abortion

Originally posted by RatX
[b]I'll stick with facts when I have to make a decision regarding someone else's rights or their actions within those rights.

Conception, in most medical circles, is the beginning of human life. It is a unique and complete human being - all it needs is nutrition and oxygen to develop into a mature baby. It is simply a matter of development. One canno ...[text shortened]... tions...)?

Looking forward to your answers tomorrow, it's pretty late over here. Later... 😴[/b]

I have no answers. That's my point. I can ask 10 doctors and 10 scientists, all at the top of their fields, and get twenty different answers.

Now factor in a woman's gestation period. From the time Mr. Sperm gives Ms. Egg a goodnight kiss - and says "I'll call ya"😉 - and all the way up until brith, all women will have babies developing at different rates.

So I simply have no idea when life begins. Hence my choice not to define it. That leads to my choice not to treat an abortion as a criminal activity.

You said it best yourself " One cannot really take any other point in development as a referance, as they all happen gradually (developmental) and are different from case to case."

While I agree completely with that point, it's simply the same old "life begins at conception" argument that all pro-lifers use. It's the only defense you have. You disallow the use of varying gestation periods because it complicates the issue and creates doubt as to when life really begins. So pro-lifers simply say it begins at conception.

Same ol same ol bro.

Originally posted by RatX
Conception, in most medical circles, is the beginning of human life. It is a unique and complete human being - all it needs is nutrition and oxygen to develop into a mature baby. It is simply a matter of development. One cannot really take any other point in development as a referance, as they all happen gradually (developmental) and are different from case to case.

No one is disputing this.

As I understand it, Bbarr's position is:
Life starts at conception.
Personhood does not.
Life itself is not sufficient for the conferral of rights.
Personhood is.

In order to compel him, you would have to demonstrate why life and
not personhood necessitates the conferral of rights. He has
made his case for why personhood requires it.

I, myself, am very confused on the topic and hope that fruitful discussion
will aid me in understanding it fully.

#1 asked a question: If we value all life with great reverence and
dignity, why is it that nearly no funerals take place for first trimester
miscarriages? How about second trimester ones? Very, very few.

Can you explain this? Do you believe Pro-Life people ought to hold
funerals in circumstances like this? It would seem to me to be utterly
hypocritical not to do so, but you may have a justification.

Nemesio

Originally posted by Nemesio
No one is disputing this.

As I understand it, Bbarr's position is:
[b]Life starts at conception.
Personhood does not.
Life itself is not sufficient for the conferral of rights.
Personhood is.

In order to compel him, you would have to demonstrate why life and
not personhood necessitates the conferral of right ...[text shortened]... eem to me to be utterly
hypocritical not to do so, but you may have a justification.

Nemesio[/b]

There is no justification. Many pro-life proponents, in dogmatic servitude to an explicit system of religious morality, refuse to acknowledge, and to take into sufficient account, the implicit moral intuitions that they in fact possess--that it's not as bad for a fetus to be killed as a grown-up person.

Originally posted by Pawnokeyhole
There is no justification. Many pro-life proponents, in dogmatic servitude to an explicit system of religious morality, refuse to acknowledge, and to take into sufficient account, the implicit moral intuitions that they in fact possess--that it's not as bad for a fetus to be killed as a grown-up person.

Most certainly.

Consider the case that some unfortunate subsection of the population of born humans is being callously butchered in the same manner and numbers as human fetuses. Most of pro-lifers would feel that explicit physical violence is warranted in preventing the slaughter (Consider the ad hoc Halocaust justification for attacking and killing many Germans, or the potential death toll justification for dropping the A-bombs. Even more striking, consider the hypothetical situation that millions of infants were being summarily executed!).

Nevertheless, with few exceptions, pro-lifers firmly denounce violence as a justified response to abortion. They make that exact implicit moral intuition.

Originally posted by Halitose
Back to the abortion debate... As I've clearly stated my position on the start of human life, I request those who disagree to give their proposed stage of initiation for a further consolidation of thought. Step up or step down, folks.

I have already given you my argument:

1. The capacity for consciousness is a necessary condition for moral considerability.
2. The young fetus (1st, 2nd trimesters) does not possess the capacity for consciousness.
3. Therefore, the young fetus is not morally considerable.

The examples you cited about batty old grandmas, back alley junkies, coma victims, and sleeping persons are irrelevant. Those persons all possess the capacity for consciousness (except maybe the coma victim in severe cases). bbarr previously mentioned the concept of potentiality, and I think that is something worth exploring in relation to Premise 1 above. However, I have thought a lot about the subject, and I fail to see how potential properties alone can constitute sufficient grounds for moral considerability. Basically, in defense of the young fetus, I think you can only appeal to capacities that you expect the fetus to develop in the future (the future starting sometime in the 3rd trimester).

Now that's out of the way, you are seriously confused (as usual) on another topic. You claimed previously in this thread that you think the acknowledgement of basic rights, such as right to life, is a "fundamental" dividing line between the theist and the atheist. Where in the world do you concoct such nonsense? Got any more "fundamental" differences up your sleeve? Does theist sh*t fundamentally smell good? Please consult your nearest dictionary and you will see that the fundamental difference between the theist and atheist concerns the belief (or lack thereof) in a god or gods. So please pull you head out of your arse. Under my view, the young fetus is not a person; therefore, in claiming that the young fetus has no rights, I am not failing to acknowledge the basic rights of any person. If you have a problem with my view that the vegetative young fetus is no more morally considerable than an actual vegetable (maybe on par with a sweet potato or a carrot), then you can try to convince me otherwise through sound argument. But I am not interested in listening to your misguided drivel on the "fundamentals" of atheism.

Originally posted by Halitose
Then what is he? Strong agnostic? His pro-life stance is refreshing...

He’s a Buddhist. Unless he corrects me I don’t believe that Buddhists are atheists.

Originally posted by The Chess Express
He’s a Buddhist. Unless he corrects me I don’t believe that Buddhists are atheists.

I believe a Buddhist is properly considered a "non-theist" as the existence or non-existence of a God is immaterial to the attainment of a person's highest plane of existence. Any Buddhist may correct me if I'm wrong; but I do recall someone with knowledge of Buddhism stating this.

Originally posted by no1marauder
I believe a Buddhist is properly considered a "non-theist" as the existence or non-existence of a God is immaterial to the attainment of a person's highest plane of existence. Any Buddhist may correct me if I'm wrong; but I do recall someone with knowledge of Buddhism stating this.

You may be right about this. My understanding is that Buddhists believe that in order to end suffering and achieve enlightenment it is necessary to get rid of desire and attachment. Clear the mind and let the truth come to you. In this sense the idea of a God is immaterial as you put it, but this doesn’t convince me that they are atheists.

Perhaps LordOfTheChessBoard will enlighten us. 😉

Originally posted by no1marauder
I believe a Buddhist is properly considered a "non-theist" as the existence or non-existence of a God is immaterial to the attainment of a person's highest plane of existence. Any Buddhist may correct me if I'm wrong; but I do recall someone with knowledge of Buddhism stating this.

Correct, at least from the point of view of Zen Buddhism, which is the only one I'm really familiar with. Not sure about the Tibetans. Zen scholar D.T. Suzuki would use the word "God" in communicating to Westerners, but by that term he really meant the tathata: the "suchness" or "thusness" of all reality. Buddha was called the tathagata, or the "thus-come-one." In Advaita Vedanta, with which Buddhism shares many similarities, the Brahman might also be called "God," but is really the "One" of all-of-it. In either case, there is no God outside of natural reality--no God of "supernatural theism."

EDIT: I think "non-theist" is a better term here, as you used it, than "atheist."

Originally posted by Nemesio
No one is disputing this.

As I understand it, Bbarr's position is:
[b]Life starts at conception.
Personhood does not.
Life itself is not sufficient for the conferral of rights.
Personhood is.

In order to compel him, you would have to demonstrate why life and
not personhood necessitates the conferral of right ...[text shortened]... eem to me to be utterly
hypocritical not to do so, but you may have a justification.

Nemesio[/b]

What makes you think no funerals take place for those that die
in the womb? How many does it take for you to say that wasn't
a valid point? Who gets to say who rates the title personhood?
They use to call people of color less than a white person in some
places, is that the same thing? If it isn't why not, if it is acknowledged
to be human life what does the title of person mean? Isn't it
just another way to move the bar some where on rate this life, so
they can be killed and limit the suffering of those doing the killing
and having their children killed, by calling the ones dying something
other than what they would be had they been left alone to grow like
we did? Since that person if left alone will be a baby boy or girl if
things are left to move along naturally.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
What makes you think no funerals take place for those that die
in the womb? How many does it take for you to say that wasn't
a valid point? Who gets to say who rates the title personhood?
They use to call people of color less than a white person in some
places, is that the same thing? If it isn't why not, if it is acknowledged
to be human life what d ...[text shortened]... son if left alone will be a baby boy or girl if
things are left to move along naturally.
Kelly

It's inconvenient that there are two threads on this.

An embryo is alive, and it has all the DNA it needs to be human. So it is human life.

As far as the question of consciousness goes, my take on it is that if it is wrong to kill a person who has been knocked unconscious for some reason, then it is wrong to kill an embryo. Both an unconscious adult and a human embryo are examples of human life.

If you’re so inclined, feel free to wade through 24 pages of heated discussion on this topic in the debates abortion thread. This is where the majority of my posts have been.

Originally posted by The Chess Express
It's inconvenient that there are two threads on this.

An embryo is alive, and it has all the DNA it needs to be human. So it is human life.

As far as the question of consciousness goes, my take on it is that if it is wrong to kill a person who has been knocked unconscious for some reason, then it is wrong to kill an embryo. Both an unconsci ...[text shortened]... on this topic in the debates abortion thread. This is where the majority of my posts have been.

Well I agree with you, did you thnk I wasn't?
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
Well I agree with you, did you thnk I wasn't?
Kelly

No. I posted this to support some of the points you made, and because I didn't feel like responding to all the pro-choicers in this thread as well.

Peace.

Originally posted by KellyJay
What makes you think no funerals take place for those that die
in the womb? How many does it take for you to say that wasn't
a valid point? Who gets to say who rates the title personhood?
They use to call people of color less than a white person in some
places, is that the same thing? If it isn't why not, if it is acknowledged
to be human life what d ...[text shortened]... son if left alone will be a baby boy or girl if
things are left to move along naturally.
Kelly

Note I said 'nearly no funerals.'

I would think that, if people truly guard the Sanctity of Life with sincerity
(that is, felt that a 1 day old zygote was a person), they would:

1) Desire to prosecute those who have abortions as murderers; and
2) Hold funerals for those who miscarry.

If someone is Pro-Life and does not do these things, then they are hypocrite,
because they are not treating all life (and all taking of life) equally. It is not
'Sanctified' in their mind.

And, they reason it matters is because to say that human life is valuable is
an arbitrary thing. If, for example, an alien race came and populated the
earth, and they started killing humans because in their moral view, only aliens
are sacred, wouldn't you object? Of course you would. Because it isn't that
because you are human that makes you worthy of consideration. It is because
you are a person. You have interests, you have goals, you have rights.

Nemesio

Originally posted by The Chess Express
An embryo is alive, and it has all the DNA it needs to be human. So it is human life.

As far as the question of consciousness goes, my take on it is that if it is wrong to kill a person who has been knocked unconscious for some reason, then it is wrong to kill an embryo. Both an unconscious adult and a human embryo are examples of human life.

Because something is Alive does not make it a Person.

And, it is not whether the enity is conscious, but has the capacity for consciousness.
This is what Lemonjello is expressing.

A first trimester embryo does not have that capacity. A person KO'd in a boxing match
does.

Nemesio