(June 18, 2014 at 8:26 pm)Jenny A Wrote:

---

Assuming personhood at some point before delivery then there is something to debate. And your organ transplant analogy must be considered.

As to whether a fetus is eve a person, I think that birth is an extremely arbitrary point for determining personhood.It's not looks, it's cognitive function. If a fetus has all of the cognitive function it will have a birth, it's a person. We are our brains. I know what makes me think of people as people. The idea that a fetus isn't a human at some point before birth is odd if you think it through. In what ethical way do you think a fetus changes as it goes through the birth canal. Is it a person when its mother goes into labor? Half way down the birth canal? When it crowns? Outside, but before the umbilical cord is cut? Can you dash its brains out because the cord hasn't yet been cut?

A little beating heart, or a collection of cells, is not a person. A brain dead former human is not a person even if their heart is beating. What matters is our very human brains.

---

I agree with you I think, but I don't agree with your previous statement about when a fetus starts to move it seems to have personality. I think that's wishful thinking (trust me I felt it too with my own )
Some research tells us that consciousness starts around 20 weeks, most tells us 24 weeks.

Still, take your pick 20 or 24 weeks, being a person doesn't grant a right to live so strong that it over powers another person's right to own their body.

---

(June 18, 2014 at 10:18 pm)rexbeccarox Wrote: I'm not sure why you're making such a thing out of late-term abortions. They're not really a concern, IMO, especially since the vast majority are done when a life is threatened, which makes late-term abortion a good thing.

---

The Firestorm Over Late-Term Abortions

From the article:

Quote:Women do not have late abortions cavalierly. The vast majority of abortions—98.5 percent, according to the Guttmacher Institute—are done before 20 weeks. There’s not very much research about the 1.5 percent of abortions that happen after 20 weeks, but a significant number are done when a wanted pregnancy goes horribly awry. If my 20-week ultrasound had revealed a baby without prospects for a tolerable life, I would have joined the sad sorority of women for whom a late abortion is hardly a choice at all. You can read their stories on websites like A Heartbreaking Choice.

---

THANK YOU!

Also, when surveyed almost all of the women who get late term abortions without medical necessity give these reasons
-needed to save money
-clinic so far away
-hard to get appointment because the clinic serves such a large area.
-pressures from family and friends to not have the abortion

Late term abortion is a major non issue. You make abortion more affordable and easier to access and you can wipe out almost every late term abortion that isn't medically necesarry without ever making it illegal.

(June 18, 2014 at 10:32 pm)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote:

(June 18, 2014 at 10:22 pm)Jenny A Wrote: When the woman's life is in danger I agree a late term abortion is just fine. Heartbreaking, but just fine ethically. http://www.facebook.com/home.php?sk=lf

Late term abortions just cus, aren't common. But then neither is murder. So what's wrong with requiring a reason for late term abortions?

This is where I am at personally - though in terms of politics, I vote pro-choice. I can neither become pregnant, not father any more children, and it is not my place to substitute my judgment for anyone else's.

I can still become pregnant (and I don't want to be now) but that is a fast waning possibility. I don't think that that has anything to do with the ethics of the situation. A paraplegic's opinion on murder or rape is not invalid because the the extreme unlikelihood of their being about to commit either crime.

Politics is harder. Late term abortion decisions may have to be made on a dime. Endangerment of the mother may be sudden and immediate. Like pre speech prohibition, I think pre-abortion prohibition abhorrent. If it's murder because there's no reason other than I don't want it, then that can be sorted out afterwords.

Yeah, my position is ultra nuanced. It makes very few people pro life or pro choice happy. But it is logically consistent. And the reason is respect for human life and the understanding that we owe children a fair start.

Abortion is not morally wrong, a fetus is no more a person than an egg is a chicken. People have thoughts, and feel emotion. A fetus does not, there is not diversity amoung fetus's, just as there's isnt much diversity in a carton of eggs. It is a potential person, not a person. However, not allowing a women to have rights to her own body is morally wrong. A women could lose her job, be disowned by family, and suffer many consequences for a problem that could have been fixed. A child shouldn't be had if it is thought of as a problem or mistake. A child is a gift

(June 18, 2014 at 10:29 pm)rexbeccarox Wrote:

(June 18, 2014 at 10:22 pm)Jenny A Wrote:

---

---

When the woman's life is in danger I agree a late term abortion is just fine. Heartbreaking, but just fine ethically.

Late term abortions just cus, aren't common. But then neither is murder. So what's wrong with requiring a reason for late term abortions?

Because it comes down to "my body, my choice". As long as I have something invading my body, I'll do with it as I please. I can't see myself making a choice like that, but I don't presume to have a say in what anyone else does.

Murder is a personal choice. I do presume to say I have a moral say in whether anyone else murders.

The question is if abortion is ever murder, not if you have a personal choice when it isn't.

(June 18, 2014 at 7:12 pm)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote:

(June 18, 2014 at 7:02 pm)Arthur123 Wrote: Indeed, the zygote to the fetus, fetus to the child, child to adult. Are all just stages of their development. Since the fetus is informationally complete in its human informationit can be said it is a human being.

I'll let someone more knowledgeable than myself disabuse you of the notion that you're using "information" in a remotely correct context. Esquilax? You're up.

Heh, I was asleep when this happened, but I'm at it now.

So, "information" isn't a very clear term, since information isn't a thing that exists objectively. Saying something is "informationally complete" is meaningless, because information is a construct built up inside human minds; it relates to our ability to decode reliably repetitive patterns and "read" stuff rather than something that exists outside of us as conscious entities.

When you say information I figure you mean genetics, Arthur, as you've mentioned that multiple times before, and I'm fine with that... except for all the problems with it. As I've mentioned to you before, under the definition of humanity that focuses on genetics, a corpse is a human being.

So, can I kill a corpse?

You're going to say no, why wouldn't you, after all? Corpses aren't alive, right? Oh! So now there's some additional part of the definition of life that has nothing to do with genetics? What's that? Why wasn't that present in your initial definition? We should be talking about that!

Genetics is a red herring, here; being a person has nothing to do with our genes, and many of the things that would be covered under your current definition of a person, I have no doubt, you wouldn't have a problem exposing to the abortion procedure. As strange as it might be to picture, if I tried to give an abortion to a toenail,you wouldn't object to that, yes? Why not? If genetics is the only factor involved here then the toenail is a human being!

The issue is more complicated than you're making it, and I think we need to start discussing the actual issue now, Arthur.

(June 19, 2014 at 12:09 am)Jenny A Wrote:

(June 18, 2014 at 10:29 pm)rexbeccarox Wrote: Because it comes down to "my body, my choice". As long as I have something invading my body, I'll do with it as I please. I can't see myself making a choice like that, but I don't presume to have a say in what anyone else does.

Murder is a personal choice. I do presume to say I have a moral say in whether anyone else murders.

The question is if abortion is ever murder, not if you have a personal choice when it isn't.

How one defines murder is also crucial. Contrary to many "pro-lifers," I believe war, the death penalty, and certain forms of animal cruelty are tantamount to murder, yet killing in self-defense, assisted suicide, and abortion are not.

(June 19, 2014 at 12:59 am)Pickup_shonuff Wrote:

(June 19, 2014 at 12:09 am)Jenny A Wrote: Murder is a personal choice. I do presume to say I have a moral say in whether anyone else murders.

The question is if abortion is ever murder, not if you have a personal choice when it isn't.

How one defines murder is also crucial. Contrary to many "pro-lifers," I believe war, the death penalty, and certain forms of animal cruelty are tantamount to murder, yet killing in self-defense, assisted suicide, and abortion are not.

How one defines murder is crucial. I don't think any form of animal cruelty is ever tantamount to murder. I don't think animal cruelty without scientific purpose or human survival purpose is right. I disagree about suicide and assisted suicide. People have the right to make decisions about the continuation of their own lives. There are medical reasons to intervene. People who want to end it today, but we have reason to believe would not want to end it tomorrow, should be delayed. But ultimately, the decision to be or not to be could not be more personal.

Self defense, I think is obvious. The life on an innocent versus the life of an aggressor. The aggressor loses.

Abortion of a sentient fetus is murder less the pregnant mother's life is endangered by the fetus. Abortion of an non-sentient fetus is not.

Arthur, please don't become another frodo and claim you answered something without actually explaining how.

I have 3 children...

Ages 19, 20, and 22 Y.O.

(June 19, 2014 at 2:48 am)ShaMan Wrote: I have 3 children...

Ages 19, 20, and 22 Y.O.

Mine are 19months, 4, and 5