Debate on Abortion.

[MSizer]

But isn't the potential human being in question endangered as well, seeing as people are considering it's termination?

Now you're confusing "endangered" with "in danger". Not to mention that even though you mean "in danger", the answer is still "no". Do you consider a rock "in danger" when it rests near the edge of a steep cliff? No? Why not? Because a rock can't feel pain or think or suffer? Is that your reason? Well, nor can a zygote.

I suppose it comes down to the value you place on individual human life.

I don't believe in "a human life" as a single entity. Life is an action, not something to be considered as a known. Living is an act, not an entity. It has been going on for over 3 Billion years.

 

[Just_me_Mike]

Isn't the real question, do we as a society want to grant the power of choosing who lives and dies before they are born? Right or wrong, isn't that the question?

 

[MSizer]

Isn't the real question, do we as a society want to grant the power of choosing who lives and dies before they are born? Right or wrong, isn't that the question?

I don't think so. I'm very much concerned indeed with the prevention of immoral acts.

 

[Mr Cheese]

If I crush an acorn
I have not chopped down a tree.


.......................................


P.C. caresses bigots and big brother, read Leviticus, learnt censorship, pro-life equals anti-choice, to be scared of, of feathers
PCP - a P.C. police victory
PCP - a P.C. pyrrhic victory
When I was young P.C. meant Police Constable
Nowadays I can't seem to tell the difference
Lawyers before love, surrogate sex
This land bows down to
Yours, unconditional love and hate
Pass the prozac designer amnesiac

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Isn't the real question, do we as a society want to grant the power of choosing who lives and dies before they are born? Right or wrong, isn't that the question?

I see the real question as, do we want to take away the individual's right to make decisions about their own body. I don't think I have that right, nor do I want it.

 

[Mr Cheese]

Isn't the real question, do we as a society want to grant the power of choosing who lives and dies before they are born? Right or wrong, isn't that the question?

no, its more complex...

its lack of decent sex education
its the 21st century and teenagers having unprotected non vaginal intercourse
its the 17 r old girl on her 2nd or thrird pregnancy
its the teenager married to a 40yr old man

etc.

no one is pro abortion

but many are pro NO EDUCATION

 

[Rightmind]

False. The carrot will be consumed and digested by a rabbit which means the molecules which had made up the carrot become part of the rabbit, which is a sentient being.



Which plan? (I suspect I know your answer, but I don't believe it exists). Plan or no plan, it is not sentient at the zygote stage. Do you refrain from digging dirt in your backyard on the grounds that through the ecological cycle the dirt has the potential to become a part of a sentient being? Of course not.



Law is often based on morality, but they are independent normative concepts, and immoral laws have existed. (ie Jim Crow laws & failure to recognize gay marriage) So to say "we would not be allowed to harm it" is not a case for the moral nature of harming or protecting it.



Correct, but not for the sake of the condor, for the sake of the ecology. That individual fetus in the egg is not yet sentient (assuming we're talking about a pre-sensory neurally developped stage) so the moral consideration is not for the contents of the egg, but for the benefit of the ecosystem (which of course works best with condors included - assuming that it's a local species).




Well that's what you do each time you dig up the soil in your garden, so the pot is calling the kettle black.



False. My purpose is to arrive at an opinion which best nurtures a considered situation with regard to the termination of life. Where human suffering is expected to occur, I believe we should take actions to alleviate the suffering.

I had written a very long response to each of the above objections but due to a &%$#ing login error it was all lost and I no longer have the energy to do it all over again...

So now I have to go through all the newer ones.

 

[MSizer]

I had written a very long response to each of the above objections but due to a &%$#ing login error it was all lost and I no longer have the energy to do it all over again...

So now I have to go through all the newer ones.

oh man, that sucks. Sorry to hear (seriously, I'm not being sarcastic).

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I see the real question as, do we want to take away the individual's right to make decisions about their own body ...

... and, arguably, another person's body.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

... and, arguably, another person's body.

Indeed - I don't have the right to take away their decision regarding that either. Nor do I want it.

 

[Rightmind]

Now you're confusing "endangered" with "in danger". Not to mention that even though you mean "in danger", the answer is still "no". Do you consider a rock "in danger" when it rests near the edge of a steep cliff? No? Why not? Because a rock can't feel pain or think or suffer? Is that your reason? Well, nor can a zygote.

Forgive my confusion, I was just trying to be concise. And no, my reason for protecting a fetus is not because I believe it can think or feel pain, but because I know that it eventually will. Thousands of years of recorded human experience proves that when a woman is pregnant with a fetus it will eventually be born as a healthy human being. This is the plan I was referring to earlier, and no it's not based on any religious/ spiritual beliefs that I may or may not have (god, I wish I hadn't lost that earlier post :sad4.

 

[Rightmind]

oh man, that sucks. Sorry to hear (seriously, I'm not being sarcastic).

Thanks. I've got to start writing these in separate documents while I get used to this place.

 

[MSizer]

Forgive my confusion, I was just trying to be concise. And no, my reason for protecting a fetus is not because I believe it can think or feel pain, but because I know that it eventually will. Thousands of years of recorded human experience proves that when a woman is pregnant with a fetus it will eventually be born as a healthy human being. This is the plan I was referring to earlier, and no it's not based on any religious/ spiritual beliefs that I may or may not have (god, I wish I hadn't lost that earlier post :sad4.

No I know you don't think a zygote feels pain. I wasn't saying you do. I was saying that since you realize a zygote doesn't feel pain (and essentially can't suffer) then it's comparable IMO to a stone. I don't see any arguement at all for "what it can be". It's not a sentient being. I don't see any argument for treating it with moral patiency.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I see the real question as, do we want to take away the individual's right to make decisions about their own body ...

... and, arguably, another person's body.

Indeed - I don't have the right to take away their decision regarding that either.

That is a disgusting abdication of social responsibility.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

That is a disgusting abdication of social responsibility.

Which social responsibility is it that I'm abdicating?

 

[Sunstone]

...disgusting...

As it happens, that adds as little as a fart to the conversation.

 

[McBell]

Thousands of years of recorded human experience proves that when a woman is pregnant with a fetus it will eventually be born as a healthy human being.

This is not true.
It MIGHT be born, it MIGHT be born healthy, etc.

This is the plan I was referring to earlier, and no it's not based on any religious/ spiritual beliefs that I may or may not have (god, I wish I hadn't lost that earlier post :sad4.

What plan?

 

[Rightmind]

No I know you don't think a zygote feels pain. I wasn't saying you do. I was saying that since you realize a zygote doesn't feel pain (and essentially can't suffer) then it's comparable IMO to a stone. I don't see any arguement at all for "what it can be". It's not a sentient being. I don't see any argument for treating it with moral patiency.

It's comparable to a stone in that it lacks sentience at the time being. But like I said before, the fetus will[/B develop sentience, the stone however will not. It may be utilized by a sentient being, but it will never have the self determination allow itself to be used.

As far as I can tell, aborting a fetus before it is born simply because it lacks sentience at the time is the equivalent of firing an employee a week before retirement to get his pension.

 

[Rightmind]

This is not true.
It MIGHT be born, it MIGHT be born healthy, etc.



What plan?

Yes, there's a chance that it might not be born healthy, but most of the time they are. And as medical science grows more and more advanced a child born with a defect is still capable of surviving long enough for that defect to be corrected (clearly I'm not a science major). But what should the health of the baby matter anyway? Even if was born with a disability we would still consider it human.

And I mentioned the plan earlier in the thread, though I can't really remember where now. It wasn't so much a plan as more the natural progression of a pregnancy.

 

[MSizer]

It's comparable to a stone in that it lacks sentience at the time being. But like I said before, the fetus will[/B develop sentience, the stone however will not. It may be utilized by a sentient being, but it will never have the self determination allow itself to be used.

As far as I can tell, aborting a fetus before it is born simply because it lacks sentience at the time is the equivalent of firing an employee a week before retirement to get his pension.

No it's not, becuase an employee presumably is a mature sentient human with long term self interest and the capacity to suffer mentally and phsysically. A zygote has none of those capacities. It comes down to the question of "what are the criteria by which we judge a being as deserving moral patiency". Have you thought that through? I'm not being challenging, I'm sincerely asking.

If you allow "potential" into the critera for moral consideration, then I could argue that it was wrong to put Timothy McVeigh to death on the grounds that he had the potential to be a future catholic pope who is dedicated to ending war, but by killing him, we denied "the plan for him to become the peacemaking pope of the future".