Abortion Debate Split from Cultures thread

[NapoleonGH]

Just out of curiosity, how is an early-term abortion remotely analogous to organ harvesting? One is attempting to (potentially) end a life, and the other is an attempt to save others from death.

Simple there buddy. See if you define human life as being pure and simple cellular respiration (the only definition that would make such things as the morning afterpill or any other form of early term abortion "killing" a human rather than just eliminating a non-human ball of flesh) then when you harvest organs the organs themselves havent stopped respirating because then they would be useless, so if you define human life as cellular respiration when you harvest organs you are harvesting them from a living human being and all those problems that are associated with it.

This is why i say that we should define human life as human thought. This is what is used according to law and the medical profession right now to define human death, when all cerebral activity stops. So then abortions arent killing a human if they are done before cerebral activity begins any more than harvesting organs from someone who is "dead" (according to the brain activity definition) is killing them. Thus i support the right to have an abortion up to the begining of cerebral activity which generally begins at the semester mark, ie 4.5 months into pregnancy.

[jinx]

earilyer in the discussion somone said something to the effect of "why do we teach our children that one culture is not better than another?" that one is easy. the young mind has a limited scope of understanding, & are not yet capable of seing the extreme big & extreme small picture. If we taught them that their culture was better than another persons, it would be an easy jump for them to then assume that because of this they where personaly better than that other person. this is a very dangerous idea to get into anyone's head no matter the age.
ex: the nazis obviously thought they where better than the jews. that is what let them feel justified in trying to exterminate them. we want to avoid this mindset.

as for the abortion thing, the diferance between a fetus & a cadaver is that the fetus has the potential to be alive even if it curently isn't. the cadaver has already used up its potential for life & isn't coming back. in no point in the future will it be using those organs. when you abort the fetus you are robing it of that potential for life. in principal this is the same thing you ae doing when you shoot somone in the face. you are robing them of the potential for further life. the way I see it, if one is wrong so is the other.
personaly I think they're wrong.

[Knife]

Funny thing is both durran and howedar seem to assume that i mean that the US is special for not valuing those things nearly as much as it would claim it does. What i meant was that my experience is limited to the US being the only nation I have lived in or spent more than 2 weeks in at any one time, and thus it is the only culture that i have first hand empirical data about, and i know quite plainly that we do just that, descriminate, restrict, and then claim we arent.

All cultures descriminate, restrict, oppress and then claim to be the greatest thing since sliced bread. The trick is to judge the amount of freedom and the level of living of the people in the culture. Weather or not the ability to advance in any means or the opertunity to advance exsists. There will always be a degree of oppression and descrimination in all cultures because all cultures are based off of humans and those atrabutes are in our nature.

Yes howe there are people campaigning for Roe, but since when does that change the fact that a good portion of our culture doesnt value womens rights? which is the entire point of this.

The fact that there is a debate, one that has been raging for decades, is a tribute to democracy and freedom. The latest polls say that the country is still split on the abortion issue. Now you sing womens rights and the other side can sing childrens rights but that down plays the complicated issue and turns it into slogans.

Yes howe there are people campaigning for Roe, but since when does that change the fact that a good portion of our culture doesnt value womens rights? which is the entire point of this.

Again, the simple fact that the gap is closing demostrates the the opertunity and ability of women to work for the same pay is advancing rather than stagnate. Also, other benifits need to be worked into the equation. As a man, try getting time off from work because the kid is callicy.

So what is your point that we descriminate against everyone rather than only some, yes that is a good point.

Again, all humans judge and descriminate. The indicator should be on how we advance from that and work towards a better future.

Yes we should have racial profiling because "Driving while black" is a crime

See above, plus racial profiling is a PC term for some common god damn sense. When preventing a crime or solving a crime in a country of 300 million, it is common sense to narrow down the list of suspects. Now if race is the only factor, it is wrong. But you don't throw the whole system out because of it.

Howe, yes i could list quite a few laws that desciminate agaisnt homosexuals or at least allow homosexuals to be descriminated against, but i chose rather than taking up pages of text to do this to sum it up, if you would like an example i give the Defence of Marriage act as a basic example.

I agree and disagree. The legal benifits given to a couple through the contract of marrage should be afforded to all with in reason. However, in a country of free speach, if a fucktard that is part of a fucktard church wants to spew his shit about how only a man and a woman can be 'married' then thats their right to be a bigot.

The rest was really backpeddleing and the such. Your original positon was one of America being as bad as some of the worse examples in the thread yet when you were called on it, you now want to down play it as you were saying that the US has work to do and got called on it.

Truelly the fact that you were not drug out of your house and inprisoned should prove that our culture is better than Sudia Arabia or North Korea and the ilk.

[InnerBrat]

as for the abortion thing, the diferance between a fetus & a cadaver is that the fetus has the potential to be alive even if it curently isn't. the cadaver has already used up its potential for life & isn't coming back. in no point in the future will it be using those organs. when you abort the fetus you are robing it of that potential for life. in principal this is the same thing you ae doing when you shoot somone in the face. you are robing them of the potential for further life. the way I see it, if one is wrong so is the other.
personaly I think they're wrong.

The potential of a fetus for sentience, however, has not yet been demonstrated throughout the majority of the pregnancy, and thus it cannot be reasonably granted the rights of a human, and a citizen, during those periods. Potential must be demonstrated to be recognized.

You mean the possession of sentience, not the potential for it surely?
Of course, that argument followed to it logical conclusions means we shouldn't kill any animals, because they have the potential to evolve into sentient beings.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

You mean the possession of sentience, not the potential for it surely?

No--I mean potential. A fetus has the potential for sentience; but it is unrealized potential--undemonstrated potential. A developed human has demonstrated potential for sentience--demonstrated in its usage. In both cases potential exists, but in the later case the demonstration of that potential translates it into a real thing, instead of a mere possibility.

Of course, that argument followed to it logical conclusions means we shouldn't kill any animals, because they have the potential to evolve into sentient beings.

On the contrary, I would argue that our dominance over the animal kingdom is precisely what allows this distinction to be understood: We are sentient, and the animal is not. A fetus is alive; but it is not sentient. All animals indeed have an undemonstrated potential for sentience, in strict theory--but until they have demonstrated it by evolving to that sentience, we might exercise the dominion of Will over them that a mother might exercise over the parasite within her own body, which likewise has not yet demonstrated its sentience.

[InnerBrat]

Of course, that argument followed to it logical conclusions means we shouldn't kill any animals, because they have the potential to evolve into sentient beings.

On the contrary, I would argue that our dominance over the animal kingdom is precisely what allows this distinction to be understood: We are sentient, and the animal is not. A fetus is alive; but it is not sentient. All animals indeed have an undemonstrated potential for sentience, in strict theory--but until they have demonstrated it by evolving to that sentience, we might exercise the dominion of Will over them that a mother might exercise over the parasite within her own body, which likewise has not yet demonstrated its sentience.

Not your argument, sorry. Jinx' argument.

[jinx]

sorry innerbrat, but dutchess beat me to the explanation. that's pretty much what I was going to say. my version probably would have been less eliquent though.

As for the whole thing about not having demonstrated sentience yet, I guess then legaly you are right. Are we discussing legality or morality? my opinion on the issue isn't the same for both.

[jinx]

if not aborted, the non-sentient fetus is going to develope higher brain functions & will infact become a living human being. I don't see a diference between killing somone who is alive and killing someone who is about to be.

our philosiphies on this subject obviously differ & there is little hope that one of us will convert the other. just thought I'd throw that out there. on the other hand, I've really enjoyed this discussion thus far, so feel free to keep it going

[The Duchess of Zeon]

if not aborted, the non-sentient fetus is going to develope higher brain functions & will infact become a living human being. I don't see a diference between killing somone who is alive and killing someone who is about to be.

I'm not arguing about living--I acknowledge that the fetus is living and I'm not considering that relevant at all to the discussion. Lots of things we kill are alive. I'm arguing about sentience--purely when the fetus develops higher brain functions.

Now, yes, you're right, uninterrupted the fetus will develop higher brain functions, in terms of a form of "general knowledge". But that's only something you know because other fetuses have done so. In otherwords, it is a constant for the species--it has nothing to do with that individual fetus. That individual fetus, then, is really an unknown quantity.

Do you understand what I'm trying to say with that? On the level of the species, you're correct, but on the level of the individual, that particular fetus has done nothing to demonstrate sentience. There is no reason to regard it as sentient until it has, and thus no reason to give it the rights of a sentient being, unless we also wish to extend those to all animals.

However, I think I may need to consider another possible angle to what you bring up--that the fetus deserves these rights precisely because they will develop later on. But I must argue against this. Who receives rights because they develop later on? It is a fallacious argument. Should we also give a fetus the right to vote, because they would have received that right later on? Different standards of law apply to different stages of development; there is a reason for this--we really do behave differently at these different stages, and, indeed, at a certain stage, we are not yet sentient, thinking creatures--so the utilization of such creatures for human good by the same standards as with animals is perfectly acceptable.

Essentially, you are arguing for extending the protections of humanity to a creature that is not yet human--something that has not yet developed that quality of sentience which makes us human. Again, I use the comparison: You have the capability to reach the age of twenty-one. Should you then be able to drink at age ten, in recognition of your capability to be twenty-one? This parable can be used to understand the concept... It is a far more critical realm, but the basic understanding is the same--the rights of the sentient apply to the sentient; the rights of animals, to the animals. Bluntly, the fetus before it has developed sentience is an animal, and thus the only question should be at what point the fetus becomes sentient; before this abortion ought be legal, and after it, abortion should be illegal.

[Darth Wong]

if not aborted, the non-sentient fetus is going to develope higher brain functions & will infact become a living human being. I don't see a diference between killing somone who is alive and killing someone who is about to be.

Wrong. You see a difference, and you just stated it yourself; one is a potential while the other is an actuality. What you should be saying is that you don't regard the difference to be significant.

However, it is rather absurd to believe that a potential is morally equivalent to an actuality. Every time a man and woman have sex around the time of her ovulation, there is the potential for a pregnancy and a child. Every time they use some form of contraception, they snuff out that potential. If potentials are equivalent to actualities, then contraception is murder. Are you willing to go that far?

[jinx]

you make a good point duchess. as for you referance to the laws about the drinking age, its kind of like compareing apples to oranges. drinking under 21 can be hazardus to your health. there fore bypassing the law because you will eventualy be 21 defeats the purpose of the law. protecting a fetus because it has the strong potential for sentience is just the preservation of furure sentience. they are really not the same thing.

as for the birth control thing, I'll have to just that you have to draw the line somewhere. unlike the fetus, the chances of any one sperm/egg pair achieving senience is so astronomical that it really almost doesn't count. also I've been operating on the assumption that existance begins after the sperm meets the egg.

I'd like to give you a better explanation but i seem to have blown my intelectual wad.

[Darth Wong]

as for the birth control thing, I'll have to just that you have to draw the line somewhere.

But you can't, because you declared that you see no difference at all between potentials and actualities. Care to backpedal yet?

unlike the fetus, the chances of any one sperm/egg pair achieving senience is so astronomical that it really almost doesn't count.

But the chances of one ejaculation and one egg achieving sentience from sex during ovulation is actually quite high. In my case, my wife and I successfully made babies twice on the first full try (meaning that we deliberately had unprotected sex at the peak of her ovulation).

Moreover, many forms of birth control such as the pill have no effect on the sperm or the egg, and they only keep a fertilized egg from attaching to the uterine wall. In short, at the time the birth control pill works its mojo, you have a fertilized egg, and by your definition, a baby. Therefore, based on your criteria, the birth control pill is murder. Are you willing to go that far?

also I've been operating on the assumption that existance begins after the sperm meets the egg.

Demonstrably false, since both the sperm and egg can be examined under microscopes and are clearly alive. Moreover, I reiterate that the birth control pill actually makes the woman's body flush out a fertilized egg. By your reasoning, the birth control pill is murder.

I'd like to give you a better explanation but i seem to have blown my intelectual wad.

Perhaps you do not actually have a better explanation to give, and you are just trying to rationalize subjective feelings derived from your upbringing.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

you make a good point duchess. as for you referance to the laws about the drinking age, its kind of like compareing apples to oranges. drinking under 21 can be hazardus to your health. there fore bypassing the law because you will eventualy be 21 defeats the purpose of the law. protecting a fetus because it has the strong potential for sentience is just the preservation of furure sentience. they are really not the same thing.

Look, I called it a parable in the text for a reason--besides, in Europe people drink alcohol from a very young age and have a higher tolerance than we do, which is a good thing, so I'd hardly call it clear-cut. But that's a digression.

as for the birth control thing, I'll have to just that you have to draw the line somewhere. unlike the fetus, the chances of any one sperm/egg pair achieving senience is so astronomical that it really almost doesn't count.

Exactly. So you draw the line where sentience is demonstrated.

also I've been operating on the assumption that existance begins after the sperm meets the egg.

Do you have any proof for this? No, don't answer that--I already know you don't. There aren't any brain functions at all then, and for that matter there aren't anything we can relate to sentient brain functions until the beginning of the third trimester.

[jegs2]

Oh yeah, equal rights to kill your own child. Yeah. Let me go give YOU
a retroactive post-birth abortion

Good point -- I've often been confused as to why a woman who throws a newborn into a trash bin is accused of murder, while a woman who has a late-term abortion is held up as an example for women's rights...

[InnerBrat]

Should this be split, d'ya think?

unlike the fetus, the chances of any one sperm/egg pair achieving senience is so astronomical that it really almost doesn't count.

But the chances of one ejaculation and one egg achieving sentience from sex during ovulation is actually quite high. In my case, my wife and I successfully made babies twice on the first full try (meaning that we deliberately had unprotected sex at the peak of her ovulation).

Hmm, I'd have to disagree. I think you and Rebecca are just a very lucky, very fertile couple.
One in five (approx) pregnancies don't come to term. Even more often, a zygote will not become implanted in the endometrial lining - and will be flushed out, or will be implante,d and still be flushed out.
I can't really give a quantitative estimate, but I'd say that most fertilised eggs never reach sentience.

[Darth Wong]

But the chances of one ejaculation and one egg achieving sentience from sex during ovulation is actually quite high. In my case, my wife and I successfully made babies twice on the first full try (meaning that we deliberately had unprotected sex at the peak of her ovulation).

Hmm, I'd have to disagree. I think you and Rebecca are just a very lucky, very fertile couple.

Clearly, my genitals have superior firepower

One in five (approx) pregnancies don't come to term. Even more often, a zygote will not become implanted in the endometrial lining - and will be flushed out, or will be implante,d and still be flushed out.

True, but the odds are still far, far higher than for one solitary sperm out of millions, which was the strawman being addressed in my statement. Even if they're just 1 in 20, a birth control pill has (by jinx's logic) a 1 in 20 chance of committing murder, which is actually far higher than the odds of killing someone by driving through a residential neighbourhood and randomly firing a few dozen shots into peoples' houses (which is naturally a serious crime).

[jinx]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'd like to give you a better explanation but i seem to have blown my intelectual wad.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Perhaps you do not actually have a better explanation to give,

actually that's pretty much what i meant. I really don't have a better explanation. I assure you this has nothing to do with my upbringing though.

I guess I concede

[Durandal]

Okay, I'd say that this is now settled. I'm closing this thread to prevent any me-tooers from jumping on someone who's honorable enough to concede an argument.