This is appalling....and nauseating..and back to appalling

Some Coked Up Brit wrote:

Let's Think wrote:

I am very close to someone who has a handicapped brother, and she loves him very much. That being said, she told me that if she was pregnant and the fetus was found to be mentally handicapped, she would have an abortion at whatever stage of pregnancy. Given her life experience, I respect her opinion more than my own.

I respect the views of your friend, but I wonder what the views of her handicapped brother are? (My own handicapped brother isn't comfortable with there being one law for non-handicapped people and another law for handicapped people.)

Keep in mind, there are many handicapped people who were born that way and despise the idea that they should have been aborted. Even if the kid's retarded, doesn't mean we can just decide for them.

k girl wrote:

Some Coked Up Brit wrote:I respect the views of your friend, but I wonder what the views of her handicapped brother are? (My own handicapped brother isn't comfortable with there being one law for non-handicapped people and another law for handicapped people.)

You're right, Coked Up Brit. There should be One Law and it should apply to all peoples equally because everyone is exactly the same. That's all it takes to make moral decision: just determine the absolute. It's easy to do because you can do it all in your head. We decide what we think is right and then apply it to everyone across the board, regardless of context.

This is silly boy reasoning, made famous by the King Silly Boy of them all, Immanuel Kant.

If Immanuel Kant is a silly boy, you're a dumb bitch.

How do you like them apples?

another average american wrote:

Some Coked Up Brit wrote:

You haven't asnwered my question however: do you think handicapped people should be equal before the law with reagrds to abortion?

Yes.

Abortion should be legal during the first semester and the reason a woman aborts should be between her, her husband/the fetus's father if he's around and invested, and her doctor.

Don't forget her teachers. The teachers should have a say since the first semester is a very crucial part that can affect the rest of your academic career.

:)

I knew I was going to make that mistake at some point.

bigger picture wrote:

turkey leg wrote:

In that example, the law has given people the right to help someone survive without their expressed consent.

You assume a that survival is a good thing.

Furthermore implied consent is is still not consent, even is there is a law. This is philosophical issue not a legal one.

And creating a life is VERY different thing than sustaining a life. Procreation forces a life on a future being who otherwise wouldn't be here. Administering first aid is continuing an already existing life.

We are dealing with the legal aspect of this, not the philosophical aspect. For all legal and practical purposes, the right to life is a given assumption. If you want to change that, then you have MUCH bigger fish to fry than abortion. In fact, what you are suggesting would turn the whole American legal system on its head.

Okay, so it seems reasonable enough so far. My idea on what constitutes a threat goes like this:

There is always a possibility of death in a pregnancy, as with outside of pregnancy. However, if there is a biological problem with the pregnancy such that the baby is not developing normally, and this constitutes a threat to the mother's life, then the mother has a right to defend herself. The odds of her dying don't really play into it, so this avoids a grey area. If the doctor agrees that the fetus is developing wrong and this constitutes a threat, no matter how big or small, then the woman has a right to defend herself. It's the same with self-defense in real-life. You can spend your time calculating your chances of dying, but if you feel you are being threatened and there is a real physical threat, then you have the right to defend yourself by whatever means possible. If someone is coming at you with a knife, then it is okay to shoot them. If you treat it in this way, then it is still completely consistent with the Constitution, and it avoids the grey area. I'm not saying this argument is perfect, but I think it is very reasonable.

I never said they were levels of potentiality, and that is not at all what I am saying. There is a clear difference between the existence of sperm and conception. Can you not see this?

This is a fallacious argument. Just because you disagree with me, doesn't mean your view is also consistent. It may be just as legitimate as mine, but it does not mean it is as legally consistent.

turkey leg wrote:

Okay, so you're saying the question is whether or not someone who does not exist yet gave anyone consent to create? How is this a real question? If they do not exist, that can not have any consent or dissent. They are at the mercy of the existing.

But they WILL exist at some time without having given consent; they did not agree to be put into this world and to the inevitable suffering that life brings. Once they are created you cannot argue they were NOT put into this position without their agreement. If the parents choose not procreate THEN consent is not an issue because nothing WILL ever exist to have to have agreed.

So the argument is Utilitarian in that we must stop suffering. So to bring life into the world always leads to suffering to some degree, which is morally unacceptable. And the lack of consent to the suffering is even worse because they had no choice and now must suffer.

So, do parents have a right to force existence on a person? And thus the suffering that will come.

OK as far as it goes. But it seems there are a few possible issues here:

1) Why does the baby developing abnormally constitute a threat but not a baby developing normally? (poorly worded) A normal pregnancy increases the odds of death above no pregnancy so couldn't a woman reasonably claim that her life was threatened by any pregnancy?

2) What about the baby's right to defend its own life. Or, more relevantly the right of others to intervene to defend the right to life of an innocent. Seems like this is similar to a stranger intervening in a conflict to protect one person from being killed by another.

someone else wrote:

This is a fallacious argument. Just because you disagree with me, doesn't mean your view is also consistent. It may be just as legitimate as mine, but it does not mean it is as legally consistent.

I'm not saying that simply because we disagree means both of our arguments are consistent. I'm saying that I believe my view is perfectly consistent. You don't agree. But just because you don't agree doesn't mean my view isn't consistent.

I think it's just a fundamental agreement on what constitutes life. I am pro-life, and I'm also pro-choice, and I see that as perfectly consistent.

Mrs. M wrote:

I'd be curious to hear if any of the women on the board have gone through an abortion.

Well, Catholic Boy went right back to munching on Communion wafers after Priscilla's abortion. Maybe they can give you some insight on the psychological impact of ending a *life*.

Come to think of it, Catholic Boy jumped right back into the dating scene just after another of his aborts without an eye twitch. Doesn't phase some people I guess...or maybe it does. I'm told they go through a lot of Jack Daniels in that house.

another average american wrote:

We get back to where life begins, which I have said from the beginning is an unanswerable question, morally and scientifically.

Are you sure? In at least one scientific sense, logic, it can be narrowed down.

Take an adult human and work backwards. This person is fully grown, financially independent, and has offspring. A living human being? Of course.

Back up a decade and that person was an 18 year old teenager fully grown, fully capable of offspring but dependent on parents. Any less of a living human because it can not feel secure?

Back up another decade and that 8 year old person is a preadolescent, not capable of producing offspring but can rummage through to survive on its own - but poorly. Any less of a living human because it can not procreate?

Back up a few years more and that 2 year old person is a toddler and can communicate a little but is completely dependent on parents for shelter and food. Any less of a living human because it can not shelter itself or find food?

Back up to when the person is one week old and relies on breast milk from it mother for all it nutrients. Any less of a living human because it can't digest normal food?

Keep backing up to when the person is a baby just before the umbilical cord is severed. The person is crying (breathing) but getting all other nutrients from it's mother. Any less of a living human because it gets nutrients though the umbilical cord rather than a nipple?

Back up to when the person is a fetus just before delivery. The person is much like just after delivery, but relies on the mother for oxygen. Any less of a living human it gets oxygen through the mother?

Back up a few months to just before the fetus's nervous system can sense pain. Any less of a living human because some neurons aren't fully developed?

Back up to just before the heart begins to beat. Any less of a living human because it relies on the mother's blood pressure to circulate nutrients?

And on and on.

All of these are notable and significant stages of life but none have any more stake on defining the start of life than another. So with respect to identifying the placement of a time that an organism becomes alive, how can any of these be chosen? We can not.

We have to back up all the way to point that the organism started down that long path. At the point that from then on, stopping it requires intervention. That is the answer to when a human life begins.

This is only one part of many of this issue and therefore should not be the defining basis for policy, but if the question of when a life begins, there is an answer.

You said, "The potential for life only begins at conception." I disagree with this statement, as sperm clearly has the potential to become human life (just as the egg has the potential to become human life). Both of them united also have the potential to become human life, arguably a higher level of potential (probably not the proper wording, but you should be able to grasp this concept). As I demonstrated in the previous post, even at the point of conception this potential to become human life is far from certain (see: miscarriage). The argument however is moot, since you agree that the embryo has the potential to become a human being. Therefore, it is by definition not a human being. The challenging part is trying to define the point when the fetus becomes a human being. I think we can definitely say it's a human being when it's outside of the womb. Otherwise we are confronted with a shade of gray.

Human life begins at conception, sure. But rights do not belong to biological organisms. They belong to persons. A fetus is very far from a person.

A person is an independent, rational agent. Insofar as a human being is not independent and rational, that human being has no rights--because that human being does not have a will to exercise its rights.

Life begins at conception. Personhood (and the rights pertaining thereto) begins with the possession of a will.

what's a right wrote:

...A person is an independent, rational agent. Insofar as a human being is not independent and rational, that human being has no rights--because that human being does not have a will to exercise its rights.

Life begins at conception. Personhood (and the rights pertaining thereto) begins with the possession of a will.

So a one year old is not a person and has no rights.

OK, I can live with that.

Actually, come to think of it, a sleeping (non dream state) person (oops, can't say that - human being) has no will either. So we each have no rights during periods of each night. Not sure I can live with that.

Wait a minute, did you say "rational"? OK, none of my kids are persons and quite often my wife is not.

Man, this just keeps getting easier. Looks like nobody is really a person with any rights. (except me of course, purely rational, 100% independent - and never, ever asleep).

The rest of you, be scared. Be very, very scared.

what's a right wrote:

...Personhood (and the rights pertaining thereto) begins with the possession of a will.

How quaint. I am sure that you are a very rational person. As such, you must realize that the notion of such a thing as a free will is purely illusional - all thoughts, emotions, decisions, acts being 100% determined by the undirected movement of subatomic particles.

No will - > no rights. That means everyone.

I'd like to pose a couple questions for everyone:

First question:

You are told that you must kill either a newborn or a 16 years old child. You are told if you do not choose to kill one of them you will be forced to help kill both of them and you will then be killed. If you do choose to kill one of them the other will live. Who will you kill and why? Or will you allow all three to die?

Second Question:

We only have money to give medical care to either a 75 year old with prostate cancer or a 25 year old with leukemia. They have an equal chance of survival and in every other respect are equal. Who gets the money? Why?

In my opinion only 2 fact need to be presented to settle this arguement.

1) upon conception, the baby has everything it needs genertically to live full natural life as a human being and will do so unless acted upon by an outside force (person or other).

2) all human beings are dependant on another at different points in their life, such when seriously ill or injuried or when they are very young or very old.

Given these two facts the only difference between abortion and murder is location and is not rationally reconcilable.

A nurse in charge of a patient in the ICU who decided that taking care of the patient is to much trouble and so pulls the plug on the ventalator is rightfully charged with murder. A mother who decides that taking care of her unborn child is too much work so kills it also should be charged with murder.

As Mother Teresa said so rightly, "it is true poverty of the soul to decide you to kill another so that you may live your life as you wish. And poverty of the soul of a nation who allows such to happen."