7/8/2010 9:31:34 AM

Quote :

"Before conception there was no unique organism with specific DNA living a unique life. After conception a new and fully unique organism exists."

Since you finally decided to start using scientific terms, lets take a look at how we define organism.

Quote :

"In biology, an organism is any contiguous living system (such as animal, plant, fungus, or micro-organism). In at least some form, all organisms are capable of response to stimuli, reproduction, growth and development, and maintenance of homoeostasis as a stable whole."

Would you say that a zygote at the moment of conception has these characteristics? I would argue that a zygote is not capable of response to stimuli, reproduction, or maintenance of homeostasis.

In fact, response to stimuli and maintenance of homeostasis seem like excellent indicators of being an organism. Thanks for clearing that up.

Quote :

"Let's agree on this - any criteria for human life is going to arbitrary, whether it is sentience, beating heart, conception, brain wave, disconnection of the umbilical cord, whatever."

I won't agree on this. Arbitrary means not any more valid than any other option and I cannot agree with this. A scientific method (use of observation and evidence, conclusions that are falsifiable) of determining the moment of transition from non-person to person is inherently better than a mystical one.

Quote :

" Sentience is impossible to measure, beating heart is possible to measure but what makes the heart any more special than liver functions or lung or any other organ? etc. etc."

You're absolutely wrong, and this is what I was talking about when I was talking about your Argument from Personal Incredulity. You can't conceive of detecting fetal higher brain function so it must be impossible. You can't conceive that our understanding of brain physiology allows us to determine that higher brain function is not possible without certain parts of the brain present. Sentience is not impossible to measure.

Finally, should brain dead people who are being kept "alive" by machinery be afforded rights? Should pulling the plug on them be considered murder?

[Edited on July 8, 2010 at 9:37 AM. Reason : .]

7/8/2010 9:35:04 AM

Quote :

"disco_stu: Finally, should brain dead people who are being kept "alive" by machinery be afforded rights? Should pulling the plug on them be considered murder?"

No and no.

But if we know that there's a fifty percent chance the brain dead person is misdiagnosed, and they will actually recover to a sentient being in a few months...well, most people would a wait a few months before pulling plug.

7/8/2010 9:53:10 AM

Quote :

"You're absolutely wrong, and this is what I was talking about when I was talking about your Argument from Personal Incredulity. You can't conceive of detecting fetal higher brain function so it must be impossible. You can't conceive that our understanding of brain physiology allows us to determine that higher brain function is not possible without certain parts of the brain present. Sentience is not impossible to measure."

I can conceive of detecting fetal higher brain function.

BTW, I like how you just slap that in as an axiomatic definition of human life.

[Edited on July 8, 2010 at 10:03 AM. Reason : ]

7/8/2010 10:02:02 AM

Quote :

"Just face the facts. Before conception there was no unique organism with specific DNA living a unique life. After conception a new and fully unique organism exists. This is the clearest brightest line possible to determine the starting point of human life."

negative, you have many unique organisms with specific DNA living in you

Quote :

" You're absolutely wrong, and this is what I was talking about when I was talking about your Argument from Personal Incredulity. You can't conceive of detecting fetal higher brain function so it must be impossible. You can't conceive that our understanding of brain physiology allows us to determine that higher brain function is not possible without certain parts of the brain present. Sentience is not impossible to measure."

negative, it is a major point of contention among end of life conversations

[Edited on July 8, 2010 at 10:07 AM. Reason : .]

7/8/2010 10:04:43 AM

Quote :

"Or, we could use observation and evidence to conclude at what point a clump of cells becomes a person. We use observation and evidence in every other aspect of medicine, why should we revert to mysticism here? Granted, it's going to take a little bit of philosophy to establish what makes a person a person. "

Exactly.

Quote :

"I'm not arguing against abortion. I support abortion. I just wish you guys had the honesty to admit that abortion kills."

I'll accept that abortion kills. I don't accept that abortion of a very early term "clump of cells" kills a human being.

7/8/2010 10:06:38 AM

Quote :

"But if we know that there's a fifty percent chance the brain dead person is misdiagnosed, and they will actually recover to a sentient being in a few months...well, most people would a wait a few months before pulling plug."

I'm not talking about a misdiagnosed brain dead person. I'm talking about a hypothetical brain dead person. One that is actually brain dead. You might be thinking of Persistent Vegetative State, which I'm definitely not talking about.

Quote :

"BTW, I like how you just slap that in as an axiomatic definition of human life."

Except I'm not axiomatically defining it like you have conception. I'm inviting discussion regarding this topic in regarding a brain dead person being kept "alive" by machinery. It doesn't sound like you're interested in discussing it because you've concluded conception without discussion.

Quote :

"negative, it is a major point of contention among end of life conversations"

Hence my invitation to discuss brain dead individuals whose heart and lungs are kept going through machinery. It seems to me if we're going to try to figure out when a person begins, investigating what happens when a person ends is a decent place to start. If we can define what characteristics a human person has compared to not-human-person then we can then come to a consensus physiologically at what point during gestation a fetus becomes a human person.

Still sound arbitrary, Solinari?

7/8/2010 10:13:24 AM

Quote :

" I'm not talking about a misdiagnosed brain dead person. I'm talking about a hypothetical brain dead person. One that is actually brain dead. You might be thinking of Persistent Vegetative State, which I'm definitely not talking about."

no, she is pointing out that the diagnosis isn't nearly a simple cut and dry type of thing and misdiagnoses are made often

7/8/2010 10:17:04 AM

Well shit, scientists make mistakes all the time. Fuck it, goddidit.

Human fallibility is exactly why we should use a scientific approach, we should research more how to effectively diagnose brain function, refine our methods, even radically change them given new evidence.

But right now we are talking philosophically about what makes a person a person. So, hypothetically, is a person who is actually brain dead and whose heart and lungs are being mechanically operated which is the only thing keeping the heart and lungs going still a person and still alive?

I submit no. But I'll refrain from going further until I'm convinced that everyone here is in consensus. Pretty much just waiting for Solinari to address the question.

7/8/2010 10:26:35 AM

no, i am saying that in science and among doctors determining brain death is not a cut and dry thing with an easily determined state and doctors are not at a universal agreement on what constitutes brain death. i am not talking philosophically.

7/8/2010 10:33:56 AM

Are you suggesting that because our ability to diagnose brain death is not currently absolutely 100% perfect (something I'm not entirely convinced of yet) that we should abandon the entire notion even on a conceptual level?

[Edited on July 8, 2010 at 10:39 AM. Reason : .]

7/8/2010 10:38:45 AM

no, just making sure you were clear on that fact. you were unclear on it and your discussions revolved around it.

Quote :

"(something I'm not entirely convinced of yet)"

they changed the guidelines as recently as june, that should reflect how not 100% perfect it is.
http://tinyurl.com/2frt739

7/8/2010 10:50:49 AM

And the guidelines are different between the UK and the US. What's your point? Can we or can we not talk about this? And if we can, what's your answer to the question?

V, I did click on it, it was interesting. It definitely shows the necessity for uniform criteria. Humanity is understandably hesitant in defining death, but it's definitely possible.

[Edited on July 8, 2010 at 11:07 AM. Reason : V]

7/8/2010 10:54:30 AM

i didn't know i was having a conversation with you, i was just pointing out a critical lapse

what was the question?

[Edited on July 8, 2010 at 10:56 AM. Reason : and the link shows how hard it is to determine death, click it]

7/8/2010 10:56:09 AM

Quote :

"disco_stu: I'm not talking about a misdiagnosed brain dead person. I'm talking about a hypothetical brain dead person. One that is actually brain dead. You might be thinking of Persistent Vegetative State, which I'm definitely not talking about."

I know what brain death is, and I'm just running with your analogy.

A fetus isn't quite like a brain dead person being supported by machinery. It's more like a brain functionless thing being supported by a mother with a pretty good chance of developing brain function in the next few months.

When you pull the plug on a brain dead person, you do so readily because you know they're never coming back. That isn't the case with a fetus, is it?

7/8/2010 11:05:54 AM

yeah, brain death is irreversible which is a different scenario than with a fetus

7/8/2010 11:12:22 AM

I'm not suggesting that they are the same. I'm attempting to establish brain function as the necessary component of personhood.

Quote :

"When you pull the plug on a brain dead person, you do so readily because you know they're never coming back. That isn't the case with a fetus, is it?"

Sure. I don't think potential to grow into a human is a good criteria for a personhood. Each of my millions of sperm are clearly not persons. At some point you have to go from potential to reality and that's the point that matters.

7/8/2010 11:12:34 AM

I'm consistent here. I think physical death is the end of life.

Do I support pulling the plug on brain dead Terry Schiavo type patients? Yes
Do I support abortion? Yes

Quote :

"I'm attempting to establish brain function as the necessary component of personhood."

That's sort of the problem. You're trying to play god. I don't see why we can't just accept life for what it is. I guess some people are just afraid of admitting that their moral priorities sometimes require the termination of life.

[Edited on July 8, 2010 at 11:40 AM. Reason : ]

7/8/2010 11:38:15 AM

Just to clear something up, Terry Shiavo wasn't brain dead. We weren't mechanically keeping her lungs and heart going. She was in a persistent vegetative state, which I'm not talking about. But it is interesting to consider when really getting down to refining our definition of human personhood.

Also, I support capital punishment. I support the killing of already alive people that have done things to forfeit their right to life. My moral priorities definitely require termination of persons whose personhood is no where near ambiguous. Just to clear that up as well. If you want to discuss this further let's take it to PMs or another thread however.

Quote :

"I'm consistent here. I think physical death is the end of life."

Can you describe in more detail what you mean? Is a person not dead until every cell in their body is no longer functioning? What does "physical death" mean?

Quote :

"I don't see why we can't just accept life for what it is."

Well what is it?

Is masturbation "termination of life"?



---------------------------------------------------------------
And before Bridget self-destructs on my capital punishment note, I'd like to let her know that I don't necessarily agree with our current *implementation* of it.

[Edited on July 8, 2010 at 11:59 AM. Reason : .]

7/8/2010 11:57:33 AM

if you don't understand the biological difference between a spermatozoon and a genetically unique zygote, then I have nothing more to discuss with you.

Quote :

"What does "physical death" mean?"

When a person's core body temperature has reached room temperature (77 degrees F) for 10 minutes or longer and when their heart and lungs have also stopped operation for that long.

No ghost in the shell challenges to this definition are allowed. Commence asking questions about 76 and 78 degrees

[Edited on July 8, 2010 at 12:24 PM. Reason : TIA TITWW]

7/8/2010 12:02:57 PM

Quote :

"When a person's core body temperature has reached room temperature (77 degrees F) for 10 minutes or longer and when their heart and lungs have also stopped operation for that long."

Wouldn't this mean by your own definition of death that for abortion to be killing a human that the fetus must have an operating heart and lungs and a measurable core body temperature about 77F?

And since I've now joined the thread, I might as well state my thoughts:

I'm more or less in line with theDuke on this. There clearly is a line at which point you cross from mere cells to human. However, once your cross that line, only in situations where the mother's life is in danger or I also think in the case of rape, should an abortion be allowed. Incidentally, I also agree with an offhand comment made earlier in this thread that legally a man should be able to "abort" his child by severing legal responsibilities up to whatever point is the legal cutoff for voluntary abortions. Further I think that as long as a person with legal claim to a brain dead individual wants to pay to keep them alive (barring explicit instructions from the brain dead individual to the contrary) that they should be kept alive and have all the rights of a human that any other would. I realize this may seem contradictory to a view that at a certain point abortion should be illegal, however I think that when you choose to have sex, and then choose to carry past the "human being threshold" that you have made a conscious choice to create and be responsible for a human being and must honor that choice. And yes, as I've stated previously, I also believe in the validity of the death penalty.

7/8/2010 12:56:34 PM

Quote :

" Wouldn't this mean by your own definition of death that for abortion to be killing a human that the fetus must have... a measurable core body temperature about 77F? "

wtf? no, that was my definition of physical death

reading comprehension fail

7/8/2010 1:15:03 PM

Quote :

"if you don't understand the biological difference between a spermatozoon and a genetically unique zygote, then I have nothing more to discuss with you.[quote] Well the only difference between a fertilized egg and an unfertilized egg and a single sperm sitting next to each other is just the physical location of the sperm. [quote]When a person's core body temperature has reached room temperature (77 degrees F) for 10 minutes or longer and when their heart and lungs have also stopped operation for that long."

You can freeze a hampster and it's heart and lungs will stop and it's body temperature will drop, you can then microwave it and it will come right back to life for a little while.

Quote :

"There clearly is a line at which point you cross from mere cells to human."

I agree, but is it clearly drawn? Aren't there levels of being human? And doesn't being human have more to do more with an experience rather than some physical change?

Quote :

"I also think in the case of rape"

Abortion in the case of rape is an indefensable position if you consider the embryo a human being. Why should the child be murdered for the sins of the father? According to your logic whether or not something is alive is solely based upon whether or not the mother made the decision to engage in an act that would normally produce a child, which is asinine.

7/8/2010 1:31:01 PM

Quote :

"You can freeze a hampster and it's heart and lungs will stop and it's body temperature will drop, you can then microwave it and it will come right back to life for a little while."

o shit, this thread is about hamsters? my bad

p.s. get back to me when a hamster comes back to life after its core body temperature rests at room temp for 10+ minutes while its lungs and heart are stopped.

[Edited on July 8, 2010 at 1:38 PM. Reason : ]

7/8/2010 1:37:27 PM

What's the core body temperature of a zygote?

7/8/2010 1:41:59 PM

about 98.6 degrees

also, it may surprise you to find out that the beginning of life is not the same as the end of life.

[Edited on July 8, 2010 at 1:45 PM. Reason : ]

7/8/2010 1:44:48 PM

Just sayin, you'd think that the zygote would have to be able to maintain that temperature on its own to be considered alive. And you know, have a body so you could actually call it a core body temperature. But that's cool.

You're right, there's no use considering the biological process we call life. It's too mysterious.

I can't believe the hubris of doctors to develop modern medicine. Just playing God.

[Edited on July 8, 2010 at 1:57 PM. Reason : core]

7/8/2010 1:56:13 PM

Quote :

"you'd think that the zygote would have to be able to maintain that temperature on its own to be considered alive."

7/8/2010 2:01:40 PM

Quote :

"you'd think that the zygote would have to be able to maintain that temperature on its own to be considered alive."

not really, no. "But that's cool."

Quote :

"You're right, there's no use considering the biological process we call life. It's too mysterious."

You're the one trying to make that shit mysterious and shit. Unique genetic human organism's life = conception to death, motherfucker. It's as simple as it gets.


[Edited on July 8, 2010 at 2:10 PM. Reason : ]

7/8/2010 2:08:46 PM

^^
Point taken. I don't think the ability to maintain one's body temperature is a good measure for life myself, I was just playing Devil's advocate for Solinari. Given that definition reptiles must not be alive.

Whatever, Solinari. You appear unable to think critically about human existence.

Quote :

"Unique genetic human organism's life = conception to death, motherfucker. It's as simple as it gets."

Simple doesn't mean factual. You've lobbed your head off with Occam's Razor.

Further, life is an outstandingly complex topic. There's nothing to suggest that the beginning of an individual's life is not also a complex topic.

Before we understood the concept of fertilization, you may have said that the simplest solution would be the moment a man and a woman have sex, they have just created life and that child's life begins at that moment. Very simple. But objectively wrong.

Now we're at a similar place, and you're assuming that because we don't have a clear understanding of what constitutes being a human person, it must be conception. This doesn't make it true.

If your definition of life is "having a unique genetic composition", then it does, but even dead people have unique genetic compositions. It takes more than DNA to make a person.

[Edited on July 8, 2010 at 2:52 PM. Reason : .]

7/8/2010 2:28:52 PM

whether you are "killing" something or not, you are preventing a human life that otherwise would be with us no matter when a pregnancy is terminated

you have to be ok with this and I am in a moderate form (very early, before the other things are present, like brain waves, heartbeat, etc...) any attempt to rationalize past this fact is faulty.

7/8/2010 3:36:40 PM

Quote :

"Whatever, Solinari. You appear unable to think critically about human existence. "

I wouldn't say that. His positions are well reasoned and logically consistent. I just have a problem with his philosophy of "It's a human life at any stage, and I'm fine with killing it to serve my greater agenda/desires/goals/etc." I mean, fuck, I'm actively motivated--not just complicit--to kill people in order to advance agendas and goals, but not innocents like unborn babies.

...and I'm, for lack of a better word, agnostic--I'm far from some sort of holy warrior.

Really, my overall philosophy is similar to disco_stu's, other than probably some difference in determining where to draw the "human being" line (though that's likely due to difference in the individual application of philosophy, not the overall way that the conclusion is arrived at)

7/8/2010 3:57:07 PM

So essentially you take my approach:
It's a human life at any stage, and I'm fine with killing it to serve my greater agenda/desires/goals/etc.

And use this instead:
I'm fine with defining human life at arbitrary stages in order to serve my greater agenda/desires/goals/etc

I don't really see the difference here, except intellectual honesty.

7/8/2010 4:10:54 PM

no, it's the other way around. My definition is not arbitrary, and my outlook follows from that definition, however nebulous it necessarily is.

I assure you, for reasons that should be obvious, I've spent A LOT of time and mental energy considering both abortion and killing in general, and find no intellectual dishonesty in my positions. I wouldn't be able to tolerate them as my own positions if there was, because they are or have been very real considerations for me, not just just philosophical or hypothetical exercises.

[Edited on July 8, 2010 at 4:23 PM. Reason : ]

7/8/2010 4:16:35 PM

Your arbitrary insertion of the word arbitrary is the only thing that would make it intellectually dishonest.

Unfortunately you seem unwilling to consider that the distinction of where personhood begins need not be arbitrary and is up for discussion.

Shit, Duke beat me to it.

[Edited on July 8, 2010 at 4:21 PM. Reason : grammar stuff]

7/8/2010 4:20:30 PM

i'm really unclear why the duke thinks his position is so superior to others when he hasn't even attempted to discuss or reason where exactly the line is drawn

7/8/2010 4:23:57 PM

because discussing specifically where the line is drawn is a secondary argument to establishing the basic philosophy for defining how to deal with the issue, and arguing about a detail like that is pointless until you have a consensus that you even need to draw such a line.

THEN you need to discuss specifically how to determine where to draw that line (i.e., what metrics are important)...then you evaluate those metrics...or alternatively, just pick a point early on enough to draw the line that you're definitely in the clear by any measure you might accept (which is why my personal line is "very early, within the first few weeks after conception", but I don't necessarily argue against someone like disco_stu who agrees with me on overall philosophy, but is more interested in expending a shitload of effort to arrive at a conclusion on "what's the latest point at which you can draw that line?"

(the reason that my personal line is drawn where it is is because if it errs, it errs on the conservative side, but that's fine, because practically speaking it still gives me enough time to decide and make my input on the go/no-go decision)

7/8/2010 4:36:24 PM

but except for a few people everyone else is on the same page that there exists some line, so why the high horse?

7/8/2010 4:40:53 PM

Well, I think it's important. Needless to say, I believe at some point before a child is born they are a person and should be treated as such. It's vitally important to determine that point. It'd be a lot easier too if people would accept that life is not dualistic and our "being" is entirely a product of our physical body (our brain in particular).

7/8/2010 4:43:51 PM

Quote :

"It'd be a lot easier too if people would accept that life is not dualistic and our "being" is entirely a product of our physical body (our brain in particular)"

^you ever done psilocybin mushrooms?

they're the only things that have ever made me (or allowed me to) doubt this

[Edited on July 8, 2010 at 7:20 PM. Reason : ...]

7/8/2010 7:17:26 PM

Quote :

"wtf? no, that was my definition of physical death reading comprehension fail"

Right, and if that is your definition of death, then in order for a human to die it must first posses those things which, when lost, meet your criteria for death. Unless you're saying that in addition to brain death and physical death, there is also a "death death".

Quote :

"I agree, but is it clearly drawn? Aren't there levels of being human? And doesn't being human have more to do more with an experience rather than some physical change? "

No.
In a sense.
No.

Quote :

"Abortion in the case of rape is an indefensable position if you consider the embryo a human being. Why should the child be murdered for the sins of the father? According to your logic whether or not something is alive is solely based upon whether or not the mother made the decision to engage in an act that would normally produce a child, which is asinine. "

It's only indefensible if one subscribes to the beleif that all life (or more specifically, all human life) is sacred and must be preserved. Clearly that isn't my position. There are absolutely times when taking a life is justified or at the very least the lesser of two evils; as a rule, being incovenienced by the consequences of your actions does not meet the criteria. My position merely attempts to recognize that there are always edge cases to any hard and fast rule and not every rape victim has the apportunity to abort early on. In this case, due to potentialy mitigating circumstances, the choice has to be made between violating the child and violating the mother (who may herself be a child).

7/8/2010 7:23:05 PM

Quote :

"Because then we're talking religiously which is just silly. It certainly wouldn't simplify the issue and we could never reach any type of consensus unless you declare by fiat like Solinari that conception makes sense. Or, we could use observation and evidence to conclude at what point a clump of cells becomes a person. We use observation and evidence in every other aspect of medicine, why should we revert to mysticism here?"

It would certainly be ideal if gov. policy were based solely on empirical studies, but this is not realistic. You'll never shift the abortion debate by saying "but logic and reason!" when we have the highest amount of people doubting evolution of the industrialized countries. Considering this, you have to look at your next best options.

7/8/2010 7:34:21 PM

Quote :

"there are enough foster children in the world why force someone to have an unwanted child? what do all of you anti-abortion people suppose that we do with the influx of unwanted children that making abortion illegal would cause?"

is anyone going to answer this, or any other legitimate questions asked in this thread, or are you just going to continue with the typical "OMG U BABBY KILLAR!!!!11one" bullshit?

7/8/2010 8:21:20 PM

Quote :

"^you ever done psilocybin mushrooms? they're the only things that have ever made me (or allowed me to) doubt this "

People taking hallucinations seriously is the bane of our existence. It's especially concerning that you would take a hallucination that you willingly caused seriously.

If anything, the fact that you understand that you ate a chemical and it altered your perception should clue you in on the fact that your sensory input is based entirely on physical components susceptible to chemical agents.

Quote :

"It would certainly be ideal if gov. policy were based solely on empirical studies, but this is not realistic. You'll never shift the abortion debate by saying "but logic and reason!" when we have the highest amount of people doubting evolution of the industrialized countries. Considering this, you have to look at your next best options."

I don't give up this easy. Argumentum ad populum doesn't appeal to me. Scientists make up a very small slice of humanity. Should they just say, "fuck it, most people won't get this. Goddidit!"

Religion will always get in the way of this discussion, invariably. As long as religion is around, that is.

Quote :

"is anyone going to answer this, or any other legitimate questions asked in this thread, or are you just going to continue with the typical "OMG U BABBY KILLAR!!!!11one" bullshit?"

It's kind of an inane way of looking at it. It would be easy to extend that logic and say "why should anyone have legitimate babies? There are already a shit ton of mouths to feed." And again, I'm not certain making abortion illegal would change the number of abortions.

Did the war on drugs have any impact on drug use in America? Survey says, no. People will always get abortions as long as people are fucking. Which means forever.

7/8/2010 8:37:40 PM

Quote :

"There are absolutely times when taking a life is justified or at the very least the lesser of two evils; as a rule, being incovenienced by the consequences of your actions does not meet the criteria. My position merely attempts to recognize that there are always edge cases to any hard and fast rule and not every rape victim has the apportunity to abort early on. In this case, due to potentialy mitigating circumstances, the choice has to be made between violating the child and violating the mother (who may herself be a child)."

Then why the time limit? If it's living at the point of fertilization, whats the difference between killing it in the womb or out of the womb. It seems you subscribe to my theory.

7/8/2010 8:43:50 PM

Quote :

"is anyone going to answer this, or any other legitimate questions asked in this thread, or are you just going to continue with the typical "OMG U BABBY KILLAR!!!!11one" bullshit?"

Why the double standard?

If I want to outlaw theft, do I then need to answer to 'well, then what are you going to do to get rid of the causes of theft, and what are you going to do with the poor who can't steal any more?'

No, I don't have to answer that question to justify wanting to make theft a crime.

Same with abortion. Yes, I should have an answer to that, and I do, but it does not grant any legitimacy (or take any away) for making abortion illegal...regardless of how I answer that question.

7/8/2010 8:49:09 PM

^^Well the argument to be made is birthing (and even pregnancy to a lesser extent) is a painful, dangerous, and potentially deadly process.

Once the child is out and, presuming there are no complications with the healing process, there is no longer any danger to the mother.

The more I think about it, cases of rape and subsequent fertilization are touchy. Let's say hypothetically this has happened to a woman. She, for whatever reason, fails to get an abortion before the point that the child gains sentience (or whatever demarcation you prefer). Do you force that woman to have that child? What lengths do you go to keep her from self-aborting it?

I honestly don't fucking know right now. Gonna have to mull that one around for a bit.

[Edited on July 8, 2010 at 8:51 PM. Reason : ^^]

7/8/2010 8:51:07 PM

^Exceptions for rape or incest fail completely.

A child (or non-child) does not gain or lose his personhood or rights based on what crimes his father did or did not commit.

The fetus either deserves protection or he does not, and how he came to exist is irrelevant.

[Edited on July 8, 2010 at 8:56 PM. Reason : a]

7/8/2010 8:56:10 PM

Quote :

"^^Well the argument to be made is birthing (and even pregnancy to a lesser extent) is a painful, dangerous, and potentially deadly process. Once the child is out and, presuming there are no complications with the healing process, there is no longer any danger to the mother. "

This. Also what time limit?

Quote :

"I honestly don't fucking know right now. Gonna have to mull that one around for a bit."

I don't think there's a good answer to it honestly, hence I just accept that it is one case where an exception has to be made on the presumption that the number of such cases will be vanishingly small.

Quote :

"^Exceptions for rape or incest fail completely. A child (or non-child) does not gain or lose his personhood or rights based on what crimes his father did or did not commit. "

See, this doesn't quite work for me. As noted, childbirth is not exactly danger free, and while yes the child did not chose the situation, neither did the mother. I don't think I can justify the harm not only of child birth but also of forcing someone who was raped to bear their rapist's child to save the child.

Realistically I think though we're talking about an extreme edge case. If you subscribe (as I do) to the idea that fertilization != human, then likely whatever line you draw will be far enough out that 99% of rape cases will be aborted before we cross the humanity threshold. Of the ones that go past that threshold, I don't imagine of the ones that still want abortions that most of them will have had the opportunity prior to this point. That is to say, I think the cases where the exception will apply will be truly exceptional cases that would have been (and likely will be) considered on a case by case basis anyway.

7/8/2010 10:23:39 PM

Well I have to admit that to think about it gives me a little insight on the people that are against abortion completely. If you truly believe that terminating a zygote is the same as terminating a fetus that is 9 months gestated then I understand your position.

I still am not sure that the rights of the fetus should trump the rights of the mother. Seriously fuck anyone that rapes a woman. (or dude for that matter, but to greater extent a woman).

7/8/2010 11:06:09 PM