FutureIncoming said:
Your mere claims are worthless without supporting evidence.Monkey Mind said:
FutureIncoming said:
Your mere claims are worthless without supporting evidence.Monkey Mind said:
Actually, I use pretty much the same list characteristics, that differentiate persons from mere animals, as Felicity, except where she confuses/equivocates "potential" and "actual magnitude".Monkey Mind said:
You can do that for yourself. Just explain to yourself what mental characteristics do newborn/infant humans exhibit, that no ordinary animal can also exhibit?Monkey Mind said:
You are now ignoring the "perhaps it could be said" that I included in #113 specifically to make allowances for things about which I might be ignorant. So far, though, you have merely been blathering without presenting any data to indicate that what I wrote was not factual enough. I might mention this link as evidence that perhaps even a year after conception isn't long enough, but then that appears to be quite an exceptional case, with about three months of non-growth in the womb.Monkey Mind said:
How does aborting a fetus have no effect on society but killing a newborn have enough of effect that killing a newborn child is considered murder and punished by society as such?
This is either unclear or an outright lie, and perhaps more than one lie. First, it is impossible for a mindless animal to consent to anything, so why should such consent be sought? Second, since abortion is allowed, clearly society does allow "innocent" human life to be ended. Except that it is not so innocent, when its behavior is no different from any other unwanted parasite.Cremaster77 said:
Can a newborn or an infant or even a toddler consent? Yet they are still protected.
And our current society can make various arbitrary rules, just like the Romans did. Allowing abortion, however, is not just an arbitrary rule; it is quite practical. with plenty of valid reasons for it. And no valid reasons to prohibit it.Cremaster77 said:
MOSTLY FALSE. Because most children are mentally developed enough to qualify as persons. Only newborns and very young infants fail sufficiently, to qualify as persons, that Society might consider euthanizing them due to genetic disease.Cremaster77 said:
The inconsistency is due to traditionally granting person status to newborns, regardless of whether they in fact qualify for that status. But we do not traditionally grant person status to the unborn; that's why, even though the Constitution specifies counting of all persons in a Census every decade, no Census ever included the unborn in that count. And if you think the Founding Fathers had no opportunity to express the idea that unborn humans are persons, think again! The first Census was in 1790, only three years after the Constitution was written.Cremaster77 said:
SO WHAT? If you insist that the process be uninteruptable, then you are indeed insisting that a potential must be fulfilled! And if you allow the process to be interrupted, then you are effectively allowing abortion. Your worthless word-weaseling has got you nowhere.Cremaster77 said:
I agree completely, but this has nothing whatsoever to do with persons.Cremaster77 said:
The government's role is (or should be) to encourage and help people to get along with each other. Since fetuses don't and can't qualify as people, they are exempted from being affected by that role. Simple.Cremaster77 said:
But there is no rationale to prevent abortions, since fetuses are not people, and cannot qualify as people.Cremaster77 said:
The Zygote/Blastocyst/Embryo/Fetus can indeed be 100% a living human organism (when "human" not specified, a Z/B/E/F might be inside a dog), and always is also 0% person. I have indeed presented arguments explaining this in detail. One of the most recent in is #112 of this Thread.Cremaster77 said:
"Human" and "person" are not automatically the same thing. Because if they were, then it would be impossible for a nonhuman person to exist, such as God. Are pro-lifers willing to claim that humans are the only persons in the whole wide Universe? I don't think even they are that stupid. How would you distinguish an alien person from an alien animal? Why can't that distinguishment-test be applied to unborn humans?Cremaster77 said:
You expect to "load" the argument first? An average housefly is an "innocent individual"; why should the government take a role in preventing harm to it?Cremaster77 said:
I support almost every statement I make. I just don't necessarily do that in every single message; I should have the right to refer to previous-written supportings.Cremaster77 said:
I have the right to declare that some statement is stupid, when I can prove it to be stupid. And even smart people can make stupid statements; I do it myself on occasion. And you are not your statements, just as you are not your body. You are a mind; your statements are a way of expressing yourself, and your body is just a vehicle that carries your mind from place to place. The human fetus is just an unoccupied vehicle; that's why killing it does not harm a person.Cremaster77 said:
...so your claim is not yet valid.
Your stance is rather extreme and unlike most in the Pro-Choice group, but if you are saying what I think you are saying, then at least you are consistent. You acknowledge that to be consistent, that murder of newborns and infants should be allowed. Please correct me if my understanding is wrong. If it is, then your claim that there are no valid reasons to prohibit abortions is equal to saying there are no valid reasons to prohibit murdering newborns and infants. What is most interesting is that you draw a line between newborns and young infants and other humans. What is the defining event that transitions an infant into a person?
The law is inconsistent in this matter. A person who murders a pregnant woman can be charged with both murder of the mother and the fetus. The same goes for manslaughter in the case of car accidents where a fetus is lost. There is legal precedent for this. So while fetuses are not counted in the Census, other matters of law differ as to what is considered a life.
Not sure what "word-weaseling" you are referring to. The fact that human intervention can interrupt an adult life does not mean that person was not a human life. Similarly the fact that abortions can interrupt natural embryonal development does not mean that the embryo was not a life. How is that word-weaseling?
Again, you have made a definition for what "people" are and have pointedly excluded newborns and infants. By your definition, what qualifies something as being a person?
The crux of your argument lies with what a "person" is. I dispute this point given that no one can objectively say when personhood is achieved. Human life, however, is a functional biologic endpoint. Same question as above. What qualifies something as being a person?
Please point out where I have made an argument founded in prejudice, hypocrisy, selfishness, and ignorance. The trend I am noticing among several of the pro-choice people here is to make general broad sweeping statements denigrating anyone with a different view or the denigrating the views of anyone who differs.
I admit I have not read every post in the abortion thread. Please support the statement that a zygote, embryo, fetus, newborn, and infant don't qualify as a person.
FutureIncoming said:
FAILED ALREADY. The challenge is to define "person", not to define "human". We are aware that modern usage of the word "person" allows it to include far more entities than mere humans.Cremaster77 said:
I agree this is the current consensus, although there are glaring exceptions, such as conviction murders of pregnant women with double homicide. This has been clearly established by legal precedent. I would dispute that society is unaware that a z/e/f exists given the somewhat exalted status conferred to pregnancy in many cultures. This is particularly true in this day and age when ultrasounds are common. How many pregnant people do you know that show pictures of their ultrasounds? It seems to me that society is at least somewhat aware that the fetus exists. A clear argument could be made that society does not know the zygote exists, but as I have stated earlier, human development has progressed beyond the zygote stage by the time a woman even knows she's pregnant. It's hard to get an abortion when you don't know you're pregnant (although there are clear exceptions such as with use of an IUD or the morning after pill).
I'm not sure why a 30 week old premature newborn has more of a potential value to society than a 34 week old fetus. The point that it can be cared for by any person, I think, is the most valid Pro-Choice stance. I'm curious, do you support the right to undergo elective third trimester abortions? The reason I ask is that viability current occurs at the third trimester. In theory, women could be induced to deliver and subsequently that fetus could be cared for by any person.
Society has also NEVER been able to prevent infanticide. You make the statement that laws against abortion have caused more harm then benefit. What is the support for this claim? And what benefit is derived from laws that prohibit the murder of children?
Man, you sure like that red font.
Are you trying to imply that mindless biology must be granted superior status over Free Will? Mindless biology is a mosquito seeking warm flesh, to suck blood. Mindless biology is a blastocyst seeking a womb, to suck blood. Are you trying to say that it is OK to swat the first but not the second? If so, would you care to explain that in detail?Jerry said:
No, because "right to life" doesn't exist; how can something that doesn't exist be applicable?Jerry said:
It's a truth that is "self-evident" ..."in the course of human events" (as a very important historical document put it)--it would be meaningless to the life-less. However, once there is life, it is and exists and the right to it is "self evident."
Yes, this is traditional. Shall we withhold vaccinations and allow 50% of them to die in their first few years, as also was traditional? Oh, maybe you admit that traditions tend to change? Well, the tradition (what little there was) of granting protection to unborn humans has changed. And in this era of overpopulation, it doesn't need to be changed back.Cremaster77 said:
I've mostly said that because you seem to be making a big deal of societal values. I'm fully capable of arguing that various socital values are utterly stupid. Take burial of the deceased, for example. We put valuable biomass into sealed containers, expressly to prevent commingling with the overall biosphere. Hundreds of thousands of tons of biomass gets sequestered that way, every year. When instead it should be dehydraded, pulverized, and added to the fertilizer supply. If abortion was disallowed, you can bet I'd be arguing that that disallowance is stupid.Cremaster77 said:
But your stance is based on the claim that unborn humans are persons. I see in #164 that you have claimed to have provided an argument somewhere to support the claim, but since you didn't provide a link, all I see are unsupported claims. Worthless. Especially when unborn humans are compared to various ordinary animals, the animals can exhibit more traits of persons than do the unborn humans --and since that is not enough to grant person status to those animals, why should we prejudicially grant person status to the unborn humans?Cremaster77 said:
I agree. But I'm also quite certain, as just explained, that you are attempting to turn Prejudice into Law, and that is always a bad thing. The existing non-prejudiced Law about unborn humans is correct.Cremaster77 said:
I often ignore the Internet on weekends, even though I have a lot of catching-up to do on Monday. I want to see your (undoubtedly flawed) argument for "the case for why it is fruitless to distinguish person from human".Cremaster77 said:
These posts of yours are making less and less sense. Your argument was that fetuses are not protected because they can't consent. I state that neither can children, but they are still protected by the law. You answer with then let's stop vaccination? Huh? And to top it off, you imply that my argument for making abortion illegal is based in tradition. Where have I ever made that claim?
As I've said, you are consistent. Because the "utterly stupid" societal values that you toss aside includes protection of newborns and infants from murder.
Unsupported claims. What "proof" would you like that the completely subjective nature of personhood, like ensoulment, cannot be argued because it is entirely based in opinion. The argument I have always made is that human life is a biologic concept and the only objective stance is to look at it fro a biologic perspective and not granting personhood on some humans but not others. If there is anything that could possibly considered "unsupported" here is the claim that you have clearly made that there is some test that determines when a human progresses from life to personhood. I have asked you in several other posts to please define what that is, but have not seen the response.
In the other thread, I admit my species prejudice. I am comfortable with it. I think the VAST majority of society is. Very few people equate the life of a newborn to a housefly as you have done.
Laid out for about the fourth time above. I have yet to see you define what makes a human a person.
Well, then you might as well say that the praying mantis is a minded being, too. I think you know by now that when I say "mindless" I mean "lacking a person-class mind". Perhaps I should be more explicit about this in the future, but that's the kind of detail that bogs down an argument. Anyway, an animal-class mind is not a person, and a human fetus only has an animal-class mind. Killable as any other animal, therefore.Jerry said:
Your misspellings are some of the funniest things I see around here. Look up that word "exorcise" sometime. You might laugh, too! Anyway, you now seem to be confusing "right" with "ability". If a suicide succeeds, how can it be said that there was no right to die involved? To me it seems that there could be no right to die only if all of us were immortal and unkillable. Currently death seems not only inevitable, but numerous situations have been described in which accepting death is considered by Society to be a Good Thing. I distinctly recall an older lady whose body was almost (not quite) literally falling apart, and in her final hours all her family gathered around to give her a nice send-off. There were tears when she was gone, but that was lots better than denial.Jerry said:
Sounds like they need "cow catcher" type devices on the lead convoy trucks.Jerry said:
So? Preventing a Malthusean Catastrophe sounds like at least one valid justification for elective abortion. It may someday be a justification for mandatory abortion, but it logically figures that the more elective abortions happen first, the longer it will be before that other day arrives.Jerry said:
I see you are also among those who don't seem to know the difference between "child" and "fetus".Jerry said:
FALSE. Just for starters, there is exactly the same rationale used to justify the swatting of a mosquito. Both organisms are totally guilty of taking bodily resources against the wishes of the body-owner. And why does anyone need more rationale than that one? (How about "staving off a Malthusean Catastrophe"...)Jerry said:
Irrelevant, else there should be a legal procedure to be followed, before one can swat a mosquito. And there isn't. What there is, is nothing but worthless prejudice for mindless ("lacking person-class minds") human organisms over equally mindless ("lacking person-class minds") mosquito organisms.Jerry said:
Not sure where you're going with prosecuting women based off of ultrasounds. I'm not sure how that would work. The point was merely that you're contention that society is unaware that the z/e/f exists is incorrect. On a public level, there are laws that prosecute a murdered of a pregnant woman for both the fetus and the mother. On a private level, many Americans point towards modern imaging as a way of connecting with their fetus. Society on both a public and private level clearly acknowledge the existence of the fetus.
If I were 100% consistent, if life starts at conception than IUDs and hormonal methods of birth control, then these methods would be considered abortions. I would have to say that being human, I am emotionally torn on this issue. I recognize the rationality of the above stance, but emotionally have a problem with it, so I'm not sure where I stand on this issue. It's much the same way that many people fight to save the charismatic endangered species while ignoring the endangered single celled organisms. It doesn't make it right, but it's often hard to fight human emotions.
You make a pretty broad statement that women NEVER willingly choose late term abortions. I'm taking late term to mean after the point of viability (if I'm wrong, please feel free to correct me). The point is that where viability is depends on the technology of the day. If medical technology progresses to the point where viability is now at 10 weeks rather than 22 (which is entirely within the realm of possibility), would you make the same statement that women wouldn't choose to have them?
I'm not sure if this is correct. If you have a reasonably non-biased link, I would appreciate it. There are approximately 1.3 million abortions per year in the US. Are you saying that before abortion was legalized a similar number of people (percentage-wise) were having abortions? They must if laws against abortion don't prevent abortion. I don't think the actual numbers support your claim.
My #4. above is totally relevant, as Roe establishes that the state has a "compelling interest" in protecting the potential life of "viable" fetus, and the right to life supersedes and overrides the mother's right to medical privacy and similar.
Somewhat true, but I have a more subtle position than that. Do keep in mind that abortions primariliy occur because those unborn are also unwanted. It logically figures that if all the unwanted are aborted before birth, then all those born will be wanted, and will not face danger of being murdered by their parents. Furthermore, because infant humans are much more in the "chattel" category than in the person-in-charge-of-self category, there are property-protections that apply, to keep those infants from being arbitrarily murdered by non-parents. Destruction of others' property is a fairly serious offense! Imagine a penalty equal to all the medical expenses associated with carrying a pregnancy to term, plus all the expenses that followed, plus a large emotional-suffering component. So, those infants don't actually need to be granted person status!Cremaster77 said:
Biologically, there is no defining event. The characteristics that distinguish persons from animals are manifold, and accumulate. One of the last such characteristics is described here. Infant humans enter a "grey zone" during which growth/accumulation occurs, of person characteristics. So far as I know, the first such characteristic, Free Will, different from mere animal stimulus/response, is not exhibited until some weeks or months after birth. So, even if we "grandfather" person status through the entire grey zone (while ignoring the fact that a number of ordinary animals also have brainpower that puts them in the grey zone), no newborn human, and certainly no unborn human, qualifes for person status.Cremaster77 said:
Cremaster77 said:
Ensoulment, if that happens to be a part of Reality, is a completely nonbiological thing, and in fact the existence of souls completely eliminates the notion that humans are persons. Instead, in that scenario souls are the persons. Humans are just vehicles for souls, in that scenario. As are any other ensouled organisms out there, across the wide wide Universe. Nevertheless, even if souls exist, that does not mean they have anything to do with unborn human bodies. From what I've read about "past life regression" research, to the extent that the evidence is believable (feel free to do your own research), it supports incarnation of souls at birth, and never before birth. Which leaves unborn humans still soulless and abortable, vehicles under construction. There are other arguments, too. The notion that God creates souls at conception is particularly stupid, since it ignores the fact that twinning occurs well after conception. See this link. Twinning requires God to make additional souls after conception, and so there becomes no requirement for any souls, after all, to be made actually-at conception. Furthermore, it seems wasteful to create souls for zygotes that fail to fission into a blastocyst, or for blastocysts that fail to escape the ovum "shell", or for half the blastocysts that merge to form a "chimera" (http://shallowthgts.blogspot.com/2005/08/i-am-my-own-twin.html), or for blastocysts that fail to implant in a womb, or for blastocysts that fail to become embryos, or for embryos that get washed out in the next menstrual cycle, or for fetuses that miscarry, including so late as to be indistingushable from "still births". Simplest and most efficient if God only makes souls for live births! Not to mention this: God is claimed to be "loving"; does God love a soulless unborn human so much more than a fully adult ensouled and FreeWilled woman, that God will create a soul for that fetus, anyway, just so the woman can be condemned if she obtains an abortion? That doesn't sound very loving, to me!Cremaster77 said: