Abortion and Women's Rights

[Losty]

And did he ever equate animal thought to human thought? I think not. You are misrepresenting what he said.

Yes, I'm mocking the silly crap I'm getting about a person's DNA being determined at conception.

---

I must have missed it. I thought DP said something about people thinking and then you came back with, duhhhh cows can think

I'm mocking crap like duhhh, cells have DNA, are they persons too.

Yea that would make sense except for one thing.
Human Being- a man, woman, or child of the species Homo sapiens, distinguished from other animals by superior mental development(thinking), power of articulate speech, and upright stance.

Notice how DNA is not included as a distinguishing factor?

[Jason_ab]

1) Does anyone here underastands that killing animals is ALSO moraly debateable?
2) My personal opinion is that at this specific topic is very difficult to get to a morally safe conclusion.
We can try to come up with a specific point in the life of a baby-to-be that we will grand it with human rights. Since that is not scientifically possible (because the factor that determines personhood is purely subjective) all we can do is let everyone decide at their own?
Maybe I believe that a baby-to-be is a human being on the 1st day. My friend believes it is at the 21 weeks, and someone else believes that a day before birth a baby is not a human person. So? Should she terminate the pregnancy one day before birth? Should she do such a thing two days before death? How about three?
If the 21week is our mark, what about 11 o'clock of the last day of the 20th week? Should a pregnant woman do an exam to see if there is brain function at the baby-to-be and if not, it's ok to abort?
And of course, how on earth is it different than killing animals?
Furthermore... if we decide that "superior mental development" is what seperates people from non-people, then I should point out that a one year old dog is quite "mentally superior" to an infant that is one day old... so where does this lead us?

[GrandizerII]

1) Does anyone here underastands that killing animals is ALSO moraly debateable?
2) My personal opinion is that at this specific topic is very difficult to get to a morally safe conclusion.
We can try to come up with a specific point in the life of a baby-to-be that we will grand it with human rights. Since that is not scientifically possible (because the factor that determines personhood is purely subjective) all we can do is let everyone decide at their own?
Maybe I believe that a baby-to-be is a human being on the 1st day. My friend believes it is at the 21 weeks, and someone else believes that a day before birth a baby is not a human person. So? Should she terminate the pregnancy one day before birth? Should she do such a thing two days before death? How about three?
If the 21week is our mark, what about 11 o'clock of the last day of the 20th week? Should a pregnant woman do an exam to see if there is brain function at the baby-to-be and if not, it's ok to abort?
And of course, how on earth is it different than killing animals?
Furthermore... if we decide that "superior mental development" is what seperates people from non-people, then I should point out that a one year old dog is quite "mentally superior" to an infant that is one day old... so where does this lead us?

Again, since the pain factor is the only reason that might come close to being compelling enough to trump women's rights to abort, and it's too minimal and fleeting anyway if fetuses truly do experience the psychology of pain (which they most likely don't), then it would be unethical to force a woman to keep an unwanted baby in her womb till birth.

So to be fair to the woman (who should have the right not to suffer if it is possible not to suffer), it should be her choice to decide whether she wishes to abort or not.

What happens after birth is a different issue and has nothing to do with abortion. Same with animals. They are both nothing but red herrings.

[Losty]

1) Does anyone here underastands that killing animals is ALSO moraly debateable?
2) My personal opinion is that at this specific topic is very difficult to get to a morally safe conclusion.
We can try to come up with a specific point in the life of a baby-to-be that we will grand it with human rights. Since that is not scientifically possible (because the factor that determines personhood is purely subjective) all we can do is let everyone decide at their own?
Maybe I believe that a baby-to-be is a human being on the 1st day. My friend believes it is at the 21 weeks, and someone else believes that a day before birth a baby is not a human person. So? Should she terminate the pregnancy one day before birth? Should she do such a thing two days before death? How about three?
If the 21week is our mark, what about 11 o'clock of the last day of the 20th week? Should a pregnant woman do an exam to see if there is brain function at the baby-to-be and if not, it's ok to abort?
And of course, how on earth is it different than killing animals?
Furthermore... if we decide that "superior mental development" is what seperates people from non-people, then I should point out that a one year old dog is quite "mentally superior" to an infant that is one day old... so where does this lead us?

In my world (Ohio, USA), this has already been decided. No need to ask how we decide. After 20 weeks, the fetus needs to be tested for viability. If the fetus is determined to be viable, you can only have an abortion if it is medically necesarry. No need to debate it, now we need to start debating important issues like sex ed and birth control.

Also, the dog question....it leads us to where we are right now. I already posted posted the definition of a human being. Superior mental development, speech, and upright stance. A dog does not qualify.

[Jason_ab]

Also, the dog question....it leads us to where we are right now. I already posted posted the definition of a human being. Superior mental development, speech, and upright stance. A dog does not qualify.

Of course it doesn't. The comparison between a newly born baby and a dog was made because the newborn does not have superior mental development or speech or upright stance but has the POTENTIAL of all these attributes.
But... so does the fetus!
See what I am trying to say here?
I truly believe that the scientific proof-driven approach: "prove that a fetus can feel pain" or "prove that a fetus is a human being" so that we can have a moral basis to built on... simply does NOT apply in this particular subject because proving something like fetus pain is impossible and definition of human being is subjective.
Don't take this subject lightly. It is as serious as it gets.

PS. Wether a legistlator says 20 or 21 weeks is irrelevant. This is a universally huge subject. It's not an Amercan based debate. Besides, I am Greek, remember?

So to be fair to the woman (who should have the right not to suffer if it is possible not to suffer), it should be her choice to decide whether she wishes to abort or not.

I believe that getting pregnant makes the mother responsible for the well being of the fetus.
I also believe that we cannot legistlate this responsibillity for numerous reasons (most of them stated in this thread).
So the only answer is education. Simple as that.

[GrandizerII]

So to be fair to the woman (who should have the right not to suffer if it is possible not to suffer), it should be her choice to decide whether she wishes to abort or not.

I believe that getting pregnant makes the mother responsible for the well being of the fetus.
I also believe that we cannot legistlate this responsibillity for numerous reasons (most of them stated in this thread).
So the only answer is education. Simple as that.

And what exactly is the basis for imposing such responsibility on the woman? There has to be a compelling reason for this. If the fetus is unwanted, then why should we force the woman to suffer pregnancy for the whole nine months and give labour against her will?

[Jason_ab]

I believe that getting pregnant makes the mother responsible for the well being of the fetus.
I also believe that we cannot legistlate this responsibillity for numerous reasons (most of them stated in this thread).
So the only answer is education. Simple as that.

And what exactly is the basis for imposing such responsibility on the woman? There has to be a compelling reason for this. If the fetus is unwanted, then why should we force the woman to suffer pregnancy for the whole nine months and give labour against her will?

I really have to admit that it has absolutely no "basis" or "compelling reason" whatsoever, indeed.
But... what "compelling reason" do we have for not killing a new born baby, or a 20 year old man? Why should I be forced to suffer from my neighbours bad taste in music? Why not kill the SOB?
I believe the bottom line is that for "moral" laws we cannot find hard evidence, proof or compelling reasons.
It's something like science. We must have some "theorem" (another Greek word hehe) that we take as is and build on it. Something like a central moral "dogma" (even though all of us hate this word).
I believe that a quite cool moral "theorem" or "dogma" is the socalled "golden rule" and that we could build on it.

Well man, If my mother had problems with me being in her woon, I would like someone to MAKE her get over them. I believe that so would she if my grandmother did not want to carry her in HER woon. So the "golden rule" forces us to be "pro-life", I think.

[Cato]

People that think they came from their mother's woon should probably refrain from giving opinions regarding birth and abortion.

[Jason_ab]

People that think they came from their mother's woon should probably refrain from giving opinions regarding birth and abortion.

If you want to be a smartass we can continue this conversation in Greek

[GrandizerII]

I really have to admit that it has absolutely no "basis" or "compelling reason" whatsoever, indeed.
But... what "compelling reason" do we have for not killing a new born baby, or a 20 year old man? Why should I be forced to suffer from my neighbours bad taste in music? Why not kill the SOB?

The new born baby is not being an unwanted parasite in anyone's body. If he is, however, unwanted by the parents, then other people could take care of him instead.

As for the neighbour who keeps bugging you with his music, you have several options to handle this without you having to kill him. Plus, why kill a sentient being over something trivial that you could avoid? Cover your ears if you don't like the music, or go out and have a breath of fresh air. If he has the music turned on late at night, then call the cops and let them know about this.

I believe the bottom line is that for "moral" laws we cannot find hard evidence, proof or compelling reasons.

I disagree. I can find compelling reasons for why one should not smoke, for example.

Well man, If my mother had problems with me being in her woon, I would like someone to MAKE her get over them. I believe that so would she if my grandmother did not want to carry her in HER woon. So the "golden rule" forces us to be "pro-life", I think.

As a fetus, you wouldn't have been conscious enough to give a damn. You were just a fetus.