Abortion - been bothering me

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2002-10-06 02:38pm

Firstly let me say how glad I am to see that you have spent over a day thinking up this feeble flame.

Pointless preamble of smug insults noted.

Good Job! Again you ignore the definition of strawman, and fail to give any reason why they are invalid.

You admitted that the two situations weren't analogous, which effectively conceded your entire argument! Are you getting tired of backpedaling, yet? Make up your fucking mind.

If explaing to you why I use analogies is backpeddling then yes, I am backpeadaling

You used that analogy in the first place as a way to try and illustrate the flaws in Mike's original argument. After having your reasoning beat into a bloody pulp by Mike and myself, you shrunk back and tried to trivialize your original argument to minimize the amount of pride you'd lose. That is backpedaling. You seem to enjoy doing it.

flame flame what is your point Draco?

Hypocrisy. What was your point with your original flame?

blather. This is a morality question, were it a sceintific question, then there would be no argument, as it clearly works.

This is a morality question whose answer can be determined through scientific reasoning. Is an embryo human? Biologically speaking, no. Does the embryo's potential to develop into a human equate to being human? Biologically speaking, no. So, why should we treat the embryo as if it were a human, again?

idiot

Your personal subjective opinion, explained on your site has nothing to do with the matter.

It's not a subjective opinion, you moron; it's simple observation. The embryo is not a human being. It is up to you to justify your personal, subjective opinion that it should be treated as such. All you've given in your defense is a poorly thought-out analogy and the unjustified assumption that its potential to become human equates to actually being human because of yet another unjustified assumption that natural mechanisms, in this case, are somehow benevolent, while artificial ones are evil.

Repeating oneself so that ignoramuses is not a broken record tactic.

You've mindlessly repeated yourself and utterly failed to address my challenges. All you've done is spew the same bullshit with hopelessly uncreative insults attached.

Function, not purpose

Answer the question.

Wow! you can reword the same thing, now this is a broken record

Lack of response to my argument is noted. Your concession is accepted.

and this is a strawman please look for any post where I claimed it did, bubba

Bullshit. Your entire stance has been based on the premise that embryos should be treated as though they are human beings -- being afforded human rights -- even though they are clearly not humans.

Incorrect reasoning, and an obiously shaky grasp of my argument.

Lack of response noted. Concession accepted.

Ohh Flame Flame, the last resort of the defeated

You're the one who started flaming.

Go back, read, try to understand, If you have nothing relevent, then say nothing at all

I'd put the same challenge to you. You didn't address anything I said; you've only buried your head in the sand and repeated yourself over and over. There is absolutely nothing new in this post compared to your last one. You even use the same insults, for fuck's sake! I've gone to utterly painful lengths to explain why your argument is a strawman and why it is you who have the subjective opinion. Yet, you still blather on, blissfully ignorant of your irrevocably flawed reasoning.

You misunderstand, The choice of brain activity is arbitary.

No, you misunderstand. Zero brain activity isn't some arbitrary choice for defining "brain-dead"; it's simply the logical way to define it. If there is no brain activity, you are brain-dead. This is just intuitively obvious to anyone. You've carried on these DarkStar-like debating tactics long enough. Just admit that you lost. Everyone can see it but you.

Post by **NecronLord** » 2002-10-06 03:35pm

Durandal wrote:
Good Job! Again you ignore the definition of strawman, and fail to give any reason why they are invalid.

You admitted that the two situations weren't analogous, which effectively conceded your entire argument! Are you getting tired of backpedaling, yet? Make up your fucking mind.

I admit nothing. The situations are of course not analogous. the reasoning however is, as I stated previously

If explaing to you why I use analogies is backpeddling then yes, I am backpeadaling

You used that analogy in the first place as a way to try and illustrate the flaws in Mike's original argument. After having your reasoning beat into a bloody pulp by Mike and myself, you shrunk back and tried to trivialize your original argument to minimize the amount of pride you'd lose. That is backpedaling. You seem to enjoy doing it.

one, Mike has not replied
two, If your idea of 'beating to a bloody pulp' is dancing around like the strawman pixie, than maybe.
three, your commentery on my reasoning is not only pointless, it is also incorrect
four, check the origninal post, My analogies are, as I have stated application of analogous reasoning.

flame flame what is your point Draco?

Hypocrisy. What was your point with your original flame?

original flame. I have no idea what you mean, Draco.

blather. This is a morality question, were it a sceintific question, then there would be no argument, as it clearly works.
This is a morality question whose answer can be determined through scientific reasoning. Is an embryo human? Biologically speaking, no. Does the embryo's potential to develop into a human equate to being human? Biologically speaking, no. So, why should we treat the embryo as if it were a human, again?

This is not a question of can abortion take place, which would be a science argument, it is a morality question. Your subjective opinon and selective application of science, along with your personal vendetta against the 'pro-life' movement, of which I am not a member. Is an opinon. If you have a sceintific explanation for human rights in any example, then please enlighten me.

idiot

Your personal subjective opinion, explained on your site has nothing to do with the matter.
It's not a subjective opinion, you moron; it's simple observation. The embryo is not a human being.
opinion
It is up to you to justify your personal, subjective opinion that it should be treated as such.
what makes you believe that i hold that opinion
All you've given in your defense is a poorly thought-out analogy and the unjustified assumption that its potential to become human equates to actually being human
ditto
because of yet another unjustified assumption that natural mechanisms, in this case, are somehow benevolent, while artificial ones are evil.
Justify your belief that you know my motives

Repeating oneself so that ignoramuses is not a broken record tactic.
You've mindlessly repeated yourself and utterly failed to address my challenges. All you've done is spew the same bullshit with hopelessly uncreative insults attached.

Hardly, your 'challenges' are misdirected, your vendetta against the 'pro-life' movement has clearly slowed your mind

Function, not purpose

Answer the question.

What specific question

Wow! you can reword the same thing, now this is a broken record
Lack of response to my argument is noted. Your concession is accepted.

hardly Your repetition is not gorunds for a concession

and this is a strawman please look for any post where I claimed it did, bubba
Bullshit. Your entire stance has been based on the premise that embryos should be treated as though they are human beings -- being afforded human rights -- even though they are clearly not humans.

Personal vendetta

Incorrect reasoning, and an obiously shaky grasp of my argument.

Lack of response noted. Concession accepted.

I cannot conceed something I never stated. Please keep your imaginery concessions to yourself.

Ohh Flame Flame, the last resort of the defeated
You're the one who started flaming.

Where?

Go back, read, try to understand, If you have nothing relevent, then say nothing at all
I'd put the same challenge to you. You didn't address anything I said; you've only buried your head in the sand and repeated yourself over and over.

Possibly this is what you believe because I have felt no need to
adress your attacks on points I never held?
There is absolutely nothing new in this post compared to your last one. You even use the same insults, for fuck's sake! I've gone to utterly painful lengths to explain why your argument is a strawman and why it is you who have the subjective opinion. Yet, you still blather on, blissfully ignorant of your irrevocably flawed reasoning.

Prehaps it is painful because you are pulling it our of your arse?
Am I blissfuly ignoranat of your attacks on points I never held. No
Am I ignoring them? yes

You misunderstand, The choice of brain activity is arbitary.
No, you misunderstand. Zero brain activity isn't some arbitrary choice for defining "brain-dead"; it's simply the logical way to define it. If there is no brain activity, you are brain-dead. This is just intuitively obvious to anyone. You've carried on these DarkStar-like debating tactics long enough. Just admit that you lost. Everyone can see it but you.

Guilt by association
Attacking points never stated by me. To use your "beaten to a pulp expressions." You haven't hit me, you have been using attacks on the 'pro-life' people, not me.
Logical? please explain your idea of Logical human rights.

Post by **NecronLord** » 2002-10-06 03:40pm

A repost for you.

NecronLord wrote:
Darth Wong wrote:
No, the real question is whether the first-trimester embryo has rights, and a brain-dead clump of cells does NOT have rights because it has no thoughts. Ergo, it is not "alive" in the sense that it is brain-dead.
If a child behaves in an irresponsible way, can you kill it as it's brain is not fully matured?

If you take an example of someone who achives 'enlightnment' as everyone else does not think on the same level as said enlightened person does this give enlightened person the right to walk around killing people he finds inconvinent "a queue, they are in my way I shall mow them down with an assault rifle!"

By stating that if it cannot think to a level you consider acceptable then you are condoning the actions of the evil super being Jehovah. who supposedly is all powerful, created humanity, and has incomprehensible thoughts. Therefore he is justified in all his activities in the bible, is not evil, now let us pray.

this is a ludicrous line of argument which has no morality at all beyond the level of power without responsibility.

now, please explain where I claimed that anything has human rights? I pointed out a flaw in the reasoning [not even Wong is perfect]. nothing more. Your mindless charecterisation of this into a 'pro-life' assertion is a gross charecterisation. As this takes down all of your points;

Concession Accepted

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2002-10-06 07:09pm

Guilt by association

Bullshit. Your tactics are precisely in accord with his own, and they are flawed. You succinctly ignored everything I said up until that point, which makes it a nitpick.

Attacking points never stated by me. To use your "beaten to a pulp expressions." You haven't hit me, you have been using attacks on the 'pro-life' people, not me.
Logical? please explain your idea of Logical human rights.

I've already done so, many, many times. I'm not going to repeat myself for the sake of your reading comprehension problems anymore.

now, please explain where I claimed that anything has human rights? I pointed out a flaw in the reasoning [not even Wong is perfect]. nothing more. Your mindless charecterisation of this into a 'pro-life' assertion is a gross charecterisation. As this takes down all of your points;

Useless backpedaling. You attempted to find a flaw in his reasoning with an analogy that you yourself admitted to be invalid. Stop making pro-life claims (ie- "we shouldn't interfere with life's development" or "an embryo is a life, so we shouldn't kill it") and then claim that you're not pro-life.

You're just being a coward, and you're obviously one of those dumbshits that thinks that the best way to win a debate is to hop to one side, and then deny that you ever said anything in support of that side.

I'm sick of dealing with your backpedaling, cowardly debate tactics and refusal to associate yourself with statements you've made. I'm done with you.

Next.

HemlockGrey · Post by **HemlockGrey** » 2002-10-06 07:32pm

Dude. Say something to Talen.

Kelly Antilles · Post by **Kelly Antilles** » 2002-10-06 08:18pm

I have been avoiding this thread for a long time, but this interesting debate going on has prompted me to say something.

The final decision should be the female who is pregnant.

The debate over when "life" begins doesn't really matter, does it? If the female can handle knowing she has given up a possible life, it is her choice. If you take that choice away from her, by making abortion illegal, you are sending women's rights back to the stone ages.

Honestly, I NEVER wanted to get into this.

ArmorPierce · Post by **ArmorPierce** » 2002-10-06 08:38pm

I agree with what kelly has posted above.

Post by **Mr Bean** » 2002-10-06 08:39pm

Kelly its one of those Issues where most of us do this

*Runs away

Or falling that are loud mouth idiots when it comes to the subject(IE could not change thier mind with a 2x4)

Or somewhere in the middle as always happens in a world grey shadows...

Anyway as I've said before regading this

It IS the Women's body, in legal terms the Fetus, alive or not is depending 100% on that woman's body to keep it alive and thiers no way around that basic fact

Prehaps one day we will be able instead of simply being foced to abort the child the women does not want(A good strong punch to the stomch will do it too fokes, this is not rocket science) we could instead surgicly remove it and transfer it to a willing Host(Not a nice term but its accurate) who will care for it and give birth to it.

Now I ask you what do you inted to do to the mother if she *low-tech aborts the child hmm? Shall you lock her up for Murder? Yes shall we do that? After all you want to aquite this thing to being alive and having rights, its a crime to kill someone in a coma(A good comparsion on depending on others to live) shall we charge the no longer to be mother for murder her as yet unborn child?

Shall we?

Its a simple enough question, one can not in good consiousne mins the details its alive and therfor can't be aborted no matter what the women wants AND aborting it illeagly means that its the same as killing a human being IE the Mother can be brought up on charges of Murder

You can't get around that basic fact, in many things it can be either or and maybe somthing else but in this situation you CANNONT in good scientific thinking call it HALF alive or a Quater alive or whatever

Alive is a state of being, There is not METHOD of becoming alive(Nor as of yet one of bringing those ceasing to be alive, back to it)

You are at the base level ALIVE
Or Not
If the Featus is alive, then aborting it is the same as Murder...

And shall be under the law Treated as such

In other words, aborting a child would be treated as an offense punisable by DEATH

Now some people might want a world where such things happen

Personaly
I don't

Enforcer Talen · Post by **Enforcer Talen** » 2002-10-06 08:44pm

-faint smile- legality and morality are two different things. for the moment, I beleive abortion should be legal, because when it isn't the women who want abortions will proceed with them, often causing great harm to themselves.

but I find the concept itself repugnant and would much prefer people weren't silly enough to get to the point of needing an abortion.

Post by **Mr Bean** » 2002-10-06 08:49pm

-faint smile- legality and morality are two different things. for the moment

Ahh but no, For our are Laws not BASED on our Morals? Why are there so many laws even CALLED moratly laws?

but I find the concept itself repugnant and would much prefer people weren't silly enough to get to the point of needing an abortion.

I know at least two women, one of who is a Black Belt in Tai-Quon Do who will kick your ass for that statment(You see they where both raped in High school...)

Enforcer Talen · Post by **Enforcer Talen** » 2002-10-06 08:56pm

Mr Bean wrote:
-faint smile- legality and morality are two different things. for the moment
Ahh but no, For our are Laws not BASED on our Morals? Why are there so many laws even CALLED moratly laws?

but I find the concept itself repugnant and would much prefer people weren't silly enough to get to the point of needing an abortion.
I know at least two women, one of who is a Black Belt in Tai-Quon Do who will kick your ass for that statment(You see they where both raped in High school...)

isnt nice to know people who will attack you for making an overquick statement? I was not thinking of rape when I was thinking abortion - I was pointing to kids who go out and get laid without a condom. it's stupid. as for rape, if rapists were executed and more kids told women were not to be abused, it would be less of a problem. of course, what's moral about murder, whether it's executing a rapist or an unborn child? it isn't. but sometimes it's neccesery.

Kelly Antilles · Post by **Kelly Antilles** » 2002-10-06 09:03pm

You should think of all bases before quick judgement, Talen. And yes, those children are not thinking. But what about their parents? Children are not taught morals these days. They can't be taught because if you say one thing to them, they will call it child abuse. Kids aren't dumb, they're just getting smart for the wrong reasons.

Post by **Mr Bean** » 2002-10-06 09:08pm

isnt nice to know people who will attack you for making an overquick statement?

One always has to be on one's toes here at SD.Net, this is the home of Logic and Reason in a sea of madness and stuipidity, of course people react quicky to a Hasty Generlzation

I was not thinking of rape when I was thinking abortion - I was pointing to kids who go out and get laid without a condom. it's stupid. as for rape, if rapists were executed and more kids told women were not to be abused, it would be less of a problem.

Except exculding Advantage Rape(IE Date rape, party rape) the real problems the Serial Rapests like many other Serial Crime commiters have somthing Psycholocily or Psycholigly wrong with thier higher order thinking, What I'm trying to say here is education is not a perfect solution to any problem

of course, what's moral about murder, whether it's executing a rapist or an unborn child? it isn't. but sometimes it's neccesery.

A fine statment
But thats your opionion and everyone is entiltied to one
Right or not

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2002-10-06 09:17pm

Enforcer Talen wrote:isnt nice to know people who will attack you for making an overquick statement? I was not thinking of rape when I was thinking abortion - I was pointing to kids who go out and get laid without a condom. it's stupid.

Agreed. However, that doesn't change the fact that an embryo with NO BRAIN is not a thinking, feeling human being yet, and will not become so unless a woman voluntarily agrees to use her body to support it for many months. No one has the right to force her to do this.

as for rape, if rapists were executed and more kids told women were not to be abused, it would be less of a problem.

Your solution to the rape/abortion problem is to wish that there was no rape? Gee, why don't we all just think happy-happy thoughts and wish all problems away?

This is exactly like the abstinence-only approach to STD prevention, because it is a ridiculous Peter Pan idea. Deal with the fact that rape happens whether we like it or not, and then try to construct a reasonable ethos for handling it.

of course, what's moral about murder, whether it's executing a rapist or an unborn child? it isn't. but sometimes it's neccesery.

You see, that's the problem with the abortion debate; people insist on using the most incendiary language possible, and then put on an innocent "who, me?" look when others get upset with them.

When you accuse abortionists of being "murderers", you are playing rhetorical games. It is not murder to terminate an embryo because an embryo is not a human being. The fact that it would eventually become a human being is irrelevant; future potentials are not present values. You will eventually be worm-food; that doesn't mean you should be treated that way now.

Conversely, when womens' rights groups say that it's "the woman's body", they're overdoing it. Eighth-month abortions still happen, and they kill thinking, feeling babies, not mindless embryos. An 8-month baby is inside the woman's body, but it is not part of the woman's body per se; there are limits to the jurisdiction of the "my body, my choice" ethos.

Of course, if you acknowledge that your feelings are purely personal and have no place in an objective discussion, that's fine, but you should avoid accusing abortionists of being "murderers" unless you can produce some objective reason for using the term. Face it; an embryo is NOT a thinking, feeling human being. An eight-month fetus, on the other hand, is definitely a thinking, feeling human being. This is why I have concluded that a first-trimester abortion is OK, a third-trimester abortion is not OK, and until more research comes in, the second trimester falls under the "I'm not comfortable with it, but I don't think we have made a sufficiently strong case to criminalize it" category.

Axiomatic slogans such as "pro-life" or "my body, my choice" only lead to anger on both sides.

Enforcer Talen · Post by **Enforcer Talen** » 2002-10-06 09:19pm

Mr Bean wrote:
isnt nice to know people who will attack you for making an overquick statement?
One always has to be on one's toes here at SD.Net, this is the home of Logic and Reason in a sea of madness and stuipidity, of course people react quicky to a Hasty Generlzation

so I'm finding.

I was not thinking of rape when I was thinking abortion - I was pointing to kids who go out and get laid without a condom. it's stupid. as for rape, if rapists were executed and more kids told women were not to be abused, it would be less of a problem.
Except exculding Advantage Rape(IE Date rape, party rape) the real problems the Serial Rapests like many other Serial Crime commiters have somthing Psycholocily or Psycholigly wrong with thier higher order thinking, What I'm trying to say here is education is not a perfect solution to any problem

indeed. so what would you suggest?

You should think of all bases before quick judgement, Talen. And yes, those children are not thinking. But what about their parents? Children are not taught morals these days. They can't be taught because if you say one thing to them, they will call it child abuse. Kids aren't dumb, they're just getting smart for the wrong reasons.

do forgive me. the tangent this has gone on has taken me off gaurd.

I may have an answer for this in a few hrs. plz hold.

XPViking · Post by **XPViking** » 2002-10-06 10:39pm

Just two quick questions...

1) Someone first said that zero brain activity qualifies as death. So, when brain activity can first be detected in an embryo, can we qualify it as life? If that is the case, then do we grant it rights? According to some sites, this is at the 6 week stage.

2) It seem that there is another definition of life floating around in this thread. That is, if the foetus (I realize that this term is used for one of the stages of development but I'm looking for a blanket term to cover the whole 9 months) cannot support itself, then it has no rights.

The following link offers a pretty good article discussing this very issue:

http://www.religioustolerance.com/abo_when.htm

XPViking

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2002-10-06 11:12pm

Just two quick questions...

1) Someone first said that zero brain activity qualifies as death. So, when brain activity can first be detected in an embryo, can we qualify it as life? If that is the case, then do we grant it rights? According to some sites, this is at the 6 week stage.

But, physically, it is not a human being. Some brain activity can undoubtedly be detected in chicken eggs early on, but that doesn't qualify them to be sold as chickens. :)

I'm not a biologist, though, so I really don't know for sure, and I hesitate to check online, as I'm sure I'd find conflicting statements based on whatever side a particular site is on.

2) It seem that there is another definition of life floating around in this thread. That is, if the foetus (I realize that this term is used for one of the stages of development but I'm looking for a blanket term to cover the whole 9 months) cannot support itself, then it has no rights.

I would have to disagree. Even after birth, an infant is hardly capable of supporting itself; if memory serves, humans have the longest "growing up" period of all animals. While at as little as one year of age, some animals are ready to go out and hunt their own food, fly or whatever, humans require at least five years to fully support themselves in a biological sense.

Post by **Mr Bean** » 2002-10-06 11:18pm

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2) It seem that there is another definition of life floating around in this thread. That is, if the foetus (I realize that this term is used for one of the stages of development but I'm looking for a blanket term to cover the whole 9 months) cannot support itself, then it has no rights.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I would have to disagree. Even after birth, an infant is hardly capable of supporting itself; if memory serves, humans have the longest "growing up" period of all animals. While at as little as one year of age, some animals are ready to go out and hunt their own food, fly or whatever, humans require at least five years to fully support themselves in a biological sense.

No small diffrence you two

As of now when the Featus is in the Womb up till the last 2 months it can't support itself sure
And even after birth and a year of Life it can't support itself sure

HOWEVER
Until those last two months, PERIOD it can't be supported by ANYONE but the Mother(At least as far as science now goes)

However during those last two, Science or somone else can step in C-section the baby out and give it to somone else who can support it

Notice the diffrence?

This excludes of course so called *test tube babys who are a seperate case entirley

Priesto · Post by **Priesto** » 2002-10-07 01:16am

I agree with you about getting to certain stages of development.The woman should have the choice and I certainly wouldn't impose what I think on woman who have abortions.They have a right, but I would hope to make them aware of the consequences that arise concerning the health of the woman.You can only educate a person, then allow them to make a choice based on that knowledge.

XPViking · Post by **XPViking** » 2002-10-07 01:43am

I'm not a biologist, though, so I really don't know for sure, and I hesitate to check online, as I'm sure I'd find conflicting statements based on whatever side a particular site is on. - Durandel

Hence the confusion as to where one draws the line as to when the featus becomes a person. The link that I posted did come from the religious tolerance site.

Mr. Bean. Thanks for clarifying that point. I should have stated more clearly that I meant the feotus is still within the womb, although I did say the first nine months.

XPViking

Nick · Post by **Nick** » 2002-10-07 11:01am

I guess we've pretty effectively illustrated the point that the page XPViking linked to was trying to make. . .

Depending on when you believe human personhood begins, you will have different ideas about when abortion is legitimate.

For mine, I believe it actually happens somewhere in the latter half of a pregnancy, so saying it happens at the end of the first trimester leaves a nice safety margin. Even so, I'd view abortion as a very last resort - and a decision that ultimately rests with the mother. It is also a decision which has to be informed - the mother needs to be aware of the options, and the consequences of each (Is she prepared to deal with the guilt she may feel abort having an abortion? Is she confident enough of her reasons that she can face the results of here actions, whatever they may be? Does she accept the responsibility associated with choosing to raise a child?). After all, demanding that a child be raised by someone who is not equipped to raise that child isn't doing the mother or the child any favours. And for the crowd that say 'let it be adopted', well, life isn't that simple. Can the mother deal with carrying the child for 9 months? Could she give it up once she had held it in her arms? How well does the state's adoption system work anyway? No matter which way you slice it, it is a tough decision, and the moral course is not going to be an easy one to find.

Where the question about LEGAL abortion comes in, is at what point does society say that, 'Yes, at this point, this IS a human person. You can argue about it prior to this, but at this point, it IS a person, and we will protect it like one'. The law has to recognise the diversity of views about when personhood begins, while at the same time avoiding running roughshod over the rights of something which might actually be a person. At this point, the law seems to have accepted that 12 weeks is a reasonable date - although I believe it can vary significantly depending on jurisdiction (from 'no abortions' all the way up to what is virtually '10th month')

And I think I finally got NecronLord's point - his tactics are absolutely lousy, but I believe he does have something resembling a point. Focusing exclusively on a single issue (brain activity) carries with it a certain danger of oversimplifying a complex issue. I know I was focusing on the brain activity issue, because it was my understanding that this was where the '12 week' figure came from. As it turns out, this may not be the case - and, obviously, it doesn't change my opinion one iota.

Basically, what a 'first trimester' abortion law is saying is:
"Beyond this point, we are categorically stating that your developing child is a human, and protected by law. Before this point, we are leaving that decision to your own conscience - the evidence for personhood is not sufficiently clear to justify our using the force of law to impose a particular interpretation on you."

Post by **NecronLord** » 2002-10-07 11:21am

Mr Bean wrote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2) It seem that there is another definition of life floating around in this thread. That is, if the foetus (I realize that this term is used for one of the stages of development but I'm looking for a blanket term to cover the whole 9 months) cannot support itself, then it has no rights.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I would have to disagree. Even after birth, an infant is hardly capable of supporting itself; if memory serves, humans have the longest "growing up" period of all animals. While at as little as one year of age, some animals are ready to go out and hunt their own food, fly or whatever, humans require at least five years to fully support themselves in a biological sense.
No small diffrence you two

As of now when the Featus is in the Womb up till the last 2 months it can't support itself sure
And even after birth and a year of Life it can't support itself sure

HOWEVER
Until those last two months, PERIOD it can't be supported by ANYONE but the Mother(At least as far as science now goes)

However during those last two, Science or somone else can step in C-section the baby out and give it to somone else who can support it

Notice the diffrence?

This excludes of course so called *test tube babys who are a seperate case entirley

I seem to remember somewhere that there was an 'artificial womb' being worked on. Sparri cloning cylinders anyone?

Post by **Mr Bean** » 2002-10-07 11:33am

I seem to remember somewhere that there was an 'artificial womb' being worked on. Sparri cloning cylinders anyone?

Thusly as I said a seperate case

Considering the delebrate nature of both Test Tube Babys and Artifical Wombs...
The phrase you break it you buy it comes to mind

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2002-10-07 12:35pm

XPViking wrote:1) Someone first said that zero brain activity qualifies as death. So, when brain activity can first be detected in an embryo, can we qualify it as life? If that is the case, then do we grant it rights? According to some sites, this is at the 6 week stage.

According to the Ontario Science Center, the brain stem does not develop until 12 weeks. The early formations of brain cells do not denote genuine brain activity.

2) It seem that there is another definition of life floating around in this thread. That is, if the foetus (I realize that this term is used for one of the stages of development but I'm looking for a blanket term to cover the whole 9 months) cannot support itself, then it has no rights.

That is not so much a matter of rights or "life" as a question of the mother's rights. The fetus will die NATURALLY unless she VOLUNTARILY uses HER BODY to support it until it is capable of surviving outside the womb. If she refuses to do so, you have no right to force her.

XPViking · Post by **XPViking** » 2002-10-08 01:00am

Darth Wong,

According to the Ontario Science Center, the brain stem does not develop until 12 weeks. The early formations of brain cells do not denote genuine brain activity.

Fair enough. I think the point is, which Nick illustrated, that there is disagreement on when the featus qualifies as a "person".

That is not so much a matter of rights or "life" as a question of the mother's rights. The fetus will die NATURALLY unless she VOLUNTARILY uses HER BODY to support it until it is capable of surviving outside the womb. If she refuses to do so, you have no right to force her.

True. I think the problem obviously is related to the first point (when does the featus qualify as a person). I don't think it's not simply a matter of the featus's rights or mother's rights, but both parties conflicting with eachother.

Since the featus is fully dependant upon the mother, then some may argue that this is an unequal power relationship. Therefore, some try to equal the relationship by defining the featus as a person as soon as possible. Once that is done, then the conflict arises as to who's rights (the featus "person" or mother) should be superceded: the mother's right to exercise control over her body vs the featus's right to life. That is, since both are viewed as persons, then who wins?

I'm not stating my personal views here. I'm just summarizing, hopefully without distorting, views that some groups hold.

XPViking

Edit: I didn't think that this posted and I wasn't happy with my first draft.