Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Limits on Abortion
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 136 of 230 (387898)
03-03-2007 2:24 PM
Reply to: Message 104 by iano
03-02-2007 6:58 PM


Re: Greater hate has no woman than this, that she lay down her babies life for hersel
Take heart in the fact that every outlandish situation imaginable is being posed for your perusal
Well, this is a false statement. These situations are not outlandish; these are the very real realities that emerge in societies that enact NJ's policies, as proven by Schraf's information.
which serves to ill-disguise the fact that the vast majority of abortions are merely self-serving lifestyle choices
It's amazing to me how you pro-lifers fall all over yourselves to prove how it's not about "saving innocents", it's about shaming sluts. Thanks for being one more proof that I've been right all along.
Iano, are you prepared to address the questions I've posed to NJ and Petro? For your perusal:
quote:
I wonder if you can address the contradictions that lie at the heart of the pro-life movement, then. Why is it that, despite claiming to oppose abortion, they promote policies that increase abortions and oppose policies that reduce the number of abortions?
I suspect this is going to be just another one of the myriad questions I've asked you, Iano, that you haven't been able to answer. What are we, going on nearly two years of such questions with you?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by iano, posted 03-02-2007 6:58 PM iano has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 137 of 230 (387899)
03-03-2007 2:31 PM
Reply to: Message 109 by anastasia
03-02-2007 7:33 PM


Ana, are you prepared to answer the questions NJ and Petro weren't able to? To remind you:
quote:
I wonder if you can address the contradictions that lie at the heart of the pro-life movement, then. Why is it that, despite claiming to oppose abortion, they promote policies that increase abortions and oppose policies that reduce the number of abortions?
The busybody moralizing from the pro-life movement would appear a lot less hollow and false if they showed the slightest interest in actually reducing abortions. Or even curing diseases! When was the last time you heard of a pro-life organization promoting (for instance) expanded access to pre-natal care for low-income women?
Why is it that the only thing pro-lifers are interested in is forcing women to give birth? That was the contradiction that drove me out of the pro-life camp (that, and the development of sense on my part), and it's astounding to me that the rest of you seem completely blind to this contradiction.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by anastasia, posted 03-02-2007 7:33 PM anastasia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 139 by anastasia, posted 03-03-2007 2:58 PM crashfrog has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 138 of 230 (387901)
03-03-2007 2:45 PM
Reply to: Message 135 by Hyroglyphx
03-03-2007 2:12 PM


Re: NJ supported by science
However, I believe that a very large number of people who accept the pro-choice philosophy really do not have a strong grasp on what a fetus is or can understand the sociological and psychological impact this ignorance fosters.
Well, I've taken classes in human anatomy/development and biology, including genetics. Gray's Anatomy (the text, not the TV show) was bedtime reading when I was growing up. My parents explained the "birds and the bees" when I was about 6, using medical illustrations of the process. (For a time, pornography confused me because the only depictions of intercourse I was familiar with were sagital cross-sections.)
I know what a fetus is. Since you claim to be such an expert in embryology, let's try a little test. You tell me which fetus is the human and which is not:
Or, maybe, just possibly, the fact that you observed a pregnancy second-hand doesn't actually make you an expert in obstetrics. Just a thought?
Edited by crashfrog, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 135 by Hyroglyphx, posted 03-03-2007 2:12 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
anastasia
Member (Idle past 5953 days)
Posts: 1857
From: Bucks County, PA
Joined: 11-05-2006


Message 139 of 230 (387902)
03-03-2007 2:58 PM
Reply to: Message 137 by crashfrog
03-03-2007 2:31 PM


Crashfrog writes:
I wonder if you can address the contradictions that lie at the heart of the pro-life movement, then. Why is it that, despite claiming to oppose abortion, they promote policies that increase abortions and oppose policies that reduce the number of abortions?
If you want to be a bit more specific I can try to answer. If you are asking me to question why certain people don't actively participate in every possible cause related to their own, I can't answer that one.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 137 by crashfrog, posted 03-03-2007 2:31 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 141 by Straggler, posted 03-03-2007 3:17 PM anastasia has replied
 Message 145 by crashfrog, posted 03-03-2007 4:45 PM anastasia has not replied

  
Omnivorous
Member
Posts: 3978
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005
Member Rating: 7.3


Message 140 of 230 (387905)
03-03-2007 3:10 PM
Reply to: Message 98 by petrophysics1
03-02-2007 5:37 PM


Re: NJ supported by science
Petrophysics, I'd appreciate a reply to my Msg 99.
You claimed that hateful posts directed at NJ were telling; I asked you to back up your assertion by indicating which posts you felt were hateful:
quote:
petrophysics writes:
Do you really think that the hate being directed at NJ is normal?
Could you quote a few passages that typify what you consider "hate being directed at NJ"?
I think you sought to "poison the well" of arguments against NJ's position by calling them hateful, and now you prefer to ignore my challenge.
Of course, I could be wrong: if so, I'm sure you are happy to demonstrate my error.
It should only take a few minutes of your time to support your claim.

Real things always push back.
-William James
Save lives! Click here!
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC!
---------------------------------------

This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by petrophysics1, posted 03-02-2007 5:37 PM petrophysics1 has not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 141 of 230 (387907)
03-03-2007 3:17 PM
Reply to: Message 139 by anastasia
03-03-2007 2:58 PM


Obvious Examples
Those that oppose abortion are generally the same people who oppose contraception, sex education, publicly funded healthcare and liberalised adoption laws.
All of which contribute to less abortions being required or make alternatives more easily accessible.
It does seem a rather contradictory stance. No?
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 139 by anastasia, posted 03-03-2007 2:58 PM anastasia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 142 by Omnivorous, posted 03-03-2007 3:46 PM Straggler has replied
 Message 154 by anastasia, posted 03-03-2007 8:10 PM Straggler has replied

  
Omnivorous
Member
Posts: 3978
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005
Member Rating: 7.3


Message 142 of 230 (387910)
03-03-2007 3:46 PM
Reply to: Message 141 by Straggler
03-03-2007 3:17 PM


Re: Obvious Examples
Straggler writes:
Those that oppose abortion are genarally the ame people who oppose contraception, sex education and publicly funded healthcare.
All of which contribute to less abortions being required.
It does seem a rather contradictory stance. No?
This reminds me of a particular bad faith argument I noted long ago: opponents of sex education use misrepresentations of sex education to strip local curricula of useful, accurate information, then use the poor results to support their opposition to sex education.

Real things always push back.
-William James
Save lives! Click here!
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC!
---------------------------------------

This message is a reply to:
 Message 141 by Straggler, posted 03-03-2007 3:17 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 143 by Straggler, posted 03-03-2007 3:57 PM Omnivorous has not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 143 of 230 (387912)
03-03-2007 3:57 PM
Reply to: Message 142 by Omnivorous
03-03-2007 3:46 PM


Re: Obvious Examples
This tactic is also used in the wider political context. Conservatives (of the UK variety which seem to be wishy washy liberals in comparison to their US equivelents) will wilfully underfund public services to the point of failure and then declare that publicly funded organisations are inherently useless and need to be privatised. Then they sell them off to their friends in big business who go on to make huge profits from essential services.
However this is completely off topic so please ignore my little rant!!
Abortion...where were we....?
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 142 by Omnivorous, posted 03-03-2007 3:46 PM Omnivorous has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 144 of 230 (387916)
03-03-2007 4:34 PM
Reply to: Message 100 by crashfrog
03-02-2007 5:49 PM


Answering the detractors
No - for the reasons I gave. You don't appear to have addressed those.
I've addressed you numerous times. Now we're just going around in circles.
And an octopus has the same features. Merely having a heart and a brain is not significant - a worm possesses the same features.
So? An octopus is a living organism. Since the fetus has all of these things along with the human DNA encoded within them, which is exactly what makes a fetus as human as all other human beings.
I know what makes a human. Hopes, dreams, plans, communication. The fear and knowledge of death. The recognition of self. Women have those things. Zygotes do not.
Then an infant isn't a human being according to your inconsistent statements. For the record Crash, when does a non-human achieve the much coveted title, rank, and rights of a human being? You told me at birth. Does that include a partial birth abortion where the fetus is pulled out of the birth canal and has a pair of surgical scissors jammed into the base of the skull, and then opened so a high-powered negative vacuum can suck out the brain? Or do you get to become a human being when you have "hopes, dreams, plans, communications, the fear of death" etc?
A potted fern can feel pain.
Okay... You said that a fetus does not. Want to address that or do you want to keep trying to derail the conversation by using irrelevant and non-existent corollaries in order to dehumanize a fetus?
Not everybody sees pregnancy as a blessing. NJ. Why do you think women have abortions?
You're right... Not everyone loves babies. Some people despise them because they are parasites who need help for their own survival. I guess I was only referring to normal people who enjoy the simple joys of children and congratulate their friends and family on their pregnancy. My apologies for the confusion.
I'm just not willing to make decisions for other people based on my emotions. How can you feel that's appropriate?
But you do. Remember, we all start off as little babies Crash-- even you. You don't advocate for them.
I've hardly asserted "abortions for everybody", so you're arguing a strawman.
You have though. As long as somebody wants it, as far you are concerned, abortion for all.
From what I can tell there's no shortage of women who actually do want to be pregnant; let them shoulder the burden of propagating the human race.
Burden or privilege? Some people would love to have your potential burden in the form of a healthy sperm count or an operable uterus. Since you don't seem to need or want that burden, why don't you do all parties a favor and get a vasectomy. That way there is no chance that your wife can get pregnant and there will be no need for needless abortions.
quote:
Your solution to a bad home life is to just kill them?
No - to prevent them from having existed in the first place.
Preventing their existence in the first place is getting a tubal ligation or a vasectomy. Once created, they now exist, right? What you are talking about is snuffing them out by removing them from existence.
Sit down, this may shock you - not everybody wants to be pregnant.
The shocking part is that those who don't want to get pregnant don't have the forethought to get a tubal or a vasectomy. That's the shocking part.
If pregnancies are universally celebrated, NJ, then why are women having abortions?
Crash, I'm talking about human interaction here. When you tell your family or friends that you are pregnant, the first thing that comes to their mind is to congratulate you. They don't ordinarily say, "Dammit, another parasite!"
Honestly I would have thought that, in the 2 days you had to deal with my post, you could have brought your A-game - instead of this trash.
Next time I'll bring my A-game, dogg...
Are you under the impression that God only lets married women get pregnant, or something?
You asserted that the pro-life movement was not really about trying to save the unborn, but really was about "slut shaming." I was correcting you since you overlooked all of the married or monogamous couples that get abortions.
We've seen a marked reduction in violent crime since Roe v. Wade legalized abortion in the US.
That isn't even remotely true, and even supposing it was, what would lead you to believe there is a connection? The rate of violence was the worst it ever was in the late 80's and early 90's, and has begun to taper off since about 1995.
People are reasonable, NJ. They know that there's a certain kind of environment that's best for raising children, and some environments that are inherently traumatic and unsuitable for a child's development. People want to avoid bringing children into that life.
Then avoid getting pregnant. Problem solved.
Why is it that so-called "pro-life" organizations aren't interested in giving them the tools to do so?
What do you mean? There is a Pregnancy Resource Center or something comparable in most large cities. What kind of tools are you referring to?
That's why I'm pro-choice, NJ. It's the mother who has everything to do with it.
What I don't understand is why you think you know better than she does.
I have my wife who can tell me, first hand, about an unexpected pregnancy. She made the right choice.
quote:
I think a father should be a father and not a sperm donor, but that is not a reason to kill a child.
Strawman. Nobody's talking about infanticide or the killing of children.
Its completely applicable because you said its unfair to have fatherless children. This was just one of your piss-poor justifications for killing the child. If my comment was a strawman, yours is king of the scarecrows.
Babies, by definition, aren't affected by abortion because they're already born. Moreover, they cannot beg.
Babies would beg to differ. You seem to be under the assumption that if someoen isn't aware that they are about to die, its not really immoral.
Unlike you I would never presume to speak for all women, but contrary to your characterization, many women do have abortions without experiencing depression - depression is much more commonly post-partum than abortion-related.
I'm not speaking for all, I'm simply relaying what predominates them. As for not all women feeling the post abortion blues, I have no doubt some are calloused enough to erase the pain-- especially those who have had one more than one.
Are we going to ban everything that someone, at sometime, felt bad about doing? I wonder what would be left to do at that point.
No, we don't ban it because it makes some people feel bad. Feeling bad is simply the self-evidence that its wrong. The fact that its wrong is the only reason why it would ever be banned.
I realize that your disdain and loathing of women makes it impossible for you to believe this, but women aren't getting "suckered" into abortions... Your disdain for women is so strong that you couldn't even remember to pretend like they had feelings that matter for one whole post.
Excuse me??? My loathing and disdain for women? I'll let my wife, my daughter, and my mother know how much I loathe them. Crash, why don't you just try and deal with issues without lying about your adversary? I do believe this is what Petro was referring to.
Amazing. Disgusting, but amazing. I don't believe I've ever met someone so completely impotent at disguising his loathing for the opposite sex. I've met sexists, but you're on a completely different level.
Crash, please explain to me how not wanting babies to be chopped in to minced meat and suck into a basin constitutes "sexism?" This is the lie that many pro-aborts have propagated through the years. That its impossible for a pro-lifer to care about mother and child. So you heap slanderous insults in attempt to derail the conversation. You also realize, presumably, that many if not most women think abortion is as squalid as I do. Is it my loathing of women or my loathing of abortion?
quote:
I had sex two nights ago and the time of my life.
Funny how you consider your pleasure to be the only thing worth bragging about
Just rectifying more of your lies and slander... You said that we believe sex is dirty, and serious, and not to be talked about. Well, its not dirty, you can both laugh hysterically through it if you want, and I'll be more than happy to discuss sex in detail with you to show you and the lurkers that your slander, as usual, is unfounded.
Oh, now it's "rational discourse"? I thought it was "emotional understanding."
Its like the pro-life stance. We worry about both.
Your sole interest in women is in what they can do for you. Sexually, procreationally - you've proven me right in every regard. You joke about speaking into your wife's vagina, but the joke is that I bet you're the one who does all the talking in your marriage - what on Earth, you think, could your wife possibly have to say worth listening to?
Crash, you're married, right? You should know as well as I that a man is not the outspoken leader in the relationship. My wife pretty much runs the show, buddy. I'll let her know that I'm the boss... she'll get a good kick out of that being that the last thing she is is a doormat.
What I really want to know is why you completely avoided my question? The single issue at the heart of my post, that you completely tap-danced around, is that the policies promoted by you and other "pro-lifers" don't actually prevent any abortions.
The policies promoted by the pro-choice position do result in fewer abortions. Yet you roundly oppose those policies.
How can we prevent them other than by what we've been doing-- which is raising awareness, making websites, engaging the community, creating pregnancy resource centers, debating and rallying, lobbying in Washington to get a national vote, etc? What more should the Pro-Life community be doing?

"He has shown you, O man, what is good; And what does the Lord require of you but to do justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God. -Micah 6:8

This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by crashfrog, posted 03-02-2007 5:49 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 146 by Straggler, posted 03-03-2007 4:59 PM Hyroglyphx has replied
 Message 147 by crashfrog, posted 03-03-2007 5:11 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied
 Message 153 by docpotato, posted 03-03-2007 7:32 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied
 Message 157 by nator, posted 03-03-2007 8:23 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 145 of 230 (387917)
03-03-2007 4:45 PM
Reply to: Message 139 by anastasia
03-03-2007 2:58 PM


If you are asking me to question why certain people don't actively participate in every possible cause related to their own, I can't answer that one.
I guess I'm not sure what you're confused about. It's well-known what policies reduce abortions and what policies don't. Promoting contraception "literacy" and avaliability, expanding avaliability of health care, and addressing other reasons unintended pregnancies occur is proven to reduce the occurance of abortion.
Punishing abortions, making them illegal, reducing Federal funding for pre-natal care, and abstinence-only education has been proven not to prevent abortion.
My question for you, though, is pretty simple. There's not a "pro-life" organization in this country that promotes the former policies; they promote, soley, the latter policies. If they claim to be opposed to abortion, why do they promote only policies that do not prevent abortion, and oppose the policies that would reduce abortions?
How do you address the discrepancy? The question isn't why aren't they interested in some things that would reduce abortion; the question is - why aren't they interested in anything that reduces abortion?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 139 by anastasia, posted 03-03-2007 2:58 PM anastasia has not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 146 of 230 (387918)
03-03-2007 4:59 PM
Reply to: Message 144 by Hyroglyphx
03-03-2007 4:34 PM


Re: Answering the detractors
when does a non-human achieve the much coveted title, rank, and rights of a human being?
Crash says at birth. For the record at what point would you say humanity arises in terms of foetal development and what is the basis for this definition??
To my mind a zygote evidently is not a person, human being, sentient lifeform etc. Whilst a new born baby evidently is. I personally would say that a baby capable of independent existence is a person too. However that is an arbitary definition that I happen to be comfortable with.
The problem is that there is no fixed point at which something evidently non-human becomes something human. It is a gradual process. Attempting to define any such definite point is doomed to failure.
Any definition is arbitary to some extent. Even a fertilised egg (if that is your definition) is an arbitary definition of what is human and what is not. Why is each individual egg or sperm not worth saving as a potential life?
Should we be diverting mass medical resources to save all those zygotes that naturally never make it to developing any further? If not why not?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 144 by Hyroglyphx, posted 03-03-2007 4:34 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 148 by RAZD, posted 03-03-2007 5:41 PM Straggler has replied
 Message 210 by Hyroglyphx, posted 03-05-2007 12:35 PM Straggler has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 147 of 230 (387924)
03-03-2007 5:11 PM
Reply to: Message 144 by Hyroglyphx
03-03-2007 4:34 PM


Re: Answering the detractors
Now we're just going around in circles.
Because you won't answer questions or address rebuttals, as usual.
Since the fetus has all of these things along with the human DNA encoded within them, which is exactly what makes a fetus as human as all other human beings.
DNA isn't relevant here. And I'm not interested in addressing the same arguments that I've addressed in other threads.
Then an infant isn't a human being according to your inconsistent statements.
Again with the invisible mother! The fact that an infant no longer resides inside of another person's uterus is, apparently, irrelevant to you - because it's all but impossible for you to even remember that the uterus is located inside a human being. In your view it belongs to whatever fetus is inside of it.
Does that include a partial birth abortion where the fetus is pulled out of the birth canal and has a pair of surgical scissors jammed into the base of the skull, and then opened so a high-powered negative vacuum can suck out the brain?
There's no such thing as "partial birth abortion." I can't speak to procedures that don't medically exist.
Okay... You said that a fetus does not.
No, I didn't.
Remember, we all start off as little babies Crash-- even you.
Sure. If I had been aborted, I wouldn't be here. Hell, I wouldn't even have noticed - there was nothing there to notice it.
You seem to have some trouble with that concept. Apparently it's hard for you to imagine a time when you didn't even exist. It's no surprise to me, I guess - your opinion of yourself is apparently pretty high. I mean, why else would you think you're qualified to make decisions for all other women?
As long as somebody wants it, as far you are concerned, abortion for all.
Yes, exactly. Abortions for every woman who wants one. Since you've already said that "normal" women don't want abortions (which doesn't make any sense), and at the very least we agree that plenty of women are not going to abort pregnancies that they want, what the hell are we talking about? If plenty of women are going to choose not to have abortions, how is abortion a threat to our survival, as you implied it was?
You're not making any sense because you're not responding to rebuttals, answering questions, or being consistent.
Burden or privilege?
However they choose to view it. We both agree that plenty of people are perfectly fine with the idea of getting pregnant - in fact they're trying to accomplish exactly that - and nobody's talking about forcing those people to have abortions, so what's the issue here? Aside from your relentless, nonsensical contrarianism?
Crash, I'm talking about human interaction here. When you tell your family or friends that you are pregnant, the first thing that comes to their mind is to congratulate you.
Unless they know it was unintended and unwanted. Who would be so rude as to "congratulate" someone under those circumstances? It's like congratulating someone for getting cancer.
But I appreciate that you have problems with these sorts of interactions. Someone who can't conceive of a universe that existed before him, and will exist after him, is going to have a very hard time imagining a situation from anybody else's perspective. And obviously the feelings of women are a complete mystery to you, since you have such a hard time remembering that they even exist apart from their uteruses.
I was correcting you since you overlooked all of the married or monogamous couples that get abortions.
How is that a correction? You seem to be under the mistaken impression that a promiscuous woman is the only one who can be called a "slut" or be made to feel ashamed about doing completely normal things.
And again we see the inconsistency. First pregnancy is considered a universal blessing; now, you admit that even married couples have unwanted pregnancies. What's going on here besides a sophistic attempt to catch me in some kind of ridiculous "gotcha"?
What kind of tools are you referring to?
Contraception. Why does every national pro-life organization oppose contraception?
Babies would beg to differ.
Already addressed. We're going in circles because you repeat arguments without addressing rebuttals.
I'll let my wife, my daughter, and my mother know how much I loathe them.
My guess is, NJ, they already know.
Crash, please explain to me how not wanting babies to be chopped in to minced meat and suck into a basin constitutes "sexism?"
This. This is the sexism - whenever I'm talking about "women", you hear "babies." Women are invisible to you. You look right through them and all you see is the uterus with a fetus inside. That's why, every time, you change the subject to fetuses. When are you going to realize that it's women who are the subject of discussion, here?
How can we prevent them other than by what we've been doing-- which is raising awareness, making websites, engaging the community, creating pregnancy resource centers, debating and rallying, lobbying in Washington to get a national vote, etc?
How on Earth would any of those things reduce pregnancy and abortion? Can't you see that the only thing those things do is produce political power?
What more could you do? Anything! Anything you did that was actually for the reduction of abortion would be a start - and I'd be right there beside you, helping. I'm not any more in favor of abortions than you are - because any time there's an abortion, that means there was a fetus inside a woman that didn't want it there, and that should be prevented before it even happens.
But pro-life organizations aren't interested in preventing that. They're not interested in preventing anything except the decline of their influence and their patronage from the GOP. How do you explain this blatant contradiction if the "pro-life" movement is really about what you say it's about? I've asked three of your peers, now, and they don't have an answer. Why don't you?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 144 by Hyroglyphx, posted 03-03-2007 4:34 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 148 of 230 (387931)
03-03-2007 5:41 PM
Reply to: Message 146 by Straggler
03-03-2007 4:59 PM


Re: Answering the detractors
I personally would say that a baby capable of independent existence is a person too. However that is an arbitary definition that I happen to be comfortable with.
A child is not capable of independent existence until 8 to 11 years.
http://www.genefaith.org/...bases/resources/humdevchart.html
There are people that are mentally handicapped, who are put in homes and cared for by trained staff because they are not capable of independent existence. They are not accorded "the much coveted title, rank, and rights of a human being" as their rights are restricted to match their ability (in a good home anyway).
Personally I am happy with the definitions from Legal Death, Legal Life, Personhood and Abortion for determining human life and personhood:
quote:
(Life)
UNIFORM DETERMINATION OF LIFE
1. [Determination of Life.] An individual who has sustained either:
(1) irreversible instigation of circulator and respiratory functions, and
(2) irreversible instigation of any functions of the (entire) brain, including the brain stem, is alive.
A determination of life should be made in accordance with accepted medical standards.
(Personhood)
Some philosophers and scientists have argued that the whole-brain standard does not go far enough. Several leading authors on the subject have advocated a higher-brain standard, according to which death is the irreversible cessation of the capacity for consciousness. This standard is often met prior to whole-brain death, which includes death of the brainstem -- that part of the brain which allows spontaneous respiration and heartbeat but is insufficient for consciousness. Thus, a patient in a permanent coma or permanent vegetative state (PVS) meets the higher-brain, but not the whole-brain, standard of death.
It is firmly established, both in case law and in medical ethics, that competent adult patients have the right to refuse life-supporting medical treatments, even artificial nutrition and hydration. By the same token, an appropriate surrogate can refuse life-supports on behalf of the legally incompetent if there is sufficient reason to believe the patient would have refused treatment in the present circumstances. Because of this broad legal and moral right to refuse treatment, life-supports that are unwanted or are considered unhelpful -- including life-supports for permanently unconscious patients -- can be terminated without first declaring the patient dead.

This allows fundamentalist christians to apply their interpretation in their lives.
Enjoy

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 146 by Straggler, posted 03-03-2007 4:59 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 149 by Straggler, posted 03-03-2007 5:55 PM RAZD has not replied
 Message 173 by anastasia, posted 03-04-2007 12:44 PM RAZD has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 149 of 230 (387935)
03-03-2007 5:55 PM
Reply to: Message 148 by RAZD
03-03-2007 5:41 PM


Re: Answering the detractors
Fair enough.
I guess it depends what you mean by "independent existence". I meant that it is able to breathe, feed etc. without actually being physically connected to it's mother. Granted that this is very limited definition of "independent existence" and as with any arbitary definition it is no doubt subject to all sorts of contradictions and discrepancies when applied elsewhere. I do not dispute that at all.
If anything this just reinforces my main point that whatever definition is chosen is effectively an arbitary one. There is no definite biological point at which something non-human becomes something human no matter how convenient this might be for our moral comfort.
Therefore an arbitary decision is the best we can do. Hence the heated debate and inconsistencies in most positions on this topic.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 148 by RAZD, posted 03-03-2007 5:41 PM RAZD has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 150 by Chiroptera, posted 03-03-2007 6:03 PM Straggler has replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 150 of 230 (387937)
03-03-2007 6:03 PM
Reply to: Message 149 by Straggler
03-03-2007 5:55 PM


Re: Answering the detractors
quote:
Hence the...inconsistencies in most positions on this topic.
Hi, Straggler.
Actually, I think a lot of the inconsistencies probably stem from the attempt to explain the position to nonbelievers rather than from the position itself.
For example, the anti-woman anti-sex anti-abortion position is: God thinks that women should be baby producing machines. And fetuses have souls, too.
But they realize that the non-lunatics would think they were daft if they were to just come out an say it. So they have to make up a bunch of junk that they don't understand or believe to try to make up a reasonable argument for their position.

Actually, if their god makes better pancakes, I'm totally switching sides. -- Charley the Australopithecine

This message is a reply to:
 Message 149 by Straggler, posted 03-03-2007 5:55 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 151 by Straggler, posted 03-03-2007 6:29 PM Chiroptera has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024