|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Tue Apr 27, 2010 4:13 pm
Aakosir divineseraph Aakosir divineseraph Aakosir divineseraph And that is yet another reason why Capitalism is bad.
Okay, back to the top. I know that abortion and seterilization will not help with the overpopulation. It's not like they will actually start to sterilize babies. I don't understand how being more well off would cause birth rates to drop. I want a million kids so if I had the money to support them all I would keep popping them out XD { Speaking of overpopulation }This is why I should be a school teacher. Get my dose of kids then come home and say, I don't want anymore. As mentioned above, poverty creates a hope that a child will do better than the parents. Also, the welfare situation, where people with many kids get tax breaks and more government aid, often serve as factors. A while ago, actually, before the industrial revolution, it was the sign of a farmer or worker to have many kids- Because the kids would help the worker to support the family, and when the parents got old, the kids would help them, in hopes that their children would do the same. More children meant more workers meant more crops meant more stability. It may be a carrying on of this mindset while the original intent is long unnecessary. Then why is the lottery aimed at the poor? The poor are looking for any hope they can grasp on to, be it the lucky scratch-off ticket or the lucky rock-star child. I'm not saying it's the best moves, but it happens, and it is most certainly related to the economic condition. *stares* That was his exact point in the post you quoted . . . . . The odds are not great, but a 1 in 10,000,000 chance is still better than a 0 chance, especially if it doesn't cost much to get that chance.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Apr 27, 2010 4:20 pm
Okay. I'm going to play devil's advocate here. What reason outside of UPG or religious teachings do we have to believe that a fetus is a person at conception?
Is there ever a point when a fetus is not a person? Why? What defines personhood?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Apr 27, 2010 6:34 pm
garra_eyes Aakosir divineseraph Aakosir divineseraph As mentioned above, poverty creates a hope that a child will do better than the parents. Also, the welfare situation, where people with many kids get tax breaks and more government aid, often serve as factors. A while ago, actually, before the industrial revolution, it was the sign of a farmer or worker to have many kids- Because the kids would help the worker to support the family, and when the parents got old, the kids would help them, in hopes that their children would do the same. More children meant more workers meant more crops meant more stability. It may be a carrying on of this mindset while the original intent is long unnecessary. Then why is the lottery aimed at the poor? The poor are looking for any hope they can grasp on to, be it the lucky scratch-off ticket or the lucky rock-star child. I'm not saying it's the best moves, but it happens, and it is most certainly related to the economic condition. *stares* That was his exact point in the post you quoted . . . . . The odds are not great, but a 1 in 10,000,000 chance is still better than a 0 chance, especially if it doesn't cost much to get that chance.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Apr 27, 2010 7:25 pm
rmcdra Okay. I'm going to play devil's advocate here. What reason outside of UPG or religious teachings do we have to believe that a fetus is a person at conception? Is there ever a point when a fetus is not a person? Why? What defines personhood? Many would argue consciousness, but that is impossible to pin down. The only other time is conception, because that is the ONLY genesis in a human life- It is the exact, definite moment that a unique human is created. It doesn't look like you or I, but the biological beginning is the only POINT that can actually be defined in human existence, excluding death.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Apr 27, 2010 7:27 pm
Aakosir garra_eyes Aakosir divineseraph Aakosir divineseraph As mentioned above, poverty creates a hope that a child will do better than the parents. Also, the welfare situation, where people with many kids get tax breaks and more government aid, often serve as factors. A while ago, actually, before the industrial revolution, it was the sign of a farmer or worker to have many kids- Because the kids would help the worker to support the family, and when the parents got old, the kids would help them, in hopes that their children would do the same. More children meant more workers meant more crops meant more stability. It may be a carrying on of this mindset while the original intent is long unnecessary. Then why is the lottery aimed at the poor? The poor are looking for any hope they can grasp on to, be it the lucky scratch-off ticket or the lucky rock-star child. I'm not saying it's the best moves, but it happens, and it is most certainly related to the economic condition. *stares* That was his exact point in the post you quoted . . . . . The odds are not great, but a 1 in 10,000,000 chance is still better than a 0 chance, especially if it doesn't cost much to get that chance. And you think the poor masses are going to think about it using mathematical probability? My point is that, to these people who have so little, the prospect of getting lucky is greater than to those who are already in a financially stable situation. The poor are also more likely to be uneducated and don't realize how poor their chances of winning are- They may not understand terms like gambler's fallacy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Apr 27, 2010 7:30 pm
Aakosir divineseraph Aakosir divineseraph SchizoSpazz i think it is whatever a person makes it out to be. if you believe it's a moral issue, about killing a child, then you'll love this: here in utah, there's a law that passed (or could be) that makes it a crime for a woman to make herself miscarry. it will go under murder. a woman in utah had a friend beat the crap out of her because she didn't want to be pregnant, but couldn't get an abortion (you have to go out of state to find anyone who would be willing to give one), so the point was to induce a miscarriage, which i think is abortion, but you're just not paying someone to make it happen. i personally think abortion is more ethical than an 'induced miscarriage'. (oh, most people who do this don't add the 'induced'. a miscarrage, as far as i care to know anymore, is a COMPLETE act of god, and nothing you could have done could have stopped it from happening. it's not if you drink, smoke, party or do herbal remedies to make the embryo/fetus/baby whatever you like to call it, die.) i am getting that for so long, women have been made forced by mostly man (and kind of god) to carry out a pregnancy whether they want to or not. back in the early days of america, it used to be common if a woman didn't want to be pregnant for whatever reason, she could call a midwife and it was taken care of. doctors made it illegal because it was 'killing off future patients' and that women shouldn't have that kind of right to decide. most people don't see it as black and white. like, it's more likely to be condoned if a woman will likely die if she tries to carry out the pregnancy, zapping both mother and child's chances for survival (so that whole 'if the woman truly had a soul, she'd give her life up for the child' thing is likely crap). rape abortions is sometimes overlooked. not if it's stupid people making stupid choices which lead to these kind of permanant consequences. i know someone who is very pro-choice because they saw some of the sick stuff parents did to the children they had but didn't want, where they beat the child up, choked it, mentally abused the child, and in one case, had a baby swallow bouncy balls because, well, they really didn't want it and didn't care. that one was more for the sake of whatever child would of been brought in than to get parents off the hook. because in case you didn't notice, they won't carry out the pregnancy to give the child up for adoption. they'll keep it and torment it when they get overwhelmed (and don't want to give up their precious chemicals for food and diapers for the child). as far as they saw, abortion was more humane of an option than torturing a child, because they didn't get the chance to live that horrid abuse. anyway, that's what i think Those cases are extremely rare, and happen when abortion is legal- They come from terribly sociopathic and psychopathic parents who want to feel powerful or some such thing. Meaning, if they want to torture a child, they will torture a child whether they have the option to kill it in the womb or not. That, and of the handful of situations like this, this suddenly justifies the millions of abortions every year? Come on. Firstly, several? And again, this justifies millions of deaths? Secondly, this occurred while abortion was legal, correct? So it has absolutely NO correlation to abortion preventing abuse, whatsoever. All it proves is that there are a few mentally handicapped people having children who shouldn't, not that abortion makes it stop happening- Clearly, it doesn't. I'd consider someone that psychotic to have a mental handicap- clearly, something in their mind is not working properly. If it has nothing to do with abortion, why is it relevant? The reason it came up was because "Unwanted children could be abused"- True, they can. However, abortion will not stop psychopaths from abusing, as is clearly shown that it occurs while abortion is legal.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Apr 27, 2010 7:40 pm
divineseraph Aakosir divineseraph Aakosir divineseraph SchizoSpazz i think it is whatever a person makes it out to be. if you believe it's a moral issue, about killing a child, then you'll love this: here in utah, there's a law that passed (or could be) that makes it a crime for a woman to make herself miscarry. it will go under murder. a woman in utah had a friend beat the crap out of her because she didn't want to be pregnant, but couldn't get an abortion (you have to go out of state to find anyone who would be willing to give one), so the point was to induce a miscarriage, which i think is abortion, but you're just not paying someone to make it happen. i personally think abortion is more ethical than an 'induced miscarriage'. (oh, most people who do this don't add the 'induced'. a miscarrage, as far as i care to know anymore, is a COMPLETE act of god, and nothing you could have done could have stopped it from happening. it's not if you drink, smoke, party or do herbal remedies to make the embryo/fetus/baby whatever you like to call it, die.) i am getting that for so long, women have been made forced by mostly man (and kind of god) to carry out a pregnancy whether they want to or not. back in the early days of america, it used to be common if a woman didn't want to be pregnant for whatever reason, she could call a midwife and it was taken care of. doctors made it illegal because it was 'killing off future patients' and that women shouldn't have that kind of right to decide. most people don't see it as black and white. like, it's more likely to be condoned if a woman will likely die if she tries to carry out the pregnancy, zapping both mother and child's chances for survival (so that whole 'if the woman truly had a soul, she'd give her life up for the child' thing is likely crap). rape abortions is sometimes overlooked. not if it's stupid people making stupid choices which lead to these kind of permanant consequences. i know someone who is very pro-choice because they saw some of the sick stuff parents did to the children they had but didn't want, where they beat the child up, choked it, mentally abused the child, and in one case, had a baby swallow bouncy balls because, well, they really didn't want it and didn't care. that one was more for the sake of whatever child would of been brought in than to get parents off the hook. because in case you didn't notice, they won't carry out the pregnancy to give the child up for adoption. they'll keep it and torment it when they get overwhelmed (and don't want to give up their precious chemicals for food and diapers for the child). as far as they saw, abortion was more humane of an option than torturing a child, because they didn't get the chance to live that horrid abuse. anyway, that's what i think Those cases are extremely rare, and happen when abortion is legal- They come from terribly sociopathic and psychopathic parents who want to feel powerful or some such thing. Meaning, if they want to torture a child, they will torture a child whether they have the option to kill it in the womb or not. That, and of the handful of situations like this, this suddenly justifies the millions of abortions every year? Come on. Firstly, several? And again, this justifies millions of deaths? Secondly, this occurred while abortion was legal, correct? So it has absolutely NO correlation to abortion preventing abuse, whatsoever. All it proves is that there are a few mentally handicapped people having children who shouldn't, not that abortion makes it stop happening- Clearly, it doesn't. I'd consider someone that psychotic to have a mental handicap- clearly, something in their mind is not working properly. If it has nothing to do with abortion, why is it relevant? The reason it came up was because "Unwanted children could be abused"- True, they can. However, abortion will not stop psychopaths from abusing, as is clearly shown that it occurs while abortion is legal.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Apr 27, 2010 7:43 pm
divineseraph Aakosir garra_eyes Aakosir divineseraph Then why is the lottery aimed at the poor? The poor are looking for any hope they can grasp on to, be it the lucky scratch-off ticket or the lucky rock-star child. I'm not saying it's the best moves, but it happens, and it is most certainly related to the economic condition. *stares* That was his exact point in the post you quoted . . . . . The odds are not great, but a 1 in 10,000,000 chance is still better than a 0 chance, especially if it doesn't cost much to get that chance. And you think the poor masses are going to think about it using mathematical probability? My point is that, to these people who have so little, the prospect of getting lucky is greater than to those who are already in a financially stable situation. The poor are also more likely to be uneducated and don't realize how poor their chances of winning are- They may not understand terms like gambler's fallacy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Apr 27, 2010 8:01 pm
divineseraph rmcdra Okay. I'm going to play devil's advocate here. What reason outside of UPG or religious teachings do we have to believe that a fetus is a person at conception? Is there ever a point when a fetus is not a person? Why? What defines personhood? Many would argue consciousness, but that is impossible to pin down. The only other time is conception, because that is the ONLY genesis in a human life- It is the exact, definite moment that a unique human is created. It doesn't look like you or I, but the biological beginning is the only POINT that can actually be defined in human existence, excluding death. But you aren't explaining what makes it human. Yes conception is the process that creates a human life but what makes a fetus human exactly? And why should one accept that it is human if it never had consciousness to begin with? Other than the potential to develop a consciousness what makes it different from an appendix?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Apr 27, 2010 8:07 pm
rmcdra Okay. I'm going to play devil's advocate here. What reason outside of UPG or religious teachings do we have to believe that a fetus is a person at conception? Is there ever a point when a fetus is not a person? Why? What defines personhood?Well you've hit the nail on the head with that question. What makes a person? The problem here is that personhood is not well defined. Words are developed for usage, then defined later. Personhood is such a vague concept, and has been used in vastly different ways throughout the world and throughout history. So how do we nail down what exactly it means to be a person when it means something different to so many people? In trying to answer whether a fetus is a person, people often relate it to either a human outside the womb or something that is definitely not human (such as a tumor or a parasite). The problem is, a fetus is not a human outside the womb, a tumor, or a parasite. A fetus is a fetus is a fetus. The only way to determine whether it deserves to be called a person is to look at the merits of the fetus, not what it is similar to. But then we get back to our original problem. Personhood first determined by usage, but usage varies, meaning the actual definition varies. Therefore, the merits one group brings up may have nothing to do with the concept of personhood in another group. So do we just say, "Well, everyone has a different idea of what it means to be a person, so we'll just let the parents decide." We could do that here, but think about what things would be like if we did that for all situations like this? Children have not always been defined as persons, so if we took this approach in a general way, that would knock out all child labor laws, for starters. People of different races have not always been defined as persons, so that would put slavery back into business. And I could go on, but I think the point has been made. A decision has to be reached, but we don't really have any idea how to make that decision . . . .
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Apr 27, 2010 8:09 pm
rmcdra Other than the potential to develop a consciousness what makes it different from an appendix? , but that potential is huge! I mean, think of someone who is catatonic, but has a good chance of coming out of it. Is it ok to terminate their life just because they are not conscious in that moment? EDIT: Nope, changed my mind, there is something else. The fetus has a DNA distinct from that of the mother. It may be attached to the mother, but it is not part of the mother. It is a distinct life form.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Apr 27, 2010 8:18 pm
garra_eyes rmcdra Other than the potential to develop a consciousness what makes it different from an appendix? , but that potential is huge! I mean, think of someone who is catatonic, but has a good chance of coming out of it. Is it ok to terminate their life just because they are not conscious in that moment? But a catatonic person had consciousness at one point so by that is default a person to begin with. In the case of a fetus, it never had consciousness to begin with so what exactly makes it a person? Quote: EDIT: Nope, changed my mind, there is something else. The fetus has a DNA distinct from that of the mother. It may be attached to the mother, but it is not part of the mother. It is a distinct life form. So how does having unique DNA define person hood?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Apr 27, 2010 8:32 pm
garra_eyes rmcdra Okay. I'm going to play devil's advocate here. What reason outside of UPG or religious teachings do we have to believe that a fetus is a person at conception? Is there ever a point when a fetus is not a person? Why? What defines personhood?Well you've hit the nail on the head with that question. What makes a person? The problem here is that personhood is not well defined. Words are developed for usage, then defined later. Personhood is such a vague concept, and has been used in vastly different ways throughout the world and throughout history. So how do we nail down what exactly it means to be a person when it means something different to so many people? In trying to answer whether a fetus is a person, people often relate it to either a human outside the womb or something that is definitely not human (such as a tumor or a parasite). The problem is, a fetus is not a human outside the womb, a tumor, or a parasite. A fetus is a fetus is a fetus. The only way to determine whether it deserves to be called a person is to look at the merits of the fetus, not what it is similar to. But then we get back to our original problem. Personhood first determined by usage, but usage varies, meaning the actual definition varies. Therefore, the merits one group brings up may have nothing to do with the concept of personhood in another group. So do we just say, "Well, everyone has a different idea of what it means to be a person, so we'll just let the parents decide." We could do that here, but think about what things would be like if we did that for all situations like this? Children have not always been defined as persons, so if we took this approach in a general way, that would knock out all child labor laws, for starters. People of different races have not always been defined as persons, so that would put slavery back into business. And I could go on, but I think the point has been made. A decision has to be reached, but we don't really have any idea how to make that decision . . . .That right there is the big thing that makes abortion such an unclear issue. How do we make that decision without going into UPGs or religious teachings? Okay when I say personhood, I am meaning in what makes something human to qualify the killing of it to qualify as murder? There's consciousness but as Divine Seraph stated, it's hard to pin down during fetal development. We could go the DNA route as defining personhood, why would the uniqueness of DNA qualify as making something a person? Our DNA mutates within ourselves over time. It is possible for a kidney to have DNA that is unique from the rest of our body due to exposure to mutagens. If we are going with the uniqueness of DNA argument, the removal of this mutant kidney would technically be murder. Edit: There's also sperm and eggs which each have unique DNA from host person that under the right conditions also has the potential to develop a consciousness. If we go with the unique DNA argument what keeps masturbation and menstruation from being classified as murder.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Apr 27, 2010 8:43 pm
rmcdra garra_eyes rmcdra Other than the potential to develop a consciousness what makes it different from an appendix? , but that potential is huge! I mean, think of someone who is catatonic, but has a good chance of coming out of it. Is it ok to terminate their life just because they are not conscious in that moment? But a catatonic person had consciousness at one point so by that is default a person to begin with. So did a dead body. Does that mean we can't dispose of the deceased? The important thing here is still the potential for consciousness in the future. rmcdra In the case of a fetus, it never had consciousness to begin with so what exactly makes it a person? Quote: EDIT: Nope, changed my mind, there is something else. The fetus has a DNA distinct from that of the mother. It may be attached to the mother, but it is not part of the mother. It is a distinct life form. So how does having unique DNA define person hood? See my post above the one you quoted here for the big, messy, complicated answer to this question. But if you want my opinion on why a fetus is a person because of or in spite of the these things, read on. What makes a fetus that it fits the following categories for what I consider necessary to be classified as a person. 1. It is human. It has human DNA. 2. It is unique. It has a unique DNA, different from that of the mother, and the father. Thus, it is not an appendage of either party. 3. It is growing into a fully functional human. There is nothing else in the world this can be said about, other than an embryo, a fetus, or a human at or past infancy. (I define "fully functioning human" as a human that has reached physical, sexual, and mental maturity, so somewhere around the late 20s, early 30s) Why do these things make a fetus a person? It is human, it is not a part of any other human's body (though it is attached), and it is definitely alive. Personally, I think that's all that should be required for the definition of personhood.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Apr 27, 2010 8:53 pm
rmcdra Okay when I say personhood, I am meaning in what makes something human to qualify the killing of it to qualify as murder? Quick note here: We kill people all the time without it being classified as murder. Death penalty anyone? How about killing in self defense? What about war? The reason I bring this up is that, just because we deem it ok to kill someone doesn't necessarily mean they're not a person. rmcdra We could go the DNA route as defining personhood, why would the uniqueness of DNA qualify as making something a person? Our DNA mutates within ourselves over time. It is possible for a kidney to have DNA that is unique from the rest of our body due to exposure to mutagens. If we are going with the uniqueness of DNA argument, the removal of this mutant kidney would technically be murder. We add on argument 3 in my last post. If you keep a kidney in your body and let nature take its course, will that kidney ever become a human? Unless something really freaky is going on with your kidney, I'm gonna have to go with no. Furthermore, that DNA is not unique. It already exists in another living person. It is unique to the environment it is in, but not to the world at large. A fetus, on the other hand, is. rmcdra Edit: There's also sperm and eggs which each have unique DNA from host person that under the right conditions also has the potential to develop a consciousness. If we go with the unique DNA argument what keeps masturbation and menstruation from being classified as murder. 1. Interesting. Could you provide sources for that? I've never heard of that before. 2. Whether the sperm and egg develop their own consciousness or not, will they ever become a fully functioning human without fertilization occurring?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
