Queen of Swords

Originally posted by MarcoPolo:
<strong>
I think we should let nature run it's course during the birth process.</strong>

Since I don't believe we should "let nature run its course" during shark attacks, heart failure, appendicitis or cholera epidemics, I can't see the benefits of letting nature run its course during pregnancy and birth either. After all, nature might "dictate" that the cute li'l fetus dies.

But I think your position - no abortion at all - is more consistent than Elaborate's 30% solution. It's not one I agree with, but it is consistent. Of course, it helps that you don't expect everyone to follow your choice in the matter!

[ December 18, 2002: Message edited by: QueenofSwords ]</p>

stryder2112

Well, what that whole episode did show (although not to your satisfaction) is that your graph with the horizontal line for value of human life with the upward sloping line for value of oak life cannot be derived from the premises you put forward.

If you agree that any zygote (human, oak, etc) has equal value to a full grown creature (human, oak, etc.) your graph should have horizontal lines. In the acorn example, one horizontal line for human life and another one far below it for "oak life." That is, after all, the graphical representation for the plain meaning of the phrase "of equal value to" with respect to zygotes and fully grown organisms.

If you want to develop some argument that supports that graph, you're going to have to come up with an argument as to why a single-celled being with human DNA (aka a human zygote) is morally equavalent to a full grown human but the tiny oak zygote in an acorn is not morrally equivalent to a full grown oak.

Unfortunately, that's only one of your problems. Additionally, you need to develop an argument as why a single-celled human (a zygote at conception) have the rights of a fully grown person whereas, for example, similar rights are not granted to a fully grown person who has suffered severe brain damage and is declared brain-dead. That ties into another comment of yours:

I don't think anyone is arguing that human life doesn't begin at conception. However, this is one of the problems of the terminology used in these arguments. People on the pro-choice side are not "anti-life." I, for one, is definately not arguing that a single-celled human zygote isn't alive. No more so than I would argue that a brain-dead adult isn't "alive." Such an individual is still technically alive if they're breathing and their heart is still beating. However, I would argue, and I think you would agree, that there is nothing immoral about "pulling the plug" on someone who is brain-dead.

The "something" that gave that collection of human cells humanity was lost when his/her brain ceased to function. In that sense only is that person no longer considered "alive." I, and others, would argue that the "something" that gives a collection of human cells humanity is not yet manifest in a single-celled zygote. I'd also argue that as those properties slowly become manifest as that zygote develops into a fetus, etc. the moral value of that being changes. This affects which way the scale will tip in solving the moral dilema between the needs and wants of the mother and the rights of the growing child.

Once again, there is by necessity another human being of value here - the mother. For me, anyway, the legal issues are damn-near impossible to sort out. I'd rather err to the side of personal freedom and leave these sorts of difficult moral decisions about the begining of life to the people intimately involved (the mother, her family, her doctors, etc.) just like we do for the difficult, painful, and usually gut-wrenching decisions about life and death at the end of life.

Stryder

MarcoPolo

No it didn't. I'm not going to go into all this again though. If you get it, great, if not, I'm not explaining myself well enough (which I do frequently I'm sure...) But I've ended that portion and moved on.

That's right, but I never said that ANY zygote has equal VALUE to the full grown. (I'm not getting pulled back in... I'm not getting pulled back in....)

Seriously though, I appreciate your attempt at that portion of the debate, I just don't have the desire any longer to pursue it. Like DD, I bowed out of that.

Well, not just me, we all need to figure that one out. Why is the murderer of a pregnant woman charged with TWO counts of murder?

I believe they should be.

I think I would tend to agree with you there. That's why I think everyone should have some kind of will that says in the event of something like that, either keep me alive or pull the plug. (But that's another debate all together.)

Snipped the rest to save bandwidth.

I can't say I disagree with the rest of your post.

LordSnooty

No, it's not wrong. It's different. I think a 'person' is someone that thinks and feels. You think a person is a homo sapien.

At the end of the day, abortion is morally permissable to me, because my morality is based around causing the least possible harm to anyone. Since I do not consider that a non-thinking and non-feeling organism can be harmed, abortion is OK by me (though obviously I do not like abortions of more developed fetuses, and think stricter limits should be put in place to avoid them).

Your morality is different, and is based around (flawed ) logic, and is (from what I gather) guided by what you percieve to be lawful.

I'm bowing out now. There's nothing more productive to be gained from this discussion, and I think it's making me go bald. I am 23 years old.

Still - merry christmas!

Paul

[ December 18, 2002: Message edited by: LordSnooty ]</p>

long winded fool

Very well. We'll agree to disagree, though I wish you'd show me where my logic is flawed. You leave me with only the arbitrary assertion that my logic is misapplied.

The argument always seems to fall back to the definition of a human being. We can argue about the feelings of rape victims and the welfare of irresponsible teenagers, but we always return to this primary concern. Where to draw the line. If we don't know where to draw the line, it's better to be safe than sorry. If you don't know whether or not what your killing is human, it's better assume that it is human and to not kill it instead of assuming it isn't human and kill it. None of your (or my) arguments can hold water without first identifying what a human is and what a human isn't. If you honestly thought that the definition of humanity were subjective, you couldn't have anything to say about the enslavement of another race of people. This would simply be another definition of humanity and morally permissable to some portion of the population. What, then, makes your definition more permissable than somone else's? If all are morally equal, then any given person's rights are entirely subjective to someone with the power to violate those rights. No society can function with this mentality, and ours is no exception. We've failed to do this in the past and suffered for it, and we will fail to do it in the future and suffer for it again. This logic seems sound enough to me. I'm using the scientific definitions of human and humanity found in any dictionary on which to base my argument. What definitions are you using?


"Will you accuse me of being the Daedalus who makes your arguments walk away, not perceiving that there is another and far greater artist than Daedalus who makes them go round in a circle?"
- Socrates

stryder2112

Well, then, it seems that we've finally cut through to the heart of the matter and found that our views are not all that different.

It's been nice discussing this with you, and I agree that this topic has made enough circles. I'll bow out as well.

Stryder

LordSnooty

I know I said I was bowing out, but since you asked a question:

This argument has a certain logic, but my definition is more permissable because early-term abortion has no victim. The fetus cannot think or feel, and therefore it cannot be harmed in the human sense of the word. If no harm is caused, then it doesn't matter.

We know that all races of humanity are essentially the same, and that suffering is universal. That is what makes slavery wrong. Fine, some ignorant people might think slavery is OK. That may be down to a different 'definition of humanity' - but it's a clearly false one, since the differences between the races are so tiny.

I'm sure you are able to tell the difference between a fully grown human and a microscopic zygote. If you are, then obviously the slavery argument doesn't hold water. Silly definitions based on the colour of someone's skin do not compare with the complete lack of tangible humanity present in an early fetus.

Paul

LordSnooty

Crap, this post isn't intentional

[ December 19, 2002: Message edited by: LordSnooty ]</p>

Opera Nut

An interesting sociological tidbit:

Abortion was legalized in California before the rest of the nation, I think about 1970. Some sociologist tracked the juvenile crime rate there over the years, and found that there was a measurable drop in juvenile crime starting about 12 years after abortion was legalized, and it was not explained by any other theory. In other words, a number of unwanted children were aborted by low-income women that would otherwise have apparently become juvenile criminals.

A lot of hell was raised over these conclusions by pro-lifers but the study was never refuted.

"Innocent embryos who cannot cause civil unrest" -- not then maybe but years later when they are big, strong and violent.
?????

Puck

long winded fool, and all,

I too must bow out of this debate at this time. Perhaps later if we are so disposed, we can pick it up anew.

In parting, I would like to share some thoughts bumping about my pooh-like brain. You are using the law to reinforce/bring to the table, a valid argument for your belief that abortion should be illegal? I'm very curious of course what your underlying belief is that would make you feel abortion is wrong.

The whole oak tree/eagle argument I had a hard time with because, although I understood where you were coming from, I personally believe that oak trees and eagles are no less important than humans. I think we humans think *way* too much of ourselves. Just because we evolved to think Deep Thoughts, doesn't give us any more right to live a full life than any other living thing. Yet, for *our* very survival, we must destroy other living things. The way I see it, unless we believe in a god that made us to use/kill other living things, there is no argument for us being 'better than'. We all came from the same primordial soup, if you will. We just learned how to use aggression to our best advantage for survival, and that means killing, and since we evolved a conscience, we like to think we are above other living things so we don't lose sleep for killing all the living stuff inside the pile of leaves we burned today. Okay, this has wandered off into another topic. Stop.

Thus we 'get rid of' acorns, either before sprouting or by mowing after sprouting, to keep them from taking over the yard. If that acorn is sprouting in my belly, I'm going to get rid of it before it *becomes* an oak tree.

I hope y'all have a nice holiday season, or just some nice days ahead if you don't participate in these events. I'm going to go spend some more time in humor and the other 'lower' fora. Play time for Puck!