|
On November 05 2011 03:43 MrTortoise wrote:Show nested quote +On November 05 2011 03:39 missefficiency wrote: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:
[quote]
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.
There is a difference between the personal interpretation of facts and morality. But discussing that would mean to become more and more offtopic.
There's a whole load of medical articles as e.g. this one (just googled "Perception of pain") who deal with the topic extensively. You seem pretty interested in how pain works, so you might even enjoy them despite the huge amount of medical terms
|
On November 04 2011 10:06 NicolBolas wrote:
If you pick the unborn, then you're reducing any woman who happens to get pregnant (for any reason) to being nothing more than a potentially unwilling incubator. If you pick the host, then you're reducing the unborn human to the level of tapeworms. Someone is going to be devalued regardless of which side you pick.
You can see it in the rhetoric the two sides use. Right down to the self-given names. Pro-life, as though there were only one human being involved here. Pro-choice, again as though there were only one human being involved here.
The sooner people realize that neither side can claim the moral high ground, the better.
Noone just "happens to get pregnant". If you don't don't want a child it's really easy to make sure that you don't get pregnant, and if you were irresponsible enough to make a mistake that could lead to a unwanted child, the least you could do is make it your number 1 priority to find out whether you're pregnant, and if you are, do an abortion immediately. I'm not entirely against abortion, but I think women needs to be more responsible in this area. No one should have to wait until the 20th week, not even the 10th week. This is a decision that you should be able to make in 24 hours, and you can figure out whether you're pregnant in a matter of days. If the border is pulled back, there will be less negative stigma around the subject, and that makes it easier to make a decision.
|
I can't believe murder has been legalized anywhere
User was warned for this post
|
On November 05 2011 03:05 MrTortoise wrote:Show nested quote +On November 05 2011 02:59 Brutland wrote:
god, some people. pain is not a function of the brain per-se. it is a function of the nervous system. the brain only recognizes the i/p coming from whatever part and then adjusts blood pressure/heart rate/respiration rate. this can happen and be seen in any creature. any. at all. the pain response has absolutely nothing to do with sentience. absolutely nothing. 2 words: Phantom Limb - can be interpreted to say pain is in the brain or nervous system depending on how you look at it. the problem you have is that the brain / nervous system abstraction isn't very clean when you really start to ask fun questions like this. Eg muscle memory Show nested quote +On November 05 2011 03:04 Brutland wrote:
allowing abortion is the only rational choice. anything else and you are trying to justify your own ideology with whatever scraps of science you can pretend to know. there are way way too many conceivable situations where abortion is the absolutely right idea logically The problem is rationally you have to allow EVERY choice because you end up in relativism - yet we need a legal system. As for the cost of abortion from above ... abortions are traditionally very cheap ... Just use a nitting needle. Which is a VERY strong argument for legalising. Its like any form of prohibition - harmful. So thrid worldl countries can easily have abortions ... except we gave them all Christianity and other nice religions that say don't use contraception. I would truly love to see an example of prohibition that has had good consequences overall. Things like murder are illegal it doesnt stop people doingit. The reason why we make murder illegal is because of the effect on the rest of society. An abortion is a really personal and private thing imo - people who want one will do it anyway, they need support.
So is infanticide, or child abuse, or for that matter child sexual molestation in some of those polygamous cults... they were private things not affecting anyone outside of that group. Why should my government care?
|
Wasn't after the 20th week abortions only done in extreme cases where the mother's life was at risk?
If thats the case, then this law does little, since you can easily go to a neighboring state.
Of course, if the mother is unable to travel (meaning move) then the pregnancy is probably already in dire shape.
|
On April 28 2011 11:38 Imres wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2011 11:33 Essentia wrote:On April 28 2011 11:28 Mastermind wrote:On April 28 2011 11:16 Wegandi wrote:On April 28 2011 11:09 gogogadgetflow wrote:
You can't be banned for arguing for/against abortion as long as you keep it civil and substantive. No need to paint tl negatively.
For now the solution for Hoosiers is simple. Leave the state if you need an abortion. On one hand 20 weeks is plenty of time for an abortion, so the law is at least moderate in that respect. Ethically, however, I support the right of a woman to expel the fetus at any stage of pregnancy; because the baby lives inside the woman its right to life is forfeit. Whether or not it can feel pain is a non-factor (legally - I myself would consider such a factor but I cannot force someone else to). No one has the right to kill another individual unless your life is in danger. Yes, you have the right to evict, but not kill, which means the woman can have (induce) early pregnancies and put the child up for adoption. You do not have a right to kill a trespasser on your property who is not a danger to you, your family, or your property. I really do not like to get into this debate, because both sides are pretty well set in their views. My personal view is pretty moderate -- a woman has a right to evict, but not kill. Sure, but I dont view a fetus as being alive, so abortion isnt killing in my eyes. Yet even a fetus has a heartbeat, hard to deny it's a living thing. I hope you're vegan... 'cause killing living things seems to be one of the greatest passion of mankind
In addition to that, plants are living things that feel pain as well, so you might as well not eat.
|
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.
A fetus is life because it maintains the ability to undergo cell division independently of other cells.
A sperm/egg (and date/obligation to get every women in the world pregnant/etc) should not be classified as life because they do not have the ability to undergo cell replication.
That is how I view the difference. It's very cut and dry, none of this 20 weeks or self-aware stuff.
|
I think the law is justified. Any step towards a total ban is a welcome change in this time of moral ambiguity.
|
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.
I'm shocked at how you think these strawmen are actually reasonable representations of good arguments for abortions.
Where's the analogy that compares complications in a pregnancy that may kill the mother to a human causing the harm of another? I guess terminating the pregnancy would be the equivalent of self-defense, which is completely justifiable, legal, and morally sound.
But instead, you say things like "Fertilized eggs aren't humans yet... well, I say *you* aren't a human, so aha!" What the heck?
|
United States5162 Posts
On November 05 2011 05:20 Canadium wrote:
I think the law is justified. Any step towards a total ban is a welcome change in this time of moral ambiguity.
LOL, as apposed to before when other horrible things were common and acceptable.
If you're against abortion that's cool, but don't act like it some modern moral degradation that has caused it to be acceptable.
|
Canada12 Posts
Why do people feel the need to make a black and white situation out of a grey area why not just draw a legal line somwhere in the grey. I myself do not believe in abortion, but as a man its not my decision and if my gf was pregnant I would want to keep the child good timing or not. My own opinions however aren't to be forced on anyone. Yet, I still agree with this in the sense that, with all our science and technology now, we should be able to test to find out the "general average" time a fetus is self away and able to feel pain and at that point say that is the point a fetus becomes a human being BY LAW and has rights.
Pills when taken properly are 99.9% effective perfectly 92 - 97% in general usage, in stopping pregnancy and you can still use condoms and spermicidal lubes and jellies on top of them, or better get just get your tubes tied, unlike a vasectomy it can be undone. If you dont like the idea of an operation to NOT get pregnant, I don't believe you should have an operation to remove a pregnancy so readily availible. If you have a baby these days its YOUR fault so why so you get to have a be all and end all say until the baby breaths fresh air, its not like you had the respect to protect your body from getting pregnant in the first place. If an abortion is not such a big deal where are Mens rights that a woman should have an abortion because he doesn't want that child. It is half my genetic material anyways and I will be forced to be responsible financially for the next 18 years. Even so, by law if the woman wants it and a man doesn't there is no law exonerating men from legal responsibility even if they decide within 10 weeks of gestation they dont want the child. Why should rights be given to women so freely and then men get the shaft we are equal after all aren't we?
Would everyone here feel as sorry for someone who had unprotected sex and got HIV or would we just call them dumb and irresponsible? Otherwise why not go completely the other way and say until the child is 18 years old and legally completely responsible for itself you can just throw your kid in a blender if you don't fancy them anymore. Cause generally that what an abortion is if you look how it is actually preformed, and its not a safe operation is has lasting side effects. If a women gets an abortion its her choice, but I can't agree that it should be so easily accessible as "another" type of contraception. I support this on the basis that it doesn't remove rights but gives a serious moral debate a timeline to decide by. If it was up to me I would say 10 weeks OR before an scientifically government funded agreed legal time in gestation that the baby should feel pain and realize it. In reality if you cant make a decision in 10 weeks whether you want one or not your probably not fit to be a parent anyways let alone have sex.
The difference in studying gestation and deciding when an abortion can no longer be preformed is the difference between killing an animal quickly to eat or skinning it alive. One is a necessity that we give animals, that other animals do not give to each other because we have higher cognitive thinking. The other is animal cruelty based on the fact we have a higher cognitive thinking and should know better. This morale line needs to be drawn in the legal sand and this is a step towards this. In the end I support this because it forces people to use their cognitive abilities to rather then Herp Derp their way through live and their feelings be protected anyways.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
