Poll on abortion in case of 12 year old girl

[Tab]

Originally posted by: 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.

Examples?

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
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.

Well, for someone that usually argues fairly well, you're really dropping the ball here. You try to play it off like I'm not well-read on this subject, which couldn't be further from the truth. You ignore all questions asked of you and instead try to make me look ignorant by regurgitating your same unsupported statements over and over. That doesn't really do much for your position. You've also misstated my opinion, which isn't a big surprise.

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.

A legal system is not a moral absolute, but it should be based on ethics. This has always been my position, and always will be. You simply ignore the facts as presented. I'm not sure if you really don't know how our legal system works in general or have no idea with respect to abortion. In either case, what you're asking is simply a distraction from the issue at hand.

 

[kogase]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

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?

In my opinion, a "person" is defined by their memory. And only if the memory is substantial. Say, a 3 year old. Prior to that point, they have the personality of the cat I just tossed off my lap. They have the awareness and sense of self as said cat. In my opinion.

Now, I'm on record at these forums as being against animal cruelty. However, if I was given the choice of killing a cat or living the next 18 years of my life in mind numbing servitude to a child I didn't want, I'd be out there at daybreak with my big iron maul at the ready.

 

[Miramonti]

Is a child from a rapist any less of a child than from a husband?


No but a fertilized egg isn't a child yet anyways regardless so the question is moot. I support the families decision.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
Well, for someone that usually argues fairly well, you're really dropping the ball here. You try to play it off like I'm not well-read on this subject, which couldn't be further from the truth. You ignore all questions asked of you and instead try to make me look ignorant by regurgitating your same unsupported statements over and over. That doesn't really do much for your position. You've also misstated my opinion, which isn't a big surprise.

As far as neurological development goes, I'm reasonably well read on that; the nervous system develops as something of a mass of nerves, and later prunes itself into a usefully connected system. I would assume an 8-week old fetus exhibits a response to what would normally be a painful stimulus, but the 'wiring' is such that I can't imagine it 'feels' any different from any other stimulus. If you want to tell me more about the state of an 8-week old's nervous system, I'm more than willing to listen.

As for your position, how have I misstated it? It seems pretty accurate to me. Fetuses = people; people are entitled to protection, therefore abortion is murder. I recognize that your position is very much modeled as a response to Roe vs. Wade, and believe it or not, I agree that Roe vs. Wade was a bad decision, from a constitutional standpoint. In fact, IMO, it is perhaps the only decision in American law that could accurately be called 'legislating from the bench'.

I happen to agree with the outcome of the decision, but the legal basis was pretty weak. Of course if it's overturned, there will be no legitimate way to prevent someone from a no-abortion state from getting an abortion in a different state, and I can only imagine that the states' rights folks will be quite upset if the federal government attempts to legislate social policiy, which they have no authoriity to do. So at a minimum, you will need a 48-state ban on abortion in order to accomplish much. Come to think of it, a nice even 40 states seems right to me, as it would make obtaining an abortion sufficiently inconvenient to prevent most people from using abortion as 'birth control'. It might work better than any restrictive legislation ever could!

A legal system is not a moral absolute, but it should be based on ethics. This has always been my position, and always will be. You simply ignore the facts as presented. I'm not sure if you really don't know how our legal system works in general or have no idea with respect to abortion. In either case, what you're asking is simply a distraction from the issue at hand.

It *should* be. It often isn't though.

I'm not sure what you're accusing me of here, so I can't really deny it

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: kogase
In my opinion, a "person" is defined by their memory. And only if the memory is substantial. Say, a 3 year old. Prior to that point, they have the personality of the cat I just tossed off my lap. They have the awareness and sense of self as said cat. In my opinion.

Now, I'm on record at these forums as being against animal cruelty. However, if I was given the choice of killing a cat or living the next 18 years of my life in mind numbing servitude to a child I didn't want, I'd be out there at daybreak with my big iron maul at the ready.

Clearly, memory cannot be used as a definite criterion for defining personhood. This is made clear by the following exercise:

Person A (let's call him a 30-something guy named Mike) undergoes head trauma and forgets everything - all life experiences and so on. By your definition, it is now perfectly acceptable for me to walk up to Mike on the street and decapitate him in plain view of the police, since he is not a person and, therefore, not protected by the Constitution or any laws (neglecting animal cruelty or what have you). Would you condone this? Of course not. Thus, memory cannot be a necessary condition for personhood. Since it is also clear that animals have memory, and I think you will agree with me that we should not grant full personhood to animals, memory is also not a sufficient condition for personhood. Thus, this criterion is neither necessary nor sufficient, invalidating it as a measure of personhood. Besides, how can you demonstrate that a fetus doesn't remember its previous day in utero, or that a three year old doesn't remember when it was two? Simply put, it's impossible.

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
As far as neurological development goes, I'm reasonably well read on that; the nervous system develops as something of a mass of nerves, and later prunes itself into a usefully connected system. I would assume an 8-week old fetus exhibits a response to what would normally be a painful stimulus, but the 'wiring' is such that I can't imagine it 'feels' any different from any other stimulus. If you want to tell me more about the state of an 8-week old's nervous system, I'm more than willing to listen.

The point is that there is no set point in development at which a fetus is known to feel pain. It is not a readily measured criterion. Obviously, there are abundant ethical objections to pulling women off the street and jabbing needles into their fetuses to see if they react to the stimulus in a manner consistent with pain. Thus, I must rely on the fact that all of the necessary equipment for the sensory perception of pain is in place by eight weeks. Of course, this is all totally irrelevant when one considers the logical implications of pain defining personhood. This can be shown to be neither necessary nor sufficient in a similar manner as shown above for memory. I leave this as an exercie (as all my professors LOVE to say...).

As for your position, how have I misstated it?

My position is simply that we cannot determine that a fetus is not a person using any known set of criteria. Thus, we must assume that humanity is sufficient for personhood. As such, I am very much open to any criterion/set of criteria that adequately demonstrates a fetus to be something other than a person, as long as it stands up to logical analysis. As yet, I have been able to find any such criteria. This leads me to the inevitable starting point of conception, at which a distinct human life is formed, as the starting point for personhood as well.

I happen to agree with the outcome of the decision, but the legal basis was pretty weak. Of course if it's overturned, there will be no legitimate way to prevent someone from a no-abortion state from getting an abortion in a different state, and I can only imagine that the states' rights folks will be quite upset if the federal government attempts to legislate social policiy, which they have no authoriity to do.

Simply because states might not ban it immediately or outright does not mean that it isn't the right thing to do. Stopping federal funding to abortion-providing entities, particularly Planned Parenthood, would also work wonders.

It *should* be. It often isn't though.

As I've mentioned plenty of times, I cannot logically challenge 'what is', as what is is not based on logic. Instead, I can only submit what logic dictates in an effort to change 'what is' to 'what should be'.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
As I've mentioned plenty of times, I cannot logically challenge 'what is', as what is is not based on logic. Instead, I can only submit what logic dictates in an effort to change 'what is' to 'what should be'.

Face it, you've been hung out to dry just like all Men that believe they have the right to control women's bodies.

 

[IEC]

Originally posted by: Skoorb
Get the thing adopted. Either abortion is right or it is not. This moral relativity is rather silly "OH, i don't agree with it...unless she was raped!" Who give a half sh*t why she's pregnant. Either it's not killing somebody, in which case it's fine, or it is, in which case deal with it and give it away if you don't like it.

I agree with Skoorb, there is no moral relativity - it's only a distinction we like to make to make ourselves feel better...

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Face it, you've been hung out to dry just like all Men that believe they have the right to control women's bodies.

You're part of a woman's body? Really? Well, if you're not now, then I can't imagine you ever were, or genetics dictate that you would be a woman. Now, maybe you are a woman, a woman named Dave. That'd be kinda scary, but maybe.

 

[dornick]

Originally posted by: kogase

Now, I'm on record at these forums as being against animal cruelty. However, if I was given the choice of killing a cat or living the next 18 years of my life in mind numbing servitude to a child I didn't want, I'd be out there at daybreak with my big iron maul at the ready.

So killing kids around 1 or 2 years old is fine in your book.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: dornick

Originally posted by: kogase

Now, I'm on record at these forums as being against animal cruelty. However, if I was given the choice of killing a cat or living the next 18 years of my life in mind numbing servitude to a child I didn't want, I'd be out there at daybreak with my big iron maul at the ready.

So killing kids around 1 or 2 years old is fine in your book.

It shouldn't as it's a Capital Crime.

 

[dornick]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: dornick

Originally posted by: kogase

Now, I'm on record at these forums as being against animal cruelty. However, if I was given the choice of killing a cat or living the next 18 years of my life in mind numbing servitude to a child I didn't want, I'd be out there at daybreak with my big iron maul at the ready.

So killing kids around 1 or 2 years old is fine in your book.

It shouldn't as it's a Capital Crime.

I'm asking kogase. It seems from his posts that he considers it fine

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: dornick

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: dornick

Originally posted by: kogase

Now, I'm on record at these forums as being against animal cruelty. However, if I was given the choice of killing a cat or living the next 18 years of my life in mind numbing servitude to a child I didn't want, I'd be out there at daybreak with my big iron maul at the ready.

So killing kids around 1 or 2 years old is fine in your book.

It shouldn't as it's a Capital Crime.

I'm asking kogase. It seems from his posts that he considers it fine

What would be the purpose of that? If he thought it was ok to kill 1 and 2 year old children (which I doubt) then he'd be so out of the norm that his opinion would be totally worthless. It would be like asking Jeffrey Dahlmer his opinion on the subject.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
Simply because states might not ban it immediately or outright does not mean that it isn't the right thing to do. Stopping federal funding to abortion-providing entities, particularly Planned Parenthood, would also work wonders.

On a constitutional level, Roe vs. Wade should go, or at least be rexamined very carefully. It's a tough spot to be in though; as with so many constitutional issues, Roe vs. Wade decided the legality of abortion, without really having anything to do with abortion (it was a very sideways way of making the decision).

This doesn't really affect me as much; Canada is very unlikely to re-criminalize abortion, as it would be political suicide for any federal and most provincial governments. I would like to see more emphasis in family planning and sex education on proper birth control, as I think abortion is unpleasant all around, and could be reduced to not much more than the medically useful kind with a little work.

 

[kogase]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: dornick

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: dornick

Originally posted by: kogase

Now, I'm on record at these forums as being against animal cruelty. However, if I was given the choice of killing a cat or living the next 18 years of my life in mind numbing servitude to a child I didn't want, I'd be out there at daybreak with my big iron maul at the ready.

So killing kids around 1 or 2 years old is fine in your book.

It shouldn't as it's a Capital Crime.

I'm asking kogase. It seems from his posts that he considers it fine

What would be the purpose of that? If he thought it was ok to kill 1 and 2 year old children (which I doubt) then he'd be so out of the norm that his opinion would be totally worthless. It would be like asking Jeffrey Dahlmer his opinion on the subject.

Well... now the pressure is on. Personally, I don't think it's right to kill a 2 year old. However, I would feel worse about killing a 25 year old than a 2 year old, simply because I think more of actuality than potential.

As to Cyclo, a person who has truly lost all their memory I would look on the same a 2 year old. Not technically right to kill them, but it would be less of a tragedy than the killing of a 25 year old man with a fully developed personality and years of life experience. Although victims like that tend to lose many short and long term memories, but remember their language, their trade, and other skills, as well as retain a sense of self and a personality. I guess that's irrelevant to your point though.

Looking back, I guess it's all sort of arbitrary. When I think of killing a 2 year old, despite what I said about their lack of a memory, it seems wrong. When I think of killing a fetus, it doesn't. It's beyond my ability to explain at the moment.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
On a constitutional level, Roe vs. Wade should go, or at least be rexamined very carefully. It's a tough spot to be in though; as with so many constitutional issues, Roe vs. Wade decided the legality of abortion, without really having anything to do with abortion (it was a very sideways way of making the decision).

This doesn't really affect me as much; Canada is very unlikely to re-criminalize abortion, as it would be political suicide for any federal and most provincial governments. I would like to see more emphasis in family planning and sex education on proper birth control, as I think abortion is unpleasant all around, and could be reduced to not much more than the medically useful kind with a little work.

As I've said before, teaching birth control perpetuates the need for abortion. This is exactly why contraceptive providers are also abortion providers. They give you the contraceptives free, then charge you for the abortion.

 

[mhillary]

What about the mother?

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: kogase
Looking back, I guess it's all sort of arbitrary. When I think of killing a 2 year old, despite what I said about their lack of a memory, it seems wrong. When I think of killing a fetus, it doesn't. It's beyond my ability to explain at the moment.

That's exactly what we're trying to get at. The reason people view fetuses differently than infants, IMO, is that they've been conditioned to do so. This must be the case if you can't point out a logical reason for the distinction - it's like racism in that way.

 

[jhu]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

As I've said before, teaching birth control perpetuates the need for abortion. This is exactly why contraceptive providers are also abortion providers. They give you the contraceptives free, then charge you for the abortion.

and wal-mart's profits from abortions have skyrocketed since they started providing birth control. hmmm...

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: jhu
and wal-mart's profits from abortions have skyrocketed since they started providing birth control. hmmm...

Walmart makes condoms now?

 

[Darkhawk28]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: jhu
and wal-mart's profits from abortions have skyrocketed since they started providing birth control. hmmm...

Walmart makes condoms now?

Yup, "Sam's Choice Ultra-French Tickler With Warm Lubrication!"

 

[jhu]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: kogase
Looking back, I guess it's all sort of arbitrary. When I think of killing a 2 year old, despite what I said about their lack of a memory, it seems wrong. When I think of killing a fetus, it doesn't. It's beyond my ability to explain at the moment.

That's exactly what we're trying to get at. The reason people view fetuses differently than infants, IMO, is that they've been conditioned to do so. This must be the case if you can't point out a logical reason for the distinction - it's like racism in that way.

and you would have people believe that they are the same, which also makes no sense.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: jhu
and you would have people believe that they are the same, which also makes no sense.

WHY ARE THEY NOT THE SAME? This is the entire question surrounding this issue, which people continue to ignore. If you cannot logically demonstrate why a human is not a person, then you must accept that a human is a person or, at the very least, accept that you're being completely illogical in your approach.

 

[jhu]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: jhu
and you would have people believe that they are the same, which also makes no sense.

WHY ARE THEY NOT THE SAME? This is the entire question surrounding this issue, which people continue to ignore. If you cannot logically demonstrate why a human is not a person, then you must accept that a human is a person or, at the very least, accept that you're being completely illogical in your approach.

you're obsessing too much with human = person. in one sense it's too general (ie zygote = person). in another sense it is too narrow (alien being != person).

 

[LtPage1]

Originally posted by: Tabb
It's her choice, not mine. She should do whatever she feels is right. In the end God will judge her, not I.

:thumbsup: