Abortion???

[Ezekiel Rage]

Having Human DNA and traits doesnot make something human. A dead body has that aswell.
The difference here lies in what we define as living human being. And that does not occur to anything under 3 months after conception. Because after nine weeks of pregnacy the fetus develops a heartbeat and the formation of inner organs.
the brain begins to be developed during the seventh week but is not really developed until week 24. only then it begins to work.

with that said i am not trying to change your mind. i am talking biology here. please understand that as a non english speaking native (i speak german) it is hard for me to explain some stuff in english.

[Nintend()\/\/|\|312]

I'm glad you found the article informative.

I'm somewhat confused however about what the questioning of the intrinsically of human rights has to do with abortion specifically.

Yeah, my position on the issue is a little weird. I'll elaborate and rephrase a bit. I'm willing to accept that at the moment a zygote is formed, that cell is a human being. However, I'm unconvinced that it is wrong to kill all human beings. I know that sounds terrible, but I have a suspicion that there is nothing morally objectionable about killing certain human beings if they meet certain requirements. I think fetuses could possibly reside in that small group of human beings that are not morally wrong to kill.

I do think killing people is wrong. For many people, human beings and people are synonymous. However, I define people slightly differently. (That definition is a whole 'nother can of worms I'd rather not have to get into and is only remotely relevant to the issue at hand, but we can discuss it if you like.) Fetuses do not fit into my definition of people. My moral stance on killing things that are not people, the way I define them, is wishy washy, at best. Hence my uncertainty on abortion.

[Koopzilla]

What is parrot? I've never heard that until now. I'm assuming it doesn't involve birds.

[cortjezter]

What is parrot? I've never heard that until now. I'm assuming it doesn't involve birds.

it's an auto word censor for the action of forcibly sexing someone against their will. too many complaints were coming in of users bandying about the r-word. i understand it's not necessarily offensive in this context, but unfortunately, our less intellectual friends on the site ruined it for everyone else.

[FotS]

I do think killing people is wrong. For many people, human beings and people are synonymous. However, I define people slightly differently. (That definition is a whole 'nother can of worms I'd rather not have to get into and is only remotely relevant to the issue at hand, but we can discuss it if you like.) Fetuses do not fit into my definition of people. My moral stance on killing things that are not people, the way I define them, is wishy washy, at best. Hence my uncertainty on abortion.

Where, though, does a human get off defining the personhood of another human? Under your subjective view of personhood, I, as a strong opposer of abortion, can equally deem you as not a person due to my feelings about your views on abortion and deem you, and all undecided on or in favor of abortion, as not deserving of lawful protection, despite your obvious humanity. Such a concept always will be and always has been disastrous (Holocaust and slavery comes most strongly to mind in terms of recent events demonstrating the separation of humanity and personhood). Personhood needs to be objective for any semblance of human rights to survive. When personhood becomes definable on grounds other than humanity we have no protection from the tyranny of the majority and no enforced intrinsic rights.
An absolutely implausible hypothetical: Say, some years down the line, through the Roe Effect, successful campaigns or any combination, the nation becomes overwhelmingly pro-life. These (very hypocritical, mind you) people could then very well take advantage of the culture of the eroded objectivity of personhood caused by people such as yourself to vote away your rights completely, allowing them to own, kill, torture or do anything else with you. Unless you're absolutely fine with that scenario, you may want to reconsider the nature of personhood.

Having Human DNA and traits doesnot make something human. A dead body has that aswell.
The difference here lies in what we define as living human being. And that does not occur to anything under 3 months after conception. Because after nine weeks of pregnacy the fetus develops a heartbeat and the formation of inner organs.
the brain begins to be developed during the seventh week but is not really developed until week 24. only then it begins to work.

I'm sorry for my abrasiveness, but you're simply not "talking biology". The Characteristics of Life are examples of biologically defined life. All of your examples are not of consequence because they're all things that do not hold up in a biological characterization of life. If you want a good and concise explanation of how a zygote relates to biology's definition of life, I'd like to direct you back to the article on The Humble Libertarian I posted before. I'm not sure if you read it or not earlier, but I encourage to do it again or at all.

[Nintend()\/\/|\|312]

Well, the thing about defining a person as a human being is that I don't really get why it would be wrong to kill a human being. Human beings are made up of more or less the same stuff cows are made up of. We have similar organs and our cells look more or less that same under a microscope. It seems rather arbitrary saying that it is wrong to kill this one type of mammal but fine to turn another type into hamburger. We don't really have to worry about this today, but complications would arise if we ever found intelligent life elsewhere in the universe. Supposing they existed, would Vulcans be considered people if they are not human?

Now, I don't want to die. I think I would be rather upset if someone was killing me. I think a lot of people would feel the same way. I also am a little terrified about the prospect of simply not existing anymore. I like existing and I think it is only fair that I respect other people's right to exist. (The whole "Golden Rule" thing.) Even if I am under a lot of pain and may say things like "I wish I was dead!", I don't think I really want to stop existing. I just want to stop experiencing that pain so badly that I'm willing to risk the uncertainty of death. So I tend to define people as beings that recognize that they exist and in some manner wish to continue existing. I personally find that to be a much more convincing litmus test for personhood than making sure they have the right number of chromosomes and that the nucleotides they are composed of are in the right order.

This definition of a person has some weird consequences though. Chimps, for example, recognize that they exist and seem to like existing, so I define them as people too. Also, if someone programmed a robot that was self-aware (Sky-net ) and could profess its love for cleaning your house and computing billions of decimal places for pi, I would define them as a person too. So, I suppose killing a self-aware robot would be wrong as well, although it might be hard defining "life" and "death" for a robot so a lot of complications arise with that example. However, for now, nearly all humans and nearly all chimps are defined as people using my definition.

Also, people tend to stop existing when they faint or go to sleep. (Except when they dream.) So, you might think it would be okay to kill people when they are asleep because they do not recognize that they exist during this time and therefore cannot wish to continue existing. However, I usually get around this by saying that the person right before he or she goes to sleep expects to wake up in 8 or so hours. Damaging his or her body enough to prevent them from existing again is still denying his or her wish to exist and is effectively the same as killing him or her when the person is conscious.

However, the reason why I say nearly all humans are people is because some human beings don't recognize that they do exist. Before a baby is about 6 months old, it does not recognize that it exists. Babies of this age have no concept of "I" in the same way we do. Therefore, I generally do not classify human beings that are less than about 6 months of age as people.

Yet I still feel that it is wrong to kill humans that are less than six months old, though. I have a niece that is only about five months old and I still think it would be wrong if someone were to kill her. I also think it would be wrong if someone killed somebody's dog but for some reason I'm not as convinced that killing a cow to make a delicious hamburger is wrong. Babies under 6 months old lie in this gray area where I'm really uncertain about what is wrong and what is right-ish. There's the whole matter of my niece growing old enough to become a person as I define them and whether that should be a factor in the wrongness of killing something. Do beings that could eventually turn into people have special rights? How probable must it be that the being will become a person before "killing" it is wrong? Would preventing the programmer that is creating a self-aware robot be as wrong as killing a fetus? (Supposing the roboticist is as proficient as creating robot people as women are at creating fleshy people.) These are the bizarre thought experiments that get me hung up on abortion issues.

Anyway, sorry about the wall of text. This would be that "can of worms" I talked about in my last response.

[Ezekiel Rage]

i am not talking life. i am talking INTELLIGENT HUMAN LIFE. NOT life in general. And fat is, no matter how you turn it, a fetus less than 3 months old can not be considered its own full fledged human being.

also, since i neither believe in god nor destiny, supernatural and all that stuff, i see things on a very basic level.
i am one of VERY FEW european supporters of having osama being shot. i support that decision. i support aborton, simply because it is every womans right to do with her body as she pleases. a fetus under age of 3 months is not considered to be a human. life yes, human no. we, as humans are the sum of our DNA and the impressions we gathered during our life. nothing else.

since i dont believe in a soul, i also dont have the moral dilemma.

last but not least, i do not want to convince anyone to change his/her beliefs. I would rather have you stand by your beliefs than change them out of a hunch. it is good if you think about new ways to explore your life but that doesnt mean you have to change the old stuff you know.

i am just trying to make MY PERSONAL point clear. and i am happy that some of you do not agree with me. makes a discussion worthwhile

[TUMF]

I think what the TC means is, should murder be legal? It's the same thing. Just thank your mom that she didn't abort you.

[LordTyroxx]

I think what the TC means is, should murder be legal? It's the same thing. Just thank your mom that she didn't abort you.

Should guns also be illegal because they kill humans?
Should all guys be castrated to prevent the chance of there being any rape (weird censor)victims?


Some children die slowly or grow up to be thieves/criminals because the mothers can't feed or support them. Maybe the government should have Birth insurance for females. If they are to get pregnant accidentally, there will be funds available.

While no one likes abortion, sometimes it is better to choose the lesser of the two evils. Thinking of starving, suffering children make me sick to my stomach.

[thresholdXCI]

Having never really been in a situation in which I've had to, or been close to someone else who has had to, consider abortion my views are somewhat subject to change.

It's never a decision that should be taken lightly, in my opinion. In cases of rape, I can definitely understand it. I can also understand it in cases where a girl who gets accidentally pregnant just cannot provide adequately for a child (for whatever reason, be it financial problems, mental/ physical illness or disability or whatever). There could be a plethora of valid reasons but I mean cannot here, not just that a child would be an inconvenience. Because it's always going to be a big deal. Or it should be. You're making the ultimate choice on another life.

I don't think it is the equivalent of murdering a child though. Not only is a fetus (at such a stage of development) just not self-aware to the same degree but it's still physically dependant on being inside the mother to survive. In a way it can still only exist as a part of the mother. Therefore I think the mother does have a right to a choice over it's survival.

But as I say, not a decision to be made either lightly or out of convenience. Oh and probably worth mentioning that I don't believe in spirits or souls (noticed that point's been raised).

[Zidane]

I still don't understand what the big fuss is. You know how many people are on earth? Overpopulation is a huge problem that we're all looking over. Not just that, but most people who are having kids aren't ready for it. Time for a story...

My friend got this girl pregnant. Now this girl loves him with all her heart, but he let's it be known that he just has sex with her because he can. This girl is keeping the kid even though:
-The guy doesn't have a job and doesn't want to deal with having a kid.
-Doesn't want to be with her.
-She barely has enough money to take care of herself.
-She's still going to school.
-This will probably ruin her life.

Now, why bring another child into the world when you know it's going to suffer?

[FotS]

Nintend()\/\/|\|312, I'm very sorry for not getting back to this topic. Thank you for explaining your views on rights. Obviously if we disagree on such a fundamental issue, further debate on the morality of abortion specifically wouldn't make much sense. Out of disclosure, I'm not an atheist and do believe that rights are granted by a creator. However I would recommend perhaps looking up arguments for natural rights from non-theistic perspectives, like perhaps Murray Rothbard's Ethics of Liberty (who himself actually did not really have any problem with abortion), or for rights from a consequentialist perspective that come to similar conclusions as natural rights proponents, if you haven't done so already of course (as you seen fairly interested in the subject).

i am not talking life. i am talking INTELLIGENT HUMAN LIFE.

Why is intelligence the basis for the assertion of rights? Just like humanity doesn't seem like a logical basis to Nintend()\/\/|\|312, intelligence doesn't seem so to me.

a fetus less than 3 months old can not be considered its own full fledged human being.

Why not?

also, since i neither believe in god nor destiny, supernatural and all that stuff,
since i dont believe in a soul, i also dont have the moral dilemma.

You don't need to be theistic to consider humanity the basis for the assertion of rights.

life yes, human no. we, as humans are the sum of our DNA and the impressions we gathered during our life. nothing else.

This may be what you consider to be the "human experience" so-to-speak, but it has no biological basis for determining the species or individuality of a conglomerate of cells.

last but not least, i do not want to convince anyone to change his/her beliefs. I would rather have you stand by your beliefs than change them out of a hunch. it is good if you think about new ways to explore your life but that doesnt mean you have to change the old stuff you know.

Thanks you explaining. I realize that you're defending your beliefs from my criticisms rather than bringing criticisms to me and that is understandable of course.

i am just trying to make MY PERSONAL point clear. and i am happy that some of you do not agree with me. makes a discussion worthwhile

Thank you for that. While of course I would prefer for the whole of humanity to have a respect for life that is defined the same way as mine (not out of pride of course, but rather out of consequence), I appreciate that we can use peaceful discussion as the medium for sharing our ideas.