Why I Am Pro-Life

[Slave]

Specifically what kind of function of the brain are we talking about? Sentience, or self-awareness Paladin? And why?

Exactly what kind of brain function, and how much are we talking here, until a human gains 'personhood'?

As I said, it's open to discussion. If I was charging into a burning building to save the life of a child or a cat, I would save the life of the child. Sometimes these rules have some grey area.

Since over 90% of abortions occur in the first trimester, well before any brain development happens, it's largely academic.

For now, I'm content with the week 24 rule, which is what we have now.

That's the flaw in your thinking and this is where the sentience rationale is not logically consistent.

Brain development begins as early as 6-7 weeks. Would you then say that consciousness is what you're after, and that the absence of consciousness is a determiner of personhood?

It's not like the human brain starts growing and then 'poof', one day that fetus becomes a human being. The brain grows slowly. It is a gradual process. There is no magic cut off point to when a fetus has a functioning brain or not, and then you're getting into shaky ethics with the onus on you to prove at which precise point we should not abort babies due to lack of brain activity.

If 24 weeks is a decent cut off period for you, would it have been okay to kill this baby?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/south_east/6242735.stm

What about people who have been on life support and experienced a recovery of brain activity? What about people in a coma, or those who pass out from drinking too much? Technically, their higher brain function ends at such a point. Is it okay to kill them then, too?

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/23768436/ns/da...-accident/

I'll add this too, that previously women and blacks have been classed as less-human and given no human rights due to your brain argumentation, or more specifically that their brain function was not equal to their own and therefore they didn't deserve rights. What do you think about this?

"[Man] attains a higher eminence, in whatever he takes up, than can women--whether requiring deep thought, reason, or imagination, or merely the use of the senses and hands. If two lists were made of the most eminent men and women in poetry, painting, sculpture, music (inclusive of both composition and performance), history, science, and philosophy, the two lists would not bear comparison. We may also infer, from the law of the deviation from averages, so well illustrated by Mr. Garlton, in his work on "Hereditary Genius" that-the average mental power in man must be above that of women." (D. Appleton & Co.,1896, p.564)

Also, I want to add this. If we classify death as being brain dead, and therefore life begins when our brains begin to function, consider the following:

According to the Uniform Determination of Death Act written into the health and safety codes of each state, the deciding factor is not your current state of brain function, but your inherent state of brain function. For death to occur, there must be an "irreversible cessation of all functions of the entire brain, including the brain stem." Hence, the reversibly comatose are never classified as "non-persons" under our existing legal system despite their current lack of brain function.

Again, from the moment of conception the unborn entity has the inherent capacity to have a functioning brain. What it lacks is the current capacity. Hence, there is no ethical difference between it and the reversibly comatose, the momentarily unconscious, etc., who enjoy the protection of law despite their current inability to function as persons.