Abortion!!!!!!!!!

[The Tollan]

Clasifications are arbitary by their nature. Cognative functioning like most things is a spectrum. We impose a clasification system for the sake of things like laws, to have lines where x being ok becomes not ok. Same as the age of consent etc etc.

I agree that classification is arbitrary. I suspect that a spectrum does not avoid the issue of arbitrary judgements though. One must decided what thing or things they will place for measurement on the spectrum. The binary "yes or no" is used to place things for measurement much like how the binary yes, this is a human or no, this is not a human is part of the classification system I am examining and using.

There was a guy who devised a logical system of clasifing species, but no-one would use it since almost all life was bacteria etc. All "evolved" life being the far corner of one branch of the evoloutionary tree might be more acurate but people didnt like it or find it particually useful.

But since my hair contains my DNA but isnt a person there must be more to it than that. Logically you must admit there is something in the potential that a zygote has which hair does not that differentuates the two.

I agree that the zygote has a potential the hair does not. I am trying to avoid making an argument based on the potential of something to become a person since other things which I do not consider human or a person would potentially require protection as well. If I (or anyone else who wants to try on this thread) make the case that the zygote can be classified as a human being (setting aside the issue of personhood for the moment) then it would not be unreasonable to assign it human rights. I am short on time so I will stop typing on this post for now.

 

[Phlegmak]

I believe abortion could be beneficial, right here on Civilization Fanatics. If some Civilization Fanatics members were aborted, it would be better for the remaining members.

Moderator Action: Warned for trolling
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[drkodos]

Make mine a double.

 

[GinandTonic]

If I (or anyone else who wants to try on this thread) make the case that the zygote can be classified as a human being (setting aside the issue of personhood for the moment) then it would not be unreasonable to assign it human rights. I am short on time so I will stop typing on this post for now.

But apart from its potential a zygote does not have any qualities to make it more human than a drop of blood.

Without potential or a dualist universe there is nothing special about a zygote, so why would it be deserving of protection?

 

[JohnRM]

Hello!

I'm totally undecided on the whole issue of abortion. Time to change that.

I'd like you people to enlighten me as to which is the proper position to take.

I have a slight tendency towards being pro-abortion, but I cant identify a good reason for that.

A few points:

1. I find the "potentiality" argument against abortion to be crappy. Why should we treat something X that has the potential to be Y like Y just because the potential for its becoming Y exists?

2. I find the "lump of cells" argument for abortion to be crappy. What the crap does something being a lump of cells have to do with anything? Its vague and not a good argument. While there obviously COULD be something to an argument for abortion based on stages of development, you're going to have to say more then "a lump of cells aint no person" if you want me to take such an argument seriously.

3. I'm absolutely uninterested in anti-abortion arguments that rest of the existence of a soul, god, or religion. So if that's all you can do, dont even try.

4. I find the "self-awareness" argument for abortion to be pretty sucky too. Are we even sure that newborns are self-aware? What about a sleeping or unconscious person? There could be something here, but simply throwing out the statement that a fetus isn't self-aware is not a good argument.



Anyways, convince me of your views! It's your big chance to change someone's opinion on the interenets!!!

You can debate eachother but remember that the goal of this thread is to convince me, so it should remain rather fifty-centric.

I don't need you to answer me, on this question. Answer yourself.

What if your parents decided to abort you?

 

[CaptainF]

Hmm might not if the person was really desperate.

Or if it was the first time...

As someone who is a virgin, I'm quite certain I don't want to lose it in an alley way dumpster behind the local porn shop with some corner crawling, slovenly she-beast.

But thats just me.

 

[The Tollan]

But apart from its potential a zygote does not have any qualities to make it more human than a drop of blood.

Without potential or a dualist universe there is nothing special about a zygote, so why would it be deserving of protection?

I see what you are saying now. I must be very careful to word this in a way to achieve certain results without basing my claim on the fact that the Zygote has the potential to become human. I am trying to argue that the Zygote has already achieved human status (we both know this now however I believe it is worth retyping it). If a Zygote is not human then they simply are not of the human species and are indeed different. Therefore to claim that the Zygote will become human seems akin to claiming the egg necessary for conception may be human (you likely agree with this statement as I do). I could point to various characteristics of the Zygote to claim that the Zygote is a human however they will probably seem arbitrary to some. If anyone else wants to point out what characteristics that are unique to human Zygotes then go ahead and do it. However it seems to me to claim that fully developed humans (suppose for this hypothetical claim birth is the point of full development) are the only humans ignores a lifestage that humans must pass through to reach full development. Almost any definition of humans that relies on rigid criteria will have some exceptions to it. If humans require cognition then someone who has lost their cognitive abilities yet has a chance at regaining them could be considered non-human for a time.

Also, cognition may be an impressive characteristic however to place it as necessary for one to be human seems to be a special consideration. Some humans do not have full cognition (unfortunately). If cognition is a spectrum of measurement then are they less human because of this? Perhaps certain animals have limited cognition or perhaps there are (not trying to be silly or sarcastic here) non-human beings on another planet who have highly developed cognitive abilities like humans. If one says human cognition is different from other types of cognition then there is a risk of saying that different humans have different congition types and hence are not the same (as it seems arbitrary as well).

It seems to me that one is stuck with the arbitrary classification or spectrum system if we only are examining with the options we are debating. I hope no one has been offended by this post.

Somewhat unrelated: I do not consider any non-human biological being such as various animals and plants to be entitled to the same protections as humans (machines have absolutely zero rights in my view). Not that I want to open a major discussion on this topic right now. I just want to clarify my views a bit. I do not have a problem with eggs, seeds, or non-human flesh being consumed (though I personally would not eat things I find disgusting). I could be convinced that eating certain animals is wrong however that remains for another day.

 

[Shadylookin]

What if your aborting the next Mahandas Ghandi?

Does india really need to be liberated from the British these days? I feel abortion is a necessary pre-emptive strike for the betterment of society.

aside from that outlandish statement I feel that you have the right to remove whatever is leeching off of your body for sustenance

 

[JohnRM]

The only consolation that I can get from the continued legalization of abortion is that more liberals are killing their kids. One could, at least, expect that they are killing their own future and political power.

 

[CaptainF]

The only consolation that I can get from the continued legalization of abortion is that more liberals are killing their kids. One could, at least, expect that they are killing their own future and political power.

But I thought it was the liberal abortion doctors that were killing the babies of conservative women whilst they lay sleeping?

Ahhhhhh!!!!

 

[Perfection]

I think, Fifty, that we can agree that abortion before nueralogical development shold be acceptable, because it lacks the things that make us human. After that we get into a mess of weighing the mother's freedom versus the fetus' intellectual abilities.

I don't think there is a real rational way to work this out, certainly on the lowest ends the mother has freedom, but it gets hazier and more subjective the closer toward birth.

 

[Perfection]

What if your parents decided to abort you?

That's a pretty misleading question on my view, because lots of things they could of done that would of prevented me from being born. I suppose on the fateful night I would've been concieved my father coulda ate another ham sandwich and delayed engaging in intercourse with my mother 10 minutes, and this timing change prevented the sperm with my genetic material from fertiziling the egg. Does that make ham sandwiches immoral? I think not. Because of this your argument via time travel emotionalism seems, quite frankly, absurd.

 

[JohnRM]

That's a pretty misleading question on my view, because lots of things they could of done that would of prevented me from being born. I suppose on the fateful night I would've been concieved my father coulda ate another ham sandwich and delayed engaging in intercourse with my mother 10 minutes, and this timing change prevented the sperm with my genetic material from fertiziling the egg. Does that make ham sandwiches immoral? I think not. Because of this your argument via time travel emotionalism seems, quite frankly, absurd.

First off, I didn't ask you. Second, taking a specific action that destroys life is quite different than taking action that prevents life. You know that. It is all of the difference in the world. I also think that this is another important part of the argument. Take responsibility for your own actions, not duck them via murder.

 

[Perfection]

First off, I didn't ask you.

I speak for Fifty

Second, taking a specific action that destroys life is quite different than taking action that prevents life. You know that. It is all of the difference in the world. I also think that this is another important part of the argument. Take responsibility for your own actions, not duck them via murder.

What makes it murder? What makes it "destroying life" any more then steriluzing a petri dish?

 

[MYRM1D0N]

i feel its ok for a person to have an abortion, and one of the only things that make people against it is religious beliefs

 

[JohnRM]

I speak for Fifty


What makes it murder? What makes it "destroying life" any more then steriluzing a petri dish?

This is a pointless discussion. We disagree. We will not convince each other. There is no mistaking the facts. We disagree on our opinion of said facts. Go in peace.

 

[Fifty]

What if your parents decided to abort you?

They did.

 

[Riesstiu IV]

Sounds like a zany sitcom!

 

[Fifty]

No, its a seperate being. Its not part of the mother, like a skin cell, or kidney, or tumor. It has its own unique set of dna and is living/growing for itself, not as part of the mother.

Ok, so that's a further distinction, but I dont see how having unique vs. nonunique DNA is particularly relevant (from a moral standpoint, which is of course what we are concerned with).

Unfortunately, the only means for evicting the stranger in this case results in its death. But it doesn't change the fact that the woman has no responsibity to care for it, and doesn't have to put up with its presence if she doesn't want to. If a bum begs you for food and dies of starvation after you refuse, are you a murderer? What if your young child asks for food?

Legal claims aside (I'm concerned with morality rather than legality), I do indeed think that it is obviously immoral to let someone starve to death when you are fully capable of giving them some food.

 

[Fifty]

We need animals for food, humans do not need other humans for food, nor do we need to be arbitrarily killing them for sport. We kill animals with functioning brains for both food and sport for logical reasons. For food, obviously we get our nutrients. For sport, we are maintaining balanced ecosystems when managed correctly.

So the moral status of abortion would change if we ate the babies?