main
side
curve
  1. In Memory of LAJ_FETT: Please share your remembrances and condolences HERE

Senate Abortion: Why not?

Discussion in 'Community' started by Boba Nekhbet, Feb 11, 2016.

  1. J-Rod

    J-Rod Jedi Grand Master star 6

    Registered:
    Jul 28, 2004
    As I've pointed out, it's NOT her body. Check the DNA. It's someone else's body.

    That said, I'm one person talking to other people about an important topic. Never once has gender entered as part of the debate.

    Remember, leave the non-sequiturs to me. I'm simply better at it.
     
  2. Lord Vivec

    Lord Vivec Chosen One star 9

    Registered:
    Apr 17, 2006
    No, not science. You're throwing scientific sounding terminology together and declaring that what you're saying is science. Here, let me show you.

    Your first comment is that genetics is science and that the fetus has different genes than the mother. Yes, genetics is science. However, the fact that a fetus (which partly has the genetics of the mother, I might add) has different genetics isn't really at play. The fetus is still attached and heavily dependent on the mother. It cannot survive on its own for most of the pregnancy. You're blatantly ignoring most of the factors. You're three forces short of a free-body diagram.

    Secondly, continuing your trend of simply being unable to find actual scientific articles, you've posted a philosophy and law paper by a legal scholar. Not a scientist.
     
    Iron_lord likes this.
  3. Jabba-wocky

    Jabba-wocky Chosen One star 10

    Registered:
    May 4, 2003
    J-Rod, the issue is this. There is, in science, something called the mind-body problem. That is, how do we relate the thoughts and feelings which characterize us as human beings to the physical structures of neurons, blood vessels, hormones and neurotransmitters that make up our body? While he have found broad correlations (eg cortisol is a hormone released when we are stressed) there is no definite 1:1 correlation. As a consequence, we can't tell when our how a distinct human body emerges as a distinct human consciousness (How can you say when a process starts if you can't even understand what that process is?). Religion has grappled with a similar problem. In that framework, the question is when a human body acquires a soul.

    I think there's broad agreement that it is worse to snuff something out of existent which has a "mind" or "soul" than to kill something which does not. That is, to cut off something which is capable of hopes, dreams, thoughts, and feelings. Something which is sentient. But is there a time in human development that we do not have these things? It's a hugely important question, and something no field of human inquiry has really given us an answer to. Do you have one your certain of? Most of the rest of us do not.
     
    Valairy Scot likes this.
  4. J-Rod

    J-Rod Jedi Grand Master star 6

    Registered:
    Jul 28, 2004
    It's a conclusion based on scientific data. You may not agree with the conclusion, but the data isn't in dispute.

    "The principle to which I subscribe is one that says that all human beings are equal, and ought not to be harmed or considered to be less than human on the basis of age or size or stage of development or condition of dependency." Fertilization "produces a new and complete, though immature, organism" that possesses "the epigenetic primordia for self-directed growth into adulthood with its determinateness and identity fully intact." Although not all fertilization events lead to an adult, we were all once embryos in the blastocyst stage of development, he points out. We possessed all of the genetic material needed to inform and organize our growth.
    Broad agreement based on what? If we are only looking at scientific fact, then on what do you base the agreement on? I'm not talking about snuffing out "something." But rather I'm talking about terminating a human life.
    And science shows it's human and it meets the criteria for life.
    And until we are all certain, shouldn't we err on the side of caution? By the way, people are actually certain. It's why they get so upset about this topic. They know they are killing/supporting the killing of human beings.
     
  5. Boba Nekhbet

    Boba Nekhbet Jedi Grand Master star 4

    Registered:
    Nov 30, 2014

    Okay but "condition of dependency" brings up the violinist problem I posted, which I noticed that you are still ignoring.
     
    anakinfansince1983 likes this.
  6. Vaderize03

    Vaderize03 Manager Emeritus star 6 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    Oct 25, 1999
    @J-Rod--

    You're taking the wrong tack. No-one's disputing that the moment of conception produces a unique organism with its own DNA, or that it's technically "alive" (although at that state, it's only alive to the same degree that a virus is), but the real question is when we should grant "personhood". Simply stating that the fetus has its own body is meaningless. Until the point of viability, it's dependent upon another for its survival.

    According to science (real science, not pseudo-nonsense opinion dressed up as fact), pre-viability, a fetus is a parasite. Nothing more. And a first-trimester pregnancy is still in the embryonic, not fetal, stage of development. No organized central nervous system, no conscious awareness to speak of.

    What this really comes down to is whether or not your personal discomfort with abortion is sufficient justification for making it a criminal act. The law says it's not, and that is unlikely to change. The best way to reduce the number of abortions is through expanding education about reproduction and access to contraception, two things the Republican Party and its supporters adamantly oppose. So until that changes, abortion will not only remain legal, but more necessary than it should have to be.

    Peace,

    V-03
     
  7. J-Rod

    J-Rod Jedi Grand Master star 6

    Registered:
    Jul 28, 2004
    But how does it actually matter? Does it mean it doesn't meet the standard as "life?" Or does it mean it doesn't have unique DNA? How does external viability lessen it's scientific qualifications as a human life? Is a man in a coma on a ventalator no longer a human? No longer alive? He's certainly not viable off the life support equipment. Assuming, of course, he isn't brain dead. My point is the simple fact that he is on life support doesn't mean he isn't human and alive.
     
  8. anakinfansince1983

    anakinfansince1983 Skywalker Saga/LFL/YJCC Manager star 10 Staff Member Manager

    Registered:
    Mar 4, 2011
    Yes, the real question I would like answered is whether those who want Roe v. Wade repealed are willing to enact any real abortion-preventative policies. Are they willing to see access to birth control and comprehensive sex education expanded, or does their best and only solution involve telling women not to have sex if she doesn't want to get pregnant and hoping they will all be obedient?
     
    Vaderize03 likes this.
  9. Boba Nekhbet

    Boba Nekhbet Jedi Grand Master star 4

    Registered:
    Nov 30, 2014
    Well you've managed to pontificate on a bunch of random stuff without addressing the actual thought exercise in any way whatsoever.
     
    CT-867-5309 likes this.
  10. J-Rod

    J-Rod Jedi Grand Master star 6

    Registered:
    Jul 28, 2004
    I can respect that view. But, your term not mine, the "parasite" phase is a stage of mammal development in general and in this situation, it's a part of human development specifically.

    A tape worm is also a parasite. Does that make the tape worm part of the host? Or is it still individualized? Is a tick human while it's attached to a human host? Or canine when I find it on my dog?

    These answers are no. And a fetus is no less human as a fetus than as an infant.
     
  11. vin

    vin Chosen One star 6

    Registered:
    Dec 16, 1999
    Why does murdering fetii upset you so much?
     
  12. darkspine10

    darkspine10 Chosen One star 8

    Registered:
    Dec 7, 2014
    But as a collection of cells, isn't a dog more Human than that? A dog feels joy, can suffer pain, and we put them down all the time, and neuter them.

    If you care so much about a ball of cells, you should become an animal rights activist as well.
     
  13. tom

    tom Chosen One star 8

    Registered:
    Mar 14, 2004
    a dog is probably closer to a "person", while there's no denying that the collection of cells is "human" in its biological makeup. this is the distinction j-rod won't recognize because it's where his argument falls apart. so instead he'll just cherry pick the points he does respond to and we can do this in circles ad infinitum.
     
    darskpine10 likes this.
  14. vin

    vin Chosen One star 6

    Registered:
    Dec 16, 1999
    I still don't understand how someone can kill all those potential sperm babies through masturbation and sex(with no intention to impregnate) and then preach to not abort.
     
  15. timmoishere

    timmoishere Force Ghost star 6

    Registered:
    Jun 2, 2007
    As I see it, it's very simple:

    Each person has the right to decide what is done with his or her own body. No woman can be forced to give birth against her will, and no woman can be forced to have an abortion against her will. It's entirely up to the choice of the woman involved. If it's not your own pregnancy, then stay out of other people's business.
     
  16. Jabba-wocky

    Jabba-wocky Chosen One star 10

    Registered:
    May 4, 2003
    That's what you are missing. "Something with human DNA that meets the criteria of being alive" is not what upsets people. That's a gall bladder. The question is whether you are killing individual human beings. If there was never a separate mind or soul, there was nothing to "kill" in the first place. The same number of individual humans existed before and after the abortion. Defining when humans acquire a mind is a central question here.

    And no, it's not best to "err on the side of caution." We could be a lot more cautious than even you have proposed. What we should do is operate on the best available evidence and reasoning that we have.
     
    Zapdos and Ender Sai like this.
  17. anakinfansince1983

    anakinfansince1983 Skywalker Saga/LFL/YJCC Manager star 10 Staff Member Manager

    Registered:
    Mar 4, 2011
    Looks like we'll be waiting awhile on that answer to expanded comprehensive sex education and birth control.
     
  18. Vaderize03

    Vaderize03 Manager Emeritus star 6 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    Oct 25, 1999
    More non-sequiturs?

    I never said it wasn't human. Or not alive. Life, as scientifically defined, involves a process that includes stages of development, the end result of which is something more comprehensive and deserving of legal 'personhood' than what is started with. Tapeworms and dogs have nothing to do with it.

    And I think you know that ;).

    Peace,

    V-03
     
    anakinfansince1983 likes this.
  19. J-Rod

    J-Rod Jedi Grand Master star 6

    Registered:
    Jul 28, 2004
    Always remember, when the posts are coming at a furious rate, often times statements that were posted don't get added to the thread until later. :)
    What do you mean by "access." Should it be illegal for people to get birth control? No. Should the state be compelled to provide them? No to that as well. Also, I'm not sure what public school doesn't teach sex ed. I went through it in Minnesota in a small town of 718 in seventh grade. You don't get much more conservative than that and that was in 1981 or 82.
    Then let me be more direct in my statement. What would viability outside the womb have to do with this issue? How does it change anything I've said or address any of the points I brought up?
    Two points:
    1) It's not a simple collection if cells. It's a specific group of cells growing and reproducing according to it's own specific genetic instructions. And this "group of cells" has a heartbeat as quickly as 22 days.


    2) I don't equate animal life to human life.


    Well then make your point. Saying a dog is closer to being human than a human embryo is hardly a point. And if it is your point, PPOR.
    So...sperm=baby? You may need some classes.
    I don't understand what the difference between killing your child in the womb and wait until he/she is born. You are still killing your child. Would you allow the legalization of infanticide just because it isn't your baby?
     
  20. Luigi

    Luigi Jedi Master star 4

    Registered:
    Nov 10, 2006
    So are you saying a person who is brain dead isn't alive or human?
     
  21. Mortimer Snerd

    Mortimer Snerd Force Ghost star 4

    Registered:
    Dec 27, 2012
    The absurdity of right wing anti-choice logic boils down to this and this alone: A fetus with no personality is far more important than a soldier with one.

    And this:

    [​IMG]
     
  22. anakinfansince1983

    anakinfansince1983 Skywalker Saga/LFL/YJCC Manager star 10 Staff Member Manager

    Registered:
    Mar 4, 2011
    Any school that teaches "abstinence only" is not teaching comprehensive sex education.

    And you're opposed to state-provided or otherwise free birth control despite the fact that it would reduce abortions? Is it more important to reduce abortion, or pin scarlet letter As on people who have sex outside your specifically defined parameters?
     
    CT-867-5309 likes this.
  23. Valairy Scot

    Valairy Scot Manager Emeritus star 6 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    Sep 16, 2005
    To be fair, it is a reasonable position to want folks to pay for their own birth control. I'm not saying that is my position, to be clear, but a lot of folks draw different lines on what society should pay for and what individuals should pay for. Where that line is where the political/economic arguments arise from.
     
    J-Rod likes this.
  24. J-Rod

    J-Rod Jedi Grand Master star 6

    Registered:
    Jul 28, 2004
    First, what do you think are my defined parameters?
    Second, I'm not against free birth control. If you want to stand on a street corner and hand out condoms, more power to you. If your company wants to put some in the lobby of their building, fine by me. If they want to include it in your healthcare coverage that's their business.

    I'm no doctor. But if someone is brain dead they are at the very least in the process of dying. So we can make an argument as to weather or not he's alive.
     
  25. tom

    tom Chosen One star 8

    Registered:
    Mar 14, 2004
    if brain activity is your barometer the point about why an embryo isn't a child should be so obvious to you.
     
    Zapdos and Ender Sai like this.