Welcome to Gaia! ::

Yes, it is you failing. Your logic failed. You can not say "It's legal, so it's right" because that's what slave owners did or could do, and they would be wrong- The reason is because the law is not objective or necessarily good. Frankly, it was a b***h move and I would like either an apology, a renouncement of the statement, or both.

So how can you allow for the killing of something that, at which any given time, could be a "person"? If "personhood" as defined by law is such a flimsy term, how can we possibly use it to determine who is right and wrong to kill? We need an objective measure of when a human becomes a person, and the only objective time of true change or "metamorphosis", from one thing to another, is conception, where sperm meets egg and creates a new, unique, biologically complete human life. Any time after this is simply normal human growth.

Appeal to the people. Again, try it with racism. If it doesn't hold for that argument, it can't be used for this one either. Let's just see what that would look like-


I really hate arguments, so please, take the hint you're really not changing my mind. I'm not encouraging slavery, but I believe in some cases it's the best thing to do. You may think I've no justification but the truth is this is a view my entire community holds, and perhaps that's just what I've been raised with, but I agree with it, and there are many learned men and women with these morals, not only I.

No, your points are NOT valid because they do not use logic properly- They leave open far too many holes to be acceptable arguments. I point these out by using racist arguments- If one argument will not stand with this reasoning, then no argument can regardless of how you feel about it. For example, were abortion illegal, I could never argue "It's illegal, deal with it" because that has nothing to do with the MERIT of the action or the action itself, only laws of men. I could not say "Everyone I know agrees, it's just how our community feels" because it is, again, irrelevant to the actual issue. My friends and family could live in a cave and think that the sky is dark brown; that doesn't make it true.

You are using another logical fallacy, an ad hominem, in a way- You are implying that if I respond in a way that isn't neutral or accepting, then I am being aggressive and hostile.

Yes there is a point where a fetus is just a clump of cells, and there is a point where a fetus takes on individuality. Just because that individual is dependent on the mother for life, does not make it less of an individual.

A baby develops rapidly, and very soon in the womb are they able to respond to light, sound, and other sensations. Yeah, you'll argue that amoebas do too, but we are talking humanity here. I think that children are more precious than amoebas.

Since we do not know the point in which a fetus becomes a vessel for a soul, I feel we should think of a fetus as a more sacred thing.

I know that those of you for abortion will not be swayed by my arguments, and I am sorry for that.

I was going to say something about the biology of what makes something human, but divineseraph pretty much covered the argument I was going to make.

I would, however, like to add on something in response to the underlined portion of your post.

Every human being in existence has the potential to be something different than what we are now. It's called growth and development. In fact, it's part of what makes us human.

To say that something should not be considered human because it's still growing and developing would be ridiculous, right?

Research into fetal development has indicated that, in addition to the fetus being able to use all 5 senses in the womb, they actually learn from using those senses. Granted, this learning may not be as advanced as the learning it takes to graduate from high school or college, but it is still learning, which is one of the cornerstones of our human experience.

But a furby is not a human in it's biological makeup, nor does it have the ability in it's normal course of growth and development (which doesn't exist) to improve or change. Also, see Searle's Chinese room argument.

But is that the only defining factor? If it is, then again, I propose the legalized killing of the mentally handicapped, who do not have a level of awareness equal to our own. I also propose the legalizing of the killing of infants and toddlers, as they are not developed far enough to have any significant memory or intellectual development. I also propose the legalization of killing those in comas, or those who are asleep, as they are, at the time, without common human awareness. If consciousness is the key to humanity, then looks are irrelevant- Bundle of joy in a blanket or webbed-toed fetus- If it does not have consciousness, what is the difference?

the last bit is an appeal to the people- Put it up to the racist example and watch it fall.

Well, not everyone is of the same religion, so while it may be an issue in someone's religion a religious answer doesn't work for a secular country, which is the context I'm coming from. Since I'm also areligious, I'm going to assume this secular perspective continuing, rather than also debate whether my country should be a Theocracy.
So it's not a religious issue, from my perspective.
Which leaves moral or female, which is, frankly, a weird dichotomy. Are females excluded from morality? I think I get what you mean though- is abortion an issue that everyone should have an equal voice on, or is it an issue when women's collective moral conclusions are what matters?
I'm still not totally comfortable with the question, but I'll try to answer it to the best of my ability.

From my perspective, since I am not factoring in the soul, the question becomes "Is there some other reason why whether a woman carries any given pregnancy to term should be a concern of other people?"

So, in what circumstances do we usually interfere with someone's liberty? When that person's exercising their liberty interferes with that of someone else- your freedom to swing your fists around ends at my nose. If a fetus is considered a person, then obviously aborting it would interfere with it's liberty to remain alive. Whether it is or is not a person, it is interfering with the woman's right to not have her bodily integrity infringed upon, which sucks to deal with, but I'll deal with that later.

Do we consider the fetus to have personhood?
Well, in terms of the time when most abortions take place (that is, first and second trimesters, not late-term abortions) the fetus lacks much of the cognition it will later develop and isn't able to survive outside of the womb with current technology, two things which weigh very heavily towards a fetus of ~20 weeks or less not yet having crossed into possessing personhood.

So it's an issue of the woman dealing with the unwanted pregnancy.

But what about the late-term abortion fetus?
If we don't say that personhood isn't imbued until birth, but rather at the time when that particular fetus becomes viable, then we can say that late term abortions contain a troubling question of which person's rights (wishes doesn't quite work here since we can only pressume the wishes of the fetus, not know them) take precedent. And, of course, it makes things all the sadder that a third trimester abortion, while occasionally technically elective, generally comes when a woman who has decided to carry to term find out that there is something very wrong with her pregnancy, such as one twin dying and needing to be aborted or it will poison the other one.

So, if we say they both have personhood? I don't know that I could say that both lives should be put at risk for the potential but ultimately unknown wishes of one. I feel like the choice still should lie with the mother, but obviously compassionate medical care which can tell her the potential for various outcomes without spin is ideal, since the hypothetical of a woman waiting until the 8th month to end an unwanted pregnancy is so uncommon that I haven't come across any cited examples of it.

And that's my fast and loose response.

Like I said, I don't expect to sway you, which is a shame. But your furby is not a miracle. It is not even Biological. It has nothing to do with the conversation.

... But to humor you... A furby's response is programmed, conditional, and predictable. A child in the womb is not. If I have 5 Furbies, and I teach them the same things, I get the same responses.

As soon as there are cells that are the beginning of a brain, there are waves and responses. Some babies that have only been conceived for 3 weeks are already sucking their thumbs, while others are being more active. A sign that they are already individuals, as they do not act in the same mannerisms.

I get the distinct impression that you have never been pregnant. Most women don't have intense physical or psychological pain for 9 months, even during a bad pregnancy.

There are hormonal fluctuations, but I have seen more women with worse reactions to PMS than to pregnancy. Yeah there are mood swings, but there are usually just as many towards the positive side than the negative. These swings are usually done by the end of the first trimester.

The last 3 months may bring physical discomfort and some pain, but it's usually bearable. A pregnant woman's body releases hormones that help her through the rest of her life by lessening her chance at feminine cancers.