|
On November 05 2011 03:22 -_- wrote:
I'm not sure I quite follow. Going back to my previous example, is the five year old in the womb a human being?
I responded to that on the previous page.
A five year old in the womb is a fantastical situation that is utterly meaningless as a thought experiment. You're either presenting a completely implausible situation (a fetus with the mental development of a five year old is patently nonsensical), or you're just arbitrarily proposing a really long gestation period.
|
On November 05 2011 03:25 yeint wrote:Show nested quote +On November 05 2011 03:22 -_- wrote:
I'm not sure I quite follow. Going back to my previous example, is the five year old in the womb a human being? I responded to that on the previous page. A five year old in the womb is a fantastical situation that is utterly meaningless as a thought experiment. You're either presenting a completely implausible situation (a fetus with the mental development of a five year old is patently nonsensical), or you're just arbitrarily proposing a really long gestation period.
As I understand it, KwarK doesn't believe fetuses are humans. The reason why I came up with the example I did was simply to try and flesh out what KwarK's definition of human is, and why fetuses are not in it. As I understand it now, he believes humanity is tied up with independence, which is pretty interesting to me.
What do you think makes a human a human? What about a fetus makes it not a human? Pretty interesting stuff imo.
|
On November 05 2011 03:21 MrTortoise wrote:Show nested quote +On November 05 2011 03:14 missefficiency wrote:On November 05 2011 02:54 MrTortoise wrote:On November 05 2011 02:49 yeint wrote:On November 05 2011 02:43 KwarK wrote:On November 05 2011 02:39 -_- wrote:On November 05 2011 02:21 KwarK wrote:On November 05 2011 02:16 -_- wrote:On November 05 2011 02:12 KwarK wrote:On November 05 2011 01:09 Moochlol wrote:
Edit, Oh and to directly respond to KWARK, if conditions are met LIFE WILL HAPPEN or the baby is born, or whatever the fuck u want call it. I really don't understand that dig you took at me, If a fetus is left to mature, IE doing all the proper things to make this happen, the fetus will be born as is the case in the majority of women who take care of themselves during gestation. Even if say by chance the doctor whilst pulling the baby from the womb slips on some body fluid and flings the baby across the room breaking its neck, well......At least the little fucker had a fucking chance..... And if a beautiful girl goes out on a date with me and has a bit too much wine then I might be able to get her back to mine and hit that bareback and get her pregnant. If the conditions are met life will happen. That doesn't mean that her failure to put out is murdering a potential person. Saying that it is a human life because it will become a human life if the following conditions are met is no different to saying it is a potential life. Potential life has no value, every time you jack off millions of potential lives never happen. I hate jumping into these arguments, because people can get angry when they have to answer the same questions again. However, I'm interested, so I'll take the risk: Can you define human life? When does potential life become actual for you? When it can exist independently of the mother. Improvements in medical science are pushing back this date but it's still well outside the abortion laws at the moment. I've heard that a few times, but it always seemed to missing the point to me. Existing independently of a mother never seemed like a requisite for humanity to me. If, for example, a human being developed in a mother's womb until they were now what we'd consider two years old, and couldn't survive outside of the mother's womb until then, would you be okay with aborting that two year old? What if it was a 5? 10? Independence to me doesn't have anything to do with humanity, but rather burden on the mother. A living person has a living body capable of life. A parasitic organism relies on the living body of another to leech life. A foetus is a parasite on the mother, while I don't advocate abortion recreationally the mother does have the right to control her own body, including removing that parasite. Considering the only objective reason for the existence of ANY organism is procreation and gene proliferation, I really wouldn't use the word "parasite" here. I think the argument becomes pointless when one side is arguing for some inalienable right of the mother to remove "parasites" from her body at will, and the other side arguing that every blastocyst is imbibed with a sacred soul. It's terribly ideological and over-simplistic. I'd rather we focus on tangible things like "is the fetus sentient? can it feel pain? are unwanted children likely to have fulfilling lives?". as for all this at a certain age they do blah for blah argument ... please stop talking anthropomorphic BS.
If you cant ask it why its doing something you will never get an asnwer ... even then you will have grounds to doubt that it ever really knows itself.
Its pointless nonsense argument because you cannot prove either way I think it's not a nonsense argument. We may not have an answer right now, but pain and sentience are functions of the brain, and can be objectively measured by neuroscience. Once we understand how the brain works, then we can observe the function of the brain during fetal development and determine when it becomes capable of doing those things. Well when you have that science lets talk again - and i will want to talk  It's a subject that would fascinate me. Until then you are talking nonsense as you agreed to - alternatively (as i suggested) come up with the experiment. Personally i doubt such a science will exist anytime soon because of my philosophical beliefs about the world and our perception of it vs reality - but thats a whole different debate. You compare the movements and reactions of fetuses which are normally developed to others who are anencephalic (meaning they didn't develop a brain properly). This can be done from week 11 onward. Results show that a normal fetus moves coordinated while the anencephalic one shows more simple and reflexlike movements. Anencephalic fetuses cannot feel pain for there is no connection between the nerve fibers and the nonexistent brain. However, the coordination of movements in normal fetuses proves this connection to be intact and is seen as something that also proves the ability to feel pain. That proves nothing ... you are inferring. you may or may not be right ... is the experience of pain for a foetus the same as for me? Pain is when i burn myself and go 'ouch' - if a foetus does react like that then i stand corrected. People talk of psychological pain - that is clearly not what is being talked about here. My problem is qualifying what we mean against what was legally meant. Saying in a biological context that it feels pain where pain is a refined concept is one thing. Use of the unqualified word pain as quoted is another. Part of sensing is reponse. If something has no effect then how can it be caused? Sorry maybe there is a fact that can simply shut me up. Do foetus have a mechanical response to pain?
It does, we just don't know if it's a reflex or a silent "ouch" - reaction that is processed and controlled by the brain. Unless I know for sure it isn't, I'll go for the second theory.
Psychological pain is a different issue - personally, I think that bothering kids with the universe of their own unknown inner self as some "Supermothers" do is BS. Problems will come to you when you get older without anyone imposing something like an attention deficit hyperactivity disorder on you simply because they want you to have it. /end offtopic
|
On November 05 2011 03:22 -_- wrote:
I'm not sure I quite follow. Going back to my previous example, is the five year old in the womb a human being? I think what you're saying is that it's not, because whatever it's attributes are, it's a parasite. And if I'm understanding you correctly parasites can't be humans. Is that what it is?
Or, are you saying that even if it is a human, the mother's rights supersede its rights because it's a parasite? And thus not living?
Or are you saying something else?
He is saying that the womb is private property that belongs to a woman, and therefore she has the right to "evict" an embryo/fetus/etc from her property. Once the fetus reaches viability, the state then has an interest in protecting the life of that individual. They both have an equal right to life once the fetus reaches viability, however, this right does not outweigh the woman's private property rights
This does not mean that the woman can destroy a viable fetus or evict it violently, but she can have it removed from her body in the most non-violent manner possible.
|
On November 05 2011 03:33 -_- wrote:Show nested quote +On November 05 2011 03:25 yeint wrote:On November 05 2011 03:22 -_- wrote:
I'm not sure I quite follow. Going back to my previous example, is the five year old in the womb a human being? I responded to that on the previous page. A five year old in the womb is a fantastical situation that is utterly meaningless as a thought experiment. You're either presenting a completely implausible situation (a fetus with the mental development of a five year old is patently nonsensical), or you're just arbitrarily proposing a really long gestation period. As I understand it, KwarK doesn't believe fetuses are humans. The reason why I came up with the example I did was simply to try and flesh out what KwarK's definition of human is, and why fetuses are not in it. As I understand it now, he believes humanity is tied up with independence, which is pretty interesting to me. What do you think makes a human a human? What about a fetus makes it not a human? Pretty interesting stuff imo.
I think sentience makes a human a human, for the purposes of ethical considerations. I think killing is wrong because because it causes suffering. If it causes no suffering to anyone, it is not inherently wrong, and we can do cost/benefit analyses. On moral issues I mostly agree with Sam Harris, if you're interested in my personal beliefs.
I don't agree with Kwark's parasite argument either, but I think your "what if it's a 5 year old in the womb" argument is not a good counter to it, because it just doesn't make sense. A fetus cannot develop mentally in the womb, and thus will never become a 5 year old. Being independent of the mother's organism is a prerequisite for becoming the thing you mean by "5 year old".
|
being a human vice a fetus is the capability to survive independently of another creature. as i posted earlier, most cultures consider the babe and mother to be one creature till the child reaches 4. anything prior to being able to survive childbirth unassisted is where it is just a blob a cells.
|
On November 05 2011 03:39 missefficiency wrote:Show nested quote +On November 05 2011 03:21 MrTortoise wrote:On November 05 2011 03:14 missefficiency wrote:On November 05 2011 02:54 MrTortoise wrote:On November 05 2011 02:49 yeint wrote:On November 05 2011 02:43 KwarK wrote:On November 05 2011 02:39 -_- wrote:On November 05 2011 02:21 KwarK wrote:On November 05 2011 02:16 -_- wrote:On November 05 2011 02:12 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
And if a beautiful girl goes out on a date with me and has a bit too much wine then I might be able to get her back to mine and hit that bareback and get her pregnant. If the conditions are met life will happen. That doesn't mean that her failure to put out is murdering a potential person. Saying that it is a human life because it will become a human life if the following conditions are met is no different to saying it is a potential life. Potential life has no value, every time you jack off millions of potential lives never happen. I hate jumping into these arguments, because people can get angry when they have to answer the same questions again. However, I'm interested, so I'll take the risk: Can you define human life? When does potential life become actual for you? When it can exist independently of the mother. Improvements in medical science are pushing back this date but it's still well outside the abortion laws at the moment. I've heard that a few times, but it always seemed to missing the point to me. Existing independently of a mother never seemed like a requisite for humanity to me. If, for example, a human being developed in a mother's womb until they were now what we'd consider two years old, and couldn't survive outside of the mother's womb until then, would you be okay with aborting that two year old? What if it was a 5? 10? Independence to me doesn't have anything to do with humanity, but rather burden on the mother. A living person has a living body capable of life. A parasitic organism relies on the living body of another to leech life. A foetus is a parasite on the mother, while I don't advocate abortion recreationally the mother does have the right to control her own body, including removing that parasite. Considering the only objective reason for the existence of ANY organism is procreation and gene proliferation, I really wouldn't use the word "parasite" here. I think the argument becomes pointless when one side is arguing for some inalienable right of the mother to remove "parasites" from her body at will, and the other side arguing that every blastocyst is imbibed with a sacred soul. It's terribly ideological and over-simplistic. I'd rather we focus on tangible things like "is the fetus sentient? can it feel pain? are unwanted children likely to have fulfilling lives?". as for all this at a certain age they do blah for blah argument ... please stop talking anthropomorphic BS.
If you cant ask it why its doing something you will never get an asnwer ... even then you will have grounds to doubt that it ever really knows itself.
Its pointless nonsense argument because you cannot prove either way I think it's not a nonsense argument. We may not have an answer right now, but pain and sentience are functions of the brain, and can be objectively measured by neuroscience. Once we understand how the brain works, then we can observe the function of the brain during fetal development and determine when it becomes capable of doing those things. Well when you have that science lets talk again - and i will want to talk It's a subject that would fascinate me. Until then you are talking nonsense as you agreed to - alternatively (as i suggested) come up with the experiment. Personally i doubt such a science will exist anytime soon because of my philosophical beliefs about the world and our perception of it vs reality - but thats a whole different debate. You compare the movements and reactions of fetuses which are normally developed to others who are anencephalic (meaning they didn't develop a brain properly). This can be done from week 11 onward. Results show that a normal fetus moves coordinated while the anencephalic one shows more simple and reflexlike movements. Anencephalic fetuses cannot feel pain for there is no connection between the nerve fibers and the nonexistent brain. However, the coordination of movements in normal fetuses proves this connection to be intact and is seen as something that also proves the ability to feel pain. That proves nothing ... you are inferring. you may or may not be right ... is the experience of pain for a foetus the same as for me? Pain is when i burn myself and go 'ouch' - if a foetus does react like that then i stand corrected. People talk of psychological pain - that is clearly not what is being talked about here. My problem is qualifying what we mean against what was legally meant. Saying in a biological context that it feels pain where pain is a refined concept is one thing. Use of the unqualified word pain as quoted is another. Part of sensing is reponse. If something has no effect then how can it be caused? Sorry maybe there is a fact that can simply shut me up. Do foetus have a mechanical response to pain? It does, we just don't know if it's a reflex or a silent "ouch" - reaction that is processed and controlled by the brain. Unless I know for sure it isn't, I'll go for the second theory. Psychological pain is a different issue - personally, I think that bothering kids with the universe of their own unknown inner self as some "Supermothers" do is BS. Problems will come to you when you get older without anyone imposing something like an attention deficit hyperactivity disorder on you simply because they want you to have it. /end offtopic
Ok well cool they 'feel' pain. [edited my view of abortion out of it]
Morality is the luxuary of those that are not fighting for their lives and those that seek to control those minions that make their lives bearable imo.
The other big question was how did you cause pain .. how would you differentiate that from other sensations such as hot and cold. It is not merley enough to be sensing to call it pain otherwise you have broadened the definition of pain to any sensory input.
This is the point where i should start reading for myself ;p
I only brought up psychological pain to make the point about how vaguely the word pain can be used. I like bashing psychology.
|
On November 05 2011 03:33 -_- wrote:Show nested quote +On November 05 2011 03:25 yeint wrote:On November 05 2011 03:22 -_- wrote:
I'm not sure I quite follow. Going back to my previous example, is the five year old in the womb a human being? I responded to that on the previous page. A five year old in the womb is a fantastical situation that is utterly meaningless as a thought experiment. You're either presenting a completely implausible situation (a fetus with the mental development of a five year old is patently nonsensical), or you're just arbitrarily proposing a really long gestation period. As I understand it, KwarK doesn't believe fetuses are humans. The reason why I came up with the example I did was simply to try and flesh out what KwarK's definition of human is, and why fetuses are not in it. As I understand it now, he believes humanity is tied up with independence, which is pretty interesting to me. What do you think makes a human a human? What about a fetus makes it not a human? Pretty interesting stuff imo.
But you aren't. You're asking about something completely separate.
|
On November 05 2011 03:43 MrTortoise wrote:
The other big question was how did you cause pain .. how would you differentiate that from other sensations such as hot and cold. It is not merley enough to be sensing to call it pain otherwise you have broadened the definition of pain to any sensory input.
Pain is the sensation we feel when our cells are damaged. Cold is the sensation we feel when our body reacts to lower temperature by preventing heat loss. Warm is the sensation we feel when our body reacts to higher temperature by increasing heat loss. Both can lead to pain when the temperature change is drastic enough that we begin to take damage.
Anyway, I've gotten way more involved in this argument than I wanted to, and I want to go ladder now.
Thanks for the interesting discussion!
|
On November 05 2011 02:33 yeint wrote:Show nested quote +On November 05 2011 02:23 cydial wrote:
A fetus =/= human being. Sorry, but babies aren't even technically conscious till they are 5-6 years old. I think you mean months. Anyway, I don't want to get into the whole abortion argument, I'm personally pro-choice, but I find that there's really no objective measure of what is and what isn't baby killing. A blastocyst isn't a human being. Maybe an 8-month fetus is. I think it's perfectly reasonable to think that abortion is wrong, and it's also perfectly reasonable to think that it's not. Unwanted children brought up by incompetent and unfit parents is not a preferable option to terminating the development of a as-of-yet-non-sentient fetus, in my opinion. I think this law is unnecessary, and is used as a wedge tactic to introduce more draconian restrictions. Very few abortions are carried out that late in the pregnancy, and it's usually done for good reason, such as health complications, or serious birth defects. No one has "conveniency abortions" that late. I don't see who this law is protecting, except for social conservatives who turn it into a binary, black and white choice of "delivery or murder".
Consciousness is what makes a human being a human being. Self awareness on our level as humans that is. A baby has no concept of anything except the most basic of instincts. The brain's connections are what makes us alive, not our beating hearts or organs.
A fully grown adult that's now brain dead isn't, "Human" anymore because the memories and thought processes that once inhabited him is gone. A fetus has not developed these things yet and is no more "Human" than the brain dead adult, it has potential to be. However, potential =/= life. Potential = potential.
|
funnily enough. pain sensations travel along the exact same pathway as temperature sensations. thats why icy-hot and the like work. the level of temperature drowns out the pain signal.
|
I'm pretty sure that I could use most reasons to have abortions as reasons to kill "humans".
They don't feel pain: I could kill you in a painless way.
They are parasites: My kid depends on me for food/shelter/medication, guess I have the right to end that immediately.
They don't have a fully developed brain: Your young brain isn't as fully developed as mine. I have the right to end yours.
We don't consider them human: I don't consider you human. You're opinion on your own humanity is irrelevant to me, just like a fetus's.
They were the result of a rape: Lets find adults who were the result of rape. Open season on them I guess.
They will have a bad life: Open season on people with bad lives. Yours is much "badder" than mine so I'll free you.
Just a collection of cells: So are you mister collection of cells.
Choice should be made between Mother and Doctor: If I find a Doctor to ok me killing my 10 year old, I'm set.
These may seem like shallow examples, but they can be very easily developed to fit the criteria needed to "morally" kill an unborn.
That's why "Human Life" cannot be narrowly defined. And it must always be valued. If their is a doubt, then treat it like a human.
|
On November 05 2011 02:39 popdawg wrote:
The way i look at it is.. since fetus' are completely dependent upon the mother until birth, the mother should have the choice to do with her own body
If you had to hold on to someone for 9 months on the edge of a cliff (still have food ect.) in order to save the life would you do it?
Ya, but when the father wants the child and the mother doesn't, guess who doesn't get charged with murder? Yet, if the father causes a miscarriage his ass goes to jail.
If either parent don't consent to a baby being born I recommend to that couple have an abortion for the greater good of society.
|
On November 05 2011 03:54 gimpy wrote:
I'm pretty sure that I could use most reasons to have abortions as reasons to kill "humans".
They don't feel pain: I could kill you in a painless way.
They are parasites: My kid depends on me for food/shelter/medication, guess I have the right to end that immediately.
They don't have a fully developed brain: Your young brain isn't as fully developed as mine. I have the right to end yours.
We don't consider them human: I don't consider you human. You're opinion on your own humanity is irrelevant to me, just like a fetus's.
They were the result of a rape: Lets find adults who were the result of rape. Open season on them I guess.
They will have a bad life: Open season on people with bad lives. Yours is much "badder" than mine so I'll free you.
Just a collection of cells: So are you mister collection of cells.
Choice should be made between Mother and Doctor: If I find a Doctor to ok me killing my 10 year old, I'm set.
These may seem like shallow examples, but they can be very easily developed to fit the criteria needed to "morally" kill an unborn.
This is why the entire debate is pointless. People actually make arguments like these and think they're being reasonable.
Bye!
|
On November 05 2011 00:50 Grimmyman123 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 05 2011 00:45 nennx wrote:On November 05 2011 00:38 Grimmyman123 wrote:
I guess the big issue that has to be established, is when does a fetus become self-aware Don't even know if live babies are even self-aware That's a pretty obtuse statement. A newborn, when hungry or in pain, knows to cry. It may not be intelligent or mobile, but a newborn is definitely sentient and self aware.
Instinct =/= Self awareness
|
On November 05 2011 03:40 yeint wrote:Show nested quote +On November 05 2011 03:33 -_- wrote:On November 05 2011 03:25 yeint wrote:On November 05 2011 03:22 -_- wrote:
I'm not sure I quite follow. Going back to my previous example, is the five year old in the womb a human being? I responded to that on the previous page. A five year old in the womb is a fantastical situation that is utterly meaningless as a thought experiment. You're either presenting a completely implausible situation (a fetus with the mental development of a five year old is patently nonsensical), or you're just arbitrarily proposing a really long gestation period. As I understand it, KwarK doesn't believe fetuses are humans. The reason why I came up with the example I did was simply to try and flesh out what KwarK's definition of human is, and why fetuses are not in it. As I understand it now, he believes humanity is tied up with independence, which is pretty interesting to me. What do you think makes a human a human? What about a fetus makes it not a human? Pretty interesting stuff imo. I think sentience makes a human a human, for the purposes of ethical considerations. I think killing is wrong because because it causes suffering. If it causes no suffering to anyone, it is not inherently wrong, and we can do cost/benefit analyses. On moral issues I mostly agree with Sam Harris, if you're interested in my personal beliefs. I don't agree with Kwark's parasite argument either, but I think your "what if it's a 5 year old in the womb" argument is not a good counter to it, because it just doesn't make sense. A fetus cannot develop mentally in the womb, and thus will never become a 5 year old. Being independent of the mother's organism is a prerequisite for becoming the thing you mean by "5 year old".
I've always felt consciousness was the answer as well, but I've never been able to put my finger on exactly what that consisted of.
I also see your point regarding suffering. However, I've never been able to ignore "lost future fun." Misusing a business term, maybe opportunity cost describes what I mean.
Let's say you have no friends, no family, no nothing. Nobody to miss you when you're gone. You're alone in the woods. I come up to you and shoot your head off with a big bullet. You die without feeling any pain. You didn't suffer, and nobody around you suffered, but you might have had some sick fun in the future.
Separating potentiality and actuality is tough for me.
Kwark made a good point though. If a fetus is life, why isn't sperm, why isn't a date, why don't you have an obligation to get every girl in the world pregnant. Why don't you have an obligation to rape women. Rape a girl to save a life, fair trade, right. I've always been stumped.
|
On November 05 2011 03:54 gimpy wrote:
I'm pretty sure that I could use most reasons to have abortions as reasons to kill "humans".
They don't feel pain: I could kill you in a painless way.
They are parasites: My kid depends on me for food/shelter/medication, guess I have the right to end that immediately.
They don't have a fully developed brain: Your young brain isn't as fully developed as mine. I have the right to end yours.
We don't consider them human: I don't consider you human. You're opinion on your own humanity is irrelevant to me, just like a fetus's.
They were the result of a rape: Lets find adults who were the result of rape. Open season on them I guess.
They will have a bad life: Open season on people with bad lives. Yours is much "badder" than mine so I'll free you.
Just a collection of cells: So are you mister collection of cells.
Choice should be made between Mother and Doctor: If I find a Doctor to ok me killing my 10 year old, I'm set.
These may seem like shallow examples, but they can be very easily developed to fit the criteria needed to "morally" kill an unborn.
That's why "Human Life" cannot be narrowly defined. And it must always be valued. If their is a doubt, then treat it like a human.
You could use your same logic on a grapefruit. I guess eating fruit is murder now?
|
On November 05 2011 03:58 -_- wrote:Show nested quote +On November 05 2011 03:40 yeint wrote:On November 05 2011 03:33 -_- wrote:On November 05 2011 03:25 yeint wrote:On November 05 2011 03:22 -_- wrote:
I'm not sure I quite follow. Going back to my previous example, is the five year old in the womb a human being? I responded to that on the previous page. A five year old in the womb is a fantastical situation that is utterly meaningless as a thought experiment. You're either presenting a completely implausible situation (a fetus with the mental development of a five year old is patently nonsensical), or you're just arbitrarily proposing a really long gestation period. As I understand it, KwarK doesn't believe fetuses are humans. The reason why I came up with the example I did was simply to try and flesh out what KwarK's definition of human is, and why fetuses are not in it. As I understand it now, he believes humanity is tied up with independence, which is pretty interesting to me. What do you think makes a human a human? What about a fetus makes it not a human? Pretty interesting stuff imo. I think sentience makes a human a human, for the purposes of ethical considerations. I think killing is wrong because because it causes suffering. If it causes no suffering to anyone, it is not inherently wrong, and we can do cost/benefit analyses. On moral issues I mostly agree with Sam Harris, if you're interested in my personal beliefs. I don't agree with Kwark's parasite argument either, but I think your "what if it's a 5 year old in the womb" argument is not a good counter to it, because it just doesn't make sense. A fetus cannot develop mentally in the womb, and thus will never become a 5 year old. Being independent of the mother's organism is a prerequisite for becoming the thing you mean by "5 year old". I've always felt consciousness was the answer as well, but I've never been able to put my finger on exactly what that consisted of. I also see your point regarding suffering. However, I've never been able to ignore "lost future fun." Misusing a business term, maybe opportunity cost describes what I mean. Let's say you have no friends, no family, no nothing. Nobody to miss you when you're gone. You're alone in the woods. I come up to you and shoot your head off with a big bullet. You die without feeling any pain. You didn't suffer, and nobody around you suffered, but you might have had some sick fun in the future. Separating potentiality and actuality is tough for me. Kwark made a good point though. If a fetus is life, why isn't sperm, why isn't a date, why don't you have an obligation to get every girl in the world pregnant. Why don't you have an obligation to rape women. Rape a girl to save a life, fair trade, right. I've always been stumped.
Because sperm and eggs look icky while a baby looks cute. It's in our instinct to protect something with an abnormal eye to head ratio. This is also why puppies and kittens are so appealing to people.
A fetus =/= a god damn human being ffs, just because it's cute doesn't mean anything.
If you kill some detached individual then it's still murder. Unless he or she was brain dead it would be murder to take the life of a conscious human being.
|
On the issue of infants being self-aware, there was an interesting test done called the Rouge Test. It has some interesting implications, one being that even 1 year olds may not be self-conscious. Although I'm curious if the use of a mirror makes the study invalid for the general population (those infants that don't know what a mirror is). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rouge_test
|
Whoever said it's religion vs woman's rights, I think you got the argument wrong. From my perspective it's woman's rights vs the unborn's rights. Just determining when the unborn has to have rights is the gray area. It saddens me to know that abortions are still legal, but it's a free country and people should have their own rights.
Although I think there should be at least a cutoff for when the baby can actually feel pain, which from the article infers is 20 weeks. It seems like that if your going to have an abortion, most mothers end it earlier than later.
On a side note, there's been huge arguments over whether the father has rights to his fetus also since he has to pay child support if it's not aborted.
Edit :
I read a few more comments and in regards to liberal / conservative bashing nobody wants to kill anyone. Both are hypocrites.
Conservatives want more freedoms for people yet insist abortions should be illegal.
Liberals always talk about basic human rights and needs, but then support abortions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
