Split from Economics thread - Abortion Discussions

[Tassman]

Ah, so you're having a problem with linguistics, eh? OK, on what day of development, scientifically, does the baby transition from "insensate fetus" to "not at risk? You kinda dodged that.

Fetal brain activity begins to exhibit regular wave patterns, fairly consistently around week 25. The law states that abortions are to be restricted to the first 12 weeks, except in specific circumstances, so the question does not arise.

Abortion stops a beating heart, Tazzy. I know it may be cliche, but it's also indisputable fact

So does switching off the life-support machine of a brain-dead patient in a hospital, we do not view entities without a functioning brain as persons.

[Cow Poke]

Fetal brain activity begins to exhibit regular wave patterns, fairly consistently around week 25. The law states that abortions are to be restricted to the first 12 weeks, except in specific circumstances, so the question does not arise.

So does switching off the life-support machine of a brain-dead patient in a hospital, we do not view entities without a functioning brain as persons.

I think you're a person, and you don't have a functioning brain.

[Mountain Man]

I think you're a person, and you don't have a functioning brain.

Here's my last word on the abortion issue:

P1: At the moment of conception, an organism is created which meets even the most conservative scientific definition of life.
P2: This life-form has human DNA.
P3: This life-form is innocent having committed no moral or legal wrongs.
P4: The laws of our society are designed to protect the innocent from harm.
C: Therefore, at the moment of conception, an innocent human life-form is created which is fully deserving of the full protection of the law.

Q.E.D.

[Bill the Cat]

Certainly not before the fetus has a functioning brain and brain activity begins fairly consistently around the end of the second trimester.

BTW: There is no "magic" in naturalism, I'll leave that sort of thing to you lot.

Brain activity is a developmental item for our species that in no way marks the beginning of an individual member of our species.

[Bill the Cat]

You’re incorrectly equating “murder” and “innocent babies”, with aborting insensate fetuses.

No. It is not incorrect. Murder is one person ending the life of an innocent member of our species, and so is abortion. That one is legal and one isn't is inconsequential to what happens. An individual human life is ended. And "baby" is a colloquial term while fetus is a stage of development. It's YOUR error in acting like "baby" is a stage of development.

Your hysterical sensationalism is in effect diminishing your own argument (such as it is).

You are the one with no argument. You misuse terms and dismiss any attempt to make you use them correctly, and over-inflate the value of a single event in human growth and development. It's pretty pathetic and frustrating for me to continue to refute the same nonsense over and over. There simply is no valid reason to support abortion on demand.

[Bill the Cat]

Its emotive, incorrect terminology, presumably designed to heap guilt upon women already facing a difficult decision.

You trying to fall on "terminology" in this argument is hysterical!!

[Bill the Cat]

So does switching off the life-support machine of a brain-dead patient in a hospital, we do not view entities without a functioning brain as persons.

Here's the difference... when we switch off life support, it's because the patient is dying already. A fetus is not dying in any real sense of the word just because it has not developed a consistent brain pattern...

[Tassman]

Here's my last word on the abortion issue:

P1: At the moment of conception, an organism is created which meets even the most conservative scientific definition of life.
P2: This life-form has human DNA.
P3: This life-form is innocent having committed no moral or legal wrongs.

Please explain how this “life form” can be guilty or innocent of anything at all, when it does not have a functioning brain?

P4: The laws of our society are designed to protect the innocent from harm.

The laws of society are designed to protect innocent persons from harm, not potential persons.

C: Therefore, at the moment of conception, an innocent human life-form is created which is fully deserving of the full protection of the law.

Q.E.D

Flawed reasoning!

There simply is no valid reason to support abortion on demand.

No-one is arguing for unrestricted abortion on demand. Abortions under US Law are restricted to the first trimester except under very specific circumstances. This is not abortion on demand.

[Bill the Cat]

No-one is arguing for unrestricted abortion on demand. Abortions under US Law are restricted to the first trimester except under very specific circumstances. This is not abortion on demand.

Yes it is. It's just limited in time scale to 1/3 of the pregnancy instead of the whole thing. It's still an "on demand" process.

[Tassman]

Yes it is. It's just limited in time scale to 1/3 of the pregnancy instead of the whole thing. It's still an "on demand" process.

...which means it’s not “abortion on demand”. It’s restricted to the first trimester when the fetus does not have a functioning brain and is not a conscious entity.

[Bill the Cat]

...which means it’s not “abortion on demand”.

Sure it is. A woman can demand an abortion for any reason through the first trimester. On demand.

It’s restricted to the first trimester when the fetus does not have a functioning brain and is not a conscious entity.

Irrelevant. It is still a developing member of our species. Consciousness is a function of our species, not a definer. The fetus that hasn't developed a fully functional brain is neither 1) dead, 2) non-human, nor 3) not an individual member of our species

[Mountain Man]

Please explain how this “life form” can be guilty or innocent of anything at all, when it does not have a functioning brain?



The laws of society are designed to protect innocent persons from harm, not potential persons.



Flawed reasoning!

Prove that a functioning brain is required for innocence.

There are laws against animal cruelty, so personhood is irrelevant.

[Tassman]

Prove that a functioning brain is required for innocence.

‘Innocence’ or ‘guilt’ implies awareness and awareness is dependent upon a functioning brain. So again, please explain how this “life form” of yours can be guilty or innocent of anything at all when it does not have a functioning brain?

There are laws against animal cruelty,

Quite rightly so! Animals are aware of their surroundings and warrant protection from cruelty.

so personhood is irrelevant.

Not in law it’s not.

[Cow Poke]

‘Innocence’ or ‘guilt’ implies awareness...

No. Guilt implies awareness, hence the legal term "knew or should have known" when proving guilt. An innocent person can be totally unaware that a crime or wrong action was committed. The fact that an unborn baby is unaware of right and wrong, or of having committed any crime or wrong action speaks to his/her innocence.

[Tassman]

No. Guilt implies awareness, hence the legal term "knew or should have known" when proving guilt. An innocent person can be totally unaware that a crime or wrong action was committed. The fact that an unborn baby is unaware of right and wrong, or of having committed any crime or wrong action speaks to his/her innocence.

Meaningless distinction! A fetus without a functioning brain is no more “innocent” than a garden gnome.