Baal,The God of Liberalism the Half-Bull, Half-Man

[FlaGator]

I derive my morals from my life experience and what I have percieved as right and wrong. Of course morality is valid, whether religion is was my statement.

I don't want to hijack this thread but when the opportunity arises I would like to discuss this. Merry Christmas to you my friend!

[wilbur]

So a human life is no better than a monkey or a dolphin? I value a fetus more than a monkey. A fetus IS a human. And believe it or not, fruit flies and mosquitos feel pain as well. All living animals sense pain. Yet people do not feel pangs of compassion when a fruit fly is killed. Why? Because a fruit fly is not as intelligent as a monkey? Infants are not as intelligent as their adult counterparts, why not kill them as well? You cannot justify abortion by using intelligence as the reason. A fetus is a developing human, and with time it will grow a brain and become a unique functioning person.

http://www.baby2see.com/development/week10.html
That is a fetus at week 10. It doesn't look like an empty shell to me. I think I have found that your only point is that because a fetus has no brain or feelings, it is justified to kill it. I find that wrong, and I can never agree with you on that.

Talking about potential is looking to the future to see what will become of something. Why not talk about potential? A fetus WILL develop into an adult. This is not a 'what if'. Do not say a killed fetus 'could have been' a human, it WOULD have been a person. Just like any other person. You were once a fetus, I was once a fetus...did our lives have less worth in that state simply because we had no functioning brain?

Tell me...what is it that puts that brain into place? The brain does not just appear magically. The brain has to develop, and it still develops even as the fetus grows into a child. You can twist this however way you want, but when you get right down to it killing a fetus is ending human life.

The fetus should have a right to life. Imagine if your mother had the choice of having an abortion or keeping you and she kept you. Looking back, would you have wanted her to kill you? Or were you not really a human as a fetus, considering you had no brain yet? Was your life worthless until you were born? If we kill all poor people the economy would be better. Heck if we kill all the politicians the economy would skyrocket. Don't use economic means to justify that. To kill a fetus for economic means. To sacrifice the life of a developing human in order to live better. To sacrifice a baby in some relgious ritual in order to please the gods. Abortion is becoming even more similar to this topic the more you go on.

Look, its pretty simple... I've clearly (hopefully) laid out my reasoning... it might help if you didn't put so many words in my mouth. Until such time as there are the beginnings of consciousness (nearing the third trimester), there is quite literally.. no harm inflicted in the termination of a fetus. This, for me, is definitively the point with which we can say a fetus has some rights. It does not matter what other structures and body parts paved the way for the consciousness to form.. they still aren't the brain nor the defining element that ushers in one's person-hood, awareness and capacity for feeling. A sperm cell was just as vital in the whole process, yet we don't balk at their destruction.

As for potentiality, it is still a non-issue. Say you saw the news, and there were two separate murders that took place, nearly identical in every way.. the way they happened, the motives, the method etc.... but one victim was a person awaiting a long jail sentence, while the other victim was about to join the red cross. Should the punishment for one be more severe than the other? By your logic, yes, based on our speculations of their future. We don't actually know what their potential really was... it could be the guy who joined the red cross would die his first day on the job, and the man who went to prison could end up doing great things with his life. In both cases, what was taken from those victims was equal.. their life... in the case of abortion, nothing was possessed to begin with.. so nothing is taken away.

That being said, I officially recuse myself from this discussion till after x-mas.

[Mythic]

no harm inflicted in the termination of a fetus.

I already told you why that is a bad argument.

they still aren't the brain nor the defining element that ushers in one's person-hood, awareness and capacity for feeling. A sperm cell was just as vital in the whole process, yet we don't balk at their destruction.

*sigh* A sperm cell will never develop on its own into a baby. A fetus will. Yet another poor comparison. The brain is developing, without the fetus there would be no child.

As for potentiality, it is still a non-issue. Say you saw the news, and there were two separate murders that took place, nearly identical in every way.. the way they happened, the motives, the method etc.... but one victim was a person awaiting a long jail sentence, while the other victim was about to join the red cross...In both cases, what was taken from those victims was equal.. their life... in the case of abortion, nothing was possessed to begin with.. so nothing is taken away.

So when you can't come up with a decent argument its a non issue? It is scientifically proven that a fetus does have life. You cannot create life from no life. What you are arguing is that because the fetus has no brain developed yet, it is somehow less worthy of life. Thats the point that you seem to emphasize. If I am wrong please state your point again.


I made an error, I meant that a fetus DOES have life, not does not.

[MrsSmith]

I already told you why that is a bad argument.

*sigh* A sperm cell will never develop on its own into a baby. A fetus will. Yet another poor comparison. The brain is developing, without the fetus there would be no child.


So when you can't come up with a decent argument its a non issue? It is scientifically proven that a fetus does not have life. You cannot create life from no life. What you are arguing is that because the fetus has no brain developed yet, it is somehow less worthy of life. Thats the point that you seem to emphasize. If I am wrong please state your point again.

That can't be the point, Myth. If it were, 1/2 of the posters on the DUmp would have no right to life.

[Mythic]

That can't be the point, Myth. If it were, 1/2 of the posters on the DUmp would have no right to life.

:D

I made a typing error

It is scientifically proven that a fetus does not have life. You cannot create life from no life.

should be

It is scientifically proven that a fetus does have life. You cannot create life from no life.

[wilbur]

Ok, X-Mas is close enough to over (the good parts anyways), I can start back up again ;)

I already told you why that is a bad argument.

*sigh* A sperm cell will never develop on its own into a baby. A fetus will. Yet another poor comparison. The brain is developing, without the fetus there would be no child.

So when you can't come up with a decent argument its a non issue? It is scientifically proven that a fetus does not have life. I assume you mean 'proven that a fetus DOES have life. You cannot create life from no life. What you are arguing is that because the fetus has no brain developed yet, it is somehow less worthy of life. Thats the point that you seem to emphasize. If I am wrong please state your point again.

Life, in the scientific sense of the word, isnt the issue... personhood is what I am concerned about.

I argue that until a fetus acquires various capicities for feeling, personality, and awareness it is not a person. These things can be said to begin when the cerebral cortex forms and becomes active for the first time. Personhood is what happens in between the time the brain revs up for the first time, and when it ceases for the last time. Only when some state of personhood comes into being do moral and ethical considerations matter regarding a fetus.

Your whole case rests on this idea of potential... but you haven't explained why it actually matters, except to arbitrarily say that it does, and I should just accept it. I don't. It's irrelevant.

[wilbur]

Open question for 'life at conception' folks.

In the case of a woman who has a hostile womb conception is possible, but implantation is not. Is it unethical for her to have unprotected sex, even while married?

Is she engaging in 'ritual child sacrifice' for the sake of her 'god of the self'?

[megimoo]

Ok, X-Mas is close enough to over (the good parts anyways), I can start back up again ;)



Life, in the scientific sense of the word isnt the issue... personhood is what I am concerned about.

I argue that until a fetus acquires various capicities for feeling, personality, and awareness it is not a person. This happens to be when the cerebral cortex forms and becomes active. Personhood is what happens in between the time the brain revs up for the first time, and when it ceases for the last time. Until such time as those states are acquired, moral and ethical questions matter only for those who actually have personhood (ie, actual humans, not potential humans).

Your whole case rests on this idea of potential... but you haven't explained why it actually matters, except to arbitrarily say that it does, and I should just accept it. I don't. It's irrelevant.

" Personhood is what happens in between the time the brain revs up for the first time," Sounds like what you are describing is building an SUV rather than a human being.

Weather or not you 'accept it' is irrelevant,ipso facto,life is and will be if it is not meddled with .Argue as you will fetal development takes time and for you to foolishly decide to withhold your acceptance based on your terms is basically ignorance on your part or better still a certain unqualified arrogance .

Further requiring that new life exhibit the characteristics of development needed for your acceptance is more proof of your hatred of new life ."I argue that until a fetus acquires various capacities for feeling, personality, and awareness ."

These attributes are learned and all require time to develop and you by your own words deny life to a child until it reaches these education goals .The new child is in the process of becoming an fully developed human being and by week forty will be fully developed and ready for birth .Feeling personality and awareness all come later !

[MrsSmith]

Open question for 'life at conception' folks.

In the case of a woman who has a hostile womb conception is possible, but implantation is not. Is it unethical for her to have unprotected sex, even while married?

Is she engaging in 'ritual child sacrifice' for the sake of her 'god of the self'?

The life of the mother

By Linda A. Prussen-Razzano
web posted June 21, 2004

...

I can still recall, with bitter clarity, the conflicting tests results – pregnant, not pregnant, pregnant – only to learn that my hostile womb did not accept a fertilized egg. That gentle glow of life had flickered out, allowing me to catch just the briefest glance of its dimming light.

...

I placed the matter into God's hands, knowing that He alone created life. Please, Lord, I prayed, show me the way You want me to go. Adopt? Wait? Be a mother to another? I prayed to accept His decision with grace, with a glad heart.

To our supreme delight, He blessed us with a beautiful boy, born just 40 weeks later.

Hostile Womb

Obviously, when God chooses, the child lives. So long as it's God's choice, and not a deliberate act of ending a life, the mother has done no wrong.

[wilbur]

" Personhood is what happens in between the time the brain revs up for the first time," Sounds like what you are describing is building an SUV rather than a human being.

Perhaps you should think about what I say, instead of immediately trying to reduce it to absurd trivialities that don't even make sense. This is a meaningless non-answer. The argumentative content is zero.... more of the same artificially emotive, inflaming, zero-content nonsense that tries to pose as a real live argument.. But its fakery... slight of hand.

Weather or not you 'accept it' is irrelevant,ipso facto,life is and will be if it is not meddled with. Argue as you will fetal development takes time and for you to foolishly decide to withhold your acceptance based on your terms is basically ignorance on your part or better still a certain unqualified arrogance .

For all your fuming so far, you still haven't managed to actually say anything.

Further requiring that new life exhibit the characteristics of development needed for your acceptance is more proof of your hatred of new life ."I argue that until a fetus acquires various capacities for feeling, personality, and awareness ."

Yes, I "hate" new life. I love to throw kittens in napsacks and take a sledgehammer to them as well

These attributes are learned and all require time to develop and you by your own words deny life to a child until it reaches these education goals. The new child is in the process of becoming an fully developed human being and by week forty will be fully developed and ready for birth .Feeling personality and awareness all come later !

So a human baby is fully developed at week 40, but still has development to go before it becomes a person? Huh?

A baby might not have developed the traits I speak of at 20-22 weeks... not everything is known about what the mind is like, what kind of capabilities are present. However, after that time, is the time we cannot be sure that some awareness, capacity for suffering, and personality are not present. 20-22 weeks is a conservative estimate, erring on the side of caution.