I know, I know, we've got about a billion of these threads. But I'd like a response to an argument I posted in another forum, just to see some rebuttles. If I put this in an existing forum it would get swamped and/or skewed into the normal banter and bickering. So anyway, tell me what you think:

quote:

"how are you going to tell me that a small group of cells that resemble NOTHING is human?"

Unique DNA code combined with the fact that it is the normal, natural process of human sexual reproduction. How is that NOT human? What makes a human? It's not a face, it's not a beating heart, it's none of that. It's the DNA code and replecating cells. That's the real definition of what makes something "human".
And it's seperated from, say, a clump of skin cells in that it is a stage in the reproductive process. Conception is the key turning point, when a unique DNA code is created and the first mitosis is set in motion. After that there is little difference, morally, between a zygote and an infant. Just the stage of development.
I am not talking about physical differences, I'm talking about moral differences. You cannot define "human" as a certain stage of development or mental awareness because it will have far reaching implications that stretch well past birth itself. Once you set a non-genetic standard for what is human, you can justify all sorts of atrocities. Eugenics anyone?
That is why your argument is flawed, unless you're willing to say that selective killing is ok past birth. Skins cells are not a zygote. There's a clear moral difference.

Inconvience to the mother, or the argument that "the child will have a bad life anyway" are weak as well. If, scientifically (and in this case, therefore morally), a seperate life starts at conception, there is also no difference between the zygote and the infant. You cannot kill a baby if you suddenly can't pay to feed it, or it keeps you from going to college. And you can't go up to a homeless man and kill him because "the rest of his life will suck anyway".

This is why you should't be "for abortion in every circumstance". That's just naive and overly simplistic. Which in my opinion is a dangerous thing when you're talking about something as heavy as human life.

Abortion in the case where it saves the life of the mother, there is precedence and reason to allow the procedure. It saves one life where otherwise both would be lost. Think siamese twins, where one must be killed to sacrifice the other.

Rape is a fuzzy issue. Morally we recoil from the idea of causing even more and much worse long-term-grief for the victim, however morally the conceived child is no different than any other. There are a few situations like this, and that is why I still think that abortion should be an option BEFORE THERE IS NO OTHER CHOICE. It's a type of mercy killing, which I beleive is morally allowable in some situations, but only where there is absolutely no other option. Therefore, abortion should only be used in extreme circumstances where it is the only option. Once the child can be removed from the womb and there be a chance of it's survival, abortion should not be prohibited. Even in the cases of rape. The mother can still "get rid of" the child, without killing it.

quote:

You may consider it immoral, but morality is based on the individual

I dispute this. I beleive that morality in human society should be based on a natural law involving human nature and the order of life in general. And maybe a few tinges of intellectual concept. We're not totally objective, etheral beings, and therefore our actions are not totally relative. That's why absolute moral reletavism doesn't work.


-------------------------------------
-------------------------------------

quote:

Good points, but I'd like to raise a question. Can a fetus, at any stage really be called human because it has the physical traits of a human being? The reason I don't consider abortion murder is because I don't consider it a killing, it's just a 'removal'. Quite frankly, the fetus at all stages before birth, exhibits parasitic behavior. (sustaining it's own life off of the host while contributing nothing to the host's survival)

This may seem like a pessimistic view, but that's how I honestly see it. In other words, it's up to the mother, and there's nothing morally wrong with it.

I've heard that parasite analogy alot. Basically I've rejected it because the fetus is not a parasite, even though it exhibits *some* traits. Notice the emphasis on some. While the fetus doesn't contribute to the mother's body, placental development is a natural process in the sexual reproduction of mammals. So if you still want to call it a parasite, then think of it this way: A human is naturally a parasite during early stages of development, and nevertheless it is human.

Returning to the siamese twin analogy: One siamese twin can be a "parasite" of the other, relying on certain vital organs in the other twin. However, one twin cannot legally (or morally) kill the other, it's still classified as murder.

End

So basically, I've adressed the key issues: Rape, What if the mother's life is threatened?, the "parasite" analogy, and provided what (I think) is pretty strong philosophical evidence that a zygote is effectively human enough to be comparable to an infant, and therefore a full grown adult.

Please also note that I never invoked the Bible or any other "divine law", and also did not call for the total prohibition of abortion. Anyone have any thoughts?

personally i'm pre-choice. i'm not big on the idea of getting an abortion because it means you weren't safe about things, but i do think that woman deserve the choice on whether or not to have an abortion. it shouldn't be some authority figure who decides how so many womans life turns out. your only going to be having an abortion if you feel strongly about it, and if you feel that strongly about it then you'll get it done if its legal or illegal.

quote:

Originally posted by clpo13:
Just doing my part to remind people that rights are to be exercised, not supressed.

Ironically, that's the exact reason I hold the postion on abortion that I do.

quote:

Nice to see the ideolouges are still pumping out clever phrases that are totally innacurate, ignorant, and inflammatory.

Just doing my part to remind people that rights are to be exercised, not supressed.

Chrissy- Let it go for a second, I don't want the topic changing. Just a request

Ian- Rebuttle is coming, just don't have the time/motivation to spit it out yet. I will respond to this however:

quote:

I'm sorry about that; you're right. I was just feeling too witty (read: conceited) just to go out and say that I've lost a great deal of respect for you throughout the death penalty debate and this debate, as it seems clear you lack respect for those who disagree with you. We differ in one chief respect: I have repeatedly conceded that you have a point, while I have yet to see you do so. I guess I'll just ignore you until you learn that while you can still disagree with others, those others might still have a point; just because somebody disagrees with you does not mean that they don't understand what you are saying!

The reason I have not conceeded is that you have not posted anything convincing yet to me. Anyone else on these boards (specifically the older ones) should tell you that my opinions have shifted as new information is presented to me. As yet you've presented nothing that I haven't already heard and considered. Including the brain-wave activity. I don't think that people who disagree with me don't automatically misunderstand my point. However, you've repeatedly made arguements that were already adressed by logic I've presented (without attacking said logic) and have misrepresented what my opinions are (e.g. the Death Penalty/jury thing). I ALWAYS said that the jury had flaws, and it was about what was worthy of death, and how accidental death at certain rates is acceptable. You however stated that I beleived the jury did not make false convictions, which would be naive and blatantly untrue.

Ah hell lets just get this out of the way...

quote:

In all of those cases, the movements were either:
1. the result of centuries of development (e.g. fascism, women's sufferage)
2. part of a frequent historical pattern (e.g. sexual revolution of the 1960's, eugenics/racism)
3. a change amongst only a minority or a fringe group (e.g. conversion of Rome to Christianity; the process took centuries until the emperors finally recognized the religion).

And you don't think that there is potential for any more shifts in the future? I never said that cultural shifts come out of the blue, rather, that they happen quickly. We've got a thousand different elements mingling with eachother, each one having a possibility of gaining more ground. Over the course of a hundred, or two hundred years, anything is possible.

quote:

However, then we would end up in scenario #2, which you did not address.

I did not have to address it because it is NOT scenerio #2. In 2, the abortion is prevented untill conviction of the rapist, thus effectivly postponing the abortion. In MY scenerio, the abortion is allowed on accusation of rape. If the case is shown to be signifigantly fraudulant, the woman can be prosecuted for a number of reasons. This, combined with the general stigma of rape victims, will act as a moderate deterrant. In any case you will not see a 1000% increase in the number of rapes, which is what it would take to make up for all abortions annually. Now, with this all in mind, go back and read my scenerio, then respond. I don't claim it is perfect, merely better than what we have now.

quote:

I, however, do not believe that a fetus constitutes a person at conception, so I therefore do not agree that abortion necessarily constitutes homicide. If we are going to go into homicide, then the concept of personhood is implicit in this debate.

I would respond to this, however the fact that personhood is key is obvious. I was going to suggest that you had not provided a solid counter to the individuality-as-right-to-life argument. Now you've suggest the time of death/EEG definition, which I'll adress shortly.

quote:

Why not use the same criteria to determine whether or not a human being has entered personhood (has entered life)? I don't see why we should define the beginning of personhood any differently than the end of personhood.

Perhaps because the act of ending and creating a life is distinctly different. I'll explain why. Also, right now we already have a "legal start of personhood" and that's the creation of the birth certificate (just as the death certificate legally ends the life). This, I think we can agree, is an inadequate definition.

quote:

The fetus, according to my research, does not start running electrical currents throught the nervous system until about the 5th-6th month (20-24 weeks?). Nor does the brain start to function until about that time.
...
How come we can say that one being is a person, while declaring that another being with identical indicators has exited personhood?

You must look at the reasoning behind using the EEG as a measure of death. The end of electirical current running through the nervous system marks the end of any reasonable attempts to resuccitate the person, at which point the biological processes of life end. Brain and nervous system activity are needed in a full grown adult (or infant for that matter) for normal biological processes to contine. The brain shuts down, the metabolism goes from partial to total shut down and the body begins to rot. EEG marks the last of the vital processes to go before all is lost in a full grown adult.

Therefore, the definition is not EEG flatlining, but rather the end of recoverable biologic activity. In a zygote a brain is not needed for the perpetuation of biologic activity, as it is a very simple organism at that point. You can't deny the continuation of normal activity sans brain up until the body becomes complex enough to require a nervous system to operate.

Long story short, the end of life is the end of "personhood" because the actual living organism has ceased to be. The BEGINING of life, however, is a distinctly different circumstance than death. You don't lose personhood because you don't have an EEG reading, you lose personhood because you die, irrevocably. Biological life, however, begins at conception, and does not require a brain to exist. Therefore, EEG is an insufficient and irrelevant measure of the begining of life

Also, if the flatline patient were to somehow regain a signal and live, they are not a "non-person". This is because death, not EEG reading, is the definition of personhood.

To further this point:

quote:

My point is, if doctors had to do an EEG on a 4-month fetus without knowing (hypothetically) they were doing the test on a fetus, then they would have to declare the test subject legally dead.

Again, hypotheticall if psycologists were to analyze the psyche of an infant, without knowing it was an infant, they would have to assume it was either a mentally retarded or brain damaged individual. Stage of development is implicit to any measure of biologic or mental state. Just as the natural mental state of an infant is very simplistic, the natural EEG of a zygot/early fetus is flatline.

So, you're comparing apples to oranges. EEG won't fly as a definition of the start of life.

quote:

One could make a case for death being a stage of development. For all intents and purposes, until the brain becomes active (and self-awareness sets in subsequently), it's not human.

You could make a case, however I've just tried to show you why that case is simplistic and based on flawed reasoning.

quote:

Pro-life is just another word for fascist. Remember that now.

Really? I thought double-speak was fascist? Nice to see the ideolouges are still pumping out clever phrases that are totally innacurate, ignorant, and inflammatory.

quote:

many people are not physically independant...so what happenes to them is up to the sole decision of whoever they depend on?

Yes. Whether that is good or bad is up to you.

quote:

A person doesn't deserve rights until they are born and are thus independent (physically at least) of the mother. Until then, what happens to them is the sole decision of the mother.

many people are not physically independant...so what happenes to them is up to the sole decision of whoever they depend on?

A person doesn't deserve rights until they are born and are thus independent (physically at least) of the mother. Until then, what happens to them is the sole decision of the mother.

quote:

For all intents and purposes, until the brain becomes active (and self-awareness sets in subsequently), it's not human

it is human from conception...that, science says, what we are arguing is personhood....when the human deserves rights.

i dont know how else to define when a human deserves rights other than the second they become a human.

on that note, even dead people have rights.

One could make a case for death being a stage of development. For all intents and purposes, until the brain becomes active (and self-awareness sets in subsequently), it's not human.

quote:

How come we can say that one being is a person, while declaring that another being with identical indicators has exited personhood?

because unlike the person who has died the fetus is on the other end of the spectrum, it is just starting life...
the dead person will remain dead, they will not in a few weeks have the "electrical currents running through the nervous system"
the fetus however would,
( if what you are saying is even accurate)
in my opinion it still just goes back to a stage of development.

I've done some further research. Here's a condensed version of what I understand; there may be inaccuracies, so if you find any, please correct me. I'll post my sources in my next post.

Decades ago, a human would be declared dead when the heart stopped. However, due to technological advances, such definitions have become obsolete.

Now, a human is declared dead when brain activity "flat-lines" (ceases) and the electrical currents have stopped running through the nervous system.

The fetus, according to my research, does not start running electrical currents throught the nervous system until about the 5th-6th month (20-24 weeks?). Nor does the brain start to function until about that time.

quote:

Originally posted by ChrissyLynn:

for the most part they say it is when the baby can survive outside the womb (around 23-26 weeks)

Unless we climb back into the womb when we die...

My point is, if doctors had to do an EEG on a 4-month fetus without knowing (hypothetically) they were doing the test on a fetus, then they would have to declare the test subject legally dead.

How come we can say that one being is a person, while declaring that another being with identical indicators has exited personhood?

quote:

Why not use the same criteria to determine whether or not a human being has entered personhood (has entered life)? I don't see why we should define the beginning of personhood any differently than the end of personhood.

for the most part they say it is when the baby can survive outside the womb (around 23-26 weeks)

but my point is that it is still an "individual" from conception....it is still distinct from the mother (in its dna) even then....why should it have to be able to live "distinctly" from the mother to be considered an individual when like DrStrangeLove pointed out, the stage of development shouldnt matter, because that would mean an adult is more of an individual person than a newborn, which simply isnt true.

I have an idea. Our society has agreed upon certain criteria to determine whether or not a human being is legally dead (has exited life).

Why not use the same criteria to determine whether or not a human being has entered personhood (has entered life)? I don't see why we should define the beginning of personhood any differently than the end of personhood.

quote:

Originally posted by DrStrangelove:
I'm not understanding why you can't see how it's an individual organism. Is a bacteria that is inside of you part of your body or a seperate, individual organism? Individuality, biologically, has nothing to do with brain activity. My point was that the right to life is aquired at the aquisition of individuality. Again, that is, under scientific definition, conception.

I guess we've been somewhat talking past eachother. I've tried to focus on personhood, although I have frequently used the word "individual."

quote:

Sexual revolution of the 60's. Rise of Protestanism. Women's sufferage. Roman conversion to Christianity. Pretty much any communist revolution. Eugenics. The conservationist/naturalist movement. Vicious anti-tobbacco movements. Oh, and the 400-lb gorillia, the rise of Nazi/fascism and genocide in Europe.

In all of those cases, the movements were either:
1. the result of centuries of development (e.g. fascism, women's sufferage)
2. part of a frequent historical pattern (e.g. sexual revolution of the 1960's, eugenics/racism)
3. a change amongst only a minority or a fringe group (e.g. conversion of Rome to Christianity; the process took centuries until the emperors finally recognized the religion).

quote:

Not meaningless in the case of false rape-accusations, or in cases where there is zero evidence of rape. Again, this is not a perfect system, merely a ethically consistant one. If the woman is ready to call rape, and lie about it, then that is commiting a crime by itself. Point being, there is a deterrent to falsely stating rape as a reason. I would wager, while it will increase the number of reported "rapes", it will also drastically cut down the number of abortions. This would be made more efficient by heavily punishing those found to have falsely accused rape. You may say this is harsh for the woman in question, however, abortion for no reason other than your own conveience in this case would be a crime, making the person doubly guilty.
The end result: Less unneeded abortions, a stronger respect of early human life, and a stronger, more ethically consistant legal system.

However, then we would end up in scenario #2, which you did not address.

quote:

Then you're simply ignoring science here. Not only can you EASILY differentiate species, each individual human has an absolutely unique genetic code. Not only can you not differentiate people by thier reasoning, the ability to reason is extremely variable, and some humans, infants in particular, don't reason at all. If the ability to reason is what defines a human, are infants, who cannot reason, therefore not human? Are those with better reasoning skills therefore "more human"? See where I'm going with this? You cannot define humanity with subjective terms. Reasoning, emotions, etc. are traits of humanity, yes, but these traits stem from our DNA coding. When you come down to it, DNA makes us what we are. That is why all "potential life" is not potential at all, but ethically equal. You are just as human as the zygote. It's just that you've had more time to develop, learn, and socialize. Do you ahve a greater right to life than a toddler? Does a rich, well connected philosopher have more of a right under the law to live than you do?

You have a point. I'll revert to the concept of being able to exist separate from another organism. You had me stumped with the example of Siamese twins, but I've come to consider that an example of what is fundamentally one human body, albeit with two humans. I'm not trying to say that Siamese twins are one human being; however, the organism itself can survive separately from other organisms.

quote:

I was listing a series of commonly suggested definitions of "personhood". The point was to deconstruct the reasoning behind development-based definitions of a person. Apparently that was missed.

It just irks me when people try addressing reasons I don't believe in to begin with. I comprehended that you were deconstructing the logical progression of development-based definitions, but I had already convinced myself that those examples were wrong; you were simply being superfluous.

quote:

Good job there with the personal attacks. Shows a great deal of maturity. Ha, irony.

I'm sorry about that; you're right. I was just feeling too witty (read: conceited) just to go out and say that I've lost a great deal of respect for you throughout the death penalty debate and this debate, as it seems clear you lack respect for those who disagree with you. We differ in one chief respect: I have repeatedly conceded that you have a point, while I have yet to see you do so. I guess I'll just ignore you until you learn that while you can still disagree with others, those others might still have a point; just because somebody disagrees with you does not mean that they don't understand what you are saying!

quote:

Ah, you've seen my point. Something I think Ian's missed. It's not about when something is "human" it's about when you're willing to justify the homicide. You kill a fetus under the same circumstances you kill a full grown human. It's all about when it's just killing, and when it becomes murder. I don't agree with your definitions, especially the "ecosystem" one (that seems a bit out of place, not to mention irrelavant), however you did acknowaldge the core problem.

I, however, do not believe that a fetus constitutes a person at conception, so I therefore do not agree that abortion necessarily constitutes homicide. If we are going to go into homicide, then the concept of personhood is implicit in this debate.

quote:

I'd forgotten about that. This proves to me that you never got my point from that thread either.

...or that I just disagreed with your point!

quote:

You have yet to prove that. So far, we have a being that has no brain, cannot act on its own behalf, and cannot survive separately from another organism. Siamese twins can act on their own behalf, people in comas often can exist separately from another organism, while a fetus can do none of those things. That doesn't sound like an individual to me.

I'm not understanding why you can't see how it's an individual organism. Is a bacteria that is inside of you part of your body or a seperate, individual organism? Individuality, biologically, has nothing to do with brain activity. My point was that the right to life is aquired at the aquisition of individuality. Again, that is, under scientific definition, conception.

quote:

What cases are you citing? Most of the ones I can think of are pretty weak examples [Sociatal shifts].

Sexual revolution of the 60's. Rise of Protestanism. Women's sufferage. Roman conversion to Christianity. Pretty much any communist revolution. Eugenics. The conservationist/naturalist movement. Vicious anti-tobbacco movements. Oh, and the 400-lb gorillia, the rise of Nazi/fascism and genocide in Europe. While many of these may not seem like analogies to abortion, they don't have to. Shifting values in society, especially in the fast paced, well connected, and culturally fluid world that we're rapidly moving into.

quote:

OK, then, how are we going to determine if the pregnant woman was indeed a rape victim?

2. We use a system of quick verification- you say you were raped, you can get an abortion. A system like this would be absolutely meaningless.

Not meaningless in the case of false rape-accusations, or in cases where there is zero evidence of rape. Again, this is not a perfect system, merely a ethically consistant one. If the woman is ready to call rape, and lie about it, then that is commiting a crime by itself. Point being, there is a deterrent to falsely stating rape as a reason. I would wager, while it will increase the number of reported "rapes", it will also drastically cut down the number of abortions. This would be made more efficient by heavily punishing those found to have falsely accused rape. You may say this is harsh for the woman in question, however, abortion for no reason other than your own conveience in this case would be a crime, making the person doubly guilty.
The end result: Less unneeded abortions, a stronger respect of early human life, and a stronger, more ethically consistant legal system.

quote:

I'd pick reason over DNA any day. The ability to think separates us from any other animal, while many other animals have DNA that is almost identical to ours.

Then you're simply ignoring science here. Not only can you EASILY differentiate species, each individual human has an absolutely unique genetic code. Not only can you not differentiate people by thier reasoning, the ability to reason is extremely variable, and some humans, infants in particular, don't reason at all. If the ability to reason is what defines a human, are infants, who cannot reason, therefore not human? Are those with better reasoning skills therefore "more human"? See where I'm going with this? You cannot define humanity with subjective terms. Reasoning, emotions, etc. are traits of humanity, yes, but these traits stem from our DNA coding. When you come down to it, DNA makes us what we are. That is why all "potential life" is not potential at all, but ethically equal. You are just as human as the zygote. It's just that you've had more time to develop, learn, and socialize. Do you ahve a greater right to life than a toddler? Does a rich, well connected philosopher have more of a right under the law to live than you do?

quote:

I never brought up self-awareness. However, an infant still has the mental capacity to act of its own volition.

Firstly, you never answered why brain activity should be an indicator of "personhood"
Secondly, there are full grown animal species that have mental capacity and self awareness greater than that of an infant. If brain activity and mental capacity are definers of humanity, why then does the infant have more rights than those animals? The answer: It's a human being. Now ask yourself: What seperates the infant from an intelligent chimp or dolphin? What really seperates that infant from the animal?

quote:

I guess I'll have to retract all the dozens of times that I said, "Heartbeat is the determiner of personhood." If I ever said it, that is...I guess some people just aren't that wise about choosing arguments. If I had said anything about heartbeat before, then you might still be making some sense.

I was listing a series of commonly suggested definitions of "personhood". The point was to deconstruct the reasoning behind development-based definitions of a person. Apparently that was missed.

quote:

Not true. What about, "When the fetus can survive independent of other organisms, or act upon its own behalf"? You fail to understand that your own answer is equally subjective.

Equally subjective? Go ask a thousand biologists whether the begining of the human reproductive process starts at conception or not. Then ask a thousand biologists when a fetus is developed enough to be considered "human". See which question gets you more varable answers. Unique DNA and human life begining at conception is a fact. Indisputable. I challenge you to prove otherwise.

quote:

Maybe you're overstating your age on your profile or something...

Good job there with the personal attacks. Shows a great deal of maturity. Ha, irony.

Anyway onto the other points:

quote:

I don't see why they should allow people to buy condoms, then. Isn't premarital sex just as "morally ambiguous" as abortion? You get my meaning. You can't just ban something because it's "morally ambiguous". Who the f*ck cares? Morality is relative, whether you want to admit it or not.

First, NO abortion is not as ambiguous as pre-marital sex as sex does not involve potential murder.
Second, it's not simply the abiguity that's the basis for my argument, far from it. It's just another point on top of a pile of reasons.
Thirdly, Yes, in a universal sense "morality is relative". However, we live in reality, here on Earth, with laws, philosophy, instincts, and general facts of life and nature. Point being, go kill some guy's wife and tell him that he shouldn't care because "morality is relative". Think he'll forgive you?

quote:

It's all in how you look at the homicide. In my opinion, for instance, the taking of a human life is perfectly acceptable if it fits under ALL of the following circumstances:

Ah, you've seen my point. Something I think Ian's missed. It's not about when something is "human" it's about when you're willing to justify the homicide. You kill a fetus under the same circumstances you kill a full grown human. It's all about when it's just killing, and when it becomes murder. I don't agree with your definitions, especially the "ecosystem" one (that seems a bit out of place, not to mention irrelavant), however you did acknowaldge the core problem.

Actually that would be a neat topic "When is muder/killing ok?" You should go start it.

quote: