Poll on abortion in case of 12 year old girl

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Not always but in this case it is.

Can you offer any evidence, or should we just take your word for it? Why don't I just hand you a nice pen and let you write US law for us, since you have all the answers and don't even need to debate with anyone?

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Not always but in this case it is.

Can you offer any evidence, or should we just take your word for it? Why don't I just hand you a nice pen and let you write US law for us, since you have all the answers and don't even need to debate with anyone?

If it was a person it would be illegal to terminate it's existance unless it was a Murderer, a Terrorist or a person from an Arab Country.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Not always but in this case it is.

Can you offer any evidence, or should we just take your word for it? Why don't I just hand you a nice pen and let you write US law for us, since you have all the answers and don't even need to debate with anyone?

Do you remember being a fetus in your mother's womb???

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
If it was a person it would be illegal to terminate it's existance unless it was a Murderer, a Terrorist or a person from an Arab Country.

Sad... I didn't picture you as the brainwashed-by-Dave type.

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Do you remember being a fetus in your mother's womb???

Do you remember being 1 year old? How about the day you were born?

 

[Yo Ma Ma]

The fetus is pretty much a person, in its early blobby form, but given time and the proper environment, it will indeed become a more recognizable form of a person.

However, it is neither legally nor morally required to be a human sacrifice for another person. Of course this does not prevent said sacrifice should the person volunteer to make it.

The girl should be supported for either decision.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: Tabb
I wouldn't have exsisted and it wouldn't have mattered either way.

We do both agree that life does start sometime. Why not leave it up to the mother to make this choice?

So you would have been perfectly fine with having never been born? Right.

Actually, yes I would be. My mother had toxemia in both of her pregnancies, mild for me, somewhat severe for my younger brother (she was told to never get pregnant again, after the second one). Had it been necessary to terminate a pregnancy due to health risks, one of us would not be around, and I can't see that such a decision would have been wrong.

So, you admit that your entire argument is predicated on an appeal to emotion?

Actually, I would say the same thing about your argument. Attempting to equate the bilogical truth of 'unique human DNA' with a claim that a fetus is essentially a functioning human being, and terminating it is therefore murder; sorry 2-3 month old fetuses are not functioning human beings, and never will be. In order to force a woman to keep an early-term fetus, you therefore need some form of social contract. It can't be with the man (at least not in every case), and it can't be with God, because many people don't believe in God, therefore it must be with society.

Care to show why this contract would exist?

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
If it was a person it would be illegal to terminate it's existance unless it was a Murderer, a Terrorist or a person from an Arab Country.

Sad... I didn't picture you as the brainwashed-by-Dave type.

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Do you remember being a fetus in your mother's womb???

Do you remember being 1 year old? How about the day you were born?

My earliest memories begin at 10 months, verified.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
If it was a person it would be illegal to terminate it's existance unless it was a Murderer, a Terrorist or a person from an Arab Country.

Sad... I didn't picture you as the brainwashed-by-Dave type.

Excuse me, how am I brainwashed? I don't follow any religion, I'm a maverick when it comes to politics ( I rarely watch Fox News) and I haven't been to college in over 20 years.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
Actually, I would say the same thing about your argument. Attempting to equate the bilogical truth of 'unique human DNA' with a claim that a fetus is essentially a functioning human being, and terminating it is therefore murder; sorry 2-3 month old fetuses are not functioning human beings, and never will be. In order to force a woman to keep an early-term fetus, you therefore need some form of social contract. It can't be with the man (at least not in every case), and it can't be with God, because many people don't believe in God, therefore it must be with society.

Care to show why this contract would exist?

So now an appeal to what we know of science is the same as an appeal to emotion? I think something was lost in the translation in your post. I'm not sure where you get your idea of a 'functioning human being', because I can assure you that a 2-3 month old fetus is very much a functioning human being, functioning at the level a 2-3 month old fetus should be functioning. You're attempting to construct some new constraints on what types of humans have rights, but your criterion simply isn't well developed.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
My earliest memories begin at 10 months, verified.

Great. So are you arguing that your mother could have offed you at any point up to ten months and everything would have been hunky-dory?

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
My earliest memories begin at 10 months, verified.

Great. So are you arguing that your mother could have offed you at any point up to ten months and everything would have been hunky-dory?

That's extreme but pretty much. Not a whole lot happening with the brain cells yet obviously.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
My earliest memories begin at 10 months, verified.

Great. So are you arguing that your mother could have offed you at any point up to ten months and everything would have been hunky-dory?

That's extreme but pretty much. Not a whole lot happening with the brain cells yet obviously.

Well your mother would have commited murder according to the laws of the land.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
My earliest memories begin at 10 months, verified.

Great. So are you arguing that your mother could have offed you at any point up to ten months and everything would have been hunky-dory?

That's extreme but pretty much. Not a whole lot happening with the brain cells yet obviously.

Well your mother would have commited murder according to the laws of the land.

True but now the Fundies are looking to extend that Law all the way back to two cells.

 

[Darkhawk28]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
My earliest memories begin at 10 months, verified.

Great. So are you arguing that your mother could have offed you at any point up to ten months and everything would have been hunky-dory?

That's extreme but pretty much. Not a whole lot happening with the brain cells yet obviously.

Well your mother would have commited murder according to the laws of the land.

True but now the Fundies are looking to extend that Law all the way back to two cells.

Hell, they're fighting Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer. How stupid is that?

 

[CycloWizard]

Man, it took 180 posts for the trolls to take over this thread. That's gotta be some kind of record.

You haven't taken over yet. Keep on subject or stop posting!

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
Actually, I would say the same thing about your argument. Attempting to equate the bilogical truth of 'unique human DNA' with a claim that a fetus is essentially a functioning human being, and terminating it is therefore murder; sorry 2-3 month old fetuses are not functioning human beings, and never will be. In order to force a woman to keep an early-term fetus, you therefore need some form of social contract. It can't be with the man (at least not in every case), and it can't be with God, because many people don't believe in God, therefore it must be with society.

Care to show why this contract would exist?

So now an appeal to what we know of science is the same as an appeal to emotion? I think something was lost in the translation in your post. I'm not sure where you get your idea of a 'functioning human being', because I can assure you that a 2-3 month old fetus is very much a functioning human being, functioning at the level a 2-3 month old fetus should be functioning. You're attempting to construct some new constraints on what types of humans have rights, but your criterion simply isn't well developed.

No, the appeal to emotion is to equate genetic uniqueness with having all the qualities of a human being; there's little evidence that a 2-3 month old fetus feels pain, is aware of it's surroundings, or anything else, and the best neurological evidence suggests that this woud be impossible. So making a point of equating fetuses with human beings is an appeal to emotion, because it is intended to create empathy for the suffering of a creature that as far as we can tell, is incapable of suffering.

I notice you ignored the fact that in my case, abortion was actually a possibility, and (ignoring the impossibility of such an event occuring, once I no longer existed) I would accept the fact of having been aborted, if the choice was my mother's life/health or mine.

I really think you need to show that there is an implicit, but enforcable social contract between the mother and someone, and that the government has the authority to enforce that contract. I think it's obvious that the contract is not between the woman and the man, and that it can't be between the woman and God, because there are people who simply do not believe in God, and yet are quite capable of becoming pregnant. So I guess you can try to show a contract with society, or a contract with the unborn child, but either way I think it will be difficult.

(Note: I don't question, at a basic level, the legitimacy of government, I would be willing to accept proof that the 'contract' is unambiguous as sufficient to allow the government to step in and enforce it, i.e. I'm not trying to make the burden of proof unecessarily heavy.)

 

[dornick]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
My earliest memories begin at 10 months, verified.

Great. So are you arguing that your mother could have offed you at any point up to ten months and everything would have been hunky-dory?

That's extreme but pretty much. Not a whole lot happening with the brain cells yet obviously.

Are you suggesting we make it legal to kill people before they can remember things?

 

[kogase]

Originally posted by: dornick

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
My earliest memories begin at 10 months, verified.

Great. So are you arguing that your mother could have offed you at any point up to ten months and everything would have been hunky-dory?

That's extreme but pretty much. Not a whole lot happening with the brain cells yet obviously.

Are you suggesting we make it legal to kill people before they can remember things?

Perhaps suggesting that we shouldn't refer to a human at such an early stage of development as a "person".

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
No, the appeal to emotion is to equate genetic uniqueness with having all the qualities of a human being; there's little evidence that a 2-3 month old fetus feels pain, is aware of it's surroundings, or anything else, and the best neurological evidence suggests that this woud be impossible. So making a point of equating fetuses with human beings is an appeal to emotion, because it is intended to create empathy for the suffering of a creature that as far as we can tell, is incapable of suffering.

I notice you ignored the fact that in my case, abortion was actually a possibility, and (ignoring the impossibility of such an event occuring, once I no longer existed) I would accept the fact of having been aborted, if the choice was my mother's life/health or mine.

I really think you need to show that there is an implicit, but enforcable social contract between the mother and someone, and that the government has the authority to enforce that contract. I think it's obvious that the contract is not between the woman and the man, and that it can't be between the woman and God, because there are people who simply do not believe in God, and yet are quite capable of becoming pregnant. So I guess you can try to show a contract with society, or a contract with the unborn child, but either way I think it will be difficult.

(Note: I don't question, at a basic level, the legitimacy of government, I would be willing to accept proof that the 'contract' is unambiguous as sufficient to allow the government to step in and enforce it, i.e. I'm not trying to make the burden of proof unecessarily heavy.)

I'm not sure you know what an appeal to emotion is. I'm also not sure you know my stance on abortion. Finally, I'm sure you're not up to snuff on fetal development, or you would know that the central nervous system and brain are developed by week 8 to the point where pain can be felt. Of course, this is irrelevant as you haven't demonstrated what the ability to feel pain has to do with personhood.

Your case is in no way an exception to my arguments, hence my ignoring it. The law cannot be based around special cases: it must address the general case.

I need not show any sort of implicit contract: the contract already exists, plain as day. It's our legal system. The contract is implicit between those who have rights and those whose duty is to protect those rights (the government). Thus, the only question is whether or not the fetus has rights. If it is a person, then it has rights. If it is not a person, then it does not have rights.

Originally posted by: kogase
Perhaps suggesting that we shouldn't refer to a human at such an early stage of development as a "person".

Why not?

 

[Sworkhard]

While most people seem to not be able to remember much before they are 4, it is during thes e first years that that language is learned, the senses are developed, and the brain itself develops, through what the child experiences (ie emotions, etc). There is not evidence that what happens at this time (assuming it does not physcally alter the brain) affects the intelligence of a child or what he/she learns.

The point behind this is that although a child cannot remember things that happen early in life, it does not make them less a person just because they cannot function like adults. They act just like any human should at that age, aquiring experiences and developing functions that can be used later in life when he or she becomes an adult. The same thing is happening before the child is born although this is more true in a physical sense than mentally (although the structures are being formed). It is estimated that a child can feel pain 4 months after conception. If this is the case, I don't believe we can say that a fetus is not a human at this time. Even if it is not, as it can feel pain, it should not be killed in the painful way many abortions take place (as limbs are ripped off during the process, etc.) There are laws against torturing animals to death (ie, if a person rips limbs of a dog or cat he or she would probably go to jail for several years.) and most people would agree it is wrong to to this to animals when it can be avoided so why are we doing it to the unborn.?

By the way, I probably won't be responding to questions about this post (due to lack of time mainly) but just wanted to inject another argument/point of view into this debate.

 

[maluckey]

SO you are arguing for a more humane treatment for the condemned? A novel approach.

Most all on this forum don't accept the death penalty under any circumstances, but avidly support abortion, even late term and convenience abortions as a "right". Methinks that their values and perceptions of "life" may be a bit skewed. It is OK to murder an innocent, but not the guilty.

 

[Sworkhard]

If a condemned person is condemned rightly, he acted in such a way as to deserve it. No, I'm not arguing from more humane treatment for the condemned (unless they are innocent). I'm arguing for more humane treatment of the unborn who are innocent and have done nothing to deserve the pain they receive (except tarnish their mothers reputation, perhaps, but they cannot help thier doing so for they are not actively doing so, but passivly doing so, being unable to act and therefore they are not liable for doing so.)

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: maluckey
SO you are arguing for a more humane treatment for the condemned? A novel approach.

Most all on this forum don't accept the death penalty under any circumstances, but avidly support abortion, even late term and convenience abortions as a "right". Methinks that their values and perceptions of "life" may be a bit skewed. It is OK to murder an innocent, but not the guilty.

It's already been established that abortion is NOT murder.

I am pro-choice and I support the death penatly.

I would have been fine with not being born either. I wouldn't have if ever exsisted at all. My life would have never began, you can't really affect somone's life when it hasn't even started.




So... Assuming we could "define" a point when life did infact start, would we allow abortions to take place?

Now, what is a person...

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Tabb
It's already been established that abortion is NOT murder.

It has been legally established, but not logically established. This is the whole debate.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
No, the appeal to emotion is to equate genetic uniqueness with having all the qualities of a human being; there's little evidence that a 2-3 month old fetus feels pain, is aware of it's surroundings, or anything else, and the best neurological evidence suggests that this woud be impossible. So making a point of equating fetuses with human beings is an appeal to emotion, because it is intended to create empathy for the suffering of a creature that as far as we can tell, is incapable of suffering.

I notice you ignored the fact that in my case, abortion was actually a possibility, and (ignoring the impossibility of such an event occuring, once I no longer existed) I would accept the fact of having been aborted, if the choice was my mother's life/health or mine.

I really think you need to show that there is an implicit, but enforcable social contract between the mother and someone, and that the government has the authority to enforce that contract. I think it's obvious that the contract is not between the woman and the man, and that it can't be between the woman and God, because there are people who simply do not believe in God, and yet are quite capable of becoming pregnant. So I guess you can try to show a contract with society, or a contract with the unborn child, but either way I think it will be difficult.

(Note: I don't question, at a basic level, the legitimacy of government, I would be willing to accept proof that the 'contract' is unambiguous as sufficient to allow the government to step in and enforce it, i.e. I'm not trying to make the burden of proof unecessarily heavy.)

I'm not sure you know what an appeal to emotion is. I'm also not sure you know my stance on abortion. Finally, I'm sure you're not up to snuff on fetal development, or you would know that the central nervous system and brain are developed by week 8 to the point where pain can be felt. Of course, this is irrelevant as you haven't demonstrated what the ability to feel pain has to do with personhood.

Your case is in no way an exception to my arguments, hence my ignoring it. The law cannot be based around special cases: it must address the general case.

I need not show any sort of implicit contract: the contract already exists, plain as day. It's our legal system. The contract is implicit between those who have rights and those whose duty is to protect those rights (the government). Thus, the only question is whether or not the fetus has rights. If it is a person, then it has rights. If it is not a person, then it does not have rights.

My case doesn't need to be an exception - it's not particularly uncommon. You asked if I would be okay with having been aborted - as much as I enjoy living (and I do), my answer is YES.

I'm pretty sure you're the one who fails to understand what an appeal to emotion is; that's really all I can say, since I already explained why your argument is an appeal to emotion... I'm really not sure how to make it more clear.

As for your position on abortion, it's quite simple; fetuses are human beings from the moment of conception, and as a result any and all abortion is murder. I'm well aware of what you think about this; I happen to disagree on several levels, for various reasons.

As far as neurological development; I think you're the one who needs to do more research; 8 week old babies may have enough nerve cells to potentially have a nervous system, but best evidence is the system isn't really wired in any meaningful way for at least a few more months. Even if you were correct, and everything I have read and studied says your are jumping the gun with your statement, 8 weeks would be enough time for a woman to have the choice to abort or not abort her fetus.

A legal system is not a moral absolute; there have always been laws that were clear moral violations, and there are laws like that now. Your position is that laws protecting abortion fall under that category; mine is that laws outlawing abortion would fall into that category. I think you'll have an easier time convincing me that a contract exists between a woman and her unborn fetus than that a first-trimester fetus is a human being owed the full protection of the legal system.