|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Tue Apr 27, 2010 9:03 pm
As a feminist, it's a female issue for me. NO ONE-not another man, not the supreme court, not my parents-NO ONE has the right to tell me what to do with my body. It's my body, and therefore my choice, and my choice only.
However, as a Christian, I also believe that abortion is akin to murder, and I could never personally have an abortion myself. I would never ever condemn or cut off all ties with a female friend of mine for having an abortion the way some so-called Christians do. I would try to talk my friend into more humane options like adoption, but ultimately the decision is hers, and I would support her and help her no matter what. I do believe though, that abortion is more acceptable in cases where the woman is raped or if the baby, once born, has some kind of birth defect that will end up in short life full of suffering and pain. But I've read that those cases are rare. Still, no woman should be judged or shunned for having an abortion in these cases. I also support stem cell research and use.In my opinion, the stem cells (and fetuses and whatnot), that would otherwise be thrown away can potentially be used to cure diseases like Parkinson's. The possibility for good could be endless. The aborted babies now do not die in vain.
In a weird kind of way I am pro-choice AND pro-life. And I think it fits me, since I've always been weirdly able to see both sides of a debate, usually agreeing with both sides too and not knowing which to side with, haha. razz
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Apr 27, 2010 9:06 pm
garra_eyes So did a dead body. Does that mean we can't dispose of the deceased? Again there is a potential of consciousness in a catatonic while there is none for a dead person. Quote: The important thing here is still the potential for consciousness in the future. But again in the case of a fetus, if it never had consciousness to begin so there is no empirical reason to regard a fetus as a person up until then. Quote: See my post above the one you quoted here for the big, messy, complicated answer to this question. I've read it and addressed it. Quote: 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) Sperm and eggs all fall under this definition. Sperm and eggs contain human DNA that is unique from their respective hosts and under the right conditions does have the potential to develop into a person. Why should sperm and eggs not fall under this definition? Quote: 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. Okay I acknowledge that it's alive and human but I'm still not seeing any reason, outside of my own UPG saying that it's a person, that I should consider it a person until it has consciousness.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Apr 27, 2010 9:25 pm
divineseraph Semiremis divineseraph I don't care if society doesn't see a fetus as a human, that doesn't change the simple biological and scientific fact that it is. I'm not responding to your post, just this one sentence because I hear it a lot from those who are pro-choice. I'm addressing those who think that a human embryo/fetus isn't human. So to those whom this applies to, my questions are: Why don't you think it's human? What species do you think that it is? I find it difficult to believe that you would argue that biologically it is not human because that's ridiculous and I think everyone in this guild is smart enough to know better. When you say that it's not human do you mean it's not a person (which gets into philosophy) and therefore should not be granted personhood and should not get any rights or is it part of a person depending on it's stage of development? We could legally consider it to be 3/5 of a person or split it up somehow giving it some rights but not the same basic rights granted to you or I. I'm just a bit confused at what exactly is going through your heads on this one sweatdrop Ah, the old 3/5 rule. Actually, ironically, it does. If someone kills a fetus inside of a woman, such as in a fight or car crash, he can be charged for homicide. If an abortionist does it, it's freedom of choice. Depending on whether or not the woman wants the fetus, it can be a person under the law or a blob of flesh. the fetus hasn't changed, only someone else's perception. Edit- It seems you misread my post. I know that a fetus is a human. An I don't care how many people disagree- The knowledge or ignorance of others is irrelevant to objective truth. The objective, biological, scientific fact is that a fetus is a unique, distinct human. Oh I know you agree that the fetus is human, I just wanted to build off of that one statement you made to ask others why they would take the opposite position. And good point about the legal status of the fetus. As of right now it's status and rights are based on another human being, for example people claim: It's not human because it's still inside of a woman, but once outside of the woman it magically turns into a real human. (It's status isn't based on it's own merits as a biological human and arguably a little person but on the mother). And that's ridiculous.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Apr 27, 2010 9:30 pm
Aakosir 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. ...So what was the point? The original argument was made because it was assumed that more stable economic conditions would cause higher birhtrates and thus more overpopulation. This is why it is untrue.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Apr 27, 2010 9:34 pm
Conan The Barbie Doll As a feminist, it's a female issue for me. NO ONE-not another man, not the supreme court, not my parents-NO ONE has the right to tell me what to do with my body. It's my body, and therefore my choice, and my choice only.
However, as a Christian, I also believe that abortion is akin to murder, and I could never personally have an abortion myself. I would never ever condemn or cut off all ties with a female friend of mine for having an abortion the way some so-called Christians do. I would try to talk my friend into more humane options like adoption, but ultimately the decision is hers, and I would support her and help her no matter what. I do believe though, that abortion is more acceptable in cases where the woman is raped or if the baby, once born, has some kind of birth defect that will end up in short life full of suffering and pain. But I've read that those cases are rare. Still, no woman should be judged or shunned for having an abortion in these cases. I also support stem cell research and use.In my opinion, the stem cells (and fetuses and whatnot), that would otherwise be thrown away can potentially be used to cure diseases like Parkinson's. The possibility for good could be endless. The aborted babies now do not die in vain.
In a weird kind of way I am pro-choice AND pro-life. And I think it fits me, since I've always been weirdly able to see both sides of a debate, usually agreeing with both sides too and not knowing which to side with, haha. razz Does NO ONE have the right to tell me not to murder or steal? As mentioned elsewhere, the right to make your own decisions ends when you harm someone else. Killing a fetus is killing another human being. It is not about telling women what they can and can not do, it's about making an objective rule- You can not kill a human being- That applies to everyone, including women.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Apr 27, 2010 10:50 pm
rmcdra garra_eyes So did a dead body. Does that mean we can't dispose of the deceased? Again there is a potential of consciousness in a catatonic while there is none for a dead person. Quote: The important thing here is still the potential for consciousness in the future. But again in the case of a fetus, if it never had consciousness to begin so there is no empirical reason to regard a fetus as a person up until then. So, what you're saying is that unless the human we're talking about had consciousness both before and after the moment in question, it's not a person? While I would agree that future consciousness should be a determining factor between being a person and having been a person, I don't see past consciousness the same way. So, to pose the question that you brought into this debate . . . . How does past consciousness define personhood? rmcdra Quote: See my post above the one you quoted here for the big, messy, complicated answer to this question. I've read it and addressed it. Addressed it, yes, but kind of missed my point. The definition of what makes a person is completely subjective, and there is no way to make it anything else. We can objectively say when something is human, alive, unique, conscious (well, that has it's own set of issues, but I'm gonna include it in this list anyway), born, etc., but we can not objectively define any set of those characteristics as personhood. rmcdra Quote: 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) Sperm and eggs all fall under this definition. Sperm and eggs contain human DNA that is unique from their respective hosts and under the right conditions does have the potential to develop into a person. Why should sperm and eggs not fall under this definition? They don't meet number 3. Sperm and Egg cells are haploid, and they cannot undergo meiosis (sp?) in order to grow into fully functional humans. Sperm and Egg cells are not growing into anything. Basically, they don't fit the definition until they become embryos. rmcdra Quote: 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. Okay I acknowledge that it's alive and human but I'm still not seeing any reason, outside of my own UPG saying that it's a person, that I should consider it a person until it has consciousness. But why would you even consider it a person once it has consciousness? Isn't that also dependent on your own UPG? What about consciousness makes something a person?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Apr 27, 2010 10:59 pm
garra_eyes 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. Hence why I said murder wink . I am well aware of that. Quote: 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. Fair enough. Quote: 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? 1. It's the fact that no two sperms or ovums are alike. Since no two sprems or ovums are alike how are they not distinct from the host person. 2. I could ague that they have the potential for fertilization and by extension the potential for personhood.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Apr 27, 2010 11:31 pm
rmcdra Quote: 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? 1. It's the fact that no two sperms or ovums are alike. Since no two sprems or ovums are alike how are they not distinct from the host person. 2. I could ague that they have the potential for fertilization and by extension the potential for personhood. 1. I meant a source for your claim that a sperm or egg could develop consciousness. Sorry, I should have made that more clear. 2. I would argue that making such an extension is unwarranted. I mean, hell, I could make the argument that a your body has the potential to create a sperm that could in turn fertilize an egg, which then becomes an embryo, then a fetus, then a baby, thus killing yourself is murder of another human being. But then it starts getting a bit ridiculous, yes? A sperm or egg has the potential to create human life, but is not a unique human life in and of itself. An embryo is human life, which has the potential to become a fully functional human being. That is the difference.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Apr 28, 2010 10:53 am
divineseraph Aakosir divineseraph Aakosir garra_eyes *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. ...So what was the point? The original argument was made because it was assumed that more stable economic conditions would cause higher birhtrates and thus more overpopulation. This is why it is untrue.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Apr 28, 2010 1:49 pm
Aakosir divineseraph Aakosir divineseraph Aakosir garra_eyes *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. ...So what was the point? The original argument was made because it was assumed that more stable economic conditions would cause higher birhtrates and thus more overpopulation. This is why it is untrue. Not in Capitalism. A poor, uneducated workforce is what this system relies on. If we stop focusing on profit and focus on making the world equal, safe, stable and productive (Namely, the original intention of work), everyone will be able to be educated (This is not to say that everyone will take that option, but currently, many people can not, due to the need to work full time to survive paycheck to paycheck. My grandfather is an example- He had to drop out of highschool when his father died to take over as breadwinner.) and we will, therefore, see less rampant childbearing with lottery-like hopes, or as a means of tax evasion or welfare gain.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Apr 28, 2010 7:44 pm
divineseraph Aakosir divineseraph Aakosir divineseraph 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. ...So what was the point? The original argument was made because it was assumed that more stable economic conditions would cause higher birhtrates and thus more overpopulation. This is why it is untrue. Not in Capitalism. A poor, uneducated workforce is what this system relies on. If we stop focusing on profit and focus on making the world equal, safe, stable and productive (Namely, the original intention of work), everyone will be able to be educated (This is not to say that everyone will take that option, but currently, many people can not, due to the need to work full time to survive paycheck to paycheck. My grandfather is an example- He had to drop out of highschool when his father died to take over as breadwinner.) and we will, therefore, see less rampant childbearing with lottery-like hopes, or as a means of tax evasion or welfare gain.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Apr 28, 2010 9:29 pm
Aakosir divineseraph Aakosir divineseraph Aakosir divineseraph 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. ...So what was the point? The original argument was made because it was assumed that more stable economic conditions would cause higher birhtrates and thus more overpopulation. This is why it is untrue. Not in Capitalism. A poor, uneducated workforce is what this system relies on. If we stop focusing on profit and focus on making the world equal, safe, stable and productive (Namely, the original intention of work), everyone will be able to be educated (This is not to say that everyone will take that option, but currently, many people can not, due to the need to work full time to survive paycheck to paycheck. My grandfather is an example- He had to drop out of highschool when his father died to take over as breadwinner.) and we will, therefore, see less rampant childbearing with lottery-like hopes, or as a means of tax evasion or welfare gain. Right, but many people don't think they can get to college- Living paycheck to paycheck on even double minimum wage makes it nearly impossible to save enough money to get through college within 10 years. So if what you've got is the best you're probably going to get, and you still have the dream of the nice family with the nice home, you might settle for just kids at the moment, or what have you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Apr 28, 2010 11:08 pm
divineseraph Aakosir divineseraph Aakosir divineseraph ...So what was the point? The original argument was made because it was assumed that more stable economic conditions would cause higher birhtrates and thus more overpopulation. This is why it is untrue. Not in Capitalism. A poor, uneducated workforce is what this system relies on. If we stop focusing on profit and focus on making the world equal, safe, stable and productive (Namely, the original intention of work), everyone will be able to be educated (This is not to say that everyone will take that option, but currently, many people can not, due to the need to work full time to survive paycheck to paycheck. My grandfather is an example- He had to drop out of highschool when his father died to take over as breadwinner.) and we will, therefore, see less rampant childbearing with lottery-like hopes, or as a means of tax evasion or welfare gain. Right, but many people don't think they can get to college- Living paycheck to paycheck on even double minimum wage makes it nearly impossible to save enough money to get through college within 10 years. So if what you've got is the best you're probably going to get, and you still have the dream of the nice family with the nice home, you might settle for just kids at the moment, or what have you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Apr 29, 2010 8:22 am
Aakosir divineseraph Aakosir divineseraph Aakosir divineseraph ...So what was the point? The original argument was made because it was assumed that more stable economic conditions would cause higher birhtrates and thus more overpopulation. This is why it is untrue. Not in Capitalism. A poor, uneducated workforce is what this system relies on. If we stop focusing on profit and focus on making the world equal, safe, stable and productive (Namely, the original intention of work), everyone will be able to be educated (This is not to say that everyone will take that option, but currently, many people can not, due to the need to work full time to survive paycheck to paycheck. My grandfather is an example- He had to drop out of highschool when his father died to take over as breadwinner.) and we will, therefore, see less rampant childbearing with lottery-like hopes, or as a means of tax evasion or welfare gain. Right, but many people don't think they can get to college- Living paycheck to paycheck on even double minimum wage makes it nearly impossible to save enough money to get through college within 10 years. So if what you've got is the best you're probably going to get, and you still have the dream of the nice family with the nice home, you might settle for just kids at the moment, or what have you. Really? Where is it you live, because that is a one in a million opportunity. Many people are forced to join the military for a deal that is not even half of that. Do you have your own place and pay for your own utilities? If so, you will be very lucky to get the money to get through college within 10 years, unless you managed to get a job for more than roughly 20,000 a year (that's about 10 dollars an hour) or you are married and your spouse is working as well, and you're both making over 10 dollars an hour working full time. This is not an issue of kids being lazy, this is an issue of kids needing to work fresh out of high school (or drop out of highschool) to survive, and because of the low wage job they have the education for, never getting the money and time to get a higher education. Even if college gets paid for, the other bills don't stop coming.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri May 07, 2010 10:20 pm
SuchSweetSadism It's a female moral issue. I feel that a male, if they have any connection to the baby should have a say and the mother should take it into consideration, but she is the one to go through the birth, a process that's very risky to begin with depending on age and other factors, and she has the last say. So that male better have a hell of an arguement. I totally agree.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
