ive noticed that a lot of pro-life people are also pro war

Post Reply New Topic

As I pointed out before, the stage of development doesn't matter, we're still dealing with another human being whom is technically the offspring of his/her parents and is under the age of 18, hence a child. Pro-abortion people just try to deny this fact because the entire argument for abortion goes to pieces otherwise.

we are dealing with a person and not only a human when the brain activity starts(to err on the side of caution) to organize itself,
something we think starts at around week 20.

would you say pulling the plug on a vegetative patient would constitute murder as well?
even with full consent?

Brain activity starts less than 2 monthes after conception (and that's what we can detect thus far).

Also there have been people that have woken up from vegetative states before.

i said nothing of brain activity in general, only about organized brain activity.

the first sign of organized brain activity is more akin to a deep sleep state.

yes there have been vegetative people who woke up, many relapse.
when you reach the state of permanent vegetative state, only a small fraction ever wake up.

so who has the responsibility of caring for these vegetative people if the relatives have no say in the matter?

Spotted this. In the interests of reviving the endangered English language, spoken today in only a fee enclaves, I would like to ask:

Given two statements:

A. You have ten bucks to your name. You have the right to choose between A eating tuna casserole at home with $5 left over or B. ordering a meal in a gourmet restaurant and risking beinge made to wash dishes to pay for your meal.

AND

B. You have ten bucks to your name. You have the right to beat up a citizen and take his money. If he fights back you have the right to kill him.

Which of these is anti-rights? Which removes the person's freedom to choose? Looks to me as if both offer the right to balance costs and benefits and choose how to act.

Take what you like and pay for it, says God.

Do what we like and pay your taxes, says the State

The problem with that argument is the fact it takes an enormous amount of energy to grow at the rate a child does in the womb. Your body tends to do more of its growth and most of its internal maintainence while you are asleep. By your argument it should be legal for your parents to kill you whenever you're taking a nap...



The thing is, that people in that situation can often have a will for a situation like that, the child in the womb's situation differs because their brain's processing ability is increasing exponentially.

no, a sleeping person is still a person.
ther argument here is that the very earliest signs of any organisation whatsoever is at week 20, before that personhood is very unlikely and EVEN then it is only a deep sleep state.
before that it is a human, but not a person.


what of the ones that dont have a will? who holds responsibility for them?

You still haven't answered my question - do you just let the child die, just because the parents haven't used good contraceptives, and/or can't afford the child?
And there are plenty of evangelicals who have jumped on board the "contraceptives are murder" band wagon.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

I guess I don't understand why people seem to think that human life is so sacred. Very few people freak out and lecture over killing spiders or ants... Do you eat meat? Fetuses die in utero all the time. It's part of nature. Aborting is just helping out nature. It's not like we're making human veal.

I personally don't think that everyone with appropriately functioning baby-making parts is qualified to use them. For the people who can recognize that in themselves, kudos. For people responsible enough to say, "I'm not ready to have a child", kudos. I know that the immediate response to that is, "If you aren't ready, you shouldn't be getting pregnant." Point... but s**t happens.. I know the immediate response to that is something along the lines of "You do the crime, you do the time." But, I think people who say that fail to realize that the "parent" is not the only "punished" party. I personally don't feel that the resulting child should be punished as well. I know a lot of people will then start sqwaking about adoption. Truth is, not everyone has faith in the adoption process and though a lot of children go to good homes, a lot don't. You have no way of guaranteeing that any child you have and give up will be one of those that does go to a good home.

The bottom line is that prior to birth, a fetus has no concept of life. It may have brain function, but what is that brain functioning? Basic life functions. I would think not much more than a slug. Do you kill slugs? Does that make you a murderer? Especially considering that a fetus is a mere parasite during the "acceptable aborting stage". A slug is a fully independent life entity.

As for end of life or life support situations.. people need to accept that the human body was meant to die and that there comes a point when you have to quit trying to defy nature.
As for war.... it's an ugly part of human existence. I think there is sometimes the need.
As for killing in general... I have on several occasions gotten in discussions with friends over "whether you could kill to protect your child".. and am appalled by those who don't think they could. I personally think it should be way more acceptable. If you mess with a bear cub and get attacked by the mother, the general response would be "Dumb ass"... However, if a parent kills a person who has killed/abused/assaulted/molested/raped their child there is discussion over observing the "legal process". BS. Again, why do humans feel that they are so superior to the rest of the animal kingdom? Why should I be expected to control my rage? Cuz, to be honest, my first instinct would be to put a bullet in someone's head and then dance a jig in their blood puddle. f**k being "civilized".

Last edited by BurntOutMom on 29 May 2011, 5:51 pm, edited 1 time in total.

I think the biggest problem with the abortion issue at present is that its pie-in-the-sky from all sides. Might be decades before someone comes up with a sensible idea and that idea gains popularity.

there is a sensible idea as you put it,
legislate so hurting a consciousness is prevented and make the rest a free choice,

ruveyn he done say:

A child is a young human person. A fetus is not a person.

How do we formulate a definition for "person"

Well, I may not go along with cogito ergo sum, but I am DEFINITELY a person.

The humans I care about most are persons, for sure. The whole Ingroup.

AND we will let in a few more that they really care about. So that is maybe forty persons.

NOW we can find out what features they have in common. Are we going to let every human who has those characteristics be a person? What about certain humans who made a lot of trouble for me and mine? What about certain humans whose existence is frankly an embarrassment? I can make a list. But wait - can I stop the persons we agreed were persons from making a list? What if I am on one of those lists? My brother, face it, has not got much use for me. Are Christians persons according to our definition?

Another problem here. My dad. Now I know that from when I first knew him he fitted the definition of person. But his Alzheimer's has seriously eroded his mind. Has he lost his personhood? If he has, what about our friend whose body is so messed up with Parkinson's he can barely talk and freezes in place hours at a time. If you lose personhood for mental problems, surely you can lose it for not having a working body.

So - the mentally and physically incompetent, the dependent, the unproductive are likely not persons. My dad has more in common with e fetus these days than he has with even a toddler. And we know - ruveyn told us so - the fetus is not a person. He didn't mention why, but he would not just say that for nothing.

Now this is more like. And we will build it in that the courts -after due process of course - can deprive a person of personhood for certain crimes. Of course, Congress can also confer honorary personhood in special cases. Like a scientist with Motor Neuron Disease who would normally be a non-person, but is granted personhood and the privilege of living because his work is important - at least until he retires.

Folks, HERE is an inconvenient truth, if anyone is still reading, which I very much doubt, because even if you grant me personhood some find me persona non grata:

THE ONLY REASON TO HAVE A LEGAL DEFINITION OF PERSON [which is a basic concept any operating human understands] is so you can decalre certain people nonpersons.

ruveyn, if it is true that if somebody made your wife miscarry you would see it as equivalent to cutting a wart off her - well, I'm sorry. Just sorry.

it has nothing to do with the appearant abilities of a fetus in its earliest stages, it has to do with the physiology and activity of the brain at that point.

Funny you equate committing murder to free choice.

Murder is a free choice. You get depending on the local code special credit if you killed under compulsion or chemical influence or insanity that interferes with your choice.

As with most things, you choose the action WITH its probable consequences.

the thing here is you are trying to equate a zygote or similarly developed fetus with a fully developed person, certainly there comes a point where it would be wrong to abort a fetus.
i for one am happy with the limit of 12 weeks imposed by danish law.

you can argue that a baby is actually a part of the mothers circulatory system and she has every right not to let the baby depend on her.
as long as there is no suffering i cannot see why we would impose a system that actually brings just that.