Nerdfighters

Personally, I am pro choice and although I try not to talk about it in respect of other's opinions, it seems like so many pro life supporters are trying to push there thoughts down mine.

So, what is your stance on Abortion? ...just curious. :D

Views: 2816

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

But it is also an objective fact that healthy humans gains, through experience, an exceptional outlook on life, and an exceptional recollection of it as it progresses, which is also btw the basis for all legislations which we pass. Fetuses do not. Babies don't at first either since there's a lot going on and a lot to contextualize and make sense of.


Babies don't at first. That's exactly the point. The problem with development/experience argument is that actually, development and experience isn't happening until quite a while after the child is born. Nor is it an objective fact that such a line is a division between humans and non humans.

I don't think that the mare fact that they've got human DNA is sufficient enough to grant them human rights. There is more to being human than that, which is what enabled us to grant us such special rights to begin with. And of course our DNA has got something to do with that, since it's the thing that builds us on a cellular level, but I don't think anything going on in individual cells are important in this matter.


Human DNA is what makes all the other things about being human possible. So I'd say, yes, what goes on in individual cells does matter.

I just think that for a long time the fetus's brain will be too underdeveloped to respond to stimuli in a human manner, and secondly that the amount of stimuli it receives once it is capable are so limited that it does not justify it being awake to reflect upon it, let alone reflect upon itself.

 


The problem with that argument, again, is that the foetus level of awareness is not significently different to the babies in that regard

Birth may be a crystal clear line, but the problem is both before and after birth, there are possibilities of where to draw the line. The issue I have with any line drawn between birth and conception, is that ultimately its arbitrary. There is no objective reason why we should choose on the basis of perception and ability to absorb information, other than that's people's opinion. It's objective reasoning that really should be used. Why is the ability to perceive etc more objective as a point of reference than the biological facts.

Babies don't at first. That's exactly the point. The problem with development/experience argument is that actually, development and experience isn't happening until quite a while after the child is born. Nor is it an objective fact that such a line is a division between humans and non humans.

Experience happens immediately after birth, and that is a real distinction, even if it's insufficient to determine personhood. The process of making sense of it all takes of course time, and is an ongoing process until we die one might even stretch it.

Human DNA is what makes all the other things about being human possible. So I'd say, yes, what goes on in individual cells does matter.

It is irrelevant because even though it may be the only blueprint for achieving cognitive consciousness of the level that we have, it doesn't mean it's the only way to achieve it, or that it is the best. DNA is significant because it allows all the necessary organs to be built and remain operational on a cellular level, but that is circumstantial, DNA in itself is completely indifferent to what happens to it, and it does not hold absolute power over the development of the self.

There is no objective reason why we should choose on the basis of perception and ability to absorb information

I don't see why not, without it a human can live, but a person can not develop. Without a person there is no memories, no aspiration, nothing. Just pure bio-mechanical wonder, nothing unique, except a string of faulty code or a damaged organ.

Birth may be a crystal clear line, but the problem is both before and after birth, there are possibilities of where to draw the line.

Yes the line will be arbitrary, but so long as it drawn from sound reasoning I have no problems with that. I understand that you're not convinced by my reasoning, and that's okay, but if I'm right, which I obviously believe, then it renders automatically the entire pregnancy a safe zone, so it doesn't matter where you draw the line there.

I'm not an authority figure and the topic, but reading about it, I figure that the trimester thumb of rule which is so commonplace, appears to be more and more a gesture of good will from the biomedical community rather than clearly marked milestone, simply in order to avoid too much controversy. It's also still in a convenient size for an eventual procedure. It's obvious that a fetus up until that moment has a very primitive brain and have not highly developed sensory organs. I think that most people can look at it and conclude intuitively that there is not a person there, since we know how important the brain and sensory organs are for the development of a self.

There are two main problems with this I have.

1. The "self" is under construction before birth. Not only in the biological sense, but also many other senses. The foetus is learning the nessecary skills to perfom various tasks it will need to do when it emerges (IE suckling)

2. Even if you argue that it is the self that it is you are defending, the problem is that after the point of conception, the self is inevitable. It's the same as dropping a ball to the ground. No one would dispute that it would have hit the ground unless someone grabbed it. Equally, no one would dispute that the foetus would become a baby if no one stopped it. The only two things that would stop it are human intervention or accident. And those are the two same things that stop you from living to your next day also. Because the self is an inevitablity, destroying the means of constructing it is essentially the same as destroying it once it is constructed. The reason the point of inevitabilty is important is that it then removes the rather stupid argument of "so shouldn't you be having sex all the time to save all the possible lives!". No. The answer is that it is an inevitability. It isn't an inevitibiltiy before conception.

1. The "self" is under construction before birth. Not only in the biological sense, but also many other senses. The foetus is learning the nessecary skills to perfom various tasks it will need to do when it emerges (IE suckling)

That is an interesting point. I'm forced to consider. I still don't think it justifies your absolutism since it is a very rudimentary behavior. All mammals suckle. It's not like other mammals fail to suckle just because they didn't have a thumb to suck on. I won't speculate too much further than that what for it could mean, so yeah, good point...

Because the self is an inevitablity, destroying the means of constructing it is essentially the same as destroying it once it is constructed.

I don't agree. I think the situation as it is at the present, is what matters.

As I begin this, I must state something: the concept that the majority of Pro-Lifers hold too can hold some ground. The concept that one should not burden a female with having to bear something they don't want or to be forced to have a life force feed off them from a surface layer does make some sense. Now, my position: that these reasoning for why a human life should be ended are short sighted and they don't seem to take into full account exactly WHAT they are doing. I will admit, I was brought up in a very conservative evangelical household; this did give some leading to my beliefs. However, I deviated from that quickly and am a moderate. Now, back to the point; I judge this issue from a vantage point of Natural Human Rights. I shall elaborate by first posing a story: let us take a 60 year old, a 30 year old, and a newborn. They are all in a room. A man comes in, and in turn stabs each in the stomach. He is apprehended by the police and put on trial for Murder; specifically, for all three. Why is this? The natural answer I’m sure 98% of you would say is because he killed three Human beings. This is true. Now, to the reasoning for why this I wrong; why is it wrong to take a Human Life? There is no absolute answer for this, other than what we have defined as broaching the concept of Natural, or Human rights. These consist of many things, but the 3 we are most familiar with, at least if someone is American, are the concepts of the Right to Life, Liberty, and after the Jeffersonian rip off of Locke, the Pursuit of Happiness. These are universal truths that have transcended through human history as rights that every man is entitled too, regardless of station, race, or the manner of those who govern over him. Now, as one can probably expect, I am going to address this with respect to the right to Life. From the first moment we enter the world, it is recognized by all peoples of the world that no one has the right to take the life from this person without the permission of the child or the just process of law stemming from that person perpetrating the crime for which we are executing. This is a truth. That is why the gravest of crimes recognized the world over, ALL hinge on the taking of life, by one way or another. So, I come to my point good and patient persons still with me to here: why do we deprive that natural entitlement we give to all to those whom have no crime other than existing? Now, the point of this debate should not be beliefs or opinions, but the universal truth of law and reason. And to solve this problem, we must address the singular point that should ever be a point of contention in this debate: whether that mass of developing cells, organs and flesh is, or is not considered a human life. Before we address this outright, let us look upon several keys to defining what is in fact an individual life. First, we must know if it is built of cells that divide, reproduce, and die as others replace them: this is true of a fetus. Secondly, is that mass something that is more than just a lump of cells that do not function outside of existing? More clearly, does that body seek to survive independently from the source to which it was originally borne, to push forward, and to make more of itself? This definition can be applied from the most simple of organisms, from bacteria, to plants, to animals, to higher intelligent being such as humans. In that regard, yes, the fetus is trying to do that, since it is trying to eventually leave the mother and become independent.  And finally, perhaps the most difficult question to answer, is what is the identity of that mass? To answer this question, I shall give an example of something that lives, divides, and flourishes, but is not a human life: HeLa cells. These are a line of cultures originally extracted from an African-American woman in the 50s, whose cancerous cells were found to be the first immortal line of cultures, in that the cells would continue to divide, live, and expand to fill their environment as long as they had nutrients and space. But this is not a human life. They are living tissue, but tissue does not constitute what we consider Human Life. That implies it to be something, that given it be healthy and carried properly, will 99% of the time form a human child, which will grow and develop into an adult. For a Fetus, this is true, whilst for a mass of HeLa, it is not. To be human, we must realize not just what something is in the moment that we observe it, but what it was, and what it will become. A look at the seed of a plant, or the cloud of a coral colony would not seem to be what we consider it to be later on. But it is each of those things, and it is very short sighted to operate from the vantage point of denying the ultimate identity of the life we choose to snuff out.  A Fetus is not a caner, nor is it a parasite bent on merely extracting life from its host for all time. It is a Human Life, and until we stop squabbling over what the easy answer is, we can’t truly allow ourselves to realize the plain and simple fact that every child aborted given it was healthy, has the possibility to grow up to be a doctor, and senator, or even a parent itself, if not for our cold snuffing out of its life force. The rights of a mother are very important, but I know not under what ideology has ever the convenience or ease of one life been more crucial than the intrinsic life of another, especially of an innocent life. Short of the ways of the Spartans, who practiced ritualized infanticide, I can scant recall a culture where such a sentiment as our current fallacy that idolizes choices of convenience over the value we have spent millennia trying to cement as unquestionable. And at least the Spartans only discarded that which was by its nature deformed or destined to lie in hardship, not merely because the choice of another did choose it. So, it is to me not only highly irrational to support such a level of disregard to life itself, but also degredating to our own status as an higher state to the beast or the bird; we possess the capacity to understand that the life of a child is sacred, not to gods or faiths, but to the fundamental human condition. The beasts carry this out where it is scant ever a question of whether or not they “choose” to carry and raise their young, and it is looked upon by us who examine such behavior as barbaric and bestial when we see a mother cat eat her young or for any other creature to neglect their legacy. So why is it then that we tolerate such an egregious hypocrisy when we shine the lens of insight upon ourselves? Is the truth of human nature that we prioritize what is easy over what is right? To give up on what seems insurmountable just because the task is daunting? No, that has never been the case. The story of human history is one of rising ever more out of the mud to strive higher and higher, always taking that task on, and often defeating it. In so concluding, for what do we pride ourselves as a sentient state of beings more for than the understanding of what is true, just, and right, and not what is easy, nor common, nor the norm.

Mark please forgive me but I was only able to get thru 2/3 of that. It was rather hard to follow. Perhaps you can be more concise? I truly mean no offense.

ok, short version is it is somewhat ridiculous to think of a fetus as anything other than a child, and since we believe every person has a right to life, it is highly inhuman/morally defunct to have abortions on the basis of human rights

Is an acorn a tree?

Is an egg a chicken?

Are the cocoons of silkworms a precious fabric? 

So no a fetus is not necessarily a child, it's the building blocks for a child.  

Plus not everyone thinks all humans have the right to life, because you know the death penalty is a thing.

Sanctity of life is for the living, not potential life. 

yes, if fertilized yes, they are a byproduct of the creature, not an intrinsic part. i would agree with you on your last statement, but the fact remains that is is living independent tissue, so lwhether it has life is not a question. the question is whether we consider that life to be human. and as i believe i stated in my longer response, the death penalty does not broach the right to life: they were given a free chance to life, but by their actions have invalidated theirs, through the taking of another's in most cases. a fetus has no crime, thus it does not fall under an exception to the natural rights on mankind.
The UN has asserted that this right is universal and is a crime to broach without due course of law

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Declaration_of_Human_Rights

Pro-choice with respect to the circumstances.  If it's actually a health concern to the mother, or if there is no way the baby could survive.  I would say I'm more pro-voluntary affordable sterilization for most other circumstances.  Like me, I don't want kids for numerous reasons.  I can barely afford to support myself, and I'd be a really horrible parent, not to mention the cocktail of hereditary crap I don't want to inflict upon another person.

I don't think that it should be used as a reset button for girls who just weren't ready.  I knew a girl who was trying to have a baby with her boyfriend while they were both living in his car (they ended up having two children together).  Then after they split up and she actually had a roof over her head, she got pregnant by a black guy and got an abortion just because she didn't want to have his baby.  How horrible is that?!  That's a situation where I think abortion is NOT okay.  If she can't handle raising that baby, there are still plenty of people who wish they could have children of their own that would be happy to give it the love it deserves.

How do you police those who do it for bad/good reasons?

I don't.  The question was position, not policy.  The unfortunate truth of the situation is that if you're going to allow it for any reason, you'll inevitably get those who cheat the system.  Or, you don't allow it at all, and people suffer and die anyway.

RSS

© 2014   Created by Hank Green.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service