Arwin: I don’t know why you’re so stuck on labeling **Bricker **as a hypocrite. He’s not saying one thing and then doing the opposite. You may disagree with his position on aborition, but I haven’t seen anything he’s said yet that makes him a hypocrite.
Way back when, many wealthy landowners claimed the right to own slaves. By their perception, it would have been foolish for them to oppose the right to own slaves. Did that make their claim legitimate?
So it is with the abortion issue. Many claim that they have the right to an abortion. By their logic (and yours), it would be foolish for them to deny that putative “right.” This does not, by any means, render that right legitimate. Not by a long shot.
True that. Perhaps the battle against ignorance is going a little better than we thought.
Although based on some of the more recent replies supporting abortion … maybe not.
Several comments here:
First, you are asserting that the mind is what defines personhood, but have provided no support for that claim. Earlier, I asked you to cite a definition of personhood – one that was accepted prior to Roe v. Wade – that firmly establishes the fully born as human and the unborn as non-human. So far, your answer has fallen short of the mark.
Second, your response mentioned a “one-month old fetus.” As I emphasized earlier, the vast majority of abortions occur at eight weeks or later. So even if your claim were true, this would still have precious little bearing on the abortion debate.
And third… let us pretend for now that the fetus has no functioning mind, and that your argument establishes the unborn as a non-human. Why should personhood be magically conferred upon a newborn infant, then? After all, there is nothing magical about passage through the birth canal. The infant’s brain does not magically kick into high gear once the infant leaves the mother’s womb. Or do you honestly think that it does?
So once again, let me state my challenge. Please provide a well-established definition of personhood – one that was crafted prior to Roe v. Wade – which clearly marks birth as the delineating line between personhood and non-personhood. Please note that I am asking for a definition that serves as **prior ** justification for the pro-choice view. In other words, definitions that were selected after the fact, with the intent of justifying abortion, are unacceptable.
Look at his steps towards a better, abortion-free world. In the first step, he is saying that he wants to make having the child the more life-affirming choice. In his second step, he wants to overturn Roe vs Wade. In his defense, he claims that he really only wants to do that because it shouldn’t be done on the federal level. But once it is on the state level, the fact that he considers abortion murder pretty much infers that he believes it should be forbidden. So he will vote against it on the state level, and make it impossible. Thereby removing the choice. So while he is saying one thing, that he wants to make keeping the child the more life-affirming choice (duh), he also wants to take away that choice.
If Bricker states here on the forum that he in fact believes abortion should remain legal so that the choice remains, then I will withdraw my accusation of hypocricy.
I assume now you mean personhood as discussed here:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_when5.htm
It gives ample examples such as you are asking for. As you can see there, even the Roman Catholics didn’t adopt the doctrine that life begins at conception until the 19th century. Jews seem to have always held the belief that life begins at birth, and certainly do so today. Way BC, the Greek Stoics agreed with them. Artistotle had an interesting theory that put the moment at which a fetus acquires a soul at 40 days for men, and 90 days for women.
Aren’t you turning the world around? The State of Texas wished to change the whole definition of personhood to any stage and form of living human species starting at conception, for which the Supreme Court could not find any justification in the Constitution.
I think the link above is a good bit of common ground for having this discussion. Hopefully participants will ready it so we can avoid the “yeah but i was talking about the 8th week” parts of this discussion. Regarding which:
16 weeks: Fetal movement, often called quickening, is usually detectable by the 16th week of pregnancy. It is apparently an involuntary movement of arms and legs. **The fetal brain is not developed to the point where the fetus is conscious at this stage in gestation. **
**At 26 weeks or later, when the fetal brain’s higher functions become operational. Scientists have: " measured brain-wave patterns like those during dreaming at 8 months gestation." **
I beg to differ; I had 7 children and 2 miscarriages, When I miscarried at almost a month there was no visible shape of a child,even though I stayed in the hospital for nearly 10 days trying to hold on. A frozen embro doesn’t have the apperance of a child. I would ask you to take this test to see if you would value a fetus to a born child: You are in a labatory that is on fire,you can save a vat of embyros or an 11 year old child in the next room, what or who would you choose and Why?
Monavis
I forgot to add; Most abortions are done in the early weeks, and if the morning after pill was available to those who wanted it, there would be less abortions.
Monavis
Human life began centuries ago, there is human life in a man’s sperm,life is a passed on thing,from ancestor to ancestor so life did not start with conception.
Monavis
I would like to make working for money the more favored choice, as opposed to robbery. I also favor making robbery illegal. Does that make me a hypocrite?
Woosh.
I’ll try again.
The post that I was responding to referred to “a couple of cells”. Therefore I said… Please provide the cite for ANY woman who has EVER had an elective abortion of “a couple of cells”.
If elective abortions are NEVER performed on “a couple of cells”, it seems silly to debate what the status of “a couple of cells is”. AND it shows a gross ignorance of embryology to claim that we’re talking about elective abortions of “a couple of cells”
Which of the above statements do you “beg to differ” on?
I would personally vote to make abortion illegal in my state. But I do want the populace of each state to have the choice as to what the law should be. That’s what living in a representative democracy is all about.
I want to offer crisis counseling, anger management, and parenting skills classes to parents that may be at risk of physical abuse of their kids, so that they may have the skills to make the choice not to abuse their children.
I also want child abuse illegal.
There is no hypocrisy there, either.
Wow.
It really IS taking a lot longer than we thought.
Please provide ONE, just ONE cite from any mainstream biology/embryology/genetics source that indicates that human life does NOT begin at conception, but begins later in the developmental process. (JThunder provided cites from FIVE sources stipulating that human life begins at conception (and of course that it’s distinct from a skin cell or sperm etc…)…surely you can provide ONE?)
While you’re at it…since you’re equating sperm with a blastocyte and embryo…please provide one, just one cite from a similar kind of source saying that they’re equivalent.
What the hell, I’ll throw in three more cites (scroll to bottom of web page for cites) that human life begins ar conception…that sperm (or skin cells etc…) is not the same thing as a zygote/embryo/fetus.
No you can either do some more hand waving …(OOO there is life in skin cells…Oooo there is life in sperm…Oooo there is life in embryos, it’s all the same!!!) Or, actually provide a cite to back up your assertions…I’m guessing you’ll go with the former.
You need to start paying attention. I asked for a DEFINITION of personhood – one that predates Roe v Wade. The page you cited describes the BELIEF that personhood begins at birth, but offers no philosophical or scientific justification for that belief.
No, it does not, for reasons that we shall see.
How does any of that prove your point that life begins at birth? Quite simply, it does not. It merely shows that different groups have had different views on the matter (duh!). If anything, your cite demonstrates the LACK of any definition that firmly places personhood at the moment of birth.
You’re the one who asserts that personhood begins at the instant of birth. I’m just asking you to prove that point.
And so far, you have not.
I’m glad that you posted that link, since it illustrates the failure of the pro-choice side to cite any scientific or philosophical justification for placing personhood at birth. Thank you!
I see. So can we now agree that your earlier statements about four-week-old pregnancies was simply irrelevant?
Now you’re talking about consciousness, which is a different matter. (Boy, those goalposts keep shifting!)
First of all, this still doesn’t establish BIRTH as the moment of personhood. So even if your objection were relevant, it would still be fatal to your position.
Second, I earlier asked why mind should be the determining factor, and you provided no justification for that. Now we’re talking about consciousness. Well, let’s play that game. By your reasoning, it should be okay to kill an unconscious individual, or a mentally retarded newborn. And such thinking is simply abominable.
First of all, the brainwaves themselves occur much earlier–at around four weeks or so. And second, your own statement contradicts your claim that personhood begins at birth! (A statement which you have yet to justify, BTW.)
Yes, but the end of it is that you would vote to have that representative democracy restrict the rights of women over their own bodies, a right they apparently forfeit as soon as they get pregnant.
I also want child abuse illegal.
It’s not completely the same. Right now, abortion is legal. Women have a choice to decide what to do with their lives and their bodies. You take that choice away by making it illegal.
Then, you provide assistence to help them not break the law. But you have taken away their freedom of choice. What you are doing, is setting up a system of punishment and reward, which is generally considered the best way to alter behaviour.
But the hypocricy here that remains is implying that you want them to have a choice at all. You don’t. So it is fairer to say that you want abortion illegal, and have a number of ideas on how to make life easier on women who are then forced to carry their child to term, even if, say, they are only fifteen, or if the child is from a father that turns out to be cheating with them and files for a divorce, or who turns out to be convicted and put on death row, or if the child is from a ‘hormonal accident’ that will bring great hurt to a number of people involved.
What you do recognise, is that there are psychological factors that will make it so that parents will beat their children despite it being illegal - they lack anger management and parenting skills in such a way that they run a serious risk of abusing their children, and thereby breaking the law.
If you run this same paralel to women, and people in general, you will soon find yourself arguing for wearing a burka, female circumcision, and women locked up in monastaries because they are simply too promiscuous or even just plain pretty. Because, in case you missed the memo, people are wired to have sex and get babies, despite their reason telling them it might not be a good idea at this time.
If considering something that does not have consciousness a person was worth all that suffering, it could still be a discussion. But it isn’t. Up until consciousness arises (around the 26th week), no such thing as a person that deserves to have its rights protected exists, and up until the 24th week whatever you want to call it, is solely dependent on the mother, and as such should be considered part of the mother, and the mother alone. And the mother should have the ultimate say over her own body.
Here is where we agree to disagree. I don’t agree that up until consciousness arises no such thing as a person that deserves to have its rights protected exists. That’s a definition you’re proposing as if it were Holy Writ: that consciousness is the sine qua non for “deserving of legal protection”. I don’t agree with that formula.
Yes, just as slavery was once legal, and the Emancipation Proclamation took away the legal right to own slaves. The Emancipation Proclamation took that “choice” away from the slaveowners.
You must be very willing to gloss over anything that counters your own hypothises to be able to claim that.
I made no statements about four-week-old pregnancies, only 16 week. Which is four months, so maybe that’s where your confusion comes from?
It’s not a different matter, and I have never said so. To be clear on this, how do you define personhood? How do you define consciousness? Concept of self? Ego-centrism? Self-awareness? Because it may well be that we disagree on these terms, but if we do, that doesn’t necessarily mean we are shifting our goalposts.
You know, when I look at the Bible and investigate the logic that people have for claiming that the Bible says that abortions are evil, I try to work within the logic system of the Bible. This helps me understand the reasoning of the person who claims that the Bible prohibits abortion. If then, by chance, I cannot make this internal logic work towards the conclusion that the Bible prohibits abortion, or at the very least suggests that the body is infused with a Soul at conception, I will then question the person who claims to follow the Bible. If that person then ignores me, I will draw my private conclusion on the logic system of that individual.
Did I claim, at any point, that birth is the moment at which personhood starts? Maybe you mistake something I wrote a long good number of posts back, that the Bible seems to do that. But I never have. I have said that personhood might as well start when the Baby forms the concept of self, which is long AFTER birth. Because, if you’ve read the philosophical thread on awareness and self-awareness that we had on the SDMB a while back, you’ll see that I have spent a lot of time forming a very nuanced concept of what a human being is, and what makes a person.
Well wow, ‘such thinking is simply abominable’. Allow me to be blown away by your amazing scientific method.
Again, I don’t have to justify that, because I never claimed it.
The first brainwaves start at the 8th week or so, at least according to the cite I gave. If you have evidence for it being earlier, I’ll be interested. The few neurons that fire to produce the first detectable brainwaves do not quite equate the complex alpha-waves required for dreaming (which by the way cats also do), something which only starts taking place from the 26th week.
And Roe vs Wade took away the right from the State of Texas to own the uterus of its female inhabitants.