Abortion: Human rights or religiously motivated

[ziggy]

[quote]And the difference between you and a fetus is what? That's right, you aren't a non-sentient growing inside of, feeding off of, and completely dependant on the body of another, sentient, creature. Bodily autonomy is an important legal concept. That we've done so much already to limit it is sad. The government stepping in and saying, 'I'm sorry, your body is no longer yours' is a form of slavery.[/quote]

What is your definition of sentient ? And if science could take out the "fetus" and grow the child elsewhere, would that change anything ? The baby makes its home in the womb... I guess if science could remove the child and grow it independent of the mother that would solve abortion...probably not. I think that no one says "your body is no longer yours"...rather to the child, "we respect YOUR body and right to life, liberty, and pursuit of..." Just my opinion though...

[Socrates]

[quote name='burnsspivey' date='Mar 1 2005, 05:10 PM'] And the difference between you and a fetus is what?  That's right, you aren't a non-sentient growing inside of, feeding off of, and completely dependant on the body of another, sentient, creature.  Bodily autonomy is an important legal concept.  That we've done so much already to limit it is sad.  The government stepping in and saying, 'I'm sorry, your body is no longer yours' is a form of slavery.

*waits for flames and gawking stares usually aimed at such statements of personal liberty* [/quote]
Whether the baby is dependant on the mother's body for its existence is completely irrelevant as to whether or not it is a human person. The fetus has its own DNA, distinct from the mother's from the moment of conception. It has its own beating heart, its own blood, it's own brain, its own brain-waves.

Any scientist can tell you it is a distinct creature from the mother, not a "part of the mother's body" as you pro-abort people like to say.

Babies are dependent on their parents for quite some time after birth and would not survive long without their care. Would you say it should be legal to kill children until they are old enough to fend for themselves?

Edited March 2, 2005 by Socrates

[MichaelFilo]

Even when I wanted to be Hitler Jr. I was still agains abortion as I saw it as a weakness. Thank goodness I got a little enlightenment on the issue.

God bless,
Mikey

[Aloysius]

[quote name='burnsspivey' date='Mar 1 2005, 06:10 PM'] And the difference between you and a fetus is what? That's right, you aren't a non-sentient growing inside of, feeding off of, and completely dependant on the body of another, sentient, creature. Bodily autonomy is an important legal concept. That we've done so much already to limit it is sad. The government stepping in and saying, 'I'm sorry, your body is no longer yours' is a form of slavery.

*waits for flames and gawking stares usually aimed at such statements of personal liberty* [/quote]
this was my point, at the moment of conception an embryo is not dependent upon anyone for every single element of its humanity. The only thing it is dependent upon the mother for is for the survival and growth of the already set genetic information that makes up his (or her) person.

[CreepyCrawler]

[quote name='burnsspivey' date='Mar 1 2005, 05:10 PM'] The government stepping in and saying, 'I'm sorry, your body is no longer yours' is a form of slavery.
[/quote]
isn't that what abortion does? it has the govt. saying to the baby, "I'm sorry, your body belongs to your mother even though you are a distinct life. she can do whatever she wants with your body" it's such a violation of human rights and thanks for bringing up that point burns

[argent_paladin]

1. We shouldn't kill fetuses because fetuses are human beings. and because fetuses have human souls. The two are synonymous. The soul is what makes a thing what it is. All humans have (or rather are) human souls. It is in fact irrelevant that some don't believe it. Just because some believe that the earth is flat, does that mean that it is so? So, saying that something has human rights and that it has a human soul are different aspects of the same answer.

2. All humans are dependent on other humans for survival, to one extent or another. Remember, the point of legal protection begins when the baby's head breaches, NOT when the umbilical cord is cut. Therefore, the fetus is legally protected even when it is getting its sustinence from another. Also, even those who cannot breath or eat for themselves cannot be legally murdered. So, dependence is not sufficient to deny personhood.

3. Neither is sentience. Is a baby who is 5 minutes old any more sentient than one who is five minutes from birth? Is someone in a coma sentient? Or even one sleeping? Therefore sentience is not sufficient to deny human personhood.

4. " The government stepping in and saying, 'I'm sorry, your body is no longer yours' is a form of slavery." Actually, you have that exactly reversed. A man is told that his body doesn't belong to him, but rather he is the property of his owner. That is slavery. A fetus is told that his body does not belong to him, but rather he is the property of his owner. That is slavery. You must first prove that the fetus is in fact not a person, even though he has his own brain, own unique blood type, own unique dna, etc. Give me a clear, consistent definition of human life that excludes fetuses up to the moment of delivery but includes them the moment after, that includes those in comas, on life support, etc.

[burnsspivey]

[quote name='argent_paladin' date='Mar 1 2005, 10:08 PM'] 1. We shouldn't kill fetuses because fetuses are human beings. and because fetuses have human souls. The two are synonymous. The soul is what makes a thing what it is. All humans have (or rather are) human souls. It is in fact irrelevant that some don't believe it. Just because some believe that the earth is flat, does that mean that it is so? So, saying that something has human rights and that it has a human soul are different aspects of the same answer.
[/quote]
1) You are, quite simply, wrong. A soul is a metaphysical concept that has absolutely zero bearing on humanity. The fact that some people believe in them and some don't is relevant. Especially when you consider that many people believe that animals have souls. What, it only doesn't matter when you find yourself on the other side of the coin? You can't make an argument based on souls, if for no other reason, because a soul can't be proven. Make the rest of your arguments as long and as often as you wish, but drop this one.

[quote]2. All humans are dependent on other humans for survival, to one extent or another. Remember, the point of legal protection begins when the baby's head breaches, NOT when the umbilical cord is cut. Therefore, the fetus is legally protected even when it is getting its sustinence from another. Also, even those who cannot breath or eat for themselves cannot be legally murdered. So, dependence is not sufficient to deny personhood.[/quote]

Human interdependance is quesitonable at best. If a woman giving birth were to die as the head was crowning would the spawn die too? Apparently, the head crowning is defined as birth (though I'm sure there are many women who would argue there's more to it) and thus a crowned head = person. Those who cannot breathe or eat for themselves are a different story altogether. They aren't living inside of another creature, for one. I'm not going any further on this subject -- it's for a different thread.

[quote]3. Neither is sentience. Is a baby who is 5 minutes old any more sentient than one who is five minutes from birth? Is someone in a coma sentient? Or even one sleeping? Therefore sentience is not sufficient to deny human personhood.[/quote]

Interesting point. I shall think on this.

[quote]4. " The government stepping in and saying, 'I'm sorry, your body is no longer yours' is a form of slavery." Actually, you have that exactly reversed. A man is told that his body doesn't belong to him, but rather he is the property of his owner. That is slavery. A fetus is told that his body does not belong to him, but rather he is the property of his owner. That is slavery. You must first prove that the fetus is in fact not a person, even though he has his own brain, own unique blood type, own unique dna, etc. Give me a clear, consistent definition of human life that excludes fetuses up to the moment of delivery but includes them the moment after, that includes those in comas, on life support, etc.[/quote]

Actually, you must first prove that a fetus [i]is[/i] a person. Note that person and human are different things here because we're talking about the legal use of the word. Quite simply: a human being that has been born.

[burnsspivey]

[quote name='ziggy' date='Mar 1 2005, 06:14 PM'] What is your definition of sentient ? And if science could take out the "fetus" and grow the child elsewhere, would that change anything ? The baby makes its home in the womb... I guess if science could remove the child and grow it independent of the mother that would solve abortion...probably not. I think that no one says "your body is no longer yours"...rather to the child, "we respect YOUR body and right to life, liberty, and pursuit of..." Just my opinion though... [/quote]
That would make all the difference...as long as the parties consent to the procedure.

[God Conquers]

[quote name='burnsspivey' date='Mar 2 2005, 10:35 AM'] 1) You are, quite simply, wrong. A soul is a metaphysical concept that has absolutely zero bearing on humanity. The fact that some people believe in them and some don't is relevant. Especially when you consider that many people believe that animals have souls. What, it only doesn't matter when you find yourself on the other side of the coin? You can't make an argument based on souls, if for no other reason, because a soul can't be proven. Make the rest of your arguments as long and as often as you wish, but drop this one.



Human interdependance is quesitonable at best. If a woman giving birth were to die as the head was crowning would the spawn die too? Apparently, the head crowning is defined as birth (though I'm sure there are many women who would argue there's more to it) and thus a crowned head = person. Those who cannot breathe or eat for themselves are a different story altogether. They aren't living inside of another creature, for one. I'm not going any further on this subject -- it's for a different thread.



Interesting point. I shall think on this.



Actually, you must first prove that a fetus [i]is[/i] a person. Note that person and human are different things here because we're talking about the legal use of the word. Quite simply: a human being that has been born. [/quote]
1) Forget souls for a minute... it is relevent, but not essential to this question, and as you don't (or as you state some don't) recognize the existence of a soul then we can put this aside for now.

2) A "fetus" can survive independently from the mother at 24 weeks in North America. A Csection on a dying mother 6 months pregnant can birth the child, alive. How then can "crowning" be the point at which one becomes a person? For that matter, are children born of C sections (not through the birth canal) not persons?

Also... In the 1st world, a pre-born baby can survive very early on, at 5 months. But in the second and third world, this is not the case, maybe 8 mnths or 7 at best. Why would the country you live in, standard of living, or better health care make something a person? (if we defined a person as a viable fetus)

3)The Fetus is a person. Please respond to my post above. Person is an inclusive term and applies to all genetic homo sapiens. There is no conditions which you can apply to it that exclude ONLY persons in the womb. People in a vegetative state.. completely and fully dependent on otheres... are their rights forfeit?

[Socrates]

[quote name='burnsspivey' date='Mar 2 2005, 10:35 AM']


Actually, you must first prove that a fetus [i]is[/i] a person. Note that person and human are different things here because we're talking about the legal use of the word. Quite simply: a human being that has been born. [/quote]
We've actually given several reasons why the human fetus is a person (all of which you've chosen to ignore).

Your argument (as usual) is circular here: Unborn babies should not legally be persons because legally they are not persons.

We are arguing about whether these laws regarding abortion are just.
The only reason jmudges decided that unborn humans are not defined as persons is so it will be legal to kill them.

The law once considered blacks to not be fully persons.
Under the Nazis, German law did not define Jews as persons.

What the law currently says has no bearing on the truth of whether or not the unborn child is a person. Laws have been and are wrong.

[1337 k4th0l1x0r]

[quote name='burnsspivey' date='Mar 2 2005, 09:35 AM'] Actually, you must first prove that a fetus [i]is[/i] a person. Note that person and human are different things here because we're talking about the legal use of the word. Quite simply: a human being that has been born. [/quote]
Prove that you are a person, I am a person, and everyone who is not in the womb is a person without using arguments that would support that those in the womb are persons as well.

[Myles Domini]

I like what Peter Singer, Proffessor of Philosophy at Princeton says about supporters of abortion. As an advocate of the killing of young babies on the basis that they have less cognative abilities than animals currently used for medical research i.e. chimps and thus would feel less pain, he has stated that nobody who supports abortion can argue against me and he's absolutely correct. I mean, really what is the difference between a baby in the womb and outside? The answer Singer quite correctly provides is nothing. The problem he rightly highlights is that the morality of emotivism that began with Nietchze prevents people from following their arguments to their logical conclusion. If we can abort children based on their cognitive abilities why not babies? He says that babies are not autonmous or intelligent individuals that show full awareness of their environment just as a fetus doesnt thus apart from peoples' squirmishness there's no reason why we shouldnt use them for experimentation. He also advocates testing on the old and infirm. For all intense purposes he is a mind that personifies the Culture of Death and an Ivy league Uni that will be producing some of the most powerful people in the world one day employed him. If they become legislators of the future and decide to implement his interpretation of negative utility theory be forewarned America.

Naturally, I disagree with Singer, but I cant fault him for his logic. Once we begin to define personhood then we are entering some murky waters. Rightly as a philosopher he asks what logic does the law have for defining that at points in the womb that a baby is not a person and thereafter it is? If people begin to try and define personhood then logically what stops other people coming along from challenging their definition? Common consent? Electoral choice? Well what about in the future then? What if public opinion changes? Does that mean that the definition of personhood must also change? Given the value we place on ourselves as persons I'd say this is an awfully flexible approach to this question and thats part of the reason I oppose it.

The other, more fundamental reason, is not because of the dilemma but because of the premise it arises out of: That humans actually have the right to define their own personhood. If we give men that power it leads to the position I've highlighted. I mean, and dont go emotivist on me, why was Hitler's definition of personhood wrong? I mean I'm afro-carribean so to Hitler I'm a sub human who would have to ultimately die. However, I cant see how Hitler's defintion is more or less logical than anybody else's. I mean why is Hitler's view wrong? Can anybody prove its wrong? Can anybody prove that I am actually a human and not a sub human? I dont think you can. People might provide certain criteria i.e. my intelligence etc. But what makes intelligence a more valid criteria than being blonde and having blue eyes? You cant just say 'its obvious' because philosophically its not and the law is built on philosophy i.e. deterministic theory as opposed to libertarianism deeply impact the criminal justice system. Likewise the philosophy of personhood deeply affects abortion laws. How can you philosophically prove that I am a person? You provide one definition, Hitler provides another. Who's right? Who has the right to arbitrate? How can we prove the one that appears wrong to our 21st century sensibilities is truly wrong? Surely Germany the most philosophically mature country of the early 21st century which gave the world Marx, Feuerbach, Kant, Nietchze and many others agreed with Hitler that I am a sub human. So why should I not be considered as much? Cos people dont vote that way? So if they did it'd be legitimate to consider us nice black men as sub human?

As a philosopher I cannot see how we can arise at a definition by such an arbitrary process. Thus I fall back on nature. According to nature a person begins their existence at conception and thats a fine enough definition for me. Trying to change that definition opens up a can of worms that I just dont think the world should think about exploring again. If anybody thinks there are any logical chains missing in my argument please provide them but from where I am sitting there arent. Once we begin trying to define ourselves then theres no reason why we shouldnt continue redefining ourselves and why varying views of personhood should appear. Certainly the Neo-Nazi's of Austria and Germany would think they have the right definition, as would the Skins and various other groups around the world.

Its only logical to leave it to nature, that is, the natural law.

People are people because they are concieved people. Trying to redefine their personhood thereafter one cannot prove one's argument against different arguments or even that one has the right to even begin the redefinition process.

[RemnantRules]

burnsspivey,

First I want to say thank you for your life! Wow what a precious gift life is. Don't you think a "fetus" which in translation means unborn baby, so a baby has the same right to life as you do right now? God Bless you sir or mam.


God Bless
Jason Gregory

[burnsspivey]

[quote name='God Conquers' date='Mar 2 2005, 11:40 AM'] 2) A "fetus" can survive independently from the mother at 24 weeks in North America. A Csection on a dying mother 6 months pregnant can birth the child, alive. How then can "crowning" be the point at which one becomes a person? For that matter, are children born of C sections (not through the birth canal) not persons?
[/quote]
I'm sorry, you misunderstand. A born human = person. Since, apparently, crowning = born then crowning = person. I was not making an exclusion of other types of birth -- I was simply responding to someone else's comment about crowning.

[quote]Also... In the 1st world, a pre-born baby can survive very early on, at 5 months. But in the second and third world, this is not the case, maybe 8 mnths or 7 at best. Why would the country you live in, standard of living, or better health care make something a person? (if we defined a person as a viable fetus)[/quote]

This is infinitely difficult to parse. Perhaps you should rephrase.

[quote]3)The Fetus is a person. Please respond to my post above. Person is an inclusive term and applies to all genetic homo sapiens. There is no conditions which you can apply to it that exclude ONLY persons in the womb. People in a vegetative state.. completely and fully dependent on otheres... are their rights forfeit?[/quote]

I note again that I am dealing with the legal definition only. Others here are using the term person and human interchangeably, I am not. The layperson's definition of the word person is both inclusive and exclusive, as are most words. Actually, I gave you one above -- a human being that has been born. Did you forget or just choose to ignore?

[burnsspivey]

[quote name='Socrates' date='Mar 2 2005, 12:35 PM'] We've actually given several reasons why the human fetus is a person (all of which you've chosen to ignore).

Your argument (as usual) is circular here: Unborn babies should not legally be persons because legally they are not persons.

We are arguing about whether these laws regarding abortion are just.
The only reason jmudges decided that unborn humans are not defined as persons is so it will be legal to kill them.

The law once considered blacks to not be fully persons.
Under the Nazis, German law did not define Jews as persons.

What the law currently says has no bearing on the truth of whether or not the unborn child is a person. Laws have been and are wrong. [/quote]
Actually I didn't use the qualifier "should".