Kevin's Watch

Not if you apply it only to what any given person believes to be murder.

Just because she believes it to be murder, doesn't mean that it is that in the eyes of others, or in the eyes of the law. She appreciates the distinction of subjectivity, I think. She is also a vegetarian, and believes that kiling animals is akin to murder as well.

Her point is, I think, the very one I made earlier, (and on which she often mentions), "Who are we to decide or judge for others?" And on the whole, it's a philosphy I tend to agree with.

And "murder" itself is, afterall, a highly emotionally charged word, don't you think? Especially under circumstances like these.

Indeed, just using it falls under the suggestion you made, that it is reducing the people who do (what some people call) murder, and others call abortion, to criminals in the eyes of those who describe it as such.

In fact, we could perhaps make the argument that murder, (which I think should be generally considered as "malicious"), being different to "killing," which is generally (and often religiously) considered more along the lines of "self-defence" is not the term that is neccessarily the correct one in these cases.

Although I'll certainly agree that "self-defence" may not always, perhaps even usually, be considered the motivation for abortion, I'd argue that "malice" is rarely if ever the reason either.

--Avatar

OK, obviously my post above was addressed to Prebe, Cail snuck in while I was typing.

Cail wrote:LM, you've defined a fetus as a non-person because it makes it easier to justify your position. History should teach you that defining a group as non-persons is a dangerous road to go down.

Not sure that I can agree with you here. You saying that a foetus is a person? By what criteria?

Cail wrote:Further, it doesn't make any sense (neither does the hair argument or the sentience argument). Newborn children aren't physically independant either, so it should be OK to snuff them too, right?

Uh, essentially, right if you consider my post on infanticide earlier. (Not that I think it's necessarily right, but I certainly find his reasoning persuasive. And the fact that the new-born has become an independent entity, that may become a person.

Cail wrote:And what does sentience have to do with the argument? Got anything scientific to back up when sentiece occurs?

Nope. And nor does anybody else, either for or against. You don't think sentience is a criteria for "personhood"?

What are those criteria then? What must you be/have to be a "person"?

--A

Avatar wrote:

Cail wrote:Further, it doesn't make any sense (neither does the hair argument or the sentience argument). Newborn children aren't physically independant either, so it should be OK to snuff them too, right?

Uh, essentially, right if you consider my post on infanticide earlier. (Not that I think it's necessarily right, but I certainly find his reasoning persuasive. And the fact that the new-born has become an independent entity, that may become a person.

What? Are you saying that a newborn is not a "person"? I find that hard to believe.
A "person" is defined as "a living human." So you believe a newborn baby is not a living human? I find that hard to believe.

And a "living human" is defined as a "person."

Scarcely a definition that is comprehensive, is it?

Anyway, No, I'm saying that a foetus isn't necessarily a "living human." As I said, I don't think that it's right to kill newborn babies.

Personally, I prefer this definition of "Person:"

The composite of characteristics that make up an individual personality; the self

(We'll leave aside for the moment that I think that these semantics, fun as they are, miss the essential point, or that I'm in danger of saying it's alright to kill children in defense of something that misses that point. )

--A

I gotta apologise, Av...I woke up in an anti-semantic mood.

I tend to agree with Cail that dehumanizing a fetus makes it easier to justify abortion. And since I am of the philosophy "do what you want as long as it doesn't harm others," I tend to have a problem with abortion (because it harms the fetus) and at the same time I dont have a problem with it because it doesn't harm me.

Am I making sense? I have a hard time verbalising my thoughts on this matter. In a nutshell: I am anti-abortion for me but pro-choice for others. Does that make sense?

Sheesh!!! I was gone for six hours (a guy's gotta sleep, eh?), and everybody goes crazy with the posting!! (Hi Iryssa! I haven't seen you in a while.) No time to read the last several posts before work. But I'll do a couple of quick responses.

Prebe wrote:Fist:

Who was talking about abortion in the 5'th month?

Mhoram was saying that a fetus is not a person, because it's physically dependent on the mother. I was giving an example of someone I know who was a 5-month old fetus one minute, and a very premature baby struggling to stay alive the next. I don't see that the location of this being makes any difference on whether or not it should be killed.

Avatar wrote:Who are we to dictate what somebody else can and cannot do, as long as it doesn't hurt others unnecesarily?

Well, there's the crux of the matter. Some think that a fetus is an "other" with the same right to life as anyone else. And abortion is usually unnecessary. If there are medical complications, I think the woman's right to safety outweighs the fetus'. I also think rape victims should not be forced to bear their attackers child. That could most certainly ruin the mother's life, even if she gave the baby up for adoption. Sometimes, abortion is the lesser of the evils. But when someone wanted to get laid, and abortion is their method of birth control? I see that as quite different.

Avatar wrote:

Cail wrote:LM, you've defined a fetus as a non-person because it makes it easier to justify your position. History should teach you that defining a group as non-persons is a dangerous road to go down.

Not sure that I can agree with you here. You saying that a foetus is a person? By what criteria?

Of course a fetus is a person. A fetus is still human, yes? By what criteria would a fetus be anything other than human?

Avatar wrote:

Cail wrote:Further, it doesn't make any sense (neither does the hair argument or the sentience argument). Newborn children aren't physically independant either, so it should be OK to snuff them too, right?

Uh, essentially, right if you consider my post on infanticide earlier. (Not that I think it's necessarily right, but I certainly find his reasoning persuasive. And the fact that the new-born has become an independent entity, that may become a person.

How is a newborn an independant entity? It can't communicate, it can't feed itself, it can't clean up it's own filth. The only difference between a newborn is a couple of inches of skin and the umbelical cord. This is the fundamental issue I have with the pro-choice/pro-abortion crowd. They try to draw an arbitrary line that separates fetus from baby.

Avatar wrote:

Cail wrote:And what does sentience have to do with the argument? Got anything scientific to back up when sentiece occurs?

Nope. And nor does anybody else, either for or against. You don't think sentience is a criteria for "personhood"?

What are those criteria then? What must you be/have to be a "person"?

No, I don't think sentience has anything to do with it. Is a child with profound Downs Syndrome sentient? Is a newborn sentient? I don't know, and I don't care for the purposes of this argument. What matters is that there is human life there, and it should not be wantonly destroyed because someone forgot to put a helmet on his soldier.

And as far as the distinction between killing and murder, why sugarcoat it? Why make it less horrible than it is?

Thought experiment:

If I could go back in time and deliberately prevent your parents from meeting, would I be guilty of your murder?

That makes perfect sense Ur-Bane. It's exactly the sort of view that my GF has, which I was trying to explain, badly.

Fist-- as I've said before, I find the "contraception" idea to be an inexcusable reason for abortion, but I'm not willing to say that nobody should be allowed to have abortions simply because some people abuse it. We can't legislate responsibility, no can we enforce it. That doesn't mean everybody else has to be limited because of the irresponsibility of some.

Cail wrote:Of course a fetus is a person. A fetus is still human, yes? By what criteria would a fetus be anything other than human?

It's an easy question really. What makes a foetus a person? What characteristics does a foetus share with other people that makes it a person? What is the definition of a "person"? What characteristics are there that make something a person, and without which they would not be considered such? (Well, the question is easy. The answer may be slightly more difficult. )

Cail wrote:How is a newborn an independant entity? It can't communicate, it can't feed itself, it can't clean up it's own filth. The only difference between a newborn is a couple of inches of skin and the umbelical cord. This is the fundamental issue I have with the pro-choice/pro-abortion crowd. They try to draw an arbitrary line that separates fetus from baby.

Well, I'll agree that the line might well be arbitrary, (because of lack of understanding) but that doesn't mean that such distinction shouldn't be drawn. What I meant be independent was indeed that it is no longer connected to the mother.

Connected to the parent, taking nutrition through that connection, just as organs and limbs do, is why I define a foetus as part of the mother, and a baby as independent. It's certainly still dependent on care, but anybody could care for it. As a foetus, in my eyes, it shares the same rights as your leg would.

If you wanted to chop it off, (and some people do), I might try to convince you why it was a bad idea, but in the end, it's up to you isn't it? Would I have the right to prevent you from doing it? No more than I have the right to prevent you from piercing your ear or splitting your tongue.

Cail wrote:No, I don't think sentience has anything to do with it. Is a child with profound Downs Syndrome sentient? Is a newborn sentient? I don't know, and I don't care for the purposes of this argument. What matters is that there is human life there, and it should not be wantonly destroyed because someone forgot to put a helmet on his soldier.

Well, I could contest "wantonly," because I'd hope (even though it probably isn't true) that everybody gives the matter careful consideration before they do it, but my real issue is with the question of "human life."

Although that is not quite accurate either. I certainly concede that its life, and I'll agree that it's human in an "animal" sense, as in belonging to the genus, but that's not the same as "personhood" or "humanity" in a broader sense.

As for children with downs syndrome, while I don't doubt that they are sentient, I could, (callous as it may sound) make an argument that their quality of life (by our standards) is so inhibited as to make it not worthwhile.

This is not to say that I advocate killing the mentally handicapped, far from it. As living, sentient beings, they deserve the best treatment and care that they can be given to improve that quality.

But it does raise an interesting question: If their condition were discovered early, in the womb, would you insist that they be given birth to? Or would you consider it acceptable for a mother with an irreparably damaged/deformed/handicapped foetus to abort it?

Cail wrote:And as far as the distinction between killing and murder, why sugarcoat it? Why make it less horrible than it is?

Religion, the law, and ethics draws that distinction. If we do not draw it, then killing somebody in defence of yourself or your family is equally as terrible as killing somebody for their possessions, and as killing somebody in some terrible accident.

I doubt you'd hesitate to say that a guy whose crane broke and dropped a load of bricks or whatever on somebody is less culpable than a guy who stabbed somebody for his watch.

I'll certainly agree that to somebody who believes that a foetus and a person are indistinguishable, its equally horrible. But if that definition is not true for you, it's not as horrible. I see a difference. Of course, I realise that many do not.

--Avatar

Wow, interesting question Syl. I don't believe so, since there was no intention of even getting married, much less having kids when my parents met.

Damn, I should preview my posts, so I can see if anybody has snuck in while I'm typing these long ones.

--A

Syl- No. You can't murder a person who doesn't exist.

Plus, my belief is that if that were to happen, it wouldn't suddenly erase one from the "now." For example:

You go back in time and prevent my parents from meeting. Great. But guess what? Before you did that, I was already born. I'd still be here because all you did was start a new future from one that has already taken place, and that future would coexist with my present.

Just because you go back into the past and create a new experience for yourself does not mean that suddenly everybody else shares in your perception/experience.

I see where you're coming from Av, but is it really that much of a distinction between being attached to the mother or being in an incubator?

And again, I think your line of distinction between person and fetus is tenuous, at best. It seems to me that the line is drawn specifically to allow the conscience to be OK with killing a child. Similar to your leg analogy. My leg is never going to separate itself from me and grow into an adult. A fetus is only "part" of it's mother in the sense that it gets nutrients from her, which it does post-partum anyway, either through breast feeding or formula.

I do agree that there are times in which killing is justified (not really OK, but justified). Certainly in protection of self or family, and I'd argue that the death penalty is justified as well as protection of society. But let's be honest here, 1.3 million abortions per year in the US is absolutely not all rape or failed birth control. A 12 year old needing parental permission to get an earring, but not needing it for an abortion is nothing short of crazy.

Ur-Bane, for the sake of the thought experiment, assume a strictly linear, single universe timeline.

Like Back to the Future.

Exactly.

Just some food for thought - "Fetal Pain Challenged by Scientific Review"
us.cnn.com/2005/HEALTH/08/23/fetal.pain.ap/index.html

OK. It's your experiment, I'll play by your rules.

In that case, I would answer yes. The key is deliberate.
If I know that preventing one's parents from meeting will wash them away from the present, I have effectively murdered them, and any offspring they may have, or had caused to exist, either directly or indirectly would also be murdered. There was certainly malicious intent there, no?

The thing of it is though, in your (Syl's) universe, nobody but the person(s) who went into the past would know what happened.

Cail wrote:I see where you're coming from Av, but is it really that much of a distinction between being attached to the mother or being in an incubator?

Thing is though, that the foetus' that are aborted could rarely, if ever, be supported in an incubator. In ideally acceptable circumstances, they're little more than a collection of cells busily dividing.

Cail wrote:And again, I think your line of distinction between person and fetus is tenuous, at best. It seems to me that the line is drawn specifically to allow the conscience to be OK with killing a child. Similar to your leg analogy. My leg is never going to separate itself from me and grow into an adult. A fetus is only "part" of it's mother in the sense that it gets nutrients from her, which it does post-partum anyway, either through breast feeding or formula.

Tenuos lines are all we have to go on at this stage, I'm afraid, and to be honest, I'm not too bothered with it. Perhaps it is merely justification, and perhaps some people need it. As I've often said though, it's the right to a choice that concerns me more than the theoretical rights of an embryo.

Cail wrote:But let's be honest here, 1.3 million abortions per year in the US is absolutely not all rape or failed birth control.

Sure. But they're not all "contraceptive" either.

Cail wrote:A 12 year old needing parental permission to get an earring, but not needing it for an abortion is nothing short of crazy.

That, I'll agree with you on. Pending further thought.

--A

Avatar wrote:

Cail wrote:I see where you're coming from Av, but is it really that much of a distinction between being attached to the mother or being in an incubator?

Thing is though, that the foetus' that are aborted could rarely, if ever, be supported in an incubator. In ideally acceptable circumstances, they're little more than a collection of cells busily dividing.

That may be the case for now, but look how the so-called "age of viability" has fallen. And those cells, barring a major malfunction, will grow into a full-fledged adult human.

Avatar wrote:

Cail wrote:And again, I think your line of distinction between person and fetus is tenuous, at best. It seems to me that the line is drawn specifically to allow the conscience to be OK with killing a child. Similar to your leg analogy. My leg is never going to separate itself from me and grow into an adult. A fetus is only "part" of it's mother in the sense that it gets nutrients from her, which it does post-partum anyway, either through breast feeding or formula.

Tenuos lines are all we have to go on at this stage, I'm afraid, and to be honest, I'm not too bothered with it. Perhaps it is merely justification, and perhaps some people need it. As I've often said though, it's the right to a choice that concerns me more than the theoretical rights of an embryo.

Theoretical rights? See, this is why it's so dangerous to dehumanize anyone. Why on Earth should a fetus not have rights. As you've said yourself Av, everyone has a choice, until it harms someone else. Killing them is definately harm.

Avatar wrote:

Cail wrote:But let's be honest here, 1.3 million abortions per year in the US is absolutely not all rape or failed birth control.

Sure. But they're not all "contraceptive" either.

I've posted the rape and failed contraception stats before. They comprise about 1% of abortions (in the US). That makes the remaining 99% contraception.

Avatar wrote:

Cail wrote:A 12 year old needing parental permission to get an earring, but not needing it for an abortion is nothing short of crazy.

That, I'll agree with you on. Pending further thought.

Well, at least we agree on something...

Cail wrote:Of course a fetus is a person. A fetus is still human, yes?

Does that mean you consider a zygote a person?

On another note:

In Denmark we have legal abortion up to and including the 12th week of gestation. In rare cases (such as rape or grave defects of the embryo) abortion is allowed later. The 12 weeks are based on the development of the brain I believe. I can look it up if anyone is interested.

Whether or not something has the potential to become a human being/person/individual is irrelevant in my view. What matters is when something is a person/human being/individual. Furthermore, what happens, after the unwanted baby is born? This is something that has not been discussed.

You can't force careless (or ignorant) people, who do not want a baby, to love it. You can through legislation force them to bear the child (risking that they have the abortion done under uncontrolled and unsanitary circumstances). Ending up with a child growing up under appalling loveless conditions.

If it is possible to guarantee a good adoptive family for every unwanted child born, then we can discuss banning abortion, but not before.