Look, I know it's been overdone - but abortion - yay or nay?

POSTED BY: FLF
UPDATED: Wednesday, November 29, 2006 13:13
VIEWED: 24147
PAGE 25 of 26

PREV PAGE 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 NEXT PAGE

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Thursday, November 16, 2006 11:42 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Finn, since I didn't get a reply I assume you've gone off to Washington or OCUNUS or wherever, so I'll pop this up for your perusal once. TTUL.

It was actually neither, but I was still very busy. I had several small crises at work and I sit with my elderly grandmother from time to time. Frankly, I can’t understand how some of you can spend so much time on this board. If I spent that much time here, my life would collapse in a heap of rubble.

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
If I view fertilization as a PROCESS and not a PURPOSE then there is no innate ideal human just waiting to be developed, there is a series of changes which usually produces a human but often produces something else.

I don't see what difference this makes. The realties exist regardless of the language used. If human fertilization serves a purpose, the purpose that is served is the ultimate production of human offspring. If human fertilization has a function, that function is the ultimate production of human offspring. If human fertilization is nothing more then a process, it is still a process by which human offspring are ultimately produced. These statements may not share the same degree of precision, but they certainly all express the reality that from human fertilization, via the development of a human fetus, is born a human child, and that is all that matters. There is nothing emotional or religious about what I’m saying. It comes down to this, if you believe that human life has value, it seems inconsistent to believe that the means by which human life is produced does not.

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
Doctors: let us kill disabled babies

ONE of Britain’s royal medical colleges is calling on the health profession to consider permitting the euthanasia of seriously disabled newborn babies. The proposal by the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecology is a reaction to the number of such children surviving because of medical advances. The college is arguing that “active euthanasia” should be considered for the overall good of families, to spare parents the emotional burden and financial hardship of bringing up the sickest babies.

All fine, until someone comes up with the brilliant idea that human infants aren’t human because it’s a circular argument. Will child euthanasia to spare a pain-stricken terminally ill child morph into the mother’s “choice” to kill her baby because the child isn’t wanted? I don’t know. As I said earlier the question is where you draw the line. When is human life developed enough to be considered important regardless of the mother’s convenience?

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Nothing to do with the definition of life, but I think your answer is a dodge. I think you do this fairly often, and it's a rhetorical trick. Sure, we all have them, but when we're called on them we should accept that nobody is fooled.

My answer was not a dodge, and no one is accusing you of an inconsistent position. Capital Punishment has nothing to do with abortion or the definition of life, and the whole issue of Capital Punishment in this thread is a Red Herring.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

RUE

Thursday, November 16, 2006 11:52 PM

War, capital punishment, starvation and abortion all have this in common: "if you believe that human life has value".

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Friday, November 17, 2006 12:16 AM

Capital punishment has as much to do with human behavior as human life. A fetus, on the other hand, has never had the opportunity to provide any behavior for comparison. Apples and Oranges.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

SIGNYM

Friday, November 17, 2006 12:51 AM

Quote:
Capital punishment has as much to do with human behavior as human life. A fetus, on the other hand, has never had the opportunity to provide any behavior for comparison. Apples and Oranges.

But- according to you- human life is human life REGARDLESS of developmental stage and disability, so presumably human life is human life regardless of behavior. (You might also want to note that most Death Row inmates- as I have posted before- have some sort of intellectual disability, brain damage, or serious psychiatric illness that may explain their behavior).

And what is the purpose of capital punishment except as a convenience to society? It doesn't serve as an effective deterrent for violent crime because most violent criminals are too impulsive, too stupid, or too out-of-touch with reality to think that far ahead anyway. It CERTAINLY isn't rehabilitative. The only argument that I hear for capital punishment is that it spares us all the expense of having to house violent criminals thru their natural life.

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

HKCAVALIER

Friday, November 17, 2006 1:06 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:
The only argument that I hear for capital punishment is that it spares us all the expense of having to house violent criminals thru their natural life.

Revenge plays large role in capital punishment, don'tcha think? Why do ya think they call it "punishment?" Folks on Death Row deserve to die? Such "monsters" shouldn't be allowed to breath the same air as decent people? Isn't that why the anti-choice folks always emphasize the innocence of the unborn, to contrast them with the folks it's okay to kill?

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

SIGNYM

Friday, November 17, 2006 1:50 AM

Finn:

Quote:
I don't see what difference this makes. The realties exist regardless of the language used. If human fertilization serves a purpose, the purpose that is served is the ultimate production of human offspring. If human fertilization has a function, that function is the ultimate production of human offspring. If human fertilization is nothing more then a process, it is still a process by which human offspring are ultimately produced.

Two points which you may think are sematic quibbles, but which (in my mind) are not: It is still a process by which humans MAY BE ultimately produced. Nature misses the mark somewhere between 20-40% of the time. It's not a slam-dunk success. Also, your own wording ("ultimate production of a human being" indicates that while fertilization ultimately produces a human being, that human being does not automatically come into existance with fertization: The definition of "ultimate" is the end result of a succession or process.

Quote:
It comes down to this, if you believe that human life has value, it seems inconsistent to believe that the means by which human life is produced does not.

Well, I certainly value sex!

Quote:
ONE of Britain’s royal medical colleges is calling on the health profession to consider permitting the euthanasia of seriously disabled newborn babies. -CTS
All fine, until someone comes up with the brilliant idea that human infants aren’t human because it’s a circular argument... As I said earlier the question is where you draw the line. When is human life developed enough to be considered important regardless of the mother’s convenience?

In order to break the circle, one must draw a line. My line: after about 4-5 months gestation. I know it seems arbitrary, but it's like brain death- you have to draw a line SOMEWHERE. Past that point I think the fetus should be given all consideration that we would give any person who was suffering, "on a machine" and/ or terminal. Like Schiavo, all kinds of complicated factors come into play at that point. But that's for another discussion.

HK- Yes, revenge is part of the argument for the death penalty. Basically the victims or their relatives are so pissed of that they're ready to kill. But IMHO killing out of anger makes them no better than the criminal they want to execute. I guess I'm not much of a believer in "righteous anger" ... I think all the concept does is promote and validate violence.

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

RUE

Friday, November 17, 2006 2:29 AM

SignyM

As always, yours was a well thought-out and well-put post.

I don't understand Finn's disconnect. People, even 'innocent' people, are killed for all sorts of societal reasons. The death penalty is frequently imposed on innocent people, there is war (in 665,000 deaths there were surely a number of fetuses), and economics (women and their fetuses, and children starving to death). How is that human life any less valuable than a US fetus? If he accepts a pro-rated value on human life (pro-rated to age, social status, the 'side' you are on, or whatnot), then why not accept that the value of a fertilized egg may also be pro-rated?

RUE

Friday, November 17, 2006 2:33 AM

Hi HK,

As always, your posts give me much to think about and a perspective I would not otherwise know. THANKS !

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Friday, November 17, 2006 1:18 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
But- according to you- human life is human life REGARDLESS of developmental stage and disability, so presumably human life is human life regardless of behavior.

Yes, human life is human life regardless of behavior. But behavior means a lot. You can’t equate a convicted murderer to a fetus. And you can’t say that because someone supports capital punishment that they are a hypocrite for being Pro-Life.

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Two points which you may think are sematic quibbles, ...

It doesn’t make any difference to me. Even if the whole gestation process was only successful once out of a hundred times, it would still be the process by which human life is produced.

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
In order to break the circle, one must draw a line. My line: after about 4-5 months gestation. I know it seems arbitrary, but it's like brain death- you have to draw a line SOMEWHERE. Past that point I think the fetus should be given all consideration that we would give any person who was suffering, "on a machine" and/ or terminal. Like Schiavo, all kinds of complicated factors come into play at that point. But that's for another discussion.

That’s a reasonable position. I think the line that gets drawn is almost always going to be arbitrary to some degree, which is really a big part of the problem. I choose fertilization as the beginning of human life because it is a discrete point at which an organism develops which, for the first time, contains the chromosomes of the potential human being that may result, the first occurrence of the smallest element unique to the that potential human being. In a process where there are very few obvious discrete points; it makes logical sense to define human life as beginning there, but it also provides a “buffer zone” of sorts. For example, at some time between fertilization and the 4-5 month line, when an abortion might presumably be appropriate, if someone believes that what they are aborting is human life, perhaps they will weigh their options more carefully, maybe even they’ll think before taking the chance of impregnating someone or allowing themselves to be impregnated if its not what they want. Or maybe that’s just wishful thinking, but from my standpoint, it makes logical and ethical sense.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

SIGNYM

Friday, November 17, 2006 2:29 PM

Quote:
Yes, human life is human life regardless of behavior. But behavior means a lot. You can’t equate a convicted murderer to a fetus. And you can’t say that because someone supports capital punishment that they are a hypocrite for being Pro-Life.

I think I would use the word inconsistent but- yes, I COULD equate a convicted murderer to a 5+ month fetus.

As far as capital punishment, I've actually changed positions on it twice. I was against it because of my liberal Catholic upbringing. I didn't see Jesus advocating the death penalty for anyone except himself. But several high-profile serial murderers later I changed my mind out of sheer anger. It wasn't until a number of Death Row prisoners were proved innocent thru DNA testing that I began to re-think my position. The coup de grace to the death penalty (in my mind) was because of my daughter, which brought me into contact with all kinds of brain-damaged kids. I could see the neurological basis for habitually violent criminality in some of these kids... they were born that way.

Quote:
That’s a reasonable position. I think the line that gets drawn is almost always going to be arbitrary to some degree, which is really a big part of the problem. I choose fertilization as the beginning of human life because it is a discrete point at which an organism develops which, for the first time, contains the chromosomes of the potential human being that may result, the first occurrence of the smallest element unique to the that potential human being.

There are a couple of caveats and potential problems with your definition. First of all, an "organism" does not develop right after fertilization, tissue differentiation doesn't occur until (help me out Rue) a couple of weeks(?) after fetilization. So remove "organism" from your definition. The second is that you refer to a "unique" human being. But what about identical twins? Their uniqueness lies in their individual development (different fingerprints, slightly different gestational and birth history) not in their genes. What about chimera, which contain the genes of TWO individuals? The third problem, unstated, is that since ALL cells - including the ones lining my gut- contain the information to create a human being, you need to specify that you mean pluripotent cells. The fourth problem, also unstated, doesn't account for genetic abnormalities. There is always SOME variation in the human genome... how much varation are you willing to include in your definition of "human"? For example, there is a 4% (1/23) difference between us and a fetus with trisomy, and of course there is a 4% (1/23) difference between men and women but only that infamous 3% difference between us and chimps. Also, you don't account for that OTHER source of DNA which is inherited only from the mother- mitochondrial DNA.

So, I would prolly re-work your definition to say something like: I consider fertilization to be the beginning of human life because it is the first moment when all of the information and pluripotent capability to create life comes into existance (within reasonable parameters to exclude chimps and strange anomalies - a line has to be drawn somewhere to define "human" from "non-human" DNA).

But notice there is nothing there about "behavior". If your definition of "human" rests in the DNA (both nuclear and mitochondrial) even the worst of the worst of the worst criminals are "human". However, if you include "innocent" in your definition of human, then we need to work on that definition of "innocent".

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

PREV PAGE 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 NEXT PAGE