometime" is a phrase usually used to talk about adults who are taking risks with their health or a callous remark about his death. The death of a grown person with responsibilities, friends and family who know and love them, and hundreds of other lives that are effected through his, is in no way the same as an egg that failed to implant. Asking us to equate the two just points out the basic fallacy of the anti-abortion position.
Posts: 6817 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716
|
Posted
Apart from abortion per se...
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
The death of a grown person with responsibilities, friends and family who know and love them, and hundreds of other lives that are effected through his, is in no way the same as an egg that failed to implant. Asking us to equate the two just points out the basic fallacy of the anti-abortion position.
But you could say precisely the same thing about (for example) a mentally disabled child, in an institution, with no friends or relatives. Personhood is not dependent on having responsibilities, friends, family, or other people affected by oneself.
David
--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity
Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
alienfromzog
Ship's Alien
# 5327
|
Posted
Well put ChastMastr.
I define personhood as follows: Being created in the image of God, being known by God and being loved by God.
I happen to think that is biblical and it is the starting point of all of my thinking in medical ethics.
AFZ
--------------------
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.
[Sen. D.P.Moynihan]
An Alien's View of Earth - my blog (or vanity exercise...)
Posts: 2150 | From: Zog, obviously! Straight past Alpha Centauri, 2nd planet on the left... | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
An Uncertain Ratio
Shipmate
# 5293
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
And are you really asking us to think of these unimplanted eggs as deaths? Should we expect the "mothers" to go through all the stages of mourning? At a rate of 80% the tears would never stop. This seems to be the ultimate goal of the extreme anti-abortion stance - that we should all refer to the embryo as a child and doctors who perform abortions as baby killers until we've convinced ourselves that the zygote is the very same as a two year old child.
I am a bit confused. You seem to be conflating the idea of the unimplanted embryo and the things on which doctors perform abortions. One has zero chance of living, the other a high chance. One is effectively dead before it lives, the other isn't.
The friend of mine who miscarried at 8 weeks and was utterly devastated was not, in my opinion, irrational, and what she lost was not worth nothing.
quote:
The death of a grown person with responsibilities, friends and family who know and love them, and hundreds of other lives that are effected through his, is in no way the same as an egg that failed to implant. Asking us to equate the two just points out the basic fallacy of the anti-abortion position.
This is a pretty narrow range of people whose lives are worth anything at all...
--------------------
Forty two??
Posts: 177 | From: South East England | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by alienfromzog:
Well put ChastMastr.
I define personhood as follows: Being created in the image of God, being known by God and being loved by God.
I happen to think that is biblical and it is the starting point of all of my thinking in medical ethics.
Thank you; but then what do you say to explain personhood to someone who doesn't believe in God? (And I believe that God knows everything and loves all of His Creation, so for me the only distinction in your definition above is "made in the image of God." But what do you mean by that? Reason and will, or something else? Are the angels made in God's image in that sense? If not, are they persons?)
David
--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity
Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Frisbeetarian
Apprentice
# 6808
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Hari Seldon's Walking Stick:
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
And are you really asking us to think of these unimplanted eggs as deaths? Should we expect the "mothers" to go through all the stages of mourning? At a rate of 80% the tears would never stop. This seems to be the ultimate goal of the extreme anti-abortion stance - that we should all refer to the embryo as a child and doctors who perform abortions as baby killers until we've convinced ourselves that the zygote is the very same as a two year old child.
I am a bit confused. You seem to be conflating the idea of the unimplanted embryo and the things on which doctors perform abortions. One has zero chance of living, the other a high chance. One is effectively dead before it lives, the other isn't.
The friend of mine who miscarried at 8 weeks and was utterly devastated was not, in my opinion, irrational, and what she lost was not worth nothing.
quote:
The death of a grown person with responsibilities, friends and family who know and love them, and hundreds of other lives that are effected through his, is in no way the same as an egg that failed to implant. Asking us to equate the two just points out the basic fallacy of the anti-abortion position.
This is a pretty narrow range of people whose lives are worth anything at all...
Worth is relative. A miscarriage at 8 weeks might be devastating to one woman, while an abortion at 8 weeks might be absolutely necessary to another.
Posts: 39 | From: On the roof | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kyralessa
Shipmate
# 4568
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Frisbeetarian:
Worth is relative. A miscarriage at 8 weeks might be devastating to one woman, while an abortion at 8 weeks might be absolutely necessary to another.
Relative to what?
--------------------
In Orthodoxy, a child is considered an icon of the parents' love for each other.
I'm just glad all my other icons don't cry, crap, and spit up this much.
Posts: 1597 | From: St. Louis, MO | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Belle
Shipmate
# 4792
|
Posted
Surely the point is that every person is different. Some people can't help but see their embryo as a tiny person the second they know it's conceived. Others might see it as a small collection of cells. Not only that, but if you have conceived a much longed for child, it is partly your own hopes and dreams that affect your feelings towards it. The woman who has conceived against all likelihood and expectation due to a failure in contraception may not feel the same way (though equally she may - I don't see how anyone can tell unless they are actually in that position themselves).
--------------------
where am I going... and why am I in this handbasket?
Posts: 318 | From: Kent, UK | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Twilight
Puddleglum's sister
# 2832
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
Apart from abortion per se...
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
The death of a grown person with responsibilities, friends and family who know and love them, and hundreds of other lives that are effected through his, is in no way the same as an egg that failed to implant. Asking us to equate the two just points out the basic fallacy of the anti-abortion position.
But you could say precisely the same thing about (for example) a mentally disabled child, in an institution, with no friends or relatives. Personhood is not dependent on having responsibilities, friends, family, or other people affected by oneself.
David
I wasn't out to define personhood but to go to the other extreme on a continuim.
No, no, no. You could not say the same thing about a disabled child as an unimplanted egg.
A disabled child quite clearly is a person by anyone's definition. He has been born.
It's the anti-abortion people who have muddied the definition of life to the point that a human being could be considered of equal value, no more and no less, than a clump of cells on a tissue. There are two sides to this mind set you have created wherein an unimplanted egg is exactly the same as a baby. I believe you're the ones who devalue the personhood of the disabled child by giving the same respect to this unimplanted egg that you give to him.
Posts: 6817 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kyralessa
Shipmate
# 4568
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Belle:
Surely the point is that every person is different. Some people can't help but see their embryo as a tiny person the second they know it's conceived. Others might see it as a small collection of cells. Not only that, but if you have conceived a much longed for child, it is partly your own hopes and dreams that affect your feelings towards it. The woman who has conceived against all likelihood and expectation due to a failure in contraception may not feel the same way (though equally she may - I don't see how anyone can tell unless they are actually in that position themselves).
So are you saying that it's relative to how someone else feels about the baby-to-be? If it's wanted, then it has human worth, and if it's not, then it doesn't have human worth?
--------------------
In Orthodoxy, a child is considered an icon of the parents' love for each other.
I'm just glad all my other icons don't cry, crap, and spit up this much.
Posts: 1597 | From: St. Louis, MO | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Belle
Shipmate
# 4792
|
Posted
Possibly the human worth angle isn't quite what I picked up on in Frisbeetarian's post, though it is relevant. Until babies are conceived in vitro and grown in incubators I don't think that you can isolate the issue and make it solely one of 'human worth'. (At that point - I think there would be every justification for it.) A woman must carry the baby and nurture it up to a point where it can exist independently of her. I don't believe it is right to consider the existence of the embryo/foetus independent of the woman who has to use her body to nurture and carry it. Clearly how the prospective mother feels towards the embryo impacts on whether she will want to carry it or not. From your comment I infer that you think that the feelings and intentions (reproductively speaking)of the woman are irrelevant to the discussion. I believe that any 'right' to life of an unborn child is tempered by the right to life and bodily sovereignty of the born woman who carries it. That is not to say that I don't think there should be checks as to when and why an abortion is permissible - and as medical knowledge becomes more detailed, that may be subject to change.
--------------------
where am I going... and why am I in this handbasket?
Posts: 318 | From: Kent, UK | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
alienfromzog
Ship's Alien
# 5327
|
Posted
What is a person?
Well, if you take the view that infanticide is wrong, and most people do then we have to work backwards and decide when personhood begins. Some take this as at some definite point, others see it as progressive. Thus I think most veiws can be summerised as follows:
1. A person is one who can reason; conscious thought defines out humanity. (Singer is the great proponent of this view) In his framework, euthanasia, infanticide and the killing of severely disable individuals is acceptable.
2. Personhood begins at birth. There is a distinct moral difference between the foetus and the child.
3. Personhood begins at viability (currently around 24 weeks gestation, but this depends on medical technology)
4. Personhood begins at inplantation
5. Personhood begins at conception
6. Personhood is a progressive thing. ie; the foetus is of greater value than the embryo, which is of greater value than the single cell.
Okay, so what do I think?
- Most people would have serious problems with 1. I certainly do, but at least it's consistent.
- 2 I think is purely irrational. Based on convinience mostly, thus giving the right to termination to every woman for any reason. What is different about the child about to be born and the one just born? It is often argued that mother's rights are paramount. I agree that the mother's rights are important and no less so than the foetus; In all other situations where there is a conflict of rights, the right-to-life is paramount.
- 3 I think is another one that is irrational and used for convinience
- 2,3,4 and 5; Unless you take the view that either 1 or 6 is correct then you have to choose between 2, 3, 4 and 5. Whilst I'm not totally satisfied with the answer, I think the only consistent view has to be that life begins and personhood begins at conception as this is the only non-arbitary cut-off.
Thus as the bible says an embryo is known by God, part of his creation in his own image and thus entitled to such respect.
AFZ
P.S. I may have said this before but I think it needs saying again: I am always greatly annoyed by the cras insensitivity of some "pro-lifers." A woman with an unwanted pregnancy is faced with a choice of three ways of losing:
1. Abortion - sometimes with very severe mental/emotional consequences. Women tend never to forget one.
2. Adoption - and spend everyday of her life wondering about that child
3. Have the baby - and endure pregnancy and often massive life-changes.
I belief the right-to-life of a human embryo / foetus / disable child / elderly person / ill person is a moral absolute as each has inestimable worth as each is made in the image of God and loved by him.
The problem with moral absolutes is they do not provide easy answers only difficult ones. ![[Votive]](graemlins/votive.gif)
--------------------
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.
[Sen. D.P.Moynihan]
An Alien's View of Earth - my blog (or vanity exercise...)
Posts: 2150 | From: Zog, obviously! Straight past Alpha Centauri, 2nd planet on the left... | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
I wasn't out to define personhood but to go to the other extreme on a continuim.
Thank you for clarifying! ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
quote:
A disabled child quite clearly is a person by anyone's definition. He has been born.
Absolutely agreed there.
quote:
It's the anti-abortion people who have muddied the definition of life to the point that ...
Hey, could we not treat Dead Horses as Hell? I wasn't even particularly stating my own position -- though it is, in fact, anti-abortion. I think both sides (not necessarily on this thread -- I mean the loudest voices heard by the media) have used rhetoric which is neither valid nor helpful, and they have indeed muddied the waters. In my own case I will describe myself as "anti-abortion" partly because I consider "pro-life" to be a sloganeering term -- and I'm also okay with capital punishment in various circumstances, the notion of a "just war," and the like, which could open me to charges of inconsistency; so I try to make things clear. (Alas, none of this will fit on a bumper sticker very well...)
quote:
Originally posted by alienfromzog:
I may have said this before but I think it needs saying again: I am always greatly annoyed by the cras insensitivity of some "pro-lifers."
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif) I get worried whenever I talk about abortion for precisely this reason. The way some people behave makes me take a step back and say, "Um, I'm not one of them." ![[Frown]](frown.gif)
quote:
The problem with moral absolutes is they do not provide easy answers only difficult ones.
Also agreed. I wish more people on the anti-abortion side would talk about this fact.
David
PS: I tend to agree with alienfromzog's notion of life beginning etc. above, with the caveat that I'm not sola scriptura and that Thomas Aquinas actually put the timing later than conception, but as I'm using edit I don't have time to look it up now.
[ 01. July 2004, 18:01: Message edited by: ChastMastr ]
--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity
Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
An Uncertain Ratio
Shipmate
# 5293
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kyralessa:
quote:
Originally posted by Belle:
Surely the point is that every person is different. Some people can't help but see their embryo as a tiny person the second they know it's conceived. Others might see it as a small collection of cells. Not only that, but if you have conceived a much longed for child, it is partly your own hopes and dreams that affect your feelings towards it. The woman who has conceived against all likelihood and expectation due to a failure in contraception may not feel the same way (though equally she may - I don't see how anyone can tell unless they are actually in that position themselves).
So are you saying that it's relative to how someone else feels about the baby-to-be? If it's wanted, then it has human worth, and if it's not, then it doesn't have human worth?
My feelings exactly. Though I am genuinely unsure, rather than asking a rhetorical question. For me to make progress in this issue I need to understand how a life can be recognised as such and nutured carefully in some circumstances; and destroyed in others.
The object is the same in both circumstances. Yet one's death is a tragedy and the other's deemed ethically ok.
For the purposes of our belief in abortion we maintain the non-value of the foetus, and then sometimes that view makes no sense to us.
But how can you inject value into something if it doesn't actually possess it, intrinsically? Can you switch a concept like value, or worth, on and off like that, depending on circumstances?
Is it a life when it is wanted, and not when it isn't?
Maybe you can do that. Maybe you should. I honestly don't know. But the present position of our society makes no sense to me, especially when I see at close hand how a foetus deemed as worthless for the purposes of this debate, can also be loved, desired, needed and known to be a life.
I want to say at this point, maybe risking accusations of inconsistency, that I generally mean what I take to be the social issue - abortion on demand, not abortion in cases where a risk to the mother is the cause.
The concept of personhood is, incidentally, under attack from different sources. Peter Singer has argued that a neonate could, ethically, be destroyed, as it possesses no significant differences from a foetus. I don't know if he really believes that or is stirring. In the euthanasia debate we see the concept of "quality of life", which is a fluid and hard to define concept, as being possibly the determining factor in whether someone deserves life or not (outside of their wishes, I mean). We see, maybe rightly, the great apes encroaching on the territory of personhood, the more that is known about them.
What is a person is, generally, becoming ever harder to define.
I don't know if that will affect the public conduct of the abortion debate. Probably not, as many people (eg Johann Hari in Wednesday's Independent) view the existence of the debate as almost offensive in itself. There is a willingness (in this country at least) to shut the question out completely or to argue about sub-issues (like abortion provision and do teenagers have enough abortions?).
I am rambling and will admit I don't see it rationally. That, too, is probably wrong.
But I do want to agree with the idea that the existence of these different, conflicting ethics, makes it complex and I for one am anti-abortion but with serious reservations (I wouldn't want it banned, for example).
And for those facing the choice or decision I want to second -
--------------------
Forty two??
Posts: 177 | From: South East England | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
sharkshooter
Not your average shark
# 1589
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by alienfromzog:
The problem with moral absolutes is they do not provide easy answers only difficult ones.
Life is full of difficult questions/issues - like this one. We should not expect there to be easy answers to such difficult questions.
--------------------
Let the words of my mouth, and the meditation of my heart, be acceptable in thy sight, O LORD, my strength, and my redeemer. [Psalm 19:14]
Posts: 7772 | From: Canada; Washington DC; Phoenix; it's complicated | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
alienfromzog
Ship's Alien
# 5327
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
quote:
Originally posted by alienfromzog:
The problem with moral absolutes is they do not provide easy answers only difficult ones.
Life is full of difficult questions/issues - like this one. We should not expect there to be easy answers to such difficult questions.
I totally agree Sharkshooter, the problem is I think many people expect there to be simple answers. Ultimately I think this is true when it comes to abortion. In a professional capacity I have been present at a Suction Termination of Pregnancy (that's the medical jargon) It is an entirely painless, very quick, very easy procedure. It is a simple technological solution to a complex human problem. Of course it is only physically painless and physically easy. The problem is that complex human problems aren't fixed this way. It is my experience that people on both sides of this debate seem to expect it to break down to easy soundbites. but as Sharkshooter put it:
quote:
Life is full of difficult questions/issues - like this one. We should not expect there to be easy answers to such difficult questions.
AFZ
[ 14. July 2004, 11:55: Message edited by: alienfromzog ]
--------------------
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.
[Sen. D.P.Moynihan]
An Alien's View of Earth - my blog (or vanity exercise...)
Posts: 2150 | From: Zog, obviously! Straight past Alpha Centauri, 2nd planet on the left... | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
sharkshooter
Not your average shark
# 1589
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Laura:
... If we are to let God decide (as sharkshooter suggests) whether a mother whose child threatens her health die (rather than have an abortion), or live, or both of them die, then we are hardly authorized to interfere with whether a guy who's imprisoned for murder lives or dies. ...
God instituted capital punishment.
See Genesis 9:
quote:
6 "Whoever sheds the blood of man,
by man shall his blood be shed;
for in the image of God
has God made man.
I don't see where He did the same for abortion.
--------------------
Let the words of my mouth, and the meditation of my heart, be acceptable in thy sight, O LORD, my strength, and my redeemer. [Psalm 19:14]
Posts: 7772 | From: Canada; Washington DC; Phoenix; it's complicated | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ThisCoolMom
Apprentice
# 5966
|
Posted
Nice to see a fellow Canadian on here sharkshooter.
Okay let me point out this for everyone. I was almost aborted!!! What saved me was the nurse calling my grandparents telling them that their daughter is at the doctors office, about to have an abortion and stalled while they dragged their daughters butt home. God only knows what would of happened IF there was someone else at the desk that day.
My life had no value to my bio mother. As well I would like to stand clear that each person has choices to make in life. Sex is a choice, you can choose to have it or not. If you choose to have it then there are results that we may not like such as STD's and conception (not consequences, I am not a conseqence of my mother's actions) If you are not financially able NOR willing to accept the results of being pregnant (there is NO such thing as 100% method of birth control other then abstaining. For example I am a condom child YES Condoms are NOT 100% effective) Or the possiblity of being sterile from an STD then your too young to have sex sorry to say.
What is it with today's society that things are a right and not a priviledge. ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
God has blessed people with knowledge to fix such disablities or to make life easier for their families. I say those families are experiencing the true meaning of God's love for they know how to love unconditionally even with imperfections.
--------------------
"If you can't be a good example then you'll just have to be a horrible warning."
Posts: 38 | From: Canada | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Custard
Shipmate
# 5402
|
Posted
And are you glad you weren't aborted?
I am.
--------------------
blog
Adam's likeness, Lord, efface;
Stamp thine image in its place.
Posts: 4523 | From: Snot's Place | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
multipara
Shipmate
# 2918
|
Posted
TCM, it is good to know that you are glad that you weren't aborted. Most of us would feel the same way.
However, that does not take away from the fact that that practice nurse breached patient confidentiality something terrible.
How do you think you'd feel if a medical professional had done the same thing to you (different condition, maybe)?
And yes, before Tony raps my knuckes, I do realise that could consitiue a separate thread.
Any takers?
m
m
--------------------
quod scripsi, scripsi
Posts: 4985 | From: new south wales | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
BuzzyBee
Ship's Drummer
# 3283
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by multipara:
However, that does not take away from the fact that that practice nurse breached patient confidentiality something terrible. [...] Any takers?
Here Here. Without wishing non-existance on any person born as a result of such acts, I consider that forcing someone to continue with a pregnancy they don't want is a horrible deed comparable with rape.
Obviously TCM hasn't given specific details so I don't know whether the grandparents used force or nicer forms of persuasion, so I'm just talking in general terms here not about this specific case.
Debating with and trying to persuade someone if you really feel strongly would be fine - but forcibly dragging someone from the doctor's office and preventing them from returning would be a crime in my book.
--------------------
BuzzyBee
~~~~~~
Faith is taking the first step even when you don't see the whole staircase. Martin Luther King, Jr
Posts: 465 | From: Bristol | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Custard
Shipmate
# 5402
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by BuzzyBee:
Here Here. Without wishing non-existance on any person born as a result of such acts, I consider that forcing someone to continue with a pregnancy they don't want is a horrible deed comparable with rape.
Funny, I consider that forcibly preventing someone from being born without even consulting them is a horrible deed (in some senses) far worse than rape.
quote:
Debating with and trying to persuade someone if you really feel strongly would be fine - but forcibly dragging someone from the doctor's office and preventing them from returning would be a crime in my book.
You mean like the doctors do to the fetus?
Except the fetus leaves the hospital via the incinerator.
--------------------
blog
Adam's likeness, Lord, efface;
Stamp thine image in its place.
Posts: 4523 | From: Snot's Place | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Suze
Ship's Barmaid
# 5639
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by multipara:
However, that does not take away from the fact that that practice nurse breached patient confidentiality something terrible.
I agree completely about the issue of confidentiality here, IMO the practice nurse should have lost her job. Regardless of whether you feel abortion is acceptable or not, the person concerned had a right to consult their doctor and receive medial treatment with complete confidentiality.
What if she had been going for birth control and her parents disagreed with its use, would it have been OK then for the nurse to breach her confidentiality and her parents to take her away from the doctors surgery. (For the record, I'm not suggesting abortion is a form of birth control nor am I suggesting it is acceptable as such by any means, just throwing in a hypothetical).
BTW, I don't see how a decision to end a pregnancy, often made in dreadful circumstances with long term effects for all concerned, can be compared with rape... sorry.
[ 18. September 2004, 21:47: Message edited by: Suze ]
--------------------
' You stay here and I'll go look for God, that won't be hard cos I know where he's not, and I will bring him back with me , then he'll listen , then he'll see' Richard Shindell
Posts: 2603 | From: where the angels sleep | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Louise
Shipmate
# 30
|
Posted
On the closed thread in hell various people were talking about disability or lack of it in pre-term babies. These findings might be of some interest.
Premature babies' disability risk
L
[Louise temporarily under a different name]
--------------------
Now you need never click a Daily Mail link again! Kittenblock replaces Mail links with calming pics of tea and kittens! http://www.teaandkittens.co.uk/ Click under 'other stuff' to find it.
Posts: 6918 | From: Scotland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Divine Outlaw
Gin-soaked boy
# 2252
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
quote:
Originally posted by Laura:
... If we are to let God decide (as sharkshooter suggests) whether a mother whose child threatens her health die (rather than have an abortion), or live, or both of them die, then we are hardly authorized to interfere with whether a guy who's imprisoned for murder lives or dies. ...
God instituted capital punishment.
See Genesis 9:
quote:
6 "Whoever sheds the blood of man,
by man shall his blood be shed;
for in the image of God
has God made man.
I don't see where He did the same for abortion.
Whether or not God instituted capital punishment, he subsequently abolished it and then suffered it.
--------------------
insert amusing sig. here
Posts: 8705 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
sharkshooter
Not your average shark
# 1589
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Little Divine Godey the Brigand:
Whether or not God instituted capital punishment, he subsequently abolished it and then suffered it. [/QB]
I don't recall that one. Could you please provide chapter and verse?
Thanks
ps I am referring to the abolition, not the suffering - I can find that one myself.
--------------------
Let the words of my mouth, and the meditation of my heart, be acceptable in thy sight, O LORD, my strength, and my redeemer. [Psalm 19:14]
Posts: 7772 | From: Canada; Washington DC; Phoenix; it's complicated | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
sharkshooter
Not your average shark
# 1589
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Suze:
...
BTW, I don't see how a decision to end a pregnancy, often made in dreadful circumstances with long term effects for all concerned, can be compared with rape... sorry.
Let me see:
Rape: One person (the rapist) enforcing his will (intercourse) on another (the raped) against her will.
Abortion: One person (the mother) forcing her will (to end the life of the unborn child) on another (the baby) against his/her (the baby's) will.
Seems pretty close to me.
Lets try another:
Abortion: One person taking the life of another person without due process.
Murder: One person taking the life of another person without due process.
Also pretty close.
Note that all three could be said to be doen in dreadful circumstances with long term effects.
So which one do you prefer we compare it to?
--------------------
Let the words of my mouth, and the meditation of my heart, be acceptable in thy sight, O LORD, my strength, and my redeemer. [Psalm 19:14]
Posts: 7772 | From: Canada; Washington DC; Phoenix; it's complicated | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Suze
Ship's Barmaid
# 5639
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
Let me see:
Rape: One person (the rapist) enforcing his will (intercourse) on another (the raped) against her will.
Abortion: One person (the mother) forcing her will (to end the life of the unborn child) on another (the baby) against his/her (the baby's) will.
Seems pretty close to me.
Lets try another:
Abortion: One person taking the life of another person without due process.
Murder: One person taking the life of another person without due process.
Also pretty close.
To my knowledge there is a fairly robust debate, and has been for a long time now, about when a human becomes a "person" in terms of legal standing, rights and protection. So, your comparison doesn't necessarily hold up in terms of either forcing the will of one person on another or of taking a persons life.
You are also comparing practice (abortion) which is allowed under law both in my country and yours with practice (rape/murder) which is considered illegal in both my country and yours. I assume that by "life taken without due process" you mean without following the law of the land eg murder as opposed to implementing the death penalty. This is clearly not the case in terms of abortion as "due process" would need to be followed to allow the procedure to take place.
Having supported people in all of these situations, ie rape, abortion and murder they all hurt deeply, but I doubt they would consider their experiences to be similar.
So, in answer to your question, I wouldn't compare abortion to either one.
--------------------
' You stay here and I'll go look for God, that won't be hard cos I know where he's not, and I will bring him back with me , then he'll listen , then he'll see' Richard Shindell
Posts: 2603 | From: where the angels sleep | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Custard
Shipmate
# 5402
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Suze:
To my knowledge there is a fairly robust debate, and has been for a long time now, about when a human becomes a "person" in terms of legal standing, rights and protection.
Indeed. But the mere possibility that the fetus being aborted is as much a human person as any of us should lead us not to abort it [with the possible exception of doing so in order to save life].
If I'm going to fire a gun, I want to be certain there isn't someone in the way of the bullet. Just saying "oh, if I close my eyes there probably won't be anyone there" wouldn't really work as a defence. Same with abortion. If we are going to kill a fetus, we want to be 100% certain it isn't a person.
And the mere fact that there is a debate shows that we are not 100% sure.
quote:
Having supported people in all of these situations, ie rape, abortion and murder they all hurt deeply, but I doubt they would consider their experiences to be similar.
Odd. I've never supported anyone who has been aborted or murdered, but I wouldn't imagine they'd be particularly happy about it.
[ 22. September 2004, 21:44: Message edited by: Custard. ]
--------------------
blog
Adam's likeness, Lord, efface;
Stamp thine image in its place.
Posts: 4523 | From: Snot's Place | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Suze
Ship's Barmaid
# 5639
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Custard.:
Odd. I've never supported anyone who has been aborted or murdered, but I wouldn't imagine they'd be particularly happy about it.
For the sake of clarity, I refer to supporting those who have experienced rape, have had loved ones murdered and those who have either made the choice to abort or whose partners have made that choice (both with and without their agreement). And, oddly enough, none of those people concerned were happy about it either. Apologies for any ambiguity.
--------------------
' You stay here and I'll go look for God, that won't be hard cos I know where he's not, and I will bring him back with me , then he'll listen , then he'll see' Richard Shindell
Posts: 2603 | From: where the angels sleep | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
sharkshooter
Not your average shark
# 1589
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Suze:
Having supported people in all of these situations, ie rape, abortion and murder they all hurt deeply, ...
The perpetrator or the victim? Oh yeah, the victim in 2 of the 3 cases is dead, thus not feeling anything at all.
--------------------
Let the words of my mouth, and the meditation of my heart, be acceptable in thy sight, O LORD, my strength, and my redeemer. [Psalm 19:14]
Posts: 7772 | From: Canada; Washington DC; Phoenix; it's complicated | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Suze
Ship's Barmaid
# 5639
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
The perpetrator or the victim? Oh yeah, the victim in 2 of the 3 cases is dead, thus not feeling anything at all.
I've already elaborated on my meaning above so think I've been fairly clear on that one. In one case the victim is dead, in the other case whether you consider the "victim" dead or not depends on when you believe life to have begun which, as has been said before, is certainly the subject of debate.
It may also be more accurate to say one of the victims are dead, if that is where your belief lies. In these situations there are many people affected, including in the case of abortion the woman who has made the decision. Whether I agree with abortion or not, I believe it is important to deal with people from a place of compassion and don't find likening the decision to end a pregnancy with murder a helpful way to engage with people in this situation.
[edited to fix code]
[ 23. September 2004, 20:24: Message edited by: Suze ]
--------------------
' You stay here and I'll go look for God, that won't be hard cos I know where he's not, and I will bring him back with me , then he'll listen , then he'll see' Richard Shindell
Posts: 2603 | From: where the angels sleep | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Louise
Shipmate
# 30
|
Posted
Sharkshooter and Custard, Your posts are simply assuming something which remains to be proved here: that a fetus is a person. Restating your premise in a variety of ways without producing any proof for it does not constitute an argument. Effectively, you are begging the question. If you want to prove that a fetus is a person deserving protection, you can't do so simply by saying again and again in a variety of novel ways that you think it is.
Posted by Custard:
quote:
Funny, I consider that forcibly preventing someone from being born without even consulting them is a horrible deed (in some senses) far worse than rape.
Here you just assume that we are dealing with a person capable of giving consent. Where is your evidence that there is a person who can be consulted here? How would you 'consult' them?
quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Debating with and trying to persuade someone if you really feel strongly would be fine - but forcibly dragging someone from the doctor's office and preventing them from returning would be a crime in my book.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You mean like the doctors do to the fetus?
Except the fetus leaves the hospital via the incinerator.
Same unproven assumption that the unborn is a 'person'. No evidence or argument produced for this.
From sharkshooter
quote:
Rape: One person (the rapist) enforcing his will (intercourse) on another (the raped) against her will.
Abortion: One person (the mother) forcing her will (to end the life of the unborn child) on another (the baby) against his/her (the baby's) will.
Seems pretty close to me.
Lets try another:
Abortion: One person taking the life of another person without due process.
Murder: One person taking the life of another person without due process.
Here it is not only assumed that the unborn is a person, but a person with a will which can be overborne!
Sharkshooter again
quote:
The perpetrator or the victim? Oh yeah, the victim in 2 of the 3 cases is dead, thus not feeling anything at all.
Same assumption that there is a person here to be a victim - all of it with the implication that people who have an abortion are committing murder and none of it backed up with evidence or reasoning as to whether we are dealing with a person here or not - just assertions. Custard at least had a go at the issue of personhood - but didn't produce any evidence to back up his viewpoint,
quote:
But the mere possibility that the fetus being aborted is as much a human person as any of us should lead us not to abort it
If the 'mere possibility' that something human might be killed is enough to totally ban an activity then the mere possibility that driving a car might kill someone rather than just kill a load of flies and the odd rabbit means that driving must be banned, just in case something in the path of a car happens to be a person. I hope you don't drive if you're so worried about human life that the 'merest possibility' of killing someone is too much, and I hope you are campaigning to ban driving.
Many posts back on this thread Laura addressed the issue of personhood which lies at the heart of this debate
quote:
Originally posted by Laura:
...
One interesting thing I read in the "Ethical Views on Abortion" on religioustolerance (which specifically doesn't take sides on any issue) was an article discussing the question of what is alive vs. dead. We determine death in this country in most states through "flat-line" status, or when there is no cortical activity. To quote:
quote:
In most jurisdictions in North America, Europe, and elsewhere, the point of death is defined as a lack of electrical activity in the brain's cerebral cortex. If this is the end of human life, one might use the same criteria to define the start of human life. One might argue that fetal life becomes human person when electrical activity commences in the cerebral cortex. Human personhood, would then start when consciousness begins and ends when consciousness irrevocably ends. One could then argue that a fully-informed woman should have access to abortion at any point before the point that human personhood begins.
According to author Richard Carrier: "...the fetus does not become truly neurologically active until the fifth month (an event we call 'quickening.' This activity might only be a generative one, i.e. the spontaneous nerve pulses could merely be autonomous or spontaneous reflexes aimed at stimulating and developing muscle and organ tissue. Nevertheless, it is in this month that a complex cerebral cortex, the one unique feature of human -- in contrast with animal -- brains, begins to develop, and is typically complete, though still growing, by the sixth month. What is actually going on mentally at that point is unknown, but the hardware is in place for a human mind to exist in at least a primitive state."
...
Under this argument, some primitive neurological activity in the cerebral cortex begins during the fifth month, perhaps as early as the 22nd week of pregnancy. If we allow a two week safety factor, then we could set the gestation time limit at which abortions should not be freely available at 20 weeks. Abortions could then be requested up to the start of the 20th week for normal pregnancies, or at a later time if unusual conditions existed. Many state and provincial medical associations in North America have actually adopted this limit, probably using a different rationale.
Have either of you got a good reply to her thoughtful consideration of when there might be a person involved and what constitutes personhood or do you just want to keep up with the 'abortion = murder of a person' assertions?
L
--------------------
Now you need never click a Daily Mail link again! Kittenblock replaces Mail links with calming pics of tea and kittens! http://www.teaandkittens.co.uk/ Click under 'other stuff' to find it.
Posts: 6918 | From: Scotland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
sharkshooter
Not your average shark
# 1589
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Louise:
...Have either of you got a good reply to her thoughtful consideration of when there might be a person involved and what constitutes personhood ...
L
Speaking only for myself here, frankly, no. Because those comments are predicated on assuming that what the "state" says on the issue of life is relevant. I don't buy that assumption any more than you buy my assumption that the unborn child is human.
I expect it was that impasse that sent this to Dead Horses in the first place.
--------------------
Let the words of my mouth, and the meditation of my heart, be acceptable in thy sight, O LORD, my strength, and my redeemer. [Psalm 19:14]
Posts: 7772 | From: Canada; Washington DC; Phoenix; it's complicated | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Suze
Ship's Barmaid
# 5639
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Louise:
One interesting thing I read in the "Ethical Views on Abortion" on religioustolerance (which specifically doesn't take sides on any issue) was an article discussing the question of what is alive vs. dead.
Actually, I think you'll find the source that Louise quotes is this site which doesn't appear to be a state funded or managed organisation. I can completely understand you being reluctant to accept a government view on this issue, so where do you get your information from?
Thanks Louise for finding this, I had read it at some point and then couldn't find it again - you've saved me a bit of googling.
Posts: 2603 | From: where the angels sleep | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
quote:
Originally posted by Louise:
...Have either of you got a good reply to her thoughtful consideration of when there might be a person involved and what constitutes personhood ...
L
Speaking only for myself here, frankly, no. Because those comments are predicated on assuming that what the "state" says on the issue of life is relevant. I don't buy that assumption any more than you buy my assumption that the unborn child is human.
That the unborn child is human is not at question.
Like someone with zero brain activity who is on a life support machine, the issue is whether it's a person or not.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Laura
General nuisance
# 10
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
quote:
Originally posted by Louise:
...Have either of you got a good reply to her thoughtful consideration of when there might be a person involved and what constitutes personhood ...
L
Speaking only for myself here, frankly, no. Because those comments are predicated on assuming that what the "state" says on the issue of life is relevant. I don't buy that assumption any more than you buy my assumption that the unborn child is human.
I expect it was that impasse that sent this to Dead Horses in the first place.
But the argument I cited is not at all assuming what the "state" says. It's an argument bsed on good science. You can disagree with it, bt it represents no toeing of the state line. In fact, the "state" errs in not adopting such a thoughtful standard, but rather they use outdated medicine to fix on the trimester break system set forth in Roe v. Wade and its progeny.
--------------------
Love is the only sane and satisfactory answer to the problem of human existence. - Erich Fromm
Posts: 16883 | From: East Coast, USA | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
