If some people think sexual abuse is OK, should they be allowed to do it? — frank
So: In states where abortion is legal, some people consider it murder and others consider it medical procedure. — Bitter Crank
If some people think sexual abuse is OK, should they be allowed to do it? — frank
So imagine you live in a state where sexual abuse of children is tolerated, say it's Montana. There's no law against it. Would you say that in Montana, sexual abuse is a matter of choice? — frank
Well, Frank -- if a behavior is tolerated, and there are no laws defining what a behavior is, then it is a matter of personal interpretation as to whether one can permissibly do x, y, or z. You've raised a non-issue, seems to me. — Bitter Crank
What constitutes acceptable behavior and what constitutes abuse varies from time to time, place to place — Bitter Crank
There seems to be two types of leftists (and right-wingers) nowadays - the moderates and the extremists. The extremists didn't exist 49 years ago.I've been among the left for the 49 years of Roe vs. Wade and I have NEVER witnessed abortion being "celebrated" or considered a "badge of honor".
Aborting a fetus may be considered a personal medical decision, but it is not a casual, pleasant procedure. Most women apparently consider it a difficult decision--far more fraught than other medical procedures. — Bitter Crank
Saying it doesn't normalize it. Many people doing it without consulting others (like god or government) is what normalizes it.If you think abortion is moral, go ahead and say it. Normalize it. Otherwise it's like: "abortion is moral for some of us, but not all." — frank
It's not just about personhood. As I stated before, vegans point to suffering as the reasons that we shouldn't abort the lives of animals. If animals can suffer, then it's not really about defining personhood, but suffering and what organisms are capable of experiencing it.The question of whether abortion is murder or not hinges on whether one considers a everything from a just-fertilized egg on to a blastocyst on to a fetus with a beating heart but not much more than a neural tube for a brain on to a barely viable fetus, on to an entirely viable fetus is a "person" in the way a healthy new-born is a person.
The fetus-fetish folks think a just-fertilized egg is owed as much legal protection as a two-year od, Hence, the expected moves to outlaw 'day after' pills.
Many people do not grant personhood to a non-viable fetus; some grant personhood to a fully viable (7-9 month) fetus. — Bitter Crank
But this diverges from the original point I was making between you and BitterCrank - that we need to be consistent in how we define life, personhood, and suffering. — Harry Hindu
People should use better means to avoid getting pregnant. What's the point of getting pregnant accidentally and going through the hassle of abortion when a condom/pill etc will cut the problem at the root. — Wittgenstein
Once the fetus gains conscious, he/she isn't a part of the mother only, but a member of society with the right to life. — Wittgenstein
In the case of rape, the mother is not responsible for taking care of her baby but the state should interfere and place the child in the care of foster parents. If the baby is the product of incest, the same rules should apply but the parents should be fined or imprisoned. — Wittgenstein
Because condoms/pills etc. don't always work.
When does a foetus become conscious?
There's still the 9 months of pregnancy which a woman has to suffer through.
I could quote a medical study here but since we are not doctors, We should let the experts determine when the foetus becomes conscious and l am sure doctors have a medical definition of consciousness — Wittgenstein
Thalamic afferents to the cortex develop from approximately 12-16 wk of gestation, reach the cortical subplate, but “wait” until they grow into the cortical plate (16). At this stage, only long depolarization of the deep layers may reach the cortex (17) (Fig. 2). After 24 wk, thalamocortical axons grow into the somatosensory, auditory, visual, and frontal cortices and the pathways mediating pain perception become functional around the 29-30 wk (18). From approximately 34 wk, a synchrony of the EEG rhythm of the two hemispheres becomes detectable at the same time as long-range callosal connections, and thus the GNW circuits, are established (18–20). From the 26th wk, pyramidal neurons in the primary visual cortex of humans develop dendritic spines (19).
Consciousness requires a sophisticated network of highly interconnected components, nerve cells. Its physical substrate, the thalamo-cortical complex that provides consciousness with its highly elaborate content, begins to be in place between the 24th and 28th week of gestation.
Yes, but l don't see how it's proportional or even comparable to taking the life of a baby. The foetus has a right to life and the suffering of the mother during the time of pregnancy cannot take that away. — Wittgenstein
But this diverges from the original point I was making between you and BitterCrank - that we need to be consistent in how we define life, personhood, and suffering. Both political extremes are not being consistent at all. — Harry Hindu
Whether or not a foetus has a right to life is the very thing being debated. And I would say that the woman's suffering very much is comparable, and at least in the early stages of pregnancy her rights take precedence of the foetus', just as I would say that a human's suffering takes precedence over any animal's right to life
Then what use is the term, "person" if there is no way to determine what it is? Are you a person? How do you know? Can you point to something that has an equal number of properties of personhood and not-personhood?And this is probably why the debate continues. There's no clear cut way to determine when a fetus becomes a person. — frank
Then what use is the term, "person" if there is no way to determine what it is? Are you a person? How do you know? Can you point to sonething that has an equal nunber of properties of personhood and not-personhood? — Harry Hindu
What about the potential of personhood? — Harry Hindu
Then what use is the term, "person" if there is no way to determine what it is? Are you a person? How do you know? — Harry Hindu
Can you point to something that has an equal number of properties of personhood and not-personhood? — Harry Hindu
If you can't explain why you are a person then what is wrong with aborting you? I'm not interested in bringing morality into it. I just want to know what traits a thing possesses that would qualify it as a person.Are you a person? How do you know? — Harry Hindu
Let's say that there are 5 traits that define a thing as a person. If a thing has two or less of these traits, then that thing does not qualify as a person, three or more it does.Can you point to something that has an equal number of properties of personhood and not-personhood?
— Harry Hindu
I don't understand this question. — Michael
The question is whether the extreme of being a living person begins before or after birth.We can see that at one extreme it's not a living person and at another extreme it is a living person, but in between it's just a matter of degree. — Michael
Fine, then let's go back to the question you're trying to avoid:
Are you a person? How do you know?
— Harry Hindu
If you can't explain why you are a person then what is wrong with aborting you? I'm not interested in bringing morality into it. I just want to know what traits a thing possesses that would qualify it as a person. — Harry Hindu
The question is whether the extreme of being a living person begins before or after birth. — Harry Hindu
In some legal respects, a corporation is a person. What would need defining is: individual human person., but the fundamental problem is that it's a fuzzy concept - agreement on some specific set of traits would be virtually impossible. For example, I'd argue that a zygote clearly isn't an individual human person, because a zygote is a cell that can produce more than one person (monozyogtic twins, triplets, quadrupelets...), whereas many Christians disagree (a zygote has a soul; if it divides - God tosses in another soul...). So...it seems to me, it's all a matter of opinion, and it's inappropriate to force your opinion upon others.Let's say that there are 5 traits that define a thing as a person. If a thing has two or less of these traits, then that thing does not qualify as a person, three or more it does.
Let's say that instead of 5 traits, there are 6 traits. We now have an even number of traits, so it stands to reason that it is possible for some things to have three of these traits. I'm asking what that thing would look like, or if there are any examples of such a thing.
I'm aware that we would first have to agree on the traits and the number that define a thing as a person, and that would be our starting point, but for now I'm simply contemplating the possibilities. — Harry Hindu
Before 24-26 weeks of gestation, a human foetus lacks intact thalamocortical circutry and therefore isn't sentient (i.e. feels pain as an independent organism with the potential for learning to anticipate pain in other organisms (empathy)) – not a person, so excising it is a lumpectomy, not homicide ... — 180 Proof
The state claims its own interest in, or on behalf of, the fetus just as it claims an interest in protecting the rights of property owners to keep their property and protect it from arbitrary takings.
In this analogy: the state prohibits a woman from terminating her pregnancy by treating a fetus as a property-owner and the womb it's in as the fetus' property, that is confers on a fetus the role of slaveholder and a pregnant woman the role of slave. But slavery is 'officially' outlawed in most modern, secular, nation states, right? And yet state-sanctioned denial of an actual woman's inherent right-to-choose (& think) for herself is overlooked and deemed less repugnant in practice than killing a non-viable [non-sentient] fetus with human DNA (possible person) in theory.
It's quite difficult to think of any prospect more morally repugnant than the circumstance that a pregnant woman is equivalent before the law as slave property who's owned (by state enforcement) by her unviable [non-sentient] fetus. "Pro-life" in this sense is, in practice, indiscernible from pro-slavery. — 180 Proof
My 30+ years old position is, I suppose, the "extremist" one (as the old post exerpted shows): abortion on demand – as an inalienable Human Right – even in the third trimester. — 180 Proof
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.