Split from Economics thread - Abortion Discussions

[Cow Poke]

Meaningless distinction!

Only because you don't have a functioning brain.

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

It's amazing the extent to which you have to go to ridiculous arguments to justify your approval of the murder of innocent beings.

[Sea of red]

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...

The brain pattern IS the human being. When it goes you go and before it comes on, you are not here.

[One Bad Pig]

The brain pattern IS the human being. When it goes you go and before it comes on, you are not here.

Fascinating. You'd argue against your own right to life before the brain starts waving.

[Sea of red]

Fascinating. You'd argue against your own right to life before the brain starts waving.

I'm sorry I said anything at all.

[JimL]

Fascinating. You'd argue against your own right to life before the brain starts waving.

If "I" don't exist, then it would be nonsensical for you to argue that "I" have rights.

[Tassman]

Only because you don't have a functioning brain.



It's amazing the extent to which you have to go to ridiculous arguments to justify your approval of the murder of innocent beings.

I would suggest it is you who “goes to ridiculous arguments” to justify your attempt to ban abortion in all and every circumstance come what may, on the basis of unsustainable personal beliefs about the “innocence” of insensate fetuses.

[Mountain Man]

‘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?

That's not an argument, it's an assertion. I asked you to prove that a functioning brain is required for innocence. For one thing, what do you even mean by a "functioning brain"? That's your first step, to clearly define your terms. Do you mean having the ability to understand morality and contemplate the consequences of one's actions? Animals certainly don't possess those qualities, yet that doesn't stop us from declaring them innocent. How high up the food chain does an animal need to be to qualify as having a "functioning brain"? I imagine you'd feel guilty if you ran over a house cat with your car but not feel the slightest twinge of remorse for swatting a housefly. What's the difference?

Animals are aware of their surroundings and warrant protection from cruelty.

You asserted that "the laws of society are designed to protect innocent persons from harm", but animals are not persons, so following your logic, animals are not deserving of legal protection.

As for being "aware of their surroundings", what does that mean? A person in a coma is not aware of his surroundings. Does that deprive him of legal protection? How about someone who is knocked unconscious, or who is simply asleep? I've heard stories of a human fetus reacting to and pulling away from the instruments abortionist use to murder them. Does that qualify as being "aware of their surroundings"?

[Cow Poke]

I would suggest it is you who “goes to ridiculous arguments”

We have a living developing human being prior to abortion. After the abortion, the living developing human being is dead. That's pretty straight forward. Gutlessly hiding behind technical language does not change the fact that that the developing human being is dead.

[Bill the Cat]

The brain pattern IS the human being.

False. Brain activity is just a single function of our species. Other species that lack brains are just as much living individual members of their species as the first trimester fetus is of ours.

When it goes you go and before it comes on, you are not here.

Yes you are. You just haven't developed that far yet.

[Bill the Cat]

If "I" don't exist, then it would be nonsensical for you to argue that "I" have rights.

Does a tree exist? Does it have a brain?

[JimL]

Does a tree exist? Does it have a brain?

Right, the tree exists just like a fetus exists, but the fetus like the tree is not a person, if it was we wouldn't chop them down at will. You can argue that like an acorn is own its way to becoming a tree, the fetus is on its way to possible personhood, but it isn't yet a person in its fetal form.

[Tassman]

We have a living developing human being prior to abortion. After the abortion, the living developing human being is dead. That's pretty straight forward. Gutlessly hiding behind technical language does not change the fact that that the developing human being is dead.

No, what is “pretty straight forward” is that potential is not actuality. Without a functioning brain pattern we have a potential human being, not a human being as such.

[Bill the Cat]

Right, the tree exists just like a fetus exists, but the fetus like the tree is not a person, if it was we wouldn't chop them down at will.

Way to miss the point entirely...

You can argue that like an acorn is own its way to becoming a tree, the fetus is on its way to possible personhood, but it isn't yet a person in its fetal form.

But when we classify the species of both, we do not use "potentia" after the species nomenclature. Personhood is a philosophical concept and has no place in this discussion of whether a fetus is an individual member of our species.

[Bill the Cat]

No, what is “pretty straight forward” is that potential is not actuality. Without a functioning brain pattern we have a potential human being, not a human being as such.

Wrong. We have an individual homo sapien at a particular stage of human growth and development. Brain development is just another milestone in that process.

[JimL]

Way to miss the point entirely...



But when we classify the species of both, we do not use "potentia" after the species nomenclature. Personhood is a philosophical concept and has no place in this discussion of whether a fetus is an individual member of our species.

Sure it does. An acorn isn't a tree, it may become a tree, but it isn't a tree, and a fetus isn't a person, it may become a person, but it isn't a person, therefore abortion is not the murder of a person.