Click the link. It’s there for a reason. I didn’t just make it up.
(Seriously. This is one thing I’ve noticed about this board. Even if you cite something, people will ignore it, call you an idiot and then assert that they’re right. Why, exactly, is that?)
You said you cannot imagine being in a situation where you have no thoughts/feelings/consciousness. So can you or can’t you? If you can conceivably imagine what it is to be in a situation where you have no thoughts/feelings/consciousness and envision what you would want to happen to you, then you cannot say you cannot reasonably do this regarding being a fetus (or even a newly born child).
And there are situations where abortion can be deemed permissible. And…?
I’m not sure what relation allowing someone to die has to killing someone.
Next-of-kin are generally allowed to make end of life decisions when someone is in a persistent vegetative state, brain dead or some state where the hope of recovery is minimal or non-existent. I don’t know the law exactly, but I would be willing to bet that if-- for whatever reason-- it was known that a comatose individual would regain consciousness and be perfectly healthy on on <X> date, or that there was a very good chance of it happening, that his or her next-of-kin would generally not be allowed to decide to pull the proverbial plug.
Okay, I admit that I only glanced at the link and saw that it was titled Brain function in coma, vegetative state, and related disorders, so I assumed it was about, you know, brain function during comas, vegetative states, and related disorders. Silly me. I see on closer inspection that the authors do list coma, sleep, and anaesthesia together for some reason but they don’t really go into any other real detail about sleep specifically. Still, sleep is clearly not the same as coma or vegetative state - a person who is asleep can respond to stimulus from the outside world while a person in a coma or vegetative state cannot. Otherwise how do you hear your alarm clock in the morning? Why do you wake up when you need to pee?
If I were asleep and someone were to come along and start sawing off my leg, I’d wake up and tell them to knock it off. If I were comatose or brain dead, well, I wouldn’t care. Surely even a moron such as yourself can see the difference.
Saying ‘what would I like done if I were in a coma’ is like saying ‘what would I like done with my belongings after I die’. Neither one requires you to actually be present at the time, but both rest on you having had thoughts and feelings and emotions at some point. We can write up legal contracts about these things because we are conscious humans who have opinions about things like that, and as a rule the law takes those feelings into account.
For example, I feel that I would not want to be kept alive in a vegetative state, based on cases like Terry Schaivo’s. I think it’s a shame to waste resources that way and to put the family through so much pain, and I wouldn’t want to do that to my family. You don’t have to imagine what it would be like to actually be Terry Schaivo to be able to say ‘no, I don’t think it’s right to keep someone’s body alive like that’. In fact you can’t imagine what it would be like to be her, because there is nobody there to be. Much like imagining you were a fetus, it’s a completely pointless exercise.
Oh, I see you’re pro-choice now. Glad we got you to see the light.
Maybe I could imagine being a boat, only with feelings, and my captain wants to steer me into a tornado, but first I must throw my mother in law overboard, as she was on the boat only because I kidnapped her, so that she would help me collect a few marine samples, but then she went all victim on me.
The lesson here is to read the whole thing instead of just the title. Glad I could help impart some wisdom.
The point, which I can only surmise you purposely ignored, is that the level of consciousness between the states (being asleep, being in a coma or being anesthized) are equivalent; that is, there is none due to there being no awareness nor arousal. If, as has been argued by various posters, the “value” of an individual is dictated by consciousness, then individuals in a coma have no value, people who have been anesthized have no value and every time you fall asleep you lose value, though you regain it once you wake up. Oh, surely you’ll argue that such a conclusion is ridiculous and I’ll agree that it is ridiculous, but you get a ridiculous conclusion when you start from a ridiculous premise.
While that’s great and all, it has nothing to do with your original assertion, which was this (since you’ve forgotten):
Fetuses are not the only individuals who do not have thoughts, feelings or opinions. People who are asleep, in a coma or anesthized all fail to meet at least one of these criteria, yet you somehow conclude that you can reasonably put yourself into a position where you can take their desires into account. So which is it? Can you or can’t you?
So you agree that you can do the thing which you said you reasonably could not do? If so, then I pose to you (again!) the question regarding abortion and the veil of ignorance. It doesn’t matter how many times you try to say pass this off as “a completely pointless exercise”, it won’t make it true (especially since it’s an exercise which has been engaged in for decades now, even by pro-choicers). This is really nothing more than an evasive tactic on your part though, as I’ve said many times now, I’m not too terribly surprised.
If it helps you to feel better, then you can label me as you wish. It won’t make it true, though.
…Oh, and I’m still waiting for that explanation. This:
Doesn’t cut it. Did you really not read the sites I provided you at all?
Because when an individual can no longer argue the topic, they instead choose to argue a different topic and/or resort to insults. But I’m not pointing that out or anything, because then I’d be accused of having a persecution complex or something
Hardly. I’m saying this is a complicated issue and the people who claim to know the answer with certainty are the ones who are putting themselves above the fray.
No, my response to “we cannot solve this to everyone’s satisfaction” is to allow everyone to do what they feel is right, and not allow anyone to try to force their beliefs off on others. There is no “so lets do it my way” in the pro-choice side - note that word “choice”, it’s important.
Pedophiles having a lasting, very negative affect on actual living breathing humans. However, my personal morals say that aborting a fetus is the same thing as cutting off a skin tag, and because of that my morals do not affect any real live humans. Or did you wish to argue that the victims of pedophiles aren’t real humans?
Shrug. Picky picky. If nothing else, I didn’t say anything about the legality of the choice, just the morals.
So your argument is against marriage in general, correct? If so, and if you plan on making all existing legal benefits for the currently married null and void, I’m not sure what this has to do with the thread at all. Would you mind explaining in more detail, so I can determine how this all fits together?
I’m not going to read every word of every thing you ever link to. This is a message board, not a research project. If you are so unsure about your own argument or so unable to express it yourself, then maybe you should reconsider how valid it is as an argument.
As for the rest, I will just tell you one more time that being asleep or in a coma is not the same thing as being a fetus. I know, I know, you’re going to follow me around saying “but whhyyyyy, WHYYYYYY!”, like I did to my dad when I was five, but you’re just going to have to put on your thinking cap and figure it out for yourself.
How about we try this exercise - try to state your position on abortion, with reasons, in three sentences or less. Like so:
I believe abortion should be legal in all circumstances because it is unjust to force a woman to incubate a fetus against her will. The fetus has no rights in this situation because it lacks all the qualities that make a person human and thus imbue them with rights. However, even if I did think the fetus was a person (and I don’t), I still wouldn’t concede that it had the right to hijack a woman’s body for it’s own purposes.
Can you summarize your position like? Because honestly, you’re all over the map with your ‘thought exercises’ and whatnot.
No, because when people argue with idiots it’s sometimes fun to point out that they are idiots.
Because that trauma and pain is what anti-abortionists are demanding be forced upon women. If I’m hungry, is it a violation of your rights for me to beat you into submission and suck your blood? Of course it is; just as it is a violation of their rights to force women to go through pregnancy and childbirth.
But after birth? They can just hand the infant off to someone else with no physical trauma, no physical violation.
