13 Feb 07
1 edit
Originally posted by amannionI couldn't have hoped that you would actually take such a porous stance.
It's a potential human until it's born obviously.
I'd define human as being an individual of the homo sapiens species.
What else did you expect?
It's a potential human until it's born
What is intrinsically different between the fetus 5 minutes before birth and the baby 5 minutes after? What type of mystical procedure is this "birth" that an entity is suddenly endowed with "human" properties? Remember, the fetus can already survive outside the womb from about 26 weeks, some much earlier -- 24 weeks IIRC.
I'd define human as being an individual of the homo sapiens species.
How can location (i.e. being within the womb) disqualify a fetus from being part of the homo sapien species? There is no intrinsic difference between the fetus just before birth and the baby after birth -- it’s genetically human; it has two arms and two legs, a cerebral cortex, is capable for sensory perception. What then is it: a blob of tissue that is identical to other humans in all aspects except it's not really human? It is patently absurd to consider location as somehow being the qualifier for being part of the human race. Do astronauts become “non-human” when they leave the atmosphere?
13 Feb 07
Originally posted by HalitosePerhaps my use of the word potential is confusing you.
I couldn't have hoped that you would actually take such a porous stance.
[b]It's a potential human until it's born
What is intrinsically different between the fetus 5 minutes before birth and the baby 5 minutes after? What type of mystical procedure is this "birth" that an entity is suddenly endowed with "human" properties? Remember, the fetus ca ...[text shortened]... art of the human race. Do astronauts become “non-human” when they leave the atmosphere?[/b]
Prior to it leaving the womb the foetus is not surviving on its own, but rather as a parasitic organism on the mother.
I'm not denying its humanity, but until it is born it is not able to survive as we expect a normal human to. The mother is. The foetus in the womb cannot.
I know, I know, the newborn baby is near enough to a vegetable itself, for all it's able to do. Newborn babies are completely helpless. But they are autonomous individuals. At that point I feel a moral imperative to protect them.
Prior to their birth, the moral imperative I feel is for the mother. This is not to say I don't value the foetus for what it is about to become. But it isn't there yet.
It's not the location that determines this. It's the nature of the relationship between the mother and the foetus, which I've described before as parasitic. Until that relationship changes, as it does at birth - the mother has priority.
At least, that's my position.
13 Feb 07
Originally posted by amannionNice. How about severely handicapped people who can also be described as having a parasitic relationship with those who care for them and keep them alive? Mercy killing anyone?
Perhaps my use of the word potential is confusing you.
Prior to it leaving the womb the foetus is not surviving on its own, but rather as a parasitic organism on the mother.
I'm not denying its humanity, but until it is born it is not able to survive as we expect a normal human to. The mother is. The foetus in the womb cannot.
I know, I know, the newborn ...[text shortened]... p changes, as it does at birth - the mother has priority.
At least, that's my position.
13 Feb 07
Originally posted by HalitoseUh uh. Nice try, but completely different situation and you know it.
Nice. How about severely handicapped people who can also be described as having a parasitic relationship with those who care for them and keep them alive? Mercy killing anyone?
Yes, severely handicapped people require significant care, but this is care that could be provided by anyone.
There's only one person that can satisfy the needs of a foetus - and it 'aint you or me!
The foetus is a literal parasite on the mother.
The same could not be said for the handicapped.
13 Feb 07
Originally posted by amannionChoose your words carefully my friend. . . A parasite is a non phylogenetically related organism to the host that exists through a symbiotic relation with the host.
Perhaps my use of the word potential is confusing you.
Prior to it leaving the womb the foetus is not surviving on its own, but rather as a parasitic organism on the mother.
I'm not denying its humanity, but until it is born it is not able to survive as we expect a normal human to. The mother is. The foetus in the womb cannot.
I know, I know, the newborn ...[text shortened]... p changes, as it does at birth - the mother has priority.
At least, that's my position.
Not a pregnancy at any stage from conception through to birth.
13 Feb 07
My apologies for my delay in returning to this thread.
The question that I wished to pose was this:
Say your daughter is a teenager - 15 - and she is brutally raped by a criminally insane escaped convict and is impregnated, would you allow her to have that child?
As to the likelihood of the situation - yes, it is not likely, but rape happens, insanity happens and criminals escaping happen. So it is a possibility.
Would that be a line? Would that circumstance warrant an abortion?
NOTE - this is not meant to provoke. This is meant to see what kind of line there is...if there is one.
13 Feb 07
Originally posted by EAPOEGood point, although doesn't really take away from my argument. Perhaps we need to develop new terms for this - although I guess that's why we use the terms embryo and foetus and not baby.
Choose your words carefully my friend. . . A parasite is a non phylogenetically related organism to the host that exists through a symbiotic relation with the host.
Not a pregnancy at any stage from conception through to birth.
13 Feb 07
5 edits
Originally posted by HalitoseI'm not sure which one you mean
[b]You mean 'latent' as in potential, not yet actualized, right?
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 m rase... and requiring no intervention other than nutrition and oxygen for maturation.[/b]
I meant I would grant you that the zygote is a latent person. This doesn't help your case at all because it follows tautologically that a latent person is not a person (at least, not yet). That is, the young fetus is not a person but merely a potential person. Potential persons don't have rights; and there is no sound way to argue from potential qualifications to actual status. There is no reasonable way to argue for the young fetus on personhood grounds. In other words, there is no reasonable way to argue that the young fetus has rights and standing as a member of our normative community. The fact of the matter is this: the zygote/embryo/young fetus stands in latency of considerability criteria in part because of the fact that it doesn't satisfy such criteria.
One could try to argue for the fetus on other grounds -- utilitarian, teleological, or some such. These arguments don't change the fact that the zygote/embryo/young fetus is morally inconsiderable and cannot be harmed in any way and the woman has a basic claim to self-autonomy.
14 Feb 07
Originally posted by HalitoseOK, let's bring the example closer home to our topic. Imagine that a woman really wants to have a child. She gets pregnant and is very happy about it. She wants to keep the pregnancy. Everyone in the family is happy about it. But upon a check-up with the doctor, it is found that there are complications. There is no remedy for this type of complications. According to the doctor, based on statistics, there is an 80% chance that the mother will lose her life if the pregnancy is allowed to continue. Remember, in all this, there is a 20% chance that the mother will survive the pregnancy (against 80% that she won't). If you are the doctor, how would you advise the mother? Should she keep the child, or abort? Why?
Red 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.
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.
14 Feb 07
Originally posted by ckoh1965Oops! I jumped the gun there. I looked back at the previous posts, and I saw your answer for this particular example.
OK, let's bring the example closer home to our topic. Imagine that a woman really wants to have a child. She gets pregnant and is very happy about it. She wants to keep the pregnancy. Everyone in the family is happy about it. But upon a check-up with the doctor, it is found that there are complications. There is no remedy for this type of complications. Acc ...[text shortened]... you are the doctor, how would you advise the mother? Should she keep the child, or abort? Why?
14 Feb 07
Originally posted by ckoh1965Better would have been not making the 'mistake' you called it, and place herself in that position if you want to talk about best case scenario.
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?
Life is always going to have hard cases, the easy choices where our so called 'mistakes are made' should not be made up for by the death of another to make our own lives easier, or to hide our own short comings. If you make a 'mistake' and do something that causes you to be thrown in jail, you don't get to kill those around your 'mistake' to make your life easier. Now with sex when the result could be a child is started, an abortion it seems is okay, because any excuse or reason will do to make the result of that ‘mistake’ go away.
I’m not saying that to belittle anyone, but ‘mistakes’ is an easy word for not wanting lay blame on actions done by people, many times when they knew full well what could happen. All people both men and women, boys and girls go into many ‘mistakes’ with the full knowledge what could happen to them, so an abortion it is just an easy but costly out?
Kelly
14 Feb 07
Originally posted by twhiteheadI do believe I know what you were asking, I didn't think my questions were that hard either, I didn't notice an attempt at them either.
I 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 huma ...[text shortened]... it different from the same mother neglecting a 1 year old child to the extent of causing death?
Kelly
14 Feb 07
Originally posted by BigDoggProblemIt is amazing too call it a fetus it can be killed just because it is a fetus, call it a infant you cannot kill it just because it is a infant, call it a toddler you cannot kill it just because it is a toddler, call it a teenager you cannot kill it just because it is a teenager, call it an adult you cannot kill it just because it is an adult, call it elderly you cannot kill it just because it is elderly. A fetus is nothing but a stage in human development, nothing more, nothing less, yet open season on the human life that has started.
How about: "fetus" (I've used it time and time again in my posts.)
I get a chill down my spine every time I contemplate the sheer dehumanizing power of that wonderful word. 🙄
Kelly