NationStates Jolt Archive

The definition does not change, the examples do.

If what considers selfishness is different the definition is also inherently different. You cannot seperate a word from the thing it describes. That's how we manage to translate words. We don't do it by look at some dictionary but looking whether or not the thing it describes is the same in both languages.

Another interesting thing is that abortion is usually portrayed as a "women's right". What about the rights of unborn human? So women can not kill people whom they dont want/like but they can kill unborn people?
Besides she can always use a morning after pill if she wasnt protected. No need to kill the baby.

there is a law that after a certain amount of weeks, the fetus can not be aborted.
But for the time before that the fetus is not yet a baby, it can not think or feel, it does not count as a human (does and egg count as a chicken? no!)

The government cannot outlaw abortion because simply the baby is not comming out of the governments vagina, and the government doesn't have to have a shitty life just because it got pregnant at 13!

That's how we get organic molecules, not life.

His point is we are not arguing life. My skins cells are life. That's not the point. We are arguing personhood. If you are going to pick nits then perhaps you shouldn't declare that his doing it to you makes him incapable of debate like you did in the post before this one.

A viable fetus can apparently claim rights without birth.

Not universally. This a point of debate. In most places a viable fetus has no personhood. I think many would agree that a viable fetus is distinctly different than a non-viable fetus. Abortion rarely if ever involves a viable fetus.

If you believe it is irrelevant, then why not concede personhood to the fetus?
Then we can debate those rights.

Why conced personhood to a non-being? Initially a fetus does not meet the requirements for a living organism. Once it does it does meet the medically accepted requirements for life. If a born person had the qualities of a fetus they would considered deceased. In fetus' case it is not deceased simply not yet living.

That's a really excellent question. Who is qualified to answer?

At what point does a person have the right to live? Assuming you're asking that question generally, and not just limited to abortion issues, there's a lot of debate. Who's right? Does a coma patient have the right to keep on? Does someone in a vegetative state have a right to live? What about an unborn baby who has been diagnosed as being retarded? What about a convicted murderer? Sometimes the answer is easy, sometimes it isn't. Is there any human so wise and so sure that they can decide who has the right to live and who doesn't?

That, I think, is why this subject tends to follow religious lines. The pro-life people tend to go with the idea that there isn't any one human being who can make a decision like that, and so only God can make an individual decision,

In a democratic society we are all qualified to have an answer, and we must form an answer because this is not a simple, inconsequential issue.

To start with we need to define the most basic benefit of the right to life, which is obviously the uninfringed ability to live. At its root, the right to life obligates all of society to allow us to live. Now obviously, there is human life that cannot enjoy this benefit, people who are in persistent vegetative states, for example. As such, there is absolutely no justification for them to hold that right, as they cannot possibly understand it or utilize it.

When we apply it to a fetus, we ask the same question: Can a fetus utilize the benefits of the obligations placed on society. Without applying spiritual meaning to life, the answer is certainly 'no, it cannot'. Therefore we conclude that the application of a right to life for a fetus has no basis.

You are entirely right, though, this is exactly why the argument centers around religion.

Good point. But that is a significantly different situation and involves more than a right to choose.

I'll relent on it being universal, but the right to life is a greater right than the right to choose.

You are correct, for the individual, the right to life holds more value than the right to choose depending on what is being chosen. Luckily they are rarely mutually exclusive.

I'm not dancing.
The right to life is a basic right, it isn't something that has a purpose beyond the self evident right be alive.

I've thought about it, and I'm left in pretty much the same place I began.
All life has a right to exist. If we don't agree with that, then we have a fundamental difference of opinion, and I can't resolve that for you.
On top of that, I layer the exceptions.
I can discuss the exceptions with you if you'd like, but that is different from what you are asking.

Refer to above post to see what my argument on the right to life is.

One is the purpose. The other is an effect.

Agreed, one is a consequence. But it is a necessary consequence, and the prime complaint.

If we had a procedure in which an embryo/fetus was removed intact and incubated elsewhere, it sould still be an abortion. At the moment, the safe ways we have to remove them prior to the end of pregnancy invovles "killing" them (in parentheses as there is certainly an argument as to when the embryo/fetus can be deemed "alive"). That doesn't mean that abortion itself is "ending the pregnancy by killing the fetus."

While I fully admit that there are a great many people who are against abortion as they feel it encourages promiscuity, I would argue that many dissidents would support abortion if it maintained the viability of the fetus.

You missed an important point, my friend. I didn't argue anything about "freedom from bligation to support." I argued that one person has no rights to the body of another. If you were hooked up to my body, drawing nourishment from my systems, I would be well within my rights to disconnect you at any time, even if it meant your certain death. If I were, however, legally responsible to care for you in other ways (buy your food, etc.) as a legal guardian, then I would be legally responsible to do so.

This is a false dichotomy, very few of us are capable of generating the means to supporting someone without sacrificing our body in some way.

If what considers selfishness is different the definition is also inherently different. You cannot seperate a word from the thing it describes. That's how we manage to translate words. We don't do it by look at some dictionary but looking whether or not the thing it describes is the same in both languages.


False.

Selfishness is putting oneself ahead of others.

Examples of when we overlook that behaviour or consider it important are what vary by culture.

His point is we are not arguing life. My skins cells are life.

No one is arguing life in that context.
That's why his comment about slime and volcanoes was out of place.

Not universally. This a point of debate. In most places a viable fetus has no personhood. I think many would agree that a viable fetus is distinctly different than a non-viable fetus. Abortion rarely if ever involves a viable fetus.


I never made a claim of universality.

So where is the line of personhood?
At birth? Or at the point of viability?

Why conced personhood to a non-being?

Because he said it isn't important to his position.

Initially a fetus does not meet the requirements for a living organism. Once it does it does meet the medically accepted requirements for life. If a born person had the qualities of a fetus they would considered deceased. In fetus' case it is not deceased simply not yet living.

Medically speaking, there is no such thing as "not yet living".
You're blending the philosophical concept of personhood and medical facts.

No one is arguing life in that context.
That's why his comment about slime and volcanoes was out of place.



I never made a claim of universality.

So where is the line of personhood?
At birth? Or at the point of viability?

I've already answered this. In the post you are replying to I said at the point of viability it should have rights. I've said in earlier post that I require forebrain function. The same kind of function we require to consider any human being alive. If it's the definition of life that defines the end of life why should it not define the beginning of life as well?

Because he said it isn't important to his position.

If it's not important why concede it? You don't need it and he's not in a position to give you that point.

Medically speaking, there is no such thing as "not yet living".
You're blending the philosophical concept of personhood and medical facts.

No, there is simply not alive. I said yet, but the point is that it is not living. There is no living person inside of the womb at eight weeks (the point when the majority of abortions have occurred). Medically, brain function is required to consider a person alive at every other stage. The medical community traditionally tries not to make a definitive point for to avoid the argument, but if you'll notice that it is almost universally accept by medical personnel that third trimester abortions should not be elective (third trimester be approximately the point when the forebrain engages).

False.

Selfishness is putting oneself ahead of others.

Examples of when we overlook that behaviour or consider it important are what vary by culture.

Selfishness is not universally considered wrong then. He is loosening the concept. That's the point. Some form of selfishness is considered wrong in every culture but that does not make selfishness universally wrong. That's the point. Thank you for clarifying it for me.

Are you claiming that all cases of putting oneself ahead of others is considered wrong in all cultures?

Are some cases considered wrong? If so are they the same cases in all cultures? If not, it's not the concept that is considered wrong, but the cases.

Refer to above post to see what my argument on the right to life is.


Your question then is: "Can a fetus utilize the benefits of the obligations placed on society?"

You say certainly no.

I beg to differ.
It certainly can. Not today perhaps, but it most certainly can in time. I'm not referring to a "possibility" but a certainty, provided nothing intervenes to prevent the natural course of events.

By your argument, not only the persistent vegetative state sufferers, but anyone in coma would be unable to utilize the benefits immediately. Hell, even those asleep won't qualify.

A key word in your argument is "persistent". Some will argue even against that, but I'm comfortable accepting it. Persistent though tells us that there is no future, nothing is going to change, it's not just at this moment, it's permanent.

There is nothing persistent about the state of the fetus, and that is what you can't apply the same argument to it.

Selfishness is not universally considered wrong then. He is loosening the concept. That's the point. Some form of selfishness is considered wrong in every culture but that does not make selfishness universally wrong. That's the point. Thank you for clarifying it for me.

Are you claiming that all cases of putting oneself ahead of others is considered wrong in all cultures?

Are some cases considered wrong? If so are they the same cases in all cultures? If not, it's not the concept that is considered wrong, but the cases.

I'm not going to play with you.
I've made the point crystal clear.
I made no such claim as you imply I did.

You are free to disagree with Lewis and his point if you wish, or rather, with the imaginary point you think he's making.

I've already answered this. In the post you are replying to I said at the point of viability it should have rights. I've said in earlier post that I require forebrain function. The same kind of function we require to consider any human being alive. If it's the definition of life that defines the end of life why should it not define the beginning of life as well?


Part of the problem is that you have been defending someone else's posts.
That person wouldn't recognise personhood until birth.

If you're arguing from brain activity, then that's a different debate and a position I can accept even.

If it's not important why concede it? You don't need it and he's not in a position to give you that point.


Because while it's unimportant to him, it is central to me. So, I DO need it.
For the purpose of debate, anyone can concede any point.


No, there is simply not alive. I said yet, but the point is that it is not living. There is no living person inside of the womb at eight weeks (the point when the majority of abortions have occurred).

You continue to mix.
There is definitely something living in the womb ast 8 weeks.
Whether that is a person, that's the question you're posing, and you're using the brain activity as the measurent.
Fair enough.

That is the worst analogy I have ever heard in a discussion of the abortion issue. I seriously question your ability to discuss the issue rationally if you can actually hold to that claim.
I'm talking about rights. You have to be a legal person to have rights under the law of our society. The fetus is not a person. The basis on which it is deemed not a person is that it has not yet been born into the world.

How many of your requirements are needed for a person to exist in your world?
The breathing air part will do for starters.

Is it possible to interact with a person in the world, yet not be in the world oneself?
A person outside of this world cannot interact with a person in the world -- unless you believe in spiritualism? I don't believe in ghosts or seances, myself.

Why is this if the fetus is not a person in the world?
Why should we care about the viability if it is not a person in the world?
Can a viable fetus rent an apartment?
Now you are blurring the abortion issue between early term and late term, almost like a person who tries to make all abortions seem like "partial birth abortion."

Viability is the end phase of fetal development. When a fetus is viable, it can survive outside the mother's body, meaning that its body is developed enough that the organs can start to function even if birth is premature. A viable fetus is, for all intents and purposes, a finished human being, ready to be born and take its first breath. Nobody aborts a viable fetus except in extreme cases of medical necessity. There is no such thing as an elective late term abortion. No woman will demand it, no doctor will do it, and no law will permit it. So it's covered three different ways.

Elective abortions are done at the beginning of pregnancy, not at the end of it. The vast majority of elective abortions are terminating embryos -- not even fetuses yet. Are you honestly trying to imply that an embryo that has no functioning organs, not even a brain stem yet, is comparable to a born person? Are you honestly trying to say that an embryo is an entity separate from the body of the woman it is growing in? Do you think, if she miscarried that embryo, it would continue to develop outside her body, just the way, if she went into labor in the 7th month the born baby could continue to live?

You are attempting to embue a fetus with the rights of a person, and to do so, you are pretending that fully developed, viable fetuses get aborted electively. This is just plain not true.

And it has nothing to do with rights. Rights do not attach to the fetus until it becomes independent of its mother's body -- i.e. viability followed by birth.

Not entirely.
If one party has nothing to lose, then it doesn't matter whether the other party does or does not.
Does a viable fetus have something to lose?
As I explained above, a viable fetus is not going to be aborted.

One more time to drive home the point, is it possible to interact with a person in the world, yet not be in the world oneself?
One more time to drive home the point, no, I do not believe so.

Or does the fetus NOT interact with the mother??
Not as a separate person, no, it does not.

As a parasitic organism, yes it does. But not as a person.

Your question then is: "Can a fetus utilize the benefits of the obligations placed on society?"

You say certainly no.

I beg to differ.
It certainly can. Not today perhaps, but it most certainly can in time. I'm not referring to a "possibility" but a certainty, provided nothing intervenes to prevent the natural course of events.

By your argument, not only the persistent vegetative state sufferers, but anyone in coma would be unable to utilize the benefits immediately. Hell, even those asleep won't qualify.

A key word in your argument is "persistent". Some will argue even against that, but I'm comfortable accepting it. Persistent though tells us that there is no future, nothing is going to change, it's not just at this moment, it's permanent.

There is nothing persistent about the state of the fetus, and that is what you can't apply the same argument to it.


The only way you can make the argument for future use is if you claim that the fetus is already a being with experiences, that the fetus is something that can value the experience of life.

Those that are in comas have an established right to life, they have an established stake in life, and as such that claim is to be respect if they have the future ability to resume it.

Seriously, everything boils down to either a question of at what point is a human life worth preserving, in the face of another's desire to end that life, for whatever reason, or does being 100% responsible for keeping someone else alive give you the power to end that life at any time, for any reason at all?:(

100% responsible and physically responsible are two different things. I am 100% responsible for the welfare of my dog. No one else has any responsibility towards him. However, he is not drawing sustinance from my body, nor does he reside in my uterus. He is not using my body against my will. As such, the comparison doesn't really work, does it?

Part of the problem is that you have been defending someone else's posts.
That person wouldn't recognise personhood until birth.
Jocabia has understood my point perfectly, but you have misunderstood it.

There are three different questions here: (1) life; (2) viability; and (3) personhood. I said that, under the law, personhood begins at birth. Do you understand that "personhood" is a legal concept, meaning it is a definition under law, not medical science or even philosophy? It is used to determine who the law applies to and who has claim to rights under the law. Rights are also a legal concept having to do with the ability to control one's interactions with others and the effects of those interactions -- right to free speech, right to vote, right to travel, right to marry, right to own/sell property, etc, etc. It has nothing to do with fetal development, and because the question of precisely when a human being becomes complete and independent is fuzzy and subject to change as science advances, the law errs on the conservative side and says, "well we know for certain it's a person when it's born, so that's the functional starting moment for legal personhood." No legal rights or obligations are ever attached to a non-person, so legally a fetus has no rights.

Now, in order to be nice and responsive to the feelings of society, the law may extend some limited rights to a fetus, but if those granted rights conflict with the rights of a born person, the born person will win out under the law every time. That is my point about rights and personhood.

If you're arguing from brain activity, then that's a different debate and a position I can accept even.
Philosophically, I also believe that the fetus becomes a separate entity at the point of brain activity. I'm pretty confident the vast majority of people would agree with this. This is why there is no such thing as an elective late term abortion.

Because while it's unimportant to him, it is central to me. So, I DO need it.
For the purpose of debate, anyone can concede any point.
I believe the crux of the abortion debate is rights, so the issue of what the fetus is and when it becomes it is ultimately irrelevant to deciding whether a woman should have the right to abort a pregnancy. I do not concede "personhood" of the fetus because I don't want to open a can of worms in which some anti-choice people will try to apply contract law to fetuses (I've still got the posts from an old thread in which that happened*).


(*That's right, Adriatica, I saved them to my hard drive. ;))

You continue to mix.
There is definitely something living in the womb ast 8 weeks.
Whether that is a person, that's the question you're posing, and you're using the brain activity as the measurent.
Fair enough.
In my view, prior to brain activity, what is living in the uterus is, first a clump of rapidly changing cells, and next an unformed parasitic organism that is completely dependent on the life of one other organism (the woman) to continue existing. At the start of brain activity, the fetus is a separate entity, but it is still not a legal "person" yet. I would be willing to discuss a compromise position on legal "personhood" but I will need to limber up my contract law memory to fend off the bogus arguments it will likely attract from other parties.

One of the many things that I see in the abortion debate is the following

Pro-lifer: Abortion is wrong because X, Y and Z
Pro-choicer: Ok thats fine. You believe that but dont force me to abide by your beliefs

The flaw in this argument is that
A: - It assumes the points raised by the pro-lifer are subjective (which is often not the case, but that's not what I am here discussing)
B: - It assumes that government does not have a role in choosing to enforce right and wrong

The fact is the government chooses things that it considers right and wrong and enforces them or not. The idea that if something is wrong we should still be able to choose about it is absurd. Imagine the scenerio where theft is legal because the government has no place enforcing right and wrong. The government is in that place. What it is important to do is to discuss whether or not abortion is objectively wrong or not. Not whether the government has the right to enforce it, that much is a given.

Wow, this pretty much flies in the face of my entire political beliefs. A serious rethinking may be in the works...

Not really.

In the first place, you are maintaining basically that any limitations the government has on enforcing the law (we call them "rights") are superfluous. In other words, it shouldn't matter if there is a right to privacy that precludes enforcement of what may be a "good" law in theory, but unenforcable because of allowances made for liberty. But the same thing can apply to rights that are less controversial. (Screw a fair trial; the guy's guilty as sin! Screw political freedoms; that guy is a socialist! etc.) While you are absolutely right that enforcement of any law is in essence, forcing other people to abide by your beliefs; you are dead wrong in saying ipso facto the government should "right" every "wrong."

Also, there might be practical reasons why a government doesn't enforce something. For example, most people would agree that adultery is wrong, but we don't have laws against it. The reason is the law assumes that, compared to offing someone or assaulting someone, or even driving recklessly, really doesn't present an enormous threat to society. It's enough that adultery is frowned upon.

As a libertarian, I believe that when our laws are limited to those things that interfere with another person's free will (and I understand that is somewhat a question of debate concerning abortion), we have more respect for those laws.

I'm not going to play with you.
I've made the point crystal clear.
I made no such claim as you imply I did.

You are free to disagree with Lewis and his point if you wish, or rather, with the imaginary point you think he's making.

I'm not implying you said anything. I asked a question and I've adequately demonstrated why I asked it. Lewis bastardized an idea to dismiss all the evidence against his position and claimed he'd made a case. It's a poor argument. You want him to be right so you're getting upset because I've demonstrated the flaw in his argument. You brought it here and you're not prepared to deal with problems in his argument. Perhaps next time you should think twice before claiming him as a source.

Or maybe you could just actually answer my questions and stop getting annoyed because I'm debunking your assertions and your evidence. This at least the second time you've made an assertion or presented evidence and then acted like I did something wrong by showing the flaw it. It's called debate. Feel free to explore that word further if you like.

Since you're unwilling to establish or defend your evidence we can consider your CS Lewis evidence debunked.

Agreed, one is a consequence. But it is a necessary consequence, and the prime complaint.

It is currently a necessary consequence. Will that always be the case?

And it is the prime complaint, but those complaining cannot logically suggest that the right to choose abortion is the "right to murder" or the "right to kill". It isn't. It is the right to end a pregnancy, which currently means terminating the development of an embryo or fetus.

While I fully admit that there are a great many people who are against abortion as they feel it encourages promiscuity, I would argue that many dissidents would support abortion if it maintained the viability of the fetus.

They might. They might not. I'd venture a guess that since most of them seem to want to control sexual habits more than worry about children, most of them would find a reason to complain anyways.

This is a false dichotomy, very few of us are capable of generating the means to supporting someone without sacrificing our body in some way.

Really? What part of your body do you lose when you take care of another? In what other instance are you forced to allow someone else to use your body against your will? In what other instance does someone draw directly upon your body against your will?

<snip>
They might. They might not. I'd venture a guess that since most of them seem to want to control sexual habits more than worry about children, most of them would find a reason to complain anyways.
<snip>
This is an interesting point (digression). If only science could get us to the point where a developing fetus could be transferred, alive, from one woman to another or even placed into cryogenic storage like embryos in fertility clinics, to be kept in case some future women want to be implanted with them. Then all "murder-death-kill" arguments against abortion would vanish. Would that put an end to the debate, or would the "stop the sluts" moralists keep on fighting it? On what grounds, I wonder?

Part of the problem is that you have been defending someone else's posts.
That person wouldn't recognise personhood until birth.

If you're arguing from brain activity, then that's a different debate and a position I can accept even.

He's dealt with this adequately, so I'll leave that to him.

I can defend his position even if it's not my position. Your position is logically flawed. His isn't. I can see that even when I don't agree with him. Much the same way that though I agree with the idea of objective morality as a Christian I don't think Lewis' defense of it is logical. Objective people can analyze the logic of something without agreeing with it. I've noticed this is not something you're very good at.

Because while it's unimportant to him, it is central to me. So, I DO need it.
For the purpose of debate, anyone can concede any point.

Except to concede a point means you can argue from that basis and since he doesn't permit that argument from either side, he shouldn't concede the point and allow you to draw it in. Shows that your point is logically consistent or necessary and I'm sure he'll address. Don't lazily ask him to concede a point he doesn't hold to be true as true. In fact, you didn't ask, you suggested that it's the only reasonable thing to do to manipulate him into conceding.

You continue to mix.
There is definitely something living in the womb ast 8 weeks.
Whether that is a person, that's the question you're posing, and you're using the brain activity as the measurent.
Fair enough.
I'm not mixing. There is nothing living in the womb at eight weeks. It does not meet the biological criteria for a living organism. Meanwhile, the living person point is related to the medical definition not the legal one. However, it's clear that one must be medically and biologically living before becoming a legal or philosophical person to anyone who simply isn't just trying to force their beliefs. There is no philosophical part to what I am saying. The fact that I am making a medical argument is clear. Try to follow along.

I'm starting to grow tired of this. You play little games with words to avoid addressing the actual points and every time we get to the meat of the issue to you tell me I can have my beliefs and drop the string of argument. Concede my points or don't argue at all, but the laziness of quitting every time I back you against the wall is annoying, particularly when your argument relies on pretending like you can't accept that the medical field uses the word person as well.

It is currently a necessary consequence. Will that always be the case?

And it is the prime complaint, but those complaining cannot logically suggest that the right to choose abortion is the "right to murder" or the "right to kill". It isn't. It is the right to end a pregnancy, which currently means terminating the development of an embryo or fetus.

I agree with you, but there is a conflict between the right to choose and what they percieve as a right to life.

Really? What part of your body do you lose when you take care of another? In what other instance are you forced to allow someone else to use your body against your will? In what other instance does someone draw directly upon your body against your will?

Whatever functions of the body you use to make a living, whatever functions of the body it takes to physically care for someone.

I'm talking about rights. You have to be a legal person to have rights under the law of our society. The fetus is not a person. The basis on which it is deemed not a person is that it has not yet been born into the world.


I'm also talking about rights, in fact, I'm fairly certain we all are.
If your point was actually true, then the viable fetus we've been discussing, which has NOT been "born into the world" would never be afforded rights under the law of our society.
But it is.
So clearly, your concept that a person must have been born into the world is inconsistent with society and its laws.

Now you are blurring the abortion issue between early term and late term, almost like a person who tries to make all abortions seem like "partial birth abortion."

...
You are attempting to embue a fetus with the rights of a person, and to do so, you are pretending that fully developed, viable fetuses get aborted electively. This is just plain not true.

And it has nothing to do with rights. Rights do not attach to the fetus until it becomes independent of its mother's body -- i.e. viability followed by birth.


I'm not blurring anything, I'm taking your arguments at face value.
You have told me that personhood only begins at birth, when a breath is taken.
I'm not pretending that ANYTHING happens, I'm discussing the issue of where and why we draw the lines of abortion.

You are being inconsistent.
You categorically state that personhood begins at birth; that rights can only attach to a born, then chastise me when I question the personhood and rights of the fetus once it reaches a viable state.

You have staked your argument at a clear demarcation point, birth. I'm questioning why and you're providing very little except incredulous questions and assurances that no one wants abortions in the trimester preceding birth anyways.
That's nice, but it has nothing to do with a debate on where and why we have rules, laws and rights detailing when abortions can be performed.


As I explained above, a viable fetus is not going to be aborted.

By your arguments, it certainly could.


Not as a separate person, no, it does not.

As a parasitic organism, yes it does. But not as a person.

So, it is your contention that when a pregnant woman names, and sings to and talks to and soothes and rubs the fetus in her womb, she is in fact alone, and merely interacting with a parasitic organism?

Why then does a born person already react to the sound of their mother's voice? How is that possible? They have never interacted with her in this world before and were in fact, supposedly incapable of having experiences.

The only way you can make the argument for future use is if you claim that the fetus is already a being with experiences, that the fetus is something that can value the experience of life.


A fetus does have experiences.
Some soothing and familiar, some traumatising.

A fetus does have experiences.
Some soothing and familiar, some traumatising.
How so ... at the stages we are talking about they do not have the ability to sense their suroundings

A fetus does have experiences.
Some soothing and familiar, some traumatising.

No, they have sensations, and there is a momumental difference.

Jocabia has understood my point perfectly, but you have misunderstood it.



No, I haven't, I disagree with it, but I haven't misunderstood it.
I didn't say Jocabia did not understand your point, that is irrelevant (and also implies that you have misunderstood my point to him). Jocabia answered questioned directed to you. You are using birth, he is using brain activity.

No legal rights or obligations are ever attached to a non-person, so legally a fetus has no rights.

Now, in order to be nice and responsive to the feelings of society, the law may extend some limited rights to a fetus, but if those granted rights conflict with the rights of a born person, the born person will win out under the law every time. That is my point about rights and personhood.


Well, you're contradicting yourself. You say no rights, then turn right around and admit to at least limited rights.
"Feelings of society" is abogus attempt to devalue a point you're not comfortable with.

Whether you enjoy the fact or not and limited or not, the fetus DOES have some rights.
You may feel that those rights should be easily over-ruled by any right of any born person, but that does move us into a different realm. A realm of conflict.
If the fetus has no rights, there is no conflict.


Philosophically, I also believe that the fetus becomes a separate entity at the point of brain activity. I'm pretty confident the vast majority of people would agree with this. This is why there is no such thing as an elective late term abortion.


What do we base our legal definitions on then?
You refer to legal personhood almost as if it is some some concept, immutable and obvious, when in fact, as all legal definitions, it's whatever we as a society deem it to be.
If there is agreement that brain activity is the demarction point for being a separate entity and if brain activity is the test we use to determine human life, then that can function also as our legal definition of a person, if we want it to.

Another interesting thing is that abortion is usually portrayed as a "women's right". What about the rights of unborn human? So women can not kill people whom they dont want/like but they can kill unborn people?
Besides she can always use a morning after pill if she wasnt protected. No need to kill the baby.

Should the father of the fetus not also have whatever rights the mother does as to the fate of the fetus?

I'm not implying you said anything. I asked a question and I've adequately demonstrated why I asked it. Lewis bastardized an idea to dismiss all the evidence against his position and claimed he'd made a case. It's a poor argument. You want him to be right so you're getting upset because I've demonstrated the flaw in his argument. You brought it here and you're not prepared to deal with problems in his argument. Perhaps next time you should think twice before claiming him as a source.

Or maybe you could just actually answer my questions and stop getting annoyed because I'm debunking your assertions and your evidence. This at least the second time you've made an assertion or presented evidence and then acted like I did something wrong by showing the flaw it. It's called debate. Feel free to explore that word further if you like.

Since you're unwilling to establish or defend your evidence we can consider your CS Lewis evidence debunked.



1. I did not bring C.S. Lewis here, your memory fails you.
2. You have not demonstrated a flaw, nor debunked Lewis, you've merely disagreed with him.
3. By continually focusing on the specifics, which Lewis admitted are cultural, you miss the point that Lewis is dealing in concepts. I won't discuss the specifics you want me to, because the argument is categorically NOT about them and your continual use of them demonstrates a lack of grasping the point. If you believe that there is no place for the use of concepts, and that only the concrete specifics matter, well then, you will clearly not agree with Lewis, but that is not showing a flaw, nor debunking, it's called having a different point of view.

He's dealt with this adequately, so I'll leave that to him.

I can defend his position even if it's not my position. Your position is logically flawed. His isn't. I can see that even when I don't agree with him. Much the same way that though I agree with the idea of objective morality as a Christian I don't think Lewis' defense of it is logical. Objective people can analyze the logic of something without agreeing with it. I've noticed this is not something you're very good at.


Interesting.
I don't believe I've actually taken any position, so I find it amusing that it would somehow be logically flawed.
I've challenged several postions, questioned and obviously pressed them in a direction, but I have yet to actually make my own position.

You are one of the least objective people I've come across on this forum and you have chosen to argue with me even when we agree, so you'll pardon me if your critique holds no value in my eyes.


I'm starting to grow tired of this. You play little games with words to avoid addressing the actual points and every time we get to the meat of the issue to you tell me I can have my beliefs and drop the string of argument. Concede my points or don't argue at all, but the laziness of quitting every time I back you against the wall is annoying, particularly when your argument relies on pretending like you can't accept that the medical field uses the word person as well.

Stunning.
I accepted your position. That's why I said, "Fair enough". I understand your point of view and am not challenging it anymore.
And yet you still write this?

I shouldn't be surprised...

I'm also talking about rights, in fact, I'm fairly certain we all are.
If your point was actually true, then the viable fetus we've been discussing, which has NOT been "born into the world" would never be afforded rights under the law of our society.
But it is.
So clearly, your concept that a person must have been born into the world is inconsistent with society and its laws.
So, since the law grants rights of personhood to corporations, that means they are actual people? I told you how the law defines a person with regard to fetuses. Is it the only possible definition? Possibly not, but it's the definition the law uses, and that's how the law applies rights. This is all the law is interested in -- making up rules. Sometimes it makes up arbitrary rules. You should be able to comprehend this, since you do it, too.

For instance, I notice you choose to ignore all the parts of my posts in which I exlain the difference between legal terms like "person" and scientific terms like "viable," and where I explain what "rights" are and how the law limits who gets them; and where I talk about the rights fetuses don't have and why they don't have them, and where I explain why I am making this point and what I really think in the more general argument.

Instead of addressing those points, you just keep pressing your argument as if I never said any of them, and effectively misrepresent my argument.

Bottom line on rights: I am talking about what the legal rules are. You are talking about what you wish the legal rules were. My point is a description of reality. Your point is part of an agenda.

I'm not blurring anything, I'm taking your arguments at face value.
You have told me that personhood only begins at birth, when a breath is taken.

I'm not pretending that ANYTHING happens, I'm discussing the issue of where and why we draw the lines of abortion.
No, you are blurring the issue and misrepresenting my argument. Right here in this post, you leave out the qualification legal in front of personhood, and imply that this describes the essential nature of the fetus, not its legal status under the law. You have consistently used descriptors of late term, viable fetuses and applied these to fetuses in general in regards to abortion, ignoring the facts of fetal development even as you insist upon its importance. Obviously, you are trying to extend the concept of "viable fetus" to cover all stages of development and all concepts of law, regardless of what science or law have to say about it.

You are being inconsistent.
You categorically state that personhood begins at birth; that rights can only attach to a born, then chastise me when I question the personhood and rights of the fetus once it reaches a viable state.

You have staked your argument at a clear demarcation point, birth. I'm questioning why and you're providing very little except incredulous questions and assurances that no one wants abortions in the trimester preceding birth anyways.
That's nice, but it has nothing to do with a debate on where and why we have rules, laws and rights detailing when abortions can be performed.
Are you implying that I ever said it should be okay to abort viable fetuses? Quote where I said any such thing. I never did. Do not presume to put words in my mouth just because you can't argue with what I'm actually saying.

And what is so incredulous about any of my questions, aside from the unbelievable fact that, apparently, you can't answer any of them?

And finally, what do you mean "assurances that no one wants abortions in the trimester preceding birth anyways"? Are you trying to imply that there are no laws restricting third trimester abortion?

By your arguments, it certainly could.
Physically, medically, of course it can. If there is extreme medical need or if the fetus dies before birth, it may be. But those would not be elective abortions.

Are you attempting to claim that people seek elective third trimester abortions? Are you attempting to deny that there are laws prohibiting such a thing even if anyone did want it (which they don't)?

Or are you just trying to attribute a statement to me that I never made. Once again, you are misrepresenting my argument, apparently deliberately. Don't waste your time. Everyone can read what I really wrote.

So, it is your contention that when a pregnant woman names, and sings to and talks to and soothes and rubs the fetus in her womb, she is in fact alone, and merely interacting with a parasitic organism?
Yes, of course. She does so because she is looking forward to carrying the pregnancy successfully and is anticipating the completed child, even though it doesn't exist yet.

Btw, people name and sing and talk to their houseplants, too. It doesn't mean that much.

Why then does a born person already react to the sound of their mother's voice? How is that possible? They have never interacted with her in this world before and were in fact, supposedly incapable of having experiences.
How do you know anything about what anybody else experiences, in or out of the womb? How do you know a newborn is responding to this woman's voice above all others in the world? What if the mother dies in childbirth so that she will never speak to it and no one will ever be able to see it react to her? The newborn will respond to someone else's voice then, won't it? This is nothing but sentimentalism on your part.

How so ... at the stages we are talking about they do not have the ability to sense their suroundings


What stages are you talking about?
Depending on who I've been discussing with, we've been covering from sperm to birth.

Feel free to narrow it down though.

No, they have sensations, and there is a momumental difference.


Sensations and memory.

What's the monumental difference then?

No, I haven't, I disagree with it, but I haven't misunderstood it.
I didn't say Jocabia did not understand your point, that is irrelevant (and also implies that you have misunderstood my point to him).
I said he understood it in order to explain how he could explain and defend it. I gave you the benefit of the doubt that you misunderstood it, not that your were deliberately ignoring or distorting it. I'm starting to think I may have been wrong about that.

Jocabia answered questioned directed to you. You are using birth, he is using brain activity.
And I notice you snipped out the part where I clarified my point and my position about brain activity, and that you continue to press your argument against me as if I never made the clarification. That's rather bad form, SE.

Well, you're contradicting yourself. You say no rights, then turn right around and admit to at least limited rights.
"Feelings of society" is abogus attempt to devalue a point you're not comfortable with.
No, I'm not, and no, it isn't. A pregnant woman is murdered. The fact that she was pregnant adds to society's outrage. So, in some jurisdictions -- though not all; and always depending on the stage of the fetus's development -- the prosecutors might add a separate charge of murder for the fetus, even though, legally, it's not a person. This allows the prosecutors to exploit public outrage to get a stiffer sentence against the killer.

I notice that, on this too, you completely ignore and even snip out all my notes on the tenuousness of fetuses as having rights under the law. This is another misrepresentation of my argument.

Whether you enjoy the fact or not and limited or not, the fetus DOES have some rights.
No, in reality, it does not.

You may feel that those rights should be easily over-ruled by any right of any born person, but that does move us into a different realm. A realm of conflict.
I am prepared to argue that conflict, which would only exist if anti-choicers succeed in getting the law to grant rights to fetuses, which it does not currently do.

If the fetus has no rights, there is no conflict.
The conflict today is between those who want to create such a conflict by granting rights to a fetus, and those who don't.

What do we base our legal definitions on then?
After many generations of ethical argument, the law usually settles on expediency in court.

You refer to legal personhood almost as if it is some some concept, immutable and obvious, when in fact, as all legal definitions, it's whatever we as a society deem it to be.
Just like a fetus, it is what it is at any given moment. At this moment it is something you apparently don't want it to be.

If there is agreement that brain activity is the demarction point for being a separate entity and if brain activity is the test we use to determine human life, then that can function also as our legal definition of a person, if we want it to.
Except that the law is waiting for science to provide a firm starting point, and so far, science has not done so because it is still experimenting with it. So the law continues to use birth as the legal personhood starting point, until the scientists reach a consensus firm enough to stand up in court.

Sensations and memory.

What's the monumental difference then?
What memories? You have not shown that people have memories from their time in the uterus.

Should the father of the fetus not also have whatever rights the mother does as to the fate of the fetus?
The burden of obligation and the physical risk level is not the same for the father as for the mother. She is risking her health and possibly her life. He is not. He should have input, absolutely, but he cannot force her to risk her life for another against her will. Neither can he force her to have an abortion against her will. The final decision should be hers.

So, since the law grants rights of personhood to corporations, that means they are actual people? I told you how the law defines a person with regard to fetuses. Is it the only possible definition? Possibly not, but it's the definition the law uses, and that's how the law applies rights. This is all the law is interested in -- making up rules. Sometimes it makes up arbitrary rules. You should be able to comprehend this, since you do it, too.


If your corporation point is important to you, you will want to rephrase, because I'm missing where you're going with it. I'm aware of corporate law, but not how you want to relate it here.

I don't recall making any rules, arbitrary or not, maybe you could point some out?

For instance, I notice you choose to ignore all the parts of my posts in which I exlain the difference between legal terms like "person" and scientific terms like "viable," and where I explain what "rights" are and how the law limits who gets them; and where I talk about the rights fetuses don't have and why they don't have them, and where I explain why I am making this point and what I really think in the more general argument.

Instead of addressing those points, you just keep pressing your argument as if I never said any of them, and effectively misrepresent my argument.


I ignored those parts because I already understood them or agreed with them and it wasn't advancing the discussion.



Bottom line on rights: I am talking about what the legal rules are. You are talking about what you wish the legal rules were. My point is a description of reality. Your point is part of an agenda.


Actually, I've been doing both. I've at times talked about what the legal rules are, and at others, discussed what they could, or perhaps should be.
If we're going to debate what the rules are in reality, we could just fire up Goiogle and race to see who can copy and paste them here first.
The interesting part of any debate is what CAN be.

No, you are blurring the issue and misrepresenting my argument. Right here in this post, you leave out the qualification legal in front of personhood, and imply that this describes the essential nature of the fetus, not its legal status under the law.


Didn't you already establish that personhood is legal? Do I need to type it out as legal personhood every time??

You have consistently used descriptors of late term, viable fetuses and applied these to fetuses in general in regards to abortion, ignoring the facts of fetal development even as you insist upon its importance. Obviously, you are trying to extend the concept of "viable fetus" to cover all stages of development and all concepts of law, regardless of what science or law have to say about it.


I've used late term to describe late term.
I've used viable to describe viable.
That's all.
Obviously I'm trying to extend a concept? No, in fact I'm definitely not trying to do that.
You're jumping at shadows.



Are you implying that I ever said it should be okay to abort viable fetuses? Quote where I said any such thing. I never did. Do not presume to put words in my mouth just because you can't argue with what I'm actually saying.


Nope, I'm not implying that at all.
You definitely, categoricaly never ever said it should be okay to abort viable fetuses.
Happy?

What I said was that based on your arguments, there is no reason not to perform late term abortions on viable fetuses.

You explicitly state that the women won't do that, that doctors won't perform them and that they law doesn't provide for them, but your arguments regarding the lack of rights prior to the defining legal personhood moment of birth can be used to support them.

This differs for example from Jocabia and his brain activity postion.
You might philosophically agree with it, but the legal argument you present doesn't.

Yes, of course. She does so because she is looking forward to carrying the pregnancy successfully and is anticipating the completed child, even though it doesn't exist yet.

Btw, people name and sing and talk to their houseplants, too. It doesn't mean that much.


So, in your estimation, there is no interaction, just the irrational ramblings of a pregnat woman, similar to crazy plant people?

I'm sorry, but the fact that there is interaction is too obvious to entertain the notion. Particularly when the fetus can and does respond.



How do you know anything about what anybody else experiences, in or out of the womb?

Samer way we know anything, observations, tests, studies.



How do you know a newborn is responding to this woman's voice above all others in the world?

Because we can see that it does. A newborn infant will be soothed by the voice of it's mother when no other voice will do so. A newborn infant will attempt to turn to the sound of it's mother's voice.
Yes, this has been tested and proven. It is particularly noticeable if the mother has spent pregnancy time alone in relative quiet and conversed with the fetus. It has learned the sound of her voice and associates it with a warma nd comfortable place.



What if the mother dies in childbirth so that she will never speak to it and no one will ever be able to see it react to her?

What? That's a silly question. Of course, if the mother dies, no one would ever know if that infant had learned, in the womb, to be comforted by it's mother's voice.



The newborn will respond to someone else's voice then, won't it? This is nothing but sentimentalism on your part.

No, it won't. As an infant it may begin to learn to be comforted by and recognise a new voices or voices, but that isn't relevant.

And it's not sentimentalism, it's reality.

And I notice you snipped out the part where I clarified my point and my position about brain activity, and that you continue to press your argument against me as if I never made the clarification. That's rather bad form, SE.


Your clarification of your personal feelings is meaningless to me if it's not something on which you will base the actions we take or the legal definitions we make.

I notice that, on this too, you completely ignore and even snip out all my notes on the tenuousness of fetuses as having rights under the law. This is another misrepresentation of my argument.


Let's make something clear, I'm not attempting to represent your argument at all, that's your job. So stop accusing me of misrepresenting you. The only person I represent is me.
Yes, I ignore your notes on the tenuousness of fetus rights, because frankly, I don't care. My point is that they have some rights. That is different than having no rights.
I'm fully aware of how a prosecutor might exploit a situation to push verdicts and sentencing, but they do that will ALL rights given the chance. It doesn't change the fact that today, in reality, there are legal fetus rights. If there were none, the prosecutor in your example would not be able to add the charge.

Just like a fetus, it is what it is at any given moment. At this moment it is something you apparently don't want it to be.


Sure, is that somehow not allowed in your worldview?
Once upon a time, a black man in America was a slave. Some people didn't want it to be like that.

Except that the law is waiting for science to provide a firm starting point, and so far, science has not done so because it is still experimenting with it. So the law continues to use birth as the legal personhood starting point, until the scientists reach a consensus firm enough to stand up in court.

If medical science could reasonably provide a starting point for brain activity, would you then be favour of extending personhood and legal rights to the fetus at that point?

I call it a child. What do you call it?

Kids dont' quit being parasites until they move out. ;)

Hahaha yeah sometimes!

People make money, and those people are often admired, but the selfishness is not admired. The individuals are often admired IN SPITE of their selfishness because of their success.

That is quite different than what you're referring to and is what Lewis is pointing out.

Hold on so you are saying that admiring selfish people because of the sucess they have via selfish means is not admiring selfishness? So then what would you call it?

Don't be ridiculous. Damages for lost earnings are based on what the injured person had been earning and could have earned based on a reasonable extrapolation from their past work. If you tried to sue your wife for the lost earnings of her aborted fetus you would get exactly what that fetus was capable of earning -- nothing. And then you'd get laughed out of court.


Yeah we have gone through this and I conceded the point. The point I was really trying to get at was the one tha the privious poster addressed regarding the law not making provision for what MAY happen in the future, but being interested in only the here and know.

I brought up the subject of loss of POTENTIAL earnings to show that this was not the case.

I'm not implying you said anything. I asked a question and I've adequately demonstrated why I asked it. Lewis bastardized an idea to dismiss all the evidence against his position and claimed he'd made a case. It's a poor argument. You want him to be right so you're getting upset because I've demonstrated the flaw in his argument. You brought it here and you're not prepared to deal with problems in his argument. Perhaps next time you should think twice before claiming him as a source.

Or maybe you could just actually answer my questions and stop getting annoyed because I'm debunking your assertions and your evidence. This at least the second time you've made an assertion or presented evidence and then acted like I did something wrong by showing the flaw it. It's called debate. Feel free to explore that word further if you like.

Since you're unwilling to establish or defend your evidence we can consider your CS Lewis evidence debunked.


Yeah! heheh sorry a lil biut childish I know but many times I just can't help meself. Anyoo I do belive that I originaly ask to provide proof for objective morality without recourse to God, and we all know that Lewis fella was a Christian. still that's besides the point. The point being Jocabia is right you still have not proved objective morality exists.

Hold on so you are saying that admiring selfish people because of the sucess they have via selfish means is not admiring selfishness? So then what would you call it?

It's called admiring success.

It's called admiring success.

So you think then that the ends justyify the means?

Yeah! heheh sorry a lil biut childish I know but many times I just can't help meself. Anyoo I do belive that I originaly ask to provide proof for objective morality without recourse to God, and we all know that Lewis fella was a Christian. still that's besides the point. The point being Jocabia is right you still have not proved objective morality exists.

I was never trying to prove objective morality.
As I reminded Jocabia, it wasn't me that brought up Lewis.

BTW, while Lewis did convert to belief in God, I believe the reason that the person brought up his argument is that Lewis formed the argument WITHOUT recourse to God just as you asked for.

So you think then that the ends justyify the means?


No, I don't, that has nothing to do with it, nor does what I believe.

I was never trying to prove objective morality.
As I reminded Jocabia, it wasn't me that brought up Lewis.

BTW, while Lewis did convert to belief in God, I believe the reason that the person brought up his argument is that Lewis formed the argument WITHOUT recourse to God just as you asked for.

Then appolgies to you, my remarks where of course meant for whoever mad et he original.

No, I don't, that has nothing to do with it, nor does what I believe.


Then you belive that to admire selfish men for their sucess via selfish means does eqaute to admiring selfishness?

You have entirely missed Lewis' point.
The grey area comes in how the objective point is carried out and under what circumstances one can excuse oneself from the objective point.
It's also quite categorically NOT a judgement on whenther most people are good or bad or in between, but deals only with the fact that we know that being selfish, to use his example, if bad. Different cultures may label different actions as selfish, but that is that grey area you're discussing.

No, it appears you have missed mine; there is no objective morality.

The real question is, is that under 12 weeks old (that's the time after getting pregnant abortion can be made here in Finland) piece of meat in the woman's womb really a human? If it isn't, there can be no murder. IMO it isn't. Because if we'll say it is, then we can start saying that a load of sperm is an unborn baby, and every time I masturbate I commit a homicide. And that would be ridiculous. When that embryo developes brains and starts to sense things around it... Then it becomes immoral to kill it.
Just my opinion though.
And the corollaries of that are:
Any person who has a vasectomy or a hysterectomy is guilty of murder.
Any man who has a wet dream is guilty of manslaughter.
Any woman who has a miscarriage is guilty of manslaughter, or at the very least death through negligence (any action a woman takes during pregnancy can cause a miscarriage - I think something like 70% of pregnancies end in a miscarriage before the woman even knows she's pregnant, but don't hold me to that.)
Hell, a period could be termed as murder too - after all, that egg was a potential baby, and your body didn't let it come to term.
That's the problem with anti-choice folk calling a fertilised egg a human - it can be reduced to absurdity.

Then you belive that to admire selfish men for their sucess via selfish means does eqaute to admiring selfishness?


I believe that rewarding selfishness with admiration rewards negative behaviour.

That is separate entirely from the argument though. The point is that while people will admire the successful selfish person, they do not do so because of the selfishness, but in spite of it. They still recognise selfishness as a wrong behaviour, but they value the success enough to overlook what they believe to be wrong.

One of the many things that I see in the abortion debate is the following

Pro-lifer: Abortion is wrong because X, Y and Z
Pro-choicer: Ok thats fine. You believe that but dont force me to abide by your beliefs

The flaw in this argument is that
A: - It assumes the points raised by the pro-lifer are subjective (which is often not the case, but that's not what I am here discussing)
B: - It assumes that government does not have a role in choosing to enforce right and wrong

The fact is the government chooses things that it considers right and wrong and enforces them or not. The idea that if something is wrong we should still be able to choose about it is absurd. Imagine the scenerio where theft is legal because the government has no place enforcing right and wrong. The government is in that place. What it is important to do is to discuss whether or not abortion is objectively wrong or not. Not whether the government has the right to enforce it, that much is a given.

I'm not sure what are the debates in the states about abortion, there really isn't a debate here in Europe, nor should there be. A woman own's her body and anything inside that body, the entity inside the body does not yet have rights nor should it be accorded them. Therefore person x who tries to ban abortions is trying to impose his/her moral codes on another person's physical being. Of course in the UK there are limits on when abortions can take place, mainly based around the point at which the child could survive outside the womb. Person x should shut up.

I'm not sure what are the debates in the states about abortion, there really isn't a debate here in Europe, nor should there be.

That's because Europe resolved the issue in its legislatures, rather than letting the courts make a controversial decision.

No, it appears you have missed mine; there is no objective morality.


That's not a point, that's a topic you were discussing.

A woman own's her body and anything inside that body, the entity inside the body does not yet have rights nor should it be accorded them.
...
Of course in the UK there are limits on when abortions can take place, mainly based around the point at which the child could survive outside the womb.

If a woman own's her body and anything in it, and if the fetus does not yet have rights, then on what basis are the limits formed regarding when abortions can take place? Why does it matter if the child could survive outside the womb if the woman owns it and it has no rights?

Its not about whether people agree whether its right or wrong. Its about whether it is. If people majoritviely agreed that theft was ok that wouldn't make it ok.


How contradictive.....

So you decide what is right and what is wrong? I think not!

False.

Selfishness is putting oneself ahead of others.


I'd say that is ONE interpretation, but not entirely definitive.

I am very selfish, for example, when it comes to my daughter's education - I put her ahead of others.

Your question then is: "Can a fetus utilize the benefits of the obligations placed on society?"

You say certainly no.

I beg to differ.
It certainly can. Not today perhaps, but it most certainly can in time. I'm not referring to a "possibility" but a certainty, provided nothing intervenes to prevent the natural course of events.

By your argument, not only the persistent vegetative state sufferers, but anyone in coma would be unable to utilize the benefits immediately. Hell, even those asleep won't qualify.

A key word in your argument is "persistent". Some will argue even against that, but I'm comfortable accepting it. Persistent though tells us that there is no future, nothing is going to change, it's not just at this moment, it's permanent.

There is nothing persistent about the state of the fetus, and that is what you can't apply the same argument to it.

It's an argument from potential... and thus, not really a rational argument.

Yes - given sufficient time, EVERY foetus that is lucky enough to make it to the 'birth' stage WILL become a living, breathing human - assuming they make it 'intact'.

Of course - not ALL foetuses MAKE it to that stage, eevn WITHOUT artificial abortion.

But - for the sake of argument, we shall assume that every foetus, without interference, WILL become a 'person'.

Does THAT mean they should be accorded the same rights as a person, in utero?

By comparison - do we bury the living?

Without intereference, every living person WILL become a dead one - so, logically, if we make the same argument from potential, we should start burying people pretty much as soon as they are born, yes?

Do we allow infants to drive?

Without interference, every infant WILL become an adult - so, logically, if we make the sam argument from potential, we should start allowing infants to drive as soon as they have sufficient coordination to hold the wheel, yes?


That is why the 'argument from potential' is so flawed. We can CLEARLY see that there are defined 'stages' of human existence - both those we impose ourselves (such as voting age), and those that are 'natural' (such as puberty or death).

It is ridiculous to even PRETEND that all stages of progression from fertilised egg through to deathbed, are equivalent.

Should the father of the fetus not also have whatever rights the mother does as to the fate of the fetus?

The SAME rights?

No.

Not until a 'father' can actually carry the pregnancy, should a 'father' have the SAME rights.

I'd say that is ONE interpretation, but not entirely definitive.

I am very selfish, for example, when it comes to my daughter's education - I put her ahead of others.


LOL

I believe that rewarding selfishness with admiration rewards negative behaviour.

That is separate entirely from the argument though. The point is that while people will admire the successful selfish person, they do not do so because of the selfishness, but in spite of it. They still recognise selfishness as a wrong behaviour, but they value the success enough to overlook what they believe to be wrong.


Then I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this one. To my mind if you place a higher vaule of the end result than on the methods to get that result, easpecily if the methods are immoral or unethical, then that means you condone them methods. If you condone them, that means you see nowt wrong with it.

Think of Nike and their sweatshops, or buying fur clothing or battery chickens, similarly if you admire a man who has made it to the top by being a complete bastard, then you condone his methods, which means you agree with them.

1. I did not bring C.S. Lewis here, your memory fails you.

You defended the evidence. That makes it your evidence. If you don't wish to actually defend an argument like Lewis', here's a tip - Don't.

2. You have not demonstrated a flaw, nor debunked Lewis, you've merely disagreed with him.

Not disagreed. His logic is flawed so his argument is flawed. Thus it is not evidence of his conclusion.

3. By continually focusing on the specifics, which Lewis admitted are cultural, you miss the point that Lewis is dealing in concepts. I won't discuss the specifics you want me to, because the argument is categorically NOT about them and your continual use of them demonstrates a lack of grasping the point. If you believe that there is no place for the use of concepts, and that only the concrete specifics matter, well then, you will clearly not agree with Lewis, but that is not showing a flaw, nor debunking, it's called having a different point of view.
I don't miss the point. I know what his point is. He bastardizes the concept so that he can make his argument. I see the point. And I understand why he made it. He didn't have a better argument. However, when talking about something like his claim one must very much look at the specifics.

I love that. You can't actually show a flaw in my logic so you have to accuse me of not understanding. The FACT of the matter is that you cannot claim that a culture that thinks kind A of selfishness is wrong but not kind B and a culture that thinks kind B of selfishness is wrong but not kind A cannot be considered to have a objective agreement on the wrongness of selfishness. Clearly what one finds wrong is not the selfishness itself but kind A of selfishness. It's not a different point of view if the argument is flawed. His evidence would stand up in a debate or in symposium on the matter. He hasn't proven anything because his argument has a giant hole Roseanne Barr could walk through.

You don't dismiss someone pointing out the flaws in an argument as a different point of view. It's not for you or for him to set the terms. The fact is that his argument does not in any way shape or form discuss an objective view on morality but claims it does. It's not his opinion. It's just false.

Then I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this one. To my mind if you place a higher vaule of the end result than on the methods to get that result, easpecily if the methods are immoral or unethical, then that means you condone them methods. If you condone them, that means you see nowt wrong with it.

Think of Nike and their sweatshops, or buying fur clothing or battery chickens, similarly if you admire a man who has made it to the top by being a complete bastard, then you condone his methods, which means you agree with them.


You and I don't disagree, but because you and I refuse to accept results as a positive if the methods were negatives does not mean that others feel the same.

Sensations and memory.

What's the monumental difference then?

Memory is a stretch, do you have anything showing a fetus can form memories.

Sensation is nothing more than a chemical and physical interaction, the impression of an outside force on the body. When one touches a worm, it will instinctively curl up, as it reacts to the sensation.

Experience is the formation of ideas around a sensation, it is the conscious recognition of sensation.

Memory is a stretch, do you have anything showing a fetus can form memories.

Sensation is nothing more than a chemical and physical interaction, the impression of an outside force on the body. When one touches a worm, it will instinctively curl up, as it reacts to the sensation.

Experience is the formation of ideas around a sensation, it is the conscious recognition of sensation.

If we assume that the formation of memories requires that the 'memory' areas of the brain be integrated with the sensory areas, then we can be pretty certain that a foetus can NOT form memories until at LEAST the 20th week, when the brain is finally something close to functional.

You and I don't disagree, but because you and I refuse to accept results as a positive if the methods were negatives does not mean that others feel the same.

Obviously and that is just the way it is, and should be I guess. Heh as I may have already said, I'm a champion of subjectivity.

Yeah we have gone through this and I conceded the point. The point I was really trying to get at was the one tha the privious poster addressed regarding the law not making provision for what MAY happen in the future, but being interested in only the here and know.

I brought up the subject of loss of POTENTIAL earnings to show that this was not the case.

It seems that you may have taken it out of context, however. Earnings do not have rights. When we calculate potential earnings, we are dealing with the rights of human beings who have, in some way, been harmed such that they cannot pursue their own career and continue to earn as they should. We are dealing with the rights of a person, not a potential person.

We do not, however, grant legal rights on the basis of potential. A child does not get to vote because they have the potential to one day be 18. I cannot draw social security because I have the potential to one day be elderly. I cannot claim a child on my taxes because I may potentially have a child in the future. And so on....

Interesting.
I don't believe I've actually taken any position, so I find it amusing that it would somehow be logically flawed.

Yes, yes. We get those like you a lot. Because they don't say things outright, they think that we can't hold them to a position. It's a weak way of arguing and it doesn't work with anyone with an ounce of skill in debate.

I've challenged several postions, questioned and obviously pressed them in a direction, but I have yet to actually make my own position.

Poorly. You forgot to add poorly to your statements.

You are one of the least objective people I've come across on this forum and you have chosen to argue with me even when we agree, so you'll pardon me if your critique holds no value in my eyes.

Arguing with you when we agree is objective. You appear to not understand the term. If your argument is flawed, it's flawed. Period. I don't care if I agree with your conclusion. I'm objective so I address the argument of those on 'my' side and on 'their' side equally.

Stunning.
I accepted your position. That's why I said, "Fair enough". I understand your point of view and am not challenging it anymore.
And yet you still write this?

I shouldn't be surprised...

You accepted a part of my position while dropping the rest after insulting it. Struggling to follow? You didn't say fair enough to the medical part. You accused me of mixing because you can't accept that medical personnel call people *gasp* people. You make these lame arguments about things you aren't following and then when we nail you to that wall or get close to it, you simply drop the point. I've seen you do it several times now.

Take your assertion about conception. We do the work to show how ridiculous your assertions are. And they aren't just "I think this". They are assertions that suggest that people who don't agree simply don't understand biology (because as you usual you have to claim that people who don't agree with you are simply unable to understand). "the biology of the situation is clear." And of course, it's not. You are claiming that a single point in development is more significant than others and biology makes no such claim, nor can it. Yet when I actually do the work to show why it's a ridiculous claim, a fair opinion, but ridiculous claim, I get this weak stuff -
"It's not important enough to the discussion to travel this road. Hold those views if you so wish."

Accept that you're wrong. You cannot show any reason why that moment is more significant than implantation when a more careful selection is made or any of the other moments I mentioned. You couldn't support your claims so you pretend like you're simply to busy to discuss it. Ridiculous.

I hate weak arguments, but you're welcome to make them. However, if you're going to do so, perhaps you should act a little less pompous. You've been claiming that your points are simply too brilliant for our little minds to comprehend throughout the thread and by my count you're getting your ass kicked. Shall I quote you? I'm patient. I'll quote all the times you suggested that one or more of us were incapable of understand your wise arguments when we destroy them. I can show the plethora of points you've dropped. I'll be glad to do it. Shall I?

I admit I'm pompous. Frequently. However, I'm willing to defend my claims rather than simply weakly dropping them after insulting people for not agreeing.

It seems that you may have taken it out of context, however. Earnings do not have rights. When we calculate potential earnings, we are dealing with the rights of human beings who have, in some way, been harmed such that they cannot pursue their own career and continue to earn as they should. We are dealing with the rights of a person, not a potential person.

We do not, however, grant legal rights on the basis of potential. A child does not get to vote because they have the potential to one day be 18. I cannot draw social security because I have the potential to one day be elderly. I cannot claim a child on my taxes because I may potentially have a child in the future. And so on....

Granted, but you do have to pay car insurance because you may potentialy crash in the future, and your children will have to pay inheritance tax after you are gone. The point I was making was just that the law does provide for potentials, and even I guess has an affect on those not here, and not just here and nows. Heh still it hardly matters now, it was yesteday, I'm going home shortly, and I can't even remeber the point I'm agruing against anymore:eek:

I believe that rewarding selfishness with admiration rewards negative behaviour.

That is separate entirely from the argument though. The point is that while people will admire the successful selfish person, they do not do so because of the selfishness, but in spite of it. They still recognise selfishness as a wrong behaviour, but they value the success enough to overlook what they believe to be wrong.

I can't believe you're still trying to make this weak argument. Much selfish behavior is rewarded because we don't view selfishness as inherently wrong. Some things we view as wrong happen to include selfish behavior, but we do not universally consider selfishness bad. For example, we encourage people to care more about their own children than the children of others and to take more of a role in the raising of their own child than the children of others. We encourage that form of selfishness. And not in spite of it being selfish but because we want them to be selfish in that way.

We encourage people to provide for themselves before others. We wouldn't revere someone on welfare who gives everything he gets to other families while his starves. We expect a level of selfishness and what level and what kind varies by culture. Thus, selfishness does not have the universal quality of wrong. It's not a grey area. In fact, it's quite black and white.

I could say that all cultures universally use the number four because all of their languages have a sound 'four' (assuming that sound existed in all cultures) but if they sound referred to different things, it's not true. Words have nuances and those nuances are VERY important. The nuances are defined by how we use the term. If selfishness is a objectively bad quality than all forms of selfishness would be considered bad even if tolerable (as in the example you gave). They are not however. The argument breaks down and simply because you ignore the flaw doesn't make it go away.

But, hey, why don't you tell me again how I'm just simply too dumb to understand Lewis.

Granted, but you do have to pay car insurance because you may potentialy crash in the future, and your children will have to pay inheritance tax after you are gone. The point I was making was just that the law does provide for potentials, and even I guess has an affect on those not here, and not just here and nows. Heh still it hardly matters now, it was yesteday, I'm going home shortly, and I can't even remeber the point I'm agruing against anymore:eek:

I'm under the impression that I pay car insurance because they force me to...

If we assume that the formation of memories requires that the 'memory' areas of the brain be integrated with the sensory areas, then we can be pretty certain that a foetus can NOT form memories until at LEAST the 20th week, when the brain is finally something close to functional.

And then does the formation of memory tie into memory as we understand it, with a storing of ideas, or is it more like the conditioning of an insect?

Sensations and memory.

What's the monumental difference then?

Sensations require only the brain stem. They have sensations from the second trimester. Memories require a forebrain and there is little evidence that any fetus can form actual memories even immediately after brith (when the forebrain is still forming). This is why even if you were put into a hypnotic trance you may remember things from early in your childhood, but you would not remember your birth. You are confusing very primitive brain activity that implants things on the brain as we see in even the many basic creatures with memory which hasn't been shown to occur in a fetus and there is even much research being done today about the (in)ability to form memories for a newborn.

And then does the formation of memory tie into memory as we understand it, with a storing of ideas, or is it more like the conditioning of an insect?

Yes, exactly.

That's not a point, that's a topic you were discussing.

Hmmm... really? Objective morality is the topic. His point is there is no objective morality. Seems clear. Perhaps we should look up the term 'point' since you're struggling.

www.m-w.com
1 a (1) : an individual detail : ITEM (2) : a distinguishing detail <tact is one of her strong points> b : the most important essential in a discussion or matter <missed the whole point of the joke> c : COGENCY

I would say that it's pretty clear that in a discussion where he is talking about their being no objective realith that would be "the most important essential in the discussion". But perhaps I just get to caught up on the actual meaning of words instead of insulting people by pretending they used a word wrong when they used it EXACTLY correctly.

Next!

I can see this debate going on and on and on, hehe as I has done for many years. So I'll state my position which although I am a religous man is a rationaly thought out one :eek: and one that I really can't subjectivly see any fault with.

I abhor the very thought of abortion, because when it happens it does deny life to somebody. I'm not going to argue the stage of that life nor the sentience of that life because it has no bearing on the fact that it is life(if we can call a plant alive then surly any fetus is also alive), but if the abortion did not take place then there would hopefully be, in the fullness of time a human, where with the abortion there would be none.

So then does this mean that I belive that taking a human life is immoral, yes of course it does, there is in my mind absolutly no reason for one human to take the life of another, this is a fundemental belief of mine, and goes hand in glove with free will.

Having said that though, I am a libral socialist type of man, so I fully support the womans right to abort, if that is what she feels she must do, again this is a fundemental beliefe of mine and also goes hand in glove with free will.

So what is my stance? Easy really, I don't like it, but it happens, and I have no rights to impose my point of view on another.

Then appolgies to you, my remarks where of course meant for whoever mad et he original.

See, of course, defending a proof of objective morality as correct is not defending the conclusion because that would, well, too open. He was defending the proof. If you beleive a proof is correct than you agree with the conclusion. He's lying when he says he didn't defend that position.

Now, if he was showing a flaw in a proof that would be fine since a flawed proof doesn't show the conclusion is false just not proven in that way. However, he wasn't showing a flaw. He was defending Lewis' position and thus his assertion. Saying otherwise is simply not accurate.

Don't apologize, you reacted to him the same way I did because he was holding that position but doesn't have the nards to actually come out and say it. He's been throughout the thread trying to claim he's not making any assertions because he keeps getting nailed and wants to be able to quit every time someone gets close to nailing him down.

We see it all the time. It's classic.

You defended the evidence. That makes it your evidence. If you don't wish to actually defend an argument like Lewis', here's a tip - Don't.


Here's a tip for you, when you find out that you're confused about who said what, accept it graciously as Peepelonia did, don't try and blame me because you couldn't keep track of who said what.

I don't miss the point. I know what his point is. He bastardizes the concept so that he can make his argument. I see the point. And I understand why he made it. He didn't have a better argument. However, when talking about something like his claim one must very much look at the specifics.



Bold is mine.
The bold highlights how you continue to miss the point regardless of your claim otherwise.
The entire point can only be made broadly, you cannot look at specifics, yet here you are again claiming that one must look at specifics when it based on NOT looking at specifics.



I love that. You can't actually show a flaw in my logic so you have to accuse me of not understanding. The FACT of the matter is that you cannot claim that a culture that thinks kind A of selfishness is wrong but not kind B and a culture that thinks kind B of selfishness is wrong but not kind A cannot be considered to have a objective agreement on the wrongness of selfishness. Clearly what one finds wrong is not the selfishness itself but kind A of selfishness.

Fine, let's play your game.
Clearly, in your own example BOTH cultures think selfishness is wrong. That is the point Lewis is making.
A & B types of selfishness are irrelevant to his point.

You want to remove selfishness from the equatioin and only look at the specific act as a thing in and of itself.

You can do that if you want, but you're not discussing Lewis' point as soon as you attempt it.

It's the same as if Mr. Wiggum told you that there are elephants in Africa and India.
You could point out that there are differences in African and Indian elephants if you want, but it doesn't change the fact that there are elephants in both places. If Mr. Wiggum doesn't care about the differences, if he only cares about Elephants in general, then your points about the specific differences are irrelevant.

Memory is a stretch, do you have anything showing a fetus can form memories.

Sensation is nothing more than a chemical and physical interaction, the impression of an outside force on the body. When one touches a worm, it will instinctively curl up, as it reacts to the sensation.

Experience is the formation of ideas around a sensation, it is the conscious recognition of sensation.


The fetus forms an idea of comfort around the aural sensation of the mother's voice and then later recognises that sensation when it reoccurs.

If we assume that the formation of memories requires that the 'memory' areas of the brain be integrated with the sensory areas, then we can be pretty certain that a foetus can NOT form memories until at LEAST the 20th week, when the brain is finally something close to functional.


That sounds about right.

Bold is mine.
The bold highlights how you continue to miss the point regardless of your claim otherwise.
The entire point can only be made broadly, you cannot look at specifics, yet here you are again claiming that one must look at specifics when it based on NOT looking at specifics.

The problem is that the "broad" point means nothing. "Every culture has a morality," does not in any way support the idea that objective morality exists. It would be like saying, "Every culture has clothes, therefore there is a right and wrong way to dress that is absolute."

The only way to discuss objective morality in this manner is to show that there is something in morality that ALL people agree on. And yet, when it comes right down to it, there isn't. Saying, "Every culture has a concept of what is right and wrong, and even though they disagree, this means that there is a natural law," isn't exactly logical.

Fine, let's play your game.
Clearly, in your own example BOTH cultures think selfishness is wrong. That is the point Lewis is making.
A & B types of selfishness are irrelevant to his point.

Ok, so if one culture defines "selfish" as "freely giving of oneself" and the other culture defines "selfish" as "thinking only of oneself, with a blatant disregard for others," then they actually somehow agree on what is wrong?

If one culture defines "murdering children" as being good, but the other culture says it is bad, they actually agree since they both have beliefs about murdering children?

You want to remove selfishness from the equatioin and only look at the specific act as a thing in and of itself.

That is because it is the only possible way to attribute the idea to an objective morality. Lewis is basically saying, "Everyone has morality, therefore it is objective, even though it is actually really really really subjective."

It's the same as if Mr. Wiggum told you that there are elephants in Africa and India.
You could point out that there are differences in African and Indian elephants if you want, but it doesn't change the fact that there are elephants in both places. If Mr. Wiggum doesn't care about the differences, if he only cares about Elephants in general, then your points about the specific differences are irrelevant.

Wouldn't the fact that the elephants are different mean that there isn't one objective type of elephant? That there are, in fact, at least two different species of elephant?

The fetus forms an idea of comfort around the aural sensation of the mother's voice and then later recognises that sensation when it reoccurs.

But that is a nervous reaction and not a recognition of a thought.

Yes, yes. We get those like you a lot. Because they don't say things outright, they think that we can't hold them to a position. It's a weak way of arguing and it doesn't work with anyone with an ounce of skill in debate.



Must be why it works with you then.
You haven't explained how my position can be logically flawed while you chastise me for not taking a position.

Take your assertion about conception. We do the work to show how ridiculous your assertions are. And they aren't just "I think this". They are assertions that suggest that people who don't agree simply don't understand biology (because as you usual you have to claim that people who don't agree with you are simply unable to understand). "the biology of the situation is clear." And of course, it's not. You are claiming that a single point in development is more significant than others and biology makes no such claim, nor can it. Yet when I actually do the work to show why it's a ridiculous claim, a fair opinion, but ridiculous claim, I get this weak stuff -
"It's not important enough to the discussion to travel this road. Hold those views if you so wish."


You did no work, you listed a few points of development off the top of your head. And you in no way showed anything to be true or false, let alone ridiculous.

I have limited time to devote to these discussions, if you want to chase your tail on an issue that won't help resolve the over all debate, you can do so without me.


Accept that you're wrong. You cannot show any reason why that moment is more significant than implantation when a more careful selection is made or any of the other moments I mentioned. You couldn't support your claims so you pretend like you're simply to busy to discuss it. Ridiculous.


In biological development, some points are more significant than others.
For example, implantatioin is a more significant event than travelling through the fallopian tubes. Why? because it marks a change in the environment and is a milestone of a successful pregancy. Travelling through the fallopian tubes, while necessary, is not as significant.

Conception is one of the most significant development events, it is the first time the genetic code of a new life has been realised. There will be other development events of varying degrees of significance.

And, of course, none of this is important to the discussion of abortion other than the fact that conception is one of 2 easy and clear demarcation points to determine when life begins, the other being birth.


I admit I'm pompous. Frequently. However, I'm willing to defend my claims rather than simply weakly dropping them after insulting people for not agreeing.

No, you're just willing to talk about your claims forever and ever.
You're not nearly interesting enough to warrant even the effort I've already put into discussing your claims with you.

But, hey, why don't you tell me again how I'm just simply too dumb to understand Lewis.

You're too dumb to understand Lewis.
And getting dumber.
If you're going to try and turn independence or self sufficiency into selfishness as if you can't make the distinction, then you clearly are dumb, or simply stubborn and trolling now.

Here's a tip for you, when you find out that you're confused about who said what, accept it graciously as Peepelonia did, don't try and blame me because you couldn't keep track of who said what.

You defended an peice of evidence. That makes it yours. There is no plausible deniability. Stop trying this weak crap and accept that when you defend a proof as correct you are defending it's conclusion. Some of us are students of logic. Abandoning it doesn't make you look like you're correct even if you try to obscure the truth of the matter.


Bold is mine.
The bold highlights how you continue to miss the point regardless of your claim otherwise.
The entire point can only be made broadly, you cannot look at specifics, yet here you are again claiming that one must look at specifics when it based on NOT looking at specifics.

I understand what he tried to do. It's just flawed. It's funny that I continually address it and you continually claim I missed it. You can't make the point broadly because it's illogical. It's flawed. The argument is flawed so he hasn't proven the conclusion. Just because he set out to be broad doesn't change that a look at it more closely proves him wrong.

Gosh, if only I was smart enough to get the point like you, oh great one. If only... *dreams* Forget the fact that I keep addressing that very point and pointing why that point is flawed.

Fine, let's play your game.
Clearly, in your own example BOTH cultures think selfishness is wrong. That is the point Lewis is making.
A & B types of selfishness are irrelevant to his point.

Why? Because you say so. Both cultures don't think SELFISHNESS is wrong. They think certain types of selfishness are wrong. There is a significant difference even if you refuse to acknowledge it.

Culture A thinks cows are good because they're God.
Culture B thinks cows are good to eat.

Conclusion: Cows are objectively good.

Now of course, the conclusion relies on no one actually noticing that the conclusion cannot be reached from the evidence but if anyone points that out I will just claim they are looking at it too closely.

You want to remove selfishness from the equatioin and only look at the specific act as a thing in and of itself.

You can do that if you want, but you're not discussing Lewis' point as soon as you attempt it.

No, I am discussing Lewis' argument. I don't care what his opinion is. He made an argument that is logically wrong. It can be shown simply by looking at the argument more closely.

It's the same as if Mr. Wiggum told you that there are elephants in Africa and India.
You could point out that there are differences in African and Indian elephants if you want, but it doesn't change the fact that there are elephants in both places. If Mr. Wiggum doesn't care about the differences, if he only cares about Elephants in general, then your points about the specific differences are irrelevant.

However, if Mr. Wiggum claimed that people's definition of elephant is objectively the same then I would contest. Because if you asked one culture to describe an elephant they would describe one species and the other would describe another. They are similar, but they are not the same. In terms of objectivity, similar is not good enough.

The fact is that in each society there view of selfishness is colored by their adherance to the views of that society. In each society a person will look at selfishness differently. That is the very definition of subjectivity. If it was objective we wouldn't having this conversation because you'd be able to show that no matter what your point of view OBJECTIVELY selfishness would be treated as wrong. It's not. The fact that it is dependent on the individual looking at it is ample evidence that the argument of Lewis is wrong.

See, of course, defending a proof of objective morality as correct is not defending the conclusion because that would, well, too open. He was defending the proof. If you beleive a proof is correct than you agree with the conclusion. He's lying when he says he didn't defend that position.

Now, if he was showing a flaw in a proof that would be fine since a flawed proof doesn't show the conclusion is false just not proven in that way. However, he wasn't showing a flaw. He was defending Lewis' position and thus his assertion. Saying otherwise is simply not accurate.

Don't apologize, you reacted to him the same way I did because he was holding that position but doesn't have the nards to actually come out and say it. He's been throughout the thread trying to claim he's not making any assertions because he keeps getting nailed and wants to be able to quit every time someone gets close to nailing him down.

We see it all the time. It's classic.

Maybe you should let him make his own posts and choices instread of telling him what to do?

And what happened to your vaunted ability to understand an argument even if you disagree or they are "on the other side"? I guess you were just blowing smoke since now it appears that it must mean you also accept the conclusion.

And I was showing a flaw, the flaw in your understanding.

You're too dumb to understand Lewis.
And getting dumber.
If you're going to try and turn independence or self sufficiency into selfishness as if you can't make the distinction, then you clearly are dumb, or simply stubborn and trolling now.

It fits your broad definition of selfishness and establishes my point. Selfishness is looked at differently by different people, cultures, nations, groups, religions, etc. Pretty much every way I can group people you will get a slighly different view of what selfishness is and in some cases a vastly different view.

Selfishness -
1 : concerned excessively or exclusively with oneself : seeking or concentrating on one's own advantage, pleasure, or well-being without regard for others
2 : arising from concern with one's own welfare or advantage in disregard of others <a selfish act>

You cannot claim that in every culture the above is consider bad. Nor can you say that in every culture everything that falls under the definition you offered is considered bad. You can't even say most cultures or most acts. You simply cannot. Lewis generalizes to the point of absurdity to make his point and a closer look reveals the flaw in the argument.

As far as how I'm getting dumber. Well, if your argument relies on ad hominems and it has repeatedly relied on them, well, I guess that just demonstrates that it can't stand on its own.

Attack my method of arguments. Attack my arguments. But attack me and it simply reveals that even you don't think you can actually deomonstrate your point with logic.

If your corporation point is important to you, you will want to rephrase, because I'm missing where you're going with it. I'm aware of corporate law, but not how you want to relate it here.
Okay, if you need me to connect the dots for you... I mentioned corporate "personhood" to show you that "legal personhood" is a different concept from what a philosopher or other type of thinker might consider a person.

I don't recall making any rules, arbitrary or not, maybe you could point some out?
I did, in the paragraph you are (sort of) responding to -- oh, but maybe that's another pair of dots you need me to connect for you. I was referring to your habit of only referring to half a comment as if it was the entire comment. A cute technique of yours but not proper form in debate.

I ignored those parts because I already understood them or agreed with them and it wasn't advancing the discussion.
If you agree with my points, you should say so and advance the discussion that way. Just excising them and acting as if they never existed is both misleading and rude.

Actually, I've been doing both. I've at times talked about what the legal rules are, and at others, discussed what they could, or perhaps should be.
If we're going to debate what the rules are in reality, we could just fire up Goiogle and race to see who can copy and paste them here first.
And you've been wrong about what the legal rules are, in re their content, their variations, and their practical functions. Btw, google is not the best place to hunt for legal citations. You want Lexis-Nexus, Westlaw and law school databases for that, but it's a hell of a lot of work that requires extensive reading. I admit I tend to rely on The Cat-Tribe for that. He's a lawyer and is used to doing it -- and damned good at it, too. Perhaps he'll grace us and clear it up once and for all.

The interesting part of any debate is what CAN be.
Well perhaps you and I should avoid debating each other then, because I prefer to discuss reality -- such as what really exists, what really is being done, what real agendas are at play, and why it really matters what people do next. Playing around with fictional constructs bores me.

Didn't you already establish that personhood is legal? Do I need to type it out as legal personhood every time??
Actually, it would be helpful to type it out every time because there are two different senses of the word "person" at play in the abortion debate. There's "person" in the legal sense, which is a designation of who/what gets to claim rights under the law and which can be applied to both humans and non-humans. And then there's the more philosophical or, if you will, intuitive use of "person" to mean a human being. Since the word has two different meanings, it is important to make sure we are clear which way we are using it in any given sentence -- "person" or "legal person."

Thus, I personally believe that a fetus becomes a "person" separate from its mother with the beginning of its own brain activity, but I acknowledge that it does not become a "legal person" until birth.

I've used late term to describe late term.
I've used viable to describe viable.
That's all.
Obviously I'm trying to extend a concept? No, in fact I'm definitely not trying to do that.
You're jumping at shadows.
Perhaps I have completely misunderstood you. Perhaps you have been unclear. Or perhaps, since you have not specifically stated your own position on abortion rights, I am interpreting your comments without a proper context. Since you choose simply to tell me that I'm wrong without actually explaining what the right interpretation would be, I will leave it to other readers to decide what they think you are saying and give me guidance.

Nope, I'm not implying that at all.
You definitely, categoricaly never ever said it should be okay to abort viable fetuses.
Happy?
Yes. Thank you.

What I said was that based on your arguments, there is no reason not to perform late term abortions on viable fetuses.
I disagree. I don't think it follows at all because there are other reasons for not doing it that do not depend on the fetus being a legal person.

First of all, we must keep in mind that late term abortions on viable fetuses are performed (rarely) if they are absolutely necessary due to medical problems. If the fetus had rights that are equal to or trump the mother's, this would not happen, so already we see that the fetus is not a legal person equal to a born person.

Second, although the rights of legal personhood do not attach to a viable fetus, the state of philosophical personhood does, and thus it falls under the protection of personal/social ethics and medical ethics. The vast majority of people think it is wrong to kill someone unless it is absolutely necessary to protect oneself or another (personal/social ethics). This is why no one seeks elective abortions of viable fetuses. Medical ethics are an additional and even stronger control because there are actual penalties to doctors who violate them. The cornerstone of medical ethics is the famous "do no harm." Since a viable fetus is viewed as a person (non-legal sense), doctors are bound by their ethics not to harm them unnecessarily. Thus doctors do not perform elective late term abortions.

So, even though the fetus does not have legal rights as a legal person, it is still under the protection of the ethical systems of a society which says unnecessary killing of people is wrong.

You explicitly state that the women won't do that, that doctors won't perform them and that they law doesn't provide for them, but your arguments regarding the lack of rights prior to the defining legal personhood moment of birth can be used to support them.
I disagree. See above.

This differs for example from Jocabia and his brain activity postion.
You might philosophically agree with it, but the legal argument you present doesn't.
So?

First, you are acting as if I am arguing for a legal attitude against fetal rights. All I am doing is describing the current system and its impact on the question of fetal rights. Whether it is right or wrong hasn't even come up yet. (I believe it is right, personally, but my arguments for why have barely been mentioned so far.)

Second, I have already explained why the fetus doesn't have to have rights as a legal person in order for the abortion debate to be argued and (who knows?) someday settled.

Third, where did Jocabia say that brain activity grants a fetus rights?

So, in your estimation, there is no interaction, just the irrational ramblings of a pregnat woman, similar to crazy plant people?
Pretty much, though I don't think it is irrational to encourage something you want to happen, even if you're not really influencing it.

I'm sorry, but the fact that there is interaction is too obvious to entertain the notion. Particularly when the fetus can and does respond.
Proof?

Samer way we know anything, observations, tests, studies.
Links?

Because we can see that it does. A newborn infant will be soothed by the voice of it's mother when no other voice will do so. A newborn infant will attempt to turn to the sound of it's mother's voice.
Yes, this has been tested and proven. It is particularly noticeable if the mother has spent pregnancy time alone in relative quiet and conversed with the fetus. It has learned the sound of her voice and associates it with a warma nd comfortable place.
Again, links, proof, anything?

And what about babies given up for adoption at birth? Whose voice comforts them? Or do you assume they live their entire lives with the gnawing ache of missing that unheard voice?

What? That's a silly question. Of course, if the mother dies, no one would ever know if that infant had learned, in the womb, to be comforted by it's mother's voice.
No one knows because no one notices any difference in its behavior. You have no idea when it first noticed the sound of a person's voice -- before birth or after it. And you have no evidence to suggest that it misses anything if it doesn't hear the voice of the woman who gestated it.

No, it won't. As an infant it may begin to learn to be comforted by and recognise a new voices or voices, but that isn't relevant.
Infants respond to human voices. You have absolutely no proof that they "learn" to recognize one person's voice before they first heard it after they were born, or whether they respond most to their mother's voice because it is the one they hear -- after birth -- most often.

And it's not sentimentalism, it's reality.
Then you must have some supporting evidence to post. I look forward to reading it.

And then does the formation of memory tie into memory as we understand it, with a storing of ideas, or is it more like the conditioning of an insect?

Well - my argument was about when we could ascertain the earliest POTENTIAL memory could be formed.

However, I don't know how that would relate to when memories ARE formed. But, at THAT point, it would be 'mechanically' possible.

Having seen a baby born, and watched him growing - I've noticed that there are some 'reactions' that are pre-coded (like the grip response) many MONTHS before the corresponding processes (like reach and hold) are possible. Thus - while I see that a 20-week foetus may have the 'machinery' for storing memory, I see nothing to suggest that a 20-week foetus DOES store memory.

The first reactions are the most simple... basic reflex arcs. That suggests that the first USE of the connectivity in the brain, is most likely to be 'reflexive' (conditioned response).

Having never met anyone who remembered their OWN birth, I have a lack of data regarding when first 'true' memories might be engineered.

Based on my daughter - with memories from two-years old, I'm fairly confident that 'memory' exists at that point.

Based on my son - with a two-going-on-three word vocabulary at six months, I'm inclined to suspect rudimentary processes at LEAST that early.

Based on the fact that both children exhibited characteristics that suggest 'dreaming' in the first few months, it is entirely possible that 'memory' could be measured at least that early.

Your clarification of your personal feelings is meaningless to me if it's not something on which you will base the actions we take or the legal definitions we make.
Why are you assuming that I don't base my views of what the law should be on my personal beliefs? Just because I have a complex view of the situation and do not base my views on only one criterion doesn't mean my beliefs about this do not factor in. I have said nothing to indicate otherwise.

Let's make something clear, I'm not attempting to represent your argument at all, that's your job. So stop accusing me of misrepresenting you. The only person I represent is me.
Then quit excising whole parts of my statements and writing replies that don't take those points into account.

Yes, I ignore your notes on the tenuousness of fetus rights, because frankly, I don't care. My point is that they have some rights. That is different than having no rights.
And you are wrong about this, as a matter of basic fact. You can argue that fetuses should have legal rights, but you cannot argue that they already do, because they don't.

I'm fully aware of how a prosecutor might exploit a situation to push verdicts and sentencing, but they do that will ALL rights given the chance. It doesn't change the fact that today, in reality, there are legal fetus rights. If there were none, the prosecutor in your example would not be able to add the charge.
Again, you are wrong on the facts. First of all, you have ignored all my earlier comments about the variations of law from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, including my comments about the lack of other kinds of legal protections for fetuses which indicates that they are not actually viewed as legal persons. Second, you ignore the reality that prosecutors can bring any charge against anybody that they think they can make an argument for in court, and that fetal murder charges are sometimes dismissed by judges as improper to the case, and even sometimes ruled against by juries who decide the case was not made that a person was harmed. Also, fetal murder charges can be subject to appeal as being improper. The mere fact that a prosecutor brings a charge does not mean that the charge is legitimately based on a legal right of anyone.

Sure, is that somehow not allowed in your worldview?
Once upon a time, a black man in America was a slave. Some people didn't want it to be like that.
When did I ever say the law is not subject to review? I'm simply telling you what it is today because I reject arguments that paint a person's desires as if they are reality.

If medical science could reasonably provide a starting point for brain activity, would you then be favour of extending personhood and legal rights to the fetus at that point?
No, not necessarily. I would say that we would then have a firm basis on which to discuss whether this person is qualified to be a legal person and if so, how will that affect the rights of other legal persons -- and then to devise a system of laws which will seek to balance and protect everyone's rights to the greatest benefit of individuals and society alike.

Must be why it works with you then.
You haven't explained how my position can be logically flawed while you chastise me for not taking a position.

Actually, I didn't chastise you for not taking a position. I chastised you for pretending you weren't. It's different. You're not too good with the nuances of language, are you?

You did no work, you listed a few points of development off the top of your head. And you in no way showed anything to be true or false, let alone ridiculous.

I can't show them to be true or false. Which is more important than another is a matter of opinion. I did show the biological distinctions and explained why they could be considered important. Thanks for following along.

Interesting that you would claim I did no work in a reply while in the very same post claiming that replying is simply too much work for you. SE is the most consistent poster I know. See we all can simply make things up.

I have limited time to devote to these discussions, if you want to chase your tail on an issue that won't help resolve the over all debate, you can do so without me.

Yes, but you have plenty of time to make vapid claims or to attack someone for using the word "point" correctly. No time to defend your arguments. Plenty of time to deny making a point and attacking people's correct use of words. Good. I'm glad that's settled. It's okay. If I was losing an argument I would drop it and instead call people stupid too. Wait, actually I wouldn't but I can see why you would do it. But hey, keep pretending like it's just a time thing. Somebody might by it. No, really, they might.

In biological development, some points are more significant than others.
For example, implantatioin is a more significant event than travelling through the fallopian tubes. Why? because it marks a change in the environment and is a milestone of a successful pregancy. Travelling through the fallopian tubes, while necessary, is not as significant.

No one argued that are not some significant points. You dismissed the importance of all other points and claimed that none of those points imply a 'change' like conception does. This biological untrue. Demonstrably so.

You mean implantation is important? Huh, that was what I said originally. Here was your reply.

Implantation is not a change, it's merely an attachment, necessary of course.
implantatioin is a more significant event than travelling through the fallopian tubes. Why? because it marks a change in the environment and is a milestone of a successful pregancy.

Whoops. Not only did the whole argument begin because you wouldn't recognize that there are MANY important events in a pregnancy, but you originally claimed that implantation was not a change and now, magically, you admit it is. I guess when you're just making things up to support your point is hard to keep it all straight. Good, another thing settled. NEXT!

Conception is one of the most significant development events, it is the first time the genetic code of a new life has been realised. There will be other development events of varying degrees of significance.

Actually, there are more significant events in terms of the actual genetics that manifest in a birthed human. Because of epigenetics genes mean little until they are expressed. Which hormones they get, the nutrition they get and other factors are very important in such a thing. As well, the implantation process rejects many of the concepti. It does so based on a biological evalation of the concepti and the condition of the mother. This plays a much larger role in what genetic traits are passed on which aren't. Conception is much more a factor of luck than implantation. Implantation is every bit as selective as conception. In fact, implantation selects on both the mother and the father while conception selects on only the father. This says a lot about the why so many conceptions do not result in a pregnancy.

Once again, you dismiss all other evidence to make your point. Yes, there are varying degrees of significance but how we rate that significance depends on what factors we are measuring on. You make a claim that is demonstrably untrue when you act is if the ranking of significance is something that biology does on the factors you put forward.

And, of course, none of this is important to the discussion of abortion other than the fact that conception is one of 2 easy and clear demarcation points to determine when life begins, the other being birth.

Ease of demarcation is not a measure point of the beginning of life no matter how much you want it to be. And conception is not an easy and clear point. One could just as easily nail down the moment when a fetus begins moving (indicating the development of a nervous system).

You make that claim of easy, but the only reason anyone would agree with that is if they wanted it to be true. Marking the actual conception is quite difficult. We can't even detect conception. It takes several days and then we can detect hormonal changes as a result of a body preparing for pregnancy. Unless sexual activity is sparse it's difficult to nail down when conception occurs. If you do a little research this is why we don't have real figures on how ofter conception occurs without pregnancy. Even in studies where they are watching for such an event they can't get it with any confidence. Interesting that such an easy mark is so difficult to nail down.

No, you're just willing to talk about your claims forever and ever.
You're not nearly interesting enough to warrant even the effort I've already put into discussing your claims with you.
Forever and ever, huh? You made I claim and I retorted. You made a bolder claim. I retorted with a clearer demonstration of how it's wrong. You replied, I don't care. Yep, that's forever and ever.

I also find it interesting that you think discussing what points are significant in the development of the fetus, particularly what points are most significant when you made this statement -

Well, that's the question isn't it?

You have 2 clear lines to choose from, and whole bunch of hazy places to put the line.

You can go with conception, everything the human needs is there genetically, you just need another 18-19 years development.

You can go with birth, it's commonly accepted that everything born, although still developing and growing, is human.

Or, you can try and determine a point in the womb where development crosses some watershed mark, organ development, pain sensation, brain activity, ability to survive outside the womb, etc.

It's the foundation question of the entire debate, yet it always seems to get the minimal amount of discussion.

Apparently points in development are important, unless someone starts suggesting some other points in the development might be more important. Then it's a waste of time to discuss.

Granted, but you do have to pay car insurance because you may potentialy crash in the future, and your children will have to pay inheritance tax after you are gone. The point I was making was just that the law does provide for potentials, and even I guess has an affect on those not here, and not just here and nows. Heh still it hardly matters now, it was yesteday, I'm going home shortly, and I can't even remeber the point I'm agruing against anymore:eek:
But you don't have to pay car insurance before you buy the car, and your kids don't have to pay inheritance tax before you die.

The fetus forms an idea of comfort around the aural sensation of the mother's voice and then later recognises that sensation when it reoccurs.
This is a statement of fact that has been disputed. Are you prepared to prove it with supporting evidence?

I agree with this. I understand many 'pro-lifers' wishes to overturn Roe v. Wade. Many consider it to be the wrongful killing of a person, and were I to feel that way I would definitely argue against it.

However, I believe that the idea that abortion is the wrongful killing of a person is a ludicrous idea, and furthermore the idea is largely inseperable from the religious belief that a person is a spiritual being above the physical body, and should not be taken into consideration by government policy.


Have you ever talked with an Adult that was given up for adoption rather than aborted? They have a strong opinion on the topic, and it has nothing to do with religious belief. I've never met one that thought abortion was ok.

Have you ever talked with an Adult that was given up for adoption rather than aborted? They have a strong opinion on the topic, and it has nothing to do with religious belief. I've never met one that thought abortion was ok.

I am guessing that many of us were born with the chances that we could have been aborted.

However, the belief that one was lucky to have been born requires some belief that the person was the same person at the time that the abortion was an option.

EDIT: Saying "Imagine what I would have missed if I were never born," requires that there was an I before birth, and the sense of self is developed after birth.

Maybe you should let him make his own posts and choices instread of telling him what to do?

And what happened to your vaunted ability to understand an argument even if you disagree or they are "on the other side"? I guess you were just blowing smoke since now it appears that it must mean you also accept the conclusion.

And I was showing a flaw, the flaw in your understanding.

If a proof is correct it's conclusion is correct. It's amazing that you would try to claim otherwise.

"Hmmmm... interesting proof. It is without flaw."
"Ah, so you'll defend my conclusion in the future."
"What? But it's a proof of my conclusion and you said you agreed with it."
"Yes, because I don't understand what a conclusion or a proof is, duh."

An unflawed proof is exactly that. If you find the flaw the conclusion needs a different validation. You've supported his argument several times and then claimed you don't hold the conclusion as valid. How very sad. Does this actually work?

The fetus forms an idea of comfort around the aural sensation of the mother's voice and then later recognises that sensation when it reoccurs.

No, it doesn't. Implantation is not an idea. The voice implants on the fetus and the comfort is a result. It's not choosing to be comforted. The comfort is the natural result of the implantation. It's instinct.

Let's play the "Snow Eaters telling people that either the point cannot be argued or that they must not understand because they disagree" game.

He starts slowly -
Your belief is hardly convincing.

You may not agree with it, but you're overstating yourself.

Give him time. He's just building up steam.

No they are not, basic Biology.

Here we go. "You're not disagreeing with me, you're disagreeing with biology."

Now mind you so far this is the entire argument in each of these posts. It's not as if these snarky points are just part of an argument. They ARE the argument.

I'm not advocating that as the point where abortion becomes either wrong or illegal, but the biology of the situation is clear.

To be fair this one is part of an argument but he adds at the end that biology gives my argument, it's not me. As if the original person, me, he was replying to obviously doesn't understand the "biology of sitution".

I think you're missing why I posed the justification question.

"Wait, you're disagreeing with me? You must not understand."

You have entirely missed Lewis' point.

I seriously question your ability to discuss the issue rationally if you can actually hold to that claim.

You are free to disagree with Lewis and his point if you wish, or rather, with the imaginary point you think he's making.

you miss the point that Lewis is dealing in concepts.

your continual use of them demonstrates a lack of grasping the point.

You are one of the least objective people I've come across on this forum and you have chosen to argue with me even when we agree, so you'll pardon me if your critique holds no value in my eyes.

Interesting how you say I'm not objective and then demonstrate why I am. Moving on.

That's not a point, that's a topic you were discussing.

Here he corrects someone's proper use of vocabulary to avoid addressing the point. If you look at the above quotes you'll see him SE misuse the word point again.

The bold highlights how you continue to miss the point regardless of your claim otherwise.

You're not nearly interesting enough to warrant even the effort I've already put into discussing your claims with you.

[QUOTE=Snow Eaters]You're too dumb to understand Lewis.
And getting dumber.
If you're going to try and turn independence or self sufficiency into selfishness as if you can't make the distinction, then you clearly are dumb, or simply stubborn and trolling now.

And I was showing a flaw, the flaw in your understanding.

Keep in mind these are replies to Jocabia, VO, Muravyets, Valdania, Dempublicents1 and others.

I guess if your argument isn't strong enough on its own you have to claim that you have the whole of biology on your side or that you were never making any argument or that people who disagree do so because of their inability to understand the wise words of SE or perhaps he's not really attempting to debate but just here to stir the pot because he doesn't have an actual valid argument to present.

I am guessing that many of us were born with the chances that we could have been aborted.

However, the belief that one was lucky to have been born requires some belief that the person was the same person at the time that the abortion was an option.

EDIT: Saying "Imagine what I would have missed if I were never born," requires that there was an I before birth, and the sense of self is developed after birth.

Or that you had some ability to miss it, to extend your point.

It might be easier to argue a debate if you stopped for a moment and considered what the person you're arguing with is saying.

You missed this one Jocabia, it is my favorite so far.

Also, what is the deal with CS Lewis?

Let's play the "Snow Eaters telling people that either the point cannot be argued or that they must not understand because they disagree" game.

He starts slowly -




Give him time. He's just building up steam.



Here we go. "You're not disagreeing with me, you're disagreeing with biology."

Now mind you so far this is the entire argument in each of these posts. It's not as if these snarky points are just part of an argument. They ARE the argument.



To be fair this one is part of an argument but he adds at the end that biology gives my argument, it's not me. As if the original person, me, he was replying to obviously doesn't understand the "biology of sitution".



"Wait, you're disagreeing with me? You must not understand."













Interesting how you say I'm not objective and then demonstrate why I am. Moving on.



Here he corrects someone's proper use of vocabulary to avoid addressing the point. If you look at the above quotes you'll see him SE misuse the word point again.


Keep in mind these are replies to Jocabia, VO, Muravyets, Valdania, Dempublicents1 and others.

I guess if your argument isn't strong enough on its own you have to claim that you have the whole of biology on your side or that you were never making any argument or that people who disagree do so because of their inability to understand the wise words of SE or perhaps he's not really attempting to debate but just here to stir the pot because he doesn't have an actual valid argument to present.



My my, I get an entire post of nothing but discussion of me.
How special.

You actually believe this is a competition to score points don't you?
Stir the pot some more, maybe you'll score a few more "points" and "thump" my arguments some more.

You are a sad person.

Have you ever talked with an Adult that was given up for adoption rather than aborted? They have a strong opinion on the topic, and it has nothing to do with religious belief. I've never met one that thought abortion was ok.
I have met pro-choice adoptees. You can't just make a blanket statement about people like that. Everyone is capable of reaching their own conclusions.

My my, I get an entire post of nothing but discussion of me.
How special.

You actually believe this is a competition to score points don't you?
Stir the pot some more, maybe you'll score a few more "points" and "thump" my arguments some more.

You are a sad person.

Or perhaps you could learn from it and adjust to arguing on point. But, hey, don't let a little thing like evidence sway you from continuing with ad hominems. I'm not trying to thump your arguments. I'm trying to get you to debate and stop behaving like you've been. I see I've failed. Either way, that post will be useful if it continues and I have to seek other forms of remedy.

You missed this one Jocabia, it is my favorite so far.

Also, what is the deal with CS Lewis?

CS Lewis is brilliant, but has little ability to make a cogent argument because he lets his bias color his logic. For apologists he is touted often, but keep in mind that he is touted by the same people who claim ID is scientific or that God can be proven. Most Christians find the idea that one can claim to prove Christianity or such things is kind of not addressing the very point of faith. He is well-known for ignoring evidence, forgetting that faith is just that and molesting the English language to try and make it seem like he has a valid argument. Unlike other apologists he is rarely if ever held up for having made a reasonable argument by anyone other than the people who agree with his conclusion.

My my, I get an entire post of nothing but discussion of me.
How special.

You actually believe this is a competition to score points don't you?
Stir the pot some more, maybe you'll score a few more "points" and "thump" my arguments some more.

You are a sad person.
Says the person who refuses to state his own position on the topic and then uses that refusal to try to claim that others are misinterpreting his statements; who responds to arguments he can't answer by changing them into different arguments and then answering them; who tries to deny or disavow statements made in writing for all to see; who directly contradicts himself; and who accuses others of what he himself does, such as ad hominen attacks (as listed by Jocabia).

Based on the twisting and bending you've been doing, I'm guessing you must think this is a verbal gymnastics competition. Whatever, the only thing you've made clear here is that you don't know how to conduct a debate.

Or perhaps you could learn from it and adjust to arguing on point. But, hey, don't let a little thing like evidence sway you from continuing with ad hominems. I'm not trying to thump your arguments. I'm trying to get you to debate and stop behaving like you've been. I see I've failed. Either way, that post will be useful if it continues and I have to seek other forms of remedy.


Brilliant, you wish to report me for... disagreeing with you.

Please do so if you wish.

Brilliant, you wish to report me for... disagreeing with you.

Please do so if you wish.

I didn't say I would report you. However, I don't recommend that you continue to make the bulk of your arguments rely on insults. If I wished to report you, I'd have done so already. I've seen you reasonably concede points in the past when you were out-of-line. What I was wishing for was that you would do so now and discontinue with the ad hominems and stick to debate.

Proof?


Links?


Again, links, proof, anything?

And what about babies given up for adoption at birth? Whose voice comforts them? Or do you assume they live their entire lives with the gnawing ache of missing that unheard voice?


No one knows because no one notices any difference in its behavior. You have no idea when it first noticed the sound of a person's voice -- before birth or after it. And you have no evidence to suggest that it misses anything if it doesn't hear the voice of the woman who gestated it.


Infants respond to human voices. You have absolutely no proof that they "learn" to recognize one person's voice before they first heard it after they were born, or whether they respond most to their mother's voice because it is the one they hear -- after birth -- most often.


Then you must have some supporting evidence to post. I look forward to reading it.


Recognising mother's voice while in the womb

Recognising mother's voice provides evidence of sustained attention, memory and learning by the foetus.



NEW RESEARCH findings on the ability of a foetus to recognize its mother's voice and even distinguish it from other female voices confirms what the scientists have speculated about for more than twenty years — that experiences in the womb help shape newborn preferences and behaviour.

Dr. Barbara Kisilevsky, a Queen's University professor of nursing along with a team of psychologists at Queen's and obstetricians in Hangzhou, China, found that foetuses are capable of learning in the womb and can remember and recognize their mother's voice before they are even born. Their research findings are published in the international journal Psychological Science.

http://www.hinduonnet.com/thehindu/seta/2003/07/10/stories/2003071000130300.htm

You can read more at the link if you want.

Do I need more?

I didn't say I would report you. However, I don't recommend that you continue to make the bulk of your arguments rely on insults. If I wished to report you, I'd have done so already. I've seen you reasonably concede points in the past when you were out-of-line. What I was wishing for was that you would do so now and discontinue with the ad hominems and stick to debate.


Of course I have reasonably conceded points, when I'm dealing with polite people. You can find it several times in this thread alone.

You are uninterested in debate and only interested in reading what you type. When you read my posts, you're not even considering what I'm saying, only what you can respond with to score some points in your own head.

You have badgered me now on 3 separate threads and have interrupted polite conversation and debate repeatedly to attack me. Ironic that you consistently then turn it into me attacking you when I respond in kind.

Rather than resolve a debate, or agree to disagree, once again you try to turn it into a thread about me. You did the same thing before with that ridiculous play to the 4th wall thing you do. This isn't a stage.

You did the same thing before with that ridiculous play to the 4th wall thing you do. This isn't a stage.

Actually, I'm finding this rather entertaining. *munchs popcorn* On with the show!

Recognising mother's voice while in the womb

Recognising mother's voice provides evidence of sustained attention, memory and learning by the foetus.



NEW RESEARCH findings on the ability of a foetus to recognize its mother's voice and even distinguish it from other female voices confirms what the scientists have speculated about for more than twenty years — that experiences in the womb help shape newborn preferences and behaviour.

Dr. Barbara Kisilevsky, a Queen's University professor of nursing along with a team of psychologists at Queen's and obstetricians in Hangzhou, China, found that foetuses are capable of learning in the womb and can remember and recognize their mother's voice before they are even born. Their research findings are published in the international journal Psychological Science.

http://www.hinduonnet.com/thehindu/seta/2003/07/10/stories/2003071000130300.htm

You can read more at the link if you want.

Do I need more?

http://brainmind.com/FetalBrainDevelopment.html

Again, the recognition is not a real memory. Many animals implant that are not capable of real memory and certainly not have having ideas as you claimed.

If you look at the development of the brain, you'll see that the function of the brain even at birth is very primitive. The implantation is a function of the brainstem.

The progression in behavioral complexity that begins with spontaneous fetal movements and which culminates with presumed preferences for the sound of mother's voice, also appear to reflect maturational events taking place in the brainstem, followed by forebrain structures.

The forebrain eventually engages in that recognition but it is not requirement of it. This is why you see the same traits in babies that never develop a healthy forebrain. The forebrain function is the crux of what makes us human. You are mentioning and event that almost all animals are capable of.

These include the mediation and control of arousal, orienting, the sleep cycle, heart rate, breathing, gross axial, limb, head and eye movement (Blessing, 1997; Cowie et al., 1994; Masino, 1992; Steriade & McCarley, 1990), as well as visual, somesthetic, gustatory, and acoustic perception and sound production such as screaming and crying (Aitkin, 1986; Davidson & Bender,1991; Larson & Yajima, 1994; Zhang et al., 1994).

You'll notice all of your examples lists as functions of the brainstem. That means that even in a person whose brain has been destroyed like Terri Schiavo is capable of these events.

As the brainstem continues to mature it becomes increasingly responsive to external sounds. By the 36th to 38th week of gestation, the fetal brainstem will respond to external noises and even the sound of mother's voice with reflexive body movements, head turning, and FHR acceleration, albeit, about 30% to 60% of the time (Lecanuet, Granier-Deferre & Busnel, 1995; Schmidt, Boos, Gnirs, Auer, & Schulze, 1985). Again, these sounds must be high frequency and quite loud as uterine attenuation may be as high as 70 db (Querleu, Renard, Versyp, Paris-Delvue, Vernoort, & Crepin,1986), though more recent work suggests that maximum attenuation is about 40 db (Peters & Abrams, 1993; Richards, Frentzen, Gerhardt, McCann, & Abrams, 1992).


Again, brainstem. Brainstem function has naught to do with memory. Your brainstem is where your most primitive and reflexive functions are housed. Reptiles are more cognitive than that.

It is evident that the fetus is capable of considerable behavioral complexity. These complex actions appear to be mediated and governed by the brainstem with minimal forebrain participation, for similar behaviors are demonstrated by anencephalics and following forebrain destruction. However, although forebrain influences are minimal, the late-term fetal brainstem may also be capable of experienced-induced synaptic plasticity, and can become organized to respond selectively to certain auditory stimuli presented up to 6 weeks before birth. These latter findings could be interpreted as evidence for exceedingly rudimentary, learning-related cognitive-like activity.

Nevertheless, the fetus and neonate appears incapable of thinking, reasoning, understanding, comprehending, or experiencing or generating "true" emotion or any semblance of higher order, forebrain mediated cognitive activity. Rather, although capable of learning, the increasingly complex behaviors demonstrated by the fetus and neonate, including head turning, eye movements, startle reactions, crying, screaming, and rudimentary smiling, are probably best described as brainstem reflexes.

Synaptic plasticity means something similar to learning, but it's a primitive behavior like imprinting done by animals (I mistakingly used the term 'implanting' earlier.)

These doctors clearly stated that experiencing is not something a fetus does and that the activities are better described as reflexes.

Says the person who refuses to state his own position on the topic and then uses that refusal to try to claim that others are misinterpreting his statements;

Those 2 statements, even if true, would be unrelated.
No one has actually asked my position. The only question I've been asked was WHY we give the right to life at all, and I answered as honestly as I could, that I had never thought of the question that way.

People have misinterpreted my statements, should I just accept that?
If I misinterpret someone, I expect they will correct me.


who responds to arguments he can't answer by changing them into different arguments and then answering them;

Example?


who tries to deny or disavow statements made in writing for all to see;

Example?


who directly contradicts himself;

Example?


and who accuses others of what he himself does, such as ad hominen attacks (as listed by Jocabia).


As listed?
He only listed one ad hominen, when I called him dumb, as he requested.
You believe Jocabia is innocent of badgering and ad hominen?

Of course I have reasonably conceded points, when I'm dealing with polite people. You can find it several times in this thread alone.

And I said as much.

You are uninterested in debate and only interested in reading what you type. When you read my posts, you're not even considering what I'm saying, only what you can respond with to score some points in your own head.

Uh-huh. Yes, I've noticed that I'm the one attacking people for their [correct] word usage. Oh, wait, that was you.

I noticed I was the one telling someone replying to the Lewis point that disagreeing meant they didn't understand. Oh, wait, that was you again. Several times.

I'm sure there is some example, but darned if I can find it. Surely I'm guilty though.

Also, if you've noticed I've continued the debate. I just eventually got tired of the weak ad hominems tactics. You've called people silly, dumb, unable to follow a point, unable to understand biology. I only picked out a few examples. There's more. Want 'em?

You have badgered me now on 3 separate threads and have interrupted polite conversation and debate repeatedly to attack me. Ironic that you consistently then turn it into me attacking you when I respond in kind.

Really? I guess I didn't realize that telling people that if they disagree it's because they don't understand the thing they are talking about is polite where you come from. Where I come from that's considered an ad hominem. And if it was my fault, one would think it must only be me you're having a problem with in this thread. Of course, I posted your replies to no less than five people so the evidence seems to be against that one as well.

Rather than resolve a debate, or agree to disagree, once again you try to turn it into a thread about me. You did the same thing before with that ridiculous play to the 4th wall thing you do. This isn't a stage.
Actually, it is a stage and there are many people watching us. If I was only talking to you, I wouldn't bother because you've refused to consider any points that don't agree with you of late. I assume it's because you're annoyed but it doesn't make your points any stronger.

Go ahead. It's my fault. It must be. Certainly, none of what I quoted was aimed as someone who wasn't me. It must all be me and all evidence supports this claim. Of course, one has to ignore all evidence that disagrees with your claim but it's not as if it's the first time you've done it.

If only I'd quit badgering you, you'd stop right? I guess none of your posts were before I entered the thread. Oh... wait... Well, I'm sure there's SOME evidence in your favor, but it certainly isn't in this thread.

As listed?
He only listed one ad hominen, when I called him dumb, as he requested.
You believe Jocabia is innocent of badgering and ad hominen?

You don't know what an ad hominem is, do you? It's not an insult. It's when you dismiss the person rather than the claim. You claim the PERSON can't understand the point rather than addressing their argument. Calling people dumb isn't the only way. Telling people they don't know what they're talking about is no better.

Please look up terms before you use them. You're very quick to correct the vocabulary of others. Physician, heal thyself.

Actually, I'm finding this rather entertaining. *munchs popcorn* On with the show!

Shhhh... you're ruining his point. The only people who are in the thread are the players. There can't possibly be people viewing the thread and not participating. That never happens on forums. Just like people are never sarcastic.

Shhhh... you're ruining his point. The only people who are in the thread are the players. There can't possibly be people viewing the thread and not participating. That never happens on forums. Just like people are never sarcastic.

Oh! Right....>_> *chews popcorn quietly*.

Oh! Right....>_> *chews popcorn quietly*.

He's right though. I appeal to the fourth wall all the time. That's why I talk on a forum and not a chatroom or in email. Many debates include people who will never be convinced but I engage in them to convince (and sometimes entertain) people who are lurking or otherwise participating.

He's right though. I appeal to the fourth wall all the time. That's why I talk on a forum and not a chatroom or in email. Many debates include people who will never be convinced but I engage in them to convince (and sometimes entertain) people who are lurking or otherwise participating.

Aye...I find this one particularly intresting because instead of "Strawman", it's "Ad Hominem". I'm not saying on whether or not they've been accurate judgements, but it's almost always calling strawmen with you. At some point you must imagine it loses meaning.

And I said as much.

But they don't quite paint the properly distorted picture you were going for with your list, do they?


Uh-huh. Yes, I've noticed that I'm the one attacking people for their [correct] word usage. Oh, wait, that was you.


You have an extremely loose defintion of "attack".

Let's review it shall we?

"That's not a point, that's a topic you were discussing."

Oooh, I savaged him there, what a brutal attack. I feel bad. I'd apologise if only he had survived it.


I noticed I was the one telling someone replying to the Lewis point that disagreeing meant they didn't understand. Oh, wait, that was you again. Several times.


No, I specifically said that you can disagree, disagreeing is fine and one can still understand while disagreeing. Continuing to argue from specifics when the argument specifically does not cover specifics was the proof of a lack of understanding, not disagreement.

And I said as much.



Uh-huh. Yes, I've noticed that I'm the one attacking people for their [correct] word usage. Oh, wait, that was you.

I noticed I was the one telling someone replying to the Lewis point that disagreeing meant they didn't understand. Oh, wait, that was you again. Several times.

I'm sure there is some example, but darned if I can find it. Surely I'm guilty though.

Also, if you've noticed I've continued the debate. I just eventually got tired of the weak ad hominems tactics. You've called people silly, dumb, unable to follow a point, unable to understand biology. I only picked out a few examples. There's more. Want 'em?



There's more?
Well, let's go find some then...

You want him to be right so you're getting upset because I've demonstrated the flaw in his argument. You brought it here and you're not prepared to deal with problems in his argument. Perhaps next time you should think twice before claiming him as a source.


Hmmm, that's not quite what we're lokoing for, is it? That seems to be Jocabia being flat out wrong that I claimed Lewis as a source.
But I'm sure he eventually admitted his mistake, can anyone find it?


Objective people can analyze the logic of something without agreeing with it. I've noticed this is not something you're very good at.

Don't lazily ask him to concede a point he doesn't hold to be true as true.

In fact, you didn't ask, you suggested that it's the only reasonable thing to do to manipulate him into conceding.

The fact that I am making a medical argument is clear. Try to follow along.


Oh my, here's some, let's see, I can't analyze logic? Damn, I'm lazy, I hate being lazy. Apparently I'm manipulative too :( This all might hurt my feelings if only I could follow along.


Yes, yes. We get those like you a lot. Because they don't say things outright, they think that we can't hold them to a position. It's a weak way of arguing and it doesn't work with anyone with an ounce of skill in debate.



Poorly. You forgot to add poorly to your statements.


Struggling to follow?
You make these lame arguments about things you aren't following
I hate weak arguments, but you're welcome to make them. However, if you're going to do so, perhaps you should act a little less pompous.
by my count you're getting your ass kicked.

I admit I'm pompous. Frequently. However, I'm willing to defend my claims rather than simply weakly dropping them after insulting people for not agreeing.

I'm one of "those" people apparently, the kind it only takes an ounce of debating skill to debate. Man, I really suck, huh?

Oops, I mean I suck poorly... I forgot to add poorly.

You know, I am strugglionmg to follow these weak lame arguments, I'm tired of getting my ass kicked.

I'm going to agree with Jocabia from now on and we can start right there with that quote.

Jocabia, I fully agree, you ARE pompous. FREQUENTLY.

Aye...I find this one particularly intresting because instead of "Strawman", it's "Ad Hominem". I'm not saying on whether or not they've been accurate judgements, but it's almost always calling strawmen with you. At some point you must imagine it loses meaning.

I calls 'em like I sees 'em. If you'd stop using logical fallacies I'd stop pointing them out. Perhaps if you keep hearing it, and I know it's not just from me, you should consider the fact that the common element is you.

I calls 'em like I sees 'em. If you'd stop using logical fallacies I'd stop pointing them out. Perhaps if you keep hearing it, and I know it's not just from me, you should consider the fact that the common element is you.

Not me, I can't remember the last time I debated you. Just been watching.

But they don't quite paint the properly distorted picture you were going for with your list, do they?


Uh-huh. This is amusing. I point out that you sometimes concede a point and then you repeat it. When I agree and point out that I already said it, I'm distorting the picture. I see that logic isn't something necessary to this conversation in your opinion.


You have an extremely loose defintion of "attack".

Let's review it shall we?

"That's not a point, that's a topic you were discussing."

Oooh, I savaged him there, what a brutal attack. I feel bad. I'd apologise if only he had survived it.

Yes, none of us can read your point in that one. Gosh, I do so wonder what you could possibly have meant. Seriously, does this nonsense EVER work? Reading comprehension is a normal tool of forums. Evne if you don't outright say something, we look at context and read what it says. Or perhaps it was a non sequitter and you were just posting anything. Meanwhile, you were still wrong. It was a point and NOT the topic we were discussing.

Apparently, it's only an attack if you openly call him names. I guess we have to pretend like inference doesn't exist on these forums.

No, I specifically said that you can disagree, disagreeing is fine and one can still understand while disagreeing. Continuing to argue from specifics when the argument specifically does not cover specifics was the proof of a lack of understanding, not disagreement.


Or maybe it's pointing out the flaw in the argument. Oddly, everyone sees the flaw but you. Strange, that is. You seem to not be able to address the difference between pointing out a flawed argument and missing the point of the argument (which has been expressly stated by several of the people you claim couldn't understand it).

There's more?
Well, let's go find some then...



Hmmm, that's not quite what we're lokoing for, is it? That seems to be Jocabia being flat out wrong that I claimed Lewis as a source.
But I'm sure he eventually admitted his mistake, can anyone find it?


You were claiming him as a source. I wasn't mistaken. You can't defend a source and then when people NAIL you on it claim you have nothing to do with the source. I know getting shown to be wrong sucks, but hey, at least try to actually man up and admit you agree with the source. Stop trying to weasel out of points you've been making the whole thread. It's tiresome.

I know you think so long as you don't expressly say something you didn't say it. Maybe that works elsewhere, but here you'll continue to get nailed on it. Next!

Oh my, here's some, let's see, I can't analyze logic? Damn, I'm lazy, I hate being lazy. Apparently I'm manipulative too :( This all might hurt my feelings if only I could follow along.


I didn't say you couldn't analyze logic. I said you couldn't be objective. See that. It's called context. It's a major part of reading comprehension and it's the reason we're not accepting that you're not arguing a point simply because you won't directly say the point.

Also, you'll notice, I wasn't doing it to avoid the point. I was trying to get you to stop backing out of the point. It's different. If you'll simply argue your point I could care less who you are or what you are. In this case I was pointing out how you weasel out of so many points as soon as they start not going your way. I eventually got annoyed and pointed out that you were doing it. Of course this was a direct reply to your claim that I am the least objective person here, but hey, let's ignore that little tidbit, shall we? Why add any context. That would just hurt your point.

I'm one of "those" people apparently, the kind it only takes an ounce of debating skill to debate. Man, I really suck, huh?


See, there's the strawman (just for you, Dinaverg). Resorting to ad hominems seems to be your tactic du jour. Then I proved it another post. I said quite clearly if you have strong points it's unnecessary. Now you can resort to ad hominems if you like, but it simply evidences a weak argument. I was talking about you. But it's also a general statement.

Oops, I mean I suck poorly... I forgot to add poorly.

You know, I am strugglionmg to follow these weak lame arguments, I'm tired of getting my ass kicked.

I'm going to agree with Jocabia from now on and we can start right there with that quote.

Jocabia, I fully agree, you ARE pompous. FREQUENTLY.
I agree. I'm objective like that. However, the crux of my debate doesn't rely on telling people they are unable to argue with me becuase biology said so or because they can't understand the point, etc. Oddly, while you were saying that people were explaining the biology to you and explaining the point Lewis made and why they disagreed with it.

By the way, his point is what he's proving. When you kept saying we missed the point, what you meant to say was that we didn't follow his argument. Now we did, but in every case we expressly stated his point. No, one even disagreed with his point. We were deconstructing his argument. But then you knew that. Shall we cound how many times in this thread you misused the word point?

Now, are we finished or would you like to continue this nonsense and avoid the fact that your argument has been utterly destroyed. Your claims about the ideas of fetii is ridiculous so you'd rather go on and on about this. I noticed you only reply to these posts. It's called dropping arguments. You pick the smallest point you can find to pick at and pick at it (like someone's use of the word point). That way maybe no one will notice that you're unwilling to openly state your point for fear of being proven wrong and that even then you've been arguing for 20 pages you've openly claimed you don't have a point.

That's an interesting debate tactic by the way.

[rant about something or other]
"Yes, so what's your point."
"Um, I haven't got one."

Very impressive. I wish I could NOT have a point. I know that's generally the goal of an argument to not have a point.

Not me, I can't remember the last time I debated you. Just been watching.
Yeah, I don't actually mean you. I'm referring whomever I'm referring to. I should have worded it differently.

http://brainmind.com/FetalBrainDevelopment.html

Again, the recognition is not a real memory. Many animals implant that are not capable of real memory and certainly not have having ideas as you claimed.

If you look at the development of the brain, you'll see that the function of the brain even at birth is very primitive. The implantation is a function of the brainstem.

The progression in behavioral complexity that begins with spontaneous fetal movements and which culminates with presumed preferences for the sound of mother's voice, also appear to reflect maturational events taking place in the brainstem, followed by forebrain structures.

The forebrain eventually engages in that recognition but it is not requirement of it. This is why you see the same traits in babies that never develop a healthy forebrain. The forebrain function is the crux of what makes us human. You are mentioning and event that almost all animals are capable of.

These include the mediation and control of arousal, orienting, the sleep cycle, heart rate, breathing, gross axial, limb, head and eye movement (Blessing, 1997; Cowie et al., 1994; Masino, 1992; Steriade & McCarley, 1990), as well as visual, somesthetic, gustatory, and acoustic perception and sound production such as screaming and crying (Aitkin, 1986; Davidson & Bender,1991; Larson & Yajima, 1994; Zhang et al., 1994).

You'll notice all of your examples lists as functions of the brainstem. That means that even in a person whose brain has been destroyed like Terri Schiavo is capable of these events.

As the brainstem continues to mature it becomes increasingly responsive to external sounds. By the 36th to 38th week of gestation, the fetal brainstem will respond to external noises and even the sound of mother's voice with reflexive body movements, head turning, and FHR acceleration, albeit, about 30% to 60% of the time (Lecanuet, Granier-Deferre & Busnel, 1995; Schmidt, Boos, Gnirs, Auer, & Schulze, 1985). Again, these sounds must be high frequency and quite loud as uterine attenuation may be as high as 70 db (Querleu, Renard, Versyp, Paris-Delvue, Vernoort, & Crepin,1986), though more recent work suggests that maximum attenuation is about 40 db (Peters & Abrams, 1993; Richards, Frentzen, Gerhardt, McCann, & Abrams, 1992).


Again, brainstem. Brainstem function has naught to do with memory. Your brainstem is where your most primitive and reflexive functions are housed. Reptiles are more cognitive than that.

It is evident that the fetus is capable of considerable behavioral complexity. These complex actions appear to be mediated and governed by the brainstem with minimal forebrain participation, for similar behaviors are demonstrated by anencephalics and following forebrain destruction. However, although forebrain influences are minimal, the late-term fetal brainstem may also be capable of experienced-induced synaptic plasticity, and can become organized to respond selectively to certain auditory stimuli presented up to 6 weeks before birth. These latter findings could be interpreted as evidence for exceedingly rudimentary, learning-related cognitive-like activity.

Nevertheless, the fetus and neonate appears incapable of thinking, reasoning, understanding, comprehending, or experiencing or generating "true" emotion or any semblance of higher order, forebrain mediated cognitive activity. Rather, although capable of learning, the increasingly complex behaviors demonstrated by the fetus and neonate, including head turning, eye movements, startle reactions, crying, screaming, and rudimentary smiling, are probably best described as brainstem reflexes.

Synaptic plasticity means something similar to learning, but it's a primitive behavior like imprinting done by animals (I mistakingly used the term 'implanting' earlier.)

These doctors clearly stated that experiencing is not something a fetus does and that the activities are better described as reflexes.

See, now you could respond to the real arguments that are made since you claim to be so pressed for time, but what fun would that be? Let's just discuss you all day long.

For someone who is so focused on staying on topic that they have to avoid points they themselves said were important, I find it interesting that you'd rather sit around and bitch than reply to points like these.

Actually, I didn't chastise you for not taking a position. I chastised you for pretending you weren't. It's different. You're not too good with the nuances of language, are you?



I can't show them to be true or false. Which is more important than another is a matter of opinion. I did show the biological distinctions and explained why they could be considered important. Thanks for following along.

Interesting that you would claim I did no work in a reply while in the very same post claiming that replying is simply too much work for you. SE is the most consistent poster I know. See we all can simply make things up.



Yes, but you have plenty of time to make vapid claims or to attack someone for using the word "point" correctly. No time to defend your arguments. Plenty of time to deny making a point and attacking people's correct use of words. Good. I'm glad that's settled. It's okay. If I was losing an argument I would drop it and instead call people stupid too. Wait, actually I wouldn't but I can see why you would do it. But hey, keep pretending like it's just a time thing. Somebody might by it. No, really, they might.



No one argued that are not some significant points. You dismissed the importance of all other points and claimed that none of those points imply a 'change' like conception does. This biological untrue. Demonstrably so.

You mean implantation is important? Huh, that was what I said originally. Here was your reply.




Whoops. Not only did the whole argument begin because you wouldn't recognize that there are MANY important events in a pregnancy, but you originally claimed that implantation was not a change and now, magically, you admit it is. I guess when you're just making things up to support your point is hard to keep it all straight. Good, another thing settled. NEXT!



Actually, there are more significant events in terms of the actual genetics that manifest in a birthed human. Because of epigenetics genes mean little until they are expressed. Which hormones they get, the nutrition they get and other factors are very important in such a thing. As well, the implantation process rejects many of the concepti. It does so based on a biological evalation of the concepti and the condition of the mother. This plays a much larger role in what genetic traits are passed on which aren't. Conception is much more a factor of luck than implantation. Implantation is every bit as selective as conception. In fact, implantation selects on both the mother and the father while conception selects on only the father. This says a lot about the why so many conceptions do not result in a pregnancy.

Once again, you dismiss all other evidence to make your point. Yes, there are varying degrees of significance but how we rate that significance depends on what factors we are measuring on. You make a claim that is demonstrably untrue when you act is if the ranking of significance is something that biology does on the factors you put forward.



Ease of demarcation is not a measure point of the beginning of life no matter how much you want it to be. And conception is not an easy and clear point. One could just as easily nail down the moment when a fetus begins moving (indicating the development of a nervous system).

You make that claim of easy, but the only reason anyone would agree with that is if they wanted it to be true. Marking the actual conception is quite difficult. We can't even detect conception. It takes several days and then we can detect hormonal changes as a result of a body preparing for pregnancy. Unless sexual activity is sparse it's difficult to nail down when conception occurs. If you do a little research this is why we don't have real figures on how ofter conception occurs without pregnancy. Even in studies where they are watching for such an event they can't get it with any confidence. Interesting that such an easy mark is so difficult to nail down.


Forever and ever, huh? You made I claim and I retorted. You made a bolder claim. I retorted with a clearer demonstration of how it's wrong. You replied, I don't care. Yep, that's forever and ever.

I also find it interesting that you think discussing what points are significant in the development of the fetus, particularly what points are most significant when you made this statement -



Apparently points in development are important, unless someone starts suggesting some other points in the development might be more important. Then it's a waste of time to discuss.

Or this one you avoided.

I put a post about how you're avoiding the debate in various ways and what do you know, you use that post to continue to avoid the debate. Feel free to engage in the debate at any point. Your contribution is very welcome. In the DEBATE.

And if we're so bad at reading your position, how about you actually state one? According to you, everyone here can't manage to get what you're talking about, while you admit that you refuse to actually state what you're talking about. If you don't state it, we're just going to use what you say in context and draw it out. If it's not what you actually want to argue, here's a clue, say what you are actually trying to argue. It's called communication.

He's right though. I appeal to the fourth wall all the time. That's why I talk on a forum and not a chatroom or in email. Many debates include people who will never be convinced but I engage in them to convince (and sometimes entertain) people who are lurking or otherwise participating.


oh yes, we're here, munching popcorn, keeping tallies and holding up scoreboards - Go Jocabia! :)

oh yes, we're here, munching popcorn, keeping tallies and holding up scoreboards - Go Jocabia! :)

Nothing against Jocabia, but he doesn't need the ego boost.

Recognising mother's voice while in the womb

Recognising mother's voice provides evidence of sustained attention, memory and learning by the foetus.



NEW RESEARCH findings on the ability of a foetus to recognize its mother's voice and even distinguish it from other female voices confirms what the scientists have speculated about for more than twenty years — that experiences in the womb help shape newborn preferences and behaviour.

Dr. Barbara Kisilevsky, a Queen's University professor of nursing along with a team of psychologists at Queen's and obstetricians in Hangzhou, China, found that foetuses are capable of learning in the womb and can remember and recognize their mother's voice before they are even born. Their research findings are published in the international journal Psychological Science.

http://www.hinduonnet.com/thehindu/seta/2003/07/10/stories/2003071000130300.htm

You can read more at the link if you want.

Do I need more?
Yes, you do. You give us one short newspaper article that does nothing more than announce a supposed finding but does not analyze it, discuss it, present expert views on it, nor does it provide links or references to the actual studies. It doesn't even give us the bona fides of the people claiming these results. Journalistically, there's not much difference between this article and last week's supposedly true media reports of Hungarian workmen discovering a pickled corpse in a barrel of rum (a famous apocryphal tale that's been bouncing around since before the Napoleonic wars, btw). This source shows us nothing but other people saying the same thing as you. It is not proof of anything.

Yes, you do. You give us one short newspaper article that does nothing more than announce a supposed finding but does not analyze it, discuss it, present expert views on it, nor does it provide links or references to the actual studies. It doesn't even give us the bona fides of the people claiming these results. Journalistically, there's not much difference between this article and last week's supposedly true media reports of Hungarian workmen discovering a pickled corpse in a barrel of rum (a famous apocryphal tale that's been bouncing around since before the Napoleonic wars, btw). This source shows us nothing but other people saying the same thing as you. It is not proof of anything.

It also does not show that this is a conscious recognition of the mother's voice. There are probably biological predilections and conditioning at play here, and no actual development of conscious experience and learning.

Yes, you do. You give us one short newspaper article that does nothing more than announce a supposed finding but does not analyze it, discuss it, present expert views on it, nor does it provide links or references to the actual studies. It doesn't even give us the bona fides of the people claiming these results. Journalistically, there's not much difference between this article and last week's supposedly true media reports of Hungarian workmen discovering a pickled corpse in a barrel of rum (a famous apocryphal tale that's been bouncing around since before the Napoleonic wars, btw). This source shows us nothing but other people saying the same thing as you. It is not proof of anything.

It sort of proves that rum shouldnt be put in unnecessarily large containers. Or if you meant the fetus thing, it proves that they react to the outside world. still, so do plants.

It also does not show that this is a conscious recognition of the mother's voice. There are probably biological predilections and conditioning at play here, and no actual development of conscious experience and learning.
Oh, yeah, that too. Thanks.

It sort of proves that rum shouldnt be put in unnecessarily large containers. Or if you meant the fetus thing, it proves that they react to the outside world. still, so do plants.
Yes, indeed. And they also prove that, just because a newspaper devotes half a page to a story that has no references or provenance of any kind, that doesn't mean it's true.

Nothing against Jocabia, but he doesn't need the ego boost.

No, he doesn't. Jocabia realized during his rainy softball game today that he got carried away. My last post replying to SE was unnecessary and uncalled for.

It also does not show that this is a conscious recognition of the mother's voice. There are probably biological predilections and conditioning at play here, and no actual development of conscious experience and learning.

Actually if you look at the article I posted these activities have been known for some time. It's imprinting and the activities of the late-term fetus are primarily actions of the brainstem. An encephilitic baby would have the same reactions.

*snip*

This was too much. SE, you said that I'm driving you to ad hominems. I'll accept that. I'll accept my part and I'll lay off. I think a fair extraction of your point is that if I stop pushing you we won't see that anymore and everyone will be happy. I apologize for my posts that focused on you. They did not advance the thread or serve much purpose.

Let's continue with the discussion. I believe our positions in this debate are abundantly clear. I also believe it's clear that we've misrepresented your positions. Rather than do that, let's solve that problem and you can clearly state your points so we won't have any more misunderstandings. Seems easy enough.

It also does not show that this is a conscious recognition of the mother's voice. There are probably biological predilections and conditioning at play here, and no actual development of conscious experience and learning.
Then if you refuse to bestowed humanity on unborn babies, then tell me when they ARE people as grounds for debate, I'll even do it on your terms.

Those 2 statements, even if true, would be unrelated.
No one has actually asked my position. The only question I've been asked was WHY we give the right to life at all, and I answered as honestly as I could, that I had never thought of the question that way.
It’s a list, SE. These are items 1 and 2 of the list. There is absolutely nothing about these two items that would make anyone think they are more or less connected than the rest of the list, which you’ve chosen to handle separately. This is just another example of you editing my statements to make them look like they mean something other than what they obviously mean.

Plus, they are both true. You have claimed that you have not stated your position on the topic over and over, even after people have asked you to do so. And you have specifically stated that people are misinterpreting your statements because they don’t know what your position is.

People have misinterpreted my statements, should I just accept that?
If you think you've been misinterpreted, why do you still refuse to make yourself clear? Why do you still insist that you never stated a position? If people actually are misinterpreting you, why will you not clearly state what you really mean? It has come to look like you rely on being able to claim that you are being misunderstood/misinterpreted in order to wriggle out of getting nailed on your statements.

If I misinterpret someone, I expect they will correct me.
I have corrected your misinterpretations of my statements several times, and the only response I've gotten is this post.

Originally Posted by Muravyets
who responds to arguments he can't answer by changing them into different arguments and then answering them;
Example?
I have already called you on this as you have done it several times. To review, please compare the contents of POSTS 230, 247, 248, 263, 267, 274, 278, 282, and 285 (surprisingly, not the entire argument) to compare what I actually said to what you claimed I said. Anyone who reads these can see how you edited my posts, leaving out entire points, thus making the posts appear to be about some argument that perhaps you wished to attack, but which was not what I said.

Originally Posted by Muravyets
who tries to deny or disavow statements made in writing for all to see;
Example?
Well, perhaps the best example is how you first claimed that you had not thought through the question of right to life v. abortion enough to express a belief on the matter (POST 125), followed by a detailed description of your belief on the matter (POST 132), and then followed by your denial that you ever stated a position on the matter (POST 281).

Then there’s your claim that you never argued using C.S. Lewis as a source. You kept saying that you didn’t bring C.S. Lewis into the thread, and in fact, Adriatica was the one who first quoted C.S. Lewis. But no one ever said you were the first to bring up Lewis. You were being argued with over your interpretation of Lewis as evidenced by the argument of your own, on the subject of selfishness and C.S. Lewis, which you did bring up, did pursue, and did use C.S. Lewis’s writing to both support and illustrate. You began this at POST 184, you continue to pursue it, and throughout this side argument of yours, you have repeatedly denied that you are doing it -- and then you went back to doing it.

Originally Posted by Muravyets
who directly contradicts himself;
Example?
See POST 342, from which I quote:
Originally Posted by Jocabia
Originally Posted by Snow Eaters
Implantation is not a change, it's merely an attachment, necessary of course.
Originally Posted by Snow Eaters
implantatioin is a more significant event than travelling through the fallopian tubes. Why? because it marks a change in the environment and is a milestone of a successful pregancy.

Whoops. Not only did the whole argument begin because you wouldn't recognize that there are MANY important events in a pregnancy, but you originally claimed that implantation was not a change and now, magically, you admit it is. I guess when you're just making things up to support your point is hard to keep it all straight.

Originally Posted by Muravyets
and who accuses others of what he himself does, such as ad hominen attacks (as listed by Jocabia).
As listed?
He only listed one ad hominen, when I called him dumb, as he requested.
You believe Jocabia is innocent of badgering and ad hominen?
All of the lines from you that Jocabia quoted are ad hominems. They are not criticisms of your opponents’ arguments or even their techniques. They are personal criticisms of the people.

Did Jocabia lose his cool with you a bit? Yes, he did. I personally think he was provoked. I have also been biting my tongue. It's from the sheer frustration of trying to debate with someone who refuses to present an argument, treats his opponents unfairly, tosses around insults against our intelligence, and doesn't even know the parts of an argument or debate.

But regardless of anything anyone has said to you, after looking back over the entire thread to find the posts I list above, it is clear that you are always the first one out of the gate with a personal insult. You are not the one to be criticizing Jocabia.

After having read the thread again, I have to say you have added little to the debate and advanced it not at all. If you have a position on the subject of abortion and the topic of this thread, then state it and be prepared to argue from it and defend it. Otherwise, be ignored.

This was too much. SE, you said that I'm driving you to ad hominems. I'll accept that. I'll accept my part and I'll lay off. I think a fair extraction of your point is that if I stop pushing you we won't see that anymore and everyone will be happy. I apologize for my posts that focused on you. They did not advance the thread or serve much purpose.

Let's continue with the discussion. I believe our positions in this debate are abundantly clear. I also believe it's clear that we've misrepresented your positions. Rather than do that, let's solve that problem and you can clearly state your points so we won't have any more misunderstandings. Seems easy enough.
This is very proper of you, but it does not account for his ad hominems against other people, such as me. I do not believe I did anything to provoke negative remarks.

SE, I have responded to your request for examples by giving them to you and expressing my frustration with you. If you will give me your assurance that you will refrain from insulting others, address your opponents' entire points, and state your positions clearly, then I am willing to drop all hard feelings and not bring up the past again.

Then if you refuse to bestowed humanity on unborn babies, then tell me when they ARE people as grounds for debate, I'll even do it on your terms.
If you want to open this up to the thread in general, then this has already been addressed. It has already been addressed in law, too. Fetuses are generally considered to be individual beingss distinct from their mothers at the time they show brain activity. This occurs in the third trimester. Elective abortions are not performed in the third trimester.

It’s a list, SE. These are items 1 and 2 of the list. There is absolutely nothing about these two items that would make anyone think they are more or less connected than the rest of the list, which you’ve chosen to handle separately. This is just another example of you editing my statements to make them look like they mean something other than what they obviously mean.


Well, let’s toss up your words then, with no editing and take a look.

Says the person who refuses to state his own position on the topic and then uses that refusal to try to claim that others are misinterpreting his statements; who responds to arguments he can't answer by changing them into different arguments and then answering them; who tries to deny or disavow statements made in writing for all to see; who directly contradicts himself; and who accuses others of what he himself does, such as ad hominen attacks (as listed by Jocabia).

Based on the twisting and bending you've been doing, I'm guessing you must think this is a verbal gymnastics competition. Whatever, the only thing you've made clear here is that you don't know how to conduct a debate.

See there, in your opening? Where you say “Says the person who refuses to state his own position on the topic and then uses that refusal to try to claim that others are misinterpreting his statements”.
Those 2 look more than a little connected since you use the conjunction AND, then you reference your first half in the second half.
Plus, for the rest of the list, you segregate each item with a semi colon.

I believe that this is absolutely nothing like editing your statements to make them look like anything other than what they are.

Do you still maintain that those are simply items 1 and 2 on a list and it is somehow my malicious editing that makes it appear otherwise?


Plus, they are both true. You have claimed that you have not stated your position on the topic over and over, even after people have asked you to do so. And you have specifically stated that people are misinterpreting your statements because they don’t know what your position is.


I mentioned that I hadn’t stated my own position in response to Jocabia claiming to have shown logical flaws in my position.
If I haven’t stated my position, can you see how his claim would be difficult to accept?

I haven’t said that I have been misinterpreted because people don’t know what position is. When I have stated I was misinterpreted or misunderstood, it was in response to a specific post that I made; that another poster responded to in a way did not match the intent of my post. An understanding of a position is no protection against misunderstanding a post from that person


I have already called you on this as you have done it several times. To review, please compare the contents of POSTS 230, 247, 248, 263, 267, 274, 278, 282, and 285 (surprisingly, not the entire argument) to compare what I actually said to what you claimed I said. Anyone who reads these can see how you edited my posts, leaving out entire points, thus making the posts appear to be about some argument that perhaps you wished to attack, but which was not what I said.

Post #230
It would be easier to argue a debate if you would read the posts in their entirety. I said the fetus has no life to lose. It has no life of its own because, until it becomes viable, its continued existence is 100% dependent on the body functions of the woman. It is using her life for its existence. If it is not born -- whether by abortion or miscarriage -- it will not lose anything because it does not have anything to lose, including life. You cannot lose what you do not have.

In post #240, I quote your post in it’s entirety.
I enjoyed how it began with the snarky jab stating that you were having difficulty arguing with me because of your accusation that I wasn’t reading the posts. But you’d never engage in an attack on the person, right?

It might be easier to argue a debate if you stopped for a moment and considered what the person you're arguing with is saying.

If I agreed with you that there is no life to lose, there would be no need to have to debate in the first place.

I came back with an equally snarky post, but I didn’t change your claim. You claimed the foetus has no life to lose. How can you possibly put that forward in a discussion of abortion when you KNOW that every one of your opponents does not agree with that statement and it’s predominantly because they disagree with it that they even argue abortion in the first place.
If you could convince your opponents in the abortion debate that a foetus in fact has no life to lose, you would “win”, it would be over. All points that pro-choice proponents bring regarding rights of a woman, or the superior rights of those already born and experiencing life would be moot if this question of foetus life was resolved with a negative.

That’s why it is very frustrating to those that are not comfortable with abortion as a legal option when someone in a debate acts as if there is obvious agreement on what they consider the main point of contention.

I’ve just reread posts 247 and 248, and then my responses in posts 249 and 250.

I quote every word you wrote, there is no editing at all, and I responded to each point you raised in these. I didn’t “claim” you said anything. I quoted your own words, and then put my words afterwards. I don’t understand what else you’re expecting.

Post # 263 is my post in response to Jocabia, not yours.

Post # 267, I reply in post #278
Interestingly enough, you begin the post by telling me that I misunderstood, and by today’s standards, apparently that’s an ad hominen attack on me.
I do not quote the early part of your post in 267, mostly because you’re ensuring a common understanding of viable and personhood and legal, etc. I didn’t feel a need to challenge you on that, and moved on.
When you got to the part about how the law is “nice” about the “feelings of society” I took issue with you.
When you stated your own philosophical position, I pressed you regarding making the legal position match your philosophical position.

I didn’t change what you were saying at all.

Post # 274 This is my post in response to an earlier post of yours. You must have missed post #264 I think, 264 is yours that I quote.
Since you seem rather hot at me for allegedly changed what you said to something that I instead “claimed” you said, I invite you to revisit your post #264

Now you are blurring the abortion issue between early term and late term, almost like a person who tries to make all abortions seem like "partial birth abortion."

You are attempting to embue a fetus with the rights of a person, and to do so, you are pretending that fully developed, viable fetuses get aborted electively. This is just plain not true.


I made no mention of partial birth abortions, yet you have it there as an implication that is what I’m saying.
I never pretended that fully developed, viable foetuses get aborted electively, that was something that you claimed I said, in very much the same manner that you are accusing me of doing to you.

Post #282 and #285.

These posts, and my responses in posts in #288 and #289 covered the question of why I might not respond to every word you type in.
I’m devoting a significant portion of my time to you in this post alone in an attempt to give you the thorough response you feel you need, but honestly, it shouldn’t be required.

Everyone reading can read your post, whether I quote it or not. If you make a point that you believe has been sidelined without being properly addressed, bring it up again, we aren’t all going to read and reply with the same priorities. There has been no attempt to claim you have said anything other than what you have said, but the points I feel are important won’t necessarily be the same ones that you do, and that’s how it works for all of us.



Well, perhaps the best example is how you first claimed that you had not thought through the question of right to life v. abortion enough to express a belief on the matter (POST 125), followed by a detailed description of your belief on the matter (POST 132), and then followed by your denial that you ever stated a position on the matter (POST 281).


Post #116
I would like to know why so that I can counter the point.

Defining the quality of human life that causes us to protect it is essential to establishing when and why the right to life is applied.

No I am not, however, I am not entirely convinced that I am correct, so I don't actually support infanticide.


#125 was in response to the line of questioning from Vittos in post #116
Post #125
That's a belief I haven't probed enough to put forward then.
It's a belief I've held to be self-evident, I'm not saying you can't challenge it, just that I have not given it the the thought required to offer a meaningful response to you.

Post #132
My problem with your question is that I come at it from the opposite side, I hold right to life as the default position and then determine under what circumstances I feel we are justified to revoke or deny that right.

That means that for me, the only determinations I require are, Is it alive? Is it human? Is there any reason to deny the right to life?

Post #281
Interesting.
I don't believe I've actually taken any position, so I find it amusing that it would somehow be logically flawed.
<snip>


As should be clear by reading the posts, it wasn’t a question of right to life v abortion.
It was a question of defining the quality of life that causes us to protect life.

As I explain in post #132, I’ve never defined what that quality might be, if one exists. I explained my thoughts that the right to life is a basic human right. It doesn’t appear to me to be very detailed as you claim, nor does it appear to me to be a position on the abortion issue. And furthermore, it certainly hasn’t been shown by Jocabia to be logically flawed, or are you not implying that?

Then there’s your claim that you never argued using C.S. Lewis as a source. You kept saying that you didn’t bring C.S. Lewis into the thread, and in fact, Adriatica was the one who first quoted C.S. Lewis. But no one ever said you were the first to bring up Lewis. You were being argued with over your interpretation of Lewis as evidenced by the argument of your own, on the subject of selfishness and C.S. Lewis, which you did bring up, did pursue, and did use C.S. Lewis’s writing to both support and illustrate. You began this at POST 184, you continue to pursue it, and throughout this side argument of yours, you have repeatedly denied that you are doing it -- and then you went back to doing it.


No one ever said I was the first to bring up Lewis??

Post #269
I'm not implying you said anything. I asked a question and I've adequately demonstrated why I asked it. Lewis bastardized an idea to dismiss all the evidence against his position and claimed he'd made a case. It's a poor argument. You want him to be right so you're getting upset because I've demonstrated the flaw in his argument. You brought it here and you're not prepared to deal with problems in his argument. Perhaps next time you should think twice before claiming him as a source.


Peepelonia also made the same mistake, although he apologised in post #298
Then appolgies to you, my remarks where of course meant for whoever mad et he original.


I was never arguing objective morality, let alone using a source. My involvement was never more than clarifying what Lewis’s argument was or was not.
It continues to bother me when people misunderstand it and I continue to argue what Lewis’ argument means and what it can or can’t be applied to.
If you wish to say I’m arguing my interpretation of Lewis, that’s fair, but I’m not using Lewis as a source for anything in this thread.




See POST 342, from which I quote:


Implantation is not a change, it's merely an attachment, necessary of course.


implantatioin is a more significant event than travelling through the fallopian tubes. Why? because it marks a change in the environment and is a milestone of a successful pregancy.




The problem with Jocabia’s claim to my inconsistency here is that he is editing my words with bold to try and make it look as though I’ve contradicted myself. The second quote specifically mentions that it is a change to the environment. I said that specifically to distinguish it from the earlier post because I had said that implantation is not a change of the embryo itself.
Given the brevity of the first statement, and the fact that it has been excised from its context entirely, I can understand how you may have felt it was a contradiction.

"That's not a point, that's a topic you were discussing."

Oooh, I savaged him there, what a brutal attack. I feel bad. I'd apologise if only he had survived it.



Don't flatter yourself; it wasn't worth replying to as it was such a meaningless thing to say.

So, we should be able to kill "people" without brains? Then there would be blood running everywhere...Abortion isnt neccessary after the morning after pill was discovered.

A person without brains wouldn't be alive anyhow.

"right" and "wrong" is not a constant, and is different between people, cultures and ages. Whats wrong today could be okay tomorrow and vica versa. Of course religious people often beleive that there is universal rights and wrongs, but they are dictated by their religion and thus very subjective.

I beleive in my own little religion and in that religion killing something that hasnt aquired life or thought yet is not killing at all.

Don't flatter yourself; it wasn't worth replying to as it was such a meaningless thing to say.


Flatter myself? That was sarcasm. Dripping sarcasm. Not self flattery.

No, he doesn't. Jocabia realized during his rainy softball game today that he got carried away. My last post replying to SE was unnecessary and uncalled for.

You think about your NS posts during softball games?

I'm shocked. Flabberghasted really. You had an opportunity to actual address the arguments I put forward and drop this. You had several posts to choose from and chose the post that doesn't address the topic of the thread.

Didn't you say you don't have time to discuss things that are off-topic? Seems like you have an awful lot of stamina for the topic if it doesn't require you to actually state your position or defend the dozens of posts we've nailed you on. I'm sure that's just a coincidence though.

Would you care to address my detailed post on brain function (since you said I wasn't doing enough work) and how the brainstem controls virtually every function of the body at birth? Again, I'll point out that it specifically compares the functions to reflexes and says that the fetus has no cognitive abiltiies.

Care to address the fact that you claimed the most important part of this topic is examining the significant points in the development of the fetus and deciding how that relates to personhood, but then dropped the argument when we were talking about which points in the development were significant?

The problem with Jocabia’s claim to my inconsistency here is that he is editing my words with bold to try and make it look as though I’ve contradicted myself. The second quote specifically mentions that it is a change to the environment. I said that specifically to distinguish it from the earlier post because I had said that implantation is not a change of the embryo itself.
Given the brevity of the first statement, and the fact that it has been excised from its context entirely, I can understand how you may have felt it was a contradiction.

Interesting. So I was talking about some of the significant moment when things change in the development of the fetus. You said there is no change. Hmmmm.... I guess it must be our fault. Can't be a problem in the way you communicate.

How about you quit playing games and state your positions? Then you can quit bitching about how we simply can't understand you. See, here's the thing, M and I both know that the reason you won't state your position is that we've been nailing you the whole thread and if you state your position you'll be admitting we got it right. But go ahead and read through the thread and try and find a position we haven't addressed. We'll wait.

On the Lewis issue, let's talk about subjective and objective. I'll give you a couple of objective truths.

Healthy, average humans have two legs. See, no matter where I go or who I ask people will tell you that humans pretty much always have two legs and with healthy, average humans it's not pretty much. You won't get answers of three and six. That's objectively true.

Water is composed of oxygen and hydrogen atoms in specific configurations. Objectively true. Or technically could one day be found to be objectively false. However, the answer isn't dependent on who is looking at it. Objective truths.

Now, if we asked everyone in every culture whether selfishness is wrong, you would get different answers. Many people would answer sometimes. Someone would answer no, and perhaps most would answer yes. Seems like that pretty much meets the very definition of subjective.

That's not missing the point. Lewis intended to make the point that selfishness is objectively wrong. He presented an argument that was flawed. We see his point but disagree with his argument. Regardless of how he stated his argument it requires one to ignore the truth of the matter in order to agree. Because selfishness being wrong IS NOT objective true. It's not objectively false. If you walked around talking to people you would get different answers. If you lectured on it. Explained it. Showed pictures. It wouldn't matter people would still give different answers. And I suspect you would get different answers from the same people at different points in their lives. No matter how you look at it, if your not simply ignoring anything that ruins the conclusion you can't get to an objective truth about selfishness. The fact that we've been arguing this for so long is evidence of it. If it was an objective truth like humans having two legs we wouldn't have argued it for twenty pages.

You think about your NS posts during softball games?

It was raining so we were sitting there while they were deciding whether to play. We did end up playing 2.5 innings.

Then if you refuse to bestowed humanity on unborn babies, then tell me when they ARE people as grounds for debate, I'll even do it on your terms.

When there are sparks of cognizance, when there is an ability to experience.

The right to life provides the benefit of allowing people to conduct their own self-preservation, and has the value of allowing people to maintain control over their experiences as best they can.

EDIT: The self-concept begins to be noticeable in the first few months of life, and that is the sign I prefer of a developing consciousness. I currently support abortion up to point of birth.

It was raining so we were sitting there while they were deciding whether to play. We did end up playing 2.5 innings.

I played intramural softball in college. I miss it.

When there are sparks of cognizance, when there is an ability to experience.

The right to life provides the benefit of allowing people to conduct their own self-preservation, and has the value of allowing people to maintain control over their experiences as best they can.

EDIT: The self-concept begins to be noticeable in the first few months of life, and that is the sign I prefer of a developing consciousness. I currently support abortion up to point of birth.

I don't support abortion up until birth, but the article I linked very much evidences your views on the ability to experience. Even the abilities of the neonate in terms of cognizance are very limited.

I'm shocked. Flabberghasted really. You had an opportunity to actual address the arguments I put forward and drop this. You had several posts to choose from and chose the post that doesn't address the topic of the thread.

Didn't you say you don't have time to discuss things that are off-topic? Seems like you have an awful lot of stamina for the topic if it doesn't require you to actually state your position or defend the dozens of posts we've nailed you on. I'm sure that's just a coincidence though.


I don’t have time, I spent time I would normally be sleeping to research the thread and respond to Muravyets. You made this thread about me, and while I appreciate the fact that you’ve thought better of it and have said you would back off, the results of it are still there.

Quite frankly though, my time is my time and how I use it and what I spend it on is my own choice and I don’t appreciate you feeling as though you can dictate how I spend it.

I’m not sure why you spend so much time in attack mode. You regularly attack posters, you attack their style of debate or argument, you regularly declare posters nailed or their arguments demolished or trashed, and when you’re not out right aggressive, you’re sarcastically dismissive, like your coincidence remark.

Are you aware of how aggressive your language and style are? Do you do it on purpose to intimidate or is it just habit now? I’d wager that beyond that 4th wall in the “audience” there are many lurkers that won’t post, or stopped posting because they aren’t interested in Jocabia criticizing their debate style and claiming to have whupped them.

I’m still a relative newcomer to this forum, but I have well over decade, in fact closing in on 2 decades of experience posting in forums and moderating both commercial forums and even flame fest forums. I’ve seen pretty much all the types out there, and while I’ve only interacted with you on 3 threads, I already dread your involvement, because this is the situation I expect. I either ignore you entirely and listen to you crow about owning my posts or I engage you and we end up in lengthy sidebars that I can’t see a point to.


Would you care to address my detailed post on brain function (since you said I wasn't doing enough work) and how the brainstem controls virtually every function of the body at birth? Again, I'll point out that it specifically compares the functions to reflexes and says that the fetus has no cognitive abiltiies.


I would care to, but to be honest, I haven’t decided what direction to take with it. I can either boil it down to the salient points where we and also professionals disagree, but I suspect you will claim I’m ignoring the wealth of info you feel you are using to support your case, or I can attempt to engage you with a detailed examination of the issue and relevant studies. I’m not convinced this is a good place to do that, nor am I sure I want to spend that time.

It seemed to me that it was implied that I was making it all up and there existed no evidence to support the fetus learning experience I was talking about. You aren’t obligated to agree, you clearly put more weight in other studies and explanations, but the important issue for me was that it wasn’t something I made up for the thread.

Tell me; is there any chance whatsoever that engaging in that debate would change your view on the fetus or the neonate? I suspect that since you can’t even give ground on whether I brought C.S. Lewis in to the thread or not, that there is no chance.

Care to address the fact that you claimed the most important part of this topic is examining the significant points in the development of the fetus and deciding how that relates to personhood, but then dropped the argument when we were talking about which points in the development were significant?


Sure, I’ll grab the pertinent posts.


Post # 80, in response to Dakini
Fair enough then, although I believe you're on shaky ground for the stimulus response test. It's rather hard to accept that something went from non-life to life at 20 weeks of development.

Part of the problem here might be the various views on what we are talking about, life, human life, personhood, legal recognition, etc that becomes somewhat more consistent hundreds of posts later.

Dakini was referencing stimulus response tests to prove simple organism life. This is not a discussion of what constitutes the human experience or legal personhood. That is why I make the comments regarding the change from non-life to life. Life comes from life, not from non-life.

Post #89
Is it more hard to believe than it happened when two cells met?

This is Jocabia’s question in response to post #80

Post #94
No, it's not, in my opinion. When two cells merge, something has happened, there has been a significant change and there is now something there that wasn't before.

I’m still quite surprised this was debated, but I need expand here since what I thought to be a simple and obvious point clearly wasn’t.
The 2 cells that merge, the sperm and egg are not “life” themselves. Each is a part of a life, one part from each of the potential parents. When they combine a new life is formed with its own genetic code that begins developing. This is the first time you have evidence of something new, something that wasn’t there before. I’m not saying that it qualifies yet as a “human life” in a philosophical sense or as a person in a legal sense, I’m only remarking on the unique biological situation that marks the new life.

Some argue that this isn’t even life yet, it’s to that argument that I was responding.
Many strong Pro-Life advocates will use this as the point where they put their stake in the ground and defend from. It’s an easy point to determine and can make for a consistent argument.


Post #110
No more significant than the moment of implantation, the moment of ejaculation, the moment of birth, the moment the brainstem engages, the moment the brain begins to work, the moment movement becomes possible, etc.

Post #120
Implantation is not a change, it's merely an attachment, necessary of course.
Ejaculation may be significant to you or I, but it is no change to life.
Birth is a traumatic event, but it marks no significant change to the life itself, but is rather a change in that life's environment.
The brainstem engaging may be a significant development point, but harder to pin down.
The brain beginning to work is also significant, but is more of lengthy process than a moment.
Possible movement also seems more than a little difficult to mark.

The coming together of the sperm and egg to create a new life is possibly the most significant and easiest point to mark in a new life. I'm not advocating that as the point where abortion becomes either wrong or illegal, but the biology of the situation is clear.



Post #124
Undeniably false. There is a significant change that occurs at implantation and as a result of implantation.


According to you. It is a very significant moment in the process of creating a baby.

Again, undeniably false. There are significant changes in the baby and the function of its parts at the moment of birth. It's significant enough that we change the scientific term for the being at that moment. This indicates a difference scientifically.

Only because we don't have the technology to do so. We have a rough idea of when it occurs. Almost as exact as conception, in fact. Meanwhile, why does how difficult it is to mark make any difference in the significance.

No, it occurs at a single moment. It's either operating or it's not operating.

Actually we can nail that down much more closely than conception.

What does the ease of marking it have to do with anything. If it's the beginning of life then whether or not we can easily mark it has nothing to do with it. How well we can mark it has nothing to do with "the biology of the situation". It is not the most significant point in the new life by far. Clearly the moment when the fetus begins to experience the world (which occurs within the womb) is far more significant than when it's genetics are combined. There are far more important developmental points where much greater effect is had. In fact, there are significant differences in the development that are decided by the mother's hormones long after that moment.



Post #131
It's not important enough to the discussion to travel this road. Hold those views if you so wish.


To be honest, I could have tried to further this discussion and turn it towards the topic, but it felt to me as though you were more interested in quibbling than finding common ground.
You feel that it is clear that when experience begins is more significant than conception and the combining of genetics, I felt it was clearly the opposite. Perhaps that’s a function of my own bias as a result of including genetics in my B.Sc.
Also, at that point in the thread, I was replying to you on what looks to be 3 separate sub threads while also conversing with Dinaverg, Llewdor, The Alma Mater, and was mostly interested in and preoccupied with Vittos Ordination2’s questions about why we even protect life in the first place. I wasn’t interested at the time in the hassle it generally involves in discussing with you, so I dropped one part.
In hindsight, perhaps I should have dropped the others and pursued that one then, oh well.





Interesting. So I was talking about some of the significant moment when things change in the development of the fetus. You said there is no change. Hmmmm.... I guess it must be our fault. Can't be a problem in the way you communicate.

You can share the blame if you like. I believe the context bears out that I was not being contradictory, but the problem likely was how I communicated it. I left the door far too wide open for the point to be misconstrued because I was being brief.
I’m sure you still don’t agree that implantation isn’t a significant change to the embryo compared to conception, but my point both times regarding implantation was that the embryo itself doesn’t undergo change at that point, but its environment does and the implantation allows the next phase of development, where the changes occur, to begin.


How about you quit playing games and state your positions? Then you can quit bitching about how we simply can't understand you. See, here's the thing, M and I both know that the reason you won't state your position is that we've been nailing you the whole thread and if you state your position you'll be admitting we got it right. But go ahead and read through the thread and try and find a position we haven't addressed. We'll wait.

You know what? As long as you’re solely interested in “nailing” me, then I’m not interested in answering your questions.
If you want to have a discussion and want to know my views, I can do that.


On the Lewis issue, let's talk about subjective and objective. I'll give you a couple of objective truths.

Healthy, average humans have two legs. See, no matter where I go or who I ask people will tell you that humans pretty much always have two legs and with healthy, average humans it's not pretty much. You won't get answers of three and six. That's objectively true.

Water is composed of oxygen and hydrogen atoms in specific configurations. Objectively true. Or technically could one day be found to be objectively false. However, the answer isn't dependent on who is looking at it. Objective truths.

Now, if we asked everyone in every culture whether selfishness is wrong, you would get different answers. Many people would answer sometimes. Someone would answer no, and perhaps most would answer yes. Seems like that pretty much meets the very definition of subjective.

That's not missing the point. Lewis intended to make the point that selfishness is objectively wrong. He presented an argument that was flawed. We see his point but disagree with his argument. Regardless of how he stated his argument it requires one to ignore the truth of the matter in order to agree. Because selfishness being wrong IS NOT objective true. It's not objectively false. If you walked around talking to people you would get different answers. If you lectured on it. Explained it. Showed pictures. It wouldn't matter people would still give different answers. And I suspect you would get different answers from the same people at different points in their lives. No matter how you look at it, if your not simply ignoring anything that ruins the conclusion you can't get to an objective truth about selfishness. The fact that we've been arguing this for so long is evidence of it. If it was an objective truth like humans having two legs we wouldn't have argued it for twenty pages.

Ahhh, finally, you’re willing to discuss Lewis in the same arena he is making his point in.
Thank you.

OK, yes, your water and human legs issues are objective truths, but they are also tangible.
You will never need 20 pages to discuss a tangible truth; it would be frivolous since the Truth can be easily and obviously observed. You will likely have a few try to argue that those with only one leg are still healthy and average enough, so I doubt that even on such an easy objective truth you will have complete agreement, you will still have some dissenters. Humans are just disagreeable like that.

With an intangible question up for consideration as an objective truth, I don’t think we can ever expect complete agreement. Does that sound reasonable?

You’re claiming that we will not have complete agreement, but more importantly (from my perspective) we’ll have a significant amount of disagreement.
I don’t think we can resolve this then, short of some comprehensive survey/study. Lewis believed that his point would be self evident to the reader and I tend to agree with him, but not strongly enough to try and tell someone like yourself that you should accept it if it isn’t self evident to you.

Can we put this one to bed then as agreement to disagree?

*snip*

Oy, time for the peanut gallery to get involved. You whine and bitch and moan about side-arguements and quibbling and misrepresentation. Here's you chance to fix things up. What do you think? What the fuck do you think? Just say what you freaking mean! No one can "misrepresent" you if you have a very clear point of reference as to what you think. Can you just make a post that says what you think about abortion and why?

I don’t have time, I spent time I would normally be sleeping to research the thread and respond to Muravyets. You made this thread about me, and while I appreciate the fact that you’ve thought better of it and have said you would back off, the results of it are still there.

Plenty of time to discuss anything but the topic. Take your time. Feel free to ignore all the parts of the posts that are not on point and simply insulting and respond to only points. If what you say about my insults and the insults of others is true this should save you a buttload of time.

Quite frankly though, my time is my time and how I use it and what I spend it on is my own choice and I don’t appreciate you feeling as though you can dictate how I spend it.

Not dictate it. It just very interesting that when I ask for a reply to real points, you don't have time, but you've never had any trouble finding the time for insults. In fact, it appears that you pick and choose what you'll reply to based on how well you'll come off in the reply or how badly we'll come off. Now, what's that say about the stuff you won't reply to. I can guess. Can you?

I’m not sure why you spend so much time in attack mode. You regularly attack posters, you attack their style of debate or argument, you regularly declare posters nailed or their arguments demolished or trashed, and when you’re not out right aggressive, you’re sarcastically dismissive, like your coincidence remark.

No doubt. I'm dismissive, pompous, sarcastic. Interesting how much time you have to point that out. Also, interesting how you've still not acknowledged that the 'attack mode' in this thread started with your 'sarcastically dismissive' comments. Now about the points in the thread...

Are you aware of how aggressive your language and style are? Do you do it on purpose to intimidate or is it just habit now? I’d wager that beyond that 4th wall in the “audience” there are many lurkers that won’t post, or stopped posting because they aren’t interested in Jocabia criticizing their debate style and claiming to have whupped them.

Mostly the habit thing. I usually try to tone it down when I notice it. I'm also aware of how aggressive your language is. The difference is that I'm not using my language or yours as an excuse to avoid answering the points of the topic. Meanwhile, are you going to respond to the points in the thread?

I’m still a relative newcomer to this forum, but I have well over decade, in fact closing in on 2 decades of experience posting in forums and moderating both commercial forums and even flame fest forums. I’ve seen pretty much all the types out there, and while I’ve only interacted with you on 3 threads, I already dread your involvement, because this is the situation I expect. I either ignore you entirely and listen to you crow about owning my posts or I engage you and we end up in lengthy sidebars that I can’t see a point to.

Yes, it's all me. I've noticed that I'm the only one you're having a problem with. I've noticed you've not accepted your part here at all. Meanwhile, you've completely stopped trying to actually participate in the thread. How interesting. Now, do you have anything on point to say or do you have only have TIME for attacking people?

I would care to, but to be honest, I haven’t decided what direction to take with it. I can either boil it down to the salient points where we and also professionals disagree, but I suspect you will claim I’m ignoring the wealth of info you feel you are using to support your case, or I can attempt to engage you with a detailed examination of the issue and relevant studies. I’m not convinced this is a good place to do that, nor am I sure I want to spend that time.

It seemed to me that it was implied that I was making it all up and there existed no evidence to support the fetus learning experience I was talking about. You aren’t obligated to agree, you clearly put more weight in other studies and explanations, but the important issue for me was that it wasn’t something I made up for the thread.

Tell me; is there any chance whatsoever that engaging in that debate would change your view on the fetus or the neonate? I suspect that since you can’t even give ground on whether I brought C.S. Lewis in to the thread or not, that there is no chance.

No one claimed you were making it up. Just that you were wrong. There are few experts that I've ever seen that claim the things you are talking about are more than imprinting and forebrain activity. There were a few republicans saying it about Terri Schiavo, but they were proven wrong when her head got opened up and they didn't find a forebrain capable of function. She still reacted however to her mother and various other things.

There is little chance, but it's possible. I'm always interested in new information.

I didn't say you brought CS Lewis in the thread. I said you used it as evidence, when I referenced bringing it in, I was referring to y'all. You however did use it as evidence and did defend it. Then you claimed anyone thinking that you agree with this evidence you're defending or that you were using it as evidence is unable to understand your points. Can't see where anyone might have gotten the impression that you were defending CS Lewis' ideas. I mean, it COULD have been from when you were actually doing that, but hey I'm not here to pick nits.

Sure, I’ll grab the pertinent posts.


Post # 80, in response to Dakini


Part of the problem here might be the various views on what we are talking about, life, human life, personhood, legal recognition, etc that becomes somewhat more consistent hundreds of posts later.

Dakini was referencing stimulus response tests to prove simple organism life. This is not a discussion of what constitutes the human experience or legal personhood. That is why I make the comments regarding the change from non-life to life. Life comes from life, not from non-life.

Post #89

You are using the term life two different ways. Life comes from life but the life this organism is coming from is the mother. He was referring to the stimulus tests that dictate whether something is an organism, as you said. A conceptus does not meet the burden. It behaves as single cells. It is well into the cycle before it begans to act as an organism. A human heart better mets the organism tests than an embryo does. Meanwhile, he's not claiming the cells are not living before that point. It is still life coming from life. However prior to that point what exists is simply a combination of the reproductive products of the parents.

This is Jocabia’s question in response to post #80

Post #94


I’m still quite surprised this was debated, but I need expand here since what I thought to be a simple and obvious point clearly wasn’t.
The 2 cells that merge, the sperm and egg are not “life” themselves. Each is a part of a life, one part from each of the potential parents. When they combine a new life is formed with its own genetic code that begins developing. This is the first time you have evidence of something new, something that wasn’t there before. I’m not saying that it qualifies yet as a “human life” in a philosophical sense or as a person in a legal sense, I’m only remarking on the unique biological situation that marks the new life.

See, I don't believe for a second you've ever discussed abortion before and you think that your point is a given. "Life" as you put does not refer to living cells (since the sperm and egg don't count) so you must be referring to an organism. Your conceptus does not meet that burden. That's the simple and obvious point. If it can't be an organism, it's hard to argue it's a 'new life'.

I also find it amusing that when we are referring to the 20-week mark you make the argument that "life does not come from non-life" but then you claim the conceptus comes from non-life. Unless of course you are intending to use the term exactly the same way Dakini was, in which case it appears you were just trying to be difficult. I find it hard to believe that you know how to use a term yourself in a way you couldn't understand when Dakini used it.

Some argue that this isn’t even life yet, it’s to that argument that I was responding.
Many strong Pro-Life advocates will use this as the point where they put their stake in the ground and defend from. It’s an easy point to determine and can make for a consistent argument.

It isn't life yet. Not in the way you're using it. It doesn't respond as a lifeform anymore than the egg and sperm do. There is nothing easy about that point. Only pro-life advocates make that claim.

Again, I have referenced the fact that we have NO IDEA how many spontaneous abortions occur because the moment of conception and whether a conception has occurred is so hard to measure unless there is implantation. When an implantation occurs we work backwards to conception. Now if you've figured out a new way to always be correct about conception, you should do a study because to date no one has done one successfully and there are many people interesting in knowing an even remotely close estimate of the number of conceptions that occur with no pregnancy.

Post #110


Post #120




Post #124




Post #131



To be honest, I could have tried to further this discussion and turn it towards the topic, but it felt to me as though you were more interested in quibbling than finding common ground.
You feel that it is clear that when experience begins is more significant than conception and the combining of genetics, I felt it was clearly the opposite. Perhaps that’s a function of my own bias as a result of including genetics in my B.Sc.

There are no genetics requirements in the organism test. (Incidentally, I wish I would have read your statement about your degree before I explained the organism test above. I'll go back up and edit.) There are no genetics requirement in the test for whether a person has died. The only thing genetics does is show that the material is human.

Also, at that point in the thread, I was replying to you on what looks to be 3 separate sub threads while also conversing with Dinaverg, Llewdor, The Alma Mater, and was mostly interested in and preoccupied with Vittos Ordination2’s questions about why we even protect life in the first place. I wasn’t interested at the time in the hassle it generally involves in discussing with you, so I dropped one part.
In hindsight, perhaps I should have dropped the others and pursued that one then, oh well.

It's not quibbling. As you said, it's the crux of the argument. So many in the pro-life movement act as if the moment of conception is objectively the only point that anyone could consider a marker. It's a ridiculous dismissal of the reality of pregnancy, yet it happens in every abortion discussion. I suspect that many of them are not aware that the majority of pregnancies end in spontaneous abortion.

You can share the blame if you like. I believe the context bears out that I was not being contradictory, but the problem likely was how I communicated it. I left the door far too wide open for the point to be misconstrued because I was being brief.

But why? You and I both know this is a very significant point to the discussion. You said as much. However in this post and others you acted as if the start of life being at conception is a given. Again, I don't see any consistency in claiming it's the crux of the argument while simultatnously claiming that there is no argument to be had because life so obviously must start at conception. Unless of course, you're not looking to address it logically and admit there is not logical distinction that sets conception as the point unless that's what you want it to be. And you're welcome to want it to be, but I know of nothing about biology that makes it a necessary point of distinction.

I’m sure you still don’t agree that implantation isn’t a significant change to the embryo compared to conception, but my point both times regarding implantation was that the embryo itself doesn’t undergo change at that point, but its environment does and the implantation allows the next phase of development, where the changes occur, to begin.

That's false. The embryo does in fact change as a result of implantation. As much or more than at the moment of conception. It doesn't allow the changes that occur in the next stages to begin, it causes them to begin. That's a fairly significant difference. Implantation doesn't just happen to occur between those two points in development. It has to occur in order for the change it represents to start the next stage of development.

It's an incredibly significant point and the point the body has made a choice (choice is a rough term, but it has a, well, let's call it a flowchart, it puts the conceptus and the female through to determine whether or not it should create a pregnancy). If the body and conceptus are not perfect at that point, there will be no pregnancy. That's more than significant. Much more so than conception. If an egg encounters a bunch of sperm there is likely to be a conception. Conception is much more a product of luck It is far less likely that this conception will become a pregnancy. There is nothing lucky about it. It's a rigorous biological test that the conceptus must pass in order to implant.

You know what? As long as you’re solely interested in “nailing” me, then I’m not interested in answering your questions.
If you want to have a discussion and want to know my views, I can do that.

I'm not solely interested in nailing you. However, I suspect the reason you're unwilling to clearly state certain points is because you're solely interested in not getting nailed. I come here to debate. I do it because I like excercising my logic skills and I like to learn. I don't learn anything from people who are making spurious claims, so the only think left to do is to nail them. I learn tons from people whose opinion just differs from my own. I'd be quite happy if you were in the second group, but thus far that hasn't been my experience.

Ahhh, finally, you’re willing to discuss Lewis in the same arena he is making his point in.
Thank you.

You're kidding right. That's what we've been talking about all along. Everyone here has just pointing to specific instances of why people won't answer the question the same. That's what is wrong with Lewis' argument.

I didn't change my answer, I simply explained it differently, so if you feel like NOW I get it, then it's you that was missing the point. I find it interesting that you can claim that I and others don't understand but it was I that had to keep presenting the arguments until you understood why we had an issue with Lewis' argument. If our point about Lewis was so flawed you simply could have made it clearer but stating all of this at the time, unless of course you needed me to explain it to you in order to have a more reasonable response than "you don't get what Lewis is saying".

OK, yes, your water and human legs issues are objective truths, but they are also tangible.

Yes, they're tangible and that's why they're objective. There can be objective truths that are intangible, but the requirements for objective don't change. If everyone sees something differently (as we've been demonstrating throughout the thread) then it's subjective. Lewis is claiming "they don't REALLY see things differently" but the fact is they do. If they didn't explanation wouldn't be necessary. You'd simply have to point it out and it'd be obvious. If you have to force everyone to look at it from your point of view in order to see it the same way as you do, then it's subjective. You've been arguing the whole thread that if we don't agree to look at it exactly as he looks at it then we're not getting the point, ignoring the fact that doing that means it must be subjective.

You will never need 20 pages to discuss a tangible truth; it would be frivolous since the Truth can be easily and obviously observed. You will likely have a few try to argue that those with only one leg are still healthy and average enough, so I doubt that even on such an easy objective truth you will have complete agreement, you will still have some dissenters. Humans are just disagreeable like that.

You don't need 20 pages to discuss it because it's objective. You discuss subjective truths because everyone has a different opinion on them.

And yes, you're right about the few dissenters but the point is that they are the exception. One can hardly argue that whole cultures are just exceptions.

With an intangible question up for consideration as an objective truth, I don’t think we can ever expect complete agreement. Does that sound reasonable?

You don't need complete agreement as you demonstrated. However, even remote agreement would be nice. There is no agreement that selfishness is objectively bad. Again, if you asked if selfishness is objectively bad, many, many people you talked to would explain where it is and isn't bad and they wouldn't even agree which times it is and isn't. That's the very definition of subjective.

You’re claiming that we will not have complete agreement, but more importantly (from my perspective) we’ll have a significant amount of disagreement.

Yes. And always have been. It's not that every single person has to say the same thing. But you sure should have a vastly high percentage of them saying the same thing. In this case you'd have a vastly high percentage of them saying SIMILAR things. Similar and the same are simlar, but not the same. ;)

I don’t think we can resolve this then, short of some comprehensive survey/study. Lewis believed that his point would be self evident to the reader and I tend to agree with him, but not strongly enough to try and tell someone like yourself that you should accept it if it isn’t self evident to you.

Can we put this one to bed then as agreement to disagree?

You don't have to do a comprehensive study. His words evidence the fact that there is no agreement. He has to explain the point for the very reason that there is not objective consensus on selfishness. He knew it when he started which is why he explained that point. If it was objective it should be obvious. The only time an objective truth should be disagreed upon is due to ignorance. He's not arguing the disagreement comes from ignorance but instead that it doesn't matter. That's a flawed argument.

What I would like to see happen is that since you've been claiming that everyone has gotten your points wrong, that you clearly, oh, I don't know, PUT THEM IN A POST.

I don't think there is a person in this thread that would find this single post to be the only post where you CLEARLY stated your positions. This does two things. It allows us to clearly state our response to them and prevents anyone from having difficulty later in the thread with arguing a point that wasn't made or intended to be made.

I am really going to enjoy reading the book you guys are writing about this thread when you are done.

I am really going to enjoy reading the book you guys are writing about this thread when you are done.

Yeah, sorry. His post is actually pretty good. It's definitely the one where he most clearly states his points. It's worth the read. Hopefully, mine is equally good, but I'm not in a position to judge such a thing.

Oy, time for the peanut gallery to get involved. You whine and bitch and moan about side-arguements and quibbling and misrepresentation. Here's you chance to fix things up. What do you think? What the fuck do you think? Just say what you freaking mean! No one can "misrepresent" you if you have a very clear point of reference as to what you think. Can you just make a post that says what you think about abortion and why?


I never complained about being misrepresented, that was Murvayets.
I don't know how you see this as a chance to fix anything up, but sure.

I think that the abortion question is a complex issue that can't be boiled down to either a simplistic right to life or right to choose point.

I think that life exists at conception but that given the low frequency of natural survival, it is not reasonable to enforce laws to protect something that hasn't established a realistic chance of survival.

I think that the late term fetus should be entitled to the same rights as the newborn as it is equally capable of surviving.

I think that just as conception is not a reasonable point to begin protecting life, neither is birth.

I think that once we accept that there is a life to protect, that right to life is superior to any right of a woman to choose to be pregnant or not.

I think that religious belief should never be a factor in deciding what laws to make or enforce.

I think that the majority of the people that care about the abortion issue are so polarised and entrenched in their belief systems that they are generally unreasonable and unwilling to honestly consider the issue.

I think that when you challenge people's beliefs on abortion they become unecessarily emotional and make wild strawman claims that have no bearing on what is usually being said.

I think that in order to have a workable law, we would be best served by choosing an arbitrary "line in the sand" that is as close to what we understand from medicine marks the appropriate point to reasonably consider a human life with a high chance of survival, brain activity has been referenced frequently in this thread and could possibly serve this function.

I think I may have missed parts of what I think, but this will have to serve since this isn't a disscussion, but me doing a brain dump.

I think that once we accept that there is a life to protect, that right to life is superior to any right of a woman to choose to be pregnant or not.

Well, this certainly helps. This one point seems the only issue to me...Living or not, what gives the fetus the right to the mothers body?

I think that when you challenge people's beliefs on abortion they become unecessarily emotional and make wild strawman claims that have no bearing on what is usually being said.

I agree with much of this, but I had to reply to that one bit. I think you're correct. It is greatly exasperated when you refuse to clearly state your points.

I'll give you an example. When I defended VO2's argument, I made certain I had stated my view brain activity earlier because I didn't want people to confuse my defense with actually agree with him. I think there were flaws in his argument but I also felt his argument was misrepresented so I clarified. Had I not previously stated my position I would considered it reasonable for someone to think I was in the same camp as VO2. When in fact someone did think that, I clarified my position again (I think it was you that asked).

When you defended Lewis' argument you claimed not to actually agree with him, but prior to beginning the defense you made this clear to no one. When it came up, you again said you said you whether you agreed with him or not but still did not clarify your position. Isn't it reasonable that such a thing would lead to confusion?

I'm guilty of a lot of things, many of which I've stated in this thread, but I don't think there is generally any confusion as to what my point is (correct me if I'm wrong). I think this goes a long way to allowing a thread to move forward. It's in everyone's interests including your own. Sure, sometimes I get proven wrong, and I don't leave myself much wiggle room, but in the end, I don't need it. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong. If I'm not, I'm not. And if no objective conclusion can be reached either way, great. Still makes for a better discussion.

The position you left out is what is your position on objective morality? Do you believe that it is objectively true that selfishness is wrong?

I think that life exists at conception but that given the low frequency of natural survival, it is not reasonable to enforce laws to protect something that hasn't established a realistic chance of survival.


The question isn't really ABOUT whether 'life' is present at conception - it is more about "is the conceptus A HUMAN LIFE". Sperm COULD be argued to be 'living', but they are not 'a human life'. Your lungs are 'living', but a lung is not 'a human' life'.

That's where the really important decision must lie.


I think that the late term fetus should be entitled to the same rights as the newborn as it is equally capable of surviving.


I'd disagree. They should have similar rights, perhaps - but not 'the same'. Throughout the entire lifecycle, we apply different 'rules' at different stages. I think it folly to blur those lines.

On the other hand - if a late term foetus is 'delivered', I see no problem AFTER THAT DELIVERY, with giving that entity the same rights as the conventional 'newborn'.

It is all about WHERE the entity is.

Well, let’s toss up your words then, with no editing and take a look.



See there, in your opening? Where you say “Says the person who refuses to state his own position on the topic and then uses that refusal to try to claim that others are misinterpreting his statements”.
Those 2 look more than a little connected since you use the conjunction AND, then you reference your first half in the second half.
Plus, for the rest of the list, you segregate each item with a semi colon.

I believe that this is absolutely nothing like editing your statements to make them look like anything other than what they are.

Do you still maintain that those are simply items 1 and 2 on a list and it is somehow my malicious editing that makes it appear otherwise?
A) Hm, it appears I missed an edit in my original post, therefore, my mistake in this post and I apologize. HOWEVER,

B) I still dispute your claim that you did not edit my posts and pick and choose which sentences to respond to while ignoring the impact of the rest of them. As you deal with that below, I'll address it below.

I mentioned that I hadn’t stated my own position in response to Jocabia claiming to have shown logical flaws in my position.
If I haven’t stated my position, can you see how his claim would be difficult to accept?
No, that doesn't fly at all. Jocabia was criticizing your posted statements by their content. You are trying to dismiss his criticisms altogether by focusing on his use of the term "your position" and claiming that since the statements are not your position then there is no flaw in your position. Then, when asked what your position is, you did not answer. Instead, you just kept pursuing the same points that Jocabia criticiqued and kept claiming that he couldn't criticize them because they were not your position. This doesn't look at all like a bogus and time-wasting tactic to you? It does to just about everyone else here.

We're not mindreaders here. There is no way that we can know you are posting things you don't really believe in unless you say so. This is a debate forum. Participants come in with positions on topics; they express those positions, and argue the topics from those positions. The default assumption is that anyone who posts an opinion here is expressing a position by what they post. The vast majority of times, it is not necessary to specifically state one's position before entering the debate because it is obvious from the content of our posts. If it is not, then it is up to each of us to make ourselves clear. So it was entirely reasonable for all of us to take your posts at their face value as expressing your position and to criticize that position based on their content, and if we were mistaken, it was your responsibility to make yourself clear -- to tell us what was right, not just keep telling us that we were wrong.

I haven’t said that I have been misinterpreted because people don’t know what position is. When I have stated I was misinterpreted or misunderstood, it was in response to a specific post that I made; that another poster responded to in a way did not match the intent of my post. An understanding of a position is no protection against misunderstanding a post from that person
You explain nothing. You complain about being misunderstood or misinterpreted, but you don't offer clarifications or corrections. Much of the time, you are labeling disagreement as misunderstanding, again without offering any further or clearer information to resolve said misunderstanding. If there is a conflict here, it was in your power to resolve, and you did not do so before now. I see that, later in this thread, you actually do state your postion on abortion. So finally, we might be able to conduct a discussion about something other than our difficulty in understanding you. I hope we can put paid to this side argument once and for all.


Post #230


In post #240, I quote your post in it’s entirety.
I enjoyed how it began with the snarky jab stating that you were having difficulty arguing with me because of your accusation that I wasn’t reading the posts. But you’d never engage in an attack on the person, right?
You know what? I'm sick of trying to parse out precisely where the disconnect between my statements and your responses to them are. I maintain that you edited me. You say you didn't. You say you read all the posts? Well, I read them, too. Maybe I'm wrong, maybe you are. Let's leave it to other readers who have less invested in it to decide -- if any of them care. Now that you have stated your position at last, we may begin afresh and see if we can do better. I propose that we abandon this side argument without either of us conceding anything. I will post my position in response to your position statement, and then, if this same problem happens again, we will have a starting point to track it from.

As for your apparent dislike of snarkiness, I respectfully suggest you invest in a thicker skin. You may not like pompous, arrogant asses like me and Jocabia, but we are clawless little pussycats compared to some others in this forum. Oh, and that 4th wall thing? Learn to shrug it off. This is a public forum and, therefore, there is a certain amount of performance art involved.

I came back with an equally snarky post, but I didn’t change your claim. You claimed the foetus has no life to lose. How can you possibly put that forward in a discussion of abortion when you KNOW that every one of your opponents does not agree with that statement and it’s predominantly because they disagree with it that they even argue abortion in the first place.
My opponents do not get to tell me what points I may or may not bring up. The bolded point is a solid and commonly held part of the pro-choice view, and if anti-choice debators are not prepared to present a counter argument, then they have a weakness, because that would make this an argument they cannot defeat. You don't get to tell me that I'm not allowed to win a debate by presenting undefeatable points. Either defeat it or concede the point.

If you could convince your opponents in the abortion debate that a foetus in fact has no life to lose, you would “win”, it would be over.
That is rather the point of bringing it up.

All points that pro-choice proponents bring regarding rights of a woman, or the superior rights of those already born and experiencing life would be moot if this question of foetus life was resolved with a negative.
So argue it then. Defeat it, if you can.

That’s why it is very frustrating to those that are not comfortable with abortion as a legal option when someone in a debate acts as if there is obvious agreement on what they consider the main point of contention.
Didn't the OP start this thread with a claim that there is an objective moral order that mandates that the anti-choice argument is not only right but also objective rather than subjective? In other words, isn't he saying that because, as he contends, a certain set of morals is an objective fact, there should be obvious agreement as to the main point of contention (abortion)?

Yet you would criticize me on those very grounds simply because I stated my view with confidence? That's very cute. Too bad I'm not going to backpedal from my statement. I said what I said. Deal with it, address it, defeat it if you can.

I’ve just reread posts 247 and 248, and then my responses in posts 249 and 250.
<snip>
I’m devoting a significant portion of my time to you in this post alone in an attempt to give you the thorough response you feel you need, but honestly, it shouldn’t be required.

Everyone reading can read your post, whether I quote it or not. If you make a point that you believe has been sidelined without being properly addressed, bring it up again, we aren’t all going to read and reply with the same priorities. There has been no attempt to claim you have said anything other than what you have said, but the points I feel are important won’t necessarily be the same ones that you do, and that’s how it works for all of us.
<snip>
Like I said, I still dispute this but, now that you have finally stated a position, I would rather start fresh from that point and leave this issue to thread historians, if such creatures exist. And frankly, I have no desire to get much more of your undivided attention. I don't think I can handle much more of such generous condescension.

No one ever said I was the first to bring up Lewis??

Post #269

Peepelonia also made the same mistake, although he apologised in post #298


I was never arguing objective morality, let alone using a source. My involvement was never more than clarifying what Lewis’s argument was or was not.
It continues to bother me when people misunderstand it and I continue to argue what Lewis’ argument means and what it can or can’t be applied to.
If you wish to say I’m arguing my interpretation of Lewis, that’s fair, but I’m not using Lewis as a source for anything in this thread.
Right, you are arguing about Lewis's writings and using Lewis's writings to evidence and illustrate your points. I.e., in the context of your argument, Lewis is your evidence. Jocabia was taking issue with your interpretation of Lewis. It has nothing to do with who originally brought up Lewis or why. The side argument was about your statements.

The problem with Jocabia’s claim to my inconsistency here is that he is editing my words with bold to try and make it look as though I’ve contradicted myself. The second quote specifically mentions that it is a change to the environment. I said that specifically to distinguish it from the earlier post because I had said that implantation is not a change of the embryo itself.
Given the brevity of the first statement, and the fact that it has been excised from its context entirely, I can understand how you may have felt it was a contradiction.
I personally agreed with Jocabia that your argument about the earliest stages of pregnancy was self-contradictory. In my view it was because you were using language too loosely, first claiming that things are not changes and then saying that they are changes. You cannot nail down precise ideas without using precise language. Just like my insistence on the difference between "person" and "legal person." Persnicketiness about details is sometimes the best course to take.

Well, this certainly helps. This one point seems the only issue to me...Living or not, what gives the fetus the right to the mothers body?

It doesn't have a right TO the mother's body, it has the right to be IN the mother's body. That's its natural place to be, you could even say it was "invited" to be there.

I never complained about being misrepresented, that was Murvayets.
I don't know how you see this as a chance to fix anything up, but sure.

I think that the abortion question is a complex issue that can't be boiled down to either a simplistic right to life or right to choose point.

I think that life exists at conception but that given the low frequency of natural survival, it is not reasonable to enforce laws to protect something that hasn't established a realistic chance of survival.

I think that the late term fetus should be entitled to the same rights as the newborn as it is equally capable of surviving.

I think that just as conception is not a reasonable point to begin protecting life, neither is birth.

I think that once we accept that there is a life to protect, that right to life is superior to any right of a woman to choose to be pregnant or not.

I think that religious belief should never be a factor in deciding what laws to make or enforce.

I think that the majority of the people that care about the abortion issue are so polarised and entrenched in their belief systems that they are generally unreasonable and unwilling to honestly consider the issue.

I think that when you challenge people's beliefs on abortion they become unecessarily emotional and make wild strawman claims that have no bearing on what is usually being said.

I think that in order to have a workable law, we would be best served by choosing an arbitrary "line in the sand" that is as close to what we understand from medicine marks the appropriate point to reasonably consider a human life with a high chance of survival, brain activity has been referenced frequently in this thread and could possibly serve this function.

I think I may have missed parts of what I think, but this will have to serve since this isn't a disscussion, but me doing a brain dump.
This sounds as if you should be largely satisfied with the status quo on abortion. The laws that exist now allow elective abortion up until the period that brain activity should begin. After than, abortion is restricted to medical necessity, i.e. to protect the life of the woman, or if something goes so seriously wrong with the fetus and/or pregnancy as to be fatal to the fetus.

So, does this mean that you do not support changing the law to expand restrictions on abortion? If so, there is no disagreement between you and me.

My position is pro-choice. Details as follows:

My position is based on a first principle, to wit: Personal responsibility must be equal to personal authority, or else the situation is unjust. By the sheer fact of how pregnancy works, the woman is 100% responsible for the continuing existence of the embryo/fetus. There is no way for her to give that responsibility to anyone else. Likewise with all the physical risks attached to pregnancy. Since no one else can take or share that responsibility, and no one else can take or share those risks, then no one else should take or share authority over pregnancy. It is up to the woman to decide whether she wishes to be pregnant, how to care for herself in light of that decision, and if a pregnancy develops problems, it should be up to her to decide what to do about it. It is her body. She gets to decide if she will allow a fetus to gestate in it. And if she does decide to gestate a fetus, she still holds two further powers that give her authority over it: (1) her right not to sacrifice her life for another, i.e. the right to authorize a medically necessary abortion; and (2) the right of guardianship over the fetus, since she and the fetus are together in the same body, but the woman owns the body AND the woman is the only one of them who is a legal person and the only one of them with a functioning intellect that is competent to make decisions, i.e. the woman is the only one who should have the right to approve or disapprove decisions that willl affect the fetus inside her, because such decisions will affect her too and because the fetus cannot be consulted.

The woman’s authority over the fetus should reduce at the same time and at the same rate as her responsibility for its continued existence reduces. In the first trimester, the fetus is nothing more than a parasitic bud growing off her body. She can do what she likes about it. Even into the second trimester, before brain activity begins, it is not even a living being. All decisions about it only affect her. From the start of brain activity, the fetus becomes a separate entity and becomes increasingly able to live without the support of the woman’s body. Her right to make decisions about its survival now reduce from elective to necessary, and her authority role should change from owner of the body to legal guardian of the fetus up until she gives birth. Once she gives birth, of course, the entire situation changes because there is no longer a fetus to consider. The woman is not the only person who can keep her baby alive, so she obviously should no life-or-death authority over it after it is born.

So, based on an ethic of justice, and in consideration of all aspects of legal rights, including legal competence to exercise or forego rights, the woman should have the right to choose and make binding decisions controlling her own pregnancy.

Therefore:

I support unrestricted abortion on demand for all adult women in the first trimester.

I support restrictions of elective abortions in the third trimester, but not an outright ban. There is a very short list of severe and fortunately rare birth defects that, at the current level of science, cannot be detected until the second or third trimester. The short list includes defects/diseases that will certainly kill a baby in less than a year after birth and inflict terrible suffering on the baby before it dies. I believe women should have the right to elect to abort if their fetus has such a defect/disease in order to prevent that suffering. It is my hope that medical science will soon be able to detect for such things much earlier and thus make such harsh decisions unnecessary. I will not support an outright ban of late term elective abortion until early detection of fatal defects becomes possible.

I believe there should be no restrictions of any kind against abortions that are medically necessary to save the woman’s life or to save her from permanent injury as a result of pregnancy. I do and will oppose any and all attempts to pass laws restricting abortion that do not contain exceptions for the life/health of the woman.

I do not have as firm an opinion about second trimester abortion because science is still working on a time frame for fetal viability. I need to know more about the state of science, but based on what I understand so far, I tend to split the second trimester in half. I attach the last half to the third trimester and will accept the same restrictions as apply to the third trimester. As for the first half of the second trimester, I believe elective abortions should be allowed, but I would accept a restriction requiring a medical opinion.

I believe the first trimester is time enough for women to make up their minds about purely elective abortions.

As for elective abortions provided to minors, I am opposed to mandatory parental notification because I believe that many minors who go to a doctor without already having talked to their parents probably have good reason not to. I believe that minors should have to have the advice of an adult, but it should not have to be their parents, if there is good reason to believe there is an abusive situation. An accredited social worker or psychologist/psychiatrist should be acceptable.

It doesn't have a right TO the mother's body, it has the right to be IN the mother's body. That's its natural place to be, you could even say it was "invited" to be there.
No, it does not. Even if a fetus did have legal rights, which it does not, there is no right for anyone to use anyone else's body for any purpose whatsoever, under any circumstance whatsoever, against that person's will. The fetus does not get to enslave the woman just because it is a fetus.

Also, if the fetus is there because the woman's birth control failed, then it was not "invited" to be there. In fact, she took steps to prevent it from getting in there, and, to continue your analogy, one could say the fetus is then an intruder in the woman's body and that the woman has the right to remove it, just like an intruder in her house.

And what about a woman who is pregnant from a rape? Who "invited" the fetus in then? Certainly not the woman.

Even if a fetus did have legal rights, which it does not,

While I won't argue with any of your points, this brings up another ethical question, and as this thread is a mess already:

Should the fetus have a right to keep the mother from abusing drugs or alcohol while she is pregnant?

One of the many things that I see in the abortion debate is the following

Pro-lifer: Abortion is wrong because X, Y and Z
Pro-choicer: Ok thats fine. You believe that but dont force me to abide by your beliefs

The flaw in this argument is that
A: - It assumes the points raised by the pro-lifer are subjective (which is often not the case, but that's not what I am here discussing)
B: - It assumes that government does not have a role in choosing to enforce right and wrong

The fact is the government chooses things that it considers right and wrong and enforces them or not. The idea that if something is wrong we should still be able to choose about it is absurd. Imagine the scenerio where theft is legal because the government has no place enforcing right and wrong. The government is in that place. What it is important to do is to discuss whether or not abortion is objectively wrong or not. Not whether the government has the right to enforce it, that much is a given.

Actually...
It usually goes like this:

Anti-Abortionist: Abortion is wrong because GOD GOD BIBLE MOSES GOD JESUS GOD!

Pro-Choicer: That's fine for you, but don't force me to live by it.

While I won't argue with any of your points, this brings up another ethical question, and as this thread is a mess already:

Should the fetus have a right to keep the mother from abusing drugs or alcohol while she is pregnant?

I don't think the fetus itself has a right to do any such thing. However, if a woman decides to carry to term, and a human being results, that human being has rights, and he or one who has the authority to speak for him can sue for any damages/diseases/etc. he has as a result of her actions.

I'm really iffy on what kind of laws we can pass to restrict a mother drinking/smoking/etc. during pregnancy, but I would have no problem with allowing a child who was born with a defect that can be traced to any of these things to sue (or someone to sue on behalf of the child) for some sort of damages. I'm not exactly sure what the charge would be, however.

I don't think the fetus itself has a right to do any such thing. However, if a woman decides to carry to term, and a human being results, that human being has rights, and he or one who has the authority to speak for him can sue for any damages/diseases/etc. he has as a result of her actions.

But the infraction occurred against the fetus, not against the person. Harm was perpetrated against the fetus, the state of the child born is after the fact.

I'm really iffy on what kind of laws we can pass to restrict a mother drinking/smoking/etc. during pregnancy, but I would have no problem with allowing a child who was born with a defect that can be traced to any of these things to sue (or someone to sue on behalf of the child) for some sort of damages. I'm not exactly sure what the charge would be, however.

It is a topic I have never really thought about.

While I won't argue with any of your points, this brings up another ethical question, and as this thread is a mess already:

Should the fetus have a right to keep the mother from abusing drugs or alcohol while she is pregnant?

This is one of those reasons why foetuses must not be allowed to gain 'human rights'.

The very second a woman has to 'share' rights to her body in law, is the same second that a preganant-woman (whether she knows it or not) can be charged with some charge from, say, criminal negligence up to attempted murder, for a glass of wine or a ride on the rollercoaster.

But the infraction occurred against the fetus, not against the person. Harm was perpetrated against the fetus, the state of the child born is after the fact.

If I pollute the drinking water in the town, and no harm occurs until after I move my factory, am I not responsible for the health problems caused to people there - even children that weren't even born yet when I had my factory there?


This is one of those reasons why foetuses must not be allowed to gain 'human rights'.

The very second a woman has to 'share' rights to her body in law, is the same second that a preganant-woman (whether she knows it or not) can be charged with some charge from, say, criminal negligence up to attempted murder, for a glass of wine or a ride on the rollercoaster.

Like I said, it would be continent upon her knowing she was pregnant, and choosing to carry to term. Only then could she be responsible for health problems she may have caused.

If I pollute the drinking water in the town, and no harm occurs until after I move my factory, am I not responsible for the health problems caused to people there - even children that weren't even born yet when I had my factory there?

That is a different scenario. With the fetus, I am saying that the harm occurs while there are no rights, rights are provided after the fact.

In your scenario, when the harm occurs there is a definite violation of rights.

It is not a matter of when the action takes place, it is a matter of when the harm takes place.

But the infraction occurred against the fetus, not against the person. Harm was perpetrated against the fetus, the state of the child born is after the fact.



It is a topic I have never really thought about.

Not exactly. Sometimes harm comes long after the crime. For example, if I set up a trap in a cabin in the woods and leave it there for years. It's my fault when someone gets hurt by it even if that hurt is years later. Yes, the fetus is injured by her actions but so is the human being that results. That fact that her actions were so far in advance of the human being's hurt makes no difference.

That is a different scenario. With the fetus, I am saying that the harm occurs while there are no rights, rights are provided after the fact.

In your scenario, when the harm occurs there is a definite violation of rights.

It is not a matter of when the action takes place, it is a matter of when the harm takes place.

If I do something that causes harm to a human being even if I don't know the specific human being or they don't exist yet, the harm is not abated. In the case of the women, she knowingly (now, it's knowingly. This was not always true) did something that would or is likely to cause harm to a child if a child came into existence. The fact that the child does not yet exist is of no consequence.

Like I said, it would be continent upon her knowing she was pregnant, and choosing to carry to term. Only then could she be responsible for health problems she may have caused.

It would just be asking for a return to 'barefoot and pregnant, chained to the oven'.

If a woman can feasibly be hekld accountable, in that fashion, even leaving the house becomes potentially negligent, in case of accident.

Pregnant woman gets run over, foetus is lost - (less-pregnant, now) woman faces jail time for reckless endangerment...

It would just be asking for a return to 'barefoot and pregnant, chained to the oven'.

If a woman can feasibly be hekld accountable, in that fashion, even leaving the house becomes potentially negligent, in case of accident.

Pregnant woman gets run over, foetus is lost - (less-pregnant, now) woman faces jail time for reckless endangerment...
Bingo.

I'll say it again, pregnancy should have ZERO IMPACT on a woman's individual rights. A woman should be able to exercise EXACTLY the same freedoms whether she is pregnant or not.

Bingo.

I'll say it again, pregnancy should have ZERO IMPACT on a woman's individual rights. A woman should be able to exercise EXACTLY the same freedoms whether she is pregnant or not.

I agree entirely. Anything else turns a woman into a 'vessel'.

It would just be asking for a return to 'barefoot and pregnant, chained to the oven'.

If a woman can feasibly be hekld accountable, in that fashion, even leaving the house becomes potentially negligent, in case of accident.

Pregnant woman gets run over, foetus is lost - (less-pregnant, now) woman faces jail time for reckless endangerment...

I don't agree. If we're going to argue extremes then a woman should be able to intentionally damage the fetus to punish the father with a disabled kid.

Clearly the issue here is to find a happy medium. The fact is pregnancy is a huge responsibility. With it comes a bit more in the ability department as well. Women have a natural connection with a child that men have to intentionally create (yes, this burns both ways). Women have access to abortion and men don't.

The difference here is that if someone is knowingly and exceedingly negligent in any part of their life and it causes injury to another they should be held accountable. Generally, casual behavior that should not injure anyone is ignored as actionable. However, if one is regularly using drugs of any type that are widely known to be harmful they should be held accountable within reason. This is true of every aspect of life.

Abortion is legal and women may choose that path if they are unwilling to do what is necessary for the care of the child, just as a parent is capable of putting a child up for adoption. There is no excuse for parenting a child or carrying a pregnancy when you are knowingly and obviously injuring a developing human being.

As long as abortion is legal and the ability to opt exists, then a person who chooses to be involved in pregnancy has the responsibility that goes with that authority. The responsibility is not to raise a child alone should one come into being. It IS to not injure that child.

I agree entirely. Anything else turns a woman into a 'vessel'.

No moreso than being a parent requires you to ONLY be a parent. If a woman was out partying while she left her child at home alone to starve should she be held accountable? I mean to do so turns her into a 'slave', no? Or maybe if you choose to not disavow yourself of a responsibility, you're *gasp* held responsible.

I don't agree. If we're going to argue extremes then a woman should be able to intentionally damage the fetus to punish the father with a disabled kid.

Clearly the issue here is to find a happy medium. The fact is pregnancy is a huge responsibility. With it comes a bit more in the ability department as well. Women have a natural connection with a child that men have to intentionally create (yes, this burns both ways). Women have access to abortion and men don't.

The difference here is that if someone is knowingly and exceedingly negligent in any part of their life and it causes injury to another they should be held accountable. Generally, casual behavior that should not injure anyone is ignored as actionable. However, if one is regularly using drugs of any type that are widely known to be harmful they should be held accountable within reason. This is true of every aspect of life.

Abortion is legal and women may choose that path if they are unwilling to do what is necessary for the care of the child, just as a parent is capable of putting a child up for adoption. There is no excuse for parenting a child or carrying a pregnancy when you are knowingly and obviously injuring a developing human being.

As long as abortion is legal and the ability to opt exists, then a person who chooses to be involved in pregnancy has the responsibility that goes with that authority. The responsibility is not to raise a child alone should one come into being. It IS to not injure that child.

While I agree with your reasoning... the question is one of 'rights'... and that is a matter of legal status.

While we can both see the 'good sense' in what you are saying, that would perhaps form the SPIRIT of 'law'.... but it isn't the SPIRIT of the law that I'm worried about.

This is one of those cases where the law has to be least restrictive, and the good sense has to be left to the parents.

No moreso than being a parent requires you to ONLY be a parent. If a woman was out partying while she left her child at home alone to starve should she be held accountable? I mean to do so turns her into a 'slave', no? Or maybe if you choose to not disavow yourself of a responsibility, you're *gasp* held responsible.

Obviously there is a difference there... the preganant women does not have the option of 'leaving the foetus at home'... or even getting a foetus-sitter in.

But, that's kind of beside the point I'm trying to make... If you allow the foetus comparable rights to an adult, or even a child - you are creating a conflict of interest over the woman's right to the use of her own body.

When the girl (in your example) is at the party, her 'crime' is NOT what she is doing with her body, or where her body is... it is the fact that her children are unsupervised. (A babysitter is an example of how she can be doing this 'action' whilst not 'commiting the crime').

In the case where the foetus is given some equivalent legal 'right', the simple process of the pregnant woman stepping outside of her door... or, even walking on the wet floor she just mopped, becomes 'actionable'... entirely because of this conflict zone.

While I agree with your reasoning... the question is one of 'rights'... and that is a matter of legal status.

While we can both see the 'good sense' in what you are saying, that would perhaps form the SPIRIT of 'law'.... but it isn't the SPIRIT of the law that I'm worried about.

This is one of those cases where the law has to be least restrictive, and the good sense has to be left to the parents.

Yes, but even in the least restrictive laws we account for gross negligence. Just as we have to have faith in parents, we also must have faith in the law, for without it we're lost. Gross negligence laws could also go down the slippery slope you describe and people have tried to make them do so, but the law thus far has not allowed it.

Rights may be and are abridged when there is a compelling interest. It's clear that a compelling interest exists in making sure that in the case a child comes into existence they don't begin life with a disorder that could have been reasonably prevented.

Obviously there is a difference there... the preganant women does not have the option of 'leaving the foetus at home'... or even getting a foetus-sitter in.

No, but she does have the option of ending her obligation to the fetus by ending the pregnancy. If she does not do so she must live with the responsibility for the pregnancy. It's not unfair.

But, that's kind of beside the point I'm trying to make... If you allow the foetus comparable rights to an adult, or even a child - you are creating a conflict of interest over the woman's right to the use of her own body.

You're not allowing the fetus comparable rights to an adult. You are allowing the adult that is the result of the fetus (once the adult exists) the right to protection under the law. There is a saying that your rights end where my nose begins. Her right to use her own body is limited by how it affects others. In abortion no other person is affected. This is not true if she goes out and gets drunk.

When the girl (in your example) is at the party, her 'crime' is NOT what she is doing with her body, or where her body is... it is the fact that her children are unsupervised. (A babysitter is an example of how she can be doing this 'action' whilst not 'commiting the crime').

Her crime is that she is causing harm to the child. It's not simply that she didn't supervise her child. She could be home and drunk and if the child is injured because of her gross negligence she will be held accountable.

In the case where the foetus is given some equivalent legal 'right', the simple process of the pregnant woman stepping outside of her door... or, even walking on the wet floor she just mopped, becomes 'actionable'... entirely because of this conflict zone.

The fetus is given no rights. The child is given rights. One of them is to not be harmed by the gross negligence of the mother whether or not the child existed at the time of the actual act.

We've touched on this subject before. The status of the person at the time of the action is not at issue, it's the status of the person at the time of the effect of the action. This is why I can't sign my child into slavery before they are born. While the action occurs before they were born, some or all of the effect occurs afterward.

If I do something that causes harm to a human being even if I don't know the specific human being or they don't exist yet, the harm is not abated. In the case of the women, she knowingly (now, it's knowingly. This was not always true) did something that would or is likely to cause harm to a child if a child came into existence. The fact that the child does not yet exist is of no consequence.

This is an argument against harming a potential person.

While I agree with your reasoning... the question is one of 'rights'... and that is a matter of legal status.

There many situations where priveleges (I wanted to call them rights - thread (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=482157)) have been extended to things that do not have legal status.

When there appears to be a moral imperative to protect something that has no ability to protect itself, we have done it. Animals, mentally disabled, small children, the environment.

Most of these arguments were also made in the thread I linked.

Yes, but even in the least restrictive laws we account for gross negligence. Just as we have to have faith in parents, we also must have faith in the law, for without it we're lost. Gross negligence laws could also go down the slippery slope you describe and people have tried to make them do so, but the law thus far has not allowed it.

Rights may be and are abridged when there is a compelling interest. It's clear that a compelling interest exists in making sure that in the case a child comes into existence they don't begin life with a disorder that could have been reasonably prevented.

What if the 'injury' to the foetus is accidental? The pregnant girl slips on her freshly mopped floor.

Should we be creating a situation where, 21 years down the line, we have offspring suing the parent for injuries sustained in that accident? That is one of the logical endpoints.

What if the mother does not KNOW she is pregnant? You can't use the same story with the 'child left at home'... but it is eminently possible that the pregnant woman could be drinking, taking drugs... ice skating... without knowing there is a foetus at risk.

With law like you describe, we find ourselves in the dangerous situation that a woman could be liable for 'crimes' which she couldn't have had any way to even KNOW she was commiting. Actions that would NOT be a crime, if she were NOT pregnant.

I believe we SHOULD have faith in most parents. I have very LITTLE faith in 'law'.

There many situations where priveleges (I wanted to call them rights - thread (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=482157)) have been extended to things that do not have legal status.

When there appears to be a moral imperative to protect something that has no ability to protect itself, we have done it. Animals, mentally disabled, small children, the environment.

Most of these arguments were also made in the thread I linked.

But, these other cases do not hinge on the same factors as pregnancy. There is a special risk to laws that allow two persons equal conflicting rights over the body of one of those persons.

This is an argument against harming a potential person.

No, it isn't. It's an argument against harming a person. It's exactly the same as if I set up a trap with no knowledge of who it will injure or if it will ever injure anyone. If I can reasonably expect someone to be injured and if that injury is a result of an action I could have and should have reasonably avoided, then I am at fault even if the person I injured does not yet exist.

If I excercise gross negligence in the building of a house and five years later it falls down and kills a three-year-old, should I be less responsible because the three-year-old didn't exist at the time of the action?

The fetus is given no rights. The child is given rights. One of them is to not be harmed by the gross negligence of the mother whether or not the child existed at the time of the actual act.

We've touched on this subject before. The status of the person at the time of the action is not at issue, it's the status of the person at the time of the effect of the action. This is why I can't sign my child into slavery before they are born. While the action occurs before they were born, some or all of the effect occurs afterward.

You can't start setting 'potential' rights. It's a nonsense, legally. You know as well as I, that the law allows certain rights, at certain times... but does not allow those rights to be exerted pro-actively.

The right to drive, being one. Or to vote...

regarding the 'selling the unborn into slavery'... this would be illegal because slavery is illegal. If slavery WERE legal, I'm not so sure selling your unborn would be considered wrong.

No, it isn't. It's an argument against harming a person. It's exactly the same as if I set up a trap with no knowledge of who it will injure or if it will ever injure anyone. If I can reasonably expect someone to be injured and if that injury is a result of an action I could have and should have reasonably avoided, then I am at fault even if the person I injured does not yet exist.

If I excercise gross negligence in the building of a house and five years later it falls down and kills a three-year-old, should I be less responsible because the three-year-old didn't exist at the time of the action?

The two parallels don't match the subject matter.

What you are talking about is effectively the same as whether or not it is okay to risk harm to a person with your beartrap NOW, when they will complain about it later.

But, these other cases do not hinge on the same factors as pregnancy. There is a special risk to laws that allow two persons equal conflicting rights over the body of one of those persons.

There are hardly equal conflicting rights, here. After all, I say the woman could drink the fetus to death, if she wanted to.

This just says that, if you are bringing a pregnancy to fruition, you must allow the fetus to develop unhindered.

What if the 'injury' to the foetus is accidental? The pregnant girl slips on her freshly mopped floor.

It's not negligent. Thus no action. We're talking about gross negligence. There is a significant difference between tripping or slipping and a drinking binge.

Should we be creating a situation where, 21 years down the line, we have offspring suing the parent for injuries sustained in that accident? That is one of the logical endpoints.

No, it isn't. You could make the argument about all such negligence laws. Gross negligence must be gross. That's the point. That's what keeps from these logical endpoints. You could equally say that if any doctor is tried for malpractice then all deaths under treatment are subject to malpractice, as much as some people try to make this the case, the law only recognizes gross negligence. Now, juries on the other hand...

What if the mother does not KNOW she is pregnant? You can't use the same story with the 'child left at home'... but it is eminently possible that the pregnant woman could be drinking, taking drugs... ice skating... without knowing there is a foetus at risk.

If she does not know she's pregnant it's not negligence. In the same way that a doctor who does something to a pregnant women is negligent if he knows she's pregnant and not if he doesn't. You're still trying to extend this to places it doesn't go. There are already gross negligence laws. They only apply when the action is grossly negligent. While there is some wiggle room it does not extend to a woman who is unknowingly pregnant. Gross negligence requires someone to behave unreasonably, something you have yet to describe.

With law like you describe, we find ourselves in the dangerous situation that a woman could be liable for 'crimes' which she couldn't have had any way to even KNOW she was commiting. Actions that would NOT be a crime, if she were NOT pregnant.

You could make the same case for any gross negligence laws. Unfortunately, reality does not match your hypothetical.

[QUOTE=Grave_n_idle]I believe we SHOULD have faith in most parents. I have very LITTLE faith in 'law'.
Unfortunately, we have to have some faith in the law since it is the line between us and anarchy. Gross negligence laws are necessary. What I'm mentioning is no different than any other gross negligence laws.

Use the same analogies with a birthed child. What if the parent slips while holding their child and injures them? Currently doesn't fall under gross negligence. What if the person has taken all reasonable measures to keep dangerous substances away from an infant and the infant still gets a hold of them? Not gross negligence. No crime. Gross negligence requires someone either through acting unreasonably or an unwillingness to perform a reasonable action to cause harm to another. You can't get charged with gross negligence simply by taking reasonable actions.

No, it isn't. It's an argument against harming a person. It's exactly the same as if I set up a trap with no knowledge of who it will injure or if it will ever injure anyone. If I can reasonably expect someone to be injured and if that injury is a result of an action I could have and should have reasonably avoided, then I am at fault even if the person I injured does not yet exist.

If I excercise gross negligence in the building of a house and five years later it falls down and kills a three-year-old, should I be less responsible because the three-year-old didn't exist at the time of the action?

In your example your action now causes harm later, in our situation the action now cause harm now.

Your argument is dangerously close to those who say killing a fetus murders a person. When the person comes into being, it presumably already suffers from the deficiencies, therefore the deficiencies can't be counted as harm against the person.

Either the fetus has to be protected, or it is illegal to create malformed children and bring them into the world.

The two parallels don't match the subject matter.

What you are talking about is effectively the same as whether or not it is okay to risk harm to a person with your beartrap NOW, when they will complain about it later.

The harm doesn't only occur now. That's the point. The fetus is injured, but so is the child and the adult. The injury is ongoing and continuous.

Let's assume the fetus is not a person at the time of the injury, yeah? Well, then I do something to a non-person that directly results in an injury to a person (the baby). It's no different than any other grossly negligent act where I only directly act against a non-person but end up injuring a person.

Let's say I poison a chicken (a fetus) knowing that chicken is on a farm and is designed to be fed to a person. Now it's possible that chicken will never BE fed to a person, but if it does and I was aware that it might when I poisoned the chicken then if that person is also poisoned it's just the same as if I poisoned them directly.

In your example your action now causes harm later, in our situation the action now cause harm now.

The mother caused harm now to a non-person. The harm to a person does not occur until the person is comes into being. The harm to the person has to have been done later because you can't harm something that doesn't exist. The mother started a chain of events that reasonably resulted in harm to a human being.

Your argument is dangerously close to those who say killing a fetus murders a person. When the person comes into being, it presumably already suffers from the deficiencies, therefore the deficiencies can't be counted as harm against the person.

The deficiencies of the person are caused by the direct actions of the mother.

Either the fetus has to be protected, or it is illegal to create malformed children and bring them into the world.

See, there is already a precedent. There are many cases where companies were held accountable for knowingly damaging things that eventually caused harm to pregnant women that resulted in malformed babies. The fact that the harm was directed at someone or something else has no bearing on the fact that a person (the baby) suffered harm as the result of those actions. When that person suffered harm it was most certainly a person. Prior to be a person, obviously no person suffered harm. It's completely consistent.

There are hardly equal conflicting rights, here. After all, I say the woman could drink the fetus to death, if she wanted to.

This just says that, if you are bringing a pregnancy to fruition, you must allow the fetus to develop unhindered.

Again though, you are allowing a pro-active interpretation of law... or a retrospective version, whichever way you look at it.

Again - we come to the examples of 'accidental' injury, especially where the pregnancy is unknown.

The harm doesn't only occur now. That's the point. The fetus is injured, but so is the child and the adult. The injury is ongoing and continuous.

Let's assume the fetus is not a person at the time of the injury, yeah? Well, then I do something to a non-person that directly results in an injury to a person (the baby). It's no different than any other grossly negligent act where I only directly act against a non-person but end up injuring a person.

Let's say I poison a chicken (a fetus) knowing that chicken is on a farm and is designed to be fed to a person. Now it's possible that chicken will never BE fed to a person, but if it does and I was aware that it might when I poisoned the chicken then if that person is also poisoned it's just the same as if I poisoned them directly.

The harm DOES only occur 'now'. What you are describing later are the potential after-effects.

Your chicken-poisoning antics are not parallel, because they involve an intermediate stage which is a third party.

At risk of being a little extreme, I can continue this response and extend it to respond to one of your other points.

If Woman A wishes to commit suicide, she is commiting a dangerous and illegal act. She drinks poison.

According to your argument here, her punishment can be greatly different depending on whether or not she is pregnant. The irony, of course, being that she could get the death-penalty for 'suicide' if she IS pregnant...

Again though, you are allowing a pro-active interpretation of law... or a retrospective version, whichever way you look at it.

Again - we come to the examples of 'accidental' injury, especially where the pregnancy is unknown.

And proactive laws have been used when there are heightened levels of risk.

And proactive laws have been used when there are heightened levels of risk.

But pregnancy itslef is not 'a risk' - we would be arguing special exception... effectively, to prevent the risk of risks.

The harm DOES only occur 'now'. What you are describing later are the potential after-effects.

Only because you wish to look at them that way. You wish to think of the damage to the person as a 'after-effect' but it is the ONLY effect the person experiences, the person does not experience the effect of the fetus because the fetus does not exist when the person does and vice versa..

Your chicken-poisoning antics are not parallel, because they involve an intermediate stage which is a third party.

You could regard the fetus as a third party in a way, as at the time it is not the person that the baby, toddly, adolescent, teenager, adult is. In terms of law, the fetus is not the same party as the adult, because one is a person and one isn't.

It's interesting that you'd like to view the fetus as the same party, but it is not a person. If it's not a peron, it can't be the same party as a person. If it is the same party, it must be a person. The fetus is a third party legally, becuase it is not a person at that time. The fetus BECOMES the person. When the person exists, the fetus does not.

At risk of being a little extreme, I can continue this response and extend it to respond to one of your other points.

If Woman A wishes to commit suicide, she is commiting a dangerous and illegal act. She drinks poison.

According to your argument here, her punishment can be greatly different depending on whether or not she is pregnant. The irony, of course, being that she could get the death-penalty for 'suicide' if she IS pregnant...
No, she couldn't. Because like in abortion, it is not reasonable to think that her actions affected or would affect a person. If she dies, which is her intent, there will be no person to be harmed. We aren't talking about harm to potential persons here, but harm to actual persons. Again, I could sign a document enslaving my fetus, but the crime I committed wouldn't be that I injured the fetus, but that harm was thrusted upon the person who happens to be a result of that fetus.

Again though, you are allowing a pro-active interpretation of law... or a retrospective version, whichever way you look at it.

Again - we come to the examples of 'accidental' injury, especially where the pregnancy is unknown.

Again, there is not precedent for holding people accountable for accidental injury. Gross negligence cannot be applied to actions that are cannot be reasonably be expected to injure a person.

Again, there is not precedent for holding people accountable for accidental injury. Gross negligence cannot be applied to actions that are cannot be reasonably be expected to injure a person.

I'm not sure about this... I know my brother was run over by a taxi cab, and took the driver to court, (for a pretty piss-poor settlement in the end).

The driver wasn't drunk, my brother wasn't in the road... the car 'accidentally' mounted the verge next to the road at 60 mph.

It would just be asking for a return to 'barefoot and pregnant, chained to the oven'.

If a woman can feasibly be hekld accountable, in that fashion, even leaving the house becomes potentially negligent, in case of accident.

Pregnant woman gets run over, foetus is lost - (less-pregnant, now) woman faces jail time for reckless endangerment...

Not the way I see it. First of all, only *actual* harm could be prosecuted. Thus, the woman could drink and smoke and carry on, and if her child was born healthy - she couldn't be "held accountable" for anything - no harm was done.

And she obviously couldn't be held accountable for something caused by another. If someone hits her, and it causes damages, it isn't her fault, although the future child might be able to sue the person who did hit her, if it can be proven that it caused a defect of some kind.

In the end, it's really no different than suing a pharmaceutical company when they market their drug to pregnant women and it is later found that it causes birth defects. Any child born with a birth defect from that drug would then be able to sue.

I'm not sure about this... I know my brother was run over by a taxi cab, and took the driver to court, (for a pretty piss-poor settlement in the end).

The driver wasn't drunk, my brother wasn't in the road... the car 'accidentally' mounted the verge next to the road at 60 mph.

We aren't talking about civil court. In civil court, it distributes the 'cost' of the event according to who is most responsible for the event.

And even then we protect certain people because if we place responsibility on them in the absense of negligence we would discourage their necessary place in society. This is why we protect doctors to a degree, or firefighters, etc. Mothers cannot help but assume full responsibilty (much like a doctor or firefighter) or none. Much like with parents, we generally only recognize cases of gross negligence because otherwise, inevitably in every case there would be grounds for recourse. Like I said, punishing a woman for tripping while pregnant would be the same as punishing a father for tripping while holding his child. It isn't done, because otherwise everyone would be in court. However, it doesn't stop us for trying people for abuse of children now does it. Trying women for gross negligence in pregnancy is really no different.

Only because you wish to look at them that way. You wish to think of the damage to the person as a 'after-effect' but it is the ONLY effect the person experiences, the person does not experience the effect of the fetus because the fetus does not exist when the person does and vice versa..


And, it is that very fact that the two are not present at the same time, that makes the 'child' or 'adult' a victim of 'after-effects'...


You could regard the fetus as a third party in a way, as at the time it is not the person that the baby, toddly, adolescent, teenager, adult is. In terms of law, the fetus is not the same party as the adult, because one is a person and one isn't.

It's interesting that you'd like to view the fetus as the same party, but it is not a person. If it's not a peron, it can't be the same party as a person. If it is the same party, it must be a person. The fetus is a third party legally, becuase it is not a person at that time. The fetus BECOMES the person. When the person exists, the fetus does not.


I think you misunderstand me - the foetus isn't really a 'party' at all. thus, it cannot be 'injured'. However, any 'harm' you do to that foetus will show 'after-effects' in a later adult

I don't see how you are managing to juggle your parties... with no apparent vision of a conflict.

As you say, "When the person exists, the fetus does not." Thus - clearly, any 'injury' done to the foetus can NOT have happened to the person.


No, she couldn't. Because like in abortion, it is not reasonable to think that her actions affected or would affect a person. If she dies, which is her intent, there will be no person to be harmed. We aren't talking about harm to potential persons here, but harm to actual persons. Again, I could sign a document enslaving my fetus, but the crime I committed wouldn't be that I injured the fetus, but that harm was thrusted upon the person who happens to be a result of that fetus.

Not at all - as I said before, I believe this would only be a 'crime' in as much as slavery is illegal. The person/not-person/foetus/baby/adult status at the time of your actions (selling the slavery rights) is irrelevent to the criminality of the act.

Not the way I see it. First of all, only *actual* harm could be prosecuted. Thus, the woman could drink and smoke and carry on, and if her child was born healthy - she couldn't be "held accountable" for anything - no harm was done.

And she obviously couldn't be held accountable for something caused by another. If someone hits her, and it causes damages, it isn't her fault, although the future child might be able to sue the person who did hit her, if it can be proven that it caused a defect of some kind.

In the end, it's really no different than suing a pharmaceutical company when they market their drug to pregnant women and it is later found that it causes birth defects. Any child born with a birth defect from that drug would then be able to sue.

And again - if she falls? Especially if she is unaware of her 'pregnant' status?

But, there just is no comaprison to the drug company. For one - mommy isn't required by the FDA to apporve every product she uses. That is SUPPOSED to be taken care of, already... For another - mommy is unlikely to have 'malpractise' type insurance. The punishment is on the 'mother'... whereas it will be 'referred' by the company.

But pregnancy itslef is not 'a risk' - we would be arguing special exception... effectively, to prevent the risk of risks.

I don't understand.

Stopping a woman from drinking during a pregnancy is stopping an action that is directly linked to a heightened risk.

We aren't talking about civil court. In civil court, it distributes the 'cost' of the event according to who is most responsible for the event.

And even then we protect certain people because if we place responsibility on them in the absense of negligence we would discourage their necessary place in society. This is why we protect doctors to a degree, or firefighters, etc. Mothers cannot help but assume full responsibilty (much like a doctor or firefighter) or none. Much like with parents, we generally only recognize cases of gross negligence because otherwise, inevitably in every case there would be grounds for recourse. Like I said, punishing a woman for tripping while pregnant would be the same as punishing a father for tripping while holding his child. It isn't done, because otherwise everyone would be in court. However, it doesn't stop us for trying people for abuse of children now does it. Trying women for gross negligence in pregnancy is really no different.

So - we SHOULD protect doctors and firefighters, but we SHOULND'T protect mothers? Surely theirs is a 'necessary place in society'?

And, again - the parallel offered is flawed. Daddy can opt NOT TO carry the baby, mommy is stuck with the foetus until she aborts it or births it - she has no other choices. Thus - we are placing special restriction on the woman.

And again - we just cannot address the issue of 'injury' while the mother is unaware.

The problem with ANY law that starts marching down this road, is that it is a matter of finding deliberate fault - and that just isn't that hard. You can end up with a situation where a miscarriage is actionable because the unknowing 'mother' went 'deliberately' to a disco...

I don't understand.

Stopping a woman from drinking during a pregnancy is stopping an action that is directly linked to a heightened risk.

So, you are literally arguing that women SHOULD be legally forbidden from consuming alcohol while pregnant?

What if the 'injury' to the foetus is accidental? The pregnant girl slips on her freshly mopped floor.

Slipping is entirely an accident - and it occurs in normal life. And, unless the fall causes a miscarriage, it would be damn near impossible to demonstrate that the fall in any way harmed the future child. As such, this is a rather spurious example.

No one is giving the fetus rights here. The rights belong to the child that actually is born.

Do you think a representative of a child should be able to sue for malpractice if a doctor's mistake caused a defect?

What if the mother does not KNOW she is pregnant? You can't use the same story with the 'child left at home'... but it is eminently possible that the pregnant woman could be drinking, taking drugs... ice skating... without knowing there is a foetus at risk.

Then you are back in the situation of what a reasonable person would think would cause harm. A woman would not be responsible for, for instance, taking a drug that had been approved for use during pregnancy, because she would have no reason to believe it would cause harm.

This is exactly the reason that I predicated any responsibility for these actions on her not only knowing she is pregnant, but having chosen to carry to term.


In your example your action now causes harm later, in our situation the action now cause harm now.

If I pollute drinking water, and my pollutants cause birth defects, but cause no harm to born persons, do I get off scott-free?

Either the fetus has to be protected, or it is illegal to create malformed children and bring them into the world.

It isn't illegal for me to put a pool up in my yard. However, if someone comes along and injures themself in my pool, I am now responsible for that harm.

It wouldn't be illegal for a pregnant woman to drink herself into oblivion every night - we really can't make that illegal - for the exact reasons you are bringing up. If no harm comes of it, then she drank all during her pregnancy and that's just the way it is. However, if her child was born with fetal alcohol syndrome, that child would have the right to hold her responsible for her actions.

And again - if she falls? Especially if she is unaware of her 'pregnant' status?

Falling, once again, is an accident - and is something that happens without any choices being made by the mother. She could be lying in bed and fall.

If she is unaware of her pregnant status, then no one can prove that she knew her actions might cause harm. Thus, she cannot be convicted.

But, there just is no comaprison to the drug company. For one - mommy isn't required by the FDA to apporve every product she uses. That is SUPPOSED to be taken care of, already... For another - mommy is unlikely to have 'malpractise' type insurance. The punishment is on the 'mother'... whereas it will be 'referred' by the company.

Yes, it is. And a pregnant woman knows that drinking and doing drugs can cause birth defects. If she does something that she knows has a high chance of causing harm, then it is her fault that the harm ensues. If she does not want to stop doing these things, abortion is an option. Either that, or she can continue doing it and hope that no harm ensues.

The point is: If we allow doctors to be sued for malpractice or pharmaceutical companies to be sued for drugs or we allow companies to be sued for pollutants that cause birth defects, then we already allow for a born person to sue someone for harm caused in utero. Therefore, the argument that the fetus is not yet a person and thus any harm that doesn't manifest until it is born simply doesn't count is a spurious argument. The law already recognizes that harm caused to a fetus that manifests later in life is actionable.

And, it is that very fact that the two are not present at the same time, that makes the 'child' or 'adult' a victim of 'after-effects'...

Only in that they come after. They are direct effects every bit as much so as the chicken scenario. The fact that action wasn't directly with the person doesn't mean the action didn't directly affect the person.

I think you misunderstand me - the foetus isn't really a 'party' at all. thus, it cannot be 'injured'. However, any 'harm' you do to that foetus will show 'after-effects' in a later adult

Again, only in that they occur after. We aren't discussing injury to the fetus at all or to a 'potential' human. We are talking about the injury to the child, the actual child, that is a direct result of the negligent actions of the mother.

For the record, the fetus is as much a party as the chicken. Neither is a person and both are the object of the action that ends up injuring a person.

I don't see how you are managing to juggle your parties... with no apparent vision of a conflict.

As you say, "When the person exists, the fetus does not." Thus - clearly, any 'injury' done to the foetus can NOT have happened to the person.

You're right it didn't. The injury that happened to the person is the injury that happened to the person. It is a result of the mother's negligent behavior during the pregnancy. Whether the fetus was injured or not is unimportant as it has no rights.

Not at all - as I said before, I believe this would only be a 'crime' in as much as slavery is illegal. The person/not-person/foetus/baby/adult status at the time of your actions (selling the slavery rights) is irrelevent to the criminality of the act.
Enslaving a person is illegal. I can enslave a non-person all I like. The problem is the that action does not enslave a non-person, when a person is the injured the action is against the person even if the action occurred before they existed and even if at the time of the contract the parent is only signing on behalf of the non-person.

So, you are literally arguing that women SHOULD be legally forbidden from consuming alcohol while pregnant?

I'm arguing both sides. I don't particularly have any heartfelt position on this issue.

For this one, it is not a matter of whether she is pregnant, it is a matter of whether she is gestating a human being.

Like I said, the woman can drink the fetus to death, if she so desired, but if she is allowing for the development of the fetus, then she must allow it to develop without poisoning it.

Slipping is entirely an accident - and it occurs in normal life. And, unless the fall causes a miscarriage, it would be damn near impossible to demonstrate that the fall in any way harmed the future child. As such, this is a rather spurious example.


Not at all. If the child IS born with a defect, and there is evidence that a slip DID occur, it is not beyond the realms of possibility that devious legal minds might try to make the two 'connected'.


No one is giving the fetus rights here. The rights belong to the child that actually is born.


But, that's the thing. When the 'incidents' take place, the child is NOT actually born. Thus - it has no rights. As it SHOULD be.


Do you think a representative of a child should be able to sue for malpractice if a doctor's mistake caused a defect?


Totally different scenario. The foetus exists outside of the body of the doctor.


Then you are back in the situation of what a reasonable person would think would cause harm. A woman would not be responsible for, for instance, taking a drug that had been approved for use during pregnancy, because she would have no reason to believe it would cause harm.


And what if she drinks cranberry juice, and it later transpires cranberry juice causes birth defects... it isn't 'approved' for use during pregnancy, so she only has her own judgement to 'blame'.

So - we SHOULD protect doctors and firefighters, but we SHOULND'T protect mothers? Surely theirs is a 'necessary place in society'?

Actually, I specifically stated we should. Doctors and firefighters ARE held accountable for gross negligence. They are protected from harm lawsuits that result from the normal performance of that which makes them doctors/firefighters/etc. In the case of pregnant mothers, I believe they should get the same protection as parents.do post-birth. Which is that children cannot sue for actions that were reasonable.

And, again - the parallel offered is flawed. Daddy can opt NOT TO carry the baby, mommy is stuck with the foetus until she aborts it or births it - she has no other choices. Thus - we are placing special restriction on the woman.

She has special responsibilities. Yes. She also has special abilities. SHe has the choice of opting out of the responsibilities of pregnancy as well as the choice of taking them on. Upon choosing to remain pregnant, she chooses to be responsible for that pregnancy.

Meanwhile, the daddy isn't going to be held accountable for slipping with the baby in his arms and he has the ability to set it down, it's absurd to suggest that a woman would be held accountable when she can't, but that's exactly what you're arguing. We're simply arguing that she be held equally responsible for the well-being of her child as any parent is. You seem to suggest this slippery slope will happen where she will suddenly be responsible for tripping when currently all parents are held to gross negligence and there are not cases all over the place of parents being sued for tripping.

And again - we just cannot address the issue of 'injury' while the mother is unaware.

Who's arguing? I've agreed to this the whole time. Seriously, GnI, you just seem to be being difficult. In the case where the mother is unaware we are not holding her to gross negligence, because none exists. No one has said otherwise, but you keep arguing as if someone has.

We are talking about gross negligence. If you are going to argue that gross negligence will eventually result in the pregnant woman being responsible for all injury first start by showing that all gross negligence applications have resulted in such a thing. Parents are held to gross negligence. Start there.

The problem with ANY law that starts marching down this road, is that it is a matter of finding deliberate fault - and that just isn't that hard. You can end up with a situation where a miscarriage is actionable because the unknowing 'mother' went 'deliberately' to a disco...
A miscarriage has not affected party. There is no person so no problem. And again, you have to show gross negligence. A woman isn't responsible for taking reasonable actions. This is already true of parents of birthed children. You keep trying to extend this but it requires that you ignore the fact that there are already examples and it has not occurred.

Not at all. If the child IS born with a defect, and there is evidence that a slip DID occur, it is not beyond the realms of possibility that devious legal minds might try to make the two 'connected'.

Again, the evidence is against you. GnI, I know you're trying to make your point, but honestly slow down for a minute and think about this. Gross negligence is already an issue for birthed children. The only difference here is that the children are not yet birthed. There is no evidence that slipping would suddenly become an issue when it never has before or that accidents will when they never have before, when all evidence suggests otherwise. If you want to show why gross negligence will head down this slippery slope with pregnancy, but not with parenting, then please show what is different about pregnancy that makes a slippery slope necessary when it is not in parenting.

Right now, you're arguing a slippery slope fallacy.

Note: I'll try to check in later, but my girlfriend is here and I'm headed out. Have fun.

If I pollute drinking water, and my pollutants cause birth defects, but cause no harm to born persons, do I get off scott-free?

To be reasonable consistent with arguments (including mine) behind abortion then yes. Unless you consider the pollutants to be an infringement upon the natural process of a woman's body, which would be a strong argument.

It isn't illegal for me to put a pool up in my yard. However, if someone comes along and injures themself in my pool, I am now responsible for that harm.

It wouldn't be illegal for a pregnant woman to drink herself into oblivion every night - we really can't make that illegal - for the exact reasons you are bringing up. If no harm comes of it, then she drank all during her pregnancy and that's just the way it is. However, if her child was born with fetal alcohol syndrome, that child would have the right to hold her responsible for her actions.

The pool caused present harm. The person injured suffered harm.

In the position of the fetus, when harm occurs there is no person. The person comes into being after harm has occured and therefore cannot claim to have suffered harm. It is a horrible situation to be cast into, but it is no different from natural deformities.

Only in that they come after. They are direct effects every bit as much so as the chicken scenario. The fact that action wasn't directly with the person doesn't mean the action didn't directly affect the person.

Again, only in that they occur after. We aren't discussing injury to the fetus at all or to a 'potential' human. We are talking about the injury to the child, the actual child, that is a direct result of the negligent actions of the mother.


The person wasn't injured. The person didn't exist when the 'injury' took place. You are arguing that an 'after-effect' is equal to the 'injury'.


For the record, the fetus is as much a party as the chicken. Neither is a person and both are the object of the action that ends up injuring a person.


No... the chicken (I assume we were talking a LIVE chicken, otherwise it is just direct poinsoning... parties 'irrelevent') may not be 'injured' at all by the poison. The foetus, on the other hand, is directly 'responsible' for the injuries to the child.


You're right it didn't. The injury that happened to the person is the injury that happened to the person. It is a result of the mother's negligent behavior during the pregnancy. Whether the fetus was injured or not is unimportant as it has no rights.


No injury happened to 'the person'. The 'person' wasn't there.

Actually, I specifically stated we should. Doctors and firefighters ARE held accountable for gross negligence. They are protected from harm lawsuits that result from the normal performance of that which makes them doctors/firefighters/etc. In the case of pregnant mothers, I believe they should get the same protection as parents.do post-birth. Which is that children cannot sue for actions that were reasonable.



She has special responsibilities. Yes. She also has special abilities. SHe has the choice of opting out of the responsibilities of pregnancy as well as the choice of taking them on. Upon choosing to remain pregnant, she chooses to be responsible for that pregnancy.

Meanwhile, the daddy isn't going to be held accountable for slipping with the baby in his arms and he has the ability to set it down, it's absurd to suggest that a woman would be held accountable when she can't, but that's exactly what you're arguing. We're simply arguing that she be held equally responsible for the well-being of her child as any parent is. You seem to suggest this slippery slope will happen where she will suddenly be responsible for tripping when currently all parents are held to gross negligence and there are not cases all over the place of parents being sued for tripping.



Who's arguing? I've agreed to this the whole time. Seriously, GnI, you just seem to be being difficult. In the case where the mother is unaware we are not holding her to gross negligence, because none exists. No one has said otherwise, but you keep arguing as if someone has.

We are talking about gross negligence. If you are going to argue that gross negligence will eventually result in the pregnant woman being responsible for all injury first start by showing that all gross negligence applications have resulted in such a thing. Parents are held to gross negligence. Start there.


A miscarriage has not affected party. There is no person so no problem. And again, you have to show gross negligence. A woman isn't responsible for taking reasonable actions. This is already true of parents of birthed children. You keep trying to extend this but it requires that you ignore the fact that there are already examples and it has not occurred.

Unless I'm reading this wrong... mommy can drink and smoke and do all the drugs she likes, so long as she doesn't get pregnancy tested...

The person wasn't injured. The person didn't exist when the 'injury' took place. You are arguing that an 'after-effect' is equal to the 'injury'.

No, I'm not. A person was injured. The injury does not have to occur when the action took place. The point is a person existed at the time the PERSON was injured. If say the fetus did not actual get born, then no injury to a person ever occurred. If child is born and that child has been injured the injury obviously occurred to a person. Arguing otherwise nonsensical.

Are you arguing no injury exists? Because you weren't before.
Are you arguing no child exists with that injury? Because you weren't before.
Obviously, in the case of severe FAS, a child exists that has an injurty that was directly caused by gross negligence of the mother. Again, to claim no child or injury exists is simply nonsensical.

No... the chicken (I assume we were talking a LIVE chicken, otherwise it is just direct poinsoning... parties 'irrelevent') may not be 'injured' at all by the poison. The foetus, on the other hand, is directly 'responsible' for the injuries to the child.

Responsiblity cannot be held by the fetus. It doesn't injure the child.

GnI, I'm not kidding. I'm very disappointed by this conversation. I truly hope you're just playing devil's advocate because it is not reasonable to make these claims. Saying the fetus is responsible is like saying the bullet is responsible for the murder and not the person holding the gun, or that a person who trains an attack dog and sics it on another person isn't responsibile for murder. The law disagrees for obvious reasons.

No injury happened to 'the person'. The 'person' wasn't there.
The person is injured. A person is responsible for that injury. You can't seriously be claiming otherwise.

Again, I have to go, but I'm gonna chalk this one up to you playing devil's advocate. This is not a reasonable argument. If the law worked the way you claim, I could kick someone in the head and blame it on my boots.

Again, the evidence is against you. GnI, I know you're trying to make your point, but honestly slow down for a minute and think about this. Gross negligence is already an issue for birthed children. The only difference here is that the children are not yet birthed. There is no evidence that slipping would suddenly become an issue when it never has before or that accidents will when they never have before, when all evidence suggests otherwise. If you want to show why gross negligence will head down this slippery slope with pregnancy, but not with parenting, then please show what is different about pregnancy that makes a slippery slope necessary when it is not in parenting.

Right now, you're arguing a slippery slope fallacy.

Note: I'll try to check in later, but my girlfriend is here and I'm headed out. Have fun.

I'll admit I'm arguing slippery-slope.

I know it is a flawed debate platform.

Just a couple of years ago, we watched the current regime outlaw the 'optional' use of a procedure that was NEVER used for 'optional' purposes (the so-called Partial Birth Abortion). We also saw the excitment over the Peterson case used as a platform for revising the law so that a pregnant-victim counts as double homicide.

We currently have states overturning (or trying) Roe v's Wade, and a movement to remove certain kinds of contraception. (That contraception battle has been raging for a while now).

The reason I argue slippery-slope, is because this is ALREADY an arena that is ON a slippery-slope.

Unless I'm reading this wrong... mommy can drink and smoke and do all the drugs she likes, so long as she doesn't get pregnancy tested...

Again, it's a matter of reasonable knowledge. She has to take reasonable actions. If she suddenly gets a huge belly, it's unreasonable to think that she wouldn't know she was pregnant. It's happened before and it's a judgement call, but it comes down to what is reasonable. You're right though, that in the absense of provable and direct knowledge it's harder to make a case.

I'll admit I'm arguing slippery-slope.

I know it is a flawed debate platform.

Just a couple of years ago, we watched the current regime outlaw the 'optional' use of a procedure that was NEVER used for 'optional' purposes (the so-called Partial Birth Abortion). We also saw the excitment over the Peterson case used as a platform for revising the law so that a pregnant-victim counts as double homicide.

We currently have states overturning (or trying) Roe v's Wade, and a movement to remove certain kinds of contraception. (That contraception battle has been raging for a while now).

The reason I argue slippery-slope, is because this is ALREADY an arena that is ON a slippery-slope.

And unfortunately, that's why we need people like you and I to remain as reasonable as possible to prevent that from occurring. Precedent is on our side.

But, that's the thing. When the 'incidents' take place, the child is NOT actually born. Thus - it has no rights. As it SHOULD be.

Then no OB/GYN can ever be sued for harm caused to a fetus. No pollutant that causes birth defects matters. No drug that causes birth defects matters.

The child is not actually born. Thus, it has no rights. Any defects it has as a result of others' actions don't matter, because it didn't have rights at the time.

Totally different scenario. The foetus exists outside of the body of the doctor.

Irrelevant. According to your argument, only harm done after birth is harm that anyone can be held accountable for. If harm caused before the birth, even if it manifests itself after birth, doesn't count because "the fetus doesn't have rights," then NO harm caused before birth can count.

And what if she drinks cranberry juice, and it later transpires cranberry juice causes birth defects... it isn't 'approved' for use during pregnancy, so she only has her own judgement to 'blame'.

If I shoo a butterfly away from me, and the flapping of its wings leads to a big storm in China that kills three people, can I reasonably be held responsible for their deaths?

The law doesn't hold people accountable for actions that they had no reason to believe would cause harm.

To be reasonable consistent with arguments (including mine) behind abortion then yes. Unless you consider the pollutants to be an infringement upon the natural process of a woman's body, which would be a strong argument.

All sorts of things are an infringment upon the natural processes of our bodies. But unless we can show that we are harmed, it doesn't matter.

And you don't need this to be consistent with arguments that a fetus has no rights. It doesn't. A fetus has no rights. But a born person does, and always has, had the right to sue for harm - even if the cause of that harm was in utero.

The pool caused present harm. The person injured suffered harm.

In the position of the fetus, when harm occurs there is no person. The person comes into being after harm has occured and therefore cannot claim to have suffered harm. It is a horrible situation to be cast into, but it is no different from natural deformities.

Once again, you are arguing for a huge change in the law. At present, a born child can sue for harm caused to it in utero. The argument you are making would mean that an OB/GYN would be better off outright killing a fetus than allowing it to be born, if he had made a mistake. And no one could sue him for it, unless injury to the mother ensued.

No, I'm not. A person was injured. The injury does not have to occur when the action took place. The point is a person existed at the time the PERSON was injured. If say the fetus did not actual get born, then no injury to a person ever occurred. If child is born and that child has been injured the injury obviously occurred to a person. Arguing otherwise nonsensical.

Are you arguing no injury exists? Because you weren't before.
Are you arguing no child exists with that injury? Because you weren't before.
Obviously, in the case of severe FAS, a child exists that has an injurty that was directly caused by gross negligence of the mother. Again, to claim no child or injury exists is simply nonsensical.


I'm disclaiming neither the injury nor the child. I'm just saying that the two things are never connected.

A person did not exist at the time a person was injured, because a person was NOT ever injured. A foetus was damaged, and later a damaged child was born.

No person was injured in the process.



Responsiblity cannot be held by the fetus. It doesn't injure the child.

GnI, I'm not kidding. I'm very disappointed by this conversation. I truly hope you're just playing devil's advocate because it is not reasonable to make these claims. Saying the fetus is responsible is like saying the bullet is responsible for the murder and not the person holding the gun, or that a person who trains an attack dog and sics it on another person isn't responsibile for murder. The law disagrees for obvious reasons.


The person is injured. A person is responsible for that injury. You can't seriously be claiming otherwise.


Misunderstanding my 'responsibility'. The child is 'injured' because the foetus is damaged. That is the way in which the foetus is 'responsible'.

Again, it's a matter of reasonable knowledge. She has to take reasonable actions. If she suddenly gets a huge belly, it's unreasonable to think that she wouldn't know she was pregnant. It's happened before and it's a judgement call, but it comes down to what is reasonable. You're right though, that in the absense of provable and direct knowledge it's harder to make a case.

I thought you were going?

I don't want to get in trouble with your S.O. :)

Regarding the big belly... my wife didn't 'show' until sometime in her 6th month, although we 'knew' long before that.

Theoretically, under the situation as laid out thus far - she was 'safe' from prosecution until about 26 weeks, so long as we didn't visit the OB GYN...

And unfortunately, that's why we need people like you and I to remain as reasonable as possible to prevent that from occurring. Precedent is on our side.

The problem is - people like you and I WERE 'reasonable' when the whole "Partial Birth Abortion Ban" fiasco was going on.

No point fighting something that is an irrelevence....

But it turned out to really BE the thin end of the wedge. Collectively, we should be kicking ourselves now.

And, if we can prevent another assault with weasel-words, by shouting and stamping and being unreasonable... maybe it's a price worth paying.

All sorts of things are an infringment upon the natural processes of our bodies. But unless we can show that we are harmed, it doesn't matter.

That goes for just about anything. You may have stolen my wallet, but unless I can show that you did, it is yours.

And you don't need this to be consistent with arguments that a fetus has no rights. It doesn't. A fetus has no rights. But a born person does, and always has, had the right to sue for harm - even if the cause of that harm was in utero.

There are many instances of priveleges extended to things that are not legal right-holding people.

I am also not trying to be consistent with a no rights argument, I am being consistent with the idea of a fetus being a potential person, and harm brought upon the fetus does not equate to harm brought upon a person.

Once again, you are arguing for a huge change in the law. At present, a born child can sue for harm caused to it in utero. The argument you are making would mean that an OB/GYN would be better off outright killing a fetus than allowing it to be born, if he had made a mistake. And no one could sue him for it, unless injury to the mother ensued.

No, I am saying that if harm is brought upon the fetus, then the mother has been wronged by people interfering with her biological processes.

That in no way condones forced abortions.

Irrelevant. According to your argument, only harm done after birth is harm that anyone can be held accountable for. If harm caused before the birth, even if it manifests itself after birth, doesn't count because "the fetus doesn't have rights," then NO harm caused before birth can count.


One of my arguments.

My other argument has been, the whole time, that the 'conflict of interests' over the 'mothers' body, creates a unique set of circumstances - no matter WHAT other conditions apply.


If I shoo a butterfly away from me, and the flapping of its wings leads to a big storm in China that kills three people, can I reasonably be held responsible for their deaths?


The way the legal picture is headed in the US... maybe not yet, but soon...

UNLESS you are a member of the oil, insurance or medical industries.

No, I am saying that if harm is brought upon the fetus, then the mother has been wronged by people interfering with her biological processes.

She has been wronged, but not in an actionable way. If a doctor screws up and my mother ends up injured because of it, I have been harmed - emotionally. Maybe even fiscally, if I decide to take care of her.

However, I have no right to sue for that. Only she can sue for physical harm done to her.

Likewise, an interference with her biological processes that causes no measurable harm to her personally, but causes birth defects in her child would, by your logic, be perfectly legal. No one at all could sue, since a harm done in utero would not count as harm done to the child.

She has been wronged, but not in an actionable way. If a doctor screws up and my mother ends up injured because of it, I have been harmed - emotionally. Maybe even fiscally, if I decide to take care of her.

However, I have no right to sue for that. Only she can sue for physical harm done to her.

Likewise, an interference with her biological processes that causes no measurable harm to her personally, but causes birth defects in her child would, by your logic, be perfectly legal. No one at all could sue, since a harm done in utero would not count as harm done to the child.

No, my argument on this issue is the same on the issue of abortion. The pregnancy is a matter of self-determination on the part of the woman. Any interference into that is a violation of that right.

They are not interferring with another and the woman is taking the hit from it. They are interfering with the woman. The pregnancy is a part of the woman, not some seperate entity.

The thalidomide story is a pertinant example of persons recieving damages for harm incurred in the womb:

http://www.thalidomideuk.com/

This is well known in the UK, but very few babies in the US were affected, so perhaps it is not general knowledge.

No, my argument on this issue is the same on the issue of abortion. The pregnancy is a matter of self-determination on the part of the woman. Any interference into that is a violation of that right.

They are not interferring with another and the woman is taking the hit from it. They are interfering with the woman. The pregnancy is a part of the woman, not some seperate entity.

First of all, pregnancy is a condition of the mother, but not a "part" of the mother, any more than any other medical condition is a "part" of the mother.

And the pregnancy is not being interferred with here. She is just as pregnant as she ever was, right up until she gives birth. At no point does she cease to be pregnant. She just ends up giving birth to a deformed child. The development of the fetus is interferred with, not the pregnancy itself.

The thalidomide story is a pertinant example of persons recieving damages for harm incurred in the womb:

http://www.thalidomideuk.com/

This is well known in the UK, but very few babies in the US were affected, so perhaps it is not general knowledge.

There were some. Maybe its just because I'm in the medical industry, but I have definitly heard of thalidomide. It's actually what I was thinking of when I brought in the idea of a pharmaceutical company being held liable for birth defects.

One of the many things that I see in the abortion debate is the following

Pro-lifer: Abortion is wrong because X, Y and Z
Pro-choicer: Ok thats fine. You believe that but dont force me to abide by your beliefs

The flaw in this argument is that
A: - It assumes the points raised by the pro-lifer are subjective (which is often not the case, but that's not what I am here discussing)
The arguments are subjective because their points are based on their personal views which are not universal.
B: - It assumes that government does not have a role in choosing to enforce right and wrong

The fact is the government chooses things that it considers right and wrong and enforces them or not. The idea that if something is wrong we should still be able to choose about it is absurd. Imagine the scenerio where theft is legal because the government has no place enforcing right and wrong. The government is in that place. What it is important to do is to discuss whether or not abortion is objectively wrong or not. Not whether the government has the right to enforce it, that much is a given.
No assumption is made that the government doesn't have that role. But the very concepts of "right" and "wrong" are in their very nature subjective. You keep using the theft example, so I will also. If the majority of people thought that theft was an acceptable practice, then how can you say it is not right? Just because it doesn't fit with your current views does not mean that it is wrong. Because humanity invented these concepts there is no definable definition for categorizing something as right or wrong, good or evil. It's all relative.

Personally, I think the issue is only viewed as being subjective as a result of pro-choice arguments trying to remove the moral/ethical sting from it. If you can at least get someone to concede that an objective point is subjective, you've de facto won the argument.
Once again, there is no absolute morality/ethics therefore the "moral/ethical sting" is subjective. If my beliefs are different than yours the chances are we also have varying ethical standards that will result in that "sting" being different between us.

So, we should be able to kill "people" without brains? Then there would be blood running everywhere...Abortion isnt neccessary after the morning after pill was discovered.
I don't know about you but the last time I saw a person without a brain they were a cadaver in a medical school.

If it comes from a spiritual source, there is. An atheist has no objective basis for any code of behavior or morality, but someone with spiritual beliefs does.

What's important, and tends to get lost, is that a lot of people get upset when told that abortion is wrong, because they don't like the idea of a God who would impose such a rule. I always find it amazing that people will presume to pass moral judgements on God Himself...
Logic. It requires no shiny metal hand in the sky to point us to what we deem right and wrong. Nor does it make something wrong in all circumstances, as depending on the situation what you call wrong in "normal" circumstances could be the right thing to do. But wait there's more... Not only can you use logic to form an ethical code but you can use intuition, instincts and various other aspects not attached to religion.

And I have no proof that this "God" is perfect. For all we know God could merely be a member of a highly technologically advanced race, equally capable of error as you or me.

As far as the rest of this debate goes, it will never be solved as long as individual thought exists.

Where life begins - SUBJECTIVE
Killing humans. Good or bad. - SUBJECTIVE
The sky is blue and 1+1=2 - SUBJECTIVE

The thalidomide story is a pertinant example of persons recieving damages for harm incurred in the womb:

http://www.thalidomideuk.com/

This is well known in the UK, but very few babies in the US were affected, so perhaps it is not general knowledge.

I've been thinking the same thing through the last several pages, no time to join in right now though.

First of all, pregnancy is a condition of the mother, but not a "part" of the mother, any more than any other medical condition is a "part" of the mother.

False dichotomy, whether it is a condition or not, it is her body, and as such is under her jurisdiction only. Any outside effort made to influence the pregnancy is an attempt to influence her body.

And the pregnancy is not being interferred with here. She is just as pregnant as she ever was, right up until she gives birth. At no point does she cease to be pregnant. She just ends up giving birth to a deformed child. The development of the fetus is interferred with, not the pregnancy itself.

"Interfere" does not mean "terminate".

False dichotomy, whether it is a condition or not, it is her body, and as such is under her jurisdiction only. Any outside effort made to influence the pregnancy is an attempt to influence her body.

And we weren't talking about anything that influences the pregnancy. "Pregnancy" refers only to the conditions of the mother's body, not the condition of the developing fetus. We are talking about a situation in which the pregnancy proceeds absolutely normally. No harm is done to the mother. The fetal development, however, is affected by a pollutant or drug.

You are trying to equate fetal development and pregnancy, but they are not the same thing.

You are trying to equate fetal development and pregnancy, but they are not the same thing.

I do consider them inseperable.

I always assumed the purpose of pregnancy was for fetal development, and that fetal development will always result in pregnancy.

So I don't know how you draw a line to separate the two.

I do consider them inseperable.

I always assumed the purpose of pregnancy was for fetal development, and that fetal development will always result in pregnancy.

So I don't know how you draw a line to separate the two.

Pregnancy is a condition of the mother. Therefore, it describes the changes in the mother's body as a result of the presence of the developing conceptus/embryo/fetus.

The development of the fetus is related, but is not the same thing as the pregnancy, nor is it the pregnancy itself. If the fetus begins to develop abnormally, this only affects the pregnancy if the mother's biology is adversely affected as well.

Pregnancy is a condition of the mother. Therefore, it describes the changes in the mother's body as a result of the presence of the developing conceptus/embryo/fetus.

The development of the fetus is related, but is not the same thing as the pregnancy, nor is it the pregnancy itself. If the fetus begins to develop abnormally, this only affects the pregnancy if the mother's biology is adversely affected as well.

If the purpose of pregnancy is adversely affected, then the woman's interest in the pregnancy is adversely affected.

It is like any investment.

If the purpose of pregnancy is adversely affected, then the woman's interest in the pregnancy is adversely affected.

It is like any investment.

Sorry dear, but neither a fetus nor a deformed child are property.

If I try and help my mother through an illness, I have made an investment. If a doctor screws that up, I don't get to sue - only she does.

Sorry dear, but neither a fetus nor a deformed child are property.

If I try and help my mother through an illness, I have made an investment. If a doctor screws that up, I don't get to sue - only she does.

The pregnancy is a part of the woman, and as such is her property. If that pregnancy (which has only one purpose) is made worthless, she has a right to recover what she has lost.

What happens if a doctor injures a fetus during the third trimester and then that fetus has to be aborted? Is the doctor absolved of all responsibility?

The pregnancy is a part of the woman, and as such is her property.

Once again, pregnancy is not a "part" of someone, any more than "male pattern baldness" is a "part" of someone or "asthma" is a "part" of someone.

It is a medical condition, not an arm or leg.

If that pregnancy (which has only one purpose) is made worthless, she has a right to recover what she has lost.

The pregnancy is not made worthless. It worked perfectly and she had a child.

What happens if a doctor injures a fetus during the third trimester and then that fetus has to be aborted? Is the doctor absolved of all responsibility?

At the moment, no. Of course, at the moment, if he injured the fetus and it was born, it could sue him for the injury.

I was following this "harm to a fetus" argument in VO's other thread, but I want to jump in here as well.

I agree with Dempublicents that any remedy for harm done to a fetus in utero, either by the woman's negligence or by any other party's negligence, can only attach to the person who suffers harm -- i.e. the child that is born damaged -- and therefore only that child can seek redress, and therefore the only remedy can be, literally, remedial, i.e. after the fact.

Why? Because the right to sue for redress is a right that attaches only to legal persons, and at the time the harm was done, it was done to a non-person. The fetus has neither the ability nor the right to sue or take any other action to stop anyone from doing anything. The born child, in a sense, inherits the effects of the harm that was done to it while it was a fetus. The born child is a legal person and, therefore, does have the right to sue for redress. And as Dempublicents points out, if the baby is born healthy, then there is no harm to seek redress for, no matter what its mother did during her pregnancy.

I also agree with GnI that, under no circumstances, should the right to take preventative action against another person be extended to a fetus because this would inevitably lead to the erosion, if not outright gutting, of women's civil rights any time they become pregnant. It would effectively give over control of her body to the fetus, reducing her to little more than an incubator for it.

We should always be aware of a very basic truth in this discussion: No matter what rights or privileges society might choose to extend to fetuses, there will never be any way for a fetus to actually exercise those rights or even express a need or desire for the protection of those rights. The only way a woman could be prevented from harming her fetus would be for an outside party, such as her husband, family, neighbors, doctor, insurer, or the government, to step in and start restricting her behavior on the assumption that harm might result, without any proof that any harm is actually being done.

So, no one can show harm, no one is claiming that they are being harmed, no one is asking any outside party for help -- yet an outside party would be stepping in and restricting the woman's liberty on the claim that they are preventing harm to someone who isn't even part of the action/discussion. In other words, such laws would be saying that the woman's judgment is not to be trusted, and the best course is to restrict her liberty, just in case she might be doing the wrong thing. And who gets to decide what that wrong thing is? Sure, alcohol and fetuses don't mix, but what about those who think women who don't eat a certain kind of diet are endangering their fetuses? What about people who think fetuses should have a right to prevent the harm of abortion? How much authority are we willing to give others over decisions controlling a woman's pregnancy? I see no part of this that seems fair to women in any way. And I see no part of this that does not seem like grist for the anti-choice mill. GnI's slippery slope argument is entirely correct.

GnI's slippery slope argument is entirely correct.

The only problem I see with GnI's argument is that he is extending it to keeping a child from suing for redress, even after the child exists.

My statement has always been that we cannot restrict a woman from doing whatever she wants while pregnant, but if she knowingly chooses to do things which cause birth defects in a child, then she is responsible for the harm she caused. GnI seems to have a problem even with that.

The only problem I see with GnI's argument is that he is extending it to keeping a child from suing for redress, even after the child exists.

My statement has always been that we cannot restrict a woman from doing whatever she wants while pregnant, but if she knowingly chooses to do things which cause birth defects in a child, then she is responsible for the harm she caused. GnI seems to have a problem even with that.

Not really - this is kind of like people thinking I'm christian because I know my scripture... or the idea that if you are pro-choice you enjoy killing babies.

I don't want LAW that regulates the 'rights' of the foetus in THIS way. I don't trust 'law', because it is a lever for abuse. I'd rather have 'common sense' (despite how rarely anything is sense, or how common that commodity is) as the regulator for 'foetal risk', and allow law no chance to set it's pattern of precedence.

Personally, I think smoking while pregnant, for example, is 'A Bad Thing'... but I'm not sure we SHOULD allow the offspring to sue. I certainly oppose the idea of legislating pro-active rights TO the foetus.

Not really - this is kind of like people thinking I'm christian because I know my scripture... or the idea that if you are pro-choice you enjoy killing babies.

No, this isn't really like that at all. You were arguing against me. Hence, I must assume that you disagree with me.

I never suggested that we could legally keep a mother from doing whatever the heck she wants (if it is legal) while pregnant - or that we should.

No, this isn't really like that at all. You were arguing against me. Hence, I must assume that you disagree with me.

I never suggested that we could legally keep a mother from doing whatever the heck she wants (if it is legal) while pregnant - or that we should.

I suppose the disagreement would be if you think we should be allowing a LEGAL status to be imposed here. As far as I can tell, that's what I'm really butting heads with my old friend Jocabia about - the idea that there can be some kind of law framework set up that allows pro-active actions based on what is expected could happen to offspring once birthed.

I suppose the disagreement would be if you think we should be allowing a LEGAL status to be imposed here. As far as I can tell, that's what I'm really butting heads with my old friend Jocabia about - the idea that there can be some kind of law framework set up that allows pro-active actions based on what is expected could happen to offspring once birthed.

No, I think the legal ramifications of being the master of one's own body, as it were, mean that we cannot legally restrict a pregnant woman from doing anything we don't restrict all adults from doing. If she wants to drink, smoke, bunji-jump, or whatever - that is her choice.

However, I do think that, if a child is born defective, and that defect can be directly linked to something the mother did - knowing it could cause harm (ie. the mother drank after discovering she was pregnant, and the child presented with fetal alcohol syndrome), then that child should have recourse, just as it would if the birth defect were caused by thalidomide once upon a time, a doctor knowingly prescribing a drug she knows can cause birth defects, or by pollutants in the drinking water from Company A.

No, I think the legal ramifications of being the master of one's own body, as it were, mean that we cannot legally restrict a pregnant woman from doing anything we don't restrict all adults from doing. If she wants to drink, smoke, bunji-jump, or whatever - that is her choice.

However, I do think that, if a child is born defective, and that defect can be directly linked to something the mother did - knowing it could cause harm (ie. the mother drank after discovering she was pregnant, and the child presented with fetal alcohol syndrome), then that child should have recourse, just as it would if the birth defect were caused by thalidomide once upon a time, a doctor knowingly prescribing a drug she knows can cause birth defects, or by pollutants in the drinking water from Company A.

I guess I just find the ideas of setting up these kind of legal frameworks too much like asking for trouble.

What GOOD will come of allowing progeny to retrospectively sue their parents for claims of foetal injury?

It seems to me, there'd be NO gain in most cases, because, let's face it, most people just don't HAVE anything. And, where there IS some gain to be made - is that not always going to be an incentive for trivial cases?

There is a big difference when you are talking about legal recourse against pharmaceutical companies, doctors or water utilities - because there is something that can be 'done'. You can change the practises of the land, perhaps... much less so when you are talking about suing your mom because you have asthma.

What GOOD will come of allowing progeny to retrospectively sue their parents for claims of foetal injury?

The same good that comes out of anyone suing anyone for injury. The injury and its effects can never be undone - but it does encourage people to be more careful in the future.

If a child can seek redress for FAS, don't you think a mother that thinks about reaching for a drink might think twice?

There is a big difference when you are talking about legal recourse against pharmaceutical companies, doctors or water utilities - because there is something that can be 'done'. You can change the practises of the land, perhaps... much less so when you are talking about suing your mom because you have asthma.

I'm talking about suing a mom who knowingly did something that could harm the fetus. If that option is on the table, you don't think it would "change the practices of the land" - discouraging pregnant women from engaging in such activities?

The same good that comes out of anyone suing anyone for injury. The injury and its effects can never be undone - but it does encourage people to be more careful in the future.

If a child can seek redress for FAS, don't you think a mother that thinks about reaching for a drink might think twice?

I'm talking about suing a mom who knowingly did something that could harm the fetus. If that option is on the table, you don't think it would "change the practices of the land" - discouraging pregnant women from engaging in such activities?

Do you honestly believe that the crack-addict or alcoholic mom is going to have her 'practises' remodelled by legal wrangling?

It looks to me, like gun control... the good guys are exempt from the law anyway, and the crooks will always have access.