And this might be meaningful if the entire abortion debate rested on the question of whether or not things were sentient. The pro-choice argument is not “anything that I don’t like I can kill! Whee!” no matter how much you’d like it to be. It generally rests on the idea that the fetus does not have rights equal to the mother but even if it did, it is not appropriate to force somebody to sustain another being with their own body. Once the newborn is out of the mother, you are no longer dealing with something that is entirely dependent on someone else’s body to sustain it, whether or not that person wants to share their body in that way.
Also, sentience can include the ability to feel pleasure and pain, and I’m pretty sure newborns can do that.
What? Are you surrounded with people so dumb that ‘flippant’ qualifies as a big word or something? It’s a perfectly reasonable word for adults with normal vocabularies to use.
Happily, not the people I hang out with. They are nice people and rarely, if ever, ridicule people. Especially for having, gasp, something more than a basic vocabulary. What a weird thing to pick on someone for. What an angry, small-minded person you seem to be. I hope you are different in real life, for the sake of those around you.
ETA: I have friends from the entire political and religious spectrum, and for the most part we get along really well and can discuss just about anything- this includes clergy as well. The reason we can is because we all get the common truth that ethical issues are tricky and complex and really good people can come to differing opinions. As long as we can trust that we each are coming from a sincere place, we can differ and respect and learn from each other.
So in your mind only the question of personhood is relevant to the abortion debate? The fact that the embryo is living inside another person and surviving only because the mother is providing for it with her own body is meaningless to you?
To my mind the question of what exactly makes a person a person is an interesting one, but nothing, no matter how much of a person it is, gets to set up camp and live in my uterus against my will. Why is that so hard to understand?
Sentience does not mean self-aware. I don’t think anyone in this thread suggested it means self-aware. Sentience is simply a level of consciousness that allows a creature to perceive their environment. It is a key element when people discuss the ability to suffer. Newborns can suffer. It’s pretty much accepted that most mammals can suffer. Some even suggest that squids may be able to suffer. Buddhists think all animals are sentient. Anyway, it requires higher cognitive centers such as a cerebral cortex.
<snip the rest since I’m not going to do your work for you>
I am a human. Prior to birth, I was a fetus.
Which, I very much hope, you are well aware is not the same thing as saying they all look alike.
Logic has nothing to do with what you are posting.
It is your personal belief that it is a human at conception. It is also your personal belief that science agrees with you. You may not want to call them that, but they aren’t facts.
Yes, and don’t do the deed if you can’t handle the prospect of becoming pregnant. A radical notion, I know.
It’s not?
I said this before, but fetus denotes a stage of development. Human is a species. A fetus has to belong to some species. If the two parents are human, then the fetus must also be human, for the law of biogenesis states that organisms can only come together to produce members of the same species. Does it hurt you to know that you couldn’t pass a 6th grade biology test if your life depended on it? When you respond, do you get this little tingly sensation in the upper portion of your head?
Logic has everything to do with what I’m posting. Just because you’re pro-choice and unable to understand facts and logic, doesn’t mean my posts are devoid of them.
You know, as the saying goes, facts are stubborn things. Whatever may be your wishes, your inclinations, or the dictates of your passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence. You can continue to assert that the the idea that human beings begin their lives at conception. I’ll continue to throw out the facts, which you will continue to throw out. Oh, and just because I can:
OK- so that made me laugh. Thank you- I’ve had a hell of a day and needed that.
Heh. Still funny. I’m a snob because I use the word flippant and I happen to have nice friends who somehow put up with pretentious old me. Love it! It’s just so absurd!
There’s no point trying to reason with them. They have to be right all the time. I quoted Lejeune myself before and an angry mob of replies ensued.
He was a pediatrician and a geneticist. I think I`ll trust his definiton.
I’m sure if they wanted to, they could find some scientist to disagree-- like PZ Meyers. Though I dunno’ who they think they’re kidding. As I said, we’ve known for at least 40 years that the unborn at all gestational ages are humans. Hell, even looking at the text of Roe v. Wade lets you know that even as far back as 1857, scientists knew this. It’s amazing how pro-choicers can be more than 154 years behind the times.
