NationStates Jolt Archive

Person: (As defined by dictionary.com) A living Human Being.
Life (derived from living): The property or quality that distinguishes living organisms from dead organisms and inanimate matter, manifested in functions such as metabolism, growth, reproduction, and response to stimuli or adaptation to the environment originating from within the organism.

Hmmm...we already established that feti (fetus plural) has human dna. They also reproduce cells in order to grow and metabolises pent up 'food' to grow. Human beings have human DNA. So if the DNA is the same then...oh my God, a fetus is a person. See the Logic? Person=Living Human Being, Human must have Human DNA. Fetus= Living sack of cells with human DNA= Living + Human DNA = Living Human Being= Person. What a thought.

Perhaps one shouldn't base one moral thought on cherry picked definitions from the dictionary combined with poor logic.

Your "definition" fails to answer the question of why any set of cells with human DNA is entitled to a right to life -- to moral standing equal to that of every other person.

I'll repeat what I just posted in another thread:

The proper question is not "what is life?" or "what is human life?"

*snip*

The proper question is: what is personhood? who is entitled to rights and why?

The question is whether a zygote-embryo-fetus has rights.

Why skip over that question? We do not assume all life has as right to life. We do not assume that all human life has a right to life.

So the issue is what things do we recognize as having rights and why (which includes why do other things not have rights).

Persons have rights. The basis for those rights should be part of the criteria for personhood. In other words, a person is morally entitled to rights because a person meets certain criteria.

Two common and rational criteria for personhood:
1. being conscious -- e.g., being aware of one's surroundings.
2. being conscious of itself -- i.e. being able to think of oneself as oneself at least at a rudimentary level.
3. being able to reason and know -- e.g., plan, understand at least at a rudimentary level.
4. being a sentient being -- e.g. feel pain/pleasure.
5. being able to have emotions.

A being who actually has (1)-(5) is a person in the moral sense, i.e. has moral rights.

Another lower potential set of criteria for personhood:
1. consciousness,
2. the ability to reason,
3. self-motivated activity,
4. the capacity to communicate, and
5. self-awareness.

A being who actually has (1)-(4) is arguably a person in the moral sense, i.e. has moral rights.

Note: as a matter of law, moral personhood is not necessarily legal personhood. At least for the purposes of constitutional rights, the threshold appears to be a born person. But one can argue that definition should expand, if necessary, to include all moral persons.

Babies think...they develop...they grow inside the womb. Though these kids may not live inside there mother with out her they could not survive...especially babies. I don't know of a month old baby being able to live with out being cared for.

1. zygotes and embryos don't "think" in any meaningful way. Nor do early-term fetuses.

2. You've ignored other distinctions in order to falsely accuse me of favoring infancide. Still very much a strawman fallacy.

3. Nice bait-and-switch: there is a rather large distinction between requiring care and complete dependence on a specific individual. There is also a rather large distinction between requiring care from someone and requiring the use of another's body.

except that this living thing made of human tissue doesnt live on its own. its a potential person but its not there yet. just like an egg isnt a chicken a fetus isnt a person.

"Exactically!," said the Caterpillar.

What does it matter who can take care of them? Doesn't change the fact that they would die if left alone. So what is the major difference between conception and birth. Of all dates in my life i consider conception the most important, as should everyone.

Differences between clump of cells at conception and child at birth:
1. A brain.
2. A nervous system.
3. Viability.
... need I continue?

Every year you celebrate your date of conception?

I'd rather celebrate my very merry un-birthday.

Every year you celebrate your date of conception?

I'd rather celebrate my very merry un-birthday.
Good points Cat, but I've got a question.....do you take advantage of this early-morning slump to catch up from the night before? Geeeeeez ;)

Simonist']Good points Cat, but I've got a question.....do you take advantage of this early-morning slump to catch up from the night before? Geeeeeez ;)

On this occasion, yes.

I had to leave a debate mid-stride last night.

I happen to be up early and can't sleep, so I am finishing off a few points.

I tried not to go off too much & I am done now. :D

On this occasion, yes.

I had to leave a debate mid-stride last night.

I happen to be up early and can't sleep, so I am finishing off a few points.

I tried not to go off too much & I am done now. :D
That was just the most hilarious diatribe to wake up to.

Point of curiosity....am I the only pro-choicer on here that would probably never actually have an abortion? I'm not counting males.....but you can voice your opinion if you so desire.....I'm just feeling a bit out of place, seeing bits of both sides.

Simonist']That was just the most hilarious diatribe to wake up to.

Point of curiosity....am I the only pro-choicer on here that would probably never actually have an abortion? I'm not counting males.....but you can voice your opinion if you so desire.....I'm just feeling a bit out of place, seeing bits of both sides.

(im male)

Im pro choice but i hope me or my girlfriend never ever have to make the decision to abort or not.

Ummm...I am not sure where you get your info on human development but you are somewhat off. The Fetus/baby/whatever you want to call it can feel before it leaves the womb. There is a strong correlation (big word i know but look it up) between playing classical music to a baby in the womb and later that kid's ability in mathematics and others like that (not a direct causal relationship...look up some studies i am too lazy and tired to do it for you).

An illusory correlation.

Parents who habitually listen to classical music are, on balance of probabilities, going to be the sorts of parents who adhere to generic pregnancy advice. They most likely provide a rich environment for the child while growing and most likely take a keen interest in their child's intellectual development.

The list of confounds is exhaustive - hence many have claimed [see more recent studies] that the Mozart Effect is a flawed concept.

Simonist']Point of curiosity....am I the only pro-choicer on here that would probably never actually have an abortion? I'm not counting males.....but you can voice your opinion if you so desire.....I'm just feeling a bit out of place, seeing bits of both sides.I personally would, because I don't want children (but do want a normal, loving, sexual relationship, whether or not that sounds selfish and irresponsible to pro-lifers). However, a lot of pro-choice people I know are in your position; they wouldn't have an abortion themselves, but support the rights of others to do so if that's their desire. You are not alone :)

I can't wait to see where this will go. :eek: :rolleyes:

I can. It's not exactly a tough question where this will go, when considering the dozens upon dozens of previous threads like this. Honestly, I need a break.

I hear that in America, partial birth abortion is still legal in some states. Concentrate on abolishing that, but avoid the church agenda or the "life starts at conception" crowd. For those who are only against partial birth abortion, consider that the enemy of your enemy (in this case, those that wish to outlaw abortion entirely) may not be your friend. What is needed is a sane compromise - neither those that advocate killing babies up to the first month after birth nor those that would force underage rape victims to give birth will bring that.

No one here has even tried to answer the original question. You have all been debating whether abortion should or should not be legal.

If the question is just: Why is abortion legal? - Then the obvious answer is that the over-whelming majority of people wish it to be legal, and so it is.

Next topic?

Odd. I thought I had it back at post #10, but no one seemed to care. ;)

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8854965&postcount=10

Why is abortion legal?

Short answer: Because there is no objective reason to make it illegal, at least not until a certain point, at which case it is pretty much already illegal.

When does it certify as a human life form?

As soon as it can survive on its own, without the mother. This is usually around the end of the second trimester.

I can. It's not exactly a tough question where this will go, when considering the dozens upon dozens of previous threads like this. Honestly, I need a break.

I hear that in America, partial birth abortion is still legal in some states. Concentrate on abolishing that, but avoid the church agenda or the "life starts at conception" crowd. For those who are only against partial birth abortion, consider that the enemy of your enemy (in this case, those that wish to outlaw abortion entirely) may not be your friend. What is needed is a sane compromise - neither those that advocate killing babies up to the first month after birth nor those that would force underage rape victims to give birth will bring that.

FYI, don't believe the hype re "partial birth abortion."

Late-term abortions are already generally outlawed in the US. Abortion is generally illegal in the United States beyond the end of the second trimester -- except when necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother. Late term abortions are very, very, very rare -- accounting for 0.08% of abortions in the US.

There is no such procedure as "partial birth abortion." That is not a medical term. It was invented by the anti-choice movement. There are some very, very rare procedures that they use to illustrate the alleged procedure. But on of the reasons that bans on "partial-birth abortion" have failed constitutional scrutiny is that opponents cannot define what "partial birth abortion" is.

Moreover, it is a trojan horse. So far, enacted and attempted bans on so-called "partial-birth abortions" have actually applied to abortions throughout pregnancy -- and include some of the most common types of abortion procedures (ones that in no way resemble the "illustrations" that anti-choicers use of "partial-birth abortion").

Also, what is commonly used to illustrate "partial-birth abortion" is a procedure used most often when (a) the life or health of the mother is at stake and (b) the fetus is already dead or dying.

So, except in extreme cases, so-called "partial-birth abortion" is already illegal. Because it is limited to those extreme cases, it is exceedingly rare. And, attempts to ban it are thinly veiled attempts to ban a broad range of abortions under the false pretense of stopping allegedly "horrorific" procedures.

BIBLE = FACT.

If you kill an unborn baby it has a soul and God will smite you.

Just kidding! God doesn't exist!








Anyway, life isn't life until it is. Life does not exist until created, and in the first trimester it is basically nothing more than a heap of cells that can go any way. With genetic alteration, you can make a chicken fetus turn into a human, which is what my nation is working on at the moment; we are using these new Chickmans to add a zany new flavor to DFC restaurants everywhere.

Grain is tasty, and chicken eat the grains and they are tasty, and we eat the chickens so we must be really tasty. By combining the chickens and humans, we are solving national hunger.

Just think! By using your unliving fetus in research, you could be feeding millions of people. Millions. So the next time you think about keeping that little poop machine, just think of a starving person in the Zyzox IV sector. Yeah, that's right. Greedy pro-lifers.

And this is why abortion is legal.

Abortion is legal here because it is a person's choice. I myself would not do it. But think about someone who got raped, and fell pregnant from that - would you want that baby, even if you did adopt it out, knowing there was a child of rape out there somewhere can be very daunting, especially for those who believe in the violence gene. Then also think, maybe that person has a very strict family. No contraceptive works 100%, except for abstinence, or having your tubes tied. But why miss the little pleasures in life due to a bit of fear. Shit happens, some people need to be able to fix that shit.

[QUOTE=Fat Lizards] why is abortion legal?

--why not?

I believe this settles the debate, once and for all.

(253 Posts later...) I believe otherwise...

At what point does a baby recieve it's license to be alive?

When it can survive independently of it's mother. Period.

I thought it was the Illuminati?

...You didn't hear that from me.

No, it's the Freemasons.

*looks around nervously*

But you didn't hear it from me, because I was never here.

Did you take exception to the scab analogy because your handle is 'Scabbia'?

Also, where did you get this info? It seems a little off. For one, if you really want to talk about how 'wired' a baby's brain is, you could show how it isn't really fully wired in some aspects until ages 3-5.
an embryo has not begun to develop a brain. it is no different from a corpse that is legally brain dead (not persistive vegitative state bs... i mean REALLY brain dead).

Yes, I should be legally required to hold the rope for a limited time necesary, uf your life depends on it. And no, you are not living inside me, nevertheless your survival depends on the rope, which causes me uncomfortableness.

And I know that I wouldn't be able to hold the rope for 9 months because I would probably faint after a few hours. However let's not forget that carrying a full grown person is harder than carrying around a 20 lbs baby.
im guessing by your response that your a man. and being a man you have never experienced childbirth

Yowsa! A 20 lbs. baby!! I would not want to be the woman giving birth to that! Hahaha....

*Let it be known that my comment has nothing to do with agreeing with the people involved in this converation, or disagreeing with said parties. I must make this disclaimer, due to people taking my random comments too seriously. Thank you.

Simonist']Props out the wazoo for that one, Keruvalia

Interestingly enough, I believe that applies all the way into the early teenage years. Ya mama brought you into the world and she should be able to take yer ungrateful ass out, too.

Just MHO, though.

Interestingly enough, I believe that applies all the way into the early teenage years. Ya mama brought you into the world and she should be able to take yer ungrateful ass out, too.

Just MHO, though.
AHAHAHAHAHA

Ok, wow.....heard THAT threat about a million times.

And Re: Koshkaboo's comment, I'd much rather die than deliver a 20 lb. baby....

Interestingly enough, I believe that applies all the way into the early teenage years. Ya mama brought you into the world and she should be able to take yer ungrateful ass out, too.

Just MHO, though.

Yeah! ....well into the 76th trimester.

Simonist']AHAHAHAHAHA

Ok, wow.....heard THAT threat about a million times.

And Re: Koshkaboo's comment, I'd much rather die than deliver a 20 lb. baby....



hahaha

Third, why should pregnancy be a punishment for sex? --What is the father's punishment?--


Not having any say whatsoever in whether the clot is carried to term or not, despite which he'll be expected to supply child support for 18 years.

At what point does a baby recieve it's license to be alive? When does it certify as a human life form? As soon as it is out of the womb? Then is it as soon as it is lying on the doctors table, or does its head have to be out? Or all the way down to the legs? I can't understand at what point killing the baby is considered murder. If someone who doesn't want kids is willing to take the risk of getting pregnant, then they are probably capable of putting it up for adoption, but for heavens sake, why do they have to murder a sinless, defenseless baby for the sake of convenience?

I can't wait to see where this will go. :eek: :rolleyes:
Whether or not a fetus is a human person has no bearing on whether or not abortion should be legal. No born human being has the right to appropriate another human being's body, or to use another's body against their wishes. The real question is why anti-choice activists seek to give rights to a fetus that no born human being has.

Abortions to save the mothers life have been legal since before the woev.wade battle. The question is, should the mother be allowed to kill the fetus if giving birth is an inconvenience? I already approve of early abortions. If you are a raped woman, you all those few months to get rid of the fetus. After that, it's a bit latee imo. The question is also: When is a fetus a human being? There was some issues with pro-choice people for the law that would consider killing a pregnant woman double murder. I guess the mother decided if the thing is human or not. We have completely classified all aspects of life-cycles except pregnancy. The doctor also decides if it is late-term abortian or early birth by deciding if he pr she wants to stick that needle in the baby's head or not. Studies show that the fetus could feel pain at that point. How? They monitered the brain and the hormone levels. It feels pain. It looks like a baby, smells like one, and acts like one. It is also nearly identicle to one at that point. Is it a baby or a lump of unwanted cells? The femenists already achieved most of the goals of the earlier ones. Women have slightly more rights than men. The next step wasn't abortion, it was fair wages. It was going against the steroetypical roles once and for all. The woman rights groups have lost their ways. They want more and more. There were cases of women wanting the right to kill their babies after they were delivered a few days earlier. These are also people who might have wanted to legalize pot and let illegal immagrants have drivers licenses. It is time to control the femenists again before they go a bit overboard. Every group needs control over itself.

No, it's the Freemasons.

*looks around nervously*

But you didn't hear it from me, because I was never here.
The Freemasons ARE the Illuminati.. or at least a more public face thereof...

As for some issues, the baby and the beast: Running with the baby wouldn't to much good, because most predators can run MUCH faster than humans, so you'd just be run down like a rabbit and the first to die, the baby being second, but while the beast is eating the child, that gives you time to escape while the beast enjoys his easier prey.

Music and pain: it's actually been shown that plants can emit fear and grow better when talked and/or sung to, so basically all your arguements in that vein put fetuses on an equal level as vegetables.

As to my personal opinion, I'm pro-choice because it's none of my damned business what a woman does with her body and her life, but I would never suggest an abotion unless the mother's health was at risk or the baby's quality of life is compromised (such as the 14 year old pregant with a child with downs syndrome mentioned earlier), and were someone I know to consider an abortion for any other reason, I would not support their decision, but I would support them and let them know that I would be for them after the procedure (because in many cases, the aftermath of an abortion can be incredibly hard on a woman, and she doesn't need her friends abandoning her because of it on top of that). And were I to have a girlfriend/wife who was raped and became pregnant, I would be perfectly willing to raise the child as my own and try to convince her to keep it, though ultimately, the decision would be hers as it would not be my child, and any child of mine will be a child we both wanted so I don't have to worry about an abortion in that case (hence why I've still yet to have sex at 22, well, that and not having found someone to spend the rest of my life with). 3rd trimester abortions unless risking the health of the mother are right out namely because if you've decided to go through with the pregancy up to that point, knowing full well you could've terminated it months before, you deserve to carry it the rest of the way. The decision to abort should be a decision you come to reletively quickly after finding out you are pregnant.

As for here in America, I find pro-lifers to be extremely hypocritical as they are usually the same group who support abstenance-only sex-ed programs that purposely misinform teens or keep them completely ignornant about sex. Case in point, I know a girl in Kentucky who knew absolutely nothing about sex until some guy convinced her to have it at the age of 14, at which point she got pregnant and chose to have an abortion knowing she was too young and the father would be no father at all. Now, is it really fair to force her to have the child despite getting pregnant only because she was completely ignorant about sex because the adults in the area purposely kept her that way? I think not.

I'm the kind of guy who acts conservatively but thinks liberally in that I believe the personal choices I make should not be made for everyone. Above all, I value love and free will, and love comes before free will to remind me that my free will does not override the free will of others, just as their free will should not override my own. Sure, it'd be nice if I could force everyone to pay everyone else the same amount of respect that I do, but that's not a decision I can make, nor is whether or not a woman "pulls the plug" on her fetus by removing it from the life support that is her body.

I'm pro-choice, for all the reasons already outlined. I'm male, and I'm not sure if I was female if I would have one myself, but I've got a question to some pro-lifers. If you believe (as you do) that life begins at conception, or at some point along the way to birth, then why do some of you say it is acceptable in cases of rape? Under this, would you believe it is acceptable to kill a forty year old who was concieved in a rape?

At what point does a baby recieve it's license to be alive?

When it takes its first breath outside the womb.

When does it certify as a human life form?

This is why abortion at all stages is should be legal

As soon as it is out of the womb?

I say kill the 2 year olds too

Then is it as soon as it is lying on the doctors table, or does its head have to be out?

You think with passion. Passion gets you no where. Do some reasearch before forming an opinion and expressing it on ap ublic forum to humiliate yourself.

Or all the way down to the legs?

Ok this is getting repedative and stupid. I may make a 14 year old stop and think, but I think most of us have thought past this

I can't understand at what point killing the baby is considered murder.

This is because you havent done any research into why and how people justify it. SIT DOWN AND LEARN!!!

If someone who doesn't want kids is willing to take the risk of getting pregnant, then they are probably capable of putting it up for adoption,

What about rape? What about the condom breaking?

but for heavens sake, why do they have to murder a sinless, defenseless baby for the sake of convenience?

Your not reading your black book well either. ORIGINAL SIN. Read a book.

I can't wait to see where this will go. :eek: :rolleyes:
It will lead to people throwing a bunch of websites in your face for being dumb.

Sigh.. not another one of these threads..

Ok. Simple summary:

An abortion in the early stages of pregnancy harms noone directly.

*waits for people crawling over eachother to yell bull[censorpeep]*

Allright - let us look who it harms, shall we ?
To say an action harms something/one you must either show that
a. your action causes the thing/person to suffer
b. your action results in a situation that is less desireable for the thing/person involved than it would have been without that action, or that it loses something.

Does a zygote/foetus without a nervous system suffer pain when it gets aborted ? Well.. obviously not, since it cannot feel *anything* at that point in its development. So a is not met.

Then b. As said: if it has no nervous system, a zygote/foetus cannot feel. It cannot think. It cannot dream. It cannot have hopes for the future. It cannot have *any* experience. It never *had* any of these things yet either. So, at this point of the foetus' development there is no difference for the foetus itself between never having been conceived at all, and being aborted before it gets the ability to have experiences. It had nothing, therefor it loses nothing. So a comparision with its past says abortion is ok.

It did however have the *potential* to get all those abilities. The question now is: can you prove that by taking away that potential, that chance at experience, you are actually harming it ? Can you say for certain that those experiences will be positive - that it will lead a happy and productive life ? Even though its mother does not want it ? Even if if it has a genetic defect which will cause it to be in excrutiating pain 24/7 ? Is the biological fact of "life" so intrinsically valuable that the quality of said life is not relevant ?

I say no. I say that life is a fact, nothing more, nothing less. Not an intrinsically good or bad thing. As such, only something that already has the ability to have experiences can be said to be harmed (or the opposite - see the euthanasia debate !) by being killed. And a foetus in the state of development where abortion is legal does not qualify.

So - the foetus is not harmed by abortion. Is the mother harmed by not letting her have an abortion even though she wants it ? At first glance the answer would seem to be yes. But it is possible that the psychological effects of having one are more detrimental. That needs to be researched - but it is the mothers needs that determine what is going to happen.

Btw: note how the question when something becomes human is entirely irrelevant in this reasoning. The only issue is when you can harm something.

Ok, I'm against abortion (OMG get him! He and his evil pro-life beliefs! sry I had to say that), but it's not like illegalizing abortion will stop it. It will just open up another Pandora's Box of misery and sorrow....

Ok, I'm against abortion (OMG get him! He and his evil pro-life beliefs! sry I had to say that), but it's not like illegalizing abortion will stop it. It will just open up another Pandora's Box of misery and sorrow....
Exactly. Friggin lovely to hear that from a pro-lifer. *Wipes tear from eye* A happy day for me!
No seriously, think back to anything you've heard about the 50's and 60's. In many states, not only was abortion illegal, but BIRTH CONTROL as well. You had a lot of shotgun weddings, women "disappearing" for a year at a time, and illegal abortions were incredibly common. For instance, Dr. Robert Spencer is one of the most well-known "backdoor" abortion doctors of the time. He was a revered and loved doctor, even by the people who KNEW what he was doing for these "loose women", and even had the protection of the police. In case you haven't seen the documentary about him, Dear Dr. Spencer: Abortion in a Small Town, I suggest you find a copy and watch it. Not only is it incredibly interesting, but it's crazy-informative as well. It illustrates quite well the fact that, whether or not abortion is legal, there will be problems with it.

Also, to quote a website (http://old.fairfieldweekly.com/articles/roerecent.html) that I used for a paper on abortion in high school (actually, that's got just about the same kind of info on Dr. Spencer, too):
We realized how lucky we were when we heard horror stories: the difficulties amassing the huge fees the butchers charged, being driven around blindfolded so as not to know where the deed was done, forced sex with the abortionist before he'd get to work, the tied hands and the mouth stuffed to muffle the cries of pain from abortions without anesthesia, the soiled equipment, the hemorrhaging, the lies to the hospital emergency room, and the newspaper reports of women who died trying not to become a mother.

Abortion is based on a persons self moral issues and boundaries not yours. Dont go around telling people what to do because your morals are different than theirs because than you violate the constitution. Oh what, no, keep going, at the rate you and the rest of the Republicans are going George Washington and Thomas Jefferson are bound to be spinning in their graves until an earthquake starts.

Why is abortion legal?

I don't have the time to read through all 20 pages of this thread, so if this was stated by someone else, I apologize in advance.

Until a contraceptive is developed that is safe, affordable, available worldwide and approved by all religions, abortions must be legal. (I find it sadly ironic that Viagra was approved for use in Japan in less than one year, but it took over 30 years for the birth control pill to get the same approval, if indeed it ever did.)

Until women are safe from rape and incest, (besides castrating all boys at the age of twelve), abortions must be legal.

Until sexual predators stop preying on young women, abortions must be legal.

Until a woman doesn't have to worry about a life-threatening accident, injury, or complication during pregnancy, abortions must be legal.

Until men stop forcing women into having unwanted children, abortions must be legal.

Because the male body is incapable of conceiving or birthing a child, men should not be able to tell us what we can do with our bodies. If they ever become capable, we women will not try to control them the way they try to control us.