Abortion

[justaman]

I don't entirely like an argument that would apply well to an infant...

I think that a person may not be fully developed, but nonetheless still "a person".

Actually it is because of this argument that you find that killing newborns would be morally acceptable if there were a need. For instance we should not feel morally disturbed about euthanizing a newborn with severe brain damage - a practice that is alive and well in western hospitals anyway. You are still not killing a 'person'.

The infant, meanwhile, has had time to develop some fundamental identities in behaviour though if you truly take me to task on it, I would say that the death of a newborn/infant below the age of the first captured memory is morally acceptable for this same reason.

The thing is, though, I don't need to advocate this, there is no reason. Abortion before the third trimester so that we can be absolutely certain is fine with me. Here we know for sure there is no identity being slain.

 

[seebs]

Fair enough; at least your position is consistent.

I tend to think that "potential-people" have partial rights, which is why I am generally opposed to abortion, although I can't find a solid basis for outlawing it.

 

[Cerridwen]

Hey~

these are extreme circumstances and you know it. There are *some*(very very very very few) situations where it is necessary (i.e. 10 year old(if she can even get pregnant))

More abortions occur because of these type situations than any other. A ten year old who has reached puberty is certainly able to concieve. Many girls reach puberty now as early as eight.

I do know what I am talking about.

No, honey, you don't. Until you've been there, you can't know what you're talking about.

I am mainly talking about the women that want to get an abortion because it is convinient way to get out of the preg. That probably *could* be ok when going through with it but simply dont. They can have the baby and put it up for adoption. We are talking about a human life that has a soul.

That isn't what you said in your original post. You've avoided my questions regarding the care of thaose particular women & children, however.

no need to get nasty about it. we are having a discussion and I am telling my points no need for personal attacks. I dont believe I attacked you, did i?

I'm not getting nasty or attacking you. I am attacking your fallacious & uninformed argument. You made very broad generalizations in your post, implying that every situation is the same & that you know all you need to know about it. You implied that anyone who has an abortion is selfish & irresponsible, when in reality, you simply don't know what you're talking about.

You are certainly entitled to your opinion, however mistaken it may be, but you do not have the right to determine if something is wrong or not through sweeping generalizations when you don't know anything about the individual circumstances.

Love & blessings, Cerridwen*

 

[flicka]

I am mainly talking about the women that want to get an abortion because it is convinient way to get out of the preg. That probably *could* be ok when going through with it but simply dont. They can have the baby and put it up for adoption. We are talking about a human life that has a soul.

I understand your position, however having an abortion simply to 'get out' of a pregnancy is not as flippant as it sounds. There are many factors in a womans life that must be weighed...saying she can just have the baby and give it up for adoption ignores what happens during the course of pregnancy. Not just the physical issues (of which there are many) but emotional issues, social issues, family issues, work issues, money issues...basically we don't know what is going to happen to that woman during those 9 month, what plans she had or what hurdles she would face by going thru with a pregnancy which is a very public event. Perhaps there are reasons she cannot be pregnant..who know? Nobody but her and thats why she alone can decide if she is capable of carrying and delivering a child.

 

[Michali]

This is silly. You cannot destroy something which doesn't exist yet.

Sounds reasonable. But, I don't see how this relates to what I am talking about.

I said, "Voluntarily ending pregnancy, is ending a process that gives rise to consciousness. This, in my opinion, is murder."

Then you said, "What is being murdered?"

I replied, "A person."

Then you complain that there is not person existent, in order for me to murder a person. Yet you completely ignore when I said, "A person's 'self', is their consciousness. You do not ever destroy the consciousness itself, you can only end the process that gives rise to it. When you kill the body, you end the process that gives rise to consciousness."

Do I need to ask the question again, "Why will you not kill my body in my sleep?"

In an abortion, one ends a process that gives rise to consciousness. So is it also for any grown individual, whether consciously awake, or not.

Killing a body is killing a currently existing process, even if the consciousness is dormant.

What-uh... what the heck are we trying to do with this statement here? Ending abortion, is "killing" a currently existing process, even if the consciousness is "dormant". (and what you mean by "dormant" is probably impossible. It is either occuring, or not occuring)

There is a 16 week foetus about to be aborted. Define the 'person' that is about to be murdered, their tastes, their likes, their dislikes, favourite colour, etc.

Ah, so you think, that if I am incapable of describing the person, then there is not a currently existing person for me to murder.

But you are mistaken. I believe that there is not a currently existing person, or not much of a describable one anyway. But if I were to end the process that will give rise to that person, I will be murdering him/her nonetheless.

 

[justaman]

Then you said, "What is being murdered?"

I replied, "A person."

Then you complain that there is not person existent, in order for me to murder a person.

If this doesn't make complete and utter sense to you, I don't know what to tell you. No person. Can't murder.

Yet you completely ignore when I said, "A person's 'self', is their consciousness. You do not ever destroy the consciousness itself, you can only end the process that gives rise to it. When you kill the body, you end the process that gives rise to consciousness."

Do I need to ask the question again, "Why will you not kill my body in my sleep?"

In an abortion, one ends a process that gives rise to consciousness. So is it also for any grown individual, whether consciously awake, or not.

How can you - apparently in all seriousness - actually suggest that a foetus still forming something that needs definition is in fact identical to a consciousness returning to its previous state of cognition?

By reducing the two to what you call 'processes giving rise to consciousness' you think you've done it. But a grossly simplistic definition of two remarkably different processes isn't going to cut it.

One is bringing a particular 'self' into existence. The infrastructure for this self has never existed before. It will act in ways no one else ever has. It will have unique elements and a biases and opinions and will never again be repeated.

The other is bringing a previous existing 'self' which has already defined itself in reality and become, to some degree, predictable in its actions. It is the same self that existed prior to it being asleep and can draw upon the memories of its experiences and actions in reality as points of reference for present action.

Quite simply, one of them doesn't exist, one does.

What-uh... what the heck are we trying to do with this statement here? Ending abortion, is "killing" a currently existing process, even if the consciousness is "dormant". (and what you mean by "dormant" is probably impossible. It is either occuring, or not occuring)

Does a football season end every time a match is not currently being played?

Ah, so you think, that if I am incapable of describing the person, then there is not a currently existing person for me to murder.

There definitionally is no person there to murder.

But you are mistaken. I believe that there is not a currently existing person, or not much of a describable one anyway. But if I were to end the process that will give rise to that person, I will be murdering him/her nonetheless.

Eat, for me, an icecream that hasn't been made.
Drink a milkshake not yet prepared.
Win a game that hasn't been played.
Open a door that hasn't been built.
Sing a song that hasn't been written.
Murder someone who doesn't exist.

Man, fine. If you want to say "I can MURDER something that doesn't exist" fill your boots. I don't know that logic can have much effect on you if you are seriously going to entertain such fundamental rubbish.

 

[Michali]

[/size][/font]
If this doesn't make complete and utter sense to you, I don't know what to tell you. No person. Can't murder.

What do you mean when you say "person"? Do not tell me something vague, like, "Something that experiences pain, happiness, joy, understanding..." No, really. What do you mean. Because that is where the problem lies. You can't be constantly changing your definition, and mine in order to keep calling me "silly".

If you say, "An agent that has the ability to experience consciousness." Then tell me. This is the body, and yes the body is important. A foetus is a younger form of a body, that has the ability to experience consciousness. Therefore, under this specific definition, it is a person.

If you think a person is consciousness (the very event of consciousness) then a person is not existent so long as consciousness is not in occurance. Which is what it sounds like you are saying. Which I agree, in a way. But when applied to a body that is unconscious (a body that is asleep), we will not end the bodies processes, because they give rise to future states of consciousness. This same principle can be applied to abortion.

Infact, under this same definition, it is applied to any form of killing a human. Since consciousness is not a "thing", and it is an occurnace, "we" (the persons) cannot actually be killed. We can only be prevented, while the processes that give rise to us (the body) can be "killed".

So let us just drop the terms like "kill" and "murder" for a moment. Infact, let's even drop the term, "person". Let's look at it as objectively as possible:

When the body's processes are ended, consciousness is no longer a working function of the body. If I end those same processes, I prevent any further conscious experiences.

That is what happens. I believe we can agree. Where we disagree, is applying moral terms such as "murder" and "kill". In my opinion, if you end the processes, and this results in the prevention of future conscious experience, you "kill" the agent that experiences consiousness. Very simple. If you do that same thing to what is considered an "innocent person", you not only kill the individual, but murder the individual.

How can you - apparently in all seriousness - actually suggest that a foetus still forming something that needs definition is in fact identical to a consciousness returning to its previous state of cognition?

I can't remember, did I suggest using commas?

And, you might want to explain this statement:

"a consciousness returning to its previous state of cognition"

I don't think you understand that it is a state of cognition, and it is a verbal term. No different than "running".

If your not running, there isn't any running in occurance. If you are running, running is in occurance. Same goes for consciousness. And if we are the consciosuness, then there are times when we are in occurance, and when we are not in occurance.

By reducing the two to what you call 'processes giving rise to consciousness' you think you've done it. But a grossly simplistic definition of two remarkably different processes isn't going to cut it.

What? Sleeping and pregnancy? In relation to what we're talking about, I'd say they are very related. The subject "hits home", as most analogies are supposed to. You should take some time to recognize that without disregarding it.

One is bringing a particular 'self' into existence. The infrastructure for this self has never existed before. It will act in ways no one else ever has. It will have unique elements and a biases and opinions and will never again be repeated.

Ok, we're going to need your definition of a person. Because it's looking more and more like a very vague, very subjective experience to other people. The "qualities" of a person, are the person, type thing. I'm not going to pass any judgment on that, but we really need to make that clear before we go any further.

The other is bringing a previous existing 'self' which has already defined itself in reality and become, to some degree, predictable in its actions. It is the same self that existed prior to it being asleep and can draw upon the memories of its experiences and actions in reality as points of reference for present action.

Quite simply, one of them doesn't exist, one does.

Now, this whole time I believed you were proposing that a person is the consciousness. Right? That's where the whole justification for abortion comes from.

You said, "prior to it (the person) being asleep". Restate this as objectively as possible. Would it be, "prior to the body being asleep".

Let's have your definition, eh?

Does a football season end every time a match is not currently being played?

A football season is a series of matches, within a particular amount of time. The football season does not end, whenever a match is not in occurance. ("match"... I forget it's soccer over there)

That is my answer, now relate this to what you are saying.

There definitionally is no person there to murder.

Let's not look at it like that. Let's look at the term "murder".

When I murder someone, I end a process that gives rise to consciousness. Likewise, when I have an abortion, I end a process that gives rise to consciousness.

An abortion is a certain situation of killing, murder is another situation, nuetralization of enemies is another situation. These are other matters. Easily defined by law.

Eat, for me, an icecream that hasn't been made.
Drink a milkshake not yet prepared.
Win a game that hasn't been played.
Open a door that hasn't been built.
Sing a song that hasn't been written.

If your having a hard time with "murdering someone that has not come into existence". Drop it, now, and we'll come back to it later. Things sound confusing sometimes when said one way, but make complete sense when said another way.

Murder someone who doesn't exist.

It is more like, "someone who has not yet existed." If a person is consciousness, then this type of murder, occurs when someone kills someone in their sleep.

Man, fine. If you want to say "I can MURDER something that doesn't exist" fill your boots. I don't know that logic can have much effect on you if you are seriously going to entertain such fundamental rubbish.

Look, you and I both have something in common. We do not want to kill anyone. Is that our motive? To make sure we're not doing something wrong? Or are we just trying to win a debate?

Surely your understanding what I am talking about. It's not as silly as you make it out to be.

 

[justaman]

What do you mean when you say "person"? Do not tell me something vague, like, "Something that experiences pain, happiness, joy, understanding..." No, really. What do you mean. Because that is where the problem lies. You can't be constantly changing your definition, and mine in order to keep calling me "silly".

In point of fact I've made not definition to change, at this point, but not to worry.

A person requires a consciousness to be a person, but a body is - unsurprisingly - also an essential part of it. So you can't just go about chopping people up when they are asleep. 'Person' encompasses consciousness but also the infrastructure of that consciousness. It is both. It's very simple.

So let us just drop the terms like "kill" and "murder" for a moment. Infact, let's even drop the term, "person". Let's look at it as objectively as possible:

Stop using the term 'murder' completely and we might agree and be done with it. I have no qualms with saying that you are killing something. But saying you are commiting 'murder' implies the death of someone.

Since we are talking about morality this is rather an important - and frightfully simple - distinction to make.

I don't think you understand that it is a state of cognition, and it is a verbal term. No different than "running".

What are you talking about? Cognition means knowing, self-aware. There is a consciousness that is cognitive, then when you're asleep, there is not a consciousness that is cognitive. There is always a person who can be killed. Honestly, I feel like you're asking me to describe the wetness of water.

Now, this whole time I believed you were proposing that a person is the consciousness. Right? That's where the whole justification for abortion comes from.

Not is consciousness, requires consciousness that has existed in the past and will exist in the future, or - if the individual is fortunate enough - is existing currently.

A football season is a series of matches, within a particular amount of time. The football season does not end, whenever a match is not in occurance.

That is my answer, now relate this to what you are saying.

No one match is a football season, the football season does not end between matches.

No one moment of consciousness is a person, the person does not end between periods of consciousness. The person is a manifestation of these occurances, just as a football season.

("match"... I forget it's soccer over there)

It most certainly is not.

If your having a hard time with "murdering someone that has not come into existence". Drop it, now, and we'll come back to it later. Things sound confusing sometimes when said one way, but make complete sense when said another way.

It is more like, "someone who has not yet existed." If a person is consciousness, then this type of murder, occurs when someone kills someone in their sleep.

No it doesn't and this is why your freaking sleep analogy looks confusing one way but sensical the other! It's wrong. One has a history, one does not, simple distinction and entirely without confusion.

Look, you and I both have something in common. We do not want to kill anyone. Is that our motive? To make sure we're not doing something wrong? Or are we just trying to win a debate?

Surely your understanding what I am talking about. It's not as silly as you make it out to be.

We are talking about a moral issue. Words that are morally loaded are absolutely of the utmost importance here. So if you are using a term so loaded as 'murder' it is inescapably going to have a huge effect upon the moral consideration of the practice.

If it is not appropriate to use this word, perhaps we might realise the absense of moral concerns regarding this issue.

And there is nothing more inappropriate than to say that you can "murder" someone who does not exist, it is that cut and dry.

 

[Michali]

Three things for now:

1.) Consciousness is "the act of being conscious" or "the event of consciousness". It is one of the capabilities of the brain. Cognition is understanding, or knowing. Consciousness is "The state or condition of being conscious." Consciousness is not a subject.

2.) Do you define a person as: "A body that has experienced consciousness"?

3.) Please explain your football analogy better.

 

[justaman]

Three things for now:

1.) Consciousness is "the act of being conscious" or "the event of consciousness". It is one of the capabilities of the brain. Cognition is understanding, or knowing. Consciousness is "The state or condition of being conscious." Consciousness is not a subject.

It definitionally is a subject. It is from this definition that we get the word 'subjective'. I.e, relating to that person's consciousness.

2.) Do you define a person as: "A body that has experienced consciousness"?

"and will experience consciousness again". We can turn off George's life support because "George is already dead."

3.) Please explain your football analogy better.

A person is an abstract concept. When you talk about 'George' you are not specifically talking about his body or his consciousness or his ability to perceive, it is an assumed conglomeration. Kill any of those constituent parts and you will kill George.

You are trying to point to an organism that does not even possess the ability to create brain waves and say 'that is a person'. It clearly is not, you clearly can't murder any person in killing it, so there is no reason whatever to consider abortion to be immoral.

Maybe you need to define a 'person' and work out how something incapable of thinking could possibly fit into this definition.

 

[FaithinJesus]

Well- God made the fetus. God obviously want the baby to be alive or elese he would not create the fetus. To me abortion is trying to "play god" you want to choose when a person lives and when they dont. It is not a wise idea. If God made the fetus-he has a purpose for its life and it is not up to us to decided that the baby need to die because we simply dont want to follow God's plan for the baby.

 

[Cerridwen]

Well- God made the fetus. God obviously want the baby to be alive or elese he would not create the fetus. To me abortion is trying to "play god" you want to choose when a person lives and when they dont. It is not a wise idea. If God made the fetus-he has a purpose for its life and it is not up to us to decided that the baby need to die because we simply dont want to follow God's plan for the baby.

Okay then, we should do away with all medical professionals based on that logic. After all, aren't they "playing god" by not letting us die from various and sundry diseases that God "obviously" wanted us to have? God obviously wanted my grandmother to die because he "gave" her Cancer, right? So we should just forget about all that medicine attempting to save ourselves when we get sick, since God obviously wants us to stay sick. Or maybe my friend's baby sister, who was half dead when she got to the hospital after a car accident, should have just been left to die, since apparently God wanted her to anyway, & those doctors trying to save her (who were successful, by the way) were "playing god"?

An embryo young enough to be aborted has simply not achieved personhood, due to its lack of consciousness, hence it can't be treated as such. Is it "God's plan" when the baby is born & left in a toilet to drown? Or when it's left in a dumpster to die from a combination of starvation & the elements? Or when the little 8 week old girl was left in a CHURCH parking lot, almost killed by thousands of fire ant bites? Is it better for these babies to suffer indescribable pain after their births when they are people who feel it, or is it better to abort those embryos who won't be taken care of anyway, before they reach consciousness, when they can't suffer?

Love & Blessings, Cerridwen*

 

[flicka]

Well- God made the fetus. God obviously want the baby to be alive or elese he would not create the fetus. To me abortion is trying to "play god" you want to choose when a person lives and when they dont. It is not a wise idea. If God made the fetus-he has a purpose for its life and it is not up to us to decided that the baby need to die because we simply dont want to follow God's plan for the baby.

The fetus is formed when a sperm and egg meet....god does not 'make' a fetus. If you want to argue that he made our bodies capable of reproducing I won't argue with you, but the idea of god planting babies into womens wombs isn't logical and negates the need for sexual reproduction altogether.

 

[SallyNow]

Well- God made the fetus. God obviously want the baby to be alive or elese he would not create the fetus. To me abortion is trying to "play god" you want to choose when a person lives and when they dont. It is not a wise idea. If God made the fetus-he has a purpose for its life and it is not up to us to decided that the baby need to die because we simply dont want to follow God's plan for the baby.

Wow, then what about miscarriages? Ectopic pregnancies?

Is it "God's plan" when the baby is born & left in a toilet to drown? Or when it's left in a dumpster to die from a combination of starvation & the elements? Or when the little 8 week old girl was left in a CHURCH parking lot, almost killed by thousands of fire ant bites?

Another great point! Pro-life groups should be activley campaigning for better social services!

 

[inHisgrip]

Here's my 2 cents,
When I was young and dumb I had 2 abortions. The most painful, sorrowful. regretful choices I have ever made.
Abortions are typically at 12 weeks pregnant, (at least they were back then), but when I was 5 weeks pregnant with my son, I not only heard but saw his heart beating on the ultrasound.
Not a day goes by that I don't regret giving up 2 children due to my selfishness and stupidity.

In my opinion, if your responsible enough to have sex, then you are responsible to have a child.
If you don't want children, don't get busy!!
IMO
In Him

 

[Cerridwen]

Here's my 2 cents,
When I was young and dumb I had 2 abortions. The most painful, sorrowful. regretful choices I have ever made.
Abortions are typically at 12 weeks pregnant, (at least they were back then), but when I was 5 weeks pregnant with my son, I not only heard but saw his heart beating on the ultrasound.
Not a day goes by that I don't regret giving up 2 children due to my selfishness and stupidity.

In my opinion, if your responsible enough to have sex, then you are responsible to have a child.
If you don't want children, don't get busy!!
IMO
In Him

Hey~
I am sorry that you feel so much pain. Abortions now are normally done prior to 12 weeks. I'm curious, when you were five weeks pregnant, how did you know you were having a son?

I agree with you about the responsibility aspect, although I would change it to say "if you are responsible enough to have sex, you should be responsible enough to have a child". Unfortunately, that isn't always the case, as we tend to reach sexual maturity in our teens, when we are certainly not capable of being responsible parents.That also does nothing for people who experience forced intercourse & subsequent pregnancy, or people who can't have children because it is dangerous to the mother.

Love & Blessings, Cerridwen*

 

[inHisgrip]

I did not know my child was a boy until he was born.(It was my 3 pregnancy, many years after abortions).
And I wouldn't change my statement, it is our responsibility as parents(those of us that are) to teach our children right from wrong.
I was not responsible or mature enough to be having sex.
I wish my parents would have talked to me about it.

Anyway, off subject, my point is that I think abortion is wrong, I know many women that have had them, and not one that doesn't regret it.
In my opinion, it is morally unacceptable.
In Him

 

[Cerridwen]

I did not know my child was a boy until he was born.(It was my 3 pregnancy, many years after abortions).
And I wouldn't change my statement, it is our responsibility as parents(those of us that are) to teach our children right from wrong.
I was not responsible or mature enough to be having sex.
I wish my parents would have talked to me about it.

Anyway, off subject, my point is that I think abortion is wrong, I know many women that have had them, and not one that doesn't regret it.
In my opinion, it is morally unacceptable.
In Him

Ah, okay. I just just know that 3 week old embryos(5 weeks of pregnancy) don't have discernable genders & thought that looked kinda weird, lol. Now I understand. I agree that it is the parent's responsibility to teach her child right from wrong, but when a young girl is raped, it has nothing to do with her parents or how well they parented her. She shouldn't be forced to give up her life for what someone else did to her, and neither should she be forced to carry a resulting pregnancy to term. I certainly don't advocate abortion as a form of birth control, but I believe there are circumstances in which it may be necessary. I have children of my own, & I doubt that I could go through with an abortion, but that doesn't mean that it should be illegal for women who need that option. I am pro-choice, not pro-abortion.

Love & Blessings, Cerridwen*

 

[flicka]

I know many women that have had them, and not one that doesn't regret it.

Just the flip side, I know many who don't..

They regret being in the position but not the end result.

 

[Alessandra]

I am pro choice.