06-04-2004 06:17									#61
	Remove this text

quote: Originally posted by GePap It is a crime to kill a member of an endanger species. That would mean the Death Penalty is proof we value endangered animals more.

Nope, because generally endangered species aren't guilty of murder...

	06-04-2004 06:18									#62
	Put an end to popups!

quote: Originally posted by loinburger The marginal utility of a fetus of an endangered species (not "other animals," but "endangered animals") as it relates to the survival of that species as a whole is far greater than the marginal utility of a human fetus as it relates to the survival of the human species as a whole. If you want to apply loaded terms like "values," then hey, whatever floats your boat.

Again, you said it EXACTLY - the value of a fetus of an endangered species is, because of marginal utility, greater than that of a human.

Notice I never made any moral judgements based on this

	06-04-2004 14:38									#63
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: Originally posted by Elok What gives *you* the right to declare it as one or not?

I don't. I do hold an opinion as to whether or not it is though.

My view is that a newly fertilised egg is not a human being because it does not have the complexity to experience human thought and emotion (being one-cell and all). Once it starts to divide, eventually it will have that complexity and then I would say that aborting it is wrong.

In my view to claim that a single cell is human is just silly. 'Potentiality' is just not a good enough claim to humanity. Of course, no abortions (also the morning after pill?) abort a single cell - they have already divided quite significantly, so it depends on the cut-off point of where they should be regarded as human. I have asked twice (once to Boann and once to Kucinch) for people to express their opinion on where this point is and provide reasons, but have had no response. I notice that you (Elok) gave no reply to this question either. Personally I think this is the only question which is relevant to the discussion.

Personally, I just don't know. I don't know enough about human develepmental biology to say, which is why I am interested in the opinions of others. My hunch would be that the point should be fairly early on (within the first month?), but one should not make laws on the basis of hunches.

	06-04-2004 14:41									#64
	Increase Your PM Length

Glad to see they are finally outlawing murder in one state.

	06-04-2004 16:19									#65
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: Originally posted by Kucinich quote: Originally posted by Frankychan I agree. It seems that Southern states have a penchant for anti-abortion legislation spouting stuff like "Respect all life", "Choose life", etc but they are the same states that are the first to execute ppl. Hypocrisy at it's finest. Not hypocrisy at all. The fetus isn't guilty of anything, those criminals are. quote: If you don't got the equipment, you shouldn't make the decisions. Simple as that. <-----Pro-choice. For the gazillionth time, if the fetus is a person, then it has those rights. You're argument is STUPID because it completely MISSES the thrust of the anti-abortion argument.

To address your first statement, my good sir. I was addressing the fact that many of these ppl state that ALL life is sacred. Guilty or no, one of the Bible's tenets "Love thy neighbor"? Granted, ppl who commit crime are not "free of sin", but isn't forgiveness divine? I see the hypocrisy in the fact that certain Christian groups can say that "all life is sacred" on one hand, but would be the first to end the life of another person regardless of what they may or may not have done.

To address your second statement.....let me try to clarify my previous statement. I meant to say that since I cannot produce children (I do not have the biological body parts) then I do not think that I can enforce what I believe is best for the female body. How do I miss the anti-abortion argument? I see your point that there is a whole controversy to determine whether or not a fetus is a "person", but I do not believe anti-abortion advocates use this as the crux of their argument. I still believe that it is about "life" instead of determining whether or not a fetus is a person.

If you want to clarify your statement or cast a rebuttal, that's fine. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, I say.

	06-04-2004 17:11									#66
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Originally posted by Frankychan I see your point that there is a whole controversy to determine whether or not a fetus is a "person", but I do not believe anti-abortion advocates use this as the crux of their argument.

You'd be wrong.

	06-04-2004 17:58									#67
	Put an end to popups!

quote: Originally posted by Frankychan I meant to say that since I cannot produce children (I do not have the biological body parts) then I do not think that I can enforce what I believe is best for the female body.

I don't see how this is a valid argument. Why should your inability to perform a specific 'evil' act on another person lead to the conclusion that it should not be illegal?

I could not commit mass murder (I do not have the psychological profile for it) but I still think that we should enforce my belief that it is wrong.

	06-04-2004 18:18									#68
	Support Apolyton

quote: Originally posted by Frankychan To address your first statement, my good sir. I was addressing the fact that many of these ppl state that ALL life is sacred. Guilty or no, one of the Bible's tenets "Love thy neighbor"? Granted, ppl who commit crime are not "free of sin", but isn't forgiveness divine? I see the hypocrisy in the fact that certain Christian groups can say that "all life is sacred" on one hand, but would be the first to end the life of another person regardless of what they may or may not have done.

(wrt bolded part) exactly, it's not earthly

Seriously, saying "all life is sacred" does not preclude the death penalty - for example, one could hold that executing them could end up saving lives, and thus less violations of the sanctity of life.

quote: To address your second statement.....let me try to clarify my previous statement. I meant to say that since I cannot produce children (I do not have the biological body parts) then I do not think that I can enforce what I believe is best for the female body. How do I miss the anti-abortion argument? I see your point that there is a whole controversy to determine whether or not a fetus is a "person", but I do not believe anti-abortion advocates use this as the crux of their argument. I still believe that it is about "life" instead of determining whether or not a fetus is a person. If you want to clarify your statement or cast a rebuttal, that's fine. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, I say.

When they talk about "life", they mean "human life" or "life with a soul in it". They are referring to amoebae.
Basically, they view the fetus as a third party, and so they think it isn't some private decision of the mother, about herself. AFAIK they don't say that it's "bad for the mother" (except in that it's sinful or whatever).

	06-04-2004 21:28									#69
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: Originally posted by bipolarbear Do you guys think that this issue will ever be solved, or will it always be a huge debate, that will never end?

Maybe one day a real legislation will give you sensible laws regarding abortion. But as long as you can abort at will until birth, making some abortions basically infanticide, your debate is bound to be terribly radical.

Here in Europe, it is extremely rare that people imagine abortion as infanticide: that's because abortion at will is allowed only during the first trimester. As such, pro-abortionists do not defend near-infanticide. And anti-infanticide people are not necessarily at odds against abortion

	06-04-2004 21:50									#70
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: Originally posted by Gatekeeper [frothing-at-mouth-mode]Yah! Those *damnable* activist judges! BEHEAD THEM ALL! How *dare* they stand up for a woman's right to choose. In fact, how dare they try to change society at all! We need more literalists on the bench! 1789 or bust![/frothing-at-mouth-mode] Gatekeeper (Whew. Nothing like a little release now and then, eh, boys and girls?)

Yeah, if it wasn't fer them damned librul activist judges, we'd still have darkie in his place er, uh.... never mind.

	06-04-2004 22:20									#71
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: Originally posted by Zkribbler The most worrisome part of this law for pro-choice people is the Leglislature saying life begins at conception. If that legislative finding can pass constitutional scrutiny (& I can't see why it wouldn't), then the factual basis of the Roe v. Wade decision falls.

Which is a big "so what?"

No other aspect of law conveys distinct rights or recognition to an unborn child until birth. Child support and estate law recognize the existence of a pregnancy as an issue affecting future rights once the child is born, and there's a recent push on fetal homicide statutes, but nothing with gives a fetus a distinct set of "rights" separate from that of the mother.

Roe doesn't hinge itself on a definition of when "life" or "human life" begins. The basis for Roe is the point at which the state can assert an interest in the fetus independently from that of the woman carrying it.

	06-04-2004 22:25									#72
	Inflate your Upload Space

MtG,

Wasn't the Roe v Wade decision also morevoer the infringment of the fetus on the rights of the mother, regardless of whether the fetus had rights or in fact life?

So in echo to what you said, the concept of fetal life and where it actually started had no bearing.

	07-04-2004 00:49									#73
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: I meant to say that since I cannot produce children (I do not have the biological body parts) then I do not think that I can enforce what I believe is best for the female body.

So Congresswomen can't rule on laws dealing with Prostate Cancer? Silly argument.

	07-04-2004 03:51									#74
	Suffering from ads?

Afraid so, Imran. Also, you can't say anything about amnesty for illegal aliens unless you snuck over the Rio Grande personally.

	07-04-2004 04:03									#75
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Zkribbler When an action is brought before the court, it doesn't have the freedom to abstain.

The Supreme Court can and often does refuse to hear cases. Also it can say that the Constitution reserves this authority to the states, which is most certainly does.

quote: The most worrisome part of this law for pro-choice people is the Leglislature saying life begins at conception. If that legislative finding can pass constitutional scrutiny (& I can't see why it wouldn't), then the factual basis of the Roe v. Wade decision falls.

So if the facts don't support Roe v. Wade why should we protect it?

quote: Practical effect: South Dakota women go to North Dakota to get abortions.

I agree completely.

	07-04-2004 04:04									#76
	Increase the size of your Attachments

Oh, and Rogan, my answer is a single cell, sorry. If it's got forty-six chromosomes and it'll turn into a full-grown human in time, it's a person as far as I'm concerned.

Arguments about abortion never convince anyone either way, which is why I stay out of them. The pro-life movement will never compromise on abortion, and we ain't going anywhere anytime soon. I'm curious as to how it'll end up, but I've given up on argument. There's nothing you can interest us with but complete capitulation, and we're certainly not going to give you anything, so...(shrug)

	07-04-2004 04:43									#77
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: Originally posted by Elok If it's got forty-six chromosomes and it'll turn into a full-grown human in time, it's a person as far as I'm concerned.

Why?

	07-04-2004 05:01									#78
	Remove this text

What would you call it?

	07-04-2004 05:03									#79
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by loinburger Why?

Why not?

WUTANG!

	07-04-2004 05:04									#80
	Got spare money?

A cell.

	07-04-2004 05:07									#81
	Suffering from ads?

That's a fairly limited amount of time when its a single cell.

	07-04-2004 05:09									#82
	Inflate your Upload Space

Yup. After that, it's a few cells. Then a bunch of cells.

I don't know when it is "human", but it sure as hell ain't that early.

	07-04-2004 05:11									#83
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

If you don't know when it's human, how do you differentiate between a buch of cells in utero and a "bunch of cells" five minutes after birth other than location?

	07-04-2004 05:18									#84
	Increase the size of your Attachments

DD, if you're looking for a bright line, you're outta luck. Anyone, on either side of the debate, who thinks that there is a bright line between "not human" and "human", wherever they imagine that line to be, is completely and totally full of ****. Things are not that simple.

	07-04-2004 06:34									#85
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by DinoDoc What would you call it?

An embryo.

quote: Originally posted by Guynemer Anyone, on either side of the debate, who thinks that there is a bright line between "not human" and "human", wherever they imagine that line to be, is completely and totally full of ****. Things are not that simple.

I distinguish between an organism with a functional human brain and an organism without a functional human brain. Whether the possession of a functional human brain automatically denotes sentience is a non-issue to me -- obviously it is sufficient to denote sentience in most humans, so, barring any bright line between a "functional human brain that denotes sentience" and a "functional human brain that does not denote sentience," I don't see any alternative but to de-fuzzify the cluster**** by assuming that a functional human brain always denotes sentience. Questioning the sentience of a fetus in the third trimester is not a whole helluva lot different than questioning the sentience of a newborn, in my book. At the same time, assigning sentience to a newly fertilized egg is not a whole helluva lot different than assigning sentience to any other brainless entity.

At the same time, I don't see any other way to distinguish between a "person" and a "non-person" than to define a "person" as an organism that is sentient, and a "non-person" as an organism that is non-sentient. Any other definition merely cheapens the term "person" and all of the rights, natural, societal, divine, or other, associated with the classification, IMO -- f'rinstance, if 46 chromosomes are required for personhood, then does this mean that everybody is non-sentient who has a genetic defect that causes them to have one extra or one fewer chromosomes? Does this mean that any sentient species with more or less chromosomes than humans are not endowed with and/or granted the same rights as "persons"? Bull. Quantity of chromosomes doesn't mean anything when it comes down to a question of rights, and if we're not using the term "person" in the context of "one who is endowed with and/or granted rights," then we're using the wrong term.

	07-04-2004 07:54									#86
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

Sentience is more than neural activity, loin.

	07-04-2004 08:16									#87
	Put an end to popups!

quote: Originally posted by DinoDoc Sentience is more than neural activity, loin.

Sure, but sentience cannot exist without neural activity -- you can't be conscious unless you're able to think. So, if we know that a functional human brain is a necessary condition for sentience, and if we we're currently incapable of quantifying any other necessary aspects to sentience, then all we're left with is the working definition that possession of a functional human brain is a necessary and sufficient condition for sentience.

	07-04-2004 12:24									#88
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: so are you guys happy it didn't pass or happy that something like this was proposed?

Kudos to boann for posting this thread here. I wanted to do that myself, but I felt it would be better if someone waited.

I'm sad that it did not pass. Some people said that this is not the right time, but when will the right time come?

Burke said that for evil to triumph merely requires good men to do nothing. This fact should haunt the senators who voted against the bill, that thought this was not the right time.

	07-04-2004 12:35									#89
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

Loinburger:

quote: An embryo.

What's the difference between an embryo and an adult? These are just terms for different stages of human development.

quote: I don't see any alternative but to de-fuzzify the cluster**** by assuming that a functional human brain always denotes sentience.

Why play the game at all? Why not go for the real, and conclusive bright line of conception?

quote: Questioning the sentience of a fetus in the third trimester is not a whole helluva lot different than questioning the sentience of a newborn, in my book. At the same time, assigning sentience to a newly fertilized egg is not a whole helluva lot different than assigning sentience to any other brainless entity.

Okay. So at what age do you set the line for sentience? It is useless to say that children are more developed at the end of pregnancy than at the beginning. For something to function as a true bright line, you must clarify your position.

Secondly, what is so special with brain function? Brain function changes drastically over time. As the child grows, their brain becomes more developed, so why are they not considered to become more of a person in adolescence than in infancy?

quote: Any other definition merely cheapens the term "person" and all of the rights, natural, societal, divine, or other, associated with the classification, IMO -- f'rinstance, if 46 chromosomes are required for personhood, then does this mean that everybody is non-sentient who has a genetic defect that causes them to have one extra or one fewer chromosomes?

Excellent point. Why should we allow sentience to be the hurdle for personhood? Would that not cheapen personhood for adults to be seen as the same as their much less capable infants?

Or what about those darkies and Jews? Wouldn't it cheapen the meaning of personhood to extend the same right to them?

quote: Quantity of chromosomes doesn't mean anything when it comes down to a question of rights, and if we're not using the term "person" in the context of "one who is endowed with and/or granted rights," then we're using the wrong term.

Right. One need not have 46 chromosomes to be a human person. However, one does need to have human dna capable of growth and development, as found in the zygote from the moment of conception onwards.

	07-04-2004 12:39									#90
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: Things are not that simple.

Why not? Surely if we are going to kill something, we ought to ask ourselves, what are we killing. If we do not know whether we are dealing with a human person or not, then we ought not to act.

It's analogous to a hunter in the woods. Do you shoot unless you are absolutely certain that you are really aiming at a deer, and not your companion?