• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Fla. doctor investigated in badly botched abortion

jallman said:
No one claimed the fetus isn't human so try again.
Click to expand...

Some do.

But let's say everyone agrees the fetus is human. You make my argument for me. You're saying they agree the fetus is human, yet claim that human isn't a person. As I say above, what's the only reason you'd deny a human is a person? To justify an evil practice.
 
We both know that throwing out the term fetus in exchange for an emotionally charged word like "baby" is nothing but a semantic game meant to cloud the issue and emotionally extort pro-choice proponents into capitulation for fear of being called "baby killers".
Click to expand...

I agree, but both sides are guilty of this. Pro-choice proponents engage heavily in semantics when they devalue the unborn by pejoratively referring to them as a "fetus" or a "zygote". These are merely terms used to describe stages of human development. They are not meant to diminish the taxonomic status enjoyed by the unborn.

I think instead of talking about "zygotes" or "unborn babies" we should simply concentrate on humans or the unborn. Either term is acceptable and does not engender overly-emotional or unduly diminutive connotations.
 
Harshaw said:
Some do.

But let's say everyone agrees the fetus is human. You make my argument for me. You're saying they agree the fetus is human, yet claim that human isn't a person. As I say above, what's the only reason you'd deny a human is a person? To justify an evil practice.
Click to expand...

Hardly. Personhood is so much more than a double helix with the same repeating base pairs.

But I am not concerned about the personhood argument as much as I am about moral consequence. You take nothing from the fetuse before it reaches the stage in its morphological development required for spatial awareness to even be a possibility. If it doesn't have a functioning central nervous system, it has no concept of self and no ability to feel, desire, hurt...nothing. There is no moral consequence to the termination of a pregnancy in these instances.
 
jallman said:
Hardly. Personhood is so much more than a double helix with the same repeating base pairs.
Click to expand...

Such as? When is a human being not a person?

But I am not concerned about the personhood argument as much as I am about moral consequence. You take nothing from the fetuse before it reaches the stage in its morphological development required for spatial awareness to even be a possibility. If it doesn't have a functioning central nervous system, it has no concept of self and no ability to feel, desire, hurt...nothing. There is no moral consequence to the termination of a pregnancy in these instances.
Click to expand...

If that's how you have to justify it.

But it's not like abortion is illegal at the point where a central nervous system is developed and feeling pain possible.
 
Harshaw said:
Such as? When is a human being not a person?
Click to expand...

Personhood is a legal construction. I guess before a human being has a birth certificate it wouldn't be a person. That is irrelevant, however.

If that's how you have to justify it.
Click to expand...

I don't have to justify it. Blackmun justified it in his ruling many years ago.

But it's not like abortion is illegal at the point where a central nervous system is developed and feeling pain possible.
Click to expand...

And that is where I split with most pro-choicers. I think it should be.
 
jallman said:
Personhood is a legal construction. I guess before a human being has a birth certificate it wouldn't be a person. That is irrelevant, however.
Click to expand...

Let's put it another way -- why would a human being ever not be a person? Why would make a legal distinction?



I don't have to justify it. Blackmun justified it in his ruling many years ago.
Click to expand...

See, that's a cop-out. Taney justified slavery many years ago. Harlan justified segregation. Yet, we recognize both of those things as wrong and their advocates as evil.


And that is where I split with most pro-choicers. I think it should be.
Click to expand...

Why?
 
Harshaw said:
Why?
Click to expand...

I don't care about personhood and I don't care about giving rights to something based on the fact that we share the same genetic structure. I care moral consequence and as human beings we have a moral obligation to see to it that we avert suffering to our own. If an action will cause suffering to, in this case, the fetus, then we should do everything in our power to keep that action from occurring. However, if the fetus hasn't got the capacity for suffering, then there is no moral consequence to the action.

Once the physical structures of the nervous system have developed to the point where suffering is possible, abortion should be illegal from that point forward.
 
I don't care about personhood and I don't care about giving rights to something based on the fact that we share the same genetic structure. I care moral consequence and as human beings we have a moral obligation to see to it that we avert suffering to our own. If an action will cause suffering to, in this case, the fetus, then we should do everything in our power to keep that action from occurring. However, if the fetus hasn't got the capacity for suffering, then there is no moral consequence to the action.

Once the physical structures of the nervous system have developed to the point where suffering is possible, abortion should be illegal from that point forward.
Click to expand...

Not that I agree with any of this, but it's the first logically consistent position I've ever heard coming from a pro-choicer. It has somewhere to go except in a never-ending circle of semantics and deflection. Bravo, Jall, bravo...
 
jallman said:
I don't care about personhood and I don't care about giving rights to something based on the fact that we share the same genetic structure. I care moral consequence and as human beings we have a moral obligation to see to it that we avert suffering to our own. If an action will cause suffering to, in this case, the fetus, then we should do everything in our power to keep that action from occurring. However, if the fetus hasn't got the capacity for suffering, then there is no moral consequence to the action.
Click to expand...

Except that you're denying it life.


Once the physical structures of the nervous system have developed to the point where suffering is possible, abortion should be illegal from that point forward.
Click to expand...

I agree with Ethereal that it's a consistent position, but one which requires you to view denying life a matter of no moral consequence.

I can kill someone without making that person suffer at all.
 
Harshaw said:
Except that you're denying it life.




I agree with Ethereal that it's a consistent position, but one which requires you to view denying life a matter of no moral consequence.

I can kill someone without making that person suffer at all.
Click to expand...

Refuting that person's desires and free will is suffering in and of itself. The fetus has neither before the physical structures are in place.

We deny life to living being's every single day. If it is all about the denial of life, then to be consistent one would have to be mindful of all life.
 
jallman said:
Refuting that person's desires and free will is suffering in and of itself.
Click to expand...

That requires you to be sure of their "desires" and "will." Do you make the assumption that every person wants to continue living? If so, why?


The fetus has neither before the physical structures are in place.
Click to expand...

It's an aggressive living organism which indicates its intention to survive at every point of development. Otherwise, heck, infants have no capacity to understand survival enough to "desire" it.


We deny life to living being's every single day. If it is all about the denial of life, then to be consistent one would have to be mindful of all life.
Click to expand...

No, it's about the denial of human life. After all, we're all equal.
 
Harshaw said:
That requires you to be sure of their "desires" and "will." Do you make the assumption that every person wants to continue living? If so, why?
Click to expand...

I make that assumption until the opposite is demonstrated. A fetus, once able to feel pain and have desires, is still not able to demonstrate its desires. That doesn't mean we should not protect it until it can.


It's an aggressive living organism which indicates its intention to survive at every point of development. Otherwise, heck, infants have no capacity to understand survival enough to "desire" it.
Click to expand...

You try not feeding an infant and I assure you it will express a desire to survive. A fetus, before it has a functioning nervous system, will not.


No, it's about the denial of human life. After all, we're all equal.
Click to expand...

And I have already stated, I don't have instinctual empathy with a double helix strand of DNA with alternating base pairs.
 
jallman said:
I make that assumption until the opposite is demonstrated. A fetus, once able to feel pain and have desires, is still not able to demonstrate its desires. That doesn't mean we should not protect it until it can.

You try not feeding an infant and I assure you it will express a desire to survive. A fetus, before it has a functioning nervous system, will not.
Click to expand...

But it demonstrates its intention to survive by continuing to develop. As you say above, even after your threshold, it can't express its desires. But it can demonstrate exactly what it's doing.


And I have already stated, I don't have instinctual empathy with a double helix strand of DNA with alternating base pairs.
Click to expand...

Not sure why'd you be concerned if anyone survives, then.
 
Harshaw said:
But it demonstrates its intention to survive by continuing to develop. As you say above, even after your threshold, it can't express its desires. But it can demonstrate exactly what it's doing.
Click to expand...

Yeah and my cheek cells, if scraped and put in a petri dish will continue to grow but I don't really equate that to any kind of desire.

And in my example of not feeding an infant, the infant does much more than just demonstrate what it's doing. It's pretty clear that it "wants" or "desires" something when it does.


Not sure why'd you be concerned if anyone survives, then.
Click to expand...

Okay. That's not a point I wish to argue with you as it goes way outside the scope of this discussion and reaches into hyperbole.
 
Ethereal said:
Not that I agree with any of this, but it's the first logically consistent position I've ever heard coming from a pro-choicer. It has somewhere to go except in a never-ending circle of semantics and deflection. Bravo, Jall, bravo...
Click to expand...

That's actually the stance of many pro-choicers. He calls it a "moral consequence", I call it personhood. Same principal though. Exactly the same, actually.
 
jallman said:
Yeah and my cheek cells, if scraped and put in a petri dish will continue to grow but I don't really equate that to any kind of desire.
Click to expand...

Sure, but they won't survive, and they won't grow into . . . anything. They're not following any developmental path.
 
Harshaw said:
Sure, but they won't survive, and they won't grow into . . . anything. They're not following any developmental path.
Click to expand...

And? If the development is arrested before the fetus reaches the capacity for suffering, and more specifically spatial awareness, then what's the difference between the deaths of those cheek cells and the death of the fetus?

The cheek cells don't care. The fetus doesn't care. Neither of them can have a care. What is the moral obligation to either one since they are both in the same category of awareness and our ability to feel empathy for either is limited only to imagination of what one or the other might be?
 
jallman said:
And? If the development is arrested before the fetus reaches the capacity for suffering, and more specifically spatial awareness, then what's the difference between the deaths of those cheek cells and the death of the fetus?

The cheek cells don't care. The fetus doesn't care. Neither of them can have a care. What is the moral obligation to either one since they are both in the same category of awareness and our ability to feel empathy for either is limited only to imagination of what one or the other might be?
Click to expand...

OK, but that's a pretty wide net you're casting. A lot of unintended things might well get caught up in it.
 
Harshaw said:
OK, but that's a pretty wide net you're casting. A lot of unintended things might well get caught up in it.
Click to expand...

Dolphins get caught in tuna nets all the time but you don't see fundies bombing fishing boats. ;)
 
It always amazes me how prochoicers respond to various scenarios. I think the thing that gets me the most is that the response isn't generally tied to the actual human that was killed but the circumstances surrounding it.

Babies birthed into toilets and drowned provokes one response, abortions at 23 weeks provoke an entirely different one, and a born baby at 23 weeks tossed into a bag and suffocated will produce an even different response in many folks.

Let's say the gal went in and had an abortion at 23 weeks gestational age. A non-botched abortion. Is that better/worse/ or the way I see it THE EXACT SAME THING as dumping the born 23 week old in a bag?

Can someone explain it to me?
 
Last edited:
talloulou said:
Let's say the gal went in and had an abortion at 23 weeks gestational age. A non-botched abortion. Is that better/worse/ or the way I see it THE EXACT SAME THING as dumping the born 23 week old in a bag?
Click to expand...
Yes, which is why we need to ban abortion, at least at such a late term.
 
Indy said:
They should be arrested and tried for 1st degree murder.
Click to expand...

What if the abortion was performed perfectly? Clearly that wouldn't be 1st degree murder yet the only thing that changes in the two scenarios is the location of the organism in question.
 
talloulou said:
What if the abortion was performed perfectly? Clearly that wouldn't be 1st degree murder yet the only thing that changes in the two scenarios is the location of the organism in question.
Click to expand...
So when does a person become a human then, if not after they are born?(or, as you say it, their location) You are blurring the lines here. If it's botched, well you shouldn't have waited so long. you can't kill it, oh I'm sorry, the person.
 
The only logical answer is the scientific one. Once cells combine to form a human organism the organism is a living developing human that will continue to grow and develop until death be that 23 weeks old or 98 years old.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom