I pose the question that I asked in another thread: why would you not accord a child the rights accorded to all human beings simply because of the minor difference that it is not born yet? Give me one reason why an unborn child should not be considered a member of the human race, entitled to all the rights and privelages thereof.
------------------
"To disarm the people [is] the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
- George Mason, American Statesman and Author of the Virginia Declaration of Rights (1776)
------------------
"Ultra Magnus is Undeniably Fun!" David Stevens, New York Magazine.
"Total Complete excitement from start to finish!" -WPIX-TV, New York
"This isn't a thrill ride, it's a rocket..." -Richard Caves, Time Magazine.
quote:
Abortions for none!
Boo!
Alright... Abortions for everyone!
Boo!
Hmm... Abortions for some, little American flags for others!
Yeah!
I personally am against abortions. Don't ask to give reasons, cause you won't get any. *L* I just think that a person is a person the moment they are conceived.
------------------
"When you realized that your website is your business and your software can't handle the traffic, that was an epiphany."
-Avery Brooks, IBM commercial
------------------
"Remeber, if there is a nuclear explosion, be sure to close your windows as the massive heat could cause objects within your home to catch fire".
Wise, wise words.
Why am I for abortion? I've already said why, but I'll reitieriate here: I'm pro-choice. This does not mean "abortions for all." This means I feel the option should be left open for consideration if the person chooses. Five years ago, my mother told me that had she not had an abortion in 1970, I'd've had an older half-sibling. Wow. I had a girlfriend who was raised Southern Baptist, who personally did not believe in abortion, but was pro-choice because she recognized that her beliefs were no better or worse than another's. As a man, I don't really think what I feel matters. I just know I want that option to be available to my wife/girlfriend/daughter/sister so that SHE can make the choice about HER own body.
I cannot say that I personally would advocate or NOT advocate an abortion. It's a case-by-case basis for me. If any female in my life came to me looking for advice on the decision, I would ask for the facts at had, aske her why she was considering it, & then advise thusly. Such is the way of the rabbi...heh. Seriously, though...I cannot say, "No, don't get an abortion because it's immoral." That's not my place, nor is it my place to make a decision for someone on a subject I couldn't possibly have any knowledge on.
Fly me to Sweden for an operation, let me get knocked up, & then I'll tell you how I feel.
------------------
"Do you know how much YOU'RE worth??.....2.5 million Woolongs. THAT'S your bounty. I SAID you were small fry..." --Spike Spiegel
In any case, an embryo is arguably not human at the moment of conception, any more than my fingernails are. It does, however, reach that consciousness hurdle relatively early on in the pregnancy. (As defined by brainwave activity. First it has to develop a brain, of course.) Before this point, I see little to debate about. After it, things get a bit tricky.
However, there is a difference between my personal ethics and those I am willing to see imposed upon society. While I may find abortion as birth control to be more than a bit repulsive, I find the concept of the government taking the decision out of the hands of the attending doctors to be far worse.
------------------
It's not my birthday
It's not today
It's not my birthday so why do you lunge out at me?
--
They Might Be Giants
****
Read chapter one of "Dirk Tungsten in...The Disappearing Planet"! I'll give you a cookie.
------------------
Ex-Admin at the TrekBBS.com
Cute, cuddly, widdle teddy bears usually will eat you alive unless you can prove you're a god.
While I agree that it contains the potential to be a human, so does every sperm and egg you possess. That doesn't mean you should go out and start rodgering women every night.
By 20 weeks though, it is almost inarguably contains some form of consciousness. At 4 weeks, it almost certainly doesn't. It's the time in between that's tricky, as it's impossible to say "Right here. Here's where it becomes a person"
I'd drop the limit down as low as it can possibly go while still being practical. OTOH, I'd also say that in certain situations, abortions over that limit should be allowed, but again, only up to a (higher) time limit.
But it's a tricky situation. One even harder to argue over than guns, because it's much harder to measure.
------------------
"A fully functioning, cybernetic, technologically advanced team of superheroes... and NOBODY'S got a flashlight?"
- Polly Ester; Samurai Pizza Cats
Suppose some poor girl got *ahem* raped by a psychomaniac and got pregnant by him. If she chooses to have an abortion, I would not object. It would be insulting to add an additional burden to an already victimized person.
Suppose there is a problem with the pregnancy and there is a risk that the mother and baby will die unless the mother has an abortion. I would not object.
------------------
"My Name is Elmer Fudd, Millionaire. I own a Mansion and a Yacht."
Psychiatrist: "Again."
You could say the same thing about Hellen Keller as a child, yet I don't think anyone would say that she wasn't human. A child born a vegetable is the same way, yet they are human, are they not?
I agree with Tahna's possible exceptions. Obviously, the second treats the child as a human being, as it should. The first gives me pause, but I'd still go along with it. I'd probably try and talk the woman out of it, but I think she should have that choice under those circumstances.
"While I agree that it contains the potential to be a human, so does every sperm and egg you possess."
Not true. If you leave a zygote alone in optimal conditions, it has the capability to become anything you or I could be. If you leave a sperm cell alone in optimal conditions, it'll be dead within a week.
"an embryo is arguably not human at the moment of conception, any more than my fingernails are."
But it WILL become a human. Why should you not give it the benefit of the doubt and call it a human, too?
------------------
"To disarm the people [is] the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
- George Mason, American Statesman and Author of the Virginia Declaration of Rights (1776)
As for something's 'potential' to become human/intelligent... Someday, cows might become sentient. What if you're eating the great*10th grandfather of the first talking cow?
------------------
"Nobody knows this, but I'm scared all the time... of what I might do, if I ever let go." -- Michael Garibaldi
[This message has been edited by First of Two (edited June 21, 2000).]
Your point about miscarrages is good (but one wonders exactly how someone would count unrecorded miscarrages). Perhaps I should have said that without outside interference, there's a very good chance that it will become an undisputed human being.
------------------
"To disarm the people [is] the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
- George Mason, American Statesman and Author of the Virginia Declaration of Rights (1776)
And what IS optimal conditons eh? Are you saying that optimal conditions for a zygote are within the womb or an artificial womb? Because I'd say optimal conditions for a sperm would include an egg.
A zygote is designed to grow into a human. A sperm is designed to fertalise an egg. They're the same thing, just at different points on the track.
------------------
"A fully functioning, cybernetic, technologically advanced team of superheroes... and NOBODY'S got a flashlight?"
- Polly Ester; Samurai Pizza Cats
Do human beings have an innate 'right to exist,' (I know the U.S. Declaration of Independence says so, but... so?) and is that right more innate to man than it is to any other life form? And if so, why? And does any authority other than Man recognize this so-called right? (*Rolls Magic 8-Ball...* My sources say 'no.')
------------------
"Nobody knows this, but I'm scared all the time... of what I might do, if I ever let go." -- Michael Garibaldi
But on another note, I'd say Hellen Keller was able to reason and was aware of her surroundings. She still had 3 of her 5 senses and could figure out what various smells meant as well as where things were by touch. Just because she couldn't hear or see doesn't mean that her brain didn't work like any other child's.
------------------
It doesn't matter if you don't know what you're doing as long as you look good doing it.
"Because I'd say optimal conditions for a sperm would include an egg."
OK, rephrase to "If you leave a zygote alone in optimal conditions for its own growth, it has the capability to become anything you or I could be. If you leave a sperm cell alone in optimal conditions for its own growth, it'll be dead within a week."
First:
"Do human beings have an innate 'right to exist,'"
Good question. Gotta make sure that our argument has a correct assumption as its basis.
I'd say yes. Let's define "right". I would define it as "anything that all unrestrained people will want to do". Some would call this the basic nature of the human spirit. Let us expand the definition to include the fact that people have a right to defend their rights by any means nesecary. (This includes the right to own property to defend your first ammendment rights, and your right to own a weapon to defend your property.) All humans have an innate tendancy to defend their existance. Assuming you accept my definition of "right", people have a right to exist, and thus a right to defend their existance.
"is that right more innate to man than it is to any other life form?"
Intelligence gives us the advantage of actually knowing what will help the species, as opposed to acting on instinct. We are effectively the caretakers of the whole planet, whether you believe it's by chance or it's because God made us that way. What we believe is best for the planet and ourselves is a higher authority than the rights of animals (whatever they may be).
And no, rats don't have rights.
"And does any authority other than Man recognize this so-called right?"
I didn't think you recognized any authority other than man, First.
Fructose:
"I think women should be able to decide on their own what they want."
I'd agree with you if you could show me that the child is not a living human before it's born. We're not talking about whether a woman can have her appendix removed.
------------------
"To disarm the people [is] the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
- George Mason, American Statesman and Author of the Virginia Declaration of Rights (1776)
If you don't give a baby food, it will die.
I'm not seeing the difference here.
Are you out of curiosity pro or anti-contraceptive? And what about the morning after-pill?
------------------
"A fully functioning, cybernetic, technologically advanced team of superheroes... and NOBODY'S got a flashlight?"
- Polly Ester; Samurai Pizza Cats
The difference is that if you "give" a sperm an egg, it becomes something completely different, whereas baby food simply keeps the baby alive. A sperm is not simply an earlier form of a zygote. There are inherant differences.
"Are you out of curiosity pro or anti-contraceptive?"
No problems with contraceptives. As I've said, a sperm cell is completely different from a living human being, so I have no objections to their death.
*remembers a scene from the Bicentennial Man movie, and bursts out laughing*
OK, I'm better now.
"And what about the morning after-pill?"
I'm not completely certain I know what the morning-after pill does, but as I understand it, it is taken after sex as opposed to before. Since it takes eight hours for the sperm cell to rendezvous with the egg (assuming one makes it), and another sixteen for the thing to make its way inside, whether I'm opposed to it or not would depend on exactly when the pill takes effect.
As a side note, are those the same as the emergency contraceptive pills that the ER is supposed to give women who are raped?
------------------
"To disarm the people [is] the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
- George Mason, American Statesman and Author of the Virginia Declaration of Rights (1776)
As to your definition of 'right' I might point out that some unhindered people self-destruct, while others willingly abrogate the other rights you described. It's clear from their postings that many of the induhviduals (to use Dilbertspeak) on this board don't believe in their own (or others') property rights (and copyrights), right to self-defense, or even, in some cases, rights to freedom of speech and religion.
"I didn't think you recognized any authority other than man, First."
You're right. My point is, the Universe does not respect your 'right' to exist. It will destroy you without a second thought. (and it's a subtle point at the evidence that 'God' doesn't accept that 'right,' either, but that's another flame.)
------------------
"Nobody knows this, but I'm scared all the time... of what I might do, if I ever let go." -- Michael Garibaldi
[This message has been edited by First of Two (edited June 21, 2000).]
That's all I have to say and that's all I believe needs to be said.
*edit*
You are right First, God never garentees us a right to exist. We are not Angels in Heaven before we are born or anything like that. This is a heresy of the church. While I made that point, there is great evidence in Scripture that God can make or prevent a woman from having a child. I do think that God wants nature to run it's course in the way of normal births. He is God, not a woman or a doctor, and we should have no control over what comes out from between a woman's legs.
I don't care that I'm a guy and I will never deal with this. I don't care if you think it's a woman's issue. This is God's world and after that (in secular society) it's still a man's world!
------------------
If you don't believe in what I say or the God I speak of I guess you'll just have to meet me so the Lord and I can convert you.
[This message has been edited by bryce (edited June 21, 2000).]
"As I understand it, the morning-after pill causes a change which prevents the tiny cluster of 16 cells or so from attatching to the uterus wall, so that it exits the body the same way an unused egg would."
If that's the case, I'd be against the thing. You leave a zygote alone, at no matter what stage, it has a chance of developing directly into what is indisputably a human being. There is no reason not to give it the benefit of the doubt. It IS a human being, in it self.
"As to your definition of 'right' I might point out that some unhindered people self-destruct, while others willingly abrogate the other rights you described."
True. How 'bout we define "right" as anything that you can do that does not directly harm someone else, and anything you have to do to defend those rights? Does that sound good?
Bryce:
"That's all I have to say and that's all I believe needs to be said."
No offence intended, bud, but that's the reason this debate is still going on in the world. One side says "Abortion is murder, murder is wrong." The other side says "Abortion is the woman's right." They never have a legitimate debate like we're having now, so no one ever gets anywhere. We start with the assumptions that a human has a right to live, that infringing that right is murder, and that murder is wrong. Assuming that everyone agrees with these assumptions, the debate is over whether an unborn child constitutes a human being. We've already established that murder is wrong.
Besides, the original Hebrew would more appropriately translate as "Thou shall not kill", not "Thou shall not murder".
------------------
"To disarm the people [is] the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
- George Mason, American Statesman and Author of the Virginia Declaration of Rights (1776)
Did God create the whole damn universe?
I DON'T THINK SO!
"IF" God is one of the universe's creation, aren't we ultimately created by the universe in the end? If the universe created everything there is, shouldn't everything be treated as equal?
So what I don't believe in Gods, so what if I have other "ideals" or "believes", I'm still a damn good person. but "IF" the judgement day is true, and when I stand infront of "The One" and said "sorry dude, I've got other believes", guess what The Almighty gonna reply, "Son, you're a nice young man when you're alive, but just because you don't believe me, guess what, into the fire of hell you go!"
Every read the Animal Farm? Remember one of the rule set up by the pigs in the end? Isn't it something like "everyone's equal, but some are more then equal".
You gotta wonder, is God the almighty perfect being? Or is He the "pigs" rising above equality and taking advantages of the less educated public.
------------------
If a diamond is a woman's best friend, why does a man has to settle for a dog?
You could say that Hellen Keller lacked a functioning brain? Wow.
------------------
It's not my birthday
It's not today
It's not my birthday so why do you lunge out at me?
--
They Might Be Giants
****
Read chapter one of "Dirk Tungsten in...The Disappearing Planet"! I'll give you a cookie.
Hm. I have a 'right' to make paper airplanes?
Actually, if we go by that above definition, people have the 'right' to be, and act on being, homosexuals, which would set the R-R's agenda back a peg or two...
------------------
"Nobody knows this, but I'm scared all the time... of what I might do, if I ever let go." -- Michael Garibaldi
Sol:
I refered to Keller in response to this:
"A fetus/embryo/unborn child isn't independent or even conciously aware of it's surroundings let alone able to think and reason as a human does."
She would have been able to fit that description as a child. And my point about vegetative children still stands. They're still human.
First:
"Hm. I have a 'right' to make paper airplanes?"
Sure. Ammendment 9 guarentees it.
"Actually, if we go by that above definition, people have the 'right' to be, and act on being, homosexuals"
Yes, they do. Just because someone has a right to do something doesn't mean that it isn't wrong. But let's not start that again.
"which would set the R-R's agenda back a peg or two..."
If there are people out there who want to outlaw homosexuality, I'd help you fight them. That's way overboard, and they give people like me a bad name.
Still waiting for a reason not to give a zygote the benefit of the doubt.
------------------
"To disarm the people [is] the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
- George Mason, American Statesman and Author of the Virginia Declaration of Rights (1776)
Yes, it DOES mean that. by inherent definition, a right cannot be wrong. I will not accept a definition of "wrong" rights. The only things that are "wrong" are those which hurt other people, in other words, things that one has no "right" to do.
I also want to say that I find Bryce's concept of a "can do anything he wishes, and your rights, your very lives, are of no consequence"-type of God frightening, verging on revolting. Selfish MAN acts that way. God should be better than that.
Since we're trying to establish a "right" to exist, we must consider the belief systems of the people making such assertions. I don't believe we have an INHERENT 'right' to exist, because the universe clearly does not respect it. In reality, we choose our 'rights' by consensus.
To be honest, I can think of fully GROWN human beings who don't have a right to exist, much less zygotes. That's why I'm in favor of capital punishment. At least give the zygotes a chance.
The differences between a zygote and a fully functional human being are numerous and considerable. A zygote, at least at an early stage, has no more awareness than that cow/chicken/fish you had for lunch. Considerably less, in some cases. A zygote cannot survive without a complicated security and life-support system. It is, essentially, a parasite.
However, given time, it will (probably, but not always) develop sentience. At this point, it begins to exercise its will and effect the world around it.
Does a being with the potential for sentience deserve a chance to live up to that possibility? I dunno, maybe.
It's my indecision on this whole question (just about the only issue I haven't concretely made up my mind on) that leads me to be personally in favor of "pro-life," but socially in favor of "pro-choice." I wouldn't tell someone to have an abortion, I wouldn't even like to suggest it. But I wouldn't stop them, either. I don't believe I have that right.
------------------
"Nobody knows this, but I'm scared all the time... of what I might do, if I ever let go." -- Michael Garibaldi
Depends on your definition of wrong. I consider things that harm yourself as wrong as things that harm others. But you have a right to harm yourself. Therefore, by harming yourself, you do something wrong that you still have a right to do.
"I don't believe we have an INHERENT 'right' to exist, because the universe clearly does not respect it."
'Course it doesn't. The universe is not a consious entity. It can respect nothing. Some people don't respect my right to own property or to defend it. That doesn't mean that I don't have those rights.
"To be honest, I can think of fully GROWN human beings who don't have a right to exist"
It is possible to forfeit your rights by certain actions, mainly by voilating other's rights. Some would say that by killing someone you forfeit your right to exist.
Basically, we've gotten it down to the question of whether the fact that you will become what everyone agrees is a human being makes you a human being already. I have seen no reason why not, being basically optimistic and prefering to give the benefit of doubt.
------------------
"To disarm the people [is] the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
- George Mason, American Statesman and Author of the Virginia Declaration of Rights (1776)
Sorry, that was catty.
------------------
"A fully functioning, cybernetic, technologically advanced team of superheroes... and NOBODY'S got a flashlight?"
- Polly Ester; Samurai Pizza Cats
A woman has the right to her body, in the legal sense. That is why legislators can't deny it. Also, when the child is concieved, it is still a life, and therefore morally wrong to kill it. The right to her body is second to the right of the being growing in her womb.
That being said, the decision to have an abortion is not just a legal issue, it is a moral one. When a woman decides to have sex, she takes the risk of losing the right to her body for this child. Even if it does not happen, she takes that risk.
------------------
"The lies I told are not falsehoods according to my definition of truth." Bill Clinton
"All stupid people are liberals, because they don't know any better." Rob Rodehorst
"Don't underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups" - Dilbert, Scott Adams
"Sorry, that was catty."
It also made no sense. People who want to take guns away from the populace are the ones who refuse to give the benefit of the doubt. I believe that people can use guns responsibly and safely, remember?
But that's for another thread.
Jeff:
"A woman has the right to her body, in the legal sense."
"The right to her body is second to the right of the being growing in her womb."
From these it would follow that legislators COULD, and SHOULD, in fact, deny the woman the right to do whatever she wants to her body. Your argument on why abortion can't be outlawed (It seemed that was part of what you were saying. Correct me if I'm wrong.) is self-contradictory.
------------------
"To disarm the people [is] the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
- George Mason, American Statesman and Author of the Virginia Declaration of Rights (1776)
------------------
"The lies I told are not falsehoods according to my definition of truth." Bill Clinton
"All stupid people are liberals, because they don't know any better." Rob Rodehorst
"Don't underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups" - Dilbert, Scott Adams
One exception, she had consciouness and could reason, although she couldn't see or hear or communicate with others she was still alive. I also think anyone born/becomes a vegatable or unable to properly function without life support should be euthanized (with families permission of course) but that's another topic alogether.
The line between human and just a bunch of tissue is very thin in this area of development and until we can actually discern it, I think the mother (and the father) should be allowed the right to terminate up to a point.
You shouldn't be allowed to go 6-7 months then decide you don't want it anymore. That's wrong imo.
------------------
Ex-Admin at the TrekBBS.com
Cute, cuddly, widdle teddy bears usually will eat you alive unless you can prove you're a god.
------------------
"Nobody knows this, but I'm scared all the time... of what I might do, if I ever let go." -- Michael Garibaldi
TLE:
"The line between human and just a bunch of tissue is very thin in this area of development and until we can actually discern it, I think the mother (and the father) should be allowed the right to terminate up to a point."
But who determines the location of that point if we don't know where the line is, or if it even exists? Who has the right to say, "All children after this point are human. All children before this point are not."? You suggest that until that line is determined, we should just draw one up pretty much arbitrarily. I suggest that until that line is determined, we should give them ALL the benefit of the doubt. Our justice system is based on the idea that having ten guilty men set free is better than having one innocent man imprisoned. Why is this not our attitude when dealing with the lives of our children?
------------------
"To disarm the people [is] the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
- George Mason, American Statesman and Author of the Virginia Declaration of Rights (1776)
[This message has been edited by Omega (edited June 23, 2000).]
------------------
"Do you know how much YOU'RE worth??.....2.5 million Woolongs. THAT'S your bounty. I SAID you were small fry..." --Spike Spiegel
But as long as we're making boggling connections, I've got one. If we want to say that embryos are human even though they lack all these basic systems that make people human, should we not also extend full rights to corpses? Oh, they don't have a functioning brain, or heart, or any other system, but they're human, aren't they?
------------------
It's not my birthday
It's not today
It's not my birthday so why do you lunge out at me?
--
They Might Be Giants
****
Read chapter one of "Dirk Tungsten in...The Disappearing Planet"! I'll give you a cookie.
You were right. It is a boggling connection.
So you're suggesting that someone is human only if they have certain organs and systems? But how do you define when those organs begin to exist? You get to the same question I asked before: who has the right to draw the line?
And I admit that my point about Keller was off. It barely applied to the statement I was replying to, and doesn't at all to this argument. But the point about vegetables still stands.
Side note: oddly enough, in all my literary travels, I've never seen an actual copy of the hippocratic oath. At least, not until now. I'll quote you a section.
"I will not give to a woman the means to produce an abortion."
If only we still made doctors take this oath today...
------------------
"To disarm the people [is] the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
- George Mason, American Statesman and Author of the Virginia Declaration of Rights (1776)
At any rate, how do you define an organ? Uh, simple. A heart is a heart, a brain is a brain, etc. Either they perform the task or they don't. And before a certain number of weeks, they don't.
As far as the "will develop into a human if left alone", First has already pointed out the error in that reasoning. We can not say for certain whether it will successfully grow into a baby or not. And depending upon what part of the world you're living in, the odds might be quite unfair indeed.
And aside from all of this, I still find the idea of a non-medical regulatory agency outlawing distasteful medical procedures to be disturbing. Triage is rather distasteful and morally complex too. Do we need a law against it?
(Regarding the Hippocratic Oath, according to the translation made available by the University of Indiana; I'm willing to bet that what you're quoting is this: "And likewise I will not give a woman a destructive pessary." A pessary, according to Miriam-Webster, is "a device worn in the vagina to support the uterus, remedy a malposition, or prevent conception". Now, does "destructive pessary" equal abortion, or is it any form of birth control that is not sanctioned by the husband? Honestly, you can interpret it both ways. But be mindful of the era he was from. And the Oath is still a part of graduation ceremonies. As long as we're constraining our physicians to it, though, I want to register a complain against my doctor. He's constantly cutting those who labor under the stone. A clear violation of medical ethics, no?)
------------------
It's not my birthday
It's not today
It's not my birthday so why do you lunge out at me?
--
They Might Be Giants
****
Read chapter one of "Dirk Tungsten in...The Disappearing Planet"! I'll give you a cookie.
The first time I read of it was in the novel "Warday" by Whitley Streiber & James Kunetka (a HELL of a book; I HIGHLY recommend purchasing it if you ever come across a copy. It's the only Streiber book I enjoy.)when I originally read it in 1989. A year later, I happened to meet Mr. Steriber at an annual weirdo convention in Fort Collins, CO, that my mother dragged me along to (don't ask...). I told him point blank that I thought he was a kook, that his "alien abduction" tales were pure bullshit, & that he only produced one true masterpiece--"Warday."
Oddly enough, he liked the fact that I didn't kiss his ass--this 15-year-old kid running up & basically sayign to his face, "Hey, you SUCK!"--& we got to talking about the genesis of the novel. Along the way, I asked him about where he got the idea for the "new" triage & he told me that a few years before wrioting the book, a friend of his at the CDC had told him about it, about how it was a major & radical choice that had been the cause of many resignations in the staff.
See, the "new" triage states that in the event of a nuclear strike on American soil, there will of course be radiation-related deaths both immediately following & for as many as 10 years after the initial attack. Because supplies are expected to be in high demand, people in the afflicted areas are not to be treated on a "most serious need first" basis, but on a "best prospect for survival first" one. This means that you can go to a hospital or clinic only up to a certain point; that after the onset of radiation-related illnesses, you are denied treatment; & that in the most extreme cases where the afflictee will be a potential burden (elderly, mentally ill or retarded, terminally ill), euthanasia is not only recommended but performed on the wish of the family.
Streiber & Kunetka even went so far as to include in full force a small annotation that had been on the real directive that, should the need arise, a local governor/army commander can direct troops to health facilites to prevent those who would be denied treatment from entering said hospital or clinic; if they managed to actually get in, they could be killed on sight.
When the species is in danger, morality takes a holiday.
------------------
"Do you know how much YOU'RE worth??.....2.5 million Woolongs. THAT'S your bounty. I SAID you were small fry..." --Spike Spiegel
Sol:
Re oath: talk to the author of my philosophy course on that one.
"We can not say for certain whether it will successfully grow into a baby or not."
You're not paying attention. It's irrelevant whether it WILL or not. The chance exists, and the question is still "Why, in the name of millions of children, don't we give them the beneift of the doubt?"
"I still find the idea of a non-medical regulatory agency outlawing distasteful medical procedures to be disturbing."
You have a talent for euphamisms. This is not some medical procedure we're talking about. It's the willful ending of a human life!
You guys keep avoiding the questions.
------------------
"To disarm the people [is] the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
- George Mason, American Statesman and Author of the Virginia Declaration of Rights (1776)
Omega:
Really I can't speak against abortion without my religion. My religion is what makes me pro-life. Previously, I was pro-choice. About the Hebrew, translators differ on whatthey words should translate into. My NRSV says murder. I guess they don't put kill because that once led to the radicals who wouldn't step on bugs.
First:
I can however try to speak against Abortion as just a plain American (all democratic, republican countries). See, in America we try to give every citizen a shot at success. We let people come from foreign countries to start over here. Whether or not they actually make anything of themselves, everyone in this country is allowed at least one chance to "live the good life." How then, can Americans deny an American fetus the opportunity we don't deny foreigners?
Also, you know if a terrorist took a pregnant woman hostage that the government would come down on the terrorist real hard if he/she killed the baby. They would probably treat it like there was two hostages. Can you see the double standard?
------------------
If you don't believe in what I say or the God I speak of I guess you'll just have to meet me so the Lord and I can convert you.
[This message has been edited by bryce (edited June 24, 2000).]
Oh, name please, and title. I am quite curious. I have a feeling this might explain a lot.
"You're not paying attention. It's irrelevant whether it WILL or not. The chance exists, and the question is still 'Why, in the name of millions of children, don't we give them the beneift of the doubt?'"
Would it help if I used hand puppets here? Either we're taking reality into account here or we're not. In the real world, things aren't human just because they might someday be. I mean, honestly, what's next? Do we outlaw menstration?
"You have a talent for euphamisms. This is not some medical procedure we're talking about. It's the willful ending of a human life!"
Abortion isn't a medical procedure? And you're accusing me of using euphamisms? Pot, description follows. Black. Signed, Kettle.
Of course, I could mention that this isn't even an argument, as just because something is a "willful ending of a human life", that doesn't make it wrong. I imagine you are still in favor of capital punishment, and have not embrassed pacifism, Quaker style.
"You guys keep avoiding the questions."
No, we've been giving you answers you don't like. There's a difference.
------------------
It's not my birthday
It's not today
It's not my birthday so why do you lunge out at me?
--
They Might Be Giants
****
Read chapter one of "Dirk Tungsten in...The Disappearing Planet"! I'll give you a cookie.
"See, in America we try to give every citizen a shot at success."
We do?
"We let people come from foreign countries to start over here."
Unless they're Haitian. Or don't fit into the immigration quota for that year.
"How then, can Americans deny an American fetus the opportunity we don't deny foreigners?"
Perhaps because the two situations are utterly unalike?
"They would probably treat it like there was two hostages. Can you see the double standard?"
It's a double standard for it to be illegal for someone to do to me what I don't want them to, but legal for me to? Is it a double standard when the government prosecutes someone for removing the stereo from my car, but doesn't prosecute me for removing it?
------------------
It's not my birthday
It's not today
It's not my birthday so why do you lunge out at me?
--
They Might Be Giants
****
Read chapter one of "Dirk Tungsten in...The Disappearing Planet"! I'll give you a cookie.
*deep breath*
OK, I'm better now.
"Oh, name please, and title."
Sophie's World, by Jostein Gaarder. And I just started it a few days ago. I wanted something decent to read, so I broke out part of my philosophy course.
"In the real world, things aren't human just because they might someday be."
You're still ignoring the question. The question is, "WHY are they not considered human?" There's no reason not to give them the benefit of the doubt. Go watch the end speech by that admiral in "The Measure of a Man".
"Do we outlaw menstration?"
As I've pointed out, there are extreme differences between a zygote and a gamite.
"Abortion isn't a medical procedure?"
Would injecting someone with cyanide without their knowledge be a medical procedure? I didn't think so.
"I imagine you are still in favor of capital punishment"
You guys really ought to pay more attention to what I say. I've stated multiple times before that I don't particularly like capital punishment. And don't you dare start equating a vicious murderer to an innocent, unborn child. That I will not stand for.
"No, we've been giving you answers you don't like."
No, you've been avoiding the questions. Answer me directly. Why should we not give someone that may become a human being the benefit of the doubt and call them a human being already? Why do we not treat unborn children as well as we treat suspected criminals?
As for what bryce said, you once again miss the point entirely. Let me spell it out:
If some terrorist kills an unborn child, it's called a murder. If the mother and the doctor kill an unborn child, it's perfectly acceptable. Double standard.
------------------
"To disarm the people [is] the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
- George Mason, American Statesman and Author of the Virginia Declaration of Rights (1776)
That's what you get for buying generic. I had the same problem with my Sorny television.
"Sophie's World, by Jostein Gaarder."
Not a bad book, or so I've been told. Of course, I would usually recommend seeking out the source material. Though this is complicated by the fact that many philosophers were/are horribly dull writers.
"You're still ignoring the question. The question is, 'WHY are they not considered human?' There's no reason not to give them the benefit of the doubt. Go watch the end speech by that admiral in 'The Measure of a Man'."
Just out of curiosity, have you ever actually read anything anyone besides yourself has ever posted? As I have said at least once before here, unless your definition of human is purely genetic, unthinking embryos don't fit within it.
Actually, this leads to another very important issue. It may deserve its own thread, but its outcome is so important to this one that I think we should include it here. What does it mean to be human? I am willing to argue that it is not primarily a principle of genetics, nor is it, in the broadest sense, a physical definition at all. Curiosly enough, this is the point that the TNG episode you mention endeavors to prove. How you are extending it to include the statement that nonthinking entities are human is quite beyond me. (And, as I recall, there wasn't any admiral involved, and the pro-Data speech was given by Picard. Unless, that is, you are taking the opposing side, and saying that Data really is just a machine.)
At any rate, I'll hold off on this until we get a consensus from the group on how to best handle it.
"As I've pointed out, there are extreme differences between a zygote and a gamite."
Most certainly. And yet you refuse to acknowledge extreme differences between an embryo and a fetus, and a fetus and a baby. Furthermore, you stated earlier that your opinion regarding said unborn child was independant of its chances of born. In which case I included a case where the chances are extremely low, but not altogether impossible. (And through medical intervention, quite possible indeed.)
"Would injecting someone with cyanide without their knowledge be a medical procedure? I didn't think so."
Yet another misleading analogy, if not downright false. You assume that there are never any benefits, even life-saving ones, to be had from an abortion. Why is it that your argument is predicated upon abortion always being a clear cut moral issue involving only one person? I would suggest it is because it cannot stand up to the realities of the situation.
"You guys really ought to pay more attention to what I say."
Sounds familiar.
"I've stated multiple times before that I don't particularly like capital punishment."
Fine.
"And don't you dare start equating a vicious murderer to an innocent, unborn child. That I will not stand for."
Then why did you invite the parallel in the first place? You stated that one of your problems with abortion was that it is a "willful ending of a human life". I merely pointed out that there are other cases where human lives are ended willfully that you do not seem to object to, rendering this point useless in this particular debate.
"No, you've been avoiding the questions."
Clearly a false statement.
"Why should we not give someone that may become a human being the benefit of the doubt and call them a human being already?"
If I might borrow a page from your debating book, quit dancing around the issue. "Benefit of the doubt"? What exactly does this have to do with anything? Look it this way. Are there rights that certain age groups enjoy that others do not? Of course. Adults can do things that no one would think of letting children do. Children can do things that no one would think of letting newborn babies do. If you accept that adults are different from children, and children from babies; and also that there is a difference far far greater than those that exists between embryos and human beings capable of conscious thought; then why must we treat them the same?
"If some terrorist kills an unborn child, it's called a murder. If the mother and the doctor kill an unborn child, it's perfectly acceptable. Double standard."
You honestly fail to see the difference in these two cases? You cannot concieve of an instance in which it is right for a doctor to perform an action and wrong for someone else? I am curious to know what color rainclouds are on your planet, as it appears to lack the shade we call grey.
------------------
It's not my birthday
It's not today
It's not my birthday so why do you lunge out at me?
--
They Might Be Giants
****
Read chapter one of "Dirk Tungsten in...The Disappearing Planet"! I'll give you a cookie.
Seriously, folks. When do you consider a fetus to be sufficiently human to possess rights? Although fetuses develop at very similar rates, any criterion you develop would have to include testing whether the fetus involved had developed sufficiently to possess those rights.
As far as those who would place a complete ban on abortion, there is some Biblical support (no. Look it up yourself!) for the possibility of aborting an unborn child if there is a risk to the mother's life.
Seriously, until we get more members with a uterus, I think any debate on this topic would have to remain largely theoretical.
~~Baloo
[This message has been edited by Baloo (edited June 25, 2000).]
Sol:
"I would usually recommend seeking out the source material."
My ancient Greek is a little rusty.
"unless your definition of human is purely genetic, unthinking embryos don't fit within it."
I don't attempt to define human. I simply extrapolate, based on what everyone (short of the few feminazis in the country) agrees is a human, and use a little legal logic.
"How you are extending it to include the statement that nonthinking entities are human is quite beyond me."
I wasn't refering to the actual question of Data's sentience. I was refering to the speech given by the presiding command officer (perhaps she was a capitan) when giving her ruling. She said the question was whether Data had a soul or not. Whether he was alive. She said she didn't know, but that she had to give HIM the chance to find out for himself. What IS the measure of a (hu)man? How can you say "This is the line"? If there is even the SLIGHTEST chance that something could be called a living human being, we have an obligation to let it become whatever it will.
"And yet you refuse to acknowledge extreme differences between an embryo and a fetus, and a fetus and a baby."
I acknowledge the differences. I simply think they're irrelevant. One is basically a more or less mature form of the others. A gamite is a completely seperate entity that will die within a couple weeks under any circumstances. It can never become a human on its own. An embryo can.
"Why is it that your argument is predicated upon abortion always being a clear cut moral issue involving only one person?"
Because those are the abortions we're talking about. Ones in which the mother's life is at stake we both seem to find acceptable, so there is no debate over them. The only one's we have any question over is where the mother has an abortion for the simple reason that she doesn't want the child.
"I merely pointed out that there are other cases where human lives are ended willfully that you do not seem to object to, rendering this point useless in this particular debate."
Wrong. Your analogy is inaplicable. The willful ending of a human life is not nesecarily wrong. You seem to like splitting hairs, but to humor you, let's tack a "defenceless" in there, and maybe an "innocent", too.
"You cannot concieve of an instance in which it is right for a doctor to perform an action and wrong for someone else?"
When it involves the death of an innocent being, no, I can't.
"then why must we treat them the same?"
Simple. All humans are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights. Among these is life.
*epiphany*
I've been going about this the wrong way. I don't have to proove anything.
Look at it this way. I take a rat to court, claiming that it has a right to life as a human being. How easy would it be to defeat that? It's easy to proove that a rat is not a human being, and therefore is not entitled to the applicable rights. But it must be _prooven_ that the rat is not a human being. The benefit of the doubt must be given. Otherwise, you could have someone claiming that other people aren't human, and they'd have to proove that they WERE.
In the case mentioned, it'd be incredibly simple to proove that a rat isn't human. In the case of an embryo, it's not. Pretend this is a court. You have the burden of proof. You must give me a compelling reason why an embryo is NOT human until a certain point. To do this, YOU have to define human.
The ball's in your court. Have fun.
------------------
"To disarm the people [is] the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
- George Mason, American Statesman and Author of the Virginia Declaration of Rights (1776)
If you look around the site, the author's opinion is essentially, "the world doesn't need your children," but with lots of profanity.
------------------
June is National Accordion Awareness Month.
"I love being British. We don't have to do any real work, we sit around looking smug, pointing at the US and saying 'We used to be young like that once.' Then we drink tea." - Liam Ka--thingy
America has a general philosophy reguarding it's laws. In the debate of abortion America is not applying it's general philosophy to this issue. It's like being a Jew in one area and being a Christian in another part of your life. You can't do that!
You can't tell me a government wouldn't go nuts if a fetus was killed by a terrorist and lawyers wouldn't use that in court to get the highest penalty.
------------------
If you don't believe in what I say or the God I speak of I guess you'll just have to meet me so the Lord and I can convert you.
[This message has been edited by bryce (edited June 25, 2000).]
Then I suppose it is a good thing that very few philosophical texts are written in it, no?
"I don't attempt to define human."
Then you are ignoring the central issue at hand.
"I simply extrapolate, based on what everyone (short of the few feminazis in the country) agrees is a human, and use a little legal logic."
I don't know if Godwin's Law applies to bulletin boards, but it should.
"If there is even the SLIGHTEST chance that something could be called a living human being, we have an obligation to let it become whatever it will."
Are you sure you want to say this? I fear your argument is going to be rapidly outpaced by reality in a few years. Will it be a crime to ruin our own stem cells? Demand that our barber collect our hair in a liquid nitrogen cooled chamber? We are rapidly reaching the point where we can make humans out of a lot of things. My viewpoint, it seems, makes some room for this sort of thing, by providing a reasonable definition of humanity to be applied to each new creation. Yours, on the other hand, and if you don't think this is true I'm sure you'll let me know, does not make such provisions. That is my main issue with it.
Another is that you seem comfortable with a sort of...well, perhaps we should coin a word here. A sort of ethical determinism. That is, you seem to be indicating that our actions now must have their rightness or wrongness decided based on what outcome they have five, or ten, or five hundred years in the future. I cannot help but reject this. Part of me agrees, of course, but I can't shake the little voice in the back of my mind demanding that such an ethical system is horribly unfair. It asks that we take into account every possible outcome of our actions in a universe that seems to make such a thing impossible. If, as you say, the "SLIGHTEST chance" is to be taken into account, not just in this but in all things, then we seem to reach a point beyond which action is impossible. Help this old woman across the street today, and she may run down a group of pedestrians later that she might have otherwise avoided had she not been able to cross in a timely manner. Or, to go back to something First said, by eating meat, I might be delaying the evolution of some future sentient species. (Actually, that's a bit misleading. More accurate would be to say that by engaging in actions that significantly alter a species, I am altering its future course of evolution, while acting just on a single individual most likely will not.)
So no, I am not willing to make my decisions solely based on what might occur in the future. I get the impression that this might be a deal breaker here.
"The only one's we have any question over is where the mother has an abortion for the simple reason that she doesn't want the child."
And what is that question, exactly? I have already stated that I don't believe them to be moral. I have also stated that the issues involved are so complex that the only two people really qualified to deal with them are the doctor and the woman involved.
"The willful ending of a human life is not nesecarily wrong."
You're the one who made an issue out of it in the first place!
"When it involves the death of an innocent being, no, I can't."
I'd like to know how you suggest doctors deal with instances where they have a number of gravely injured patients and can treat only a few in time.
"Simple. All humans are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights. Among these is life."
Oh, so it's a religious thing. Well, nevermind then. If it's a religious thing, then the thread is pointless, and what I've said so far will have to stand on its own.
------------------
It's not my birthday
It's not today
It's not my birthday so why do you lunge out at me?
--
They Might Be Giants
****
Read chapter one of "Dirk Tungsten in...The Disappearing Planet"! I'll give you a cookie.
Can anyone tell me, who has more rights, the growing zygote, or the person of which it is growing inside?
------------------
"The lies I told are not falsehoods according to my definition of truth." Bill Clinton
"All stupid people are liberals, because they don't know any better." Rob Rodehorst
"Don't underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups" - Dilbert, Scott Adams
Both have the same rights. However, the right on the part of the embryo to exist is greater than the right of the mother to do as she pleases, especially since the child is there because of her actions in most cases. The child had no choice in the matter. The mother usually does.
Sol:
You're still not QUITE getting what I'm saying. Neither a gamite nor a clonable cell could, by any reasonable definition, be called human. The difference between them and an embryo is the same as the difference between an embryo and a gamite. Meaning extreme. Leave anything but the embryo alone, it dies. Leave the embryo alone, it may become a human. So why is it not considered to be so already?
"Oh, so it's a religious thing."
No, it's the way this country's legal system works. Get used to it.
Me: "The willful ending of a human life is not nesecarily wrong."
Sol: "You're the one who made an issue out of it in the first place!"
You missed the last part of that section of my post. I modified my statement to spell out "The willful ending of an innocent life in cold blood is wrong." Get it now?
So why not consider an embryo to be human? Your only reason is that it opens some sort of Pandora's box in which any clonable cell could be considered human. But I've already addressed that. If you define human being as including anything that could develop into an undisputed human being without outside interference, everything works out fine.
------------------
"To disarm the people [is] the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
- George Mason, American Statesman and Author of the Virginia Declaration of Rights (1776)
No. Leave the embryo ALONE, and it dies, too. Hook it up to its life-support system, and THEN it may become a human.
Sometimes, nature hooks it up, sometimes (perhaps just as often), it leaves it alone.
Similarly, take a clonable cell, and do nothing with it, and it dies. But attatch it to IT'S life-support system, and it'll live.
If we left fetuses alone, though, probably more of them would die on their own, too. Tampering works both ways. Should we simply let nature take its course? I wouldn't be here if we had -- although some of you MIGHT consider that a bonus.
------------------
"Nobody knows this, but I'm scared all the time... of what I might do, if I ever let go." -- Michael Garibaldi
------------------
"To disarm the people [is] the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
- George Mason, American Statesman and Author of the Virginia Declaration of Rights (1776)
I think what Omega is trying to say, is that if an embryo follows its natural course, without artificial intervention, it has the ability to become a living being.
A clonable cell does not have this ability.
------------------
"The lies I told are not falsehoods according to my definition of truth." Bill Clinton
"All stupid people are liberals, because they don't know any better." Rob Rodehorst
"Don't underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups" - Dilbert, Scott Adams
------------------
"To disarm the people [is] the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
- George Mason, American Statesman and Author of the Virginia Declaration of Rights (1776)
It makes it harder for your opponents to twist your words.------------------
"Nobody knows this, but I'm scared all the time... of what I might do, if I ever let go." -- Michael Garibaldi
------------------
"To disarm the people [is] the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
- George Mason, American Statesman and Author of the Virginia Declaration of Rights (1776)