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

This question is pretty much unanswerable. Of course, in fact, the early fetus is not a person. It exhibits none of the attributes that we would associate with personhood.

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

On this basis, there can never be anything even approaching agreement from the two sides.

Paul

Today @ 11:15 AM post located here
lordsnooty:

This question is pretty much unanswerable. Of course, in fact, the early fetus is not a person. It exhibits none of the attributes that we would associate with personhood.

I find it odd that you seem to qualify yourself able to answer unanswerable questions. Since it is unanswerable, do you agree that the morality of abortion is unknowable?

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

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

What is a soul?

On this basis, there can never be anything even approaching agreement from the two sides.

Paul

I am mainly pro-life for non-religious reasons. I beleive there can be grounds for discussion.

~Matt

Today @ 05:45 AM post located here
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, (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.


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

3)The Extremely Immature Newborn—The Dilemma of the Microbaby

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). 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


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) 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!!)


[size=2.5]WHAT ALL THIS MEANS TO A WOMAN[/size]

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")

Today @ 04:27 PM post located here
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

Today @ 12:20 PM post located here
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

Today @ 12:14 PM post located here
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, (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.

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

3)The Extremely Immature Newborn—The Dilemma of the Microbaby

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). 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

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) 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?

[size=2.5]WHAT ALL THIS MEANS TO A WOMAN[/size]

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")

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

Today @ 05:36 PM post located here
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

Today @ 01:05 PM post located here
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

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/sho...&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.

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! 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......

"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"!

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!

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.

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".

"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)".

"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?

Response to InquisitorKind's (IK) Post

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 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....

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...

Today @ 05:09 PM post located here
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 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?

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

[b]Response to Kyles' Post

http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/sho...;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 (committed by God personally, ordered by God, condoned by God)

Some Reasons Why Humanists Reject the Bible

Is God a Criminal?

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....

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.

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".

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?

"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.....