No, 281 women were studied. They were selected by specific criteria from a pool of 9,129. Big difference.
That’s where the data came from, but not the conclusions. From the abstract of the Gissler cite:
The conclusions about abortion and relative death rates were not made in this article. They were made separately by Dr. Reardon, and appear only in the above linked site and a few other pro-lifer sites. There are many reasons that these conclusions are not publishable, including the small sample size and the numerous uncontrolled confounding factors.
I agree. Completely separate argument. I was responding to the assertion that “David Reardon has shown that this really isn’t true,” because he has not shown that at all.
Agreed. There’s always some muddling in these type things concerning whether the fetus is a person, whether it’s alive, and even if it’s human. My quick take is that it’s clearly human, as opposed to bovine, ursine, or jellyfish. It’s clearly alive, insofar as it does all those things that a high school biology textbook talks about–ingests, undergoes cellular reproduction, responds to stimuli, etc. Is it a person? That depends on who you’re asking. It’s a philosophical question, not one of biology, so I don’t think there is one answer. But, of course, I think I’m right
**
Not by Ray’s definition: “An organism that grows, feeds, and is sheltered on or in a different organism while contributing nothing to the survival of its host [emphasis added].” Looks like he’ll have to go back to the drawing board on that one.
**
That’s not abandoning. That’s an act of care by the mother, without which the child would die.
Ah, now I understand what you mean. As is often the case though, size is a relative matter in such things. Moreover, the researchers acknowledged the possibility of statistical variance, and having a sample of 281 women doesn’t invalidate the results themselves. (Also note that this study was conducted by the Finnish government, rather than by any pro-life group.)
Well, at least we can agree that the whole “abortion is safer” argument is irrelevant. You also right to point out my haste. While Reardon’s results call the pro-choice claim into question, we should recognize that they don’t constitute absolute proof.
Besides, if we grant the possiblity of statistical deviation, then the claim that abortion is safer is itself not proven either. Scylla has already stated some of the reasons why this claim is questionable. There are other reasons; for one thing, this claim typically misuses AMA statistics on maternal death.
The AMA statistics cliam that the mortality rate for a woman in childbirth is 9 per 100,000, as opposed to under 1 per 100,000 for abortions performed before the 13th week, or 3 deaths per 100,000 for abortions after the 13th week. Such a conclusion, however, is statistically insignificant. If we use percentages, we can see that a woman in childbirth has a 99.991% chance of surviving, as opposed to 99.999%
A difference of 0.008% is statistically moot, especially since there are many factors which can account for this tiny difference. In addition, one should also consider the long-term effects of abortion, such as increased incidence of potentially fatal ectopic pregnancies.
There is also the difficulty of obtaining accurate statistics regarding abortion-related deaths. For example, in his book, Aborted Women: Silent No More, Reardon cited a Chicago Sun-Times article wherein undercover investigators found clinic employees who routinely checked “no complications” before the abortion procedure had even been completed. (“The Abortion Profiteers” by Pamela Zekman and Pamela Warrick, 12 November 1979)
Also remember that outpatient clinics seldom provide follow-up examinations, and that abortion clinics are under no obligation to provide follow-up surveillance. In fact, if complications due ensue, it would be reasonable for a women to seek help at a local hospital rather than the abortion clinic (Reardon, Aborted Women, p. 91). Heck, the women may not even divulge her abortion, or might not know that it’s relevant.
In light of all these complicating factors, I think it’s foolish to say that abortion is safer based on a mere 0.008% difference.
First of all, I never claimed it was a pile of cells. There is no set pro-choice philosophy any more than there is a set pro-life one so I would rather not be glommed together with the ‘many’ pro-choicers who believe this. Secondly, without the mother the heartbeat would stop, the brain and circulatory systems would cease to develop and all motor activity would, for want of a better word, die. Simply stating the developmental progress of a fetus at the time of most abortions doesn’t hide the fact that it is far, far less developed than the orgamism it is imposing on. Just because a fetus begins to take on human characteristics at the time most abortions are performed doesn’t mean that it is equivalent to an adult human.
These laws are put in place to stop us from infringing on the rights of other people recognised under the law. Since fetuses aren’t recognised as human beings it is illogical and cruel to force women to submit to their needs at their own great expense.
Well that still counts for about 12, 000 abortions per annum. Are you saying that because the woman was denied the right to choose in those instances that abortion should be permitted? If so please explain this apparent double standard.
I never meant to imply that we will be stuck with it forever, just that we are stuck with it at this particular moment in time. Just wanted to clear that up.
Please define human life? Do you simply mean living human cells because the residue of my bloody nose from my first thread is also composed of living cells However, I assume you are referring to the creation of a unique biological entity.
The cells that make up this entity are undoubtedly alive and are undoubtedly human but it does not follow that the entity is a human being. Fetuses become human beings upon birth since it is only then that they can survive without feeding off their mothers. Before then they are simply fetuses.
Jeez, talk about loaded statements. Firstly, I object to the term ‘Kill’. Fetuses are not ‘killed’ they are aborted.
Secondly, since we aren’t ‘killing’ anything, surely it rests on the shoulders of pro-lifers to prove that these mere non sentient parasitic entities are worth trading in a womans reproductive rights for.
And what’s so special about conception? All it is is the fusing of biological information contained in the Sperm and Ova into one fused cell. The information was present before conception so why is conception special? Scylla
Why not? Because the genetic information is separate? Here is a hypothetical situation. Let’s say Bob invents a time machine. He wants to use this machine to kill Joe. He goes back in time to before Joe was born and renders joe’s parents sterile (let’s say he puts something in their water supply or whatever). Bob has killed the sperm and ova responsible for creating Joe. Did Bob do anything wromg? Did Bob commit murder? Did Bob carry out an abortion of sorts?
If your answer to any of the above questions is yes then it shows a worryingly hypocritical double standard. by answering yes to any of the above questions you are admitting that Sperm and Ova are so essential to the progression of Joe’s life that they are or should be worth protecting, but you’re not protecting them. If, on the other hand, you answer No to all of the above, I’d like to hear your reasoning.
Also, in response to your assertion that the Sperm and Ova argument is a strawman I have to disagree (surprise). If the fetus is a human and not just a potential human then the next question we should ask ourselves is when does it finally stop becoming a human? Since an early fetus has little or no human characteristics apart from its DNA structure we must look at that. We can look at the moment of fusion between the sperm and ova once the two have been brought into contact and the separate DNA coding held in each has been combined. But why should we not go back even further? For arguments sake we can track the separate DNA coding held in the Sperm and the Ova right back into the reproductive organs of the parents. The information is still there and since that’s what we based our original observation on we should conclude that the Sperm and the Ova are worth protecting too? If not then we should at least be honest with ourselves and admit that the presence of human DNA in a fetus does not automatically warrent its designation as a ‘Human Being’ until it has at least begun to develop characteristics such as sentience, the onset of which marks the earliest point at which it could survive on its own outside of the womb.
So therefore, if you are not responsible for my sons kidney damage I have no right enforce my will upon you. Therefore the 12,000 women who have abortions due to rape or incest every year (where they don’t have the choice) are perfectly justified in doing so. This seems like a hypocritical double standard to me. Kindly explain your reasoning here, then we can talk about the amount of women who get pregnant despite using contraception and what should be done in their situations.
Why should we follow any such thing? A fetus is not sentient, a fetus cannot survive for a moment outside of the womb until late into the third trimester. Why does it then follow that it is a human being? Because it has human DNA? Well so does the mother and she has the right to enforce her right to protect her life from the dangers posed by a pregnancy.
This is a fair point. However to clarify I never said that the rhino (in my allegory the rhino represented a human mother) would die without the tics. However, the rhino does have the right to rid herself of the tics because they cause her pain and do nothing to contribute to her immediate survival. Same as an unwanted fetus.
Moral relativism when applied universally is a bad thing, but that’s another debate. I think you musinderstood what I originally meant. I was saying that in this debate all the relevant biological facts are present for both sides to see. We can see conception taking place in petri dishes under microscopes. However, we both take different things away from this event. You see it as the creation of a new human being, fully deserving of human rights. I see it as the creation of a human entity with human DNA but not the creation of a fully fledged human being. Since the fact of conception is unequivocal, pro-lifers have to persuade people that their view (that the event creates a new human being) is superior to the pro-choice view. There are no new facts to dig up, pro-lifers must rely on reasoning and rhetoric.
How am I mischaracterising? I know that they think the law is in error, however I don’t see much convincing evidence as to why it should be changed. They’d have to do one of the following
(a) Persuade people that fetuses were viable from conception, that they could survive outside of the mothers womb
or
(b) That the human looking characteristics of a heart beat and the semblance of a nervous system constitutes an actual human being. If they choose to do this, why is the presence of a heartbeat more indicative of the existance of a human being than sentience?
There’s that word killing again. Fetuses aren’t ‘killed’ in abortions, they are aborted.
Not according to my cited definition. If you have another then we can look at that and review this point accordingly.
Abortion is not murder. To murder one has to kill someone actually protected by the law. Fetuses aren’t. Therefore abortion is not murder.
I’ll try and reply to other points later tomorrow or the next day.
Nobody “equates” a fetus (or a newborn, or a 5 year old…or…) with an adult human…saying that a newborn infant is not “equivalent” to an adult (and in a whole lot of ways, it’s not)…does not mean that it should not have a basic right to life.
“recognized under the law”…?
Tell that to Dred Scott…
Damn. Do you STILL not get it? You speak of the “law” as being some permanently fixed set of codes…when it is nothing of the sort.
Gay marriages are not recognized in most states…would you tell gay men and women to shut their yaps, because other marriages are “recognized under the law”, while their unions are not?
In 1981 (April 23-24) a Senate Judiciary Subcommittee held hearings on the very question before us here: When does human life begin? Appearing to speak on behalf of the scientific community was a group of internationally-known geneticists and biologists who had the same story to tell, namely, that human life begins at conception - and they told their story with a profound absence of opposing testimony.
Dr. Micheline M. Mathews-Roth, Harvard medical School, gave confirming testimony, supported by references from over 20 embryology and other medical textbooks that human life began at conception.
“Father of Modern Genetics” Dr. Jerome Lejeune told the lawmakers: “To accept the fact that after fertilization has taken place a new human has come into being is no longer a matter of taste or opinion … it is plain experimental evidence.”
Dr. Hymie Gordon, Chairman, Department of Genetics at the Mayo Clinic, added: “By all the criteria of modern molecular biology, life is present from the moment of conception.”
Dr. McCarthy de Mere, medical doctor and law professor, University of Tennessee, testified: “The exact moment of the beginning of personhood and of the human body is at the moment of conception.”
Dr. Alfred Bongiovanni, University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, concluded, “I am no more prepared to say that these early stages represent an incomplete human being than I would be to say that the child prior to the dramatic effects of puberty … is not a human being.”
Dr. Richard V. Jaynes: “To say that the beginning of human life cannot be determined scientifically is utterly ridiculous.”
Dr. Landrum Shettles, sometimes called the “Father of In Vitro Fertilization” notes, “Conception confers life and makes that life one of a kind.” And on the Supreme Court ruling Roe v. Wade, “To deny a truth [about when life begins] should not be made a basis for legalizing abortion.”
Professor Eugene Diamond: “…either the justices were fed a backwoods biology or they were pretending ignorance about a scientific certainty.”
And the difference is…? It’s a living being…what do YOU call ending the life of a living being (whether it’s a bug, cat or human?)
Goodness, someone needs a biology lesson on the significance of conception.
Hypothetical based on time travel eh? :rolleyes: OK…
Without discussing the merits of a time travel argument…killing sperm or rendering someone infertile…without their consent is not abortion, but is certainly “wrong” for other reasons.
See here (especially the sections on gametogenesis and of fertilization) AGAIN for the difference between potential genetic information, and a new life form.
Besides which, one may as well ask what’s so special about the moment of birth. There’s a grave ironiy in pooh-poohing the moment of conception, while ascribing some mystical significance to the instant of birth. At least there are physicians, geneticists and medical textbooks which testify that life begins at conception. Birth, on the other hand, involves a mere change of location for the fetus.
I had really hoped this thread might get through the day without this cite coming up. I want to take some time to explain what’s wrong with it point-by-point, but I just don’t have the time right now. (My Step 2 comes up Tuesday, and it’s bad enough that I’m taking study time off to read these threads, much less respond to them. )
In short–this article is nothing but the author equivocating terms, setting up straw men, and twisting scientific terminology to present her opinion as fact.
And, if you read closely, you’ll see that I never accused you of saying such. I said that it’s something which “many pro-choicers still claim.”
And with out the mother, or some surrogate caretaker, a newborn baby’s heart would stop. So would that of a one-year-old, a two-year-old, and so forth.
As beagledave pointed out, you seem to be treating the law as though it is inviolate and uncontestably correct. Pro-lifers believe that the current law is unjust.
Moreover, the law DOES accord protection to the unborn. If you kill a pregnant woman (either deliberately or through neglect), you can also be held accountable for the death of the fetus. The law DOES recognize the unborn as a human being in such cases; unfortunately, this principle is not applied with logical consistency.
Not at all. Once again, I urge, urge, URGE you to read closely. I acknowledged that instances of rape are exceptions to the principle that women get pregnant through their own actions. This is not, by any stretch of the imagination, the same as advocating abortion in such cases.
Since I nowhere claimed that abortion would be justified in cases of rape, there is no double standard.
I never meant to imply that we will be stuck with it forever, just that we are stuck with it at this particular moment in time. Just wanted to clear that up.
First of all, we’ve already proviced copious references which testify that life begins as conception.
And second, if you claim that life begins at birth, then shouldn’t you be defining human life as well? I notice that you haven’t provided ANY scientific reasons for that stance.
Object if you want, but when you end a life, you are killing it.
Ah, but once again, you are stating without proof or evidence that you’re not killing anything. We’ve provided numerous citations to the contrary.
First of all, you’re side-stepping the question. Please answer it directly.
And second, we’ve already answered your objection. Multiple times, in fact. Multiple times.
Instead of just shooting out rebuttals line by line, let me suggest you take a moment and think about what I’m actually saying.
The basic pro-life stance is that we have a human being at the moment of conception, and that it therefore has as much of a right to life as any other human being. You need to understand this viewpoint and argue against it and not the arguments you set up just to knock down.
What you are doing is making up arguments or repeating bad ones some pro-lifers have made in order to refute them. This is called a “Straw man argument” and is a classic logical fallacy.
But let’s get to your points:
A fetus can become a fully autonomous human being unless someone takes overt steps to kill it. A sperm or an ova cannot. When they join, a human life has begun, hence the term “conception.”
That’s a rather silly hypothetical, but ok. Bob has broken the laws of physics. The laws of physics are cool in that they are self-regulating and can’t be broken. Therefore your hypothetical could not occur and it therefore moot.
But I’ll ignore that, and try to answer. Besideds violating the laws of physics and paradox what has Bob done? Bob has committed assault against Joe’s parents by poisoning them, that’s for sure. Murder? no. No human life was ended. Abortion? No. Again no human life was ended.
Worrying? Why, do you know someone with a time machine?
Not true. At this point Joe has not been conceived. He has no life or rights to protect because he does not exist. The sperm and ova in question however, are a part of Joe’s parents, and attacking them or destroying their ability to reproduce is a crime against them, not Joe.
You are free to disagree of course, but it’s frankly not a debatable issue. You are attributing an argument to the pro-lifers that they do not beleive in order to defeat their reasoning. That’s a straw man.
If I say that you are calling cows people in order to refute your arguments, and you are saying no such thing than I am creating a “straw man.” Do you see?
When it either dies or it is killed.
Oh boy.
Why don’t we go back further than the moment of conception? Because at this point we have a human life that will develop into a full-fledged human being without interference or barring an accident. Sperm cells and ova are not human lives, and do not develop into human beings by themselves. We do not protect sperm any more than we protect dirt because sperm is not a human being. It is an ingrediant for a human being.
This is really not that complicated.
Take a look at a piece of bread. By itself it can’t become a human being. We don’t protect it, and it has no legal rights. Once ingested though it becomes part of a human being, and we can no longer attack the bread without attacking the human it has become.
Yup.
Your conclusion does not follow. If I am responsible for your son’s kidney damage, I think he should expect to be able to take one of my kidneys if that’s what he needs, since I am responsible. Only I can be held responsible. You don’t get to force somebody else to give your son a kidney, just me. In your rape hypothetical, the fetus is not the human life responsible for the crime. The fetus is an innocent third party that can’t be held culpable for the rape.
A newborn baby isn’t sentient either, you know? They aren’t self-aware. They aren’t capable of cognizance. A person in a severe coma isn’t sentient, and they may have far less brain activity than a fetus. Is it ok to kill somebody if they are in a severe coma even if they have a high likelihood of recovery? How about sleeping? After REM sleep you go into a period where most of your higher brain functions are almost completely inactive. Your not even dreaming. At that time you’re not sentient. Is it ok to kill you then?
Viability also has nothing to do with it. A person on a respirator isn’t capable of independant survival either. You don’t have the right to kill them, do you? Just becuase they’re on life support doesn’t mean they’re not human beings, does it?
I haven’t mentioned sentience, or viability, or DNA. Why do you seem to want to attack arguments I haven’t made? You have a real penchant for creating straw-men.
Why does the woman have the right to protect herself from the dangers of pregnancy by killing another human being any more than I have the right to kill somebody who is a bad driver to protect myself from the dangers of sharing a road with them?
As a society we don’t allow each other to just wantonly kill people just because they may represent a small danger to us.
No, you said that it would die if the ticks were not removed.
I’m glad human beings don’t share the same Bill of Rights you seem to give Rhinos.
Today I had to pee really bad while I was waiting in line at the grocery store. All the people in front of me that were stopping me from checking out were causing me pain and were doing nothing to contribute to my immediate survival. Too bad I’m not a rhino because then I would have been well within my rights to kill them all.
Are you seriously suggesting that it’s ok to kill somebody if they cause me pain, and don’t contribute to my immediate survival? Because if you are, my sister in law is dead meat.
There may very well be new facts to dig up. I’m not sure. Instead of having you misattribute arguments to me in order to shoot them down, why don’t you tell me what you think?
What are the necessary qualities or events that make a human being with a right to life in your view? At what point do we have a bunch of tissue that might arbitrarily be killed and at what other point do we have a human being who may not be killed?
The pro-life argument is the safer and more conservative one. In a given debate it should have precedence, and the pro-choicers should need to prove that their philosophy is better. The reason for this is that when exactly we have a bunch of tissue, and when he have a human being is a difficult thing to define. Without a reasonable definition of when a human life begins, the pro-life stance assures that the fewest human beings will die. Unless you can define what constitutes a human life or a human being you really can’t say that abortion isn’t killing one.
I think we both agree that at the moment of conception, a human life has begun, yes? You seem to thing that at this point it is not a human being or a person and may therefore be killed for the benefit or at the choice of the human being or person who is carrying it.
This naturally begs the question of when does a fetus become a human being? At what nonarbitrary point in your view may it no longer be killed, and why?
The pro-choice stance is both clear and nonarbitrary. A human life and a person exists at the moment of conception. At that point two germs combine and form a new human entity that will develop and grow and live and think and love, barring accident or interference.
Before we go any further I think it best that you define what constitutes a human being with rights in your personal view, and at what time in gestation (or before, or after) a potential human being who may be aborted becomes a human being who may not be killed.
It seems a reasonable request, doesn’t it? If you wish to advocate a moral stance for abortion you need to show that you’re not actually killing people.
{fixed code. What is it, people in abortion debates get too excited to code properly? --Gaudere}
Ray, “begging the question” is another logical fallacy you might want to understand a bit more fully (as has been pointed out).
If we accept your definition of when a human life deserves protection, than, yeah, I suppose much of your argument is unassailable. Unfortunately, you are largely ignoring the single most important element of the debate.
That is why when you respond along the lines of…
**
…it quickly gets tiresome and repetitive.
This was your thread, so stating (to paraphrase), “You’ll have to provide evidence if you want to convince me that my unproven point is wrong,” ain’t particularly helpful. Ignoring a specific question or point with, “Well, how is your argument any better?” is also less than the best we’ve seen on the pro-choice side of the debate.
You really believe sentience is the boundary of “personhood”? Fine. Many of our pro-choice folks believe the same, and they have offered interesting thoughts and arguments along these lines. Explain why you feel this way and answer the specific responses to this element of your argument.
Same deal with “viability.” WHY is viability such a critical milestone? When you can’t provide a logical argument for this (again, not for WHEN it occurs), then it quickly becomes frustrating to see questions ignored and pointless facts or thoughts trotted out that don’t prove or speak to the single most important element of the debate.
You seem to be behaving yourself better than in your OP (which is nice:)), but unfortunately you still seem to fancy yourself some sort of logical savior here, that you’re bringing something new to the party that will finally make all us poor deluded pro-lifers understand the error of our ways. It’s clear to me you haven’t read much of what has already been covered in other threads. This is not a new angle, these are not new issues, and you aren’t arguing them particularly well, though you seem to think otherwise.
She would only be a slave against her will if she were forced to carry to term against her will. Both are an infringement of her reproductive rights.
But what if the woman can’t support this baby once it has been born? Are you willing to adopt the child? Are you willing to pay for upkeep of the child? Are you willing to look after the child when the mother goes off to work (if she has a job at all?) Are you, in fact, willing to lift a finger to help her with the remifications of the choice you made for her?
The point I’m trying to make is that because these states are anti abortion and more children are born, more mouths have to be fed, more welfare and support cheques have to be claimed and more people have to use the public services. This is bad for the state as a whole and contribues in part to their relative poverty within the union. As to whether a rich anti abortion state would annihilate my argument, well, I’d need to see the information on it. It could well do, but then again it may have natural advantages that the poorer states do not have. Show me the cite and I’ll check it out and get back to you.
Also, as to your assertion that the poorer states are poor, not due to the amount of children walking around in them, but due to their initial lack of resources, I simply state that their stance on the abortion debate would be detrimental to their supplies no matter how good they were. The fact that they don’t have much compounds the damage that their stance on this issue does to them.
Not as far as I know. Besides, once a mosquito has given you malaria you will also gain an immunity from it. A mosquito is still a parasite.
No, because it is not directly feeding off her.
Well, the line between what is merely a human fetus and what is a viable human being and one deserving of protection under the law has to be drawn somewhere. Birth is the best time to draw this line as it is the least complicated, logically. Whether a fetus has a heartbeat in the first trimester or not is irrelevant since it can’t use it on its own and as such it should not be regarded as deserving of legal protection in the same way the mothers right to choose is regarded.
P.S.1) Your analogy does not correlate to the situation faced by a pregnant woman. Here is a better analogy. Suppose a person is in a coma. Furthermore, suppose that scientists can say that this person will awake from this coma in exactly nine months but in the meantime you, quixotic78, have to be responsible for the patient in every way, you have to feed it, protect it and make sure that the ventilator works at all times. Also suppose that the effort of doing all this will make you feel quite sick and fatigued for the next 9 months. Also suppose that once the patient has awoken you, quixotic 78, have to raise it, as though it were an infant and look after it until it is capable of looking after itself, which won’t be for many years. Or you have to find someone who will do the job for you, which might very well not happen. Furthermore, assume that you do not have anywhere near the resources available to carry out such a task. However, before the nine months, you have the option of unplugging the patient and it is generally accepted that you are well within your rights to do so.
Not so clear cut now, is it?
As per your second P.S. - If a woman decides that she does not want a child, for whatever reason, she is well within her rights to abort the fetus.
A brain-dead person is a living human being. Do you believe that said living human has the exact same rights as a conscious, sentient human?
No hope of surviving barring support, much like a fetus; heck, a fetus is even more dependent on support than an anencephelitic infant. A baby born without a cerebral cortex can often breathe on its own, and sometimes can take in food orally; it just cannot think. It is not a human’s ability to survive without help that determines a human’s “personhood”, in my eyes. I would freely give all the rights of personhood to a conscious human that cannot survive without medical support; you, based on your judgement that “a human with no hope of surviving [without help]” can be allowed to die without the consideration you would give to a zygote, would not. Color me confused.
The conscious mind, the part that thinks, is dead; the body still lives. A fetus prior to a certain degree of brain development can no more think than a brain-dead human, though its body can survive by drawing sustenence from the mother.
And you know this how? Cite, please?
Based on the medical evidence, conscious thought is impossible before a certain stage of brain development. After that state, since the fetus may be capable of thought, to err on the side of caution I would disagree with at-will abortions past the 5th month. However, I would consider them acceptable if the mother’s health was seriously threatened by the birth, since a possibly-conscious fetus’ rights do not, IMHO, trump the rights of a clearly fully conscious and sentient mother.
First of all, I think you’re confused here. Brain death is often used to mark the decisive moment of, well, death. If a human is deprived of rights at this point, it is only because he is considered to be legally and medically dead. (One might contest the propriety of using brain death to mark this point, as you doubtless will. Still, the point remains – the person loses his rights because he is considered to be dead, not alive.)
Second, even if we grant your claim, it merely shows that some living humans no longer have the full protection of the law. It certainly doesn’t show that the unborn is not a person.
So once again, I ask… What is the difference between a living human being, and a person?
Certainly not. The fetus does not have the right to own property, for example, or to exercise freedom of expression. It does, however, have the most fundamental of all human rights – the right to life.
You seem to be committing the same error that Ray Heller is committing – namely, ascribing positions to pro-lifers that they themselves do not take. Pro-lifers do not claim that the unborn is exactly the same as an adult, or that it has exactly the same rights as a post-born person. They do claim, however, that the unborn has the right to life, without which all other rights become meaningless.
Granted; however, their situations are still far from analogous. The fetus merely requires it’s own natural environment, whereas an infant without a brain stem requires far more than what its natural environment can provide. Again, one might argue about the degree to which a brain stem-less infant requires protection, but the fact remains that there’s a critical distinction in the nature of the support that they need.
Also bear in mind that a newborn child also requires support from its parents, as does a five-year-old child. Their need for support is merely natural.
Okay, so does that mean that we can kill severely retarded people, or people who are in a coma? Neither one has the ability for conscious thought. For that matter, what about a newborn whose mental development has been stunted? There’s no clear reason why conscious thought should mark the point of personhood.
**
[/QUOTE]
I’d be willing to stop the child abuse by reporting the abuser to the authorities. Same with infanticide. By forcing a woman to give birth you are forcing her to cope with the burden of raising the child regardless of whether or not she will be able to cope with it. You are denying her the right to choose for herself what she wants to do with her life by imposing a massive burden on her. Child abuse and infanticide are nothing like abortion because they both happen to children who (a) are protected by the law and (b) are brought into this world willingly (presumably).
It’s certainly not wrong to protest against something you don’t like but if your protestations are going to impose immense hardship on tens of millions of innocent women then yes, you should help them with their burdens.
Sure I’d be willing to adopt an abused child or one that’s going to be killed. Who wouldn’t? I definitely should be given a voice in protesting such things, but I’m willing to bear the responsibility of my choices.
Well, then, do you consider the lack of brain activity in the cerebral cortex (“brain death”) to be death in all aspects, then? I consider it the death (or nonexistence, if there never was any activity) of the person, but it is clearly not the death of the body–you can preserve the life of the body indefinitely, though the brain is dead. You can’t dodge my argument that there are living humans that no longer have rights by saying “oh, well, we call them dead, so they’re not really alive”, though their heart beats and they breathe. Or does your defintion of “living humans” requires a functioning cerebral cortex? In which case we may be in agreement.
But it certainly does show that not all living humans have the same right to life. And if you concede that, you must argue that the fetus in particular has a right to life, not just that all living humans have a right to life.
A person is a being capable of sentient thought. (If there is some question about sentience, I would advise erring on the side of caution, but it is not neccesary to assume that a being is capable of thought if the evidence indicates that thought is impossible.) A living human is a creature with human DNA that is carrying on the functions of living (heartbeat, cellular division, etc.), with or without assistance.
Since I have answered your question, answer mine:
What “alive”, and how do you determine this?
What is “dead”, and how do you determine it?
Does a creature that cannot think have same right to live as a creature that can?
So if a child requires far more than its natural environment can provide in order to survive, it’s OK to kill it? I am sure the parents of children who require a great deal of medical care would not agree with you on this.
Besides, you are incorrect. An infant born without a brain stem can often breathe, accept food, and eliminate; it does not require “far more than what it’s natural environment can provide” during it’s life. It will almost certainly die within a few months, if never given care besides food and warmth, but for that amount of time it can live with the same amount of care given to an normal infant. If given medical care to preserve their lives, they can live as long as two and a half years, or possibly even longer. But they will never think. And they are not considered to have the same legal and medical rights as a fully sentient child; the parents will sometimes decide to have the child killed before his/her natural death if order to preserve the organs for transplant, for example.
All children’s need for support is natural, whether it is a heathy, strong baby, or a sickly one, or one born without a brain. It is not “unnatural” that an abnormal baby requires a bit more care; it’s perfectly natural. Surely you are not saying that any less than perfectly healthy child does not have a right to life equal to that of a healthy child?
Gah! Cite, cite, cite. People in a coma show EEG readings indicative of thought, so can think, even if they remain unconscious (and there is, unless I am mistaken, evidence that those in a coma are conscious of their surroundings, so you can hardly call them fully unconscious). Even the most severely retarded people can generally talk and show EEG readings indicative of thought–hardly proof that they cannot consciously think. If an infant is born that completely lacks the ability for thought–the same anencephalic infants I was talking about above–yes, medically and legally they are not considered to have the same right to live as sentient humans. Quit saying “X lacks the ability for conscious thought” unless you have actual medical evidence that X does not have that capacity!
Incidentally, in my first post I meant to say “an infant born with only a brain stem” rather than what I did say, which was “an infant born without only a brain stem”, which may have contributed to some confusion. Though to my credit I clarified it as “born without a cerebral cortex” in my next post.
quixotic78 made one of many points that from a pro-life perspective this is a baby, not “only a fetus,” again attempting to point out that you were begging the question (a proud tradition you continue to uphold). To that specific point you replied that this was not a valid position unless quixotic was willing to assume responsibility for babies who escape abortion. That unwillingness, by itself, rendered the opinion irrelevant (if that wasn’t your point, I don’t know what it was; perhaps you’d clarify).
When Jubilation responded (quite correctly) that this was a specious line of reasoning, or else this unwillingness, by itself, would keep one from protesting about almost anything, you say that no, there’s two other important distinctions: the current law and the fact (that you somehow know) that abused children are brought into the world without exception willingly.
This is, of course, part of the ongoing silliness: if you want to continue to revert to “but the law doesn’t recognize a fetus as a person” we can stop right now; I don’t believe anyone believes anything different, so there’s no real debate here. And if the “willingness” of the parent is a trump card, would you condone infanticide if the mother had been been forced to bring the child to term? Consider a situation where the mother was under eighteeen and her parents would not permit the abortion. The now-eighteen-year-old mother can kill her infant with impunity, I suppose?
But I’m not even sure which point you’re advancing. Which is the relevant point here? A pro-lifer’s willingness to accept responsibility for others’ children? If that’s it, you still haven’t answered Jubilation at all, other than to sidestep his question. If the point is that “willingness” and “the law” trump all else, then why exactly did you bring up what you did with quixotic at all? And, again, perhaps you could actually argue why this should be so rather than simply repeating it ad infinitum.
Or–and here’s a novel approach–you could actually concede that this particular point you raised was not logically supportable. Good debaters do this all the time, and it doesn’t mean the rest of their argument is invalid (though yours has yet to be made).
You can’t continue to argue against responses to specific points that you raised by shifting the argument to something you’d prefer to argue. Well, I suppose you can, but it is this tendency (on both sides) that tends to make these arguments round and round, without any sort of real debate.
Bob, you’re misrepresenting what I said. Quixotic78 said he would force a woman to give birth to save a baby, not a fetus. I say that if you are going to force someone to give birth against their will then you should help them with the concequences of your decision (because now it’s yours, not hers). Jubilation somehow took this to mean that if you’re protesting against something you should take responsibility for it. Not what I meant. You can protest to your hearts content but if you actually do manage to change the law and make abortion illegal then you should help with the decision. In other words, as soon as you become proactive, then you should take responsibility for your actions (and once you take the decision out of the womans hands it’s your actions as much as anyones, really).
Also I don’t see why calling a fetus a fetus is begging the question. It IS a fetus, that’s its technical name. Personally I think using loaded terminology like ‘kill’ and ‘unborn child’ to refer to a proceedure which isn’t legally killing and to an entity which isn’t a child, begging the question. Let’s just stick with neutral terminology, eh?
I’ll respond to the rest of your post when I have the time. I’m getting a little bogged down here.
However, I assume you are referring to the creation of a unique biological entity.