13 Feb 07
Originally posted by KellyJayKelly, some of us support the right to abortion. Not all of us are supporting it on the grounds of whether or not it is already human at a certain stage of the foetus' development. On the contrary, I support abortions in cases where it is found, for example, that the child is ill and will probably end up being a vegetable; or would probably not live long anyway. It would not be a pleasant decision to make, but probably the best option.
Well apparently since the debate is that you do not know when to call it human, it seems that a vague descriptive term of personhood is just a cop out! A feel good word to dehumanize what you refuse to acknowledge, a human in the early stages of its life. I don't know what you desire to call our early stages of life, bacteria, fungus, some wart, or just something else, any else, just not human?
Kelly
As I've said earlier, if I continue having a child that I knew very well from the beginning would end up being a vegetable. I don't mind to sacrifice myself to look after that child, but what happens afte I die?
This reminds me of one time when I visited an institution for 'special' children. I am particularly touched by one child. She was about 15 years old. She was born without limbs. So people had to help her do everything. They had professional people to help her. After a few minutes chatting with her, she suddenly started revealing her inner feelings. She said she just wished that her mother never had her. She said if she had a choice, she wouldn't want to be born into this world, not like that without limbs. She dreaded continue living over the next several decades, trapped in that body. As it turned out, her mother was an unmarried teenager who abandoned her almost as soon as she was born. She never knew her mother. Do you think it would have been better to abort her when the mother had the chance?
Another interesting story. A Muslim girl who's pursuing her studies to become a religious teacher in an all-girls school. She made a mistake and became pregnant. But she was too ashamed to tell anyone. Somehow she managed to conceal her pregnancy from everybody, because of the clothes they're wearing. But one night 9 months later, she gave birth to a healthy baby boy in the toilet close to her dormitory. The baby cried too loud. She became scared and panicked. She tried to pacify the baby, but it didn't work. In the end, she used some stockings and stuffed them into the baby's mouth. Of course the baby died of suffocation. Anyway, to make the long story short, she was expelled from the school; found guilty of manslaughter and sentenced to 4 years in prison. She married her boyfriend anyway. So in the second case, do you think if the girl had an abortion, the outcome would have been better?
13 Feb 07
Originally posted by ckoh1965Who gave you the right to decide whether another human life is worth living or not?
Kelly, some of us support the right to abortion. Not all of us are supporting it on the grounds of whether or not it is already human at a certain stage of the foetus' development. On the contrary, I support abortions in cases where it is found, for example, that the child is ill and will probably end up being a vegetable; or would probably not live long an ...[text shortened]... nd case, do you think if the girl had an abortion, the outcome would have been better?
13 Feb 07
Originally posted by HalitoseNobody gave me the right. That's why I said it's not an easy decision to make. A similar debate arose some years ago because the Malaysian law provides for the death sentence for drug pushers. Many people gave the same argument: They asked, who gave the government the right to decide whether a human life is worth living or not? What do YOU think? You think drug pushers should not be killed? Why?
Who gave you the right to decide whether another human life is worth living or not?
13 Feb 07
Originally posted by HalitoseWhy is human life so special?
human life
What if someone attacked you or your family? Your daughter perhaps? Would you kill them? Self-defence? What if your family was starving to death, would you kill someone for food??
All of those things are "social problems" too.
13 Feb 07
Originally posted by KellyJayI think you know what I was asking. It is a fact that most crimes or possible crimes relating to young children are treated much more severely than an identical crime against an unborn child. Some people are proposing that murder be treated exactly the same. All I am asking is whether all other crimes /accidents be treated as if the unborn child is a human being.
Do you believe a five year old boy is equivalent to a 28 year old man?
Do you believe a three year old girl is equivalent to an 18 year old woman?
What type of asinine question of equivalence are you proposing?
Kelly
For example if a woman has a miscarriage due to walking up and down too many stairs on the way to work, should she be taken to court for negligence and can her employer be sued as well? How is it different from the same mother neglecting a 1 year old child to the extent of causing death?
13 Feb 07
Originally posted by ckoh1965Red herring. The severity of judicial punishment is a far stretch from abortion. I've never heard of a fetus being found guilty of a capital crime either, so these two concepts would be hard to relate to each other.
Nobody gave me the right. That's why I said it's not an easy decision to make. A similar debate arose some years ago because the Malaysian law provides for the death sentence for drug pushers. Many people gave the same argument: They asked, who gave the government the right to decide whether a human life is worth living or not? What do YOU think? You think drug pushers should not be killed? Why?
For the record, I don't see why a drug pusher should merit the death penalty. Having seen first-hand the adverse social repercussions of hard-drugs, I would be all for severe punishment, but certainly not death.
13 Feb 07
Originally posted by HalitoseYou mean 'latent' as in potential, not yet actualized, right? I would freely give you that the young fetus -- down to a hypothetical zygote at conception -- is in latency a person. That is not sufficient to make your case. Actually, since 'latent' implies something like 'not yet actual', the fact that the young fetus qualifies for latency of relevant capacites is, if anything, sufficient for making just the opposite case.
We should be talking about the latent capacity for sentience -- which I hold the unborn human qualifies for.
13 Feb 07
1 edit
Originally posted by scottishinnzWhy should I answer any of your questions if you refuse to show me the same courtesy? May human life be taken to solve a social problem? You're simply trying to get me to admit to the same, while being unable to face up to the horror of your own stance. Don't worry, I'll keep mercy killing, euthanasia and eugenics in the wings till you give me your answer.
Why is human life so special?
What if someone attacked you or your family? Your daughter perhaps? Would you kill them? Self-defence? What if your family was starving to death, would you kill someone for food??
All of those things are "social problems" too.
What if someone attacked you or your family?
I'd say my stance was very clear from my opening post in this thread: I'll only accept the taking of human life when you're faced with the dilemma of choosing between lives -- one (or more) will die; the choice is which one.
In the case of the mother's life being in danger with a continued pregnancy, I opted for an abortion, since the emphasis is on it being a life saving, rather than life taking procedure. One would die, I opted for the mother as she is already socially established and such a death would have much more far reaching consequences than the death of the fetus. This is simply a case of damage control.
I'll also only accept killing in self-defense when there is an immanent threat to another's life. Again, the emphasis in on this being a life saving action -- in this case, innocence was the deciding factor. Btw, self-defense does not by definition kill the perpetrator, there are non-lethal forms.
13 Feb 07
1 edit
Originally posted by LemonJelloYou mean 'latent' as in potential, not yet actualized, right?
You mean 'latent' as in potential, not yet actualized, right? I would freely give you that the young fetus -- down to a hypothetical zygote at conception -- is in latency a person. That is not sufficient to make your case. Actually, since 'latent' implies something like 'not yet actual', the fact that the young fetus qualifies for latency of relevant capacites is, if anything, sufficient for making just the opposite case.
Correct.
I would freely give you that the young fetus -- down to a hypothetical zygote at conception -- is in latency a person.
I'm not sure which one you mean: a latent person or a person in a state of sentient latency?
...if anything, sufficient for making just the opposite case.
Explain. I certainly would not take latency as a sole qualifier -- that could have some disastrous results. I'd couple it with hmm... how shall I coin the phrase... and requiring no intervention other than nutrition and oxygen for maturation.
13 Feb 07
Originally posted by KellyJayHow about: "fetus" (I've used it time and time again in my posts.)
Well apparently since the debate is that you do not know when to call it human, it seems that a vague descriptive term of personhood is just a cop out! A feel good word to dehumanize what you refuse to acknowledge, a human in the early stages of its life. I don't know what you desire to call our early stages of life, bacteria, fungus, some wart, or just something else, any else, just not human?
Kelly
I get a chill down my spine every time I contemplate the sheer dehumanizing power of that wonderful word. 🙄
13 Feb 07
Originally posted by amannionThis should be good: when exactly does this potential human of yours actually turn into a real one? Please be specific.
We're not talking about 'a' human life - we're talking about one human (the mother) and one potential human (the foetus).
Also... how would you define "human"?
13 Feb 07
Originally posted by HalitoseIt's a potential human until it's born obviously.
This should be good: when exactly does this potential human of yours actually turn into a real one? Please be specific.
Also... how would you define "human"?
I'd define human as being an individual of the homo sapiens species.
What else did you expect?