Atheists, Abortion, and Philosophy

[The GM]

Hey all,
I have a question that I’d like to be tackled from the philosophical POV. I’m not going to judge right or wrong, moral or immoral, but this has been digging at my brain for awhile.
From talking to atheists here and IRL, the general consensus seems to be when you die, that’s it, you’re worm food. Do not pass go, do not collect a pleasant afterlife. I’ve also read some atheists here say that they value life more than the religious person because this is your one and only shot, there’s no reincarnation, no afterlife, no way to make up for what you didn’t get done this time around.
If all of that is so, how can and does an atheist support or approve of abortion when used as birth control? Let’s leave medical necessity out of the equation. If this is indeed your only shot, how is it moral or ethical to deprive someone of their only chance at living their life?
Thanks in advance for your view points.
Oh, and to keep this thread on topic please remember this thread isn’t about whether the current law is right or wrong. Nor is the thread about bashing someone else’s beliefs. I have a genuine curiosity about this particular topic and am trying to learn something here.

[toddjh]

Originally posted by The GM
If all of that is so, how can and does an atheist support or approve of abortion when used as birth control? Let’s leave medical necessity out of the equation. If this is indeed your only shot, how is it moral or ethical to deprive someone of their only chance at living their life?

If a person never existed in the first place, they're not being deprived of anything. There's no one there to be deprived. Make sense?

Otherwise, there's no reason to focus on abortion in particular. Every single sperm and egg combination is a potential person. Every time a woman goes a month without getting pregnant, it means that a potential human being is being deprived of their life. And god forbid masturbation -- millions die!

Since most atheists believe that human consciousness is created by our brains, they are comfortable saying that a fetus without a certain level of brain development does not possess that "special something" that makes an organism a sentient being. No developed brain, no consciousness. No consciousness, no person. No person, no one to be hurt.

Jeremy

[Gulliamo]

I'll take this one topic at a time...
Originally posted by The GM
I’ve also read some atheists here say that they value life more than the religious person because this is your one and only shot, there’s no reincarnation, no afterlife, no way to make up for what you didn’t get done this time around.Exactly. Like Emimem said, "You only got one shot, do not miss your chance" so do it right. The world is not going to end in Rapture any time soon so don't screw up the planet for those you leave behind. Originally posted by The GM
If all of that is so, how can and does an atheist support or approve of abortion when used as birth control? Simple. Humanity is greater than the individual. I hate to use the phrase "population control" because I know it will draw fire but let me paraphrase...

Wildlife regulators occasionally release significantly more deer hunting licenses than usual. Why? Because if the population grows too quickly it will destroy the entire herd. If there are too many deer one year the next will be out-of-control and the following will result in mass starvation, malnutrition, etc.

Before I get hit from every side by a barrage of mortar fire I will state that I am NOT directly comparing humans to deer.

Now... If a young couple accidentally gets pregnant a few years before planned it could cause them to drop out of college, get low wage jobs, have more kids, have more problems, divorce, raise a bunch of dysfunctional, uneducated, social disasters. Whereas one well timed visit to the clinic could postpone all of this and lead to a prosperous, educated, society contributing family.

That being said... I do not condone "late term" abortion except where necessary. I do not condone repeated clinic stops out of convenience. (As in "Oh, I'm pregnant again, I'll stop by the clinic during lunch. Can I borrow $300?)

I am relatively certain that a LOT of abortions would never have to happen if the churches had not placed such a stigma on birth control and contraception. And when the hell are we going to get male birth control?!? I am sick of leaving all the choice and responsibility up to the women!!!

[Christian]

Originally posted by toddjh


If a person never existed in the first place, they're not being deprived of anything. There's no one there to be deprived. Make sense?

Otherwise, there's no reason to focus on abortion in particular. Every single sperm and egg combination is a potential person. Every time a woman goes a month without getting pregnant, it means that a potential human being is being deprived of their life. And god forbid masturbation -- millions die!

Since most atheists believe that human consciousness is created by our brains, they are comfortable saying that a fetus without a certain level of brain development does not possess that "special something" that makes an organism a sentient being. No developed brain, no consciousness. No consciousness, no person. No person, no one to be hurt.

Jeremy

Ok, so if science shows that a fetus has that certain level of brian developement then your point is moot. Also, if DNA shows distinctness, your other point is moot, right?

From http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/arg-abor.html


Physicians now use a more rigorous criterion for death: brain wave activity. A flat EEG (electroencephalograph) is one of the most important criteria used to determine death. If the cessation of brain wave activity can define death, could the onset of brain wave activity define life? Individual brain waves are detected in the fetus in about 40-43 days. Using brain wave activity to define life would outlaw at least a majority of abortions.

and


The medical arguments against abortion are compelling. For example, at conception the embryo is genetically distinct from the mother. To say that the developing baby is no different from the mother's appendix is scientifically inaccurate. A developing embryo is genetically different from the mother. A developing embryo is also genetically different from the sperm and egg that created it. A human being has 46 chromosomes (sometimes 47 chromosomes). Sperm and egg have 23 chromosomes. A trained geneticist can distinguish between the DNA of an embryo and that of a sperm and egg. But that same geneticist could not distinguish between the DNA of a developing embryo and a full-grown human being.

[Marquis de Carabas]

An atheist claiming they value life more than a religious person, whether truly or not, is not the same as claiming the they value life above all else. It is not inconsistent to claim that, in general, one values life more highly than another, but in the specific case of abortion, there are things one values more than the life (?) of the fetus.

One could value the freedom of choice of the mother; the presumed quality of life of the mother, the baby, and possibly the father, the mother's parents, etc. were the fetus to be carried to term; the presumed drain on society that the birth of an unwanted child could conceivably cause.

Or, more simply, one could just cycle back to wondering at what point along the way the fetus develops its claim to a human life worth respecting.

[Christian]

Originally posted by Marquis de Carabas
An atheist claiming they value life more than a religious person, whether truly or not, is not the same as claiming the they value life above all else. It is not inconsistent to claim that, in general, one values life more highly than another, but in the specific case of abortion, there are things one values more than the life (?) of the fetus.

If the fetus is not a person, then this is a valid point.

One could value the freedom of choice of the mother; the presumed quality of life of the mother, the baby, and possibly the father, the mother's parents, etc. were the fetus to be carried to term; the presumed drain on society that the birth of an unwanted child could conceivably cause.

All this falls apart if the fetus is person.

Or, more simply, one could just cycle back to wondering at what point along the way the fetus develops its claim to a human life worth respecting.

Yes, what is the criteria? Scientific?

An atheist (I believe) should take the strictly mechanistic view, right?

[Marquis de Carabas]

Originally posted by Christian
If the fetus is not a person, then this is a valid point.

Even were we to assume the fetus was a person for the sake of argument, it does not necessarily mean an pro-choice atheist who asserts he values life in general more than a religious person is wrong. He would value the life of fetuses demonstrably less, true, but that is but one type of life.


All this falls apart if the fetus is person.
I don't think it does. Saying you value something more than another does not mean you value it above all else. It is possible I value life more than you, yet value freedom more than life.

Yes, what is the criteria? Scientific?
Not entirely. Though scientific knowledge must inform any decision we make, it cannot serve as final arbiter. We have to draw a line. Science does not provide such neat edges. Many want the line drawn at conception. Some want the line drawn at birth. Most seem to want it somewhere in the middle. Wherever it gets drawn, by policy, is going to piss someone off. (I think we're wandering off-topic here, though)

[The GM]

QUOTE]Originally posted by Gulliamo
I'll take this one topic at a time...
1. Exactly. Like Emimem said, "You only got one shot, do not miss your chance" so do it right. The world is not going to end in Rapture any time soon so don't screw up the planet for those you leave behind. Simple. Humanity is greater than the individual. I hate to use the phrase "population control" because I know it will draw fire but let me paraphrase...


2. Now... If a young couple accidentally gets pregnant a few years before planned it could cause them to drop out of college, get low wage jobs, have more kids, have more problems, divorce, raise a bunch of dysfunctional, uneducated, social disasters. Whereas one well timed visit to the clinic could postpone all of this and lead to a prosperous, educated, society contributing family.

3. That being said... I do not condone "late term" abortion except where necessary. I do not condone repeated clinic stops out of convenience. (As in "Oh, I'm pregnant again, I'll stop by the clinic during lunch. Can I borrow $300?)

4. I am relatively certain that a LOT of abortions would never have to happen if the churches had not placed such a stigma on birth control and contraception. And when the hell are we going to get male birth control?!? I am sick of leaving all the choice and responsibility up to the women!!! [/QUOTE]

I've numbered your points for ease in reply.
BTW, *Love* that avatar. I have it hanging in my office even as we speak, signed by the artist and everything. ;)
Hmkay, on w/ the show.

1. Would you say that the many are more important than the one if it hits close to home? For instance, it's better for the 'good of humanity' that your husband or wife die because if they don't ten other people will die instead? When you use this particular arguement you completely close off the rights and responsibilities of *individuals*. Without individuals, society ceases, of course. Shouldn't the betterment of individuals be the priority here?

2. Or if a young couple gets preggers accidentally, maybe he works like a fiend and she finishes school. Maybe they have a bright, intelligent, beautiful, well adjusted kid who is consistantly at the top of the class. Maybe that young couple also builds a home, has two cars and three point five cats and a retirement fund. You could even stretch it to say that the young couple learns from their indescretion and has no more unplanned pregnancies. Know anyone like that? ;)
Isn't personal responsibility what really makes a successful life happen? Children or no, isn't it the tenacity of individuals that makes life a success?

3. Okay, but how often is too often? One abortion? Two abortions? Three? When does it cease to be moral?

4. I would agree if you said this instead, "I am relatively certain that a LOT of abortions would never have to happen if individuals had taken personal responsibility and used birth control and contraception. And when the hell are we going to get male birth control?!? I am sick of leaving all the choice and responsibility up to the women!!!


I'm not picking on you persay, just looking for clarification on your thoughts as well as sorting my own.

[thaiboxerken]

A fetus is not a person. 'Nuff said.

[The GM]

Why do you say that, Thai?

[Gulliamo]

Originally posted by Christian
Ok, so if science shows that a fetus has that certain level of brian developement then your point is moot. Also, if DNA shows distinctness, your other point is moot, right?

The medical arguments against abortion are compelling. For example, at conception the embryo is genetically distinct from the mother. To say that the developing baby is no different from the mother's appendix is scientifically inaccurate. A developing embryo is genetically different from the mother. A developing embryo is also genetically different from the sperm and egg that created it. A human being has 46 chromosomes (sometimes 47 chromosomes). Sperm and egg have 23 chromosomes. A trained geneticist can distinguish between the DNA of an embryo and that of a sperm and egg. But that same geneticist could not distinguish between the DNA of a developing embryo and a full-grown human being.I think you (they) are confusing the use of the word "different". Biologically my appendix is different from a hangnail. That doesn't make the hangnail special. The truth is we terminate life, complete with brainwaves and heartbeats, on a daily basis (often called "Pulling the Plug"). This has never been my criteria for life. In fact my attorney has a piece of paper that says if my criteria are ever met the plug will indeed be pulled, brain waves and heartbeats are irrelevant.

[Gulliamo]

Originally posted by The GM
1. Would you say that the many are more important than the one if it hits close to home? For instance, it's better for the 'good of humanity' that your husband or wife die because if they don't ten other people will die instead? When you use this particular arguement you completely close off the rights and responsibilities of *individuals*. Without individuals, society ceases, of course. Shouldn't the betterment of individuals be the priority here?

2. Or if a young couple gets preggers accidentally, maybe he works like a fiend and she finishes school. Maybe they have a bright, intelligent, beautiful, well adjusted kid who is consistantly at the top of the class. Maybe that young couple also builds a home, has two cars and three point five cats and a retirement fund. You could even stretch it to say that the young couple learns from their indescretion and has no more unplanned pregnancies. Know anyone like that? ;)
Isn't personal responsibility what really makes a successful life happen? Children or no, isn't it the tenacity of individuals that makes life a success?

3. Okay, but how often is too often? One abortion? Two abortions? Three? When does it cease to be moral?

4. I would agree if you said this instead, "I am relatively certain that a LOT of abortions would never have to happen if individuals had taken personal responsibility and used birth control and contraception. And when the hell are we going to get male birth control?!? I am sick of leaving all the choice and responsibility up to the women!!!

I'm not picking on you persay, just looking for clarification on your thoughts as well as sorting my own. 1. This, as with every human life decision, has to be taken on a case by case basis. Above I stated that I would prefer my own life be taken than to "live" in a suspended state. I would also choose an abortion over a life of misery. Your are correct that the society rides on the backs of the individuals. Which is why I believe this to be a choice that should be up to the individual to decide, not up to the society to decide for them.

2. Again, the individual has to make the decision. If a person can look inside of themselves and their partner and see people who will fight the odds and come out not only on top but stronger for it then they can make the decision to keep the baby. If a person looks at their "partner" and sees someone who will abandon them at the first sign of trouble, someone unwilling to struggle, fight and sacrifice, or someone who is abusive then they can make the decision suited for them.

3. I haven't figured out "how often is too often". I also haven't figured out "how late is too late" (within the pregnancy). Is it 1 month? 3 Months? 6 Months? I'm not sure...

4. I've seen way too many young people made to feel ashamed for taking birth control, buy condems, or otherwise doing the "right" thing. This is often pressure from religious parents or friends. Regardless-->Coming from a person like me --> That 99% success rate for birth control pills isn't all it is cracked up to be anyway. ;)

[edited #4]

[thaiboxerken]

Originally posted by The GM
Why do you say that, Thai?

A vital component to being a person is sentience, as well as personality. A fetus has neither of these traits.

[Gulliamo]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
A vital component to being a person is sentience, as well as personality.At what point, pre or post natal, does one develope sentience? Third trimester? 3 years old?

[thaiboxerken]

Originally posted by Gulliamo
At what point, pre or post natal, does one develope sentience? Third trimester? 3 years old?

Long after birth. Perhaps you should talk to a doctor about this.

[The Cats Venm]

Personally, I believe that a woman has the right (or should have the right) to do what she wants to a fetus/baby while it is still inside of her.

Now I also think that a woman would be very ill-advised to have a late term abortion unless it was absolutely necessary for whatever reason (high risk of death, for example, though there may be other reasons). The evidence shows that late term abortions can have major negative side effects for the woman, and as such they should never be considered lightly. I just feel that it should be up to the woman to make the final educated decision, rather than make it outright illegal, no matter what.

As for the value of life, I value the life of those already born more than I value the life of those not yet born. I would prefer to work toward the betterment of the world based on how it is, rather than aspire to idyllic moral absolutes (like 'all life should be preserved at all costs').

Does this make me immoral? I don't know. I just want to live the most pleasant life possible, and I believe that one way to reach that goal is to extend that aim to everyone. The golden rule in a non-literal sense. If I am good to others, they are more likely to be good to me.


On a somewhat-similar-but-not-at-all note, I also think people should be allowed to terminate their own lives. Though again, it should be a decision made carefully, and I appreciate the risk that some could abuse this freedom, and use it to conceal murder.


Sorry for going off topic, but I've never written down my thoughts on this subject before, and it was quite interesting trying to find the right words to express it.

[Dymanic]

Originally posted by Christian

Physicians now use a more rigorous criterion for death: brain wave activity. A flat EEG (electroencephalograph) is one of the most important criteria used to determine death. If the cessation of brain wave activity can define death, could the onset of brain wave activity define life? Individual brain waves are detected in the fetus in about 40-43 days. Using brain wave activity to define life would outlaw at least a majority of abortions.
Oops.

The median section of human foetal brain during the third month shows the brain divided into 5 ventricles; not yet formed are the cerebrum, cerebellum and pons. The requisite structures for measurable brain wave activity aren't even there until around 126 days.

[toddjh]

Originally posted by Christian
Ok, so if science shows that a fetus has that certain level of brian developement then your point is moot.

Right. The point at which "science," as you say, shows that a fetus has that critical level of brain development is at about five or six months. I am opposed to abortions occuring after that. Fortunately, almost none are performed after that point, and those that are are usually done for medical reasons.

Also, if DNA shows distinctness, your other point is moot, right?

No, I don't think DNA has anything to do with it. I think it's possible for a sentient being to not even have DNA (e.g. aliens or artificial intelligences), and also for two separate intelligent people to have the same DNA (identical twins). "Distinctness" is completely irrelevant to the abortion debate.

Jeremy

[Ratman_tf]

Originally posted by The GM
Hey all,

From talking to atheists here and IRL, the general consensus seems to be when you die, that’s it, you’re worm food. Do not pass go, do not collect a pleasant afterlife. I’ve also read some atheists here say that they value life more than the religious person because this is your one and only shot, there’s no reincarnation, no afterlife, no way to make up for what you didn’t get done this time around.

That's my take on it. (Not the part about athiests valuing life more that religious folks, that's a rather tasteless dig on the part of some atheists, IMO.)

If all of that is so, how can and does an atheist support or approve of abortion when used as birth control? Let’s leave medical necessity out of the equation. If this is indeed your only shot, how is it moral or ethical to deprive someone of their only chance at living their life?
Thanks in advance for your view points.
Oh, and to keep this thread on topic please remember this thread isn’t about whether the current law is right or wrong. Nor is the thread about bashing someone else’s beliefs. I have a genuine curiosity about this particular topic and am trying to learn something here.

I don't believe that the cluster of cells growing in a woman's body is a human being until about the beginning of the 3rd trimester. Any more than an unfertilized egg or sperm is a human being. (Or a hunk of hair or fingernail, for that matter.)

So I think abortion is acceptable up to about the point where the fetus's brain is developed enough to support human brain activity.

Personally, I think abortion is an undesirable method of birth control when there are alternatives like condoms, the pill, etc... that avoid all this controversy. But from my purely intellectual viewpoint, it's not a human being until about the sixth month when the brain starts to develop the ability to think like a human.

[Ratman_tf]

Originally posted by Christian

Ok, so if science shows that a fetus has that certain level of brian developement then your point is moot. Also, if DNA shows distinctness, your other point is moot, right?


All creatures with brains have brain waves. But which ones have distinctly human brain activity?

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Gulliamo

At what point, pre or post natal, does one develope sentience? Third trimester? 3 years old? I would say pre-natal, since the baby is screeching at the top of its lungs and seems to be in a lot of pain.

[Yahzi]

Originally posted by Christian
All this falls apart if the fetus is person.
We've been over this, and no.

There is a bum right now on 54th street. He has no money, no family, and suffers from mental illness. Suppose he crawls in the window of your house. Can the government force you to let him live in your house, and feed him, for the rest of his life? Or even for the next nine months?

Now, suppose you are an atheist, and value human life more than people who think death is not the end. Does that mean you think the government should be allowed to force you to support the bum?

Why, no.

Case closed.

[toddjh]

Originally posted by Yahzi
There is a bum right now on 54th street. He has no money, no family, and suffers from mental illness. Suppose he crawls in the window of your house. Can the government force you to let him live in your house, and feed him, for the rest of his life? Or even for the next nine months?

As always, I disagree. If pregnancy happened of its own accord and didn't show itself until a baby popped out, then maybe. But if you choose to engage in recreational behavior that creates a very significant chance of pregnancy, and, after learning of the problem, you refuse to take any action to correct it for six months, then yes, I think you have a non-zero amount of responsibility for the situation. You had plenty of chances to avoid and/or correct the problem, and you deliberately ignored them. That is implicit consent.

Of course, this only applies to late-term abortions. I have no problem with those that take place in the first trimester, before the fetus could possibly experience human-like consciousness.

Jeremy

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Iacchus
I would say pre-natal, since the baby is screeching at the top of its lungs and seems to be in a lot of pain.
Sperm screams? Eggs scream? Or is it the blastula that begins screaming, brainlacchus.

Get your terms straight.
:dl:

[wittgenst3in]

Hey Gm

I've come into the thread late, so I'll just say my POV rather than comment on previous posts. What follows is my opinion and I'm not claiming it as absolute fact.

I'm an atheist and definitly believe that 'worm food' is the only outcome of death. (Although organ donation is a nice idea :D)

I don't know whether you can say some people value life more or less than other people, so I personally don't say that. There is a good essay that kind of relates to this called 'a religion guided missile' by Richard Dawkins, in which he makes the point that the sep 11 suicide attacks could only have been organised if you told people there was a afterlife awaiting them. (Not saying atheists can't be suicide bombers mind you, we can do anything we put our minds to, it's just a lot harder to convice us.)

My position on abortion is this:

1. Clearly individual sperm and egg cannot be counted as conscious, and therefore do not have the associated rights.

2. When the two combine into a zygote, it is hard to imagine that something smaller than a pinhead can have consciousness. (not a argument from incredulity, because there is no concievable way it can express consciousness)

3. A baby can be considered to have consciousness. (this is an assumption).

Clearly somewhere between 2 and 3 consciousness is obtained. Hopefully a nice, simple medical guideline can be obtained as to when this happens (brain waves, spinal chord development, etc.) but this may not be the case.

Assuming that a simple indiator of consciousness can be used:
(say for the sake of argument that it is 6 months).

Before this deadline the baby cannot be considered a person. Hence the parents are free to choose what to do.

After this deadline the baby must be considered a person, and any attempts to end it's life considered either murder or manslaughter.

(We had a incident in sydney where a 9 month pregnant woman in a car with her husband was rammed off the road and into a telegraph pole by a man in a 4wd who was upset at them going so slowly. The woman was pinned for a period of time and the unborn baby died. Technically she hadn't given birth yet so the man was only charged with manslaughter.)

A point that is often raised is 'Should victims of rape be allowed to abort?'. If there is a consciousness deadline (as I assumed before) then aborting before this is no problem. After this however would still be manslaughter. Hey I know they didn't ask for the baby, and they have had a crime commited against them but (if we hold that a baby is conscious) killing it does not make anything better.

If on the other hand no suitable indicator of consciousness can be found where we can draw the line, then any abortions should be considered manslaughter/murder. This may seem harsh, but the whole idea behind preventing conscious abortions is to stop innocent 'people' dying. We can't point to the actions of others (such as rapists or incompetent condom manufacturers) and say that because of them the killing is justified.

Note: Obviously if there is a either/or situation with the baby risking the mothers life then it should be allowed. No sense in them both dying if it's unsecessary.

[thaiboxerken]

Consciousness is not fully obtained by a human until way after birth. The human brain is not developed enough to have accessible memories. Who can remember the day that they were born? What is the earliest memory a person has? My earliest memories begin around 6 yrs old.

[toddjh]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
Consciousness is not fully obtained by a human until way after birth. The human brain is not developed enough to have accessible memories. Who can remember the day that they were born? What is the earliest memory a person has? My earliest memories begin around 6 yrs old.

I have a memory of being in my crib and being annoyed I couldn't reach a toy to play with. I was probably two at the time.

Anyway, I'm not sure that's relevant, for two reasons:

1. Memory is not the same as consciousness. Young children can obviously think, reason (to a certain extent), and respond to their environment in an abstract way. Most of them can talk well before the point they'd actually remember as adults. It seems clear they are conscious in a uniquely human way even if their brains are still trying to figure out the memory deal. They deserve the benefit of the doubt.

2. After birth, the situation becomes more complicated, because the child becomes part of the social contract. Society begins investing in his welfare, and thus has the expectation that he will be cared for. Apart from the strictly ethical issues, this is a large part of why murder is universally despised among adults, too.

Jeremy

[Radrook]

It is the potential, entelechy is it? That is the important fator here.

[thaiboxerken]

1. Memory is not the same as consciousness.

No, but it is a vital component to consciousness. Without memory, one cannot be conscious of what they are doing because.. they cannot remember it.

It seems clear they are conscious in a uniquely human way even if their brains are still trying to figure out the memory deal. They deserve the benefit of the doubt.

I don't agree, development of consciousness is still in progress and while that is happening, speech and other functions are still being programmed as well. A fetus is not a person, it is not conscious.


2. After birth, the situation becomes more complicated, because the child becomes part of the social contract.

Yes, that's why we aren't arguing infanticide.

[The GM]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
Consciousness is not fully obtained by a human until way after birth. The human brain is not developed enough to have accessible memories. Who can remember the day that they were born? What is the earliest memory a person has? My earliest memories begin around 6 yrs old.

Hmm...This is interesting, and I have read your other comments in the thread. Here's the question then: If 'consciousness' is not achieved until well after birth (say in your case from age one day until age six years) then is it moral to commit infantcide because it's still the mother's choice? I would say the obvious answer is a firm 'no'.

When does consciousness start? Is it pre-birth? Is it age one month when a baby starts fumbling with it's own hands? Is it age three when speech has developed?

Addressing a different point, different poster: In rape cases it's typical for the victim to be offered a morning after pill to head off any possibility of pregnancy. This is standard proceedure after the medical exam has been made and any evidence has been collected. I can't imagine as a woman, not wanting to take advantage of that piece of technology and then wait a few months and get a potentially risky medical proceedure to terminate a pregnancy. Why prolong the healing (physical and mental) process any longer than neccesary?

EDIT: Oops.

[Gulliamo]

Originally posted by The GM
Addressing a different point, different poster: In rape cases it's typical for the victim to be offered a morning after pill to head off any possibility of pregnancy. This is standard procedure after the medical exam has been made and any evidence has been collected. I can't imagine as a woman, not wanting to take advantage of that piece of technology and then wait a few months and get a potentially risky medical procedure to terminate a pregnancy. Why prolong the healing (physical and mental) process any longer than necessary? While I have no personal experience with this I think it has something to do with many victims do not / will not admit that they are / were victims for some number of months afterward. I don't think this is the case with the standard "brick to the head in Central Park" modus operandi but it is often the case with "date rape" or "drunk-till-unconscious at a frat party rape".

[toddjh]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
No, but it is a vital component to consciousness. Without memory, one cannot be conscious of what they are doing because.. they cannot remember it.

So if your memory were going to be damaged tomorrow, that means you're not a person today, and it would be acceptable to kill you? I don't buy that. All of us will lose our memories sooner or later, when we die. How is that difference anything more than a matter of degree?

I don't agree, development of consciousness is still in progress and while that is happening, speech and other functions are still being programmed as well. A fetus is not a person, it is not conscious.

I thought you were talking about after birth. I agree a fetus is not a person until it shows human-like brain activity. After that, I don't think the fact that its memories won't necessarily survive permanently makes a big difference.

Jeremy

[thaiboxerken]

Hmm...This is interesting, and I have read your other comments in the thread. Here's the question then: If 'consciousness' is not achieved until well after birth (say in your case from age one day until age six years) then is it moral to commit infantcide because it's still the mother's choice? I would say the obvious answer is a firm 'no'.

Correct, because at that point the baby is actually growing a consciousness.


When does consciousness start? Is it pre-birth? Is it age one month when a baby starts fumbling with it's own hands? Is it age three when speech has developed?

Not sure, but maybe a neurologist can answer the question. My theory is that it doesn't start until after birth because there is no outside influence to help program the life until then.

[thaiboxerken]

So if your memory were going to be damaged tomorrow, that means you're not a person today, and it would be acceptable to kill you? I don't buy that.

And I'm not saying it. An adult that loses memory still retains the brain function of consciousness, unless they are brain dead.

All of us will lose our memories sooner or later, when we die. How is that difference anything more than a matter of degree?

I don't understand the question.

[toddjh]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
And I'm not saying it. An adult that loses memory still retains the brain function of consciousness, unless they are brain dead.

Then it seems like special pleading. A fetus that is conscious but has no memory is disposable, while an adult that is conscious but has no memory is not? You seem to be arguing that there's something else, besides memory, that makes late-term fetuses "less human" than adults. If that's what you're saying, that's fine, but you have to explain what it is.

I don't understand the question.

You argued (at least I think you did) that fetuses shouldn't be considered conscious because they most likely won't be accruing any permanent memories at that point. I am pointing out that, on a long enough scale, no memories are permanent, not even adults'. Therefore, why draw the distinction?

Jeremy

[The GM]

Originally posted by Gulliamo
While I have no personal experience with this I think it has something to do with many victims do not / will not admit that they are / were victims for some number of months afterward. I don't think this is the case with the standard "brick to the head in Central Park" modus operandi but it is often the case with "date rape" or "drunk-till-unconscious at a frat party rape".

Ah. Okay.
I don't believe there's such a stigma attached to date rape any more, (ya know, the whole 'she shouldn't have worn that dress' arguement.) I believe that women (and men for that matter!) are more apt to report the kind of abuse you're talking about.

(Rant on.)
As far as the woman who 'Oops! I got too drunk and did something I shouldn't have' deal: As a woman, I firmly detest this excuse for bad decision making. My thinking, harsh though it may be, is suck it up honey. You knew while you were swilling down dead nazis and red headed whores that you were opening yourself up to a potential mess. You made a mistake, now take some freaking personal responsibility for it. You know, when a drunk gets behind the wheel and whacks someone in a car accident, the judge doesn't allow for a 'I got too tipsy and made a mistake' defense.
Having said that, I realize none of us are error free in our decision making, but god d@mn I hate the 'I got drunk' excuse. It's BS. You did what you did, consciously and intentionally, now be a friggin' adult about it instead of whinning.
(Rant off.)

[thaiboxerken]

Then it seems like special pleading. A fetus that is conscious but has no memory is disposable, while an adult that is conscious but has no memory is not?

False, I did not state this at all. Please don't assign arguments to me that I did not make.

You seem to be arguing that there's something else, besides memory, that makes late-term fetuses "less human" than adults. If that's what you're saying, that's fine, but you have to explain what it is.

Fetus's are human, but they are not people. Again, please don't assign arguments to me that I don't make.


You argued (at least I think you did) that fetuses shouldn't be considered conscious because they most likely won't be accruing any permanent memories at that point.

They have no programming to make them conscious. Maybe that will clear it up for you. They also don't have the physical capacity to have a consciousness, at that point.

I am pointing out that, on a long enough scale, no memories are permanent, not even adults'. Therefore, why draw the distinction?


It has to do with the traits that are involved in having consciousness, not just memory. Memory plays one fact, but without it, one cannot be conscious. A computer doesn't work without some RAM.

[Gulliamo]

Originally posted by The GM
As far as the woman who 'Oops! I got too drunk and did something I shouldn't have' deal: I am not referring to the "got too drunk and did something" but more to the got too drunk, went to bed, got discovered unconscious by Mr. Lonely, and [edit: this is a family forum].Originally posted by The GM
As a woman, I firmly detest this excuse for bad decision making. I wasn't referring to bad decision making but rather being unable to participate in the decision making process.

So, what is your opinion on all of this? We have bared our souls [?] for the world to see. What do you believe? Or is the court still in deliberation?

[toddjh]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
Fetus's are human, but they are not people. Again, please don't assign arguments to me that I don't make.

It's usually clear that, in an abortion context, "human" means "deserving of human rights." Please interpret it in that way.

They have no programming to make them conscious. Maybe that will clear it up for you. They also don't have the physical capacity to have a consciousness, at that point.

I don't think you're qualified to make that determination. A late-term fetus (say, a week prior to birth) has a brain identifiable as human, as well as human-like brain activity to go along with it. Unless you claim to have solved the mysteries of how the sentient mind operates, those few objective metrics we have point to at least the possibility that fetuses might experience some level of human-like consciousness. As I've said, that means they deserve the benefit of the doubt.

It has to do with the traits that are involved in having consciousness, not just memory. Memory plays one fact, but without it, one cannot be conscious. A computer doesn't work without some RAM.

Just because young children can't build permanent memories doesn't mean they don't have any at all. You only have to watch an infant for a while to see that it learns from its mistakes and is able to make some associations. I'm guessing that you were even able to speak at an earlier age than you remember now. How were you able to build any kind of vocabulary, if you had no memory? If you insist on the computer metaphor, you might say that young children have RAM but no hard disk -- and a computer can run just fine that way, for limited purposes.

Jeremy

[thaiboxerken]

It's usually clear that, in an abortion context, "human" means "deserving of human rights." Please interpret it in that way.

I don't agree. Human and person are 2 different things. A person deserves rights, a human doesn't necessarily deserve rights.


I don't think you're qualified to make that determination. A late-term fetus (say, a week prior to birth) has a brain identifiable as human, as well as human-like brain activity to go along with it.

So who is qualified to make that determination then? Psychologists? Neurologists?

Unless you claim to have solved the mysteries of how the sentient mind operates, those few objective metrics we have point to at least the possibility that fetuses might experience some level of human-like consciousness. As I've said, that means they deserve the benefit of the doubt.

I don't agree at all. You are appealing to ignorance here. Until a fetus can communicate to the world that it is conscious, I don't think we should assume that it is.


Just because young children can't build permanent memories doesn't mean they don't have any at all. You only have to watch an infant for a while to see that it learns from its mistakes and is able to make some associations. I'm guessing that you were even able to speak at an earlier age than you remember now. How were you able to build any kind of vocabulary, if you had no memory?

Obviously I did have a memory to start building a vocabulary. I was in process of gaining consciousness.


If you insist on the computer metaphor, you might say that young children have RAM but no hard disk -- and a computer can run just fine that way, for limited purposes.

But I don't agree that a fetus without a hard drive is a person. There isn't evidence to suggest that a fetus is conscious in a way that a person is conscious.

[The GM]

Originally posted by Gulliamo

So, what is your opinion on all of this? We have bared our souls [?] for the world to see. What do you believe? Or is the court still in deliberation?

Souls...heh.
:D

Okay, on with the discussion at hand.
I'm a pretty liberal gal...keep your laws off my body and such. However, my rights end where the harm of someone else's physical welfare begins. For instance, if I smoke, my business. If I'm smoking in a room full of asmatics, totally different story.
Once upon a time I was young, dumb, unmarried and pregnant. I was 19, enrolled in college and completely unprepared for what motherhood might entail. My lover was also young, dumb, and unprepared. One thing we both agreed upon was that we had to accept responsibility for our roll in the hay. It wasn't the kid's fault that we'd had an indescretion. Therefore we did the adult thing. We worked our butts off and despite many bumps in the road made our family work. An abortion would have been a cop out, the ultimate denial of reproductive responsibility. It would have been the equivilant of pointing the finger at someone else for my self created problems.
I don't like excuses, and I don't like excuse makers. As a woman, it's my body, but it's also my responsibility. It's my responsibility to choose lovers wisely, it's my responsibility to use effective birth control, it's my responsibility to accept the reprocussions of my actions, whatever the outcomes may be.
I don't know when consciousness begins, whether it be at conception (something I think is probably unlikely) or at 22 weeks or 36 weeks or birth. I just don't know. But I do know that it's not my place to snuff out a life that I, through my own conscious decisions, created. For me, it's not a Heaven or Hell topic, it's not even a moral issue as much as it is about my own little personal code of stepping up to the plate and claiming both the victories and mistakes that I've made in life.
In short, maybe I see all of this in the bigger picture of life and so my personal feelings about the topic are filtered through that POV.
Still, I'm enjoying what everyone else has to say. Very informative.

[The Cats Venm]

Originally posted by The GM

For me, it's not a Heaven or Hell topic, it's not even a moral issue as much as it is about my own little personal code of stepping up to the plate and claiming both the victories and mistakes that I've made in life.

So you didn't think getting an abortion was the right choice for you, but do you think society should force that same choice on everyone?

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by The Cats Venm


So you didn't think getting an abortion was the right choice for you, but do you think society should force that same choice on everyone?
This strikes me as the heart of the matter, that as a woman has taken a certain action, she should be forced to live with the consequences; I wonder if people who agree with that judgement would be willing to apply to other conditions, such as cancer, heart disease or obesity-related illnesses (well, no-one forced them to smoke that cigarette/eat fatty foods/live a stressful life/take no exercise &c &c). I suspect that there is also an implied moral judgement about women's behaviour–that women are supposed to be maternal and nurturing, and therefore a woman who has an abortion is also committing a crime against her gender.

Of course, the obfuscating factor is the issue of the fetus's potential, but I think we need to bear in mind here that a fetus has little chance of survival outside of the womb before the end of the second trimester, and no absolute certainty of survival through the first trimester; typically abortion is not carried out before the first eight weeks anyway. I therefore don't believe that abortion carried out during this period is intrinsically morally wrong, and fundamentally it's a decision between a woman, her doctor and any others that the woman chooses to be involved.

[Christian]

Originally posted by toddjh


As always, I disagree. If pregnancy happened of its own accord and didn't show itself until a baby popped out, then maybe. But if you choose to engage in recreational behavior that creates a very significant chance of pregnancy, and, after learning of the problem, you refuse to take any action to correct it for six months, then yes, I think you have a non-zero amount of responsibility for the situation. You had plenty of chances to avoid and/or correct the problem, and you deliberately ignored them. That is implicit consent.

Of course, this only applies to late-term abortions. I have no problem with those that take place in the first trimester, before the fetus could possibly experience human-like consciousness.

Jeremy


Ok, so we are basically in agreement. What we could disagree on is the timetable.

Yes, I disagree with Yazhi. We ARE force (compelled) to take care of those who are less fortunate than ourselves. It is not an option.

[Yahzi]

Originally posted by toddjh
But if you choose to engage in recreational behavior that creates a very significant chance of pregnancy,
Anti-abortion positions always wind up equating pregancy as the punishment for sex. One wonders how punishing the parents by forcing them to raise a child they don't want can possibly be considered in the best interests of the child, but then, the anti-abortionist isn't actually interested in the welfare of the child.

and, after learning of the problem, you refuse to take any action to correct it for six months,
American law recognizes that. If you let people walk across your land long enough, they earn the right to continue doing so. Consequently, abortion has wound up right where it should be: legal, restricted, and earlier in the term is always better. But the legal principle I outlined above makes it clear that the human nature of the fetus is irrelevant, and so your final issue does not matter. The law can impose a burden on you (to deal with the issue in a timely manner) but it cannot be an undue burden. Is six months sufficient time, or do people need seven, or should they be allowed the full nine? I don't know, and I don't particularly care: the courts can make that fine distinction. As long as we all understand exactly what distinction they are making.

[Yahzi]

Originally posted by Christian
Yes, I disagree with Yazhi. We ARE force (compelled) to take care of those who are less fortunate than ourselves. It is not an option.
You agree with me. You do not feel that the government is entitled to force you to take care of a particular bum.

We both agree that we are morally required to take care of those less fortunate. We both agree that is what taxes are for - an agreement that sets us both apart from the Compassionate Conservatives. The government is entitled to share its burden fairly on society at large.

However, picking you out of a crowd and saddling you with the complete responsibility for a bum, while your neighbors get off scot-free, is not fair.

When the government can raise my taxes and provide for all the unborn, then I'll be glad to pay. Until then, randomly forcing people at gunpoint to take care of random strangers is a greater wrong than allowing some people to die.

[Yahzi]

Double post. These forums are really sluggish. I mean mechanically, not intellectually. :p

[The GM]

Originally posted by BillyTK

1. This strikes me as the heart of the matter, that as a woman has taken a certain action, she should be forced to live with the consequences; I wonder if people who agree with that judgement would be willing to apply to other conditions, such as cancer, heart disease or obesity-related illnesses (well, no-one forced them to smoke that cigarette/eat fatty foods/live a stressful life/take no exercise &c &c).

2. I suspect that there is also an implied moral judgement about women's behaviour–that women are supposed to be maternal and nurturing, and therefore a woman who has an abortion is also committing a crime against her gender.



1. Yes, yes and yes. If you smoke, expect to have a negative outcome. If you sit on the couch and consume 4k cals a day for twenty years, expect a negative outcome. If you deal w/ stress poorly and do nothing to alieviate that, expect a negative outcome. If you choose to have unprotected sex w/ a poorly choosen lover, expect a negative outcome. If you engaged in risky behavior and there are consequences, step up to the plate. Responsibility is the key word here.

2. I don't think it's a crime against her gender. I think it's a cop out. I think it's potentially a crime against the unborn life she carries. The fuzzy area is the definition of when consciousness begins of course, and so it's hard to say when it turns from a medical procedure into a crime.

[Christian]

Originally posted by Yahzi

However, picking you out of a crowd and saddling you with the complete responsibility for a bum, while your neighbors get off scot-free, is not fair.

Sorry for misspelling Yahzi.


Whether we believe this to be fair or not, is irrevelent. The government can and does force us to take the complete responsibility for a bum, while the neighbors get off scot-free.

[Yahzi]

I think it's potentially a crime against the unborn life she carries. The fuzzy area is the definition of when consciousness begins of course, and so it's hard to say when it turns from a medical procedure into a crime.
No. The status of the fetus does not matter.

If you build a house, and invite someone in for dinner, must you then feed them for the rest of their lives? If you leave your door unlocked, is that an open invitation for people to move in for the next 18 years?

You are citing a principle that only applies to women, sex, and pregnancy. In every other situtation your principle is immediately discarded as obviously faulty.

To have sex is not an invitation to pregnancy anymore than skiing is an invitation to broken legs, or leaving your door unlocked is an invitation to squatters. If you go home tonight and there are bums living in your house, you will call the police and have them evicted. They can argue all day long that you built a door, which clearly implies that you intended for people to come in, and you won't care. You did not specifically invite them to use your door, even though you invited others. And a woman who has sex does not specifically invite a child to live with her for 18 years.

Pregancy is not the punishment for having sex. Your doctor does not leave your leg broken so you won't be so careless about skiiing, and we do not require women to support random uninivted guests into their bodies so they won't be so careless about having sex.

[The GM]

Originally posted by Yahzi

Anti-abortion positions always wind up equating pregancy as the punishment for sex. One wonders how punishing the parents by forcing them to raise a child they don't want can possibly be considered in the best interests of the child, but then, the anti-abortionist isn't actually interested in the welfare of the child.


It's not a punishment, it's a consequence of certain consciously decided upon actions. Life is full of consequences, good and bad. I feel very little sympathy for a woman who doesn't think about potential negative consequences ahead of time. I have very little sympathy for the man who does the same.

Rape and health issues area a completely different topic, obviously, and in those cases, abortion doesn't bother me when performed early on.

[Yahzi]

Originally posted by Christian
Whether we believe this to be fair or not, is irrevelent. The government can and does force us to take the complete responsibility for a bum, while the neighbors get off scot-free.
I thought it was evident we were having a discussion about what the government should do.

But please, enlighten me. Do you have a law, case, or example - other than pregnancy - that supports your claim?

[Yahzi]

Oh my god.

Double post again.

Now I remember why I don't come here anymore. This has to be the slowest BB I have ever seen.

[Christian]

Originally posted by Yahzi

I thought it was evident we were having a discussion about what the government should do.

But please, enlighten me. Do you have a law, case, or example - other than pregnancy - that supports your claim?

You claim that a bum cannot come into your house and stay there right?

If his life is danger, yes he can. If you throw him out, and he dies because you threw him out, you are partly responsible for his death.

I can think of multiple scenarios of why you randomly would be forced to take full responsibility of a person if his life was at stake.

Your analogy is incomplete because, (in yours) when you throw that person out on the street, that person does not die.

[thaiboxerken]

It is rather weird that people bring up what the law actually says in a discussion about what we think the law should be.

If that's the case.......... abortion is legal, deal with it.

If not, let's continue on with the discussion of whether or not abortion should be legal or not.

[Gulliamo]

Originally posted by The GM
I was 19, enrolled in college and completely unprepared for what motherhood might entail. My lover was also young, dumb, and unprepared. One thing we both agreed upon was that we had to accept responsibility for our roll in the hay. It wasn't the kid's fault that we'd had an indescretion. Therefore we did the adult thing. We worked our butts off and despite many bumps in the road made our family work. I wonder if you would have the same opinion if you didn't have a supportive family and if the "boyfriend" said, "Good luck, I'm moving back to Ecuador!"

Personal decisions aside... We as individuals have always had a right to choose to keep a child if it was wanted (at least in the US) but would you force that decision upon another? I wholeheartedly agree with the theory that responsibility for ones actions should be a societal foundation. But until it is can we assume that everyone has that instilled?

Courts allow "2nd chances" (often referred to as "deferred judgments") for an appalling diverse number of crimes. Do you think the "one shot" responsibility standard should apply across the board?

[Yahzi]

Originally posted by Christian
If his life is danger, yes he can.
Actually, no.

We do not have Good Samaritan laws, at least in most states in the USA. While you cannot act in such a way as to threaten a life, and of course if you are merely selfish your community will probably find a way to prosecute you: but if the bum will live at least 24 hours, then you're probably off the hook.

You might be surprised, Christian, at just how callous the law can be.

Your analogy is incomplete because, (in yours) when you throw that person out on the street, that person does not die.
The absolute certain foreknowledge that the bum will starve to death does not impinge upon your rights. You have a point that the bum does not die immediately, but I think you can see that really isn't terribly important.

[The GM]

Originally posted by Gulliamo
I wonder if you would have the same opinion if you didn't have a supportive family and if the "boyfriend" said, "Good luck, I'm moving back to Ecuador!"

Personal decisions aside... We as individuals have always had a right to choose to keep a child if it was wanted (at least in the US) but would you force that decision upon another? I wholeheartedly agree with the theory that responsibility for ones actions should be a societal foundation. But until it is can we assume that everyone has that instilled?

Courts allow "2nd chances" (often referred to as "deferred judgments") for an appalling diverse number of crimes. Do you think the "one shot" responsibility standard should apply across the board?

If I make poor choices, I expect to reap the fruits of those choices. Had I picked a low life BF that would have taken off, I would have still accepted my responsibility and shouldered it to the best of my ability. It's my body and my choice of who I wish to share it with, but as I said, my rights end where the physical welfare of someone else begins.
You're right, there is a disturbing lack of personal responsibility going on in society right now. Everyone is a victim, and it's always someone else's fault. I say hooey! I don't much respect those who won't take charge of and responsibility for their own life.
As far as second chances...
Maybe this sounds callous, but life doesn't often allow for second chances. Remember my OP? *You* agreed w/ it. I have a friend, she's beautiful, smart and wildly successful in her career. She made a poor choice and picked a POS lover who cheated on her and gave her a VD that will remain w/ her for the rest of her days...no cure. It was a direct consequence of her decision to not heed the advice of the people around her who were telling her that the guy was screwing around, and her decision to not use adequate protective measures. No second chance. Yes, it sucks for her. I wish it hadn't happened to her, but it did. Not only does she get to live w/ the consequences, but her current lover gets to as well, since they have decided to marry. No second chance.
That's life. I didn't make the rules, but there they are.
Pregnancy is the least that could potentially happen when one doesn't take full and complete responsibility for their sexual choices. Also, keep in mind that the only two choices aren't just 'get an abortion or raise child through age 18'. Many other options exist for a woman who wishes to relinquish her responsibility to someone else.

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by The GM


1. Yes, yes and yes. If you smoke, expect to have a negative outcome. If you sit on the couch and consume 4k cals a day for twenty years, expect a negative outcome. If you deal w/ stress poorly and do nothing to alieviate that, expect a negative outcome. If you choose to have unprotected sex w/ a poorly choosen lover, expect a negative outcome. If you engaged in risky behavior and there are consequences, step up to the plate. Responsibility is the key word here.

2. I don't think it's a crime against her gender. I think it's a cop out. I think it's potentially a crime against the unborn life she carries. The fuzzy area is the definition of when consciousness begins of course, and so it's hard to say when it turns from a medical procedure into a crime.

0. If you're going to edit the post you're replying to, would you please note what you've done and why. Thank you :)

1. If people have contributed to a negative outcome, should treatment for that outcome be withheld from them?

2. How is the other person involved in conception going to be held to account? "Unborn life" is an oxymoron; after all, every sperm is a potential "unborn life"; everytime a woman goes through her menstrual cycle, she's terminating potential "unborn lives". If consciousness is the criteria you're going to use here, then it carnt be a crime to kill newborns, which is why I'd go for viability outside the womb.

[Yahzi]

She made a poor choice and picked a POS lover who cheated on her and gave her a VD that will remain w/ her for the rest of her days...no cure.
And if a cure was invented tommorrow, would you deny it to your friend? Morally, according to what you've just typed, you would. Does she know this?

It was a direct consequence of her decision
This fantasy that you are in complete control of your life, that accidents never happen, that other people are unable to harm you through their own actions if only you are careful enough, is just a stupid fantasy.

I didn't make the rules, but there they are.
Except you do want to make the rules. Pregnancy is a problem we are quite capable of solving: you just don't want to allow people to solve it. You cannot claim recourse to the invisible rules when the only reason we have the rule is because you want to enforce it.

Pregnancy is the least that could potentially happen when one doesn't take full and complete responsibility for their sexual choices.
And it sometimes happens even when one does take full and complete responsibility. Are you aware that the Pill (and in fact every form of contraception - including sterlization!) has a failure rate? Small, but existant. I'm sorry, are my facts getting in the way of your prejudices?

You keep selling pregnancy as the punishment for having sex. But you don't don't seem to think that broken legs are the punishment for skiiing: you don't think that doctors should be compelled by law to do less than they have the technology to do to fix broken legs. You only want doctors to have their hands tied when it is pregnancy. Because your entire argument, your entire position, simply assumes that pregnancy is the punishment for having sex.

[Doctor X]

Christian:

A late FYI:

Physicians now use a more rigorous criterion for death: brain wave activity. A flat EEG (electroencephalograph) is one of the most important criteria used to determine death.

Actually, it is not and has not for some time. despite the Hollywood fascination with "flat-line" the EEG is very unreliable in the sense that it can pick up a lot of artifact. That you have activity does not make it meaningful. Far faster and more reliable secondary tests are used.

If the cessation of brain wave activity can define death, could the onset of brain wave activity define life?

No, if "life" implies consciousness and the ability to be conscious. I think that is the intent of the references since the sperm and ovum are both alive to begin with. Also, I am not sure the reference would like supporting "morning-after" pills or early abortions--which is what he does with this statement and subsequent statement.

--J.D.

[The GM]

Yahzi et al...
Very interesting and thought provoking discussion going on. Due to RL circumstance, I'm going to have to bow out until Sat. or Sun. of this week. Feel free to discuss (or not ;) ) w/out me. I hope to catch up by then and maybe post a few replies on some thoughts you guys have inspired.
Have a good week. :)

[thaiboxerken]

Hold on.. some people are saying that a person should not have an abortion and deal with the "consequences" of their actions?! So, a pregnant lady should be forced to raise a child that she didn't plan on? How nice of a parent will she be at that point, having to raise a kid that is merely a consequence? What if her action was simply jogging in a park and getting raped? Is that her fault?

Isn't abortion another consequence?

The consequence argument is just freaking stupid.

[The GM]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
Hold on.. some people are saying that a person should not have an abortion and deal with the "consequences" of their actions?! So, a pregnant lady should be forced to raise a child that she didn't plan on? How nice of a parent will she be at that point, having to raise a kid that is merely a consequence? What if her action was simply jogging in a park and getting raped? Is that her fault?

Isn't abortion another consequence?

The consequence argument is just freaking stupid.

Please read the OP. The thread wasn't supposed to be about about rape vics or medical/ health related abortions. The topic was abortion as birth control.
Also, why do people automatically assume that a woman would be *forced* to raise a child. Does adoption no longer exist? ;)
You may believe that certain consequences are stupid, but everything we do has consequences, positive or negative. That's life.
I'll check in later. Off to bed for now.

[Christian]

Originally posted by Doctor X

Christian:

A late FYI:



Actually, it is not and has not for some time. despite the Hollywood fascination with "flat-line" the EEG is very unreliable in the sense that it can pick up a lot of artifact. That you have activity does not make it meaningful. Far faster and more reliable secondary tests are used.

Ok, good to know.



No, if "life" implies consciousness and the ability to be conscious. I think that is the intent of the references since the sperm and ovum are both alive to begin with. Also, I am not sure the reference would like supporting "morning-after" pills or early abortions--which is what he does with this statement and subsequent statement.

--J.D.


I haven't made up my mind on this yet.

But, I want you to note that all these criteria are subjective. It could be that we define human life as having consciousness. It could be that we define it as having brainwaves.

Or I could go another route. I could say that what clearly is on route to becoming a human, must be categorized as human.

Which criteria is more valid? I don't know. But, right now I'm not convinced that any carry more weight than the other.


What I'm really uncomfortable is with the idea that because it is inconvinient, one can dispose of a fetus. Going the slippery slope path, a child born with severe brain damage is inconvenient. What then?

[Christian]

Originally posted by Yahzi

Actually, no.

Actually, yes.

We do not have Good Samaritan laws, at least in most states in the USA. While you cannot act in such a way as to threaten a life, and of course if you are merely selfish your community will probably find a way to prosecute you: but if the bum will live at least 24 hours, then you're probably off the hook.

But, you have manslaughter (showing extreme indifference to human life). The 24 hours period depends on the circumstances.

You might be surprised, Christian, at just how callous the law can be.

Why surprised?


The absolute certain foreknowledge that the bum will starve to death does not impinge upon your rights. You have a point that the bum does not die immediately, but I think you can see that really isn't terribly important.

Maybe it has nothing to do with starving to death. Maybe it is just that someone outside is waiting for him with a gun shouting "I'm going to kill you". If you live out in the woods, and there is no communication, it might take more than 24 hours for the bum to be safe.

[thaiboxerken]

Please read the OP. The thread wasn't supposed to be about about rape vics or medical/ health related abortions. The topic was abortion as birth control.

Isn't abortion, by definition, a form of birth control?


Also, why do people automatically assume that a woman would be *forced* to raise a child. Does adoption no longer exist?

Ok, so she's forced to be pregnant for about 9 months and give birth. She's forced to change her lifestyle for that period of time and shortly afterwards.


You may believe that certain consequences are stupid, but everything we do has consequences, positive or negative. That's life.
I'll check in later. Off to bed for now.

Abortion is a consequence. I see no problem with terminating the life of a parasite, which is basically what a fetus is, for ANY reason.

If you don't like abortions, don't have one.

[Doctor X]

Christian:

But, I want you to note that all these criteria are subjective. It could be that we define human life as having consciousness. It could be that we define it as having brainwaves.

Yes . . . and no!

Something with "brain waves" that exhibits no consciousness is hardly human--does not meet the criteria or has lost everything that makes one a human.

I understand your objection that subjectivity exists however.

. . . I could say that what clearly is on route to becoming a human, must be categorized as human.

I would disagree since it has not got there yet. Ethicist Jane English wrote a very good paper on the subject. She noted the basic ethical/moral problem--most people would not force a woman who does not want to be a mother to have an abortion at a reasonable time--early--while most people would not want a woman to have an abortion because pregnancy will screw up her vacation plans.

She recognized that ethical problems involve balancing rights of others. I have a right to do anything until the exercise of that right infringes on someone else. She characterized the zygote-fetus as a "potential human life." She rejected not calling it "life"--it is alive. However it is not human yet. On the other hand, barring accidents, it will become a human.

So she balanced the rights of a potential human life versus that of an established human life. She argued that prior to viability--certainly first trimester--the rights of the established life outweigh that of the potential human life.

But, right now I'm not convinced that any carry more weight than the other.

One has to look at practicality. That without the attributes of human is not human. This does not mean it cannot become human. This seems like a lot of semantics, but it impinges on ethical decisions such as in severe brain damage.


What I'm really uncomfortable is with the idea that because it is inconvinient, one can dispose of a fetus.

I do not think "inconvenience" is the reason for abortion--inability to be a mother, care for a child, appear to be the majority cases last I looked. However, I have to agree that at the beginning the potential human life's rights do not outweigh the right of an established human life to not be a mother.

Going the slippery slope path, a child born with severe brain damage is inconvenient. What then?

Generally, nature takes care of that. Severe brain damage generally means death eventually. Parents can choose "not to treat" the complications of such. Your slipperly slope does not really exist, however. It is not so much convenience as respect for the child that a parent would not want it to suffer or exist in such a state.

Furthermore, such decisions are rarely easy to make.

--J.D.

[Radrook]

He who defines holds the power.


Friendly fire = your own friends trying to blow yer brains out.

Regime = a government that doesn't appeal to you

Police action = an invasion that YOUR COUNTRY is involved in making.

Invasion = police action

Invasion = unwarranted attack

passed away = died

passed gas = farted

has political savvy = is a habitual liar

stout = fat

big = fat

plump = fat

slim = skinny or gaunt

honest = is sadistically blunt

a human being does not = a fetus

a human being = a fetus

Define and everything else neatly falls into place.

[Doctor X]

Ambrose Bierce expressed it with more wit.

--J.D.

[Radrook]

Trace the soul idea and you come smack right dab to pagan Greek philosophy. Which makes no difference since no one cares where the damned idea originated anyway long as it makes them feel ecumenical.:D

[Gulliamo]

Originally posted by Christian
But, I want you to note that all these criteria are subjective. It could be that we define human life as having consciousness. It could be that we define it as having brainwaves.I'm not sure that I see what the definition of human "life" has to do with it. We end "life" on a daily basis. Big deal. We end life, complete with heart beats, developed frontal lobes, brain waves, and every other mentioned criteria daily. My attorney, my doctor, my parents, and my wife all have copies of my "living will" that states they will "pull the plug" if certain criteria are met.

I guess my point is that sometimes ending life is the more humane thing to do. Sometimes a quick end or never beginning is the morally right thing.

[Doctor X]

Gulliamo:

Well, someone can retort that in the cases you describe the person "getting ended" has some choice in the matter--or acted in a way to merit it--as in death penalty.

--J.D.

[Christian]

Originally posted by Doctor X
Gulliamo:

Well, someone can retort that in the cases you describe the person "getting ended" has some choice in the matter--or acted in a way to merit it--as in death penalty.

--J.D.

Beat me to the response

[An Infinite Ocean]

Originally posted by The GM
If I make poor choices, I expect to reap the fruits of those choices.
Why punish yourself if it is unnecessary? Why not simply learn from your mistakes? Unless of course, you have some religious or spiritual investment in the idea that a fetus is person.

Perhaps you really would just let yourself die if you got a disease related to your lifestyle. After all, it's your own fault, why burden others with having to cure you? Best all round if you just drop dead. Then you'll learn your lesson.

[Ratman_tf]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken

Also, why do people automatically assume that a woman would be *forced* to raise a child. Does adoption no longer exist?

Ok, so she's forced to be pregnant for about 9 months and give birth. She's forced to change her lifestyle for that period of time and shortly afterwards.

[/B]

Indeed. A man gets a woman pregnant, and he doesn't have to deal with the physical ramifications of being pregnant and giving birth. A woman does. Why should a woman be saddled with that if she doesn't want it? And don't anyone give me any crap about how sex is only for making babies.
Personally, since I don't think a fetus is a human being until the 3rd trimester, I consider abortion to be almost the exact same thing as wearing a rubber or taking the pill.

[American]

If you blind yourself to reality, then it's easy to accept any fallicy (whether you do it carelessly or maliciously). That's what abortionists do, probably out of habit and they never really thought about their beliefs, absent worldly influence.

[Kopji]

Maybe some things always require careful consideration and do not lend themselves to black and white answers.

I would agree with Doc X's implication that the potential for human life must always be a consideration, and abortion should not be decided lightly or without careful thought.

Good quality blindness though, comes from firmly deciding what the answer is and then accepting only evidence that supports your pov.