Argument for allowing early Abortion

[nPeace]

No. It's not true science. It's an unpeer reviewed opinion piece that is not published in a scientific journaljournal and has no science component to it.

American College of Pediatricians - Wikipedia

The American College of Pediatricians (ACPeds) is a socially conservative advocacy group of pediatricians and other healthcare professionals in the United States.[1] The group was founded in 2002. In 2005, it reportedly had between 150 and 200 members and one employee; in 2016, it reportedly had 500 physician members.[2][3] The group's primary focus is advocating against abortion and the adoption of children by gay or lesbian people. It also advocates conversion therapy.[4][5]

The problem here is you are talking to a scientist. An advocacy group trying to sound scientific with a professional sounding name and promoting pseudoscience in its website will not work on me.

You disagree that there is no scientific consensus on when a fetus is conscious?

 

[nPeace]

Did you not write this in response to my statement that having life is not sufficient to give organisms rights, otherwise cockroaches will have rights?

What I said is far from what you said. So you lost me, really.

 

[sayak83]

You disagree that there is no scientific consensus on when a fetus is conscious?

I disagree that there is no scientific consensus on when the fetus is capable of experiences of pain. (>25 weeks).
I disagree that there is no scientific consensus on when the fetus has the minimal neural capabilities to sustain consciousness (> 25 weeks).

Please note: A fetus stays completely unconscious and naturally sedated inside the womb. So even a late term fetus will actually not be experiencing anything inside the womb. So we are discussing if the hardware circuit to have a mind is there or not.

 

[sayak83]

What I said is far from what you said. So you lost me, really.

Why did you bring up criminals then against my response that cockroaches have no right to life despite having life.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The man asked.
If I say no, I have that right.

I don't remember a fetus ever asking a woman for permission to inhabit her uterus.

If he forced himself on me without my permission, he has commited a criminal act, and the consequences are not on anyone but him.

Kind of like when a woman is raped and gets pregnant as a result?
So, I take it that you thus do support the right of abortion when someone is pregnant as a result of rape then?

 

[SkepticThinker]

All life count exaxtly the same.

I don't think a zygote or a blastocyst has the same rights as a fully grown and developed, conscious human being with a full life and social connections. Zygotes/blastocysts/fetuses don't have any of that. I don't think those two things are the same.

Unfortunatly we humans do not deside who live or die.

When my father fell into a coma and was determined brain dead, I had to decide that we were turning the machines off that were keeping his heart and lungs functioning. He was already dead though, because brain dead is dead.
So if a blastocyst or a zygote doesn't have a developed brain or central nervous system, what do we make of that, considering that we consider those whose brains have stopped functioning as dead (which they are)?

 

[nPeace]

I disagree that there is no scientific consensus on when the fetus is capable of experiences of pain. (>25 weeks).
I disagree that there is no scientific consensus on when the fetus has the minimal neural capabilities to sustain consciousness (> 25 weeks).

Please note: A fetus stays completely unconscious and naturally sedated inside the womb. So even a late term fetus will actually not be experiencing anything inside the womb. So we are discussing if the hardware circuit to have a mind is there or not.

That's an opinion, and you and any scientists who wants to accept that opinion, are most certainly free to do so.
There are indeed pig-headed scientists, and I am not sure what would make you feel you are exempt from being such.
You would not be able to prove that you aren't, but certainly, information can reveal the truth of that matter... and I think there is information of that sort.

Saying that "fetuses probably don’t feel pain", is an opinion, and not a fact.
Probably there is a God. So there.

The "opinion of the majority" rule has been beaten by true science. I believe it will happen again. Meanwhile injustices will prevail... once again.
One man, against the consensus - True science proves opinions wrong

Why did you bring up criminals then against my response that cockroaches have no right to life despite having life.

I figured you were confused.
A cockroach has life. A criminal has life.
Here, you said, QUOTE Living things do not have rights de facto. Then a cockroach has rights. Capacity for complex consciousness is what makes a living thing a holder of rights. UNQUOTE

I said, A cockroach does have rights, according to the animal rights supporters.
Doesn't criminals and murderers have rights... or can you just out their lights as you wish?
No you can't. They too have ights according to the State.

The point I am making is you can't just snuff the lights out of any life, because you feel it has no rights.
It has rights, according to those who stand up in behalf of those rights.
Just as I can't decide to snuff the life out of a criminal (vigilante justice), where laws do not allow that, I cannot snuff the lights out of a cockroach just because... where laws exist to safeguard the rights of the cockroach.
The same goes for fetuses.

The reason cockroaches are killed, is because they are pests that carry diseases and cause harm. It's ridiculous to compare a fetus to a cockroach.
Let's consider the stag beetle or the bumblebee. They are protected by law. They do have rights. Do they have "complex consciousness"?

 

[sayak83]

That's an opinion, and you and any scientists who wants to accept that opinion, are most certainly free to do so.
There are indeed pig-headed scientists, and I am not sure what would make you feel you are exempt from being such.
You would not be able to prove that you aren't, but certainly, information can reveal the truth of that matter... and I think there is information of that sort.

Saying that "fetuses probably don’t feel pain", is an opinion, and not a fact.
Probably there is a God. So there.

The "opinion of the majority" rule has been beaten by true science. I believe it will happen again. Meanwhile injustices will prevail... once again.
One man, against the consensus - True science proves opinions wrong


I figured you were confused.
A cockroach has life. A criminal has life.
Here, you said, QUOTE Living things do not have rights de facto. Then a cockroach has rights. Capacity for complex consciousness is what makes a living thing a holder of rights. UNQUOTE

I said, A cockroach does have rights, according to the animal rights supporters.
Doesn't criminals and murderers have rights... or can you just out their lights as you wish?
No you can't. They too have ights according to the State.

The point I am making is you can't just snuff the lights out of any life, because you feel it has no rights.
It has rights, according to those who stand up in behalf of those rights.
Just as I can't decide to snuff the life out of a criminal (vigilante justice), where laws do not allow that, I cannot snuff the lights out of a cockroach just because... where laws exist to safeguard the rights of the cockroach.
The same goes for fetuses.

The reason cockroaches are killed, is because they are pests that carry diseases and cause harm. It's ridiculous to compare a fetus to a cockroach.
Let's consider the stag beetle or the bumblebee. They are protected by law. They do have rights. Do they have "complex consciousness"?

You can keep hoping that someday science converges with the beliefs of religious ideologues. Morals of rational people will be however informed by the best knowledge that science provides on the matter.
Bumble bees are protected because of their value or utility to humans in terms of the natural environment. They do not have intrinsic rights. The Mona Lisa painting is also protected via similar logic.
A fetus is also protected in it's early stages if his mother decides to keep it and have the baby. It gets rights from the desires of the mother.

 

[nPeace]

You can keep hoping that someday science converges with the beliefs of religious ideologues. Morals of rational people will be however informed by the best knowledge that science provides on the matter.

This system is a dying hopeless one. I have no hopes for it... other than that it's destruction comes soon.

Bumble bees are protected because of their value or utility to humans in terms of the natural environment. They do not have intrinsic rights. The Mona Lisa painting is also protected via similar logic.
A fetus is also protected in it's early stages if his mother decides to keep it and have the baby. It gets rights from the desires of the mother.

So what was your point about "complex consciousness"?

 

[sayak83]

This system is a dying hopeless one. I have no hopes for it... other than that it's destruction comes soon.


So what was your point about "complex consciousness"?

That they possess intrinsic rights. That is they have rights regardless of their value to other beings.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

If he forced himself on me without my permission, he has commited a criminal act, and the consequences are not on anyone but him. Removing myself would only be allowing the already existing circumstances to take their course.

Kind of like when a woman is raped and gets pregnant as a result?
So, I take it that you thus do support the right of abortion when someone is pregnant as a result of rape then?

@nPeace could you respond to this por favor?

I'm genuinely curious.

 

[nPeace]

@nPeace could you respond to this por favor?

I'm genuinely curious.

That's not curiosity Tag. That's your ego, begging to be boosted.
It has that habit of making you feel your arguments are so good, but I will respond to this desperate clutch at straws... although it should have been as clear to you as it was to @Polymath257 with your PhDs, and me being uneducated... and a dishonest pretender at that.

I deliberately included the aspect of "forced upon" in order to make the point clear, that whether force or not, it is not a license to murder.
I think you should read the post again, and take the full post... without cherry picking, and you will see I made that point clear.

Should I pick it out for you?
Does the offspring die naturally? Is it dying from some circumstances... as is the case with the one with the kidney damage, or loss?
No.
...I don't want to be kept on life support. Those who remove me from that support, has not murdered, or killed me. I died naturally. The fetus does not die naturally. It is murdered... in a cruel way... for selfish reasons.

The one who popped the pill, or ripped that life to shreds, is responsible for the death, just like the driver that plowed into the individual.

Did you respond to that?
What is your response?

 

[nPeace]

That they possess intrinsic rights. That is they have rights regardless of their value to other beings.

Like the offspring. Thank you.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Like the offspring. Thank you.

Once born, yes. Offspring is another term that refers to people that have been born.

 

[nPeace]

@nPeace could you respond to this por favor?

I'm genuinely curious.

I forgot to mention, killing - murdering - one's offspring, is not allowing circumstances to take their course.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That's not curiosity Tag. That's your ego, begging to be boosted.
It has that habit of making you feel your arguments are so good, but I will respond to this desperate clutch at straws... although it should have been as clear to you as it was to @Polymath257 with your PhDs, and me being uneducated... and a dishonest pretender at that.

I deliberately included the aspect of "forced upon" in order to make the point clear, that whether force or not, it is not a license to murder.
I think you should read the post again, and take the full post... without cherry picking, and you will see I made that point clear.

Should I pick it out for you?
Does the offspring die naturally? Is it dying from some circumstances... as is the case with the one with the kidney damage, or loss?
No.
...I don't want to be kept on life support. Those who remove me from that support, has not murdered, or killed me. I died naturally. The fetus does not die naturally. It is murdered... in a cruel way... for selfish reasons.

The one who popped the pill, or ripped that life to shreds, is responsible for the death, just like the driver that plowed into the individual.

Did you respond to that?
What is your response?

Actually, it is quite natural for an embryo to die outside of the womb. It happens quite frequently even without abortions.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I forgot to mention, killing - murdering - one's offspring, is not allowing circumstances to take their course.

Again, offspring refers to the born. Not the unborn. If you play word games you only hurt your own argument.

 

[sayak83]

Like the offspring. Thank you.

No. Only late term fetus and later which have neural capabilities to host complex mind have intrinsic rights ( as well as chimps, dolphins and some other highly evolved nonhuman animals).

Are you deliberately trying to misunderstand my points?

 

[nPeace]

No. Only late term fetus and later which have neural capabilities to host complex mind have intrinsic rights ( as well as chimps, dolphins and some other highly evolved nonhuman animals).

Are you deliberately trying to misunderstand my points?

No. I am confused.
Does the beetle have "neural capabilities to host complex mind"?
What did you mean by... "Living things do not have rights de facto. Then a cockroach has rights. Capacity for complex consciousness is what makes a living thing a holder of rights."?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

No. I am confused.
Does the beetle have "neural capabilities to host complex mind"?
What did you mean by... "Living things do not have rights de facto. Then a cockroach has rights. Capacity for complex consciousness is what makes a living thing a holder of rights."?

No living being is a holder of rights. Rights are ways in the end as how we treat each other and that can include how we treat non-human life.

If you claim, you can say that you have a right, then I can say you don't have a right. But that is not how they work. They work as rule of how to treat each other.