ARCHVE: Attention all sick pro-aborts

[Zakath]

Originally posted by Jefferson

Of course.

Upon what do you base your belief that killing an unborn child is absolutely wrong?

 

[Elena Marie]

Re: Re: Personhood at Conception?

Re: Re: Personhood at Conception?

Originally posted by Zakath

I am told by cellular biologists of my aquaintance that they now have the capability, in laboratory situations, to take an unfertilized human egg and replace its nucleus with the nucleus from an adult (dipliod) cell. The egg is not "fertilized" in the traditional sense but doesn't seem to care and begins dividing merrily away. Unfortunately, if the nucleus is taken from fully differentiated tissue (muscle, nerve, bone, etc.) then the result of the cell division will tend to produce tissue of that type rather than a complete human being.

I would assume, based on your writing, that you would "extend personhood" to any collection of diploid cells (cells with full sets of human chromosomes) capable of developing into an adult human whether those cells actually develop that way or not. In a sense, your guideline would extend personhood to what amounts to a tissue culture.

Is that a fair assessment? If not, where would you draw the line?

Hi Zakath--

Nice to see you back!

The technological advances in biology are going to present us with more and more situations wherein we are going to have to examine our definitions of personhood.

If I recall correctly, the issue of human tissue (poetry! ) has been addressed in at least one religious aspect. Judiasm requires the burial of all human tissue, preferably with the origin of the tissue, because that tissue is human by virtue of its nature. So, in a sense, yes that tissue possesses personhood.

Now, does that mean that it is a sentient being? I don't know that we can extend that definition to it, but what about clones? Do clones possess personhood?

Forgive me for delving into popular film for a moment, but when I took my daughter to see "Attack of the Clones" I was once again struck by this issue. The clones in the movie were genetically altered to perform a specific task. Does that alteration negate their personhood? I don't think we have nearly as much to worry about in "The Sum of All Fears" as we do in "Attack of the Clones." A nuclear bomb would hurt us badly, but the loss of our shared humanity would destroy us.

I tried to get a thread on this topic going way back on the original ToL board but didn't have any takers.

 

[Evangelion]

Jes - thanks for your latest responses.

Since it's about 11:30 PM here in Western Australia, and I've already spent a good deal of time on the other forums, I'll have to address your posts tomorrow, after work.

 

[Gerald]

Re: Re: Re: Personhood at Conception?

Re: Re: Re: Personhood at Conception?

Originally posted by Elena Marie
Forgive me for delving into popular film for a moment, but when I took my daughter to see "Attack of the Clones" I was once again struck by this issue. The clones in the movie were genetically altered to perform a specific task. Does that alteration negate their personhood? I don't think we have nearly as much to worry about in "The Sum of All Fears" as we do in "Attack of the Clones." A nuclear bomb would hurt us badly, but the loss of our shared humanity would destroy us.

I tried to get a thread on this topic going way back on the original ToL board but didn't have any takers.

I missed that thread, unfortunately. If you wish, you could pick it up again in the "Forget Secular Humanism" thread I started in this forum to discuss the moral implications of technological advances.

Hope to see you there.

 

[Jefferson]

Originally posted by Zakath
Upon what do you base your belief that killing an unborn child is absolutely wrong?

Exo 21:22-23, "If men strive and strike a pregnant woman, so that her child comes out, and there is no injury, he shall surely be punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him. And he shall pay as the judges say. And if any injury occurs, then you shall give life for life."

 

[jes1994]

Originally posted by Evangelion
Jes - thanks for your latest responses.

Since it's about 11:30 PM here in Western Australia, and I've already spent a good deal of time on the other forums, I'll have to address your posts tomorrow, after work.

Sounds good. I understand about the other forums. I've been reading. :up:

Anyway, I do want to add one other thing to what I typed. On page 6, I mentioned a book. If you (or anyone else) decides to get that book: it makes the standard pro-life claims about Margaret Sanger. Make sure to read the opposing material for that on a pro-choice website.

 

[MARANATHA2002]

I believe a woman has a choice. I believe she should have the right to choose, BUT, her choice should be made BEFORE she gets pregnant, not after. Just for my own curiosity, what are the stats, on how many women die from being pregnant, yearly, and what are the medical terms for the conditions/diagnosis that caused their deaths? How many cases have been diagnosed as, have an abortion or die? Are there other options for treatment in these medical diagnosis, or is abortion one of several options? What percentage of these options are abortions? I am asking because I do not know, thought someone may have these answers. Peace, but not yet.

 

[Atheist_Divine]

NSMinistries,
I am afraid I have been foolish. I snapped off a reply, without thinking about how I might have to respond to your reply. While this is an issue I am interested in, and would like to debate and learn about, and it is an important issue, I should not have run into the debate as I did. I don't have the time at the moment for all the necessary research and formulating of my own thinking, as well as replying to you, that this issue properly deserves, also there are other posters here who no doubt can express themselves rather better, and have thought more deeply, than I have.
Please understand I am not "ducking" the debate because I cannot reply or do not wish to, but because of studying committments I must not allow myself to break by becoming too immersed in a subject which is not related to them.
As this topic is unlikely to ever be concluded to satisfy both sides, I hope I will be able to contribute better some time in the future.

~AD~

 

[NSMinistries]

Atheist_Divine,

Thats alright. Glad you let me know. These debates are for fun and learning but should never take away from our other duties.
Let me know if you do wish to continue and I will be glad to take it up once more.

but because of studying committments I must not allow myself to break by becoming too immersed in a subject which is not related to them.

I am glad to see people take the right attitude towards study of any kind.

God Bless,
NSM

 

[Evangelion]

For Jes.

For Jes.

Jes -

Quote:
You can see for yourself that raw pragmatism is the driving force behind this mentality - and it does make sense, even though I find it repugnant.


I do see that, and us on the pro-life side of the issue may be looking at the issue with a bit more idealism and less pragmatism, but we're not totally empty on pragmatism. On the pragmatic side, we see unwanted pregnancies occurring because abortion seems to be getting used as just another method of birth control. And abortion being just another method of birth control does make sense if personhood of the fetus prior to viability is a personal choice, rather than a societally imposed one.

Excellent points, with which I heartily concur. The problem (as I see it) is a lack of sex education - and that problem is compounded by the conservative resistance to sex education. If only they would realise that more sex education = less unplanned pregnancies (and therefore fewer abortions), we might start to make progress on this issue.

On the pro-life side, we feel that if abortion were made illegal, then people would be more likely to recognize that their actions (intercourse) had consequences (pregnancy), and then choose their actions based on those consequences. That would then bring down the numbers of unwanted pregnancies, and if it were still a problem, we could handle things at that point in some other manner that did not involve an action that we consider to be murder. We on the pro-life side feel that working to keep abortion legal while simultaneously working to reduce unwanted pregnancies is feeding a repeating cycle, and the only way we see to end that cycle is to make abortion illegal.

That's a fair comment, but why not concentrate on the cause of unplanned pregancies first, and introduce anti-abortion legislation in about a year's time, just to give people the chance to improve? Address the cause, and the symptoms will slowly subside. Refuse to address the cause, and you'll only end up treating more symptoms.

Quote:
I would also like to address the "substance abuse/addition" and "cultural stigma" exceptions at some point.


*Jes scratches his head*

Sure. What are those exceptions? May I get a preview?

• Substance abuse/addiction: the mother is addicted to a drug (perhaps legal, like nicotine; perhaps illegal, like cocaine) and the addiction is passed on to the foetus. When the baby is born, it begins life with a drug addiction, and must be treated for it immediately. Some can be born with HIV/AIDS.
  
• Social stigma: the mother belongs to a conservative social (and/or religious) community, which will reject her if she carries a fatherless child to full term. In some cases, her brother or father will turn her out of the home - or even kill her as soon as they know she is pregnant. It's a complicated issue, and I've only given you the bare bones in this post.

Quote:
Again, I find this morally inadequate. In fact, your entire argument boils down to the fact that the mother should not be held responsible for the death of the foetus - which means that you have now successfully demolished the pro-life position.
That's a problem, and you'll need to address it at some stage.


You are correct on this, and this may be a bit of my personal bias on who to punish coming into play, possibly due to my being from the US.

I am cautious of a society that permits the instigator of a crime to remain unpunished, while the perpetrator receives all of the blame. There is something very wrong here, Jes. The baby would not have died if the mother had not asked the doctor to terminate it. At some point, she has to bear the responsibility for this decision.

One of the things we try to do over here when we look at a problem and attempt to address it through the legal system is to punish as few people as possible in order to solve that problem. As an example, when we looked at our drug problem and were considering how to address it, our first focus was to punish the dealers rather than the users, partly because there generally are fewer dealers than users (or at least, that idea made sense). Also, a decision to become a dealer (traditionally) involves a larger investment of resources than a decision to become a user. And that may be a poor comparison to abortion, but does that illustrate my principle to you?

That's actually a pretty good comparison, but I believe you have represented the mother as the user, whereas I would have represented her as the dealer. Now, you will say "It's the doctor who provides the service; ergo, he must be the dealer." At first glance, this sounds reasonable enough. But the doctor would not have a foetus to abort, if the mother had not presented him with one. For this reason, I see your analogy in a different light.

Anyway, on abortion: I am open to options either way on whether or not to punish the woman. One of the points that pro-choice people make is that a woman who has been through an abortion has already been punished because of the trauma of the abortion procedure.

It's tempting to think that this is always the case. But every woman is different, and I still think that in order to support the moral principle, some punishment must be enforced. Generalisations and assumptions should be kept to a minimum.

Another thing to keep in mind is that the doctor generally has invested time in learning how to perform the abortion, and money in buying equipment for the procedure, whereas the time of the patient has been invested in, shall we say, other pursuits.

True. Even so, it is the mother who has instigated the abortion. The doctor is only doing his job.

(When I say that, remember that we're putting off the rape exception until we handle the general case)

Sure, no problem. :up:

However, all the points you make on who to punish are 100% correct. If a law we write ends up punishing both doctor and patient, that's fine with me.

Great.

The pro-life argument does have to make the case for personhood of the fetus at conception before any other points can be addressed. If we pro-lifers cannot do that, then politically speaking, all our other points are moot. I think that's part of the reason that pro-lifers use those bloody pictures so much in discussion... we/they focus on that one point to the exclusion of all others.

I take your point. Now we still have to address the question of who's responsible for the abortion. As I've already said, your position needs to be tightened up a little, and I'll be interested to see how you choose to apportion the blame.

Cutting to the chase...

Evangelion,

First, I do need to put forth a few assumptions:
1) If person A intentionally kills person B, then person A should be charged with murder. That comes from the definition of person (personhood).

2) For the purposes of #1, an adult human is a person.

3) For the purposes of #1, an egg and a sperm side by side, not yet united, is not a person.

4) Somewhere between #2 and #3, personhood is obtained.

Are all those fair enough assumptions based on the standards we agree on for western civilization?

Not quite. Western civilisation generally accepts that personhood is attained between the third trimester and birth.

I'm going to assume yes, and continue (instead of waiting for a response and splitting to a separate post).

Fair enough. :up:

The transition between #2 and #3 is a fairly well documented transition. There could be several points at which personhood is obtained. Conception and viability are two of those, and the ones to consider here since they are the two we have discussed.

If we place the point of personhood at conception, then we are saying that personhood is obtained solely based on being a member of the human race. That's when the sperm's chromosomes combine with the egg's chromosomes to become the chromosomes of the human genome. That's the point that I claim, the point that makes the most sense to me.

On the other hand, if we say viability is the point, we are saying that personhood status depends on something other than the human genome. We're saying personhood depends on development level. I think that idea runs counter to the ideals of western civilization. Could someone lose personhood if they developed incorrectly? Could they develop past the point of personhood?

That's a good question, and one which Western civilisation has yet to solve, IMHO. I can't say that I've got a perfect answer for you myself. It's something which still requires more thought.

 

[jes1994]

Evangelion,

The problem (as I see it) is a lack of sex education - and that problem is compounded by the conservative resistance to sex education.

I agree with you on that point. I'm not saying my conservative brethren are perfect and angellic... if we dig deep enough into the issue you might see several of them disagree with me.

... why not concentrate on the cause of unplanned pregancies first, and introduce anti-abortion legislation in about a year's time ...

Why not pass legislation with a one year starting date?

I take your point. Now we still have to address the question of who's responsible for the abortion. As I've already said, your position needs to be tightened up a little, and I'll be interested to see how you choose to apportion the blame.

In most western societies, we generally try to work through things with the political process, compromising where things seem reasonable. Once we get the personhood question worked out, then we can use the political process to work out the punishment question. We can compromise as needed.

Western civilisation generally accepts that personhood is attained between the third trimester and birth.

Starting purely from logical grounds: Sperm-egg not yet united is not a person, adult is a person. The transition has to occur at some point between the two conditions. Nothing to do with western civilization yet, purely logic and human biology.

So list out the points that are possible. Make a list on paper, in your head, or bring them up here on TOL. Each and every one of them can be translated into a statement of 'personhood depends on X'. (note that all but one of the exceptional cases can also be translated into a similar statement)

Now bring in western civilization. The standards of western civilization will find every one of those statements repulsive, except for conception.

 

[Zakath]

Originally posted by Jefferson

Exo 21:22-23, "If men strive and strike a pregnant woman, so that her child comes out, and there is no injury, he shall surely be punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him. And he shall pay as the judges say. And if any injury occurs, then you shall give life for life."

Thanks for the reply, Jefferson.

I believe I understand the first portion about a woman being inujred and having a miscarriage as the result of a fight between men.

Can you explain how you read the bolded sentence? It seems to follow along with the "eye for an eye" philosophy that limits damages in ancient Hebrew law, but I'd like to hear your interpretation...

 

[Jefferson]

Originally posted by Zakath
Can you explain how you read the bolded sentence? It seems to follow along with the "eye for an eye" philosophy that limits damages in ancient Hebrew law, but I'd like to hear your interpretation...

I need to make sure I understand your question before I answer. Are you asking what the punishment should be if the premature birth caused the infant to be born retarded, for example? Or perhaps with a deformed hand? Is this what you are asking?

 

[Zakath]

Originally posted by Jefferson

I need to make sure I understand your question before I answer. Are you asking what the punishment should be if the premature birth caused the infant to be born retarded, for example? Or perhaps with a deformed hand? Is this what you are asking?

I think you're on the right track. To me, "life for life" would be a form of limited liablility to reduce the chance of a blood feud or vendetta.. Let's follow your train of thought, though. What would be, in your mind a reasonable penalty for killing an unborn infant?

 

[Jefferson]

Originally posted by Zakath
What would be, in your mind a reasonable penalty for killing an unborn infant?

The death penalty via public stoning.

 

[Zakath]

Originally posted by Jefferson

The death penalty via public stoning.

Can you think of any conditions in which you believe killing an unborn infant is not absolutely wrong?

 

[Jefferson]

Originally posted by Zakath
Can you think of any conditions in which you believe killing an unborn infant is not absolutely wrong?

Nope.

 

[Zakath]

I asked Jefferson, a fellow who uses a dead baby for an avatar on a Christian web board , the following question:

"Can you think of any conditions in which you believe killing an unborn infant is not absolutely wrong?"

Jefferson eloquently replied:

"Nope."

Try using a little imagination, Jefferson. I can provide several scenarios for someone who's a supporter of the Enyartian "ACM" (that's American Constitutional Monarchy for you newbies) and it's accompanying legal system...

Scenario #1. Under the ACM, having an abortion, encouraging someone to have an abortion, or performing an abortion are capital crimes. If a pregnant woman was involved in any of those acts, she's subject to a "speedy" trial and execution. That's three examples...

Scenario #2. Under the ACM, practitioners of homosexuality are capital offenders, subject to the same rapid trial and execution. A pregnant lesbian (e.g. Rosie O'Donnell's significant other), would be liable for the death penalty.

Let's see: three in number one and one in number two; that's four examples of mankind using your deity's law to cause the death of the unborn...

Of course we could always discuss your opinion of biblical examples of butchering the unborn at the command of YHWH, but that usually makes people uncomfortable on forums like this one...

 

[Jaltus]

Hmm, how about cases where if the child is born, both it and the mother will die, whereas if it is aborted, only the child will die?

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Zakath, I always sort of thought you were a tad smarter than your last post would indicate.

There is this funny and very accurate little thing called a "pregnancy test" and with it you can determine if a woman is pregnant, even in the earliest stages!

You continue....

Of course we could always discuss your opinion of biblical examples of butchering the unborn at the command of YHWH, but that usually makes people uncomfortable on forums like this one...

Again, Zakath your letting so many people down who envision you as a tad more rational than your typical atheist. I of course would disagree as I happen to know that you claim it isn't necessarily wrong to rape a nine year old girl (that certainly isn't rational).

You fail to understand the difference between killing and murder. When war's happen and people are killing each other there are tragic consequences. When a country has a righteous reason to go to war with another country, men, woman, children (born and unborn) get killed. Tragic indeed but not murder! When the USA began it's war against the Al-Queida terrorist government there were innocent Afgan deaths that were a direct cause form this war, but those deaths were not murder's, they were tragic consequences of war. A murder, is when someone knowingly takes the life of a person with malice (evil intent) or for a non-righteous reason. This of course would be the Christian view, and I can understand the typical atheist confusion since to an atheist there are no righteous reasons for anything. All "reason's" to an atheist for every action or non-action are equally legitimate. Therefore you Zakath have a hard time making distinctions between murder and killing.