Kevin's Watch

caam,

I did not say it was dead. I said it was a potential life. Huge difference. I don't know how else to put it. I just don't view it is a conscious, sentient human being until it has left the mother.

Fist,

Biologically, it is part of the woman's body. In other terms, though, it is a potential life. Ending a potential life could be murder. But isn't murder taking a life? Therefore neither abortion nor your hypothetical (which I thought only strange in the context of this argument, btw ) are really murder, since a life has not yet begun.

Cail wrote:This is true Ducky, but failed contraception is a tiny portion of abortions.

Which I made a point of saying that it didn't happen often.

Furls Fire wrote:Well, for what it's worth, Stevie was a complete surprise because I had been on the pill...obviously, something wasn't working right!!! But I'm so happy to have him! He's an added much joy to our lives.

Furls, frankly I just can't imagine you being unhappy or unwilling to take any child!

Lord Mhoram wrote:I just don't view it is a conscious, sentient human being until it has left the mother.

I need to go back through the thread, because I don't have a clear idea how you define "a conscious, sentient human being." Does this become the case immediately after leaving the mother? Like the moment the umbilical cord is cut? Certainly, it doesn't have anything to do with recognizing and responding to the parents' voices, or certain music, which happen inside the womb. What are the criteria that need to be met? (Defining these terms could certainly be its own thread, without any mention of abortion. But I don't think abortion can be discussed without these definitions.)

Lord Mhoram wrote:Biologically, it is part of the woman's body.

Certainly. But you've been saying that it is only a part of the woman's body, and, therefore, has no more rights than any other part of her body.

Lord Mhoram wrote:In other terms, though, it is a potential life. Ending a potential life could be murder. But isn't murder taking a life? Therefore neither abortion nor your hypothetical (which I thought only strange in the context of this argument, btw ) are really murder, since a life has not yet begun.

It seems so strange that people view it this way - as though from the moment it's born, the baby is an entirely new thing from what it was a minute earlier when it was still in the womb. It's as though, "Wow, she sure got fat in the last year! I wonder what she's been ea... Hey! Wait a second! Holy cow, there's a baby now!!!!" Obviously, you aren't ignorant of the connection, like people may have been long ago. But considering the regard you give the fetus, it seems that it works out the same.

Fist,

Well, it is a part of her body, but since it is a potential life, it is "more" than say, her leg. So if I led you to believe that the leg and the fetus are equal, I apologize.

Obviously, you aren't ignorant of the connection, like people may have been long ago. But considering the regard you give the fetus, it seems that it works out the same.

You make it seem like I'm the only pro-Choice person there is.

What I make it seem like, Fist, is that when the fetus leaves the womb, and is born, it becomes a person. Why? What is a person? "being an individual or existing as an indivisible whole; existing as a distinct entity." - Webster's Dictionary Therefore, a fetus isn't a person. Why not? Just because it is human, containing DNA (again, like a hair follicle, for example), doesn't make it a person. But consciousness and sentience - thinking about ourselves, expressing ourselves, being aware of ourselves - separates us from the animal world. We do not become people until we are conscious. Consciousness comes after our birth. We do not remember our second birthday, for instance. Now you'll probably say "Oh, so therefore we can kill a two-year old!" No. It is still a person who no longer physically endangers another human being's life.

Two people in one - a mother and a fetus - cannot have equal rights. One must excercise power over the other. In many ways, the fetus is a danger to the mother. Therefore, if the mother so chooses, she should be able to choose to abort the fetus. After birth, it enjoys human rights.

Abortion can't be murder. The fetus is not physically or mentally independent. We don't know when sentience comes about, so therefore physical independence is a good divider for this issue.

That being said, it's a difficult decision nonetheless. I don't necessarily support abortion. I just support the right to choose it.

Lord Mhoram wrote:You make it seem like I'm the only pro-Life person there is.

You heard it here first, folks! LM is now a pro-Lifer!!

Heh, maybe you mistyped that?

I find physical independence to be a terrible divider for this issue. You say consciousness and sentience define "person." Yet there is no difference in consciousness and sentience between a 9-month fetus and the baby that's born minutes later, or even that baby days later. If it's wrong to kill that body mere moments after being born, why is it ok to do so moments before? How that physical body gets its nutrients and stays warm should not determine whether or not it can be killed at the whim of the mother.

The reason we don't know when sentience comes about is not because we can't spot the moment it happens; it's because there isn't such a moment. Sentience doesn't happen like a switch was thrown, it's a million tiny steps. A very gradual process. And it begins in the womb. The parts that think and the parts that let us sense things to think about begin to develop. Simply reacting to sound, or light and shadow, is part of the process. Watching our children become aware is among the greatest experiences possible. Watching my children look at something in a new way, and seeing that they truly understand what it is... It's beyond belief. And it's part of the process that leads them to the point where you would call them people. And just as a 90-year old body began growing and changing at conception, the whole process of consciousness begins then.

Fist,

I edited!

Yet there is no difference in consciousness and sentience between a 9-month fetus and the baby that's born minutes later, or even that baby days later. If it's wrong to kill that body mere moments after being born, why is it ok to do so moments before? How that physical body gets its nutrients and stays warm should not determine whether or not it can be killed at the whim of the mother.

I'm aware that the consciousness is not different. I covered that. I believe physical independence is a good divider. By being born, it attains its own rights because it is no longer physically connected to the mother. Simple enough. It is ostensibly physically independent.

We simply don't know enough about when sentience occurrs for me to definitively answer that portion of your post. However, could we agree that humans become essentially and fully sentient between several months to a couple years after its birth right? We cannot, however, determine exactly when it begins.

What, then, are we left with to definitively determine the difference between fetus and baby? Physical independence.

Cybrweez wrote:

Avatar wrote: I think though that it is not necessarily a mistake to include considerations regarding the quality of life, as Lord Mhoram suggests. Although I'll agree that defining those standards is a slippery subjective slope.

I find it interesting that someone who considers himself "tolerant", would decide on what quality of life is for others.

The eternal dichotomy I suffer, between what I believe (think) to be right, and what I feel should be done. I've made no secret of the facist tendencies I sometimes struggle with.

That said, I'd like to point out that in no way am I trying to determine their quality of life. I want each person to be have the choice for themselves.

Some interesting posts. Regarding the Scott Peterson question, if you'll check the 'Tank for the "Abortion is Murder" thread, you'll see that it was what started the whole thread. My submission is that it remains murder, because the mother had chosen to have the baby. If she had been on the way to abort the foetus, I'd argue that it shouldn't be counted in the charge.

Fist, I notice that you're referring to the differences between the 8 or 9 month foetus, and the new born. But by far the majority of abortions are, as I've mentioned, carried out by the 3rd month, and we must surely agree that their is a significant difference in the embryo between the 3rd month and the 9th. Late-term abortions may only be carried out in extreme circumstances.

And that brings me to an interesting consideration. Pretty much everybody has said that abortions are acceptable in cases where the mothers life is jeopardised.

So in the end, the basic implication of that is that the mothers life is more important than the foetus'.

All we are saying is that the mother should have the right to decide for herself to what extent that is true.

If there is any circumstance in which a mothers life outweighs the life of her unborn baby, then it must surely be that her life is always more important than that of the child to be?

How many of you would agree that once a child is born, it should be killed if it was necessary to save the life of the mother?

If you can't answer the question above in the positive, then you too draw a distinction between the rights of an unborn child, and one that has been born.

--Avatar

Caamora wrote:In the case of an unborn baby, the heart beats, fluid runs through the body and there is response to stimuli (Whether the soul is absent from the body, we won't know until we die!).

I am sure you will agree with me, that a zygote has neither blod flow nor heart. It does respond to stimuli, the same way any other cell does. I am making this point to say, that things change as the pregnancy progress. Just say as the rest of the overwhelming majority in here: Even if it's a zygote, killing it is a mortal sin. In that way, you won't have to find any good arguments, and you won't have to go into the scientifical/philosophical discussion.

caamora wrote:What about the punishment to the unborn baby? It gets the ultimate punishment of the death penalty for no crime committed all because it was "a mistake."

Better to be killed before you can feel it (it's a mater of when the killing takes place in my eyes), before you get the chance to grow up to a life of abuse and without love. And in the ultimate example, an abused child has a greart likelyhood of becomming an abuser itself.

caamora wrote:Suddenly giving birth is a punishment?

I didn't say that. You are twisting my words. I said that it was likely to be conceived (a somewhat duplicit word in this discussion ) as a punishment by the reluctant mother. I am sure you can't disagree with that. And if there is something that carying a child and giving birth should not be conceived as, it is punishment.

caamora wrote:....concern is the well-being of the child. They do not want the child to be living in poverty, they do not want the child to be unloved.

So the child gets some money?

Avatar wrote:How many of you would agree that once a child is born, it should be killed if it was necessary to save the life of the mother? If you can't answer the question above in the positive, then you too draw a distinction between the rights of an unborn child, and one that has been born.

Good point Avatar.

Lord Mhoram wrote:What, then, are we left with to definitively determine the difference between fetus and baby? Physical independence.

Indeed. During that stage of a human being's existence when they are in the womb, we call them fetus. After they are born, for a certain amount of time, we call them baby. My problem is with adding sentences along the lines of this: And while in the fetal stage, human beings may be killed at the potential mother's whim.

Avatar wrote:Some interesting posts. Regarding the Scott Peterson question, if you'll check the 'Tank for the "Abortion is Murder" thread, you'll see that it was what started the whole thread. My submission is that it remains murder, because the mother had chosen to have the baby. If she had been on the way to abort the foetus, I'd argue that it shouldn't be counted in the charge.

You're saying that a fetus is not a human being against whom criminal acts can be committed simply because of what it is, but that it can become such if the potential mother chooses? The nature of the being in question does not automatically determine this status, one way or the other?

Avatar wrote:Fist, I notice that you're referring to the differences between the 8 or 9 month foetus, and the new born. But by far the majority of abortions are, as I've mentioned, carried out by the 3rd month, and we must surely agree that their is a significant difference in the embryo between the 3rd month and the 9th. Late-term abortions may only be carried out in extreme circumstances.

It appears to me that Mhoram has been saying a fetus has no right to remain alive at any point. Only leaving the womb gives rights.

Avatar wrote:And that brings me to an interesting consideration. Pretty much everybody has said that abortions are acceptable in cases where the mothers life is jeopardised.

So in the end, the basic implication of that is that the mothers life is more important than the foetus'.

All we are saying is that the mother should have the right to decide for herself to what extent that is true.

If there is any circumstance in which a mothers life outweighs the life of her unborn baby, then it must surely be that her life is always more important than that of the child to be?

If the pregnant woman dies, the fetus also dies. The lesser evil is letting one live by killing the other.

Avatar wrote:How many of you would agree that once a child is born, it should be killed if it was necessary to save the life of the mother?

If you can't answer the question above in the positive, then you too draw a distinction between the rights of an unborn child, and one that has been born.

I think I need more info on this scenario.

Fist and Faith wrote:

Avatar wrote:...Regarding the Scott Peterson question...My submission is that it remains murder, because the mother had chosen to have the baby. If she had been on the way to abort the foetus, I'd argue that it shouldn't be counted in the charge.

You're saying that a fetus is not a human being against whom criminal acts can be committed simply because of what it is, but that it can become such if the potential mother chooses? The nature of the being in question does not automatically determine this status, one way or the other?

Not in the case of a foetus or embryo I think, if only because it seems that nobody can decide on the nature of the "being" in the first place. Once it's born, it's nature is obvious.

Fist and Faith wrote:

Avatar wrote:Fist, I notice that you're referring to the differences between the 8 or 9 month foetus, and the new born. But by far the majority of abortions are, as I've mentioned, carried out by the 3rd month, and we must surely agree that their is a significant difference in the embryo between the 3rd month and the 9th. Late-term abortions may only be carried out in extreme circumstances.

It appears to me that Mhoram has been saying a fetus has no right to remain alive at any point. Only leaving the womb gives rights.

Taken to the furthest extreme, that's pretty much right I guess.

Fist and Faith wrote:

Avatar wrote:And that brings me to an interesting consideration. Pretty much everybody has said that abortions are acceptable in cases where the mothers life is jeopardised.

So in the end, the basic implication of that is that the mothers life is more important than the foetus'.

All we are saying is that the mother should have the right to decide for herself to what extent that is true.

If there is any circumstance in which a mothers life outweighs the life of her unborn baby, then it must surely be that her life is always more important than that of the child to be?

If the pregnant woman dies, the fetus also dies. The lesser evil is letting one live by killing the other.

Plenty of cases (certainly in late-term abortions) where the foetus could be saved at the cost of the mother. To me, it looks like it isn't an "either one will do" scenario though. The mothers life is plainly more important, according to practice, because it gets priority in these cases.

Fist and Faith wrote:

Avatar wrote:How many of you would agree that once a child is born, it should be killed if it was necessary to save the life of the mother?

If you can't answer the question above in the positive, then you too draw a distinction between the rights of an unborn child, and one that has been born.

I think I need more info on this scenario.

Well, as the simplest example I can come up with off the cuff, (and never mind the likelihood, it's the principle I'm thinking about here) how about if an attacker were to offer the choice of releasing the mother in exchange for the child's life? Should the child be killed in that situation to preserve the mother?

If the answer is no, then the rights of the child after its birth are more important than the rights of the foetus before, seeing as it is permissable to kill the foetus to protect the mothers life.

--A

Lord Mhoram wrote:What I make it seem like, Fist, is that when the fetus leaves the womb, and is born, it becomes a person. Why? What is a person? "being an individual or existing as an indivisible whole; existing as a distinct entity." - Webster's Dictionary Therefore, a fetus isn't a person. Why not? Just because it is human, containing DNA (again, like a hair follicle, for example), doesn't make it a person.

LM, take a deep breath, clear your head, and read what you wrote. By your Webster's definition, a fetus is an individual due to it's unique DNA (unlike a hair follicle, which was a horrible comparison).

Lord Mhoram wrote:But consciousness and sentience - thinking about ourselves, expressing ourselves, being aware of ourselves - separates us from the animal world. We do not become people until we are conscious. Consciousness comes after our birth. We do not remember our second birthday, for instance. Now you'll probably say "Oh, so therefore we can kill a two-year old!" No. It is still a person who no longer physically endangers another human being's life.

Please provide something to back this statement up. What makes consciousness equal a person? How sure are you that an 8-month fetus isn't conscious on some level? You're attaching all sorts of qualifiers to humanity, but when anyone points out the inconsistancies in your qualifiers (and there are many), you attempt to exclude them.

Lord Mhoram wrote:Two people in one - a mother and a fetus - cannot have equal rights. One must excercise power over the other. In many ways, the fetus is a danger to the mother. Therefore, if the mother so chooses, she should be able to choose to abort the fetus. After birth, it enjoys human rights.

What many ways is the fetus a danger to the mother? We all agree that if the mother's life is in jeopardy, an abortion is allowed, but you make it sound like every pregnancy puts the mother's life at risk. This isn't the 1600's.

Lord Mhoram wrote:Abortion can't be murder. The fetus is not physically or mentally independent. We don't know when sentience comes about, so therefore physical independence is a good divider for this issue.

Again, I ask you to support this statement. A baby isn't physically independent either, but you don't propose that we destroy them. I argue that fetuses are mentally independent, because they have their own brain, and they do respond to stimuli.

At the risk of offending you, I think you were probably raised in a pro-choice household (as I was), and you're a Democrat/liberal (which I was), and you're towing the line on this issue (as I did). To be blunt, asserting that a fetus magically becomes human the second it leaves the mother's body is preposterous, especially considering that there is no set time for gestation. It might be 290 days, it might be 200 days, but they're all human, right? Or is a newborn only human 280 days after conception?

What's really surprising is that you're so quick to marginalize and dehumanize a fetus, given your pro-human views on everything else.

Cail wrote:A baby isn't physically independent either

It is physically independent of the mother Cail.

Prebe wrote:

Cail wrote:A baby isn't physically independent either

It is physically independent of the mother Cail.

No it's not. It's not attached anymore, but it cannot feed itself.

Leave a newborn in a fully stocked kitchen for a week, and it'll starve to death. That's not independence.

Cail,

By your Webster's definition, a fetus is an individual due to it's unique DNA

Actually, no. You read it. It isn't a biologically independent entity yet, and it is still only a potential person. Therefore, not an individual.

What makes consciousness equal a person?

Good question. What separates a human being from an animal? Its ability to make moral decisions, its consciousness.

How sure are you that an 8-month fetus isn't conscious on some level?

I'm not sure. How many times do I have to say this. That's why the physical independence is the perfect divider, because it's so clear.

You're attaching all sorts of qualifiers to humanity, but when anyone points out the inconsistancies in your qualifiers (and there are many), you attempt to exclude them.

Right. Okay. So that's why I'm even bothering to reply to you. Sweet.

you make it sound like every pregnancy puts the mother's life at risk.

Well, yes actually, potentially every pregnancy is a risk to the mother.

A baby isn't physically independent either

Blatantly untrue. In the strictest sense, a baby is physically independent of any other human being. That's a simple biological fact. But that must be my liberal bias.

At the risk of offending you, I think you were probably raised in a pro-choice household (as I was), and you're a Democrat/liberal (which I was), and you're towing the line on this issue (as I did)

Well, yes I'm being brought up in a Democratic household, but my parents have never really discussed abortion with me. I researched these views on my own. And I don't know what "towing" the issue means...

To be blunt, asserting that a fetus magically becomes human the second it leaves the mother's body is preposterous, especially considering that there is no set time for gestation.

Not really. Biologically it becomes independent at birth. Therefore it gets human rights. Simple enough to me.

What's really surprising is that you're so quick to marginalize and dehumanize a fetus, given your pro-human views on everything else.

I just don't equate the fetus with a human person.

Read what I am writing Cail:

It is physically independent of the mother.

In principle anyone could feed and nurse it.

Lord Mhoram wrote:I just don't equate the fetus with a human person.

It's a good thing our parents did, eh?

Prebe wrote:It is physically independent of the mother.

Let's stop getting hung up on interpretations, OK? Prebe,you are interpreting "physical independence" as "physically separate." The dependence is very muchstill there.

Lord Mhoram wrote:

Cail wrote:
You're attaching all sorts of qualifiers to humanity, but when anyone points out the inconsistancies in your qualifiers (and there are many), you attempt to exclude them.

Right. Okay. So that's why I'm even bothering to reply to you. Sweet.

Here's a misinterpretation as well. LM, Cail is not saying that you are excluding the poster from the argument, but rather excluding your own qualifiers when it suits the argument.

Prebe,you are interpreting "physical independence" as "physically separate." The dependence is very muchstill there.

What is it about the words "OF THE MOTHER" that are so dificult to understand????

I even elaborated on how a newborn is physically independent of the mother.

ur-bane,

Thanks, I'm aware of that. My point was I addressed all the points he made in my last post.

Cail wrote:

Prebe wrote:

Cail wrote:A baby isn't physically independent either

It is physically independent of the mother Cail.

No it's not. It's not attached anymore, but it cannot feed itself.

Leave a newborn in a fully stocked kitchen for a week, and it'll starve to death. That's not independence.

Maybe you were still connected to your cord after coming out, but most of us aren't. Also, we weren't dependent on our mothers organs to keep our bodies alive once we got out.

(In other words, quit obfuscating the argument with silly semantics. You're better than this.)

There's a ton of obfuscation going on, and it's not coming from me. LM is drawing an arbitrary line as to when a fetus becomes "human". I think that's a ridiculous line to draw, because I don't recall hearing a "presto!" when my daughter's cord was cut.

All this discussion about conscience and sentience and dependence does absolutely nothing to change the fact that a distinct life with distinct DNA is created at conception, and to call that life anything other than human is (in my opinion) semantic wrangling to allow abortion.