ABORTION.......

Doktor S wrote:

echi wrote:
For god's sake, it's a human being. Kill the damn thing if you want to. Just spare us the excuses.

This happens to be my opinion as well.

Yeah....it just does'nt have enough might to put up any kind fight and therefore have any right echi.

I long for a different kind of world. A longing that cannot be described by words alone.......

0 Replies

Quote:

Yeah....it just does'nt have enough might to put up any kind fight and therefore have any right echi.

Though your words are written in the spirit of indignant sarcasm and facetiousness, they hold true, to a point.
One does not need to possess strength 'themselves' to be arbitrarily assigned rights by those that do hold the power.

0 Replies

Actually, Doktor S, I WASN'T being sarcastic. I was being quite serious. Your statement of might makes right quite surprised me. If might makes right, I'd say this changes the perspective of quite a few things.

0 Replies

djjd62 wrote:

well one judge has an idea about what a fetus is not

Fetuses do not count as passengers

You are comparing apples and grapenuts with this example, and you know it.

0 Replies

Intrepid wrote:

djjd62 wrote:
well one judge has an idea about what a fetus is not

Fetuses do not count as passengers

You are comparing apples and grapenuts with this example, and you know it.

DJJD,

However, I think it's a damn good example. Must have been one of those damn liberal activist judges Twisted Evil

Anon

0 Replies

Momma Angel wrote:

Actually, Doktor S, I WASN'T being sarcastic. I was being quite serious. Your statement of might makes right quite surprised me. If might makes right, I'd say this changes the perspective of quite a few things.

I think his argument runs more along the lines of "might defines what constitutes right".

Doktor S wrote:

Unless I happen to be the head of government at the time, or have some other means of leveraging the direction of society, what 'I' think doesn't ultimately matter.Neither does what you think.
Finding 'error' with social conventions is irrelevant without the capacity to change them

Doktor S wrote:

Man is the only 'authority'. Obeying the authority or disobeying is a choice..but one with repercussions.
You are a person because society defines you as such.

I think the message he intended to convey was that might has the capacity to redefine the conventions that confer certain rights upon certain people. Rights derive from society, if those who run society choose not to grant your rights, then you have no rights.

Societies have existed which did not consider black people to have rights, and societies have existed which did not consider women to have rights. Those positions are not internally inconsistent. In fact, as Thomas said a while ago, the criteria for conferring personhood are arbitrary, and inherently non-rational.

As I said, if those who run society choose not to grant your rights, then you have no rights. Doc argued that it would be unlikely for him not to be considered a person, as he resembled those in power, who would be unlikely to exclude themselves.

Doktor S wrote:

All else aside, white males run the industrialized world. White males hold the power in society, and hence define it's parameters. Including what, at that particular moment, constitutes a 'person'

He was of course backing up the folowing assertion:

Doktor S wrote:

For me, a white male, to not fall under the category of person would mean serious trouble for all of us. I don't think that's realistic.

0 Replies

Einherjar,

Thank you very much. That I can understand and accept.

0 Replies

Einherjar,
I'm glad my message got through to somebody.
Your interpretation was bang on with my intended message.

0 Replies

Bartikus wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
Bartikus wrote:
Your right about this:

For me, a white male, to not fall under the category of person would mean serious trouble for all of us. I don't think that's realistic.

Why would 'white male' be the qualifier/disqualifier of what a person is?

Do you seek protection under the vast umbrella of white maleness in society?

You are more than just some white male are'nt you?

Do you mean to say that if society considered you less than a person....you would agree? That such a conclusion was true?

Or would you refute societies conclusions as being in error?

One's humanity is what one believes it to be, and no, society cannot dicatate that. However, the point here is that it is society via its laws and definitions that determines whether you are a person or not.

Society at this time, with concurrence from several posting on this board, has dictated that an unborn human is not a person and has no legal standing. Some will even cite the statute and/or case law to back that up.

Pro-lifers would like to change that to what we believe would be a more reasonable definition and determination.

I understand. Most pro lifers I know don't want to eliminate all possibility of abortion. A reasonable definition and determination would be great.

Just because the law says so...does'nt mean it is so. Human Laws are not written in stone.

We might still have slavery in America if they were. There are 'bad' laws in the books. To say we can't question them or challenge them or that we have to just accept them as being right is goofy.

People on the pro choice side challenge laws all the time.

What is the difference between a human being and a person from your perspective foxfyre?

Well, from my perspective, a human being is a member of a particular species or group. As it is the humans who order their own society, it is humans who assume a right to define what it means to be human and what rights are inherent by virtue of being human. Those who believe in a Creator God will have one general view of humanity's place in the universe; those who do not will have another.

Again from my perspective, a person is a member of the human race with genetic and inate characteristics by virtue of being human and also who is endowed with perspectives, dreams, ideas, gifts, abilities, and potential that are uniquely his/hers and are what make him/her one of a kind. It is because of the uniqueness and potential inherent in each person that makes me a pro lifer. The world would be so diminished if a Mozart or a Michaelangelo or an Einstein or Dickens or Clements or my next door neighbor had never been born. It is because I believe each person is born to a unique and noble destiny and, those who live up to it, do make a difference. We will never know who would have made a profound difference among all those millions of babies that have been aborted.

Don't look for my definitions in the dictionary. You asked for my opinion/perspective and this is it.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Well, from my perspective, a human being is a member of a particular species or group. As it is the humans who order their own society, it is humans who assume a right to define what it means to be human and what rights are inherent by virtue of being human.

I agree, and I would add that we have nothing but intuition to go on when deciding on such a definition. A counterintuitive definition is undesierable because it would undermine the respect for the social convention, thus making it more likely that people would fail to conform to it.

If we agree that the "magic line" sepparating realized persons from potential persons is a human construct we should be able to agree that the "err on the side of caution" argument is moot. The point of contention is not where the line runs, it is where to draw it.

I'd also like to put to rest a couple of other issues on which I believe there is widespread agreement.

Do we all agree that it is not reasonable to consider it unethical to deprive an unrealized person from becomming a person? That is, for the segment who assign personhood upon conception, do you agree that it would not be unethical to prevent a conception, thus preventing the realization of a potential person?

Do we also agree that the status of person is retained until one can rule out that the criteria for personhood will ever again be fulfilled? If the criteria is live, would you agree that clinically dead people who have a fighting chance at being brought back retain their status as person?

And do we agree that once it can be determined that an organism will never again fulfill the criteria for personhood, harvesting organs to save others is not unethical? (allowing for people to legaly excempt themselves when alive)

0 Replies

Einherjar wrote:

Do we all agree that it is not reasonable to consider it unethical to deprive an unrealized person from becomming a person? That is, for the segment who assign personhood upon conception, do you agree that it would not be unethical to prevent a conception, thus preventing the realization of a potential person?

I have nothing against those who use contraception.

However, many forms of so-called contraception are not preventing conception. They are in fact abortifacient in their effect, because they prevent the fertilized egg from implanting and maturing instead of actually preventing fertilization.

0 Replies

Einherjar wrote:

And do we agree that once it can be determined that an organism will never again fulfill the criteria for personhood, harvesting organs to save others is not unethical?

This may be asking the impossible. I posted several articles about people coming out of coma after many years (19 years in one case).

How will you be able to determine that this will not happen?

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Einherjar wrote:
And do we agree that once it can be determined that an organism will never again fulfill the criteria for personhood, harvesting organs to save others is not unethical?

This may be asking the impossible. I posted several articles about people coming out of coma after many years (19 years in one case).

How will you be able to determine that this will not happen?

I agree with Real Life that contraceptives are fine, though I struggle with the ethics of say the 'morning after' pills that in effect trigger a very early abortion of a fertilized egg. I have always maintained that a viable baby prior to birth is as much a person as is a baby immediately after birth. Then could the same reasoning be that if an individual sperm and egg is not a person and it is not unethical to dispose of them, then technically is it wrong to dispose of them at the incidental moment of their meeting? I am still pondering this issue as I am the ethics of disposing of unused fertilized eggs in in vitro fertilization. I do not have a firm opinion on either of these things but lean toward the side that disposing of them is okay.

Once a baby has formed and is on the way, however, I have no problem of seeing that baby as a new person on the way.

I am 100% opposed to harvesting organs from a person prior to his/her death no matter how imminent the death or how unlikely is the person to 'revive'.

I want to be part of a society that embraces a culture of life and never sees it as expendable for the sake of convenience or expediency.

0 Replies

Einherjar--

I think our STEM CELL conversation might be more suited for this thread. Whatever you think. It doesn't matter to me.
I was able to find some information (below) from this website.

Quote:

The debate surrounding the exact moment marking the beginning of a human life contrasts the certainty and consistency with which the instant of death is described. Contemporary American (and Japanese) society defines death as the loss of the pattern produced by a cerebral electroencephalogram (EEG). If life and death are based upon the same standard of measurement, then the beginning of human life should be recognized as the time when a fetus acquires a recognizable EEG pattern. This acquisition occurs approximately 24- 27 weeks after the conception of the fetus and is the basis for the neurological view of the beginning of human life.
These principles of the neurological view of the beginning of human life are presented in The Facts of Life, a book written by Harold Morowitz and James Trefil in 1992 concerning the abortion controversy. An electroencephalogram (EEG) is a simple medical procedure in which electrodes are attached to different locations on a patient's head and the voltage difference over time is measured between the two points. The voltage data is plotted against time to produce "brain waves" with up and down voltage oscillations that are representative of the organized electrical activity of the brain (Morowitz and Trefil 1992). Medical professionals use a patient's EEG pattern to identify a broad spectrum of mental states. Although EEGs are often used as a diagnostic tool, the exact mechanism behind how an EEG pattern is linked to an individual's cerebral neuron activity remains a mystery (Morowitz and Trefil 1992).
Despite lacking a precise explanation for the connection between the EEG and neural activity, there is a strong argument that the unique and highly recognizable EEG pattern produced by a mature brain is a defining characteristic of humanity (Morowitz and Trefil 1992). Therefore, the moment that a developing fetus first exhibits an EEG pattern consistent with that of a mature brain is indicative of the beginning of human life. It is from this point and onward during development that the fetus is capable of the type of mental activity associated with humanity (Morowitz and Trefil 1992).
Because the state of modern technology still prohibits EEGs in utero, brain activity data for humans at various stages of development has been gathered using premature infants. Observations to date have led to the conclusion that 25 weeks of gestation is required for the formation of synapses needed for recognizable neural activity. At this point in development, the recognizable signals exist only as intermittent bursts that interrupt periods of random activity (Morowitz and Trefil 1992).

So, it looks like you were right, but we still don't know what any of this stuff really means.

0 Replies

The stem cell conversation isn't related to the abortion thread, because most embryonic stem cells come from IVF.

You cannot abort a fetus and get stem cells from it, because by the time it is a fetus, it is too late, the stem cells have already started to differentiate (in other words, to specialise and become different cells).

I would say that no embryonic stem cells come from abortion.

It all comes from IVF, where eggs are taken from a mother and fertilised. The majority of them are kept frozen and the majority of them the mother wouldn't want. After all, would you want to give birth to twenty babies?

0 Replies

wolf--

Maybe you're right. Maybe the abortion topic and the STEM CELL topic are too unrelated to combine for the purpose of debate. I'm afraid, however, that I see no real difference. I don't like the idea or practice of IVF. I haven't been able to convince myself that an embryo is any less than a fetus.

0 Replies

echi wrote:

wolf--

Maybe you're right. Maybe the abortion topic and the STEM CELL topic are too unrelated to combine for the purpose of debate. I'm afraid, however, that I see no real difference. I don't like the idea or practice of IVF. I haven't been able to convince myself that an embryo is any less than a fetus.

I've just noticed the wording of your argument. Stem cells aren't taken from embryos. They're taken from blastocysts. By the time they're embryos, it is also too late.

0 Replies

The term 'embryonic stem cell research' is, I think, the common term being used by both sides in the debate.

Technically incorrect? Well ok but not a big deal.

0 Replies

Hey guys, look at this. (I posted it on Finn's newer abortion thread too, but some of you didn't go over to that one.)

Quote:

02/10/2006
SD House Approves Abortion Ban
The South Dakota House has passed a bill that would nearly ban all abortions in the state, ushering the issue to the state Senate.

Supporters are pushing the measure in hopes of drawing a legal challenge that will cause the US Supreme Court to reverse its 1973 decision legalizing abortion.

The bill banning all abortions in South Dakota was passed 47-to-22 in the House.

Amendments aimed at carving out exemptions for rape, incest and the health of women were rejected.

The bill does contain a loophole that allows abortions if women are in danger of dying. Doctors who do those abortions could not be prosecuted.
SOURCE

I wish this had not been written so extreme as I do not think it wise or practical to outlaw all abortions for any reason other than to protect the life of the mother. And I think it likely the SD senate will modify it. But it is a start. This issue should have been left with the states all along and perhaps this will get it back to the states where it ought to be.

0 Replies

Seems like Foxfire's argument is the same one that was once used about slavery. The states ought to be the ones to decide if it should be illegal or not.

Not much of an argument, in my opinion.

In any case, I do hope the Supreme Court gets the opportunity to reverse Roe v. Wade. I even hope they do reverse it. We should get what we deserve.

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know