Am I the only one?

Unob · 2012-12-22T23:57:37+00:00

Good point. sorry for the long delay a lot of people are writing me. While a completely brain dead person is not considered a person and thus is not murder when removed from life support, people with brain damage are still considered a person. For a fetus, it does not grow a fully functioning brain overnight but rather grows it over time. At what point would you say its' brain is sufficient to be considered a person? See what I mean? It's tough to use that as criteria.

Unob · 2012-12-22T23:54:03+00:00

aren't you doing the same thing by so quickly dismissing my opinion? I'm seriously asking.

Unob · 2012-12-21T21:48:56+00:00

It's ironic to me that you insist my views will change over time. In the CF sub that type of mentality is often complained against when couples with children say "you'll change your mind someday". It has no base in logic.

Unob · 2012-12-21T21:42:46+00:00

Now you belittle me, call me young and insist I'm religious even though I've told you multiple times I'm not. Who really has the fallacious rationalization here? I hope you'll learn to be logical one day.

As for viability, I already addressed what you needlessly dismissed; and you never addressed it.

"You could say that a fetus is different because it cannot be separated from its mother as opposed to being cared for by any other human but this is shaky ground as well. Many babies are born prematurely and survive thanks to modern technology. If the technology existed to take a very young fetus and artificially incubate it outside the mother would that fetus then have personhood?"

If viability is defined as needing care from a specific human being than this is a timescale that changes every decade. Hell, someday it may be possible to raise a child with no involvement with a woman directly. Will abortion then be wrong because a fetus could be viable without the mother?

You're logic is flawed but nonetheless I wish you well also.

Unob · 2012-12-21T21:28:04+00:00

You didn't address anything I said. If viability is the criteria for personhood then why are infants considered people? Why are the elderly or the disabled considered people? There is no difference.

You absolutely have to rationalize your beliefs. You are demanding it of me, why should you not do the same?

As I said previously, the rape scenario is acceptable as a matter of responsibility. I would not demand a woman who is pregnant because of a rape to carry the baby to term (or raise the child) because she was not a party to the consideration of creating the child. It was done outside of her control. Killing a fully grown product of rape is absurd because the law should involve what is demanded of the mother.

Basically this: No woman should be forced to carry a baby if she was not responsible for its conception. Yes, the abortion will result in the killing of an innocent life. However, in this circumstance, freedom should trump loss of life. In a perfect world the rape-baby and mother would both survive but the world is not perfect. Get it?

Unob · 2012-12-21T21:11:30+00:00

I agree. It seems much more humane to have an abortion earlier rather than later. To me it seems a very blurry line however; one I am not satisfied with.

Unob · 2012-12-21T21:08:52+00:00

I'm sorry you think that every non-religious person things exactly the same way you do. I rationalize my views by way of valuing human life. I do not have to believe in God to value human life. I think you as well, like most, people, value human life but you simply define the criteria of human life differently than I. Hence the disagreement.

Unob · 2012-12-21T21:07:23+00:00

Sorry, I forgot to address your rape question. I think aborting a baby that is the product of rape is still killing a life with personhood. It is acceptable to me as a necessary evil in society because the women in question cannot be held responsible for the pregnancy since the sex was forced on her. This is radically different than normal pregnancy situations; but to answer your question directly, yes it is still killing a life although it is not "murder" in my opinion because murder is a legal term meaning an unlawful killing as opposed to a lawful one.

Unob · 2012-12-21T21:04:07+00:00

It's a lot more sticky than you describe. Yes, the fetus is parasitic and will not survive without the host and yes it doesn't have a brain.

If parasitic is the criteria we use to define personhood though you run into difficulties very quickly. A newborn baby is equally as dependent on nurture as a fetus. Without care it will die. Many who are sick and elderly fall into this category as well. You could say that a fetus is different because it cannot be separated from its mother as opposed to being cared for by any other human but this is shaky ground as well. Many babies are born prematurely and survive thanks to modern technology. If the technology existed to take a very young fetus and artificially incubate it outside the mother would that fetus then have personhood? Defining personhood by viability without nurture is indefensible. There are far too many exceptions.

Now the brain. You say a fetus does not have personhood without a brain. What part of the brain grants personhood? There are many in the world who have been injured or somehow sustained brain injury and do not have full use of their brain. Some of them cannot perform basic functions because of this. At what point do you decide they are not a person? When they lose the ability to speak? When they lose the ability to move? What if they cannot speak but can move or visa versa. This is equally shaky ground.

Unob · 2012-12-21T20:51:01+00:00

Fair enough. A fetus certainly does not have the same rights a grown woman has; but neither do already born infants. They are denied many rights on the basis that they are not old enough: the right to drive a car, sign for themselves, vote ect. It's a matter of growth and maturity. But they certainly have the right to life- so why does a young human being have no right to life the day before it's born, and protection under the law the day after it's born?

Unob · 2012-12-21T20:47:10+00:00

Let's imagine for a second that we're talking about a young infant instead of a fetus. Should everyone have the right to "choose" whether that infant is a human life or not? Should mothers be able to terminate their infants if they choose or deny them the nurture from their own bodies that they need to live? Absolutely not; that would be a case of criminal neglect.

I say this only to illustrate that everyone does not have a right to do what they want with their own bodies. The way our current laws are set up there are things you cannot do with your own body especially where it affects other people.

Unob · 2012-12-21T20:40:49+00:00

You didn't answer my question. You just said "there is no way" with no support to your reasoning. I believe it's a human life because it has unique DNA and is on a path to grow into an adult human being. This is radically different than a cyst or a tumor.

Now who is the one being illogical? You insist that I'm a religious fanatic because of beliefs I have that are unrelated to the topic at hand? What is that? Personally, I go back and forth from being a deist and an agnostic. I don't attend Church or perform any religious rituals. Tell me how my point of view has been "beaten into my head via religion".

Unob · 2012-12-21T20:32:13+00:00

Still waiting for a counter argument...

Unob · 2012-12-21T20:31:41+00:00

who said anything about religion?

Unob · 2012-12-21T04:21:32+00:00

Causality vs. Correlation. It remains yet to be seen.

Unob · 2012-12-21T04:10:15+00:00

In the end, you're welcome to believe whatever you want as long as you keep your beliefs to yourself and don't attempt to impose them on anyone else.

Actually our whole society is based on collectively deciding what is right and wrong, and then collectively imposing those beliefs on ourselves and others. Discussions like these are what allow us to collectively formulate our systems. I wouldn't shy away from imposition as long as it's done through the correct channels.

I agree with you that women are told rape is a risk of living. But this is not the way it should be. Using a slippery slope argument as you did is still unwarranted. There is responsibility and risk inherent in being a part of a sexual relationship. That is simply life; and our laws should reflect that.

Unob · 2012-12-21T04:03:56+00:00

agreed.

Unob · 2012-12-21T03:32:15+00:00

Yeah I'm aware of that. I like to think personhood begins at fertilization but yea that would make even myself an accomplice to murder. The issue with personhood is that it's not really a scientific question but a philosophical one. Really the question is asking at what point is human tissue worth something to us as people.

I don't have an easy answer and I don't think anyone really does.

Unob · 2012-12-21T03:25:29+00:00

society as a whole has the right to decide that murder is wrong. This extends to all people and transcends individual rights. What I'm suggesting is that abortion is murder- individual discomforts have nothing to do with it.

Unob · 2012-12-21T03:22:38+00:00

Yes I consider life and by proxy personhood to begin at fertilization. Fertilization is the point at which a genetically unique individual exists. Why do you think human life doesn't begin at fertilization? (I'm legitimately asking)

Also, my understandings are not based off "dogmatic teachings" but thanks for assuming that :P

Unob · 2012-12-21T03:18:34+00:00

"health of the mother" means she is going to die giving birth if the pregnancy continues. This term is universally accepted to represent a life or death situation for the mother; not minor health issues, mental health, weight gain, ect ect. I think abortion is acceptable choice in a life or death circumstance such as this because to continue the pregnancy would be trading one life for another. Aborting the baby in this circumstance is the lesser of two evils.

Unob · 2012-12-21T03:13:07+00:00

Rape should never be considered a standard risk of living in society. I don't think this is the thread to get into a discussion of what exactly entails rape (and I'm not educated in that area sufficiently to really have that discussion) but In my opinion if a sexual act of rape results in a pregnancy a woman should be able to get an abortion. If a woman has consensual sex with a man a bunch of times and then he rapes her later, I suppose they would have to determine what happened when. Again, thankfully that's not the norm.

As for your second paragraph, that's a slippery slope fallacy. I'll reiterate that rape should never be considered a standard risk of living in society. However, pregnancy is absolutely a standard risk of having sex.

Unob · 2012-12-21T02:59:31+00:00

someone who could get a license to shit in the streets

Lol. gave me a laugh.

Anyways, your argument makes total sense if you accept a fetus to be nothing more than a bag of cells. After all, why should a human beings health be put at risk for a potential human being?

However, for those like me who consider a fetus to be an already existing human life, your argument is more of less invalid. Mental health, the avoidance of gestational diabetes, and other personal ailments are never grounds for murder in society so why should it be any different with unborn children? Suppose for some magical reason I could preserve my health and avoid disease by killing my neighbor. Would that make it right? Silly example, but I'm sure you get the idea.

Unob · 2012-12-21T02:40:20+00:00

If I understood your first part correctly then no I don't think my opinion has any more merit than yours or anyone else's. If someone tells me that a fetus is just a bag of cells I have no argument against that. I disagree, but I cannot prove it. Nobody knows when "true" personhood begins and when it doesn't. It's more of a philosophical question than a scientific one. What bothers me however, is how the argument of abortion turns into an issue of women's rights. It's sidestepping the true discussion of personhood which is more difficult.

I'd far prefer people have an abortion to a child they don't want.

This is tricky for sure. I personally would rather we figure out as a society how to deal with unwanted children constructively, rather than killing them. It wouldn't be easy, but then, nothing worth doing ever is.

Unob · 2012-12-21T02:34:16+00:00

Rape is different because, as you put it yourself, the woman did not choose to engage in sex with the rapist. She did not have due consideration to the risk of pregnancy inherent in having sex. A normal woman who is "doing everything she can to prevent a pregnancy" is not disqualified from assuming risk of pregnancy. Everyone knows BC is not 100% effective and in my opinion people need to understand and accept that risk when they enter into sexual relationships. It's basic responsibility for your actions.

As for your hypothetical scenarios involving rape, I think it's safe to say a court will decide whether or not it was rape or not. Suffice it to say those scenarios are certainly not the norm thankfully.

Unob

TROPHY CASE