Why so many bleeding-hearts?

[Ajidica]

I agree, but the people I'm arguing with don't really care if a fetus posseesses personhood...

I can't speak for Ziggy, but for me at least if it is demonstrated that a fetus is a human person abortion should only be allowed in extreme life-of-the-mother situations or rape.

To me, distinct human DNA seals the deal.

DNA only can determine wether a person is human biologically. My left thumb has human DNA, same with Bob the Corpse. When I use hydrogen peroxide to clean a wound I am killing millions of human cells but nobody considers that murder. I don't remember enough about human biology and DNA if it is possible to determine whether someone is brain-dead based off DNA or not. My (uneducated) guess is no.

Sentience is not relevant unless you think its OK to kill people who are sleeping,

I don't think you know the definition of sentience.

Sentience is the ability to feel, perceive, or be conscious, or to have subjective experiences.

(On second thought, it might not be sentience. El Mac had a rather good post on what makes somebody a person but I can't remember what the thread was about (besides abortion, obviously).)

survivability outside the womb is always changing and so biologically irrelevant.

Not necesarily. If the fetus develops without a heart its survivability isn't changing any time soon.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Sentience is not relevant unless you think its OK to kill people who are sleeping

You know many people who sleep for 9 months inside a mother's womb?

This is the same kind of nonsense argument as the coma one. If the situation was such that a foetus would be preserved for 9 months on a bed in intensive care, this wouldn't be such an issue would it? If the sleeping person or comatose patient was inside a mother's womb, then you'd have an argument.

It's so easy to dumb these things down to: it's like a sleeping person. The downside that it completely misses the entire point is just too effing bad, just getting the opponent's position on par with: "its OK to kill people who are sleeping", then you don't have to think about it. You don't have to consider it.

We on the other hand have to consider the hell out of your position.

That's not my reasoning. Like, at all. How many times do I have to answer this objection before the pro-choice crowd gives me actual objections rather than foolish, lying ones?

Suck it up laughing boy

I can't speak for Ziggy

It's quite easy, just watch GW

 

[Lone Wolf]

Complete and utter bollocks.

Hey, some pro-abortion arguments do state that a woman has the right to abort a fetus because she has the right to determine where her bodily fluids go. That argument automatically makes personhood a secondary issue at best.

Once, in an attempt to clarify the abortion issue, I introduced an example about six-year-old Little Mary and evil Snidely who gleefully refuses to safely and quickly donate his blood to Mary, despite that donation being the only thing that can save Mary from a gruesome death. Most people agreed that Snidely should have the legal right to do it, despite six-year-old Mary definitely being a person. GW16, if I remember correctly, had stated that Snidely should face legal punishment if Snidely is Mary's father, which reflects well on his consistency.

(A yet closer situation: Snidely agrees to a transfusion, but in the middle of it he decides that he isn't going to donate his blood after all, and stops the operation, cutting the cord. Since the operation is unfinished, Mary dies).

 

[El_Machinae]

Complete and utter bollocks.

Yeah, seconded (or thirded). I worked extremely hard, taking graduate level neuroscience and neuroanatomy courses, in order to create my opinion. I'm rather confident in my opinion, but it's hard-fought.

 

[Lone Wolf]

I worked extremely hard, taking graduate level neuroscience and neuroanatomy courses, in order to create my opinion.

To be fair - most people for legal abortion (nice neutral term, isn't it, avoiding the emotion of "pro-choice" and "pro-abortion") probably didn't take any neuroscience courses to arrive at their option. The same applies to anti-abortionists, too.

 

[GhostWriter16]

Complete and utter bollocks.

I was referring to Useless and Crezth there. Not you or Ajidica.

I can't speak for Ziggy, but for me at least if it is demonstrated that a fetus is a human person abortion should only be allowed in extreme life-of-the-mother situations or rape.

Should a woman who was raped be allowed to kill a fetus at 8 months after conception? (I think that's late enough that anyone who isn't insane would agree we are talking about a person there.) If not, rape really seems besides the point to me. I agree with you on life-of-the-mother, its a crude form of self-defense at that point.

DNA only can determine wether a person is human biologically. My left thumb has human DNA, same with Bob the Corpse. When I use hydrogen peroxide to clean a wound I am killing millions of human cells but nobody considers that murder. I don't remember enough about human biology and DNA if it is possible to determine whether someone is brain-dead based off DNA or not. My (uneducated) guess is no.

Your thumb will never be able to think. Neither will Bob the Corpse. But then, you aren't really thinking very much when you're sleeping. But you will someday. That's the entire point. You are a human being who will be thinking at some point in the future. And by natural processes.

Not necesarily. If the fetus develops without a heart its survivability isn't changing any time soon.

I imagine this is correct, but that drives the date down to about three weeks, not five or six months.

I still think that's irrelevant though. Even a fetus who does not have a heart will normally develop one.

You know many people who sleep for 9 months inside a mother's womb?

This is the same kind of nonsense argument as the coma one. If the situation was such that a foetus would be preserved for 9 months on a bed in intensive care, this wouldn't be such an issue would it? If the sleeping person or comatose patient was inside a mother's womb, then you'd have an argument.

So the argument has nothing to do with personhood then? You can't really have it both ways here.

Once, in an attempt to clarify the abortion issue, I introduced an example about six-year-old Little Mary and evil Snidely who gleefully refuses to safely and quickly donate his blood to Mary, despite that donation being the only thing that can save Mary from a gruesome death. Most people agreed that Snidely should have the legal right to do it, despite six-year-old Mary definitely being a person. GW16, if I remember correctly, had stated that Snidely should face legal punishment if Snidely is Mary's father, which reflects well on his consistency.

I'd say so yes, in the same way that you're obligated to give food to your kids.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Hey, some pro-abortion arguments do state that a woman has the right to abort a fetus because she has the right to determine where her bodily fluids go. That argument automatically makes personhood a secondary issue at best.

Read the quote I replied to. It wasn't about some random people.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

So the argument has nothing to do with personhood then? You can't really have it both ways here.

What on Earth are you replying to?

No really, tell me in your own words what you think what point I was making there. Read the post again if you think it helps.

 

[El_Machinae]

To be fair - most people for legal abortion (nice neutral term, isn't it, avoiding the emotion of "pro-choice" and "pro-abortion") probably didn't take any neuroscience courses to arrive at their option. The same applies to anti-abortionists, too.

True, but I think that a lot of people still care about personhood. I was just pointing out how much I cared.

It was a really, really important decision for me. I didn't form it lightly.

 

[Ajidica]

Should a woman who was raped be allowed to kill a fetus at 8 months after conception?

Probably not unless there was a compelling medical reason (for either the mother or fetus).

If not, rape really seems besides the point to me.

Hey, you were the one bring up consentual dangers and level of personal responsibility, not me!

But then, you aren't really thinking very much when you're sleeping. But you will someday.

You really don't know what you are talking about, do you? Ignoring the large amount of brain activity going on when you are sleeping, the defition for sentience says it is the ability to percieve. If I am away from a computer I still have the ability to type even if I am not using it. Same goes for sleeping.

I still think that's irrelevant though. Even a fetus who does not have a heart will normally develop one.

Unless if I am badly misremembering high school biology (which is a distinct possibility) by the time an embryo becomes a fetus the basics of a heart is developing. It is possible for something to go wrong with the development and for some reason or another a heart does not form.

 

[Crezth]

Unfortunately, it is even more unfair to kill the unborn in order to free her from this responsibility.

It seems to me the reasonable course would be to keep armed thugs away and let the women decide for themselves, rather than force the women into a debilitating circumstance for nine months through no fault of their own.

Once the child is born, the woman can give him/her up for adoption. She does not have to take care of it anymore. If the father wants the child, and the mother does not, the father can raise that child. Men still have to pay child support.

Wait, you support the government forcing men to pay child support? O.o

I'm not saying men should not bear responsibility. Unfortunately, reality does not allow shared responsibility during pregnancy. It is unacceptable to commit murder to rectify this injustice.

Why not? It's perfectly acceptable to commit murder to rectify other injustices. Don't you support the death penalty?

The person shooting you is guilty of a crime, namely, shooting you.

The fetus, on the other hand, is not guilty of any crime, as it does not at this point possess any will. It CANNOT leave.

You have completely failed to grasp my point, which is that accepting risk does not imply accepting consequence, especially when you have no control over the risk. And given that extra care is taken to mitigate the risk, I think it's unreasonable to assert that the risk should be expected from a negligence standpoint.

For the record, if it could, if, for instance, the embryo could be transported to an artificial womb without suffering significant side effects, I would absolutely grant the woman this choice. I don't want her to have to carry the child just for lolz. I simply do not want (Very small) people to be murdered.

And I simply do not want women to be forced to carry a great burden at gunpoint, when there's no good reason to do so.

The man had no risk to accept. Which is an accident of biology, not something I am claiming is fair. But life isn't fair. Being murdered is a greater offense of your bodily soveregnty than to lose it for nine months. Since there is no criminal here, the right to life wins.

"Life isn't fair" is absolutely not a valid response here. Your position is that women (and only women) must reap the consequences of the sex act, because of a mass of cells that you have no good case to argue with respect to its sentience. It is an anti-woman position, fundamentally, and I reject this spurious elimination of 51% of the population's freedom because some people think that embryos are precious.

 

[Siderealex]

Coming on very late on this but....ok so being leftist makes a bleeding heart? Right.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Coming on very late on this but....ok so being leftist makes a bleeding heart?

Yeah. It shows you care

 

[History_Buff]

Yeah, I've never understood why bleeding heart was supposed to be a pejorative.

 

[Lone Wolf]

Bleeding hearts refuse to apply harsh, but necessary measures

 

[Traitorfish]

Yeah, I've never understood why bleeding heart was supposed to be a pejorative.

And what red-blooded American would want to be anything like this long-haired hippy freak?

Sentience is not relevant unless you think its OK to kill people who are sleeping[...]

...What do actually you think "sentience" means?

 

[Leoreth]

Yeah, I've never understood why bleeding heart was supposed to be a pejorative.

Oh, it is, because it implies that people are leftist/liberal out of kneejerk emotional responses instead of rational considerations of "reality" or "the big picture" that are in the domain of conservatism in the eyes of those who like to use the word.

 

[Traitorfish]

Which again raises the question of when conservatism, a political philosophy originally defined by its hostility to politically rationalism, came to consider "reason" a virtue of a paramount importance, let alone one that it had a monopoly on? I didn't get an answer last time I asked, and I can't really say I expect to, but it would be nice if somebody at least tried.

 

[Cutlass]

Which again raises the question of when conservatism, a political philosophy originally defined by its hostility to politically rationalism, came to consider "reason" a virtue of a paramount importance, let alone one that it had a monopoly on? I didn't get an answer last time I asked, and I can't really say I expect to, but it would be nice if somebody at least tried.

You are asking why an ideology which is fundamentally about being irrational is acting irrationally?

 

[Traitorfish]

...There may be something to that, yes.