# Are You a Good Person? Documentary that discusses this subject and Abortion. **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [December 21, 2011, 9:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-a-good-person-documentary-that-discusses-this-subject-and-abortion/606998 "2011-12-21T21:17:59Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 12
**Author:** ![YogSothoth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/8edcca/32.png) [@YogSothoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/YogSothoth)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2011, 6:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-a-good-person-documentary-that-discusses-this-subject-and-abortion/606998/221 "2011-12-23T06:56:42Z")
> [@hdc\_bst](#): > > What magical nature of cutting the cord provides personhood? This seems like a definition made out of pure convenience, and I don’t find it very convincing. As a society we decide who belongs to the society and deserves it protections. I am arguing for a definition based on: human DNA and a certain level of brain function. To me this seems the least mystical approach, actually tied to what it is that makes us persons. It isn’t convenient to determine, hence the drawing of a time line. Eh what magical nature is the 3rd trimester for you? Why not divide pregnancy into quarters? The definition I use is not arbitrary at all. Unlike some others, I don’t support the notion of some kind of nebulous sliding scale of personhood. Either you are or you aren’t. And birth and the cutting of the umbilical cord is the instant in which a fetus divides itself from the mother and starts living on his own. Before that, all nourishment comes from the mother’s host body. Lost on this whole debate is the fact that the fetus loses nothing if it is aborted. It didn’t have a chance to have a life, so it doesn’t lose anything. Death is not a harm or a negative to a fetus because its never really known life. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2011, 7:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-a-good-person-documentary-that-discusses-this-subject-and-abortion/606998/222 "2011-12-23T07:08:26Z")
> [@Omg\_a\_Black\_Conservative](#): > > I beg to differ. Your reason boils down to “because it’s inside of the woman’s body”, and when I ask you why that’s important you tell me “because it is” or something similar. I can find you an example of this if you like, though it probably won’t matter in the long-run. Oh, I have far more arguments than that, involving economics and crime rates and whatnot, but since you’ve (rather comically) written off location as arbitrary, I have little confidence actual math will impress you. In any case, I consider the location issue significant because I know that if _I_ had an unwanted object in my body, I’d want the right to remove it. I suggested that you would, too, but then you got all “bwuh? uh? huh?” on me. > [@](#): > > I find preventing one individual from killing another at his or her whim to be a pretty powerful justification. Hey, that’s great. Good for you. So having justified state intervention, should I ask what you had in mind? Fines? Jail terms? Executions? Just kidding, you’ve never answered my questions about enforcement before, so I’ve no expectation you’ll do so now. ---
**Author:** ![Omg\_a\_Black\_Conservative](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/7ba0ec/32.png) [@Omg\_a\_Black\_Conservative](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Omg_a_Black_Conservative)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2011, 7:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-a-good-person-documentary-that-discusses-this-subject-and-abortion/606998/223 "2011-12-23T07:44:26Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > Oh, I have far more arguments than that involving economics and crime rates and whatnot… You could have fooled me though, to your credit, you did try the crime rate thing before. > [@](#): > > …but since you’ve (rather comically) written off location as arbitrary… Because it is. > [@](#): > > …I have little confidence actual math will impress you. When will you be providing some? Over the past few months you’ve made many claims that I’ve asked for proof of. Hopefully you’ll get around to presenting me an early Christmas present in the way of “actual math” (or cites, in general). > [@](#): > > In any case, I consider the location issue significant because I know that if _I_ had an unwanted object in my body, I’d want the right to remove it. It’s a good thing that what you, as an individual, wants has no bearing on the moral/legal status of another. > [@](#): > > I suggested that you would, too, but then you got all “bwuh? uh? huh?” on me. If anything, I would have gotten all “How do you figure?” on you. > [@](#): > > Hey, that’s great. Good for you. So having justified state intervention, should I ask what you had in mind? Fines? Jail terms? Executions? > > Just kidding, you’ve never answered my questions about enforcement before, so I’ve no expectation you’ll do so now. Well, since I can’t call you a liar in Great Debates, I’ll just point out that the above statement is untrue. I’ve answered your question on more than one occasion. But just to humor you (_again_), I’d be totally fine with returning to the _status quo_ pre-Roe v. Wade. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2011, 8:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-a-good-person-documentary-that-discusses-this-subject-and-abortion/606998/224 "2011-12-23T08:11:09Z")
> [@Omg\_a\_Black\_Conservative](#): > > When will you be providing some? Over the past few months you’ve made many claims that I’ve asked for proof of. Hopefully you’ll get around to presenting me an early Christmas present in the way of “actual math” (or cites, in general). In this thread, to you… no. It’s never had any effect before, I don’t see why it should, now. > [@](#): > > It’s a good thing that what you, as an individual, wants has no bearing on the moral/legal status of another. Well, it’s a _very_ good thing the Canadian government is aligned with me on this. We don’t have an abortion law, there’s no need to create an abortion law, and election campaigns don’t turn on vapid promises to reintroduce abortion laws. Further, there have been no negative consequences from the lack of abortion laws. I don’t know what it is about American culture that makes them think _they_ need abortion laws. It must be something in the water. > [@](#): > > If anything, I would have gotten all “How do you figure?” on you. And that would have been another stall for time. The sequence isn’t that difficult: posts 202, 205, 206, and by 208, you apparently forgot the contents of 202. You know, there are little blue and white arrows in the quotes linking back to the original posts, just in case one’s shot-term memory needs some help. > [@](#): > > Well, since I can’t call you a liar in Great Debates, I’ll just point out that the above statement is untrue. I’ve answered your question on more than one occasion. But just to humor you (_again_), I’d be totally fine with returning to the _status quo_ pre-Roe v. Wade. Hey, if you can link to a post of yours in which you seriously address how an abortion ban would be enforced and with what penalties, I’ll cheerfully withdraw the claim and apologize. Do you even _know_ what the penalties were in pre-Roe states that banned abortion? Do you even care? ---
**Author:** ![DrFidelius](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/drfidelius/32/3447_2.png) [@DrFidelius](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrFidelius)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2011, 11:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-a-good-person-documentary-that-discusses-this-subject-and-abortion/606998/225 "2011-12-23T11:18:18Z")
I didn’t bother watching the film because I am not a “good” person. I am selfish, short-sighted, always willing to put my comfort (and the comfort of my daughters) above the real needs of others, judgemental, pretentious and condescending. My only saving grade is that I am also too lazy to implement any schemes which might actively inconvenience others. So, as I do not believe myself to be “good” (an opinion backed by most of the churches I have tried to attend over the past forty years) my opinion on abortion legislation would not be of any interest to the OP. ---
**Author:** ![Ca3799](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/9f8e36/32.png) [@Ca3799](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ca3799)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2011, 11:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-a-good-person-documentary-that-discusses-this-subject-and-abortion/606998/226 "2011-12-23T11:56:16Z")
We’re like opposites, **DrFidelius**. I’m a good person who also helps terminate pregnancies sometimes! The two of us together add and subtract to make the world a better place! LOL ---
**Author:** ![bldysabba](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/ecccb3/32.png) [@bldysabba](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bldysabba)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2011, 12:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-a-good-person-documentary-that-discusses-this-subject-and-abortion/606998/227 "2011-12-23T12:06:13Z")
> [@hdc\_bst](#): > > So, my ‘grayed’ thoughts: abortion is not an issue prior to the beginning of the third trimester. It should be widely available, subsidized even, to help eliminate the desire for abortion during the third trimester. During the third trimester, abortions should only be performed in cases of medical necessity. To me medical necessity is a condition that threatens the life of the mother, or in which the fetus is determined to be non-viable; the actual definition should be defined by a panel of professional experts. I’ve never had to think much about the issue, not being a citizen of a country where it has any political traction, but on viewing both positions from the outside, as it were, this seems to be the best solution to a complex topic. Clearly, foetus = person is nonsense, but, just as clearly, the notion that abortion of an otherwise viable late term pregnancy is perfectly ok is nonsense too. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2011, 12:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-a-good-person-documentary-that-discusses-this-subject-and-abortion/606998/228 "2011-12-23T12:46:02Z")
I think our OP has taken his Bible and gone home. ---
**Author:** ![Buck\_Godot](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/buck_godot/32/6573_2.png) [@Buck\_Godot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Buck_Godot)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2011, 3:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-a-good-person-documentary-that-discusses-this-subject-and-abortion/606998/229 "2011-12-23T15:54:43Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > Nobody actually holds this view. Creating bizzare hypotheticals is hardly going to convince anyone of anything. > > How about this, at the other end of the process: if aborting a baby in the womb is okay, why can’t I throw a newborn out with the trash? What’s so magic about passing through a vagina that transforms a moral nothing into a person? > > These are all ways of getting at the fact that at one end of a gradual process - transformation of some cells into a human - the products have no moral worth, and at the other end, they do. If a guy ejaculates into a kleenex, he flushes millions of potential people without the slightest qualm; OTOH I doubt even the most adamant pro choice person would get behind infanticide as a lifestyle option. Somewhere between those two is the cut-off - anti-choice types make in conception. My own view is that it is capacity for conciousness. I agree with everything you say. My goal of proposing this hypothesis which I know no one believes is to help the pro life people under stand the perspective of the pro-choicers. The pro-life view is that the soul beings at conception and so killing a fetus is tantamount to murder and so any inconvenience to the mother is justified to protect the human life. The pro choice side is that what makes a person human occurs at a later stage and the control of a woman over her body is justification enough to destroy a blastocyst Similarly the “pre-birthers” view would be that the soul begins at ovulation and so not fertilizing is tantamount to murder, thus any inconvenience is justified. The pro-lifer side will be that what makes a person human occurs at a later stage and so by allowing a woman destroy an ovum. By having pro-lifers argue against the obvious absurdity of the premise, I am hoping that they will realize that any arguments that they use against the it could be used by pro-choicers against them. Further every argument that they use against the pro-chiocers could be used against them by the pre-birthers. The only argument that is left is that humanness begins at conceptions because we say so. Which is basically arbitrary. ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2011, 4:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-a-good-person-documentary-that-discusses-this-subject-and-abortion/606998/230 "2011-12-23T16:32:22Z")
> [@Buck\_Godot](#): > > I agree with everything you say. My goal of proposing this hypothesis which I know no one believes is to help the pro life people under stand the perspective of the pro-choicers. The pro-life view is that the soul beings at conception and so killing a fetus is tantamount to murder and so any inconvenience to the mother is justified to protect the human life. The pro choice side is that what makes a person human occurs at a later stage and the control of a woman over her body is justification enough to destroy a blastocyst > > Similarly the “pre-birthers” view would be that the soul begins at ovulation and so not fertilizing is tantamount to murder, thus any inconvenience is justified. The pro-lifer side will be that what makes a person human occurs at a later stage and so by allowing a woman destroy an ovum. > > By having pro-lifers argue against the obvious absurdity of the premise, I am hoping that they will realize that any arguments that they use against the it could be used by pro-choicers against them. Further every argument that they use against the pro-chiocers could be used against them by the pre-birthers. > > The only argument that is left is that humanness begins at conceptions because we say so. Which is basically arbitrary. To my mind, basing the cut-off on capacity for conciousness has two benefits: (1) it can be defended scientifically; and (2) as a purely practical benefit, it in fact demonstrates the moral legitimacy (or rather, the lack of any objective moral issue at all) of the overwhelming number of real-life abortion decisions. As others have pointed out, third-trimester abortions are vanishingly rare and are in any event usually undertaken for medical reasons. The arguments for conception and birth as the cut-offs have a similarity: both advocates pose their choice as being certain and logical. But the development from a buncha cells into a fully-fledged human is a gradual process. ---
**Author:** ![elbows](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/b3f665/32.png) [@elbows](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elbows)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2011, 4:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-a-good-person-documentary-that-discusses-this-subject-and-abortion/606998/231 "2011-12-23T16:44:50Z")
Sorry, I’m not trying to be obtuse I assure you. I just don’t see a difference between; Group A, anti abortion, denying me access to an abortion because they believe/perceive/are convinced abortion=murder. Group B, anti meat eaters, denying you access to hamburger because they believe/perceive/are convinced meat=murder. Are anti abortionists, willing to deny me access to one, willing to give up eating meat because someone else thinks it’s murder? Seems to me they ought to be. For me, it comes down to the same issue. Your beliefs get to shape your behavior, but not everyone’s, just because you are convinced of their merit. ---
**Author:** ![Omg\_a\_Black\_Conservative](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/7ba0ec/32.png) [@Omg\_a\_Black\_Conservative](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Omg_a_Black_Conservative)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2011, 4:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-a-good-person-documentary-that-discusses-this-subject-and-abortion/606998/232 "2011-12-23T16:49:20Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > In this thread, to you… no. It’s never had any effect before, I don’t see why it should, now. You cannot view that which does not exist. > [@](#): > > Well, it’s a _very_ good thing the Canadian government is aligned with me on this. Erm, it’s not. Either you did not read what I wrote out or you did not understand what I wrote out. > [@](#): > > We don’t have an abortion law, there’s no need to create an abortion law, and election campaigns don’t turn on vapid promises to reintroduce abortion laws. Further, there have been no negative consequences from the lack of abortion laws. I don’t know what it is about American culture that makes them think _they_ need abortion laws. It must be something in the water. I would like to know what portion of my post this addresses. > [@](#): > > And that would have been another stall for time. The sequence isn’t that difficult: posts 202, 205, 206, and by 208, you apparently forgot the contents of 202. You know, there are little blue and white arrows in the quotes linking back to the original posts, just in case one’s shot-term memory needs some help. I’m quite aware what I wrote out. What’s funny is that you do not (as per usual). I was even kind enough to point out to you in post #214 that you were were trying to argue against a point not made to no avail. Oh well. As I said then, you’re free to continue on arguing whatever. > [@](#): > > Hey, if you can link to a post of yours in which you seriously address how an abortion ban would be enforced and with what penalties, I’ll cheerfully withdraw the claim and apologize. Do you even _know_ what the penalties were in pre-Roe states that banned abortion? Do you even care? A clip from a post made on [05-28-2011, 08:37 PM](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=13855186&postcount=2608). > [@](#): > > > [@Bryan Ekers](#): > > > > Hey, at lest I’m applying reason to the problem, as opposed to the wishful thinking that an abortion ban will make things better. At best, you can argue that nothing bad might happen because doctors will continue to perform abortions, though you don’t spell out what the penalties for this might be. In fact, you’re very coy about what a ban might actually do to people who violate it, as though the simple passing of a ban would magically get the desired effect with no consequences. > > > [@Me](#): > > > > A reason devoid of any cause as to why it would happen. That’s called fearmongering, as I said prior. Oh, and just because you don’t understand the status quo pre-Roe v. Wade, doesn’t mean I’ve been coy about spelling out penalties or whatever. It’s amazing how big of a circle we go in. \*Or maybe it’s not, for I’ve seen Canadians capable of providing cites. ---
**Author:** ![Omg\_a\_Black\_Conservative](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/7ba0ec/32.png) [@Omg\_a\_Black\_Conservative](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Omg_a_Black_Conservative)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2011, 4:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-a-good-person-documentary-that-discusses-this-subject-and-abortion/606998/233 "2011-12-23T16:57:13Z")
> [@Omg\_a\_Black\_Conservative](#): > > \*Or maybe it’s not, for I’ve seen Canadians capable of providing cites. And this seems out of place hanging by itself. I wonder what happened to the asterisk part in my above post? I guess the board didn’t like it and ate it. ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2011, 4:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-a-good-person-documentary-that-discusses-this-subject-and-abortion/606998/234 "2011-12-23T16:57:34Z")
> [@elbows](#): > > Sorry, I’m not trying to be obtuse I assure you. I just don’t see a difference between; > > Group A, anti abortion, denying me access to an abortion because they believe/perceive/are convinced abortion=murder. > > Group B, anti meat eaters, denying you access to hamburger because they believe/perceive/are convinced meat=murder. > > Are anti abortionists, willing to deny me access to one, willing to give up eating meat because someone else thinks it’s murder? Seems to me they ought to be. > > For me, it comes down to the same issue. Your beliefs get to shape your behavior, but not everyone’s, just because you are convinced of their merit. Look, I’m pro-choice, but this isn’t a killer argument. I accept the line drawn by “in my body/outside my body.” But similarly, it’s acceptable to draw a line between human and non-human that doesn’t depend on your view of whether abortion is murder. ---
**Author:** ![hdc\_bst](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/9f8e36/32.png) [@hdc\_bst](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hdc_bst)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2011, 5:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-a-good-person-documentary-that-discusses-this-subject-and-abortion/606998/235 "2011-12-23T17:02:34Z")
Thanks, all, for the discussion. This is my first nuanced abortion related debate, and I have found the points put forth very interesting. Especially compelling to me were… > [@DianaG](#): > > Here’s something no one ever seems to hear no matter how often I say it: I cannot be legally compelled to donate an organ or even blood to my existing extra-uterine child, even if she’ll die without it. What makes a fetus so special that you’d imbue it with rights no other human has? This made me think quite a bit. I don’t know if I have the right depth of philosophical background to adequately explain my position, but I’ll try. The distinction that I found most meaningful between the two situations is action vs. inaction. In my ethical view, when looking at a situation of competing rights, positive action which infringes on someones rights should be held to a higher standard. That is, taking action which results in a poor outcome is worse than failing to take action which would have presented a poor outcome. In the case of the extra-uterine child, nature’s status quo is that the child dies. Positive action (kidney transplant, e.g.) can change that, but compelling it would infringe on the mother’s rights. In the case of the intra-uterine child, nature’s status quo is that the child continues its free leeching of the mother’s organs. Positive action (abortion) can change that, but would infringe on the child’s rights. I’m quite open to the idea that my reasoning may be flawed, or my perspective off. Please poke away. [QUOTE=YogSosoth] Eh what magical nature is the 3rd trimester for you? Why not divide pregnancy into quarters? The definition I use is not arbitrary at all. Unlike some others, I don’t support the notion of some kind of nebulous sliding scale of personhood. Either you are or you aren’t. And birth and the cutting of the umbilical cord is the instant in which a fetus divides itself from the mother and starts living on his own. Before that, all nourishment comes from the mother’s host body. [/QUOTE] I believe that personhood is an emergent quality of the human brain. A group of human cells may be a cancer, blatocyst, or person, depending on the complexity and nature of its brain. I agree that a ‘you are or you aren’t’ line needs to be drawn, but this line should be based on qualities of the brain, not on sources of nutrition or surrounding environment. The magical nature of the 3rd trimester is its alignment with development occurring around week 25 of embryonic age. ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2011, 5:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-a-good-person-documentary-that-discusses-this-subject-and-abortion/606998/236 "2011-12-23T17:08:06Z")
> [@elbows](#): > > Sorry, I’m not trying to be obtuse I assure you. I just don’t see a difference between; > > Group A, anti abortion, denying me access to an abortion because they believe/perceive/are convinced abortion=murder. > > Group B, anti meat eaters, denying you access to hamburger because they believe/perceive/are convinced meat=murder. > > Are anti abortionists, willing to deny me access to one, willing to give up eating meat because someone else thinks it’s murder? Seems to me they ought to be. > > For me, it comes down to the same issue. Your beliefs get to shape your behavior, but not everyone’s, just because you are convinced of their merit. The issue is whether something actually is, objectively, the killing of a person. This is not a subjective determination in other cointexts, though the exact outlines of what is objectively allowable are not obvious and are tenaciously argued by all sides. To give an analogy: reasonable people often differ on what exactly constitutes killing in self-defence. Yet no-one claims that the matter is entirely subjective. If I kill someone and claim self-defence, it is not sufficient for me to state to a judge, “in my opinion it was self-defence and my opinion is just as valid as yours. My belief gets to shape my behaviour”. The reason for this is obvious: in a killing, your belief is not affecting you alone, but another person - the one you killed - who would be unlikely to hold the same belief as you. Your belief, acted out in killing, has affected another person, by ending their life. Therefore, it must be justifed on an objective standard. Of course, in the case of abortion, the whole issue is whether your belief has affected what amounts to “another person”. If no “other person” is involved, the decision is indeed a wholly subjective one - as stated, people toss out spem cells without a care. A clump of fertilized cells, the argument goes, is similarly “not a person” and equally can be tossed without a care. Hence, the desire for some sort of objective standard to judge when that clump of cells actually becomes a “person” invested with moral rights. To my mind, the key is what makes us truly human in the first place - capacity for conciousness. The argument that meat = murder would therefore be a compelling argument if it could be demonstrated that animals possessed conciousness to the same degree as people, or at least, to a degree that should be protected with the same rights. ---
**Author:** ![Omg\_a\_Black\_Conservative](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/7ba0ec/32.png) [@Omg\_a\_Black\_Conservative](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Omg_a_Black_Conservative)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2011, 5:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-a-good-person-documentary-that-discusses-this-subject-and-abortion/606998/237 "2011-12-23T17:21:53Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > To my mind, the key is what makes us truly human in the first place - capacity for conciousness. Dogs dream. Therefore, dog equals human. Right? ---
**Author:** ![Phatlewt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/a698b9/32.png) [@Phatlewt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Phatlewt)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2011, 5:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-a-good-person-documentary-that-discusses-this-subject-and-abortion/606998/238 "2011-12-23T17:35:15Z")
One might argue that defining consciousness is a little more complicated than brain activity during REM sleep. ---
**Author:** ![kaylasdad99](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kaylasdad99/32/3398_2.png) [@kaylasdad99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kaylasdad99)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2011, 6:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-a-good-person-documentary-that-discusses-this-subject-and-abortion/606998/239 "2011-12-23T18:02:56Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > Thing is: > > [ul] > > [li]Opposing abortion is barbaric, effectively the same as raping a woman for nine months.[/li][/ul] > [@Skammer](#): > > Okay, _this_ is a little over the top - like comparing abortion to the holocaust. > [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > Why? In both cases a woman’s body is being forcibly and intimately used for another. And in fact forced impregnation on a large scale is widely considered a war crime and is a common component of genocide; kill the men, children & old women and rape & impregnate the young women. Right out of chimpanzee behavior or the Bible. Quick question, **Trihs** : In the “nine-months-long rape” scenario, who exactly is the “another” for whom the woman’s body is being forcibly and intimately used? ---
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2011, 6:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-a-good-person-documentary-that-discusses-this-subject-and-abortion/606998/240 "2011-12-23T18:17:16Z")
> [@Omg\_a\_Black\_Conservative](#): > > Dogs dream. Therefore, dog equals human. Right? When my dog stops shitting in the yard, I’ll consider it. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-a-good-person-documentary-that-discusses-this-subject-and-abortion/606998.md?page=11) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-a-good-person-documentary-that-discusses-this-subject-and-abortion/606998.md?page=13)