01-03-2003 02:43									#61
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

PRO Death Penalty
PRO Choice

	01-03-2003 02:52									#62
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Originally posted by Garth Vader I just wanted to understand why you believe what you believe. I can see that you aren't willing to examine that, so I will drop it. Sorry for the extra comment.

Ok then. Given the last words, I will try.

Why I'm against abortion. Someone spoke of the potential of a fetus, and that can just about sum it up, I guess.
TO ME, a life starts at the moment of life, not some arbitrary time period that makes it comfy for people to make decisions on aborting.
TO ME, abortions are the product of laziness and ignorance.
To ME, if the child is unwanted, put them up for adoption. There are many, many couples who love to have a baby, and can't.

Why I'm for the death penalty.
TO ME, what's the motivation for a prisoner who is locked up for life to curb his past behavior now that he's in prison?
The threat of killing someone else is of no consequence. Guard, other prisoner, people on the outside, following a successful escape. Oh yes. He Will try and escape.
That's natural to the human condition.
What will the authorities do, keep the prisoner's body locked up after he passes away naturally, or is killed by another murderer also serving life?
To ME, if society locks up habitual criminals, be it for theft or whatever, for life, then where's the elevation of penalty for a murderer?

That's enough. Ok?

	01-03-2003 02:54									#63
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

Sloww, you're anti-choice then... not pro-life.

	01-03-2003 02:58									#64
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: How do you define sentience?

Elementary development of the brain and nervous systems. Roughly the second trimester.

	01-03-2003 02:59									#65
	Support Apolyton

Shutup, Sava.

	01-03-2003 02:59									#66
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

I'm just looking out for you SLowwy... I wouldn't want someone to call you a hypocrit.

	01-03-2003 03:02									#67
	Get a bigger avatar today!

I may be a dumbass to Garth, but a hypocrite I am not.

	01-03-2003 03:18									#68
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Whoa...

Okay. First things first.

I'm Prolife and against the death penalty.

Starting with on-topic issues, and the addressing some of the pro-choice arguments, first up is Garth Vader.

Garth:

I'm going to defend slowwhand's position, although, as you notice, this is not my own. Abortion and the death penalty are two seperate issues. The way you seperate the issues is to make an exception clause for innocent human persons.

The essence of the argument is this:

a)Abortion kills an unborn child.
b)Unborn children are innocent human persons.
c)It is wrong to kill innocent human persons.

Therefore, killing abortion, as it kills an innocent human person, is wrong.

a) is a fact.
c) is a value.
Does anyone oppose c), that it is wrong to kill innocent human persons?

b) is the point we are debating.

Are unborn children innocent? The word innocent comes from a combination of two words, in, a prefix for not, and nocere, which means harmful. A good definition for English is without malice.

An unborn child cannot act with malice, as it has yet to attain the age of reason. Therefore, the unborn child is innocent.

Are unborn children human?
When we look at an infant, to determine the species, we first ask the species of the parent. Unborn children have human parents, therefore we categorise them as human.

In this sense, humanity begins at conception, because at conception an entirely new human being forms from the union of gametes, sperm and egg, distinct from the parents. We call this single cell a zygote. From the genetic code within the zygote, all the unborn child needs to grow and develop are the same things a born child needs, sustenance and shelter.

Finally, are unborn children persons?
As a legal and philosophical definition, each society chooses what it will recognise as a person. The rights entailed to personhood, at least for the unborn child, are to life, in that no other person or the state has the right to deprive the innocent child of life.

As the law stands, in both the US, Canada and most of Europe, birth is the beginning of personhood. Therefore, any determination of personhood must compare the unborn child with an infant, or other born people considered persons. What are the differences?

There are 4 major differences; size, development, dependency and environment.

The zygote, as a single cell is much smaller than an infant. However, the infant is much smaller than an adult. Do we consider an infant to be less of a person than an adult due to the difference in size? No. Therefore, size cannot determine personhood.

As a child in the womb of the mother, the zygote depends on the mother for food and shelter. It is not viable until the 20-21st week of gestation. However, how viable is an infant? By itself, it cannot survive. It requires food and care. Therefore, dependency cannot determine personhood.

The environment of the womb differs from the outside world all other people live. Could this be an essential difference? We do not base personhood on where one lives. One does not become more of a person by moving elsewhere. Why should the unborn child?

The zygote, as a single cell is much less developed than the infant. It cannot speak, or hear; it lacks a heart, a brain and lungs. The infant cannot speak, so that criterion must be rejected. Some infants are born deaf, so that criterion falls as well.

What about lungs? Some preemie infants cannot breathe on their own without use of a respirator. Once their lungs develop, they can be removed. We do consider the preemie to be a person, so therefore the unborn child must be so as well.

Currently functioning hearts also fail as a necessary critirion. We can stop a persons heart, and revive them within heart surgery. The patient does not stop being a person when his heart stops functioning, therefore having a currently functioning heart does not define personhood.

What about the brain. Surely the brain defines personhood. The definition of brain-death is the irreversable cessation of brain activity. The key word is irreversable. It is not the current capacity that matters, but the intrinsic capacity to function as a person.

The zygote has this intrinsic capacity, through the functioning genetic code inherited at conception. Therefore, the zygote should be regarded as a person.

	01-03-2003 06:15									#69
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

I think abortion should be allowed before the 3rd trimester (no partial birth abortion). Basically the criterion is: could the fetus survive outside the mother. If not then it is not truely alive sice it cannot survive on it's own.

	01-03-2003 08:49									#70
	Remove this text

quote: Originally posted by Odin I think abortion should be allowed before the 3rd trimester (no partial birth abortion). Basically the criterion is: could the fetus survive outside the mother. If not then it is not truely alive sice it cannot survive on it's own.

For how long does it have to [have the potential to] survive? A 5th month baby can sometimes last for an hour on its own. Does this qualify? Or would it have to live for a few weeks? A few years? Or a normal human lifespan? Clarify, please. I agree with your statement, but it's vague.

	01-03-2003 19:10									#71
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Sava This is a stereotype that has little merit. I have never heard anyone say that an infant is less than human.

I did and do think so. For some reason people have trouble with this point of view. I'll take the time to elaborate my point of view for all or anyone that cares.

Don't take me wrong, I'm not trying to change anything about this or force my views on anyone. Still, for me it wouldn't make much of a difference to end the life in the form of an abortion or ending the life of a infant, from a theortical moral standpoint. For me a human individual are not defined by the biological definition of a homo sapiens. A human body is not the same as a human individual. Essence comes after existance. A infants self knowledge is no difference form any mammal. In this the infant is not much different from a foetus. A infant has no real self awareness, it doesn't know it will die (at some point) and it doesn't hold the qualities that for me defines an individual.

	02-03-2003 11:27									#72
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

I had feared that I killed the thread..

quote: Essence comes after existance. A infants self knowledge is no difference form any mammal. In this the infant is not much different from a foetus. A infant has no real self awareness, it doesn't know it will die (at some point) and it doesn't hold the qualities that for me defines an individual.

Kropotkin:

May I slit your throat while you are under anaestetia?
When sedated you are no longer currently self-aware.

"it doesn't know it will die (at some point)."

Interesting. So if a five year old believes he will live forever, he is not a person? We can kill him whenever we want?

	02-03-2003 12:31									#73
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

Kropotkin, would you have agreed with the NSDAP policy of eugenics in regards to the mentally retarded?

Not to call you a Nazi, just, in severe cases of mental retardation, would you consider people to not be human?

	02-03-2003 19:30									#74
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

The anaestaria argument is weak, why not as well talk about killing me while sleeping? As for being aware of ones future death was a example not the single point.

Well yes I wouldn't consider severe cases to be humans. But I would never want to make that judgement myself. The nazis thought they knew everything, I don't. Maybe it wasn't clear enough but this is a theoretical standpoint. I don't think humans that are reasonably healthy are really prepared to kill infants and that's something that has to be taken into consideration. While I might have this standpoint I don't advocate it's implementation at all. And it surely isn't the government that should chose as the NSDAP did. They included a lot of other persons into that that I would never consider non-humans.

It springs from my defence of abortions as there's a need for a definition of what is human, in real life I don't think a one year after birth limitation would be good for a number of other reasons.

	02-03-2003 21:33									#75
	Got spare money?

What's the difference between a 1 year old and a two year old anyway, Kroppy?

	02-03-2003 21:40									#76
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

A year. Hahahaha.

	02-03-2003 21:44									#77
	Support Apolyton

The two year old is much bigger.

No but really, there's some research into the field that puts a line somewhere around one year for some of the things I believe defines being a human. I'm sure there's a great diversity amoungst the scientist though. It doesn't matter that much as I'm not planning to kill any infants anytime so. Meanwhile however it suits well into my support of abortions as not being questionable from a moral ground. Not that I believe in a objective value for human lifes beyond the context of society but that's another issue.

	02-03-2003 22:16									#78
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

Pro-choice, pro-DP. Seems as though this thread is really only on abortion, though, so, same-old same-old...

I believe that if somebody is fundamentally incapable of rational thought that, even if they qualify as an independent human organism, they are not a "person." F'rinstance, I see nothing wrong with pulling the plug on a brain-dead hospital patient. By the same token, I also see nothing wrong with aborting a 1st/2nd trimester embryo/fetus -- the unborn child's respirator is natural while the brain-dead patient's is artificial, but BFD.

A 1st/2nd trimester embryo/fetus has the potential to develop the capacity for rational thought, but so does a sperm-egg pair. Yes, of course there's a difference biologically between the embryo/fetus and the sperm-egg pair, but that just means that the sperm-egg pair is less likely to develop the capacity for rational thought -- both the embryo/fetus and the sperm-egg pair are equally incapable of rational thought at the present time. It becomes a probability game -- it becomes acceptable to eliminate a potential human with only a 1% probability of developing rational thought (e.g. through use of condoms, birth control pills, abstinence, etc.), but unacceptable to eliminate a potential human with a 50% probability of developing rational thought. Why draw the line at one probability and not another? IMO it would make more sense to draw that line at either 0% or 100%, and since drawing it at 0% would require us all to **** like bunnies it makes more sense to draw it at 100% if for no other reason than that a human population explosion would probably not be very beneficial.

	02-03-2003 22:24									#79
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: Originally posted by Jaguar Warrior For how long does it have to [have the potential to] survive? A 5th month baby can sometimes last for an hour on its own. Does this qualify? Or would it have to live for a few weeks? A few years? Or a normal human lifespan? Clarify, please. I agree with your statement, but it's vague.

If it can live using the current medical technology.

	02-03-2003 22:24									#80
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Originally posted by Kropotkin there's some research into the field that puts a line somewhere around one year for some of the things I believe defines being a human.

1) Such as?
2) What research?

	02-03-2003 23:40									#81
	Put an end to popups!

This is a theoretical-philosopical argument. I don't have any recollection over names or titles of any such research-papers in psychology over the level of self awareness amoungst infants.

	03-03-2003 00:52									#82
	Increase the size of your Attachments

I oppose the death penalty. If the guy can't be reformed, then keep him locked up 'til he expires.

I personally am pro-life and anti-abortion....but I believe other parents should indeed have a chance to choose for themselves...so I regretfully voted pro-choice.

	04-03-2003 02:14									#83
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: A 1st/2nd trimester embryo/fetus has the potential to develop the capacity for rational thought, but so does a sperm-egg pair.

What is a sperm/egg pair called?

A zygote.

The distinction between the zygote and a sperm and egg seperated is that we must intervene to stop the zygote from developing, whereas sperm will not grow on its own.

quote: less likely to develop the capacity for rational thought -- both the embryo/fetus and the sperm-egg pair are equally incapable of rational thought at the present time.

So personhood = capacity to develop rational thought?
I can agree on that.

However, why do we need percentages? Who decides what percentage is sufficient to merit personhood?

Suppose someone said you have to be rational in order to become a person, ie, have 100% rationality? Why would this definition be flawed, as opposed to a 30%?

Also, are you always rational, loinburger?

	04-03-2003 02:22									#84
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

Don't get me started on people's rationality.

	04-03-2003 02:23									#85
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

A zygote will grow and develop on its own? Is the person acting as the incubator supplying all the nutrients really so insignificant as to completely ignore their existence?

	04-03-2003 02:54									#86
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Originally posted by obiwan18 Garth: I'm going to defend slowwhand's position, although, as you notice, this is not my own. Abortion and the death penalty are two seperate issues. The way you seperate the issues is to make an exception clause for innocent human persons. The essence of the argument is this: a)Abortion kills an unborn child. b)Unborn children are innocent human persons. c)It is wrong to kill innocent human persons. Therefore, killing abortion, as it kills an innocent human person, is wrong. a) is a fact. c) is a value. Does anyone oppose c), that it is wrong to kill innocent human persons?

Wow, I thought this thread was dead.

The sole point I was trying to make was that Slow, and others, have an exception that approves of abortion in the case of rape.

Using your argument against abortion, I fail to see the logic in that exception. I understand the emotional response, as Slow presented, and since I am pro-choice I have no problem with it.

But I was wondering how somebody who is pro-life and uses your argument against abortion makes an exception and allows it.


Plus, thanks Slow for answering.

	04-03-2003 03:14									#87
	Support Apolyton

quote: Originally posted by obiwan18 What is a sperm/egg pair called? A zygote.

A zygote is a fused sperm/egg pair. I was referring to sperm/egg pairs that have not yet fused, e.g. that are still residing in the female's ovaries or in the man's testes.

quote: However, why do we need percentages? Who decides what percentage is sufficient to merit personhood?

I'm not referring to "percentages of rationality" -- I'm assuming that rationality is a boolean value, i.e. either you're rational or you're not, otherwise the distinction becomes too clouded. Percentages refer to the odds that a human will develop rationality, i.e. that the human will develop a functioning brain. A zygote has no brain, thus it is impossible to consider it to be rational (how can it think without a brain?). An embryo has no brain activity, thus it is impossible to consider it to be rational for the same reason. A third-trimester fetus exhibits brain activity that is substantively equivalent to the brain activity exhibited by a fully grown human, and while it may be a stretch to attribute rationality to a third-trimester fetus, there is no good justification for withholding that attribution.

Somebody who is drunk may not be particularly rational, but they still exhibit brain activity and thus are capable of rationality, which is why it is illegal to liquor somebody up and retroactively abort them.

	04-03-2003 03:21									#88
	Put an end to popups!

quote: which is why it is illegal to liquor somebody up and retroactively abort them.

It seems like you've tried this .

	04-03-2003 03:29									#89
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

"Plus, thanks Slow for answering."

Well, sure thing, bud. I'm not all butthead.

	04-03-2003 03:38									#90
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

Gibsie:

quote: A zygote will grow and develop on its own? Is the person acting as the incubator supplying all the nutrients really so insignificant as to completely ignore their existence?

I'll clarify a bit.

If you leave the zygote alone in the womb, it will grow and develop.

An unfertilised sperm and egg do not have this capacity to grow. You can give them nutrients, and shelter, they will not grow and develop.

This is an important difference, because it signifies the an intrinsic capacity possessed by the zygote, held in common with all other human people.

A zygote will, given the right conditions, provided inside the mother's womb, develop into an embryo, fetus, eventually a newborn.

Insignificant? Nothing could be more significant to the survival of the unborn child, then having a mother to take good care of them, the same as with a newborn.


Loinburger:

Thanks for clarifying your definition of rationality.

quote: A zygote has no brain, thus it is impossible to consider it to be rational (how can it think without a brain?).

True.

quote: A third-trimester fetus exhibits brain activity that is substantively equivalent to the brain activity exhibited by a fully grown human, and while it may be a stretch to attribute rationality to a third-trimester fetus, there is no good justification for withholding that attribution.

I also agree with you here.
However, how does one define 'brain activity substantively equivalent to a fully grown human?'
Would this be possible to detect?

Part of the problem you face is your 'bright dividing line.' Fetal development is a continuum from conception onwards, with each step relying on previous steps. You cannot reason without a brain, but how does a brain form?

Coming back to your earlier post.

Why is it 'natural' to put a preemie on a respirator, but not someone who is brain-dead? What's the essential difference between the two cases?