What Does Abortion Have To Do With Pro-Choice?

reply to post by Maslo


I don't understand how you deduce that a late stage fetus is conscious? Sentient even. Why do you think this?

Originally posted by Maslo
reply to post by Wertwog

 

It is not a person at all until it is born at which point is is accorded rights of person-hood. I am more than implying, I am outright saying a person is not a person until they are born. Rights are not accorded to 'non-persons'.

Thats just your opinion, one that I dont share. And yes, non-persons can have rights. What about foetal or animal rights?

It is not "just my opinion", it is the law, proving its not just my opinion. You are talking about rights of person-hood, those only extend to persons. Animal and fetal (please spell this correctly) rights are a different matter.

As for your definition of a person, I fail to see why a biological connection to another being somehow should strip the personhood from the connected party.

A "person" is someone who has been born and possesses attributes of person-hood that we have already discussed. We're not "stripping" person-hood from something that never had it to begin with.

Of course mind is a neurological concept, neurology studies the brain, which is what gives rise to our minds. Mind is not ordered brain waves, but ordered brain waves in the neocortex are good evidence that mind can be present according to current science, and thus important for abortion limit legislation. No, consciousness of itself is not required for presence of mind. Self-awareness is a relatively high level mental ability.

Ok, let me make this a bit more basic for you. "Mind" definitely is not a neurological concept, "Brains" are. Neurology can't (at the moment) explain "mind" or "consciousness" or "sentience" or even "self awareness", but it can explain neural activity, connectivity and chemical and biological relationships. Ask any neurologist what "mind" is and he can't tell you. If you ask a psychologist or philosopher they will give you plenty of explanations for these things.

Self awareness and "presence of mind" absolutely require consciousness, you can't have a self aware being that is not also conscious and the same goes for "presence of mind" which is the same thing as self awareness. I don't think they are that high, my dog is pretty self aware , but granted she is a VERY intelligent dog.

Yes, I would grant them the same rights, if it would be practically possible. The only reason why we see humans above animals despite our minds (the source of any rights) often being developed less (think babies vs. an adult animal) is because our society is deeply racist (specieist).

Where do you draw the line? Dogs, cats, lizards, bees, birds? All of these have very complex neurology compared to something else and all exhibit some attributes of person-hood. How do you decide? Does a crow have "personhood" but not a finch or a sparrow? At what neurological point do you draw the line, keeping in might "person-hood" entitles people to rights in our society, privacy, voting etc, and also makes them subject to laws.

No, I just disagree with agency being of any importance. And what is that "agency", anyway? It is an empty word. Does it mean that when I restrain someone so that he can not act in any way, he ceases to be a person?

A physically restrained person still has the ability to act, you are not thinking this through. Agency is the ability of a person to act on their own behalf for their own goals. To represent oneself in the world and act upon their own goals and desires. A restrained person can still communicate, look at something because they decide to and plan to, twitch, decide to pee and do a whole variety of actions based on their own volition. They "represent" themselves. This is not as abstract as you seem to think. Personal agency is a key part of being a "person" and persons can't be persons unless they have this. And you are strawmaning me... "personhood" is NOT just about agency, as I've explained before.

Siamese twins do not conceive, gestate and birth one another.

And that is relevant for right to life how?

What do you mean by right to life? It is relevant to twins not being each others mothers.

So, if one siamese twin is wholly dependent on the other, it is not a person? Thats what I want to know. And I dont see what is so strange to ask this question, it is extremely relevant for abortion debate.

I don't get the sense that this is an honest inquiry. I think you are being disingenuous. You either have two persons or one. If you have two minds sharing one body the courts would decide if you have one or two "people", and the criteria for this I imagine would be highly dependent on not only the biological dependencies, but many other factors such as their ability to act in the world on their own behalf.

Then why is it allowed during late-term abortions? And yes, we can imagine a situation when only one siamese twin is dependent on the other, but not the other way around. What then, still pro-choice?

It is considered illegal for another PERSON to harm or kill another PERSON. Get it?
I tire of this and I'm beginning to think you just like the sound of your own opinions. Anything new to add?

reply to post by Maslo



_____

A personal note and observation...I noticed that you completely ignored my comments about my aunt and having any compassion for her situation what-so-ever. I suppose this isn't relevant to you at all. This leads me to believe that you, and perhaps many others who are 'pro-life' don't have any. I'm not surprised, but explains a lot why these debates constantly get framed by pro-lifers this way, making it sound like you are "for life". But, really, that's just code for "pro control". You care nothing for life that has 'already been born' and the fact that you are pro-war also leads me to this conclusion. You try to come across as sooooooooo caring for unborn babies (who get killed in war also you know). But really, you're not trying to protect anything, you know full well women are going to have abortions no matter what the law says and many will die from it -- you just want control over others pure and simple. Your pedantic arguments and ridiculous comparisons of twins to mothers are just so much blather aren't they? I wish you guys would just come right out and admit it.

If you REALLY desire to prevent abortions, legal or illegal, then start thinking about ways to support women so they DONT NEED TO. This means supporting community organizations that fund women's shelters, help stressed and poor women. Help put an end to gender bias and reproductive barriers. Look for the REASONS WHY women abort and do whatever you can to make abortions unnecessary. This is how you end abortion, and this is precisely what many of you 'pro-lifers' don't care to do. Instead, you want laws that will do nothing but kill women and you ostracize and shame instead of helping and supporting. Shame on you because your black and white version of the issue will get you nothing but dead daughters and babies. So much for your high morals and "protective" feelings.

Oh, and since you assumed, I'm actually "for life" and against abortion but totally respect a woman's right to choose because it is a private matter between her and her doctor. I really wish there wasn't the need for it.

Originally posted by GovtFlu
reply to post by ModernAcademia

 

How about those of us who are "pro-privacy", "pro-mind your own business" and "anti-strangers telling us what to do"..?

Some people opine their (flock) morality is universal and strangers who don't want to hear it.. must conform. Those who do not obey have their personal business interrupted by zealot loons wielding rhetoric & propaganda on a stick... these folks are anti-privacy in my book.. to be ignored.

..meanwhile in hypocrisy doublethink land, perhaps a million souls have been retroactively aborted by GOP & DNC party leaders.. apparently supporting retro-active abortionists is moral & ok.. patriotic too..lol

..yawn.. some things are right for some, wrong for others.. this never ending debacle of a debate foments division.. huuum, who does that benefit?

Stay the hell out of Germany's business. What's it to you if they kill a Jew or two? Mind yer own damn business!

Originally posted by yes4141
reply to post by Maslo

 

I don't understand how you deduce that a late stage fetus is conscious? Sentient even. Why do you think this?

Because it has sufficiently developed neural cortex (the organ that generates consciousness and sentience), and brain waves are an evidence of it already working as intended. And actual scientists in the relevant fields seem to agree with me, otherwise no such areas of studies as prenatal psychology would be even possible.

Of course, if I am wrong, then abort away..

reply to post by Wertwog

It is not "just my opinion", it is the law, proving its not just my opinion. You are talking about rights of person-hood, those only extend to persons. Animal and fetal (please spell this correctly) rights are a different matter.

All right, it is the opinion of you and some others. You said that rights are not accorded to non-persons, which is incorrect. If you meant only rights of personhood, then OK. Spelling of "foetus" is also used, coming from Latin nomenclature.

en.wikipedia.org...

Ok, let me make this a bit more basic for you. "Mind" definitely is not a neurological concept, "Brains" are. Neurology can't (at the moment) explain "mind" or "consciousness" or "sentience" or even "self awareness", but it can explain neural activity, connectivity and chemical and biological relationships. Ask any neurologist what "mind" is and he can't tell you. If you ask a psychologist or philosopher they will give you plenty of explanations for these things.

Whatever. The concept of "Mind" may be somehow unexplained right now and with fuzzy definitions, but it is a part of our world and can and will be explained and characterised by neurology and psychology. Ignoring it wont make it go away.

Self awareness and "presence of mind" absolutely require consciousness, you can't have a self aware being that is not also conscious and the same goes for "presence of mind" which is the same thing as self awareness. I don't think they are that high, my dog is pretty self aware , but granted she is a VERY intelligent dog.

I said that self-awareness is not required for consciousness or sentience. Not the other way around.

reply to post by Maslo

People have free will. Adults can make choices. To say the potential exists after conception is to say the will of the consenting adults (mother) is not important, in which case, if their opinion of the matter is not important, than the fact they are adults is irrelevant, and the right to life does not exist anywhere.

And in that bungle of words, where did your logic work? That potential exists after conception means the consent of the adults doesn't matter? Yes. that's quite true. If not, then nobody has rights. Because only your parents do, which basically means the first cell 3.5 billion years ago has all rights to all, which, btw, it doesn't have the mental ability to....and its dead.

Thats not relevant if we decide to define protected actuality as not needing to necessarily have those things.

Circular logic works because circular logic works because circular....

And of course to say this potential of a child to become adult exists is to say the will of the consenting adults taking care of the child is not important

No it means the adult is charged with protection unless they opt out through adoption, or choose to where a freaking condom already or the pill.

in which case, if their opinion of the matter is not important, than the fact they are adults is irrelevant, and the right to life does not exist anywhere.

Opinion is not important. The fact you can make logical decisions is.

Opinion is subjective.

Should then the parents have a right to kill their child and terminate the potential if they chose to as they can do in case of contraception? They should if they will is important and they can make choices.

So then I can kill my kid without moral fear.

reply to post by Wertwog

Where do you draw the line? Dogs, cats, lizards, bees, birds? All of these have very complex neurology compared to something else and all exhibit some attributes of person-hood. How do you decide? Does a crow have "personhood" but not a finch or a sparrow? At what neurological point do you draw the line, keeping in might "person-hood" entitles people to rights in our society, privacy, voting etc, and also makes them subject to laws.

I would say that higher animals such as dogs, cats and some lizards should be included, along with highly developed molluscs. Higher mammals definately. But I am no neurobiologist, so take it with a grain of salt.

Like written in the bible, there will be no true peace on this planet unless a lion peacefuly lies with an antilope (or something). This is not in our ability to achieve now (heck, not even with people), so racist laws may be considered from a purely practical standpoint. But if all goes well, maybe in the future we will eradicate immoral nature from this planet.

A physically restrained person still has the ability to act, you are not thinking this through. Agency is the ability of a person to act on their own behalf for their own goals. To represent oneself in the world and act upon their own goals and desires. A restrained person can still communicate, look at something because they decide to and plan to, twitch, decide to pee and do a whole variety of actions based on their own volition. They "represent" themselves. This is not as abstract as you seem to think.

What about a neurologically damaged person in such a way that he can basically only think, not communicate, see, twitch pee etc.? What about sleping people, unconscious people or people in coma?

I simply do not see why this criterion should even be relevant at all for this particular definition.

What do you mean by right to life? It is relevant to twins not being each others mothers.

Why is this of any importance for the discussion?

I don't get the sense that this is an honest inquiry. I think you are being disingenuous. You either have two persons or one. If you have two minds sharing one body the courts would decide if you have one or two "people", and the criteria for this I imagine would be highly dependent on not only the biological dependencies, but many other factors such as their ability to act in the world on their own behalf.

It is an honest inquiry. And as already said, I cannot understand why acting on ones behalf should be of any importance, but so be it.

It is considered illegal for another PERSON to harm or kill another PERSON. Get it? I tire of this and I'm beginning to think you just like the sound of your own opinions. Anything new to add?

I was asking of your opinion, not what is considered legal or not, that differs around the world. And no, it is not always illegal to harm or kill another PERSON. Legislation is not proof of anyone, it was legal to kill jews in nazi germany, it is legal to stone adulterers in some places in the middle east.

You cannot justify legislation (which includes your definition of a person by birth) by saying "its the law". Thats circular logic.

reply to post by Wertwog

A personal note and observation...I noticed that you completely ignored my comments about my aunt and having any compassion for her situation what-so-ever. I suppose this isn't relevant to you at all. This leads me to believe that you, and perhaps many others who are 'pro-life' don't have any.

It is not relevant, because I have no problem with almost any medical procedure if required to protect the health or life of the mother. And I do have more compassion than you, because my compassion extends to beings that happen to be biologically connected to another, or that cannot for some reason "act" on their behalf.

You care nothing for life that has 'already been born' and the fact that you are pro-war also leads me to this conclusion.

I am not "pro-war", I simply believe that it can sometimes be a lesser of two evils.

But really, you're not trying to protect anything, you know full well women are going to have abortions no matter what the law says and many will die from it -- you just want control over others pure and simple. Your pedantic arguments and ridiculous comparisons of twins to mothers are just so much blather aren't they? I wish you guys would just come right out and admit it.

Unsubstantiated straw-mans.

If you REALLY desire to prevent abortions, legal or illegal, then start thinking about ways to support women so they DONT NEED TO. This means supporting community organizations that fund women's shelters, help stressed and poor women. Help put an end to gender bias and reproductive barriers. Look for the REASONS WHY women abort and do whatever you can to make abortions unnecessary. This is how you end abortion, and this is precisely what many of you 'pro-lifers' don't care to do.

I am all for it, I do fully support these things, you can even call me a socialist.

Instead, you want laws that will do nothing but kill women and you ostracize and shame instead of helping and supporting. Shame on you because your black and white version of the issue will get you nothing but dead daughters and babies. So much for your high morals and "protective" feelings.

I believe it is you who sees the issue as black and white. Conception vs. birth are two extreme, polar positions. There is a whole bunch of other positions between them that go unnoticed, but are most likely to be correct, IMHO.

Oh, and since you assumed, I'm actually "for life" and against abortion but totally respect a woman's right to choose because it is a private matter between her and her doctor. I really wish there wasn't the need for it.

All right.

reply to post by Gorman91

That potential exists after conception means the consent of the adults doesn't matter?

Potential exists even before conception, but then suddenly opinion of the adults does matter? In one case they are free to terminate the mere potential, in another they are not? Where is logic in that? Either protect all potentials, or protect only actuality.

Circular logic works because circular logic works because circular....

There is nothing circular about it. According to Godel incompleteness theorem, any sufficiently complex logical system must contain axioms that cannot be proven (or disproven) using it, and thus must be chosen and taken for granted. Is arithmetic circular logic?

Anyway, circular logic will be still preferable to contradicting logic. At least its internally consistent.

No it means the adult is charged with protection unless they opt out through adoption, or choose to where a freaking condom already or the pill.

In this case, the will of the adult to terminate potential is blatantly ignored, in the case of the earlier potential it must be respected. See the contradiction?
Either protect all potentials which may lead to new adult human in the future from terminating (ban contraception, abortion), or allow all these terminations (allow contraception, abortion, allow child murders before it is sufficiently adult to be an actual actuality and no longer potential).
Or stop basing right to protection on potential to become an adult.

Opinion is not important. The fact you can make logical decisions is. Opinion is subjective.

Yet it is respected in case of terminating the potential of a new future adult human with contraception or refusing sex. But when terminating this potential with abortion or killing the child, opinions of the adults are suddenly subjective and should be ignored?

So then I can kill my kid without moral fear.

Yes, according to your logic protecting potential to result in new adult human you can, otherwise you must also ban contraception and refusing sex, which terminate the same potential, only a bit sooner.

reply to post by Maslo

Potential exists even before conception

Not for what doesn't exist yet.

but then suddenly opinion of the adults does matter? In one case they are free to terminate the mere potential, in another they are not? Where is logic in that? Either protect all potentials, or protect only actuality

No fully away adult can end a life unless that life threatens their own, or that life was create through violating the right to deny the act that creates it. You accept the act, you accept the consequences. Logic is simple.

There is nothing circular about it. According to Godel incompleteness theorem, any sufficiently complex logical system must contain axioms that cannot be proven (or disproven) using it, and thus must be chosen and taken for granted. Is arithmetic circular logic?

Anyway, circular logic will be still preferable to contradicting logic. At least its internally consistent.

Cool story bro. Prove it.

In this case, the will of the adult to terminate potential is blatantly ignored

Good.

in the case of the earlier potential it must be respected. See the contradiction?

Doesn't exist yet. No contradiction.

Either protect all potentials

A potential for potential is not a potential. The potential for a potential is a opportunity to stop it without killing something that will become an adult. Once again, its what you are committing an act to create.

Humans can ignore the will of the selfish gene, as Dawkins put it. Because of this, we have rights.

Yet it is respected in case of terminating the potential of a new future adult human with contraception or refusing sex. But when terminating this potential with abortion or killing the child, opinions of the adults are suddenly subjective and should be ignored?

You can subjectively say you do not wish to breed. Once you breed, if life comes about, the right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness must be followed.

Yes, according to your logic protecting potential to result in new adult human you can, otherwise you must also ban contraception and refusing sex, which terminate the same potential, only a bit sooner.

No.

Kid gets created, as defined scientifically by his genes. The act is intervened, the kid never existed. No problem.

But under your piss poor example, I can still kill my kid without moral fear. K thanks bro.

reply to post by Gorman91

A potential for potential is not a potential.

Why not? Why should line be drawn exactly at conception? Every sperm and egg is a potential future adult.

No fully away adult can end a life unless that life threatens their own, or that life was create through violating the right to deny the act that creates it.

So woman can kill rape child all the way before it becomes an actual adult?

Originally posted by Maslo
reply to post by Wertwog

A personal note and observation...I noticed that you completely ignored my comments about my aunt and having any compassion for her situation what-so-ever. I suppose this isn't relevant to you at all. This leads me to believe that you, and perhaps many others who are 'pro-life' don't have any.

It is not relevant, because I have no problem with almost any medical procedure if required to protect the health or life of the mother. And I do have more compassion than you, because my compassion extends to beings that happen to be biologically connected to another, or that cannot for some reason "act" on their behalf.

Clearly you didn't even bother to read my post on the subject. Skip over that part did you? My aunt was killed by a backalley abortionist. It is totally relevant, and I would be careful accusing me of not having compassion for my aunt or any woman/girl in her situation.

But really, you're not trying to protect anything, you know full well women are going to have abortions no matter what the law says and many will die from it -- you just want control over others pure and simple. Your pedantic arguments and ridiculous comparisons of twins to mothers are just so much blather aren't they? I wish you guys would just come right out and admit it.

Unsubstantiated straw-mans.

You don't seem to know what a straw man is, lol. Not only that, in the referenced post, I am expressing an opinion, not an argument, as I clearly stated.

Instead, you want laws that will do nothing but kill women and you ostracize and shame instead of helping and supporting. Shame on you because your black and white version of the issue will get you nothing but dead daughters and babies. So much for your high morals and "protective" feelings.

I believe it is you who sees the issue as black and white. Conception vs. birth are two extreme, polar positions. There is a whole bunch of other positions between them that go unnoticed, but are most likely to be correct, IMHO.

I very much see the nuances. It is clear that most pro-lifers never mention, or when they do, downplay mothers rights, insult or criticize women and have very clear "moral" judgements. These people see the issue as "killing babies" vs not. That is a very black/white perspective. If that is not your perspective then fine, but I seem to recall you saying that a few months of "discomfort" was worth not "killing a baby".

What do you think is the "correct" position? In what sense to you mean "correct"?

reply to post by Maslo


Every sperm an egg has the potential to do two things. Die, or fertilize. Neither of these end points is a human adult. Though one creates the potential for one. It does not posses it. Just as a brick does not have the potential to become a building alone. The worker and the brick working together posses this potential.

Every fertilized egg has the potential to do two things. Die, or produce a human adult. This end point is what matters. This possesses potential to become a human adult.

Action can be taken to stop the fertilization, for before this event, no potential exists. It is not guaranteed.

Action taken to stop the fertilized egg from reaching adulthood is doing just that. Stopping that grantee.

It's really not that difficult.

So woman can kill rape child all the way before it becomes an actual adult?

Nope. But they have a right to give up that responsibility. There is no feasible means to do that which is not murder. When there is, we adapt.

Originally posted by Maslo
reply to post by Wertwog

Where do you draw the line? Dogs, cats, lizards, bees, birds? All of these have very complex neurology compared to something else and all exhibit some attributes of person-hood. How do you decide? Does a crow have "personhood" but not a finch or a sparrow? At what neurological point do you draw the line, keeping in might "person-hood" entitles people to rights in our society, privacy, voting etc, and also makes them subject to laws.

I would say that higher animals such as dogs, cats and some lizards should be included, along with highly developed molluscs. Higher mammals definately. But I am no neurobiologist, so take it with a grain of salt.

Haha, are you aware that "persons" in our society are entitled to open bank accounts, social security numbers, medical insurance, and can take you to court?

A physically restrained person still has the ability to act, you are not thinking this through. Agency is the ability of a person to act on their own behalf for their own goals. To represent oneself in the world and act upon their own goals and desires. A restrained person can still communicate, look at something because they decide to and plan to, twitch, decide to pee and do a whole variety of actions based on their own volition. They "represent" themselves. This is not as abstract as you seem to think.

What about a neurologically damaged person in such a way that he can basically only think, not communicate, see, twitch pee etc.? What about sleping people, unconscious people or people in coma?

As I mentioned in a previous post some persons have had their rights of "person-hood" removed when they've become so incapacitated they are unable to act on their own behalf AND are not conscious AND can no longer form impressions of the world and make plans. In these cases these individuals are usually on life support and the family makes the chose to turn off the machine or not.

What do you mean by right to life? It is relevant to twins not being each others mothers.

Why is this of any importance for the discussion?

You were saying there "is no difference" between a mother and child or siamese twins. Siamese twins are not each others mothers.

I was asking of your opinion, not what is considered legal or not, that differs around the world. And no, it is not always illegal to harm or kill another PERSON. Legislation is not proof of anyone, it was legal to kill jews in nazi germany, it is legal to stone adulterers in some places in the middle east.

You cannot justify legislation (which includes your definition of a person by birth) by saying "its the law". Thats circular logic.

I am not justifying legislation, I am telling you what it is. A person, in law, can't harm or kill another person. I would look up the legal definition of a "person" and if you don't agree with it's basis, then try to have this changed.

Like others here i am pro choice but anti-abortion. One thing i do not agree with these days though is men not having any options....lets say two people are irresponsible and have sex, woman finds out she is pregnant..from then on a man has no rights, while a woman has the legal right to shirk the responsibility of having a child and everything that goes with it via abortion, i think men should also have some sort of legal option to do the same....equality and all that. Of course not being irresponsible in the first place is the best solution, that applies to both men and woman.

reply to post by Gorman91

Every fertilized egg has the potential to do two things. Die, or produce a human adult.

No. Every fertilised egg has the potential to do two things. Die, or produce a human CHILD (which is again, only potential for adult). Just as sperm and eggs may produce only potential for adult, so does the embryo. Neither of these end points is a human adult. Though one creates the potential for one. But it does not posses it.

Potential is an arbitrary and ill-defined concept. Thats why we should protect only actuality.

Action can be taken to stop the fertilization, for before this event, no potential exists. It is not guaranteed.
Action taken to stop the fertilized egg from reaching adulthood is doing just that. Stopping that grantee.

Nothing is guaranteed, ever. Many pregnancies, 30% i think, end spontaneously. Its all probabilities, both with fertilisation, fetal development and even after birth it is not guaranteed child will survive into adulthood.
Sperms and eggs certainly have a potential (probability) to initiate some chain of events ultimately leading to a human adult. They have potential. Just like embryo has only some probability to initiate chain of events ultimately leading to a human adult.

reply to post by Solomons


Yes, I agree.
I think the best way would be that man should have a right to completely opt out of child support before abortion limit has passed, if he publicly declares he does not want the child and would agree with abortion, and if its only the woman who does not want the abortion done. In that case its clear that only the woman wants the child, and not the man, so only she should pay for it (maybe with assistance of the state of course).

Originally posted by Maslo
reply to post by Wertwog

 

It is not "just my opinion", it is the law, proving its not just my opinion. You are talking about rights of person-hood, those only extend to persons. Animal and fetal (please spell this correctly) rights are a different matter.

All right, it is the opinion of you and some others. You said that rights are not accorded to non-persons, which is incorrect. If you meant only rights of personhood, then OK. Spelling of "foetus" is also used, coming from Latin nomenclature.

en.wikipedia.org...

Ok, let me make this a bit more basic for you. "Mind" definitely is not a neurological concept, "Brains" are. Neurology can't (at the moment) explain "mind" or "consciousness" or "sentience" or even "self awareness", but it can explain neural activity, connectivity and chemical and biological relationships. Ask any neurologist what "mind" is and he can't tell you. If you ask a psychologist or philosopher they will give you plenty of explanations for these things.

Whatever. The concept of "Mind" may be somehow unexplained right now and with fuzzy definitions, but it is a part of our world and can and will be explained and characterised by neurology and psychology. Ignoring it wont make it go away.

Self awareness and "presence of mind" absolutely require consciousness, you can't have a self aware being that is not also conscious and the same goes for "presence of mind" which is the same thing as self awareness. I don't think they are that high, my dog is pretty self aware , but granted she is a VERY intelligent dog.

I said that self-awareness is not required for consciousness or sentience. Not the other way around.

Look, the whole point of your position seems to be that you want 'person-hood' to be extended to the unborn and all the rights that go along with it, correct? This is so that mothers wouldn't be able to abort/kill 'persons'.

You've wiggled in and out of the debate by changing your definitions, used some very fuzzy logic and moved the goalposts in the arguments whenever it suited you. There are several examples, self-awareness is one, the potential argument that you dismissed earlier but now admit that a fertilized egg is only a potential human, another is your 'person-hood' criteria.

You have thus far stated quite clearly that you consider whether or not something is a "person" should be based on it's neurology. Then you go on to talk about mind and consciousness and sentience as if these have anything to do with it. When I pointed out that these are not neurological concepts, you then now want me not to ignore them, but it is you yourself that defined the debate along these principals.

Frankly, I'm finding it hard to take your arguments seriously when you openly state you would want rights of person-hood accorded to mollusks. Your credibility is seriously in question when you don't know where to draw the line on a neurological basis and in doing so would allow clams and oysters to have person-hood rights ... social security numbers and vote. Come on, really? How would you like to be taken to court by a clam or have your favorite candidate loose the election because of the "oyster vote". Frankly, you're being ridiculous and a little thought into your arguments might help them be a bit more cogent.

I think we've come to the end of our conversation.

reply to post by Wertwog

Clearly you didn't even bother to read my post on the subject. Skip over that part did you? My aunt was killed by a backalley abortionist. It is totally relevant, and I would be careful accusing me of not having compassion for my aunt or any woman/girl in her situation.

Then she should have gone to a professional to have the pregnancy terminated. As I said, ban on late-term abortion is just that, a ban on late-term abortion. Pregnancy can be terminated by other means that do not involve killing a baby. I also support any procedure if medically required to protect the mother. That is enough compassion and alternatives for women. Thus your straw man trying to portrait me as some kind of a control-freak without compassion wont work. I have more compassion than you, IMHO.

What do you think is the "correct" position? In what sense to you mean "correct"?

Ban on abortion (not termination of pregnancy) after neural cortex of the foetus is sufficiently developed (unless there is a medical need), to guarantee protection of both born and unborn human beings. I think around 5th month is a good limit. I consider this correct because I believe even biologically connected beings should have some protection in law.