Abortion/Consciousness/Life

[The Grand Nudger]

Your example led to us determining that both are, in fact - people....which they are. Your conclusion was a poor one because both, in fact have "future expected" and "past personhood". You decided instead to conflate this with their ages for some godforsaken reason...after intentionally and explicitly manufacturing a dilemma when you decided that you could "only save one of them". Neither metric can make that decision for you - because they are both equals on both counts. Assuming for a moment we live in an alternate universe in which they weren't...it wouldn't be all that surprising to find that we reached a different conclusion - since you used different metrics to reach those disparate conclusions. This is not what the term "contradictory" means.

Have I helped you reach an understanding of why and how you fucked that up so completely, and why the use of the term contradictory in such a situation is incorrect? Make your decision, save either - you'll be a hero either way, eh? Personally, I'd save the kid, they're easier to carry - and it appeals to an emotional standard that many human beings use to value the very young over the very old (perhaps even the old man in the burning building would agree).....it isn't logical - but it doesn't have to be......because it's a personal value judgement.

[Heywood]

Your example led to us determining that both are, in fact - people....which they are. Your conclusion was a poor one because both, in fact have "future expected" and "past personhood". You decided instead to conflate this with their ages for some godforsaken reason...after intentionally and explicitly manufacturing a dilemma when you decided that you could "only save one of them". Neither metric can make that decision for you - because they are both equals on both counts. Assuming for a moment we live in an alternate universe in which they weren't...it wouldn't be all that surprising to find that we reached a different conclusion - since you used different metrics to reach those disparate conclusions. This is not what the term "contradictory" means.

Have I helped you reach an understanding of why and how you fucked that up so completely, and why the use of the term contradictory in such a situation is incorrect? Make your decision, save either - you'll be a hero either way, eh? Personally, I'd save the kid, they're easier to carry - and it appeals to an emotional standard that many human beings use to value the very young over the very old (perhaps even the old man in the burning building would agree).....it isn't logical - but it doesn't have to be......because it's a personal value judgement.

Most of us save the new born because the baby has potentially quite a long lifetime ahead of it while the old man on the death bed does not. The thought experiment shows we value future expected personhood and for the most part ignore past personhood except in when we want to abort.....(which is really not a good reason to favor past person over future personhood).

[bennyboy]

Most of us save the new born because the baby has potentially quite a long lifetime ahead of it while the old man on the death bed does not. The thought experiment shows we value future expected personhood and for the most part ignore past personhood except in when we want to abort.....(which is really not a good reason to favor past person over future personhood).

Any woman still capable of having a baby still has potentially quite a long lifetime ahead of her, too. Does the fact that she's had a man inside her really mean she should be condemned to spending it supporting your arbitrary personal beliefs?

I also don't like abortion. If my daughter was in a situation where she wanted one (and in the unlikely event that she told me about it), I would caution her to consider what it really means to have one. But in the end, it's her body, her life, and her decision, and unless I wanted to be a class-A dick, I would support whatever decision she made.

[The Grand Nudger]

Most of us

-
Most of us, what, make appeals to the mob when trying to formulate an argument?

You fucked it up, and your counter was to fuck it up again? Are you going to get it together before I keel over?

[*Deidre*]

I wouldn't use the term ''consciousness'' as a litmus test for the abortion debate, as that creates a slippery slope. One could easily say as a rebuttal... that adults (as an example) who for whatever reason are not in a state of consciousness, don't have the same 'rights' as those who are aware of their surroundings?

Slippery slope, it would create.

[Chas]

Of course, that's up to every person to decide what's personhood and what's not

Well, what I mean is that whether or not a fetus is a person is not the issue here.

It is the central issue.

---

Well, what I mean is that whether or not a fetus is a person is not the issue here.

Exactly right: if a fetus is a person it doesn't have the right to attach itself like a remora to another person to sustain their life, making personhood arguments moot from the get go.

That is an absurd argument. It has nothing to do with 'rights', it is a biological fact of development.
The fetus isn't choosing to do anything, it isn't exercising its rights.

[Losty]

Well, what I mean is that whether or not a fetus is a person is not the issue here.

It is the central issue.

---

Exactly right: if a fetus is a person it doesn't have the right to attach itself like a remora to another person to sustain their life, making personhood arguments moot from the get go.

That is an absurd argument. It has nothing to do with 'rights', it is a biological fact of development.
The fetus isn't choosing to do anything, it isn't exercising its rights.

I don't think you're getting it. I didn't say a fetus is a person. I said it doesn't matter if the fetus is a person or not. People do not have this right so a fetus (regardless if whether or not it's a person) does not have that right either.

[FatAndFaithless]

It is the central issue.

---

That is an absurd argument. It has nothing to do with 'rights', it is a biological fact of development.
The fetus isn't choosing to do anything, it isn't exercising its rights.

I don't think you're getting it. I didn't say a fetus is a person. I said it doesn't matter if the fetus is a person or not. People do not have this right so a fetus (regardless if whether or not it's a person) does not have that right either.

Agreed. One of the big things I hear is about how a fetus is a person and how it deserves human rights. Fine, give it all the rights of any person in the US. There is no person in the country that can be forced by law to donate an organ, be the dialysis machine, or the the life support system of another human. Nobody has the legal right to use another person's body for survival without their consent, and neither does any fetus.

[Chas]

It is the central issue.

---

That is an absurd argument. It has nothing to do with 'rights', it is a biological fact of development.
The fetus isn't choosing to do anything, it isn't exercising its rights.

I don't think you're getting it. I didn't say a fetus is a person. I said it doesn't matter if the fetus is a person or not. People do not have this right so a fetus (regardless if whether or not it's a person) does not have that right either.

No, you are not getting it. At some point during pregnancy, the fetus becomes viable. At that point it is another human being and has rights, too.

Is it OK for a woman to abort 1 hour before delivery? 1 day? 1 week?
When?

---

I don't think you're getting it. I didn't say a fetus is a person. I said it doesn't matter if the fetus is a person or not. People do not have this right so a fetus (regardless if whether or not it's a person) does not have that right either.

Agreed. One of the big things I hear is about how a fetus is a person and how it deserves human rights. Fine, give it all the rights of any person in the US. There is no person in the country that can be forced by law to donate an organ, be the dialysis machine, or the the life support system of another human. Nobody has the legal right to use another person's body for survival without their consent, and neither does any fetus.

That is absurd 'logic'. The fetus is not making a choice. It is helpless and not responsible for even its existence.

Is your argument that a fetus may be aborted right up to the moment of birth?

[FatAndFaithless]

I don't think you're getting it. I didn't say a fetus is a person. I said it doesn't matter if the fetus is a person or not. People do not have this right so a fetus (regardless if whether or not it's a person) does not have that right either.

No, you are not getting it. At some point during pregnancy, the fetus becomes viable. At that point it is another human being and has rights, too.

Is it OK for a woman to abort 1 hour before delivery? 1 day? 1 week?
When?

---

Agreed. One of the big things I hear is about how a fetus is a person and how it deserves human rights. Fine, give it all the rights of any person in the US. There is no person in the country that can be forced by law to donate an organ, be the dialysis machine, or the the life support system of another human. Nobody has the legal right to use another person's body for survival without their consent, and neither does any fetus.

That is absurd 'logic'. The fetus is not making a choice. It is helpless and not responsible for even its existence.

Is your argument that a fetus may be aborted right up to the moment of birth?

Well this isn't an issue of a fetus making a choice, its about the state making laws that violate the bodily autonomy of a woman. The law can't force her to be the life support system for anyone else. And yes, she could choose to terminate the pregnancy an hour before birth, though that termination of the pregnancy wouldn't result in the death of the baby, as it would be (usually) a c-section. Again this isn't an issue of when it becomes a human or when it becomes viable, its an issue of bodily rights.