Originally posted by Robtard
For one, I'd hope she'd put on her big girl panties and suck it up, not the first time a parent has risked their life for their child.But if she hasn't the spine, then it is legal to kill a person who is putting your life in immediate risk, so it'd be more akin to self-defense. That.
I bet their are some great debates in a thread this size! :-)
Originally posted by Robtard
For one, I'd hope she'd put on her big girl panties and suck it up, not the first time a parent has risked their life for their child.But if she hasn't the spine, then it is legal to kill a person who is putting your life in immediate risk, so it'd be more akin to self-defense. That.
Wow, that has to be the worst thing I've ever heard. She WILL die if she carries the baby, and you're basically saying "suck it up".
Originally posted by Utsukushii
Wow, that has to be the worst thing I've ever heard. She WILL die if she carries the baby, and you're basically saying "suck it up".
How can you say for certain it is a 100% certainly? You've never heard of a parent giving their life to save their child?
Also, I said if 'she' went along with it, it would be akin to self-defense.
Originally posted by inimalist
not reallythe issue isn't about whether it is a person, the issue is about what rights it deserves
of course it is a person, in whatever abstract sense you are talking about, but no abortion critic would actually make the argument that a fetus deserves the same rights as an adult, legal, person.
No 2 year old has mobility rights, no children have rights of association, virtually every constitutional right guaranteed to adults is not applied to children. Thus, there is no real compelling reason why an abortion at some point during pregnancy shouldn't be allowed unless you can prove that sperms and eggs require the same "right to life" that legal adults deserve.
Hold on. Are you saying it's alright for a 2 year old to be killed by it's parents?
There are some rights that change depending on the age of the person. But one right that DOESN'T change is the right to life. It is never alright to kill someone else, no matter what age they are.
Originally posted by Lucius
How bad of a disability? Even a person with down syndrome can form relationships and have a rudimentary awareness of suffering and pleasure. A person with autism may find some aspects of social interaction to be difficult, but they can still form meaningful human connections and take a measuring of pleasure or pain just as well as anyone else. Even "lower" animals can make such connections. My cat can make social connections, and she can suffer and feel pleasure. My bar for this is not set high, but yes effectively, the disability would have to prevent the person from performing those two things. If it did, then I would not find it unethical to kill them.Noxious pathways don't develop until... 24 weeks? And even then that says nothing about the feotus' ability to be aware of suffering or even itself.
So you are saying that something that can form "relationships" or feel pleasure or pain is something that deserves protection from those who would want to kill it?
But you yourself said that "lower" animals can do BOTH of those things. Why are we not protecting them?
Originally posted by TacDavey
So you are saying that something that can form "relationships" or feel pleasure or pain is something that deserves protection from those who would want to kill it?But you yourself said that "lower" animals can do BOTH of those things. Why are we not protecting them?
Or chose to be a complete hermit and live by themselves, which is something I probably should have mentioned. Some people like to do that.
As to why we don't protect animals? I suppose most people don't care enough about them. I like personally like animals and I find it distressful that we don't treat them very well, but that's I suppose not really relevant.
Originally posted by Lucius
Or chose to be a complete hermit and live by themselves, which is something I probably should have mentioned. Some people like to do that.As to why we don't protect animals? I suppose most people don't care enough about them. I like personally like animals and I find it distressful that we don't treat them very well, but that's I suppose not really relevant.
So you are saying it's perfectly alright to kill things that SHOULD be protected for no other reason than because people don't care about them?
Originally posted by Robtard
So again, it's ok because its ignorant and immune to pain? This is your argument?
Everything you experience is a state in your brain. If you do not have the tools necessary to experience, then how can you suffer? How can you live (yes single celled organisms are alive, I know.)?
Originally posted by Lucius
Everything you experience is a state in your brain. If you do not have the tools necessary to experience, then how can you suffer? How can you live (yes single celled organisms are alive, I know.)?
If you are basing the right to life off of the ability to experience things, then you can easily make a hypothetical in which a person has none of those things.
Say there s a person who cannot feel, smell, taste, hear, or see. Is it okay to kill them against their will?
Originally posted by Lucius
Everything you experience is a state in your brain. If you do not have the tools necessary to experience, then how can you suffer? How can you live (yes single celled organisms are alive, I know.)?
In that case, you're okay with killing people in comas, even after one day. By outside views they're not experiencing life and if you stick them with a needle, they don't react. ie they're little more than a [large] lump of cells.
Originally posted by Daemon Seed
I bet their are some great debates in a thread this size! :-)
Not really. It basically boils down to this...
One side: Abortion is murder!
The other side: Women should be able to do it willy-nilly.
That's about the extent of it. Even the multi-paragraph posts are basically just making one of those two points.
Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Not really. It basically boils down to this...One side: Abortion is murder!
The other side: Women should be able to do it willy-nilly.
That's about the extent of it. Even the multi-paragraph posts are basically just making one of those two points.
Just 250 pages to go until the truth on abortion is revealed. Can't wait!
Originally posted by TacDavey
So you are saying it's perfectly alright to kill things that SHOULD be protected for no other reason than because people don't care about them?
Strawman. I said no such thing. I merely mentioned that I find it distressing that animals are often marginalized.
Originally posted by Robtard
Do they? Make the case.So again, it's ok because it's [supposedly] ignorant and immune to pain? This is your argument?
Current theories of pain consider an intact cortical system to be both necessary and sufficient for pain experience. In support are functional imaging studies showing that activation within a network of cortical regions correlate with reported pain experience. Furthermore, cortical activation can generate the experience of pain even in the absence of actual noxious stimulation. These observations suggest thalamic projections into the cortical plate are the minimal necessary anatomy for pain experience. These projections are complete at 23 weeks’ gestation. The period 23-25 weeks’ gestation is also the time at which the peripheral free nerve endings and their projection sites within the spinal cord reach full maturity.1 By 26 weeks’ gestation the characteristic layers of the thalamus and cortex are visible, with obvious similarities to the adult brain, and it has recently been shown that noxious stimulation can evoke haemodynamic changes in the somatosensory cortex of premature babies from a gestational age of 25 weeks.11 Although the system is clearly immature and much development is still to occur, good evidence exists that the biological system necessary for pain is intact and functional from around 26 weeks’ gestation.
The very minimal required for pain on a biological level develops at 24-26 weeks. The psychologist (some researcher from University of Birmingham) later sums up his argument in the form of the following points.
A developed neuroanatomical system is necessary but not sufficient
for pain experience.
Pain experience requires development of the brain but also requires
development of the mind to accommodate the subjectivity of pain.
Development of the mind occurs outside the womb through the
actions of the infant and mutual adjustment with primary caregivers.
The absence of pain in the fetus does not resolve the morality of
abortion but does argue against legal and clinical efforts to prevent
such pain during an abortion.
Those were all quoted from the same paper “Derbyshire SWG (2006) 'Can Fetus Feel Pain?' BMJ 332:909-912." I disagree partially with Dr. Derbyshire's final point there and since this is from 2006, it is entirely possible some new research has come up that proves this entire thing to be wrong (or that maybe this professor is wrong to begin with.) If someone would like to point said research out to me, I would be more than welcome to read the journal. Also, I am not a biologist (and therefore by definition not in any way an expert when it comes to brain) so if you expect me to be able to provide a detailed explanation on a cellular level you will be out of luck. My Biology 101 class didn't go that far. I can only look towards the explanations of experts in the field.
But yes, to answer your question, if this view of fetal pain is correct (and for now I believe it is,) then I agree with your (crude) interpretation of my statement.
Link for the article: http://www.bmj.com/content/332/7546/909/reply
Originally posted by Robtard
In that case, you're okay with killing people in comas, even after one day. By outside views they're not experiencing life and if you stick them with a needle, they don't react. ie they're little more than a [large] lump of cells.
I guess I'm not smart enough to take into account that people in coma might come out of coma?
Originally posted by TacDavey
If you are basing the right to life off of the ability to experience things, then you can easily make a hypothetical in which a person has none of those things.Say there s a person who cannot feel, smell, taste, hear, or see. Is it okay to kill them against their will?
Were they born that way or did they acquire it through a disease? In any case I'm not sure about this. It would be like a computer with no input of any kind. The latter case they would have memories, and in the former they would have none whatsoever. In the latter case wouldn't it be possible for the person to at least communicate their wishes? They may not be able to hear themselves, but the people around them should at least be able to understand “kill me” or “don't kill me.” The latter person is capable of making a decision on the matter, the infant born without any senses isn't. In fact, I'm not even sure an infant born without senses would be able to develop as a person at all. I could be wrong, but I believe a great amount of infant development is through external stimulation.
If it is an fetus, I would argue it should be aborted before it is born unless some kind of solution to such a disease is known (and don't try and tell me that such a traumatic disability wouldn't be noticed in the womb unless the woman lived in remote rural area with no access to modern medicine at all.)
If it is a person with memories and a life, then it should be up to them. I personally think I would want to die, but perhaps some people might like living with out any external input.
Originally posted by TacDavey
Hold on. Are you saying it's alright for a 2 year old to be killed by it's parents?There are some rights that change depending on the age of the person. But one right that DOESN'T change is the right to life. It is never alright to kill someone else, no matter what age they are.
no, I'm saying there is a line when people gain legal rights.
I see no reason why conception is a good place to draw this line in fetal development. To say the very least, it is a couple of months before one could even say the developing child is an entity seperate from the mother's body, and in many ways, would fall under her rights rather than those it has unto itself.