What about abortion?? click dont be afraid

Yeah, actually I remember bits an peices from that. But, yeah that was a bad example. Anyway, I don't care what anyone thinks, it should be the mothers decision on what to do with the baby. But I would still say a fetus has no consciousness, But I can't prove it and you can't prove that it does. So this really is not an arguement about what the child wants, because I'm fairly sure it doesn't want anything, it's living off the mother, without the mothers help it would die. This is going to be a very crude example and its not meant to lessen what a child is and has already been mentioned but a child is like a parasite, it lives off of its host. I don't see why people see this as such a bad thing, lets say a teen mother gets accidentally impregnated, why should she have to go through the pain and suffering of having a child if shes just going to fork it over to someone else. Or lets say a very poor mother gets pregnant, she probably won't be able to give it what it needs to have a decent life and will probably die young. But those are just huge sweeping generalizations, but I'm just trying to give the example of why it should be the mothers choice
 
I think this is kind of similar to Drew's argument for rationality being the defining characteristic of a person deserving rights. So along the same lines, aren't there degrees of consciousness? I mean, what type of understanding of self is the requisite to having one's right to life protected? Do you have to be on the level of Descartes? Or is recognizing yourself in a mirror sufficient (chimpanzees can do that)?
 
To avoid the bickering that is taking place, i'll just start all over.

First of all, I think abortion is bad and would probably choose not to have one myself, BUT i believe that as people we have a fundamental right to control what happens to our bodies. Therefore, it is the women's choice concerning abortion. This logic can also be applied to drugs: I wouldn't like to do pot but people should be able to as long as they stay in their house and don't hurt anyone (keep laws with extra penalties for driving high and whatnot.

If you are against abortion, don't have one. Worry about YOUR womb.
 
yeah, i spent like 5 mins doing so and the only thing i got out of it was whether you are concious at age one or not
 
Well you probably should spend more than 5 minutes reading the thread, but I'll reply to this anyway.

A major point of this thread has been the irrelevance and illogicalness of the argument that "a woman should be able to do what she wants with her body." That's what an English teacher would call a straw man fallacy - it implies that the other side disagrees, when they do not. There is no one on the pro-life side arguing, "No! Women do not deserve control of their bodies!" The argument is that an unborn life is NOT the woman's body but rather a separate person and as such deserves the right to life. It doesn't make sense to discuss any other point in regards to abortion. The pro-choice and pro-life sides both need to drop their straw men arguments and address the real issue: is the unborn a distinct, separate person deserving of basic human rights?

I agree with you on drugs - I don't choose to use them either and personally I think pot is kind of gross (the smell just makes me nauseous and gives me a headache, can't stand it), but I don't think that's reason enough to have it be illegal. From the pro-life stance, however, this is not at all equatable with abortion; in abortion, a life is being taken. I agree that a person should have the right to control their own body, but there have to be limitations on that - we have to limit rights to behavior that doesn't infringe on the rights of others. The abortion debate hinges only on whether or not the procedure infringes on rights that the unborn should have protected. It is a far simpler issue than it usually portrayed as.

And not having an abortion is not enough. As I've said elsewhere, what if people had said in the 1850s, "If you don't believe in slavery, don't own slaves"? Nothing would have changed. The protection of human rights is dependent on groups of people imposing their beliefs on those that would violate said rights.

I have to ask this, though: why do you think abortion is bad? If you believe the unborn is part of the woman's body, how is abortion different than killing a tapeworm or removing a tumor? And if you think it's bad because it is taking an innocent life (as I do), how can you defend the right to take innocent life at will? I see this claim all the time, "I don't think abortion is good personally and I wouldn't have one, but I'm not going to impose that on someone else." That doesn't make sense, unless you also want to adopt a purely relativist stance which would require you to permit anyone to do anything as long as they felt it was ok.
 
im not even going to begin. you have not read the thread. that or your retraded. this is sooo frustrating. im completly down to hear other points of argument but we have stated why this is not valid AT LEAST 20 times.

 
I have yet to see a definition for when a fetus is to be considered human that I am completely fine with. I do not agree that a cluster of just a couple cells that resemble nothing other than a blob is human. At the same time, at 8 months 3 weeks it's hard to call it anything but human, that extra week might help it grow an extra centimeter or two, all the development is essentially done.

Far from perfect, but the separating line I agree most with is if the fetus can live outside the woman's body. If yes, it's human, if no, it's a parasite. Note that this is not that it can live without life support. If it can live outside the mother's body but still dependent on machines for life, it's still human under this definition.

Personally, I think that is still a little too late in the development to call it human, but I don't see a better dividing line.
 
Once they can grow fetuses in a lab? If they can't already? Does that mean it's no longer a parasite? Plus, we have already stated, infants can live outside a mother's body, but not without her support, and not without a inconvenience to her. So is this not a parasite?
 
I don't see how people can say that the "thing" growing inside of a pregnant woman is not human at any stage. If it's not human, what is it? If it were part of the woman's body it wouldn't have distinct genetic material or the capacity to become a separate adult person. There are no organisms that have no species and no organisms that change from being one species to another.
 
For one, thank you for bringing an intelligent viewpoint to these forums.

To address the center of your argument, I believe that the fetus is part of the woman's body. She is providing the housing and nutrients for the baby. I am not sure of the science of whether it can live outside the womb or not, but that is irrelevant to the point that it is in her body.

Therefore, I would disagree though with your "straw man" labeling of the argument because by imposing their will (no abortion) on a woman who has the right to her own body.

I think it is "bad" simply because I feel that adoption is a better choice, living in a nation that does not have a food shortage.

Slavery is different in my eyes because of the aforementioned statement about the fetus still being a women's body.

My viewpoint about "then dont have one" is from a personal standpoint, not a legislative one.
 
PS: please stop the spin with the "innocent" preceding every time you say fetus in your argument

that is simply a guilt trip move that you do not need to use, considering how well thought out the rest of your argument is
 
Not being an expert in the field, I have no idea if its a fine or blurry line. All I know from my observations and learning is that humanity has it and the vast majority of life on this planet does not. We can debate the definition forever, so I'm not going to try to make an exact one, but you must agree (unless you're in a real argumentative mood) that what I'm saying is pretty much accurate.
 
Providing housing and nutrients for an organism doesn't make it part of your body. If anything, that argument would work better as support for the parasite analogy, which I think is actually pretty accurate. The difference here, though, is that the organism is genetically human and, more specifically, a DIFFERENT human. I can't see any legitimate philosophical/scientific reason to define the unborn in any other way.
 
The vast majority of life on the planet doesn't have consciousness, clearly. I can't argue with that. Algae isn't aware of its algae-ness. Flowers don't recognize their reflections (although, to be fair, they don't have the means to express self-awareness even if they had it). No sense in debating that. But the line is pretty blurry, I think. Some animals have been observed to have pretty highly developed senses of consciousness. As developed as that of a highly intelligent human? Certainly not, but again, how do we define what level of consciousness is "deep enough"?

I also can't argue with the idea that our consciousness and opposable thumbs have been major factors contributing to our dominance on earth. But I have to maintain that this line of reason is irrelevant here, because the things that contribute to our dominance are not necessarily the things that make us human.

 
I don't really understand what you're disagreeing with. I'm pretty sure you're not an animist, though. So what are your thoughts on consciousness? What is it? What has it?

 
Also, this is true of anyone discussing anything. It isn't possible to have an unbiased opinion - you are inevitably influenced by your culture and upbringing. Pure objectivity is a myth.

 
even if you are ultimately biased by your background, there is nothing stopping you from recognizing this
 
I recognize my bias, I'm just pointing out that you have one too - everyone does. And being predisposed to a conclusion by your environment doesn't mean the conclusion can't be sensible.
 
i'm being a bitch of a devils advocate here, just trying to say that you can't REALLY know that humans are the only specimen on earth to 'have a soul' so to speak

i think there is so much out there we have no knowledge about, and most of the time we spend our lives pretending the exact opposite.

Here is one of my favorite thought stimulating pictures. Perhaps there is consciousness all around us, perhaps we are all part of one larger overarching consciousness of being, but when it comes to the specifics, we will only truly know of ourselves (or at least that may be our limits that we have been aspiring to).

neuron-galaxy.jpg
flash_video_placeholder.png


 
Whoa, whoa, whoa...I didn't say anything about souls. That's a completely different discussion. Having consciousness and having a soul are not the same thing.

That is a really cool pair of pictures though.

 
when you speak of the 'defining' characteristic of humanity, and 'consciousness' i thought you were referring to the deeper consciousness of 'being human'. The bit of us that holds the intrinsic value which is the whole reason why we are having this argument.

My don't let my terminology throw you, i mean to speak of the same thing you guys were talking about, not some (again judeau-christian background soul)

 
haha, i just read through some of those responses... i can't believe some of you thought i was serious after my first post. wow, thanks for the laugh, NS.
 
how the hell would we have known?
more likely, you just read through some responses and realized, "wow, im retarded" and now your trying to take it back
 
haha, yup, you totally got me. like, totally 100% got me. yeah, i couldn't possibly have a deranged sense of humor...

fuckin get a clue.
 
I am still confused on what I should believe for this issue. I am kinda liberal, so I think that a woman has the right to choose if she wants to have a baby or not, in the case that the kid might have a really fucked up life, with certain cases like rape and stuff like that, but I then think about how fucked up it is to end a life that hassuch potential, one that hasn't even started. I'm confused on which side to pick for this issue.
 
my argument is not that fetuses don't, my argument is you can not prove it definitively, therefore it becomes a judgment call on the mother to either side with your view (that she shouldn't have an abortion) or not your view.(that she can have an abortion)
 
I think it's absurd that positions on abortion have become defined like that - pro-choice is the "liberal view" and pro-life is the "conservative view." As I've said before, no pro-lifers are arguing that a woman shouldn't be able to control her body, just as no pro-choicers are arguing it's ok to murder babies. The only question to debate here is whether or not the unborn is a person deserving rights. The whole association of abortion stances with party affiliation is an artificial, manufactured political tool that's been heavily reinforced by partisan, straw man semantics.

 
i was raised liberal, i hate bush, and l and am not even close to being a christian, but i am still on the "pro-life" side.  if the mother doesn't want the kid, she can give it up for adoption, and if she was raped, she can take the morning after pill. 

 
dude it doesn't matter if your liberal or not, in know way should your political party make your decisions for you. im not even 100% positive that im pro-life, its a dam tough subject.
 
haha im still confused how we were supposed to pick up that you were 'fucking with us', why dont you share what you actually think then?
 
oh, and someone was right when they said i'm not very open-minded about this... i'm right and if you disagree, go fuck yourself. i wasn't kidding about that part.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top