The Root of the Abortion Debate [Archive]

gladiatrix

April 13th 2003, 12:14 PM

Today @ 05:45 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=64748#post64748)
InquisitorKind:

I believe the root of the abortion debate may asked with one simple question, that being:

Is the fetus a person?

Whether the subject is diverted to "the right to choose" or "quality of life," it will always, and should always, return here. All other issues must be ignored until this question is answered.

~Matt
I'll take a shot at that "personhood" question My apologies for the length, but this question does not have a simple answer.......

THE QUESTION OF "PERSONHOOD"

If the end of an individual's life is measured by the ending of his/her brain function ( brain-death as measured by brain waves on the EEG), would it not be logical to at least agree that a "person's" life begins with the onset of that same human brain function as measured by brain waves recorded on that same instrument ("brain-birth")? Anti-choicers like to fling about the MYTH that brain-waves appear as early as 40 days. However, the most recent finding show that intermittent brain-waves, don't appear until the 24th week, (http://www.visembryo.com/baby/week24.html) (give or take a week) when they begin to activate auditory and visual systems. The brain nor the neural network connecting the brain to the rest of the body aren't complete until shortly after this time. Brain-waves resembling those of
a new-born baby don't appear until the 26th WEEK (http://www.visembryo.com/baby/week26.html).

THE DILEMMA OF THE MICROPREEMIE

Now consider this fact.. No micropreemie under 23 weeks has ever survived for more than a few hours. Many of them that small (23 weeks), even if they live (2% survival at 23 weeks), have severe neurodevelopmental defects (30% of surviving 23 week preemies) because they weren't sufficiently developed to respond well to life-support. This is primarily due to the fact that the fetal lungs are so immature. There is no technology on the horizon that can improve the prospect of survival because of this limitation. Given these developmental facts, it would seem logical to assume that a "person" is not there until after the 22nd week. (Remember that 50% of abortions occur before the 7th week and 90% have occurred by the 12th week, there is no brain to speak of at this time).

Let's go back in time before the 23rd week, back to the beginning. The vast majority of conceptions (~65%) DO NOT result in a successful pregnancy. (NOTE: A pregnancy is defined as the successful implantation of a zygote in the endometrium or uterine lining---it takes 3 to 7 days after fertilization for the dividing egg to reach the uterus). They are simply washed out as part of the endometrial detritus when a woman has her period (many women have conceived, but the zygote never manages to establish itself in the endometrium).

If the zygote manages to establish itself, the lucky resident (the embryo) is still not out of the woods because 30-40% of these 1st trimester pregnancies are spontaneously ABORTED (70% show gross chromosomal abnormalities incompatible with life). The bottom-line is that +65% of all conceptions fail (a conception does not a successful pregnancy make!)

Anti-choicers often quote Psalm 139:"Truly you have formed my inmost being; you knit me in my mother's womb. Remember that conception takes place in the Fallopian tube and the zygote takes up to 7days to reach the uterus. There is NO justification for claiming that ensoulment occurs at conception (where does it say so?). There is also no reason to ban birth control devices that interfere with ovulation AND implantation of the zygote (trophoblastic stage). This is especially true when one considers that God seems to considers 65% of these 7 day old "humans" to be expendable at some point before the end of the first trimester (either don't implant in the lining or are spontaneously aborted)

If God really endows each and every conception (fertilized egg) with a soul (what theists REALLY mean when they say the conceptus is "alive" and a "person", not merely biologically alive), that makes GOD AN ABORTIONIST, and the biggest mass murderer of all time. (If one believes that personhood begins at fertilization)

References:
1) Facts verifiable from any up-to-date textbook on medical physiology and/or neo-natal care.

2) New Republic: Abortion and the Brain (http://www.tnr.com/013100/easterbrook013100.html)

3)The Extremely Immature Newborn—The Dilemma of the Microbaby (http://www.pronational.com/news/hsriskrv/PreemieHS1Q2002.htm)

When it come to abortions (the only reason we are really having this "personhood" discussion),50% have occurred on or before the 7th week (http://www.visembryo.com/baby/stage22.html) and 90% have occurred before the 12th week. (http://www.visembryo.com/baby/week10.html) A functional brain is the sign of life as a person. AT this point NO person exists...not til after 22 weeks (really a bit early, because none survive that young anyway). 37% of women who get abortions are Protestant, 31% are Catholic and 24% claim no religion. (Data from the Center for Disease Control and the nonprofit Alan Guttmacher Institute which collect the only national abortion statistics. Guttmacher counts more abortions because it directly surveys clinics.)

Another stat to chew on...95% of abortions ARE used as a form of birth control for the following reason---->Good, affordable birth control and family planning information ARE NOT available. Most abortions (78%) are obtained by women in DEVELOPING contries where birth control is not readily available and/or is as illegal as abortion usually is. Only 22% of abortions are obtained by women in DEVELOPED countries. Many statistics links on abortion pro and con (http://www.statistics.com/cgi-bin/search/hyperseek.cgi?Terms=abortions)

Birth control devices have failure rates, even when used judiciously (hormonal birth control always carries with it a 1% probability of failure). Many women won't seek it because they have had it ground into them that "nice" girls don't have sex (especially the pre-marital kind) and preparing for sex (seeking birth control) is evidence that they aren't "nice" girls. I see abortion as a solution to these failures of both technology and good judgment.

WHY ADOPTION IS NOT A PANACEA

As of today, this year, ~40,390,000 people (one person every 2.4 seconds) (http://www.starvation.net) will have died of starvation, 75% of them under the age of 5.. This is one reason that I think abortion should be legal and that the "adoption" argument put forth by anti-choicers is a canard. As long as one LIVING child starves to death, I have absolutely no sympathy for adoptive parents whose only problem really appears to be that they can't find a perfectly formed, white (usually) BABY to play the game of "Parenthood" with.

Let's not forget the 100,000 adoptable childen in the US foster care system. What is their "problem"? Most of them are too "old" (older than 2 years) or not "white". Pressing other womens's wombs into service so that some upper-middle class yuppie couple can have their dream-baby is nothing more than slavery, catering to the gross, self-involved selfishness of those who won't play "house" UNLESS they can have the "perfect" little white (usually) baby. Bottom-line here is that if we can't care for those already LIVING, it makes no sense to create more of them.

Let's do the math. In any one year since Roe v Wade, there have been ~1.1-1.4 million abortions per year. Now there are only 50,000-75,000 couples seeking babies to adopt. Imagine how easy it would be to sate the desire of adoptive couples for children, the market runneth over!!! Quite a short-fall in the parents department! A question to anti-choicers: Any recommendations on what to do with all the tens of millions of unadopted infants you plan on enslaving women to produce? Remember a "life" means more than just getting born, there are at least 72-79 years of AFTER the birth bit (education, food, health care, a job, and last but not least LOVE that goes with that 3 score and ten!!)

WHAT ALL THIS MEANS TO A WOMAN

Of course, if the fetus continues to grow, it WILL become a person! BUT ONLY at the EXPENSE of the WOMAN. People are not merely a means to an end, but ends in themselves. A woman treated as an incubator of a fetus by the law is merely a means to an end and is therefore not being regarded as a person. Most anti-choicers want to reduce her to the status of a SLAVE/INCUBATOR. A woman is a person, representing a large investment in time and resources, even on the part of those who regard women as inferior. An zygote/embryo/fetus is only a POTENTIAL person, representing no such investment. The bottomline for me is that the rights of a fully grown woman outweighs the "rights" of a fertilized egg/embyo/fetus until the fetus has developed to a point where a "person" is truly present (22+ weeks). Let's back that down to 20 weeks, the point a which the American College of Gynecology puts "viability" (even though none survive before 23 weeks).

The long and the short of it is that it isn't possible to be a person unless one is developed to a point where one can potentially experience and express that personhood (however limited that capacity might prove to be, i.,e., severely handicapped infants). In other words, let's assume a soul exists, it needs a physical vessel in order to function in this world, no matter how limited that functioning may prove to be. One thing, bringing up PEOPLE (those already born and accepted as PERSONS) who are asleep, unconscious, in a coma, or profoundly handicapped either at birth or through accidental injury is NOT an argument because they are already here and this argument constitutes a "red herring" (changing the subject to avoid arguing about the fetus). This is an argument over the personhood of the fetus not those already here. The same holds true for comparing a fetus to a slave. Slaves are fully developed beings and their social postion had nothing to do with their physical development and even at the beginning of the nation were still accorded the status of persons, only "three-fifths" of a person, but still accorded personhood status in the original Constitution (Article I, Section 2, paragraph 3; Article I, Section 9; Article IV, Section 2, paragraph 3). NOTE: This is the infamous"Three-fifths Compromise") (http://www.aaregistry.com/detail.php3?id=552)

lordsnooty

April 13th 2003, 12:20 PM

Today @ 04:27 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=65160#post65160)
InquisitorKind:
Since it is unanswerable, do you agree that the morality of abortion is unknowable?

Absolutely not. The question is only unanswerable in that there is no answer that would satify both pro-choice and pro-life advocates.

Might I ask you a more reasonable question: what are the characteristics of personhood?

The ability to think and feel, primarily. These two tests, when applied to a human organism, should define whether the life concerned is a person or not.

For instance, if you saw an early fetus, you'd see a very tiny blob. You wouldn't be able to make out any detail. You wouldn't point and shout 'hey look, a small person!'.

It has no brain, no nervous system - it is merely a blob. Potential personhood is the only reasonable claim that you could make about it.

Most of these arguments soon decend into semantic slanging matches over what 'human life' is. But as far as I'm concerned, I couldn't give a monkeys whether it's human or not. It's not a person, since it hath no functioning brain. End of story.

What is a soul?

Some form of magical personality endowed upon fetuses upon conception by some manner of deity.

There is no evidence that a 'soul' (in the supernatural sense) exists.

Paul

Bartholomew

April 13th 2003, 12:36 PM

Today @ 12:20 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=65186#post65186)
lordsnooty:

Absolutely not. The question is only unanswerable in that there is no answer that would satify both pro-choice and pro-life advocates.

You believe that you cannot know the answer to a question because groups will disagree about the answer?

The ability to think and feel, primarily. These two tests, when applied to a human organism, should define whether the life concerned is a person or not.

Do you think and feel when you are sleeping? Maybe you are not a person when you sleep?

For instance, if you saw an early fetus, you'd see a very tiny blob. You wouldn't be able to make out any detail. You wouldn't point and shout 'hey look, a small person!'.

I didn't realize you were considering appearances as a qualifer for personhood. If someone is horribly burned and scared from a fire they survived, in which all their limbs were amputated and their eyes and ears destroyed, would this being still be considered a person, even though we probably would not recognize it as one at first?

It has no brain, no nervous system - it is merely a blob. Potential personhood is the only reasonable claim that you could make about it.

So once it has a brain and a nervous system, you beleive that its life has started?

Most of these arguments soon decend into semantic slanging matches over what 'human life' is. But as far as I'm concerned, I couldn't give a monkeys whether it's human or not. It's not a person, since it hath no functioning brain. End of story.

A few more chapters are in order, for we have hardly reached the climax. Of course, you could enjoy boring stories, but entertain me for a moment. When the fetus begins to have a functioning brain, it is at that point it becomes a human, correct?

Some form of magical personality endowed upon fetuses upon conception by some manner of deity.

The only magic here is your believing you can determine that life does not exist in the fetus. That would qualify you as minor deity.

There is no evidence that a 'soul' (in the supernatural sense) exists.

Paul

What is the supernatural sense? I still don't understand your definition of soul.

~Matt

Bartholomew

April 13th 2003, 12:58 PM

Today @ 12:14 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=65184#post65184)
gladiatrix:

I'll take a shot at that "personhood" question My apologies for the length, but this question does not have a simple answer.......

Excellent. I am sure you will use sound reasoning to defend this position.

THE QUESTION OF "PERSONHOOD"

If the end of an individual's life is measured by the ending of his/her brain function ( brain-death as measured by brain waves on the EEG), would it not be logical to at least agree that a "person's" life begins with the onset of that same human brain function as measured by brain waves recorded on that same instrument ("brain-birth")? Anti-choicers like to fling about the MYTH that brain-waves appear as early as 40 days. However, the most recent finding show that intermittent brain-waves, don't appear until the 24th week, (http://www.visembryo.com/baby/week24.html) (give or take a week) when they begin to activate auditory and visual systems. The brain nor the neural network connecting the brain to the rest of the body aren't complete until shortly after this time. Brain-waves resembling those of
a new-born baby don't appear until the 26th WEEK (http://www.visembryo.com/baby/week26.html).

This is a shame. The article only appears to be refuting one myth, not trying to demonstrate that personhood does not exist in the fetus.

THE DILEMMA OF THE MICROPREEMIE

Now consider this fact.. No micropreemie under 23 weeks has ever survived for more than a few hours. Many of them that small (23 weeks), even if they live (2% survival at 23 weeks), have severe neurodevelopmental defects (30% of surviving 23 week preemies) because they weren't sufficiently developed to respond well to life-support. This is primarily due to the fact that the fetal lungs are so immature. There is no technology on the horizon that can improve the prospect of survival because of this limitation. Given these developmental facts, it would seem logical to assume that a "person" is not there until after the 22nd week. (Remember that 50% of abortions occur before the 7th week and 90% have occurred by the 12th week, there is no brain to speak of at this time).

More disappointment, as this does not logically follow. A simply analogy is useful: if an infant is deprived of food, it will die. Because a baby dies without that provision of food, it can be assumed that its life did not begin until it no longer needed the food.

Does it follow that personhood is actualized when the person no longer needs the womb? Given that babies are already actualized while still requiring intensive and much needed-for-survival care, the answer must be no.

Let's go back in time before the 23rd week, back to the beginning. The vast majority of conceptions (~65%) DO NOT result in a successful pregnancy. (NOTE: A pregnancy is defined as the successful implantation of a zygote in the endometrium or uterine lining---it takes 3 to 7 days after fertilization for the dividing egg to reach the uterus). They are simply washed out as part of the endometrial detritus when a woman has her period (many women have conceived, but the zygote never manages to establish itself in the endometrium).

If the zygote manages to establish itself, the lucky resident (the embryo) is still not out of the woods because 30-40% of these 1st trimester pregnancies are spontaneously ABORTED (70% show gross chromosomal abnormalities incompatible with life). The bottom-line is that +65% of all conceptions fail (a conception does not a successful pregnancy make!)

Anti-choicers often quote Psalm 139:"Truly you have formed my inmost being; you knit me in my mother's womb. Remember that conception takes place in the Fallopian tube and the zygote takes up to 7days to reach the uterus. There is NO justification for claiming that ensoulment occurs at conception (where does it say so?). There is also no reason to ban birth control devices that interfere with ovulation AND implantation of the zygote (trophoblastic stage). This is especially true when one considers that God seems to considers 65% of these 7 day old "humans" to be expendable at some point before the end of the first trimester (either don't implant in the lining or are spontaneously aborted)

If God really endows each and every conception (fertilized egg) with a soul (what theists REALLY mean when they say the conceptus is "alive" and a "person", not merely biologically alive), that makes GOD AN ABORTIONIST, and the biggest mass murderer of all time. (If one believes that personhood begins at fertilization)

What does religion have to do with my question?

References:
1) Facts verifiable from any up-to-date textbook on medical physiology and/or neo-natal care.

2) New Republic: Abortion and the Brain (http://www.tnr.com/013100/easterbrook013100.html)

3)The Extremely Immature Newborn—The Dilemma of the Microbaby (http://www.pronational.com/news/hsriskrv/PreemieHS1Q2002.htm)

When it come to abortions (the only reason we are really having this "personhood" discussion),50% have occurred on or before the 7th week (http://www.visembryo.com/baby/stage22.html) and 90% have occurred before the 12th week. (http://www.visembryo.com/baby/week10.html) A functional brain is the sign of life as a person. AT this point NO person exists...not til after 22 weeks (really a bit early, because none survive that young anyway). 37% of women who get abortions are Protestant, 31% are Catholic and 24% claim no religion. (Data from the Center for Disease Control and the nonprofit Alan Guttmacher Institute which collect the only national abortion statistics. Guttmacher counts more abortions because it directly surveys clinics.)

Interesting statistics. What does this have to do with the truth of whether or not the fetus is a person or not? Also, the percentages only beg the question.

Another stat to chew on...95% of abortions ARE used as a form of birth control for the following reason---->Good, affordable birth control and family planning information ARE NOT available. Most abortions (78%) are obtained by women in DEVELOPING contries where birth control is not readily available and/or is as illegal as abortion usually is. Only 22% of abortions are obtained by women in DEVELOPED countries. Many statistics links on abortion pro and con (http://www.statistics.com/cgi-bin/search/hyperseek.cgi?Terms=abortions)

Again, what do statistics have to do with the personhood of the fetus? I am disappointed in this logic.

Birth control devices have failure rates, even when used judiciously (hormonal birth control always carries with it a 1% probability of failure). Many women won't seek it because they have had it ground into them that "nice" girls don't have sex (especially the pre-marital kind) and preparing for sex (seeking birth control) is evidence that they aren't "nice" girls. I see abortion as a solution to these failures of both technology and good judgment.

This does not address the issue of personhood.

WHY ADOPTION IS NOT A PANACEA

As of today, this year, ~40,390,000 people (one person every 2.4 seconds) (http://www.starvation.net) will have died of starvation, 75% of them under the age of 5.. This is one reason that I think abortion should be legal and that the "adoption" argument put forth by anti-choicers is a canard. As long as one LIVING child starves to death, I have absolutely no sympathy for adoptive parents whose only problem really appears to be that they can't find a perfectly formed, white (usually) BABY to play the game of "Parenthood" with.

What does the author's sympathy have to do with whether or not a fetus is a person?

Let's not forget the 100,000 adoptable childen in the US foster care system. What is their "problem"? Most of them are too "old" (older than 2 years) or not "white". Pressing other womens's wombs into service so that some upper-middle class yuppie couple can have their dream-baby is nothing more than slavery, catering to the gross, self-involved selfishness of those who won't play "house" UNLESS they can have the "perfect" little white (usually) baby. Bottom-line here is that if we can't care for those already LIVING, it makes no sense to create more of them.

Let's do the math. In any one year since Roe v Wade, there have been ~1.1-1.4 million abortions per year. Now there are only 50,000-75,000 couples seeking babies to adopt. Imagine how easy it would be to sate the desire of adoptive couples for children, the market runneth over!!! Quite a short-fall in the parents department! A question to anti-choicers: Any recommendations on what to do with all the tens of millions of unadopted infants you plan on enslaving women to produce? Remember a "life" means more than just getting born, there are at least 72-79 years of AFTER the birth bit (education, food, health care, a job, and last but not least LOVE that goes with that 3 score and ten!!)

I do not understand. What does this have to do with personhood?

WHAT ALL THIS MEANS TO A WOMAN

Of course, if the fetus continues to grow, it WILL become a person! BUT ONLY at the EXPENSE of the WOMAN. People are not merely a means to an end, but ends in themselves. A woman treated as an incubator of a fetus by the law is merely a means to an end and is therefore not being regarded as a person. Most anti-choicers want to reduce her to the status of a SLAVE/INCUBATOR. A woman is a person, representing a large investment in time and resources, even on the part of those who regard women as inferior. An zygote/embryo/fetus is only a POTENTIAL person, representing no such investment. The bottomline for me is that the rights of a fully grown woman outweighs the "rights" of a fertilized egg/embyo/fetus until the fetus has developed to a point where a "person" is truly present (22+ weeks). Let's back that down to 20 weeks, the point a which the American College of Gynecology puts "viability" (even though none survive before 23 weeks).

Odd. I always held women in reverence for the ability to procreate.

However, the article's opinion that the woman's choice is over that of the fetus (a potential person) begs the question.

The long and the short of it is that it isn't possible to be a person unless one is developed to a point where one can potentially experience and express that personhood (however limited that capacity might prove to be, i.,e., severely handicapped infants). In other words, let's assume a soul exists, it needs a physical vessel in order to function in this world, no matter how limited that functioning may prove to be. One thing, bringing up PEOPLE (those already born and accepted as PERSONS) who are asleep, unconscious, in a coma, or profoundly handicapped either at birth or through accidental injury is NOT an argument because they are already here and this argument constitutes a "red herring" (changing the subject to avoid arguing about the fetus). This is an argument over the personhood of the fetus not those already here. The same holds true for comparing a fetus to a slave. Slaves are fully developed beings and their social postion had nothing to do with their physical development and even at the beginning of the nation were still accorded the status of persons, only "three-fifths" of a person, but still accorded personhood status in the original Constitution (Article I, Section 2, paragraph 3; Article I, Section 9; Article IV, Section 2, paragraph 3). NOTE: This is the infamous"Three-fifths Compromise") (http://www.aaregistry.com/detail.php3?id=552)

Again, the question is begged. The article assumes that the baby is not a person, which is what is being discussed, in order to show that the comparision to actuallized personhood (whatever that term may mean) is an illogical comparison. Unfortunately, we cannot conclude what we are trying to prove.

If the fetus can be shown to express person hood, would you then consider it a person?

A disappointing article.

~Matt

lordsnooty

April 13th 2003, 01:05 PM

Today @ 05:36 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=65193#post65193)
InquisitorKind:
You believe that you cannot know the answer to a question because groups will disagree about the answer?

The answer is also partially subjective. It depends on what your definition of 'person' is.

Do you think and feel when you are sleeping? Maybe you are not a person when you sleep?

Everyone thinks and feels when they are sleeping, unless they are some kind of genetic freak.

But that's besides the point. The issue is that a grown human is an organism fully capable of thought and feeling. An early fetus is not.

I didn't realize you were considering appearances as a qualifer for personhood. If someone is horribly burned and scared from a fire they survived, in which all their limbs were amputated and their eyes and ears destroyed, would this being still be considered a person, even though we probably would not recognize it as one at first?

Whether you think someone looks like a person or not is immaterial. I was simply pointing out that you claim a fetus is a person simply because it suits your ends to do so, and that under normal circumstances you would be bound to agree that it is not.

So once it has a brain and a nervous system, you beleive that its life has started?

Once those two factors are in full operation, I believe that the organism is deserving of protection. Life has obviously started at conception, but I do not believe that the life is of any intrinsic value until it develops a working brain.

When the fetus begins to have a functioning brain, it is at that point it becomes a human, correct?

Yes.

The only magic here is your believing you can determine that life does not exist in the fetus. That would qualify you as minor deity.

Life exists, but it is life with no real value (cue inaccurate Nazi comparisons).

What is the supernatural sense? I still don't understand your definition of soul.

Some religious people believe that our personalities do not exist within our brains, but within some magical spiritual entity that inhabits our body in some way.

The other definition of 'soul' is the personality as it exists within our brains. The word does not necessarily have to carry supernatural connotations, but it usually does.

You know this, so quite why I have to point it out is unclear.

Paul

Bartholomew

April 13th 2003, 01:19 PM

Today @ 01:05 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=65208#post65208)
lordsnooty:

The answer is also partially subjective. It depends on what your definition of 'person' is.

It is subjective? Then is the fetus a penguin, perhaps?

Everyone thinks and feels when they are sleeping, unless they are some kind of genetic freak.

They do? I was under the impression that we were unconscious of our surroundings and unable to feel.

But that's besides the point. The issue is that a grown human is an organism fully capable of thought and feeling. An early fetus is not.

Hm. I didn't realize you were an advocate of infantcide.

Whether you think someone looks like a person or not is immaterial. I was simply pointing out that you claim a fetus is a person simply because it suits your ends to do so, and that under normal circumstances you would be bound to agree that it is not.

This does not follow. You stated that the fetus is not a human because it does not look like one. Then, I pointed out the error of such thinking. Now I am claiming something because it meets my own ends? How does that follow?

Does appearance matter to the personhood of a being?

Once those two factors are in full operation, I believe that the organism is deserving of protection. Life has obviously started at conception, but I do not believe that the life is of any intrinsic value until it develops a working brain.

When does this occur? When are both of those systems in full operation?

Yes.

Excellent. We finally have grounds for personhood. Do you know when this date occurs?

Life exists, but it is life with no real value (cue inaccurate Nazi comparisons).

How do you determine if it has no value?

Some religious people believe that our personalities do not exist within our brains, but within some magical spiritual entity that inhabits our body in some way.

The other definition of 'soul' is the personality as it exists within our brains. The word does not necessarily have to carry supernatural connotations, but it usually does.

Interesting. I would love to discuss the soul with you sometime.

You know this, so quite why I have to point it out is unclear.

Paul

I asked because I did not know.

~Matt

Kyle

April 13th 2003, 03:46 PM

Allow me to join in. Just as a note, I will be quoting myself often from another abortion thread, located in the Religion 101 forum here:

http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=2545

TO GLADIATRIX

You apparently support an article you posted which claims that we should count human beings to begin when "brain-birth" occurs. However, I have an analogy for you. The context is provided in the other thread.

"Let's say that Jim gets hit in the head (really hard). Consequently, Jim is a complete vegetable. He has no "higher brain function". His family is in despair. They decide to pull the plug of Jim's life-support. But wait, the doctor has good news.

It turns out that there is a high probality that Jim will regain conciousness in the future. In fact, due to advanced medical techniques, the doctor has determined with 100% certainty that Jim will be fully functioning in a few weeks. The family is overjoyed. They decide, of course, to keep Jim on life-support until he regains his ability for "higher brain function".

Unfortunately, a man named Jack doesn't like Jiim. Jack comes into the medical room and severs Jim's head. Too bad. Jim has no chance of higher brain function now.

Jim's family presses charges against Jack. However, Jack's attorney argues that (your quote, modified):

"Jim, a brain-dead individual, did not have higher brain function. Jim therefore is not constitutionally protected. It is no less moral for my client to kill Jim than it is to pluck a hair from one's head."

Would you agree, Archon, that Jack should get off scot-clean for killing brain-dead Jim?"

Consequently, I don't really give a rip when brain waves begin functioning, because "higher brain function" is an unsuccessful way to measure whether or not the embryo is a human being.

Next, the lovely article you quote mentions that babies born REALLY premature can't survive, even with life-support. Therefore, they are not a "person".

However, this argument is ridiculous. Am I to suppose that, 100 years earlier (when people would NEVER dream of rescuing a baby born extra-premature), babies weren't "people" until much later? What exactly is this argument trying to prove?

Next, your wonderful article mentions some interesting statistics saying that 65% of the time conception does not lead to pregnancy. I fail to see how this is relevant. Of course, the article uses some sort of argument when it says:

"If God really endows each and every conception (fertilized egg) with a soul (what theists REALLY mean when they say the conceptus is "alive" and a "person", not merely biologically alive), that makes GOD AN ABORTIONIST, and the biggest mass murderer of all time. (If one believes that personhood begins at fertilization)"

Tough luck. The lord giveth and the lord taketh away. :brow:

Next your nifty article delves into some interesting statistics about the percentages of people that get abortions. Unfortunately, that is a complete and total irrelevancy. So far that's at least 3 non-sequitirs. Hopefully it will get better. Let's see.

"Another stat to chew on...95% of abortions ARE used as a form of birth control for the following reason---->Good, affordable birth control and family planning information ARE NOT available. Most abortions (78%) are obtained by women in DEVELOPING contries where birth control is not readily available and/or is as illegal as abortion usually is. Only 22% of abortions are obtained by women in DEVELOPED countries."

Whoops, it's not getting any better. We have another COMPLETE non-sequitir (There is no "good, affordable birth control"- yeah right. Last time I checked NOT HAVING SEX worked pretty well as birth control :brow: ). Oops. There's another irrelevancy. The fact that these women are not in "developed" countries is of no relevance to the morality of abortion.

"Birth control devices have failure rates, even when used judiciously"

I tell you what- how about not having sex if you can't deal with the consequences? I've got nothing against people having sex, but they should only do it if they can handle the repercussions. Is that non-sequitir #6 for this article?

"Many women won't seek it because they have had it ground into them that "nice" girls don't have sex (especially the pre-marital kind) and preparing for sex (seeking birth control) is evidence that they aren't "nice" girls."

That's unfortunate, but these girls can just learn to deal with their problems. They shouldn't have sex unless they are prepared to have a baby (if that's what it comes to) anyways.

"I see abortion as a solution to these failures of both technology and good judgment."

And I see infanticide as a solution to these failures of both technology and good judgement. :duh:

Wait a minute. Is that 7 or 8 irrelevancies? I lost count. Oh well.

"As of today, this year, ~40,390,000 people (one person every 2.4 seconds) will have died of starvation, 75% of them under the age of 5."

We have enough food to feed everyone, it's just that we can't get it to them. What we need to do is send our military into dirt-poor countries that are run by Warlords (Sudan, for instance), and start getting food to the people. Unfortunately, the oh-so-worthless U.N. doesn't ever seem to get much accomplished.

Chalk that down for another non-sequitir.

"Bottom-line here is that if we can't care for those already LIVING, it makes no sense to create more of them."

Well, then either stop having sex or get neutered! :thumb: It's really quite simple.

"Any recommendations on what to do with all the tens of millions of unadopted infants you plan on enslaving women to produce?"

Ha! You think I made them have sex? For all I care they can take care of their own babies. And, they better do it well or they will be punished for neglect.

"The long and the short of it is that it isn't possible to be a person unless one is developed to a point where one can potentially experience and express that personhood"

Whew! I was REALLY hoping that this article would actually address the issue. Thank goodness.

Anyways, the embryo has more than "potential"- it has the information necessary and is ALREADY IN THE PROCESS of becoming a fully-functioning human being. An embryo is a human being in a different stage of development.

Not to mention, the argument here would really put our good buddy Jim in a rough spot.

Continued in next post......

Kyle

April 13th 2003, 04:01 PM

"One thing, bringing up PEOPLE (those already born and accepted as PERSONS) who are asleep, unconscious, in a coma, or profoundly handicapped either at birth or through accidental injury is NOT an argument because they are already here and this argument constitutes a "red herring" (changing the subject to avoid arguing about the fetus)."

Well, this is simply ridiculous. The author of this article thinks that the Jim analogy is irrelevant because Jim is already "here" and "accepted as a person"! :rofl:

What the heck is "here" supposed to mean? The author has failed to mention the criteria that makes Jim count and the embryo "not count". Much less have they identified why such criteria are useful. On top of this, the author begs the question by saying that Jim is already "accepted" as a person! :rofl:

Of course he's "accepted as a person". The question is why! If I "accept" that pigs are humans, does that make me right? Sorry, but this is a complete dodge.

"The long and the short of it is that it isn't possible to be a person unless one is developed to a point where one can potentially experience and express that personhood"

I forgot to mention this last post. It's quite silly that the author says "potential" is important here since they just got finished trying to refute the "potential" argument most pro-lifers use! Here I will quote myself:

"Now, we need to discuss an important issue. You keep claiming that the development of "higher brain function" is the criteria for when a human being deserves protection. You claim that the development of said higher brain function is the most critical aspect of "personhood". However, it is clearly not. Do you actually suppose that a developing fetus has a "personality" when it first attains "higher brain function"? Does the fetus have self-concept? Does the fetus value itself? Does the fetus have memories? No, it has none of these. So, you are telling me that the development of "higher brain function" is more important than any of the above? Of course not! Higher brain function is merely something that is REQUIRED for those important things to take place.

So, higher brain function is really not that important because it does not necessarily lead to the development of a personality, self-concept, etc. Just like the embryo WILL attain higher brain function, so will the fetus [currently] in the 8th month EVENTUALLY attain personality and self-concept, etc. But, as YOU have argued previously, the "potential" or "development" of such things does not determine protection NOW.

We have seen then, that you are not really looking for "higher brain function", you are looking for the development of personality. Of course, this has disastrous implications. When do personality, self-concept, memories, etc. actually develop? Obviously, they don't develop till much after birth! So the supposed "logic" of your arguments could lead to mass infanticide, because the only thing that matters, according to you, is "personhood".

Of course, we could always use MY definition of the beginning of a human being at conception, which is clear-cut, simple, concise, and leads to no moral dillemmas or inconsistencies. It is quite clear that my definition is favorable to yours."

The article you endorse, Gladiatrix, does not therefore seem to be very compelling.

Kyle

April 13th 2003, 04:23 PM

TO LORDSNOOTY:

Hey there. I'd like to offer a few comments. You've already heard it all before, though.

"But since many religious people believe that the fetus is endowed with a soul, they assume that it is a person."

Actually, as you know, I didn't even use religion at all last time, and I still formed the reasonable conclusion that human life counts as a person deserving of protection at the moment of conception.

"The ability to think and feel, primarily. These two tests, when applied to a human organism, should define whether the life concerned is a person or not."

But, as you know, poor old Jim can neither think or feel. Should we slice him up? Besides, the "ability to think" means nothing more than having a bit of barely-functioning brain tissue. Just as I have argued before, the development of a personality, self-concept etc. (which come LATER) are much more important than acquiring a bit of brain tissue. You have not answered that argument as of yet in the other topic.

"For instance, if you saw an early fetus, you'd see a very tiny blob."

That's irrelevant and you know it. "If you saw a black man, you wouldn't say- LOOK! It's a person". :ahem:

"It has no brain, no nervous system - it is merely a blob. Potential personhood is the only reasonable claim that you could make about it."

Not so. The embryo has more than potential. It is actually IN THE PROCESS of becoming a fully-functioning human being. It is a human being in a different developmental stage than you or I.

"But as far as I'm concerned, I couldn't give a monkeys whether it's human or not. It's not a person, since it hath no functioning brain. End of story."

It appears, then, that it is the end of story for Jim and his family.

"The issue is that a grown human is an organism fully capable of thought and feeling. An early fetus is not."

I hate to keep bringing it up, but you STILL have not responded to the issue about Jim, even though you know the situation because I have told you a thousand times. Don't you realize that almost everything you use to defend abortion could be turned around against Jim?

"I was simply pointing out that you claim a fetus is a person simply because it suits your ends to do so, and that under normal circumstances you would be bound to agree that it is not."

Don't think so. "I was simply pointing out that you claim an infant is a person simply because it suits your ends to do so, and that under normal circumstances you would be bound to agree that it is not (since it is so small and it does not have a personality)". :duh:

"Life exists, but it is life with no real value (cue inaccurate Nazi comparisons)."

What if *I* place value upon the fetus? Does that count?

Once again, I must ask why you would want to use your definition of the beginning of when a person deserves protection, since there is no real clear-cut beginning to personhood. It's just kind of floating out there at some unknown time. Why not accept conception, which is much simpler and clear-cut, and which creates no moral dillemmas?

gladiatrix

April 13th 2003, 05:09 PM

Response to InquisitorKind's (IK) Post (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?postid=65202#post65202)

IK responded:
When G wrote:
THE QUESTION OF "PERSONHOOD"

If the end of an individual's life is measured by the ending of his/her brain function ( brain-death as measured by brain waves on the EEG), would it not be logical to at least agree that a "person's" life begins with the onset of that same human brain function as measured by brain waves recorded on that same instrument ("brain-birth")? Anti-choicers like to fling about the MYTH that brain-waves appear as early as 40 days.
......

This is a shame. The article only appears to be refuting one myth, not trying to demonstrate that personhood does not exist in the fetus.

I noticed you COMPLETELY ignored the part about the using the appearance of brain-waves in the fetus as a sign that the fetus was now a person (brain-birth). If one can use brain-waves or lack of them to determine death, then there is no reason to NOT to use them as an indicator that the fetus is now developed enough to be accorded the status as a person. How very disingenous of you to just pretend that the whole paragraph was just debunking the 40-day myth.

IK responded:
When G wrote:
THE DILEMMA OF THE MICROPREEMIE

Now consider this fact.. No micropreemie under 23 weeks has ever survived for more than a few hours. Many of them that small (23 weeks), even if they live (2% survival at 23 weeks), have severe neurodevelopmental defects (30% of surviving 23 week preemies) because they weren't sufficiently developed to respond well to life-support........

1. More disappointment, as this does not logically follow. A simply analogy is useful: if an infant is deprived of food, it will die. Because a baby dies without that provision of food, it can be assumed that its life did not begin until it no longer needed the food.

2. Does it follow that personhood is actualized when the person no longer needs the womb? Given that babies are already actualized while still requiring intensive and much needed-for-survival care, the answer must be no. (Note points numbered by G)

Point 1:
Excuse me??? We were talking about a FETUS and when it is regarded as a person. The BABY is already here and RECOGNIZED as a person. To withold care would be murder, NOW. Your analogy is totally irrelevant.

Point 2:
You keep trying to equate a fetus with a fully developed baby and the two are NOT the same. You are guilty of evocation here. The fetus is attached and using another person's body (to the detriment of the woman, a pregnancy always debilitates and /or harms the host in some way). The question is when does the fetus develop to the point at which it has a legitimate claim to continue using the woman's body, because to abort it would be murder (a person is now present). You totally want to gloss over the FACT that a zygote/embryo/fetus (up to 22 weeks) is NOT developed enough to have brain-function and have even the remotest chance of surviving.

IK responded:
When G wrote:
Let's go back in time before the 23rd week, back to the beginning. The vast majority of conceptions (~65%) DO NOT result in a successful pregnancy.[...]

If the zygote manages to establish itself, the lucky resident (the embryo) is still not out of the woods because 30-40% of these 1st trimester pregnancies are spontaneously ABORTED[...]

If God really endows each and every conception (fertilized egg) with a soul (what theists REALLY mean when they say the conceptus is "alive" and a "person", not merely biologically alive), that makes GOD AN ABORTIONIST, and the biggest mass murderer of all time. (If one believes that personhood begins at fertilization)

What does religion have to do with my question?

Are you really going to try to pretend that religion is irrelevant here? Once can be virtually certain that any time this question arises that some anti-choicer theist will try to claim that "fertilized eggs are people too!" (they are persons) because God gave the zygote (fertilized, dividing egg) a "soul".

IK responded:
When G wrote:
When it come to abortions (the only reason we are really having this "personhood" discussion),50% have occurred on or before the 7th week and 90% have occurred before the 12th week. A functional brain is the sign of life as a person. AT this point NO person exists...not til after 22 weeks (really a bit early, because none survive that young anyway). [...]

Interesting statistics. What does this have to do with the truth of whether or not the fetus is a person or not? Also, the percentages only beg the question.

Oh please... Let's not try to pretend again here that the question does NOT involve the abort. The point is 90% occur at at point where there is absolutely NO prospect of the embryo/fetus being a person.

IK responded:
When G wrote:
WHY ADOPTION IS NOT A PANACEA
As of today, this year, ~40,390,000 people (one person every 2.4 seconds) will have died of starvation, 75% of them under the age of 5.. This is one reason that I think abortion should be legal and that the "adoption" argument put forth by anti-choicers is a canard. As long as one LIVING child starves to death, I have absolutely no sympathy for adoptive parents whose only problem really appears to be that they can't find a perfectly formed, white (usually) BABY to play the game of "Parenthood" with.
”
What does the author's sympathy have to do with whether or not a fetus is a person?

Point is that +40 million are dead this year as the result of hunger. We don't care for those that are already HERE and ARE persons, so why quibble about the elimination of those that are NOT yet persons.

IK responded:
When G wrote:
Let's not forget the 100,000 adoptable childen in the US foster care system. What is their "problem"? [...] Bottom-line here is that if we can't care for those already LIVING, it makes no sense to create more of them.

Let's do the math. In any one year since Roe v Wade, there have been ~1.1-1.4 million abortions per year. Now there are only 50,000-75,000 couples seeking babies to adopt. Imagine how easy it would be to sate the desire of adoptive couples for children, the market runneth over!!! Quite a short-fall in the parents department! A question to anti-choicers: Any recommendations on what to do with all the tens of millions of unadopted infants you plan on enslaving women to produce? Remember a "life" means more than just getting born, there are at least 72-79 years of AFTER the birth bit (education, food, health care, a job, and last but not least LOVE that goes with that 3 score and ten!!)
I do not understand. What does this have to do with personhood?

The relevance here is that there is a lot of "baggage" that comes with the "personhood" label. Part of that is having a place in this world. Just being born doesn't start to cover all that is meant by being a "person".

Silly me, how I keep forgetting that the only objective of anti-choicers is to punish woman for having sex by enforcing the continued parasitization of an unwanted pregnancy. Once the baby had extracted "divine vengance " on her body and her life for the "crime" of having sex, then it's "personhood" is of no further consequence, having accomplished it's true purpose. After that the attitude of anti-choicers toward the "person" that they once "championed" can be summed up as follows:

"After all are there 'no more prisons, no more workfare, no more paupers graves to accomodate" this "person"?.....

[IK responded:
When G wrote:
WHAT ALL THIS MEANS TO A WOMAN

Of course, if the fetus continues to grow, it WILL become a person! BUT ONLY at the EXPENSE of the WOMAN. People are not merely a means to an end, but ends in themselves. A woman treated as an incubator of a fetus by the law is merely a means to an end and is therefore not being regarded as a person. Most anti-choicers want to reduce her to the status of a SLAVE/INCUBATOR.
Odd. I always held women in reverence for the ability to procreate.
Now talk about your irrelevant remarks!!!

However, the article's opinion that the woman's choice is over that of the fetus (a potential person) begs the question.

Not the point. The woman is a definitely a PERSON representing a considerable investment of planetary resources and time. The fetus is does not have this sort of "track-record". A fetus is not a person in this regard. It is further not a person developmentally (until 22-24 weeks). The woman's claim should override that of the fetus up until a certain point. Even then, if the woman's life is endangered the pregnancy most would still accord her the basic right of self-defense at ANY stage of the pregnancy. Of course, I keep forgetting that there are many who don't care is she dies (like most Religious Reichers) and share Martin Luther's charming opinion (http://www.ffrf.org/fttoday/march98/courcey.html)that "If a woman grows weary and at last dies from childbearing, it matters not. Let her die from bearing, she is there to do it."
More of Luther (http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/quotes/luther.htm) on reason, sex and women, just as a bonus....

You keep claiming I am begging the question WITHOUT demonstrating that I am. So much for your empty assertions....

Again, the question is begged. The article assumes that the baby is not a person, which is what is being discussed,

NO, we were discussing was a fetus a PERSON. A fetus is NOT the equivalent of a BABY, although you and your fellow anti-choicers refuse to use the correct terms.

Anyway, it is YOUR lot that is trying to prove the ridiculous...namely that a fertilized egg/embryo/fetus(before 22 weeks) is the equivalent of a fully developed baby and much more important that the women you wish to inprison in their biology.

If the fetus can be shown to express person hood, would you then consider it a person?

Define what you mean by "express personhood"? I'm not about to be suckered into answering such a vague, leading question like the one you asked...

Bartholomew

April 13th 2003, 05:32 PM

Today @ 05:09 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=65337#post65337)
gladiatrix:

I noticed you COMPLETELY ignored the part about the using the appearance of brain-waves in the fetus as a sign that the fetus was now a person (brain-birth). If one can use brain-waves or lack of them to determine death, then there is no reason to NOT to use them as an indicator that the fetus is now developed enough to be accorded the status as a person. How very disingenous of you to just pretend that the whole paragraph was just debunking the 40-day myth.

I didn't ignore it. I did type a response, correct?

Now, I did not deem it relevant since it is a simple refutation of a simple argument put forth by simple pro-lifers; it is an argument I do not hold to.

1. More disappointment, as this does not logically follow. A simply analogy is useful: if an infant is deprived of food, it will die. Because a baby dies without that provision of food, it can be assumed that its life did not begin until it no longer needed the food.

2. Does it follow that personhood is actualized when the person no longer needs the womb? Given that babies are already actualized while still requiring intensive and much needed-for-survival care, the answer must be no. (Note points numbered by G)

Noted.

Point 1:
Excuse me??? We were talking about a FETUS and when it is regarded as a person. The BABY is already here and RECOGNIZED as a person. To withold care would be murder, NOW. Your analogy is totally irrelevant.

It was analogy built upon the reasoning given in the article for why a fetus is not a person. Where was the reasoning off?

Point 2:
You keep trying to equate a fetus with a fully developed baby and the two are NOT the same. You are guilty of evocation here. The fetus is attached and using another person's body (to the detriment of the woman, a pregnancy always debilitates and /or harms the host in some way). The question is when does the fetus develop to the point at which it has a legitimate claim to continue using the woman's body, because to abort it would be murder (a person is now present). You totally want to gloss over the FACT that a zygote/embryo/fetus (up to 22 weeks) is NOT developed enough to have brain-function and have even the remotest chance of surviving.

And you seem quite attatched to the idea that I believe brain-waves determine if something is alive or not. Sorry, since I did not hold to this, you would be guilty of making the ultimate strawman.

Are you really going to try to pretend that religion is irrelevant here? Once can be virtually certain that any time this question arises that some anti-choicer theist will try to claim that "fertilized eggs are people too!" (they are persons) because God gave the zygote (fertilized, dividing egg) a "soul".

Perhaps you are blind. Where have I introduced religion?

Oh please... Let's not try to pretend again here that the question does NOT involve the abort. The point is 90% occur at at point where there is absolutely NO prospect of the embryo/fetus being a person.

Which, again begs the question and does not address the morality of the issue.

Point is that +40 million are dead this year as the result of hunger. We don't care for those that are already HERE and ARE persons, so why quibble about the elimination of those that are NOT yet persons.

If you decide to dedicate your life to serving the poor, I may follow suit. Until then, I must try to understand your reasoning for why a fetus is merely a piece of tissue.

The relevance here is that there is a lot of "baggage" that comes with the "personhood" label. Part of that is having a place in this world. Just being born doesn't start to cover all that is meant by being a "person".

You would say that babies are not persons then? I don't understand.

Silly me, how I keep forgetting that the only objective of anti-choicers is to punish woman for having sex by enforcing the continued parasitization of an unwanted pregnancy. Once the baby had extracted "divine vengance " on her body and her life for the "crime" of having sex, then it's "personhood" is of no further consequence, having accomplished it's true purpose. After that the attitude of anti-choicers toward the "person" that they once "championed" can be summed up as follows:

"After all are there 'no more prisons, no more workfare, no more paupers graves to accomodate" this "person"?.....

What does this have to do with the personhood of the fetus?

Now talk about your irrelevant remarks!!!

It is about as irrelevant as your previous remark. Fortunately, unlike yourself, I did not use the irrelevant remark to support the view that the fetus is a human being.

Not the point. The woman is a definitely a PERSON representing a considerable investment of planetary resources and time. The fetus is does not have this sort of "track-record". A fetus is not a person in this regard. It is further not a person developmentally (until 22-24 weeks). The woman's claim should override that of the fetus up until a certain point. Even then, if the woman's life is endangered the pregnancy most would still accord her the basic right of self-defense at ANY stage of the pregnancy. Of course, I keep forgetting that there are many who don't care is she dies (like most Religious Reichers) and share Martin Luther's charming opinion (http://www.ffrf.org/fttoday/march98/courcey.html)that "If a woman grows weary and at last dies from childbearing, it matters not. Let her die from bearing, she is there to do it."
More of Luther (http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/quotes/luther.htm) on reason, sex and women, just as a bonus....

Begging the question. Would you like me to explain why?

You keep claiming I am begging the question WITHOUT demonstrating that I am. So much for your empty assertions....

I have demonstrated that you keep begging the question. In all of the cases, you simply assumed that all fetuses were not persons de facto. I am afraid that you are the one with empty assertions.

NO, we were discussing was a fetus a PERSON. A fetus is NOT the equivalent of a BABY, although you and your fellow anti-choicers refuse to use the correct terms.

Interesting. I thought a baby was a person. Do you happen to support infanticide?

Anyway, it is YOUR lot that is trying to prove the ridiculous...namely that a fertilized egg/embryo/fetus(before 22 weeks) is the equivalent of a fully developed baby

The fetus has a heart-beat at 21 days. An older fetus will squirm when being aborted, signifying obvious reaction to the hostile actions being taken toward it. The fetus also has a unique DNA code, which will determine its traits, physical characteristics, etc. It has this code from conception, and carries it until its cells decay after it has died.

and much more important that the women you wish to inprison in their biology.

Inprison? As I recall, it is usually the mother's choice to get pregnant.

Define what you mean by "express personhood"? I'm not about to be suckered into answering such a vague, leading question like the one you asked...

If you do not wish to aid us in explaining your obviously superior position, then so be it.

As it is, I remain pro-choice...for the fetus.

~Matt

gladiatrix

April 13th 2003, 06:40 PM

Response to Kyles' Post (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?postid=65295#post65295)

http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=2545
You apparently support an article you posted which claims that we should count human beings to begin when "brain-birth" occurs. However, I have an analogy for you. The context is provided in the other thread.

[...]Jim is a complete vegetable. He has no "higher brain function". His family is in despair. They decide to pull the plug of Jim's life-support. But wait, the doctor has good news.

It turns out that there is a high probality that Jim will regain conciousness in the future. In fact, due to advanced medical techniques, the doctor has determined with 100% certainty that Jim will be fully functioning in a few weeks. The family is overjoyed. They decide, of course, to keep Jim on life-support until he regains his ability for "higher brain function".

Unfortunately, a man named Jack doesn't like Jiim. Jack comes into the medical room and severs Jim's head. Too bad.[....]

Your analogy is irrelevant for the following reasons: Jim is already accorded the status of personhood in that he is BORN and now represents a considerable investment in planetary resources and kinship links (his family). This is NOT a case of where the brain will remain damaged because recovery is not only possible, but, according to your scenario, 100% CERTAIN with the new treatment (ridiculous as there is no such thing as 100% certainty for anything!) In this case, the family, as guardians of the now-incapacitated Jim are well aware that Jim can recover. Jack also knows that Jim will recover Jack seeks to prevent that recovery by severing Jim's head

This is is NO way comparable to that of a fetus who has NOT YET developed a brain. Jim, by comparison: already a functioning brain by every law that there is, also accorded rights as a person under the law there was 100% certainty that he could recover The two situations are not the same.

Would you agree, Archon, that Jack should get off scot-clean for killing brain-dead Jim?

No, I don't agree for the following reasons: First, the brain may have been "techniqually" dead, but until the doctor officially proclaims him "dead", he isn't in the eyes of the law (no death declaration or death certificate attests to Jim's "death") Furthermore, the doctor knew that Jim could recover and WOULD NOT have pronounced Jim "dead", especially since he informed the family of the certainty of recovery Jack seeks to murder his enemy by severing the head to prevent "reanimation" and has clearly formed the requisite intent for committing "murder". Anyway, your scenario is so totally removed from the issue that it is really irrelevant. However, it's an interesting legal question. IF the doctor had pronounced Jim dead, then under the law, AtheistArchon would be right.

Consequently, I don't really give a rip when brain waves begin functioning, because "higher brain function" is an unsuccessful way to measure whether or not the embryo is a human being.

You refusal to acknowlege the facts of biology is not going to make them irrelevant. "Facts don't cease to be facts because one ignores them" An embryo (development less than 8 weeks) is less than than an inch long and has no functional brain nor is what is there connected to the rest of the DEVELOPING body by a neural network.

Next, the lovely article you quote mentions that babies born REALLY premature can't survive, even with life-support. Therefore, they are not a "person".

However, this argument is ridiculous. Am I to suppose that, 100 years earlier (when people would NEVER dream of rescuing a baby born extra-premature), babies weren't "people" until much later? What exactly is this argument trying to prove?

The point is that one needs a body to be able to function in this world. There is not a brain nor a body capable of functioning in this world until after the 5th month. There is just no escape from these facts for you.

It is not my fault that you have the uneviable task of trying to prove that a fertilized egg is the equivalent developmentally enabled fetus/baby. And of couse, it is quite apparent that you consider the woman to be of lesser value an the fertilized egg.

Next, your wonderful article mentions some interesting statistics saying that 65% of the time conception does not lead to pregnancy. Well Whoopdy-doo. I fail to see how this is relevant. Of course, the article uses some sort of argument when it says:

"If God really endows each and every conception (fertilized egg) with a soul (what theists REALLY mean when they say the conceptus is "alive" and a "person", not merely biologically alive), that makes GOD AN ABORTIONIST, and the biggest mass murderer of all time. (If one believes that personhood begins at fertilization)"

Tough luck. The lord giveth and the lord taketh away.

Oh, it's okay for God to be an abortionist and waste up the vast majority of the "lives" that according to you He holds so "dear"? What kind of example does that set for humanity? Well, might makes right and it certain accounts for why Thomas Paine observed that:

"Cruel gods make a man cruel" (just copying Big Daddy's "murderous" example )

I have no belief in your vicous God and will go further in stating that I wouldn't want any part of the Being described in the Bible who behaves in a manner that would any of us confined the darkest depths of an infamous maximum security prison like Pelican Bay's Shoe(I don't see any significant difference between the actions of the Biblical God and Satan, His creation. Why I think so.....

Bible Atrocities (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/donald_morgan/atrocity.html) (committed by God personally, ordered by God, condoned by God)

Some Reasons Why Humanists Reject the Bible (http://members.aol.com/bbu84/biblicalstupidity/why.htm#9)

Is God a Criminal? (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/bill_schultz/criminal-god.html)

Also consider that Satan is God's creation. When I compare the actions of the two, it is quite apparent that Satan is one of those proverbial "apples" that didn't fall too far from the Tree (God). The only difference between the two of them is that God lives in the better neighborhood.....

Do I just "hate" God or think God is "immoral"? No, as a friend of mine, Brimshack once said....

[b]The argument is not that God's morality conflcits with our own, but that ideas about God conflict to the extent that he is asserted to be good and yet appears to act otherwise. The argument that God behaves in an immoral manner is not actually intended to show that an actual God is immoral; it is intended to show that a particular vision of God is self-contradictory and hence impossible.

Your version of God appears to choose people based on how much they worship and fear(emphasis on the fear) Him as opposed to how they live their lives. It looks to me like your God is more interested in filling heaven with adoring, fear-filled worshippers, no matter how evil they were in life until they played their "get-out-of-jail-free" card (accepted "salvation" at the last possible moment). From where I stand the biggest irony is that Satan is really the only honest broker (doesn't pretend to be any better than he ought to be or be on the side of the righteous). No thanks, I would want absolutely no part of the Biblical God (how boring to spend an eternity worshipping and/or in the company of what is IMO an immortal, colossal criminal Egotist!)

Fortunately, there is no evidence that either Jehovah or Satan exists (too self-contradictory to be a fact!)

Whoops, it's not getting any better. We have another COMPLETE non-sequitir (There is no "good, affordable birth control"- yeah right. Last time I checked NOT HAVING SEX worked pretty well as birth control

**********AND***************

I tell you what- how about not having sex if you can't deal with the consequences? I've got nothing against people having sex, but they should only do it if they can handle the repercussions

Actually there is a way of "handling the consequences", other than remaining celibate (BTW you have heard of rape? some people don't have the opportunit y to "just say NO"). It's called good effective birth control with abortion as back-up. Why is it I suspect that you are one of those people who think sex is dirty and must be "punished" with involuntary parenthood?

And I see infanticide as a solution to these failures of both technology and good judgement. :duh:

Except that abortion of an undeveloped fetus is NOT the equivalent of murdering a baby that has been born. You claim that, then you have to prove it.

We have enough food to feed everyone, it's just that we can't get it to them. What we need to do is send our military into dirt-poor countries that are run by Warlords (Sudan, for instance), and start getting food to the people. Unfortunately, the oh-so-worthless U.N. doesn't ever seem to get much accomplished.

First, the UN does NOT have any jurisdiction over these countries and I find conservatives like yourself are usually the very first to whinge about them doing such things. After all, it's it your lot that does everything in it's power to prevent the dissemination of birth control devices and information at every turn from that very organization (a lot less of a jurisprudence issue thatn mobilizing foreign militaries to dispense food aid)

Second, what do you think the probability of such a scenario EVER happening in the near future when the aid is need is ? VIRTUALLY ZERO! so your "what if" situation is worse than irrelevant.

Bottom-line here is that if we can't care for those already LIVING, it makes no sense to create more of them."

Well, then either stop having sex or get neutered! It's really quite simple

I must have missed it...your elevation to the post "One-True-Judge™" on how to live one's life..... In other words, who are you to dictate to others how to live or conduct themselves.

Kyle responded:
When G said:
Any recommendations on what to do with all the tens of millions of unadopted infants you plan on enslaving women to produce?

Ha! You think I made them have sex?
I see that you are yet another person who hasn't heard of rape absolutely refuse to acknowlege that humans are sexual animals who will not abstain from the activity obviously believes that sex is filthy and needs to be punished with involutary parenthood (a "sin-tax" on sexual activity)

For all I care they can take care of their own babies. And, they better do it well or they will be punished for neglect.

Spoken like a true anti-choice hypocrite. Once the "baby" has punished the woman for having sex, then you wash your hands. Thank you for making the pro-choice case so well! (Showing how the "right-to-life" of the baby is really NOT what your agenda is all about!)

Anyways, the embryo has more than "potential"- it has the information necessary and is ALREADY IN THE PROCESS of becoming a fully-functioning human being.

But only at the expense of the woman. Oh silly me, I keep forgetting you think of a woman as just some kind of bipedal uterus whose only purpose it to produce "man-hood" trophies.

An embryo is a human being in a different stage development.
Human yes, a human "being" NO! (not until it has a brain).

BTW, I am the author of the "article".

Kyle

April 13th 2003, 07:18 PM

Hello there, Gladiatrix. I'll go ahead and offer a response.

"Jim is already accorded the status of personhood in that he is BORN and now represents a considerable investment in planetary resources and kinship links (his family)."

Well, you never said that being "born" was a necessary qualifier for when we should consider an embryo a human being. You seem to think that it is "personhood" or "brain function". You see, you are just bringing up random criteria to suit your needs.

Next, you claim that he is valuable because he represents a "considerable investement in planetary resources and kinship links". So, now we are deciding the value of human beings on the basis of their use of the world's resources and their family? Are young people less "valuable" because they haven't used as many resources? Are old people without any family less deserving of protection because they have no kinship? You have to be consistent, you know.

"This is NOT a case of where the brain will remain damaged because recovery is not only possible, but, according to your scenario, 100% CERTAIN with the new treatment (ridiculous as there is no such thing as 100% certainty for anything!)"

Fine, we'll call it 90% certainty. Of course, I know that he WILL recover brain function. The point is that he HASN'T. It's the same thing as with the embryo- it HASN'T got higher brain function but it WILL get it. You can't have your cake and eat it too. It's either one way or the other. Either the potential argument is valid, in which both the embryo AND Jim are protected, or the potential argument is not valid, in which NEITHER Jim nor the embryo are protected.

"In this case, the family, as guardians of the now-incapacitated Jim are well aware that Jim can recover."

Yeah, well the doctors that perform abortions, in most cases, are "well aware" that the embryo will soon gain higher brain function and eventually develop into a fully functioning human being.

"Jack also knows that Jim will recover"

Just like the abortion doctors know that the embryo will gain higher brain function.

"Jack seeks to prevent that recovery by severing Jim's head"

In the same way that abortion doctors seek to prevent the baby from developing higher brain function and personality by sucking out the brains/chopping them up/poisoning them with salt.

"already a functioning brain"

But Jim's brain is NOT functioning in any meaningful way.

"by every law that there is, also accorded rights as a person under the law"

The SAME laws that SHOULD protect the embryo!

"there was 100% certainty that he could recover"

That doesn't have to be the case.

"The two situations are not the same."

I never said they were the same, but they are not different in any MEANINGFUL way that clarifies why Jim deserves protection and the embryo does not.

"Jack seeks to murder his enemy by severing the head to prevent "reanimation" and has clearly formed the requisite intent for committing "murder"."

Jack seeks to prevent "REanimation", while the abortion doctors seek to prevent "animation" at all!

I WROTE: "Consequently, I don't really give a rip when brain waves begin functioning, because "higher brain function" is an unsuccessful way to measure whether or not the embryo is a human being."

YOU REPLIED: "You refusal to acknowlege the facts of biology is not going to make them irrelevant."

You're off the mark. I didn't deny the FACTS, I denied the INTERPRETATION. I agree with your facts, but I don't think they ultimately affect the fact that embryos deserve protection.

"An embryo (development less than 8 weeks) is less than than an inch long"

Since when are short people less significant? Do you have something against midgets? :hrm:

"and has no functional brain nor is what is there connected to the rest of the DEVELOPING body by a neural network."

Jim has no functioning brain. Besides, I have already argued that "brain tissue" is reletively insignificant compared to the development of a personality, which is an event that takes place well after birth. To my knowledge, you have not answered my argument.

"The point is that one needs a body to be able to function in this world. There is not a brain nor a body capable of functioning in this world until after the 5th month. There is just no escape from these facts for you."

Yes, but hundreds of years ago, people would make the claim that "there is no brain or body capable of functioning until after the 7th month". Am I to suppose that humans become valuable earlier because of medical advancements?

"It is not my fault that you have the uneviable task of trying to prove that a fertilized egg is the equivalent developmentally enabled fetus/baby."

I never claimed that they were developmentally equivalent, I claimed that there was no significant factor to cause us to protect the latter and not the former. I realize that a one-year old baby and a one-month year old embryo are quite different.

"And of couse, it is quite apparent that you consider the woman to be of lesser value an the fertilized egg."

Not so. Actually, in cases where the mother could die from giving birth, the option of abortion should be open to the mother. I have respect for ALL human life, I don't pick and choose.

"BTW you have heard of rape? some people don't have the opportunit y to "just say NO"

I'm no idiot. I realize that there is a thing called rape. I was waiting for you to bring it up. Anyways, we will discuss it later.

"It's called good effective birth control with abortion as back-up."

But if I am right and life begins at conception, then you are using the equivalent of INFANTICIDE as a "backup" so that you can go on having sex. That doesn't work for me.

"Why is it I suspect that you are one of those people who think sex is dirty and must be "punished" with involuntary parenthood?"

The individuals are punishing THEMSELVES by having sex, if they can't deal with the consequences!

Continued next post.....

gladiatrix

April 13th 2003, 07:34 PM

Response to InquisitorKind's Post (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?postid=65344#post65344)

I have demonstrated that you keep begging the question. In all of the cases, you simply assumed that all fetuses were not persons de facto. I am afraid that you are the one with empty assertions.

First, it is you who claim that the fetus IS a PERSON. The burden of proof here is yours, not mine or do I have to explain to you that the claimant with the positive assertion has the sole burden. I don't have to prove that a fetus is NOT a person, but you DO have to prove that it is one.

By your own definition, it is you who are begging the question because you have ASSumed that a fetus is the equivalent of a person and given not one iota of evidence for that it is one.

IK responded:
When G said}Not the point. The woman is a definitely a PERSON representing a considerable investment of planetary resources and time. The fetus is does not have this sort of "track-record". A fetus is not a person in this regard. It is further not a person developmentally (until 22-24 weeks). The woman's claim should override that of the fetus up until a certain point. Even then, if the woman's life is endangered the pregnancy most would still accord her the basic right of self-defense at ANY stage of the pregnancy. Of course, I keep forgetting that there are many who don't care is she dies (like most Religious Reichers) and share Martin Luther's charming opinion that "If a woman grows weary and at last dies from childbearing, it matters not. Let her die from bearing, she is there to do it."
More of Luther on reason, sex and women, just as a bonus....
”
Begging the question. Would you like me to explain why?

Yes, please do and remember that the same definitions apply to you as well. What you seem to have forgotten with you presumptuous de facto conclusion that a fetus is a person.

InquisitorKind responded"
When G said}
Silly me, how I keep forgetting that the only objective of anti-choicers is to punish woman for having sex by enforcing the continued parasitization of an unwanted pregnancy. Once the baby had extracted "divine vengance " on her body and her life for the "crime" of having sex, then it's "personhood" is of no further consequence, having accomplished it's true purpose. After that the attitude of anti-choicers toward the "person" that they once "championed" can be summed up as follows:

"After all are there 'no more prisons, no more workfare, no more paupers graves to accomodate" this "person"?.....

”What does this have to do with the personhood of the fetus?

Simple. The issue that the fetus is a person is the false cover-story that anti-choicers present as their reason for "caring" about the "lives" of the unborn. You don't give a rat's ass about the "personhood" of the fetus. This is just the story you try to con people into believing is your true agenda. It has NOTHING to do with any regard for the fetus as a human being and EVERYTHING to do with controlling the women and meddling in other peoples sex lives ad infinitem (you dictate how they are supposed to live by your moral code). It's about power and control, NOT about any concern for the "personhood" of the fetus

If you decide to dedicate your life to serving the poor, I may follow suit. Until then, I must try to understand your reasoning for why a fetus is merely a piece of tissue.

It is your contention that the fetus is a person, let's stick to the subject. Til you can prove that it is, then I will regard it as the woman's property to do with as she see's fit, UNTIL it has developed to a stage where it has a functioning brain. My involvement or lack thereof in charity work is quite irrelevant to your case.

You can just ignore the FACT that one can't function in this world without one (you later deny that you don't consider brain-waves as a criterion for determining death), but the facts won't go away just because you choose to ignore them and deny their relevance.

Let's examine your one pathetic attempt to demonstrate that a fetus is the equivalent of a person :

1. The fetus has a heart-beat at 21 days.
A heart beat is not considered a sign of sentient life. I can see why you are so desparate to disregard brainwaves as the criteria for life because there isn't a functional brain til after the 22-24th week. A person's organs can be kept alive, but that doesn't mean that there is a "person" there.

And BTW, a functional heart is the first organ to develop in ALL mammalian embryos (also most reptiles, birds, and amphibians). How is a beating heart, then, a characteristic of HUMAN life, let alone an indication that there is a HUMAN BEING there?

2. An older fetus will squirm when being aborted, signifying obvious reaction to the hostile actions being taken toward it.
Up until the 24th month, all you are describing is a reflex reaction to touch, which does NOT involve any kind of consciousness. An amoeba in a petri dish will retreat when I touch it with a glass probe. Does this mean that it is a sentient being? Once again, how is this an argument for personhood?

3. The fetus also has a unique DNA code, which will determine its traits, physical characteristics, etc. It has this code from conception, and carries it until its cells decay after it has died.

The DNA code is like the blueprint for a house, they are INSTRUCTIONS ONLY. A fertilized egg is just a single cell with the blueprint for a POTENTIAL human being. If I burn the blueprint for a house, that is NOT considered to be the same as arson of the house.

By the same token an acorn is NOT an oak tree, it is a POTENTIAL oak tree only.

If you went to a fried chicken shack and ordered 8 pieces of fried chicken, I don't think you would accept 8 fried eggs or fried chicks as the equivalent.

Also, consider that every cell in your body has the POTENTIAL to produce another InquisitorKind. All I would have to do is take the nucleus from one, put it into an enucleated eggs, zap that egg with electricity and VOILA! another IK!, at least according to your "blueprint argument with a small assist from cloning technology, it's just a matter of time before humans are cloned). If you had an appendectomy, I do hope that you had it buryed with full funery dignity considering that you just "murdered" millions of POTENTIAL IKs.

BTW, before you start weeping the usual anti-choicer crocodile tears over POTENTIAL Eisteins, Hawkings, Pasteurs, or Curies being aborted, remember that POTENTIAL they could just as easily be Hitlers, Stalins, Ted Bundies, rapists, murderers, etc (more likely since an unwanted child is so much more likely to be mistreated and neglected)

Moderator Note: Please do NOT use the color red as it is designated for moderator use only. Refer to our Campus Decorum (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/show.php?pg=decorum#board%20etiquette)

Kyle

April 13th 2003, 07:48 PM

"I must have missed it...your elevation to the post "One-True-Judge™" on how to live one's life..... In other words, who are you to dictate to others how to live or conduct themselves."

Ha, so I guess you don't have the right to judge others who kill and rape and plunder, eh? The thing is, I'm trying to show that abortion is killing. If I'm right, then people who have sex DO have a tremendous responsibility.

"absolutely refuse to acknowlege that humans are sexual animals who will not abstain from the activity"

They can have sex, they just need to get neutered first. :thumb:

Actually, I acknowledge that humans are sexual animals. I'm a 16 year-old male- you don't think I realize this? However, I am still a human being and I CAN refuse to have sex if I want to. Personally, I would never have sex with somebody that I knew I wouldn't be able to (emotionally or financially) have a baby with as a potential consequence.

"obviously believes that sex is filthy and needs to be punished with involutary parenthood (a "sin-tax" on sexual activity)"

Just so you know, I would appreciate it if you would tone down on the blatant stereotyping. If you don't, I can handle that too. I aint' no wimp. :cool:

And for the record, I don't think sex is "dirty". Rather, it is a natural activity. But it has consequences.

"Spoken like a true anti-choice hypocrite. Once the "baby" has punished the woman for having sex, then you wash your hands. Thank you for making the pro-choice case so well! (Showing how the "right-to-life" of the baby is really NOT what your agenda is all about!)"

Oh really? So what's my "real" agenda? To torment women so I can feel like they are subdued? :rofl:

And it's not the babies fault that the woman had sex! The only time the women DIDN"T choose is in the case of rape. Even in that circumstance, however, it is not the unborn child's fault that his father is a rapist.

"But only at the expense of the woman. Oh silly me, I keep forgetting you think of a woman as just some kind of bipedal uterus whose only purpose it to produce "man-hood" trophies."

Sure, sometimes maintaining life is an inconvenience. However, that's just the way it is. Just because maintaining life is difficult doesn't mean we should just kill it, like poor old Jim.

"BTW, I am the author of the "article"."

My bad. It was so heavily formatted that I thought it was a posted article.

You keep insinuating that I have this hatred or disrespect for women. I have no such thing. I respect both the unborn child AND the mother. I realize that there may be "emotional" problems with having a baby, but there are also "emotional" problems with abortion sometimes. It's a rough world out there. But, we can't throw away our responsibilities just because it is convenient. Next thing you know, we will be killing off old people because we think they are useless. The problem with most of your pro-abortion arguments are that they logically lead to either infanticide or euthanasia or both!

Your reply had two seperate issues, God of the Bible and the U.N. I will respond to those seperately and DeeDee can do what she wants because the issue is not really related.

Bartholomew

April 13th 2003, 08:16 PM

Today @ 07:34 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=65418#post65418)
gladiatrix:

[QUOTE]First[/b], it is you who claim that the fetus IS a PERSON. The burden of proof here is yours, not mine or do I have to explain to you that the claimant with the positive assertion has the sole burden. I don't have to prove that a fetus is NOT a person, but you DO have to prove that it is one.

I'm sorry. I didn't realize that I was trying to prove that the fetus was person when I started this thread. But, since you seem to agree with the purpose of this thread (to determine if the sole issue is if the fetus is a person), we may proceed.

Now, why is the burden of proof on me?

By your own definition, it is you who are begging the question because you have ASSumed that a fetus is the equivalent of a person and given not one iota of evidence for that it is one.

That is true. I have only engaged the evidence you have provided, which, so far, has not stacked up.

Yes, please do and remember that the same definitions apply to you as well. What you seem to have forgotten with you presumptuous de facto conclusion that a fetus is a person.

I am only using your evidence to determine if it really proves that the fetus is not a person.

Simple. The issue that the fetus is a person is the false cover-story that anti-choicers present as their reason for "caring" about the "lives" of the unborn. You don't give a rat's ass about the "personhood" of the fetus. This is just the story you try to con people into believing is your true agenda. It has NOTHING to do with any regard for the fetus as a human being and EVERYTHING to do with controlling the women and meddling in other peoples sex lives ad infinitem (you dictate how they are supposed to live by your moral code). It's about power and control, NOT about any concern for the "personhood" of the fetus

How would you know what I feel toward the fetus? Perhaps your amazing psychological skills are coming through again.

It's interesting that you are a manifesting the signs of a control freak as well, feeling that women have the right to impose their views over the life-and-death of the fetus.

It is your contention that the fetus is a person, let's stick to the subject. Til you can prove that it is, then I will regard it as the woman's property to do with as she see's fit, UNTIL it has developed to a stage where it has a functioning brain. My involvement or lack thereof in charity work is quite irrelevant to your case.

Exactly. So why did you recommend I stop caring about the fetus and start helping out the poor?

Anyway, I still do not accept the premise that brainwaves are the indication of life. If you can point me to where I accepted this position, please let me know. Until then, I have no idea why you keep bringing it up.

You can just ignore the FACT that one can't function in this world without one (you later deny that you don't consider brain-waves as a criterion for determining death), but the facts won't go away just because you choose to ignore them and deny their relevance.

I don't understand. I was the one who showed you that a baby cannot function without the mother--a caretaker--and how it defeats your arguement that personhood does not occur until then. Also, what is wrong with denying something I have denied from the beginning?

Why have you decided for me that my view is that brainwaves determine if life exists? I never stated this.

Let's examine your one pathetic attempt to demonstrate that a fetus is the equivalent of a person :

Thank you for your compliments.

A heart beat is not considered a sign of sentient life. I can see why you are so desparate to disregard brainwaves as the criteria for life because there isn't a functional brain til after the 22-24th week. A person's organs can be kept alive, but that doesn't mean that there is a "person" there.

This was a weak refutation. Since you merely assert that the heart beat is not a sign of life, I will merely assert, again, that it is. Do you have hard evidence that an unsupported heart-beat is not the start of life?

And BTW, a functional heart is the first organ to develop in ALL mammalian embryos (also most reptiles, birds, and amphibians). How is a beating heart, then, a characteristic of HUMAN life, let alone an indication that there is a HUMAN BEING there?

This brings up a profound question that I would like you to answer. If the fetus is not a human being, what is it? A penguin?

Up until the 24th month, all you are describing is a reflex reaction to touch, which does NOT involve any kind of consciousness. An amoeba in a petri dish will retreat when I touch it with a glass probe. Does this mean that it is a sentient being? Once again, how is this an argument for personhood?

Because it has a heart, and responds to touch. You cannot seperate the two. Provide me with a case where an organism is not only has a beating heart and respondes to touch, but is not considered that which it is to become. Then you will have a definite refutation of my argument. If you provide it, I will change my mind.

The DNA code is like the blueprint for a house, they are INSTRUCTIONS ONLY. A fertilized egg is just a single cell with the blueprint for a POTENTIAL human being. If I burn the blueprint for a house, that is NOT considered to be the same as arson of the house.

For what are those blueprints for? Are the not the blueprints for a human being?

And since I am sure you have taken logic, a potential X must be an actual Y. If the fetus is not a human, what is it?

By the same token an acorn is NOT an oak tree, it is a POTENTIAL oak tree only.

Interesting. Why are you now comparing human beings to oak trees? I thought we were discussing a fetus.

If you went to a fried chicken shack and ordered 8 pieces of fried chicken, I don't think you would accept 8 fried eggs or fried chicks as the equivalent.

Of course not. However, if I ordered a baby, I would not accept an aborted fetus.

Also, consider that every cell in your body has the POTENTIAL to produce another InquisitorKind. All I would have to do is take the nucleus from one, put it into an enucleated eggs, zap that egg with electricity and VOILA! another IK!, at least according to your "blueprint argument with a small assist from cloning technology, it's just a matter of time before humans are cloned). If you had an appendectomy, I do hope that you had it buryed with full funery dignity considering that you just "murdered" millions of POTENTIAL IKs.

I'm sorry, this is a non-sequitor. The human fetus develops without the aid of scientific means, as I'm sure you are aware. My potential selves being killed are not murders because killing them is not killing me--I am still alive. In abortion, all of the person potential is destroyed.

BTW, before you start weeping the usual anti-choicer crocodile tears over POTENTIAL Eisteins, Hawkings, Pasteurs, or Curies being aborted, remember that POTENTIAL they could just as easily be Hitlers, Stalins, Ted Bundies, rapists, murderers, etc (more likely since an unwanted child is so much more likely to be mistreated and neglected)

Quite unlikely that I would have taken such a route, but thank you for that tidbit of information.

Moderator Note: Please do NOT use the color red as it is designated for moderator use only. Refer to our Campus Decorum (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/show.php?pg=decorum#board%20etiquette)

I am glad I have no idea how to use colors.

~Matt

Kyle

April 13th 2003, 08:29 PM

"Oh, it's okay for God to be an abortionist and waste up the vast majority of the "lives" that according to you He holds so "dear"? What kind of example does that set for humanity?"

Hey, don't blame God. Death entered this world as a result of human sin.

"Cruel gods make a man cruel"

Well, despite Paine's opinion to the contrary, some of the most kind people I know are Christians. Besides, you are resting on the unsupported assertion that God is cruel.

"I have no belief in your vicous God"

I figured you didn't. I also figured you'd back up your belief with nothing but an "argument from outrage" and an emotional tirade.

I know all about the supposed "evil acts of God". However, they are all answered well by J.P. Holding and Glenn Miller. You know where to find them. :brow:

"Your version of God appears to choose people based on how much they worship and fear(emphasis on the fear)"

Wrong again, my friend. God knows that EVERYONE is deserving of hell, but He is merciful enough to spare us if we accept his gift. Nice spin you put on it though. :ahem:

"It looks to me like your God is more interested in filling heaven with adoring, fear-filled worshippers, no matter how evil they were in life until they played their "get-out-of-jail-free" card (accepted "salvation" at the last possible moment)."

Well, we're darn lucky God doesn't judge us by your "good person" standard, or else we'd all be condemned. I'm glad you're not omnipotent.

"No thanks, I would want absolutely no part of the Biblical God"

Too bad, because He wants you. Hopefully you will one day accept him.

"Fortunately, there is no evidence that either Jehovah or Satan exists (too self-contradictory to be a fact!)"

As it happens, I run a website. I think you're wrong about the lack of evidence:

http://kyleoctavio.mysitespace.com/cosmological_argument.htm

As you can see from reading that article, belief in God is rational, whereas atheism does not hold up. As to your claim that God is "contradictory", why so? I have offered a brief definition of God here:

http://kyleoctavio.mysitespace.com/define_god.htm

Nothing contradictory there.

"First, the UN does NOT have any jurisdiction over these countries"

Hmmmm, so we should let the children of Sudan starve to death?

"and I find conservatives like yourself are usually the very first to whinge about them doing such things."

Not me. I whinge about the fact that they do dirt-nothing while they eat their caviar.

"After all, it's it your lot that does everything in it's power to prevent the dissemination of birth control devices"

Even if you're right, that's nothing but "argument by association"- which is a blatant fallacy.

"Second, what do you think the probability of such a scenario EVER happening in the near future when the aid is need is ? VIRTUALLY ZERO! so your "what if" situation is worse than irrelevant."

It's not my fault that the U.N. is useless. However, the fact that there are starving children is not a problem to be dealt with by killing unborns. It is a political and military issue of distributing food. Do you actually think that aborting babies in America is going to help the starving kid in Sudan?

Sincerely,

Kyle.

gladiatrix

April 13th 2003, 10:56 PM

Yesterday @ 09:01 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=65305#post65305)
Kyle (K) responded:
When G wrote:

"One thing, bringing up PEOPLE (those already born and accepted as PERSONS) who are asleep, unconscious, in a coma, or profoundly handicapped either at birth or through accidental injury is NOT an argument because they are already here and this argument constitutes a "red herring" (changing the subject to avoid arguing about the fetus).

Well, this is simply ridiculous. The author of this article thinks that the Jim analogy is irrelevant because Jim is already "here" and "accepted as a person

Why is it ridiculous? You merely claim it it so without giving any reason. You are comparing apples (Jim already here) to an embryo that is demonstrably NOT on the same level as Jim because Jim has already been born, so there is NO argument that he is a person Let us also assume that he was developmentally complete as a baby Jim represents the investment of considerable planetary resources to substain him Jim represents an emotional investment in that he has a family who also, let's assume receives love from him in return

How does a fertilized egg/embryo compare to Jim? You are comparing apples and oranges. Jim is not a potential person, he is a PERSON. He may be injured, but according to your scenario, he is guaranteed that he will survive with the new treatment, so there is no question of him being declared "dead'" in spite of the fact that at one point his brain appears to functioning.

What the heck is "here" supposed to mean? The author has failed to mention the criteria that makes Jim count and the embryo "not count". Much less have they identified why such criteria are useful.
Oh, contraire! The criteria for considering the fetus to be a person are the appearance of bona fida brain waves and a body developed enough to live outside the mother. In this case, both occur after 22 weeks.

On top of this, the author begs the question by saying that Jim is already "accepted" as a person!

How does it beg the question to claim that Jim is a person? Again you make a claim that is unsuppported. Do you have an argument against Jim's personhood?

Of course he's "accepted as a person". The question is why! If I "accept" that pigs are humans, does that make me right? Sorry, but this is a complete joke.

I don't see anyone making the claim that pigs are human. if you do, then you must prove it. I would be under no obligation to disprove your claims.
We were discussing the personhood of a fetus, not your red herring scenario about "pigs being human". The only joke here is your argument because it has no bearing on either Jim's personhood or the personhood of the fetus.

"The long and the short of it is that it isn't possible to be a person unless one is developed to a point where one can potentially experience and express that personhood"

Now, we need to discuss an important issue. You keep claiming that the development of "higher brain function" is the criteria for when a human being deserves protection. You claim that the development of said higher brain function is the most critical aspect of "personhood". However, it is clearly not. Do you actually suppose that a developing fetus has a "personality" when it first attains "higher brain function"? Does the fetus have self-concept? Does the fetus value itself? Does the fetus have memories? No, it has none of these.

The point is that all the things you mention memories values self-awareness ]can be acquired WITHOUT the fetus being attached to the mother

In addition these attributes are not essential to physical life and are always acquired AFTER birth (premature or normal), so your argument fails.

So, you are telling me that the development of "higher brain function" is more important than any of the above? Of course not!
These attributes make it possible to live in a group and are ALWAYs aquired post-partum, BUT you absolutely need a functional brain to absorb and form these attributes, there is no way around this for you as you have to admit when you say:

Originally posted by Kyle:
Higher brain function is merely something that is REQUIRED for those important things to take place.

Just like the embryo WILL attain higher brain function, so will the fetus [currently] in the 8th month EVENTUALLY attain personality and self-concept, etc. But, as YOU have argued previously, the "potential" or "development" of such things does not determine protection NOW.

Actually I NEVER said that, this is your ramble. I did not introduce things non-essential to determining the earlies point for granting protection to a fetus as a person which are Presence of brainwaves A body capable of surviving outside the womb (even if it does require a lot of mechanical assistance as micropreemies do). Fortunately both characteristic (body + brain) occur at the same time (22 to 24 wks).I have never argued that a memories, etc. were part of the package, these things are acquired AFTER birth and you need a functioning brain to acquire them.

We have seen then, that you are not really looking for "higher brain function", you are looking for the development of personality.

No I have never argued for personality developement as a criterion for personhood. That is a strawman of your own creation and I challenge you to quote me where I EVER made such a claim.

Alden

April 13th 2003, 11:00 PM

:hrm:

Moderator Note: Please do NOT use the color red as it is designated for moderator use only. Refer to our Campus Decorum

gladiatrix

April 13th 2003, 11:07 PM

Today @ 04:00 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=65610#post65610)
Alden:

:hrm:

My apologies, I have edited those posts that still allowed it to remove the color red.

Alden

April 13th 2003, 11:08 PM

Gracias

The Laughing Man

April 13th 2003, 11:22 PM

Simple. The issue that the fetus is a person is the false cover-story that anti-choicers present as their reason for "caring" about the "lives" of the unborn. You don't give a rat's ass about the "personhood" of the fetus. This is just the story you try to con people into believing is your true agenda. It has NOTHING to do with any regard for the fetus as a human being and EVERYTHING to do with controlling the women and meddling in other peoples sex lives ad infinitem (you dictate how they are supposed to live by your moral code). It's about power and control, NOT about any concern for the "personhood" of the fetus

That is about the most insulting and ridiculous load of horse manure that the anti-life supporters use. Quite frankly, it is a straw man argument that smacks of stereotyping and may even border on plain old bigotry. Does it help your argument about whether a fetus is a person? No. So why use it? What reason do you have to use it other than to slander those who wish to protect the lives of the unborn from the anti-life misconceptions, half-truths and lies?

gladiatrix

April 14th 2003, 12:11 AM

Today @ 12:18 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=65412#post65412)
Kyle:

G==>"Jim is already accorded the status of personhood in that he is BORN and now represents a considerable investment in planetary resources and kinship links (his family)."

Well, you never said that being "born" was a necessary qualifier for when we should consider an embryo a human being. You seem to think that it is "personhood" or "brain function". You see, you are just bringing up random criteria to suit your needs.

I NEVER made claim that being born was a requirement of personhood and was pointing out to YOU that Jim was born and there was NO argument that he was a person. He remains one, even if profoundly injured. The question becomes is he "dead" or not.

Next, you claim that he is valuable because he represents a "considerable investement in planetary resources and kinship links". So, now we are deciding the value of human beings on the basis of their use of the world's resources and their family?
Again I NEVER said Jim was to be VALUED because of the "investments" he represented. I was pointing out to you that he was so invested WITHOUT making any value judgement about it. This charge that I made such a claim is a strawman representation of what I really said,

Are young people less "valuable" because they haven't used as many resources?Are old people without any family less deserving of protection because they have no kinship? You have to be consistent, you know.
No, never said or implied that, but when you don't have an argument this sort of appeal to emotion fallacy is all you have left.

It's the same thing as with the embryo- it HASN'T got higher brain function but it WILL get it. You can't have your cake and eat it too. It's either one way or the other. Either the potential argument is valid, in which both the embryo AND Jim are protected, or the potential argument is not valid, in which NEITHER Jim nor the embryo are protected.

The embryo WILL have brain function but before the 22-24 the week, it doesn't. The only way it WILL acquire this function is to continue to parasitize the mother who has every right to defend herself against this unwanted iinterloper.

Look at it this way... Suppose Bush needed a rare blood component that only you have and would die without it.

The only way to get this factor is if he is hooked up to your body for a nearly a year. He requires a lot of it and the treatment will both debilitate you and cause you great pain and if the doctors aren't careful there is a good chance you might die (if he takes too much). If you refuse to let Bush use your body in this manner, you have given him a death sentence. You refuse to give him said treatment and are now guilty of "murdering him".

Jim is a different story, in that he is already here and will recover. Any way you slice it, the situations are NOT comparable.

1.G===>"In this case, the family, as guardians of the now-incapacitated Jim are well aware that Jim can recover."

K===>Yeah, well the doctors that perform abortions, in most cases, are "well aware" that the embryo will soon gain higher brain function and eventually develop into a fully functioning human being.

2. G===>"Jack also knows that Jim will recover"

K===>Just like the abortion doctors know that the embryo will gain higher brain function.

The operative verb here is WILL, until the embryo does, acquire said brain function, it is not a person. It is up to you to prove that it is one before that. You claim the embryo is a person and by every rule of logic and argument, the burden of proof is yours.

G==>"Jack seeks to prevent that recovery by severing Jim's head"

K===>In the same way that abortion doctors seek to prevent the baby from developing higher brain function and personality by sucking out the brains/chopping them up/poisoning them with salt.

Kyle, over 94% pf all abortions occur before the 12th week, and there is no brain to suck (the usual appeal to emotion when the facts don't work for you).

But Jim's brain is NOT functioning in any meaningful way.

But according to your scenario, Jim will recover, it's just a matter of apply the treatment. No doctor in his/her right mind would declare a patient dead if there is such a good chance for him/her to recover. As long as he is not declared dead, he is protected by the law.

The SAME laws that SHOULD protect the embryo!

No, you have yet to prove that they apply to such an entity. You just wish it were true.

G==>"there was 100% certainty that he could recover"

K==>That doesn't have to be the case.

So now you want to change your story now that I have pointed out the obvious flaw (Jim's guarantee of recovery).

G==>"Jack seeks to murder his enemy by severing the head to prevent "reanimation" and has clearly formed the requisite intent for committing "murder"."

K==>Jack seeks to prevent "REanimation", while the abortion doctors seek to prevent "animation" at all!

Thank you for just admitting the embryo/fetus is NOT animated at the time of an abortion!!!! If a doctor did perform an abortion on viable fetus, that would be murder (unless done to spare the mother).

You're off the mark. I didn't deny the FACTS, I denied the INTERPRETATION. I agree with your facts, but I don't think they ultimately affect the fact that embryos deserve protection.

There is no difference. The cessation of brain-waves mean are used to declare a person dead (much more accurate that heart beat or breathing). I don't see any reason why using the appearance of brain-waves in the fetus as the "benchmark" for declaring the fetus a living person. You can deny the interpretation all you please, the facts speak for themselves

I will assume that you think then that anyone who disconnects a person from life-support after the person is declared brain dead must also be a murderer?

"An embryo (development less than 8 weeks) is less than than an inch long"

Since when are short people less significant? Do you have something against midgets?

Thank you for taking the quote out of the context of the next sentence for no other reason than to try and take a cheap shot (imply that I am arguing for discrimination based on height). Laughable!!!

I was referring to the FACT that the embryo is not physically developed in any kind of way. You have evidence that an inch long 12 week embryo can survive outside the mother?

G==>"and has no functional brain nor is what is there connected to the rest of the DEVELOPING body by a neural network."]b]Note: this is the rest of the phrase attached to the size of the embryo comment that Kyle left out)

K==>Jim has no functioning brain. Besides, I have already argued that "brain tissue" is reletively insignificant compared to the development of a personality, which is an event that takes place well after birth. To my knowledge, you have not answered my argument.

I have NEVER made personality development a criterion for personhood, that's your strawman and I-m not required to answer such stupidity.

Yes, but hundreds of years ago, people would make the claim that "there is no brain or body capable of functioning until after the 7th month". Am I to suppose that humans become valuable earlier because of medical advancements?

I NEVER implied that because preemies died unless they were older than 7 months that they weren't valuable. It was a tragedy that the technology was not available to help them. The fact remains that they died and "value" has absolutely NOTHING to do with the fact that they died because of lack of both knowledge and technology.

Suppose they knew enough about fetal development to know when brain-waves kicked in, the preemies would still have died without the technology to support them. Most do today.

I never claimed that they were developmentally equivalent, I claimed that there was no significant factor to cause us to protect the latter and not the former. I realize that a one-year old baby and a one-month year old embryo are quite different.

If they are quite different, then what about them makes a one month embryo AS deserving of personhood as a 6 month fetus capable of surviving outside the womb?

G==>"It's called good effective birth control with abortion as back-up."

K==>But if I am right and life begins at conception, then you are using the equivalent of INFANTICIDE as a "backup" so that you can go on having sex. That doesn't work for me.

Notice the words "IF I am right". You have yet to prove that life (what you really mean is that God gives a soul, which you have no evidence for either a god or a soul), begins at conception.

Just a reminder, your precious God "murders" two-thirds" of all these conceptions, but I keep for getting it you're the Chap with the Zap, then anything you want to do is okay! Yo! God the Cosmic Abortionist!!! If it's okay for God, then why not for me?

[
G==>"Why is it I suspect that you are one of those people who think sex is dirty and must be "punished" with involuntary parenthood?"

K==>The individuals are punishing THEMSELVES by having sex, if they can't deal with the consequences!
Continued next post.....

But they can deal with the "consequences" . Use birth control and use abortion as a solution to the failures. It is very obvious that you are also against the major solution to the abortion question---good birth control. How you do betray your true opinion of sex (denials not withstanding).

The Laughing Man

April 14th 2003, 12:39 AM

Just a reminder, your precious God

Barely restrained contempt noted.

"murders" two-thirds" of all these conceptions,

By this line of "reasoning," God "murders" 100% of all life, since all life eventually dies. But let's lay that aside for now.

but I keep for getting it you're the Chap with the Zap, then anything you want to do is okay! Yo! God the Cosmic Abortionist!!!

God is the creator of all life. He is sovereign over life. It is not wrong or evil for Him to take life if He so chooses, but rest assured that what He chooses is not based on misconceptions, half-truths or lies. His choices are perfectly compassionate, merciful, just, righteous, good, holy, knowledgable, and much, much more.

If it's okay for God, then why not for me?

Are you God? Are you sovereign over life? Did you create all life?

The only way it WILL acquire this function is to continue to parasitize the mother who has every right to defend herself against this unwanted iinterloper.

More horse manure. The relationship between mother and child is NOT parasitical. Try using some real science instead of anti-life rhetoric for once. Also, if a woman does not want even the risk of having a child, the easiest, simplest, most effective (100%, amazingly enough) method of preventing pregnancy is abstinence. And promoting abstinence isn't about "controlling women's bodies." It's about teaching women and men self-control as well as responsibility for their choices - two things that anti-life leftists hate.

Kyle

April 14th 2003, 01:24 AM

Unfortunately, I find the need to respond to your posts even though it is so late because there are some important things that must be addressed.

"Why is it ridiculous? You merely claim it it so without giving any reason. You are comparing apples (Jim already here) to an embryo that is demonstrably NOT on the same level as Jim because"

What are you talking about? You claim that my "assertion" is unsupported, even though I spend the next few paragraphs detailing WHY the cases ARE similar. You just repeat yourself.

"How does a fertilized egg/embryo compare to Jim?"

1. Neither have higher brain function.
2. Both have all of the information necessary to become a fully-functioning human being.
3. Both are human beings, though they are in different stages of development.

"You are comparing apples and oranges. Jim is not a potential person, he is a PERSON"

Same with the embryo. The embryo has all of the instructions for, and is already in the process of, developing into a fully-functioning human being.

"He may be injured, but according to your scenario, he is guaranteed that he will survive with the new treatment, so there is no question of him being declared "dead'" in spite of the fact that at one point his brain appears to functioning."

The question is not whether or not he is declared dead, as no doctor would diagnose that. The question is whether or not he features higher brain function. If he features no higher brain function then, according to your arguments, he is not protected because neither is an embryo.

"Oh, contraire! The criteria for considering the fetus to be a person are the appearance of bona fida brain waves and a body developed enough to live outside the mother. In this case, both occur after 22 weeks."

"Bona fide" brain waves, which I presume you mean higher brain function, does not preside in Jim. Besides, what is so special about brain tissue or "brain waves"? Rats have "brain waves" too, does that make them humans? No. So, it must be concluded that "brain waves" are insufficient by themselves to define when an embryo deserves protection.

And you say that a "body developed enough to live outside the mother" is another criteria. However, any embryo or fetus at any age could theoretically live outside the mother, it would just need an artificial grounds for growth and development. So, I suppose that life DOES begin at conception!

I WROTE: "On top of this, the author begs the question by saying that Jim is already "accepted" as a person!"

YOU REPLIED: "How does it beg the question to claim that Jim is a person? Again you make a claim that is unsuppported. Do you have an argument against Jim's personhood?"

It begs the question because you say that Jim deserves protection because it is "agreed" that he is a human being. Duh! That's my whole point- everbody knows Jim is a human being deserving of protection EVEN THOUGH he has no higher brain function. That INSTANTLY eliminates "higher brain function" as a satisfactory criteria in which to determine when a fetus deserves protection.

I WROTE: "Of course he's "accepted as a person". The question is why! If I "accept" that pigs are humans, does that make me right?"

YOU REPLIED: "I don't see anyone making the claim that pigs are human. if you do, then you must prove it. I would be under no obligation to disprove your claims.
We were discussing the personhood of a fetus, not your red herring scenario about "pigs being human". The only joke here is your argument because it has no bearing on either Jim's personhood or the personhood of the fetus."

The joke's still on you, because you failed to grasp my point. My point is that any random criteria can be pulled out of thin air to claim "Now THAT is the reason the fetus is human". However, you must prove that the distinction you make is MEANINGFUL. If I say pigs are humans because they have higher brain function, that proves nothing. You have to show that your criteria are meaningful.

The question is, "Why do you accept that Jim is a person, even though he has no higher brain function"?

So far, you have tried to answer this question, but all of your distinctions have been meaningless. For example, the "use of resources" criteria is useless, as I argue in a few posts previous. Basically, I showed that all the distinctions you made between Jim and the fetus were useless and therefore Jim and the embryo are in the same boat.

"In addition these attributes are not essential to physical life and are always acquired AFTER birth (premature or normal), so your argument fails."

Au Contraire, my argument is successful precisely BECAUSE those things occur after birth. However, you have not argued for "physical life", because even you cannot deny that an embryo has "physical life" in that it is a living being. However, your neccessitation of higher brain function is useless without personality. Since personality doesn't develop until AFTER birth, your arguments could lead to justify infanticide.

"These attributes make it possible to live in a group and are ALWAYs aquired post-partum, BUT you absolutely need a functional brain to absorb and form these attributes"

Yeah, and you "absolutely need" a combined sperm and egg cell (embryo) in order to DEVELOP that brain! You can't use the potential argument when you want to and throw it away when it doesn't serve your purposes.

I WROTE: "Just like the embryo WILL attain higher brain function, so will the fetus [currently] in the 8th month EVENTUALLY attain personality and self-concept, etc. But, as YOU have argued previously, the "potential" or "development" of such things does not determine protection NOW."

YOU REPLIED: "Actually I NEVER said that, this is your ramble."

I know, the context for the statement is provided in the other discussion with AtheistArchon. Sorry you misinterpreted.

"No I have never argued for personality developement as a criterion for personhood. That is a strawman of your own creation and I challenge you to quote me where I EVER made such a claim."

Sorry, you misunderstood. The wider context for that is found in my discussion with Archon.

However, since you have argued that "brainwaves" are so essential for the fetus to be considered a human being, you must explain why that is so important. What makes "brainwaves" so special anyhow? Rats have brainwaves you know.

Sincerely,

Kyle.

gladiatrix

April 14th 2003, 01:28 AM

Today @ 01:16 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=65441#post65441)
InquisitorKind:

I'm sorry. I didn't realize that I was trying to prove that the fetus was person when I started this thread.

You may not have started the thread for that, but your position is obviously that a fetus is a person.

Now, why is the burden of proof on me?

It is you who thinks the fetus is a person. It is not my place to have to try and prove the negative case (a fetus is not a person).

However, I have never maintained that a fetus would not reach a point where it had developed to the extent that made it recognizable by law as a person. My criteria are: The presence of brain waves (brain-birth). Justification:if a person can be declared dead (the "person" no longer exists to be protected by law), then use the appearance of brain-waves as a signal that a "person" exists Sufficient bodily development to support the brain Fortunately, both occur at the same time 22-24 weeks.
Your only answer to this is just to say that you don't give any BELIEVE in these criteria. Now that is not any kind of argument against them. All you are doing is just waving your hands and ignoring these biological facts

That is true. I have only engaged the evidence you have provided, which, so far, has not stacked up.

I am only using your evidence to determine if it really proves that the fetus is not a person

And your scientific arguments for dismissing my biological criteria ARE????

It's interesting that you are a manifesting the signs of a control freak as well, feeling that women have the right to impose their views over the life-and-death of the fetus.

You haven't presented any argument as to why she shouldn't have the right to terminate a fetus up to a certain point. YOur evidence that a fetus is a person is????

It's using her body, her rules. But then I keep forgetting your disregard for the woman, her only real value is her uterus.

If she waits too long (after 22-24 wks) then I would say that she had no more choice because the pregnancy has advance to a point where a person is present.

Exactly. So why did you recommend I stop caring about the fetus and start helping out the poor?

If you are really so concerned for "life" why not help the "life" that is already alive and kicking? The fact that those who are dying for lack of care, don't seem to concern you. Your main concern seems to be in seeing to it that there will be more and more people born into a world that can't support them. I guess I just expect you to put your actions where your mouth is.

Anyway, I still do not accept the premise that brainwaves are the indication of life. If you can point me to where I accepted this position, please let me know. Until then, I have no idea why you keep bringing it up.

Your "non-acceptance" of my criterion does NOT invalidate it as a criterion. I repeat, your scientific reasons for reject the brain-wave/development arguments are?????

I don't understand. I was the one who showed you that a baby cannot function without the mother--a caretaker--and how it defeats your arguement that personhood does not occur until then. Also, what is wrong with denying something I have denied from the beginning?

You are equating a baby that is NOT feeding directly off the mother to a fetus that must hijack her body to live. The two situations ARE NOT the same.

An independent caretaker that can walk out at any time. There is also NO argument about the baby being a person.

The above is not the same thing as a woman carrying an unwanted pregnancy, where the personhood of the fetus is most definitely in dispute. Your attempt at equivocation has failed.

Why have you decided for me that my view is that brainwaves determine if life exists? I never stated this.

I never assumed that you accepted the brain-wave/development argument . All you have done is just say that you don't accept it WITHOUT giving any scientific reasons for doing so.

Since you merely assert that the heart beat is not a sign of life, I will merely assert, again, that it is. Do you have hard evidence that an unsupported heart-beat is not the start of life?

Define what you mean by "life"? I thought this was an argument about PERSONHOOD.... Are you talking about biological life, spiritual life, what?
All cells are BIOLOGICALLY alive in that they meet the 7 criteria biologists associate with life: presence of carbon-All living things contain carbon. With few exceptions, carbon is found exclusively (http://www.emc.maricopa.edu/faculty/farabee/BIOBK/BioBookCHEM2.html) in association with living things.
organization & complexity-All living things exhibit remarkable organization in their body plans and when compared to non-living things are extremely complex. metabolism-All living things absorb, convert, store, use and release energy in a variety of complex chemical reactions. homeostasis-Living organisms regulate metabolic processes to maintain a "steady state". response to stimuli-Living things respond to a variety of stimuli (Ex. temperature, moisture, concentration of chemicals, llight, scent, etc.) growth-An organism continues to increase in size (even bacteria do this) til maturity is reached. reproduction-Living organisms produce generations of like organisms. This is what scientists mean when they say something is "alive", so Is a fertilized egg "alive"?===>Yes Is a zygote(3-10 day old pre-implantation) "alive"?===>Yes Is an embryo (before 8 wks., post-implantation) "alive"?===>Yes Is a fetus[older than 8 wks] "alive"?===>Yes The real question is not is a conception/zygote/embryo/fetus "alive" and "human'", but when is it a human BEING or a "PERSON". There is no "person" there until there is sufficient development ot support the "personhood".
So no, the heartbeat is not the start of biological life. However, I find anti-choicers don't really mean biologically alive (do you commit "murder" if you stay out too long in the sun and kill skin cells). They usually mean something nebulous like there is a "soul" present.

Since this is an argument over PERSONHOOD, I await your scientific arguments that support the notion that[ a heart-beat is a sign of "personhood" as opposed to simple biochemical life.

his brings up a profound question that I would like you to answer. If the fetus is not a human being, what is it?

It is a POTENTIAL human being, but no it is NOT a PERSON until it has developed beyond a certain point. Your arguments in counter this this are???

A penguin?
???? And the relevance of this is?????

Because it has a heart, and responds to touch. You cannot seperate the two. Provide me with a case where an organism is not only has a beating heart and respondes to touch, but is not considered that which it is to become.
Notice the operative FUTURE tense==>"is to BECOME". It won't BECOME a person until it is sufficiently developed to support that personhood and will only do so at considerable expense to the woman (something you totally disregard)

Once again, it is your burden to show that a heartbeat and response to touch are sufficient criteria for declaring the embryo/fetus a person. You claim it you prove it.

~~~~~By your criteria, we should declare all ammmalian embryos to be "persons" (a beating heart, reflexive response to touch) How is this an indication of personhood in HUMANS specifically?~~~~~~

For what are those blueprints for? Are the not the blueprints for a human being?

A potential human being is not an ACTUAL human being... Is a blueprint a house?

Interesting. Why are you now comparing human beings to oak trees? I thought we were discussing a fetus.

It is an analogy used to demonstrate the importance of development as a criteria for determining status. An acorn (embryonic tree) is not an oak tree. By the same token an human embryo is NOT equivalent to a human being.

I'm sorry, this is a non-sequitor. The human fetus develops without the aid of scientific means, as I'm sure you are aware.
So if I cloned your twin from an epithelia cell you wouldn't consider it to be a human being nor your twin brother (just a lot younger)? The cloned egg would still have to grow inside a woman, no different from any other pregnancy except there was no sex involved (that's the real problem for the vast majority of anti-choicers---doing the "nasty", got to punish people for doing the nasty)

Tell me, do you also disapprove of in vitro fertilization and implantation? These are also scientifically "assisted" births? Since when does the fact that science can provide different paths to the same outcome an argument against personhood?

My potential selves being killed are not murders because killing them is not killing me--I am still alive. In abortion, all of the person potential is destroyed.

But all those potential genetic blueprints (in your appendix cells) are being "killed". So now you change your tune about the "blueprint argument"? You can't have it both ways. The fact remains, I could clone your twin using the blueprint in virtually any cell from your body. A blueprint is a blueprint.

Bartholomew

April 14th 2003, 01:53 AM

Today @ 01:28 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=65789#post65789)
gladiatrix:

You may not have started the thread for that, but your position is obviously that a fetus is a person.

And instead of discussing whether or not that question is the root of the debate, you decide to debate whether or not the fetus is a person.

It is you who thinks the fetus is a person. It is not my place to have to try and prove the negative case (a fetus is not a person).

Okay.

However, I have never maintained that a fetus would not reach a point where it had developed to the extent that made it recognizable by law as a person. My criteria are: The presence of brain waves (brain-birth). Justification:if a person can be declared dead (the "person" no longer exists to be protected by law), then use the appearance of brain-waves as a signal that a "person" exists Sufficient bodily development to support the brain Fortunately, both occur at the same time 22-24 weeks.
Your only answer to this is just to say that you don't give any BELIEVE in these criteria. Now that is not any kind of argument against them. All you are doing is just waving your hands and ignoring these biological facts

I wonder if you are even listening.

The time for me to ask questions is over.

And your scientific arguments for dismissing my biological criteria ARE????

Quite simple:

1. Brainwaves do not prove that a human being is a human. Animals have brainwaves. Also, this line of reasoning would never hold up in court.

2. The rest of your claims fall with #1.

It is a POTENTIAL human being, but no it is NOT a PERSON until it has developed beyond a certain point. Your arguments in counter this this are???

A potential human being is something! I cannot just be called "potential." What is it? Every potential X is an actual Y. Do you follow this logic?

A potential human being is not an ACTUAL human being... Is a blueprint a house?

No. DNA is not a blueprint. If you take the DNA of a human and try to produce a human from it, it will not be created. Why? Because the DNA is not a blueprint, but a tool by which the body is built.

If the fetus is not a person, what is it?

It is an analogy used to demonstrate the importance of development as a criteria for determining status. An acorn (embryonic tree) is not an oak tree. By the same token an human embryo is NOT equivalent to a human being.

Okay, let us accept your definition. What then is a fetus? Remember, a potential X is an actual Y.

Since X = human, Y = ?

But all those potential genetic blueprints (in your appendix cells) are being "killed". So now you change your tune about the "blueprint argument"? You can't have it both ways. The fact remains, I could clone your twin using the blueprint in virtually any cell from your body. A blueprint is a blueprint.

Correct. I will have it one way. And the fact is NOT that you could clone my twin from any cell in my body. DNA is not a blueprint.

Do you find it odd that all the cells in my body have the same DNA, yet manage to become different cells with many different functions? Do blueprints for a house change the type of house that is created? No. As such, DNA is not a blueprint.

Yes, I have changed my stance. I'm sure you can deal with it.

~Matt

gladiatrix

April 14th 2003, 01:56 AM

Today @ 12:48 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=65421#post65421)
Kyle:

"I must have missed it...your elevation to the post "One-True-Judge™" on how to live one's life..... In other words, who are you to dictate to others how to live or conduct themselves."

Ha, so I guess you don't have the right to judge others who kill and rape and plunder, eh? The thing is, I'm trying to show that abortion is killing. If I'm right, then people who have sex DO have a tremendous responsibility.

You haven't demonstrated that abortion is "killing" (deliberate murder)

Actually, I acknowledge that humans are sexual animals. I'm a 16 year-old male- you don't think I realize this? However, I am still a human being and I CAN refuse to have sex if I want to.

Sound more like you are 'getting any" so you don't want any one else to either.

Personally, I would never have sex with somebody that I knew I wouldn't be able to (emotionally or financially) have a baby with as a potential consequence.

Far be it from me to discourage you.

And for the record, I don't think sex is "dirty". Rather, it is a natural activity. But it has consequences.

"Consequences" the conservative right's double-speak for PUNISHMENT. There will only be "consequences' IF the woman doesn't act to prevent them in the first place (birth control) or correct them in the second (abortion for failed BC). If she wants to put her body through the abuse of a pregnancy and risk death (23 time more likely a result than from an abortion), fine with me.

And it's not the babies fault that the woman had sex! The only time the women DIDN"T choose is in the case of rape. Even in that circumstance, however, it is not the unborn child's fault that his father is a rapist.
Spoken like another anti-choicer who wnats to see a woman suffer through the rape for nine more months.

Having sex is NOT an automatic assent fo becoming pregnant, considering that there are ways to prevent it and undo it. Too bad you just want to see her suffer "consequences".

Sure, sometimes maintaining life is an inconvenience. However, that's just the way it is. Just because maintaining life is difficult doesn't mean we should just kill it,
Inconvenient??? Much more than just inconvenient. It drags the woman down physically every single time. She risks kidney failure, heart failure, lethal high blood pressure and death. Before a woman could control the number of times she became pregnant and sanitary prenatal/post-natal care was available, pregnancy was THE LEADINg CAUSE of death for women. But leave it to an anti-choicer to dismiss the threat to her life and health as just a "consequence' (read punishment for sex).

like poor old Jim.
No, NOT like Jim over whom there is no dispute about his personhood.

You keep insinuating that I have this hatred or disrespect for women. I have no such thing. I respect both the unborn child AND the mother. I realize that there may be "emotional" problems with having a baby, but there are also "emotional" problems with abortion sometimes.

There is more to it that "emotional" damage. But leave it to a MALE to totally dismiss the physical and psychological threats to a woman's health, especially from the vantage point of total safety.

It's sooooo EASY to be sooo RIGHTEOUS when you're soooo SAFE

Next thing you know, we will be killing off old people because we think they are useless.
Old people are still PEOPLE and I don't know of anyone who advocates the above. You have just committed a "slippery slope" fallacy. What does abortion and birth control have to do with "killling old people"?

The problem with most of your pro-abortion arguments are that they logically lead to either infanticide or euthanasia or both!

The only places where infanticide is common are places that restrict birth control and abortion. Aquinas once complained that 'you couldn't take a piss in the Catacombs without stepping on dead, abandonded babies" . Since he was of the same strip as you (no birth control, abortion) he really only had himself to blame for the "sanitation".

And your "logical connection' of abortion to infanticide, euthanasia is ??? Your claim of a connect does not a connnection make......

Eyeheart Pumpkin

April 14th 2003, 02:24 AM

Just a few of my own thoughts on the matter:

Brainwaves as a prerequisite for personhood. As Gladiatrix pointed out in her initial post, intermittent brainwaves resembling those of a newborn don't appear until about the 26th week. If the brainwave pattern is sufficient to determine "personhood," then the article does address the personhood of a first trimester fetus, which is the period during which the vast majority of abortions are done, although Inquisitor is right that it doesn't address the personhood of a fetus overall (assuming a measure of all times prenatal).

Thinking and feeling: This is not sufficient to determine personhood, unless you want to extend "personhood" to other members of the animal kingdom that are capable of thought and feeling.

Self-awareness: This is often given as a prerequisite for humanity or personhood. This is a measurement of sentience and the essential ability to think in the first person, to realize the importance of self apart from others. Obviously, this requires some very certain higher brain functions that clearly are not present in an early-term fetus. But that doesn't mean that those who insist self-awareness is a required ingredient for personhood are necessarily correct. I don't know, and I doubt anyone does. Also, to address a question that has been raised a number of times: what about when people are sleeping or comatose? When people speak of self-awareness, they are referring to the capacity for self-awareness barring extenuating circumstances, a developmental capacity, not necessarily a real-time capacity.

Soul: is it really possible to nail down just what the soul is and whether or not it exists as something more than just the sentient or intellectual facet of brain function synonymous with "mind?"

Somehow, I rather doubt that any of these questions will be answered in our lifetime.

Kyle

April 14th 2003, 02:46 AM

"I NEVER made claim that being born was a requirement of personhood and was pointing out to YOU that Jim was born and there was NO argument that he was a person."

Yes, but by claiming that Jim counts as a person because he was "already born" you are, whether you realize it or not, claiming that being born is an important and/or deciding factor in whether or not the fetus is a human being. I realize that Jim was born. And I also realize that there is no argument that he is not a person. The one thing I DON'T realize, however, is why you are not using your brain function argument consistently and coming to the conclusion that Jim does not deserve protection in the same way that an embryo does not.

"The question becomes is he "dead" or not."

No, the question becomes, "is he currently, in a state of no brain function, deserving of protection as a human being"?

"Again I NEVER said Jim was to be VALUED because of the "investments" he represented. I was pointing out to you that he was so invested WITHOUT making any value judgement about it. This charge that I made such a claim is a strawman representation of what I really said,"

Well, either you think "investments of resources" is a valid criteria or you don't. If it is an invalid criteria for establishing that Jim is human life, then you should not mention it. You seem to admit that it is not a valid criteria. So what the heck were you trying to prove?

I WROTE: "Are young people less "valuable" because they haven't used as many resources?Are old people without any family less deserving of protection because they have no kinship? You have to be consistent, you know."

YOU RESPONDED: "No, never said or implied that"

Actually, you did imply it. By claiming that Jim's use of resources in the world were a distinctive difference of apparent importance between he and an embryo, you were claiming that the use of resources is a valid criterion for determining whether or not someone is a person.

"The embryo WILL have brain function but before the 22-24 the week, it doesn't."

Yes, and Jim "doesn't have brain function" perhaps for about 24 weeks. What the heck is the difference, other than that the baby supposedly "paritisizes the mother", which is your next "argument".

"The only way it WILL acquire this function is to continue to parasitize the mother who has every right to defend herself against this unwanted iinterloper."

Well, in most cases the "unwanted interloper" is the result of having sex, which is a process DESIGNED for making babies. Besides, since the embryo is a human being, it deserves protection even if it does need somebody else to survive. And the embryo does not have any other choice but to stay in the mother's womb. On top of this, protection by the mother is STILL needed after the pregnancy.

You may respond that the woman that has the baby is not the SOLE person that can help the child after birth. But what if the child and the mother were trapped on an island, and the baby STILL needs the mother as the only POSSIBLE source of food. However, the mother tires of this "unwanted interloper", and decides to kill it. Is that right?

Plus, you seem to be an advocate of "pre-higher brain function" abortion only. In other words, at a certain time in the womb you believe that the fetus suddenly becomes a human being deserving of protection. But even a nine month old baby is "paratisizing" the mother, who by now may grow tired of the "unwanted interloper".

Your Bush analogy is interesting. Of course, you bring up that I "might die" which is an obfuscation because I've already said that threat of the mother's life is reason for (the option of) abortion.

However, your analogy is insufficient because I have not necessarily agreed to take on Mr. Bush. This is unlike the situation with birth, which is the result of sex. The mother makes a conscious decision to have sex despite the fact that she is aware of the potential consequences.

The exception to this, of course, is rape. However, a rape situation would be similar to, let's say, somebody connecting myself and Mr. Bush without me being able to do anything about it and without Mr. Bush's approval. In this case, I think it would only be considered moral to take on Mr. Bush despite the difficulties, unless he is a threat to my life, upon which point it is my decision whether or not to end the relationship (sounds kinda gay, doesn't it? :eek: )

"The operative verb here is WILL, until the embryo does, acquire said brain function, it is not a person."

Yes, but listen closely: JIM DOES NOT HAVE SAID BRAIN FUNCTION. So, why do you give a rip about him? You still think Jim is a person without brain function, but you think an embryo is a person because it DOESN"T have that same brain function? :hrm: Obviously, there are some unlaid out premises involved here.

"You claim the embryo is a person and by every rule of logic and argument, the burden of proof is yours."

I have already stated my reason. An embryo is a person because it has the information and is already in the process of developing into a fully-functioning human being. Therefore, the embryo is merely in a different developmental stage than you or I.

"Kyle, over 94% pf all abortions occur before the 12th week, and there is no brain to suck (the usual appeal to emotion when the facts don't work for you)."

What appeal to emotion? Do I sense a bit of paranoia?

Actually, all three methods I mentioned ARE used at least occasionally. Why does it bother you that I mention them? Perhaps it is you with the emotional difficulty. And, I'll have you know, brain-sucking DOES occur sometimes in abortions- it's called partial-birth abortion my friend..

"But according to your scenario, Jim will recover, it's just a matter of apply the treatment."

Yeah, and the embryo will "recover" from it's state of being an embryo, as long as it is in the correct environment. I fail to see the difference.

"No doctor in his/her right mind would declare a patient dead if there is such a good chance for him/her to recover."

Of course the doctor didn't declare Jim dead. The point is that he is still a human even though he has no meaningful brain function. Therefore, brain function is not, by itself, a valid criteria for determining the point at which a person deserves protection.

Continued next post......

Kyle

April 14th 2003, 02:47 AM

"So now you want to change your story now that I have pointed out the obvious flaw (Jim's guarantee of recovery)."

Wrong! I changed the scenario because you said 100% certainty was "impossible". Actually, if 100% certainty IS guaranteed, that affects nothing. The point is still that he does not currently have higher brain function while in the comatose state.

"Thank you for just admitting the embryo/fetus is NOT animated at the time of an abortion!!!! If a doctor did perform an abortion on viable fetus, that would be murder (unless done to spare the mother)."

No problem. I have no difficulty admitting to the facts, especially since they support my case. After all, "animation" is not a valid criteria of life, is it?

"There is no difference. The cessation of brain-waves mean are used to declare a person dead (much more accurate that heart beat or breathing). I don't see any reason why using the appearance of brain-waves in the fetus as the "benchmark" for declaring the fetus a living person. You can deny the interpretation all you please, the facts speak for themselves"

Wrong again. Facts have to be interpreted. As it is, my interpretation fares better than yours.

The problem with using brain-waves in the fetus as the determining criteria are as follows:

1. That leaves Jim in a tough spot.
2. The acquisition of "brain-waves" are pretty much useless for becoming a person, unless the brain is used to develop a personality, self-concept, etc.- all of which come LATER.
3. The acquisition of brain-waves are not, by themselves, sufficient criteria, because dogs and grizzly bears have brain waves, yet we don't consider them human beings.

"I will assume that you think then that anyone who disconnects a person from life-support after the person is declared brain dead must also be a murderer?"

Nope, not in my opinion.

"Thank you for taking the quote out of the context of the next sentence for no other reason than to try and take a cheap shot (imply that I am arguing for discrimination based on height). Laughable!!!"

Actually, the most hilarious thing of all is you apparently failed to notice my :brow: icon, indcating that I was JOKING. You need to lighten up a bit, bud. Have a banana. :yipee:

"I was referring to the FACT that the embryo is not physically developed in any kind of way. You have evidence that an inch long 12 week embryo can survive outside the mother?"

No, but a 12 week old embryo could probably survive if put into the correct conditions for it's continued growth and development. However, I will take this time to summarize the flaws in your "viability" argument:

1. Viability is based on the technology available. For example, one hundred years ago the viability age would be much higher. It is silly to propose that the protection of a fetus is determined by the medical technology of the time or place (what about a fetus in under-developed Sudan, is it less valuable than one in America because there is no way for the one in Sudan to be "viable" at the same time as the American one?)
2. Viability does not end after pregnancy. There are situations imaginable in which the mother is the ONLY possible hope for the child, and that does not mean that the mother has the right to kill the child.
3. Viability does not occur even in the very very late stages of pregnancy. According to the viability criteria, you could chop off the babies head as it pops out of the mother and still be within your moral rights.
4. It's possible that in the future fetuses will be viable at any time after conception with advanced incubation techniques.

"I have NEVER made personality development a criterion for personhood, that's your strawman and I-m not required to answer such stupidity."

Once again, you must read the forum from which I copied that from in order to get the full context.

"I NEVER implied that because preemies died unless they were older than 7 months that they weren't valuable."

See my previous refutatioin of your viability criterion in this post.

"Notice the words "IF I am right"."

Yep. I like to be honest. It leads to a more fruitful discussion.

"You have yet to prove that life.......begins at conception."

I have supported my case numerous times. Firstly, I have argued that an embryo deserves protection because it has the information necessary and is in the process of developing into a fully-functional human being. Is this criteria successful? Yes, because it is a meaningful distinction between animals and humans. It is an IMPORTANT difference between humans and non-humans. That is why my criteria works.

Simultaneously, I have offered rebuttals to your proposed criteria for human life, including your two main points which are brain function and viability. Therefore, I have indeed supported my case.

"what you really mean is that God gives a soul, which you have no evidence for either a god or a soul"

Actually, I am debating on this topic without introducing the concept of a soul. However, I take interest in your repeated claim that there is no evidence for God's existence. In fact, the evidence is abundant in the mere existence of the universe. I presume you have read the article I previously linked? Good. Well, then here's another one:

http://kyleoctavio.mysitespace.com/moralitysimple.htm

It's a simple article on the argument from morality.

Here's a simpler form of the cosmo:

http://kyleoctavio.mysitespace.com/cosmologicalsimple.htm

On top of all this, there is evidence for God in the existence of life. How do you think the first cell started? A bit of stuff for you to chew on.

"Just a reminder, your precious God "murders" two-thirds" of all these conceptions"

Not so. Sure, He allows it to happen, but the only reason it does happen is because of Adam and Eve. But I'm sure you know that story. :thumb:

"If it's okay for God, then why not for me?"

Well, for starters, you didn't create life. Secondly, you're not omniscient. Thirdly, you're not omnipotent. Fourthly.......

"Use birth control and use abortion as a solution to the failures."

Yeah, but I have consistently supported my idea that an embryo is a human life, so your "solution" is nothing less than infanticide.

"It is very obvious that you are also against the major solution to the abortion question---good birth control."

Not so. You obviously aren't good at psychologizing your opponents.

"How you do betray your true opinion of sex (denials not withstanding)."

Thanks for calling me a liar and a sex paranoid freak all in one sentence, despite the fact that you know NOTHING about me other than that I am a 16 year-old male. :rofl:

Apparently, I am a sex-paranoid fundamentalist if I frown upon rampant sexual activities with persons you have no intention of even thinking about having a child with, and that you have sex with the express knowledge that you will kill any child that may result from such sexual activities! My, my, aren't I anti-sex! :teeth:

Sincerely, Kyle.

Kyle

April 14th 2003, 03:17 AM

"You haven't demonstrated that abortion is "killing" (deliberate murder)"

Actually, my case has been well-supported and I have refuted all your major points. This would be even easier to see were it not for the countless distractions such as saying that the mother might not "want" the baby or that I don't like sex, which are both COMPLETELY unrelated to the important question of whether or not the embryo is a human being.

I WROTE: "Actually, I acknowledge that humans are sexual animals. I'm a 16 year-old male- you don't think I realize this? However, I am still a human being and I CAN refuse to have sex if I want to."

YOU RESPONDED: "Sound more like you are 'getting any" so you don't want any one else to either."

Despite the fact that this is a blatant ad hominem of zero relevancy, I would like to ask for DeeDee and other moderators to please leave this little gem here for everyone to see! :lol:

There's nothing quite as humorous as seeing your opponent make fun of your sexual prowess (or, in this case, lack thereof). (Of course, you don't know zilch about me, so it's not like you would know anyways).

But Alas, you are right gladiatrix! I am so lonely :frown: Please, oh great gladiatrix, teach me the ways that I may court a young woman for my own! I worship you and your sexual prowess! :bow:

:rofl:

"There will only be "consequences' IF the woman doesn't act to prevent them in the first place (birth control)"

Which there is nothing wrong with.

"or correct them in the second (abortion for failed BC)."

Which is the slaughter of an innocent human being....

"Spoken like another anti-choicer who wnats to see a woman suffer through the rape for nine more months."

Oh so true. But you forgot to mention that my *true* underlining motive is my need to subdue the women because I can't "get any". :rofl:

"Having sex is NOT an automatic assent fo becoming pregnant, considering that there are ways to prevent it and undo it."

Hmmmm. Perhaps so. But the sexual organs are specifically DESIGNED for procreation. Seems a bit risky, don't you think? :doh:

"Too bad you just want to see her suffer "consequences"."

Nope. I want to see the baby grow up to be able to experience life. But don't let my "spin" on the issue distract you from the fact that I'm a sexually deprived and sadistic conservative right wing evil man.

"Inconvenient??? Much more than just inconvenient. It drags the woman down physically every single time. She risks kidney failure, heart failure, lethal high blood pressure and death."

Ok, how about "very inconvenient"? Either way, if the fetus is a human person, this emotional rant does not matter.

"But leave it to an anti-choicer to dismiss the threat to her life and health as just a "consequence' (read punishment for sex)."

I've said about 14 times now that when severe health risks are a concern for the mother, abortion is a viable option.

"No, NOT like Jim over whom there is no dispute about his personhood."

Just like there should be no dispute over the personhood of the embryo, because there is not really any significant difference between Jim and the embryo as I have pointed out multiple times.

"But leave it to a MALE to totally dismiss the physical and psychological threats to a woman's health, especially from the vantage point of total safety."

You think I like this issue? You think I get some sort of kick out of depriving women of the "right to choose" because I'm a sadist? Well, you can think what you want, but I know that I am trying to do the right thing. I DO have a lot of concern for the woman. Your cheap insults are useless.

"It's sooooo EASY to be sooo RIGHTEOUS when you're soooo SAFE"

Actually, I would think the ADVANTAGE of being a woman would be the ability to have an actual child. It must be an amazing experience.

"The only places where infanticide is common are places that restrict birth control and abortion."

Well, those that commit infanticide should either receive the life sentence or the death penalty. I hold no remorse for such sick individuals.

"Aquinas once complained that 'you couldn't take a piss in the Catacombs without stepping on dead, abandonded babies" . Since he was of the same strip as you (no birth control, abortion) he really only had himself to blame for the "sanitation"."

Uh-huh. Well, I don't really think the same social conditions are around as in the time of Aquinas, do you?

"And your "logical connection' of abortion to infanticide, euthanasia is ??? Your claim of a connect does not a connnection make......"

That criteria such as viability and others logically and inescapably lead to such practices.

Kyle

April 14th 2003, 03:25 AM

Hello Eirann. I'll go ahead and respond to your post as well.

"Brainwaves as a prerequisite for personhood. As Gladiatrix pointed out in her initial post, intermittent brainwaves resembling those of a newborn don't appear until about the 26th week."

Yeah, but pigs have brainwaves, and they are not considered persons. What is so special about the criteria of "brainwaves"?

"When people speak of self-awareness, they are referring to the capacity for self-awareness barring extenuating circumstances, a developmental capacity, not necessarily a real-time capacity."

Yes, but this is dangerously similar to the "potential" argument many pro-lifers use and most abortionists despise. If he doesn't have it RIGHT NOW, that's the end of the issue, unless you want to let potential become an important aspect. Once potential becomes a valid argument, pro-lifers basically win by default.

Eyeheart Pumpkin

April 14th 2003, 03:49 AM

Today @ 02:25 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=65903#post65903)
Kyle:

Hello Eirann. I'll go ahead and respond to your post as well.

"Brainwaves as a prerequisite for personhood. As Gladiatrix pointed out in her initial post, intermittent brainwaves resembling those of a newborn don't appear until about the 26th week."

Yeah, but pigs have brainwaves, and they are not considered persons. What is so special about the criteria of "brainwaves"?
I was basically treating it as an "if/then" statement. If brain waves are a prerequisite for personhood, then such a prerequisite cannot be applied to the vast majority of abortions, which occur prior to the first brainwave patterns. I wasn't arguing that it is a necessary prerequisite. Sorry if it seemed I was.

Once potential becomes a valid argument, pro-lifers basically win by default.
I wouldn't say they win by default. They might gain a bit of ground, but there are still a whole lot of questions left to be answered before any position could be declared the winner in the ongoing battle. Essentially, the potentiality factor would only be a contingency describing when a specific argument can be applied, but only after that argument is proven valid in the first place ... and that is the crux of the problem for both sides.

Bartholomew

April 14th 2003, 09:02 AM

Today @ 02:24 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=65859#post65859)
Eireann:

Just a few of my own thoughts on the matter:

Brainwaves as a prerequisite for personhood. As Gladiatrix pointed out in her initial post, intermittent brainwaves resembling those of a newborn don't appear until about the 26th week. If the brainwave pattern is sufficient to determine "personhood," then the article does address the personhood of a first trimester fetus, which is the period during which the vast majority of abortions are done, although Inquisitor is right that it doesn't address the personhood of a fetus overall (assuming a measure of all times prenatal).

I'm still doubtful of brainwaves. If a man kills a brain-dead human being kept alive on life-support, will he not be tried for murder?

Thinking and feeling: This is not sufficient to determine personhood, unless you want to extend "personhood" to other members of the animal kingdom that are capable of thought and feeling.

Perhaps a better word would be "consciousness."

Self-awareness: This is often given as a prerequisite for humanity or personhood. This is a measurement of sentience and the essential ability to think in the first person, to realize the importance of self apart from others. Obviously, this requires some very certain higher brain functions that clearly are not present in an early-term fetus. But that doesn't mean that those who insist self-awareness is a required ingredient for personhood are necessarily correct. I don't know, and I doubt anyone does. Also, to address a question that has been raised a number of times: what about when people are sleeping or comatose? When people speak of self-awareness, they are referring to the capacity for self-awareness barring extenuating circumstances, a developmental capacity, not necessarily a real-time capacity.

Self-awareness is dangerous if it is the only condition for personhood, simply because infantacide becomes a viable option.

Soul: is it really possible to nail down just what the soul is and whether or not it exists as something more than just the sentient or intellectual facet of brain function synonymous with "mind?"

Soul is a rather metaphysical argument for the fetus, but it is not impossible to approach, even for non-religious persons. (If you are interested, please ask.)

The ultimate question that will allow pro-lifers some ground is the answering of the question: what is the fetus? If it's a potential person, it must be an actual something. But what is that actual something? If it is a piece of flesh, does that mean the mother then has four feet when the fetus develops feet...? Does the mother have a second set of sexual organs when they develop in the fetus...?

The question continues ad absurdum.

Somehow, I rather doubt that any of these questions will be answered in our lifetime.

Yes, sometimes I feel that way too,
~Matt

gladiatrix

April 14th 2003, 03:52 PM

Today @ 07:46 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=65878#post65878)
Kyle:
[quote]Yes, but by claiming that Jim counts as a person because he was "already born. you are, whether you realize it or not, claiming that being born is an important and/or deciding factor in whether or not the fetus is a human being.
~~~~Show me the exact quote where I stated that Jim's personhood was a dependent on his being born. ~~~~~

I realize that Jim was born. And I also realize that there is no argument that he is not a person.
Well finally something we agree on.

The one thing I DON'T realize, however, is why you are not using your brain function argument consistently and coming to the conclusion that Jim does not deserve protection in the same way that an embryo does not.

According to your scenario, Jim is not declared 'dead" because there is a "cure" for his condition. The fact that he has no brainwaves at one point is irrelevant because you claim a cure is at hand (why he wasn't declared dead). It's your scenario, you have to live with the conditions you set.

G==>"The question becomes is he "dead" or not."

K==>No, the question becomes, "is he currently, in a state of no brain function, deserving of protection as a human being"?

No, because you have stated that he can be cured. Jim is in absolutely no danger of having his "personhood" called into question precisely because there is a cure for his condition. Let's assume the cure fails. He would be declared dead, NOT declared a NON-person.

Suppose there were no cure, Jim would be declared "dead". Death does not erase personhood. Jim is just a dead person, not a "non-person"

G==>"Again I NEVER said Jim was to be VALUED because of the "investments" he represented. I was pointing out to you that he was so invested WITHOUT making any value judgement about it. This charge that I made such a claim is a strawman representation of what I really said,"

K==>Well, either you think "investments of resources" is a valid criteria or you don't. If it is an invalid criteria for establishing that Jim is human life, then you should not mention it. You seem to admit that it is not a valid criteria. So what the heck were you trying to prove?

Simple, Jim has a "track record" as a person. That record is represented in the form of expended planetary resources and kinship bonds. It is not a criterion for defining "human life" and I never said that it was

KWROTE: "Are young people less "valuable" because they haven't used as many resources?Are old people without any family less deserving of protection because they have no kinship? You have to be consistent, you know."

G RESPONDED: "No, never said or implied that"

K===>Actually, you did imply it. By claiming that Jim's use of resources in the world were a distinctive difference of apparent importance between he and an embryo, you were claiming that the use of resources is a valid criterion for determining whether or not someone is a person.
Show me where I ever said that there was some kind of sliding scale of "value" that accrued to an individual based on their consumption of planetary resources. I won't be responsible for your continual attempts to attribute things to me I never said.

G===>"The embryo WILL have brain function but before the 22-24 the week, it doesn't."

L==>Yes, and Jim "doesn't have brain function" perhaps for about 24 weeks. What the heck is the difference, other than that the baby supposedly "paritisizes the mother", which is your next "argument".

1. The OP was a discussion the the personhood of the fetus.

2. You admitted that there was NO argument over the personhood of Jim at the beginning of this post.

3. If Jim were without brain function for even longer (boy your scenario, it just keeps a'changing) his personhood is NEVER in question.

4. He is either a live person or a dead person. Jim is still considered a "live" person because a cure is possible. If the cure doesn't work he is a dead PERSON not a dead NON-PERSON.

"The only way it WILL acquire this function is to continue to parasitize the mother who has every right to defend herself against this unwanted iinterloper."

Well, in most cases the "unwanted interloper" is the result of having sex, which is a process DESIGNED for making babies. It is also designed for pleasure with a baby as a POSSIBLE outcome, NOT the ONLY outcome.

A woman who has sex is NOT consenting to pregnancy, just to sex.

For instance if I cross a busy street, one possible outcome it being hit by a car. If I decide to cross the road doe that also mean that I automatically have "consented' to being struck by said car? Also according to you I have no right to seek medical treatment for injuries I received as the result of deciding to cross the street. I would have to just live with the "consequences" (injuries from being struck by a car, analogous to an unwanted pregnancy) of my decision to cross the road (analogous to the decision to have sex)

Besides, since the embryo is a human being, it deserves protection even if it does need somebody else to survive.
but that is what the argument is about. You are assuming the embryo is a human being and that is what is under discussion. Is the embryo a human being? Where are your arguments supporting that contention?

You may respond that the woman that has the baby is not the SOLE person that can help the child after birth. But what if the child and the mother were trapped on an island, and the baby STILL needs the mother as the only POSSIBLE source of food.
Why don't you ever present a true-to-life scenario. How many women do you know that are abandoned on an island with a baby. Incidentally this is a fully developed infant about whom there is NOT argument that it is a person. The embryo is another story.

However, the mother tires of this "unwanted interloper", and decides to kill it. Is that right?

What if she's on the verge of starvation on this desolate island and decides to kill and eat the baby for nourishment? Why don't you present some real life situation rather than these fantastic "what iffers".

Plus, you seem to be an advocate of "pre-higher brain function" abortion only. In other words, at a certain time in the womb you believe that the fetus suddenly becomes a human being deserving of protection. But even a nine month old baby is "paratisizing" the mother, who by now may grow tired of the "unwanted interloper".
The 9 month baby is a person, no question. If the mother kills him/her then that is murder. I don't see the problem with this one. How does the 9 month baby's situation prove that the embryo is also a human being?

Your Bush analogy is interesting. Of course, you bring up that I "might die" which is an obfuscation because I've already said that threat of the mother's life is reason for (the option of) abortion.

However, your analogy is insufficient because I have not necessarily agreed to take on Mr. Bush. This is unlike the situation with birth, which is the result of sex. The mother makes a conscious decision to have sex despite the fact that she is aware of the potential consequences.

All you are saying is that there is something about having sex that deserves some kind of punishment.

Oh I keep forgetting the "religiously correct" Orwellian Right-Wing Newspeak for punishment===>"consequences"

G==> You still think Jim is a person without brain function,

K==>Yes, but listen closely: JIM DOES NOT HAVE SAID BRAIN FUNCTION. So, why do you give a rip about him? You still think Jim is a person without brain function,

YOU LISTEN CAREFULLY

1. He is a person. You have admitted that there is NOT doubt that he is a person.

2. Not only that he is a person with a good prospect of a cure (according to you).

3. If the cure fails he will become a dead PERSON, not a NON-PERSON.

4. If there were no cure at all he would still be a person, just a dead one.

but you think an embryo is a person because it DOESN"T have that same brain function? :hrm:
I use the brain wave in this case as a bare minimum requirement for assessing personhood as a starting point. Consider it a baseline for determining the beginning of personhood. Let's put it this way.....

Fetus A starts showing brainwaves in the womb: it is now a person (using my criteria). A robber shoots the mother and both die as a result. Fetus A was a person, just like the mother and the robber is guilty of 2 murders, not just one. The fact that both the mother and fetus die (their brain waves cease) does not call into question their personhood. Once granted the status of personhood, there is no such thing as taking it back. (a person can't suddenly become a non-person).

I have already stated my reason. An embryo is a person because it has the information and is already in the process of developing into a fully-functioning human being.
ROFL!!! All you have really said is that an embryo is a person because it's developing into a person. What a beautiful example of a circular argument and you have the gall to pontificate about question begging???

G==>"Kyle, over 94% pf all abortions occur before the 12th week, and there is no brain to suck (the usual appeal to emotion when the facts don't work for you)."

K==>What appeal to emotion? Do I sense a bit of paranoia? I don't have a clue about what you "sense" and could care less. But far be it from me to derail one of your flights of fancy.

Actually, all three methods I mentioned ARE used at least occasionally. Why does it bother you that I mention them?. Perhaps it is you with the emotional difficulty. And, I'll have you know, brain-sucking DOES occur sometimes in abortions- it's called partial-birth abortion (Edited to add abbreviation==> PBA for this procedure) my friend.

1. A so-called PBA occurs in less than 1% of all abortions.

2. Saline abortions are also uncommon(4-5% of all abortions).

3. The VAST MAJORITY don't involve a PBA (your brain sucker) nor use the saline injection method because they occur before the 12th week (94%, no "brain-sucking involved because there's no brain to speak of )

However, your wording implies PBAs and saline are the rule rather than the exception which is a favorite anti-choicer DECEIT (word everything to imply that most abortions are "brain-sucking PBAs"). This deception is employed for no other reason than to inflame peoples emotionally because it certain doesn't represent the true state of affairs.

"But according to your scenario, Jim will recover, it's just a matter of apply the treatment."

Yeah, and the embryo will "recover" from it's state of being an embryo, as long as it is in the correct environment. I fail to see the difference.
I remind you that the argument is over whether or not the fetus is a person. Jim is a person and you have admited that there is no question of it. A false analogy.

"No doctor in his/her right mind would declare a patient dead if there is such a good chance for him/her to recover."

Of course the doctor didn't declare Jim dead. The point is that he is still a human even though he has no meaningful brain function. Therefore, brain function is not, by itself, a valid criteria for determining the point at which a person deserves protection.

The argument is over the definition of personhood. Jim's was never in doubt, BUT that of the embryo is. Brain waves are just the beginning point for assesing personhood. The embryo doesn't have brainwaves and won't until it's brain is developed. Jim on the other hand has had his brainwaves for quite sometime and once he becomes a person, he doesn't cease to be a person. He just become a dead PERSON.

gladiatrix

April 14th 2003, 03:52 PM

Response to Kyle's Post 34 (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?postid=65879#post65879)

Since you make your only case here in this post, I will not address any of the others UNLESS there is some point you think I have overlooked.......

The problem with using brain-waves in the fetus as the determining criteria are as follows:

1. That leaves Jim in a tough spot.
2. The acquisition of "brain-waves" are pretty much useless for becoming a person, unless the brain is used to develop a personality, self-concept, etc.- all of which come LATER.
So we don't keep going round and round on this. I want to see your scientific support for making the claim in 2.

A brain does not have to have been imprinted with personality, etc. to become functional and I challenge you to cite the scientific literature that claims otherwise. The claim that unless one uses a brain to develope personality is totally irrelevant to the FACT that a brain develops and comes "on-line" at a specific time during embryonic development.

A personality or lack there of, will not hinder or help that development one iota. Your argument in nothing but a red herring and a potentially dangerous one for your case as follows......

Consider this. I have not made personality, memory, and self-concept criteria for personhood but you have with the above argument. If that is the case, then people whose only functional part of the brain is the brain stem (the primitive area of the brain that regulates bodily functions) would be considered NON-PERSONS by YOUR CRITERIA. Such people often need assistance of breathing machines because brain stem function alone is NOT sufficient to keep the breathing going. Would you consider turning the machines OFF because according to YOUR criteria, the "pro-lifer", they are NON-PERSONS?

My criteria of brain wave function actually spares their lives, because I don't add any requirement that they "use" their brain (acquiring memories, developing a self-concept, and personality are all life-long tasks).

Also consider the case of the anencephalic fetus (http://www.anencephaly.net) ( "a congenital absence of the brain and cranial vault, with the cerebral hemispheres completely missing or greatly reduced in size"). Because the cerebral hemispheres are either absent or small, there is no possiblity of there ever being a 'personality or self concept". If born alive, they die shortly after birth because the brain stem (all they really have) eventually fails, sometimes within hours. According to your criteria, they are NON-PERSONS and I can assume that you would agree that if the mother aborted such a fetus it wouldn't be murder?

The same holds true for babies born with extreme cases of hydrocephalus (http://www.health.adelaide.edu.au/paed-neuro/hydro.html) (the brain is literally crushed out of existence by being flattened against cranium as fluid accumlated in the brain (not talking about those cases that at treatable with surgery) There is NO possiblity for these infants to ever use their "brain" either. I will assume that you are okay with a mother aborting these NON-PERSONS? Think about it...

3. The acquisition of brain-waves are not, by themselves, sufficient criteria, because dogs and grizzly bears have brain waves, yet we don't consider them human beings.

Where did I every claim that this was the LONE criterion? It is the beginning one. Once they appear, then personhood is assigned WITHOUT any requirement for other things. You would add the additional requirement that they be able to "use" that brain as a requirement.

However, I will take this time to summarize the flaws in your "viability" argument:

1. Viability is based on the technology available. For example, one hundred years ago the viability age would be much higher. It is silly to propose that the protection of a fetus is determined by the medical technology of the time or place (what about a fetus in under-developed Sudan, is it less valuable than one in America because there is no way for the one in Sudan to be "viable" at the same time as the American one?)

Why do you try to equate the nebulous undefined quanity of "value" with viability, which is measureable (one is either alive or dead). "Value" is NOT a criterion for determining viablity. Your body is able to survive or it isn't.

The introduction of the fate of preemies in Sudan is nothing but an appeal to emotion. What has that got to do with technology and viablilty. No one is arguing that the Sudan preemie is "less valuable" and the lack of technology doesn't make it less valuable. I challenge you to show how the lack of technology devalues the preemie in Sudan...

However, I will take this time to summarize the flaws in your "viability" argument:
2. Viability does not end after pregnancy. There are situations imaginable in which the mother is the ONLY possible hope for the child, and that does not mean that the mother has the right to kill the child.
Since when has anyone ever argued that a mother has the right to kill an infant? This is a red herring on your part. This is not only an equivocation fallacy it is yet another an appeal to emotion on your part and has nothing to do with the viability of a FETUS. You are trying to equate the viability of a embryo/fetus whose PERSONHOOD we are trying to establish with that of full-term baby, whose PERSONHOOD is NOT in question (equivocation). You appeal to emotion by raising the spectre of a murderous mother who callously murders a full term infant and trying to claim that aborting a 12 wk fetus is the equivalent of murdering a full infant (the very question we are trying to answer, so you are also guilty of begging the question). Remember that this discussion is one in which the question was asked in a fetus a person.

However, I will take this time to summarize the flaws in your "viability" argument:
3. Viability does not occur even in the very very late stages of pregnancy. According to the viability criteria, you could chop off the babies head as it pops out of the mother and still be within your moral rights.
First, what do you mean by very late stages of pregnancy? 6 months? 7 months? up to 9 months?

Allow me to inform you of the fact that a fetus in considered "viable" after 20 weeks according to the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology. No one in their right mind is just going to "chop off baby heads" at birth (brother, what an inflammatory image, but hey I guess lying for the cause is okay, eh!!!)

However, I will take this time to summarize the flaws in your "viability" argument:
4. It's possible that in the future fetuses will be viable at any time after conception with advanced incubation techniques.

ROFL! one of the lamer arguments. What MIGHT happen in the future is totally irrelevant to the present. If doctors come up with technology that will support an embryo/fetus until it's viable, fine with me. Take it out of the mother and grow up in a jar. The abortion question is solved!!!

This argument does NOTHING to cancel out the fact that a embryo/fetus below that age of 22 weeks can't survive without a huge effort (only 2 % of 23wk preemies survive. 90% have some kind of developmental handicap, with 30% of them being profound handicaps).

BTW, unless one is viable, one is dead, end of story. You "can't leave home " (the womb0 without "it" (viability)!

Simultaneously, I have offered rebuttals to your proposed criteria for human life, including your two main points which are brain function and viability. Therefore, I have indeed supported my case

You have offered rebuttals, but given absolutely NO scientific justification for them. They consist solely of appeals to emotion, circular reasoning, and equivocation.

The Laughing Man

April 14th 2003, 04:01 PM

Obviously, I am not a person, since I am still developing into the person I will be 10 years from now.

:duh:

Lazy Agnostic

April 14th 2003, 04:36 PM

Today @ 04:01 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=66617#post66617)
Jinx72:

Obviously, I am not a person, since I am still developing into the person I will be 10 years from now.

:duh: Do you still reside within your mother's body?

Kyle

April 14th 2003, 05:35 PM

I WROTE: "Yes, but by claiming that Jim counts as a person because he was "already born. you are, whether you realize it or not, claiming that being born is an important and/or deciding factor in whether or not the fetus is a human being."

YOU REPLIED: "Show me the exact quote where I stated that Jim's personhood was a dependent on his being born."

This is becoming a consistent problem in this debate. You don't seem to realize that I am taking YOUR claims, and laying out the direct IMPLICATIONS of those claims. Of course you didn't state that "Jim's personhood was a dependent on his being born". If you HAD stated that, I would have merely quoted it. Rather, I took a comment you DID state ["Jim has already been born, so there is NO argument that he is a person"] This statement directly implies that being born is a deciding factor.

"According to your scenario, Jim is not declared 'dead" because there is a "cure" for his condition. The fact that he has no brainwaves at one point is irrelevant because you claim a cure is at hand (why he wasn't declared dead). It's your scenario, you have to live with the conditions you set."

Do you honestly think that doctors declare embryos "dead"? Of course not! They are definitely living. Just like Jim. And, just like Jim, they should not lose their protection up until the point that they ARE dead.

"Jim is in absolutely no danger of having his "personhood" called into question precisely because there is a cure for his condition."

But if "personhood" is defined as "higher brain function", then Jim is definitely in danger of having his personhood called into question. Therefore, to save Jim, you are going to either have to admit that brain function is not a satisfactory criteria alone or that it is totally irrelevant completely.

"Simple, Jim has a "track record" as a person. That record is represented in the form of expended planetary resources and kinship bonds. It is not a criterion for defining "human life" and I never said that it was"

If, as you admit, Jim's "track record" is not a criterion for defining human life, then why did you bring it up? This becomes a non sequitir, which is what I originally wanted to prove. You have all but admitted it here.

"Show me where I ever said that there was some kind of sliding scale of "value" that accrued to an individual based on their consumption of planetary resources. I won't be responsible for your continual attempts to attribute things to me I never said."

Once again, your argument IMPLIES it, so whether or not you SAID it is immaterial. Not that it really matters anymore, as you have already admitted that this useless "criteria" is a non sequitir.

"You admitted that there was NO argument over the personhood of Jim at the beginning of this post."

Exactly, and for the same reasons that there SHOULDN'T be any argument over the fact that the fetus or embryo has personhood.

"If Jim were without brain function for even longer...his personhood is NEVER in question."

His personhood IS in question if higher brain function is the criteria to ESTABLISH personhood. If you admit that brain function is not a satisfactory criteria, then of course there is no question to his personhood. YOU are the one bringing his personhood into question because of your arbitrary "brain function" criteria.

"A woman who has sex is NOT consenting to pregnancy, just to sex."

I presume that you believe in the theory of evolution, yes? Well, you tell me what the sex organs are there for!

"For instance if I cross a busy street, one possible outcome it being hit by a car. If I decide to cross the road doe that also mean that I automatically have "consented' to being struck by said car?"

False analogy. The street is not made for the express purpose of you getting run over.

A more applicable analogy would be you walking into a street whose EXPRESS PURPOSE was to run you over. At that point, I wouldn't be obliged to feel much pity for you.

"You are assuming the embryo is a human being and that is what is under discussion. Is the embryo a human being? Where are your arguments supporting that contention?"

Once again, I will mention my criteria.

Conception is the criteria for when a human being deserves protection. There are several important distinctive factors that make a fertilized egg a meaningful difference from a seperated sperm and egg cell.

Firstly, the fertilized egg has all of the information necessary to become a fully-functioning human being, complete with a personality and self-concept. This difference is meaningful because it occurs no where else in nature.

Secondly, the fertilized egg is IN THE PROCESS of becoming a fully-functioning human being. With every second that passes, the egg becomes more and more like you or me. This difference is meaninful because it occurs no where else in nature.

Thirdly, the conception criteria is favorable because it does not involve subjective factors such as emergence of brain waves and the acquisition of viability, which are not only different for each individual human being but also most likely unknowable. Conception is one clear-cut point and it leaves no moral or ethical dillemmas.

"Why don't you ever present a true-to-life scenario. How many women do you know that are abandoned on an island with a baby. Incidentally this is a fully developed infant about whom there is NOT argument that it is a person. The embryo is another story."

However, the embryo is only a "different story" because you say so! What actually makes it different? Both the newborn and the fetus NEED the mother in order to survive, and bot are "paratisizing" off the mother (as you so eloquently put it). Therefore, to be logically consistent, you must say either that the mother is justified to kill in both cases or in neither cases, unless you admit that the criteria of "viability" is useless by itself.

"The 9 month baby is a person, no question. If the mother kills him/her then that is murder. I don't see the problem with this one. How does the 9 month baby's situation prove that the embryo is also a human being?"

Sorry, I didn't mean to say 9 month year old BABY, I meant to say 9 month year old FETUS. Here is my argument again, corrected:

"Plus, you seem to be an advocate of "pre-higher brain function" abortion only. In other words, at a certain time in the womb you believe that the fetus suddenly becomes a human being deserving of protection. But even a nine month old fetus is "paratisizing" the mother, who by now may grow tired of the "unwanted interloper"."

Continued......

Captain Ochre

April 14th 2003, 05:45 PM

Today @ 09:36 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=66647#post66647)
Lazy Agnostic:

Do you still reside within your mother's body?

Got to thinking about Fantastic Voyage . . . if the crew of the microsub had been injected into their mother, would that have made them non-persons?

[edit to add]

A few thoughts on the thread overall: There is an issue beyond the personhood of the fetus, and that is the value of human life, period.
The number of Bald eagles in the world is fairly modest. The species is protected, and not just the species--the eggs are protected, too.
Now, the eagle does not have rights protected by the Constitution (Peter Singer, are you here?). The "Choice" advocate should not be comfortable resting on a case involving lack of personhood, afaics.
Sorry to digress somewhat from the mandated "root" topic. Carry on with the battle!
:fight:

Kyle

April 15th 2003, 01:28 PM

"Oh I keep forgetting the "religiously correct" Orwellian Right-Wing Newspeak for punishment===>"consequences"

I haven't brought up religion, but you have brought it up many times. I don't care if you call it punishment, consequences, or tortue. The mother is required to preserve life, in this case the embryo/fetus.

"I use the brain wave in this case as a bare minimum requirement for assessing personhood as a starting point."

Ohhhh, but once a person that has had it at one point loses it, he is still a person? How convenient!

Listen, either brain function is required for human status or it is not. If it IS required, then Jim and the embryo are both in trouble. If it is NOT required, then neither Jim or the embryo are without rights. You can't just say "Brain function is necessary for the embryo but not for Jim". That's just like saying: "The embryo requires brain function for rights because it is an embryo." You're criteria are useless.

I WROTE: "I have already stated my reason. An embryo is a person because it has the information and is already in the process of developing into a fully-functioning human being."

YOU REPLIED: "ROFL!!! All you have really said is that an embryo is a person because it's developing into a person. What a beautiful example of a circular argument and you have the gall to pontificate about question begging???"

Once again, the jokes on you my friend. I said "developing into a FULLY FUNCTIONAL human being. Both you and I can agree that the embryo is not fully-functional, but it still remains true that the embryo is developing into a person just like you or me, and that includes the development of personality and self-concept.

To be continued.......

Butters

April 15th 2003, 01:33 PM

A few thoughts on the thread overall: There is an issue beyond the personhood of the fetus, and that is the value of human life, period.
The number of Bald eagles in the world is fairly modest. The species is protected, and not just the species--the eggs are protected, too.
Now, the eagle does not have rights protected by the Constitution (Peter Singer, are you here?). The "Choice" advocate should not be comfortable resting on a case involving lack of personhood, afaics.
Sorry to digress somewhat from the mandated "root" topic. Carry on with the battle!

But crows are overabundent, and are not protected, nor are their egg's. If rarity is the deciding factor, humans could be shot on sight.

Kyle

April 16th 2003, 05:11 PM

Gladiatrix, you continue to accuse me of using "emotional" arguments, by my mentioning of the various practices of abortion techniques. Apparently, you are under the impression that I was using a "polemical" argument, based on the fact that I mentioned that "brain sucking" and "salt poisining" are methods in which abortions are carried out. I assure you that no attempt at an emotional argument were intended (although it seems to me that a few of your comments have been slightly laced with emotion, such as your wording that the baby "parasitizes" the mother, and your comment that women go through tremendous amounts of suffering by having a baby.)

As it is, I am aware that "brain sucking" and "salt poisining" are fairly rare methods of abortion, but honestly I don't really care. No matter if they kill them humanely or inhumanely, they are still killing them. So, this whole issue you brought up is really of no relevance whatsoever.

I WROTE: "2. The acquisition of "brain-waves" are pretty much useless for becoming a person, unless the brain is used to develop a personality, self-concept, etc.- all of which come LATER."

YOU REPLIED: "So we don't keep going round and round on this. I want to see your scientific support for making the claim in 2."

Well, I think we can both agree that personality and self-concept are both things that develop due to the use of one's brain. Obviously, one must use the brain for a while before a personality and self-concept can be formed. To argue otherwise, you would have to suppose that each fetus, once it attains "brain waves", comes with an already-developed personality and self-concept. However, this is basically like saying that the fetus has a soul, which is something I doubt you would agree with. (NOTE: If the embryo DOES have a soul at conception, then it is obvious that abortion is wrong. However, I have avoided using the premises of any religion in this debate. Therefore, I have shown that EVEN IF you are right and there is no soul or God, it is still morally wrong and against the constitution to allow abortions to take place.)

"brain does not have to have been imprinted with personality, etc. to become functional and I challenge you to cite the scientific literature that claims otherwise."

Actually, I never claimed that the brain needed to have a personality to become functional. I merely claimed that a "functional" brain is both useless and nonspecific- because dogs and chimpanzees also have "functional" brains. The seperating criteria of importance cannot therefore be "functional" brains.

What's really ironic is that you misunderstand the intent of my point, and you thought that *I* was claiming that the fetus needs a personality to be considered a person. Actually, I pointed out that for YOU to be logically consistent, you must consider the development of personality and self-concept to be the qualifying criteria. Because of your misunderstanding, you posted alot of information and two specific cases that actually REINFORCE my point. So thanks. :thumb:

"Where did I every claim that this was the LONE criterion? It is the beginning one. Once they appear, then personhood is assigned WITHOUT any requirement for other things."

But why? There is nothing special about "brain function", other than it's eventual ability to allow us to create personality and self-concept. Your criteria are useless and non-specific.

"Why do you try to equate the nebulous undefined quanity of "value" with viability, which is measureable (one is either alive or dead). "Value" is NOT a criterion for determining viablity. Your body is able to survive or it isn't."

Well, I used the term "value" to signify the fetus's status as a human being. The point is that in different areas of the world, or different time periods, viability would become satisfied at a different time period.

For example, let's say that we were having this conversation 100 years ago. Your argument is "The fetus does not become viable until 8 months. Therefore, abortion of an unborn fetus is morally fine as long as the abortion is performed before the 8th month."

So, doctors perform millions of abortions. Let's say that 1,000 abortions are performed on fetuses between the age of 6 and 7 months.

Zoom forward to today. NOW, with better medical technology, we know that fetuses are viable at 6 and 7 months. You've just justified 1,000 murders over the past 100 years!

"Viability" is a criteria that is very likely to change through time and depends upon the medical technology available in the region. Clearly then, we cannot use viability as a criteria.

"I challenge you to show how the lack of technology devalues the preemie in Sudan..."

The preemie in Sudan would not be able to survive because of lack of medical equipment. Therefore, it would become viable at a later time. The preemie of 25 weeks would be up for abortion in Sudan but not in America. Clearly, this is an unfair state of affairs.

"Since when has anyone ever argued that a mother has the right to kill an infant? This is a red herring on your part."

"Viability" is the ability to survive without the mother, yes? If that's so, and if viability is a necessary criteria for the personhood of an embryo/fetus/infant. If the embryo/fetus/infant STILL requires the mother for life, then, according to your criteria, that mother can kill the unwanted "interloper" at her choosing.

I WROTE: "3. Viability does not occur even in the very very late stages of pregnancy. According to the viability criteria, you could chop off the babies head as it pops out of the mother and still be within your moral rights."

YOU REPLIED: "Allow me to inform you of the fact that a fetus in considered "viable" after 20 weeks according to the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology."

Sorry, that's my fault. I didn't mean to say viability, I meant to say "dependence on the mother".

"What MIGHT happen in the future is totally irrelevant to the present. If doctors come up with technology that will support an embryo/fetus until it's viable, fine with me. Take it out of the mother and grow up in a jar. The abortion question is solved!!!"

Not so. If we find out that all unborns were viable after all, then we would have justified the murder of millions of human beings! Every abortion performed in history would be murder.

That about sums it up. I think I covered everything. If not, then inform me.

Sincerely,

Kyle.

Captain Ochre

April 16th 2003, 06:34 PM

Yesterday @ 06:33 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=67797#post67797)
Butters:

C.O.:

A few thoughts on the thread overall: There is an issue beyond the personhood of the fetus, and that is the value of human life, period.
The number of Bald eagles in the world is fairly modest. The species is protected, and not just the species--the eggs are protected, too.
Now, the eagle does not have rights protected by the Constitution (Peter Singer, are you here?). The "Choice" advocate should not be comfortable resting on a case involving lack of personhood, afaics.
Sorry to digress somewhat from the mandated "root" topic. Carry on with the battle!
Butters:

But crows are overabundent, and are not protected, nor are their egg's. If rarity is the deciding factor, humans could be shot on sight.

I did choose an example where scarcity was a major factor (national symbolism being another), but I wasn't suggesting that it was the deciding factor, afaics.
I was more trying to keep personhood from being emphasized to the exclusion of all else.

So, are we cool?:cool:

citizenkyle

April 23rd 2003, 02:30 PM

04-14-2003 @ 03:45 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=66715#post66715)
Captain Ochre:
A few thoughts on the thread overall: There is an issue beyond the personhood of the fetus, and that is the value of human life, period.

Indeed! I think personhood is an arbitrary artificial construct. Abortion destroys human life. Period. Thus, the ultimate question becomes: is abortion an acceptable destruction of life? Obviously, we routinely destroy life with zero qualms; i.e. plants, bacteria,viruses and (for most people) animals. Even humans are acceptably killed in various circumstances; i.e. war, capital punishment, self-defense, euthanasia, etc. So then, we must ask: is abortion an acceptable circumstance for killing a human life? And yes, I'm just going to leave the question hanging. :smile:

Socrates

April 24th 2003, 06:36 PM

BreakPoint with Charles Colson
Commentary #030424 - 04/24/2003

It's All in the Design
The Creational Pattern for Human Life

How well can you translate psycho-babble? Here's a test from J. Budziszewski's new book, What We Can't Not Know. Not many years ago a physician wrote an article for a medical journal about a certain condition that affects only women. This condition, he wrote, should be regarded as an "illness" which is "almost entirely preventable." He said that the illness had "an excellent prognosis for ... spontaneous recovery if managed under careful medical supervision," but that it may also be "treated" through "evacuation of the uterine contents."

What "illness" did the physician have in mind? Why pregnancy, of course. Yes, you read that right. He thought pregnancy should be defined as an illness. He didn't mean something that can go wrong in pregnancy-he meant pregnancy itself. Most people see instantly that defining pregnancy as an illness is crazy. Pregnancy isn't something that goes wrong with a woman; it is provided for in her nature, her God-given design. It's something that goes right.

Budziszewski argues that you can learn a lot by studying the design of human nature. Not just our physical design, but our behavioral design as well. For example, we are designed for families. No mere human invented the family; no mere human could. Yet it exists everywhere, and for nurturing children, nothing can take its place.

Not only were we designed for families, but we were also designed for one-man, one-woman marriages. As sociologists Sara McLanahan and Gary Sandefur observe, "If we were asked to design a system for making sure that children's basic needs were met, we would probably come up with something quite similar to the two-parent ideal. Such a design ... would provide a system of checks and balances that promoted quality parenting. The fact that both parents have a biological connection to the child would increase the likelihood that the parents would identify with the child and be willing to sacrifice for that child, and it would reduce the likelihood that either parent would abuse the child."

At some level, everyone recognizes facts like these. Marriage and family have been cherished in every society on earth, even places where God's Word has never reached. And this isn't an accident. As the Apostle Paul says in Acts 14, "God has not left Himself without witness," even among the pagans. And one of His witnesses is the way He designed us and made us.

Budziszewski points out that even in polygamous societies love poems are addressed from the lover to the beloved-just two people. A love song "to my darlings, Mary, Ellen, Susan, Penelope, Martha, Hortense, and Gwen" would be recognized everywhere as farce.

Even the pagans knew that when we fight against the creational design for human nature, design wins. The Roman writer Horace wrote, "You can drive out nature with a pitchfork, but it always comes running back." We were made for marriage between a man and a woman and for family. These are things we can't not know.

To find out more about our creational design, I suggest that you read J. Budziszewski's new book, What We Can't Not Know. You will find great apologetics material to use in defending the Christian faith with non-believing friends.

Printer-Friendly Version

Copyright (c) 2003 Prison Fellowship Ministries

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

"BreakPoint with Chuck Colson" is a daily commentary on news and trends from a Christian perspective. Heard on more than 1000 radio outlets nationwide, BreakPoint transcripts are also available on the Internet.

BreakPoint is a production of The Wilberforce Forum, a division of Prison Fellowship Ministries

Sozo

April 24th 2003, 06:48 PM

04-12-2003 @ 11:45 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=64748#post64748)
InquisitorKind:

I believe the root of the abortion debate may asked with one simple question, that being:

Is the fetus a person?

All other issues must be ignored until this question is answered.

~Matt

Ignore this all you want, but the "root" of the abortion debate is selfishness on the part of the one who is looking for loopholes to kill a baby/fetus/fertilized egg.

Bartholomew

April 25th 2003, 02:11 AM

Yesterday @ 06:48 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=77867#post77867)
Sozo:

Ignore this all you want, but the "root" of the abortion debate is selfishness on the part of the one who is looking for loopholes to kill a baby/fetus/fertilized egg.

In the end, I do believe you are right. Unfortunately, nobody will engage that kind of discussion; the pro-Abortionists believe they are defending the rights of the mother; they believe they are defending a good thing.

Thanks for your input,
~Matt

Sozo

April 25th 2003, 08:38 AM

Today @ 01:11 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=78167#post78167)
InquisitorKind:

...the pro-Abortionists believe they are defending the rights of the mother; they believe they are defending a good thing.

Let's face it, we wouldn't be having this debate at all if it wasn't for the life of a human being. Not only is this about aborting a fertilized egg/zygote/fetus/baby, but it is about putting an end to the responsibility attached to it. The abortion takes place because the guilty party is fully aware that they will have to care for a baby if they don't eliminate it. They are not having a tumor or some tissue growth removed, it is not going to bring them any physical harm. The guilty party has placed themselves into the position of being able to see into the future and to determine, without any evidence, that bringing a child into this world will be detrimental to their own life, otherwise they would have no cause to remove it.

Our culture has been spending the last 30 years trying to indoctrinate into the minds of it's children that they have the potential to "be somebody"! And what is the fruit of these unrealistic expectations? Eliminate anything that would stand in the way of someone's dreams & goals. For the pro-abortionist, children are not a blessing, but a curse. A curse, that must be destroyed.

Sozo

April 29th 2003, 01:45 AM

:shrug:

Socrates

May 12th 2003, 08:39 AM

From: The Pro-Life Infonet <infonet@prolifeinfo.org>
Reply-To: Steven Ertelt <infonet@prolifeinfo.org>
Subject: "Everwood" Again Proves Hollywood's Pro-Abortion Credentials
Source: Pro-Life Infonet; May 11, 2003

"Everwood" Again Proves Hollywood's Pro-Abortion Credentials
by Brent Bozell

[Pro-Life Infonet Note: Brent Bozell is President of Media Research Center.]

The Hollywood take on constitutional rights usually begins not with the words "We the people," but with "If it feels good, do it." Its centralized location is the dropping zipper. In the vast majority of occasions that Hollywood's dramatists take up the celebrated right to "choose" abortion, the air is thick with propaganda.

Abortion has never been a major topic on the small screen, but when it does bubble up to the surface, the libertine left's urge to sermonize is as hard to resist as the urges that caused the unwanted pregnancies in the first place. The 1989 TV movie "Roe v. Wade" celebrated the lawyers and plaintiffs who wanted abortion to have the same moral weight as an appendectomy. Hollywood never bothered with a bio-pic on Norma McCorvey, the "Jane Roe" of the case, who later confessed her sins and converted to Catholicism. Why ruin a good plot with the historical truth?

In 1991, the TV movie "Absolute Strangers" starred Henry Winkler as a humble accountant whose pregnant wife was in a coma. The poor bloke just wanted an abortion to improve his wife's chance of survival -- that is, until two radical pro-lifers, the appalling "absolute strangers" of the title, tried to interfere and save the unborn child. In 1996, HBO rounded up stars for "If These Walls Could Talk," which painted a horrific portrait of Demi Moore as a straying 1950s widow who dies of a botched abortion, and Cher as a heroic abortion "provider" shot to death by an ignorant "anti-abortion" assassin.

So when the WB drama "Everwood" took up an abortion storyline for this year's May sweeps and TV critics hailed its balanced portrayal, it would seem like a refreshing change. Sorry, I'm not buying. Is it really necessary to win ratings points with plots that dangle on an unborn child's demise?

As with the much more routine promotion of homosexuality, parents often end up tiptoeing through the TV listings trying to avoid subject matter with themes too mature for pre-teens. How is it that Hollywood and most TV critics, who share the cultural worldview of Tinseltown, cannot understand this?

"Everwood" follows WB's family hit "Seventh Heaven." It features Treat Williams as a big-city doctor, Andrew Brown, who moved his family to a small Colorado town after his wife died, and focuses a lot on the children's struggles, so it's clearly pitched at young audiences.

As one TV critic explained, "The point of this whole 'Everwood' exercise, it would seem, is to lead to awkward but important parent-child chats." In addition to the abortion storyline, Dr. Brown's 9-year-old daughter finds a Penthouse magazine and gives it as a birthday present to a 9-year-old boy. Does "Everwood" hope to spur "awkward but important" parent-preteen chats on pornography, too?

The abortion plot unfolds simply: An 18-year-old girl is impregnated by a piano teacher who skipped town, and the girl's father wants the child terminated before her religious mother finds out. Let's offer some mild praise where it's deserved. The show did offer some nuances sure to upset the pro-aborts at NARAL. Dr. Brown explains how one can see an unborn child's organs at 54 days. He decides that he can't perform the abortion because he can't end a life. Another doctor performs the abortion, but when it's finished, the girl is somewhat distraught. The episode ends with the aborting doctor entering a confessional.

Ah, but Hollywood can't write up small-town religious conservatism without warning of its fervent menace. Dr. Abbott, the hometown doctor, warned his newcomer colleague not to perform abortions in this town, since "doing this sort of thing in this type of town can get a man killed." Dr. Abbott becomes the reluctant abortionist hero, honoring a pledge he made to his father to avoid the "horrific things" of pre-Roe America from happening again in town.

That being the case, the concluding confessional scene -- "Bless me, Father, for I have sinned" -- is meaningless, since Abbott's pledge to his Father shows he is certainly not penitent. (Who said Hollywood ever understood the Catholic faith?)

The lowest point of the show comes in an announcement between commercials. "For more information . . . contact the following local organization." Surprise, surprise. The screen showed a phone number and an Internet address for Planned Parenthood. Any attempt at a balanced presentation would at least include the CareNet system of crisis pregnancy centers to offset the abortion mill listings.

WB President Jordan Levin told reporters he didn't want this show to be a soapbox for either side of the abortion divide. This brief promotional outrage, and the harsh vibes on small-town faith, ruined the attempt to avoid the same old shrill pro-abortion notes.

--