Abortion-a crying shame. (HOF thread)

[smothers]

Originally posted by Art Deco

Why do you qualify human life at all? What gives you the right to qualify human life.

The question of humanness is one of those hard questions. Its implications are serious and profound. As sentient beings we have (or were granted by God) an intellect that allows us to tackle these hard-questions. We have the right to qualify a human life, because we HAVE to qualify a human life. Who else is going to do it?

Posted by Avatar: From conception to natural death is the human life cycle. Reason and logic would require one to admit that an uninterrupted pregnancy leads to a live birth. All that is required is about nine months of normal developement.

No one is disputing that.

It is human at conception and it is human at birth and it is human at death.

If you define a human as one that has human DNA, you are correct. A human being is not neccesarily a person.

Why would any sane individual interrupt that lifecycle without acknowledging they have terminated a human life at what ever stage it was in?

It is true that you have terminated life. All members of our taxonomic domain (look it up.) are alive right after conception. Don't get hung up on this obvious fact. Potentiality for personhood does not equal personhood.

Again, who gave you the right to qualify human life?

As sentient beings we are born with the rights to qualify human life. Obviously we can't do this arbitrarily. The one thing that divides us biological and philosophically from other animals is our ability to think. This ability isn't even its beginning stages until around the 21st week.

Are you playing God?

Are we not playing God when we place low doses of small pox in a child to protect him from small pox infection? God is rather silent on these specific issues. I know of no sacred text that describes embryonic development in the same detail as a medical journal. One is left with the assumption, that God has left the decision to us.

Posted by Avatar: True, but killing the child takes away any chance at adulthood. Similarly, killing the developing child in the womb takes away any chance at reaching adulthood with all the rights obtained by the transition from infancy to adulthood.

Get to a different argument. This one isn't working.

 

[Art Deco]

Originally posted by smothers

The question of humanness is one of those hard questions. Its implications are serious and profound. As sentient beings we have (or were granted by God) an intellect that allows us to tackle these hard-questions. We have the right to qualify a human life, because we HAVE to qualify a human life. Who else is going to do it?

There is no right to qualify human life. Human life in its natural state is self evident. It needs no qualification. The only purpose for qualifying human life is to make an arrogant and presumptive case for its destruction.




Posted by Smothers:

If you define a human as one that has human DNA, you are correct. A human being is not neccesarily a person.

If you are basing the right to kill a baby on its state of maturity, you have lost the argument. You are denying the baby the right to life on the basis that it has not reached sufficient maturity which is no fault of its own at the time of its murder.



Posted by Smothers:

It is true that you have terminated life. All members of our taxonomic domain (look it up.) are alive right after conception. Don't get hung up on this obvious fact. Potentiality for personhood does not equal personhood.

Yes, you have terminated "HUMAN" life, not just life in general. Don't overlook that point.

Potential human life is a lifeless argument that just won't wash intellectually. Personhood is established at conception. Gestation is the process of fleshing out the baby's personhood in the human cycle of life.


Posted by Smothers:

As sentient beings we are born with the rights to qualify human life. Obviously we can't do this arbitrarily. The one thing that divides us biological and philosophically from other animals is our ability to think. This ability isn't even its beginning stages until around the 21st week.

This is an asinine argument that is stripped of all rationality. How intellectually arrogant one must be to presumptively qualify a human being on the basis of its ability to think. This argument calls into question your ability to think.



Posted by Smothers:

Are we not playing God when we place low doses of small pox in a child to protect him from small pox infection? God is rather silent on these specific issues. I know of no sacred text that describes embryonic development in the same detail as a medical journal. One is left with the assumption, that God has left the decision to us.

The God given right to murder has always been left to us. As is all other moral judgements. You have not met the moral standard required to authorize the murder of an unborn child.



Posted by Smothers:

Get to a different argument. This one isn't working.

Allow me to interpret: Your argument is very persuasive and I can not present an adequate response to counter your argument. :help:

 

[Anne]

Smothers, you really have outdated information regarding fetal development.

It seems that you haven't progressed beyond the ancient belief that life begins at quickening which averages around 16 weeks but is felt by the mother by 20 weeks at the latest.

The unborn child is active long before it is felt by the mother. There is a video clip that clearly shows a 12 week old unborn child 'walking" in the womb.

Those who favour death for the so-called unwanted tend to say things like it is only a reflex. Similar lies used to try justifify abortion are also used to try justify killing of unwanted people that are already born such as Terri Schiavo. Her husband wants her dead and claims that she is in a permanent vegetative state and it is just reflexes. Well anyone who isn't in a permanent vegetative state themselves can see on the video clips on her website that she is definitely responding and would do much better with therapy etc.

 

[Anne]

Here is the link to the video clip: 12 week old baby walking in the womb

Terri Schiavo's web site: http://www.terrisfight.org/

 

[Lighthouse]

Originally posted by Zakath

Here's a thought, dimhouse, if it's on another thread, then why not bring it up there?

If you have nothing substantive to contribute, why try to drag this thread off topic? :think:

I posted a one time post, in response to catty fan's post about a similar topic. I did nothing to drag this thread off topic. You are the one who responded top me here, instead of PM. And then you resort to this? I thought five year olds couldn't get married, let alone pastor a church.


To be on-topic, so Zakath doesn't start whinig again, Abortion is murder, plain and simple. Anne is right. Welcome to TOL, Anne. You have impressed me thus far.

 

[Lighthouse]

It's time to have some fun.

Originally posted by smothers

A heart beat is a sign of a working hypothalmus. The brain is working on auto-pilot. The heartbeat, as Zakath pointed out in a previous post, does not make someone a person.

Zakath didn't point out anything. He specualted, based on his own personal beliefs. Human in origin + beating heart = person. All humans have th basic rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness [at least in America]...and unborn fetuses have those rights. Those who have been born have those rights, even when they have no others. That doesn't make them less than a person, or less than a human.

Brain waves aren't detectible until about the 20th week. Brain synapses don't start to develop until the early to mid second tri-mester. Without brain-waves it isn't a person.

See above.

P.S.
Learn to spell spermatazoa.

 

[smothers]

Originally posted by Anne

Smothers, you really have outdated information regarding fetal development.

It seems that you haven't progressed beyond the ancient belief that life begins at quickening which averages around 16 weeks but is felt by the mother by 20 weeks at the latest.

You are incorrectly stating my position. Life begins at conception. Personhood begins at sentients.

The unborn child is active long before it is felt by the mother. There is a video clip that clearly shows a 12 week old unborn child 'walking" in the womb.

Walking in the womb is not an adequate determination of sentients.

Those who favour death for the so-called unwanted tend to say things like it is only a reflex. Similar lies used to try justifify abortion are also used to try justify killing of unwanted people that are already born such as Terri Schiavo. Her husband wants her dead and claims that she is in a permanent vegetative state and it is just reflexes. Well anyone who isn't in a permanent vegetative state themselves can see on the video clips on her website that she is definitely responding and would do much better with therapy etc.

If Terry Schiavo is not self-aware, she is not a person. I've seen the video, and it does make a good case for her awareness. Her "husband" should give up custody and allow her family to give therapy.

You do make a good point about the connection between abortion and euthenasia. I place the demarkation line for abortion at 12 weeks. One should be ultra-conservative when it comes to terminating a life. Although euthenasia is outside the scope of this thread, one could make a case on the side of caution to not allow euthenasia on someone who could possibly come back to sentients. Logically that conflicts with my assertion that anyone without sentients is not human and can therefore be ethically killed. I will have to think about it.

 

[smothers]

Originally posted by Art Deco

There is no right to qualify human life. Human life in its natural state is self evident. It needs no qualification. The only purpose for qualifying human life is to make an arrogant and presumptive case for its destruction.

I am not qualifying life; I am qualifying personhood. As you say life is self-evident. I don't see how qualifying human life is arrogant or presumptive.

If you are basing the right to kill a baby on its state of maturity, you have lost the argument. You are denying the baby the right to life on the basis that it has not reached sufficient maturity which is no fault of its own at the time of its murder.

I am basing the right to kill a baby based on its state of maturity. A fetus has no rights until it has reached a certain state of maturity. Can you tell me why the fetus does have a right? I have clearly espoused my standard, what is yours?

Posted by Smothers: Yes, you have terminated "HUMAN" life, not just life in general. Don't overlook that point.

I have not overlooked that point. In fact, because the fetus is a member of the human species, I am ultra-conservative in the demarkation line between non-person and person.

Personhood is established at conception. Gestation is the process of fleshing out the baby's personhood in the human cycle of life.

Could you elaborate on this please? I am interested in the flow of logic that leads you to this conclusion.

This is an asinine argument that is stripped of all rationality. How intellectually arrogant one must be to presumptively qualify a human being on the basis of its ability to think.

I can see how to can arive at this conclusion. Let me clarify, a human being is a person when it is self-aware. Can you tell me why this is presumptive, and provide a logical argument for the different standard that you use?

The God given right to murder has always been left to us. As is all other moral judgements. You have not met the moral standard required to authorize the murder of an unborn child.

An action (not reason for) is right or wrong regardless of the morality of the person doing it. Adolf Hitler was right in creating the autobahn, regardless of his immoral behavior. Hitler was evil, this ONE act was good.

Your argument is very persuasive and I can not present an adequate response to counter your argument.

The crux of the arguments seem to me to all come down to potentiality. If I misstate your argument below please let me know.

1) A fetus is a human-being and alive.
2) If the fetus is allowed to mature it will grow to a mature adult.
3) Because the fetus has the potential to grow to a mature adult, we should not kill it.

My argument is as follows:

1) A fetus is a human being and alive.
2) A person is a human being that has sentients.
3) It is not ethically wrong to kill a creature that is not a person.
4) The fetus does not have the biological components necessary for sentients until the the 20th week.
5) The fetus is not a person until the 20th week.
6) It is an ethicaly nuetral event to kill a fetus prior to the 20th week.
7) It is therefore ethically nuetral to kill a fetus prior to the 12th week.

Could you point out the weaknesses in this argument.?

 

[smothers]

Originally posted by lighthouse

Human in origin + beating heart = person.

Why?

All humans have th basic rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness [at least in America]...and unborn fetuses have those rights.

I am asuming you are talking about "legal rights". Unborn fetuses do not have these rights. In fact a person doesn't even have full rights until the 18th year. Legally, (maybe not ethically) a mother can kill her child late into her pregnancy.

Those who have been born have those rights...

I agree, those who are born and are sentient have these rights.

 

[Crow]

Originally posted by smothers

The crux of the arguments seem to me to all come down to potentiality. If I misstate your argument below please let me know.

1) A fetus is a human-being and alive.
2) If the fetus is allowed to mature it will grow to a mature adult.
3) Because the fetus has the potential to grow to a mature adult, we should not kill it.

My argument is as follows:

1) A fetus is a human being and alive.
2) A person is a human being that has sentients.
3) It is not ethically wrong to kill a creature that is not a person.
4) The fetus does not have the biological components necessary for sentients until the the 20th week.
5) The fetus is not a person until the 20th week.
6) It is an ethicaly nuetral event to kill a fetus prior to the 20th week.
7) It is therefore ethically nuetral to kill a fetus prior to the 12th week.

That sums it up pretty well. I base human rights on humanity. You base them upon whether you grant them "personhood" or not.

 

[smothers]

Originally posted by Crow

That sums it up pretty well. I base human rights on humanity. You base them upon whether you grant them "personhood" or not.

Why do you think humanity is a better basis than personhood?

 

[One Eyed Jack]

Doesn't the US government consider a corporation to be a "person," in a legal sense?

 

[avatar382]

That sums it up pretty well. I base human rights on humanity. You base them upon whether you grant them "personhood" or not.

Could you define what you mean by "humanity"?

 

[cattyfan]

Keeping this on the active page...

Zakath,

please read post #117. thanks.

 

[Anne]

Smother's argument is as follows:

1) A fetus is a human being and alive.
2) A person is a human being that has sentients.
3) It is not ethically wrong to kill a creature that is not a person.
4) The fetus does not have the biological components necessary for sentients until the the 20th week.
5) The fetus is not a person until the 20th week.
6) It is an ethicaly nuetral event to kill a fetus prior to the 20th week.
7) It is therefore ethically nuetral to kill a fetus prior to the 12th week.

Could you point out the weaknesses in this argument.?

Yes, of course, I thought you would never ask.:bannana:

1) Yes, agreed, a fetus is a human being and is alive. :jump:

2) No, the first definition listed for a 'person' in both my Oxford and Encarta dictionary is simply "a human being'.
:bannana:

3) Maybe, may be not. Do you believe it is therefore OK to go out and club baby seals to death (perhaps just for fun):kookoo:

4) It is long before 20 weeks. Have you looked at the video clip I attached or seen the Silent Scream. In both of them the unborn baby is 12 weeks old and obviously has sentience( feeling and perception).

5) No, see my answer to number two.
:bannana:

6) No. Have you forgotten the Ten Commandments God gave us. One of them is: "Thou shalt not kill" :doh:

7) No. See my answer to number six (above).


Well, well, Smothers only your first point is correct. I will be generous and give you half for your third point.
My, my, that is 1,5 out of 7, i.e. only 21%. Smothers you really need some :help:. You need to do much more research on fetal development, ethics and especially God's commandments.

When you have done that, you can come back to us in a few weeks or months time. I think you will then be ready to apologize, especially to the unborn babies who are being killed because people like yourself rationalize murder.

 

[Poly]

Originally posted by Anne

Smother's argument is as follows:

1) A fetus is a human being and alive.
2) A person is a human being that has sentients.
3) It is not ethically wrong to kill a creature that is not a person.
4) The fetus does not have the biological components necessary for sentients until the the 20th week.
5) The fetus is not a person until the 20th week.
6) It is an ethicaly nuetral event to kill a fetus prior to the 20th week.
7) It is therefore ethically nuetral to kill a fetus prior to the 12th week.

Could you point out the weaknesses in this argument.?

Yes, of course, I thought you would never ask.:bannana:

1) Yes, agreed, a fetus is a human being and is alive. :jump:

2) No, the first definition listed for a 'person' in both my Oxford and Encarta dictionary is simply "a human being'.
:bannana:

3) Maybe, may be not. Do you believe it is therefore OK to go out and club baby seals to death (perhaps just for fun):kookoo:

4) It is long before 20 weeks. Have you looked at the video clip I attached or seen the Silent Scream. In both of them the unborn baby is 12 weeks old and obviously has sentience( feeling and perception).

5) No, see my answer to number two.
:bannana:

6) No. Have you forgotten the Ten Commandments God gave us. One of them is: "Thou shalt not kill" :doh:

7) No. See my answer to number six (above).


Well, well, Smothers only your first point is correct. I will be generous and give you half for your third point.
My, my, that is 1,5 out of 7, i.e. only 21%. Smothers you really need some :help:. You need to do much more research on fetal development, ethics and especially God's commandments.

When you have done that, you can come back to us in a few weeks or months time. I think you will then be ready to apologize, especially to the unborn babies who are being killed because people like yourself rationalize murder.

SMACK!!!

 

[smothers]

Originally posted by One Eyed Jack

Doesn't the US government consider a corporation to be a "person," in a legal sense?

(Putting on MBA hat.) A corporation is considered a person so it can be sued and pay taxes. Obviously it can't vote or be incarserated.

 

[smothers]

1) Yes, agreed, a fetus is a human being and is alive.

2) No, the first definition listed for a 'person' in both my Oxford and Encarta dictionary is simply "a human being'.

In an applied ethics discussion, 'person' usually refers to a morale person. Perhaps you should investigate morale personhood as it applies to applied ethics.

3) Maybe, may be not. Do you believe it is therefore OK to go out and club baby seals to death (perhaps just for fun)

Don't be absurd.

4) It is long before 20 weeks. Have you looked at the video clip I attached or seen the Silent Scream. In both of them the unborn baby is 12 weeks old and obviously has sentience( feeling and perception).

The silent scream? You weren't aware how thoroughly discredited that production is? Even if it is acurate I've placed the demarkation line at 12 weeks.

6) No. Have you forgotten the Ten Commandments God gave us. One of them is: "Thou shalt not kill"

or Thou shalt not kill unlawfully? If a baby isn't a moral person, you aren't murdering it. If you are going to quote the 10 commandments, shouldn't both of us agree on them as an authority?

Well, well, Smothers only your first point is correct. I will be generous and give you half for your third point.
My, my, that is 1,5 out of 7, i.e. only 21%. Smothers you really need some :help:. You need to do much more research on fetal development, ethics and especially God's commandments.

The only evidence you have provided is the Silent Scream propoganda and a code of ethics borrowed from Hannibal. Can you provide anything beyond this to support your position?

 

[Husband&Father]

False Premise

False Premise

The link between "personhood" and brain activity is an arbitrary one made up for the convenience of the pro choice advocate.

At best it is mearly a personal definition without the support of the medical establishment (who do not try to establish personhood in the metaphysical sense) and in defiance of common sense.

Further, the premise that fetus’ do not have brain activity until 20 weeks is completely false. The brain is still developing to be sure and will continue to grow in capacity as the pregnancy works to term but the movements (yawning, thumb sucking, stretching etc.) that pre 20 weak babies routinely demonstrate (as well as their reaction to noises) are much to complex to be mere reflexes or automatic. Nope, the brain is quite active.

The brain activity argument is bogus. If brain activity determines personhood than does diminished brain activity (brain damaged accident victims) diminish personhood. Is a mental illiness victim who had a frontal lobotomy only half a person?

If the presence of any brain activity makes one a person than a fetus is a person. If the brain activity has to be a certain type and quality of brain activity then we have to admit that some 5 year olds (retarded, comotosed) are not people. The whole stupid theory falls apart.

Smothers and others can’t stand the guilt so they discredit prolifers because they are "religious" (as if that is an automatic disqualification). If a photo gives them pause, if they see the picture and find themselves admitting that the fetus is a baby, they accuse the photographer of "doctoring" (what a choice of words) the photo. The alternative to calling the photos doctored is calling themselves killers.

Abortion advocates know right from wrong, that’s why they must always qualify their support for abortion. They can’t just say "I’m for abortion period" they have to say "I’m for abortion…er…up until 20 weeks…because…you see…a baby does not have brain activity…well not much brain activity until 20 weeks…so I’m for abortion up to 20 weeks…but I will not condemn those who are for abortion after 20 weeks…because even though I…personally…believe that the baby is a person after 20 weeks others may not and who am I to say when a person…er…fetus…is a person…even though I decided that it’s at 20 weeks…and I know it’s true because I read it on the Internet…"

Keep repeating this until the guilt goes away:

"The pictures are fake and they didn’t have brain activity… The pictures are fake and they didn’t have brain activity… The pictures are fake and they didn’t have brain activity… The pictures are fake and they didn’t have brain activity… The pictures are fake and they didn’t have brain activity… The pictures are fake and they didn’t have brain activity… The pictures are fake and they didn’t have brain activity…I killed a bab…NO! NO! NO! The pictures are fake and they didn’t have brain activity…"

 

[Anne]

Great post, Husband&Father.

I guess the end result of their continual denial is "They are coming to take me away, hee, hee ..."