What I don't understand about the arguement for Abortion.

[mathetes123]

Because the woman is under no moral obligation to carry the child.

It would be as if you where kidnapped by a group of music lovers and woke up laying in bed hooked up to a famous violinist. He has a rare disease and needs your kidneys to filter his blood. It will take about 9-months for him to be cured. But you must stay in the bed next to him for that duration of time, until he is cured.

You have been placed in such a situation against your will. You where drugged, kidnapped, and unwillingly hooked up to another person. For you to stay, invest your time/nay your life, for the indiscretions of another(those damn music lovers) would be incredibly generous, but to leave would not be a moral wrong.

Its a good analogy I heard, and I find it explains at least that aspect of the abortion debate.

The difference is the violinist has other options. You would not be making a choice to take his life. The unborn baby does not have this choice. It is never right to take the life of an innocent person, regardless of the cirumstances.

 

[Incariol]

So your support for abortion is based on not offending people?

No, I guess it mostly that I am not obsessive enough to demand that everyone think, believe and act like me. I offend pro-life Christians already by daring to not support their political agenda.

 

[mathetes123]

No, I guess it mostly that I am not obsessive enough to demand that everyone think, believe and act like me. I offend pro-life Christians already by daring to not support their political agenda.

So if I had no moral objection to murder, it is not right for me to push my values on others, and I should actively pursue legislation to legalize murder?

 

[acropolis]

But isn't the potential for human life just almost or just as important as human life?

No, it isn't. If it were, then it would be murder to decide not to have sex, since you're taking the potential for human life and destroying that potential. It's only real people who should be given moral consideration.

 

[TomZzyzx]

No, it isn't. If it were, then it would be murder to decide not to have sex, since you're taking the potential for human life and destroying that potential. It's only real people who should be given moral consideration.

There is no "potential" when it comes to the unborn. As soon as you have conception there is a human life.

 

[acropolis]

There is no "potential" when it comes to the unborn. As soon as you have conception there is a human life.

You have a human in the sense that you have a bundle of human DNA which has the potential to grow into a person, but you don't have a person at that stage. There is no central nervous system, no brain, no thought, no feelings of any kind, nothing that we generally associate with being a person.

 

[TomZzyzx]

You have a human in the sense that you have a bundle of human DNA which has the potential to grow into a person, but you don't have a person at that stage. There is no central nervous system, no brain, no thought, no feelings of any kind, nothing that we generally associate with being a person.

I just wanted to make it clear that the unborn is a human life. It's not any other kind of life, animal, mineral or vegetable. We are all a bundle of human DNA. Since science has determined that the unborn is a human being pro choice advocates have to try to argue for personhood to justify the killing of the unborn. So let's discuss personhood. When does a human being become a person?

 

[Incariol]

So if I had no moral objection to murder, it is not right for me to push my values on others, and I should actively pursue legislation to legalize murder?

If you like.

 

[acropolis]

I just wanted to make it clear that the unborn is a human life. It's not any other kind of life, animal, mineral or vegetable. We are all a bundle of human DNA. Since science has determined that the unborn is a human being pro choice advocates have to try to argue for personhood to justify the killing of the unborn. So let's discuss personhood. When does a human being become a person?

Let me preface this by saying that the personhood angle isn't the most convincing argument for the legalization of abortion.

It is difficult and probably impossible to perfectly demarcate the line between person and nonperson. There will always be a gray area in between those two groups. That said, it is possible to define a group which certainly are people and a group which certainly isn't. Given what we know about people it is reasonable to say that the ego of a person resides in the brain. If the brain is functioning then there is a person inside who thinks and feels and has a sense of themselves, even if genetics or trauma has robbed them of other faculties normally associated with people such as speech, movement, sight, etc. A body which is genetically human but lacks a brain or a functioning brain is not a person, just a collection of tissue. Generally we call humans without functioning brains 'corpses' and don't afford them the rights of a living person. The same is true on the opposite end of the lifespan for developing humans lacking functioning brains: they are not people, they have no sense of self, thought, feelings, but are at that point just a collection of tissue which may eventually become a person. To force a confirmed living person, the mother, to suffer for the sake of a nonperson is, to me, criminal.

 

[Incariol]

Let me preface this by saying that the personhood angle isn't the most convincing argument for the legalization of abortion.

It is difficult and probably impossible to perfectly demarcate the line between person and nonperson. There will always be a gray area in between those two groups. That said, it is possible to define a group which certainly are people and a group which certainly isn't. Given what we know about people it is reasonable to say that the ego of a person resides in the brain. If the brain is functioning then there is a person inside who thinks and feels and has a sense of themselves, even if genetics or trauma has robbed them of other faculties normally associated with people such as speech, movement, sight, etc. A body which is genetically human but lacks a brain or a functioning brain is not a person, just a collection of tissue. Generally we call humans without functioning brains 'corpses' and don't afford them the rights of a living person. The same is true on the opposite end of the lifespan for developing humans lacking functioning brains: they are not people, they have no sense of self, thought, feelings, but are at that point just a collection of tissue which may eventually become a person. To force a confirmed living person, the mother, to suffer for the sake of a nonperson is, to me, criminal.

More relevantly, anencephaly. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anencephaly

 

[acropolis]

That's one kind of human without a functioning brain, yes.

 

[TomZzyzx]

Let me preface this by saying that the personhood angle isn't the most convincing argument for the legalization of abortion.

It is difficult and probably impossible to perfectly demarcate the line between person and nonperson. There will always be a gray area in between those two groups. That said, it is possible to define a group which certainly are people and a group which certainly isn't. Given what we know about people it is reasonable to say that the ego of a person resides in the brain. If the brain is functioning then there is a person inside who thinks and feels and has a sense of themselves, even if genetics or trauma has robbed them of other faculties normally associated with people such as speech, movement, sight, etc. A body which is genetically human but lacks a brain or a functioning brain is not a person, just a collection of tissue. Generally we call humans without functioning brains 'corpses' and don't afford them the rights of a living person. The same is true on the opposite end of the lifespan for developing humans lacking functioning brains: they are not people, they have no sense of self, thought, feelings, but are at that point just a collection of tissue which may eventually become a person. To force a confirmed living person, the mother, to suffer for the sake of a nonperson is, to me, criminal.

We are all "just a collection of tissue". So medical science says that the unborn before delivery has a functioning brain. Is the unborn before delivery a person? Each person on CF that I have discussed personhood with has a different idea when the unborn becomes a person. You said yourself, "It is difficult and probably impossible to perfectly demarcate the line between person and nonperson". So if we don't know when the unborn becomes a person, then it is possible that some abortions are killing innocent persons.

 

[acropolis]

We are all "just a collection of tissue". So medical science says that the unborn before delivery has a functioning brain. Is the unborn before delivery a person? Each person on CF that I have discussed personhood with has a different idea when the unborn becomes a person. You said yourself, "It is difficult and probably impossible to perfectly demarcate the line between person and nonperson". So if we don't know when the unborn becomes a person, then it is possible that some abortions are killing innocent persons.

A zygote is certainly not a person, but an unborn baby moments before birth probably is. Sometime between those two times the nonperson becomes a person. The more advanced parts of the brain do not develop until late in pregnancy so it's only very late-term abortions that are problematic. Nearly all abortions happen before there is any kind of functioning brain, and those rare late-term abortions generally happen because of health concerns for the mother. If a woman is going to abort she is going to do it sooner rather than later.

 

[TomZzyzx]

A zygote is certainly not a person, but an unborn baby moments before birth probably is. Sometime between those two times the nonperson becomes a person. The more advanced parts of the brain do not develop until late in pregnancy so it's only very late-term abortions that are problematic. Nearly all abortions happen before there is any kind of functioning brain, and those rare late-term abortions generally happen because of health concerns for the mother. If a woman is going to abort she is going to do it sooner rather than later.

So the question is... Since we don't know when the unborn becomes a person, isn't it possible that some abortion are in fact killing innocent persons? According to you reasoning, persons have rights. And in this country(the USA), it's against the law to kill an innocent person.

 

[acropolis]

So the question is... Since we don't know when the unborn becomes a person, isn't it possible that some abortion are in fact killing innocent persons? According to you reasoning, persons have rights. And in this country(the USA), it's against the law to kill an innocent person.

There's no chance in the first trimester, so that should be without a doubt legal. There is virtually no chance in the second trimester as well so I see no reason not to allow it then either. Banning it for the third trimester or thereabouts wouldn't bother me so long as exceptions were made for cases that threatening the life of the mother.

 

[mathetes123]

A zygote is certainly not a person, but an unborn baby moments before birth probably is. Sometime between those two times the nonperson becomes a person. The more advanced parts of the brain do not develop until late in pregnancy so it's only very late-term abortions that are problematic. Nearly all abortions happen before there is any kind of functioning brain, and those rare late-term abortions generally happen because of health concerns for the mother. If a woman is going to abort she is going to do it sooner rather than later.

So if it is a matter of the person not being fully developed, why not support killing children up to adulthood when they reach the point of full development?

 

[mathetes123]

So the question is... Since we don't know when the unborn becomes a person, isn't it possible that some abortion are in fact killing innocent persons? According to you reasoning, persons have rights. And in this country(the USA), it's against the law to kill an innocent person.

Exactly, if it is a gray area, as some pro-choices say, why not err on the side of life.

 

[acropolis]

So if it is a matter of the person not being fully developed, why not support killing children up to adulthood when they reach the point of full development?

'Functioning' is not the same thing as 'fully developed'. A child still thinks and feels and has a sense of self, as does someone with some brain damage. A zygote does not and cannot do any of those things as it has no functioning brain.

 

[TomZzyzx]

There's no chance in the first trimester, so that should be without a doubt legal. There is virtually no chance in the second trimester as well so I see no reason not to allow it then either. Banning it for the third trimester or thereabouts wouldn't bother me so long as exceptions were made for cases that threatening the life of the mother.

You didn't answer my question. Since we don't know when the unborn becomes a person, Isn't it possible that some abortions are killing innocent persons?

 

[acropolis]

You didn't answer my question. Since we don't know when the unborn becomes a person, Isn't it possible that some abortions are killing innocent persons?

I did answer you. We can and do know that there is no functioning brain in the first trimester and for the majority of the second trimester, so those periods should be legal. The uncertainty only appears towards the end of the pregnancy when the higher brain develops. It is possible that late-term abortions kill people, but not abortions earlier in pregnancy. So, in respect of that uncertainty, I wouldn't be bothered by a ban on late-term abortions for reasons other than protecting the safety of the mother, especially because those abortions basically don't happen unless it's for medical reasons.