04-03-2003 03:48									#91
	Get a bigger avatar today!

*obiwan warms his lightsaber*

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

Garth Vader-

First off, I'd like to claim credit, but this is strictly Francis Beckwith.

As for abortion in the case of rape, there are several arguments.

1) How does rape change the unborn child? We do not believe that rape defiles a woman, so why should the child become a stain on the honour of a family?

2) Abortion punishes an innocent person, for the crime of someone else. The rapist has hurt the mother, so the unborn child has to die? This makes no sense.

While the mother is in a difficult position, since she has not consented, it still does not make it right to kill another person. In this case, we should offer as much support as needed.

	04-03-2003 05:46									#92
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

I'm wondering about some Pro-Life opinions that people who don't want kids should put them up for adoption.

I have a nephew that is adopted and my Aunt and Uncle knew the lady (through the agency) etc. etc. and when he was ~2 started calling and asking for pictures. A lot. You never know when someone will change their mind and stalk someone. You also don't know the kind of impact that being an adopted person could have on someone.

I'm not saying it's not an option, I'm just saying that it's not a perfect solution.

	04-03-2003 06:11									#93
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

MacTBone

Pro-lifers worth their salt will also support adoption as a viable alternative.

There are many women who want children, but can't have them, who would be very satisfied with adoption.

The problem is that the system needs to be streamlined to make it easier for mothers to find supportive families.

	04-03-2003 06:17									#94
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui It seems like you've tried this .

It seemed like a good idea at the time...

quote: Originally posted by obiwan18 However, how does one define 'brain activity substantively equivalent to a fully grown human?' Would this be possible to detect?

IIRC, this was determined by performing EEG's on fetuses on whom surgery was being performed in utero. Lincoln posted a link to the article awhile back, I'll see if I can dig it up.

quote: Why is it 'natural' to put a preemie on a respirator, but not someone who is brain-dead?

I'm not familiar with the term "preemie," but if you mean a child born prematurely, then the difference is that the child born prematurely has a functioning brain (prematurely born children don't survive unless they're well into the third trimester when born) while the brain-dead patient does not.

"Natural" doesn't really play into this, either. Both processes are equally "natural" IMO (both involve the same machinery, and both involve a human), but in the case of the prematurely born child the process is ethically justified, while in the case of the brain-dead patient the process is extraneous. I.e., in the case of the prematurely born child the action is a moral imperative, while in the case of the brain-dead patient it is not.

	04-03-2003 06:29									#95
	Got spare money?

Loinburger:

preemie = child born prematurely.
Sorry if this confused you.

Two factual points I'll source later, (dinner awaits).

Prematurely born children have survived as early as 21 weeks, within the second trimester as defined by Roe.

EEG's have successfully detected fetal brainwaves much earlier than the third trimester.

quote: but in the case of the prematurely born child the process is ethically justified, while in the case of the brain-dead patient the process is extraneous. I.e., in the case of the prematurely born child the action is a moral imperative, while in the case of the brain-dead patient it is not.

Precisely. If you notice above, I address this point by saying that the biomedical definition of brain death is the irreverseable cessation of brain activity.

Treatment for the brain-dead is extraneous because the brain will not recover. While the zygote and a brain dead person share the same current brain capacity, the zygote counts as a person because it has the capacity to develop a brain, to improve upon currently non-existent brain function.

	04-03-2003 07:46									#96
	Got spare money?

quote: Originally posted by obiwan18 preemie = child born prematurely. Sorry if this confused you.

No problem, looks like I guessed correctly.

quote: While the zygote and a brain dead person share the same current brain capacity, the zygote counts as a person because it has the capacity to develop a brain, to improve upon currently non-existent brain function.

Oh sure, I'd initially granted that the zygote/embryo has the potential to develop brain activity. It still strikes me as being a probability game, though -- the zygote/embryo isn't a person, there merely exists a possibility that it will develop into a person, just as there exists the (lesser) possibility that an unfused sperm or unfertilized egg will eventually form into a person. In both the case of aborting a zygote/embryo and in the case of preventing a sperm/egg from fusing (e.g. through use of a condom or through abstinence) a person has not been terminated -- all that has occurred is that the possibility of a person developing in this particular instance has been terminated. Each activity "kills" a person that doesn't even exist.

	05-03-2003 05:31									#97
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: there merely exists a possibility that it will develop into a person, just as there exists the (lesser) possibility that an unfused sperm or unfertilized egg will eventually form into a person.

What makes a person, though? Genetically, sperm and egg are two halves, that unite as a zygote. The zygote contains all the developmental instructions required to form a brain that can produce brain waves.

Otherwise, where do you set the decisive moment? Do you kill the child 1 day before her brain functions?

	05-03-2003 06:17									#98
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

I am pro-death of other human beings (so abortion is ok, too).

quote: Chemotherapy is a sort of death penalty, isn't it? Lousy Cancer patients, mass-murdering their own cells. Have they no shame?

Cancer cells WILL kill you, whereas an infant may only in certain cases. But we really aren't referring to abortion performed in order to save the mother's life, are we? We are talking about abortions performed to CONVENIENCE the life of a mother. In this case abortion is kind of like plastic surgery, except what you are killing has a different genetic code than your body (even cancer cells can claim more similarity than a zygote).

Arguing for abortion and maintaining that human life has intrinsic value is impossible... because you are trying to argue the morality of abortion (it has none). Abortion is the means of convenience.

I support both the death penalty and abortion because I refuse to accept the assumption that human life has value. People should be executed for killing and raping other people, and the last thing we need on a 6 billion+ people planet is more babies (if not more irresponsible parents who raise children who grow up to be a**holes). An abortion arguement does not go very far, because I see the worth of a human being equal to that of a rock, or a bag of change. So what if we smash either?

ciaran

	05-03-2003 08:15									#99
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: Originally posted by obiwan18 What makes a person, though?

A "human" is a new organism, i.e. a zygote. I'm using "person" to mean "a reasoning, thinking being that is ethically equivalent to all other reasoning, thinking beings." Technically, a brain-dead patient is still a human, but I would no longer consider the patient to be a "person." Ditto with the zygote, ditto with the embryo.

quote: Otherwise, where do you set the decisive moment? Do you kill the child 1 day before her brain functions?

It's still the probability game at that point. There may be a higher probability that the fetus will develop an Atman/soul/whatever at point A than at point B, but it's still just probabilities until the unborn child's brain is functional.

	05-03-2003 08:52									#100
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

As I thought, this thread would become yet another debate on abortion.

	05-03-2003 09:03									#101
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

It's a hotter topic than capital punishment.

	05-03-2003 09:42									#102
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

Thought you had enough fun with that?

Like usual, we have the same line-up (except November Adam didn't show up this time) and same arguments.

Then again, what else can we have debate over, eh?

	05-03-2003 18:30									#103
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Originally posted by Urban Ranger Thought you had enough fun with that?

:shrugs: It'd be a shame to waste all of those arguments I had with November Adam...

	05-03-2003 19:30									#104
	Support Apolyton

This thread is not objective.
What You call "being pro-choice" is simply letting mothers murder their babies.

quote: Chemotherapy is a sort of death penalty, isn't it? Lousy Cancer patients, mass-murdering their own cells. Have they no shame?

Cancers are part of themselves, they haven't got brains, they do not think, they do not feel.
I have not much against aborting a few cells that still haven't developed into anything, at the start, but after several weeks... how is it different from killing a baby after it crossed the magical gate of vagina?

And I am aginst death penalty as well. These of You that are Christians; please give people a chance to think about their deeds and change their lifes.

quote: I'm clearly pro-choice. Unwanted children have nearly no chance of having a good/happy childhood, a good development, a good future. IMO, it prevents much despair to happen, and it prevents many jailbaits, bums, or simply suicidal people to even exist.

So it's better to kill a person than to give him a chance of being sad?
Many unwanted children will have happy childhood, and many "wanted" ones will have not.

	05-03-2003 20:08									#105
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: Cancers are part of themselves, they haven't got brains, they do not think, they do not feel. I have not much against aborting a few cells that still haven't developed into anything, at the start...

Then you are pro-choice. Welcome aboard.

quote: but after several weeks... how is it different from killing a baby after it crossed the magical gate of vagina?

Well, it depends on your definition of "several weeks": but if you're still using "they haven't got brains, they do not think, they do not feel", then you're still pro-choice. We're not talking about "babies" yet.

quote: This thread is not objective. What You call "being pro-choice" is simply letting mothers murder their babies.

No, it isn't. Now the brainless, unthinking, unfeeling fetus is suddenly a "baby"? This is not objective. You're still pro-choice, but now you're opposed to late abortions.

quote: So it's better to kill a person than to give him a chance of being sad?

Now you're talking about killing "a person"?

Please try to remain objective.

	05-03-2003 20:45									#106
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: Originally posted by Heresson What You call "being pro-choice" is simply letting mothers murder their babies.

I am assuming you are talking about humans, not tigers or anything else.

Okay, so how do we define "babies?"

	05-03-2003 20:46									#107
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

He's probably thinking of Kroppy.

	05-03-2003 20:54									#108
	Support Apolyton

Tigers don't murder their babies, if healthy.
Only humans do that.

	05-03-2003 20:56									#109
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: Tigers don't murder their babies, if healthy. Only humans do that.

Tigers don't write, read, or play PC, if healthy.
Only humans do that.



...ok, to be serious, I still don't get your point there.

	05-03-2003 21:00									#110
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

Mine?
My point is that humans are the dumbest animal on earth.

	05-03-2003 21:14									#111
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Carnivores frequently DO kill (and eat) their babies if they feel that the conditions aren't right for rearing cubs. Herbivores abandon them.

Infanticide is perfectly natural.

	05-03-2003 21:22									#112
	Put an end to popups!

Did you read my 2nd to last post?
"Tigers don't murder their babies, if healthy.
Only humans do that."

Essentially, what you said.

	05-03-2003 21:32									#113
	Full PM-box? Change here!

No, healthy carnivores will kill healthy cubs when stressed. It depends on how you define "healthy".

Human women who seek abortions are essentially making the same decision. They're convinced that the conditions aren't right. Maybe they wouldn't do it if a pro-lifer gives them $100,000 or whatever (analogous to a well-fed, happy tiger deciding that conditions ARE right after all), but that's reality.

	05-03-2003 22:37									#114
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

Um no. Most male cats, including semi-feral barn cats, prefer to kill young cats for the most selfish of reasons: to breed with the mother. Females generally won't accept a male if they are taking care of young. Kill her young and the female goes into heat again within days.

Females kill the young of others to avoid competition.

All of this is perfectly "natural" however I doubt anyone here would advocate such behavior. In other words: we shouldn't use animal behavior as a model for humans.

	06-03-2003 00:36									#115
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

I know of a female cat that killed her own young.

She was a feral cat with two kittens. She pushed one out. We rescued it and put it back. So then she pushed the other one out instead. By the time we noticed that, it was dead.

I also had a couple of pet ferrets as a kid. I didn't know the female was pregnant until I saw her nursing a batch of baby ferrets. The following day, they were gone: killed and eaten. Apparently it's a normal reaction if the parents feel that their cage isn't big enough for the family, but I never got the chance to get a bigger cage.

	06-03-2003 02:09									#116
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

I can understand why religious people don't like abortion. I don't either. But did Jesus really support death penalty?

	06-03-2003 02:32									#117
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: A "human" is a new organism, i.e. a zygote. I'm using "person" to mean "a reasoning, thinking being that is ethically equivalent to all other reasoning, thinking beings."

Loinburger:

So not all human beings are persons?

You realise what happens when we extend your arguments.

You assume brain waves = rationality, but some people, Kropotkin in this thread specifically, apply a higher standard of rationality.

What makes your definition better than theirs?

How would you argue against Kropotkin that children at the age of 1 are fully rational, and therefore, fully persons?

As for human beings having intrinsic value, I fully assume this throughout my arguments. If you are willing to concede that human persons have no worth or value, than I have nothing to say.

UR:
Commentary or contribution?

	06-03-2003 03:12									#118
	My vote... Got spare money?

I support the death penalty and am pro-choice.

	06-03-2003 06:09									#119
	Support Apolyton

quote: Originally posted by obiwan18 So not all human beings are persons?

Correct. I'd thought that you agreed with me that there is no moral imperative to maintain the brain-dead patient's life, i.e. that the brain-dead patient was a "human" but not a "person." If you want to argue that there the zygote/embryo is a "person," then you might as well start out by arguing that the brain-dead patient is a "person," since the two are exhibiting equivalent levels of brain activity.

quote: What makes your definition better than theirs?

A definition that does not account for brain activity does not apply to a person who is asleep, which is (to say the least) problematic.

quote: As for human beings having intrinsic value, I fully assume this throughout my arguments. If you are willing to concede that human persons have no worth or value, than I have nothing to say.

You're mixing and matching the terms "human being" and "human person," which isn't very sporting (since these are the terms that are under dispute). I believe that there is a distinction between the two terms, e.g. that a brain-dead patient is really and truly dead for all intents and purposes (despite still technically being a "human being"), and that there is no substantive distinction between the level of brain activity exhibited by a brain-dead patient and the level of brain activity exhibited by a zygote/embryo (and thus that the two are ethically equivalent).

1. Is a brain-dead patient ethically equivalent to you and me?
2. If not, then why is a zygote/embryo a "person" when a brain-dead patient is a "non-person"?
3. If the zygote/embryo is to be considered a person because there exists the possibility that it will develop into a person, then why is a zygote/embryo a "person" while a sperm/egg cell is a "non-person"?

	06-03-2003 09:18									#120
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: Originally posted by obiwan18 So not all human beings are persons?

Uh, not all humans are persons, if you define "humans" as any clusters of cells with human DNA.

quote: Originally posted by obiwan18 You assume brain waves = rationality, but some people, Kropotkin in this thread specifically, apply a higher standard of rationality. What makes your definition better than theirs?

I am not saying mine is better, just that you are now debating this point with me, so I am using my definition. Which, by the way, is probably different from loinburger's.

I put my cut off line at the exhibition of sentience, so that is probably different from yours.

quote: Originally posted by obiwan18 How would you argue against Kropotkin that children at the age of 1 are fully rational, and therefore, fully persons.

Do you see me arguing with him?